Life

[Brian2]

Who is to say what the grand scheme of things is? Doesn't the whole consist of all the parts? A screw may see itself as inconsequential, until it realizes it is helping hold the cockpit of the airplane in place.

Sort of gives the screw purpose in it's otherwise meaning less existence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Considering science does not tell us that God does or does not exist, why don't your speculations, guesses, hypotheses or theories include a God who has given us historical evidence of Himself?

Even if there was a shred of evidence, it would have become a matter of science, but unfortunately there is none. That there might have been a Jesus who might have been crucified for his attempted rebellion does not make much evidence. Historians have gone over that. There is no evidence for Moses or Zoroaster.

 

[Windwalker]

Well, you're right. Nobody can say for certain. But considering the size and scope of the universe, humans seem microscopic by comparison - and all but completely isolated (practically imprisoned) from the rest of it.

That depends upon which set of eyes we are seeing ourselves with, of course. If we see ourselves only as biological skin-sacks, then yeah, we're just specs of dust in an infinite ocean. But if we are able to see ourselves as more than just eating, pooping, and dying machines, I think the Beauty we see and experience in the Universe, includes us.

 

[Valjean]

Witness reporting of what Jesus said and did is good evidence and maybe you will hear the call of God one day personally.

But there are none. There are no first-person accounts, and the true authors of most of the scriptures are unknown.

Where science is at now is that the universe began.
Whether time is linear or cyclical or shaped like a banana it does not matter. There cannot have been an infinite number of cause effect events in the past or we would not be here yet. There had to have been a first cause. That first cause is the creator.

This does not follow.

 

[Stevicus]

That is the good thing about not just one but 4 gospels, and Acts and many epistles, the writings of the early Church Fathers and heretics and their quotes from the gospels, and the work of scholars to isolate any alterations, accidental or on purpose.

That doesn't really make any difference regarding my point.

 

[Valjean]

There is evidence.
Considering science does not tell us that God does or does not exist, why don't your speculations, guesses, hypotheses or theories include a God who has given us historical evidence of Himself?

But there is no reliable or empirical historical evidence. There is hearsay.

That is the good thing about not just one but 4 gospels, and Acts and many epistles, the writings of the early Church Fathers and heretics and their quotes from the gospels, and the work of scholars to isolate any alterations, accidental or on purpose.

The four gospels don't agree. Their authorship is unknown. Their reporting is hearsay, not first person. Over 2000 years they've been miscopied, and edited countless times.
There are more gospels than the four. The problematic ones were not included in today's orthodox Bible.
These are the opinions of biblical scholars, not mine alone.

 

[Stevicus]

That depends upon which set of eyes we are seeing ourselves with, of course. If we see ourselves only as biological skin-sacks, then yeah, we're just specs of dust in an infinite ocean. But if we are able to see ourselves as more than just eating, pooping, and dying machines, I think the Beauty we see and experience in the Universe, includes us.

Well, of course, I see humans as being more than just beings who eat, poop, and die. We also drink, too.

But if I believed that there was some sentient entity who did all of this on purpose, and our creation under these conditions was all intentional, then this could be a prison, perhaps a scientific experiment - or perhaps a kind of "play pen."

 

[Brian2]

Even if there was a shred of evidence, it would have become a matter of science, but unfortunately there is none. That there might have been a Jesus who might have been crucified for his attempted rebellion does not make much evidence. Historians have gone over that. There is no evidence for Moses or Zoroaster.

Science cannot claim historical evidence for anything as part of science, but there is historical and archaeological evidence for Moses.

 

[Brian2]

But there are none. There are no first-person accounts, and the true authors of most of the scriptures are unknown.

The authors have been known from internal evidence in the gospels and from the writings and traditions of the early church. It is only recently that the opinions of some sceptical historians have been believed.

This does not follow.

>>>Where science is at now is that the universe began.
Whether time is linear or cyclical or shaped like a banana it does not matter. There cannot have been an infinite number of cause effect events in the past or we would not be here yet. There had to have been a first cause. That first cause is the creator.<<<

Which part does not follow?

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. but there is historical and archaeological evidence for Moses.

"Scholars hold different opinions on the status of Moses in scholarship. For instance, according to William G. Dever, the modern scholarly consensus is that the biblical person of Moses is largely mythical while also holding that "a Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C." and that "archeology can do nothing" to prove or confirm either way."
More at: Moses - Wikipedia
(The three million of Moses and their 40 years of wandering in Sinai)

 

[Brian2]

That doesn't really make any difference regarding my point.

>>>Are you certain there hasn't been any witness tampering or rewriting of people's testimony?<<<
The scholars are as certain as they can be.
There are many gospel quotes in the church fathers and early church fathers and even in the heretical writers.
The number of manuscripts makes for relative ease in the tracing of alterations.
How does that not make a difference?
Early in the history of the gospels they were being copied and circulated and much of the contents is recorded in other writings.
Tampering and misquotes would have been recognised then and would have been fairly isolated in extent----iow, it would not have been possible to alter all the copies of the gospels.

 

[Brian2]

But there is no reliable or empirical historical evidence. There is hearsay.

It used to be reliable until sceptical scholars got into it and decided the gospels were written by people who did not know Jesus or see Him and that they were written much later than had already been decided.

The four gospels don't agree. Their authorship is unknown. Their reporting is hearsay, not first person. Over 2000 years they've been miscopied, and edited countless times.
There are more gospels than the four. The problematic ones were not included in today's orthodox Bible.
These are the opinions of biblical scholars, not mine alone.

The gospels agree on the basics.
The main points of difference can actually be seen as evidence of reports by different witnesses.
The gospels that had been attested by the early church fathers were included if they were seen as having apostolic authority.
The problem gospels which were left out were not even in circulation in the early church. The early church knew which gospels were heretical.
Read the conservative scholars instead of the sceptics.

 

[Stevicus]

>>>Are you certain there hasn't been any witness tampering or rewriting of people's testimony?<<<
The scholars are as certain as they can be.
There are many gospel quotes in the church fathers and early church fathers and even in the heretical writers.
The number of manuscripts makes for relative ease in the tracing of alterations.
How does that not make a difference?
Early in the history of the gospels they were being copied and circulated and much of the contents is recorded in other writings.
Tampering and misquotes would have been recognised then and would have been fairly isolated in extent----iow, it would not have been possible to alter all the copies of the gospels.

Jesus And The Hidden Contradictions Of The Gospels : NPR

Who Wrote The Gospels?

Though it is evidently not the sort of thing pastors normally tell their congregations, for over a century there has been a broad consensus among scholars that many of the books of the New Testament were not written by the people whose names are attached to them. So if that is the case, who did write them?

Preliminary Observations: The Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts

As we have just seen, the Gospels are filled with discrepancies large and small. Why are there so many differences among the four Gospels? These books are called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John because they were traditionally thought to have been written by Matthew, a disciple who was a tax collector; John, the "Beloved Disciple" mentioned in the Fourth Gospel; Mark, the secretary of the disciple Peter; and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul. These traditions can be traced back to about a century after the books were written.

But if Matthew and John were both written by earthly disciples of Jesus, why are they so very different, on all sorts of levels? Why do they contain so many contradictions? Why do they have such fundamentally different views of who Jesus was?

So, the Gospels weren't actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but by completely different people who remain anonymous.

Why did the tradition eventually arise that these books were written by apostles and companions of the apostles? In part it was in order to assure readers that they were written by eyewitnesses and companions of eyewitnesses. An eyewitness could be trusted to relate the truth of what actually happened in Jesus' life. But the reality is that eyewitnesses cannot be trusted to give historically accurate accounts. They never could be trusted and can't be trusted still.

A further reality is that all the Gospels were written anonymously, and none of the writers claims to be an eyewitness. Names are attached to the titles of the Gospels ("the Gospel according to Matthew"), but these titles are later additions to the Gospels, provided by editors and scribes to inform readers who the editors thought were the authorities behind the different versions. That the titles are not original to the Gospels themselves should be clear upon some simple reflection. Whoever wrote Matthew did not call it "The Gospel according to Matthew." The persons who gave it that title are telling you who, in their opinion, wrote it. Authors never title their books "according to."

Moreover, Matthew's Gospel is written completely in the third person, about what "they" — Jesus and the disciples — were doing, never about what "we" — Jesus and the rest of us — were doing. Even when this Gospel narrates the event of Matthew being called to become a disciple, it talks about "him," not about "me." Read the account for yourself (Matthew 9:9). There's not a thing in it that would make you suspect the author is talking about himself.

With John it is even more clear. At the end of the Gospel the author says of the "Beloved Disciple": "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24). Note how the author differentiates between his source of information, "the disciple who testifies," and himself: "we know that his testimony is true." He/we: this author is not the disciple. He claims to have gotten some of his information from the disciple.

As for the other Gospels, Mark was said to be not a disciple but a companion of Peter, and Luke was a companion of Paul, who also was not a disciple. Even if they had been disciples, it would not guarantee the objectivity or truthfulness of their stories. But in fact none of the writers was an eyewitness, and none of them claims to be.

Who, then, wrote these books?

So, if none of the authors of the Gospels were actual eyewitnesses (which wouldn't be reliable evidence even if they were), how do we know what really happened?

 

[Brian2]

"Scholars hold different opinions on the status of Moses in scholarship. For instance, according to William G. Dever, the modern scholarly consensus is that the biblical person of Moses is largely mythical while also holding that "a Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C." and that "archeology can do nothing" to prove or confirm either way."
More at: Moses - Wikipedia
(The three million of Moses and their 40 years of wandering in Sinai)

The whole history in the Bible seems to have been approached by many scholars who doubt it happened.
The conquest story has lacked archaeological evidence because scholars have been looking in the 13th instead of the 15th century BC for the evidence. There is plenty of evidence in the 15th century.
These days there is even plenty of evidence in Avaris in Goshen for Hebrews being in Egypt (Goshen is where the Hebrews were sent to live according to Genesis.) There is even evidence that for the heads of the 12 tribes (tombs) and one of them was a pyramid, meaning an important figure---(Joseph)
These things are not heard much about because much of the literature is from sceptical scholars who have their own theories etc.
The time of Moses even fits well with the reign of Thutmose 111 who is the only Pharaoh who could have been the pharaoh of the exodus because of his length of reign.
There is an idea that Moses was someone associated with that Thutmose. Moses would have been the adopted son of the previous pharaoh's daughter and Thutmose 111 would have been born after Moses was adopted (taken from the river by Pharaoh's daughter)
In the link you gave there is even an Egyptian story of a Moses who was kicked out of Egypt. The Egyptians liked to cover up their defeats.
Anyway it's all there but the miracles and plagues cannot be proven even if the situation of Egypt was not too good for a while after the defeat at the hands of Yahweh.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I will accept anything to the extent that the history scholars accept. The rest for me are myths, stories.

 

[Valjean]

It used to be reliable until sceptical scholars got into it and decided the gospels were written by people who did not know Jesus or see Him and that they were written much later than had already been decided.

It was never reliable. It may have been official, accepted, mandated, and taught as , well... gospel, but it was never well evidenced.

The gospels agree on the basics.

The official gospels (there are others), were chosen by a committe. They were cherry picked from the beginning to support the particular doctrine of a particular sect. There were other committees with different, widely varying doctrines, but this is the one that came out on top.

Even so, they do not agree on many, specific points Plus, they've been heavily edited. There are clear additions and deletions. There are obvious copy errors.

The main points of difference can actually be seen as evidence of reports by different witnesses.

These are not first person accounts. They are narratives by unknown authors, written long after the fact. Even so, they contradict each other, as well as differ in primary themes.

The gospels that had been attested by the early church fathers were included if they were seen as having apostolic authority.

These early church fathers were politicians pushing an agenda. Their identities are often unknown. What had authority was what promoted their agenda.

The problem gospels which were left out were not even in circulation in the early church. The early church knew which gospels were heretical.

Of course. Heretical = doesn't agree with the narrative we're promoting.

Read the conservative scholars instead of the sceptics.

Who are these conservative authors? Are they men of faith, or scholars using critical analysis? Are they dispassionate historians, linguists and archaeologists, or are they believers with an agenda?

How do these conservative authors counter the hard evidence?

 

[Valjean]

The whole history in the Bible seems to have been approached by many scholars who doubt it happened.

No, by dispassionate scholars, who follow the evidence wherever it leads, who don't approach the subject as an exercise in
quote]The conquest story has lacked archaeological evidence because scholars have been looking in the 13th instead of the 15th century BC for the evidence. There is plenty of evidence in the 15th century.
These days there is even plenty of evidence in Avaris in Goshen for Hebrews being in Egypt (Goshen is where the Hebrews were sent to live according to Genesis.) There is even evidence that for the heads of the 12 tribes (tombs) and one of them was a pyramid, meaning an important figure---(Joseph)[/quote]

What evidence is this? link, please.
As far as I know there are no first person, Egyptian writings affirming this. There are no pictures, DNA, bones or artifacts indicating a large population of Hebrew slaves. Nor is there archælogical evidence of an exodus as described in the bible. A third of the population of a major civilization suddenly leaving would have had widespread repurcussions. It would have made headlines, so to speak, all over the world.
There was nothing.
Two million people, initially, plus household goods and livestock, living in a dry desert for forty years, would certainly have left extensive archæological evidence. Where is it?

These things are not heard much about because much of the literature is from sceptical scholars who have their own theories etc.

A researcher who's not skeptical is no scholar. Legitimate scholarship involves following the evidence, not the narrative. It involves accepting the evidence for what it is, and withholding acceptance things for which there is not yet good evidence.

The time of Moses even fits well with the reign of Thutmose 111 who is the only Pharaoh who could have been the pharaoh of the exodus because of his length of reign.
There is an idea that Moses was someone associated with that Thutmose. Moses would have been the adopted son of the previous pharaoh's daughter and Thutmose 111 would have been born after Moses was adopted (taken from the river by Pharaoh's daughter)
In the link you gave there is even an Egyptian story of a Moses who was kicked out of Egypt. The Egyptians liked to cover up their defeats.
Anyway it's all there but the miracles and plagues cannot be proven even if the situation of Egypt was not too good for a while after the defeat at the hands of Yahweh.

Moses? as depicted in the Bible? As far as I know there's about as much evidence for this person as there is for Prester John or King Arthur.

Miracles and plagues? Proof? There's not even evidence. Just a story.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is it two million or three million, Valjian? And that is more than 2,000 years ago, when the world population is supposed to have been around 72 million (Hyde, 2010, Estimates of historical world population - Wikipedia). The current population of Sinai Peninsula is 600,000. World population has increased more than a hundred times during this period. The three million of Moses should have grown to 300 million. Wonder, where are descendants of these people now? Population of Jews is estimated at 15 to 18 million (Wikipedia - Judaism).

 

[Brian2]

Jesus And The Hidden Contradictions Of The Gospels : NPR

So, the Gospels weren't actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but by completely different people who remain anonymous.

So, if none of the authors of the Gospels were actual eyewitnesses (which wouldn't be reliable evidence even if they were), how do we know what really happened?

Bart Ehrmann is a respected scholar but holds views that other respected scholars do not.
You take Bart's opinion as fact.
Personally I think that the early church did not make up names for the gospels but knew who wrote them.
Real evidence for the early church was what had been handed down as the gospels were copied and passed from church to church. It seems that for Bart, he has left that behind and sees real evidence as the first known mention in writing of the names of the writers of the gospels.

 

[Brian2]

I will accept anything to the extent that the history scholars accept. The rest for me are myths, stories.

What if the history scholars cannot agree?
If historical truth a matter of democratic vote from history scholars?