Life

[Brian2]

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

Evidenced as in written evidence from people who were not Christians. Strange that people who were not Christians would write the same things as in the gospels and still not be Christians.

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.

The official gospels were chosen because of their use and acceptance in the early Church, which knew the phoneys.

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.

There are copy errors and additions which may have all been dealt with by now.
I don't know about the heavy edited part. I have not heard that.

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 early church knew the source of the gospels and passed that from church to church as the gospels were copied and passed around.
Contradictions and seeing things from a personal pov show witness accounts and seem to negate what you said about heavy editing.

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

You might be thinking of people from the time of Constantine who started dealing with politicians. I'm speaking of people who wrote in the late 1st and up to the end of the 2nd century. The earliest are called apostolic fathers and they were associated with one or more apostles.

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

Conservative authors are scholars who have studied all the evidence and conclude differently to many more liberal/sceptical authors.
Conservative authors might counter hard evidence with hard evidence and argue their case to a different conclusion.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

I don't take anyone's opinion as fact. Essentially, he was suggesting that no one knows who wrote the Gospels, and as far as I can tell, this is a true statement.

You say that they were handed down, copied, and passed from church to church. Do we have a reliable, documented chain of custody for this evidence? Are we certain that these documents were written by first-hand eyewitnesses and that this is a true and accurate account of the events in question? If so, can it be reliably proven? Even if they are accounts of eyewitnesses, how do we know they weren't lying or making the whole thing up?

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

Yeah, sure, there are majority and minority opinions in science and history. Majority views are followed, minority views are further researched.

 

[Brian2]

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

History scholars don't accept miracles. They are like scientists in that respect. More modern history scholars do not respect the scriptures and make assumptions about the writings that put the writing dates after the prophecy fulfilments.
Atheists of course are of the same mind as these scholars and accept what they say as fact when in reality it is circular reasoning and does not show what the scholars say, it shows what they assumed to begin with.

 

[Brian2]

I don't take anyone's opinion as fact. Essentially, he was suggesting that no one knows who wrote the Gospels, and as far as I can tell, this is a true statement.

You say that they were handed down, copied, and passed from church to church. Do we have a reliable, documented chain of custody for this evidence? Are we certain that these documents were written by first-hand eyewitnesses and that this is a true and accurate account of the events in question? If so, can it be reliably proven? Even if they are accounts of eyewitnesses, how do we know they weren't lying or making the whole thing up?

I don't have documentation about the gospels that you want. I have the use of the gospels by the apostolic fathers and the tradition that the gospels have links to the apostles.
What you are saying is that even if the written documentation was available it would not be reason to believe the gospels. You want witness reports and evidence that they were witness reports and probably documentation from an independent source and videos of the events of Jesus life which have been certified as genuine and all that would not be enough because it could be fake and lies. So belief for you is only of the scientific variety and what the early church says it knew about the gospels is not acceptable.
So you don't believe in Jesus.

 

[Brian2]

Yeah, sure, there are majority and minority opinions in science and history. Majority views are followed, minority views are further researched.

No doubt everything is further researched. Archaeology keeps finding evidence for the truth of Biblical history and much of it is misinterpreted because it has to fit into the majority view.

 

[Aupmanyav]

History scholars don't accept miracles. They are like scientists in that respect. More modern history scholars do not respect the scriptures and make assumptions about the writings that put the writing dates after the prophecy fulfilments.
Atheists of course are of the same mind as these scholars and accept what they say as fact when in reality it is circular reasoning and does not show what the scholars say, it shows what they assumed to begin with.

Now whose fault is this that no evidence is provided and nothing found even after search? Of history scholars or Scientists? They will accept for what there is evidence. Prophecies by various Nostradamuses are very ambiguous and have no evidence like the prophecies of the Oracles of Greece. Only the superstitious believe that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No doubt everything is further researched. Archaeology keeps finding evidence for the truth of Biblical history and much of it is misinterpreted because it has to fit into the majority view.

Say it does not fit your view. For what there is evidence and to the extent of that historians and scientists will accept it. For exmple, most historians accept that there is a good likelihood of Buddha, Mahavira or Jesus of being historical. There is not even that much evidence for Zarathrushta or Moses. Of Adam and Noah there is no evidence at all. They are completely mythological.

 

[Brian2]

Now whose fault is this that no evidence is provided and nothing found even after search? Of history scholars or Scientists? They will accept for what there is evidence. Prophecies by various Nostradamuses are very ambiguous and have no evidence like the prophecies of the Oracles of Greece. Only the superstitious believe that.

There is evidence for many Biblical prophecies having been written before the events. Science does not accept that.
Science does not accept that some people who have Near Death Experiences have given verifiable evidence that they left their body and knew what was happening, even in other rooms.
Evidence does not mean that the evidence is accepted about the spiritual realm in a system that seems to demand non spiritual explanations.

 

[Brian2]

Say it does not fit your view. For what there is evidence and to the extent of that historians and scientists will accept it. For exmple, most historians accept that there is a good likelihood of Buddha, Mahavira or Jesus of being historical. There is not even that much evidence for Zarathrushta or Moses. Of Adam and Noah there is no evidence at all. They are completely mythological.

Why do you say that anyone for whom there is no evidence is complete mythology?
Why is it that everything needs to be evidenced in an independent source to be accepted by some people?

 

[Stevicus]

So you don't believe in Jesus.

Not without evidence.

 

[Valjean]

History scholars don't accept miracles. They are like scientists in that respect. More modern history scholars do not respect the scriptures and make assumptions about the writings that put the writing dates after the prophecy fulfilments.
Atheists of course are of the same mind as these scholars and accept what they say as fact when in reality it is circular reasoning and does not show what the scholars say, it shows what they assumed to begin with.

Could you illustrate this circular reasoning?

No doubt everything is further researched. Archaeology keeps finding evidence for the truth of Biblical history and much of it is misinterpreted because it has to fit into the majority view.

Could you illustrate some of this confirmatory archæology?

 

[Valjean]

There is evidence for many Biblical prophecies having been written before the events. Science does not accept that.
Science does not accept that some people who have Near Death Experiences have given verifiable evidence that they left their body and knew what was happening, even in other rooms.
Evidence does not mean that the evidence is accepted about the spiritual realm in a system that seems to demand non spiritual explanations.

Prophecy is notorious for manufacturing connections where there are none. People are apophenic, they find messages in backwards played records, numerology and clouds.

Near death experiences? Unstudied, and not confined to Christian revelations.
Individual spiritual experiences are just that: individual; not good evidence of spiritual truths.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is evidence for many Biblical prophecies having been written before the events. Science does not accept that.
Evidence does not mean that the evidence is accepted about the spiritual realm in a system that seems to demand non spiritual explanations.

You accept this type of evidence. Atheists and many in science, history do not accept it. It is as simple as that. Our views differ. Same with extrapolations of NDE. Some scientists say that NDE is because of accumulation of carbon-mono-oxide in a dying brain.
Go ahead, accept your spiritual explanations. I don't. Do we need to discuss it any further?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why do you say that anyone for whom there is no evidence is complete mythology?
Why is it that everything needs to be evidenced in an independent source to be accepted by some people?

Mythology makes many kind of stories, like Jesus walking on water and raising Lazarus from dead. Hindu scriptures also mention various kinds of stories about airplanes and atom bombs. Since there is no evidence, I do not believe that.
"Jan Assmann argues that we cannot know if Moses ever lived because there are no traces outside tradition." Moses - Wikipedia
Most research on Moses is by Jews and Christians. If they have not found any definite proof, why should others accept that? There are a whole lot of stories about Rama or Krishna, but where is the proof? All we can say that perhaps a person with that name lived.

 

[Bird123]

To believe that all of existence has always been around and the life we know is only a tiny tiny little fraction in that infinite time span seems far-fetched. If I did believe that, I would probably believe that after life is gone it would happen again way way down the road but what are the odds of that? So life is just once? It just seems like a sloppy scenario, once twice etc. I think the creator would be a little more efficient with his plan. I do believe this life does happen over and over but in a much shorter span of time and also infinitely. To me that would be genius at work and much more plausible.

-life is fleeting

If existence always was then why would this MIGHTY, ‘always was’, existence stop for a brief moment and create life that withers and dies in no time? Doesn’t add up in my opinion. I guess the MIGHTY, ‘always was’, existence had an off 4 billion years. Haha, well as they say no ones perfect.

Clearly, there is much more to Learn,Discover, and Grow that could be done in one mere lifetime. On the other hand,there are good reasons for death. Death is no more than a change.

There is Great Intelligence behind everything. God hides nothing. Your Math is good!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Moonjuice]

God has told us that and shown us that He loves us and wants us to have a relationship with Him.
You don't need to speculate, the evidence is there, as is God's call.

In my opinion, there is zero chance that a hidden, invisible god wants to have a relationship with me. If he does, he has an interesting way of not showing it. Also, the evidence that he does not love us at all is also abundantly clear. If you want to examine the evidence, swing by the child oncology wing at St. Jude’s.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No doubt everything is further researched. Archaeology keeps finding evidence for the truth of Biblical history and much of it is misinterpreted because it has to fit into the majority view.

No it hasn't. The only thing is real names of some people and some places are being used.

That's about the extent of archeology. It's actually pretty mundane as it suggests people back then went about their day oblivious of any biblical accounts for which some are hideously out of date and accuracy.

That dosent mean events are therefore verified.

Still, I would live to hear of such examples if they even exist.

 

[Brian2]

Not without evidence.

So you believe that half way through the 1st century Jews in Jerusalem started believing in someone who had not even existed?

 

[Brian2]

Could you illustrate this circular reasoning?

In the OT the writings of the prophets that prophesied true events are put after the events.
In the NT the gospels are put after the destruction of the Temple and places and situations are then searched for to explain what is seen as the tone of the gospel in relation to the Jews and Romans.
They find places and situations and plonk the origins of the gospels in those places and dates.
They are then seen as legitimate historians who use legitimate historical methodology to arrive at a legitimate time of writing but that time of writing is just what is assumed in the first place with assumptions.

Could you illustrate some of this confirmatory archæology?

The majority view these days is that Israel was not in Egypt as a people and did not come and conquer Canaan in the way that the Bible says.
This was initially arrived at with some bad archaeological dating of Jericho and it's destruction is seems and even though other archaeologists disagree with the initial dating that is the dating that has stuck and because nothing else at that time fits the Biblical description of the conquest and the historical setting in Canaan does not match the Biblical description other scenarios have been invented to fit what are called the facts. The problem being that the Biblical description shows the Exodus to have been 200 years before the time that the scholars say it happened. The archaeological evidence in Canaan matches the Biblical description of the earlier date and evidence has been found in Egypt where the Israelites were sent to live (Goshen) of Hebrew dwellings and graves. One find was a large building with 12 columns and 12 graves, one of which was a pyramid, a grave of an important man. This fits Joseph and the other patriarchs.
The Egyptian rulers of 200 years earlier match description given in Genesis and Exodus also.
The majority rules however, the minimalist view, the view that most of the Bible is fake history.