So I just started reading The God Delusion..

[Charity]

You can't be serious, the authors of the Declaration all have many independant historical records of their own records and accomplishments, plus most WROTE many books, articles, letters themselves. The date of the writing of the DOI is well known, there simply is no comparison.

My point exactly, the authors of several books of the Bible were known to many during their time. Many kept records and documents. Many books of the Bible have been dated by scholars. Many of Paul's writings came from letters he wrote to Timothy and others...
The authors of the DOI were not all well known to all at that time, but became so after the signing of the document as well as their works.
Thank you for your opinion on my post :angel2: It is wonderful to be able to disagree isn't it, and still remain friendly.....

 

[challupa]

Most authors weren't known until they wrote their first book or text.....
If the date a historical event was written is after the date the event happened does that mean it isn't reliable? And even if is dated does it make it true fact?
The authors of the declaration of Independence were not known as authors when it was written does that make it any less true?
What about the works of many authors whose works were not published until their death, does that alter the fact that they were indeed great contributions to literature?
When Francis Scott Key wrote the Star Spangled Banner, we have the date and the reason he wrote it but do we really know that he wasn't watching fire works at a 4th of July picnic and was inspired to write what is now our National anthem and supply false information surrounding it's origin?
Just wondering with what yard stick you use to measure truth and fiction?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe what he was trying to say is that the authors are unknown, even to this day. No one really knows who wrote the gospels except that their names were not Matthew Mark Luke or John. They think it was nameless scribes from the time after the defeat of Jeruselum trying hard to define Christianity and it's place in the world. It is true that there is no known writing about Jesus other than in the Bible. None that biblical scholars don't think has been tampered with or forged in any case. The oldest papers would have been Paul and even those do not state there was a flesh and blood Jesus. He clearly states he gets to know Jesus through a vision. Many Gnostics in that time did not believe in a flesh and blood Jesus either and only in a Christ consciousness very much like the other ancient relgions of that day.

All I'm saying is that people should research things before they believe them outright because someone told them it was true. I have done a lot of research and I would say that I still don't know the answer for sure. I am just saying that there is a lot of doubt about the true existence of Jesus.

 

[challupa]

most religions yes but the Bible is based on fact. Jesus was a true living person . his resurrection has never been disproved. and the history in the bible is backed up like no other book on earth.

Just to let you know that what you are saying about the Bible, Muslims are saying about the Quran, word for word.

most religions yes but the Quran is based on fact. Muhammed was a true living person. His flight to heaven on a horse has never been disproved and the history of the Quran is backed up like no other book on earth.

See, everyone thinks their holy scripture is infallible. Can everyone be right and do these two beliefs nullify each other? Just some things to think about, that's all.

 

[Luminous]

You can't be serious, the authors of the Declaration all have many independant historical records of their own records and accomplishments, plus most WROTE many books, articles, letters themselves. The date of the writing of the DOI is well known, there simply is no comparison.

not only this, but we don't have signed gospels, do we?

 

[Luminous]

most religions yes but the Bible is based on fact. Jesus was a true living person . his resurrection has never been disproved. and the history in the bible is backed up like no other book on earth.

the quran is backed up even more than the bible. read it sometime. also Muhamud's ascension into heaven has never been disproven. neither has the native american tale that people fell from heaven through a rabbit hole.

 

[Autodidact]

My point exactly, the authors of several books of the Bible were known to many during their time. Many kept records and documents. Many books of the Bible have been dated by scholars. Many of Paul's writings came from letters he wrote to Timothy and others...
The authors of the DOI were not all well known to all at that time, but became so after the signing of the document as well as their works.
Thank you for your opinion on my post :angel2: It is wonderful to be able to disagree isn't it, and still remain friendly.....

As to the gospels (not to mention the OT) we still don't know who wrote them.

 

[logician]

We do know that whoever wrote Matthew and Luke based their text on that of whoever wrote Mark, with their own biases - i.e, the writer of Matthew felt compelled to relate every possible prophecy he could in the OT to the supposed coming of Christ, even though they weren't related at all. This suggests strongly there were other reasons for writing these books than "recording" the supposed life of Christ.

 

[Valjean]

We do know that whoever wrote Matthew and Luke based their text on that of whoever wrote Mark, with their own biases - i.e, the writer of Matthew felt compelled to relate every possible prophecy he could in the OT to the supposed coming of Christ, even though they weren't related at all. This suggests strongly there were other reasons for writing these books than "recording" the supposed life of Christ.

Amen logician.
The gospels were written by people with an agenda. The writings chosen for compilation into the Bible were cherry-picked to reflect a particular doctrine.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot there of historical and cultural interest, and some admirable ideas -- but I wouldn't take it as gospel

 

[challupa]

I am in the last part of reading the God Delusion and I have to say I agree with a large amount of what he is saying. As I read I realize though that it is religions that I don't agree with not spirituality. I just don't agree with religion because it is divisive and tends to be judgmental imo. I also agree that religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Those are some things I have resonated with in the book.

 

[danny vee]

Amen logician.
The gospels were written by people with an agenda. The writings chosen for compilation into the Bible were cherry-picked to reflect a particular doctrine.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot there of historical and cultural interest, and some admirable ideas -- but I wouldn't take it as gospel

That I agree with. There were lots of tales told mouth to mouth about Jesus' life at that time, and many were recorded. They had their differences (ie. John to the three Synoptic Gospels) but they had the same core, they told of Jesus, whether it be His life, teachings, healings, or resurrection. The Early Church just picked out, those four. I'm not sure that Matthew and Luke were necessarily based on Mark, there were lots of stories told, and the Church just picked out three similar ones, and one slightly different one

 

[crystalonyx]

That I agree with. There were lots of tales told mouth to mouth about Jesus' life at that time, and many were recorded. They had their differences (ie. John to the three Synoptic Gospels) but they had the same core, they told of Jesus, whether it be His life, teachings, healings, or resurrection. The Early Church just picked out, those four. I'm not sure that Matthew and Luke were necessarily based on Mark, there were lots of stories told, and the Church just picked out three similar ones, and one slightly different one

I think even most Christian scholars agree that Matthew and Luke were based off of the writings of Mark, with their own additions. One thing for certain, the writers of Matthew , Mark, Luke and John, were NOT Matthew , Mark, Luke and John, they are unknown. They were written well after the time of the supposed JEsus, i.e. any supposed disciples of Christ would have been long since been dead.

I might add that this is one thing I dislike about Christianity, the obvious misrepresentation of the facts about who wrote the gospels - the implication that they were written firsthand by supposed disciples of Christ.

 

[challupa]

I think even most Christian scholars agree that Matthew and Luke were based off of the writings of Mark, with their own additions. One thing for certain, the writers of Matthew , Mark, Luke and John, were NOT Matthew , Mark, Luke and John, they are unknown. They were written well after the time of the supposed JEsus, i.e. any supposed disciples of Christ would have been long since been dead.

I might add that this is one thing I dislike about Christianity, the obvious misrepresentation of the facts about who wrote the gospels - the implication that they were written firsthand by supposed disciples of Christ.

Yes I agree with that. It wouldn't be so bad if they understood that but the fact that they are willing to kill over whose scripture is right is what is so dangerous and sad. I realize most people don't fall into that extreme a category, but the ones that do are causing some very real problems.

 

[danny vee]

I think even most Christian scholars agree that Matthew and Luke were based off of the writings of Mark, with their own additions. One thing for certain, the writers of Matthew , Mark, Luke and John, were NOT Matthew , Mark, Luke and John, they are unknown. They were written well after the time of the supposed JEsus, i.e. any supposed disciples of Christ would have been long since been dead.

I might add that this is one thing I dislike about Christianity, the obvious misrepresentation of the facts about who wrote the gospels - the implication that they were written firsthand by supposed disciples of Christ.

I never said they were written by first-hand disciples. I just said that there was a lot of oral tradition going on about Jesus' life. And you can't say it's certain that those writers were not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. You can't know who they were. And it's also not true that disciples of Christ would have been long dead. Mark's gospel was written around 60-70 AD, Jesus' disciples would have been in there 50's and 60's.

 

[crystalonyx]

I never said they were written by first-hand disciples. I just said that there was a lot of oral tradition going on about Jesus' life. And you can't say it's certain that those writers were not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. You can't know who they were. And it's also not true that disciples of Christ would have been long dead. Mark's gospel was written around 60-70 AD, Jesus' disciples would have been in there 50's and 60's.

This post simply is nonsense, the average lifespan of people back then was around 30 to 40 years,, and Matthew, Luke and John were written much, much later on. Additionallly, there certainly is no extra-biblical evidence whatsoever that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ever existed.

 

[danny vee]

This post simply is nonsense, the average lifespan of people back then was around 30 to 40 years,, and Matthew, Luke and John were written much, much later on. Additionallly, there certainly is no extra-biblical evidence whatsoever that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ever existed.

Have you taken it upon yourself to actually study the things you write? It is widely accepted among scholars of different religions, that Mark was written about 60 AD. Also a person's average life was not 30-40 years. A woman's probably was, but a man's was not.

 

[Smoke]

This post simply is nonsense, the average lifespan of people back then was around 30 to 40 years,, and Matthew, Luke and John were written much, much later on. Additionallly, there certainly is no extra-biblical evidence whatsoever that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ever existed.

I've been assiduously avoiding the whole off-topic discussion about the gospels, but I can't let that pass.

The average life expectancy argument falls flat because life expectancy figures, up until very recent times, are heavily skewed by infant and childhood mortality rates. For instance, I seem to remember reading that 3 out of 5 people born in 14th century Europe died before the age of five. The thing about life expectancy is that the longer you live, the better your chances of living even longer. If the average life expectancy is 35, that doesn't mean nobody lives to the age of seventy. For example, one of my direct ancestors attained the age of 94 at a time when the average life expectancy was 38.

It's not at all unreasonable for believers to think that people who knew Jesus were still living 40 years after Jesus' death, which gets you to about the time Mark was written. There are good reasons for thinking that the gospels -- and especially the three other than Mark -- were not written by eyewitnesses, but life expectancy isn't one of them.

On topic: I don't know what someone who approaches The God Delusion with a pre-conceived dislike of Dawkins should expect to get out the book. It's hard for me to say, since I like Dawkins very much, especially because of The Ancestor's Tale.

When it comes to theism, I think Dawkins' chief shortcoming is that he's genuinely dumbfounded by the religious excesses he comes across. He seems at times to throw his hands up and say, "Can't you see how insane this is?!" And of course the point is that they can't see it at all. I don't think he can really understand what it is to be so immersed in religious dogma that it all seems quite normal and reasonable.

I think that might be why it's hard for most true believers to connect with Dawkins. His writings are useful and entertaining mostly to people who already agree with him and to those who are already questioning their faith. However, he's performed a tremendous service in giving a lot of atheists the courage to be more open about their atheism, and he helps keep the discussion going. A lot more people are thinking and talking about atheism, religion and ethics because of Dawkins, and I think that's a very good thing.

 

[Smoke]

Have you taken it upon yourself to actually study the things you write? It is widely accepted among scholars of different religions, that Mark was written about 60 AD. Also a person's average life was not 30-40 years. A woman's probably was, but a man's was not.

Although some scholars propose a date of around 60 CE, and other propose dates well into the 2nd century, it's generally accepted that Mark was written after 70 CE, but not too much after.

Crystalonyx was being generous about life expectancy. You're correct that the average life expectancy of females was lower than that of males, but even for males it was closer to 30 than 40.

 

[challupa]

Although some scholars propose a date of around 60 CE, and other propose dates well into the 2nd century, it's generally accepted that Mark was written after 70 CE, but not too much after.

Crystalonyx was being generous about life expectancy. You're correct that the average life expectancy of females was lower than that of males, but even for males it was closer to 30 than 40.

Yes Mark came first and it had to be after 70 CE because he knows about the destruction of Jerusulem around that time by the Romans. So it could not have been 60 CE

 

[danny vee]

Yes Mark came first and it had to be after 70 CE because he knows about the destruction of Jerusulem around that time by the Romans. So it could not have been 60 CE

Yes, but it's very likely that parts of Mark were added later on, so probably part of it was before the destruction, and other parts after.

 

[danny vee]

Although some scholars propose a date of around 60 CE, and other propose dates well into the 2nd century, it's generally accepted that Mark was written after 70 CE, but not too much after.

Crystalonyx was being generous about life expectancy. You're correct that the average life expectancy of females was lower than that of males, but even for males it was closer to 30 than 40.

Yes it was but that was for the reasons that you proposed in your other post, high infant mortality rate etc.