Where are the remains of Jesus of Nazareth?

[Gary Sheldrake]

This is a good point. We can tell that people have copied their story not only when they get the details exactly the same but when the use the exact same words to tell the story. When they use the exact same words and phrases, paragraphs etc you can tell that the work has been copied. Just like Police Officers can tell when this is going on so can textual critics who study ancient documents like the Bible. And this is why virtually all scholars who study the Bible (even the most conservative) agree that large parts of the Gospel of Mathew and the Gospel of Luke were just copied directly from the Gospel of Mark.

True again.

 

[Desert Snake]

True again.

No it isn't. It's a belief. Then proven to oneself via confirmation bias.

 

[Desert Snake]

But, these aren't eye witnesses. It's hearsay via oral traditions. Or, at least that is what the evidence points to.

Speculation. appeal to authority. This is not even an attempt at an argument.

 

[leibowde84]

No it isn't. It's a belief. Then proven to oneself via confirmation bias.

A "belief" substantiated by verifiable supporting evidence, yes. Surely better than the "let's start with scripture and believe it as long as there is a sliver of a chance that it might be true ... We can always keep on re-interpreting it to try and match it up with ongoing scientific discoveries and no one can prove us wrong" argument.

 

[Desert Snake]

A "belief" substantiated by verifiable supporting evidence, yes. Surely better than the "let's start with scripture and believe it as long as there is a sliver of a chance that it might be true ... We can always keep on re-interpreting it to try and match it up with ongoing scientific discoveries and no one can prove us wrong" argument.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean; what scientific discoveries are you talking about, lol, and how do they relate to my argument?

 

[leibowde84]

Speculation. appeal to authority. This is not even an attempt at an argument.

If by "appeal to authority" you mean "appeal to the experts in biblical/historical accuracies in Biblical texts", then yes. Anything else would be cocky, right? There are a lot of people, not tied to any religion necessarily, who have spent their entire career studying this stuff. To consider ones own opinion on subjects in their field as equal to theirs is pretty much a slap in the face to historians everywhere.

 

[Desert Snake]

If by "appeal to authority" you mean "appeal to the experts in biblical/historical accuracies in Biblical texts", then yes. Anything else would be cocky, right? There are a lot of people, not tied to any religion necessarily, who have spent their entire career studying this stuff. To consider ones own opinion on subjects in their field as equal to theirs is pretty much a slap in the face to historians everywhere.

You're getting your subjects mixed up, hence the incorrect conclusions you are making. It's fine though, because it demonstrates my refutation of said conclusions. If one reads the Bible as fiction, then of course the conclusions regarding various speculations will indicate fiction. This is not what an actual debate is, though.

It's not an argument.

 

[leibowde84]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean; what scientific discoveries are you talking about, lol, and how do they relate to my argument?

1. I pointed out how it is stupid to label a claim that is substantiated with verifiable evidence and near unanimous expert agreement as a "belief", although you are technically accurate.
And ...
2. Scientific discoveries that have told us that the earth doesn't have corners, it isn't the center of anything, there are many earth like planets that might have other forms of life, Adam and eve couldn't have existed, the flood didn't happen as told, Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem, and wasn't a decendent of David. None of these have been proven, but they all have as much pointing in their favor as any claim that you have made. The possibility of something doesn't add much support. You need to be able to provide evidence that back up your claims that aren't mere hearsay, subjective claims, or logical fallacies (god of the gaps, something from nothing, complexity of life leading somehow directly to god without intermediate explanation, etc.).

We all deserve verifiable claims or those from people who have proved themselves to be experts in the field.

 

[Desert Snake]

1. I pointed out how it is stupid to label a claim that is substantiated with verifiable evidence and near unanimous expert agreement as a "belief", although you are technically accurate.
And ...
2. Scientific discoveries that have told us that the earth doesn't have corners, it isn't the center of anything, there are many earth like planets that might have other forms of life, Adam and eve couldn't have existed, the flood didn't happen as told, Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem, and wasn't a decendent of David. None of these have been proven, but they all have as much pointing in their favor as any claim that you have made. The possibility of something doesn't add much support. You need to be able to provide evidence that back up your claims that aren't mere hearsay, subjective claims, or logical fallacies (god of the gaps, something from nothing, complexity of life leading somehow directly to god without intermediate explanation, etc.).

We all deserve verifiable claims or those from people who have proved themselves to be experts in the field.

This is merely an appeal to your authority. You don't realize that many of these people are not what I would consider an authority, and these topics are often contextual as well, ie you are mixing and matching topics.

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

This is merely an appeal to your authority. You don't realize that many of these people are not what I would consider an authority, and these topics are often contextual as well, ie you are mixing and matching topics.

I consider historical evidence, the majority opinion of historians and bible scholars coupled with my own common sense to be authoritative. The views I have posted are pretty much what you would encounter if you enrolled in a religious studies program at an accredited university. But that's just me. It's what I pay attention to, but each of us has different ideas on such things. What do you consider to be authoritative?

 

[Desert Snake]

I consider historical evidence, the majority opinion of historians and bible scholars coupled with my own common sense to be authoritative. The views I have posted are pretty much what you would encounter if you enrolled in a religious studies program at an accredited university. But that's just me. It's what I pay attention to, but each of us has different ideas on such things. What do you consider to be authoritative?

contextually, the Scripture here is authoritative, at least to the narrative.

What you are proposing, is a fictional version of the NT, ie, an interpretation of events according to how one thinks they actually happened /non-religious/ speculation.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You know English is not my first language. Pleas paraphrase for me in easy English.
Regards

Gallows =

Throne=

 

[fantome profane]

Even if some of it was copied does that then mean we must throw all 3 Gospels out and rule them all out? No, of course not.

No, of course not. I never said any such thing, nor did I intend to imply it.

I think the Gospels are very valuable. But it is important to try to understand what we are reading when we read them. And the fact that there is so much copying going on here does not make the Gospels worthless, but it is a significant fact that we need to take into account.

What I find it really interesting that less than 12 hours ago (at the time of this post) you had never realized the fact that much of the Gospels (Matthew and Luke) were copied from Mark. But now you know this. That is wonderful and I hope you are happy that you learned something.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Even if some of it was copied does that then mean we must throw all 3 Gospels out and rule them all out? No, of course not.

First off, there are copies that are also translations. Every translation changes the words, God's supposed words. And then there are the (this is really good) "revisions", although they get around that by calling them new translations, like that's supposed to be better. Why do we need all the translations we have. There must be hundreds in English alone--of God's Word. And why do we need commentaries to tell us what God really meant? And was it God Who decided which was to be the canon? Did God initial the authorized and correct copies?

And certainly we shouldn't discard them. There's much to be learned, often information that wasn't intended. We should take ALL revealed texts and apocrypha from every religion and study them intently to see if we can find the first scrap of evidence from anywhere, for revelation or miracles, that isn't hearsay.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes - but surely you admit that there is a difference between historical value and historical accuracy, right?

Of course.

We shouldn't immediately value claims without external, independent, corroborating evidence.

Thankfully, historical Jesus studies began as an attempt to undermine Christian claims in the 1700s. They motivated the introduction of historical critical methods (and comparative/historical linguistics).

It's not the historical value of the New Testament that I question

It's the job of the historian to question the historical value of all historical evidence. That the NT is riddled with issues as historical evidence is not in doubt. Of course, no ancient so is, and the its value as historical evidence is also not in doubt.

it's the accuracy of events which are given a weight in those documents that is curiously missing from other historical records.

What historical records? We have precious few, such that our sources for important persons such as Pilate rely on Josephus, the NT, and the gospels (two of the three are also sources for Jesus); Paul is sometimes called the "second founder" of Christianity and was in much higher standing than Jesus socially, yet outside of his own letters and Acts he is unknown; there are virtually no other historical records, but from the tidbits we have we find references to Jesus' historical person in far more sources that expected (Josephus, Thallos, Pliny, Suetonius, Mara bar Serapion, Lucian, Celsus, Papias, Tacitus, and rabbinic sources). Of course, most of the sources tell us little if anything other than attest to Jesus' historical person (Josephus also identifies James as Jesus' brother, which gives us three independent sources for Jesus' brother, including Paul who knew him), but even without the NT that would be more than almost all from antiquity. With the NT, it practically is.

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

contextually, the Scripture here is authoritative, at least to the narrative.

What you are proposing, is a fictional version of the NT, ie, an interpretation of events according to how one thinks they actually happened /non-religious/ speculation.

Good morning Konn: Actually, I am not proposing anything. I am simply putting the canonical gospels up against the light of history. I am looking at the life of the man Jesus in the time and in the culture in which he lived. I am looking at the gospels in the same way. In so doing, we find that not only are some of the events in the gospels in conflict with the reality of the times in which they took place, they are often at odds with each other.

I am not certain as to what standard by which you call the scriptures authoritative. Can you explain this?

All the best,
Gary

 

[Desert Snake]

Good morning Konn: Actually, I am not proposing anything. I am simply putting the canonical gospels up against the light of history. I am looking at the life of the man Jesus in the time and in the culture in which he lived. I am looking at the gospels in the same way. In so doing, we find that not only are some of the events in the gospels in conflict with the reality of the times in which they took place, they are often at odds with each other.

I am not certain as to what standard by which you call the scriptures authoritative. Can you explain this?

All the best,
Gary

Things can be proposed by inference or indirectly, imo. But that aside, I am familiar with some of the arguments presented in that manner, a proposed contradiction of historical versus Scriptural. I have never run across something that held any more merit than speculation. I find that many of the conclusions drawn that support a contradictory /narrative, are themselves drawn from what I consider to be false beliefs, bad research, poor logic. But, we can agree to disagree, I'm not here to convince anyone.

 

[First Baseman]

Good Evening First Baseman: There are in fact mismatches from one gospel to another. One clearly says the Holy Family fled into Egypt immediately after the birth of Jesus. Another gospel says the Holy Family hung around Bethlehem for forty days and then returning directly to Nazareth. One gospel says Judas felt anguish for his betrayal, threw the money away at the Temple and hanged himself. Then the author of John reported that Judas greedily ran off with the money and split open at the middle with his guts spilling out. These are but two of many clear mismatches.

Moving on to historical inaccuracies, I have already pointed out the mistakes the author of Mathew made with regards to the trial of Jesus. This is not a mismatch but an outright falsehood. The Sanhedrin was not permitted to meet at night or during the Passover. I will also point out the story of Jesus being born in in Bethlehem. This was a literary device designed to make his place of birth match the prophesized birthplace of the Messiah. Unfortunately, the Romans were meticulous record keepers. There was no census in or around the time Jesus was born, and never a census that included residents of Nazareth. It was a very poor and out of the way town. Secondly, the Romans didn't call you off to far away places for a census so they could simply take your word for what you owned. They came to your house to see what you owned. This is all carefully documented by the Romans. There also was no slaughter of male children at or near the time of the birth of Jesus. This episode and the flight into Egypt that followed was a literary device designed to make the story of the birth of Jesus akin to the story of the birth of Moses.

As for the idea of witness accounts, the gospels are not eye witness accounts. None of the authors are thought by bible scholars to have ever met Jesus. They were later Hellenistic writers who spoke and wrote in Greek. Jesus and his followers were not from the scholar class and would not have known Greek, nor are they likely to have been literate. They wouldn't have even known Hebrew, because knowledge of Hebrew was reserved for the wealthy class. Most scholars agree that Jesus and the Apostles probably spoke Aramaic and could neither read nor write, which was no shame at the time. It's just how things were in that time, in that place and among that class of people.

My question to you is simple. Why would the Holy Spirit make such errors when guiding the hands of the gospel writers, so that the stories could be picked apart later by literate people with access to historical knowledge and records? You are telling me that I've been mislead by the evil genius who first interfered in human affairs through a talking snake. I think you have been mislead by the cultural and religious lore of Catholicism. The only way we can get to the bottom of this is to discuss it with facts, so it's nice to be having a polite discussion on these matters. I am open to any responses based on historical facts. I am totally open to being wrong, but you have to show me In clear terms why I am wrong.

All the best,
Gary

Hello again, Gary.
The Gospels are eyewitness accounts. Once again you have been deceived by those who hide the truth and exchange it for lies. The Holy Spirit makes no errors, you simply assume that He does. I do not agree with your assessment of the "errors." You assume those things you said about Matthew, you assume that no exceptions to "the rules" were made for Jesus when the Gospel writers clearly say there were. You assume entirely too much, I think. The reason why there are "differences" in the narrations is because they are eyewitness accounts. People see the same things differently.

I have not been mislead by the cultural and religious lore of Catholicism. I was a Protestant for most of my life and converted to Catholicism 4 years ago. So most of what I learned outside of the Bible I learned from the Protestant churches.

"I am totally open to being wrong, but you have to show me In clear terms why I am wrong."
This is why I am open to discuss this freely with you. You are not totally biased to the point that you will not listen.

No, I don't have any physical proof of anything anymore than you do. I have Spiritual proof but one has to experience that for himself, I can't "transfer" my spiritual experiences to you. I sure wish I could.

Faith is required to believe anything. You have faith in the various references you have studied more so than Biblical truth. I have faith in God and His word. You will believe who will choose to believe. God gave us free will to choose because He didn't want a bunch of robotic followers and He respects your right to choose. If He didn't He wouldn't have given you that right.

The atheist puts his faith in things other than the word of God. The Christian puts his faith in Christ. This is the difference between the two.

 

[paarsurrey]

Yeah, looks like the usual situation, "Truth forever on the gallows, Wrong forever on the throne".

You did not explain the proverb.
Regards

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Then it's not a translation problem.