Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What you need to know about your Gospels

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 7:41:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The claim of the gospels by conservative Christians is that they are the message of God. However, when something is claimed to be the message of God, surely we can expect some basic things of such a text:

1. To be clearly divinely directed
2. To be clearly preserved to this day
3. To fulfil exceptional historical standards

You of course *can* attempt to argue otherwise, and indeed many have been, but this is clearly largely because they have been forced to, since the evidence we have simply does not meet what we would expect from the "Dovinely directed hypothesis", not by a country mile.

Preservation:
Gospels were distributed freely, and all of our manuscripts, including the earliest scraps of manuscripts contain significant differences. With interpolations and insertions rather obvious in the first few centuries. We simply do not know what some parts of the Gospels originally said, and probably can never know.

While the theist *can* attempt to argue that scholarship will allow us to find the 'original' message, this largely misses the point. IF the Gospels were divinely directed, then surely we wouldn't wven need scholarship in the first place. This entire field should be unnecessary since God would ensure a perfect preservation - with no variants, early complete manuscripts with complete agreement, etc. One may say this is frivilous, but this is friggin God we are talking about, is he not omnipotent?

Gospel Writers
Matthew Mark and Luke clearly plagiarise each other to the extreme. Text is copied verbatim and intentionally changed. No intellectually honest Christian can claim otherwise, since a simple horizontal reason of a few stories can yield no other conclusion. Read parrallel text in Mark and Luke and you can see obvious places where Luke changes place names, people present. Etc. Clearly not something we would expect from something divinely directed.

Apologetics can attempt to square the circle here and attempt to marry these discrepancies, but in doing so leads to the most ad hoc position I have ever seen.

To make things worse, the Gospel of John closely mirrors the Gnostic traditions, with "I am the Lord" etc. Being extremely common in such texts. Clearly John a completely different theology. Perfect consistency is not what we have in the Gospels, especially comparing John to others.

Historical Standards
The Gospel writers are clearly not witnesses to the events. The language, socioeconomical, and time barriers make that virtually impossible on all but the most extreme conservative views. The accounts we have simply are not what we would expect of a divinely directed tradition, about the most important icon in history, Inferrences are made on the slimmest of evidences, with conjecture on conjecture in modern scholarship in order to salvage something respectable. All whilst missing the main problem. God, simply would not do this.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 9:01:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 7:41:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
The claim of the gospels by conservative Christians is that they are the message of God. However, when something is claimed to be the message of God, surely we can expect some basic things of such a text:

1. To be clearly divinely directed
2. To be clearly preserved to this day
3. To fulfil exceptional historical standards

You of course *can* attempt to argue otherwise, and indeed many have been, but this is clearly largely because they have been forced to, since the evidence we have simply does not meet what we would expect from the "Dovinely directed hypothesis", not by a country mile.

Preservation:
Gospels were distributed freely, and all of our manuscripts, including the earliest scraps of manuscripts contain significant differences. With interpolations and insertions rather obvious in the first few centuries. We simply do not know what some parts of the Gospels originally said, and probably can never know.

While the theist *can* attempt to argue that scholarship will allow us to find the 'original' message, this largely misses the point. IF the Gospels were divinely directed, then surely we wouldn't wven need scholarship in the first place. This entire field should be unnecessary since God would ensure a perfect preservation - with no variants, early complete manuscripts with complete agreement, etc. One may say this is frivilous, but this is friggin God we are talking about, is he not omnipotent?

Gospel Writers
Matthew Mark and Luke clearly plagiarise each other to the extreme. Text is copied verbatim and intentionally changed. No intellectually honest Christian can claim otherwise, since a simple horizontal reason of a few stories can yield no other conclusion. Read parrallel text in Mark and Luke and you can see obvious places where Luke changes place names, people present. Etc. Clearly not something we would expect from something divinely directed.

Apologetics can attempt to square the circle here and attempt to marry these discrepancies, but in doing so leads to the most ad hoc position I have ever seen.

To make things worse, the Gospel of John closely mirrors the Gnostic traditions, with "I am the Lord" etc. Being extremely common in such texts. Clearly John a completely different theology. Perfect consistency is not what we have in the Gospels, especially comparing John to others.

Historical Standards
The Gospel writers are clearly not witnesses to the events. The language, socioeconomical, and time barriers make that virtually impossible on all but the most extreme conservative views. The accounts we have simply are not what we would expect of a divinely directed tradition, about the most important icon in history, Inferrences are made on the slimmest of evidences, with conjecture on conjecture in modern scholarship in order to salvage something respectable. All whilst missing the main problem. God, simply would not do this.

I have a feeling your post will go largely ignored. What a shame.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 9:18:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What he really is about is conducting religious warfare against Christianity. But envisage misses the point of true spirituality: it isn't the words that count in one's relationship with God-- it's the Spirit and the Spirit is independent of man's words. The Spirit is totally absent in Muhammad's works as he would never need to command obedience to his voice alone if Muhammad ever knew anything about spiritual consciousness. What he knew and what he taught is conformity to his ideas and his alone, i.e. the Spirit's role is completely absent. True Christianity is Spirit led, not led by mere words in books. Find a true spiritual path instead of allowing yourself to be used as a weapon for a dead man's dreams of conquering the world and filling it with himself.

Prophets were and are plural because anytime one man' claims all knowledge of God, that man is a big liar as God created all men and women in God's image, not just one man. This is why courts have juries and not just judges, because truth comes out of multiple experiences, not just one person's. This is why when we have a serious illness we seek more than one doctor's opinion because he may not know the right cure while another would. Placing all your spiritual eggs in one man's basket is foolishness beyond belief yet we have millions of such believers in that irrational idea. Get some learning, Muhammadans, because as is, you fellows do not know enough about the world or ideas or justice or sociology or psychology and definitely not spirituality as right off the bat Muhammadan followers are not allowed their own spirituality, it must conform to the one man's which invalidates both parties.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 10:31:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
LMAO @ celestialtorah's THC levels musta peaked out as he typed that post.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 10:32:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 7:41:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
The claim of the gospels by conservative Christians is that they are the message of God. However, when something is claimed to be the message of God, surely we can expect some basic things of such a text:

1. To be clearly divinely directed
2. To be clearly preserved to this day
3. To fulfil exceptional historical standards

You of course *can* attempt to argue otherwise, and indeed many have been, but this is clearly largely because they have been forced to, since the evidence we have simply does not meet what we would expect from the "Dovinely directed hypothesis", not by a country mile.

Preservation:
Gospels were distributed freely, and all of our manuscripts, including the earliest scraps of manuscripts contain significant differences. With interpolations and insertions rather obvious in the first few centuries. We simply do not know what some parts of the Gospels originally said, and probably can never know.

While the theist *can* attempt to argue that scholarship will allow us to find the 'original' message, this largely misses the point. IF the Gospels were divinely directed, then surely we wouldn't wven need scholarship in the first place. This entire field should be unnecessary since God would ensure a perfect preservation - with no variants, early complete manuscripts with complete agreement, etc. One may say this is frivilous, but this is friggin God we are talking about, is he not omnipotent?

Gospel Writers
Matthew Mark and Luke clearly plagiarise each other to the extreme. Text is copied verbatim and intentionally changed. No intellectually honest Christian can claim otherwise, since a simple horizontal reason of a few stories can yield no other conclusion. Read parrallel text in Mark and Luke and you can see obvious places where Luke changes place names, people present. Etc. Clearly not something we would expect from something divinely directed.

Apologetics can attempt to square the circle here and attempt to marry these discrepancies, but in doing so leads to the most ad hoc position I have ever seen.

To make things worse, the Gospel of John closely mirrors the Gnostic traditions, with "I am the Lord" etc. Being extremely common in such texts. Clearly John a completely different theology. Perfect consistency is not what we have in the Gospels, especially comparing John to others.

Historical Standards
The Gospel writers are clearly not witnesses to the events. The language, socioeconomical, and time barriers make that virtually impossible on all but the most extreme conservative views. The accounts we have simply are not what we would expect of a divinely directed tradition, about the most important icon in history, Inferrences are made on the slimmest of evidences, with conjecture on conjecture in modern scholarship in order to salvage something respectable. All whilst missing the main problem. God, simply would not do this.

It's fairly obvious that the gospel writers each had an agenda. They must have thought that something was lacking in the previous version(s) otherwise they would not have felt compelled to do a rewrite. There was no divine inspiration, of course, just different people targeting a different audience and pushing their own barrow.

Assuming Mark came first, which is generally agreed now, the gospels after Mark were actually in opposition to one another. That puts the lie to the notion that each text was divinely directed.

"The three other Gospels all build on the story of Mark, but they introduce theological differences. The authors of the other Gospels wrote their versions because of theological differences or enhancements that they wished to introduce to the story. For example, many of the changes made by the authors of Matthew and Luke deal with making Mark's account more compatible with the virgin birth story, since Mark contains story elements which infer that Jesus is the naturally born son of Joseph and Mary.

Far from being four separate eyewitness accounts that just happen to slightly disagree with each other, these four Gospels are a product of theological disagreements among the early Christian community. The writers of these Gospels obviously could not have known that these works would later be compiled together into a single book side by side. The fact that this was done is actually quite ironic, since the writers of these Gospels evidently viewed other Gospels as flawed, hence the reason that they created new versions.

The fact that all three of the other narrative Gospels in the Bible are based directly or indirectly on the Gospel of Mark demonstrates the lack of other narrative information about Jesus. The Gospel of Mark became the root of the other Gospels because it was the only writing that provided narrative details about Jesus. The additions that the authors of Matthew and Luke made to the Gospel of Mark are primarily just the virgin birth narratives and some additional post-resurrection narratives."

--- R.G.Price: Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 11:23:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 10:31:00 PM, annanicole wrote:
LMAO @ celestialtorah's THC levels musta peaked out as he typed that post.

I got a contact high and the munchies just from reading that. You got any Cheetos?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 11:26:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 11:23:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/20/2015 10:31:00 PM, annanicole wrote:
LMAO @ celestialtorah's THC levels musta peaked out as he typed that post.

I got a contact high and the munchies just from reading that. You got any Cheetos?

No, I ate 'em all and am headed to the grocery store
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Gentorev
Posts: 2,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 11:52:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Envisage wrote.........Gospel Writers
Matthew Mark and Luke clearly plagiarise each other to the extreme. Text is copied verbatim and intentionally changed. No intellectually honest Christian can claim otherwise, since a simple horizontal reason of a few stories can yield no other conclusion. Read parrallel text in Mark and Luke and you can see obvious places where Luke changes place names, people present. Etc. Clearly not something we would expect from something divinely directed.

Gentorev.........Matthew begins his gospel with the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem of Judaea. Mark ignores the physical birth of the man Jesus, as being totally irrelevant to the story of salvation, and begins his narrative with the baptism of the man Jesus, when he was born the first of God's Sons, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the spirit of our Lord which descended upon him in the form of a dove as the heavenly voice was heard to say, "You are my beloved in whom I am pleased, this day I have begotten thee."

Matthew speaks of the wise men from the east who went to Nazareth to pay homage to the child who was born to be the King of the Jews. Mark and Luke do not,

Matthew reveals the genealogy of Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, who married Mary, who was already pregnant to her half brother, Joseph the son of Alexander Helios=Heli. Mark and Luke do not.

Luke admits that he wrote his gospel from others who had known Jesus, of had been told of Jesus by those who had known him. And Luke tells the story of the young boy Jesus confounding the Jewish teachers in the Temple with his knowledge of the scriptures, Matthew and Mark dont.

Luke reveals many hidden truths, one, being that Shelah, is not the son of Arpachshad as reported in the OT, but was the son of Kainam the son of Arpachshad, and that Jesus was the grandson of Alexander Helios, also known as "HELI." Matthew and Mark don't.

I could go on and on with the many variations between the Gospels, but it would simply be a waste of time in this forum, which is over run with those of the godless religion who haunt this forum, who, with zeal and conscientious devotion, attempt to convert the believers over to their godless religion.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 1:09:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sig change and BUMP!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 1:45:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 9:18:45 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
What he really is about is conducting religious warfare against Christianity. But envisage misses the point of true spirituality: it isn't the words that count in one's relationship with God-- it's the Spirit and the Spirit is independent of man's words. The Spirit is totally absent in Muhammad's works as he would never need to command obedience to his voice alone if Muhammad ever knew anything about spiritual consciousness. What he knew and what he taught is conformity to his ideas and his alone, i.e. the Spirit's role is completely absent. True Christianity is Spirit led, not led by mere words in books. Find a true spiritual path instead of allowing yourself to be used as a weapon for a dead man's dreams of conquering the world and filling it with himself.

Prophets were and are plural because anytime one man' claims all knowledge of God, that man is a big liar as God created all men and women in God's image, not just one man. This is why courts have juries and not just judges, because truth comes out of multiple experiences, not just one person's. This is why when we have a serious illness we seek more than one doctor's opinion because he may not know the right cure while another would. Placing all your spiritual eggs in one man's basket is foolishness beyond belief yet we have millions of such believers in that irrational idea. Get some learning, Muhammadans, because as is, you fellows do not know enough about the world or ideas or justice or sociology or psychology and definitely not spirituality as right off the bat Muhammadan followers are not allowed their own spirituality, it must conform to the one man's which invalidates both parties.

http://www.dailyhaha.com...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 2:08:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 7:41:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
The claim of the gospels by conservative Christians is that they are the message of God.

It's dubious that they're all even the messages of the men purported to write them.

For example, the five books of the Torah are often ascribed to have been written by Moses. However, Moses is referred to in the third person.

Source criticism opines that they have four authors, (frequently identified as J, E, D and P for Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomic and Priestly, accounting for shifts in language and nomenclature), that they were written the Babylonian exilic period, and completed by the Persian period, more than three centuries later.

I find it curious that the 'Gospels according to' the four apostles are labelled that way (by whom?), and that none is written as first person memoir as you might expect had the author been present at key events, but instead in third person narrative as though an impersonal narrator is telling a story for effect.

Yet even a third person historical narrative will normally introduce itself and its author, as Herodotus did in his History:

This is the Showing forth of the Inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassos, to the end that neither the deeds of men may be forgotten by lapse of time, nor the works great and marvellous, which have been produced some by Hellenes and some by Barbarians, may lose their renown; and especially that the causes may be remembered for which these waged war with one another.

We don't see that either.

Essentially there's no attribution beyond some cryptic titles unlikely to have been written by the authors themselves, nor any commentary within the text on who the authors are, nor any personal commentary by the authors confirming that they were present.

Is that more consistent with first person testimony, or literary narrative, written and redacted for effect?
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 7:48:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The gospels were written well after Jesus was a rotting corpse somewhere in the Middle East. The less than credible tales they tell about the guy have no evidence to support them!
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 7:56:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 7:41:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
The claim of the gospels by conservative Christians is that they are the message of God. However, when something is claimed to be the message of God, surely we can expect some basic things of such a text:

1. To be clearly divinely directed
2. To be clearly preserved to this day
3. To fulfil exceptional historical standards

You of course *can* attempt to argue otherwise, and indeed many have been, but this is clearly largely because they have been forced to, since the evidence we have simply does not meet what we would expect from the "Dovinely directed hypothesis", not by a country mile.

Preservation:
Gospels were distributed freely, and all of our manuscripts, including the earliest scraps of manuscripts contain significant differences. With interpolations and insertions rather obvious in the first few centuries. We simply do not know what some parts of the Gospels originally said, and probably can never know.

While the theist *can* attempt to argue that scholarship will allow us to find the 'original' message, this largely misses the point. IF the Gospels were divinely directed, then surely we wouldn't wven need scholarship in the first place. This entire field should be unnecessary since God would ensure a perfect preservation - with no variants, early complete manuscripts with complete agreement, etc. One may say this is frivilous, but this is friggin God we are talking about, is he not omnipotent?

Gospel Writers
Matthew Mark and Luke clearly plagiarise each other to the extreme. Text is copied verbatim and intentionally changed. No intellectually honest Christian can claim otherwise, since a simple horizontal reason of a few stories can yield no other conclusion. Read parrallel text in Mark and Luke and you can see obvious places where Luke changes place names, people present. Etc. Clearly not something we would expect from something divinely directed.

Apologetics can attempt to square the circle here and attempt to marry these discrepancies, but in doing so leads to the most ad hoc position I have ever seen.

To make things worse, the Gospel of John closely mirrors the Gnostic traditions, with "I am the Lord" etc. Being extremely common in such texts. Clearly John a completely different theology. Perfect consistency is not what we have in the Gospels, especially comparing John to others.

Historical Standards
The Gospel writers are clearly not witnesses to the events. The language, socioeconomical, and time barriers make that virtually impossible on all but the most extreme conservative views. The accounts we have simply are not what we would expect of a divinely directed tradition, about the most important icon in history, Inferrences are made on the slimmest of evidences, with conjecture on conjecture in modern scholarship in order to salvage something respectable. All whilst missing the main problem. God, simply would not do this.

Only God's saints and prophets could preach the gospel, which means the Voice of the Lord. The written gospels are the work of antichrists who stole the written and spoken testimonies of God's saints to add with their religious traditions and teachings that go all the way back to the Babylonian era.

There are a few scriptures in the new testament that can be used to back up the knowledge of God that I preach but most of it is trashed with religious talk by antichrists.

If anyone trusts the new testament as the Word of God, they will be totally deceived of the true gospel that us saints preach to find God's chosen believers and witness to them.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 7:58:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 9:18:45 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
What he really is about is conducting religious warfare against Christianity. But envisage misses the point of true spirituality: it isn't the words that count in one's relationship with God-- it's the Spirit and the Spirit is independent of man's words. The Spirit is totally absent in Muhammad's works as he would never need to command obedience to his voice alone if Muhammad ever knew anything about spiritual consciousness. What he knew and what he taught is conformity to his ideas and his alone, i.e. the Spirit's role is completely absent. True Christianity is Spirit led, not led by mere words in books. Find a true spiritual path instead of allowing yourself to be used as a weapon for a dead man's dreams of conquering the world and filling it with himself.

Prophets were and are plural because anytime one man' claims all knowledge of God, that man is a big liar as God created all men and women in God's image, not just one man. This is why courts have juries and not just judges, because truth comes out of multiple experiences, not just one person's. This is why when we have a serious illness we seek more than one doctor's opinion because he may not know the right cure while another would. Placing all your spiritual eggs in one man's basket is foolishness beyond belief yet we have millions of such believers in that irrational idea. Get some learning, Muhammadans, because as is, you fellows do not know enough about the world or ideas or justice or sociology or psychology and definitely not spirituality as right off the bat Muhammadan followers are not allowed their own spirituality, it must conform to the one man's which invalidates both parties.

Spirit means the thoughts of God, which comes in the form of words spoken by us saints. It's obvious you "spirit" people are just as lost as anyone else in this world.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 8:31:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/21/2015 7:48:32 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The gospels were written well after Jesus was a rotting corpse somewhere in the Middle East. The less than credible tales they tell about the guy have no evidence to support them!

Interestingly enough, there is a tale of a man, who for some reason, his body was able to heal itself allowing to him to remain immortal. Currently, this man is about 40,000 years old. He was one of the first "mixed" race, a product of one of the last remaining "Homo Neanderthalensis" and the quickly evolving Homo Sapiens.

The story goes that this man spent a great of time with Siddhartha Gautama, who was impressed by him and saw something very special within him. What this man learned from the wise Buddha changed his entire life. For years after the death of Buddha, this wan wandered all over the known Earth passing on the teachings of Buddha, which eventually took him to Rome five hundred years later, where he was tried an crucified for treason against the state, yet a few days after his death, he was found to have disappeared without a trace.

I think you might know the story behind the religion this man started, but grew to loathe to this day.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 8:37:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/21/2015 7:48:32 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The gospels were written well after Jesus was a rotting corpse somewhere in the Middle East. The less than credible tales they tell about the guy have no evidence to support them!

Yes they were. The name "gospel" is just another name to describe the thoughts of God that all His prophets and us saints speak for Him.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 1:22:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sig change
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 3:29:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 7:41:11 PM, Envisage wrote:

I appreciate your well thought out post. I'll respond with some of my ideas and feel free to critique and disagree with anything I say.

The claim of the gospels by conservative Christians is that they are the message of God. However, when something is claimed to be the message of God, surely we can expect some basic things of such a text:

1. To be clearly divinely directed
2. To be clearly preserved to this day
3. To fulfil exceptional historical standards

I'll roughly agree with those.

You of course *can* attempt to argue otherwise, and indeed many have been, but this is clearly largely because they have been forced to, since the evidence we have simply does not meet what we would expect from the "Dovinely directed hypothesis", not by a country mile.

Preservation:
Gospels were distributed freely, and all of our manuscripts, including the earliest scraps of manuscripts contain significant differences. With interpolations and insertions rather obvious in the first few centuries. We simply do not know what some parts of the Gospels originally said, and probably can never know.

Let's talk about some of these discrepancies. I think saying there are "significant differences" is a tad misleading. The earliest texts of the new testament are considerably more consistent than any other writing we have of that time period. Furthermore, the most common textual variant is between the ordering of "Jesus Christ" and "Christ Jesus." You are correct that their all some textual variants, but the phrasing you use is widely overstated. There are simply not the sort of textual variants withing well documented early transcripts, such as the Codex Bezae, to denote them as historically unreliable.

While the theist *can* attempt to argue that scholarship will allow us to find the 'original' message, this largely misses the point. IF the Gospels were divinely directed, then surely we wouldn't wven need scholarship in the first place. This entire field should be unnecessary since God would ensure a perfect preservation - with no variants, early complete manuscripts with complete agreement, etc. One may say this is frivilous, but this is friggin God we are talking about, is he not omnipotent?

I understand your premise of any writing about God should be 100% preserved correctly. i get the argument. I'm just not sure there is any reason to accept that based upon other things the text says about God. Which would be really our only place to look for evidence about this claim.

Gospel Writers
Matthew Mark and Luke clearly plagiarise each other to the extreme. Text is copied verbatim and intentionally changed. No intellectually honest Christian can claim otherwise, since a simple horizontal reason of a few stories can yield no other conclusion. Read parrallel text in Mark and Luke and you can see obvious places where Luke changes place names, people present. Etc. Clearly not something we would expect from something divinely directed.

I don't want to make this harder for anyone but it is helpful when you provide specific references. As far as some being plagiarized, I'm not sure how helpful of a word that is given the difference in context, but most new testament scholarship believes in an earlier Q document that mostly Mark and Matthew took from. Furthermore when you say it is "not something we would expect from something divinely directed." In order to make that claim you have to have some other text or strong reasoning concerning other divinely inspire texts, so that seems like a weak argument in my opinion.

Apologetics can attempt to square the circle here and attempt to marry these discrepancies, but in doing so leads to the most ad hoc position I have ever seen.

To make things worse, the Gospel of John closely mirrors the Gnostic traditions, with "I am the Lord" etc. Being extremely common in such texts. Clearly John a completely different theology. Perfect consistency is not what we have in the Gospels, especially comparing John to others.

I don't think mirroring Gnostic traditions says anything about the truthfulness of the biblical text. For example, in Genesis the text has some of the same elements of other Ancient Near Eastern texts. It is actually something we may expect of the text. To say that John has a "completely different theology" is not a truthful claim. Does he seem to focus on the divine aspect of Jesus more than the other gospels? Absolutely, but to claim that is a "completely different theology" you would have to show that the other gospels didn't believe that and good luck with that.

Historical Standards
The Gospel writers are clearly not witnesses to the events. The language, socioeconomical, and time barriers make that virtually impossible on all but the most extreme conservative views. The accounts we have simply are not what we would expect of a divinely directed tradition, about the most important icon in history, Inferrences are made on the slimmest of evidences, with conjecture on conjecture in modern scholarship in order to salvage something respectable. All whilst missing the main problem. God, simply would not do this.

Making the jump to say you know God would not do something like that is a huge epistemological jump that no one can really make.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 3:44:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/21/2015 2:08:47 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/20/2015 7:41:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
The claim of the gospels by conservative Christians is that they are the message of God.

It's dubious that they're all even the messages of the men purported to write them.

For example, the five books of the Torah are often ascribed to have been written by Moses. However, Moses is referred to in the third person.

Not to mention, it takes a very special man to be able to write about his own death. [Deuteronomy 35:5] ;-)

Source criticism opines that they have four authors, (frequently identified as J, E, D and P for Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomic and Priestly, accounting for shifts in language and nomenclature), that they were written the Babylonian exilic period, and completed by the Persian period, more than three centuries later.

I find it curious that the 'Gospels according to' the four apostles are labelled that way (by whom?), and that none is written as first person memoir as you might expect had the author been present at key events, but instead in third person narrative as though an impersonal narrator is telling a story for effect.

Yet even a third person historical narrative will normally introduce itself and its author, as Herodotus did in his History:

This is the Showing forth of the Inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassos, to the end that neither the deeds of men may be forgotten by lapse of time, nor the works great and marvellous, which have been produced some by Hellenes and some by Barbarians, may lose their renown; and especially that the causes may be remembered for which these waged war with one another.

We don't see that either.

Essentially there's no attribution beyond some cryptic titles unlikely to have been written by the authors themselves, nor any commentary within the text on who the authors are, nor any personal commentary by the authors confirming that they were present.

Is that more consistent with first person testimony, or literary narrative, written and redacted for effect?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 3:49:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/21/2015 3:29:32 PM, stubs wrote:
At 3/20/2015 7:41:11 PM, Envisage wrote:

I appreciate your well thought out post. I'll respond with some of my ideas and feel free to critique and disagree with anything I say.

In all fairness I wrote it at 1 am on my iPhone with one eyelid open, procrastinating my inevitable sleep. But meh,mr here is my excuse :-p.

The claim of the gospels by conservative Christians is that they are the message of God. However, when something is claimed to be the message of God, surely we can expect some basic things of such a text:

1. To be clearly divinely directed
2. To be clearly preserved to this day
3. To fulfil exceptional historical standards

I'll roughly agree with those.

You of course *can* attempt to argue otherwise, and indeed many have been, but this is clearly largely because they have been forced to, since the evidence we have simply does not meet what we would expect from the "Dovinely directed hypothesis", not by a country mile.

Preservation:
Gospels were distributed freely, and all of our manuscripts, including the earliest scraps of manuscripts contain significant differences. With interpolations and insertions rather obvious in the first few centuries. We simply do not know what some parts of the Gospels originally said, and probably can never know.

Let's talk about some of these discrepancies. I think saying there are "significant differences" is a tad misleading. The earliest texts of the new testament are considerably more consistent than any other writing we have of that time period. Furthermore, the most common textual variant is between the ordering of "Jesus Christ" and "Christ Jesus." You are correct that their all some textual variants, but the phrasing you use is widely overstated. There are simply not the sort of textual variants withing well documented early transcripts, such as the Codex Bezae, to denote them as historically unreliable.

The best I can probably show you for this is the difference between a critical text, which prioritises early manuscripts, and the majority text, which takes the self-explanatory reading of the manuscripts. Estimates put it at 3-5% difference between the majority and critical text, thus there is at that much that is is known to vary.

The following oage lists the omitted verses in the critical text (I.e. Verses deemed additions) including the famous long ending of Mark, and the periscope de adulterae narration.

Again, one must note the standard of evidence I am holding the gospels to is significantly greater than that of any other literary work, and rightfully so given the claim at hand. Thus while I agree these are generally overall insignificant, they are to an extent significant.

While the theist *can* attempt to argue that scholarship will allow us to find the 'original' message, this largely misses the point. IF the Gospels were divinely directed, then surely we wouldn't wven need scholarship in the first place. This entire field should be unnecessary since God would ensure a perfect preservation - with no variants, early complete manuscripts with complete agreement, etc. One may say this is frivilous, but this is friggin God we are talking about, is he not omnipotent?

I understand your premise of any writing about God should be 100% preserved correctly. i get the argument. I'm just not sure there is any reason to accept that based upon other things the text says about God. Which would be really our only place to look for evidence about this claim.

I don't understand this. I dint start from the oremise that it actuallys divinely directed, I am contrasting hypothesis with observation here. Thus, we draw up what we would expect of a divinely directed text, and then compare it to the evidence we have. I don't see any other expectation other than perfection from the Christian God. Or at least most Christian's interpretation of it.

Gospel Writers
Matthew Mark and Luke clearly plagiarise each other to the extreme. Text is copied verbatim and intentionally changed. No intellectually honest Christian can claim otherwise, since a simple horizontal reason of a few stories can yield no other conclusion. Read parrallel text in Mark and Luke and you can see obvious places where Luke changes place names, people present. Etc. Clearly not something we would expect from something divinely directed.

I don't want to make this harder for anyone but it is helpful when you provide specific references. As far as some being plagiarized, I'm not sure how helpful of a word that is given the difference in context, but most new testament scholarship believes in an earlier Q document that mostly Mark and Matthew took from. Furthermore when you say it is "not something we would expect from something divinely directed." In order to make that claim you have to have some other text or strong reasoning concerning other divinely inspire texts, so that seems like a weak argument in my opinion.

You can make that hypothesis based in the intention of the Bible, which is clearly theologically to be a record/collection of God's revelations, with critically important information regarding sin & salvation. If God is benevolent, and if God's benevolence is remotely in line with normative ethics, then we would not expect a dubious message to be passed down from which people will take the wrong lessons from.

Apologetics can attempt to square the circle here and attempt to marry these discrepancies, but in doing so leads to the most ad hoc position I have ever seen.

To make things worse, the Gospel of John closely mirrors the Gnostic traditions, with "I am the Lord" etc. Being extremely common in such texts. Clearly John a completely different theology. Perfect consistency is not what we have in the Gospels, especially comparing John to others.

I don't think mirroring Gnostic traditions says anything about the truthfulness of the biblical text.

Agreed, but again we are contrasting hypothesis here. We wouldn't expect multiple theologies, much less massive divides in theology of the books of the Bible if they were divinely directed. It leads to conflicting messages.

For example, in Genesis the text has some of the same elements of other Ancient Near Eastern texts. It is actually something we may expect of the text. To say that John has a "completely different theology" is not a truthful claim. Does he seem to focus on the divine aspect of Jesus more than the other gospels? Absolutely, but to claim that is a "completely different theology" you would have to show that the other gospels didn't believe that and good luck with that.

I think this is best saved for a debate, but I will drop this point for now since it requires something more dedicated.

Historical Standards
The Gospel writers are clearly not witnesses to the events. The language, socioeconomical, and time barriers make that virtually impossible on all but the most extreme conservative views. The accounts we have simply are not what we would expect of a divinely directed tradition, about the most important icon in history, Inferrences are made on the slimmest of evidences, with conjecture on conjecture in modern scholarship in order to salvage something respectable. All whilst missing the main problem. God, simply would not do this.

Making the jump to say you know God would not do something like that is a huge epistemological jump that no one can really make.

Hypothesis, expectation, evidence, conclusion.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 6:32:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/21/2015 3:49:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/21/2015 3:29:32 PM, stubs wrote:
Let's talk about some of these discrepancies. I think saying there are "significant differences" is a tad misleading. The earliest texts of the new testament are considerably more consistent than any other writing we have of that time period. Furthermore, the most common textual variant is between the ordering of "Jesus Christ" and "Christ Jesus." You are correct that their all some textual variants, but the phrasing you use is widely overstated. There are simply not the sort of textual variants withing well documented early transcripts, such as the Codex Bezae, to denote them as historically unreliable.

The best I can probably show you for this is the difference between a critical text, which prioritises early manuscripts, and the majority text, which takes the self-explanatory reading of the manuscripts. Estimates put it at 3-5% difference between the majority and critical text, thus there is at that much that is is known to vary.

What sources do you have that say 3-5%? That is much higher than anything I have seen in scholarly work. Either way, Like I said the greatest textual variant is "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus"

The following oage lists the omitted verses in the critical text (I.e. Verses deemed additions) including the famous long ending of Mark, and the periscope de adulterae narration.

I agree with this. I'm not convinced the ending of Mark is the original. The important aspect is: is the theology divergent from the rest of the text? The answer is obviously no.

Again, one must note the standard of evidence I am holding the gospels to is significantly greater than that of any other literary work, and rightfully so given the claim at hand. Thus while I agree these are generally overall insignificant, they are to an extent significant.

I understand you are holding them to a "significantly greater" standard of evidence to other literary works of the time. Meaning if they even come close to your standards than it would literally be a miracle.

I understand your premise of any writing about God should be 100% preserved correctly. i get the argument. I'm just not sure there is any reason to accept that based upon other things the text says about God. Which would be really our only place to look for evidence about this claim.

I don't understand this. I dint start from the oremise that it actuallys divinely directed, I am contrasting hypothesis with observation here. Thus, we draw up what we would expect of a divinely directed text, and then compare it to the evidence we have. I don't see any other expectation other than perfection from the Christian God. Or at least most Christian's interpretation of it.

I see what you are saying. I am asking how you can come to the conclusion that you "dont see any other expectation other than perfection from the Christian God" in regard to texts concerning him?

I don't want to make this harder for anyone but it is helpful when you provide specific references. As far as some being plagiarized, I'm not sure how helpful of a word that is given the difference in context, but most new testament scholarship believes in an earlier Q document that mostly Mark and Matthew took from. Furthermore when you say it is "not something we would expect from something divinely directed." In order to make that claim you have to have some other text or strong reasoning concerning other divinely inspire texts, so that seems like a weak argument in my opinion.

You can make that hypothesis based in the intention of the Bible, which is clearly theologically to be a record/collection of God's revelations, with critically important information regarding sin & salvation. If God is benevolent, and if God's benevolence is remotely in line with normative ethics, then we would not expect a dubious message to be passed down from which people will take the wrong lessons from.

How does moral ethics tie into the OP?

To make things worse, the Gospel of John closely mirrors the Gnostic traditions, with "I am the Lord" etc. Being extremely common in such texts. Clearly John a completely different theology. Perfect consistency is not what we have in the Gospels, especially comparing John to others.

I don't think mirroring Gnostic traditions says anything about the truthfulness of the biblical text.

Agreed, but again we are contrasting hypothesis here. We wouldn't expect multiple theologies, much less massive divides in theology of the books of the Bible if they were divinely directed. It leads to conflicting messages.

That's my point. It does not create "multiple theologies." The theology doesn't change. Certain things are more emphasized certainly.

For example, in Genesis the text has some of the same elements of other Ancient Near Eastern texts. It is actually something we may expect of the text. To say that John has a "completely different theology" is not a truthful claim. Does he seem to focus on the divine aspect of Jesus more than the other gospels? Absolutely, but to claim that is a "completely different theology" you would have to show that the other gospels didn't believe that and good luck with that.

I think this is best saved for a debate, but I will drop this point for now since it requires something more dedicated.

Sure.

Making the jump to say you know God would not do something like that is a huge epistemological jump that no one can really make.

Hypothesis, expectation, evidence, conclusion.

I get that, I'm just asking for a reason to accept your expectation.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 9:26:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What we need to know about the Gospels is that they contain the clearest Celestial Torah teaching which is in astro-theological code. This is what I teach, Celestial Torah Christianity which unravels the astro-theological code to show a Christian theology that is utterly ancient, going far past its Jewish origins into ancient Near Eastern theology where the Baptizer brings Living Waters to anoint a king or even a god. While man-made Scriptures will and have fallen to historical discovery, (all of you believing in the Torah/Tanakh Bible stories need to learn about Israeli archeology exposing the true origins of Judaism in earlier ancient pagan religious beliefs) and thus cannot be used for spiritual authority. This means the Bible, the New Testament, the Quran are all based on Jewish liars tall tales which were believed to be true history. Thus the Bible, New Testament, and Quran do not contain spiritual authority as is. You must find that spiritual authority through Celestial Torah exegesis that reveals the hidden astro-theological code. Without it you are believing in man-made myths. And we see the results of believing in man-made myths as religious warfare conducted by the Abrahamics fooling themselves with false doctrines and phony histories. I teach the Original Celestial Torah meanings that makes straight the path to God again where priests, rabbis, imams, have thoroughly twisted it to render it meaningless in itself and only articles to swear allegiance to in religious loyalty oaths. Which is not real religion at all, only conformity to men's religious agendas.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 9:34:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
My detractors can only mount their slander campaigns as none of them have done their religious homework and thus spout only the usual religious nonsense of Bible belief in tall tales or they attack it as atheists unable to comprehend spiritual phenomena. But truth resides in those who speak it and becomes clear to everyone eventually as the false prophets and prophesies fail to materialize. Where is the 2nd Coming of Christ? I know where, because I know the Celestial Torah as a Jewish prophesy bearer but none of you do, including the street corner doomsday false prophet, another one of the Gentile interlopers in our Jewish spiritual works.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 10:17:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/21/2015 3:44:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/21/2015 2:08:47 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/20/2015 7:41:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
The claim of the gospels by conservative Christians is that they are the message of God.

It's dubious that they're all even the messages of the men purported to write them.

For example, the five books of the Torah are often ascribed to have been written by Moses. However, Moses is referred to in the third person.

Not to mention, it takes a very special man to be able to write about his own death. [Deuteronomy 35:5] ;-)


A special man is taught directly by our Creator who planned all the deaths of His people. All us saints are taught why, how, where and the approximate timing of our deaths.

Source criticism opines that they have four authors, (frequently identified as J, E, D and P for Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomic and Priestly, accounting for shifts in language and nomenclature), that they were written the Babylonian exilic period, and completed by the Persian period, more than three centuries later.

I find it curious that the 'Gospels according to' the four apostles are labelled that way (by whom?), and that none is written as first person memoir as you might expect had the author been present at key events, but instead in third person narrative as though an impersonal narrator is telling a story for effect.

Yet even a third person historical narrative will normally introduce itself and its author, as Herodotus did in his History:

This is the Showing forth of the Inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassos, to the end that neither the deeds of men may be forgotten by lapse of time, nor the works great and marvellous, which have been produced some by Hellenes and some by Barbarians, may lose their renown; and especially that the causes may be remembered for which these waged war with one another.

We don't see that either.

Essentially there's no attribution beyond some cryptic titles unlikely to have been written by the authors themselves, nor any commentary within the text on who the authors are, nor any personal commentary by the authors confirming that they were present.

Is that more consistent with first person testimony, or literary narrative, written and redacted for effect?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 10:45:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/21/2015 10:17:06 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/21/2015 3:44:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/21/2015 2:08:47 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/20/2015 7:41:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
The claim of the gospels by conservative Christians is that they are the message of God.

It's dubious that they're all even the messages of the men purported to write them.

For example, the five books of the Torah are often ascribed to have been written by Moses. However, Moses is referred to in the third person.

Not to mention, it takes a very special man to be able to write about his own death. [Deuteronomy 35:5] ;-)


A special man is taught directly by our Creator who planned all the deaths of His people. All us saints are taught why, how, where and the approximate timing of our deaths.

Brad, why open yourself up to me pointing out the failed prophecy of your own death? I really have no desire point out this failure, but you have no leg to stand on in this matter.

Source criticism opines that they have four authors, (frequently identified as J, E, D and P for Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomic and Priestly, accounting for shifts in language and nomenclature), that they were written the Babylonian exilic period, and completed by the Persian period, more than three centuries later.

I find it curious that the 'Gospels according to' the four apostles are labelled that way (by whom?), and that none is written as first person memoir as you might expect had the author been present at key events, but instead in third person narrative as though an impersonal narrator is telling a story for effect.

Yet even a third person historical narrative will normally introduce itself and its author, as Herodotus did in his History:

This is the Showing forth of the Inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassos, to the end that neither the deeds of men may be forgotten by lapse of time, nor the works great and marvellous, which have been produced some by Hellenes and some by Barbarians, may lose their renown; and especially that the causes may be remembered for which these waged war with one another.

We don't see that either.

Essentially there's no attribution beyond some cryptic titles unlikely to have been written by the authors themselves, nor any commentary within the text on who the authors are, nor any personal commentary by the authors confirming that they were present.

Is that more consistent with first person testimony, or literary narrative, written and redacted for effect?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 10:48:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/21/2015 10:45:47 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/21/2015 10:17:06 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/21/2015 3:44:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/21/2015 2:08:47 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/20/2015 7:41:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
The claim of the gospels by conservative Christians is that they are the message of God.

It's dubious that they're all even the messages of the men purported to write them.

For example, the five books of the Torah are often ascribed to have been written by Moses. However, Moses is referred to in the third person.

Not to mention, it takes a very special man to be able to write about his own death. [Deuteronomy 35:5] ;-)


A special man is taught directly by our Creator who planned all the deaths of His people. All us saints are taught why, how, where and the approximate timing of our deaths.

Brad, why open yourself up to me pointing out the failed prophecy of your own death? I really have no desire point out this failure, but you have no leg to stand on in this matter.

The prophecy is not what failed. The flesh failed because the flesh is a liar and knows it will be put to death soon for being used to write and speak the words that I force it to write and speak. The flesh only knows this world and death. Only the Spirit of God knows the future and it has NOT told the flesh the exact date of when it will be killed.

Source criticism opines that they have four authors, (frequently identified as J, E, D and P for Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomic and Priestly, accounting for shifts in language and nomenclature), that they were written the Babylonian exilic period, and completed by the Persian period, more than three centuries later.

I find it curious that the 'Gospels according to' the four apostles are labelled that way (by whom?), and that none is written as first person memoir as you might expect had the author been present at key events, but instead in third person narrative as though an impersonal narrator is telling a story for effect.

Yet even a third person historical narrative will normally introduce itself and its author, as Herodotus did in his History:

This is the Showing forth of the Inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassos, to the end that neither the deeds of men may be forgotten by lapse of time, nor the works great and marvellous, which have been produced some by Hellenes and some by Barbarians, may lose their renown; and especially that the causes may be remembered for which these waged war with one another.

We don't see that either.

Essentially there's no attribution beyond some cryptic titles unlikely to have been written by the authors themselves, nor any commentary within the text on who the authors are, nor any personal commentary by the authors confirming that they were present.

Is that more consistent with first person testimony, or literary narrative, written and redacted for effect?
Excalibur
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 12:39:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 7:41:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
The claim of the gospels by conservative Christians is that they are the message of God. However, when something is claimed to be the message of God, surely we can expect some basic things of such a text:

1. To be clearly divinely directed
2. To be clearly preserved to this day
3. To fulfil exceptional historical standards

You of course *can* attempt to argue otherwise, and indeed many have been, but this is clearly largely because they have been forced to, since the evidence we have simply does not meet what we would expect from the "Dovinely directed hypothesis", not by a country mile.

Preservation:
Gospels were distributed freely, and all of our manuscripts, including the earliest scraps of manuscripts contain significant differences. With interpolations and insertions rather obvious in the first few centuries. We simply do not know what some parts of the Gospels originally said, and probably can never know.

While the theist *can* attempt to argue that scholarship will allow us to find the 'original' message, this largely misses the point. IF the Gospels were divinely directed, then surely we wouldn't wven need scholarship in the first place. This entire field should be unnecessary since God would ensure a perfect preservation - with no variants, early complete manuscripts with complete agreement, etc. One may say this is frivilous, but this is friggin God we are talking about, is he not omnipotent?

Gospel Writers
Matthew Mark and Luke clearly plagiarise each other to the extreme. Text is copied verbatim and intentionally changed. No intellectually honest Christian can claim otherwise, since a simple horizontal reason of a few stories can yield no other conclusion. Read parrallel text in Mark and Luke and you can see obvious places where Luke changes place names, people present. Etc. Clearly not something we would expect from something divinely directed.

Apologetics can attempt to square the circle here and attempt to marry these discrepancies, but in doing so leads to the most ad hoc position I have ever seen.

To make things worse, the Gospel of John closely mirrors the Gnostic traditions, with "I am the Lord" etc. Being extremely common in such texts. Clearly John a completely different theology. Perfect consistency is not what we have in the Gospels, especially comparing John to others.

Historical Standards
The Gospel writers are clearly not witnesses to the events. The language, socioeconomical, and time barriers make that virtually impossible on all but the most extreme conservative views. The accounts we have simply are not what we would expect of a divinely directed tradition, about the most important icon in history, Inferrences are made on the slimmest of evidences, with conjecture on conjecture in modern scholarship in order to salvage something respectable. All whilst missing the main problem. God, simply would not do this.

How well do you know the Bible to actually debate it? Are these statements pertaining to the Word of God just points that you have gathered from Google, or have you yourself actually read it numerous times to come to this conclusion?

Thousands of years spent by some of the greatest minds in history in discussion of the Bible and its contents, and only now are we finding out that there are "mistakes"? I believe your lack of understanding is what is driving you to these conclusions.

Missing a few pages does nothing in terms of Losing Salvation. The Bible is smuggled into countries that do not allow Christianity, in most cases, verse by verse. Do those who are murdered for their faith miss out on heaven because they lacked the part where Christ, Moses or John did something that others deem important? Trying to impose that "because the Bible is incomplete that makes it wrong" is ignorance. You know what else is incomplete? The theory of Evolution? Is that what makes the theory wrong, its incompleteness? Every so often new scripts are discovered, but they are not added into the Bible. The Bible, as it sits now, is what it is. You can find these other manuscripts if you bothered to look for and read them as they are, separate. To conceive that the Word of God is one giant book and not book consisting of many books shows your lack of basic understanding. King James had what was in his possession at the time transferred into what it is now. It is the KJV. It is King James's "Bible." Of course the Gospels mirror each other. They are called the "Synoptic Gospels" for a reason. John's gospel is part of the Canonical gospels. The reason writers wrote in third person was because it allowed them to be "objective", not "Subjective." It's exactly why people still do it today.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 12:55:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 10:31:00 PM, annanicole wrote:
LMAO @ celestialtorah's THC levels musta peaked out as he typed that post.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 3:02:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 12:39:27 AM, Excalibur wrote:
Thousands of years spent by some of the greatest minds in history in discussion of the Bible and its contents, and only now are we finding out that there are "mistakes"? I believe your lack of understanding is what is driving you to these conclusions.

Or else the thousands of years have not been spent pursuing truth but theology, which has as much to do with truth as KFC has to do with nutrition.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 4:51:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
How well do you know the Bible to actually debate it? Are these statements pertaining to the Word of God just points that you have gathered from Google, or have you yourself actually read it numerous times to come to this conclusion?

I have read the literature on textual criticism and I engage in textual criticism myself by reading the New Testament. So, I regard my opinion as sufficiently informed, even if it isn't correct.

Thousands of years spent by some of the greatest minds in history in discussion of the Bible and its contents, and only now are we finding out that there are "mistakes"? I believe your lack of understanding is what is driving you to these conclusions.

Many of these have been known for hundreds of years. Only recently has the field of textual criticism become modernised, and modern historical techniques have been applied to the New Testament - much like science only really got rolling in the past 300 years.

I gave my reasoning in the OP, so you need to actually engage with my arguments, rather than just me conclusion.

Missing a few pages does nothing in terms of Losing Salvation. The Bible is smuggled into countries that do not allow Christianity, in most cases, verse by verse. Do those who are murdered for their faith miss out on heaven because they lacked the part where Christ, Moses or John did something that others deem important? Trying to impose that "because the Bible is incomplete that makes it wrong" is ignorance. You know what else is incomplete? The theory of Evolution? Is that what makes the theory wrong, its incompleteness? Every so often new scripts are discovered, but they are not added into the Bible. The Bible, as it sits now, is what it is. You can find these other manuscripts if you bothered to look for and read them as they are, separate. To conceive that the Word of God is one giant book and not book consisting of many books shows your lack of basic understanding. King James had what was in his possession at the time transferred into what it is now. It is the KJV. It is King James's "Bible." Of course the Gospels mirror each other. They are called the "Synoptic Gospels" for a reason. John's gospel is part of the Canonical gospels. The reason writers wrote in third person was because it allowed them to be "objective", not "Subjective." It's exactly why people still do it today.

You misunderstand my argument. I am contrasting what we would expect from the God of Christianity if it was divinely directed with the evidence we have today. Also I have no idea how you can make the claim the Bible is one Book - it clearly is a collection of different works which became canon. Any other claim is a complete demonstration of your own ignorance of how the Bible was composed and canonised. Also I am not arguing "the Bible is false", I am arguing that the Bible is clearly not divinely directed.