was the "new testament" actually finished around 400 AD?

[Tweak155]

I make true statements all the time, genius. It is unreasonable to believe that the story of the virgin birth ever happened in reality. That is true, for the reasons I've given ad nauseum.


No, it is a fact. Any reasonable person would reject that story as an error for any of a hundred reasons. It is unreasonable in the same way it is unreasonable to believe a leprechaun stole your car keys when you can't find them. The only people that believe the story are those that make an exception for it because they want it to be true.

I don't have an issue with most of what you said, just this part. You are projecting what a reasonable person is, not to mention using generalities and insults as though they even help prove a point. I argue you want your statements here to be true, because you can in no way prove them true.

If you switched your statements to the action instead of the person, you might have a chance. For example, it is unreasonable to believe in a virgin birth. Just because a person believes in a virgin birth does not outright make them unreasonable just because you are incapable of believing it to be true, or perhaps think there is no evidence that could ever prove it true.

Ultimately, people require different levels of proof. If I told you I saw a leprechaun steal your car keys, you clearly wouldn't believe me unless you saw it yourself. I'd also be willing to bet if hundreds of people saw a leprechaun steal your car keys, you'd still be in doubt because you did not see it yourself, purely because you personally lack any evidence of real leprechauns.

And that's fine, but that doesn't make the other people wrong. It doesn't make them right, either.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I believe Cerpin Taxt is more interested in insulting and asserting his "superiority" rather than engaging in civil discussion.

 

[Tweak155]

I believe Cerpin Taxt is more interested in insulting and asserting his "superiority" rather than engaging in civil discussion.

I think he just gets frustrated over what he perceives as absolute stupidity, which is probably normal for most people, but he lacks the filter which most reasonable people have

 

[sandorski]

I think he just gets frustrated over what he perceives as absolute stupidity, which is probably normal for most people, but he lacks the filter which most reasonable people have

He is showing the difference between what is Reasonable and what is Indoctrinated. A Virgin Birth is in no way Reasonable. Hell, when one points out the Virgin Births in other religions, most Christians roll their eyes...as they should.

 

[HumblePie]

I think when it comes to the argument of religion, is people can't seem to wrap their heads around something that has no true beginning. Egg vs Chicken scenario. The big bang theory of science purports only that the universe as we see it now and know of started as a explosive outburst of matter and energy from a small point. There is enough evidence to maintain that theory. There isn't any evidence to provide what happened before that explosion for science. Maybe we haven't discovered it. However, that doesn't mean there was nothing before or that the explosion is the embodiment of some deity. It may have been, but it could have just been an implosion from the previous universe that then exploded outwards again. Of which then people next have a hard time understanding that if there is a universe growing then there must be an edge and something beyond that edge. Of which should be a deity in their minds. It may be, but it may not be. No evidence to suggest anything that we have found at this point. It maybe that the universe and time wrap upon itself at the edge and what we see as the edge of beginning is really the edge of the old ending of the universe. Our outward growing universe is compressing out imploding universe on the timeline. A constant pop in and out of the same universe. There is evidence to suggest that another "universe" leaks into our own those with energy. Possibly.

Anyhow, the hard problem is that most people can't wrap their heads around certain concepts like infinity, and there may be no beginning or ending. And that science may never find the evidence to understand everything. Just because we may never find the evidence doesn't mean some arbitrary answer should suffice. Which is what religion tries to do for many people.

Just because something is more complicated than we can understand right now, or may ever understand, doesn't mean that it's the realm of some "god" instead now.

Anyone, this thread has devolved into another back and forth religion thread that does nothing in the end. As for the original OP, nothing in the new testament in the bible was written for many years after the supposed historical figure that was "Jesus" lived. Which means that it was a tale retold for years, or something that was written up as a fantasy by someone years later. How much of the new testament is an account of true stories is anyone's guess. How much is embellishment is going to be up for debate until Christianity doesn't exist.

 

[Tweak155]

He is showing the difference between what is Reasonable and what is Indoctrinated. A Virgin Birth is in no way Reasonable. Hell, when one points out the Virgin Births in other religions, most Christians roll their eyes...as they should.

I'm not arguing whether or not a virgin birth is reasonable. Read again then re-read.

 

[AViking]

He is showing the difference between what is Reasonable and what is Indoctrinated. A Virgin Birth is in no way Reasonable. Hell, when one points out the Virgin Births in other religions, most Christians roll their eyes...as they should.

When I discuss Christianity with my South American friends they get baffled. They come from incredibly religious catholic families but think Americans are batshit crazy.

This need by Americans to take the bible literally really confuses them. They can read the bible and pull morals and values from it but in no way do they believe in virgin births and other crazy things that Americans believe in.

I was told flat out that the pope disagrees with Americans. I didn't look it up but apparently John Paul II stated that heaven and hell are not real places but are within each and every one of us. That's a far cry from what Americans think.

Food for though. Maybe a lot of Americans need to stop drinking the crazy juice.

 

[JD50]

He is showing the difference between what is Reasonable and what is Indoctrinated. A Virgin Birth is in no way Reasonable. Hell, when one points out the Virgin Births in other religions, most Christians roll their eyes...as they should.

:thumbsup:

This is one of the things that really led me to question my beliefs and ultimately to Atheism. Zeus on a mountain top throwing down lightening bolts? Absurd. Dancing so the rain god makes it rain? Absurd. Virgin birth? Totally believable. World wide flood, loading 2 of each animal on the earth onto a wooden Ark? Totally believable. Etc...

 

[sandorski]

I'm not arguing whether or not a virgin birth is reasonable. Read again then re-read.

Fair enough. Too early, hadn't had my coffee yet.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I don't have an issue with most of what you said, just this part. You are projecting what a reasonable person is, not to mention using generalities and insults as though they even help prove a point. I argue you want your statements here to be true, because you can in no way prove them true.

If you switched your statements to the action instead of the person, you might have a chance. For example, it is unreasonable to believe in a virgin birth. Just because a person believes in a virgin birth does not outright make them unreasonable just because you are incapable of believing it to be true, or perhaps think there is no evidence that could ever prove it true.

No. It is unreasonable, and I explained the supervening reason earlier the thread. Once you admit "miraculous" phenomena you surrender the legitimacy of your inferences.

Ultimately, people require different levels of proof.

This has nothing to do with "proof." Ask Rob why, and let's see if he can tell you.

If I told you I saw a leprechaun steal your car keys, you clearly wouldn't believe me unless you saw it yourself. I'd also be willing to bet if hundreds of people saw a leprechaun steal your car keys, you'd still be in doubt because you did not see it yourself, purely because you personally lack any evidence of real leprechauns.

And that's fine, but that doesn't make the other people wrong. It doesn't make them right, either.

If it doesn't make them wrong it still makes them unreasonable.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I believe Cerpin Taxt is more interested in insulting and asserting his "superiority" rather than engaging in civil discussion.

...says the guy that CnP'd a ridiculous Fox News editorial and then abandoned any discussion of it. Tell me what you know about "discussion" so I can laugh even harder.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

As for the original OP, nothing in the new testament in the bible was written for many years after the supposed historical figure that was "Jesus" lived. Which means that it was a tale retold for years, or something that was written up as a fantasy by someone years later. How much of the new testament is an account of true stories is anyone's guess. How much is embellishment is going to be up for debate until Christianity doesn't exist.

You give the impression that the tales were told and retold implying a great potential for error and embellishment. Please know that John was written by John, the disciple of Jesus. Mark was written by Mark the interpreter for Peter, the disciple. Luke was written by Luke the physician and disciple of Paul. These books reflect first-hand accounts of the events surrounding Jesus's life as written or "dictated" by eyewitnesses within 40-60 years of his crucifixion.

 

[sandorski]

You give the impression that the tales were told and retold implying a great potential for error and embellishment. Please know that John was written by John, the disciple of Jesus. Mark was written by Mark the interpreter for Peter, the disciple. Luke was written by Luke the physician and disciple of Paul. These books reflect first-hand accounts of the events surrounding Jesus's life as written or "dictated" by eyewitnesses within 40-60 years of his crucifixion.

You know who the Authors are? Might want to send your sources to Biblical Scholars.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You give the impression that the tales were told and retold implying a great potential for error and embellishment. Please know that John was written by John, the disciple of Jesus. Mark was written by Mark the interpreter for Peter, the disciple. Luke was written by Luke the physician and disciple of Paul. These books reflect first-hand accounts of the events surrounding Jesus's life as written or "dictated" by eyewitnesses within 40-60 years of his crucifixion.

Whar autographed manuscripts? Whar?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You know who the Authors are? Might want to send your sources to Biblical Scholars.

There's general consensus as to who the authors were and the approximate time the books were written.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There's general consensus as to who the authors were and the approximate time the books were written.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

Did you even read those pages?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Did you even read those pages?

Which one do you want to discuss?

 

[fskimospy]

There's general consensus as to who the authors were and the approximate time the books were written.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

Your own link for the Gospel of John says that the majority of biblical scholars to not believe the Gospel of John was actually written by John.

 

[sandorski]

There's general consensus as to who the authors were and the approximate time the books were written.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

"General", perhaps, but not amongst Scholars.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Your own link for the Gospel of John says that the majority of biblical scholars to not believe the Gospel of John was actually written by John.

You're correct, there's lot's of debate about this particular gospel...although ancient tradition ascribes direct authorship to John, this particular gospel may have been written by the Johannine Community within 40-60 years of the crucifixion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

"General", perhaps, but not amongst Scholars.

Who do scholars think authored Luke and Mark?

 

[Tweak155]

No. It is unreasonable, and I explained the supervening reason earlier the thread. Once you admit "miraculous" phenomena you surrender the legitimacy of your inferences.

Define "it". By "it" I assume you are no longer referring to a person, which I agree with.

This has nothing to do with "proof." Ask Rob why, and let's see if he can tell you.

It does if you're referencing an unreasonable person vs an unreasonable situation.

If it doesn't make them wrong it still makes them unreasonable.

If you can't prove them wrong, then how can you prove them unreasonable?

 

[child of wonder]

Your correct, there's lot's of debate about this particular gospel...although ancient tradition ascribes direct authorship to John, this particular gospel was likely written by the Johannine Community within 50-60 years of the crucifixion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works

How would that make it a reliable source of information? If someone wrote a book about my life based only on 2nd and 3rd hand accounts 50-60 years after I died would you trust it as gospel? In today's information age where knowledge is a mouse click away, we still have people that think Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, for example. How can we trust people from 2,000 years ago to accurately pass down such fantastic stories?

If the books at least claimed to be 1st hand accounts and mentioned events we could accurately date that would show a high degree of likelihood they were written during or shortly after the life of Jesus, that would be one thing. Instead, the authorship isn't self proclaimed, only assumed through old rumors, and we can be very certain that whoever wrote them not only did not witness anything they were writing about, but their source also was not present when these events took place.

The Gospels are like writing down the message from a game of "Telephone" 50+ years after the game was played.

 

[Retro Rob]

"General", perhaps, but not amongst Scholars.

The thing I personally appreciate most about this is that these "scholars" open my beliefs up to falsification.

Sadly for them thus far, there isn't any hard evidence supporting their claims.

I'd be more likely to change what I believe if some convincing evidence came forth. Instead of providing evidence, people like Ehrman attack the writer(s) (assuming, for instance, Peter was too illiterate to write his books, and that people were too gullible and ignorant at the time to employ any real critical-analysis....while ignoring the fact Luke was a physician and historian, and that Paul was an educated Pharisee well-versed in the Law)

It's well noted that NT Bible writers were fact-checking OT prophecies to ensure that Jesus was the promised Messiah before irrationally believing he was...though there are common accusations that they were shaping events in their accounts to fit the prophecies, which means the Bible is nothing more than an elaborate conspiracy.

What isn't uncommon is a scholar looking to ink his name onto a new "theory", knowing that controversy inevitably transform to best-sellers.

 

[piasabird]

The Bible is a collection of Books and Letters.

The Catholic Church does not represent all Christians.