Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Evidence
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:01:34 GMT
 <sbuckley.712262233@sfu.ca> <1992Jul27.235711.2730@intelhf.hf.intel.com> 
 <sbuckley.712397986@sfu.ca> <1992Jul30.151137.1857@intelhf.hf.intel.com> 
 <adams.712515535@spssig> <1992Jul31.061932.17729@intelhf.hf.intel.com>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

labelle@intelhf.hf.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:

>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>>labelle@intelhf.hf.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:

>>>		1) The gospels were written by 4 unknown persons - the names
>>>		Matthew, Mark Luke and John being added later.
>>But not much later.  Tradition ascribed authorship of the books to men by
>>these names from the beginning.  This is not to say that these people
>                      ^^^^^^^^^ What "beginning"? The New Testament wasn't
> compiled until around 236 ad!
I don't believe you know what you are talking about.  The latest writing is
aproximately 100AD, give or take a few years.  Paul's letters were
completed by 67AD when he died.  The other letters are from the period
60-90AD.  The Gospel dates range from as early as 50AD to as late as
100AD.

If you're talking about the canon, you're still way off.  By around 200AD
the 4 Gospels, the Pauline letters and some of the writings were given the
same level or authority as the Hebrew Canon (established about 100AD).  The
Apocrypha were also included in this group of 'Scripture.'  The authority
od some writings was still being disputed, and other books that were then
considered as authoritative were later rejected.  Revelation was NOT canon
at this time, nor were Jude, James, II & III John, Hebrews and Peter.

It was not until the fourth century that the NT canon as we know it was
closed.  Even then controversy continued, and wasn't really settled.  The
Protestant Reformation discarded the Apocrypha in the 16th century, and the
Roman Catholics reaffirmed it at the Council of Trent in 1546.

>>acutally wrote the books, but authorship was assigned by the early (2nd
>>century) church.

>	So, the actual authorship of the *ONLY* "eyewitness" "evidence" we
>	have of the "divinity" of the so-called "son of god" are writings
>	unsigned and "ascribed" 200 years later by an organization of
>	believers wishing to break with Jewish and Roman traditions! Pretty
>	weak, if you ask me!
The Gospels have sources other than simple eyewitness.  There are hints of
another document, commonly known as 'Q'.  It and likely others were used by
the authors of Matthew and Luke.  If you look at some of the documents
found at Nag Hamadi and in the Dead Sea Scrolls, you can see what appear to
be early writings on Christ, such as the Gospel of Thomas.  I'm not an
expert on extra-canonical Gospels, nor on ancient writings, but clearly
sources existed.

Paul's writings are from 50-67AD (aprox) and lay out much of Christian
theology.  Now your talking within 20 years of Christ's death, and a man
who had dealings with the Apostles.  A bit harder to explain that away,
huh?

>	As mentioned in "Jesus the Evidence" (by Ian Wilson), no where in
>	the gospels does Jesus say "Make sure you put this down" or "get
>	this parable as I dictate"! If Jesus was god - or if god was god,
>	for that matter - don't you think they would do a better job of
>	conveying this extremely important message to *everyone*?
>	(And Pleeease, don't give me that tired excuse about "testing us")
>	Especially so that it would be accepted thousands of years later - and
>	not brought under scrutiny.
Well, I have a revelation for you!  I don't ascribe Scripture to God.  It
is written by men, not as revelation, but in response to revelation.  That
deosn't lessen the impact of the documents, and certainly eliminates the
arguement you are making.  I believ the documents are authoritatitve, and I
believe their witness.  You don't.  Your free choice.

>>>		of "eyewitness" testimony is this?
>>First of all, the LATEST date of any of the Gospels is aprox 100AD, making
>>it no more than 70 years after.  Early dates for Mark put is around 50, but
>>not much later than 70AD.  So the real range is 20-70 years.  As for
>>eyewitnesses, clearly 'Luke' makes no claim to be an eyewitness, but to

>	What is your point? It is well established, and you have now collabor-
>	ated, that the gospels were not even written at the time the so-called
>	eyewitness "evidence" was accounted! This is the whole point for
>	discrediting this "testimony" that makes up the basis for Christianity!
I don't see how this discredits it in any way.  Let me give you an example
from secular history : Plato's Republic.  Did Socrates tell Plato to write
it all down and make sure he got it right? Etc.  Do you doubt the authority
of that document?  Unless you are prepared to discount all ancient writings
and history, you can't simply discount these.

Think about it for a moment.  Anyone who writes a history book today MUST
rely on other authorities and witnesses.  Deciding WHICH authorities and
witnesses to believe is *THE* bigest problem with writing history texts and
analysis of ancient times.  Do you believe ancient history texts?

>>>		4) They are rife with contradictions and plain mistakes (forj
>>>		example in geographic locations). BTW where is "Calgary"?
>>'Calvary' you mean?  There are alternate sites.  So what?  As for
>>geographic misqueus, this would be easily understood if the authors are who
>>we think they are - John Mark, for example, was writing outside of the
>>area, and had not travelled with Christ.  His Gospel appears to be straight
>>from Peter's preaching.  I doubt he consulted a map when he put together

>	Why make excuses for him? Why not question the inaccuracies? Isn't
>	the authenticity of these documents important to you? If so, how
>	do you authenticate them? (hint: check for evidence outside this
>	book that might collaborate the evidence presented therein, and
>	check for contradictions in the document that might discredit it, or
>	at least shed doubt upon it)
Please realize that I'm not making an excuse, I'm making an explaination.
There is a *HUGE* difference.  Simply getting the geography of the land
wrong (because of the location and education of the writer) doesn't ruin
the message.  As I said, Mark likely composed his Gospel from Peter's
teaching, outside of the area.  It's not an excuse.

>>>		5) The 4 that were included in the "official" Bible are not all
>>>		the accounts we have - the others from Jewish and Egyptian
>>>		sources show an even different account of Jesus's life and
>>>		personality.
>>Yes, there are.  But they were not accepted by the early church.  They are
>>avaiable if you want them.  All 'canon' does is establish a yardstick by
>>which documents are included or excluded from the main collection.  The
>>canon varied over the years, and the Protestant, Roman Catholic and
>>Orthodox bibles all differ in canon.

>	Again, what is your point? Do you personally know these people who
>	decided a thousand years ago, what should be believed and what should
>	be rejected? Can you not choose for yourself? I submit that they
>	accepted that which followed their "party line" and rejected that
>	which might have weakend the case for Christianity. How did they
>	determine what was accurate and what was not? (I know - they were
>	"inspired". Why then does "god" not inspire the legitimate doubters?)
I've read some of the 'Gnostic' Gospels, and looked at the Apocrypha.  As
for those gnostic Gospels, they do deviate from what Paul tells us, and
what the four canonical Gospels say.  Also, the four canonical Gospels have
carried extra weight of authority from the beginning.  As for the
Apocrypha, I'll trust the Pharisees who escaped to Jamnia and constituted
the final canon.  Remember, the Torah & Prophets were accepted long before
this (remember Jesus references to the Law and the Prophets).  I'll defer
to those Jewish scholars who were much closer to the events.

>		If I were forming this religion, I would not have allowed
>	"protestants" in the first place! I would have "smote" them all as
>	I did  in the past. I mean, after all, they are getting WAY off the
>	beaten path! Martin Luther, who started it all - did so out of LUST!
>	Boy, would I have sent him a lightning bolt!
You do not appear to have any clue as to what Martin Luther was all about.
He *DID NOT* wish to start a new religion.  He *DID NOT* wish to leave the
Roman Church.  The dispute that Luther had with the Roman church was over
indulgences (aka Liscenes to Sin).  Luther was outraged and demanded that
the church cease and desist.  The break came because of POLITICAL issues
between the Princes of Germany over The Holy Roman Empire.

Go read some history.  Luther DID NOT want to start a new church.

>>>		6) Why should I accept these accounts as accurate when the Jews
>>>		that were there at the time did not? 
>>Faith...that's the only answer!

>	"faith"? You mean "wanna believe in this". (motivation - eternal bliss)
>	Blind faith, at that. 
If there is proof, there can be no faith.  Then it becomes knowledge.
Believing something because you know it to be true doesn't take any effort.

>	Why not have "faith" in reincarnation? You could come back as a Michael
>	Jackson and make zillions - later BECOMING GOD HIMSELF. I'd rather
>	have faith in this, given a choice!
>	But, I prefer to have faith in those things that are at least somewhat
>	probable.
I have faith in the message of hope and salvation brought by Jesus Christ.
I won't try to *make* you believe.  The Kingdom is not to be established by
the sword, but by the word.  If you chose not to believe and follow Christ,
that is ultimately between you and God.  Whether or not you happen to
believe in Him or not.

>>>		7) There is good reason and evidence to support the fact that
>>>		Paul was indeed the real founder of Christianity and responsible
>>>		for much of the myth and folklore surrounding the real Jesus.

>>Perhaps, but there is no conclusive proof.  Hyam Maccoby built a house of
>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>cards on simple conjecture and some assumptions that are not necesarily
>>true.  I read "The Mythmaker" and found it to be very weak, and would
>>collapse under scrutiny.

>	Yeah, but the fact that Christians believe in a weak source (the
>	Bible, as we know it) as "evidence" for a "god", "son of god"
>	and a person that supposedly rose from the dead *IS NOT WEAK*,
>	and dosen't collapse under scrutiny???? Talk about a house of cards!
The Bible is *NOT* evidence for God, and can't be used that way!  The
Hebrew Scripture did not set out to prove God!  God was simply assumed.
Scripture is a response to God's revelation and his action in this world.
If you are going to criticise, you could at least check out the history,
form and message of the documents.

>	Bottom line: The New Testament was compiled at least 200 years
>	after the fact, with poor documentation, because it was needed to
>	support the formation, of yet, another religion. It contains many
>	contradictions and questionable facts and testimony written way
>	after the recorded events, and yet people base their lives on it.
Bottom line: the collected works of Shakespeare were compiled at least 50
years after the fact, with poor documentation.  That proves nothing!  Who
cares when the compilation was published.  The individual documents were
completed withing 70 years of Christ's death.  You are purposely using the
200AD figurre, which is simply the inital COMPILATION date, not the date of
writings to support your claim.

>	The *only* thing that can compell an otherwise intelligent person,
>	to believe that the evidence contained within the New Testament
>	is an accurate description of "god's" plan for "man's" destiny
>	is "faith" as you stated. This "faith" seems to be a betrayal
>	of logic!
The New Testament cannot stand by itself.  It is informed by the Old
Testament, and the culture that surrounded those who wrote it.  You can't
simply lift the book out of the time it was written, and pretend that since
it doesn't make exact sense today it has to be false.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc