The Evidence War

[chrispalasz]

Please take the time to read this entire post.

This thread is created for posts that:

1. Show evidence supporting the view that Christianity holds the Truth about God and humanity.

2. Show evidence supporting the view that Christianity does not hold the truth about God and humanity.

Evidence posted must be according to one of the two definitions, or it will not be deemed sufficient as evidence. All debate arising from posted evidence should be addressed using counter-evidence [counter-evidence defined as evidence that goes against or attempts to falsify or discredit evidence already posted].

Evidence, on this thread, is defined as follows:

1. Of or having to do with a material object that demonstrates, makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the very fact or point in issue;

2. A matter of record, or writing, or by the testimony of witnesses, enabling one to pronounce with certainty; concerning the truth of any matter in dispute.

[chrispalasz]

Lotan:

Lotan wrote: Just because you hold different beliefs doesn't invalidate my position.

In this discussion? Of course it does. And that's exactly the reason why it does too. Otherwise, there's no point in discussing. I could end the argument with:

All of your arguments come from your Atheistic worldview. Since Atheism is founded off of deceit, and Christianity is the only Truth... then all your arguments are wrong, and all mine are right.

Lotan wrote:
That's the problem, you haven't presented any facts, you've only repeated your opinion that a lot of intelligent, highly educated people are wrong because they disagree with your views regarding the bible.

We're not currently discussing why they're wrong. We're discussing why they can't possibly be RIGHT: because of their biased view. And that's what we've been focusing on. I used the stereotype to explain that they are biased... not to show that they're wrong.

Lotan wrote:That says it all for me. If you don't know the answers to those questions, it's no wonder that you're having difficulties with this subject. Go ahead, correct me...

Why, thank you. I most certainly WILL. By taking what I said and actually putting it into context.

I wrote:
But I would still like to ask: Can a man rape his own wife? Is that possible? In most countries, I think the answer is "no". I'm not sure what the case is in America. In the Bible, marriage marks the ceremony of a man and a woman becoming one flesh. Being one flesh after marriage, can you rape yourself? That would be an interesting case.

Now, is having sexual relations with your wife against her consent wrong? Yes, definately. Is it rape? I don't know.

Why don't you:
A) Show me that it is illegal to have unconsented sexual relations with your wife in countries such as the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Australia.
And then
B) Tell me if it is possible to rape one's self, and if that is also against the Law.

Also, what if your wife is drunk and you have sexual relations? Is that rape too?

Lotan wrote:you're having difficulties with this subject.

I'm not having difficulties with this subject.

Here's something interesting from last post. Let's break it down:

GreenLight311 wrote:
This is blatantly a lie.

Lotan wrote:
True
(See the above post for the context of what this is referring to)

Okay. NOW I'm confused.

Also, this is an interesting contridiction. Let's take a look:

Lotan wrote: Neither are written by anyone with any credentials.
The first one was an apologetic written by some guy named Sam Shamoun who apparently apecializes in answering the polemics of Islamic apologists.

I guess he specializes in the lack of credentials?

Lotan wrote: The second one was from a site by someone named David E. Anderson, a religious writer who also includes a 'humorous' article about Britney Spears and a Veggie Tales script that he wrote ("just for the fun of it"). Are these your idea of "educated sources"?

What am I supposed to conclude by this argument? He has a sense of humor and he likes kids... so obviously he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Lotan wrote: The apologetic for Numbers 31:17-18 is delightfully naive... Why didn't the Israelite soldiers show mercy to the little boys too? Hmm...

Because the female takes the male's name and house. The male does not take the females name and house. That was the custom and belief. If they spared the men, all they would have been doing was disobeying God and housing foreigners and foreign gods. "Hmm..." is right.

Lotan wrote: The texts themselves are pretty clear. One doesn't need to be a bible scholar to understand their intent

My friend, I'm afraid this statement is in vain. You yourself have already proven it false in your own interpretations.

Lotan wrote: but if you want a second opinion here's a page full.

Well... I looked through the ENTIRE website. There was a grand-whopping-total of ONE article regarding a Deuteronomy passage to read! It knocked my socks off.

Here's the description of that article:

Anti-rape legislation is a pressing issue. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 contains what appears to be an ancient form of anti-rape legislation. The author examines the way in which the biblical provision was interpreted by post-biblical commentaries and halakhic sources. The Talmud Yerushalmi and the Talmud Bavli disagree on various issues concerning the captive woman, including the timing and the location of intercourse between the captor and the captive. The Yerushalmi clearly was against the rape of a captive woman at war, while the Bavli was primarily concerned with the threat of theological pollution posed by a foreign woman.
http://de.geocities.com/history_guide/h ... 00147.html

Lotan wrote: If you mean apologetics websites like CARM, then yeah, it doesn't count.

Oh. I see. A Masters degree doesn't count for which of the following reasons: Because he's educated or because he's a Christian?

So, being a Christian can disqualify somebody from a discussion? Essentially what you're saying is, "somebody that threatens my view is disqualified".Well you win. I guess I'm disqualified.

Lotan wrote: At least the author of the EvilBible site doesn't fantasize about Britney Spears (in public)!

Wow. If this is the type of comment your argument is resorting to... we're finished discussing.

Lotan wrote: If it makes you happy to believe that, go ahead. The bible references by themselves, make the case well enough on their own

Well, you're right about that. Unfortunately, that doesn't say much for your argument.

[Lotan]

We're not currently discussing why they're wrong. We're discussing why they can't possibly be RIGHT: because of their biased view.

It's a lot easier to accuse people of bias than to consider that they may have come by their views honestly based on a informed examination of the evidence, isn't it?

Now, is having sexual relations with your wife against her consent wrong? Yes, definately. Is it rape? I don't know.

It is in Canada. As far as I'm concerned, if the woman is not willing (wife or not) it's rape. If a child is involved, it's rape. This is the definition that I'm using. If you wish to refute one of the bible references by redefining the word, please say so.

Okay. NOW I'm confused.

Well, if you're going to selectively quote me out of context like that it's no wonder. Did you learn that from a creationist? I already told you; I used the emoticon because I didn't know another way to post an empty 'quote' field.

I guess he specializes in the lack of credentials?

You really are confused! I clearly said that Shamoun specializes in answering the polemics of Islamic apologists, and that he has no credentials.

What am I supposed to conclude by this argument?

You had such a hard time with the EvilBible site. You asked for "reputable Bible Scolars". Then you quote some apologist with a thing for Britney. If you can't see the hypocrisy (and the humor) then I can't help you.

Well... I looked through the ENTIRE website. There was a grand-whopping-total of ONE article regarding a Deuteronomy passage to read! It knocked my socks off.

Glad to hear it. There's no point in digging up references when you automatically assume the sources are biased.

Oh. I see. A Masters degree doesn't count for which of the following reasons: Because he's educated or because he's a Christian?

Neither of those reasons. It's a Masters of Divinity! That hardly makes him unbiased, don't you think?

Just for fun, what's your take on Zechariah 14:1-2?

[youngborean]

Some would dispute this...

"Although the book of Daniel was supposedly written during the Babylonian Exile by an official of King Nebuchadnezzar, modern scholars date its writing to the second century BCE. The reasons for this include:

1. It is listed in the Writings of the Jewish canon, rather than the Prophets. This indicates that Daniel was written after the collection of prophetic books had been closed (sometime after 300 BCE).

2. Parts of the book (2:4-7:28} were written in Aramaic, which suggests a later date when Aramaic had become the common language.

3. The author of Daniel used Persian and Greek words that would not have been known to residents of Babylon in the 6th century BCE.

4. The book contains numerous historical inaccuracies when dealing with 6th century BCE Babylonian history. Such mistakes would not have been made by an important official in the employ of King Nebuchadneazzar.

5. Daniel is the only book in the Old Testament in which angels are given names (such as Gabriel in 8:16 and 9:21 and Michael in 10:13, 10:21, and 12:1 ). Elsewhere in the Bible, names for angels only appear in the in the Apocrypha and the New Testament.

6. The absence of Daniel's name in the list of Israel's great men in Ecclesiasticus.

7. Nebuchadrezzar is spelled Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel, which is the way the king's name was spelled, under Greek influence, at a later time.

8. In 2:2 the king's wise men are called "Chaldeans". But at the time of Nebuchadrezzar, "Chaldean" would have referred to a nationality. It was only centuries later that this word came to mean sorcerer or astrologer. "

As long as this is cited as “evidence” by some I will try and attempt a point by point response.

1. This point States Modern Jewish Canonization provides evidence for a date for authorship. This cannon was not particularly apparent until well beyond 300 BCE. Therefore, canonization of our modern Jewish does not dictate anything about date of authorship. Let’s look at the closest Non-Christian canonization beliefs. In Baba Bathra 14b (found here http://www.come-and-hear.com/bababathra ... ra_14.html) we read “Hagiographa is Ruth, the Book of Psalms, Job, Prophets, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel and the Scroll of Esther, Ezra and Chronicles.” These books have no indication of a date based reasoning for their canonization. Many of the books are attributed to earlier dates Such as Lamentations which was proposed to be authored by the traditional Jeremiah according to the Rabbi’s also Ecclesiastes written by Hezekiah whom we know from insctriptions was the King in 700 BCE. Therefore, Daniel being included in the Hagiographa has nothing to do with the closing of the Prophetic cannon, but seemed stylistic in nature, since the proposed dates given by the descendents of the redactors includes Books that clearly were thought to have preceded the date of 300 BCE given.
2. This point would have to show that Aramaic was not the colloquial language of 7 Century BCE Babylon. But Hezekiah was proposed to have negotiated in Aramaic. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language we read that Darius’s official decree that Aramaic was the standard language was in 500 BCE. However, “The bureaucrats in Babylon were already using the local dialect of Eastern Aramaic for most of their work, but Darius's edict put Aramaic on firm, united foundations” There is a valid point that the language of Daniel more closely resembles this more standardized language proposed by Darius. However, that could easily be explained that texts containing Old Aramaic were translated into newer Aramaic based on Decrees of Darius. Daniel's clerical successors in Babylon would have been priviy to this decision as well if we are to believe the account of Daniel 6. But assume that what we’re looking at can easily dictate an accurate date of authorship is reducing the complexity of any text, in my opinion.
3. True. If we are to Believe that the Chaldean rule of Nebuchadnezzar, established by his father who conquered part of Assyria and lived next door to Persia was unfamiliar with these languages, and Babylon, a port town with many successive rulers, developed in isolation. But with the constant trade routes going through or to Babylon, I hardly believe it.
4. The vagueness of this statement is impossible to respond to and should not be endorsed by any scholar in isolation.
5. This point is saying that Name-giving of Angels shows a later date then prescribed. Since all the traditions listed have there basis in some early form of Judaism, which subsequently has traditions of Angels by name. These occur at greater frequency in the Babylonian Talmud and not as much in the Jerusalem Talmud. So this point seems to only point to traditions based on regionalism and not a specific date.
6. I don’t see how the theology of the Apocrypha in their decisions about greatness applies, since the previous argument was for the 300 BCE (pre-Ecclesiasticus) date. Also, Ecclesiasticus’s lack of familiarity with the rest of Scripture is evident. However, this point may be valuable in telling with what reverence or familiarity this particular extra-canonical had with Babylonian literature in particular Daniel.
7. This point is again dependent on Greek having no affect on Darius’s Aramaic, which seems difficult, especially after Alexander the Great conquered Babylon, after Xerxes's attempt to take Greece etc.
8. The King himself was a Chaldean, it is only logical that some of his closest counsel would have been Chaldean. But again, the vagueness of this point leaves little room for specific debate.

I believe the problem with this evidence is in its assumptions and the unique traditions of the Book are telling. Most notably, that exterior traditions and the uniqueness of the book can reveal authorship and the date of authorship. Daniel is a unique book that survived a different route than the transmission of all other OT scriptures in that much of it was composed in a language other than Hebrew. This uniqueness provides a different route of transmission than the rest of the scriptures in that it was written in a language that was under a period of heavy flux instituted through Darius. The normal rules of copying and transmission may have significantly changed due to the basic idea that the Scribes of the time were encountering something new, a revered text in a living language.

[richic]

How can you have a discussion about what Jesus may or may not have said if you don't have a reliable source of information on the subject?.

In your own post earlier you referenced Elaine Pagels' "Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas" From the link you provided we have this:

"This Gospel of Thomas -- which may have been written within a few decades after Jesus' death -- apparently circulated freely among Christians for hundreds of years. Then, in 367, Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, declared that it and numerous other "secret illegitimate books" were heretical and therefore should not be included in the official New Testament canon."

Now if you accept Elaine's analysis regarding the dates, that would place his gospel in the first Century in line with the other gospels. After all these contemporaries of Jesus can't live forever. John was the youngest.

Thomas, John, and Matthew were apostles, eyewitnesses to Jesus' work for the 3 years he preached.

Pagels also believes there was some falling out between Thomas and John, but what you find in his gospel are the same parables as in the other gospels so I doubt they copied from each other.

Another interesting reference is Eusebius' Early Christian History written in the 4th Century which provides a geneology of every Christian bishop in every major worship center back to the original apostles. So we have a complete human custody chain of the gospel, oral or written, all the way back to Jesus.

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

Come up with better evidence

If Jesus was not a liar, and was not indeed God, then he had a "divinity complex" which is a recognized form of psycopathology. Its character traits are well known: egotism, narcissism, inflexibility, an inability to creatively relate to others.

But based on the many eyewitness accounts we have of Jesus he did not exhibit any of these traits- in fact, he was the exact opposite. He was wise and good.

So if Jesus was not a liar and he didn't have a divinity complex then we should believe him.

I don't believe the Buddha thought of himself as more than a very enlightened man.

what about lord Ram of hinduism?He said he was god. He was hailed as the exemplar in speaking truth. What about mohammed?What about zoraster?

self claims of being god cannot be a proof. If that is so, anybody who looks convincing become god by claiming to be god.do we have any proof for verifying this claim of his?

[bernee51]

But based on the many eyewitness accounts we have of Jesus he did not exhibit any of these traits-

Many eye witness accounts - you have got to be kidding me.

Name one that is not biblical in origin (and thus suspect)

He was wise and good.

On whose say so - yours?

I don't believe the Buddha thought of himself as more than a very enlightened man.

Actually one is enlightened or not. "Very enlightened" is sort of like "almost unique"

Was Jesus enlightened?

[richic]

what about lord Ram of hinduism?He said he was god. He was hailed as the exemplar in speaking truth. What about mohammed?What about zoraster?

self claims of being god cannot be a proof. If that is so, anybody who looks convincing become god by claiming to be god.do we have any proof for verifying this claim of his?

Mohammad, Confucius, and Buddha we can put in the class of enlightened teachers and there's much we can learn from them but they never claimed to be God, like Jesus. Mohammad in particular was a prophet and although Islam accepts Jesus' as a great teacher they believe his claims of divinity were blasphemous.

I will try to research Ram and Zoraster to understand their claims of divinity.

I don't think by looking convincing you can create a worldwide movement that lasts 2000 years and is as fresh today as it was when it first kicked off.

I think one of the problems we're having with this proof is that some people cannot even accept that Jesus existed, let alone that he was a miracle worker.

From this link[http://www.christianorigins.com/miracles.html] we have the following conclusion regarding the academic consensus on Jesus:

The miracle stories of Jesus originated very early, contained reports not likely to have been created by early Christians, and cohere well with the rest of what we know about Jesus and his ministry. The best explanation for this evidence is that Jesus was known during his life as a miracle worker. The uniqueness of such miracle working adds significant weight to this conclusion and leads us to the further conclusion that the feats of Jesus must have been impressive. Though, as Carrier points out, Jesus lived in a time of superstition and religiosity, his miracles are uniquely attested. No other person of that time period has anything close to the attestation Jesus receives as a miracle worker. Accordingly, even if your philosophical predispositions preclude you from believing that Jesus actually performed miracles that violated the laws of nature, it should be admitted that he performed feats that convinced his contemporaries that he did such deeds.

There are still a few academis out there with the theory that Jesus was a myth, but they are a small minority amongst both liberal and conservative scholars.

So the first step I think is we need to get some consensus that Jesus existed and that he was perceived, at least, to be doing some unusual acts.

[Lotan]

Thomas, John, and Matthew were apostles, eyewitnesses to Jesus' work for the 3 years he preached.

If you say so. However, the question is about whether or not these eyewitnesses were the actual authors of the gospels that bear their names. 'Thomas' was indeed written at about the same time as 'Matthew' or 'John' but there's a big difference between them. 'Thomas wasn't included in the canon. Why? My guess is because he said that if we tried hard enough we could all be just like Jesus! That's quite a contrast with 'John' don't you think?
No doubt, 'Thomas'' gospel contains some of the same parables as the other gospels. Textual evidence shows that the gospels didn't spring fully formed from the minds of their authors, but were the framework for the collections of earlier, well known traditions. The trick (in any search for a 'historical' Jesus) is to determine which of these traditions may actually reflect real events or sayings from Jesus' life.
A good discussion about the authorship of 'John' can be found here. Let me know what you think of it.
To further complicate matters, the gospel of John that we have today, ain't what it used to be...

From A Historical Introduction to the New Testament by Robert M. Grant
"Interpolations and Sources
Especially in the twentieth century, scholars have pointed to difficulties in the Gospel of John which suggest that (1) it is not in order as it stands, (2) it has been interpolated by an editor, and (3) either the editor or the author made use of earlier sources which can be detected. It need hardly be said that such theories are not altogether new. Origen was well aware of some of the difficulties, and he used them to support his claim that the evangelist was concerned with spiritual truths rather than with historical events. The modern goal, however, is usually to give a literary-historical explanation of the phenomena.
(1) Proof that the Gospel is not in order is provided quite tellingly by Rudolf Bultmann.(Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart [ed. 3, 1959], III, 840-1.) (a) According to John 6:1, ‘after this Jesus went away to the other side of the sea of Galilee’; but according to the preceding chapter he was in Jerusalem. If chapter 5 follows chapter 6, everything falls into place. (b) Similarly, John 7:15-24 is incomprehensible in its present location; it belongs with the discussion in chapter 5, perhaps at the end; and in this case 7:1-14 goes with 7:25ff. (c) John 10:19-21 must be the ending of a longer section dealing with opening the eyes of a blind man; it therefore goes with chapter 9, while 10:1-18 goes with 10:27-9. (d) John 12:44-50 has no relation to its context; it too goes with chapter 9. (e) Something is wrong with the order of John 13-17, for 14:30-1 leads directly to the passion narrative (‘arise, let us go hence’) although three chapters of discourses follow. Chapters 15-17 must therefore originally have preceded chapter 14 (or, rather, 13:36-14:31).
If these points be granted -- and it is difficult to deny their force -- we must admit that the Gospel has been disarranged. The only question that remains is concerned with the extent of the disarrangement."

The bottom line is that we don't have a reliable source of information about Jesus, so we can't reasonably argue about such things as whether or not he lied, etc.
Oh yeah, what about the "This generation shall not pass away..." stuff? Wasn't that a bit of a fib?

[Arch]

We're not currently discussing why they're wrong. We're discussing why they can't possibly be RIGHT: because of their biased view.

It's a lot easier to accuse people of bias than to consider that they may have come by their views honestly based on a informed examination of the evidence, isn't it?

This thread was supposed to be about evidence of whether or not the bible is inerrant. I can see why it has gone where is now, because no one could deal with the facts presenting showing hte bible is full of errors.

Now, is having sexual relations with your wife against her consent wrong? Yes, definately. Is it rape? I don't know.

It is in Canada. As far as I'm concerned, if the woman is not willing (wife or not) it's rape. If a child is involved, it's rape. This is the definition that I'm using. If you wish to refute one of the bible references by redefining the word, please say so.

The funny thing about greenlights stance on this rape issue is that the verse he was responding to wasn't speaking of a man raping his wife. It clearly states a man finding an unmarried woman in the fields and raping her.

Okay. NOW I'm confused.

Well, if you're going to selectively quote me out of context like that it's no wonder. Did you learn that from a creationist? I already told you; I used the emoticon because I didn't know another way to post an empty 'quote' field.

He does this a lot, its very annoying and unproductive. I feel if you can't address what a person has said don't try to misrepresent what they have said to try to make your point seem more righteous. Such antics show a lack of integrity.

Well... I looked through the ENTIRE website. There was a grand-whopping-total of ONE article regarding a Deuteronomy passage to read! It knocked my socks off.

Glad to hear it. There's no point in digging up references when you automatically assume the sources are biased.

The point is that the verse speak for themselves there is no need for an article on them in the first place.

These discussion always take a ill turn, when individuals find themselves in what should be a familiar position of not being able to defend their religion logically and factually. This to me should be on no supreise to those attempting to prove that which incapable of being proving.

Simply put belief is not fact PERIOD. If you could prove your religion it would no longer require your faith.

What does the bible say faith is?

[richic]

If you say so. However, the question is about whether or not these eyewitnesses were the actual authors of the gospels that bear their names. 'Thomas' was indeed written at about the same time as 'Matthew' or 'John' but there's a big difference between them. 'Thomas wasn't included in the canon. Why? My guess is because he said that if we tried hard enough we could all be just like Jesus! That's quite a contrast with 'John' don't you think?
No doubt, 'Thomas'' gospel contains some of the same parables as the other gospels. Textual evidence shows that the gospels didn't spring fully formed from the minds of their authors, but were the framework for the collections of earlier, well known traditions. The trick (in any search for a 'historical' Jesus) is to determine which of these traditions may actually reflect real events or sayings from Jesus' life.

You are right about the gospels not springing forth from the individual minds. From what I've read, Mark was a reference and also a collection of sayings called Q. As a Christian I found Thomas' writings to reinforce my belief even though left out of the canon. I don't know why it was left out of the canon, but don't immediately jump to the conclusion that it was for nefarious reasons.
I don't have a problem with Thomas' reference to people becoming like Jesus. Jesus is our model of behavior. What's weird in Thomas is he says women must become men to get into heaven.

The bottom line is that we don't have a reliable source of information about Jesus, so we can't reasonably argue about such things as whether or not he lied, etc.
Oh yeah, what about the "This generation shall not pass away..." stuff? Wasn't that a bit of a fib?

Don't give up yet. First I would like to substantiate that Jesus existed and was considered a miracle worker by believers and non-believers. This is referenced by Jewish historian Josephus who also wrote of the disciple Jesus brother James' execution. Scholarly consensus accepts Josephus' reference to Jesus and James. There is some interpolation found in the Jesus reference, but after eliminating the obvious interpolation, the scholars accept the passage that speaks of Jesus' existence, that he was considered a miracle worker, and he had a following that continued after his death.