Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Religion, Politics and World Events
Reload this Page >

Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Old 08-01-13, 12:21 PM
  #201  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 27,397
Received 159 Likes on 110 Posts
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
So that you know, I do truly enjoy this.


Absolutely it could be. Could it not be for that very reason that there is motivation to try to mold things into a history where Jesus, the person, didn't even exist?
Um, yeah?

The larger points are though, that some really do simply care about the history. And while you, and many others, often bring up the belief that no other ancient historical figure is subjected to the same level of scrutiny, the reality to me, and many others, is historians have been far more forgiving regarding the historical jesus, and have not applied the same rigorous standards and methodology, at least across the board. Further, there is absolutely no need to scrutinize socrates or Siddhārtha Gautama; they are completely irrelevant and it is disingenuous to point to them and other similar characters as examples of unfair treatment of the historical jesus (HJ).

More importantly, this whole type of of argument is nothing but deflection. The HJ stands on his own or it doesn't. The existence of Caesar has no bearing, despite there supposedly being less evidence for him being a favorite of Christians. (I strongly disagree, but again, it is irrelevant.).


Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
That's Dan Brown stuff. Makes for interesting fiction, but it doesn't hold up to scholarship. All the books were around (with the likely exception of Revelation) by the end of the first century, which is a lot different than the 4th. Even the most liberal views would have them no later than the 2nd century, and that is a minority view. The earliest papyrus fragments are from about 150 AD and no one thinks those are originals.

You aren't really saying that the books of the NT date to around the 4th century, are you? I've written a lot about that, and I suppose I could dig those up if you'd like, but I'll bet you've seen them.
I don't believe I ever said that, have I? I accept that the majority of the NT was originally written between 60 and 150 CE, with the occasional exception, such as Hebrews.

My question to you is, given your response, do you seriously doubt the age of the extant copies of the books of the NT? Do you likewise doubt that redactions, edits, and additions were made, and made by "church" authorities?

None of which addresses the central point that there need not be a conspiracy for there not to have been a HJ.



Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
If I sound that way it is because I've had this discussion before. It "stretches" the evidence far too much. It will take what is said and then stretches to find "what isn't said" to try to make a coherent point. It is what YEC do.

One of the things that really helped bring home the idea that YEC was really silly was the fact that I simply didn't see the Jews having the same debate. They have as much, or more, interest in the subject since it all stems from the OT. The Jews have/had as much or more interest in showing that Jesus never existed than any other group. And you simply do not see that discussion in history. That boggles the mind that if Jesus didn't exist, you don't see that written or discussed by Jews of the time. Blows me away.
What blows me away is that it was the lack of a conversation by Jews regarding YEC that finally made you accept its silliness. For me, it was geology, chemistry, and physics. I know you now have reconciled these with your religious beliefs, but it is still baffling. Likewise, I want to apply some of those same principles to the discussion of a HJ, at least as the best we can.

I don't really understand why you place so much emphasis on there being a lack of Jewish conversation on the HJ. It appears to me that you are ascribing a greater prevalence and prominence to early Christianity than what actually existed in the first century and beginning of the second, particularly prior to the of Jerusalem. If, as evidence suggests, it was a minor fringe sect and one of many, why would they? It really wouldn't have been an issue until at least the third century, and by then why would they?


Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
This is more Dan Brown type of stuff. Christianity was founded by Jews. It was a pretty big debate. It wasn't until Paul came around that they actually started to spread to the Gentiles (as well as Peter on the day of Pentecost).

But, for shits and giggles, what is it about Christianity that you think Hellenistic Gentiles would be sympathetic towards? At least in the writings of the Bible, there didn't seem to be much sympathy, and Paul works his ass off to keep it out when it does try to creep into the church in Corinth, etc.
That is quite a bit of circular logic there. We are questioning the veracity of the bible, especially the gospels, as it pertains the the HJ, and you reference what is in the bible as evidence.

Now for an honest question, weren't most of Paul's epistles and the first two gospels written for an "international" audience, at least according to conventional wisdom?

Related, we know that there was a fairly large number of peoples/groups who were sympathetic to second temple Judaism and were gentile practitioners, though not adhering to Mosaic law. We also know that the idea of an imminent messiah was gaining steam, both among these groups and elsewhere throughout the Hellenistic world. How is that audience not receptive to Paul's message?


Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
As I said, we do have the advantage of more people to work on it. But again, it wasn't like you didn't have people studying all of the books of the bible since it came into being. It makes me very suspicious. If something came out about George Washington, or any older king of England, or other historical person, and the bulk of the evidence was all evidence from silence when that theory comes about not decades after the life/death of that person, but hundreds of years, wouldn't you be a bit suspicious? Especially when there are people, and have been people, much greater in number, who have devoted their lives to scholarship on the subject....including so many that don't believe any of the claims or the religious aspects of it? That absolutely pushes credulity beyond what unbiased people should accept.

Take the evidence for the actual existence of Buddha. What evidence do you see that he existed? We're talking about 400 years before Jesus. We're talking less contemporaries actually writing about him, and not nearly as close to his life. Why is that not the subject of this same topic? Again, it stretches credulity. Find another historical figure from ancient times with more proof of their actual existence that would stand up to this same type of scrutiny of "evidence from silence."
Touched on a bit already up above.



Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
When crucified, will you see it as important as the crucifixion of Ehman? Or will suddenly the 1 out of 100 historians mean more than the other 99?

This is just another flavor of the month idea. And like all the others, we've gone over them in ancient threads before.
You can be dismissive out of hand if you like. I will try not to, but if Carrier's work is filled with faulty scholarship, bad science, and factual errors, I will indeed feel the same as I do about Ehrman's work. I don't dismiss Ehrman's book because I disagree, but because of the shoddy mistake filled nature.

Also forgive me if the application of Bayesian Reasoning to the HJ question has been discussed here before and I missed it. Perhaps it too will be a "flavor of the month", but we shouldn't fall victim to appeals to popularity; those 99 just might have all been wrong.
Old 08-01-13, 12:32 PM
  #202  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,315
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 10 Posts
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Originally Posted by taffer View Post
Because irrigation was primitive, ancient cities were almost always built on or near large rivers. The close proximity to water would mean that floods were a very common occurrence in ancient history.
That doesn't explain why the stories share common elements with the Biblical account like God destroying the earth and a righteous family building a boat, a dove being sent out etc.....
Old 08-01-13, 01:34 PM
  #203  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 39,426
Received 736 Likes on 468 Posts
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Originally Posted by dvdjunkie32 View Post
That doesn't explain why the stories share common elements with the Biblical account like God destroying the earth and a righteous family building a boat, a dove being sent out etc.....
How about the writers of the Bible heard the same story that everyone else did and wrote it into their book? That's a much easier explanation than the existence of an Ark that could absolutely not be built.
Old 08-01-13, 01:38 PM
  #204  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: frass canyon
Posts: 16,249
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

dvdjunkie32 - how many hours after the creation of earth did humans appear?
Old 08-01-13, 02:04 PM
  #205  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

The thing I never got about the Noah story is that God is dismayed by how wicked people are, but this is before he makes a pact with Abraham, and before he gives the laws to Moses, so how the hell are people supposed to know that God exists and how he wants them to act?

Also, to answer moviefan's question, "Is God capable of murder?", I assume the real question is that if God creates life, is it wrong for him to take that life back. And the answer is obviously yes. If I were capable of creating life independent of natural processes, let's go the Victor Frankenstein route and say I can create a creature by re-animating dead tissues, once I create that being, it's alive and I can't just arbitrarily kill it because it's not acting the way I want or it's inconvenient.
Old 08-01-13, 02:04 PM
  #206  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Even if Jesus existed, from what I've read, the original text didn't say he was born of a virgin but that Mary was a 'young woman' and it was mistranslated into Greek..from what I recall. So, if he existed, he was just some dude, not the Messiah. Guess we're still waiting.
Old 08-01-13, 02:14 PM
  #207  
Enormous Genitals
 
Bandoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a small cottage on a cul de sac in the lower pits of hell.
Posts: 35,561
Received 330 Likes on 203 Posts
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Originally Posted by Shady12 View Post
Even if Jesus existed, from what I've read, the original text didn't say he was born of a virgin but that Mary was a 'young woman' and it was mistranslated into Greek..from what I recall. So, if he existed, he was just some dude, not the Messiah. Guess we're still waiting.

Old 08-01-13, 02:20 PM
  #208  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Life of Brian is probably the most accurate depiction of life in Israel under Roman rule.
Old 08-01-13, 02:25 PM
  #209  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Originally Posted by Supermallet View Post
The thing I never got about the Noah story is that God is dismayed by how wicked people are, but this is before he makes a pact with Abraham, and before he gives the laws to Moses, so how the hell are people supposed to know that God exists and how he wants them to act?
God's not cruel; He interacted with people to let them know what He was like. Noah became the main mouthpiece for the area where he was building the Ark, but no one listened...and they paid for it with their lives.

Also, to answer moviefan's question, "Is God capable of murder?", I assume the real question is that if God creates life, is it wrong for him to take that life back. And the answer is obviously yes. If I were capable of creating life independent of natural processes, let's go the Victor Frankenstein route and say I can create a creature by re-animating dead tissues, once I create that being, it's alive and I can't just arbitrarily kill it because it's not acting the way I want or it's inconvenient.
Your analogy has one problem: you didn't create the original lives later used to build your reconstructed being. If God is the Creator of all life, spiritual and natural, then He's perfectly within His rights to take it back at any point, for whatever reason. That's wrong for us because we didn't create life.

Originally Posted by taffer View Post
So you believe that despite the lack of modern medicine and sanitation, people somehow lived longer in ancient times than they do today?
We don't know a lot about the pre-Flood world, but there's evidence to suggest some cultures had things similar to our own inventions today.

You think wood isn't going to rot in a 100 year timespan? The wood they had used at the beginning would have rotted away before they finished this 100 year long project.
Not necessarily. Gd told them to coat the whole Ark with a tar-like substance called pitch, which would make it waterproof and also protect against rot.

So you believe dragons aren't fictional? What about goblins and elves? Are they real too?
I think many legends have their roots in historical truth. The level of disparity from history varies, according to numerous factors.

Originally Posted by solipsta View Post
So how often do you get to spend face to face time with them?
Not as much as I'd like. One of my friends recently put a hold on our communication, after I said I think he should stand up to his taskmaster of a father. My comments were harsh, but he seems so miserable, and I just wanted to help. I apologized, but he still wants some distance for now.

No interest in traveling overseas? Being in another country (and no, not Canada) is an eye opening experience.
With all the politics constantly changing, I'm worried about being stranded somewhere like Tom Hanks in "The Terminal"...or worse, ending up in jail.

So you were an atheist for a long time?
I don't think I could ever claim a total lack of belief in God, but I walked away from Him for a long time in my teens. It took tons of personal pain to make me realize how much I need Him, even though trusting Him isn't always easy.

And it sounds like you had faith, but needed more than the Bible to...strengthen your faith? Let you accept your faith? You needed evidence to have faith? I'm not quite understanding why you needed more than the Bible and your relationship with Jesus.
I think Frank Turek says it best, in this short clip...

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mWwEI-ky6uI?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BTW, thank you for answering the questions.
You're welcome.
Old 08-01-13, 02:27 PM
  #210  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Originally Posted by Shady12 View Post
Even if Jesus existed, from what I've read, the original text didn't say he was born of a virgin but that Mary was a 'young woman' and it was mistranslated into Greek..from what I recall. So, if he existed, he was just some dude, not the Messiah. Guess we're still waiting.
We still have Mary's admission to Gabriel, saying she'd never been intimate with a man (the word "know" was synonymous with that in Biblical times).
Old 08-01-13, 02:30 PM
  #211  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Originally Posted by dvdjunkie32 View Post
Gilgamesh only proves that someone wrote down a flood account before the oral traditions of the Bible were finally commited to written form. I could easily say Gilgamesh stole from the Noah story.

And to this date, no one has ever given me a satisfactory answer to explain why there are flood stories in numerous ancient civilizations all over the world all sharing specific details common with the Biblical account.
Seriously? You can't think of an easy answer for that question? That'd be like me saying that our Sun is really God because so many different cultures had a sun god. Or how about we each are born with an animal spirit?

What about all the ancient cultures that didn't have a flood myth? Did you count those and did some math and figured out that the flood myth must be real because it was a bigger number?

I'll give you a hint if you are still stumped. Native American cultures that lived along the coast of near major water sources have flood stories while the tribes that lived far inland do not.

Let me now ask a question and see if their is a creationist answer for it. Explain how records from Egypt and China carry right through the Biblical Flood period without A) Being killed off, B) Even noticing it.

How about how geologists around the world having no trouble determining when major flooding occurred historically, yet they all seem to miss the greatest flood of all time.

I also love how creationists love to toss out scientific words like tectonic plate shifting, and yet ignore the fact that the experts in tectonic shifting do not agree with the claims creationists make at all. Or use the knowledge that geologists have discovered and studied deep wells of water, but ignore the fact that those same experts say the flood water receding at that level is impossible. So, "Catastrophic plate tectonics theory" has virtually zero evidence for it, and a mountain (haha) of evidence against it. Conventional plate tectonics theory instead fits with what we understand of the known universe in science and happens to cross over and fit through multiple disciplines of study.

It's a lot like knowing enough about anatomy to parrot the names of our internal organs, but then assign them ridiculous uses (Our heart carries our soul and feeling emotions, our brain is is good for math and logic, our spleen filters our negative energy and influences karma) and call it science.
Old 08-01-13, 02:32 PM
  #212  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,190
Received 8 Likes on 5 Posts
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Originally Posted by Shady12 View Post
Even if Jesus existed, from what I've read, the original text didn't say he was born of a virgin but that Mary was a 'young woman' and it was mistranslated into Greek..from what I recall. So, if he existed, he was just some dude, not the Messiah. Guess we're still waiting.
If it was mistranslated into Greek from the Hebrew, why wasn't it corrected in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) when it was made around 200 years before the birth of Jesus? The Hebrew word has several possible meanings including virgin. If it was an inaccurate translation, it would have been fixed long before Jesus came around.

Does that make sense?
Old 08-01-13, 02:43 PM
  #213  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Llama School
Posts: 6,538
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Originally Posted by moviefan2k4 View Post
We still have Mary's admission to Gabriel, saying she'd never been intimate with a man (the word "know" was synonymous with that in Biblical times).
She certainly wouldn't have been the first woman to lie.
Old 08-01-13, 02:44 PM
  #214  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Originally Posted by moviefan2k4 View Post
We don't know a lot about the pre-Flood world, but there's evidence to suggest some cultures had things similar to our own inventions today.

Not necessarily. Gd told them to coat the whole Ark with a tar-like substance called pitch, which would make it waterproof and also protect against rot.
We know a lot of the pre-flood world, you do not. And if you go on about lost ancient technology (that was like ours, but was lost), evidence it will cement the idea that you do not fully understand what the word "evidence" means.

And they did not use pitch like that. What they did back then was dip bits of cloth in pitch and stuffed it between boards. This of it like sealing cracks in a bathtub.
Old 08-01-13, 02:53 PM
  #215  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: frass canyon
Posts: 16,249
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Originally Posted by RoyalTea View Post
dvdjunkie32 - how many hours after the creation of earth did humans appear?
It was the sixth day, right? So between 144 hours and 168 hours before Adam, there was no Earth, right?
Old 08-01-13, 02:56 PM
  #216  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Originally Posted by Lt Ripley View Post
She certainly wouldn't have been the first woman to lie.
True, but the angel would've known, just as God did. The Greeks described Mary with the word "parthenos", a reference to Athena, whom they regarded as a virgin.
Old 08-01-13, 02:58 PM
  #217  
DVD Talk Legend
 
cungar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 22,872
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 9 Posts
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Originally Posted by moviefan2k4 View Post
We still have Mary's admission to Gabriel, saying she'd never been intimate with a man (the word "know" was synonymous with that in Biblical times).
Yeah well she wasn't the first or last to lie about that.
Old 08-01-13, 03:08 PM
  #218  
DVD Talk Legend
 
DaveyJoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 19,265
Received 135 Likes on 97 Posts
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Originally Posted by cungar View Post
Yeah well she wasn't the first or last to lie about that.
Maybe she was born-again.
Old 08-01-13, 03:10 PM
  #219  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,315
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 10 Posts
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Seriously? You can't think of an easy answer for that question? That'd be like me saying that our Sun is really God because so many different cultures had a sun god. Or how about we each are born with an animal spirit?
You are ignoring the fact that a vast number of these cultures around the world have NUMEROUS elements in common with the Bible story.



In 95 percent of the more than two hundred flood legends, the flood was worldwide; in 88 percent, a certain family was favored; in 70 percent, survival was by means of a boat; in 67 percent, animals were also saved; in 66 percent, the flood was due to the wickedness of man; in 66 percent, the survivors had been forewarned; in 57 percent, they ended up on a mountain; in 35 percent, birds were sent out from the boat; and in 9 percent, exactly eight people were spared (p. 168).


http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...y=9&article=64


That's a bit too coincidental for me.
Old 08-01-13, 03:11 PM
  #220  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Originally Posted by moviefan2k4 View Post
God's not cruel; He interacted with people to let them know what He was like. Noah became the main mouthpiece for the area where he was building the Ark, but no one listened...and they paid for it with their lives.
So, if I said to you today: "Moviefan! I come to warn you of a great tragedy. The dread Cthulhu is going to rise from his watery tomb on R'yleh to consume all that walks upon the earth! You must build a great space ship to send Earth life into the stars to escape this vile fate!" and you didn't listen to me, it would be your fault if I happened to be right?

Originally Posted by moviefan2k4 View Post
Your analogy has one problem: you didn't create the original lives later used to build your reconstructed being. If God is the Creator of all life, spiritual and natural, then He's perfectly within His rights to take it back at any point, for whatever reason. That's wrong for us because we didn't create life.
I don't understand that. If I make a work of art, and it gets put in a museum, am I within my rights to have it destroyed later? Creating something does not give you control over the creation for all of existence. The basic logic fails for me on that one.

Originally Posted by moviefan2k4 View Post
I think many legends have their roots in historical truth. The level of disparity from history varies, according to numerous factors.
The only factor I can see here is how badly you want to believe in it.
Old 08-01-13, 03:12 PM
  #221  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mrs. Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: With Nick Danger
Posts: 19,201
Received 564 Likes on 321 Posts
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Originally Posted by moviefan2k4 View Post
God's not cruel; He interacted with people to let them know what He was like. Noah became the main mouthpiece for the area where he was building the Ark, but no one listened...and they paid for it with their lives.
Well, why didn't he tell them directly, instead of through the neighborhood drunk?

You would think he would understand his own creations. Sheesh!
Old 08-01-13, 03:14 PM
  #222  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mrs. Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: With Nick Danger
Posts: 19,201
Received 564 Likes on 321 Posts
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

BTW, that's not the Voice of God. It's just a temporal lobe seizure.
Old 08-01-13, 03:27 PM
  #223  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,190
Received 8 Likes on 5 Posts
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Originally Posted by Pharoh View Post
Um, yeah?

The larger points are though, that some really do simply care about the history. And while you, and many others, often bring up the belief that no other ancient historical figure is subjected to the same level of scrutiny, the reality to me, and many others, is historians have been far more forgiving regarding the historical jesus, and have not applied the same rigorous standards and methodology, at least across the board. Further, there is absolutely no need to scrutinize socrates or Siddhārtha Gautama; they are completely irrelevant and it is disingenuous to point to them and other similar characters as examples of unfair treatment of the historical jesus (HJ).

More importantly, this whole type of of argument is nothing but deflection. The HJ stands on his own or it doesn't. The existence of Caesar has no bearing, despite there supposedly being less evidence for him being a favorite of Christians. (I strongly disagree, but again, it is irrelevant.).
I simply disagree with you on this. Let's be honest, if there is a HJ, you won't suddenly become a believer. You will just believe he was some dude, like many other dudes. The research that is being done is being done by people in exactly the same point. If the HJ is real, they don't become believers. To all of them, this is just like Caesar or anyone else. Just another dude. But they do not treat it as such.

And I think all of that discussion is important to have because it shows motivation and bias. That can obviously be peer reviewed, so it isn't the end of the world. But ultimately with something like this, proving the HJ existed or not will ultimately be like proving whether God is real. There simply won't be a way to definitively prove HJ didn't exist. Just as, I suppose, one can't definitely prove he did. But I think the bulk of the evidence will be obvious to most unbiased people.

And keep in mind, I have (hopefully) made it clear that I don't care. If HJ never existed, I will be shocked, surprised, etc., but my faith will remain.

I don't believe I ever said that, have I? I accept that the majority of the NT was originally written between 60 and 150 CE, with the occasional exception, such as Hebrews.

My question to you is, given your response, do you seriously doubt the age of the extant copies of the books of the NT? Do you likewise doubt that redactions, edits, and additions were made, and made by "church" authorities?
Actually, that is a great reasons to read Misquoting Jesus. There are lots of changes. 99.9% of the variants are not some malicious thing, though. And I believe (based on the research) that the actual number of the beast is 616. But it isn't like we don't have a dearth of manuscripts, books outside the Bible, etc. to make pretty short work of what it actually says. you could rebuild the NT just using church father's writings on the subject. Those are not so incredibly far removed from the originals. Tertullian lived from 160-220. Lots of guys around during that time wrote about it. Those are good sources used to reconstruct the entire thing.


None of which addresses the central point that there need not be a conspiracy for there not to have been a HJ.
I'm not saying there IS a conspiracy. I'm saying that the thinking is very much like conspiratorial thinking. The "evidence from silence" thing strikes me that way, most definitely.

What blows me away is that it was the lack of a conversation by Jews regarding YEC that finally made you accept its silliness. For me, it was geology, chemistry, and physics. I know you now have reconciled these with your religious beliefs, but it is still baffling. Likewise, I want to apply some of those same principles to the discussion of a HJ, at least as the best we can.
"Helped bring home the idea" is a lot different from "finally made me accept." I obviously had some doubts. But it is a weird thing that I would not expect many to understand. Very "cult" like, but that doesn't quite describe it. It is the same allure as the "no HJ" has for some people, or many conspiracies have for others. It is the idea that you are one of the very few who see this and what morons everyone else is (that is too strong, but hopefully gets the point across). It is a bit intoxicating, to be honest. And it isn't like I believed it for long. The fact that Jews did not have that conversation made me sit back and say, "how important could this issue really be? They don't seem to care. Yet the YEC seem to thing this is the lynchpin to everything."

I don't really understand why you place so much emphasis on there being a lack of Jewish conversation on the HJ. It appears to me that you are ascribing a greater prevalence and prominence to early Christianity than what actually existed in the first century and beginning of the second, particularly prior to the of Jerusalem. If, as evidence suggests, it was a minor fringe sect and one of many, why would they? It really wouldn't have been an issue until at least the third century, and by then why would they?
Many Jewish people see Christianity (rightly so, from their perspective) as blasphemy, stealing their religion, hijacking it, etc. I think because they have had a pretty tough heritage most have learned to say things like, "I think he was a great teacher, a good man, etc." instead of saying those things, but it is there. And they are great scholars. Don't kid yourself on that. They really are when it comes to their writings, etc. It was as big a deal 100 years AD as in 400 AD, as in the 1800s. Nobody had greater motivation to show that HJ never existed than they did at every point in history, did they?

That is quite a bit of circular logic there. We are questioning the veracity of the bible, especially the gospels, as it pertains the the HJ, and you reference what is in the bible as evidence.
Always a tough subject. If a book was deemed to be verifiable, etc. and about Jesus, and from the right time, it was made part of the Bible. But you can't use those texts to prove anything because they are part of a religious text called the Bible. That is circular logic as well.

Now for an honest question, weren't most of Paul's epistles and the first two gospels written for an "international" audience, at least according to conventional wisdom?
I suppose it depends on which ones you are talking about. Most of Paul's either written to churches or individuals. Corinthians was not written to all Corinthians, but to the church in Corinth. Timothy, obviously, was written to Timothy. I don't there was concern about them being seen by an international audience, but they were clearly written to specific people, churches, etc. Unless I misunderstand what you are saying. Otherwise, I'd say the synoptic gospel most written to an international audience was Luke, followed by John, and Matthew and Mark being behind those.

Related, we know that there was a fairly large number of peoples/groups who were sympathetic to second temple Judaism and were gentile practitioners, though not adhering to Mosaic law. We also know that the idea of an imminent messiah was gaining steam, both among these groups and elsewhere throughout the Hellenistic world. How is that audience not receptive to Paul's message?
I suppose they can be as receptive as any, but how receptive are people today about changing religions? And it isn't just "incorporate this into your Hellenistic view" because Paul admonishes them in huge ways when some try to do that. He makes it clear that it is all or nothing. This isn't a part way deal. You don't get to follow Jesus as part of an incorporation into what you already believe.

But beyond that, if Jesus was fictional, if the disciples didn't really ever see/meet/hang with Jesus, Paul must not have known that he was in on the gag. He is pretty clear about also saying, "hey, you don't have to take my word for it. Many of these disciple dudes are still alive, so go ask them. Others that saw Jesus are also still alive, so go ask them. Many saw the great works and are still alive, so go ask them. Hey, this is his brother James, ask him." It seems pretty obvious that of the "brothers of Jesus" that James was the only one that actually believed Jesus to be the Messiah, but you don't see things like reference to James being the only brother who actually believed he even had a brother named Jesus.

You can be dismissive out of hand if you like. I will try not to, but if Carrier's work is filled with faulty scholarship, bad science, and factual errors, I will indeed feel the same as I do about Ehrman's work. I don't dismiss Ehrman's book because I disagree, but because of the shoddy mistake filled nature.

Also forgive me if the application of Bayesian Reasoning to the HJ question has been discussed here before and I missed it. Perhaps it too will be a "flavor of the month", but we shouldn't fall victim to appeals to popularity; those 99 just might have all been wrong.
I don't think Carrier's work will be shoddy. But I also don't think Ehrman's work is either. And aside from those on the "Jesus didn't exist" crowd, I don't see any peers that think Ehrman did shoddy work either. Rather, I think Carrier will spin a little tale that doesn't have a whole lot of real evidence in it, he will stretch what he has, and he will work in the "evidence from silence" angle to such a degree than any other researcher would be laughed at in any other subject. But the faithful will certainly enjoy and praise it.

Super busy today, so I don't know if I'll get back into this conversation. Getting ready to head to Vegas for a few days, and life is hectic.
Old 08-01-13, 03:30 PM
  #224  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Originally Posted by dvdjunkie32 View Post
You are ignoring the fact that a vast number of these cultures around the world have NUMEROUS elements in common with the Bible story.




http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...y=9&article=64


That's a bit too coincidental for me.
This reminds me that pretty much everything in the bible appears in myths previously throughout the region. Makes it seem more likely that it's not true than it's coincidental that it's almost a copy from many, many other stories.
Old 08-01-13, 03:33 PM
  #225  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Consequences of Adam and Eve, the Flood, et. al.

Originally Posted by moviefan2k4 View Post
I think Frank Turek says it best, in this short clip...

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mWwEI-ky6uI?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So what IS his non-bible based evidence for the truth of Christianity?

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.