Page 2 of 2

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 6:29 pm
by August
I am not saying that- I am saying one gospel quotes him saying "I am" whereas another quotes him saying "You said I am". Only one of these can be true (fair assumption surely?) and therefore it is a contradiction for the Bible to claim both.
I have explained this a few times now, and I think you are being intentionally intellectually dishonest. Please explain logically how those two are contradictory. Have you never said, or heard someone say:'You said it.", in confirming the affirmative when the answer is already contained in the question? This is exactly the same.
I don't accept much by simply being told it- normally firstly I need ity explained and then I need to be able to understand it myself- if there are witnesses who I feel I can trust and would not gain anything from lying I will probably accept it.
You did not answer my question, what would constitute proof to you? Is it understanding? What does understanding mean to you? How do you who to trust? How do you know when people are lying?
I only trust people from 2000 years ago writing about Jesus as much as I trust people nowadays writing about seeing ghosts- I don't see why people approach the 2 things differently.
So you what needs to be present in an account for you to believe it?

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:26 am
by bcrazy
I have explained this a few times now, and I think you are being intentionally intellectually dishonest. Please explain logically how those two are contradictory. Have you never said, or heard someone say:'You said it.", in confirming the affirmative when the answer is already contained in the question? This is exactly the same.

Sorry, I'm not just doing this for arguments sake- in my interpretation of Jesus saying "You have said it" I don't see it as affirming the statement in any way. People do occasionally say "You said it" as affirming something but from my experience it isn't as a reply to a question such as that.
You did not answer my question, what would constitute proof to you? Is it understanding? What does understanding mean to you? How do you who to trust? How do you know when people are lying?
I suppose you could put me down as a "doubting Thomas"- seeing it with my own eyes would normally constitute proof but I would also generally happily rely on others I know who saw it themselves and passed on the information. In the case of the Bible I can either put trust in people I don't know from 2000 years ago and who in my opinion had something to gain from saying the things they did or may have been misled or I can put my trust in others I know who believe in the Bible. However, they only have access to the same information as me so I'm not going to value their judgement more. Perhaps you could tell me the difference between the trustworthiness of a group of people who wrote the Bible and a group of people who write about having seen ghosts- why believe one and not the other?

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 12:03 pm
by jerickson314
bcrazy wrote:Perhaps you could tell me the difference between the trustworthiness of a group of people who wrote the Bible and a group of people who write about having seen ghosts- why believe one and not the other?
See here. If you want to say that people who have written about ghosts were the same way, offer some actual support.

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:56 pm
by bcrazy
Sorry, couldn't force myself to read all of it- so ridiculously biased, but oh wait, according to that bias isn't a bad thing. Ignoring the fact it stops you being able to make a fully educated decision that is...
It argues contradictions help verify its true, it argues similarities help verify its true- whatever was in the Bible this author would argue helped verify the truth.
Also, apparently because the gospel writers didn't take every possible opportunity to manipulate what was said this implies none of it can be manipulated- the author ignores the possibility a line had to be drawn somewhere between fact and fiction and decides if the gospel writers were not going to write 100% truth then they would have written 100% fiction.

Finally, although I'm returning to the bias point, the author deflects the criticism from the Bible by stating "this is HOW ALL HISTORY IS WRITTEN". Indeed...and that is why no historical document can be trusted explicitly!

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 2:17 pm
by jerickson314
bcrazy wrote:Sorry, couldn't force myself to read all of it- so ridiculously biased, but oh wait, according to that bias isn't a bad thing.
That's not what it said at all. It simply pointed out that arguments will have a bias behind them, no matter what. That bias does not prove someting false. You are burning a straw man here.
bcrazy wrote:Ignoring the fact it stops you being able to make a fully educated decision that is...
Huh?
bcrazy wrote:It argues contradictions help verify its true, it argues similarities help verify its true- whatever was in the Bible this author would argue helped verify the truth.
You know, he does offer explanations of why these would be so. In a nutshell, similarities show the common story while differences show that they aren't just collaborating to write fiction.
bcrazy wrote:Also, apparently because the gospel writers didn't take every possible opportunity to manipulate what was said this implies none of it can be manipulated- the author ignores the possibility a line had to be drawn somewhere between fact and fiction and decides if the gospel writers were not going to write 100% truth then they would have written 100% fiction.
I think you are burning a straw man. What does Miller say that lead you to this conclusion?
bcrazy wrote:Finally, although I'm returning to the bias point, the author deflects the criticism from the Bible by stating "this is HOW ALL HISTORY IS WRITTEN". Indeed...and that is why no historical document can be trusted explicitly!
All arguments involve bias. Divine inspiration would be about the only reason that the Bible would be more trustworthy.

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 2:34 pm
by bcrazy
That bias does not prove someting false.
I agree- but I don't understand your "Huh?" response to my statement that it stops you being able to make a fully educated decision. Bias doesn't make something false but it does increase the chance of certain things within it being false as the author will often do things to manipulate the truth and therefore this makes the gospels much less reliable than some would like to think.
You know, he does offer explanations of why these would be so. In a nutshell, similarities show the common story while differences show that they aren't just collaborating to write fiction.
Yes but there are bound to be similarities or differences so there is no point even bringing this up as a support- I'm sure if there weren't differences this would have been used to show just how accurate the accounts were.
What does Miller say that lead you to this conclusion?
At one point Miller says "In the data that is shared between the various authors of the gospels, especially in sections of Matthew and Luke that are considered 'borrowed' from Mark, there is no tendency to embellish the narratives" and supports this argument by using specific examples where it wasn't embellished. To state there is NO tendency using a few examples of opportunities surely supports my conclusion?
All arguments involve bias. Divine inspiration would be about the only reason that the Bible would be more trustworthy.
Thank you- and since it would be illogical to use the Bible as a source for the Bible's divine inspiration I have (and I don't know why other people have) reason to believe it is any more trustworthy.

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 3:06 pm
by jerickson314
bcrazy wrote:
That bias does not prove someting false.
I agree- but I don't understand your "Huh?" response to my statement that it stops you being able to make a fully educated decision.
My "Huh?" was because your wording was unclear. I couldn't pick out what you were saying.
bcrazy wrote:Bias doesn't make something false but it does increase the chance of certain things within it being false as the author will often do things to manipulate the truth and therefore this makes the gospels much less reliable than some would like to think.
It does bring up a question, but it doesn't prove any problem with the gospels. And as I said before, it is nearly impossible to have no bias or preconceived notions about something, especially if you know enough about the subject to be qualified to talk about it.
bcrazy wrote:At one point Miller says "In the data that is shared between the various authors of the gospels, especially in sections of Matthew and Luke that are considered 'borrowed' from Mark, there is no tendency to embellish the narratives" and supports this argument by using specific examples where it wasn't embellished. To state there is NO tendency using a few examples of opportunities surely supports my conclusion?
It doesn't really support your conclusion. It is just that in order to show a tendency to embellish, you must offer an actual example of support. Miller was refuting some commonly cited examples. It does also show a sign of a lack of embellishment if embellishment is absent where it would be most likely.

I will give you that citing a few examples can't prove that embellishment is everywhere absent. However, the burden of proof is on the person who says that there are embellishments.
bcrazy wrote:Thank you- and since it would be illogical to use the Bible as a source for the Bible's divine inspiration I have (and I don't know why other people have) reason to believe it is any more trustworthy.
It would certainly be illogical to cite the Bible for such a purpose, since that would be begging the questions. However, there are other reasons to assume divine inspiration. Fulfilled prophesy, the historical evidence for the Resurrection, and similar phenomena cannot reasonably be explained if the God of the Bible does not exist. And why would God send flawed revelation to mankind?

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:25 am
by bizzt
bcrazy wrote: I suppose you could put me down as a "doubting Thomas"- seeing it with my own eyes would normally constitute proof but I would also generally happily rely on others I know who saw it themselves and passed on the information. In the case of the Bible I can either put trust in people I don't know from 2000 years ago and who in my opinion had something to gain from saying the things they did or may have been misled or I can put my trust in others I know who believe in the Bible. However, they only have access to the same information as me so I'm not going to value their judgement more. Perhaps you could tell me the difference between the trustworthiness of a group of people who wrote the Bible and a group of people who write about having seen ghosts- why believe one and not the other?
I have a Question... What did the Gospel Writers have to Gain? Below is from
http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/fox101.htm
CHAPTER I

History of Christian Martyrs to the First General Persecutions

Under Nero
Christ our Savior, in the Gospel of St. Matthew, hearing the confession of Simon Peter, who, first of all other, openly acknowledged Him to be the Son of God, and perceiving the secret hand of His Father therein, called him (alluding to his name) a rock, upon which rock He would build His Church so strong that the gates of hell should not prevail against it. In which words three things are to be noted: First, that Christ will have a Church in this world. Secondly, that the same Church should mightily be impugned, not only by the world, but also by the uttermost strength and powers of all hell. And, thirdly, that the same Church, notwithstanding the uttermost of the devil and all his malice, should continue.

Which prophecy of Christ we see wonderfully to be verified, insomuch that the whole course of the Church to this day may seem nothing else but a verifying of the said prophecy. First, that Christ hath set up a Church, needeth no declaration. Secondly, what force of princes, kings, monarchs, governors, and rulers of this world, with their subjects, publicly and privately, with all their strength and cunning, have bent themselves against this Church! And, thirdly, how the said Church, all this notwithstanding, hath yet endured and holden its own! What storms and tempests it hath overpast, wondrous it is to behold: for the more evident declaration whereof, I have addressed this present history, to the end, first, that the wonderful works of God in His Church might appear to His glory; also that, the continuance and proceedings of the Church, from time to time, being set forth, more knowledge and experience may redound thereby, to the profit of the reader and edification of Christian faith.

As it is not our business to enlarge upon our Savior's history, either before or after His crucifixion, we shall only find it necessary to remind our readers of the discomfiture of the Jews by His subsequent resurrection. Although one apostle had betrayed Him; although another had denied Him, under the solemn sanction of an oath; and although the rest had forsaken Him, unless we may except "the disciple who was known unto the high-priest"; the history of His resurrection gave a new direction to all their hearts, and, after the mission of the Holy Spirit, imparted new confidence to their minds. The powers with which they were endued emboldened them to proclaim His name, to the confusion of the Jewish rulers, and the astonishment of Gentile proselytes.


I. St. Stephen
St. Stephen suffered the next in order. His death was occasioned by the faithful manner in which he preached the Gospel to the betrayers and murderers of Christ. To such a degree of madness were they excited, that they cast him out of the city and stoned him to death. The time when he suffered is generally supposed to have been at the passover which succeeded to that of our Lord's crucifixion, and to the era of his ascension, in the following spring.
Upon this a great persecution was raised against all who professed their belief in Christ as the Messiah, or as a prophet. We are immediately told by St. Luke, that "there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem;" and that "they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles."

About two thousand Christians, with Nicanor, one of the seven deacons, suffered martyrdom during the "persecution that arose about Stephen."


II. James the Great
The next martyr we meet with, according to St. Luke, in the History of the Apsotles' Acts, was James the son of Zebedee, the elder brother of John, and a relative of our Lord; for his mother Salome was cousin-german to the Virgin Mary. It was not until ten years after the death of Stephen that the second martyrdom took place; for no sooner had Herod Agrippa been appointed governor of Judea, than, with a view to ingratiate himself with them, he raised a sharp persecution against the Christians, and determined to make an effectual blow, by striking at their leaders. The account given us by an eminent primitive writer, Clemens Alexandrinus, ought not to be overlooked; that, as James was led to the place of martyrdom, his accuser was brought to repent of his conduct by the apostle's extraordinary courage and undauntedness, and fell down at his feet to request his pardon, professing himself a Christian, and resolving that James should not receive the crown of martyrdom alone. Hence they were both beheaded at the same time. Thus did the first apostolic martyr cheerfully and resolutely receive that cup, which he had told our Savior he was ready to drink. Timon and Parmenas suffered martyrdom about the same time; the one at Philippi, and the other in Macedonia. These events took place A.D. 44.

III. Philip
Was born at Bethsaida, in Galilee and was first called by the name of "disciple." He labored diligently in Upper Asia, and suffered martyrdom at Heliopolis, in Phrygia. He was scourged, thrown into prison, and afterwards crucified, A.D. 54.

IV. Matthew
Whose occupation was that of a toll-gatherer, was born at Nazareth. He wrote his gospel in Hebrew, which was afterwards translated into Greek by James the Less. The scene of his labors was Parthia, and Ethiopia, in which latter country he suffered martyrdom, being slain with a halberd in the city of Nadabah, A.D. 60.
V. James the Less
Is supposed by some to have been the brother of our Lord, by a former wife of Joseph. This is very doubtful, and accords too much with the Catholic superstition, that Mary never had any other children except our Savior. He was elected to the oversight of the churches of Jerusalem; and was the author of the Epistle ascribed to James in the sacred canon. At the age of ninety-four he was beat and stoned by the Jews; and finally had his brains dashed out with a fuller's club.

VI. Matthias
Of whom less is known than of most of the other disciples, was elected to fill the vacant place of Judas. He was stoned at Jerusalem and then beheaded.

VII. Andrew
Was the brother of Peter. He preached the gospel to many Asiatic nations; but on his arrival at Edessa he was taken and crucified on a cross, the two ends of which were fixed transversely in the ground. Hence the derivation of the term, St. Andrew's Cross.

VIII. St. Mark
Was born of Jewish parents of the tribe of Levi. He is supposed to have been converted to Christianity by Peter, whom he served as an amanuensis, and under whose inspection he wrote his Gospel in the Greek language. Mark was dragged to pieces by the people of Alexandria, at the great solemnity of Serapis their idol, ending his life under their merciless hands.

IX. Peter
Among many other saints, the blessed apostle Peter was condemned to death, and crucified, as some do write, at Rome; albeit some others, and not without cause, do doubt thereof. Hegesippus saith that Nero sought matter against Peter to put him to death; which, when the people perceived, they entreated Peter with much ado that he would fly the city. Peter, through their importunity at length persuaded, prepared himself to avoid. But, coming to the gate, he saw the Lord Christ come to meet him, to whom he, worshipping, said, "Lord, whither dost Thou go?" To whom He answered and said, "I am come again to be crucified." By this, Peter, perceiving his suffering to be understood, returned into the city. Jerome saith that he was crucified, his head being down and his feet upward, himself so requiring, because he was (he said) unworthy to be crucified after the same form and manner as the Lord was.


X. Paul
Paul, the apostle, who before was called Saul, after his great travail and unspeakable labors in promoting the Gospel of Christ, suffered also in this first persecution under Nero. Abdias, declareth that under his execution Nero sent two of his esquires, Ferega and Parthemius, to bring him word of his death. They, coming to Paul instructing the people, desired him to pray for them, that they might believe; who told them that shortly after they should believe and be baptised at His sepulcher. This done, the soldiers came and led him out of the city to the place of execution, where he, after his prayers made, gave his neck to the sword.

XI. Jude
The brother of James, was commonly called Thaddeus. He was crucified at Edessa, A.D. 72.

XII. Bartholomew
Preached in several countries, and having translated the Gospel of Matthew into the language of India, he propagated it in that country. He was at length cruelly beaten and then crucified by the impatient idolaters.

XIII. Thomas
Called Didymus, preached the Gospel in Parthia and India, where exciting the rage of the pagan priests, he was martyred by being thrust through with a spear.
XIV. Luke
The evangelist, was the author of the Gospel which goes under his name. He travelled with Paul through various countries, and is supposed to have been hanged on an olive tree, by the idolatrous priests of Greece.


XV. Simon
Surnamed Zelotes, preached the Gospel in Mauritania, Africa, and even in Britain, in which latter country he was crucified, A.D. 74.

XVI. John
The "beloved disciple," was brother to James the Great. The churches of Smyrna, Pergamos, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, and Thyatira, were founded by him. From Ephesus he was ordered to be sent to Rome, where it is affirmed he was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil. He escaped by miracle, without injury. Domitian afterwards banished him to the Isle of Patmos, where he wrote the Book of Revelation. Nerva, the successor of Domitian, recalled him. He was the only apostle who escaped a violent death.
XVII. Barnabas
Was of Cyprus, but of Jewish descent, his death is supposed to have taken place about A.D. 73.

And yet, notwithstanding all these continual persecutions and horrible punishments, the Church daily increased, deeply rooted in the doctrine of the apostles and of men apostolical, and watered plentously with the blood of saints.