Ignorance and the Bible

Cypress said:
The core story of the arrest, trial, and crucifixion are all there.

Virgin birth? Two attestations is a lot weaker than five in in eyes of the historian.
Also weakening these two attestations is the fact a miraculous virgin birth is never mentioned by our two earliest Christian authors, Mark and Paul.

You get really stressed out about the birth narrative, when it is not central to the core Christian beliefs in ethics, grace, and salvation.

Even the great atheist New Testament scholar and noted skeptic Bart Ehrman says there is nothing in the New Testament which requires belief in a miraculous virgin birth, and that most of his Christian friends think the story is allegorical.

The great atheist New Testament scholar and noted skeptic Bart Ehrman categorically disagrees with you. He unequivocally believes the New Testament can be mined for historical information than that.


The great atheist New Testament scholar and noted skeptic Bart Ehrman categorically disagrees with you. He unequivocally believes the New Testament can be mined for more historical information than that.

Ancient writers did not have the 21st century standards of analytical history and biography that some of us naively come to expect of all authors throughout human history.

The New Testament, the Norse Icelandic Sagas, the Historia of Herodotus, the Anglo-Saxon chronicles all have historically valid information existing along side myth that the careful person can mine using the methods of literary criticism and historical context.
Click to expand...

The “attestations” you refer to aren’t that at all. Luke and Matthew merely copied Mark with some changes to fit their own agenda.

The birth narrative, like it or not pal, is part of your Bible. You go on about the historicity, yet are in denial about all the discrepancies.

If you want historical accuracy, you have to apply the same standards of proof that you do to any historical figure or event. You simply don’t have it here, no matter how many fucking backflips you do.
 
Cypress said:
Like I said, the groups who most adamantly treat the Bible as a strictly literal, strictly factual, strictly historical collection of books are:

Atheists, Televangelists, fundamentalist Baptists, fire-and-brimstone Pentecostals
Click to expand...

So, the birth story is not factual, huh?
So, since Jesus was in a coma, according to you, the death on the cross was not factual.

Tell us, Nostradamus, which part IS factual? I’ll wait.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
No worries. I've noticed that you seem normal about most topics except Christianity. Bad memories? Trauma? Both @Cypress and myself are admitted agnostics but you and Perry Penis-lover keep building your straw men. Weird.
Click to expand...
Christ didn’t die for everyone’s sins. That’s fake news.

He was merely comatose for everyone’s sins.

PRICELESS!
 
domer76 said:
Christ didn’t die for everyone’s sins. That’s fake news.

He was merely comatose for everyone’s sins.

PRICELESS!
Click to expand...
Duh. No shit but glad you are catching up to the adults on the discussion. You really are blind when it comes to discussing Christianity. You hate and insult anyone who disagrees with you about it in the slightest. Weird. This is why I suspect some sort of trauma in your past is driving such hatred and bigotry.

MAGAts are usually consistent in their hatred and bigotry which indicates mental deficiency. You only go nuts on the subject of Christianity, which indicates trauma to me.
 
domer76 said:
The “attestations” you refer to aren’t that at all. Luke and Matthew merely copied Mark with some changes to fit their own agenda.
Click to expand...

They had Mark as reference material, but they also had their own sources and Luke claims to have talked to the eyewitnesses.

The fact that you relentlessly complain that there are ubiquitous discrepancies between the gospels just undermines your own point that they are copying off one another. They would have gotten their stories straight if they were just copying from each other.

Mark and Paul never mentioned a virgin birth. I think Luke and Matthew came along later and wrote those stories to make a theological point
domer76 said:
The birth narrative, like it or not pal, is part of your Bible. You go on about the historicity, yet are in denial about all the discrepancies.
Click to expand...
You're really stressed out about the virgin birth aren't you?

I'm trying to understand why you are so stressed out about it. My theory is that you just want to have an easy strawman to knock down.
domer76 said:
If you want historical accuracy, you have to apply the same standards of proof that you do to any historical figure or event.
Click to expand...
Nope. First rule is you have to read in context and literary style. You have to have the training and intelligence to understand ancient Near Eastern writers weren't familiar with analytical history and biography, and they expressed truth claims in different ways than our 21st century eyes are accustomed to

So you don't read and analyze the Norse Icelandic Sagas or New Testament in the same way you would read 20th century historical accounts
domer76 said:
You simply don’t have it here, no matter how many fucking backflips you do.
Click to expand...
I'll let everyone else who visits the thread and reads my posts with an impartial eye decide whether I sound like a fool who is out of his league.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
...You're really stressed out about the virgin birth aren't you?...
Click to expand...
That and surviving the crucifixion are major trauma foci for him. You and I have both agreed that the virgin birth was likely added later to build up a case for the divinity of Jesus to fulfill prophecy....but that's not good enough for the militant atheists.

You and I postulated how it might have been possible for Jesus to survive the crucifixion even if he died later but, again, that's not good enough for the militant atheists. Weird!

The best part of this entire conversation is seeing Perry Pud-Lover run off with his tail between his legs. :rofl2:

 
domer76 said:
So, the birth story is not factual, huh?
Click to expand...
I think it's allegory and written to make a theological point

The great atheist Bart Ehrman also says that's the view of most of his Christian friends.
domer76 said:
So, since Jesus was in a coma, according to you, the death on the cross was not factual.
Click to expand...
You're just getting my point now?

I believe I might be the only one here along with Dutch that's providing a rational, natural, non-magical explanation which doesn't rely on coordinated conspiracies to fabricate a story, or laughable claims that everyone suffered the same hallucination.
domer76 said:
Tell us, Nostradamus, which part IS factual? I’ll wait.
Click to expand...
This topic seems to make you angry.
It's a message board where we are expected to disagree
I have attempted to make my responses to you measured, based on facts and rationale inferences.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
That and surviving the crucifixion are major trauma foci for him. You and I have both agreed that the virgin birth was likely added later to build up a case for the divinity of Jesus to fulfill prophecy....but that's not good enough for the militant atheists.

You and I postulated how it might have been possible for Jesus to survive the crucifixion even if he died later but, again, that's not good enough for the militant atheists. Weird!

The best part of this entire conversation is seeing Perry Pud-Lover run off with his tail between his legs. :rofl2:
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, I believe the birth narrative in Luke was written to make a theological point.

Paul was writing 30 years before Luke, and Mark had access to the apostle Peter and wrote about 15 years before Luke

A miraculous virgin birth is so extraordinary, it's hard to fathom why Paul, Mark, John never mention it.
 
domer76 said:
Here’s what the dimwits don’t realize. If Christ did not die on the cross, there is no salvation scenario. For billions.
Click to expand...

I think that's something separate from this conversation. Cy seems to be arguing that the story of the Resurrection must be true as written assuming the witnesses misinterpretted what they saw.

That's fine insofar as it goes. Remember, Cy, for all his fierce defense of the faith, claims elsewhere to be agnostic. So I have to assume he is not arguing anything related to the supernatural aspects of the point.

But it does still leave some serious problems for the faith. As you note it makes a huge portion of Christian salvation into a "lie", but it also creates a new character in the Narrative: the skulking sneaky guy who wanders off after preaching.

Did he preach elsewhere? Why didn't those stories get recorded anywhere? And most important of all, the thing that basically destroys Cy's point is that the same stories that told about the resurrection also witness him, in one version, flying up to heaven before the witnesses. But you note that Cy doesn't try to defend that. Just the stuff that a good "just-so" story could be concocted for. Even if it basically destroys the religion itself.
 
domer76 said:
So, the birth story is not factual, huh?
So, since Jesus was in a coma, according to you, the death on the cross was not factual.

Tell us, Nostradamus, which part IS factual? I’ll wait.
Click to expand...
How can the birth story be factual when it is devoid of observed facts? It's a faith story.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Duh. No shit but glad you are catching up to the adults on the discussion. You really are blind when it comes to discussing Christianity. You hate and insult anyone who disagrees with you about it in the slightest. Weird. This is why I suspect some sort of trauma in your past is driving such hatred and bigotry.

MAGAts are usually consistent in their hatred and bigotry which indicates mental deficiency. You only go nuts on the subject of Christianity, which indicates trauma to me.
Click to expand...

So far, I’m waiting for something more coherent than “Jesus was actually comatose.” You haven’t provided it.
 
Cypress said:
They had Mark as reference material, but they also had their own sources and Luke claims to have talked to the eyewitnesses.

The fact that you relentlessly complain that there are ubiquitous discrepancies between the gospels just undermines your own point that they are copying off one another. They would have gotten their stories straight if they were just copying from each other.

Mark and Paul never mentioned a virgin birth. I think Luke and Matthew came along later and wrote those stories to make a theological point

You're really stressed out about the virgin birth aren't you?

I'm trying to understand why you are so stressed out about it. My theory is that you just want to have an easy strawman to knock down.

Nope. First rule is you have to read in context and literary style. You have to have the training and intelligence to understand ancient Near Eastern writers weren't familiar with analytical history and biography, and they expressed truth claims in different ways than our 21st century eyes are accustomed to

So you don't read and analyze the Norse Icelandic Sagas or New Testament in the same way you would read 20th century historical accounts

I'll let everyone else who visits the thread and reads my posts with an impartial eye decide whether I sound like a fool who is out of his league.
Click to expand...

Luke claims……Well, that fucking settles it. Which “eyewitnesses” did he talk to? Be specific.

When was Luke written? 80BCE or so? The few, VERY few “eyewitnesses” are long gone.

Or maybe just temporarily in a coma. LOL

That THEY aren’t familiar with analytical history is irrelevant. The current era is when scholars are trying to determine the historicity. And they apply certain standards. One of those is not hypothesizing that Christ wasn’t actually dead, but merely comatose. PRICELESS!

BTW, Biblical SCHOLARS, almost without exception, are the ones claiming Luke and Matthew copied Mark. Not me. Arguing that point makes you look for foolish than the coma thing.

And, since we’re talking about historical accuracy, you still avoid the two birth narratives. You can’t cherry pick, Jethro. The stories are there. So, which one is historically true? (The answer? NEITHER)
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Yes, I agree, I believe the birth narrative in Luke was written to make a theological point.

Paul was writing 30 years before Luke, and Mark had access to the apostle Peter and wrote about 15 years before Luke

A miraculous virgin birth is so extraordinary, it's hard to fathom why Paul, Mark, John never mention it.
Click to expand...
Good, we’re making progress. You’re admitting that there is no historical accuracy certain central narratives of the New Testament. But, you see, it’s not merely virgin birth, it’s the narratives themselves, beyond that.

Don’t forget either, Rufus, the virgin birth is exceptionally critical to millions of believers.

Now, perhaps you can move on to the equally bogus death and resurrection narratives
 
gmark77 said:
I think that's something separate from this conversation. Cy seems to be arguing that the story of the Resurrection must be true as written assuming the witnesses misinterpretted what they saw.

That's fine insofar as it goes. Remember, Cy, for all his fierce defense of the faith, claims elsewhere to be agnostic. So I have to assume he is not arguing anything related to the supernatural aspects of the point.

But it does still leave some serious problems for the faith. As you note it makes a huge portion of Christian salvation into a "lie", but it also creates a new character in the Narrative: the skulking sneaky guy who wanders off after preaching.

Did he preach elsewhere? Why didn't those stories get recorded anywhere? And most important of all, the thing that basically destroys Cy's point is that the same stories that told about the resurrection also witness him, in one version, flying up to heaven before the witnesses. But you note that Cy doesn't try to defend that. Just the stuff that a good "just-so" story could be concocted for. Even if it basically destroys the religion itself.
Click to expand...

Both of these guys are jumping through theological hoops, twisting themselves all in knots, trying to explain away the discrepancies in the gospels. From the birth narrative to the death narrative, both of which violate all laws of nature, are problematic if one wishes to discuss historical accuracy. They are unable to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top