Questions an atheist friend wanted to ask part 3.

[meluckycharms]

"Why didn't Jesus convert one scribe, or one person who could hire a scribe, or someone who was interested in what he said but didn't convert but still had his words written down first-hand, or a "newspaper report" who would do that?"

 

[Josiah]

"Why didn't Jesus convert one scribe, or one person who could hire a scribe, or someone who was interested in what he said but didn't convert but still had his words written down first-hand, or a "newspaper report" who would do that?"

"what if" questions are disallowed in honest discussions.

 

[meluckycharms]

"what if" questions are disallowed in honest discussions.

I believe he is really trying to ask, "why no first hand reporting or documentation?"

 

[Stravinsk]

I believe he is really trying to ask, "why no first hand reporting or documentation?"

If John is to be believed, that Gospel was written first hand and the many years post date is speculative. If memory serves, Matthew doesn't directly or indirectly refer to himself in that Gospel, but again if it was by him, it must have been during his life and not post dated as is commonly believed.

Mark and Luke are both Gentiles and as neither of them were among the twelve their accounts are, in my opinion anyway, more suspect. Especially Mark...16th chapter...handling snakes and drinking deadly poison without being harmed...what a disaster, lol.

 

[tango]

"Why didn't Jesus convert one scribe, or one person who could hire a scribe, or someone who was interested in what he said but didn't convert but still had his words written down first-hand, or a "newspaper report" who would do that?"

Sure, the question of why Jesus never thought to say to someone "hey, write this down, it's important". He could have had people following him around taking notes the way Kim Jong-un does.

Of course word spreads, and his commission "go into the world and preach" is a very different proposition to "hey, write some books and see if you make the New York Times bestseller list" or "write letters to tell people about what you've seen". So what do we preach? The message of Jesus is often a very personal one - what has Jesus done for me? First we need to answer the question, then we need to tell others about it.

Jesus told us that the world would know us because of our love for one another. Sadly all too often we don't show it very well, or we have a very strange way of showing it. The fact the world isn't beating a path to our door wanting some of what we have suggests that we've missed the point somewhere along the line.

If Jesus had had an army of scribes following him around, in a way that would put Kim Jong-un to shame, and every single word he ever uttered had been recorded, would it actually make any difference to those who don't want to believe? People would still make the same claims, that the Bible is full of contradictions, that Jesus was some kind of lunatic, that he was socially exclusive, that he was a way to God that's no more valid than any other way to God, and so on.

 

[hedrick]

I'm not sure it didn't happen. Scholars believe Matthew and Luke used a common source, which is called Q. Luke says "Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."

Matthew and Luke appear to have come from very different types of church. For them both to have access to the same collection suggests that at one time it was fairly widespread.

I guess the question then becomes, why wasn't an official collection of teachings published, as the prophets did. Or if that was Q, why didn't it survive? We can only guess, but remember, his actions, and particularly the account of his death and resurrection, was considered as important as his words. Hence I'd guess that Christians found works that put his words in the context of his ministry more useful than the words alone.

(I should note that it's pretty clear that Matthew and Luke used the words from the sources somewhat freely. That was in accordance with customs of the time.)

 

[Josiah]

I believe he is really trying to ask, "why no first hand reporting or documentation?"

Obviously, it's IMPOSSIBLE to discuss "questions" framed in this way (which is why they are framed in this way)..... The REALITY is that the reports we have are from a generation later; the 4 Gospels probably from the 50's or 60's.

My THEORY (and I give it ZERO percent importance; MY anything is pretty irrelevant).... the Jews placed enormous importance on eye-witnesses. We find this all over the OT. In disputes, in civil matters, in everything. Jews were a skeptical people and they placed emphasis on skeptics investigating and experiencing things FIRST HAND. In the OT, the prophets OCCASIONALLY wrote down their message but only at the verge of their own deaths (and it seems, perhaps shortly AFTER that by assistants). When the prophet is still alive, HE is the source.

In this milieu, when the totality of Christianity was probably in the hundreds, I think as long as these eye-witnesses were around and most of the Apostles were still alive, the "source" of information about Jesus came from these eye-witnesses. It is only as these eye-witnesses, these Apostles, these who actually heard Jesus speak with their own two ears and saw Jesus with their own two eyes, as they begin to die off, it was only then that it was necessary to write it down. This time frame happened to correspond with the growth of Christianity (both in numbers and geography) making personal testimony of eye-witnesses difficult.

But that's just my theory...... I have nothing to prove such since I wasn't there at the time.

 

[MennoSota]

If John is to be believed, that Gospel was written first hand and the many years post date is speculative. If memory serves, Matthew doesn't directly or indirectly refer to himself in that Gospel, but again if it was by him, it must have been during his life and not post dated as is commonly believed.

Mark and Luke are both Gentiles and as neither of them were among the twelve their accounts are, in my opinion anyway, more suspect. Especially Mark...16th chapter...handling snakes and drinking deadly poison without being harmed...what a disaster, lol.

Strav, you are cherry picking and making excuses for your unbelief. Remove all text that does not offend your worldview and you get the gospel according to Stravinsk, which is no gospel at all, but instead it is empty of any redeeming quality whatsoever.

 

[Stravinsk]

Strav, you are cherry picking and making excuses for your unbelief. Remove all text that does not offend your worldview and you get the gospel according to Stravinsk, which is no gospel at all, but instead it is empty of any redeeming quality whatsoever.

ROFL! I'm not making excuses, I consider what I quoted to be a fine example of untruth penned by the hand of whoever wrote Mark, or at least the latter part of the 16th chapter which I referred to.

But, since you took it upon yourself to make the accusation, I would ABSOLUTELY LOVE for any "Christian" to prove their faith by simply showing the test is true. I get to choose the snakes and poison. In addition to video cameras, for the sake of goodwill medical staff and ambulances would also be on hand.

Hey! Perhaps if this were made regular practice, we could weed out all the phonies peeps like you are always shaking their finger at? C'mon now, you willing to take the challenge? And don't go giving me that "testing God" bit - especially when it's supposed to be God who set up the standard in the first place - unless...someone is naive enough to believe they'd somehow be in a situation where drinking deadly poison and handling snakes was some sort of accident...that God saves them from to be a witness to the entire world!!!! ROFL

 

[MennoSota]

ROFL! I'm not making excuses, I consider what I quoted to be a fine example of untruth penned by the hand of whoever wrote Mark, or at least the latter part of the 16th chapter which I referred to.

But, since you took it upon yourself to make the accusation, I would ABSOLUTELY LOVE for any "Christian" to prove their faith by simply showing the test is true. I get to choose the snakes and poison. In addition to video cameras, for the sake of goodwill medical staff and ambulances would also be on hand.

Hey! Perhaps if this were made regular practice, we could weed out all the phonies peeps like you are always shaking their finger at? C'mon now, you willing to take the challenge? And don't go giving me that "testing God" bit - especially when it's supposed to be God who set up the test in the first place.

Not sure what test you are referring to. I'm referring to your technique of cherry picking what you like in the Bible and what you don't like.
An atheist who is willing to investigate without bias or ignoring text because it doesn't fit their worldview is hard to find. Instead, they do what you do. They pick and choose only what they can accept as reasonable within their narrow box. This is why I started the thread asking how atheists and deists differ when it comes to any practical daily matters. I don't see what you do as any different to what an atheist does. Cherry pick and fit your preconceived worldview.

 

[Stravinsk]

Not sure what test you are referring to. I'm referring to your technique of cherry picking what you like in the Bible and what you don't like.
An atheist who is willing to investigate without bias or ignoring text because it doesn't fit their worldview is hard to find.

LOL. This quote is too revealing to make the obvious observation that would no doubt land me in trouble for making it. Keep it up, good sir, lol.

 

[MennoSota]

LOL. This quote is too revealing to make the obvious observation that would no doubt land me in trouble for making it. Keep it up, good sir, lol.

LOL, you are running away and changing topics. I know atheists that do the same thing.

 

[tango]

Not sure what test you are referring to. I'm referring to your technique of cherry picking what you like in the Bible and what you don't like.
An atheist who is willing to investigate without bias or ignoring text because it doesn't fit their worldview is hard to find. Instead, they do what you do. They pick and choose only what they can accept as reasonable within their narrow box. This is why I started the thread asking how atheists and deists differ when it comes to any practical daily matters. I don't see what you do as any different to what an atheist does. Cherry pick and fit your preconceived worldview.

Seriously?

"The test" relates to the text at the end of Mark, where Jesus says "and these signs will accompany those who believe" and goes on to list signs such as handling venomous snakes and drinking poison without coming to any harm. Few people would accept a challenge to handle a pit viper, trusting in God to protect them from harm.

There is a slight issue in that many scholars (at least according to my study Bible) do not accept that the last few verses of Mark's gospel were in the original manuscripts. Although it provides an "out" for people challenged to handle a pit viper to prove they believe what Jesus said it also raises another issue, namely that of which parts of the Bible can be considered inspired by God. If passages were not in the original text we have to ask when they were added, and whether or not the additions were inspired by God or not.

There's also a world of difference between cherry-picking the parts of Scripture that we find convenient, and determining that we do not consider some part of Scripture to be inspired by God. On the one side we might decide to ignore verses about homosexuality because, you know, you gotta move with the times. On the other we might accept verses that are inconvenient to us while not accepting other sections because we hve issues with some aspect of them.

From what I recall of what Strav has posted on the open board (Strav, please feel free to correct me if I misrepresent your views here), he does not accept that Paul was a genuine apostle. If his opinion is correct then at a stroke much of the New Testament is rendered irrelevant. This isn't necessarily about cherry-picking Scripture to suit a preconceived idea, it could just as easily be (as I believe it is in Strav's case) the result of thought and research. I personally disagree with Strav on this matter but I don't think it's even remotely fair to say he's just cherry-picking Scripture to suit his own ends.

For what it's worth, if I wanted to pick and choose to create "the gospel according to tango" I'd be looking to get rid of the verses that talk about denying myself, taking up crosses, loving the unlovely and so on. Much of that cuts much closer to the mark than most of what Paul had to say.

 

[MennoSota]

Seriously?

"The test" relates to the text at the end of Mark, where Jesus says "and these signs will accompany those who believe" and goes on to list signs such as handling venomous snakes and drinking poison without coming to any harm. Few people would accept a challenge to handle a pit viper, trusting in God to protect them from harm.

There is a slight issue in that many scholars (at least according to my study Bible) do not accept that the last few verses of Mark's gospel were in the original manuscripts. Although it provides an "out" for people challenged to handle a pit viper to prove they believe what Jesus said it also raises another issue, namely that of which parts of the Bible can be considered inspired by God. If passages were not in the original text we have to ask when they were added, and whether or not the additions were inspired by God or not.

There's also a world of difference between cherry-picking the parts of Scripture that we find convenient, and determining that we do not consider some part of Scripture to be inspired by God. On the one side we might decide to ignore verses about homosexuality because, you know, you gotta move with the times. On the other we might accept verses that are inconvenient to us while not accepting other sections because we hve issues with some aspect of them.

From what I recall of what Strav has posted on the open board (Strav, please feel free to correct me if I misrepresent your views here), he does not accept that Paul was a genuine apostle. If his opinion is correct then at a stroke much of the New Testament is rendered irrelevant. This isn't necessarily about cherry-picking Scripture to suit a preconceived idea, it could just as easily be (as I believe it is in Strav's case) the result of thought and research. I personally disagree with Strav on this matter but I don't think it's even remotely fair to say he's just cherry-picking Scripture to suit his own ends.

For what it's worth, if I wanted to pick and choose to create "the gospel according to tango" I'd be looking to get rid of the verses that talk about denying myself, taking up crosses, loving the unlovely and so on. Much of that cuts much closer to the mark than most of what Paul had to say.

You're referring to textual criticism. This is a method of tracing texts and codex along varying paths to see where additions may have taken place after the original writing. That is entirely different than throwing out any passage you don't particularly like.

 

[Stravinsk]

Heh...

If I were you I'd save your breath, Tango. "Mennosota" is about as intellectually dishonest as they come. He'll simultaneously accuse someone of making an excuse not to believe a passage of the bible, then when cornered, he'll allow that maybe a passage shouldn't be there (or isn't original) based on textual criticism. I might add that anyone who doesn't believe a particular passage or authors is also subject to being guilty of whatever motive Mr "Mennosota" ascribes to that person.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Based on various factors, I believe this person is an already banned member - Alithis, who is simply trolling the board and being allowed to do so.

 

[MennoSota]

Heh...

If I were you I'd save your breath, Tango. "Mennosota" is about as intellectually dishonest as they come. He'll simultaneously accuse someone of making an excuse not to believe a passage of the bible, then when cornered, he'll allow that maybe a passage shouldn't be there (or isn't original) based on textual criticism. I might add that anyone who doesn't believe a particular passage or authors is also subject to being guilty of whatever motive Mr "Mennosota" ascribes to that person.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Based on various factors, I believe this person is an already banned member - Alithis, who is simply trolling the board and being allowed to do so.

What do you know about textual criticism and how it helps us know that the last few verses in Mark are added?
An honest person will compare the documents available for the Bible and the documents for other works of antiquity. In so doing they will recognize that there is a no more credible source in all antiquity than the texts of the Bible.
A dishonest person will throw out what he doesn't like and not allow the text to change his worldview.
As to you comments on a banned poster. Joseph Goebbels said "Tell a lie big enough and long enough and you can get people to believe it." You are using his propaganda ploy in hopes that your lie might stick. I suspect the people who run this board know better than you do. But, knock yourself out.

 

[tango]

You're referring to textual criticism. This is a method of tracing texts and codex along varying paths to see where additions may have taken place after the original writing. That is entirely different than throwing out any passage you don't particularly like.

I'm referring to multiple things actually and, if you read my post, I think you'll find I drew the distinction between textual criticism, cherry-picking the verses we happen to like, and considering the theological merit of passages. You know, the difference between ignoring the bits that are inconvenient for us (like much of what Jesus had to say about, well, just about everything) and determining that Paul was not a genuine apostle.

Since you don't seem to have picked up on much of what I wrote I'm struggling to conclude anything other than that you're not interested in discussion, merely to keep reiterating the same points while ignoring any counter points.

Feel free to actually read my post with a view to understand what I'm saying. I won't hold my breath for fear of asphyxiation.