Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Ron on October 18, 2016, 09:28:14 AM
-
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/10/10/anti-thought-police-infogalactic-launches-as-wikipedia-alternative/
Infogalactic promise to solve the common issues with community-edited online information through “objectivity, proven game design principles, and a sophisticated series of algorithms.” The website is currently in phase one of their five phase plan that is designed to improve factual accuracy and neutralize vandalism.
“The single biggest problem with Wikipedia isn’t Jimmy Wales or its outmoded 1995 technology, but the fact that it is patrolled by 532 left-wing thought police who aggressively force their biased perspective on the rest of the world,” said Vox Day.
Here is a link to the competing site:
https://infogalactic.com/
-
I'm well aware of Wikipedia's problems and censors, but the idea that Vox Day could provide a restaurant menu that was "without bias" is laughable, much less a website.
-
There needs to be a Cortex....
-
Oh gods, this is another Vox Day's ego project?
Vox Day doing anything without bias is like building an ocean without water. I'm not saying he's always wrong, but I will say he is probably one of the most biased individuals on the planet.
That said, wikipedia is a great resource if you stay away from current events. Hard science stuff tends to be pretty decent. History is usually decent, if taken with a taste of salt. Current events or persons? Any change to any current person or event should require a three person of opposite ideologies signing off said update before it goes live.
It'd be nice to have a higher quality alternative, but many have tried and all have failed for various definitions of failure.
-
It'd be nice to have a higher quality alternative, but many have tried and all have failed for various definitions of failure.
Like when they call it "Conservapedia"? :facepalm:
-
The proof will be in the pudding.
-
The proof will be in the pudding.[Citation needed]
-
The proof will be in the pudding.[Citation needed]
Will you accept wikinfogalaconservadramatapedia as a source?
-
Why Coitinly !
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos1.blogger.com%2Fblogger%2F2061%2F1885%2F320%2FCurly4President.jpg&hash=0ed4e21908e60b33956bab54f3450eb513f04480)
-
I was just reading this really sad little article on Wikipedia, which seems to have been written and edited almost soley by members of the movement it describes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement
Has some factual inaccuracies, and little input from opposing viewpoints.
-
I was just reading this really sad little article on Wikipedia, which seems to have been written and edited almost soley by members of the movement it describes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement
Has some factual inaccuracies, and little input from opposing viewpoints.
What happens frequently with articles like that (not saying its necessarily the case here) on Wikipedia is you get a few rabid editors dedicated to a small subset of articles who revert changes anyone else makes, and are dedicated to such reversions to a point where it doesn't seem possible that they have any day job besides removing competing viewpoints.
-
What happens frequently with articles like that (not saying its necessarily the case here) on Wikipedia is you get a few rabid editors dedicated to a small subset of articles who revert changes anyone else makes, and are dedicated to such reversions to a point where it doesn't seem possible that they have any day job besides removing competing viewpoints.
I'm sure. I posted it because it seems like the opposite of left-wing slant. Not that most conservative/libertarians would be KJVO, but most KJVO are (I presume) conservative/libertarian.
-
I was just reading this really sad little article on Wikipedia, which seems to have been written and edited almost soley by members of the movement it describes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement
Has some factual inaccuracies, and little input from opposing viewpoints.
Agreed.
It annoys me that any biblical discussions don't have a link to the historical evidence. They should all mention that Jesus's bones have arguably already been found, at a site that is to date the most likely candidate for final resting place of the first Christian.
-
I read that novel, and it was awful.
https://www.amazon.com/Skeleton-Gods-Closet-Paul-Maier/dp/1501274015
-
I read that novel, and it was awful.
https://www.amazon.com/Skeleton-Gods-Closet-Paul-Maier/dp/1501274015
I was talking about the actual tomb with Jesus, his mother Mary, dad Joseph, and brother James found in Israel.
Of course it could always be some other famous Jewish family from the 30's AD, who by chance have all the same names AND family relationships as the people written about in the gospels.
-
I was talking about the actual tomb with Jesus, his mother Mary, dad Joseph, and brother James found in Israel.
Of course it could always be some other famous Jewish family from the 30's AD, who by chance have all the same names AND family relationships as the people written about in the gospels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talpiot_Tomb
Ehhh. Not concrete. Possible, but not concrete.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talpiot_Tomb
Ehhh. Not concrete. Possible, but not concrete.
It's almost impossible for it to be concrete due to age, but ask yourself this:
If you were looking for a Jesus tomb, what names would be in it, and where would it be?
The detractors seem to mainly harp on about it not fitting the bible. Still, it seems to me worth further investigation with that collection of names.
It has the correct location, correct set of names, and correct age. There's certainly nothing that obviously rules it out, and much to suggest it could be the spot. It might explain why all of the resurrection texts we have are clearly of later origin than the un-altered gospel of Mark.
-
It's almost impossible for it to be concrete due to age, but ask yourself this:
If you were looking for a Jesus tomb, what names would be in it, and where would it be?
The detractors seem to mainly harp on about it not fitting the bible. Still, it seems to me worth further investigation with that collection of names.
It has the correct location, correct set of names, and correct age. There's certainly nothing that obviously rules it out, and much to suggest it could be the spot. It might explain why all of the resurrection texts we have are clearly of later origin than the un-altered gospel of Mark.
Your narrative has been constructed with the presupposition that it is the family tomb of Jesus. To me it looks like you are rationalizing backward to support your decision to believe it to be so.
After reading, admittedly just a little bit on this, it is obvious there is no proof one way or another. In fact I would submit that if there was definitive proof, statistical or otherwise, it would be the biggest story in our lifetimes. The first red flag for you should have been that the supposed proof is statistical in nature. That is a weak proof for anything and as we all know both sides of every issue generally can marshal statistics to support their position.
Like much in life the safe position regarding this is to say, hmmm, I don't know.
-
I was talking about the actual tomb with Jesus, his mother Mary, dad Joseph, and brother James found in Israel.
Of course it could always be some other famous Jewish family from the 30's AD, who by chance have all the same names AND family relationships as the people written about in the gospels.
I knew what you were talking about, and given the substantial evidence for Christ's resurrection, your sarcastic hypothesis is the more likely.
The detractors seem to mainly harp on about it not fitting the bible.
Well, that does seem to be an important consideration. =)
-
I knew what you were talking about, and given the substantial evidence for Christ's resurrection, your sarcastic hypothesis is the more likely.
Well, that does seem to be an important consideration. =)
More evidence for the resurrection is where? How's that compare to the actual body and tomb?
-
More evidence for the resurrection is where? How's that compare to the actual body and tomb?
Eye-witnesses testimony vs. speculation that they may have found a body? Really?
-
Eye-witnesses testimony vs. speculation that they may have found a body? Really?
Eye witness, as in documents transcribed by unknown people and copied by hand for 300 years before anyone organised them?
Anyway, they certainly got a conspicuous list of names right - we have a Davidic relative in a tomb who matches the story perfectly
-
Eye witness, as in documents transcribed by unknown people and copied by hand for 300 years before anyone organised them?
Organized them? What's that supposed to mean? Copied by hand? You're right, they should have taken photos - those can't be hacked.
Anyway, they certainly got a conspicuous list of names right - we have a Davidic relative in a tomb who matches the story perfectly
Perfectly? I thought you said it didn't match the Bible? Besides, a bunch of very common names being found in a tomb, two thousand years later? Even if it were a perfect match, that's as far as it goes. Some names.
-
Organized them? What's that supposed to mean? Copied by hand? You're right, they should have taken photos - those can't be hacked.
Perfectly? I thought you said it didn't match the Bible? Besides, a bunch of very common names being found in a tomb, two thousand years later? Even if it were a perfect match, that's as far as it goes. Some names.
The thing you're ignoring is a set of common names with the same relationships described in the bible, centred around a Jesus descended from David. That makes the odds that it is another family not described in the bible significantly lower.
EYA: Of course that isn't proof those bones are the biblical Jesus. But it's certainly worth investigating. Nothing obviously rules it out other than the resurrection story, of which an eye witness authored or recorded account does not exist.
-
The thing you're ignoring is a set of common names with the same relationships described in the bible, centred around a Jesus descended from David. That makes the odds that it is another family not described in the bible significantly lower.
EYA: Of course that isn't proof those bones are the biblical Jesus. But it's certainly worth investigating. Nothing obviously rules it out other than the resurrection story, of which an eye witness authored or recorded account does not exist.
You're saying no one testified to seeing the risen Jesus?
Also, since this thread is about Wikipedia, can you cite sources for the relationships and connection to David?
-
You're saying no one testified to seeing the risen Jesus?
Also, since this thread is about Wikipedia, can you cite sources for the relationships and connection to David?
I'm saying we have no first hand account. All of the stories of resurrection we have are:
1) Written by people who were not there; and
2) Of a later time than the possible dates for the event
Hence we do not have eye witness accounts. We have stories about who the eye witnesses were, but nothing that is a direct report.
See Itmar Bernsteins post here for a good summary of the evidence on the tomb:http://dukereligion.blogspot.com.au/2008/01/talpiot-tomb-controversy-revisited.html?m=1
-
I'm saying we have no first hand account. All of the stories of resurrection we have are:
1) Written by people who were not there; and
2) Of a later time than the possible dates for the event
Hence we do not have eye witness accounts. We have stories about who the eye witnesses were, but nothing that is a direct report.
That is the opinion of some. Stating the above as fact is misleading, even if not intentionally so. You may cite scholars that take your view. I may cite scholars that take mine. Also, keep in mind it's not just the Gospels in play here, but the letters written by John and Peter.
Even if first-hand accounts did not exist, there's still no good explanation for people in Jerusalem (circa A.D. 33) worshiping a crucified, dead man as God, and awaiting his return. But they did worship Jesus.
See Itmar Bernsteins post here for a good summary of the evidence on the tomb:
http://dukereligion.blogspot.com.au/2008/01/talpiot-tomb-controversy-revisited.html?m=1
OK. Itamar says some interesting things, no doubt. That being said, it is a comment appended to university religion department blog posting, which concludes thusly.
To conclude, we wish to protest the misrepresentation of the conference proceedings in the media, and make it clear that the majority of scholars in attendance – including all of the archaeologists and epigraphers who presented papers relating to the tomb - either reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family or find this claim highly speculative.
Signed,
Professor Mordechai Aviam, University of Rochester
Professor Ann Graham Brock, Iliff School of Theology, University of Denver
Professor F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Princeton Theological Seminary
Professor C.D. Elledge, Gustavus Adolphus College
Professor Shimon Gibson, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Professor Rachel Hachlili, University of Haifa
Professor Amos Kloner, Bar-Ilan University
Professor Jodi Magness, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Professor Lee McDonald, Arcadia Seminary
Professor Eric M. Meyers, Duke University
Professor Stephen Pfann, University of the Holy Land
Professor Jonathan Price, Tel Aviv University
Professor Christopher Rollston, Emmanuel School of Religion
Professor Alan F. Segal, Barnard College, Columbia University
Professor Choon-Leong Seow, Princeton Theological Seminary
Mr. Joe Zias, Science and Antiquity Group, Jerusalem
Dr. Boaz Zissu, Bar-Ilan University
Thank you for answering my question. I hope you will forgive me if I do not believe the bones of Christ have been found; at least not on what's been found so far.
I'm also curious about how this tomb (especially if it contains a son of Jesus) fits with the whole picture. Would it mean that the body was stolen, and then secretly buried? If the body's disposition had been public knowledge, wouldn't there be some record of it? It would have been published by the Isrealis (to discredit the Christians), and Roman writers would have picked up on it, when the Christians became a problem for them. Yet if the burial were secret, why put his name on the box?
-
Must. Not. Respond. To troll.
-
That is the opinion of some. Stating the above as fact is misleading, even if not intentionally so. You may cite scholars that take your view. I may cite scholars that take mine. Also, keep in mind it's not just the Gospels in play here, but the letters written by John and Peter.
Even if first-hand accounts did not exist, there's still no good explanation for people in Jerusalem (circa A.D. 33) worshiping a crucified, dead man as God, and awaiting his return. But they did worship Jesus.
OK. Itamar says some interesting things, no doubt. That being said, it is a comment appended to university religion department blog posting, which concludes thusly.
Thank you for answering my question. I hope you will forgive me if I do not believe the bones of Christ have been found; at least not on what's been found so far.
I'm also curious about how this tomb (especially if it contains a son of Jesus) fits with the whole picture. Would it mean that the body was stolen, and then secretly buried? If the body's disposition had been public knowledge, wouldn't there be some record of it? It would have been published by the Isrealis (to discredit the Christians), and Roman writers would have picked up on it, when the Christians became a problem for them. Yet if the burial were secret, why put his name on the box?
PHSHAW. Obviously no one cared a bit about the Christians at all, so no one tried to discredit them at the time. Everyone knows that Christianity was all made up by Constantine anyway to try and make the Roman Empire more unified- that was all the man was concerned about, UNIFY THE EMPIRE, I SAY!
And BESIDES it had the names of Mary, Joe, Josh, and Jim. WHO ELSE WOULD EVER HAVE THOSE NAMES!? I mean, what are the odds of ANY other family of Jews having Mary and Joseph as parents and naming two of their sons Joshua and James? It's got to be ASTRONOMICAL ODDS!
Or... perhaps those are all very common names, even today (and more so then) and it was part of that "he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him" because he came, to all appearances, as a common man.
-
That is the opinion of some. Stating the above as fact is misleading, even if not intentionally so. You may cite scholars that take your view. I may cite scholars that take mine. Also, keep in mind it's not just the Gospels in play here, but the letters written by John and Peter.
Even if first-hand accounts did not exist, there's still no good explanation for people in Jerusalem (circa A.D. 33) worshiping a crucified, dead man as God, and awaiting his return. But they did worship Jesus.
OK. Itamar says some interesting things, no doubt. That being said, it is a comment appended to university religion department blog posting, which concludes thusly.
Thank you for answering my question. I hope you will forgive me if I do not believe the bones of Christ have been found; at least not on what's been found so far.
I'm also curious about how this tomb (especially if it contains a son of Jesus) fits with the whole picture. Would it mean that the body was stolen, and then secretly buried? If the body's disposition had been public knowledge, wouldn't there be some record of it? It would have been published by the Isrealis (to discredit the Christians), and Roman writers would have picked up on it, when the Christians became a problem for them. Yet if the burial were secret, why put his name on the box?
And I've read even more. No wonder I only had a vague recollection of this- scholars can't even agree on what names are in that tomb, let alone that they are definitively Jesus' family's names.
-
And I've read even more. No wonder I only had a vague recollection of this- scholars can't even agree on what names are in that tomb, let alone that they are definitively Jesus' family's names.
I believe it was in the news sometime in the last few weeks, but I don't recall why.
-
And I've read even more. No wonder I only had a vague recollection of this- scholars can't even agree on what names are in that tomb, let alone that they are definitively Jesus' family's names.
Like I said, proven? Nope.
But possible and worth study? Yep. Names, place and relationships match the story. There's absolutely nothing that rules it out.
-
PHSHAW. Obviously no one cared a bit about the Christians at all, so no one tried to discredit them at the time. Everyone knows that Christianity was all made up by Constantine anyway to try and make the Roman Empire more unified- that was all the man was concerned about, UNIFY THE EMPIRE, I SAY!
And BESIDES it had the names of Mary, Joe, Josh, and Jim. WHO ELSE WOULD EVER HAVE THOSE NAMES!? I mean, what are the odds of ANY other family of Jews having Mary and Joseph as parents and naming two of their sons Joshua and James? It's got to be ASTRONOMICAL ODDS!
Or... perhaps those are all very common names, even today (and more so then) and it was part of that "he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him" because he came, to all appearances, as a common man.
In fact many people did NOT believe there was a resurrection from the same time Christians began preaching it (which is at least decades after his death as far as we have records). As long as there have been people claiming a resurrection there have been people calling it false.
The idea that with eventual imperial control of this entire region Christians would've been discredited is just laughable. For 1000 years if you'd tried that they would've burnt you. The Muslims that followed don't believe Jesus died either, so no, there is absolutely zero substance in pointing to a lack of contrary texts.
All those names in the same tomb, with the same family relationships isn't an eye opener for you there? Again, the prospects are far different from just any one name.
-
When I worked for Pepsico, one of the restaurants had a Hispanic family working there. Jose and Maria were managers, while their son Jesus just worked in the kitchen.
No miracles nor resurrections were ever report as far as I know.
-
When I worked for Pepsico, one of the restaurants had a Hispanic family working there. Jose and Maria were managers, while their son Jesus just worked in the kitchen.
No miracles nor resurrections were ever report as far as I know.
Good example -how many people have you met even today who are "Jesus, with mom Mary and dad Joseph, brother James and all from Bethlehem"
Those names are still common. How many families from Bethlehem today still have them all in that same arrangement?
-
Like I said, proven? Nope.
But possible and worth study? Yep.
That's quite a different stance than what you were saying at first.
There's absolutely nothing that rules it out. Names, place and relationships match the story.
If "absolutely nothing" ruled it out, it would be not the least bit controversial.
-
That's quite a different stance than what you were saying at first.
If "absolutely nothing" ruled it out, it would be not the least bit controversial.
Uh, what in the tomb absolutely rules it out as the historical Jesus?
-
Uh, what in the tomb absolutely rules it out as the historical Jesus?
:rofl:
OK, sorry. Thought it was obvious. It's the "he's dead in a tomb part." Also, the suggestion that he had a wife and kid.
As to the latter, there's never been any evidence the Christ was a family man. As to the dead or alive part, there are doubtless some people that believe Jesus is dead; just like some people like to imagine He never existed. To millions of faithful, the historical Jesus came back from the dead, and can't be found in any tomb. Were that not so, we'd not be talking about this, would we?
-
:rofl:
OK, sorry. Thought it was obvious. It's the "he's dead in a tomb part." Also, the suggestion that he had a wife and kid.
As to the latter, there's never been any evidence the Christ was a family man. As to the dead or alive part, there are doubtless some people that believe Jesus is dead; just like some people like to imagine He never existed. To millions of faithful, the historical Jesus came back from the dead, and can't be found in any tomb. Were that not so, we'd not be talking about this, would we?
And this is my point about the biblical argument. The most fantastical parts of the religious story are used to shoot down an otherwise pretty solid historical lead. Like the academic forum comments, considering the probability Jesus was married (and the biblical hints are there) is part of a solid historical investigation.
And from the standpoint of historical investigation, that tomb certainly does stack up. Certainly people who argue he is a construction like Moses are out in left field. But arguing that the tomb can't be the biblical Jesus because it holds his body!? That's even more silly
-
And this is my point about the biblical argument. The most fantastical parts of the religious story are used to shoot down an otherwise pretty solid historical lead. Like the academic forum comments, considering the probability Jesus was married (and the biblical hints are there) is part of a solid historical investigation.
And from the standpoint of historical investigation, that tomb certainly does stack up. Certainly people who argue he is a construction like Moses are out in left field. But arguing that the tomb can't be the biblical Jesus because it holds his body!? That's even more silly
All you have is a story you want to believe and a reliance on probabilities based on very limited data.
In others words, you've got nothing.
-
All you have is a story you want to believe and a reliance on probabilities based on very limited data.
In others words, you've got nothing.
Except there's a tomb right near Bethlehem with Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary, brother of James and brother of Jose. You can't possibly see there might be a relationship between those bodies and the biblical stories about Jesus???
It's not a story I want to believe, it's the obvious conclusion to draw from the bible stories. If you don't accept the religious elements of it, the historical perspective definitely points to this being a worthwhile investigation.
-
Except there's a tomb right near Bethlehem with Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary, brother of James and brother of Jose. You can't possibly see there might be a relationship between those bodies and the biblical stories about Jesus???
It's not a story I want to believe, it's the obvious conclusion to draw from the bible stories. If you don't accept the religious elements of it, the historical perspective definitely points to this being a worthwhile investigation.
Worthy of investigation? Sure, why not? I'm in favor of archeology and any insight it can potentially bring to that era.
Nothing that I've read posted or linked here threatens the veracity of the gospel narrative in my opinion.
-
Worthy of investigation? Sure, why not? I'm in favor of archeology and any insight it can potentially bring to that era.
Nothing that I've read posted or linked here threatens the veracity of the gospel narrative in my opinion.
Except that could possibly be Jesus's bones there? You don't see that as an issue for orthodox Christian beliefs?
-
Except that could possibly be Jesus's bones there? You don't see that as an issue for orthodox Christian beliefs?
If you want to play the probabilities game, I can also.
I'm very confident that the probability that they will find any connection to Jesus, other than the coincidental matching of Biblical era names slim and none, and slim isn't in his tomb.
This find doesn't really rise to anything more than a curiosity for me. Let them study away. I'm not experiencing any threat to my faith or belief structure. Much ado about nothing IMHO.
-
And this is my point about the biblical argument. The most fantastical parts of the religious story are used to shoot down an otherwise pretty solid historical lead. Like the academic forum comments, considering the probability Jesus was married (and the biblical hints are there) is part of a solid historical investigation.
And from the standpoint of historical investigation, that tomb certainly does stack up. Certainly people who argue he is a construction like Moses are out in left field. But arguing that the tomb can't be the biblical Jesus because it holds his body!? That's even more silly
Who's saying it's not a "solid lead" that should be looked into? Who's shooting it down? If you think that's really Jesus in there, you're free to make that case. I don't see how it could be consistent with what happened later in the story (i.e., people believing that a crucified man would save them from their sins, and come back to rule the world; and believing it so hard, they lined up to get martyred for it).
Why would the Bible hint about Jesus being married, rather than coming right out and saying so? Were he married, it would have been brought up in passages on marriage, like I Corinthians, chapter 7. The fact is, Scripture contains no "hints" or suggestions that Christ was married, or had children. There's nothing "solid" there. It's telling that you and Itamar seem to think there is.
In the last paragraph, you mention the "biblical Jesus." The biblical Jesus left the tomb alive. That's how the Bible describes Him. Maybe you were looking for a different adjective.
-
People having believed in someone or something so hard isn't particularly unique, and is not a measure of truth fistful. There's also no evidence of the people who actually would've been there having believed in a resurrected body. Again, what we have are later narratives (and some of those even have the resurrection pasted on at the end).
The bones in the box are extremely likely candidates for what's left of the person who inspired all this.
-
You people sound ridiculous, citing the Bible, which is only self-authoritative. I suspect that's why there is such dedicated scrabbling for scraps of "proof." Such scraps as we have were heavily edited and flavored over almost two millenia.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof --not mere "scraptual evidence" --and there ain't such a proof.
I weep for the millions of people spending their whole lives based on scraps and legends and double hearsay and so-called "Councils" who voted on what was Truth a thousand years ago.
Sure, you can call it "faith," and condemn those who hear but will not see and cannot believe "your way," but if you just admitted to yourselves the true basis of your beliefs and regarded others as colleagues in a common belief structure instead of adversaries, the world would be a better place.
Now how about we get back to talking about wiki's editorial problem?
-
You people sound ridiculous, citing the Bible, which is only self-authoritative. I suspect that's why there is such dedicated scrabbling for scraps of "proof." Such scraps as we have were heavily edited and flavored over almost two millenia.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof --not mere "scraptual evidence" --and there ain't such a proof.
I weep for the millions of people spending their whole lives based on scraps and legends and double hearsay and so-called "Councils" who voted on what was Truth a thousand years ago.
Sure, you can call it "faith," and condemn those who hear but will not see and cannot believe "your way," but if you just admitted to yourselves the true basis of your beliefs and regarded others as colleagues in a common belief structure instead of adversaries, the world would be a better place.
Now how about we get back to talking about wiki's editorial problem?
I can make the same argument about secularism or materialistic philosophy. The evidence for life and order being a natural occurrence of energy + matter + the magic pixie dust of time is just not there.
The problem is that the competing narratives are just as devoid of factual evidence. The modern edifice of secularism is based upon an appeal to authority, not to self evident facts.
DeSelby has such a strong desire to not believe that he is blind to how much it colors his so called reasoning process.
I've often thought that the most reasonable unbelievers are the ones who legitimately consider themselves agnostic.
-
Those names are still common.
So is George Washington, but if you run across one born in the 1730s, there's a fair chance it's, you know, the one all the later ones were named after.
How many families from Bethlehem today still have them all in that same arrangement?
Don't know; there doesn't appear to be a significant Hispanic population there, though.
-
So is George Washington, but if you run across one born in the 1730s, there's a fair chance it's, you know, the one all the later ones were named after.
Don't know; there doesn't appear to be a significant Hispanic population there, though.
Actually, Jesus is simply our transliteration of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name יֵשׁוּעַ.
Now, want to guess how many Hebrew were named after Joshua (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua)?
-
(Numeration mine)
(1) I can make the same argument about secularism or materialistic philosophy. The evidence for life and order being a natural occurrence of energy + matter + the magic pixie dust of time is just not there.
(2) The problem is that the competing narratives are just as devoid of factual evidence. The modern edifice of secularism is based upon an appeal to authority, not to self evident facts.
(3) DeSelby has such a strong desire to not believe that he is blind to how much it colors his so called reasoning process.
(4) I've often thought that the most reasonable unbelievers are the ones who legitimately consider themselves agnostic.
(1) I think you're referring to evolution versus creationism. Well, there is in-hand fossil evidence in terms of the best dating methods available (sedimentation, decay ratios of isotopes, etc) that species do change over time, whether this be due to selection or mutation or both.
I kind of resent your calling that extremely long-term species drift magic pixie dust, but I'll let that go for now,
(2) Frankly, except for the differentiation of sexes, secular explanations account for enough more observable and verifiable facts than the various legendary accounts of creation (I'm not just talking Judeo-Christian accounts) that I lean heavily in that direction. The differentiation of sexes theories always seem kind of wishy-washy to me, but maybe there's been some kind of breakthrough on that since I quit examining these questions. So I'll give you points on the "modern edifice of secularism" aspect of it all. But I'll take away points for using the semantic trick of characterizing billions of years as magic pixie dust.
(3) I cannot comment on De Selby's motivations and thought processes.
(4) Agreed. My personal problem, which I alluded to already is that so many folks on both sides insist that they're right and in order to confirm their own rectitude they push their views on others. ...As a career, mind you. But that's a personal problem. As evidence of this, I submit that fistful will rarely miss an opportunity to divert a secular discussion into a religious one... <grin>
Now how about we get back to talking about wiki's editorial problem?
Terry
-
You people sound ridiculous, citing the Bible, which is only self-authoritative. I suspect that's why there is such dedicated scrabbling for scraps of "proof." Such scraps as we have were heavily edited and flavored over almost two millenia.
This is simply wrong. The Bible is authoritative, but it is not the only proof for its claims. Archaeological evidence is but one of the means of testing many historical claims.
Further, claiming that it has been heavily edited over the past 2000 years does not match the evidence given that we have at least fragments that are 1900 years old and complete copies (of books) from the 2nd century on.
The Bible is the most studied work of all time and the best documented work as well. No other historical work has even close to the fragmentary and extant copies still in existence as the Bible.
You are free to disbelieve the claims, but you cannot make baseless claims about it being "heavily edited".
-
230rn:
"Time as magic pixie dust" is a fanciful way to say that there is no data to support many of the secularist contentions so there is a lot of hand-wavium and appeals to large amounts of time. Such as gradual evolution over large periods of time. Yes there are fossils. No, they don't tell the story the usual suspects would like to tell. Rudyard Kipling-like Just-So stories slathered with a stucco of masticated scientism is not all that persuasive.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3UXl0oMYPLs/SXZHIRt_oKI/AAAAAAAAAFw/j6kmhIdEQTI/s1600/ATHEIST%2BLOGIC.jpg)
[FTR, a mechanism as described by the seculars and currently called "evolution" is not precluded by my understanding of my faith and reason. I am merely being consistent in insisting that folk who claim the authority of "science" adhere to the rigors of science.]
-
This is simply wrong. The Bible is authoritative, but it is not the only proof for its claims. Archaeological evidence is but one of the means of testing many historical claims.
Further, claiming that it has been heavily edited over the past 2000 years does not match the evidence given that we have at least fragments that are 1900 years old and complete copies (of books) from the 2nd century on.
The Bible is the most studied work of all time and the best documented work as well. No other historical work has even close to the fragmentary and extant copies still in existence as the Bible.
You are free to disbelieve the claims, but you cannot make baseless claims about it being "heavily edited".
I think you mean 1800, not 1900. As far as I know, the Chester Beatty are still the oldest (proven) fragments, dating back to the second century.
Other than that, yeah, the New Testament is an extremely reliable document, compared to other ancient sources on which we base our knowledge of history.
-
People having believed in someone or something so hard isn't particularly unique, and is not a measure of truth fistful. There's also no evidence of the people who actually would've been there having believed in a resurrected body. Again, what we have are later narratives (and some of those even have the resurrection pasted on at the end).
No evidence? That's not true. You may not believe it, but you can't claim there's no evidence.
The point of bringing up the martyrdom of the apostles is not to claim that belief makes something true. Of course it doesn't. The point is, there must be a good explanation for why multiple eye-witnesses would say that someone rose from the dead. What did they gain from it? Why would they not recant, to save their lives? If they were mistaken, what happened to make them think a dead man came back to life?
And again, we've been arguing about whether this Jesus fellow is alive or dead for two millennia. Then a box of bones appears, and we're expected to believe that he was buried in his family tomb, of all places? And with a wife and kid? You're right, we should just all line up to believe that one.
-
This is simply wrong. The Bible is authoritative, but it is not the only proof for its claims. Archaeological evidence is but one of the means of testing many historical claims.
Me:
I'm not saying the Bible was written in a vacuum. Obviously, it was generated because of some kind of motivation, as evidenced by those fragments of proof in terms of what buildings, locations, rulers, etc. were extant, as well as the geneological chains it relates. But you ought to re-examine your concept of proof, as I did long ago. A mere collection of corroborations is not proof of its extraorinary claims. After all, one must believe its claims before accepting corroboration as proof.
Further, claiming that it has been heavily edited over the past 2000 years does not match the evidence given that we have at least fragments that are 1900 years old and complete copies (of books) from the 2nd century on.
Me:
I refer again to my remarks about corroboration, I also refer to the fact that I have a Parallel Version of the Bible, with four different versions of it on facing pages, as well as a copy of the New World Testament from the Jehovah's Witnesses. They claim theirs is the most authoritative version, being an attempt at a word-by-word transliteration. They, in fact, famously deny that J. was crucified on a "cross." They say the truth was it was a "tree." Now you cannot stand there on two feet and tell me that these differing versions are not "editions." <grin> There is great wisdom in it, and I often quote the KJV <ahem> version, but my standards of provenance are somewhat stricter than most peoples'.
The Bible is the most studied work of all time and the best documented work as well. No other historical work has even close to the fragmentary and extant copies still in existence as the Bible.
Me:
"Documentation" is not proof of its extraordinary extranormal claims. Wine into water? Feeding the multitudes? I have seen "explanations" of this in terms of the writers using analogies, metaphors, parables, or even "one of the mysteries of the faith."
I can see Lazarus coming out of some kind of deep coma or his heart being re-started or something. This would be seen by contemporaries as being raised from the dead. But a "miracle?" Hey, something like this could explain the resurrection, too. I suppose someone as strong as a carpenter could recover in the tomb, move the stones away and wander around in a daze for a period before being seen again by his Disciples. Ahhh, but that's pure conjecture.
You are free to disbelieve the claims, but you cannot make baseless claims about it being "heavily edited".
Me:
Ohhh, yes I can. "Baseless," indeed.
You'll have to forgive me in advance, but I think I am going to disengage from this discussion, at least for now. It is taking too much time, and I've dealt with this stuff in detail in my own mind and writings ages ago.
I will say that I am not an atheist, nor an aggressive agnostic. But my plaint and plea is for folks to (A) realistically asses the impact of formalized religion on their thinking, and (B) allow me to be free of (what I consider to be) the constraints and restraints of formalized religion and its proselytizing.
That's all I ask. Heck, the editing alone of this post took a half hour.
Now can we get back to a discussion of wiki's editing? :D
Terry
Edited later for typos.
-
I can see Lazarus coming out of some kind of deep coma or his heart being re-started or something.
Restarting a heart after four days wouldn't help; the brain would be useless mush after that long. Possibly if they had a hard freeze the whole time he was out, but I think that would be significant enough for the region that it would have been mentioned.
-
Now can we get back to a discussion of wiki's editing? :lol:
Makes dubious claims about a controversial subject. Asks for a return to the OP. Not sure if serious.
I refer again to my remarks about corroboration, I also refer to the fact that I have a Parallel Version of the Bible, with four different versions of it on facing pages,
They won't contain any significant differences, even if they read differently (unless you have something really odd in there). They all teach the same things. And that's true, even though the King James (I assume that's included) is based on much fewer, and later manuscripts, and was done before most of the older manuscripts were rediscovered. Bible scholars have gained a ton of ancient manuscripts since then, and learned a lot about the original languages, and about how to decide which variant reading is the original. Yet the churches haven't had to retouch their belief statements to accomodate any of that. The Bible still says the same thing.
...as well as a copy of the New World Testament from the Jehovah's Witnesses, who claim theirs is the most authoritative version, being an attempt at a word-by-word transliteration. They, in fact, famously deny that J. was crucified on a "cross." They say the truth was it was a "tree."
Many translations claim something like that. The JWs have been suspected of skewing their Bible to match their theological peculiarities. It didn't help that they were reluctant to name the translators. It got worse when they released a few names.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures#Translators
http://www.bible-researcher.com/new-world.html
I can see Lazarus coming out of some kind of deep coma or his heart being re-started or something. This would be seen by contemporaries as being raised from the dead. But a "miracle?" Hey, something like this could eplain the resurrection, too. I suppose someone as strong as a carpenter could recover in the tomb, move the stones away and wander around in a daze for a period before being seen again by his Disciples. Ahhh, but that's pure conjecture on my part.
Commonly known as "the swoon theory." It's been around a while. It has its problems.
I will say that I am not an atheist, nor an aggressive agnostic. But my plaint and plea is for folks to (A) realistically asses[sic] the impact of formalized religion on their thinking, and (B) allow me to be free of (what I consider to be) the constraints and restraints of formalized religion and its proselytizing.
This is 21st-century America, so I'm pretty sure you're allowed to be free of any constraints or restraints any of the traditional religions may (allegedly) place on you. As long as you don't draw Muhammad. For part A, I suspect that without "formalized" religion, I'd be more likely to believe whatever I wanted to believe, and less likely to skeptical of my own kooky notions. YMMV
-
So is George Washington, but if you run across one born in the 1730s, there's a fair chance it's, you know, the one all the later ones were named after.
Don't know; there doesn't appear to be a significant Hispanic population there, though.
This is hilarious. How many GW's had the same parents names, the same brother's names, and were buried at a family tomb in the same county as GW was born and died in!?
-
I can make the same argument about secularism or materialistic philosophy. The evidence for life and order being a natural occurrence of energy + matter + the magic pixie dust of time is just not there.
The problem is that the competing narratives are just as devoid of factual evidence. The modern edifice of secularism is based upon an appeal to authority, not to self evident facts.
DeSelby has such a strong desire to not believe that he is blind to how much it colors his so called reasoning process.
I've often thought that the most reasonable unbelievers are the ones who legitimately consider themselves agnostic.
This is general stuff that has nothing to do with the point and question.
Let's say I believe the bible is an exaggerated account of the deeds of a Jewish claimant to the role of messiah in the 30's AD. What do I have to support my claim? Well, potentially Jesus's body sitting in a box. Along with lots of other history. That's not random faith based musing or philosophising.
Story about a man getting holy overtones? It wasn't the first time even in the year 30. Any evidence provide a historical account or match it? Well, the body might
-
Story about a man getting holy overtones? It wasn't the first time even in the year 30. Any evidence provide a historical account or match it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible
Yes, the New Testament story about Jesus certainly seems to fit all the bodies in that tomb.
Citing it as authority for what happened is rich. It's written accounts of what people a century later heard from people who claimed to have herd from the eyewitnesses. That's certainly evidence, but it is a far, far cry from "eye witness accounts." Not a single gospel story was written by an eyewitness.
-
Yes, the New Testament story about Jesus certainly seems to fit all the bodies in that tomb.
Except that the New Testament story doesn't place him in that tomb at all, and certainly not with the wife some are trying to give him.
Citing it as authority for what happened is rich. It's written accounts of what people a century later heard from people who claimed to have herd from the eyewitnesses. That's certainly evidence, but it is a far, far cry from "eye witness accounts." Not a single gospel story was written by an eyewitness.
You can keep saying that. It doesn't make it true.
Besides, the less authority you grant the New Testament, the less reason you have to believe anyone got the names or relationships right, at all. And the less reason we have to care who's in the tomb. Is the NT reliable, or not? Is it right about names, but not about who saw what, and why?
-
Except that the New Testament story doesn't place him in that tomb at all, and certainly not with the wife some are trying to give him.
You can keep saying that. It doesn't make it true.
Besides, the less authority you grant the New Testament, the less reason you have to believe anyone got the names or relationships right, at all. And the less reason we have to care who's in the tomb. Is the NT reliable, or not? Is it right about names, but not about who saw what, and why?
This is funny. Proper names are one of the most endurable features of history, period. They survive even complete extinctions of a language. Yet the NT version of the tomb being empty (a clearly religious and fantastical element to the text) is given equal weight.
What you're doing is the equivalent of claiming that the power of soothsayers and omen readers to predict the future is on an equal historical footing with say, facts about Roman Emporers reigns because they both appear in the accounts of roman historians.
You don't need to believe that Caeser was born to a god to believe he ruled Rome and did historical things. You're doing just that sort of thing with the bible because you accept it as a matter of faith, not because that's the logical thing to do
-
You misread me. I am addressing two different problems.
Problem 1: You keep saying that the tomb is consistent with the Biblical account. You even called the Jesus in the tomb "the Biblical Jesus." The obvious problem with this is that the Bible maintains, as one of its most central points, that Jesus is God, and that His body is not moldering in any tomb. If you don't believe the latter, you might say that the tomb fits with certain details of the Biblical account. No one would argue with this. However, it is inaccurate, no matter your belief system, to say that the tomb is consistent with the Biblical account. The importance of the tomb, of course, is that it (allegedly) disproves the more important bits of the Biblical account, even if it correlates with others.
Problem 2: You're equating the religious window dressing of Roman cultus with what is, in the Biblical narrative, the central point. Regardless of the soothsayer's muttering, the emperor is still emperor. Not so with Christ and His resurrection. The "religious and fantastical element" is the story.
-
This is general stuff that has nothing to do with the point and question.
Let's say I believe the bible is an exaggerated account of the deeds of a Jewish claimant to the role of messiah in the 30's AD.
What do I have to support my claim? Well, potentially Jesus's body sitting in a box.
Along with lots of other history.
That's not random faith based musing or philosophising.
Story about a man getting holy overtones? It wasn't the first time even in the year 30. Any evidence provide a historical account or match it? Well, the body might
You make a real big leap without anything other than your original bias, your presupposition Christ is not risen and possibly could be found in a tomb. You seem to jump from it "potentially" being his body to arguing as if it "is" his body in your argument.
It's as if the potentiality you see means we must start operating as if that is the most probable reality. Then you chastise those who refuse to make your leap without evidence.
As far as lots of history, historically we know from the 1st century on people believed that Jesus was the incarnation of God in a human body, was crucified, buried then rose from the dead.
-
This is hilarious. How many GW's had the same parents names, the same brother's names, and were buried at a family tomb in the same county as GW was born and died in!?
Gee, a guy named George with a brother named John and a mother named Mary would be so rare. Pretty sure I can find that in my own ancestry. (Though given my ancestors, it's more likely that would be a George Mason than a George Washington.)
-
De Selby,
There is a third problem, but it is a bit different, as it arises from your misjudging the nature of the New Testament sources, specifically the writings of John, Peter and Matthew. Because they saw the risen Jesus, an observable fact, that differs considerably from an ancient historians belief in the trustworthiness of omens or soothsayers. The historian may or may not have good reasons for his belief, and such things usually can't be proven or disproven, either way.
-
I suppose someone as strong as a carpenter could recover in the tomb, move the stones away and wander around in a daze for a period
He was calling for souls, not brains. Important distinction.
-
De Selby,
There is a third problem, but it is a bit different, as it arises from your misjudging the nature of the New Testament sources, specifically the writings of John, Peter and Matthew. Because they saw the risen Jesus, an observable fact, that differs considerably from an ancient historians belief in the trustworthiness of omens or soothsayers. The historian may or may not have good reasons for his belief, and such things usually can't be proven or disproven, either way.
Sorry, but the evidence we have is fairly conclusive that those gospels were not written by the eye witnesses themselves. They were written a good century later by people recording a tradition.
You can't seriously argue that the difference between biblical miracles and others is the level of eye witness testimony - there is far more direct and recorded eye witness testimony that angels appeared to Joseph Smith with gold plates for example. Does that mean you accept Joseph Smiths revelations as historical fact?
The list of examples is endless. You are indeed taking the part of the record that is most obviously legend and equating it with facts that you could verify with other evidence. Like a body and tomb.
-
You make a real big leap without anything other than your original bias, your presupposition Christ is not risen and possibly could be found in a tomb. You seem to jump from it "potentially" being his body to arguing as if it "is" his body in your argument.
It's as if the potentiality you see means we must start operating as if that is the most probable reality. Then you chastise those who refuse to make your leap without evidence.
As far as lots of history, historically we know from the 1st century on people believed that Jesus was the incarnation of God in a human body, was crucified, buried then rose from the dead.
So the problem is that I have prejudged Jesus not to be God, and had I accepted that fact I would realise the tomb isn't real??? See the problem there? You need the religious belief first to make the facts fit your evidence.
To crib from Mark Twain:
"When not one, but four ancient texts of unknown authorship confirm that they recorded the repeated testimony of the people who saw a man rise from the dead and knew he was god I am already inclined to believe them.
When all of this truth has been confirmed hundreds of years later by a council of religious people who destroyed every competing story, I do not see how it could be doubted!"
Note: a very good historical source for people not buying this story from the earliest days is in the book of Matthew. He's got a really defensive and ridiculous explanation for why the empty tomb couldn't have been the result of a stolen body. I guess people in late 1st century Israel were already not buying it...
-
Sorry, but the evidence we have is fairly conclusive that those gospels were not written by the eye witnesses themselves.
Sorry, but that's opinion; not fact.
-
Sorry, but that's opinion; not fact.
That's the opinion of nearly all scholarly research on the texts. If you have some evidence besides the fact that eye witnesses today claim miracles on the basis of their faith, you could make a real name for yourself
-
Gee, a guy named George with a brother named John and a mother named Mary would be so rare. Pretty sure I can find that in my own ancestry. (Though given my ancestors, it's more likely that would be a George Mason than a George Washington.)
There is actually a statistical analysis of the tomb and its names. The probability that there was another family of Jesus with all those exact same relatives is pretty darn small.
-
That's the opinion of nearly all scholarly research on the texts.
Nearly all?
No matter. In any case, we agree that the tomb matches only some details from the New Testament, and that the second-century hypothesis is opinion, and nothing like a fact? Yes?
-
So the problem is that I have prejudged Jesus not to be God, and had I accepted that fact I would realise the tomb isn't real??? See the problem there? You need the religious belief first to make the facts fit your evidence.
Your rejection of Christianity colors your interpretation of the find.
You don't believe so it must be Jesus in the tomb (yippee!)
Are non Christians the only ones blessed with lack of bias?
Whats so controversial about pointing that out?
Relying on so called statistical evidence to prove some point is just silly also. Everyone knows you can skew stats by playing with the inputs. Nobody here is a statistician who has reviewed the work so it is just a baseless appeal to authority.
Much ado about nothing.
-
After having hundreds of hours put into these kinds of conversations, a truth was found:
You can't have a serious discussion about the historicity of a religious text unless you and the opposing party agree on whether or not the mythological aspects are objectively true or not. That's true for Christianity (Catholic, Protestant, LDS, etc.), Islam, Asian religiouns, Druidic/Wiccan varieties, and everything you can think of that has a text associated with it.
When people don't agree on that it's impossible to have a reasonable discourse. Standards of evidence will be completely different and foundational assumptions will be incompatible.
The follow-up to that is another truth: The number of people who change their opinions on the topic of a particular religion's mythological component, as adults, is so tiny that arguing about it on the Internet is not productive. People, by and large, believe what they were taught when they were kids. Raised as an atheist? Probably going to stay that way. Raised evangelical? Same.
That's not to say it isn't fun to raise a ruckus about it on forums--but don't expect anything other than a rousing row.
-
On Wikipedia--the solution won't ever be to replace it (in this decade). Wikipedia is a part of our culture now and it isn't going anywhere.
If people really care they can go devote thousands of hours to being a Wiki editor, just like the people they're complaining about. There's nothing stopping people from making Wikipedia be "correct" other than a lack of commitment.
-
After having hundreds of hours put into these kinds of conversations, a truth was found:
You can't have a serious discussion about the historicity of a religious text unless you and the opposing party agree on whether or not the mythological aspects are objectively true or not. That's true for Christianity (Catholic, Protestant, LDS, etc.), Islam, Asian religiouns, Druidic/Wiccan varieties, and everything you can think of that has a text associated with it.
When people don't agree on that it's impossible to have a reasonable discourse. Standards of evidence will be completely different and foundational assumptions will be incompatible.
The follow-up to that is another truth: The number of people who change their opinions on the topic of a particular religion's mythological component, as adults, is so tiny that arguing about it on the Internet is not productive. People, by and large, believe what they were taught when they were kids. Raised as an atheist? Probably going to stay that way. Raised evangelical? Same.
That's not to say it isn't fun to raise a ruckus about it on forums--but don't expect anything other than a rousing row.
Trying to point out that atheism comes with its own host of presuppositions and unfounded premises to an unbeliever is often an exercise in futility.
-
That's true for Christianity (Catholic, Protestant, LDS, etc.)
Just had to include the LDS, didn't you? :laugh:
-
Just had to include the LDS, didn't you? :laugh:
Say what you will, they have a ton of eye witness testimony for their miracles. Don't you find that convincing?
-
Say what you will, they have a ton of eye witness testimony for their miracles. Don't you find that convincing?
Stories of the strange, supernatural and miraculous exist from the beginning of recorded to history to this very day.
Jesus said the only sign or miracle for us to look to is the gospel story.
-
Stories of the strange, supernatural and miraculous exist from the beginning of recorded to history to this very day.
Jesus said the only sign or miracle for us to look to is the gospel story.
Where did jesus say this? Is it recorded in the same gospel you're telling us to look to?
-
Just had to include the LDS, didn't you? :laugh:
*shrug*
I know, personally, plenty of evangelicals who don't consider Catholics to be Christians, so I'm not sure where to make the distinction.
-
Trying to point out that atheism comes with its own host of presuppositions and unfounded premises to an unbeliever is often an exercise in futility.
Being conscious is a presupposition, but you'll find plenty of philosophers who argue about the merits of objective truth. :)
-
Where did jesus say this? Is it recorded in the same gospel you're telling us to look to?
It's in the book of Matthew, ch12.
Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from you." But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, but no sign will be given it but the sign of Jonah the prophet.
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up in the judgment with this generation, and will condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, someone greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the south will rise up in the judgment with this generation, and will condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, someone greater than Solomon is here.
Again in John ch6
They said therefore to him, "What then do you do for a sign, that we may see, and believe you? What work do you do? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness. As it is written, 'He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.'"
Jesus therefore said to them, "Most certainly, I tell you, it wasn't Moses who gave you the bread out of heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world." They said therefore to him, "Lord, always give us this bread."
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life"
-
Say what you will, they have a ton of eye witness testimony for their miracles. Don't you find that convincing?
Cute, but back to this assertion that all the bible scholars believe the new testament was written last summer, or whatever it was you said. Where did you get this narrative?
-
Cute, but back to this assertion that all the bible scholars believe the new testament was written last summer, or whatever it was you said. Where did you get this narrative?
Reading historical books. Are you dismissing that because you think there aren't eye witnesses to the Mormon miracles? There are probably even some living ones you could interview.
What's the in principle difference between your faith in eye witness testimony and theirs?
-
Just had to include the LDS, didn't you? :laugh:
He left out those members of the Churh of the Old Norse (Reformed). Not sur whether to.be grateful or insulted. :rofl:
-
What's the in principle difference between your faith in eye witness testimony and theirs?
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
Miracles/signs are not all from God.
-
DeSelby makes dubious appeals to authority attempting to bolster his case.
I have a collection of books from Robert Alter. He is a prominent Hebrew scholar and is neither a Christian nor a practicing religious Jew from any information I can find.
The books I own are his translations of the Pentateuch, Wisdom books and some of the prophets. The translations also contain a running commentary, mostly historical and archaeological in nature with plenty of notes regarding translation choices.
He often will discuss several options he had in translating and then give the reason he chose a particular direction.
Now as an unbeliever he is not biased towards choosing a translation that is consistent with the whole (Bible). On occasion he points out a translation he rejected but for example the KJV translators chose. His reasons are often his knowledge of Hebrew grammar or word construction. Sometimes the reason is just a personal preference due to nothing more than a "I like this way better than that" .
I don't expect him to view the whole OT as a whole as he doesn't believe it is a whole. But, if it was meant to be a whole then he would be wrong in some of his choices in translation and the translators choosing the option that maintains consistency would be correct.
Appeals to authority only get you so far, especially when you start examining the presuppositions of those authorities. It gets a bit more complicated the deeper you drill.
BTW, the books by Alter often have fascinating archaeological and cultural background information. The commentary can be dense but often truly rewarding.
-
Reading historical books. Are you dismissing that because you think there aren't eye witnesses to the Mormon miracles? There are probably even some living ones you could interview.
What's the in principle difference between your faith in eye witness testimony and theirs?
I don't know what kind of law you practice, but I would have thought any law school education would cover this. Is all eyewitness testimony the same? Don't the circumstances make some more credible than others?
-
On Wikipedia--the solution won't ever be to replace it (in this decade). Wikipedia is a part of our culture now and it isn't going anywhere.
Yep, just like myspace.
-
Are you dismissing that because you think there aren't eye witnesses to the Mormon miracles?
I have personally seen a potluck where someone brought enough deviled eggs. In my experience, that's about as miraculous as it gets.
-
I don't know what kind of law you practice, but I would have thought any law school education would cover this. Is all eyewitness testimony the same? Don't the circumstances make some more credible than others?
Haha, okay, tell me how the circumstances of your bible make for more reliable eye witness testimony than theirs
-
Haha, okay, tell me how the circumstances of your bible make for more reliable eye witness testimony than theirs
Tell me about their miracles, and what the witnesses said about them. One of our resident Mormons once gave me a list. I recall finding it rather flimsy, but perhaps you refer to something else.
-
Tell me about their miracles, and what the witnesses said about them. One of our resident Mormons once gave me a list. I recall finding it rather flimsy, but perhaps you refer to something else.
So if they had seen the dead risen you'd be more convinced? That's the problem, their miracles weren't cool enough?
Come on man, this has got to offend your intellect on some level. There is no historical or scientific basis for any religion.
-
I don't think there's any shortage of modern-day miracles, including those that have happened in LDS history in the 1800's on. Lots of ancient miracles before and after Christ, too. All pale in comparison to the life, mission, atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If you don't believe in that one, asking what we think about other claimed ones is looking beyond the point.
There is no historical or scientific basis for any religion.
Faith is a matter of . . . faith, by design. There is evidence aplenty of the reality of Christ, but you have to be of mind to look for it and more correctly, experiment on it and experience it. You're not, at least not at the moment. There's nothing that can be said on this thread that's going to change that.
-
And that looks and sounds like a good place to end this one...