|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 03/02/2002 : 11:49:42 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
You can't cut a deal with slater for the truth. That's not how it works.
[/quote]
You're right DA, Slater can speak for himself , and speaking for himself says that @tomic is perfectly correct.
Are you a creationst too? One of those people who thinks that if evolution is proved to be incorrect then creationism must be. The world doesn't work that way. You can't cut a deal as to what is true, you can't even vote on what are facts. They are what they are no matter how people feel about them.
Even if the Gospels came from 35AD or 1950 CE you are still left without an historic Jesus. They are still works of fiction.
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
[i]The Preparation of the Gospel[/i] |
 |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2002 : 14:05:33 [Permalink]
|
[b]You can't cut a deal with slater for the truth. That's not how it works.
[/quote]
You're right DA, Slater can speak for himself , and speaking for himself says that @tomic is perfectly correct.
Are you a creationst too? One of those people who thinks that if evolution is proved to be incorrect then creationism must be. The world doesn't work that way. You can't cut a deal as to what is true, you can't even vote on what are facts. They are what they are no matter how people feel about them.
Even if the Gospels came from 35AD or 1950 CE you are still left without an historic Jesus. They are still works of fiction.
-------
[/b] Wait a miniute,I supplied a list of scholars some who wern't christians who nonetheless asserted that based on the accepted criteria of historical research the NT stands head shoulders above any other document from antiquity.Next, you cried foul and claimed those methods were archaic we need to test them by C-14 dating methods and then you will see that don't pre date Nicena. I then agree lets test them and see if you can BACK UP YOUR CLAIM(?) and if not then all we have to fall back is the accepted "archaic" method that is still used in universities around the world on various documents.The next thing I know is I'm hit with a barrage of [i]ad hominems and appeals to ignorance[/i]. Gotta breaks over
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2002 : 15:19:30 [Permalink]
|
If you read some of the other topics here you would have seen that slater has said what he said directly above before. Not because of a vote but because it's a fact. Let me put it like this:
Slater says he has a pink chimpanzee in a box and you say that you have a blue unicorn in a box. If slater cannot prove that he has a pink chimpanzee in his box does that prove you have a blue unicorn? No, it doesn't and that is your argument, that slater's failure to produce evidence to support his claim proves your claim. Do you see the flaw in this system? The first one not to produce evidence wins? What you would get is some kind of Mexican standoff. Do you still stand by this unusual system for proving a position?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2002 : 19:31:47 [Permalink]
|
[i]Slater says he has a pink chimpanzee in a box and you say that you have a blue unicorn in a box. If slater cannot prove that he has a pink chimpanzee in his box does that prove you have a blue unicorn? No, it doesn't and that is your argument, that slater's failure to produce evidence to support his claim proves your claim. Do you see the flaw in this system? The first one not to produce evidence wins? What you would get is some kind of Mexican standoff. Do you still stand by this unusual system for proving a position?
@tomic
[/i] To Atomic,what your doing is another [i]red herring I don't know if Slater ever talked about pink,blue unicorns or whatever. I do know he talked about dating the NT: [b] Yes, all of these estimates of dates are from exactly the period I said they were, the 30's to the 50's. All before accurate dating tests were available.
No Christian document that has been tested by modern methods comes from before the fourth century. That's why you won't find any quotes about dating documents on Christian sites that were made during your life time. It isn't exactly lying...but it's a long way from telling the truth. And when you consider that it's much easier to find current information than it is to dreg up something from half a century ago it's hard not to believe Xians have an ulterior motive for doing so.
[/b] His position was that we Xians were being less than honest by only quoting old outdated methods to support the early dating of the NT MSS. So I said: [b]Now concerning your question on which method I think is more reliable: [quote]Do you really think that peering at hand writing styles through a Sherlock Holmes magnifying glass is a more accurate dating method than the accelerator mass spectrometer technique? [/quote],I know you don't think so but I am a reasonable person,and I have no vendata against science nor the C-14 dating method.Therefore,if you can show me the results of the C-14 test done on the documents in question:1 The Chester Beatty Papyra(155 AD),2 The Bodmer(200AD)ad,3The John Rylands (130AD) I will concede the dates given in the results.Now my question to you is if you can't give me those results are you reasonable enough to accept the fidings of the "old fashion" papyrologist(heck I'll even give you the latest dates they give,the + years they say is + or - 25 I'll give you 75) [/b] Were not talking about unverifiable chimps or unicorns,I made a claim [b]AND BACKED IT UP[/b] Slater made some claims also and so far refuses to back them and has you to continue to try and confuse the issue. P.S. [b] Even if the Gospels came from 35AD or 1950 CE you are still left without an historic Jesus. They are still works of fiction.
[/b] Are your serious ? If so where did you get that information-by Divine Revealtion?
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2002 : 21:33:55 [Permalink]
|
So you quote me as saying "No Christian document that has been tested by modern methods comes from before the fourth century. "
And then you say "Now my question to you is if you can't give me those results are you reasonable enough to accept the fidings of the "old fashion" papyrologist(heck I'll even give you the latest dates they give,the + years they say is + or - 25 I'll give you 75)"
That's like saying that according to the science of 1955 the contients are immoveable. No one has allowed any measurements to be made to see if Australia has drifted. Will I be reasonable enough to accept the findings of the old fashioned geologists about Australia, since I have no way of knowing if Australia has moved or not?
The answer is no. I will have to stick with the position that I don't know if it has moved or not, but knowing that the contients that have been tested have moved I would tend to think it has.
According to the Roman Catholic Church-which owns most of the early documents-all of those which have been tested by the extreemly accurate accelerator mass spectrometer technique have come from after 325 CE. The majority of these documents had previously been given earlier dates. But it is the (present) policy of the Catholic Church to be as honest as humanly possible about such things.
You are right I cannot know about these privately held documents which have only been tested by outdated methods. Until they are actually tested I will have to reserve judgement. However judging from those already tested pre Nicaean dates seem highly unlikely.
And since I have, again and again, said that I was baseing my supposition only on verifiable facts I cannot take untested documents into account.
[b]Gospels...are still works of fiction.
[/b] Are your serious ? If so where did you get that information-by Divine Revealtion?[b]
Since they are nothing more than retellings of Myths all Christians declare to be fictitious you don't need a god to reveal anything to you. Christians have already said the stories--in their first tellings-- were false.
Why; have you come up with an historic reference about Jesus? You have proof that there is a god that you aren't shareing?
But then you are the one who claiming "Divine Revealtion" aren't you. Even if you can't produce a god.
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
[i]The Preparation of the Gospel[/i] |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2002 : 14:25:48 [Permalink]
|
To Slater ,fine let's move to the other 2 test metioned earlier(the internal,and the external).If it's ok with you I would like to combine both for brevity's sake and at the same time answer some of the other interesting points brought out by Garrett,Lars,DMV,and Tim.Also I hope to apply good ole ockham's razor along the way. Which, by the way,I must do for the first test(ie the bibliographic).First,from my viewpoint we would expect to find the earliest MSS in the linga franca of the day,namely konie greek.This fact may seem obvious today but was not the case just over 150 years ago.It was speculated that the writers of the NT spoke a "Holy Ghost"inspired greek since it was much diffrent from the familar classical greek scholar's were use to.Then as archeologist began to unearth literal garbage heaps of the early 1st century and began to find grocery list,receipts,legal doc's ect...they began to realize that the koine of the NT was the common mans greek.Now on your 4th century view of the fabrication of the NT we wouldn't expect to find the above happing as latin was the common tounge(easly evidenced by the fact that Jerome finnished translating The Latin Vulgate in 405 AD because konie greek was already arcahic).I feel confident that ockham would favor the simple explanation as to why we have our oldest in MSS in konie greek is because thats when they were written not "well you see Euib and Const got together and said 'hey to make this thing believable in the 20th century when they do all this dating of ancient MSS ect... we better scatter across the whole Empire these konie greek MSS that nobody understands blah,blah,blah'".
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2002 : 15:45:22 [Permalink]
|
[b]First,from my viewpoint we would expect to find the earliest MSS in the linga franca of the day,namely konie greek.[/b]
Very true. We find documents in Konie Greek for around 660 years.
[b]This fact may seem obvious today but was not the case just over 150 years ago.[/b]
As I have said you are always better off going with the most up to date science than outmoded suppositions from the past. Science is self correcting after all.
[b] Then as archeologist began to unearth literal garbage heaps of the early 1st century and began to find grocery list,receipts,legal doc's ect...they began to realize that the koine of the NT was the common mans greek.[/b]
Odd, isn't it, that we should have lists of what they were going to pick up at the deli but no mention that God was vacationing in the middle east?
[b]Now on your 4th century view of the fabrication of the NT we wouldn't expect to find the above happing as latin was the common tounge(easly evidenced by the fact that Jerome finnished translating The Latin Vulgate in 405 AD because konie greek was already arcahic).[/b]
You already answered that. Don't you read these blurbs before you copy them?
----------------
Koine Greek (330 BC - 330 AD)
"When primitive tribes of Indo-Europeans moved into Greece...
----------------
The dates you supplied for Konie Greek go well past Nicaea.
The Vulgate comes from the fifth century not the beginning of the fourth. Eighty years after the time we're talking about.
[b]I feel confident that ockham would favor the simple explanation as to why we have our oldest in MSS in konie greek is because thats when they were written[/b]
Agreed. But so what, your research has already told us that it was still in common use in 325 CE
[b]not "well you see Euib and Const got together and said 'hey to make this thing believable in the 20th century when they do all this dating of ancient MSS ect... we better scatter across the whole Empire these konie greek MSS that nobody understands blah,blah,blah'".[/b]
Why would nobody understand it if it was written in what had been the "lingua franca" (note correct spelling for the next time you feel the need of pretense) for 650+ years?
Still waiting on proof of a historic Jesus. Have they found his laundry bill in any garbage heaps? A MasterCard receipt from the Last Supper?
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
[i]The Preparation of the Gospel[/i] |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2002 : 10:17:39 [Permalink]
|
D'Alogos you keep bringing up Occam's razor (both spellings are correct by the way) to test the bible. I was wondering why you do that since the bible doesn't stand up to the test at all. The problem is of course that instead of just being a fairly interesting book of a philosophical conglomeration the authors have filled it with silly "miracles" and wild claims of divinity.
Further the miracles are an exact match for ones preformed by Apollonius of Tyana, Mithra and Dionysus.
Out of Jesus, Apollonius, Mithra and Dionysus only one has any claim at being an historic personage.
Apollonius.
So to use Occam's razor you have to decide what is the simplest explanation of the NT stories.
One argument is that it is a myth exactly as the other stories it so closely resembles are.
The other argument is that it is true.
They both, on the surface, sound like equally simple answers. True or false, two sides of the same coin.
One must then ask what would the conditions have to be for a given answer to be true.
For the MYTH conditions would match those we observe in the world today. Nothing need change from the way it is.
For the MIRACLE every last thing we have learned about science in the past 300 years would be wrong and have to be discarded. The entire field of Physics would have to be abandoned.
Even the use of Logic itself would no longer be valid for in a world where magic exists logic can no longer apply, as effects would no longer have appropriate causes.
Arithmetic, after the miracle of the loaves and the fishes, would also have to be discarded. Two plus two would no longer always equal four, the answer could be different each time you added them. Two plus two conceivably equals a multitude or zero in a universe where there were such things as miracles.
In other words MIRACLE is an unbelievably complicated answer for it would mean that most things that we have worked so hard to understand were wrong.
While MYTH isn't complicated at all as it requires no change in present observed conditions.
Back in the thirteen hundreds William of Ockham came up with the original "baloney detector." It clearly shows, even after all these years, that the NT is full of baloney.
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
[i]The Preparation of the Gospel[/i] |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2002 : 11:52:49 [Permalink]
|
[quote]The dates you supplied for Konie Greek go well past Nicaea.
The Vulgate comes from the fifth century not the beginning of the fourth. Eighty years after the time we're talking about.
[b]I feel confident that ockham would favor the simple explanation as to why we have our oldest in MSS in konie greek is because thats when they were written[/b]
Agreed. But so what, your research has already told us that it was still in common use in 325 CE
[b]not "well you see Euib and Const got together and said 'hey to make this thing believable in the 20th century when they do all this dating of ancient MSS ect... we better scatter across the whole Empire these konie greek MSS that nobody understands blah,blah,blah'".[/b]
Why would nobody understand it if it was written in what had been the "lingua franca" (note correct spelling for the next time you feel the need of pretense) for 650+ years?
Still waiting on proof of a historic Jesus. Have the
[/quote] Slater, if you have a Bible (the Latin Vulgate) completed in 405AD.Then somebody must have commissioned it sooner(the chruch did appox.360 AD)and the need for it must have been even sooner,just as the need for an English Bible was many years before the KJV.The obvious reason is hardly anyone spoke konie greek anymore.So why, according to your 325AD fabrication theory, would we find thousand's of koine gk MSS all over the Roman Empire?The simplest explanation is because they were copied from the original in that language not put there has plants as your view would have.  "Survey says occham's on Xian's side 2 to 0"
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2002 : 13:02:33 [Permalink]
|
~~"Survey says occham's on Xian's side 2 to 0"~~
This isn't a game where people are keeping score. Rather a search for the truth. All I see is twisting of the facts that Konie was in use after 325CE to somehow support that the writings found in that language must have come from earlier because it went out of popular usage some few decades later. Doesn't make much sense when you consider that just 10-15 years ago the words 'fax' 'internet' weren't in common use then but are now. Additionally, how many people say 'gag me with a spoon' anymore. You still hear it and occassionally see it written, people know what it means. Language isn't forgotten in just a few years DA. It changes, the old would have been understood by those who were required to understand it. Not everyone could read, write, etc well enough to have read or even understood the writings you speak of, you seem to be applying 20th century educational standards to the 4th century. This projection of your expectations on the 4th century would somehow seem inappropriate in an understanding of the historical society.
---
There is no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've known. Sagan |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2002 : 18:11:23 [Permalink]
|
[b]Slater, if you have a Bible (the Latin Vulgate) completed in 405AD.[b]
Exactly eighty years after Nicaea. That's 80. The big Eight Oh. Four score.
[b]Then somebody must have commissioned it sooner(the chruch did appox.360 AD)[/b]
Are you making these numbers up in the hope that no one here has studied European History?
That would have been impossible because Julian the Apostate was Emperor and he returned Classical Religion to Rome for a short time.
It was Saint Damasus (Pope at the time) who commissioned the vulgar (that's what vulgate means, common, vulgar) version in CE 383. He had his secretary Saint Jerome (the guy who thought up priestly celibacy after smooth talking Saint Paula-a rich Roman matriarch-- into giving him her fortune). Jerome put the finishing touches on it in CE 405 and became patron saint of librarians and students.
[b]and the need for it must have been even sooner, just as the need for an English Bible was many years before the KJV.[/b]
There may have been a need but there was no Latin translation from Aramaic and Greek until 405 CE.
But don't think that ordinary Romans had the need of a bible. Bibles were absolutely forbidden to ordinary people. Only the clergy was allowed to own one. In later years, after the fall of Rome nobles were allowed parts, but not all, of the bible. That's why Luther made such a big deal about getting copies out.
[b]The obvious reason is hardly anyone spoke konie greek anymore. [/b]
That's not so bad. There still are Catholic Churches that hold mass in Latin; which has been a dead language for around fifteen hundred years. They like that sort of thing. Anyway you only needed the clergy to speak it, not lay people. Since the clergy of the time carried on their correspondence in Greek we can assume they had no trouble with it.
[b]So why, according to your 325AD fabrication theory, would we find thousand's of koine gk MSS all over the Roman Empire?[/b]
When you were baptized just how long did they hold your head under the water?
The first Latin Bible appeared in 405, Nicaea was eighty years before. They wrote in Greek and Aramaic at Nicaea. All of their bibles were in Greek and Aramaic. What is so strange about that? You quoted the dates yourself. They didn't start in with Latin for eighty freakin' years so of course there would be thousands of documents in Greek. Eighty years worth. All educated people of that period wrote and spoke Greek. Speaking Greek was the mark of a scholar well into the nineteenth century.
[b]The simplest explanation is because they were copied from the original in that language not put there has plants as your view would have.[/b]
The simplest explanation is that they wrote in the language that they spoke. In 325 CE they spoke Greek-you supplied the dates yourself.
The simplest explanation of why the church, which saves everything, didn't save any originals is that they actually did save them. The originals just aren't as old as one might like.
People who save the bloody heart of Saint Agnes in a golden box aren't going to toss out their original holy books.
"Ma!! What have you done? While I was at camp you threw out my Superman Vol. 1, Spiderman Vol.12, and Acts of the Apostles Vol. 1 !!"
"I told you to clean your room before you left Expiditus*, and you put it off and put it off. Maybe next time you'll remember that cleanliness is next to godliness. "
*Saint Expiditus --invoked against Procrastination.
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
[i]The Preparation of the Gospel[/i] |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2002 : 16:03:23 [Permalink]
|
Good one old St.Expiditus.Slater you mention that of the four:Jesus, Apollonius, Mithra and Dionysus,that [b]only one has any claim at being an historic personage.
Apollonius.[/b] I have no problem with Apollonius being "an historical personage".However, I was trying to figure out what historical criteria you used for your conclusion?It seems the NT is in far better shape MSS wise(the bibliographic test), and I soon hope to demonstrate the same with the other two test(the internal and external).From my research it seems that Philostratus received his info second hand over almost hundred years after the fact(from Apollonius' disciple Damis),at the bidding of self proclaimed "pagan" Julia Domma, second wife of Emperor Septimius Severus.Who told our biographier she wanted "a pagan Christ".Like I said I don't dispute Apol's existence or his miracles,but I am curious as to why you find his historic existence acceptable.Especially, with the clear intervention with a woman as powerful as Julia
Edited by - darwin alogos on 03/08/2002 10:53:22 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2002 : 11:42:14 [Permalink]
|
However, I was trying to figure out what historical criteria you used for your conclusion?
It's very simple, they must have left some evidence behind.
From my research it seems that Philostratus recieved his info second hand over almost hundred years after the fact…
That's right Philostratus was in the third century. So what? That's like claiming that Gore Vidal wrote a bio of Lincoln so we have no other way of knowing Honest Abe ever lived. Apollonious lived almost 100 years and was a very important man and like all similar people he left a lot of stuff behind. He wrote several books himself. These were destroyed by the Christians when they burned the library of Alexandria.  However they didn't destroy critical commentaries that other people wrote in response to his books. Nor did they destroy his massive correspondence (some of which was incorporated into "Paul's" epistle to the Hebrews)
nor that of notables discussing him. We still have the records the Roman government had on him, and many personal artifacts.
I've included a jpeg of a bust of him(I don't know if present web conditions will allow it to post) that was done from life. It's the closest I can come to giving you a photograph of the guy. It belongs to the Museum of Milan, which owns the largest collection of artifacts relating to Apollonius of Tyana.
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2002 : 13:49:39 [Permalink]
|
  Appearently I didn't make my self clear enough,although I said it twice:"I have no problem with Apollonius being "an historical personage";"Like I said I don't dispute Apol's existence or his miracles,but I am curious as to why you find his historic existence acceptable".The reason I said those comments was because I see a strange double standard being used by you.First, as you so rightly point out that even if we didn't have any original documents from a historic personage we are still in good shape if we can piece together what others wrote about him/her [quote]However they didn't destroy critical commentaries that other people wrote in response to his books. Nor did they destroy his massive correspondence (some of which was incorporated into "Paul's" epistle to the Hebrews)
[/quote].I mentioned that very same principle back on page 4 or 5 of this post concerning the existence of the NT from the extensive quotes of it from the eary 2nd century Church Fathers,hertics(ie Marcion AD 140),and even skeptics: Celus and Prohyry!All this before 325AD.Gotta go breaks over
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2002 : 21:57:15 [Permalink]
|
Darwin Alogos, I have been reading this thread with interest, because of the historical implications and I have just come to a realization (after several beers). Do you realize the work you have put into this just to prove that copies of the books of the Bible existed before 325 AD? You haven't even shown an actual Jesus, much less a divine Jesus. Good luck to ya, fellah. Apologetics is tough work. Hope it pays well.
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.
-Niels Bohr
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
