Why did Gospel writers care so little for history?

[nova900]

! If one believes it is historically accurate, one becomes compelled beyond a reasonable doubt to also believe Jesus was resurrected. But Murdock and others are forced to ignore or discount 40 some-odd extra-Biblical and self-consistent references that corroborate the New Testament, and forced to ignore the historical accuracy of Luke, Paul and others, and forced to ignore the archaeological evidence. .

References to real existing places and events and archaeological evidence does not prove the idealogy is true. Otherwise it would be the same as believeing any science fiction novel for instance is true simply because it takes place in a real place or time or makes references to real historical or present day people(s)

I personally believe the NT contains a lot of good spiritual content,but only so much as what "jives" with similar content in other religous systems.
It's its specific idealogy ( the only true path to God,Jesus died for our sins,you need a saviour,etc,the way it attempts to demonize other belief systems) that I disagree with.

 

[Photizo]

It's its specific idealogy ( the only true path to God,Jesus died for our sins,you need a saviour,etc,the way it attempts to demonize other belief systems) that I disagree with.

Why?

 

[nova900]

Why?

Why?
Because much of it appears to me as an attempt by unscrupulous people to take existing ideas and concepts about God,the afterlife and change it to a personality control cult religion (Jesus).

And...there are no outside sources (nontextual) that corroborate it.

 

[Photizo]

Why?
Because much of it appears to me as an attempt by unscrupulous people to take existing ideas and concepts about God,the afterlife and change it to a personality control cult religion (Jesus).

Which, if any, outside sources corroborate what "appears to" you? i.e. the NT authors were unscrupulous people...

And...there are no outside sources (nontextual) that corroborate it.

Didn't you just get done mentioning "existing ideas"?

 

[nova900]

Which, if any, outside sources corroborate what "appears to" you? i.e. the NT authors were unscrupulous people...

And...there are no outside sources (nontextual) that corroborate it.

Didn't you just get done mentioning "existing ideas"?

I had mentioned I don't agree with it's specific idealogy and you asked ..why.

I answered: A) It's my personal belief. and B) There are no outside nontextual sources that corroborate it ( The literal interpretation or its specific idealogy)

Those outside sources? : Hundreds of cases of near death accounts,pychic phenomanae.

 

[Photizo]

I had mentioned I don't agree with it's specific idealogy and you asked ..why.

I answered: A) It's my personal belief. and B) There are no outside nontextual sources that corroborate it ( The literal interpretation or its specific idealogy)

Those outside sources? : Hundreds of cases of near death accounts,pychic phenomanae.

I understand the flow of the exchange...however, I asked you for outside sources to support your "personal belief" that the writers of the NT were unscrupulous people...if you have none then fine, you just believe that. To hold they are unscrupulous without evidence to support this belief seems unjust, unfair, and irrational.

You mentioned "the way it (the NT) attempts to demonize other belief systems"...please cite a few of these attempts--i.e. chapter and verse.

 

[Myles]

ok this is a bit of a non-answer... i would characterize this quoted portion above as maybe a step or two above "they started it, that's why"... and it doesn't answer the basic question...

if you care nothing for the bible, and it's nonsense, and the like... why would anyone care enough to go into criticizing it?...

for just one example, i could care less about the books written by Shirley Maclaine, i find them to be nonsense... i wouldn't endeavor to even address the stuff... in fact in literal truth this is the first time in my life i have ever typed/mentioned her name in this way, or mentioned her books, on the internet or IRL, and i did this only for the sake of example...

if i was spending my time going into critiques of her material as nonsense and baseless stuff, repeatedly making what i thought were clever forays into dissecting her ideas, and the tenants of spirituality she espouses, if i spent time lampooning those who follow her ideas as profound spirituality, who think her so enlightened...

if i did these things and etc... anyone with a modicum of wisdom would know something was up, i was protesting too much, there was more to the issue than me merely finding her works nonsense... i may use the fact that she writes best selling novels, or has many people who follow her advice and tenants and etc. as some excuse for my oddly focused energy on trying to 'shoot her down'... but there is no escaping how odd, telling, and out of place my use of my time and energy focusing on her stuff would be... even though i may delude myself, anyone with any real intelligence would see through it...

in your case more directly, if 'they'(Christians) are trying to influence public policy, for instance, then it is merely a political action concern... one may start a political action committee of their own, to counter the political influence, they might not vote for candidates and representatives who subscribed to that stuff... etc... there simply is no logical or meaningful reason to begin on some critical analysis of the book/books of the religion...





now you completely avoid my point, which is, i see almost no intelligent and well informed criticism of the bible... it is always done by those who are almost completely ignorant of the text... and this from scientists, so often, who espouse 'peer review by informed colleagues' as requirements to validate their ideas... yet this same crowd suddenly finds completely ignorant criticism of a thing like the bible as 'perfectly reasonable'... a painfully obvious, and complete contradiction of motives, logic, and methods... it sticks out like a sore thumb...

"unlike most Christians i thought about religion" true, most don't...

but anyone who has actually studied the bible knows full well it is an anti-religion book... the simple fact is... MOST, 99% of the 'religious', the 'Christians', church goers of every flavor, have never studied the book... a smaller percentage than that of 'critics have actually read the stuff...

"growing up in a Christian ethos" sounds more like you have unresolved issues with your family dynamic, and parents, than anything to do with the actual text of, and teachings in, the bible... and this flavour of 'justification' is what you find most of the time in this 'anti bible' type of approach... it's odd, out of place, illogical, and telling...

"why waste further time on the bible"? ironic you point out my simple assertion for me... why are you "wasting time" posting about something you claim to be nonsense?

and please, no more "because they started it" circular logic...





so people "who believe they have all the answers because they have studied a copy of their holy book"... is why people engage in VERY poorly informed, frankly almost completely ignorant of the subject matter, criticism?... putting out such energy and time 'shooting down' the bible... again it's more of a "because they started it" type of idea... like a dad may hear as a response to "don't make me stop this car"... "they started it" comes from the back seat...

that is nonsense and another non-answer...





you might think a bit on what you describe as 'unneeded' advice... particularly with me seeing the things you so confidently state the bible 'says' on various topics...

(note: i cleaned up the edit you did, as to keep tags consistent, and enhance readability and the flow of ideas)

As you assert that most people have no in-depth knowledge of the Bible, I take it that you agree with me that god-botherers on the street and at my door don't know what they are talking about. That leaves you as one of the elect who do understand the Bible. Well done !

 

[Myles]

I understand the flow of the exchange...however, I asked you for outside sources to support your "personal belief" that the writers of the NT were unscrupulous people...if you have none then fine, you just believe that. To hold they are unscrupulous without evidence to support this belief seems unjust, unfair, and irrational.

You mentioned "the way it (the NT) attempts to demonize other belief systems"...please cite a few of these attempts--i.e. chapter and verse.

I fully suport your insistence on evidence. What evidence can you offer to persuade me that I should believe the Bible ?

 

[nova900]

I understand the flow of the exchange...however, I asked you for outside sources to support your "personal belief" that the writers of the NT were unscrupulous people...if you have none then fine, you just believe that. To hold they are unscrupulous without evidence to support this belief seems unjust, unfair, and irrational.

NDEs'.

You mentioned "the way it (the NT) attempts to demonize other belief systems"...please cite a few of these attempts--i.e. chapter and verse.

1 Corinthians 10:20


10:20. But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.

From a Christian website: "newgeorgiachurch.com"

WE MUST "BEWARE" OF FALSE TEACHING
Christians also have an obligation to maintain unity with one another based on truth (Ephesians 4:1-3). Divergent doctrines are obviously the enemy of unity (Ephesians 4:14). We should "not be carried about with various and strange doctrines" (Hebrews 13:9).
One of the best safe guards against false teaching is a thorough awareness of it; we should be able to recognize a false doctrine (1 John 4:1), convincingly explain what is wrong with it (Titus 1:9; 2 Timothy 4:2), and identify those who teach it (Romans 16:17-18). In Matthew 16:6-12, Jesus warned his disciples to "take heed" and "beware" of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The phrase "take heed" (Greek. horao) means to "discern clearly" and the word "beware" (Greek. prosexo) means to "hold the mind towards," "pay attention to," or "be cautious about" (Strong's Greek Dictionary). When it comes to false teaching, the most dangerous thing we can do is stick our heads in the sand and ignore it. To beware is to be aware. The many passages found in the New Testament warning us to beware of false teachers are sufficient by themselves to authorize us to study other religions (cf. Matthew 7:15; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; 2 Peter 2:1-4; 3:17; 1 John 4:1).

 

[Myles]

:yawn: :zzz::sleep:

That's an answer worthy of a bible scholar. By the way, you omitted the fairies

 

[Cris]

Revolvr,

Since you are probably an atheist you don’t believe in miracles. You believe a priori that miracles cannot occur therefore you would buy into the Hume argument that no evidence or witness would ever be credible enough to change your mind. Much like the arguments against UFO’s. Obviously there are no space aliens, therefore no matter how credible the witness; it has to be clouds, Venus or hoaxes.

No not really. Atheists tend not to take that approach. It is not that they believe that such things cannot occur but more that those who claim they do cannot justify such claims. The "I do not believe you" approach taken by most thinking atheists is because theists cannot prove their claims. Adding alleged witnesses, in any number, who also cannot prove their claims doesn't move the argument.

 

[Cris]

Revolvr,

Anyone who does scholarly work should expect to face criticism from her peers. It’s part of the Scientific Method. She of course dismisses all criticism as emotional backlash by Christians.

Not sure she would say that. That last statement was mine.

But in fact the people I quoted – a small sample, do not have agendas. Many of her critics are not Christians or Jews. They are recognized experts in their fields and carry a lot of weight.

All of the mighty weight of authority is puny and irrelevant compared to a single logical deduction made by a layman.

Much of the criticism of her work is just too easy. It is very easy for example, to show she quotes the Old Testament out of context. All one has to do is go read. She says for another example, that “nowhere in all the writings of Justin Martyr, does he once so much as mention any of these gospels.” But all one has to do is actually read Justin, and we find he does indeed refer to them and quote them. Just read it! She also makes assertions she doesn’t back up with anything. Simple Simple Simple.

Who’s critique are you referencing? These comments obviously aren’t yours since you clearly haven’t read the book.

You should actually be concerned about the LACK of critical examination (either pro or con). Serious scholars simply do not pay attention to her work for obvious reasons. She is the Eric von Daniken of mythology (He’s the Ancient Astronauts guy who claims aliens visited our ancestors).

Read the book – in totality she raises a valid supportable issue – Christianity can be shown to be a fraud.

Look also at how she handles criticism. She goes immediately to polemics and ad hominem attacks and claiming these skeptics don’t know what they are talking about when they are clearly recognized experts. Taking things so personally is not a sign of a credible scientist.

Who/what reference are you quoting?

You lose credibility by quoting Murdock. You may certainly dismiss my views and the views of most other scholars. But it only demonstrates a closed mind.

Take care here – remember it is the theist that has the ultimate position in closed mindedness because for him/her – there is no other option other than God did it.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I understand the flow of the exchange...however, I asked you for outside sources to support your "personal belief" that the writers of the NT were unscrupulous people...if you have none then fine, you just believe that. To hold they are unscrupulous without evidence to support this belief seems unjust, unfair, and irrational.

You mentioned "the way it (the NT) attempts to demonize other belief systems"...please cite a few of these attempts--i.e. chapter and verse.

*************
M*W: Well, for starters, xianity demonizes Judaism and all other myths that came before its inception. Ironically, the myth of xianity was taken from earlier pagan religions... like sun worship.

 

[Dr Mabuse]

As you assert that most people have no in-depth knowledge of the Bible, I take it that you agree with me that god-botherers on the street and at my door don't know what they are talking about. That leaves you as one of the elect who do understand the Bible. Well done !

"they started it" was a vastly more intelligent point from you than this quoted above...

a logical and thorough response to your post didn't leave you much did it?...

so you just make up the idea i was painting myself as some form of the providentially enlightened elect?...

more nonsense... whats rather entertaining, and wholly hypocritical, is such mindless, childlike nonsense coming from one who so vehemently condemns the 'nonsense' of the bible and the religious...

you weren't debating ideas, nor were you attempting to... you are poorly informed on the subject matter... you're dealing with some form of emotional motivation...

that's almost always the case...

that was my point...

all of the oh so logical 'bible debunkers' claiming the 'religious' to be merely self deluded and etc... are usually a pot calling the proverbial kettle black, almost always in fact... and seeking to assail the bible or a given religious group for some psychological/emotional reason that makes no more sense than, nor have they even considered their own reasoning or motivation one bit more than, the blindly religious person' does, or has, respectively... and almost none of the 'memebers' of these seemingly diametrically opposed groups have actually spent any time reading, much less studying, the stuff they so claim to despise or hold sacred...

 

[Myles]

The hoax I refer to is of course Jesus’ resurrection. All of the New Testament authors claim to have seen Jesus after his resurrection. Extra-Biblical sources, non-sympathetic Jewish sources, acknowledge Jesus’ tomb was empty. But of course these sources assume the Apostles had removed and hid the body. Hence the hoax.

Without the resurrection, Jesus was just a brilliant scholar with a new interpretation of Hebrew Scriptures (or a blaspheming rebel); not the Son of God. But those believers all save one who was banished, knowingly went to their deaths as did many of the 500 others who witnessed Jesus after his resurection. Would they perpetrate a hoax by removing Jesus’ body as the Jews believed, then allow themselves to be tortured and murdered for the hoax? Of course not! What does one have to gain by dying for a known lie?

Now we’ve come full circle back to the original question on historical accuracy. This is why people like Murdock must try to prove the entire New Testament is a hoax – that none of this happened! If one believes it is historically accurate, one becomes compelled beyond a reasonable doubt to also believe Jesus was resurrected. But Murdock and others are forced to ignore or discount 40 some-odd extra-Biblical and self-consistent references that corroborate the New Testament, and forced to ignore the historical accuracy of Luke, Paul and others, and forced to ignore the archaeological evidence. It becomes a vast conspiracy even more complex and improbable than the "911 Truther's" notion the government imploded the WTC.

I can't answer for those who went to their death in biblical times. I can point out incidences of mass suicide among cults whose members had faith in their leaders as a possible parallel. Look at the rise of Scientology to get a measure of the guillibility of humankind.

There is no direct evidence as to how Jesus' body disapeared from the tomb, if it did so. The Bible may be an historically accurate account of what people believed but that does not guarantee the resurrection. Not all theologians believe the Jesus was God incarnate. Have you, for example, read Don Cupid ?

I simply find the whole thing preposterous. Let those who believe in an omniscient creator ponder what sort of god would create the world, knowing how things would develop. He tries to clear up the first mess by sending a deluge which wipes out all but Noah and his family. Noah had the advantage of foreknowledge which was denied to others. That counts as nonsense in my book. After the deluge, the world remains as sinful as ever, i.e., human nature hasn't changed. So now god creates a son destined to become a blood sacrifice to save sinners. What a disgusting way to solve a problem of his own making !

When I was younger, I used to be amazed that people could believe such stuff. Now I know that people are capable of believing anything. And they do.

 

[Myles]

"they started it" was a vastly more intelligent point from you than this quoted above...

a logical and thorough response to your post didn't leave you much did it?...

so you just make up the idea i was painting myself as some form of the providentially enlightened elect?...

more nonsense... whats rather entertaining, and wholly hypocritical, is such mindless, childlike nonsense coming from one who so vehemently condemns the 'nonsense' of the bible and the religious...

you weren't debating ideas, nor were you attempting to... you are poorly informed on the subject matter... you're dealing with some form of emotional motivation...

that's almost always the case...

that was my point...

all of the oh so logical 'bible debunkers' claiming the 'religious' to be merely self deluded and etc... are usually a pot calling the proverbial kettle black, almost always in fact... and seeking to assail the bible or a given religious group for some psychological/emotional reason that makes no more sense than, nor have they even considered their own reasoning or motivation one bit more than, the blindly religious person' does, or has, respectively... and almost none of the 'memebers' of these seemingly diametrically opposed groups have actually spent any time reading, much less studying, the stuff they so claim to despise or hold sacred...

Logic is not the tool to deal with mythology because mythology is illogical. That's why Plato used mythology as you will find, if you are not already acquainted with his writings.

Reason does have a place in the scheme of things and this is where religion fails the test. It comes down to a question of blind faith. I prefer to think for myself. See my response to Revolvr .

 

[Cris]

Dr Mabuse,

all of the oh so logical 'bible debunkers' claiming the 'religious' to be merely self deluded and etc... are usually a pot calling the proverbial kettle black, almost always in fact... and seeking to assail the bible or a given religious group for some psychological/emotional reason that makes no more sense than, nor have they even considered their own reasoning or motivation one bit more than, the blindly religious person' does, or has, respectively... and almost none of the 'memebers' of these seemingly diametrically opposed groups have actually spent any time reading, much less studying, the stuff they so claim to despise or hold sacred...

Wow a very wide generalization without a single supporting reference. Perhaps when you’ve debated more with the folks here you will eventually realize that your statement is false in every respect.

 

[Photizo]

NDEs'.

" NDE's " hardly qualify as evidence for anything. Please provide evidence to support/justify your "personal belief" that the writers of the NT are "unscrupulous people"...

1 Corinthians 10:20

10:20. But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.

How is this an example of the NT demonizing other belief systems? According to the text, who's doing the demonizing? Obviously the text indicates it is the demons themselves, perpetrating this upon the hapless heathen who sacrifice offerings to them. The readers are being informed/warned concerning such behavior so as to not suffer the same fate. Consider that demonization always originates with an inherently evil source. The Source of the entire Bible, both OT and NT, is God. Therefore, it is impossible for either the OT or NT to demonize anything or anyone.

Consider also Jesus' reasoning/reply when He was accused of casting out demons by the prince of demons...you are greatly mistaken regarding your notion of the NT demonizing other belief systems.

 

[Photizo]

I fully suport your insistence on evidence.

Wonderful.

What evidence can you offer to persuade me that I should believe the Bible ?

You've already been "offered" both within you and without you all the evidence you're going to get--provided/offered you by the Author of the Bible Himself.

 

[Photizo]

*************
M*W: Well, for starters, xianity demonizes Judaism and all other myths that came before its inception. Ironically, the myth of xianity was taken from earlier pagan religions... like sun worship.

Uh, for starters...so what? The discussion is about alleged demonizing of other beliefs by the NT. Verstehen Sie?