Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent. Full Story

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172572 Jul 19, 2013
Finally left the buffet eh fatass?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>The nerve - using a guy's own words when quoting him.

Unlike you liberals (yes, shit-for-brains, you are a liberal) who lie about what people say.

The default position for dealing with liberals like you, especially devoted materialists, like you, is to assume you are lying until proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172573 Jul 19, 2013
I notice no answer whatsoever as to why the gospels do not match up just an off topic rant.

The fact that they differ so wildly shatters your 10 so called 10 tests that you just made up. But for fun..

1: Certainly not and even Christian apologetics will admit this.
2: Even Christian apologetics admit the gospels are not meant to be like a history lesson. Wow you are really bad at this. Let's continue shall we? Lol!
3: Certainly not. The Greeks who penned the gospels came decades later and were not eye witnesses to the events.
4: The bias in the gospels are naturally very high and I am shocked even you would be so ignorant as to claim otherwise.
5: The writers were not eye witnesses so writing something that sounds like an eye witness is irrelevant and any historian would agree.
6: No we don't see any such humility in the gospels and you will need to show a source for this claim.
7: Lmfao absolutely not the gospels contradict themselves wildly and can't even quote the Torah correctly.
8: Subject completely to personal opinion, not a tool used by historians. You have been caught red handed lying and you know it.
9: We can see how the gospel stories are blatantly stolen from previous religions. At times damn near word for word.
10: Nope not in the slightest.

Then you claim that the gospels are able to answer properly for each of these 10? I will need to see sources and evidence for your claim. I doubt you will be able to as you just made it up but good luck.

And as I said before this merely is you saying.. Wow I believe the gospels! It I'm no way shape or form comes close to answering my question about why the gospels do not match up. I thought you were going to answer that question.... No surprise you avoided it and desperately tried to change the subject.

Here let me hold your hand half wit and try to guide you. Finish this statement. The reason the gospels don't match up is because.......
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>I'll go with your statement of why the gospels don't match up.
I treat the gospels as primitive historical documents.

1) Do we possess copies of the original ancient document(s) that are REASONABLY close to the original?(They don't need to be verbatim copies)

2) Did the document intend to communicate history or is it intended to be fictitious?

3) Was the author of the document in a position to witness the history he or she is reporting?

4) How much of the author's bias (and ALL historical authors have bias to some degree. History isn't 100% objective) is present in the document? And how do the biases affect the document?

5) Does the document include details that are typical of eye-witness testimony?

6) Does the document include embarrassing details that would counter any bias on the author's part? In other words, does the author admit to mistakes or shortcomings? This is usually a sign of truth in historical reporting.

7) Are the documents self-consistent or consistent with other documentation that report the same event?

8) Are the events recorded intrinsically believable or unbelievable?

9) Is there other documented literary evidence that affects our analysis of the document in question?

10) is there any archeological evidence to support the literary evidence?

These are the 10 criteria used by historians to discern the authenticity and reliability of any document in history. These ten tests can be applied to the four gospels with integrity. If you were to let go of your presuppositions, the results would surprise you.

Since: Jun 13

Milwaukee, WI

#172574 Jul 19, 2013
mr apologist just to remind you you have absolutly no proof that god exsist and you have absolutly no way of proving a "god" exsist you were getting kind of lost in your own bs there for a minute

Since: Jun 13

Milwaukee, WI

#172575 Jul 19, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
How am I supposed to answer them when they're mostly condescending remarks and taunts? I'll go with your statement of why the gospels don't match up. I doubt you'll agree, but then my goal really isn't to get you to agree with me. So it won't be a disappointment at all when you don't. My victory will be complete when I answer you to the best of my ability according to my own understanding. It's the best I can do.
I treat the gospels as primitive historical documents. I apply the ten tests of historicity that virtually all historical scholars use when analyzing historical documents.
1) Do we possess copies of the original ancient document(s) that are REASONABLY close to the original?(They don't need to be verbatim copies)
2) Did the document intend to communicate history or is it intended to be fictitious?
3) Was the author of the document in a position to witness the history he or she is reporting?
4) How much of the author's bias (and ALL historical authors have bias to some degree. History isn't 100% objective) is present in the document? And how do the biases affect the document?
5) Does the document include details that are typical of eye-witness testimony?
6) Does the document include embarrassing details that would counter any bias on the author's part? In other words, does the author admit to mistakes or shortcomings? This is usually a sign of truth in historical reporting.
7) Are the documents self-consistent or consistent with other documentation that report the same event?
8) Are the events recorded intrinsically believable or unbelievable?
9) Is there other documented literary evidence that affects our analysis of the document in question?
10) is there any archeological evidence to support the literary evidence?
These are the 10 criteria used by historians to discern the authenticity and reliability of any document in history. These ten tests can be applied to the four gospels with integrity. If you were to let go of your presuppositions, the results would surprise you.
lol well acording to your own test none of that proves god or any god for that maters existance and i think it was test # ten there is no archological evidence what so ever to support anything that these historical documents of yours are claiming "god" did (walked on water did all sorts of magic ect)

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#172576 Jul 20, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I notice no answer whatsoever as to why the gospels do not match up just an off topic rant.
The fact that they differ so wildly shatters your 10 so called 10 tests that you just made up. But for fun..
1: Certainly not and even Christian apologetics will admit this.
2: Even Christian apologetics admit the gospels are not meant to be like a history lesson. Wow you are really bad at this. Let's continue shall we? Lol!
3: Certainly not. The Greeks who penned the gospels came decades later and were not eye witnesses to the events.
4: The bias in the gospels are naturally very high and I am shocked even you would be so ignorant as to claim otherwise.
5: The writers were not eye witnesses so writing something that sounds like an eye witness is irrelevant and any historian would agree.
6: No we don't see any such humility in the gospels and you will need to show a source for this claim.
7: Lmfao absolutely not the gospels contradict themselves wildly and can't even quote the Torah correctly.
8: Subject completely to personal opinion, not a tool used by historians. You have been caught red handed lying and you know it.
9: We can see how the gospel stories are blatantly stolen from previous religions. At times damn near word for word.
10: Nope not in the slightest.
Then you claim that the gospels are able to answer properly for each of these 10? I will need to see sources and evidence for your claim. I doubt you will be able to as you just made it up but good luck.
And as I said before this merely is you saying.. Wow I believe the gospels! It I'm no way shape or form comes close to answering my question about why the gospels do not match up. I thought you were going to answer that question.... No surprise you avoided it and desperately tried to change the subject.
Here let me hold your hand half wit and try to guide you. Finish this statement. The reason the gospels don't match up is because.......
<quoted text>
Okay, you're cheating!

Using logic and reason and history and all.

LOL.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#172577 Jul 20, 2013
ignorance is bliss86 wrote:
mr apologist just to remind you you have absolutly no proof that god exsist and you have absolutly no way of proving a "god" exsist you were getting kind of lost in your own bs there for a minute
Oppie?
Is that your pic in there?

“The King of R&R”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#172578 Jul 20, 2013
It is interesting that the creationists here keep trying to inject their reasoning of "Science" into this debate of goat-herder documents of over 2000 years ago, that have NO reference (in their talk or texts) to today's science, in the broadest stretch of human "Imagination".

Since: Jun 13

Milwaukee, WI

#172579 Jul 20, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Oppie?
Is that your pic in there?
my picture is of a scientist wise byond his years can you prove god exsist?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#172580 Jul 20, 2013
ignorance is bliss86 wrote:
<quoted text>
my picture is of a scientist wise byond his years can you prove god exsist?
No, I can not. Nor can anyone else.

That's Robert Oppenheimer, no? He's a hero to me.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#172582 Jul 20, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>You have to understand that the story of the garden is allegorical and not meant to be taken literally. The snake was Adam and a part of his anatomy. Adam and Eve were naked, so it was out there and after their sin they knew they were naked. God gave Adam and Eve two commands both regarding sex, one positive-be fruitful and multiply, and one negative-no sodomy. The fruit was not literally an apple, Adam was the tree of knowledge and he deceived Eve into oral sex. Adam was told not to eat from the tree of knowledge before Eve was created. When confronted by God, Adam blames Eve for performing the act and God for giving him the woman. God asked Adam what he did to give him the opportunity to confess. Adam, the ground, and the serpent were all cursed. Eve, who told the truth, was doomed to labor in childbirth and her desire would be to her husband. This was in part a sexual desire. If there is such a thing as original sin, only males inherit it. You've heard the saying, "All men are dogs".
Gotta love biblical porn.

Lol!

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#172583 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>I support theistic evolution. I know the hypothesis you're advocating, but it doesn't seem logical to me. There must be a point of origin. The entire existence of life didn't just spring into existence from nothing. And it didn't evolve from nothing.

My hypothesis is this:

God exists outside of space-time. He created kinds of creatures that then started to change over a period of time. I'm not a young earth creationist. I don't think it happened in 6,000 human years. But I don't think it took millions of years either.
You're right.

It didn't take millions of years.

It took billions of years.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#172584 Jul 20, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>No, I can not. Nor can anyone else.
That's Robert Oppenheimer, no? He's a hero to me.
I think your hero died, Mac.

The wise man paves the road to ruin.

Appia teritur regina longarum viarum

The Long Walk:

http://readanybooks.net/horror/The_Long_Walk/...

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172585 Jul 20, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I would give you $100 if you could stump me. I must say up till now you have failed miserably in a theist vs atheist debate. You have been factually destroyed point by point.
Okay I will ask you this yet again and let's see of you can finally not cower away and actually answer it. I doubt it personally but let's see.
Take the forged words of Tacitus and Josephus on Jesus. We are to believe this Roman imperial and Jewish historian working for the Imperials would dare refer to him as the Christ or gush about him as in the Josephus forgery. What do you think the imperial Romans at that point in history would have done to them for writing such a thing? Let's just forget that as a devout Jew Josephus would never complimented a false messiah as Jesus would have been to him and Tacitus is even less likely due to his religious beliefs, but we'll forget these glaring issues for the moment. Do you honestly those imperial Romans would not have had them killed for daring to write and publish such a thing?
Those imperial Romans didn't take such matters lightly as anyone with a basic knowledge of their history would tell you.
Let's see if you answer... Forgive me for not holding my breath.
<quoted text>
First of all, you're making an assumption without any proof that the Tacitus or Josephus accounts of Jesus are forgeries. This just isn't true. If you have conclusive proof (not opinion) I'll need to see it for myself.

Tacitus mentions the report of the fire that burned much of Rome. This is a historical fact. He mentions that Nero wanted to shift the blame away from himself. So now we have two facts.

1) Rome experienced a large and destructive fire.
2) Nero was the reigning emperor at the time of the fire.

Now let's go a step further.

Nero characterizes the Christians of Rome as hated for their superstitious beliefs. Calling their beliefs "superstitious" is a sure sign that Tacitus himself regards their beliefs as superstitious. Tacitus is narrating in first person. Tacitus mentions Pontius Pilate as the Procurator whom sentenced Jesus to death. During Pilate's time, the title was "Prefect." Some skeptics say that this is the reason they suspect it's a forgery. What skeptics don't understand or refuse to accept (to maintain their skepticism) is that the title of Prefect and Procurator were both used the same way we might say "Cop" when referring to a Sheriff's deputy. It's still a law enforcement officer. In relation to Pilate, he was the governor of Judea regardless of whether or not the title of Procurator or Prefect was used. The function and authority was basically the same. Now moving forward, the Tacitus passage mentions that the superstition started in Judea. To confirm all of this, we have the Pilate Stone found in Palestine in the 1960s which indicates that Pilate was a real person. Tacitus couldn't have been making up the name. That brings us to the next point. The debate over Tacitus' use of the name "Chrestus" in place of Christ. Skeptics like to claim that these are two different names. Only in spelling. Christ is a Greek word which means "annointed one" and is a translation from the Hebrew word for "Messiah." Because Tacitus was a pagan who disregarded the early Christians as "superstitious" he was very naive of the translation. He simply made a mistake in his translation of the difference between names or titles. Thus, in his mind, Chrestus wasn't a title, but a name. It was a very simple mistake in the way he used the word. So here just in the Tacitus passage, we have facts:

1) There was a major fire in Rome during the reign of Nero.
2) Christians were in Rome during the reign of Nero.
3) The origins of Christianity are traced back to Judea.
4) Pontius Pilate was the Roman installed governor of Judea, confirmed by archeological discovery of the Pilate Stone.
5) Tacitus is obviously dubious of Christian claims because he calls them "superstitions".

To be continued in next post

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172586 Jul 20, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Take the forged words of Tacitus and Josephus on Jesus. We are to believe this Roman imperial and Jewish historian working for the Imperials would dare refer to him as the Christ or gush about him as in the Josephus forgery. What do you think the imperial Romans at that point in history would have done to them for writing such a thing?
The Romans didn't recognize the word Chrestus as a title, which is exactly what the Hebrew translation is. In Hebrew, it's "Messiah."
The Roman historian Tacitus simply made a mistake in the word usage. I covered this in the last post. Tacitus didn't "gush" about him either. In fact, Tacitus is dismissive of the claims surrounding Jesus. He refers to the resurrection as "superstitious" just like you do. In fact, he can't even bring himself to say "resurrection." Tacitus doesn't claim that Jesus didn't exist. Tacitus clearly says that Jesus was crucified. Tacitus uses the words "extreme penalty." Crucifixion was the most extreme penalty in use by the Romans. It was so hideous that civilized Romans (like Tacitus) referred to it as the "extreme penalty."

Next, I don't know where you get the idea that Romans would have executed Tacitus for writing about Jesus, but they wouldn't have. Tacitus was known for historical accuracy. Pliny the Younger was actually upset with Tacitus at one point for not adding political spin that would have been beneficial to Pliny. Tacitus was considered to be very thorough, and very honest. Tacitus reported historical facts accurately and honestly. Did you know that the majority of what we know about historical Imperial Rome comes from a single source? Do you know that source is Tacitus?
Givemeliberty wrote:
Let's just forget that as a devout Jew Josephus would never complimented a false messiah as Jesus would have been to him
Josephus never did believe that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah, so you're correct about that. The original Josephus passage was tampered with, but not for purposes of deception. A scribe was correcting what he considered to be an incomplete historical account. That's what happens on Wikipedia, and is why Wikipedia isn't the best source for factual information. By modern academic standards that's a major error in historical integrity. Such a change wouldn't happen today without extensive consultation and peer review, but, back then, it was common practice. The Josephus passage, when stripped of the obvious interpolation, still indicates that a person named Jesus lived, that he was considered wise, that he was handed over to the Romans by Jewish authorities, and that he was crucified. The Romans would have never punished Josephus for saying this. The Romans allowed cultures in conquered territories to retain their histories and religious customs. It wasn't like the USSR of the 1950s where everything was censored.
Givemeliberty wrote:
Those imperial Romans didn't take such matters lightly as anyone with a basic knowledge of their history would tell you.
As anyone would tell me? Do you have a specific historical expert in mind? My "History of Western Civilization" professor from the secular college I attended would disagree with you.
Givemeliberty wrote:
Let's see if you answer... Forgive me for not holding my breath.
I'm glad to see you're still breathing. It's a good habit to have. Keep up the good work on that.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172587 Jul 20, 2013
ignorance is bliss86 wrote:
<quoted text>
my picture is of a scientist wise byond his years can you prove god exsist?
He was also horribly wronged.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172588 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
The Romans didn't recognize the word Chrestus as a title, which is exactly what the Hebrew translation is. In Hebrew, it's "Messiah."
The Roman historian Tacitus simply made a mistake in the word usage. I covered this in the last post. Tacitus didn't "gush" about him either. In fact, Tacitus is dismissive of the claims surrounding Jesus. He refers to the resurrection as "superstitious" just like you do. In fact, he can't even bring himself to say "resurrection." Tacitus doesn't claim that Jesus didn't exist. Tacitus clearly says that Jesus was crucified. Tacitus uses the words "extreme penalty." Crucifixion was the most extreme penalty in use by the Romans. It was so hideous that civilized Romans (like Tacitus) referred to it as the "extreme penalty."
Would Tacitus have investigated the Judean records to determine whether there was such a crucifixion, or would he have simply related the *beliefs* of the Christians? Given the difficulties of travel during the time, I find it much more likely that he would have related the beliefs of the Christians, just like he did for other cults he mentioned.
Next, I don't know where you get the idea that Romans would have executed Tacitus for writing about Jesus, but they wouldn't have. Tacitus was known for historical accuracy. Pliny the Younger was actually upset with Tacitus at one point for not adding political spin that would have been beneficial to Pliny. Tacitus was considered to be very thorough, and very honest. Tacitus reported historical facts accurately and honestly. Did you know that the majority of what we know about historical Imperial Rome comes from a single source? Do you know that source is Tacitus?
Seutonius is also a very good source. I assume you are limiting this claim to *early* imperial Rome, as Tacitus didn't get to write about the Antonines.
Josephus never did believe that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah, so you're correct about that. The original Josephus passage was tampered with, but not for purposes of deception. A scribe was correcting what he considered to be an incomplete historical account. That's what happens on Wikipedia, and is why Wikipedia isn't the best source for factual information. By modern academic standards that's a major error in historical integrity. Such a change wouldn't happen today without extensive consultation and peer review, but, back then, it was common practice. The Josephus passage, when stripped of the obvious interpolation, still indicates that a person named Jesus lived, that he was considered wise, that he was handed over to the Romans by Jewish authorities, and that he was crucified. The Romans would have never punished Josephus for saying this. The Romans allowed cultures in conquered territories to retain their histories and religious customs. It wasn't like the USSR of the 1950s where everything was censored.
You are correct that the ROman authorities would not have punished Tacitus or Josephus for saying these things. But you also have to admit that both Tacitus and Josephus were writing for a primarily Roman audience.

And let's suppose that Jesus did exist and was crucified as a rabble rouser. Would that substantiate the other stories about him? How long does a legend take to go from 'wise man' to 'miracle worker' to 'deity'. About 300 years in a superstitious culture?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172589 Jul 20, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The nerve - using a guy's own words when quoting him.
Unlike you liberals (yes, shit-for-brains, you are a liberal) who lie about what people say.
The default position for dealing with liberals like you, especially devoted materialists, like you, is to assume you are lying until proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quote mining isn't the same as quoting. It is the same as quoting out of context and with no understanding.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172590 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
What the investigators want to see are the differences. They separate these differences until they are left with only the similarities. This can also be done with the canonical gospels.
Do you claim that the writers of the Gospels were separated enough that their stories are independent witnesses? And that they wrote soon enough for their memories not to be remolded through re-telling?
As for your charge that oral tradition can't work, I have to debunk that too. In ancient Judea,(as well as other cultures) there were people who had the job of memorizing and passing along oral traditions. They were known as "Tradents." These tradents used creeds and other mnemonic methods to aid in memorizing. Tradents would often perform their duties in a temple setting, or popular gathering place. Tradents could use different techniques to tell the story, but they weren't allowed to distort or embellish so that it changed the truth of the events they were talking or singing about.
If they did, other tradents and even community members would step in and correct the tradent. Tradents very seldom passed on oral tradition in one-on-one settings. There were two reasons for this:
1) Public Transparency- This was the primary reason. To prevent distortions by passing on oral histories in front of as many people as possible, many of whom were also witnesses to events.
2) To avoid fatigue from having to repeat the story too many times in smaller group settings.
Are you claiming that such professional memorizers would have spent time with the claimed miracles of a condemned criminal? Or are you claiming the Christians had their own Tradents? Given the conflict between Paul and the Jewish Christians (who would have had any oral tradition) and the fact that Paul ultimately won that fight, and given that most of the growth of Christianity was outside of Judea where the Tradents were working, why would you give any credence to the tradition *among the Roman believers*? Were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Tradents?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172591 Jul 20, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I notice no answer whatsoever as to why the gospels do not match up just an off topic rant.
The fact that they differ so wildly shatters your 10 so called 10 tests that you just made up. But for fun..
1: Certainly not and even Christian apologetics will admit this.
2: Even Christian apologetics admit the gospels are not meant to be like a history lesson. Wow you are really bad at this. Let's continue shall we? Lol!
3: Certainly not. The Greeks who penned the gospels came decades later and were not eye witnesses to the events.
4: The bias in the gospels are naturally very high and I am shocked even you would be so ignorant as to claim otherwise.
5: The writers were not eye witnesses so writing something that sounds like an eye witness is irrelevant and any historian would agree.
6: No we don't see any such humility in the gospels and you will need to show a source for this claim.
7: Lmfao absolutely not the gospels contradict themselves wildly and can't even quote the Torah correctly.
8: Subject completely to personal opinion, not a tool used by historians. You have been caught red handed lying and you know it.
9: We can see how the gospel stories are blatantly stolen from previous religions. At times damn near word for word.
10: Nope not in the slightest.
Then you claim that the gospels are able to answer properly for each of these 10? I will need to see sources and evidence for your claim. I doubt you will be able to as you just made it up but good luck.
And as I said before this merely is you saying.. Wow I believe the gospels! It I'm no way shape or form comes close to answering my question about why the gospels do not match up. I thought you were going to answer that question.... No surprise you avoided it and desperately tried to change the subject.
Here let me hold your hand half wit and try to guide you. Finish this statement. The reason the gospels don't match up is because.......
<quoted text>
Straw man fallacy. I was not attempting to answer your question as of yet. I'm laying the groundwork to answer it. There's a difference.
The historical reliability tests I listed aren't something I made up. I wish I could take credit for them, but I was shocked to learn they existed too. So, using these ten tests, I'll be glad to enter into civilized conversation with you as I do with Quantum Bob, Albtraum, and Polymath. Of course that means I'll expect civilized answers in return. Let me know when you're ready to:

1) Be civilized.
2) Enter into dialogue about the 10 tests of historical reliability and how they can be applied to the gospel accounts.

In the meantime, here's a few websites for your consideration. It would be beneficial if you were to read them BEFORE entering into dialogue with me. That way we can both approach the subject with a factual reference to consult as needed.

http://staff.kings.edu/bapavlac/evalsources.h...

https://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~palmquis/cour...

http://www.nps.gov/history/Nr/twhp/Prof_Dev_P...

Although you'll notice that these web sites don't use the same formatting as I did in my list, the concepts are basically the same.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172592 Jul 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
Do you claim that the writers of the Gospels were separated enough that their stories are independent witnesses? And that they wrote soon enough for their memories not to be remolded through re-telling?
Re-telling is the essence of oral tradition. Oral tradition was the standard method of communicating historical events in ancient cultures where literacy was the exception rather than the rule. And, oral tradition was strictly monitored so that embellishment was virtually eliminated. That's not to say that there was no embellishment at all, but if there was, it was used for performance value and not to deceive. The tradent's story had to keep the audience's attention without distorting the facts.

To answer your second question, yes. Let's refer to the Gospel According to Mark for an example of why my answer is yes. In the crucifixion narrative, Mark records one of the things that Jesus says:

"Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani" which means, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me." This is told in Mark 15:34

There are reasons why this is important Polymath. First of all, notice that Mark is actually translating from one language to another. If Mark is writing in Greek, then obviously he's translating a quote from another language. So what language is this?
In first century Palestine, Aramaic was the primary language spoken by devout Jews. These words of Jesus are in Aramaic. To me, an obvious question is why would Mark bother to write the phrase in Aramaic and then translate it? The most plausible reason is that Mark is quoting from someone's memory. But who's memory? And why is it a memory? Well we have supporting attestation that it's the account of Peter. And it's a memory for a very good reason.

Psychologists have long understood that traumatic memories are much more likely to be remembered accurately. What could be more traumatic than seeing your best friend killed in such a gruesome manner as crucifixion? Of course, if you want to get into the Judaic context of why Jesus said what he did, which is theological in nature, I'll be glad to do so.
polymath257 wrote:
Are you claiming that such professional memorizers would have spent time with the claimed miracles of a condemned criminal? Or are you claiming the Christians had their own Tradents?
Yes, the Christians had their own tradents, but this was common practice for each community or sub-group to have their own tradents, and that these tradents would all basically follow the same protocol when repeating oral histories.
polymath257 wrote:
Given the conflict between Paul and the Jewish Christians (who would have had any oral tradition) and the fact that Paul ultimately won that fight,
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. If you could expand on it a little more, it would be helpful to our conversation.
polymath257 wrote:
and given that most of the growth of Christianity was outside of Judea where the Tradents were working, why would you give any credence to the tradition *among the Roman believers*? Were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Tradents?
The earliest growth of Christianity was within Judea, and specifically in Jerusalem. Evangelism was a style of oral tradition that actually has it's roots in Roman traditions. So it wasn't an unusual concept within Rome. And yes we could say that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all tradents. They used the evangelistic style that was so common within the Roman empire.

I'd like to take the time to thank you for your civility and scholarship. Although we have differing conclusions concerning reality, you're fun to dialogue with, as is Quantum Bob. Maybe you could help others learn the finer points of civil dialogue?:)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr Richardfs 2,183
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 3 hr _Bad Company 1,437
God' existence 7 hr polymath257 55
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 7 hr polymath257 112
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 8 hr Geezerjock 1
Australia: black magic pervert retard 9 hr Thinking 4
Evidence for God! 11 hr ChristineM 366
More from around the web