Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the new new testament???
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 16 of 226 (702261)
07-02-2013 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by RAZD
07-02-2013 2:20 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
Dawn went into a long harangue about how previous people would have interpreted these new gospels, and essentially said that as they had rejected them as hoaxes that we must as well. This then leads to the question of then rejecting old gospel that is otherwise confirmed by new gospel -- or is the rejection selective (cherry picking) or interpreted?
My harangue, as you you call it, is the simplest, best and most logical way to way to determine why a canon came about as it did.
As I have now demonstrated, there is NO other course of action, but the tried and tested one. Scholars today cannot make that determination, no matter how many you have on your council.. Time and history decided what is acceptable and applicable, not people or scholarship.
In fact the writers of the New Testament and the Apostles themself, rejected the new gospel (as you call it) when it was presented to them, initially.
It was time and history that allowed the tested text to emerge. Not even they decided what was attributable and acceptable. They simply assisted by putting into logical fashion and in writing what everyone already knew to be the case
Its not, what should the content or teaching of the Gospel be, but what actually emerged, how did that happen and why.
The answer is a simple logical one. Sayings that were known to be from Jesus and writings from the Apostles were immediately and forever stamped with approval of time and history itself.
Example. I did not make Abraham L's, Gettysburg address what it is. It did not need my approval to be authenticated It did not become a part of History becuse, anyone then or I decided it should be what it is.
It did help however, for there to be thousands of people around to say, oh yeah ole Abe made that speech, back whenever
Now you can imagine that there were few people around at that time that didnt pay to much attention to what was going on in those days and they mistook Mr Douglas for making the speech and then numerous people chimming in and saying, no no no, it was ole Abe
It just happened, correct?
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 07-02-2013 2:20 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Jaderis, posted 07-04-2013 6:00 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2013 8:29 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


(7)
Message 17 of 226 (702319)
07-04-2013 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dawn Bertot
07-02-2013 10:57 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
In fact the writers of the New Testament and the Apostles themself, rejected the new gospel (as you call it) when it was presented to them, initially.
It was time and history that allowed the tested text to emerge. Not even they decided what was attributable and acceptable. They simply assisted by putting into logical fashion and in writing what everyone already knew to be the case
Its not, what should the content or teaching of the Gospel be, but what actually emerged, how did that happen and why.
The answer is a simple logical one. Sayings that were known to be from Jesus and writings from the Apostles were immediately and forever stamped with approval of time and history itself.
I'd like to see that stamp. History is written by the victors, or so they say.
Are you that unaware of Christian history that you believe that the accepted books were approved by people who actually heard Jesus speak? If that is not your position, do you accept that, over the first few centuries A.D., the various early Christian sects argued their positions and submitted varying scriptures which would be accepted or rejected several generations after any contemporary of Jesus might have existed? Or are you so unaware of human nature to believe that the councils of people who approved the standard canon(s) of text were not at all influenced by their own wills, experiences, desires, positions of power, desires for power, military might, etc? This power play by early Christians and the authorities that buried any "heretical" texts and persons is why newly discovered gospels or other texts are important. It allows us to examine the texts for reasons why early Christians and the powers that be might have wanted them to be suppressed. It allows us to ask more informed questions about the state of affairs during that time and I would think that fundamentalist Christians (especially Protestants) would want to examine scriptures untouched by centuries of translation, corruption and politics and evaluate for themselves what really happened and who Jesus really was, because the texts that have survived, thus far, are the ones that established the Catholic and Orthodox churches and not very many texts survived the purges of those establishments. Can you name any NT texts currently in use by Protestant churches that were not part of the RCC or other Orthodox churches? Can you tell us why the Protestant Bible (by and large) has books removed, but not older ones added? Were those original councils wrong?
To me, this seems, on your part, to be the equivalent of the texts burned at the Library of Alexandria, which might overthrow our understanding of the ancient world, being discovered in a sealed vault and being dismissed because they overthrow our understanding of the ancient world. Wouldn't that be rather silly and arrogant?

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-02-2013 10:57 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-06-2013 8:29 PM Jaderis has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 18 of 226 (702451)
07-06-2013 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Jaderis
07-04-2013 6:00 AM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
Without sounding condesending and I certainly dont mean to in any way, but i doubt seriously you understand even the elementary elements of debate.
It is customary in debate to actually address directly the arguments your opponent has set out, then make cursory and more declarative statements, in an affirmative fashion
Without addressing a single thing I actually covered or argued you proceeded with a dissertation ,while related to the topic, out of context with the arguments I presented
Are you that unaware of Christian history that you believe that the accepted books were approved by people who actually heard Jesus speak? If that is not your position, do you accept that, over the first few centuries A.D., the various early Christian sects argued their positions and submitted varying scriptures which would be accepted or rejected several generations after any contemporary of Jesus might have existed?
I addressed and answered most of what you have asked HERE in my first response to RAZD. I guess you werent paying attention, so ill answer it again
Not books but letters and communications of the earliest Christians and even the actual autographs, were available to them, so as know what was from the hands of the Apostles, to distinguish it from a fragulent letter, much the same way, you could distinguish a fraud, from an author presently
Notice, most if not all of the early apologist and heritics arguments were not about what constituted the gospel but the interpretation of its content.
Yes there were some suprious gospeld out there, but usually not even the heritics, took them seriously enough to quote or refer to them
Reproduction of nearly all of the NT, in the early communications of the earliest fathers, is a good indication that there was no need to take seriously the so-called gospels
The silence you experience concerning say the Gospel of Thomas, is much the same silence, you would experince, if someone today were to claim to be from an author, but they were not. IOWs, there is no need for extensive investigation, when you know its not from the source it claims
allows us to ask more informed questions about the state of affairs during that time and I would think that fundamentalist Christians (especially Protestants) would want to examine scriptures untouched by centuries of translation, corruption and politics and evaluate for themselves what really happened and who Jesus really was, because the texts that have survived, thus far, are the ones that established the Catholic and Orthodox churches and not very many texts survived the purges of those establishments. Can you name any NT texts currently in use by Protestant
How much more informed information would you need to know,to know that this far removed from George Washington, that something was not actually apart of his communications. If something arose we could with little evaluation, dismiss it as spurious correct?
IOWs, who would be in a better position to know whether the long ending of Mark, should be apart of the Gospel of Mark, Irenaeus or Bart Erdmans. Ireneaus must have known something, we did not. Atleast at that point in history, 177AD, it was known to be a part of the Gospel of Mark.
Its my guess that he had access to much of the original autographs and earlies t traditions
Only silliness would contend, that the earliest Christians were ALL evil and power hungry. Some were just people incidently writting what they knew to be accurate and the truth
BTW, the Catholic Church did not exist when most of the earliest letters and communications that contain a reproduction of the NT qoutes, when they were written.
You challenge, if decide to accept it is to demonstrate why we are in a better position to know what was accurate verses the actual people that were there
Bias and power hungry arguments will only get you so far
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Jaderis, posted 07-04-2013 6:00 AM Jaderis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 07-08-2013 1:05 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 226 (702452)
07-06-2013 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dawn Bertot
07-02-2013 10:15 PM


Re: not all need be believed --- but which is which?
Hi Dawn Bertot
You intial concern should be why should we abandon the very elabrate and historical process, that brought the veracity, to the books that have now stood the test of time.
The part where humans in the past interpreted the documents? How do we know their interpretation was the most accurate?
Your ignoring painstaking processes and research that has stood the test of time.
But this IS a test of time, now that we have other documents, the original assumptions\interpretations are tested by what these documents describe, yes?
Message 16: As I have now demonstrated, there is NO other course of action, but the tried and tested one. Scholars today cannot make that determination, no matter how many you have on your council.. Time and history decided what is acceptable and applicable, not people or scholarship.
Sadly no, not demonstrated, just adamantly asserted with no reason to justify it other than assuming authority where none is demonstrated to exist (except by circular reasoning that because they made certain assumptions or interpretations that therefore they were authorities) and by making a appeal to authority logical fallacy.
It seems to me that Rahvin (Message 14) and Jaderis (Message 17) both have valid arguments that make better sense ... and further that the Protestants must have made the very errors you are warning against here -- assuming that they knew better that those that compiled the original bible (catholics) when they made changes to it in creating their bible.
Would not this argue that the Protestant bible should be discarded in favor of the Catholic bible if your argument is valid?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-02-2013 10:15 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-06-2013 8:48 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 07-06-2013 11:11 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 22 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-07-2013 8:17 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 20 of 226 (702453)
07-06-2013 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
07-06-2013 8:42 PM


Re: not all need be believed --- but which is which?
It seems to me that Rahvin (Message 14) and Jaderis (Message 17) both have valid arguments that make better sense ... and further that the Protestants must have made the very errors you are warning against here -- assuming that they knew better that those that compiled the original bible (catholics) when they made changes to it in creating their bible.
Would not this argue that the Protestant bible should be discarded in favor of the Catholic bible if your argument is valid?
You still have not addressed direct arguments I have made. Look at them carefully, pull them out and answer them directly. Generally refering to something I said is poor form RAZD.
You are better than that and I expect out of others but not you. Seriously RAZD
The part where humans in the past interpreted the documents? How do we know their interpretation was the most accurate?
read carefully, I have made no argument about interpretation, only that history is the only and best indicator as to what should be accepted and why
Pull out my actual arguments then you will have an actual debate
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 07-06-2013 8:42 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 21 of 226 (702455)
07-06-2013 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
07-06-2013 8:42 PM


Re: not all need be believed --- but which is which?
This whole thread is terribly confused it seems to me, hard to know where to step in if anywhere. The OP presents a very standard perennial challenge to Christianity by claiming the books of our Bible aren't authoritative and that writings found more recently discredit them. The article cited treats Jews and yoga teachers as authorities on the subject, which ought by itself to show the claims to be bogus, certainly from a Christian point of view.
How do we know which interpretations are accurate? Dawn has done a good job of saying why Christians regard the existing canon as authoritative. The "new" writings have a lot in common with the old rejected writings, so why should they be taken to challenge the canon at all? Not just the bogus Gnostic "gospels" but also a great many of the Greek texts of the Bible itself that have been found are of a type that has already been rejected by the Church, and there is even some reason to believe that some of them are outright forgeries, done by people with a vested interest in undermining the Protestant Bible.
Dawn went into a long harangue about how previous people would have interpreted these new gospels, and essentially said that as they had rejected them as hoaxes that we must as well.
It hardly had the tone of a "harangue," but anyway, he's right, the canon was established by leaders of the many churches, hundreds of bishops, and not just in one council but in many councils. They arrived at a consensus on which books were authentic and which books were not. Such a consensus of the leaders rightly carries weight with Christians. Of course anyone is free to decide they were all liars or nincompoops if you want and prefer the writings they rejected to the canon they chose. Go ahead. Found your own gnostic church if you like. The Church will nevertheless continue to recognize the canon we have as the authentic one. There are clear contradictions between the rejected writings and the accepted ones, as Dawn also mentions, so trying to accept both should tie your head in a knot, unless you are used to glossing over contradictions.
And again, there doesn't seem to be anything in the more recently discovered writings that is of any importance in respect to the canon. They mostly reflect old gnostic stuff the Church already rejected years ago as far from the spirit of the gospel.
It seems to me that ...the Protestants must have made the very errors you are warning against here -- assuming that they knew better that those that compiled the original bible (catholics) when they made changes to it in creating their bible.
WHAT "original Bible?" You mean the determination of authentic writings, the canon? And what changes did the Protestants make, RAZD, are you up on that? Luther made his German translation from Erasmus' Greek manuscript. Erasmus was a Catholic and stayed a Catholic although he had some sympathies with the Reformation positions, principally the desire to have Bibles in the languages of the people. Erasmus changed some of the readings of the Latin Vulgate on the basis of the Greek manuscripts that had recently become available -- "penance" was replaced with "repentance" for instance, which does make a big difference in Christian practice. Did he "know better" than Jerome who had translated the Vulgate? Well, yes, he did, he had Greek manuscripts that had recently been brought from Byzantium. And again, he wasn't a Protestant, and it was his manuscript that Luther used for the German Bible.
You're very confused about the supposed "original Bible" as being "Catholic." The canon of the original Bible was compiled by hundreds of church leaders. The Bishop of Rome wasn't called Pope until 606 AD. Other Bishops in the early centuries had just as much authority as The Bishop of Rome, who later made himself bishop of bishops. The canon was established by a true consensus of Christian believers.
There are always questions about which manuscripts are the authentic ones and there are small differences even between the authentic ones. That's a whole discipline in itself but there are thousands of manuscripts for reference. What is happening these days is that a few "recently discovered" manuscripts such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are being allowed to eclipse the thousands on the basis of their being considered more ancient. But sober minds in the Church recognized these as corrupted, by early gnostics probably, and there is a lot of evidence for that. But now evidence is coming out that Sinaiticus may actually not be an old manuscript at all but a recent production being passed off as ancient. And Vaticanus is being shown to have been an outright forgery. There's a lot to this business of determining the authenticity of manuscripts, it isn't to be tossed off lightly.
Would not this argue that the Protestant bible should be discarded in favor of the Catholic bible if your argument is valid?
What "Catholic Bible" are you talking about? You want to go back to the Latin Vulgate and "penance" over "repentance" although the Greek word clearly means "repentance?" Or you want to have the Apocrypha taken as canon? What exactly are you talking about?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 07-06-2013 8:42 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2013 8:38 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 22 of 226 (702479)
07-07-2013 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
07-06-2013 8:42 PM


Re: not all need be believed --- but which is which?
But this IS a test of time, now that we have other documents, the original assumptions\interpretations are tested by what these documents describe, yes?
Absolutely not. While you are correct about you assumtion of time, youve missed the whole point about history itself.
lets assume for a moment, that presently we were going to compile a bible of poetry and we wanted to include most of the influential poets of the 19th and 20th century
We listed certain welll known poets, then we wanted to include only specific writings of specific poets
How much effort would it take to distinguish between what was Henry W Longfellow's and that only claiming to be from the same writer. Not much effort at all, correct?
History and the unadulterated influence of the past can make that determination. Imagine the Apostles sitting around enjoying a meal and someone runs up to Thomas with a copy the supposed letter penned by him, they read it, all have good laugh, or prayer for concern and then quickly dismiss it as nonsense as quickly as it came into their view.
There would be no need to dwell on that known to be unauthentic, anymore than we we would have anything other than a laugh, reading something claiming to from the hand of Longfellow
The very idea of trying to decide what should be accepted as authentic and reliable, presently, makes no sense at all. History and time made that determination a long time ago.
History and reason will only give an odd glance at your "new" bible
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 07-06-2013 8:42 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 23 of 226 (702512)
07-08-2013 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dawn Bertot
07-06-2013 8:29 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
Dawn Bertot writes:
You challenge, if decide to accept it is to demonstrate why we are in a better position to know what was accurate verses the actual people that were there
A modern historian undoubtedly knows more about the First World War than an illiterate peasant who was in the trenches.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-06-2013 8:29 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 07-08-2013 2:00 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 28 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-08-2013 5:10 PM ringo has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 24 of 226 (702516)
07-08-2013 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ringo
07-08-2013 1:05 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
The apostles were not illiterate, they wrote most of the NT and two of the writers of the NT, Paul and Luke, were highly educated. And the Church Fathers were not illiterate, nor were the bishops of the hundreds of churches that determined the canon.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 07-08-2013 1:05 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Rahvin, posted 07-08-2013 2:12 PM Faith has replied
 Message 39 by ramoss, posted 07-12-2013 8:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(2)
Message 25 of 226 (702517)
07-08-2013 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
07-08-2013 2:00 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
The apostles were not illiterate, they wrote most of the NT and two of the writers of the NT, Paul and Luke, were highly educated. And the Church Fathers were not illiterate.
I think you missed the point.
A single individual in the middle of, say, the American Revolution, would not necessarily know more about the American Revolution than a modern historian.
This is especially true farther back in the past, where the individual may not have been literate, but also when the individual would not have access to the phenomenal flow of information we take for granted today.
Remember that there have been recent discoveries of WWII veterans who didn't realize the war was over. I'm talking in the last decade or two - literate individuals who had far less awareness of the "big picture" than even a contemporary historian had at the time.
Eyewitness accounts can be very helpful in helping us see the trees, but they are often ignorant of the forest. A single eyewitness can only witness so much with a single pair of eyes. A single person can only obtain so much information without any form of communication more advanced than hand-delivered letters and word-of-mouth.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 07-08-2013 2:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 07-08-2013 2:39 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 26 of 226 (702520)
07-08-2013 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rahvin
07-08-2013 2:12 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
We're talking about determining the authenticity of manuscripts, not reporting on the multitudinous events in a war. We have a collection of manuscripts, we have hundreds of men educated in the gospels who can tell a true report from a false one. Not that it's that hard to distinguish the bogus fictional gnostic "gospels" from the real thing anyway.
As for eyewitnesses to the events of Jesus' life, the miracles He did and so on, we're talking about the events of one man's life, again not multitudinous events in a war. If you want to get into the witnesses of the miraculous events in the Old Testament, such as the red sea parting or the pillars of fire and smoke and other such things, you've got hundreds of thousands who witnessed those single events, again, single events, not multitudinous events such as in a war.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rahvin, posted 07-08-2013 2:12 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Rahvin, posted 07-08-2013 3:56 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 29 by Coragyps, posted 07-08-2013 5:19 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 27 of 226 (702524)
07-08-2013 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Faith
07-08-2013 2:39 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
We're talking about determining the authenticity of manuscripts, not reporting on the multitudinous events in a war.
I was responding only to the criticism of ringo's valid point, not necessarily commenting on its specific application for the gospels, or trying to introduce a comparison between a soldier in the middle of a war and the supposedly first-hand account of a follower who had daily direct access to the subject. I agree that those circumstances are different.
More relevant would be applying ringo's point to those who first established the "church" in a recognizable way - not the apostles, but those who established the traditional canon for their particular tradition (since we know there are several accepted canons out there, many with longer historical roots thant hte modern Protestant tradition and its canon).
We have a collection of manuscripts,
Indeed, we have many, many manuscripts. We have many, many copies of each of the accepted and unaccepted gospels. So many, in fact, with such variances between them in terms of changed translations and even sections removed or added hundreds of years later, that it's impossible to even say "the Gospel of Luke" without following that up by specifying which one.
we have hundreds of men educated in the gospels who can tell a true report from a false one.
Do we? Educated int he gospels, sure...but can they really tell a "true report from a false one?" What tests do they use? Does "true report" actually mean "verified in reality, this actually happened as described?" Or does it mean "we're pretty confident that the author believed that this happened as reported?" Or does it mean "this is the closest to the original text we've been able to assemble?"
Those are all very, very different options, Faith. In order to believe that a given text accurately reflects real events, you have to trust the original author to have made accurate recordings (as opposed to inferences from observation, which are quite different, or obviously fabrications), you have to trust all of the copiers who wrote copies of that manuscript between the time of the original author and the time of the writing of the copy we currently have, you have to trust all of the translators between the original and modern English, and you have to trust the "educated men" in their ability to determine fact from fiction.
That's a lot of trust, and it requires a commensurate amount of evidence. Extraordinary claims requires still more extraordinary evidence.
You can;t simply appeal to the authority of "hundreds of men educated in the gospels." It's a logical fallacy. Nothing is true because some authority on the subject said a thing. Instead, you have to show what the claim is, and the argument and evidence supporting that claim, along with arguments and evidence falsifying alternative hypotheses.
Which leads us back to the distinction between what we are to believe: does the hypothesis actually claim that the contents of the manuscript are "verified in reality, this actually happened as described?" Or does it claim "we're pretty confident that the author believed that this happened as reported?" Or does it claim that "this is the closest to the original text we've been able to assemble?"
If your "educated men" are saying Option 3 and you take it to mean Option 1, there's a disconnect.
Not that it's that hard to distinguish the bogus fictional gnostic "gospels" from the real thing anyway.
I'm curious as to your allegedly "easy" methodology in differentiating truth from fiction. I have a strong suspicion that "easy" means that you follow no rational or indeed logically valid methodology to make such distinctions.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 07-08-2013 2:39 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-08-2013 5:48 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 28 of 226 (702527)
07-08-2013 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ringo
07-08-2013 1:05 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
A modern historian undoubtedly knows more about the First World War than an illiterate peasant who was in the trenches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now the above statement is with out a doubt the sillest I have ever witnessed. Do you mean to tell me that a historian 2000 years from now would know more about what the bullets wizing by your head and the artillery taking limbs off, is like than a guy that was acually on Omaha
That someone today would be better able to distinguish between Pauls letters and style of writing, verses someone that knew him
that somone today would be better suited to know what writings actually belonged to who and why
Surely you gest Ringo. Did you read anything I wrote
This should clue you in Ringo. That is why historians presently go to people that were actually there , if possible, to see what actually happened
Im pretty sure people that were there dont SEEK OUT scholars. Its the other way around
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 07-08-2013 1:05 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by ringo, posted 07-09-2013 12:08 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 29 of 226 (702528)
07-08-2013 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Faith
07-08-2013 2:39 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
you've got hundreds of thousands who witnessed those single events
And not a single phone number or even a zip code for even one of 'em.......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 07-08-2013 2:39 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-08-2013 5:53 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 30 of 226 (702529)
07-08-2013 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Rahvin
07-08-2013 3:56 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
I was responding only to the criticism of ringo's valid point, not necessarily commenting on its specific application for the gospels, or trying to introduce a comparison between a soldier in the middle of a war and the supposedly first-hand account of a follower who had daily direct access to the subject. I agree that those circumstances are different.
Not only different it makes Ringo's comment nonsensical at least in this instance
More relevant would be applying ringo's point to those who first established the "church" in a recognizable way - not the apostles, but those who established the traditional canon for their particular tradition (since we know there are several accepted canons out there, many with longer historical roots thant hte modern Protestant tradition and its canon).
Have you been paying any attention at all? Long before canons and traditions, there was simply what happened. People were aware of and familiar with writings, the same way you are familiar with writings of certain authors today
No one questions the validity and certainty of the certainty of things today because there is no reason to do so, correct?
history and reason will not allow you around this point. Your verbosity, notwithstanding
Indeed, we have many, many manuscripts. We have many, many copies of each of the accepted and unaccepted gospels. So many, in fact, with such variances between them in terms of changed translations and even sections removed or added hundreds of years later, that it's impossible to even say "the Gospel of Luke" without following that up by specifying which one.
You know full well that we can reproduce most of the NT just from the ancient wittnesses, the manuscripts notwithstanding
from this we gather two things. First, we know what the general consensus was and why. second that the manuscripts and canons were based on this historical situation
Your attempt at eloquence and verbosity, will not remove this fact
You can;t simply appeal to the authority of "hundreds of men educated in the gospels." It's a logical fallacy. Nothing is true because some authority on the subject said a thing. Instead, you have to show what the claim is, and the argument and evidence supporting that claim, along with arguments and evidence falsifying alternative hypotheses.
Perhaps you could show how I have not done that, to this point
I'm curious as to your allegedly "easy" methodology in differentiating truth from fiction. I have a strong suspicion that "easy" means that you follow no rational or indeed logically valid methodology to make such distinctions.
The same easy way you differentiate between the events that you are closely related to at any given time
I appeal to the people that were there and get an nearly accurate sensus of what the actual situation probably was
That is unless we are going to say they were all self-motivated, self-involved. power hungry, raving lunitics. Which will be your second contention, because you cant actually respond to the first argument concerning simply history
In truth no amount of evidence will be sufficient, because your every desire is for it not to be true to begin with. now theres some truth for you, eh
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Rahvin, posted 07-08-2013 3:56 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024