Many of you many have herd the story, the 3 kings followed the star. A group of scientists traced Jupiter, Murcury, and Mars and they found that near the time Jesus was born, those 3 planets crossed. Those 3 planets could have been the star in the sky, and they crossed more than once! That shows a lot of scientific evidence toward what happend those years 
Considering the Gospels can't agree on the circumstances of Jesus's birth, I would take the story with a grain of salt.
The 1000 year Jupiter/Saturn conjunction would be a better candidate for that theory. It happened in '76, I think it was, and it was extraordinarily bright.
Every thousand years the two planets have a conjunction at a node point of their orbits, which is where their two orbits cross.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
The 1000 year Jupiter/Saturn conjunction would be a better candidate for that theory. It happened in '76, I think it was, and it was extraordinarily bright.
Every thousand years the two planets have a conjunction at a node point of their orbits, which is where their two orbits cross. |
Johannes Kepler was the first one to come up with that theory. Using the data he had available, he figured that the conjunction would have happened in 7 BCE, and would have been very bright.
Modern data shows that Kepler wasn't quite right. The "conjunction" in 7 BCE would never have placed the two planets close enough in the night sky to make a noticable impression to the naked eye.
The Chinese recorded a phenomenon in 5 BCE that was probably a comet. But no one anywhere in the middle east recorded anything. Furthermore, that was far too late to have been around in time for Jesus's birth - he would have been no younger than 3 at the time. Notably, no other gospel but Matthew mentions the star in question. | The Conspirator wrote: |
| Considering the Gospels can't agree on the circumstances of Jesus's birth, I would take the story with a grain of salt. |
More than 1 person telling the same story, you're bound to have some sort of differences. | Soulfire wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | | Considering the Gospels can't agree on the circumstances of Jesus's birth, I would take the story with a grain of salt. |
More than 1 person telling the same story, you're bound to have some sort of differences. |
Yes, thats true. There are bound to be errors but, there are differences that can't be explained by those errors. The differences in the story's of Jesus's birth is the best example in the new testament. And there are other errors, the differences between what each Gospel say Jesus's last words were. There are others as well.It's very possible that when people were writing the bible, that they saw venus or something similar, and decided that they would make use of stars in their novel.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Soulfire wrote: | | The Conspirator wrote: | | Considering the Gospels can't agree on the circumstances of Jesus's birth, I would take the story with a grain of salt. |
More than 1 person telling the same story, you're bound to have some sort of differences. |
Yes, thats true. There are bound to be errors but, there are differences that can't be explained by those errors. The differences in the story's of Jesus's birth is the best example in the new testament. And there are other errors, the differences between what each Gospel say Jesus's last words were. There are others as well. |
The differences in the nativity story go far deeper than just standard witness contradictions.
Matthew and Luke talk about different aspects of the nativity; there is very little overlap. However, both describe critical events that can be used to date the birth - Matthew's massacre of the innocents, and Luke's "census". While it may be possible that different witnesses might fudge a line or two, or minor details like the colour of a cloak and so on, how can anyone reasonably argue that a witness would screw up either of those decidedly major events?
But given those events, we cannot reconcile the dates. Herod died in 4 BCE, according to our best estimates, but he was present in both gospels at the time of Jesus' birth. The massacre of the innocents was unleashed on children two and under (and never recorded anywhere else other than Matthew), so Jesus was newborn-2. That means that Jesus could have been born no later than 4 BCE, but more likely closer to 6 BCE. But the census mentioned in Luke was allegedly taken by Quirnius (sp?), who didn't become governer of Syria until 6 or 7 CE. In other words, the event that prompted Joseph and Mary to go to Bethelehem happened at least ten years after the birth of Jesus. Go figure.
| LeviticusMky wrote: |
| It's very possible that when people were writing the bible, that they saw venus or something similar, and decided that they would make use of stars in their novel. |
The author of Matthew is notorious in biblical textual criticism circles for writing details that "fulfilled" old testament prophesies... even when those details make no sense (cf. chapter 21, the horse and ass of Zechariah).
There is a "prophecy" in Numbers about a star proceeding from Jacob, and it was very likely that the author of Matthew wrote of the nativity star in order to make it seem like that prophecy was fulfilled. The fact that there was no actual astronomical phenomenon known that matched this story didn't really factor into the equation.
Assuming there actually was a star... it would have to be something pretty unique and interesting in order to be noticed by the wise men and prompt the idea that a king was being born, and drive them to actually travel all that distance to actually see him, no? Venus was hardly unique or interesting.That was a very poor critique of how and why the Gospels differ. You didn’t mention any of the meat and bones issues of what axe each different Gospel writer had to grind and how this affected the story.
As the narratives progress they largely converge after a short time. It is only with the description of his birth that there is a free for all where each story is completely different. None of you criticism address anything else. They are easy and cheap criticisms.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
That was a very poor critique of how and why the Gospels differ. You didn’t mention any of the meat and bones issues of what axe each different Gospel writer had to grind and how this affected the story.
As the narratives progress they largely converge after a short time. It is only with the description of his birth that there is a free for all where each story is completely different. None of you criticism address anything else. They are easy and cheap criticisms. |
actually i found them excellent criticisms. Typically the one who tells the crowd the critiscisms are bad, is the one who can't actually refute them. Can you refute them? I doubt it. So don't tell her they are bad.
may God bless you.Actually, no one really knows how many wisemen went to visit Jesus. We just assume it was three becasue there were three types of gifts that were taken to him.
| missdixy wrote: |
| Actually, no one really knows how many wisemen went to visit Jesus. We just assume it was three becasue there were three types of gifts that were taken to him. |
All true ^_^ But even more: we don't know that those three gifts were the only ones they gave. Those just happen to be the only three that were named, and that probably because they supposedly fulfill prophesy. There may have been a dozen of them with a hundred gifts.
But wait, there's more! ^_^;
Because the "three kings" were apparently not kings at all. They were sorcerors.
Observe:
| Matthew 2:1 wrote: |
| τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ γεννηθέντος ἐν Βηθλέεμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἐν ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου τοῦ βασιλέως ἰδοὺ μάγοι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν παρεγένοντο εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα |
Take a look at the word in red: "μάγοι" or "magi". It is the plural of "μάγος" or "magus". Consult your trusty Strong's reference for the word: G3097. Note the definitions:
| Quote: |
A magus
- the name given by the Babylonians (Chaldeans), Medes, Persians, and others, to the wise men, teachers, priests, physicians, astrologers, seers, interpreters of dreams, augers, soothsayers, sorcerers etc.
- the oriental wise men (astrologers) who, having discovered by the rising of a remarkable star that the Messiah had just been born, came to Jerusalem to worship him
- a false prophet and sorcerer
|
When the King James translation team got to that word, they realized they had a problem. Sorcerors of the sort described by "magus" were perceived as servants of Satan, heretical beings frowned on by the church - suffer not a witch to live, after all. They translated the word correctly in a couple of other places, and in all of those cases the word referred to villians of one sort or another. But there they had a problem. Basically, Jesus' divinity was first recognized by a bunch of sorcerors, who become among the first to acknowledge Jesus as Lord and King. Kind of a conflicting message with the official church policy on magic and sorcery. Thus, the KJV translators opted to translate "μάγοι" as "wise men".
However, the actual Greek shows that they were really sorcerors and astrologers. Amusing, no?
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. ^_^; i haven't even begun to analyze the gifts they gave, nor their interactions with Herod. ^_-Wonder how long this feud's going to last. Well, I say that everyone here will most probably retain their own beliefs in the end and that fighting over every aspect of the Gospels' tellings of the nativity is just as pointless as fighting over whether or not God is real.
I think that, since not Mathew, nor Luke, nor John, nor Mark were present at Jesus' birth, the Gospels will not be exactly alike. The four authors are going off of someone else's view. I know that the majority of people here will not believe me, but maybe, just maybe, the star seen in the sky was not meant to be scientifically explained. Perhaps it was just a miracle sent from heaven to light the way. But then again, I never was one that needed proof to believe.
God bless,
Pampoon
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Soulfire wrote: | | The Conspirator wrote: | | Considering the Gospels can't agree on the circumstances of Jesus's birth, I would take the story with a grain of salt. |
More than 1 person telling the same story, you're bound to have some sort of differences. |
Yes, thats true. There are bound to be errors but, there are differences that can't be explained by those errors. The differences in the story's of Jesus's birth is the best example in the new testament. And there are other errors, the differences between what each Gospel say Jesus's last words were. There are others as well. |
I always find this interesting: from what you said, it doesn't seem like you believe in God yet you still know a lot of about the Bible. I like reading debates between Christians and Athiests and I find it interesting that about 95% of the time, the person who does not believe in God seems to know more about the bible than the person defending it.
That was a little off topic, but I thought I'd mention it because, like I said, I find it interesting that you know more about the bible judging from your knowledge of the Gospels than many Christians that I know. | pampoon wrote: |
Wonder how long this feud's going to last. Well, I say that everyone here will most probably retain their own beliefs in the end and that fighting over every aspect of the Gospels' tellings of the nativity is just as pointless as fighting over whether or not God is real.
I think that, since not Mathew, nor Luke, nor John, nor Mark were present at Jesus' birth, the Gospels will not be exactly alike. The four authors are going off of someone else's view. I know that the majority of people here will not believe me, but maybe, just maybe, the star seen in the sky was not meant to be scientifically explained. Perhaps it was just a miracle sent from heaven to light the way. But then again, I never was one that needed proof to believe.
God bless,
Pampoon |
The story's of Jesus's birth are too different for them to just be accounted for as differing perspectives and errors as the story is passed from one to the other. In one they go to Egypt in another they stay in Judea, in one there is a bright star and 3 wise men, in another there isn't and so on. | The Conspirator wrote: |
| The story's of Jesus's birth are too different for them to just be accounted for as differing perspectives and errors as the story is passed from one to the other. In one they go to Egypt in another they stay in Judea, in one there is a bright star and 3 wise men, in another there isn't and so on. |
Well, in history we have seen that the mapmakers of ancient cultures weren't very accurate. I mean, in the 1500s we thought the world was flat. Columbus figured that if he sailed in an opposite direction, he'd reach India because that's what the maps said. Perhaps it is possible that maybe when the Gospel that noted of Egypt was written, people considered Judea a part of Egypt? | pampoon wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | | The story's of Jesus's birth are too different for them to just be accounted for as differing perspectives and errors as the story is passed from one to the other. In one they go to Egypt in another they stay in Judea, in one there is a bright star and 3 wise men, in another there isn't and so on. |
Well, in history we have seen that the mapmakers of ancient cultures weren't very accurate. I mean, in the 1500s we thought the world was flat. Columbus figured that if he sailed in an opposite direction, he'd reach India because that's what the maps said. Perhaps it is possible that maybe when the Gospel that noted of Egypt was written, people considered Judea a part of Egypt? |
No, Judea was never part of Egypt and the gospel writers would have known were Egypt was.
Columbus was a fool, people long before him had calculated the earths size and were much more accurate. And people knew that the earth was sphere in 1500's. It is a myth that Columbus was tuned down in England cause people then though the earth was flat.1) Actually, the Herod issue is a bad example. A number of historians have noted that Jesus Christ was most likely born 1-1-6 BC. If Herod died in 4 BC, the two of them could have been around at the same time...
[How do you tell if a historian is a Christian or not? BC/AD vs. BCE/CE...That ever fails to amuse me, especially when the secular one says that personal belief has nothing to do with history...]
2) Also, whereas there is some controversy over what the bright light was, it is interesting to note that there isn't any disagreement that there was some sort of bright light that led the magi (however many there were).
3) Just as a side note: You can go somewhere and stay in another; they aren't mutually exclusive. I can go to Washington, DC, and stay overnight in Sacramento, CA; it just means that I'm probably coming from overseas.
4) Differing Perspectives: Duh. You have four different guys, with four different backgrounds, trying to give their perspective about something that happened in their lives. I would have found it more suspicious if all four accounts were the same...
HM
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 1) Actually, the Herod issue is a bad example. A number of historians have noted that Jesus Christ was most likely born 1-1-6 BC. If Herod died in 4 BC, the two of them could have been around at the same time... |
You didn't read carefully enough.
First assume Jesus existed, and then assume that the Matthew account is true. This means that Jesus could have been born no later than 5 BCE (the concensus is 4 BCE, but some people believe 5 BCE, so let's work with that because it's the later date).
Now look at the Luke account. According to Luke, Joseph and Mary were forced to go to Bethlehem because of a census done by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria. But Quirinius did not become governor until 6 CE.
So, basically, if both gospels are true, Jesus was born before 5 BCE, then ten years later Mary and Joseph travelled to Bethlehem while pregnant with Jesus.
Now Jesus' birth may have been miraculous, but that's stretching it a little.
Thus, at least one of the two gospels is false.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 2) Also, whereas there is some controversy over what the bright light was, it is interesting to note that there isn't any disagreement that there was some sort of bright light that led the magi (however many there were). |
Excuse me?
There is lots of disagreement about whether or not there was any kind of "bright light". It is only because Christianity is the most powerful religion in the world right now that the idea is taken seriously. i mean, come on. The "star" is only mention in one text - and it's a quasi-historical religious text that is contradicted on several facts not only by what we know of history from other sources, but by other writings from the same religion. No other writer, Christian or otherwise, mentions anything uniquely interesting in the sky around that period.
So you have here a phenomenon that is only mentioned in one text in all of human knowlege and history - a religious document of notably shaky veracity. Were this document not the Christian bible, do you think that the possibility of it being factual would be seriously considered? i mean, seriously, if you had one fragment of Zoroastrian writing that claimed the sun turned square for a day, and not only does no other Zoroastrian text mention it, several of them contradict that writing in other areas - and history recorded by non-Zoroastrians not only does not record the incident, several of them contradict other aspects of the text - do you really think it would be taken seriously?
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 3) Just as a side note: You can go somewhere and stay in another; they aren't mutually exclusive. I can go to Washington, DC, and stay overnight in Sacramento, CA; it just means that I'm probably coming from overseas. |
The Virgin in the story of Jesus is not the airline.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 4) Differing Perspectives: Duh. You have four different guys, with four different backgrounds, trying to give their perspective about something that happened in their lives. I would have found it more suspicious if all four accounts were the same... |
That argument is common in apologist literature, but it is one of the most illogical and bizarre arguments in their canon.
When four different people record a historical event, you expect differences in opinion and perspective. You do not expect differences in fact, except for smaller details that do not affect the rest of the narrative. Some may omit events, and each may tell a different set of events but the events that each describe will not contradict the events described by someone else - except when the details are inconsequential to the rest of the narrative.
The writers of the gospels may have seen different things, and they may have remembered minutae differently, such as the exact words of Jesus. But the major aspects of the stories should be identical, especially the parts that are the most personal, and the most critical.
The fact that they can't agree on things like whether or not Jesus died before or after passover is a major contradiction. Because other aspects of the story depend on that fact. When an event happens because of another event, that first event is a key event. Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem while she was hugely pregnant... why? Because they had to for the census. If you take away the census, then the journey makes no sense, and the entire manger scene in Luke is all false. On the other hand, if you take away Herod, then the entire chunk of Matthew dealing with the magi and the slaughter of the innocents is all false.
Could the gospel writers have messed up the order of events around the magi arrival, or the gifts that they brought? Sure. Because neither of those facts affect the greater narrative. Could they have messed up the dates, as they have in this case? No, because several key aspects of the narrative fall apart.
Were this not a religious document, it would have been dismissed out of hand as fiction. It is clearly, and critically, flawed, and contradictions like this one cannot be simply explained away.1) The Star: When I say that there is some argument over what was seen, I'm not referring to whether or not something was seen, but what the reference was specifically. There were a number of things happening that the magi would have been drawn to. Admittedly, the strongest contender is a comet, as comets were said to hang over a place, but there were a number of things happening that would have qualified.
[There is, of course the theory that it could have been fiction specifically created to glorify the birth, but that's no fun to debate...]
2) The Census: There are two matters of contention here: The first is that Jospehus is the one giving the date. There are a number of problems with Jospehus' accounts, including his survival at Masada. Most historians treat his histories as a good starting point, but usually don't trust him 100% (in other words, yeah, the event happened, just not not when he said it did).
Second, there's also a possibility that the census itself could have happened earlier, as some historians debate whether or not Quirinius had a previous term (had he had a previous term, the census would have likely happened then). Of course, there is some debate if the census itself had been taken prior to him even being in the area earlier.
[Also, there is some debate if it could have been referring a mass "swearing-in" that happening around 2 BC, which would still be within the time frame.
3) Differing Perspectives: I'm not really understanding how it's a "illogical bizarre and argument", especially given that most of the accounts weren't written when they happened, and that the standards re: truth weren't exactly up to today's standards (taking some license was assumed; see Josephus). In essence, we know that there was some license taken, but the accounts are nonetheless used as a starting point.
Departure Times:
| Quote: |
| The Virgin in the story of Jesus is not the airline. |
Nonetheless, my basic point is true: Although the magi were possibly on the Egypt, they could have stopped in Judea. This doesn't create a contradiction...
Overall: There's a lot of debate among historians about what actually happened. That there is debate is interesting to me, especially when atheists pretty much slam the research as being religious in nature. No other religion is given the same scrutiny, especially when you realize that no other religion could face as much scrutiny. Just thought it was interesting...
HM | Quote: |
| 3) Differing Perspectives: I'm not really understanding how it's a "illogical bizarre and argument", especially given that most of the accounts weren't written when they happened, and that the standards re: truth weren't exactly up to today's standards (taking some license was assumed; see Josephus). In essence, we know that there was some license taken, but the accounts are nonetheless used as a starting point. |
Cause the story's are too different, you can't account for the difference by saying "different perspectives and errors as it was passed from one parson to another." In one you have a bright star, the Magi, the murder of children in Jerusalem's, them going to Egypt until the death of Hard, things that are not mentioned in the other account and that account has a census, them staying in a stable cause there inns were full and them staying in Judea, never going to Egypt.
Not only are they different at at certain points there mutely exclusive.
| Quote: |
| Overall: There's a lot of debate among historians about what actually happened. That there is debate is interesting to me, especially when atheists pretty much slam the research as being religious in nature. No other religion is given the same scrutiny, especially when you realize that no other religion could face as much scrutiny. Just thought it was interesting... |
Why do theists not realise that when your religion id not only dominate but the overwhelming majority of the people in the country fallow it, that religion is a huge target for scrutiny and criticism. | The Conspirator wrote: |
Cause the story's are too different, you can't account for the difference by saying "different perspectives and errors as it was passed from one parson to another." In one you have a bright star, the Magi, the murder of children in Jerusalem's, them going to Egypt until the death of Hard, things that are not mentioned in the other account and that account has a census, them staying in a stable cause there inns were full and them staying in Judea, never going to Egypt.
|
I think you're not really trying to figure things out as you are looking to prolong the argument. I think that your inability to logic out that they could have been heading to Egypt, but stayed in Judea is the key to the situation; Judea had a number of ports that a number of people could have been on the way to Egypt, but passed through Judea first, and, given the distances involved, could have have slept in Judea.
Also, the wise men were said to have come from the East; Egypt is to the west of Judea. They would have had to have passed through Judea in order to get to Egypt. Unless, of course, you are positing some form of teleportation...
| Quote: |
| Why do theists not realise that when your religion id not only dominate but the overwhelming majority of the people in the country fallow it, that religion is a huge target for scrutiny and criticism. |
Nice sidestep. I guess a better way of phrasing it is: Most of the criticism is pointedly towards Christianity. Even to the point that if someone or something screws up, and there is even something the slightest bit Christian about that person or something, well, Christianity has screwed up again.
On the other hand, a person that claims to be, say, Buddhist screws up, that person is no longer considered Buddhist. Worse, although Buddhism is a major religion, it doesn't seem to given the same Third Degree that Christianity has been given.
Just an observation...
HMHereticMonkey: It wasn't the wise men who went to Egypt, it was Mary Joseph and Jesus. And no one would have confused some part of Judea with Egypt. Judea was not a big province.
In one version, they go home after the Jesus is burn, in another they flea to Egypt, the country.
| Quote: |
| Nice sidestep. I guess a better way of phrasing it is: Most of the criticism is pointedly towards Christianity. Even to the point that if someone or something screws up, and there is even something the slightest bit Christian about that person or something, well, Christianity has screwed up again. |
Thats not what I said. I said Christianity is a huge religion, the biggest in the world, and people in the west are overwhelmingly Christan, that makes it a huge target. | The Conspirator wrote: |
HereticMonkey: It wasn't the wise men who went to Egypt, it was Mary Joseph and Jesus. And no one would have confused some part of Judea with Egypt. Judea was not a big province.
In one version, they go home after the Jesus is burn, in another they flea to Egypt, the country.
|
They had fled on purpose. An angel had advised them of what Herod was doing, and how to avoid it. They didn't confuse Egypt and Judea; they were trying their hardest to get out of Judea for a while, and Egypt was conveniently nearby...
Sorry; it had looked like you were discussing the magi's travel plans...
| Quote: |
| Thats not what I said. I said Christianity is a huge religion, the biggest in the world, and people in the west are overwhelmingly Christan, that makes it a huge target. |
Got that. I know that Christianity is a big religion and that alone invites criticism. I'm not debating that or even disagreeing. MY POINT was that it was interesting that ONLY Christianity appears to have received any thorough criticism; criticism of Hinduism, for example, is usually limited to its caste system, and Buddhism may be gently joked about, but I don't see any major criticism of it in the same terms as Christianity.
I also find it somewhat interesting that people and wars are defined in terms of being Christian, even when the link is debatable at best (such as Hitler being Christian); all that matters is that someone involved was Christian. On the other hand, when you have someone of a different religion do the same thing, others of that religion disavow the person even if that person was doing it in the name of that religion, even atheism (Chairman Mao killed a lot of people in the name of atheism, simply because they did follow a belief). It's easy to say no one kills in the name of your religion when that person isn't considered to be of your religion...
HM | HereticMonkey wrote: |
1) The Star: When I say that there is some argument over what was seen, I'm not referring to whether or not something was seen, but what the reference was specifically. There were a number of things happening that the magi would have been drawn to. Admittedly, the strongest contender is a comet, as comets were said to hang over a place, but there were a number of things happening that would have qualified.
[There is, of course the theory that it could have been fiction specifically created to glorify the birth, but that's no fun to debate...] |
The truth is often dull.
At any rate, if one is to start with the assumption that the story told in Matthew is actually true, one should not forget that these magi were professional astronomers. That means that they would not be stupid enough to be fooled by a simple planetary conjunction, or occlusion.
So might it have been a comet? Scripturally, there is no reason why not, because αστηρ ("aster", Greek for star) can mean any astronomical body. But if so, why was the comet not recorded anywhere else in the world? And yes, there were tons of people making detailed astronomical observations at that time.
But all this ignores the most damning part of the myth. Apparently, the magi were able to pinpoint the exact location - down to the building, at least - that the "star" hovered over. If that's true, the "star" was less than 10 km above the Earth. Not millions of kilometers (as is the case of a comet).
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
2) The Census: There are two matters of contention here: The first is that Jospehus is the one giving the date. There are a number of problems with Jospehus' accounts, including his survival at Masada. Most historians treat his histories as a good starting point, but usually don't trust him 100% (in other words, yeah, the event happened, just not not when he said it did).
Second, there's also a possibility that the census itself could have happened earlier, as some historians debate whether or not Quirinius had a previous term (had he had a previous term, the census would have likely happened then). Of course, there is some debate if the census itself had been taken prior to him even being in the area earlier.
[Also, there is some debate if it could have been referring a mass "swearing-in" that happening around 2 BC, which would still be within the time frame. |
Josephus is not the only source of information for the dates. We have coins that confirm to us that Herod's successors were in power by 4 BCE. And we have Roman records that date the events that led to Quirinius being moved to Syria by Augustus in 6 CE.
And no, historians do not debate whether or not Quirinius had a previous term - apologists have advanced that as a theory to try to explain away the contradiction. Outside of the bible, there is no evidence anywhere to even suggest that. As i mentioned above, we have extant Roman documents that place Quirinius in Judaea Province working for Tiberius between 1 CE and 6 CE, and Galatia before that. So there is no practical way that Quirinius could have been governor of Syria before 6 CE. And if the census took place before he took power, then Luke is wrong anyway, because it specifically says the census is done in his name.
And again, if it was the mass swearing for Augustus... Luke is wrong, because he specifically says it's the census of Quirinius. The debate is basically going like this:
Apologist: The story of the nativity is true!
Historian: The story of the nativity cannot be true, because the dates don't match.
Apologist: Well then the story of the nativity is true, but the dates are wrong.
Historian: So, basically, the only text in all of human knowledge that describes the nativity - the new testament - is known to be flawed?
Apologist: Correct.
Historian: And there is no other evidence for the story anywhere else?
Apologist: Correct.
Historian: But you still believe it is undeniably true?
Apologist: Yes.
Historian: Alrighty then.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 3) Differing Perspectives: I'm not really understanding how it's a "illogical bizarre and argument", especially given that most of the accounts weren't written when they happened, and that the standards re: truth weren't exactly up to today's standards (taking some license was assumed; see Josephus). In essence, we know that there was some license taken, but the accounts are nonetheless used as a starting point. |
Let's assume for a moment that the writers of the gospels were actually present during real historical events, but were writing these things decades after the fact.
Might they have suffered from selective memory? Most likely. They may have forgotten that Jesus had the shits one day from eating bad burrito, or that he always bad mouthed immigrants and said they were ruining the country. They may have even misremembered him shouting "father, forgive them for they know not what they do" when he actually said "holy s**t this hurts like hell - get me the f**k down from here!". But if their memories were really that flawed... isn't the story they wrote a fiction anyway?
Might they have forgotten details, such as the exact wording, or exactly who was present at a given event? Probably, unless the people present played an integral part. They might have forgotten that Thomas was at the Sermon on the Mount because Thomas was always such a whiny little bastard that no one paid any attention to. But would they forget that Peter was at the arrival into Jerusalem? Of course not - he had an integral role there. If Luke had asked Joseph: "gee, Joe, why did you and Mary travel to Bethlehem?" and Joseph had answered: "well, L-dawg, there was this mass swearing thing for Augustus"... do you really think that Luke would have somehow forgotten that and wrote about Quirinius? Remember, to Luke, the fact of this journey to Bethlehem was so profound that when he was selecting bits and pieces of Jesus' life to write about, he opted to devote a section to it even though it actually had none of Jesus' teachings in it. i mean, to us, confusing the governor of Syria with the emperor of Rome seems no big deal... but do you really think Luke would have? Or Joseph? And, if there was confusion, wouldn't it be natural to name the emperor before the governor (that is, if you can't remember whether a law was provincial or federal, but this is the story about GOD and THE MESSIAH... wouldn't you tend to go for the big name rather than the small one)?
The only three means we have of determining the veracity of anything in the new testament are:
1.) Analyzing the believability of the accounts, looking for ridiculous claims.
2.) Comparing the accounts to each other to check for consistency.
3.) Comparing the accounts to extant writings to check for external verification.
And you say that:
1.) Ridiculous claims are expected if the story is true (ex. miracles). So even if there are ridiculous claims, we can't use them to discredit the story.
2.) Contradictons between the different accounts are expected because... well i don't know. You say that contradictions are expected, but i think the logic of that is bizarre. But assuming you're right, we can't even use contradictions between the writers to check the truth.
3.) When extant writings and the bible disagree, you should assume the bible is true first (such as in the case of Josephus).
See a problem?
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Overall: There's a lot of debate among historians about what actually happened. That there is debate is interesting to me, especially when atheists pretty much slam the research as being religious in nature. No other religion is given the same scrutiny, especially when you realize that no other religion could face as much scrutiny. Just thought it was interesting... |
The debate is religious in nature. The bible is not a historical document, it is a religious text. The writers had no interest in recording the truth, their primary goal was the glorification of their beliefs, and outlining a system of laws. When history happened to work in their favour, they used it. When it didn't, do you really think they weren't above outright fabrication? As far as being a historical document goes, the bible is about as useful as the story of Jason and the Argonauts.
When one simply ignores the bible and uses only non-religious historical sources, there is absolutely no evidence at all of virtually any of the key events described. Put your helm of intellectual honesty on and think for a moment about what that means.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| I know that Christianity is a big religion and that alone invites criticism. I'm not debating that or even disagreeing. MY POINT was that it was interesting that ONLY Christianity appears to have received any thorough criticism; criticism of Hinduism, for example, is usually limited to its caste system, and Buddhism may be gently joked about, but I don't see any major criticism of it in the same terms as Christianity. |
At this point in time, Christianity is not the only religion that is attempting to rewrite history and science (and the laws of the land). However, it is by far the most powerful, and it is the one that is having the most success.
Because of that, it is only logical that it is the one that that is being the most viciously scrutinized by both the natural sciences and historical studies. Quite simply, no one's bothering to take Hinduism apart at the seams because Hinduism either isn't attempting or isn't succeeding at trying to dismantle science and history.
If Christianity would stay out of science and secular studies of history (and other things, such as law-making), then it would not be challenged. However, it doesn't. It attempts to attack and/or undermine the foundations of these things, and they fight back in defence.
If Christianity cannot stand the scrutiny - and it certainly can't without resorting to illogical tactics - then it should not provoke the scrutineers by invading their territory.No particular order:
1) The Bible is considered to be a historical text, albeit one that does occasionally have some issues. It's been used to verify that events happened, as well giving insight into why those events happened. Note that I'm saying this with a caveat, but The Bible has nonetheless been used to verify events.
2) The caveat: Yeah, it's also a religious document. This means that you are going to have to deal with miracles every so often. Interestingly, it's those very problems that historians like; those problems give historians a chance to look over history, and see if there is a way that the miracle could have happened, or if it's verifiable. Strangely, most miracles have been verified using non-biblical sources (ie, those considered factual).
3) So...if a historian agrees with you, then his value is proven, but if his opinion disagrees with you, he's an apologist. I always find it an interesting to debate things with atheists because the allowed list of sources is limited to sources that the atheist likes, rather than all available sources, and the debate usually goes into semantics rather than facts. Also, I find it interesting how well most atheists have studied The Bible; kudos to the scholarship!
Nonetheless, I'm going to keep using sources you may not appreciate...the value of an academic shouldn't be limited to the academic's religion; otherwise, we'd still be in the Dark Ages...
4) If the magi were such great astrologers, then they would have been able to determine in general what the event was, and whichever stars/astronomical bodies in order to follow in order to find the event. Bear in mind that they could follow the stars; comets, for example, were said to hang over a location. In other words, I'm acknowledging that it makes no sense to a modern mind, but we aren't looking at modern minds....
5) I'm also willing to go with selective memory, or at least some form of it. None of the writers were at the nativity, nor were they even aware of it. Worse, the accounts were written well after the fact. So some error was bound to creep in, especially given the priority for opinion over fact back them.
-------------------------------------------
The bottom line is that I doubt we'll ever fully agree on this to the degree you like. I'm willing to compromise a bit, as are you, but that just won't build a bridge...
HM
HereticMonkey the bible is not a historical book, its a religious text. Many events in the bible didn't happen or didn't happen as described.
You can't use the bible to verify something.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 1) The Bible is considered to be a historical text, albeit one that does occasionally have some issues. It's been used to verify that events happened, as well giving insight into why those events happened. Note that I'm saying this with a caveat, but The Bible has nonetheless been used to verify events. |
Good grief, you must be joking. You think that Noah's flood was real? What about the creation story? Moses making magic snakes for the Egyptians? Oh, what about the plagues of Egypt? The parting of the sea?
If you seriously think that those things happened, then sure, the bible is a historical text.
If on the other hand, you realize that all of those things are just fantasies - stories - then what does that make the bible... but a story book?
And once you realize the bible is just a big story book... how can you seriously argue that it's a historical text? That's like trying to determine the politics in Washington by watching the West Wing, or - more relevantly - trying to determine the history of the church of Scientology by reading Dianetics.
Are there historical facts in the bible? Sure, just like any story that claims to be set in reality will use actual historical facts and real place names, the bible's settings are usually based in history. But does that mean the bible is a reliable means of determining what history is? Give me a break.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 2) The caveat: Yeah, it's also a religious document. This means that you are going to have to deal with miracles every so often. Interestingly, it's those very problems that historians like; those problems give historians a chance to look over history, and see if there is a way that the miracle could have happened, or if it's verifiable. Strangely, most miracles have been verified using non-biblical sources (ie, those considered factual). |
Ah, dude - the people combing history for evidence of miracles are not historians. And no, strangely, there is not a single biblical miracle that has extant evidence. Not one. Anywhere.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 3) So...if a historian agrees with you, then his value is proven, but if his opinion disagrees with you, he's an apologist. I always find it an interesting to debate things with atheists because the allowed list of sources is limited to sources that the atheist likes, rather than all available sources, and the debate usually goes into semantics rather than facts. |
If a historian actually studies history, they are a historian. If they study the bible then try to make history agree with it, they are an apologist.
Any historian worth their salt studies all sources they can find, but all sources are not created equal. A claim made in Jason and the Argonauts - and verified nowhere else - is not a claim to be taken seriously. Similarly, a claim made in the bible - and verified nowhere else - is not a claim to be taken seriously.
Something like Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews is a far more credible source, but even that should not be taken alone. And it doesn't have to be, because we can back up most of the fact in it with other sources.
The bible, however, stands mostly alone, and is contradicted by extant sources at almost every turn.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Also, I find it interesting how well most atheists have studied The Bible; kudos to the scholarship! |
Of course. It is the most powerful text in the world - more people use it to guide their lives than anything else. And people try to use it to control the way other people live their lives. And people try to use it to rewrite science books and history books. For self-defensive purposes alone an atheist should know the bible quite well.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Nonetheless, I'm going to keep using sources you may not appreciate...the value of an academic shouldn't be limited to the academic's religion; otherwise, we'd still be in the Dark Ages... |
There is absolutely no sense in what you just said.
i have never said that an academic's worth is weighted by their religion - quite the opposite, i have said that their worth is weighted by their sources. If an atheist historian tried to use the bible as a historical text, i'd call them a fraud, too.
You have it completely backwards. An academic that bases their work on religious documents or beliefs (and not someone studying the religion or culture, of course) is a dark age "academic". Modern sciences know how to determine the worth of their sources better.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 4) If the magi were such great astrologers, then they would have been able to determine in general what the event was, and whichever stars/astronomical bodies in order to follow in order to find the event. Bear in mind that they could follow the stars; comets, for example, were said to hang over a location. In other words, I'm acknowledging that it makes no sense to a modern mind, but we aren't looking at modern minds.... |
This is all completely illogical.
Yes, we all know that people could use stars and/or comets to navigate - the device used was called an astrolabe. And if the magi were even mediocre astronomers, they would have been able to use an astrolabe to figure out what the phenomenon was hanging over.
But you completely ignored the objections. In order to be able to pinpoint the location down to a single building, the phenomenon in question would have had to have been less than 10 km up. Parallax makes further objects seem to be hanging over huge areas, the size of continents, as they move (the Earth, turns, remember). That rules out stars, planets and comets. It had to have been either a satellite or some other kind of UFO - if it existed. On top of that, the world was FULL of people watching the skies at that time, many of them making meticulous recordings of what they saw. None of them recorded anything that meets the requirements of the alleged phenomenon.
Try intellectual honesty here. We all know the bible is replete with lies - call them stories if you want, but we know that many of the things the bible claims happened simply did not happen. Now you have this astronomical event that cannot have gone unnoticed by the rest of the world that is only mentioned in the bible and nowhere else. What is the correct conclusion to make?
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| The bottom line is that I doubt we'll ever fully agree on this to the degree you like. I'm willing to compromise a bit, as are you, but that just won't build a bridge... |
History is not written by compromise. The facts are the facts, and if you want to ignore them, then no, i most certainly will not compromise.Indi: Thanks, BTW, for showing why Atheism is a religion...
| Indi wrote: |
Good grief, you must be joking. You think that Noah's flood was real? What about the creation story? Moses making magic snakes for the Egyptians? Oh, what about the plagues of Egypt? The parting of the sea?
|
Here's the deal: Some of the events obviously didn't happen. On the other hand, some of them did. Historians have long loved going through The Bible, trying to determine which events actually did happen, or just referenced real world events. The parting of the sea is a definite favorite, BTW; there a number of actually plausible theories on what happened. Also, the creation story actually checks out, as long as you don't equate each day to an actual 24-hr period; if you actually bother checking out how scientists believe how the universe started, that is...
| Quote: |
Are there historical facts in the bible? Sure, just like any story that claims to be set in reality will use actual historical facts and real place names, the bible's settings are usually based in history. But does that mean the bible is a reliable means of determining what history is? Give me a break.
|
Strangely enough, yes. Because of the number of places where The Bible goes hand-in-hand with history, it's actually useful as a commentary on the ancient world. Also, if you really are a student of history, you'd know of the number of times that a myth has proven to be true; Troy is probably the best example, as it was long believed to be a myth, until shown to be real in actuality.
Note: I'm not saying that everything that happened in The Bible actually happened. But...enough did that it makes for an interesting read for history geeks...
| Quote: |
| Ah, dude - the people combing history for evidence of miracles are not historians. And no, strangely, there is not a single biblical miracle that has extant evidence. Not one. Anywhere. |
Depends on how you define miracles. There are number of those problematic things that have been shown to have possibly happened that it gets interested. Read: People have documented a number of weird happenings, even in the modern world. Do we expunge them because they don't match our beliefs, or do expand our beliefs to encompass them? Yeah, a lot of crop circles are easy to explain; but a lot aren't. Do we dismiss all crop circles because a few are explainable, or do we search for an explanation for each, based on their own merits?
| Quote: |
If a historian actually studies history, they are a historian. If they study the bible then try to make history agree with it, they are an apologist.
|
1) How...convenient for you.
2) So, what do you call a historian who, on a lark, take a biblical myth and show that it either a) actually happened, or b) is plausible? That is, had no religious reason for showing that something happened, and shows that the event could happen or did actually happen?
| Quote: |
Something like Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews is a far more credible source, but even that should not be taken alone. And it doesn't have to be, because we can back up most of the fact in it with other sources.
|
Heh. How ironic that you have an apparently deep-seated problem with apologists, yet you reference one of the best known apologists of all time...Also, he's one of those that references Jesus, as well as other biblical notables of the time...
| Quote: |
| The bible, however, stands mostly alone, and is contradicted by extant sources at almost every turn. |
Actually, it does rather well in this area. Of particular note is the story of Solomon and the baby, which was shown to be parable of how Solomon felt and planned to deal with various factions if they didn't settle down.
| Quote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | Nonetheless, I'm going to keep using sources you may not appreciate...the value of an academic shouldn't be limited to the academic's religion; otherwise, we'd still be in the Dark Ages... |
There is absolutely no sense in what you just said. |
In other words: There is a lot of learning that is couched in religious terms, and to disregard it simply because of that isn't necessarily wise. The Bible advises against certain meats, for example, that would be good to avoid given the lack of hygiene back then (such as pork and shellfish), as well as providing medical advice (such as how to lance a boil and determine if it's infected or not). For what is obstensibly a purely religious text, The Bible covers a lot of ground...
| Quote: |
| i have never said that an academic's worth is weighted by their religion - quite the opposite, i have said that their worth is weighted by their sources. If an atheist historian tried to use the bible as a historical text, i'd call them a fraud, too. |
Talk about safe bets...Would an atheist be an atheist if he used The Bible as a reference in the first place?
| Quote: |
| You have it completely backwards. An academic that bases their work on religious documents or beliefs (and not someone studying the religion or culture, of course) is a dark age "academic". Modern sciences know how to determine the worth of their sources better. |
And so you've completely blown away astronomy, chemistry, medicine, and genetics, including evolution, all of which are based on religious documents or beliefs...Interesting that...
[Note: Before you reply, bear in mind that astronomy and chemistry are based on astrology and alchemy, respectively, genetic theory has its origins in the abbeys, and that Darwin was attempting to prove certain biblical beliefs at the time, and that his belief in evolution was based on Christian thought. Medicine, of course, is very steeped in religion, even today (especially holistic medicine). Just thought it was interesting...]
| Quote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | 4) If the magi were such great astrologers, then they would have been able to determine in general what the event was, and whichever stars/astronomical bodies in order to follow in order to find the event. Bear in mind that they could follow the stars; comets, for example, were said to hang over a location. In other words, I'm acknowledging that it makes no sense to a modern mind, but we aren't looking at modern minds.... |
This is all completely illogical.
Yes, we all know that people could use stars and/or comets to navigate - the device used was called an astrolabe. And if the magi were even mediocre astronomers, they would have been able to use an astrolabe to figure out what the phenomenon was hanging over.
But you completely ignored the objections. In order to be able to pinpoint the location down to a single building, the phenomenon in question would have had to have been less than 10 km up. Parallax makes further objects seem to be hanging over huge areas, the size of continents, as they move (the Earth, turns, remember). That rules out stars, planets and comets. It had to have been either a satellite or some other kind of UFO - if it existed. On top of that, the world was FULL of people watching the skies at that time, many of them making meticulous recordings of what they saw. None of them recorded anything that meets the requirements of the alleged phenomenon. |
No offense, but do you bother to read what you quote? On this we are in mostly complete agreement; there is no way to scientifically "create" a specific location.
On the other hand, I would like to know why Chinese astrologers recorded what is apparently an entirely different night sky than other cultures. In that regard, it does appear that either the Europeans either weren't paying attention, the Chinese were lying, or that there was some kind of censorship going on.
| Quote: |
| Try intellectual honesty here. We all know the bible is replete with lies - call them stories if you want, but we know that many of the things the bible claims happened simply did not happen. |
However, many did. As long as I realize that difference, and allow for it, I fail to see why you can't use The Bible as at least a secondary reference, or as inspiration for scientific/historic inquiry.
| Quote: |
| Now you have this astronomical event that cannot have gone unnoticed by the rest of the world that is only mentioned in the bible and nowhere else. What is the correct conclusion to make? |
Actually, it only went unnoticed by the Romans, and those under their rule; apparently the Chinese did notice it. And even then, it is possible that the Romans didn't want the event recorded; history is full of events that the some organization deleted because they weren't favorable to some groups...
| Quote: |
| History is not written by compromise. The facts are the facts, and if you want to ignore them, then no, i most certainly will not compromise. |
However, I would debate that history should be considered above reproach. It is arguably the softest of the sciences, and has proven the most vulnerable to corruption.
The bottom line is that just as you are nailing me for my religious conviction, yours is just as obvious. I'm not trying to use The Bible as my only source, but as an origin, which I'm then checking against other sources. However, our conflict is because we have two different religions conflicting, and that we are trying to defend what we see as the truth. For what it's worth...
HM | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Indi: Thanks, BTW, for showing why Atheism is a religion... |
Eh? You don't even know what my religion is. You know i'm atheist, but what does that mean? i could be a Zen Bhuddist or a Jainist. Or a Raellian.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
Good grief, you must be joking. You think that Noah's flood was real? What about the creation story? Moses making magic snakes for the Egyptians? Oh, what about the plagues of Egypt? The parting of the sea?
|
Here's the deal: Some of the events obviously didn't happen. On the other hand, some of them did. Historians have long loved going through The Bible, trying to determine which events actually did happen, or just referenced real world events. The parting of the sea is a definite favorite, BTW; there a number of actually plausible theories on what happened. Also, the creation story actually checks out, as long as you don't equate each day to an actual 24-hr period; if you actually bother checking out how scientists believe how the universe started, that is... |
i don't even know what to say to this. -_- On the one hand you openly admit that the bible is fictitious, and even when you insist that it does have basis in fact, you admit that those facts are garbled (days become aeons, for example).
The evidence is plainly in front of you that the bible is highly unreliable, and you even admit to it... and yet you still insist that the bible is a good reference.
What can anyone say? Logic doesn't seem to be a factor in your position, thus logic cannot be used to debate it.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
Strangely enough, yes. Because of the number of places where The Bible goes hand-in-hand with history, it's actually useful as a commentary on the ancient world. Also, if you really are a student of history, you'd know of the number of times that a myth has proven to be true; Troy is probably the best example, as it was long believed to be a myth, until shown to be real in actuality.
Note: I'm not saying that everything that happened in The Bible actually happened. But...enough did that it makes for an interesting read for history geeks... |
K now, take it slowly. You're almost there. So the Trojan war was long considered to be a myth... why? And now we're considering that it may not be a myth... why?
Take your time.
First answer: The Trojan War was considered to be a myth because the references we had to it were all known fiction. They were myths and legends, and most of them not particularly believable. Translation: stories in legends and myths are not valid sources for history.
Second answer: The reason we're now considering that there may have actually be a Trojan War - albeit nothing like the one Homer describes - is because (tada!) we found extant historical evidence. In other words, the legend/story had nothing to do with the believability of the event. The evidence for the event was found by other means. The story helped not a squat.
Same for the bible. Just like the Iliad, the bible has absolutely zero value as a record of history. None. When it so happens that external evidence corroborates the bible, that's interesting, sure, but hardly fascinating. And it's certainly not evidence of the bible being true. Hell, we know the Vietnam war was real. Does that make Rambo a valid record of history?
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | Ah, dude - the people combing history for evidence of miracles are not historians. And no, strangely, there is not a single biblical miracle that has extant evidence. Not one. Anywhere. |
Depends on how you define miracles. There are number of those problematic things that have been shown to have possibly happened that it gets interested. Read: People have documented a number of weird happenings, even in the modern world. Do we expunge them because they don't match our beliefs, or do expand our beliefs to encompass them? Yeah, a lot of crop circles are easy to explain; but a lot aren't. Do we dismiss all crop circles because a few are explainable, or do we search for an explanation for each, based on their own merits? |
What on Earth are you talking about now? There's not a coherent thought anywhere in what you wrote above.
i define miracle as something that cannot be explained by any natural or human means. Wackily enough, that's what the dictionary says too.
Let's suppose that someone actually found evidence of a worldwide flood c4000 years ago. Would that show that the bible is a valid historical text? NO, and this is what you fail to grasp. All it would show is that the writers of the bible chose to use a specific historical event in their story. Once again, if a future historian found a copy of Rambo, and then evidence of the Vietnam War, does that suddenly make Rambo a valid historical source?
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | If a historian actually studies history, they are a historian. If they study the bible then try to make history agree with it, they are an apologist.
|
1) How...convenient for you.
2) So, what do you call a historian who, on a lark, take a biblical myth and show that it either a) actually happened, or b) is plausible? That is, had no religious reason for showing that something happened, and shows that the event could happen or did actually happen? |
1.) Yeah, isn't it funny how that works out? A historian is someone who actually studies history. Who'd a thunk it?
2.) How many times do i have to repeat this? The quality of a historian is not judged by their religion or their beliefs, or by the particular aspect of history they are studying. The quality of a historian is judged by one thing and one thing only - the quality of their methods. And a key part of the historical method is the careful selection of source material. We know that history is written by the victors. We understand that biases can get introduced into otherwise academic writings. But a good historian will carefully select which documents are reliable and which are not, and they will corroborate as much as possible.
The bible is unreliable. Deal.
But if a historian were to use actually reliable historical documents, or archeological evidence, and find evidence of something in the bible that was previously thought to be a myth, good on them. They've done good historical work. Let me say that again: it doesn't matter whether someone is researching biblical history, provided they're using good sources. The bible is not a good source. The absolute most that it can do is suggest where to look. Nothing more. It cannot be used to explain what is found, or provide any deeper insight.
Now, if a historian were to scour historical documents looking for, say, evidence of an astronomical phenomenon that matches the star of Bethelehem, they would not be doing history. They would be doing religious research. Why? Because they are using the bible as the primary source, then using other historical documents to back it up. The bible isn't even reliable enough to be supporting evidence, let alone the primary source. In that case, they are not historians, they are apologists.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | Something like Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews is a far more credible source, but even that should not be taken alone. And it doesn't have to be, because we can back up most of the fact in it with other sources.
|
Heh. How ironic that you have an apparently deep-seated problem with apologists, yet you reference one of the best known apologists of all time...Also, he's one of those that references Jesus, as well as other biblical notables of the time... |
You're being disingenious on several counts. First, Josephus was not a Christian apologist, he was an apologist for the Romans during a time of Jewish-Roman conflict (and for himself, regarding his actions in said conflict). Therefore he could be expected to be at least neutral towards Christians, and at most hostile. Therefore, any time he supports a Christian claim, or paints them in a good light, we can be fairly certain that he's recounting honest history. It's as simple as that.
Second, the references to Jesus are now widely believed to be false - inserted into the text sometime after 300 CE. There is substantial evidence for this claim, including the fact that no writer, Christian or otherwise, before around 300 CE mentions Josephus's references to Jesus, even while they mention his references to other persons mentioned in the gospel narratives. Also, the actual inserted text doesn't use the same grammar or vocabulary as Josephus, and they clearly describe Jesus as divine in some form or another - a peculiar stance for a Jew to take.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | The bible, however, stands mostly alone, and is contradicted by extant sources at almost every turn. |
Actually, it does rather well in this area. Of particular note is the story of Solomon and the baby, which was shown to be parable of how Solomon felt and planned to deal with various factions if they didn't settle down. |
What? We don't even have that much extant evidence of Solomon even existing, let alone what his mood was.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | HereticMonkey wrote: | | Nonetheless, I'm going to keep using sources you may not appreciate...the value of an academic shouldn't be limited to the academic's religion; otherwise, we'd still be in the Dark Ages... |
There is absolutely no sense in what you just said. |
In other words: There is a lot of learning that is couched in religious terms, and to disregard it simply because of that isn't necessarily wise. The Bible advises against certain meats, for example, that would be good to avoid given the lack of hygiene back then (such as pork and shellfish), as well as providing medical advice (such as how to lance a boil and determine if it's infected or not). For what is obstensibly a purely religious text, The Bible covers a lot of ground... |
Once upon a time we lived in what were called the dark ages. They were called the dark ages because people were very ignorant then, and turned to religion for answers to everything - from the reasons for bad weather, to the politics of the realm, to the cause of the common cold.
We got smarter.
We figured out that the things we thought where caused by gods and demons were actually caused by natural things. Now we no longer believe those ridiculous ideas, we have put them behind us.
Thus the dark ages ended.
Now you want to take us back? Well, sure, mate, the bible covers hygiene. It also describes how you should properly imprison, torture and rape a female prisoner of war. It also gives a price list for human lives, either when you're selling your children into slavery, or for when you have to pay for murdering someone else's property - oops, i meant family. Dude, if you want to use the bible as a guideline for life, you go nuts. Sure did a lot of good for James Kopp and Eric Rudolph.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | i have never said that an academic's worth is weighted by their religion - quite the opposite, i have said that their worth is weighted by their sources. If an atheist historian tried to use the bible as a historical text, i'd call them a fraud, too. |
Talk about safe bets...Would an atheist be an atheist if he used The Bible as a reference in the first place? |
Maybe. You know reading the bible doesn't make one a theist, let alone a Christian. In fact, one of my favourite sayings is that if more Christians read the bible we'd have a lot fewer Christians.
An atheist can be just as crappy a historian as a theist. Once again: the method matters, not the religion.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | You have it completely backwards. An academic that bases their work on religious documents or beliefs (and not someone studying the religion or culture, of course) is a dark age "academic". Modern sciences know how to determine the worth of their sources better. |
And so you've completely blown away astronomy, chemistry, medicine, and genetics, including evolution, all of which are based on religious documents or beliefs...Interesting that...
[Note: Before you reply, bear in mind that astronomy and chemistry are based on astrology and alchemy, respectively, genetic theory has its origins in the abbeys, and that Darwin was attempting to prove certain biblical beliefs at the time, and that his belief in evolution was based on Christian thought. Medicine, of course, is very steeped in religion, even today (especially holistic medicine). Just thought it was interesting...] |
Yeah? So the astronomers where you are pray to gods to determine what inclination to look for the comet they are watching between nights? The chemists in your area trying to make the philosopher's stone? You been to a doctor recently who performed blood-letting?
Dude, we've moved on. Our modern sciences are not based on religious concepts - astronomy and chemistry most certainly are not based on astrology and alchemy. Once upon a time in ancient history, they were. But we've moved on.
Come, leave the dark ages and join us.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| However, many did. As long as I realize that difference, and allow for it, I fail to see why you can't use The Bible as at least a secondary reference, or as inspiration for scientific/historic inquiry. |
Because it's known to be false, it's vague and it has an agenda that is most certainly not the accurate recording of historical events.
You want to use it as an inspiration? Sure. But not as a source of any kind.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | History is not written by compromise. The facts are the facts, and if you want to ignore them, then no, i most certainly will not compromise. |
However, I would debate that history should be considered above reproach. It is arguably the softest of the sciences, and has proven the most vulnerable to corruption.
The bottom line is that just as you are nailing me for my religious conviction, yours is just as obvious. I'm not trying to use The Bible as my only source, but as an origin, which I'm then checking against other sources. However, our conflict is because we have two different religions conflicting, and that we are trying to defend what we see as the truth. For what it's worth... |
Dude, i don't even know what your religion is, and i don't really care. This discussion has nothing to do with religion unless you're making it so. This discussion is about the proper way to do historical research.
The bible is not a valid source - primary, secondary or otherwise. If you want to use it as inspiration, sure. Go nuts. But what you're talking about doing is using it as a primary source, then seeking extant confirmation. No, that's bad methodology.
i am not defending the "truth" because i don't even know what the truth is. i am defending the methodology, because it is the best hope we have of finding truth. And because history is so easily corruptible, as you note, it requires the strictest of controls in order to keep it honest. You are attempting to corrupt that methodology by using poor sources. i have no interest in attacking any religion, but religion better stay the hell out of the sciences - even the "softest of sciences".1) First off: The Bible doesn't give instructions (that I'm aware of, at any rate) on how to torture women prisoners of war (as women couldn't wage war, or even be soldiers, why would such information even be needed?). Also, as far as slaves go, you're forgetting about Jubilee, where slaves were released and debts forgiven (ignoring, of course, that slavery was acceptable back then).
2) Please show me one historically reliable document from that era that is 100% accurate. Heck, I would even accept 75% accurate! Too many "histories" were more interested in the person's perspective on what happened rather than the actual facts.
Because of this, historians have had to piece together history from a number of sources, most of which are incredibly debatable. What they've had to do was track down what the major events were, and go from there. In this sense, we've been able to verify that most of the events portrayed in The Bible have actually happened, albeit not necessarily as portrayed (for example, we know that, thanks to Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius, that the Massacre of Innocents may have actually happened, where Herod killed all the boys under 2 years old in the Bethlehem area (even though only about 6 boys appeared to have died, the point is that it did happen)). Heck, we even know that the run from Egypt happened, and that so did Jericho.
Worse, the origin of the Universe as per Genesis squares with what we know of the origin of the Universe as per physics.
Basically, I have no problem with The Bible being maybe even 35% historically accurate (once you allow for parts that are clearly metaphorical (such as Revelations), not historical (such as Proverbs and Psalms, better known as General Advice and Pretty Poems), and even the obvious political allegories (such as the tale of Solomon and the baby). Because so much of The Bible has been shown to have happened, it does count as a valuable historical document, even compared to such as Josephus.
3) Just a general sidenote: I thought it was ironic that a well-known apologist was being used to slam Christian apologists, especially one so hated and otherwise despised by Jews of the time (a lot of people didn't like someone who survived a suicide pact)...
4) Oh, and Rambo was a bad example. Facts aren't the only things that matter to historians, but commentaries as well, as they show how people felt at the time. As a way to show how people felt about Viet Nam, it does have some actual historical value. Just thought that it that was an interesting sidenote...
HM
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 1) First off: The Bible doesn't give instructions (that I'm aware of, at any rate) on how to torture women prisoners of war (as women couldn't wage war, or even be soldiers, why would such information even be needed?). Also, as far as slaves go, you're forgetting about Jubilee, where slaves were released and debts forgiven (ignoring, of course, that slavery was acceptable back then). |
Realy?
| Quote: |
10 So the assembly sent 12,000 of their best warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. 11 “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Completely destroy[a] all the males and every woman who is not a virgin.” 12 Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found 400 young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
13 The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the remaining people of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. 14 Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the 400 women of Jabesh-gilead who had been spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them.
15 The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the Lord had made this gap among the tribes of Israel. 16 So the elders of the assembly asked, “How can we find wives for the few who remain, since the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? 17 There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel is not wiped out. 18 But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God’s curse.”
19 Then they thought of the annual festival of the Lord held in Shiloh, south of Lebonah and north of Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. 20 They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, “Go and hide in the vineyards. 21 When you see the young women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to the land of Benjamin to be your wife! 22 And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, ‘Please be sympathetic. Let them have your daughters, for we didn’t find wives for all of them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not actually give your daughters to them in marriage.’”
23 So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. Each man caught one of the women as she danced in the celebration and carried her off to be his wife. They returned to their own land, and they rebuilt their towns and lived in them.
24 Then the people of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes. |
| Quote: |
7 They attacked Midian as the Lord had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. 8 All five of the Midianite kings—Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba—died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.
9 Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. 11 After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, 12 they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho. 13 Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 But Moses was furious with all the generals and captains[a] who had returned from the battle.
15 “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. 16 “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the Lord at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the Lord’s people. 17 So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man. 18 Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves |
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 2) Please show me one historically reliable document from that era that is 100% accurate. Heck, I would even accept 75% accurate! Too many "histories" were more interested in the person's perspective on what happened rather than the actual facts. |
Any the vast majority are better, the bible is as reliable as the story's of Herculie's.1) OMG! Marrying someone is torture! Do you have anything better?
2) | Quote: |
| Any the vast majority are better, the bible is as reliable as the story's of Herculie's. |
a) Man, I hate having to read through typos...
b) Random shot != point. Now, had you bothered to show how Hercules is at least relevant (ie, does it have any actual historical relevance?), it would have been interesting. Want to try again?
HM | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 1) First off: The Bible doesn't give instructions (that I'm aware of, at any rate) on how to torture women prisoners of war (as women couldn't wage war, or even be soldiers, why would such information even be needed?). |
i am fond of saying that if more Christians read the bible, there would be far fewer Christians. This seems to be an example of that. The bible does indeed give instructions on how to propely imprison and rape female prisoners of war. (And to answer your silly question: do you really think a female had to be a combatant to be taken as a prisoner in war?)
(And no, i am not even considering the evidence Conspirator provided. If you really knew the bible, you would already know what i meant, but i'm feeling generous so i'll give you a hint: the law.)
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Also, as far as slaves go, you're forgetting about Jubilee, where slaves were released and debts forgiven (ignoring, of course, that slavery was acceptable back then). |
There is not one word in the entire Christian or Jewish bible that speaks against slavery. Not one. Nowhere.
Quite the contrary, the bible in several places encourages slavery.
You should try reading the bible.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
2) Please show me one historically reliable document from that era that is 100% accurate. Heck, I would even accept 75% accurate! Too many "histories" were more interested in the person's perspective on what happened rather than the actual facts.
Because of this, historians have had to piece together history from a number of sources, most of which are incredibly debatable. What they've had to do was track down what the major events were, and go from there. |
i have already explained how this is done, and why the bible cannot be used in this regard. Yes, history is pieced together form a number of sources, some of them somewhat questionable. But none of those sources are storybooks.
i have also explained how a source that is questionable in some regards could be considered reliable in other regards. You would not expect a history of the Jews written by Heinrich Himmler to be facual... or would you? Obviously any "facts" that Himmler wrote about that show the Jews to be evil or subhuman are highly questionable. But any "facts" he included that show the Jews to be good, honest people are very likely true - especially when he is trying to refute those facts with little success.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| In this sense, we've been able to verify that most of the events portrayed in The Bible have actually happened, albeit not necessarily as portrayed (for example, we know that, thanks to Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius, that the Massacre of Innocents may have actually happened, where Herod killed all the boys under 2 years old in the Bethlehem area (even though only about 6 boys appeared to have died, the point is that it did happen)). Heck, we even know that the run from Egypt happened, and that so did Jericho. |
1.) Your claim about evidence for the massacre of the innocents is complete rubbish. Exactly what date did your source record his so-called "evidence"? In what context? Seem like valid evidence now? Thought not.
2.) The story about the exodus is not documented by sources outside of the bible, and the bible's version of events is almost certainly untrue. It is known that Isreal was enslaved by Egypt and that that enslavement had to end somehow. An exodus is possible, but there is no evidence outside of the bible's clearly fantastic account.
3.) We don't "know" Jericho happened, and in fact there is evidence indicating that it could not.
Or to put it another way:
Massacre of the innocents: "The Massacre of the Innocents is not mentioned in the other gospels nor in the early apocrypha. Some scholars, such as Robert Eisenman, have called the historicity of this event into question, arguing that the prophetic nature of the account, and the lack of multiple attestation, decreases its credibility." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_innocents#Historicity)
Exodus: "The findings of modern archaeologists may present a challenge for Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians, as it is here, at the Exodus and the subsequent Conquest of Canaan that the chronologies of the archaeologists seem to plainly diverge from those that may be derived from known versions of the Bible; at least in overall terms of centuries and populations." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Interpretation)
Jericho: "According to most archeologists there is very little evidence of a single campaign of conquest, and there is Canaanite cultural continuity; most archaeologists now believe that the Israelites were simply a branch of Canaanite culture, and that there was no invasion." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho#Historicity)
And that's just in Wikipedia. There are far more sources available via google.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Worse, the origin of the Universe as per Genesis squares with what we know of the origin of the Universe as per physics. |
Absolute crap. Ignoring the fact that it all apparently happened in a matter of days, because apparently it's ok to consider the "days" allegorical but not the rest of it (selective interpretation), the chronology is flawed.
Third "day": oceans and continents are created.
Fourth "day": the stars and sun are created.
Nonsense.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Basically, I have no problem with The Bible being maybe even 35% historically accurate (once you allow for parts that are clearly metaphorical (such as Revelations), not historical (such as Proverbs and Psalms, better known as General Advice and Pretty Poems), and even the obvious political allegories (such as the tale of Solomon and the baby). Because so much of The Bible has been shown to have happened, it does count as a valuable historical document, even compared to such as Josephus. |
You keep saying the bible has "been shown" to be accurate, and that it is "known" to be reliable. By whom? State your sources. Show your evidence.
i have already explained repeatedly that just because real historical events appear in the bible does not preclude the fact that the bible is a complete work of fiction. The Rambo example, which you dismiss for silly reasons (which i will deal with later) is relevant. The Vietnam War was a real historical event, and much of the real history and geography involved was used in the writing of Rambo. But not one single event in the story of Rambo was real. You're trying to argue that finding evidence of events described in the bible validates the bible as a history book. Nonsense. If that were true then the evidence of the Vietnam War could be used to validate Rambo as a history book.
This argument of being "35%" true is completely idiotic. How on Earth can one know what percentage of the bible is true unless one already knew the truth from other sources? Throughout all of Christian history the bible has been claimed to be literally true, then slowly as evidence was found that parts were impossible, people started saying "allegory" or "metaphor". How do you know that the parts you think are real will not also be found to be allegory someday? Answer: you don't. Unless you use "faith". And that's hardly a valid way to research history.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 3) Just a general sidenote: I thought it was ironic that a well-known apologist was being used to slam Christian apologists, especially one so hated and otherwise despised by Jews of the time (a lot of people didn't like someone who survived a suicide pact)... |
i already showed how Josephus' biases actually make him a more credible source - but you are mischaracterizing what i've been doing. i have not been slamming apologists, i have been slamming people that lie about history. It is you who wants to make this about the bible and Christianity, not me. i would take the same stance against anyone of any religion (or no religion at all) who attempted to warp historical evidence to fit a particular worldview.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 4) Oh, and Rambo was a bad example. Facts aren't the only things that matter to historians, but commentaries as well, as they show how people felt at the time. As a way to show how people felt about Viet Nam, it does have some actual historical value. Just thought that it that was an interesting sidenote... |
You have just shot yourself in the foot. You are absolutely right that while Rambo makes a lousy historical text, it can be used to examine the mindset of its writers and those who supported it as a well written book (given its popularity). It also gives us a basis for studying the stories that followed it - those that it inspired and those that sought to discredit it. The same is true for the bible. It makes a lousy historical text, but it does give us fascinating insight into the psychology of the writers. It also gives us a basis for studying the ancient cultures that used the text as a basis for their beliefs.
But neither Rambo, nor the bible, is a history book.You know, all of your arguments are great, as long as you don't bother to consider that the other person may even be right about something...
Read: I'm acknowledging that you're making some decent points, but you keep missing the target...
| Indi wrote: |
| i am fond of saying that if more Christians read the bible, there would be far fewer Christians. This seems to be an example of that. The bible does indeed give instructions on how to propely imprison and rape female prisoners of war. (And to answer your silly question: do you really think a female had to be a combatant to be taken as a prisoner in war?) |
Actually, yeah. A prisoner of war is by definition someone who was taken as the result of that person in a direct conflict. In other words, there is a difference between the defenders and the defended, and this difference is noted in our treaties.
Your other problem is that you forget that a lot of The Bible is pretty much ignored. At one time, taking wives in combat was considered acceptable; that no longer applies. Expect to see a lot of Christians and Jews point out that there is a difference between what is in The Bible and how that is practiced. In essence, you're arguing against a religion that essentially no longer exists...