Original Sin?

Quote: petroglyph

Repeat a similar mantra for a few generations of illiteracy and it becomes a belief.

It's a fact most of the lower ranking
priests were illiterate right up to the
Middle Ages. They were given cherry
picked NT passages and memorized
them. The Church kept most of the
NT out of the hands of lessor members
of the laity. Later, if a priest was caught
with a complete NT, the punishment
was severe indeed. FrG will say it's all
rubbish, whatever.

Quote: FrGamble

I really do love it how no one is more of a fundamentalist when it comes to the Bible than atheists. Mark ending with an empty tomb means there is no Resurrection. Two Gospels written by different people to a different audience have slightly different details and the whole thing never happened. Please remember that the Bible was not written as a scientific textbook nor was it written as a strict biography of the Son of God Jesus Christ. I would suggest you to take a big deep breath and relax. You write as if you were the first to discover these truths about the Scriptures. The early Church fathers discussed and prayed over it at length. There have been beautiful and meaningful allegorical and spiritual interpretations of these various passages made that have been fruitful in the spiritual life of the Church and believers. As the more scientific historical critical method for interpreting Scripture came to the forefront these discussions commenced again looking at the forensic evidence, the type of manuscripts, their authenticity and age, and the context and culture of which they are found. It is interesting and challenging for some, but none of it means that something which is so glaringly obvious such as the historical Resurrection of the person of Jesus Christ never happened.

What it means is that the bible does not contain reliable or consistent evidence for the claims that you make.

Not only does the Bible contain reliable and consistent evidence for the claims of the Resurrection but just as importantly the men and communities who wrote it do as well. The Bible unlike many other Holy Books of various religions and/or denominations did not descend complete from the Heavens. It is inspired. It is made through human hands, using human language and memories, and it embraces this very real limitations in expressing the love and message of God. Remember one of the central tenets of Christianity, the Incarnation. God shows a willingness to enter into our messiness. To accept our limitations and to work with us, never imposing or forcing Himself upon us. The Bible is yet another way God shows us His great love by coming to us in a humble and limited way.

As for Evenbob's foolishness. A quick glance at the attestation of the ancient manuscripts of the Bible, of which there are thousands, would show him that the Church did not rewrite or change anything in the Scriptures. The parts of the Scriptures that did come later as additions or reflections upon what was written have always been acknowledged as such and carry with them if not the full weight of canonicity the still heavy significance of early reflections in line with the Scriptures about what was written. I don't know where he gets that priests were illiterate. I feel that literacy is a much more modern commonplace thing, however I think even he would agree that priests were on the whole the most literate and educated people in most of the communities in the periods he is referring to.

Quote: FrGamble

I really do love it how no one is more of a fundamentalist when it comes to the Bible than atheists.

How fundamentalist are you when it comes to the Iliad as proof for the Greek deities?

I'm amazed how hypocritical Christians are regarding outrageous claims not backed by evidence.

Quote: FrGamble

It is inspired. It is made through human hands, using human language and memories,

So tell me, what 'memories' was an author
using in the 2nd and 3rd century to write
a NT book. A couple hundred years after
the fact. He was using urban legends, what
he read in other NT books, and making the
rest up as he went along. He had no memories
at all.

And please don't fall back on the 'inspired' ploy,
it's so lame. The word can be used to describe
anything because it has no meaning. We use
the word to describe whatever we create. Why,
that building or play or song or TV show or painting
or performance or new car design, they're inspired!
Saying a NT book is inspired writing is code for, you
have no idea who wrote it or when. So it must be
inspired, it just has to be.

Quote: Nareed

How fundamentalist are you when it comes to the Iliad as proof for the Greek deities?

Not very fundamentalist at all, I look at it as it is and why it was written.

Quote:

I'm amazed how hypocritical Christians are regarding outrageous claims not backed by evidence.

What more evidence do you need or can you get for a historical event like the Resurrection? We have eye witnesses who in a time of oral tradition shared their experiences that were eventually written down. You have more ancient manuscripts and attestation to the authenticity of the Bible than any hundred ancient documents or works combined. You have outside observers, historians, and archeologists that provide further evidence to the reliability of the claims in the Bible. You have the undeniable impact that faith in Jesus Christ as raised from the dead immediately had on the contemporary times of His life and still all the way till today. I don't know why you would say this does not constitute as evidence.

Quote: FrGamble

Not very fundamentalist at all, I look at it as it is and why it was written.

Don't lie to me. you do not regard it as a full and truthful account of the Trojan War, complete with what each one true god did and when.

Quote:

What more evidence do you need or can you get for a historical event like the Resurrection?

Any.

So far there is exactly none.

Quote:

You have more ancient manuscripts and attestation to the authenticity of the Bible than any hundred ancient documents or works combined.

Name one that isn't in the New Testament.

Quote: Evenbob

So tell me, what 'memories' was an author
using in the 2nd and 3rd century to write
a NT book.

2nd Peter is the latest book in the NT and written around 130 AD so there is no book in the Bible that comes close to the 3rd Century. Almost everything in the NT is written before the end of the 1st century. For example Paul's authentic letters were his own memories and experiences that would be verified of course by the living Apostles and disciples of the time. Other writings came from the memories of the Apostle or community connected to an Apostle. Please remember what an oral tradition existed at that time. As you have mentioned many times before, there were not many people who could read. Passing things on accurately and completely was not some game of telephone to a people who depended on and took very seriously the oral traditions, news, and histories.

Quote:

And please don't fall back on the 'inspired' ploy,
it's so lame.

The word "inspired" as I am using it to discuss the development of the Sacred Scriptures is not lame. It is however a very specific theological term with a strict definition. You are using inspiration in the most general and common uses of the word. Such as the poet was inspired to write that beautiful poem, etc. Inspiration in regards to the Scriptures is as a mentioned a theological concept that means that the truths that God wishes to have revealed for our salvation are communicated in the limits of our human language and are inerrant through the Grace of God for this specific purpose of communicating God's message of salvation.

Quote: FrGamble

We have eye witnesses who in a time of oral tradition shared their experiences that were eventually written down. .

Unprovable and in the NT, certainly disputable.
This is my fave NT verse:

And Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake; and the rocks were rent; and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised: and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many (Matthew 27:50-53).

The Jewish saints were all resurrected the instant
Jesus was! And they went into the big city and
walked around and were seen by many! This would
have been a very big deal indeed, far bigger than
than Jesus himself rising from the dead. The Jews
at that time would have gone crazy over this, and
rightly so. There would be a Jewish holiday to
celebrate it.

Unfortunately, the only place this monumental
event was recorded is in Matthew. It's not recorded
anyplace else because it obviously didn't happen.
That's not strictly true, it was mentioned in one
of the books not included in the NT. It named
Adam and Eve as two of the saints spotted walking
around the holy city. But the author of that book
was obviously smoking crack when he wrote it,
so his book was tossed out.

This is the NT, folks. A cobbled together bunch of
manuscripts, all written long long after Jesus died,
full of fanciful nonsense and wishful thinking. Read
it at your own risk.

Quote: Nareed

Don't lie to me. you do not regard it as a full and truthful account of the Trojan War, complete with what each one true god did and when.

Um...I think we are crossing in the night here. I do not regard it as a full and truthful account of the Trojan War because I do not take it literally as a fundamentalist interpretation would require.

Quote:

Any.

So far there is exactly none.

So a written document of eye witness testimony is not evidence? Nor is archeology or the impact that Jesus Christ immediately and still today has on the world? Objective historians and Roman decrees mentioning Christ and Christians, none of this is evidence either? Evidence of the Apostles and their preaching around and beyond the known world at the time, this too not evidence? I really don't know how you can say this or why?

Quote:

Name one that isn't in the New Testament.

Um...again I think we are using different words here. Attestation as I am using it refers to the fact that there are numerous different ancient manuscripts from many different locations that all use the same words so that you can get a very clear picture of what the original work truly said by the original author(s). This is very different as you know from many of the sources for our knowledge of say the Greek wars or the Egyptian gods.

I do think you mean is there any documents backing up the claims of the NT outside of the NT. Well we do have the writings of Josephus and the decrees from various government powers about the reality of the person of Jesus Christ and the immediate trouble caused by His Resurrection. We also have a multitude of early documents of the Church Fathers and the Early Church. One very important one is called the Didache. There are also the works of one of the first Christian Apologists, Justin Martyr.