Truth about the Golden Compass movie

[Scalleywag]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

I don't think you quite understand how these ideas are not all that important to me for my lack of belief in a god. They do not make or break anything they are simply the most logical scientific arguements of today! All scientists of every field support the idea of biological evolution, show me one scientific theory that does not?

First off you are missing the whole point of the Miller experiment, even if the conditions he experiemented under where incorrect he was able to show the production of amino acids from inorganic matter!! That was the whole point! Further studies as recently as 2005 have produced even more complex amino acids, science is a stepping stone it does not just come up with the answers it works on them a little at a time and adapts to new information. You are looking for absolutes, there are none! You say it is impossible for protiens to be formed simply because we have not been able to do so but you say it is no impossible to have a supernatural begining? Wow!

With all due respect I think you are missing the point. There is intelligence behind these lab experiments! These compounds are not coming together to form anything on their own. A scientist is ordering this to happen. These scientist can not produce a cell in the absolute best conditions much less in the conditions of what we now know early earth to be. They are tilting this experiment in their favor yet still not able to produce a LIVING cell. Thats cheating in my book (and not even good cheating for that matter).

There is intelligence behind these experiments being conducted so it is not off base at all to say there had to be intelligence to order the first cell (in less than optimum conditions).

from wikipedia: Allow me to add a quote I copied and pasted from the wikipedia's site: "The site is a Wiki - anybody can edit and add".

There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. But most currently accepted models build in one way or another upon a number of discoveries about the origin of molecular and cellular components for life, which are listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:

Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).
Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.
Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.
The origin of the basic biomolecules, while not settled, is less controversial than the significance and order of steps 2 and 3. The basic chemicals from which life was thought to have formed are:-

Methane (CH4),
Ammonia (NH3),
Water (H2O),
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S),
Carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and
Phosphate (PO43-).
Molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) were either rare or absent.


All your questions are answered right here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

Almost all available theories of the origin of life through natural means and the creation of advanced peptides. To lofty for me to type up. The point is there have been numerous studies that have produced further and further complex polymers that show that from inorganic material, organic material can be created!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, the material that they would have created if the experiment was done properly is EMBALMING FLUID!!!! This is coming from Nobel Laurete winners.

Next the fossil record. The most prevalent theory for evolution to date is known as puncuated equilibrium, simply put species go through rapid changes within a short span of generations thus producing rapidly different creatures in a very short span of time. This would make the chances of fossils being not only produced but especially discovered very rare. How then do you explain so many "earlier" forms of so many different creatures? Especially humans? What God kept on messing up so he did not get it right until modern humans were produced?

This is actually very convienient that the fossils would be very rare! We have a fossil record that has the explosion of many types of animals, in essence, all at once. Yet you explain their appearance as a rapid change? All the evidence points to the contrary. As I touched on in the last post, genetic mutations can NOT produce new types of animals. They can give you a different dog, or a different looking human but they are still humans. It is scientifically impossible to get a cat from a dog. Yet we all are supposed to have a common ancestor? Genetically impossible.

Species being produced from other species is quite possible, look at lizards and snales! I noticed you did not address my examples of the Skinks lizard and the boa constrictor, but I guess god thought it would be funny to produce some lizards without legs and some snakes with legs! Do you ignore such examples from nature! the Boas constrictor actually has hip bones!

But once you look at their genetic makeup they are quite different. We have very similar bone structure in our hands to a bat's wing, a porpoise's flipper, a horse's leg. This doesn't mean we came from any of these animals. Are we evolving from a bat? This is actually irrelevent. They are classed due to genetic structure which stays the same so, no it doesn't show species being produced from other species. Most scientists agree it is impossible.

Lastly I do not have beliefs, I have lack of a belief. That is a completely different thing. Why do you not believe in the hindu idea of creation, or the native indians, or the buddhists.....? All of them explain the creation of life through supernatural means just like what you are trying to do!

My beliefs come from the Bible. This is the only book that has over 2000 prophecies that have come true. No other religious book can make these claims. Therefore I believe it is a trustworthy book. I have weighed the evidence and have found it to be what it says to be. [/QUOTE]

With all that being said, we can go back and forth countering one another's arguements. You are right in that there will always be more than one way to explain something. I believe there is a reason for this as well. Bare with me here. I am going to copy and paste from my ongoing conversatoin with a friend.

What would happen if God wrote a message in the clouds for every person alive? What if he wrote “Jesus is My Son?" Believe in him or perish”? Would all people now put their love and trust in him? I suspect not. When Jesus was here on earth and did all of his miracles, those who didn’t want to follow Him still doubted. When the Father spoke from heaven “this is My beloved Son,” those who didn’t have a heart to believe said, “It thundered.” And even when Jesus rose from the dead, there were a number of Roman guards who witnessed it, and yet they joined in with the religious leaders conspiracy to cover it up.

It was the same way in the Old Testament. Here God tried the direct result and it failed miserably. He sent the plagues on Egypt to free the Israelites, but they soon doubted Him again. He sent them food straight from heaven, but many still rebelled. He continuously led them by a cloud during the day and a fire by night, but many still questioned Him. He personally gave them, in great detail, all the directions they needed to be related to Him (the law of the Old Testament-there’s over 600 of them) but they broke every one. And even when they did keep all the rules, the Law of the Old Testament failed to achieve what God wanted to achieve with the Israelites – a loving, trusting relationship.

There are many reasons for this, I suspect, but a few come to mind. First, the impression stupendous events have on us is rarely permanent. The impression fades with time. I have myself seen God do some incredible things with people, but in the weeks, months and years after the event, the force of the initial impression wears off. Precisely because the event is extraordinary, the mind seems to remember it more like a dream than a real event. It doesn’t continue to impact life. If a person does base his faith on miracles, he needs a steady diet. But then the miracles stop being miraculous.

So even if God did address everyone with a message in the sky, this might convert many at that time, but the lasting effect would, I suspect, be nil.
I also imagine even when God’s “direct approach” seems to work, it really doesn’t. God desires a loving, trusting relationship with us. We were created to this end. But does parting the Red Sea do that? Does speaking from the clouds do that? Does opening the earth and swallowing the ungodly do that? He tried all of these and they didn’t work. At best they can wow or scare people into submission (and that only temporarily). They can coerce obedience. They can temporarily modify behavior-to include the fear filled words “I love you”. But they do not produce love. If God were to answer obviously all our prayers, if He were a genie in a bottle granting our every wish, this would only mean that we use Him, not love Him.

Love must be chosen. It must be free and it must be from the heart, without external motivations. If he chooses the direct approach-to the point where an alternative explanation isn’t possible, and continuously enough so it doesn’t fade from our memories- He only succeeds in blowing us over or in spoiling us with a magical genie. So God settles on a “middle of the road” program. He is present enough so that those who want to experience Him can experience Him, but absent enough so that those that don’t want to experience Him aren’t forced to-and they’re actually in a sense justified in the complaint over God’s absence. God is obvious enough so that those who want to see Him can see Him, and hidden enough so that those who don’t want to see Him can avoid Him.

If you are right then what have I lost? I will have led a good life by good principles. Maybe I didn't do all of the crazy stuff that I wanted to deep down inside but what does it matter because I won't know after I am dead what I did. My legacy may be, "he was a good guy, a little crazy reading his Bible when he ate lunch by himself. And he wasted his time earning his Masters in that Bible stuff anyway, but he was a good guy none the less." I have lost nothing.

But, if I am right.......

[mandarb11]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

Ah it always comes down to the old ultimatum doesn't it? I guess a buddhist or any of the 2500 protestant sects would argue the same thing....all it takes is for you not to believe in any of the other religion of the world and you are not making it to eternal salvation of one type or another.

OK since we are both not scientists the scientific arguements are going no where, how you cannot acknowledge why a snake would have hips, humans and chimpanzees share 98.6% of our genes.......but we will diverge from the scientific aspects.

So lets get to the religious aspect of this. You say you have a masters in religion well that is perfect as I hold a BA in History and Religion (with a focus on Christianity) and am working on my Masters in History, so maybe we can go somewhere on this plateau.

You say that the bible contains 2000 prophesies that have come true? Amazing since the works themselves were almost always written after the actual events themselves, but I would be interested to hear of even one that has proven true, I am sure that should not be difficult to illistrate since you say there are 2000!

Christianity is based upon the belief that a Jew, named Jesus (don't know of any other names for him which is interesting since he is supposed to be such an important historical figure) was divinely created through immaculate conception, performed many miricles then was executed, was resurrected.....

So first off, I I wrote extensively about this in this or another thread, so I wont get to into it again, but there are no authors that wrote of Jesus that were his contemporaries. All books were written far after he was supposedly long dead (the gospels are dated by scholars to be written from 70 CE to 150CE Mark being the first). All other pagan authors that even mention Jesus or even Christianity were long after any such events (Josephus, Pliny the younger, Suetonius....) so there is no historical evidence that this figure even existed.

If you look into all the many god/man figures throughout mythology and even figures that immediately predated Jesus, you will find many of the same stories and claims of supernatural powers, divine birth etc. (Look into Honi the circle drawer, Appollonius of Tyana, Mithras, osiris, hercules, Dionysis....there are many) so much so that that one of the early church fathers had to defend the fact that pagan religions possessed all the same stories as the Jesus story did. One such response and I will find the exact quote and author for you, was that the Christian defneder responded by saying that the devil must have anticipated the birth of Christ therefore he created these stories before Jesus was born in order to discredit him!

By the first century there were so many different people that had supernatural powers, performed miricles, and were renowned teachers, it was quite common and unextrodinary! Read any of Bart D. Ehrman's works he is one of the leading biblical scholars today that focuses on first century Christianity, but as you possess a masters in religion I am probably telling you something you know quite well.

I will leave it there as to much info at once will just get passed over. I am very happy to hear that you have an educational background in religion this will make it much easier to have a excellent discussion! I love this study and actually got into it in my search for the answers, so it is interesting that for me the more I found out about Religion and Christianity in particular, the more it showed me that all these beleifs were founded upon older pagan religions that predated them and were incorporated into them as the religion evolved.

Here is one thing that we can elaborate on but can you explain what the "circumcison faction" is?

[Scalleywag]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

OK since we are both not scientists the scientific arguements are going no where, how you cannot acknowledge why a snake would have hips, humans and chimpanzees share 98.6% of our genes.......but we will diverge from the scientific aspects.

If you assume that we are products of our genes, as neo-Darwinism does, then you are saying that the dramatic differences between us and chimpanzees are due to 2% of our genes. The problem is that the body-building genes are in the 98%. According to geneticists the 2% of genes that are different are trivial and have little to do with anatomy.

Its also not surprising that when you look at two anatomically similar organisms you often find they are similar genetically. I would go so far as to say this fact is just as compatible with common design as common ancestory. A designer might very well decide to use common building materials to create different organisms, just as builders use the same materials-steel girders, rivets, and so forth-to build different bridges that end up looking very dissimilar from one another.

[mandarb11]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

If you assume that we are products of our genes, as neo-Darwinism does, then you are saying that the dramatic differences between us and chimpanzees are due to 2% of our genes. The problem is that the body-building genes are in the 98%. According to geneticists the 2% of genes that are different are trivial and have little to do with anatomy.

Its also not surprising that when you look at two anatomically similar organisms you often find they are similar genetically. I would go so far as to say this fact is just as compatible with common design as common ancestory. A designer might very well decide to use common building materials to create different organisms, just as builders use the same materials-steel girders, rivets, and so forth-to build different bridges that end up looking very dissimilar from one another.

Wow you will take any point and try to make it seem unimportant......so getting 98.4% on a test is almost 100%! lol Genetic variation, dominant genes etc. All the genetic sequences still exist within us.

Now what your sayin is god lacks imagination and has to carbon copy everything...OK this one has 4 limbs so we will make it 98.4% genelogically the same.....thats stretching it bro! In his book the "Third Chipanzee" by Jared Diamond which is a wonderful book on human evolution, he argues if an alien zoologist came to earth and had to classify all life forms that due to our vast similarities, Humans would be catagorized as a chimpanzee species.

Look at these numbers, Monkeys share 93% of our genes, Gibbons 95%, Orangutans 96.4 %, Gorrillas differ by about 2.3% from us or even the other chimps 97.7%.

"The genetic distance (1.6 percent) seperating us from pygmy or common chimps is barely double that seperating pygmy from common chimps (0.7 percent). Its less than that between two species of Gibbons (2.2 percent), or between such closely related North American bird species as red-eyed vireos and white-eyes vireos (2.9%). The remaining 98.4% of our dna is just normal chimp DNA. For example, our principle hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying protien that gives blood its red color, is identical in all its 287 units with chimp hemoglobin...Our important visible distinctions from the other chimps-our upright posture, large brains, ability to speak, sparse bodyhair, and peculiar sexual lives-must be concentrated in a mere 1.6 % of our genetic program" p.23 Third Chimpanzee.


We are more similar genetically to chimps and other great apes than many species are among themselves!

Again we can go on with the science if you would like I was going from memory (have not read much on genetics and evolution for quite a few years now but i have a whole library on it if we need to proceed down this lane. My personal educational back ground as I said is History and religion so we can switch to that aspect of the conversation.....

Either way I have to say thank you, you are making me re-read things i have not read for quite a few years. I literally have thousands of books on all types of subjects, and it is hard to keep all that information in your hear at one time, so it is nice to pull them out and put them to use oncemore!

[mandarb11]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

Oh don't forget about my inquiry into the circumcision faction as it will tie into our discussion of Christinity and its validity!

[straydoglogic]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

ok im not getting into a debate here cuz they always go badly...all i want to say is this...being an atheist myself im glad to see thing like this at the opposite end of the spectrum..im tired of seeing poor kids get brainwashed at such a young age just because they dont know any better..i hate that parents and religious nuts push these views on easily succeptable people..they cant do it with more educated free thinkers so they prey on the hopeless ignorant and children...ok..thats all for now...

[straydoglogic]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

whats the question on circumcision?

[daved150]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

whats the question on circumcision?

yea!! whats up with that?....my shyt's cut, whats wrong with that now??!!...geez, we start talking about movies and it always seems to end up talking about dic...

[Scalleywag]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

Wow you will take any point and try to make it seem unimportant......so getting 98.4% on a test is almost 100%! lol Genetic variation, dominant genes etc. All the genetic sequences still exist within us.

Now what your sayin is god lacks imagination and has to carbon copy everything...OK this one has 4 limbs so we will make it 98.4% genelogically the same.....thats stretching it bro! In his book the "Third Chipanzee" by Jared Diamond which is a wonderful book on human evolution, he argues if an alien zoologist came to earth and had to classify all life forms that due to our vast similarities, Humans would be catagorized as a chimpanzee species.

Look at these numbers, Monkeys share 93% of our genes, Gibbons 95%, Orangutans 96.4 %, Gorrillas differ by about 2.3% from us or even the other chimps 97.7%.

"The genetic distance (1.6 percent) seperating us from pygmy or common chimps is barely double that seperating pygmy from common chimps (0.7 percent). Its less than that between two species of Gibbons (2.2 percent), or between such closely related North American bird species as red-eyed vireos and white-eyes vireos (2.9%). The remaining 98.4% of our dna is just normal chimp DNA. For example, our principle hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying protien that gives blood its red color, is identical in all its 287 units with chimp hemoglobin...Our important visible distinctions from the other chimps-our upright posture, large brains, ability to speak, sparse bodyhair, and peculiar sexual lives-must be concentrated in a mere 1.6 % of our genetic program" p.23 Third Chimpanzee.


We are more similar genetically to chimps and other great apes than many species are among themselves!

Again we can go on with the science if you would like I was going from memory (have not read much on genetics and evolution for quite a few years now but i have a whole library on it if we need to proceed down this lane. My personal educational back ground as I said is History and religion so we can switch to that aspect of the conversation.....

Either way I have to say thank you, you are making me re-read things i have not read for quite a few years. I literally have thousands of books on all types of subjects, and it is hard to keep all that information in your hear at one time, so it is nice to pull them out and put them to use oncemore!

Once again, this is just as compatible with common design as it is common ancestory. To say that God lacks imagination is you perspective. I wouldnt say that an architect is not creative ust because he uses steel for each building he builds.

We can counter each other from either perspective. Neither of us are apparently going to budge.

to be continued...LOL

[Klash]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

My beliefs come from the Bible. This is the only book that has over 2000 prophecies that have come true. No other religious book can make these claims. Therefore I believe it is a trustworthy book. I have weighed the evidence and have found it to be what it says to be.

You understand you are attempting to use logic to defend your faith? Your arguement is based on false information but none-the-less, you are attempting to rationally justify why your faith is correct and the faith of other religions is wrong. Faith is faith, i.e. it is irrational and you cannot justify it with a rational persuasive arguement (otherwise it wouldn't be faith) and when you attempt to do so you are indirectly admitting the superiority of logic; so why not follow logic to the answers it provides?

[Scalleywag]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

Wow! There is a lot here to get into. Are you trying to keep me held captive at my computer? LOL

I am going to have to go about this in a round-about way. Let’s look at the Gospels as we would any ancient document. Apply to them the same criteria historians apply to other ancient documents when they research history. I contend that when the Gospels are treated in this critical-historical way, they fare very well and can be trusted to tell us a good deal about the person of Jesus Christ.

Being a history major I am sure you are familiar with these criteria. They can be divided into two groups: Internal (inside the document in question) and External (what’s happening outside the document in question)

Internal Criteria
1. Was the author in a position to know what he or she is writing about? Does the test claim to be an eyewitness account, or based on an eyewitness account? Or is it based on hearsay?

Luke who is not an eyewitness, tells us that he is using eyewitness sources and that he is seeking to write an orderly and truthful account of the things he records (Luke 1:1-4). John tells us he is an eyewitness, and the other two Gospels, Mark and Matthew, is both written from the perspective of an eyewitness, though they never come out and explicitly claims this: they just assume it. Other sources in the early second century confirm that the authors are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. (This is external criteria #2)

2. Does the document in question contain specific and especially irrelevant material? (First hand sources are typically full of material, especially details, which aren’t central to the story, whereas fabricated accounts tend to be generalized)

The Gospels are full of this sort of irrelevant detail which typically accompanies eyewitness accounts. Let me give you one example from John 20:1-8:

The first day of the week (when? Does it matter?) cometh Mary Magdalene (an incriminating detail, see the next criteria) early, when it was yet dark (who cares), unto the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved (John’s modest way of referring to himself-another mark of genuiness), and saith unto them, they have taken away the Lord out of the sepulcher, and we know not where they have laid him (note her lack of faith here). Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulcher. So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter (John’s modesty again, but who cares about this irrelevant detail), and came first to the sepulcher. And he stooping down (the tomb entrance was low-a detail which is historically accurate for tombs of wealthy people of the time-the kind we know Jesus was buried in), and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in (why not? Irrelevant detail). Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulcher (Peter’s boldness stands out in all Gospel accounts), and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head (irrelevant and unexpected detail-what was Jesus wearing?), not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself (could anything be more irrelevant, and more unusual? Jesus folded one part of his wrapping before he left). Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulcher (who cares the order they went in), and he saw, and believed.

I hope you get the point. There is no reason to throw in this type of irrelevant detail. It contributes nothing to the story line, except its just part of what happened, so the author throws it in as he recalls the event.

3. Does the document contain self-damaging material? (If a document includes material which could cast a negative image on the author, on the heroes of the story, or especially on the truthfulness of the story, this is typically a good indication that the author had truth as a central motive for writing.
The Gospels are also full of self-damaging detail. For example, in the Resurrection account you just read, a woman is said to be the first one to discover that the tomb was empty. But this could only damage the early testimony of the early Christians, as women in the first-century Jewish culture were regarded as incurable “talebearers”. They couldn’t even testify in court. Moreover, the disciples are consistently portrayed in a bad light. And even aspects of Jesus’ life are included, which, if the story were being fabricated to convince people of His messiahship, would have been excluded. For example, on the cross Jesus cried out “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” Now this is hardly what one would expect from the Messiah, especially if the Messiah is supposed to be divine. It’s a tough statement but it only proves the point. The only motive anyone could have for including this in his account is because Jesus actually said it!

4. Is the document reasonably self-consistent? (There is coherence to truth which fabrications usually lack, though different perspectives on a single historical account usually include some minor discrepancies.)
The Gospels present a consistent portrait of who Jesus is and what He did, as well as the events that surround his life. If the four accounts were individually fabricated, where did the consistency come from? But there are also significant differences in each account, showing the relative differences in their perspectives. If they were all fabricated together the consistency would be greater than we find.

External
1. Would the authors of the document have a motive for fabricating what they wrote?
What possible motive would the early disciples have had for fabricating stories about Jesus? They claim to believe in Jesus because of His miracles and His resurrection, combined with the kind of life He lived and teachings He gave. And for from gaining anything from this, they suffered great persecution for it. Would they lie? And is there anything about their character which would lead us to think that they were the kind of people who deceived others? No scholar I know of doubts the disciples’ sincerity.

2. Are there any other sources which confirm material in the document and/or which substantiate the genuiness of the document?
As I said before, the authorship of these Gospels is attested to by numerous sources in the second century, and they were in a better position to know than anyone today. We can also ascertain some things about Jesus and the early disciples, things which fit in well with the Gospels, from other secular ancient sources such as Tacitus (ca55-1200, Suetonius (early second century), Josephus (ca 37-93), Thallus (mid first century), as well as ancient Jewish writings written against the Christians (the Talmud).

3. Does archeology support or go against material in the document?
While their have always been archeologists who claim that their findings are in tension with some aspects of the biblical account of things, time and time again these findings have been reversed in favor of the biblical account. To give one example, it used to be held by some that Luke’s account of the birth of Jesus was fabricated. He says that an empire-wide census was being taken during the reign of Caesar Augustus, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem where Joseph was born to register, which is when Jesus was born. But we know from ancient sources (e.g. Josephus) that Quirnius was governor beginning in A.D. 6, and there was no evidence for a census like this ever being taken. So, it was assumed, Luke must be in error. We now know, however, that censuses like the kind Luke mentioned were frequent, and Quirinius’ reign in A.D. 6 was his second reign.

4. Could contemporaries of the document falsify the documents account, and would they have a motive for doing so?
Finally, Christianity was born in a very hostile environment. There were contemporaries who would have refuted the Gospel portrait of Jesus-if they could have. The leaders of Judaism in the first century tended to view Christianity as a pernicious cult and would have loved to see it stamped out. And this would have been easy to do-if the “cult” had been based on fabrications. Why, just bringing forth the body of the slain Jesus would have been sufficient to extinguish Christianity once and for all.
In spite of this, however, Christianity exploded (in a positive sense). The disciples preached their Gospel to people who had been eyewitnesses of the things they claimed Jesus said and did. How could they have fabricated it? And even those opposed to Christianity did not deny Jesus did miracles, and did not deny his tomb was empty. The facts behind the Gospel are not questioned. What is questioned is how the facts were established. The opponents claimed that Jesus did what He did either through trickery, or the power of Satan, and that the disciples stole the body of Jesus (But see External Criteria #1)

To sum it all up I think we have very good grounds for treating the Gospels like generally reliable documents; they are generally good sources of history for us. And this has nothing to do with them being “inspired” or “God’s Word”: its just history.

In the face of history, one must make a decision. One must regard Jesus as an unthinkably clever charlatan (but very stupid also because he got Himself crucified) who tricked his way into people’s faith, or the Lord He and His followers claimed He was. My claim is only the latter is founded on evidence.
Pertaining to prophecies, you say that everything was written after the fact but that is not true. If you look at the evidence the key to dating the Gospels is Acts. It is accepted by almost all scholars (both liberal and conservative) that Acts came after the Gospels (with the possible exception of John). The synoptic Gospels can not be dated later than Acts which I argue was dated some time in the early 60s of the first century. Here’s why.

Luke (the accepted author of Acts) makes no mention of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D.70. This would be most remarkable if Acts was written after this date, especially because Luke is, throughout Acts, centrally interested in events which occur in Jerusalem. In fact, Luke makes no mention of the war that broke out between the Jews and the Romans in A.D. 66 which led to the fall of Jerusalem, though throughout his works he is concerned with Roman-Jewish relations. For example, he mentions the minor skirmish which occurred between these two in A.D.44. But how could he then pass up the much more significant war that happened 22 years later, a war that resulted in the destruction of the Jewish temple and the sacking of Jerusalem?
What really drives home the point is the fact that Jesus, in Luke’s Gospel, prophesies that Jerusalem would fall (Luke 21). It is, I think, most unlikely to suppose that Luke missed this opportunity to show how this prophecy was fulfilled-especially when one consider that one of the reasons Luke wrote Acts in the first place was to show how the working of the Spirit in the early church carries and fulfills the ministry of Jesus.

Acts also made no mention of Nero’s persecution of Christians in the mid-60s. In fact, his view of the Roman government is positively irenic. This requires us to place th document at a time when the Roman government was not hostile to Christians, a time prior to Nero.
Luke, in Acts, makes no mention of the martyrdom of Paul (A.D. 64) and Peter (A.D. 65), though he is very concerned to note the martyrdoms of “lesser” Christian leaders (e.g. Stephen and James). This is especially remarkable because half the Book of Acts is about Paul and a large part is about Peter. This is impossible to make sense of if Luke is writing after their deaths.

Much of the subject matter of Acts concerns issues which are important before the fall of Jerusalem, but not after. This reflects the needs and interests of the audience, and audience which clearly has not yet experienced the fall of Jerusalem.

Luke’s record of people and events in the Roman Empire has time and time again been substantiated by archeology. He reflects a detailed knowledge of the early first century, a knowledge which grows increasingly unlikely the later we date this document.

Luke uses expressions I Acts which were used widely early on in Christianity, but not later-not after A.D. 70. Jesus, for example, is called “the Son of Man” but this title of Jesus died out very early in Christian circles.

Finally, to add one more thing to the evidence I’ve already presented, one finds throughout the Synoptic Gospels a recognizable “style” to Jesus’ teaching. Though they reword His teachings to an extent, His unique way of teaching comes out in all three. For example, He often uses a threefold pattern to His teaching. He uses “amen” (= truly) in a very unique way. He raises questions in a distinct manner, etc. If the authors were not associated with Jesus, and if they were fabricating this (why would they want to do that?), this commonality between the authors would be inexplicable.

The Gospels (at least three of them) were written some time prior to A.D. 60, before Jesus prophesied about the destruction of the temple. All of that for one prophesy….LOL.

As far as the circumcision faction goes. Why would we get into the attitudes of the day and an early division among the church if we can’t establish if there is a God, much less Christ being the Messiah? Its all irrelevant if neither of these are fact.

So to also rebutt Klashs post, No I am using a historical document for the basis of my beliefs.

[Scalleywag]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

Have fun reading all of that...LOL

[mandarb11]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

Wow! There is a lot here to get into. Are you trying to keep me held captive at my computer? LOL

I am going to have to go about this in a round-about way. Let’s look at the Gospels as we would any ancient document. Apply to them the same criteria historians apply to other ancient documents when they research history. I contend that when the Gospels are treated in this critical-historical way, they fare very well and can be trusted to tell us a good deal about the person of Jesus Christ.

Being a history major I am sure you are familiar with these criteria. They can be divided into two groups: Internal (inside the document in question) and External (what’s happening outside the document in question)

Internal Criteria
1. Was the author in a position to know what he or she is writing about? Does the test claim to be an eyewitness account, or based on an eyewitness account? Or is it based on hearsay?

Luke who is not an eyewitness, tells us that he is using eyewitness sources and that he is seeking to write an orderly and truthful account of the things he records (Luke 1:1-4). John tells us he is an eyewitness, and the other two Gospels, Mark and Matthew, is both written from the perspective of an eyewitness, though they never come out and explicitly claims this: they just assume it. Other sources in the early second century confirm that the authors are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. (This is external criteria #2)

The authors have an agenda, to prove their beliefs so we must take into account their prejudices when considering them as authors. The works were not attributed to any of the disciples until the council of synod in 393CE! Before that they were just one of many, many gospels. Look up the Nag Hammadi scrolls.....many different interpretations of Jesus' life!

2. Does the document in question contain specific and especially irrelevant material? (First hand sources are typically full of material, especially details, which aren’t central to the story, whereas fabricated accounts tend to be generalized)

The Gospels are full of this sort of irrelevant detail which typically accompanies eyewitness accounts.

Incorrect, irrelevant material is the result of the authors trying to preserve all the oral traditions about Jesus. Originally all of Jesus' stories were transmitted orally, therefore scholars hold that only the shortest and easiest to remember passages like sayings and parables would be the closest to what Jesus might have said as people are not usually very good at transmitting longer stories. Look at Mark, it is just a group of stories thrown together, not even in proper order if you ever look into the geographical areas discussed.


I hope you get the point. There is no reason to throw in this type of irrelevant detail. It contributes nothing to the story line, except its just part of what happened, so the author throws it in as he recalls the event.

3. Does the document contain self-damaging material? (If a document includes material which could cast a negative image on the author, on the heroes of the story, or especially on the truthfulness of the story, this is typically a good indication that the author had truth as a central motive for writing.
The Gospels are also full of self-damaging detail. For example, in the Resurrection account you just read, a woman is said to be the first one to discover that the tomb was empty. But this could only damage the early testimony of the early Christians, as women in the first-century Jewish culture were regarded as incurable “talebearers”. They couldn’t even testify in court. Moreover, the disciples are consistently portrayed in a bad light. And even aspects of Jesus’ life are included, which, if the story were being fabricated to convince people of His messiahship, would have been excluded. For example, on the cross Jesus cried out “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” Now this is hardly what one would expect from the Messiah, especially if the Messiah is supposed to be divine. It’s a tough statement but it only proves the point. The only motive anyone could have for including this in his account is because Jesus actually said it!

Ah but which version is true and accurate since the gospels do not agree with what Jesus' last words were:
According to Mark and Matthew:
Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani
According to Luke:
Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do (in response to a mocking crowd)
Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise (in response to one of the two thieves crucified next to him)
Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (last words)
According to John:
Woman, behold your son: behold your mother (directed at Mary, the mother of Jesus, either as a self reference, or as a reference to the beloved disciple and an instruction to the disciple himself)
I thirst (just before a wetted sponge, mentioned by all the Canonical Gospels, is offered)
It is finished (last words)

So according to you they all must be true! lol

4. Is the document reasonably self-consistent? (There is coherence to truth which fabrications usually lack, though different perspectives on a single historical account usually include some minor discrepancies.)
The Gospels present a consistent portrait of who Jesus is and what He did, as well as the events that surround his life. If the four accounts were individually fabricated, where did the consistency come from? But there are also significant differences in each account, showing the relative differences in their perspectives. If they were all fabricated together the consistency would be greater than we find.

The gospels are very different from one another. Mark has his Jesus being more human, very little in the way of extensive dialogue, trying to keep his identity a secret (known as the messianic secret), mark and Luke borrow heavily from Mark, and Luke actually tries to correct so historical and geographic errors that Mark made....John well that Jesus is nothing like all the others, he is a god first and a man second....I will elaborate more on this in my next post....

External
1. Would the authors of the document have a motive for fabricating what they wrote?
What possible motive would the early disciples have had for fabricating stories about Jesus? They claim to believe in Jesus because of His miracles and His resurrection, combined with the kind of life He lived and teachings He gave. And for from gaining anything from this, they suffered great persecution for it. Would they lie? And is there anything about their character which would lead us to think that they were the kind of people who deceived others? No scholar I know of doubts the disciples’ sincerity.

What possible motive would a author have to construct stories trying to prove that their beliefs are true....that is an easy one. The authors like in ever religion, are trying to convince people of the truth of their religion, under your ideals ever religious text written must be true! This point makes no sense whatsoever!

2. Are there any other sources which confirm material in the document and/or which substantiate the genuiness of the document?
As I said before, the authorship of these Gospels is attested to by numerous sources in the second century, and they were in a better position to know than anyone today. We can also ascertain some things about Jesus and the early disciples, things which fit in well with the Gospels, from other secular ancient sources such as Tacitus (ca55-1200, Suetonius (early second century), Josephus (ca 37-93), Thallus (mid first century), as well as ancient Jewish writings written against the Christians (the Talmud).

Non of these outside sources confirm that Jesus was alive, Sutonius and Tacitus mention Christians not Jesus in particular and also were born long after the fact......Same as with Josephus, Thallus etc, all born after the fact and all talk about Christians in general, not particular aspect to confirm Jesus was even in existence. I shall elaborate further on this as well!

3. Does archeology support or go against material in the document?
While their have always been archeologists who claim that their findings are in tension with some aspects of the biblical account of things, time and time again these findings have been reversed in favor of the biblical account. To give one example, it used to be held by some that Luke’s account of the birth of Jesus was fabricated. He says that an empire-wide census was being taken during the reign of Caesar Augustus, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem where Joseph was born to register, which is when Jesus was born. But we know from ancient sources (e.g. Josephus) that Quirnius was governor beginning in A.D. 6, and there was no evidence for a census like this ever being taken. So, it was assumed, Luke must be in error. We now know, however, that censuses like the kind Luke mentioned were frequent, and Quirinius’ reign in A.D. 6 was his second reign.

First off there are so many historical errors in the gospels that I can write a whole book on them alone but I will save that for later. Secondly even if something is set in a historical context does not make the charactor itself real. Ever heard of historical fiction?

4. Could contemporaries of the document falsify the documents account, and would they have a motive for doing so?
Finally, Christianity was born in a very hostile environment. There were contemporaries who would have refuted the Gospel portrait of Jesus-if they could have. The leaders of Judaism in the first century tended to view Christianity as a pernicious cult and would have loved to see it stamped out. And this would have been easy to do-if the “cult” had been based on fabrications. Why, just bringing forth the body of the slain Jesus would have been sufficient to extinguish Christianity once and for all.
In spite of this, however, Christianity exploded (in a positive sense). The disciples preached their Gospel to people who had been eyewitnesses of the things they claimed Jesus said and did. How could they have fabricated it? And even those opposed to Christianity did not deny Jesus did miracles, and did not deny his tomb was empty. The facts behind the Gospel are not questioned. What is questioned is how the facts were established. The opponents claimed that Jesus did what He did either through trickery, or the power of Satan, and that the disciples stole the body of Jesus (But see External Criteria #1)

I guess you don't realize how unimportant Christianity was to the Jews and Romans. It was an extremely small sect, with very few converts (it only started to gain adherents 30 years after Jesus' death when Paul started his teachings. This goes back to my point of the circumcision faction that Paul mentions. Among the Jews Christianity was not spreading and the gentiles were not converting either as the origianal followers of Jesus said that to be a Christian one had to first be a Jew, that meant you had to get circumcised, meet all the dietary restrictions, follow the sabbath etc. Paul argued that this was not required, only faith alone mattered. This is a very important feud in early Christianity which as we all know today was won by Paul. The Jerusalem apostles and Jesus' family all argued that they had the athourity to say not Paul since Paul had never even seen Jesus.....Read Paul letters to his different schools he set up....

To sum it all up I think we have very good grounds for treating the Gospels like generally reliable documents; they are generally good sources of history for us. And this has nothing to do with them being “inspired” or “God’s Word”: its just history.

In the face of history, one must make a decision. One must regard Jesus as an unthinkably clever charlatan (but very stupid also because he got Himself crucified) who tricked his way into people’s faith, or the Lord He and His followers claimed He was. My claim is only the latter is founded on evidence.
Pertaining to prophecies, you say that everything was written after the fact but that is not true. If you look at the evidence the key to dating the Gospels is Acts. It is accepted by almost all scholars (both liberal and conservative) that Acts came after the Gospels (with the possible exception of John). The synoptic Gospels can not be dated later than Acts which I argue was dated some time in the early 60s of the first century. Here’s why.

Luke (the accepted author of Acts) makes no mention of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D.70. This would be most remarkable if Acts was written after this date, especially because Luke is, throughout Acts, centrally interested in events which occur in Jerusalem. In fact, Luke makes no mention of the war that broke out between the Jews and the Romans in A.D. 66 which led to the fall of Jerusalem, though throughout his works he is concerned with Roman-Jewish relations. For example, he mentions the minor skirmish which occurred between these two in A.D.44. But how could he then pass up the much more significant war that happened 22 years later, a war that resulted in the destruction of the Jewish temple and the sacking of Jerusalem?
What really drives home the point is the fact that Jesus, in Luke’s Gospel, prophesies that Jerusalem would fall (Luke 21). It is, I think, most unlikely to suppose that Luke missed this opportunity to show how this prophecy was fulfilled-especially when one consider that one of the reasons Luke wrote Acts in the first place was to show how the working of the Spirit in the early church carries and fulfills the ministry of Jesus.

Luke is traditionally attributed to 60 CE, but most scholars date it between 70-100 CE and scholars are divided on if it can even be attributed to Luke! But even if it was the same author, that author does not appear to have had any 1st hand experience of Jesus or even of Paul! In the preface to Luke, the author refers to having eyewitness testimony "handed down to us" and to having undertaken a "careful investigation", but the author does not mention his own name or explicitly claim to be an eyewitness to any of the events, except for the we passages. And in the we passages, the narrative is written in the third person — the author never refers to himself as "I" or "me". To those who are skeptical of an eyewitness author, the we passages are usually regarded as fragments of a second document, part of some earlier account, which was later incorporated into Acts by the later author of Luke-Acts. An alternate theory is that the use of "we" was a stylistic idiosyncrasy used in many sea travel narratives written around the same time as Acts.

Scholars also point to a number of apparent theological and factual discrepancies between Luke-Acts and Paul's letters. For example, Acts and the Pauline letters appear to disagree about the number and timings of Paul's visits to Jerusalem, and Paul's own account of his conversion is slightly different from the account given in Acts. Similarly, some believe the theology of Luke-Acts is slightly different from the theology espoused by Paul in his letters. This would suggest that the author of Luke-Acts did not have direct contact with Paul, but instead may have relied upon other sources for his portrayal of Paul.


Acts also made no mention of Nero’s persecution of Christians in the mid-60s. In fact, his view of the Roman government is positively irenic. This requires us to place th document at a time when the Roman government was not hostile to Christians, a time prior to Nero.
Luke, in Acts, makes no mention of the martyrdom of Paul (A.D. 64) and Peter (A.D. 65), though he is very concerned to note the martyrdoms of “lesser” Christian leaders (e.g. Stephen and James). This is especially remarkable because half the Book of Acts is about Paul and a large part is about Peter. This is impossible to make sense of if Luke is writing after their deaths.

This was not meant to be a historical text, but rather to establish the legitamacy of Paul's teachings. Two glaring discrepencies between Acts and Pauls letters, the account given by Paul of his visits to Jerusalem in Galatians as compared with Acts; and the character and mission of the apostle Paul, as they appear in his letters and in Acts.



Much of the subject matter of Acts concerns issues which are important before the fall of Jerusalem, but not after. This reflects the needs and interests of the audience, and audience which clearly has not yet experienced the fall of Jerusalem.

Luke’s record of people and events in the Roman Empire has time and time again been substantiated by archeology. He reflects a detailed knowledge of the early first century, a knowledge which grows increasingly unlikely the later we date this document.

Luke uses expressions I Acts which were used widely early on in Christianity, but not later-not after A.D. 70. Jesus, for example, is called “the Son of Man” but this title of Jesus died out very early in Christian circles.

Finally, to add one more thing to the evidence I’ve already presented, one finds throughout the Synoptic Gospels a recognizable “style” to Jesus’ teaching. Though they reword His teachings to an extent, His unique way of teaching comes out in all three. For example, He often uses a threefold pattern to His teaching. He uses “amen” (= truly) in a very unique way. He raises questions in a distinct manner, etc. If the authors were not associated with Jesus, and if they were fabricating this (why would they want to do that?), this commonality between the authors would be inexplicable.

The Gospels (at least three of them) were written some time prior to A.D. 60, before Jesus prophesied about the destruction of the temple. All of that for one prophesy….LOL.

From Wikipedia:
In contrast to the traditional view, many contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source text used by the author of Luke, following from the theory of Markan Priority.[40] Since Mark may have been written around the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70, Luke would not have been written before 70. These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 100. Support for a later date comes from a number of reasons. One argument is that the references to the Jerusalem temple's destruction are seen as evidence of a post-70 date.[41] The universalization of the message of Luke is believed to reflect a theology that took time to develop. Differences of chronology, "style", and theology suggest that the author of Luke-Acts was not familiar with Paul's distinctive theology but instead was writing a decade or more after his death, by which point significant harmonization between different traditions within Early Christianity had occurred.[42] Furthermore, Luke-Acts has views on christology, eschatology, and soteriology that are similar to the those found in Pastoral epistles, which are often seen as pseudonymous and of a later date than the undisputed Pauline Epistles.[43]

Debate continues among non-traditionalists about whether Luke was written before or after the end of the 1st century. Those who would date it later argue that it was written in response to heterodoxical movements of the early 2nd century, for example see Gospel of Marcion.[44] Those who would date it earlier point out both that Luke lacks knowledge of the episcopal system, which had been developed in the 2nd century, and that an earlier date preserves the traditional connection of the gospel with the Luke who was a follower of Paul.



As far as the circumcision faction goes. Why would we get into the attitudes of the day and an early division among the church if we can’t establish if there is a God, much less Christ being the Messiah? Its all irrelevant if neither of these are fact.

Refer to my post above as to the importance of this!

So to also rebutt Klashs post, No I am using a historical document for the basis of my beliefs.

OK as I mentioned in my rebuttals, I will write up a seperate thread with all the information about the historiocity of Jesus. Much has been mentioned but I will do so in greater detail. Hopefully we can get a few more people participating. Scalleywag, wonderful job with your posts! Very enjoyable reading!

[mandarb11]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

Damn I highlighted all my text in red and it never carried through onto all my responses....that sucks!

[mandarb11]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

Originally Posted by Scalleywag
Wow! There is a lot here to get into. Are you trying to keep me held captive at my computer? LOL

I am going to have to go about this in a round-about way. Let’s look at the Gospels as we would any ancient document. Apply to them the same criteria historians apply to other ancient documents when they research history. I contend that when the Gospels are treated in this critical-historical way, they fare very well and can be trusted to tell us a good deal about the person of Jesus Christ.

Being a history major I am sure you are familiar with these criteria. They can be divided into two groups: Internal (inside the document in question) and External (what’s happening outside the document in question)

Internal Criteria
1. Was the author in a position to know what he or she is writing about? Does the test claim to be an eyewitness account, or based on an eyewitness account? Or is it based on hearsay?

Luke who is not an eyewitness, tells us that he is using eyewitness sources and that he is seeking to write an orderly and truthful account of the things he records (Luke 1:1-4). John tells us he is an eyewitness, and the other two Gospels, Mark and Matthew, is both written from the perspective of an eyewitness, though they never come out and explicitly claims this: they just assume it. Other sources in the early second century confirm that the authors are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. (This is external criteria #2)

The authors have an agenda, to prove their beliefs so we must take into account their prejudices when considering them as authors. The works were not attributed to any of the disciples until the council of synod in 393CE! Before that they were just one of many, many gospels. Look up the Nag Hammadi scrolls.....many different interpretations of Jesus' life!

2. Does the document in question contain specific and especially irrelevant material? (First hand sources are typically full of material, especially details, which aren’t central to the story, whereas fabricated accounts tend to be generalized)

The Gospels are full of this sort of irrelevant detail which typically accompanies eyewitness accounts.

Incorrect, irrelevant material is the result of the authors trying to preserve all the oral traditions about Jesus. Originally all of Jesus' stories were transmitted orally, therefore scholars hold that only the shortest and easiest to remember passages like sayings and parables would be the closest to what Jesus might have said as people are not usually very good at transmitting longer stories. Look at Mark, it is just a group of stories thrown together, not even in proper order if you ever look into the geographical areas discussed.


I hope you get the point. There is no reason to throw in this type of irrelevant detail. It contributes nothing to the story line, except its just part of what happened, so the author throws it in as he recalls the event.

3. Does the document contain self-damaging material? (If a document includes material which could cast a negative image on the author, on the heroes of the story, or especially on the truthfulness of the story, this is typically a good indication that the author had truth as a central motive for writing.
The Gospels are also full of self-damaging detail. For example, in the Resurrection account you just read, a woman is said to be the first one to discover that the tomb was empty. But this could only damage the early testimony of the early Christians, as women in the first-century Jewish culture were regarded as incurable “talebearers”. They couldn’t even testify in court. Moreover, the disciples are consistently portrayed in a bad light. And even aspects of Jesus’ life are included, which, if the story were being fabricated to convince people of His messiahship, would have been excluded. For example, on the cross Jesus cried out “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” Now this is hardly what one would expect from the Messiah, especially if the Messiah is supposed to be divine. It’s a tough statement but it only proves the point. The only motive anyone could have for including this in his account is because Jesus actually said it!

Ah but which version is true and accurate since the gospels do not agree with what Jesus' last words were:
According to Mark and Matthew:
Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani
According to Luke:
Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do (in response to a mocking crowd)
Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise (in response to one of the two thieves crucified next to him)
Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (last words)
According to John:
Woman, behold your son: behold your mother (directed at Mary, the mother of Jesus, either as a self reference, or as a reference to the beloved disciple and an instruction to the disciple himself)
I thirst (just before a wetted sponge, mentioned by all the Canonical Gospels, is offered)
It is finished (last words)

So according to you they all must be true! lol

4. Is the document reasonably self-consistent? (There is coherence to truth which fabrications usually lack, though different perspectives on a single historical account usually include some minor discrepancies.)
The Gospels present a consistent portrait of who Jesus is and what He did, as well as the events that surround his life. If the four accounts were individually fabricated, where did the consistency come from? But there are also significant differences in each account, showing the relative differences in their perspectives. If they were all fabricated together the consistency would be greater than we find.

The gospels are very different from one another. Mark has his Jesus being more human, very little in the way of extensive dialogue, trying to keep his identity a secret (known as the messianic secret), mark and Luke borrow heavily from Mark, and Luke actually tries to correct so historical and geographic errors that Mark made....John well that Jesus is nothing like all the others, he is a god first and a man second....I will elaborate more on this in my next post....

External
1. Would the authors of the document have a motive for fabricating what they wrote?
What possible motive would the early disciples have had for fabricating stories about Jesus? They claim to believe in Jesus because of His miracles and His resurrection, combined with the kind of life He lived and teachings He gave. And for from gaining anything from this, they suffered great persecution for it. Would they lie? And is there anything about their character which would lead us to think that they were the kind of people who deceived others? No scholar I know of doubts the disciples’ sincerity.

What possible motive would a author have to construct stories trying to prove that their beliefs are true....that is an easy one. The authors like in ever religion, are trying to convince people of the truth of their religion, under your ideals ever religious text written must be true! This point makes no sense whatsoever!

2. Are there any other sources which confirm material in the document and/or which substantiate the genuiness of the document?
As I said before, the authorship of these Gospels is attested to by numerous sources in the second century, and they were in a better position to know than anyone today. We can also ascertain some things about Jesus and the early disciples, things which fit in well with the Gospels, from other secular ancient sources such as Tacitus (ca55-1200, Suetonius (early second century), Josephus (ca 37-93), Thallus (mid first century), as well as ancient Jewish writings written against the Christians (the Talmud).

Non of these outside sources confirm that Jesus was alive, Sutonius and Tacitus mention Christians not Jesus in particular and also were born long after the fact......Same as with Josephus, Thallus etc, all born after the fact and all talk about Christians in general, not particular aspect to confirm Jesus was even in existence. I shall elaborate further on this as well!

3. Does archeology support or go against material in the document?
While their have always been archeologists who claim that their findings are in tension with some aspects of the biblical account of things, time and time again these findings have been reversed in favor of the biblical account. To give one example, it used to be held by some that Luke’s account of the birth of Jesus was fabricated. He says that an empire-wide census was being taken during the reign of Caesar Augustus, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem where Joseph was born to register, which is when Jesus was born. But we know from ancient sources (e.g. Josephus) that Quirnius was governor beginning in A.D. 6, and there was no evidence for a census like this ever being taken. So, it was assumed, Luke must be in error. We now know, however, that censuses like the kind Luke mentioned were frequent, and Quirinius’ reign in A.D. 6 was his second reign.

First off there are so many historical errors in the gospels that I can write a whole book on them alone but I will save that for later. Secondly even if something is set in a historical context does not make the charactor itself real. Ever heard of historical fiction?

4. Could contemporaries of the document falsify the documents account, and would they have a motive for doing so?
Finally, Christianity was born in a very hostile environment. There were contemporaries who would have refuted the Gospel portrait of Jesus-if they could have. The leaders of Judaism in the first century tended to view Christianity as a pernicious cult and would have loved to see it stamped out. And this would have been easy to do-if the “cult” had been based on fabrications. Why, just bringing forth the body of the slain Jesus would have been sufficient to extinguish Christianity once and for all.
In spite of this, however, Christianity exploded (in a positive sense). The disciples preached their Gospel to people who had been eyewitnesses of the things they claimed Jesus said and did. How could they have fabricated it? And even those opposed to Christianity did not deny Jesus did miracles, and did not deny his tomb was empty. The facts behind the Gospel are not questioned. What is questioned is how the facts were established. The opponents claimed that Jesus did what He did either through trickery, or the power of Satan, and that the disciples stole the body of Jesus (But see External Criteria #1)

I guess you don't realize how unimportant Christianity was to the Jews and Romans. It was an extremely small sect, with very few converts (it only started to gain adherents 30 years after Jesus' death when Paul started his teachings. This goes back to my point of the circumcision faction that Paul mentions. Among the Jews Christianity was not spreading and the gentiles were not converting either as the origianal followers of Jesus said that to be a Christian one had to first be a Jew, that meant you had to get circumcised, meet all the dietary restrictions, follow the sabbath etc. Paul argued that this was not required, only faith alone mattered. This is a very important feud in early Christianity which as we all know today was won by Paul. The Jerusalem apostles and Jesus' family all argued that they had the athourity to say not Paul since Paul had never even seen Jesus.....Read Paul letters to his different schools he set up....
To sum it all up I think we have very good grounds for treating the Gospels like generally reliable documents; they are generally good sources of history for us. And this has nothing to do with them being “inspired” or “God’s Word”: its just history.

In the face of history, one must make a decision. One must regard Jesus as an unthinkably clever charlatan (but very stupid also because he got Himself crucified) who tricked his way into people’s faith, or the Lord He and His followers claimed He was. My claim is only the latter is founded on evidence.
Pertaining to prophecies, you say that everything was written after the fact but that is not true. If you look at the evidence the key to dating the Gospels is Acts. It is accepted by almost all scholars (both liberal and conservative) that Acts came after the Gospels (with the possible exception of John). The synoptic Gospels can not be dated later than Acts which I argue was dated some time in the early 60s of the first century. Here’s why.

Luke (the accepted author of Acts) makes no mention of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D.70. This would be most remarkable if Acts was written after this date, especially because Luke is, throughout Acts, centrally interested in events which occur in Jerusalem. In fact, Luke makes no mention of the war that broke out between the Jews and the Romans in A.D. 66 which led to the fall of Jerusalem, though throughout his works he is concerned with Roman-Jewish relations. For example, he mentions the minor skirmish which occurred between these two in A.D.44. But how could he then pass up the much more significant war that happened 22 years later, a war that resulted in the destruction of the Jewish temple and the sacking of Jerusalem?
What really drives home the point is the fact that Jesus, in Luke’s Gospel, prophesies that Jerusalem would fall (Luke 21). It is, I think, most unlikely to suppose that Luke missed this opportunity to show how this prophecy was fulfilled-especially when one consider that one of the reasons Luke wrote Acts in the first place was to show how the working of the Spirit in the early church carries and fulfills the ministry of Jesus.

Luke is traditionally attributed to 60 CE, but most scholars date it between 70-100 CE and scholars are divided on if it can even be attributed to Luke! But even if it was the same author, that author does not appear to have had any 1st hand experience of Jesus or even of Paul! In the preface to Luke, the author refers to having eyewitness testimony "handed down to us" and to having undertaken a "careful investigation", but the author does not mention his own name or explicitly claim to be an eyewitness to any of the events, except for the we passages. And in the we passages, the narrative is written in the third person — the author never refers to himself as "I" or "me". To those who are skeptical of an eyewitness author, the we passages are usually regarded as fragments of a second document, part of some earlier account, which was later incorporated into Acts by the later author of Luke-Acts. An alternate theory is that the use of "we" was a stylistic idiosyncrasy used in many sea travel narratives written around the same time as Acts.

Scholars also point to a number of apparent theological and factual discrepancies between Luke-Acts and Paul's letters. For example, Acts and the Pauline letters appear to disagree about the number and timings of Paul's visits to Jerusalem, and Paul's own account of his conversion is slightly different from the account given in Acts. Similarly, some believe the theology of Luke-Acts is slightly different from the theology espoused by Paul in his letters. This would suggest that the author of Luke-Acts did not have direct contact with Paul, but instead may have relied upon other sources for his portrayal of Paul.

Acts also made no mention of Nero’s persecution of Christians in the mid-60s. In fact, his view of the Roman government is positively irenic. This requires us to place th document at a time when the Roman government was not hostile to Christians, a time prior to Nero.
Luke, in Acts, makes no mention of the martyrdom of Paul (A.D. 64) and Peter (A.D. 65), though he is very concerned to note the martyrdoms of “lesser” Christian leaders (e.g. Stephen and James). This is especially remarkable because half the Book of Acts is about Paul and a large part is about Peter. This is impossible to make sense of if Luke is writing after their deaths.

This was not meant to be a historical text, but rather to establish the legitamacy of Paul's teachings. Two glaring discrepencies between Acts and Pauls letters, the account given by Paul of his visits to Jerusalem in Galatians as compared with Acts; and the character and mission of the apostle Paul, as they appear in his letters and in Acts.



Much of the subject matter of Acts concerns issues which are important before the fall of Jerusalem, but not after. This reflects the needs and interests of the audience, and audience which clearly has not yet experienced the fall of Jerusalem.

Luke’s record of people and events in the Roman Empire has time and time again been substantiated by archeology. He reflects a detailed knowledge of the early first century, a knowledge which grows increasingly unlikely the later we date this document.

Luke uses expressions I Acts which were used widely early on in Christianity, but not later-not after A.D. 70. Jesus, for example, is called “the Son of Man” but this title of Jesus died out very early in Christian circles.

Finally, to add one more thing to the evidence I’ve already presented, one finds throughout the Synoptic Gospels a recognizable “style” to Jesus’ teaching. Though they reword His teachings to an extent, His unique way of teaching comes out in all three. For example, He often uses a threefold pattern to His teaching. He uses “amen” (= truly) in a very unique way. He raises questions in a distinct manner, etc. If the authors were not associated with Jesus, and if they were fabricating this (why would they want to do that?), this commonality between the authors would be inexplicable.

The Gospels (at least three of them) were written some time prior to A.D. 60, before Jesus prophesied about the destruction of the temple. All of that for one prophesy….LOL.

From Wikipedia:
In contrast to the traditional view, many contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source text used by the author of Luke, following from the theory of Markan Priority. Since Mark may have been written around the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70, Luke would not have been written before 70. These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 100. Support for a later date comes from a number of reasons. One argument is that the references to the Jerusalem temple's destruction are seen as evidence of a post-70 date. The universalization of the message of Luke is believed to reflect a theology that took time to develop. Differences of chronology, "style", and theology suggest that the author of Luke-Acts was not familiar with Paul's distinctive theology but instead was writing a decade or more after his death, by which point significant harmonization between different traditions within Early Christianity had occurred. Furthermore, Luke-Acts has views on christology, eschatology, and soteriology that are similar to the those found in Pastoral epistles, which are often seen as pseudonymous and of a later date than the undisputed Pauline Epistles.
Debate continues among non-traditionalists about whether Luke was written before or after the end of the 1st century. Those who would date it later argue that it was written in response to heterodoxical movements of the early 2nd century, for example see Gospel of Marcion.[44] Those who would date it earlier point out both that Luke lacks knowledge of the episcopal system, which had been developed in the 2nd century, and that an earlier date preserves the traditional connection of the gospel with the Luke who was a follower of Paul.



As far as the circumcision faction goes. Why would we get into the attitudes of the day and an early division among the church if we can’t establish if there is a God, much less Christ being the Messiah? Its all irrelevant if neither of these are fact.

Refer to my post above as to the importance of this!

So to also rebutt Klashs post, No I am using a historical document for the basis of my beliefs.






OK I hope this will be a little easier to discern my responses!