I Would Hate...

Really? Must be that in-fighting deal going on with the Christians...

 

yeah thats about right

 

where when how? sorry if I did.

 

No offense.

Presupposition just means that some of your arguments "presupposed" the existence of "God" rather than offer evidence for the question of the existence of "God".

 

I haven't read enough about what the seminar came up with yet to get into an indepth disscusion about their tactics but I can still tell you the statement you just made is an oversimplification and ridiculously misleading.

anyone sitting on that council would well know that there aren't any other sources outside the gospels. The lack of other sources is a given and therefore would have been a minor considerration.
you might as well have said they came to the conclusion that the bible is "wrong " (another misleading oversimplification) because they couldn't find a living eyewitness.

what they actually did was give more credance to passages that were repeated in more than one gospel. they were assigning degrees of probablity based on repetition, not, as you're suggesting, automatically rejecting this or accepting that based on it's singularity.
It was a guideline, not a deciding factor.

consider that we're talking about people, many if not most of whom were christians themselves, who had devoted their lives to studying scripture, had the most up to date information from prominant historians, papyrologists, lingustics experts etc, and were trying to make realistic determinations based on the evidence.

to hear you talk about the seminar you'd think they were a bunch of construction workers sitting in a bar on their 3rd round who had gotten bored and set out to disprove christianity on a bet.

 

"would well know that there aren't any other sources outside the gospels"

Aren't any? People believed the same before the Nag Hammadi library was found, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Among other things.

"The lack of other sources is a given and therefore would have been a minor considerration"

Again - lack of other sources does not make one source automatically unreliable or wrong.

"Probability" has nothing to do with veracity. Abscence of repetition has nothing to do with veracity.

 

1. the Nag Hammadi library revealed the existence of the gnostic gospels.
We were talking about the seminars findings on the legitamacy of the canocal gospels-Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John--, what doe's the Nag Hammadi library have to do with what we're talking about?

2. while all the old testement books except Ester are represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls there are absolutely no references to any of the New Testement books in the Scrolls.

again, we're talking about the seminars findings on the sayings of Jesus--all new Testement.

what do the Dead Sea Scrolls have to do with what we're talking about?

That's exactly what I said. you're reply to what I said is basically a paraphrase of what I said.

I don't understand, are you agreeing with me or did you not understand what I mean't?

wrong. In science--any science--repeatablity and consistancy are two of the most important considerrations.

again, probability isn't proof but if you don't have proof, probability is all you have to go on. This is almost always the case when you're studying history.

 

Alright - fair game about the Nag Hammadi library and the Dead Sea Scrolls. However...

There are other biblical sources... The first evidence comes from the four Gospels which, themselves, are proven to be accurate.[size=-1]{1}[/size] Outside the biblical text are several witnesses as well. Jewish historian Josephus (37 A.D.–100 A.D.) recorded the history of the Jewish people in Palestine from 70 A.D. to 100 A.D. In his work Antiquities, he states:

Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the gentiles. He was the Christ and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. For he appeared alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.[size=-1]{2}[/size]







​

Although he mentions Jesus in a sarcastic way, Josephus confirms the facts that Jesus did do many great miracles, drew a following, was crucified, and was proclaimed alive on the third day.




Pliny the Younger, Emperor of Bythynia in northwestern Turkey, writing to Emperor Trajan in 112 A.D. writes:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang an anthem to Christ as God, and bound themselves by a solemn oath not to commit any wicked deed, but to abstain from all fraud, theft and adultery, never to break their word, or deny a trust when called upon to honor it; after which it was their custom to separate, and then meet again to partake of food, but ordinary and innocent kind.







​

One of the most important Romans historians is Tacitus. In 115 A.D. he recorded Nero's persecution of the Christians, in the process of which he wrote the following:

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, . . . but even in Rome.[size=-1]{3}[/size]







​

There are over 39 extra-biblical sources that attest to over one hundred facts regarding the life and teachings of Jesus.






source -> http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/arch-nt.html

You said that "therefore would have been a minor considerration"... I said, why does it [the lack of repitions] have to be a consideration at all? Lack of people saying the same thing doesn't mean that one person is wrong.

Science is different than faith, my friend. We're not trying to prove anything scientific about the gospels...

Depends on your definition of "PROOF"... The very fact that the Jesus Seminar treats the biblical gospels as "unreliable unless repeated by someone else" is a pessimistic view of things.We do have "proof" of Jesus's life, IE, the first-hand accounts written in the 4 Gospels.

A study should be done about any other early christian writings CONTRADICTING them... then the gospels can be questioned. However, whatever documents we do have from early christians agree with the bible, no matter what part they are agreeing with. This is important.

 

Also fair. You bring up the point that there's nothing (at least, nothing I know of yet) regarding what Jesus said. However, there is enough evidence from different sources (everything from Josephus to archaelogic evidence) which proves Jesus was alive, and well as his disciples around living in the exact same time period. We have the evidence that they all lived when each other lived. We may not have any other sources that will support Jesus's sayings, but we have the people who (are proven to have) lived when he taught, in the same vicinity... So, why not take their gospels as first hand accounts instead of calling them "unreliable"?

There is nothing scientific about it!

Of course, there were always documents that were left behind from the same period, such as the Gospel of Thomas and every other book from the Nag Hammadi library - which are early christian books that agree with the bible. No early christian document has ever been found to contradict the bible.