[JakeW]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Of the thousands who supposedly witnessed Jesus, how many wrote anything about it? Four? Coincidentally all founders of the Church. Of those four, how many can be established as having actually written the gospel credited to them? One? None? *Paul's* deciple, a man who never met jesus following a man who never met Jesus wrote a bunch of it.

Of course they were founders of the church.... they watched a man die and be resurected... I'd do what he said too....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

And when we look at the writing styles, most historians see not 4 but 2. They see John as a work, and the other three as copies of a single source. So writing style, rather than supporting your case, adds to the dubiousness of the evidence.

Certainly some historians see only two authors, but it is equally possible that the explainations oweing to a spoken record writen down, or citing as a means of guaranteeing accuracy are true. Many historians also see 4 authors....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Isn't it interesting that you've already argued exactly why they would do so. You said "who would want to lie and get punished for it", and now you imply a question "why would someone sign someone else's name (ghostwrite)". You also ignore that this is not an uncommon occurance.

If I was self serving, I'd sure want credit for it... else the serving would not be much for my self.... And if they WERE ghostwritten texts, how self serving could they be? I am not saying its impossible, just that the likelyhood keeps getting smaller and smaller as I have to make more and more assumptions about these peoples thoughts and feelings.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Unearthing a status report from Pilate would be nice... how about a letter from one Rabbi to another asking for advice, or talking about the cool party the other week when Jesus came into town?

Why would a letter talking about that cool guy Jesus' party be replicated and protected as sacred through history? Why would a confused rabbi's letter be studied and memorized over millenia? Why is it hard to imagine that these references to Jesus of secondary importance didn't stand the test of time or get set aside as sacred?

But just to be clear, you will take any letter which is supposedly written by Pilate, or any letter written by someone who may have been a Rabbi making casual mention of Jesus as proof?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Because the Bible clearly says that not all believed... so the question becomes "can you trust a story which is self-serving to it's authors, when it's authorship cannot be confirmed, and when there is no supporting evidence of its authenticity".

My question sounds more like "In what way does this story serve it's authors.... none..... Is there any way to show they didn't write these accounts.... no.... is there good reason to assume they did write them..... yes..... is there as much proof of this as of any documents out of the ancient world.... yes, more..... Is it surpriseing that all the evidence of it's authenticity are included in the bible... no"

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The Mormons and Muslims were both persecuted. Do you think the Mormons ended up in the middle of a desert next to a lake of undrinkable water because they liked the view?

This is very true, and quite a travesty, however we are talking about the AUTHOR's of the religion, not the followers....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Maybe they did. Maybe Thomas wrote all four? Perhaps they weren't expecting to get killed at the time they wrote it? OTOH, do I really need to list off religious leaders that have killed themselves?

It might be possible that they didn't know they were likely to die for their beliefs, though it hardly seems likely since their leader was already horribly killed for His teachings..... I also would think they might have stopped writing when some of them started to get killed.... surely your compatriots being killed would tip you off that this was dangerous work.... And I guess it's *possible* that one or the other of the early christian leaders was simply suicidal, but to imply that they all were is a little far to stretch. All in all I find this just to edge itself over the line of likely making their intentions being honest as the best choice.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That's not emperical analysis, that's an appeal to popularity... and it fails the same test... I guess the Quran is true, with so many people believing it and all.

Well, not to argue a sillt point, but my empirical analysis was counting..... And I never said the Koran wasn't convincing, just that it wasn't true. You said the bible wasn't convincing, I think number of people convinced is a good indicator that you were wrong.

Jake

[nolidad]

[QUOTE][What about the guy that was cleaning the stables when Jesus walked by? What about the money lender who he threw out of the temple? What about the centurian that had to write a report on a crowd of people? Very few people (according to the Bible) witnessed the resurrection; but many thousands (again according to the bible) saw him. None managed to mention it.

Then, everyone that did mention it, was convienantly together 40+ years later to write it. And, of crouse, we have no witnesses that the claimed witnesses wrote it. Really, John and Paul are about it in terms of people we can verify were even around when the gospels where written.

The problem is that we have essentially one, unverified source which *claims* it is 4 eye-witness accounts of self-serving material. It is dubious at best./QUOTE]


The problem here is that people of that day did not write like the people of this day do. Writing was confined to relatively few people. So the stable boy and the centurion most likely did not write anything at all.

Thge greatest evidence that is overlooked (actually intentionaslly ignored) is the tens of thousands of Jewish converts who would have known of Jesus and even seen Him. Are they all self serving? History writes much about their persecution and murder at the hands of Rome. Why did they convert? If Jesus didn't exist--they would have known about it even without the help of CNN! Given the factr that the apostles converted thousands with the message they later wrote down- they would have easily been impeached if it was untrue.

Let us accept the benign definition of self serving that Jerry assumes. Because the apostles had a self serving interest in seeing people follow Jesus (though other than ego satisfaction which is unproved, there is no record of their gaining anything from promoting Jesus other than a name amongst the rejects of society- a typically unjewish things to do) they garnered a crowd of followers not only from Israle where the events "alledgedly" occurred but in the Roamn Empire all within the time frame where people would have known that Jesus didn't exist. Either they were all stupid or they knew of these things and converted. The evidence has been charged with dubiousness but has yet to be impeached as untrue.

[JerryLove]

Of course they were founders of the church.... they watched a man die and be resurected... I'd do what he said too....

I probably would as well; but that's assuming the consequent a bit. *If* they did witness the events, it makes sense; but we cannot assume that as it is the question at hand.

Given that the point is we don't know, the question is over weather their testimony is credable; and one of the criteria one looks at is "did they have a reason to lie", the answer being "yes". The other is "do we have independant corroborating testemony?", and the answer is "no".

I'm not saying that they are lygin; I'm saying that their claims are suspect for the reasons I have repeatedly enumerated.

Certainly some historians see only two authors, but it is equally possible that the explainations oweing to a spoken record writen down, or citing as a means of guaranteeing accuracy are true. Many historians also see 4 authors....

You were attempting to support the number in question, I was addressing your support. In the end, because of their relation, the 2vs4 argument is not very signifigant.

If I was self serving, I'd sure want credit for it... else the serving would not be much for my self.... And if they WERE ghostwritten texts, how self serving could they be?

Ghostwriting makes the issue of being self-serving even more signifigant.

To make an analogy to establish where ghost-writing something not neccessarily true would be self-serving... Imagine you have stock in a company that sell widgets; so you ghostwrite a couple of very positive reviews for widgets and distribute them... sales go up, you have served your self-interest.

I am not saying its impossible, just that the likelyhood keeps getting smaller and smaller as I have to make more and more assumptions about these peoples thoughts and feelings.

But you don't need to make any of the assumptions you are making; they are all to address other assumptions you have already made which you did not need to.

The short version is "we have a single text, for which only 3 sources exist that we can validate that claim to know the origin (Paul, Peter, and Timothy). All 3 are involved founders of the early Christian church and would have a reason to lie about the material. Can the material be trusted to be accurate?"

Imagine a different book under the same criteria... imainge if the Quran had 3 authors instead of 1. Would you say that the Quran was neccessairily true because 3 people said that it was witnessed?

Why would a letter talking about that cool guy Jesus' party be replicated and protected as sacred through history?

If you had one of those, would you throw it out? Evidence and testimony of an aspect of the life of the savior, and a piece of history, and corroborating evidence for the claims of the religion? Why do you think one of those might have been preserved either intentionally or accidentally?

Why would a confused rabbi's letter be studied and memorized over millenia? Why is it hard to imagine that these references to Jesus of secondary importance didn't stand the test of time or get set aside as sacred?

If I show you equally old documents of similar minutia; would that affect your opinion?

But just to be clear, you will take any letter which is supposedly written by Pilate, or any letter written by someone who may have been a Rabbi making casual mention of Jesus as proof?

That's a bit vague a question but generally, and presuming they are shown authentic, "yes, I would". Of course, they must be verifiable, of unrelated origin, and not self-serving (as the only other text I am aware of is).

My question sounds more like "In what way does this story serve it's authors.... none

So Paul had no deisre to see people convert to his religion? Is that your claim?

Is there any way to show they didn't write these accounts.... no

Is there any way to show that pink unicorns did not write the texts? no.

is there good reason to assume they did write them..... yes

And what reason might that be?

there as much proof of this as of any documents out of the ancient world.... yes, more

So, there is as much proof as, say, the claim that Julius became Ceasar? I'm more than happy to compare number and variety f sources if you'd like to try to support your lie.

Is it surpriseing that all the evidence of it's authenticity are included in the bible... no"

Is it surprising that the sum-total of evidence pertaining to God walinkg the earth for more than three decades is 4 functionally identical stories (which contain obviously unwitnessed events; or do you claim the apostles were at the birth?)? Yes. I find it pretty damn surprising that no one else considered him signifigant enough to mention anywhere. No scholars came, no historians, no members of governement, no story-writers, no playwrights, no-one... just 4 apostles; thee of whom seem to write in an identical manner.

This is very true, and quite a travesty, however we are talking about the AUTHOR's of the religion, not the followers....

And Smith was persecuted right along with his followers; as was Da, Korresh, SumYoung Moon, etc. etc. etc.

It might be possible that they didn't know they were likely to die for their beliefs, though it hardly seems likely since their leader was already horribly killed for His teachings..... I also would think they might have stopped writing when some of them started to get killed.... surely your compatriots being killed would tip you off that this was dangerous work....

Didn't stop anyone else; can you prove that the texts were written *after* people were killed for writing the texts?

And I guess it's *possible* that one or the other of the early christian leaders was simply suicidal, but to imply that they all were is a little far to stretch.

You are, again, assuming your conclusion (that there was more than one author); as well as assuming facts not in evidence (that Biblical authors were killed before other authors wrote their parts) and assuming that they did not ghostwrite for just that reason.

Finally, how did they know that? Paul seems to have traveeled around the world for decades after becoming involved before the winds of providence turned against him.

Well, not to argue a sillt point, but my empirical analysis was counting..... And I never said the Koran wasn't convincing, just that it wasn't true. You said the bible wasn't convincing, I think number of people convinced is a good indicator that you were wrong.

So it is convincing, but untrue. Therefore your criteria for "convincing" is not very useful in determining weather something is likely "true"; ergo moot.

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I probably would as well; but that's assuming the consequent a bit. *If* they did witness the events, it makes sense; but we cannot assume that as it is the question at hand.

I can't believe we agree on something! It's like an early Christmas present! Heheee

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Given that the point is we don't know, the question is over weather their testimony is credable; and one of the criteria one looks at is "did they have a reason to lie", the answer being "yes". The other is "do we have independant corroborating testemony?", and the answer is "no".

I think this is a great paragraph and exaclty where we seem to shift farther and farther apart. I don't think they had a reason to lie. They didn't get their four wives and millions of dollars, they didn't get worshipped in the streets or even treated decently. I don't think you've demonstrated any reasonable evidence that would make me assume they had a reason to lie.

I also think that it's not surprising that over the last 2000 years the important reference to Jesus were all collected by the church. The good ones were preserved, and the documents with irrelevant material were not. (I figure the good ones are the Bible)

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I'm not saying that they are lygin; I'm saying that their claims are suspect for the reasons I have repeatedly enumerated.

I understand what you're saying, and I disagree based on my objections to your enumerated reasons.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You were attempting to support the number in question, I was addressing your support. In the end, because of their relation, the 2vs4 argument is not very signifigant.

Fair enough, we'll move on then.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Ghostwriting makes the issue of being self-serving even more signifigant.

To make an analogy to establish where ghost-writing something not neccessarily true would be self-serving... Imagine you have stock in a company that sell widgets; so you ghostwrite a couple of very positive reviews for widgets and distribute them... sales go up, you have served your self-interest.

I'm not trying to imply that Ghost writing can't be self serving, but in your example I ghost write and then my company makes me money. What are you asserting the apostles got for their writings?

I think you are loose with your use of "self serving", just saying that the apostles wanted to spread a religion doesn't show me where it serves them. Its like taking your analogy above and saying I ghost wrote positive reviews cuz I liked positive reviews. In this case the writing of the reviews *was* self serving, but not until you showed where they served me (i.e. getting the sales up).... You've repeatedly said they wanted to spread a religion, but not where that desire benefits them.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

But you don't need to make any of the assumptions you are making; they are all to address other assumptions you have already made which you did not need to.

This is how I feel about you too.... We agree twice in one day.... cool.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The short version is "we have a single text, for which only 3 sources exist that we can validate that claim to know the origin (Paul, Peter, and Timothy). All 3 are involved founders of the early Christian church and would have a reason to lie about the material. Can the material be trusted to be accurate?"

I still don't agree that they have a reason to lie....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Imagine a different book under the same criteria... imainge if the Quran had 3 authors instead of 1. Would you say that the Quran was neccessairily true because 3 people said that it was witnessed?

I believe that the four Gospels are true, but I don't base that belief on simply the quantity of writers. I base it off of content. I also think you're ignoring little things like the incredible speed of Christianities spread. During the years between Jesus' death and the written recording of the gospels Christianity exploded in size. I base this off of the fact that there were more than just 4 people running around lying. I figure it's reasonable to assume that everyone who saw the truth with thier own eyes, told everyone else about it too.... The mere speed of message delivery points me towards reliability.... at least in as much as it supports my assumption that more than 4 misguided authors were trying to spread a false religion for no reason.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

If you had one of those, would you throw it out? Evidence and testimony of an aspect of the life of the savior, and a piece of history, and corroborating evidence for the claims of the religion? Why do you think one of those might have been preserved either intentionally or accidentally?

I believe that it may have been preserved accidentally, but I see no reason to assume that it would be preserved intentionally. To a christian the truth of Jesus doesn't need to be evidenced on a rabbi's diary making casual mention of his social life, and to a non-christian I don't think one more instance of a person trying to start a religion would warrent much attention.

After all, how often do we know when we're witnessing world changing events?

Originally Posted by JakeW

Why would a confused rabbi's letter be studied and memorized over millenia? Why is it hard to imagine that these references to Jesus of secondary importance didn't stand the test of time or get set aside as sacred?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

If I show you equally old documents of similar minutia; would that affect your opinion?

Sure! Show me 2000 year old documents studied and memorized over millenia, set aside as secondary importance, and sacred that are filled with nothing but minutia.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So Paul had no deisre to see people convert to his religion? Is that your claim?

Paul had no self-serving interest in coverting people to God's religion yes. If anything it was as selfless an act as possible. He spent his life to better other people's lives. He worked for decades to enable other people an opportunity to get into heaven. I can't think of much more selfless than that.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Is there any way to show that pink unicorns did not write the texts? no.

Did any pink unicorns claim to write them? no.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

And what reason might that be?

Millions of people alive at the time believed them to be authentic enough to reproduce them throughout millenia. I realize that cirsumstantial evidence is scare now 2000 years later, but when these were first written it must have abounded and people followed all over. This seems to me to indicate accuracy is a better assumption that inaccuracy.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So, there is as much proof as, say, the claim that Julius became Ceasar? I'm more than happy to compare number and variety f sources if you'd like to try to support your lie.

Sure, but instead of the emporor the the largest empire on the earth, lets try a carpenter's son who died peniless in his mid thirties....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Is it surprising that the sum-total of evidence pertaining to God walinkg the earth for more than three decades is 4 functionally identical stories (which contain obviously unwitnessed events;

Such as?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

or do you claim the apostles were at the birth?)?

are you claiming that your Julius Caesar evidence writers where present at every moment of his entire life? Maybe all biographers glued themselves to the sides of thier subjects at birth hoping that they grew up to be important.... Or maybe they just asked the parents about it....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Yes. I find it pretty damn surprising that no one else considered him signifigant enough to mention anywhere. No scholars came, no historians, no members of governement, no story-writers, no playwrights, no-one... just 4 apostles; thee of whom seem to write in an identical manner.

I believe you do find it surpriseing. I don't. A carpenters son with 12 devoted followers walking around pennyless and killed in his thirties doesn't strike me as a primary focus of the Roman empire... or anyone else for that matter. People who believed him dead were all content that that problem was finished, and people who believed him resurected are all christians and without need for more corraberating paperwork.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Didn't stop anyone else; can you prove that the texts were written *after* people were killed for writing the texts?

They were written after people were killed just for being christians, let alone writing books about it.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You are, again, assuming your conclusion (that there was more than one author); as well as assuming facts not in evidence (that Biblical authors were killed before other authors wrote their parts) and assuming that they did not ghostwrite for just that reason.

And you're assuming the opposite, your entire case is built from might havess and could's.... Many of which are fully unsupported (such as your claim that the gospels are in anyway self-serving)

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Finally, how did they know that? Paul seems to have traveeled around the world for decades after becoming involved before the winds of providence turned against him.

The "winds of providence turned against him" when Jesus was crucified. It did not take decades.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So it is convincing, but untrue. Therefore your criteria for "convincing" is not very useful in determining weather something is likely "true"; ergo moot.

You're the one who brought up convincing man, not me. I'm just trying to keep you honest about it.

Jake

[JerryLove]

I think this is a great paragraph and exaclty where we seem to shift farther and farther apart. I don't think they had a reason to lie. They didn't get their four wives and millions of dollars, they didn't get worshipped in the streets or even treated decently. I don't think you've demonstrated any reasonable evidence that would make me assume they had a reason to lie.

Again I point you at Heaven's Gate, Falun Gong, the Moonies, etc... Paul was, for whatever reason, motivated to convert people to ihs beliefs. The books he authored, and the claims therein, served that purpose; they are, therefore, untrustworthy without corroboratoin as they are self-serving works.

I also think that it's not surprising that over the last 2000 years the important reference to Jesus were all collected by the church. The good ones were preserved, and the documents with irrelevant material were not. (I figure the good ones are the Bible)

But the Bible essentailly amounts to two. The gospel, repeated 4 times; and the claim by Paul that Jesus "appeared in a vision". There are only 2 useful documents?

Also, this speculation does not fit very well with church history; which seeks to preserve every little scrap of support from a wood-chip claimed to be from the cross to boday-parts of various noteable figures (including, I believe, Paul).

I'm not trying to imply that Ghost writing can't be self serving, but in your example I ghost write and then my company makes me money. What are you asserting the apostles got for their writings?

Depends on who wrote them? Paul and Timothy and Peter certainly got their church to spread. They certainy got what people from Moon to Manson to Korresh got, but on a larger scale.

I think you are loose with your use of "self serving", just saying that the apostles wanted to spread a religion doesn't show me where it serves them.

I did not say that spreading Christianity was self-serving; I said they wanted to spread it. Do you agree or disagree that Paul wanted to spread Christianity?

Do you feel the the gospels helped or harmed the spread of Christianity?

Its like taking your analogy above and saying I ghost wrote positive reviews cuz I liked positive reviews. In this case the writing of the reviews *was* self serving, but not until you showed where they served me (i.e. getting the sales up).... You've repeatedly said they wanted to spread a religion, but not where that desire benefits them.

Again. Are you disputing that they wanted to spread Christianity? Because if you are not, a discussion of *why* would not only be very speculative; but a red-herring.

This is how I feel about you too.... We agree twice in one day.... cool.

In this case no, we have opposite views.

I believe that the four Gospels are true, but I don't base that belief on simply the quantity of writers. I base it off of content. I also think you're ignoring little things like the incredible speed of Christianities spread.

Is this now the criteria for truth? The fastest growing religion in the world by numbers is Islam, the fastest by percentage (looking only at religions with over a million adherents) is either Wicca or Falun Gong (would have to reasearch).

Nazism also spread very quickly... far moreso than Christanity. The willngness of a given population to embrace a belief of ideology says nothing about it's inherent truth or "goodness".

I base this off of the fact that there were more than just 4 people running around lying. I figure it's reasonable to assume that everyone who saw the truth with thier own eyes, told everyone else about it too.... The mere speed of message delivery points me towards reliability.... at least in as much as it supports my assumption that more than 4 misguided authors were trying to spread a false religion for no reason.

And do you come to the same conclusion on why Islam spread even faster? Because of all the people who witnessed its truth?

I believe that it may have been preserved accidentally, but I see no reason to assume that it would be preserved intentionally. To a christian the truth of Jesus doesn't need to be evidenced on a rabbi's diary making casual mention of his social life, and to a non-christian I don't think one more instance of a person trying to start a religion would warrent much attention.

After all, how often do we know when we're witnessing world changing events?

11 Sept 2001, 9 Nov 1989, 28 Jan 1986. And I didn't even have someone rising from the dead. I know I sure as hell would have written about it.

Sure! Show me 2000 year old documents studied and memorized over millenia, set aside as secondary importance, and sacred that are filled with nothing but minutia.

Not quite the offer. I will show you 2000+ year old documents of minuta if that will get you to change your position.

Paul had no self-serving interest in coverting people to God's religion yes.

That is a positive assertion; but it is also a red herring. I did not ask if his motivation to convert was self-serving; I claimed the authoring of the book was.

Did any pink unicorns claim to write them? no.

I don't have any apostles here claiming they did either. Would you like me to write on a piece of paper that pink unicorns claimed it? That's what your support amounts too.

Millions of people alive at the time believed them to be authentic enough to reproduce them throughout millenia. I realize that cirsumstantial evidence is scare now 2000 years later, but when these were first written it must have abounded and people followed all over. This seems to me to indicate accuracy is a better assumption that inaccuracy.

Same with every other religion. Are they neccessairily true too?

Sure, but instead of the emporor the the largest empire on the earth, lets try a carpenter's son who died peniless in his mid thirties....

After walking on water in front o fhundreds; creating matter form nothing in front of hundreds, preaching to thousands and having thousands of followers... Saying "he was just a carpenter's son, there should be no records" is saying Hitler "was just a painter, there should be no record".

Such as?

Such as the example I gave in the next sentance, the nativity.

are you claiming that your Julius Caesar evidence writers where present at every moment of his entire life?

I'm telling you that since the Gospel asserts events which we know with complete certainty that the writers (whomever they were) did not witness; the goepels are not a first-hand account.

Maybe all biographers glued themselves to the sides of thier subjects at birth hoping that they grew up to be important.... Or maybe they just asked the parents about it....

You could write a biography of Jesus; that would not be useful in establishing weather he existed. The question is not one of biographers; it is one of evidence.

I believe you do find it surpriseing. I don't. A carpenters son with 12 devoted followers walking around pennyless and killed in his thirties doesn't strike me as a primary focus of the Roman empire...

But a religious leader with thousands of believers might make mention somewhere.

People who believed him dead were all content that that problem was finished, and people who believed him resurected are all christians and without need for more corraberating paperwork.

Which is odd, because Paul seems to have written prodigiously; and Christians after him left a great deal of paperwork... just none from actual witniesses.

The "winds of providence turned against him" when Jesus was crucified. It did not take decades.

Paul lived decades after that; with followers of his own... power and privelage until Nero decided he didn't like him.

The "winds of providence turned against him" when Jesus was crucified. It did not take decades.

And you are equivocating the word.

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Again I point you at Heaven's Gate, Falun Gong, the Moonies, etc... Paul was, for whatever reason, motivated to convert people to ihs beliefs. The books he authored, and the claims therein, served that purpose; they are, therefore, untrustworthy without corroboratoin as they are self-serving works.

You're writing me right now, you're trying to demonstrate that christianity is invalid. You are furthering the cause of atheism. I guess I can discount everything you write as self-serving....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

But the Bible essentailly amounts to two. The gospel, repeated 4 times; and the claim by Paul that Jesus "appeared in a vision". There are only 2 useful documents?

The Bible doesn't amount to two. There are four Gospels. Just because there is only one California Gubernatorail election doesn't mean that there is only one station presenting it on T.V. Even though they show the same events at the same time.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Also, this speculation does not fit very well with church history; which seeks to preserve every little scrap of support from a wood-chip claimed to be from the cross to boday-parts of various noteable figures (including, I believe, Paul).

I think you're stretching pretty far to try and equate peices of the cross or the bodies of saints with letters written by unbelieving rabbi's that mention Jesus' name is passing.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Depends on who wrote them? Paul and Timothy and Peter certainly got their church to spread. They certainy got what people from Moon to Manson to Korresh got, but on a larger scale.

You're still not telling me what they got....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I did not say that spreading Christianity was self-serving; I said they wanted to spread it. Do you agree or disagree that Paul wanted to spread Christianity?

Paul wanted to do as God told him to do. God told him to spread the Truth.

Would you say that spreading Christianity was self-serving? or that it wasn't?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Do you feel the the gospels helped or harmed the spread of Christianity?

Definitly helped. I also think that I help to spread it everyday...

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Again. Are you disputing that they wanted to spread Christianity? Because if you are not, a discussion of *why* would not only be very speculative; but a red-herring.

I am simply asserting that it makes no sense to imply that their wanting to spread christianity is motivated by anything other than love and compassion.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

In this case no, we have opposite views.

Yeah? In this case what are my views then? I seem to think reading yours and agreeing would indicate I agree... enlighten me.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Is this now the criteria for truth? The fastest growing religion in the world by numbers is Islam, the fastest by percentage (looking only at religions with over a million adherents) is either Wicca or Falun Gong (would have to reasearch).

Again you display an incredible ability to read only what you want. I (again) will repeat that it is not a simple one fact that leads to my beliefs, it is a combination of them. The growth points me toward the belief that 2000 years ago, when the evidence was fresh, there was not enough evidence refuting Christianity to kill it, as people obviously wanted to do.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Nazism also spread very quickly... far moreso than Christanity. The willngness of a given population to embrace a belief of ideology says nothing about it's inherent truth or "goodness".

Again based on your errant assumption that speed is alone an important factor...

Originally Posted by JerryLove

And do you come to the same conclusion on why Islam spread even faster? Because of all the people who witnessed its truth?

And again...

Originally Posted by JerryLove

11 Sept 2001, 9 Nov 1989, 28 Jan 1986. And I didn't even have someone rising from the dead. I know I sure as hell would have written about it.

Prove to me it changed the world.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Not quite the offer. I will show you 2000+ year old documents of minuta if that will get you to change your position.

Rather than argue with you what I said, I will say it again and ask again that you answer.

Why would a confused rabbi's letter be studied and memorized over millenia? Why is it hard to imagine that these references to Jesus of secondary importance didn't stand the test of time or get set aside as sacred?

I didn't ask if any documents DID happen to ACCIDENTALLY survive, rather why it is SO hard to believe that any didn't.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That is a positive assertion; but it is also a red herring. I did not ask if his motivation to convert was self-serving; I claimed the authoring of the book was.

How so.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I don't have any apostles here claiming they did either. Would you like me to write on a piece of paper that pink unicorns claimed it? That's what your support amounts too.

Absurd. Find me the 2000 year old unicorn leter and we can talk.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Same with every other religion. Are they neccessairily true too?

Again you are purposely contorting what I said. I'll reiterate.

Originally Posted by JakeW

This seems to me to indicate accuracy is a better assumption that inaccuracy.

Where did you divine this to mean I am claiming all religions are true, or even that it is the reason I believe mine to be true?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

After walking on water in front o fhundreds; creating matter form nothing in front of hundreds, preaching to thousands and having thousands of followers... Saying "he was just a carpenter's son, there should be no records" is saying Hitler "was just a painter, there should be no record".

The people who saw those things did better than write letters. They traveled the world giving their lives in service to the Lord. The most educated and best among them wrote down the messages that they passed through each other orally (as was the custom for thousands of years). Saying that "there are no records" is silly.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I'm telling you that since the Gospel asserts events which we know with complete certainty that the writers (whomever they were) did not witness; the goepels are not a first-hand account.

I fail to see how this matters a bit. I ask my Grandfather about WWII. I have no problem repeating some of his more interesting stories acurately. Any text that covers a large scale event (such as the 40 years of Jesus' life) HAS to have sections where interview was good enough.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You could write a biography of Jesus; that would not be useful in establishing weather he existed. The question is not one of biographers; it is one of evidence.

Your refutation of the Bible's accuracy stems directly from your doubts about the biographers. The question IS one of biographers, they wrote the evidence.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

But a religious leader with thousands of believers might make mention somewhere.

Once he had thousands of belivers he WAS mentioned somewhere, or do you think that the thousands of christians appear overnight the day before Rome started to persecute them?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Which is odd, because Paul seems to have written prodigiously; and Christians after him left a great deal of paperwork... just none from actual witniesses.

Odd's pretty subjective, I think I'll ignore it.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Paul lived decades after that; with followers of his own... power and privelage until Nero decided he didn't like him.

Prove it.... Let's see some evidence of this "power and privelage".

Jake

[JerryLove]

You're writing me right now, you're trying to demonstrate that christianity is invalid. You are furthering the cause of atheism. I guess I can discount everything you write as self-serving....

Ignoring that I don't really have an interest in you being wrong, you are equivocating "unreliable" with "discountable".

That said, you already do consider what I say unreliable. If I were to tell you "I am God" would you believe me? No? Why not?

The Bible doesn't amount to two. There are four Gospels. Just because there is only one California Gubernatorail election doesn't mean that there is only one station presenting it on T.V. Even though they show the same events at the same time.

It is one story told 4 times. But it's also, again, a side discussion to the issue. Where is the writing of the wise men? Where is the writing of Jesus himself? Where is the writing of the pharasis (they wrote about everyone else), where is the writing of the Romans? where is the writing of anyone not heavily involved in the founding church?

I think you're stretching pretty far to try and equate peices of the cross or the bodies of saints with letters written by unbelieving rabbi's that mention Jesus' name is passing.

I'm not at all. Look at the preservation of all of Pauls letters. Look at the fakes that are scattered throughout the region. Look at the amount of preserved information about Paul, and Peter, and Christianinty later... look at the historians writing about Christianity. There is plenty of prescedent for my assertion.

You're still not telling me what they got....

What did Paul get from spreading the religion? I could guess, but I don't care. You argued that people would not spread a falsereligion without certain benifits and I proved you wrong by example. Do you dispute that he wanted to spread it?

Paul wanted to do as God told him to do. God told him to spread the Truth.

Would you say that spreading Christianity was self-serving? or that it wasn't?

Don't know, don't care.

Definitly helped. I also think that I help to spread it everyday...

OK. So you agree that Paul wanted to spread Christanity, and that his writings served that end. Ergo, they are self-serving.

I am simply asserting that it makes no sense to imply that their wanting to spread christianity is motivated by anything other than love and compassion.

Don't know his motivation, don't care. Not relevent.

Yeah? In this case what are my views then? I seem to think reading yours and agreeing would indicate I agree... enlighten me.

You feel I'm wrong, I feel you are wrong. That's opposing, not sympathetic.

Again you display an incredible ability to read only what you want. I (again) will repeat that it is not a simple one fact that leads to my beliefs, it is a combination of them.

And I point out, one by one, how they are all based on false presupposition. Your satement is not only false in inference (welcome to folklore), but false by example (with similar religions you claim are false but which had similar success).

The growth points me toward the belief that 2000 years ago, when the evidence was fresh, there was not enough evidence refuting Christianity to kill it, as people obviously wanted to do.

Paul wanted it alive, as did his many followers, as did many Jews, and did many Romans (Constantine comes to mind). Many people want Islam gone, but it remains... shall I add that to my proof that Islam is true? No? You don't want to apply the same standards evenly?

Again based on your errant assumption that speed is alone an important factor...

Based on your assertion that speed was somehow an indicator of correctness.

Prove to me it changed the world.

You want the literal proof, where all events change the world? Or the purely subjective proof, where you will simply assign your own values... Tell you what, let's try a poll: http://www.christianguitar.org/forum...ad.php?t=65709

Rather than argue with you what I said, I will say it again and ask again that you answer.

Why would a confused rabbi's letter be studied and memorized over millenia? Why is it hard to imagine that these references to Jesus of secondary importance didn't stand the test of time or get set aside as sacred?

I didn't ask if any documents DID happen to ACCIDENTALLY survive, rather why it is SO hard to believe that any didn't.

You said that it *would not* be preserved. If I show you equally old and preserved documents will you admit that it would?

How so.

How did I claim it was self serving? By saying it over and over and over.
How is it self-serving? Becuase it serves to advance an interest of it's author (specifically, the gospels sere to spread Christianity).

Absurd. Find me the 2000 year old unicorn leter and we can talk.

Oh, they were all destroied as useless. I have a modern one that I, like Paul, wrote after having a vision of the unicorn.

Where did you divine this to mean I am claiming all religions are true, or even that it is the reason I believe mine to be true?

Because other religoius texts meet the same standard which you claim makes the Bible prefacia accurate... Therefore the Quran must also be presumed accurate (by that standard) and therefore Islam is true (and most every other religion).

The people who saw those things did better than write letters. They traveled the world giving their lives in service to the Lord. The most educated and best among them wrote down the messages that they passed through each other orally (as was the custom for thousands of years). Saying that "there are no records" is silly.

Is that how the Jews left Isreal? They all stopped farming and building houses and became a race of pilgrams preaching the word... but in all those tens-of0-thousands, only Paul (who did not meet a living Jesus) bothered to write it down... how odd.

I fail to see how this matters a bit. I ask my Grandfather about WWII. I have no problem repeating some of his more interesting stories acurately.

But you are making a second-hand account. Are you admitting that the Gospels are written second-hand and not by witnesses?

Your refutation of the Bible's accuracy stems directly from your doubts about the biographers. The question IS one of biographers, they wrote the evidence.

My skeptisism over the accuracy of the Bible's claims come from their extreme nature, their dubious lack of corroboration, and the self-serving nature of the writing.

Once he had thousands of belivers he WAS mentioned somewhere, or do you think that the thousands of christians appear overnight the day before Rome started to persecute them?

Who mentioned him?

Odd's pretty subjective, I think I'll ignore it.

Then you are a hypocrite. The *only* thing you've done this entire thread is argue your "gut instinct" on what you think is "likely" while never referring back to real numbers or examples.

Prove it.... Let's see some evidence of this "power and privelage".

Do you deny that people listened to Paul? You still listen to him today. That is power. Now tell me, how did he fund his travels?

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Ignoring that I don't really have an interest in you being wrong, you are equivocating "unreliable" with "discountable".

I refuse your definition of spreading something making it unreliable. My math book spread mathematical concepts. The authors wanted to spread knowledge. Their contents must be unreliable!

It absurd, but you cling to it.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That said, you already do consider what I say unreliable. If I were to tell you "I am God" would you believe me? No? Why not?

Not true, I believe what you say unless I know better. I believe everything you claimed about chi in some other thread. I figured you were reliable there. You're oversimplifying.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It is one story told 4 times. But it's also, again, a side discussion to the issue. Where is the writing of the wise men? Where is the writing of Jesus himself? Where is the writing of the pharasis (they wrote about everyone else), where is the writing of the Romans? where is the writing of anyone not heavily involved in the founding church?

Everything that needed to be written was. The people who had first hand knowledge (the only kind you seem to find reasonable) WERE the people who founded the church (which you seem to think makes them unreliable)

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I'm not at all. Look at the preservation of all of Pauls letters. Look at the fakes that are scattered throughout the region. Look at the amount of preserved information about Paul, and Peter, and Christianinty later... look at the historians writing about Christianity. There is plenty of prescedent for my assertion.

Nope. Preserving letters written to teach people how to live their lives more pleasing to the Lord is in *no way* like passing mentionings of Jesus' name. All your preserved information later was after Jesus was resurected. It makes perfect sense that He was written about more then, becuase He was verified then....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

What did Paul get from spreading the religion? I could guess, but I don't care. You argued that people would not spread a falsereligion without certain benifits and I proved you wrong by example. Do you dispute that he wanted to spread it?

You could guess because you don't know. You claim he wrote things for self-serving reasons but you have no basis whatsoever for your assertion that it in some way served *him*.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Don't know, don't care.

Surprise Surprise....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

OK. So you agree that Paul wanted to spread Christanity, and that his writings served that end. Ergo, they are self-serving.

Nope! I think they were God-serving.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Don't know his motivation, don't care. Not relevent.

I'm not sure how you can claim that his motivation was selfish in one sentance and then decide you don't care what is motivation was in the next. It's like you change your mind every couple of lines.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

And I point out, one by one, how they are all based on false presupposition.

False statement....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Your satement is not only false in inference (welcome to folklore), but false by example (with similar religions you claim are false but which had similar success).

All false. You keep trying to simplify everything down to absurd levels and are claiming things that just arent true. First you decide that I base my beliefs on christianity on its speed alone, therefore speed of spread is an indicator of truth, you decide that I believe the bible because it says it's true, there fore all religions that say that are true. You've not shown anything to be true or even convincing.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Paul wanted it alive, as did his many followers, as did many Jews, and did many Romans (Constantine comes to mind). Many people want Islam gone, but it remains... shall I add that to my proof that Islam is true? No? You don't want to apply the same standards evenly?

Not true. Jews and Romans who "wanted it alive" were christians.

Apply your standards away, you wave them like they mean something. I asserted that there wasn't enough evidence for the pharisee to use to stop the spread of christianity 2000 years ago, and that lent support to the assumption that there's simply not that much refuting eveidence.

Apply it away to Islam! Rub it all over that baby! It's not like you have some powerful trump card to fling around here.....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Based on your assertion that speed was somehow an indicator of correctness.

A contributing indicator sure, not proof alone as you seem to feel free to use it.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You want the literal proof, where all events change the world? Or the purely subjective proof, where you will simply assign your own values... Tell you what, let's try a poll: http://www.christianguitar.org/forum...ad.php?t=65709

Appeal to popularity? I find that silly.....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You said that it *would not* be preserved. If I show you equally old and preserved documents will you admit that it would?

Read what I wrote.... "Why is it hard to believe" they weren't preserved I said.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

How did I claim it was self serving? By saying it over and over and over.
How is it self-serving? Becuase it serves to advance an interest of it's author (specifically, the gospels sere to spread Christianity).

No more convincing than saying textbooks are unreliable because they spread knowledge (as is their authors intention)

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Oh, they were all destroied as useless. I have a modern one that I, like Paul, wrote after having a vision of the unicorn.

Well bring it on down! Let's see if it can stand up to 2000 years of scrutiny like Pauls did!

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Because other religoius texts meet the same standard which you claim makes the Bible prefacia accurate...

Of course they don't.....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Therefore the Quran must also be presumed accurate (by that standard) and therefore Islam is true (and most every other religion).

Based on errant assumptions....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Is that how the Jews left Isreal? They all stopped farming and building houses and became a race of pilgrams preaching the word... but in all those tens-of0-thousands, only Paul (who did not meet a living Jesus) bothered to write it down... how odd.

Again with the odd... I don't care what you find odd....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

But you are making a second-hand account. Are you admitting that the Gospels are written second-hand and not by witnesses?

No one would argue that some of the Gospels are based on second hand information. God gave it to Matt/Mark/Luke/John and they gave it to me.... second hand....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

My skeptisism over the accuracy of the Bible's claims come from their extreme nature, their dubious lack of corroboration, and the self-serving nature of the writing.

I fail to see anything dubious or self-serving..... As for extreme, some things are...

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Then you are a hypocrite. The *only* thing you've done this entire thread is argue your "gut instinct" on what you think is "likely" while never referring back to real numbers or examples.

The only thing YOU'VE done is tell me what you feel is reliable and what is not. How is that different? You *feel* that the writings are self serving, you *feel* that they are unreliable, you *feel* that things are odd. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black....

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Do you deny that people listened to Paul? You still listen to him today. That is power. Now tell me, how did he fund his travels?

He was already wealthy. And most of the funding for early ministry was through charity of others. As for your definition of what is power, it is inadequate. Just because something has power doesn't mean it was created for the purpose of gaining power.

Jake

[JerryLove]

I refuse your definition of spreading something making it unreliable.

That's good to hear, because I never made any such claim.

Sorry Jake, you are really going to need to become far more focused if you would like to consider this conversation with me; you really are all over the place here, and I'm tired of going along for the ride. Please write a purely on-topic post and I'm happy to respond; but I got tired long ago of restating the obvious only to have it ignored.

Paul wanted to spread Christianity.
The Gospels attempt to lend credulity to the claims of Christianity.
Paul was involved in te creation of the gospels (though you can place any author you like here)
The gospels are self-serving works. They may or may not be true, but I would require corroboration to believe they were; especially in light of their claims, and especially in light of the facts that their claims, if true, should have drawn quite a bit of response.

[dungscooperdave]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

After walking on water in front o fhundreds; creating matter form nothing in front of hundreds, preaching to thousands and having thousands of followers... Saying "he was just a carpenter's son, there should be no records" is saying Hitler "was just a painter, there should be no record".

And Socrates was just the son of a stonemason. The list goes on...

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Paul wanted to spread Christianity.
The Gospels attempt to lend credulity to the claims of Christianity.
Paul was involved in te creation of the gospels (though you can place any author you like here)
The gospels are self-serving works. They may or may not be true, but I would require corroboration to believe they were; especially in light of their claims, and especially in light of the facts that their claims, if true, should have drawn quite a bit of response.

Alrighty Jerry, to sum up....

Paul wanted to obey the will of God, God commanded him to spread christianity. If you feel like distilling this to such a simplistic one liner as "Paul wanted to spread christianity" I couldn't argue with you.

I also wouldn't want to argue that the Gospels support christianity, or that Paul was involved in writing them.

My problem is the self-serving part.

I checked dictionary.com and found 3 definitions for self-serving....

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

self-serv·ing (slfsûrvng)
adj.
1.) Serving one's own interests, especially without concern for the needs or interests of others.
2.) Exhibiting concern solely for one's own interests: a speech full of self-serving comments.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
self-serving·ly adv.

[Buy it]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


selfserving

self-serving adj : interested only in yourself [syn: self-seeking]

As I see it the way that you are using self-serving ONLY fits one of these three definitions (#1) and then ONLY if you choose to excersize some linguistic gymnastics around the word "espescially". It seems to me, that given the context of the other definitions for self-serving, that ignoreing everything after "espescially" in definition #1 is an incorrect practice.

Further that you go on to use self-serving as a negative practice when you use it as an argument against the validity of the Gospels, but in the definition you chose it is not a negative at all. Self-serving as a bad thing is only applicable if you choose definition #2, or #3, or accept all of def. #1.

I think you are mixing definitions at whim, and purposely useing negative connotations that don't apply.

Specifically I think you are applying the adjective self-serving to the writers of the Gospels when they demonstrate all the antomyns of self-serving.
(altruistic, giving, humble, modest, self-effacing, and selfless as per thesaurus.com)

Jake

[JerryLove]

I can't believe there are two people on the same planet that can't understand "especially"

serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth or the interests of others - m-w.com
working or acting for your own advantage - dictionary.cambridge.com

I'm not going through this again. If you have a problem with the symantic, tough. Replace all instances of "self-serving" with "In furtherence of his interests", "helping an existing end", "Jerry Word#5" or anything else that your little heart desires, the word itself is entirely irrellevent.

But I'm done talking about this with you. It was bad enough repeating what had already been hacked upon ad inifinitum with noli, I have no desire to no repeat the same things to you over and over. Until and unless you have something new to add (something which has not occured since about page 2), this conversation is over.

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I can't believe there are two people on the same planet that can't understand "especially"

serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth or the interests of others - m-w.com
working or acting for your own advantage - dictionary.cambridge.com

I'm not going through this again. If you have a problem with the symantic, tough. Replace all instances of "self-serving" with "In furtherence of his interests", "helping an existing end", "Jerry Word#5" or anything else that your little heart desires, the word itself is entirely irrellevent.

But I'm done talking about this with you. It was bad enough repeating what had already been hacked upon ad inifinitum with noli, I have no desire to no repeat the same things to you over and over. Until and unless you have something new to add (something which has not occured since about page 2), this conversation is over.

By all means Jerry, I find your repeating of the same responses as tireing to read as you must find them to write.

If you ever feel like answering any of my objections I'll keep them warm for you.

Jake