Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@Diotrephes
“There are two major textual variants of Acts, the Western text-type and the Alexandrian. The oldest complete Alexandrian manuscripts date from the 4th century and the oldest Western ones from the 6th, with fragments and citations going back to the 3rd.“
Source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles
No I don’t have any photos.
catholicray,
"No I don’t have any photos."
Here is one. It's a fake = hoax.
http://csntm.org/Manuscript/View/Rahlfs_964
It is written in the modern Greek alphabet so it can't be from the 4th Century.
Diotrephes,
I'm not familiar with the greek language. Could you provide a source on the matter concerning authenticity? My question being, as I am not familiar with ancient greek, is how is it officially determined when the modern greek alphabet was first used?
catholicray,
"I'm not familiar with the greek language. Could you provide a source on the matter concerning authenticity? My question being, as I am not familiar with ancient greek, is how is it officially determined when the modern greek alphabet was first used?"
Different areas of what we consider "Greece" used some similar letters in their alphabets but they were not all consistent and used all of the letters. It can be confusing when comparing Athens to Corinth or Crete.
http://www.ancientscripts.com/greek.html
So when looking at a supposedly ancient Greek manuscript it is fairly easy to identify ones written in the Modern Greek alphabet because it uses a lot of different symbols. Consequently if you recognize any of the Modern Greek symbols you know that the manuscript was written in "modern" times. IOW, it is definitely after the year 1000 AD if not after the mid-15th Century. The issue is further complicated because there are numerous varities of Modern Greek (Varieties of Modern Greek include several varieties, including Demotic, Katharevousa, Pontic, Cappadocian, Mariupolitan, Southern Italian, Yevanic and Tsakonian) = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Greek
So read the article, which may help to explain the confusing items better that I can. But when you see a manuscript that contains any of the Modern Greek symbols you may want to consider that you are looking at a hoax and not at a legitimate artifact.
And don't forget, really ancient Greek was written in both directions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boustrophedon#/media/File:Crete_-_law_of_G...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boustrophedon
catholicray: "I'm not familiar with the greek language. Could you provide a source on the matter concerning authenticity?"
I am one such source. My parents-in-law were immigrant Greeks. My wife was a first generation Greek-American. Trust me. The reference Diotrephes shows is written in Greek that is no older than 17th century Greek.
Sorry, but everything about the Torah/Bible/Qu'ran is fake. It is nothing but an anthology of plagiarized myths and legends far, FAR!, older than the Bible itself and the Hebrews (Jews, Israelites, Whatthefuckeverites, etc.).
Why can you not do some actual true research? I even made a thread asking why you Religious Absolutists are so damned afraid of doing your own research outside of the Bible/Church.
A new spelling for the gathering place of the religious: Chruch, with the first "ch" pronounced like the Scotish and German "ch" as a "k."
rmfr
@ CR
as these forums become very confusing it is a good idea to indicate to whom you are replying then quote a line or two from their post so there is no confusion.
Makes it easier to track the conversation
@ CR
Factual History is not easy, however in that one sentence you made a supposition that the 'apostles' existed. There is no contemporary evidence for such a thing.
There is no contemporary, corroborated accounts of the apostles; who they were, where they died and how.
That is the difference between history as researched by theologians who are seeking to confirm a supposition, and history, where we look for corroboration, facts and archeology.
At the moment the existence of a human Jesus figure and his companions is "not proven". There is no contemporary evidence for such a figure or his entourage.
That makes the probability of a divine jesus as described in the gospels as "improbable".
On the chance that you were directing this comment to me:
The earliest fragment we have of Acts dates to the late 2nd/early 3rd century CE. (fragment 0189) It is anonymous.
Analysis of the text of Acts suggests dates (by theologians) to late 60's CE and by secular textual experts to be mid 2nd century.
Certainly textual analysis of Acts suggests that it is not chronicling the same individual as described in the first epistles.
Hope this helps you.
Old man shouts,
Fair enough but we have fragments of the new testament dated to the first and second century.
Source:
https://voice.dts.edu/article/wallace-new-testament-manscript-first-cent...
I am okay if you are skeptical as to whether they existed or not but what would be the reason to think that the various new testament text are not accurate in their account of the existence of the apostles. Early Church Fathers seem to corroborate the existence of Paul and Peter. The manuscript testimony is well enough before the legalization of Christianity. Why would people die rather than reveal that their position is fake?
Source:
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/christians.htm
catholicray,
"Fair enough but we have fragments of the new testament dated to the first and second century."
One thing you should be aware of is that there are are lot of claims about such things but you will never see any large clear, in-focus, plainly readable images of such things. They are always small, out of focus and tilted at an unreadable angle. That is an excellent indication that they are fakes.
@ CR
I don't think you know your subject as well as you think you do. I already gave you the earliest fragment (P37)...and ALL date from the second century at the earliest
You will find a good starting list of major documented finds listed here: https://carm.org/KJVO/chronological-list-of-major-greek-new-testament-ma...
Note these are but fragments. No conclusion can be drawn about the contents of the entire text.
Really? Your sources please. There is no contemporary evidence for either that I can find. Knock yourself out...
Fake news indeed.
If you don't understand that millions of people have died for an idea then there is little hope for you understanding history.
Here's some examples:
The women of Okinawa and Iwo Jima.
The 300 Spartans at Thermopylae
Several thousand members of SS Battalions during the final campaigns committed suicide attacks, or suicide.
The "Divine Wind " Warriors of Japan
I could go on but that is just off the top of my head.
Also read some history: Christians were persecuted twice in Rome. Once under Nero when they were accused of abominations and starting the great fire.
The order was quickly rescinded after a short but violent persecution of both them and the jews who had particular favourable status in Rome. It was restored quickly.
Then again in 81 CE for another short period, again the jews ( christians were considered jews) bore the brunt. by the turn of the 1st century the various sects of christians were a recognised part of the landscape throughout the Roman Empire.
Many more jews and christians agreed to sacrifice to the Emperor rather than face the punishment than were ever martyred.
To follow and finalise your argument; all those heretics who died over the centuries of Catholic rule without renouncing their faith/witchcraft/heresy are all proof that their particular version of god(s) is true? And that the inquisition was wrong, and by extension their god?
Try some logic there please. Murder is only proof of murderers.
(Edit tags)
@Old man shouts
It seems like we lost some posts since I’ve been gone. Anyways I’d like to share the following because I feel like we’ll just go back and forth forever speaking past each other.
There is a well written academic book:
The Ressurection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach
The ultimate answer to your question is not that I have certainty in my own position. Rather that, based on a multitude of issues I believe it is reasonable to doubt your position.
@ Ray
And written by a theist. The facts of the matter are as I have stated:
" there is no contemporary evidence for a jesus figure as described in the gospels. None."
Some academics, notable those who are already theists or theologians, do indeed support Carriers notion of the "Probability' of a human jesus type figure in the first third of the 1st century CE
However not one latter day non theist historian (not historiographer) I have heard supports the idea of the magical jesus as described in the gospels.
So let us break it down: The probabilities of the divine, magical jesus existing as described in the gospels: No probability.
The probabilities for a human figure corresponding to the gospel narrative : Not proven so possible.
A human figure who gathered followers, and claimed to be the Messiah, were not uncommon in the 1st century Middle East. There were many recorded at the time by historians and military figures. Some were reported to be doing magic tricks exactly as described about the Jesus figure. I can give you a list of those "messiahs" if you wish. Research them it is an interesting read with many parallels to your particular interest.
For the jesus figure despite all the amazing claims? Nothing , Nada, zilch. Not one contemporary mention.
In this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
I recommend you look up the Yale lectures on the gospels, a whole series but very interesting.
I would suggest that you look up the differeneces between "historiography", actual 'History' and 'Historicity'.
I write from a viewpoint of Factual History.
(edit last two lines added)
@Old man shouts
I appreciate your perspective and I am open to further study always. Do you have links to the Yale lectures?
Also could you provide a link to your preference of source for defining the various terms you listed?
Sounds like I have much to research before we can move beyond talking past each other.
Thank you for the help.
@ Ray
historiography
noun
the study of the writing of history and of written histories.
the writing of history.
History
The study of past events, particularly in human affairs.
historicity
noun
historical authenticity.
https://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-6
This is the one about the gospel of Mark. Interesting to watch.
I suggest you look at the book list here on Atheist Republic and also read some Robert Carrier and some Ehrman before getting into the heavy stuff I am now immersed in.
I understand your perspective as you have been immersed, or rather shackled and blindfolded, by your church and only drip fed the knowledge they want you to have. Sadly, that is mostly self serving in order to preserve a false narrative of authority.
One of the most widely read and profound scholars I have met was a Jesuit priest in the UK, he was a great friend. He played a vicious game of croquet while we drank wine and discussed these matters. He was open minded but conceded he had access to resources that he would counsel (forcibly) his parishioners not to read or even acknowledge their existence.
Remember the 'index' was in force until the sixties and even later in some traditional diocese.
@ Ray
I don;t know whether you read all the posts but here is a potted and necessarily brief timeline of the gospels. Everything I write in this response is verifiable.
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/issue-interpreting#com...
I wrote this in reply to a query about the interpretations of god(s). It is a good starting point for your research.
BTW I recommend you steer clear of theist historiographers and historicists as they are not interested in facts but speculation. Go for history and its mistress: archeology. Facts, unlike speculation, are unarguable.
@Old man shouts
I’ll definitely look into what you have provided. Thank you for sharing.
Wow, a biblical inerrancy apologist writing a "historical" approach to a supernatural event(resurrection of Jesus)?
Skeptic alarm at 9!
@ Nyar
You got that right...it's a four alarm fire. He devotes a huge prologue to his definition and version of Historiography (naturally phrased to justify his later conclusions) before "examining" the accounts of the resurrection etc. He glosses over the complete lack of corroboration (as we would expect) and . surprise surprise, on no actual historical evidence at all...pronounces the gospel accounts correct.
That was 6 hours of my life I won't get back. Verdict? BLEH!!!!!!
catholicray,
"The Ressurection of Jesus"
The only resurrection was after the Jesus character told people that they had to become vampire cannibals they kicked him to the curb. At that time he lost almost all of his followers. Later on new gullible people had not heard that part so they joined the cult and over time, 2,000 years later, it now numbers in the billions. So that was a very big resurrection but the Jesus character will never come back in person.
Will you kill Jesus, drain and drink his warm sticky blood, and eat all of his actual physical corpse for eternal life?
@Diotrephes
There is so much you’ve said that simply speaks past my position. If you’re going to challenge someone, you have to attack them where they are. Your post serves to destroy a straw man but I didn’t find it moving personally.
To attack me you’ll need to understand the sacramental system and how salvation operates within and without that system.
Will you numb nuts quit posting in this fucking thread? HELL NO! I do not read any religious bullshit. I am tired of seeing this thread getting bumped all the damned time. No one reads any religious texts, especially the religious.
rmfr
@ Arakish
Well we are a grumpy little overgrown bonsai this morning, aren't we?
For your information my nuts are the Macadamia variety, the hardest nut in the world. Only the red tailed black cockatoos feed on them in this part of the world.
So if I were you I would look after your own nuts.......Oh, wait, is it that time of year for you? You've gone all nutty on us? It's ok, we'll just pat you and ignore your outbursts, we know its just your hormones and you cannot help it.
I'll carry on rooting for you, I know your bark is worse than your bite. If we leaf you alone you will soon twig that it is just the desire to bust your cherry. I seed that straight away. I will go out on a limb and guess you need some pruning for breakfast to help flush that nasty mood away...
BWAA Haaa Haaa
LMAOWFWROF
rmfr
catholicray,
"To attack me you’ll need to understand the sacramental system and how salvation operates within and without that system."
You should always read and understand the fine print before agreeing to a contract.
The question was "will you kill Jesus, drain and drink his blood, and eat his corpse in order to gain eternal life?" That question has nothing to do with salvation, which is an entirely different subject and has nothing to do with eternal life.
Do you understand the difference between the two issues? You can gain eternal life but it doesn't mean that you will gain salvation. You can gain salvation but it doesn't mean that will will gain eternal life. You have to understand what is meant by "salvation". It does not mean the same as eternal life. It may simply mean that you won't get your butt thrown into the lake of fire.
So, do you want to answer the question: Would you kill Jesus, drain and drink his sticky blood, and eat all of his corpse except for his hair, nails, bones and teeth in order to gain eternal life?
Salvation is another issue.
As it says in Romans 10:10 (CEB) = "Trusting with the heart leads to righteousness, and confessing with the mouth leads to salvation."
Notice that salvation has nothing to do with being a vampire cannibal.
"we have fragments of the new testament dated to the first and second century."
So hearsay constructed centuries after the fact then.
@ Ray
Try applying these criteria (And I mean strictly and factually...no wishes, no presupposition, no comfort zone)
Depending on the degree of importance of knowing the truth of something we make sure we are being told the truth by checking such things as:
-who is telling us this?
-how do I know if I can trust them?
-can their claims be confirmed somehow?
-how do I know if this document is genuine?
This is how history is researched. Then hopefully there is archeological evidence to back it all up.
Once you have applied these criteria for what we have about the jesus figure you will see, I hope, why I maintain "Not Proven" for a human jesus and an "improbable" for a divine one.
I look forward to chatting to you again.
No
@arakish: My nuts are numb and I can't help myself. I'm hoping the fiery anger of arakish will un-stick these swollen frosty blue numb nuts from the keyboard. (soon) *Message for the kids. Don't watch porn in the winter with the windows open and the keyboard in your lap. Things can freeze really fast. I had to type this with my nose.
@Cog Re: "I'm hoping the fiery anger of arakish will un-stick these swollen frosty blue numb nuts from the keyboard."
Oh, boo-friggin'-hoo, banana brain! At least YOU don't have to worry about walking around on a freezing cold day with a bunch of idiots moaning and groaning and crying because they thought it would be funny to touch their tongues to you. So quit yer bitchin'... *rolling eyes*...
@Tin-Man
I'mmm thaary I cannth rethly to thath poththt tith nobw. I wath twying thoo wamm upth my babwals an my tonggu goth skuck thoo them, try lather.
Pages