Different Storytellers

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 28 2005, 10:34 PM']As an aside [b]and possible later thread[/b]...
[right][snapback]663256[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[i]Spare us please.[/i]

[Sirklawd]

well first i made some assertions to your claim that the bible is made up stories and cant be believed to be true. I brought up a quote (clearly from catholic answers). this quote:

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that "For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600." Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.

so if you think the bible is made-up, you MUST believe that the writings of virgil, horace, plato to be stories as well.


then after my comment about having cousins that i do not know, your rebuttle was pure assumption about what you THOUGHT may/should have happened in the bible. i then made fun of you for this - what with you having the keen ability to back up all your points with facts.

im losing faith in your Ol' lessy. under pressure you resort to the "i think" I thought all the facts were so clear??

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='Jul 28 2005, 10:37 PM']well first i made some assertions to your claim that the bible is made up stories and cant be believed to be true. I brought up a quote (clearly from catholic answers). this quote:

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that "For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600." Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.

so if you think the bible is made-up, you MUST believe that the writings of virgil, horace, plato to be stories as well.
then after my comment about having cousins that i do not know, your rebuttle was pure assumption about what you THOUGHT may/should have happened in the bible. i then made fun of you for this - what with you having the keen ability to back up all your points with facts.

im losing faith in your Ol' lessy. under pressure you resort to the "i think" I thought all the facts were so clear??
[right][snapback]663310[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

This is a near classic case of an "it does not follow" argument. It does not follow that if we have manuscripts written long after their composition, then the story cannot have been made up.

Incidently, Virgil's Aeneid is made up! :

Your claim that you had cousins you did not know clearly is not comparable to the New Scripture's description of John the Baptist "leaping in her womb" when Jesus came near, or the fact that he didn't live very far away, and he wouldn't have been told that his cousin was the Messiah.

I can see why I mave have not bothered answering these types of arguments.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 28 2005, 05:25 PM']RESPONSE:

Evidence please.

But I don't waste time with  posts which supposedly  "strike down" my assertions by using faulty reasoning and arguments.

For example, if you were to claim that "everybody knows" that saints have halos because they are depicted as having them in so many pictures, I probably am not going to waste time responding.

And as a general rule, if a post runs longer than a page and the poster doesn't even include a topic sentence by the close of the first paragraph, it's evident we're dealing with a "rave" rather than an argument.

Actually, I don't  see too many rebutals to the contradictions in scripture I'm presenting.  I felt sure someone would try one of the classic apologics arguments to explain why Matthew claimed Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod (died 4 B.C.) and Luke claimed Jesus was born during the governorship of Quinarius (egan 6 A.D).

But, after presenting so many examples, perhaps readers recognize we are really dealing with different stories or legends by different stroytellers after all.
[right][snapback]662793[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



What does where and when Christ was born have to do with faith or morals?

Faith topics of matter: Sacraments, Mary, Resurrection, etc...
Moral Topics of matter: Sins, Social Justice, Alms, etc...

Topics that matter not: What actually is the smallest seed, exact time Christ was born, exact place Christ was born, did Christ write anything, did the Apostles use an outhouse or a bush when relieving themselves, etc...

Things were written to teach people the way to salvation... Christ's way. The way has nothing to do with "topics that matter not"... it has to do with the way people would understand the teaching.

This is where knowing how to think helps people... the first rule to knowing how to think in theology is that the wisest source of reasoning comes from the Church which is guided by God.

God speaks through the Church, you should listen to Him sometime.


Your arguements sound like the godless attackers that I've seen, they pick details about things that they think contradict, yet they don't. Take for instance the death of Judas... they do not contradict at all, it's people's interpretations of them that contradict... to be hung in 33 AD meant to be impaled on a spear... he was hung via impaled on a spear, his insides would have spewed out.... or if he was hung from a tree the heat could have ballooned his body until it burst.

Edited July 29, 2005 by ironmonk

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 06:21 AM']RESPONSE:

Your claim that you had cousins you did not know clearly is not comparable to the New Scripture's description of  John the Baptist "leaping in her womb" when Jesus came near, or the fact that he didn't live very far away, and he wouldn't have been told that his cousin was the Messiah.

I can see why I mave have not bothered  answering these types of arguments.
[right][snapback]663528[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


just because you dont say the words "i think" doesnt make arguements like this any less of an assumption.



i can also see why you havnt bothered to answer me, if assuptions are all you have.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 29 2005, 07:43 AM']What does where and when Christ was born have to do with faith or morals?

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

It has to do with how much of the Gospel of Luke is creditable history or fictional.

Unless you have no difficulty basing your faith on fiction. :

[Sirklawd]

you ever think of what your gonna do once you prove to the world that catholicism is a waste of time? some just having nothing else to do with your life?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 28 2005, 08:21 PM']You have no solid proof that Luke was wrong in his account.

From the Jerusalem Bible notes:

"the most probable explanation is that the census, which was made with a view to taxation, took place around 8-6 B.C. as part of a general census of the empire, and that it was organised in Palestine by Quirinius who was especially appointed for this purpose."

Also, exact dates of these events are not known, being estimates given by later historians.  None of this does anything to prove Luke's Gospel false.

The dating of the Christian era is based on a later miscalculation.
[right][snapback]663188[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Nope. The census of Judah took place when Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6 A.D. See, Luke 2, Josephus's "Jewish Wars" 2.117-8, and Josephus's "Jewish Antiquities" 18.1-8

The claim that Quinarius was governor twice is without evidence, but it is necessary for apologists to maintain to try to reconcile the obvious contradiction between Matthew's and Luke's nativity narratives.

On the other hand, if you claim to have evidence, rather than that "the exact dates are unknown," I'd like to see it.

I always go by the best evidence.

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 09:54 AM']RESPONSE:

I always go by the best evidence.
[right][snapback]663658[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

lol you didnt just say that did you?

"[b]I think[/b] that the New American Bible, sponsored by the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, and produced by the Catholic Biblical Association with a foreword of approval by the pope might be considered more or less the official Church Teachings."

"Taken overall, these [b]obviously[/b] lack credibility"

"she [b]might[/b] have been talking about only herself or herself and the two angels who were there."

" And you don't suppose that Elizabeth would have told John the Baptist about his illustrious cousin?"

"or the fact that he didn't live very far away, and he wouldn't have been told that his cousin was the Messiah." (classic: Im littleles and my assumptions are fact)

me personal favorite:
"Sorry you're uncomfortable with the evidence I post. But facts just don't go away."

i'd personally like to take the time right now to thank LittleLes for coming to the forums here and doing what he does. For someone like me who doesnt know everything about church history or apologetics for that matter - I am able to see a great variety of attacks on the church (attacks that have been made for centuries) and see all the reasons why they are wrong - from my phello phatmassers.

so in a sense, thank you Les for the training and encouraging me to learn about my faith and love it more.

Edited July 29, 2005 by Sirklawd

[Paladin D]

Littleles, if most of the Bible is fiction, where does that lead you (in terms of your faith)? What kind of a relationship with Christ do you really have? Afterall, the Gospel accounts are merely fiction in your mind.

If you claim to be Catholic, yet know hardly anything about Christ, the only point of you to claim to be part of the Church is for either social or credibility reasons. This, I'm afraid, is most likely the case.

[Sirklawd]

i cant imagine him to be catholic when his singular focus is to prove that the church is founded on fiction, hypocritical, a waste of time, and just plain wrong. the real question is.. what did the catholic church ever do to him?

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='Jul 29 2005, 01:47 PM']what did the catholic church ever do to him?
[right][snapback]663915[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='Jul 29 2005, 10:11 AM']lol you didnt just say that did you?

"[b]I think[/b] that the New American Bible, sponsored by the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, and produced by the Catholic Biblical Association with a foreword of approval by the pope might be considered more or less the official Church Teachings."

"Taken overall, these [b]obviously[/b] lack credibility"

"she [b]might[/b] have been talking about only herself or herself and the two angels who were there."

" And you don't suppose that Elizabeth would have told John the Baptist about his illustrious cousin?"

"or the fact that he didn't live very far away, and he wouldn't have been told that his cousin was the Messiah." (classic: Im littleles and my assumptions are fact)

me personal favorite:
"Sorry you're uncomfortable with the evidence I post. But facts just don't go away."

i'd personally like to take the time right now to thank LittleLes for coming to the forums here and doing what he does. For someone like me who doesnt know everything about church history or apologetics for that matter - I am able to see a great variety of attacks on the church (attacks that have been made for centuries) and see all the reasons why they are wrong - from my phello phatmassers.

so in a sense, thank  you Les for the training and encouraging me to learn about my faith and love it more.
[right][snapback]663689[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

Lets see, 2 women and 1 angel, then 3 women and 1 angel, then 4 or more women and 2 angels, and finally 1 woman and 2 angels.

And Elizabeth forgot to mention to her son, John the Baptist, that his cousin was the Messiah.

Is this sort of thing history or multiple legends?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 29 2005, 11:57 AM']Littleles, if most of the Bible is fiction, where does that lead you (in terms of your faith)?  What kind of a relationship with Christ do you really have?  Afterall, the Gospel accounts are merely fiction in your mind.

If you claim to be Catholic, yet know hardly anything about Christ, the only point of you to claim to be part of the Church is for either social or credibility reasons.  This, I'm afraid, is most likely the case.
[right][snapback]663852[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Again the fundamental all-or- nothing belief fallacy.

And do you believe a relationship with Jesus should be based on the acceptance of fiction in place of fact?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='Jul 29 2005, 12:47 PM']i cant imagine him to be catholic when his singular focus is to prove that the church is founded on fiction, hypocritical, a waste of time, and just plain wrong. the real question is.. what did the catholic church ever do to him?
[right][snapback]663915[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE

They told him a great many fibs, as having come from God.