Who's Right? Who's Wrong?

[buffalo]

It’s generally agreed by scholars that the disciples themselves did not write the gospels – the gospels are attributed to them, but their contents probably derived from oral tradition.

There’s nothing that indicates that the gospels were written by the disciples.

And indeed if someone were making the claim that a roman slave did miraculous things, I would certainly not believe that such a slave existed unless there was some good, strong evidence supporting it – not a handful of stories written anonymously by followers of the slave decades and decades later.

No, the point is that the accounts are not contemporary. When we verify whether historical individuals existed, we rely upon contemporary sources to verify their existence

No one is disputing that Christians existed.

I’m sure you’ll agree that followers of Krishna existed, but that doesn’t “prove” that Krishna was an historical individual or a god.

The supposed grisly fates of some of the disciples are also largely unverifiable; and in any event, the willingness of a person to die for a belief doesn’t prove that the belief is true – just that the person was willing to die for it.

No, that is wrong. History is a very well-developed human science based on evidence. While we may not be able to be absolutely certain of the past, we can definitely evaluate claims about history to determine which ones are more likely and which ones are less likely to be true.

I could go through each figure on your list, but I’ll just pick a few – it is incontestable that Washington existed. We have letters that he wrote, things that were written about him by contemporaries (and not all flattering), items he owned, records of land he owned (and people he owned!), Oh, and also, he was president of the United States. He made huge policy decisions and we have testimony of other world leaders meeting him. It would be crazy to assert that George Washington might not have lived.

However, some aspects of his life are less verifiable. Most people concede that the “cherry tree” story is a myth – there’s nothing to confirm it, and it sounds like too much of a self-serving, image-bolstering tall tale.

Indeed, if you read descriptions of great men from history, you will often find tall tales springing up around them – the Roman generals, for example, were written about by Roman historians in ways that made it seem like they had supernatural powers or that they were the recipients of supernatural omens. Tall tales do spring up around figures that inspire people.

So we can say that the “cherry tree” episode of Washington’s life is less likely to be true and probably a myth.

Now, Buddha, on the other hand – the only real information we have about his life comes from the Pali Cannon, written at least a hundred years after he lived by his followers. Furthmore, accounts of his life are mixed with things that are unverifiable and that defy our understanding of the universe, like the assertion that he was aided by the god Brahma Sahapati.

As such, I don’t think there’s enough evidence to say that the legendary Buddha, as depicted in the Pali Cannon, existed. Now I do think it is likely that a real person (or maybe people) existed as the basis for the Buddha legend, but I can’t really claim this as a fact.

Similarly, I think it is likely that a person named Jesus existed (or perhaps several rabbis who taught similar things), but I don’t think that there is enough evidence to believe the tall tales that sprung up around him.

So as you can see, learning about history is a process of deciding what is most likely to be true and what is least likely to be true depending upon evidence. A bunch of stories don’t cut it.

This lays it all out.

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]
By
Dennis Barton
**
The Gospels are Historical**

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It’s generally agreed by scholars that the disciples themselves did not write the gospels – the gospels are attributed to them, but their contents probably derived from oral tradition.

There’s nothing that indicates that the gospels were written by the disciples.

And indeed if someone were making the claim that a roman slave did miraculous things, I would certainly not believe that such a slave existed unless there was some good, strong evidence supporting it – not a handful of stories written anonymously by followers of the slave decades and decades later.

No, the point is that the accounts are not contemporary. When we verify whether historical individuals existed, we rely upon contemporary sources to verify their existence

No one is disputing that Christians existed.

I’m sure you’ll agree that followers of Krishna existed, but that doesn’t “prove” that Krishna was an historical individual or a god.

The supposed grisly fates of some of the disciples are also largely unverifiable; and in any event, the willingness of a person to die for a belief doesn’t prove that the belief is true – just that the person was willing to die for it.

No, that is wrong. History is a very well-developed human science based on evidence. While we may not be able to be absolutely certain of the past, we can definitely evaluate claims about history to determine which ones are more likely and which ones are less likely to be true.

I could go through each figure on your list, but I’ll just pick a few – it is incontestable that Washington existed. We have letters that he wrote, things that were written about him by contemporaries (and not all flattering), items he owned, records of land he owned (and people he owned!), Oh, and also, he was president of the United States. He made huge policy decisions and we have testimony of other world leaders meeting him. It would be crazy to assert that George Washington might not have lived.

However, some aspects of his life are less verifiable. Most people concede that the “cherry tree” story is a myth – there’s nothing to confirm it, and it sounds like too much of a self-serving, image-bolstering tall tale.

Indeed, if you read descriptions of great men from history, you will often find tall tales springing up around them – the Roman generals, for example, were written about by Roman historians in ways that made it seem like they had supernatural powers or that they were the recipients of supernatural omens. Tall tales do spring up around figures that inspire people.

So we can say that the “cherry tree” episode of Washington’s life is less likely to be true and probably a myth.

Now, Buddha, on the other hand – the only real information we have about his life comes from the Pali Cannon, written at least a hundred years after he lived by his followers. Furthmore, accounts of his life are mixed with things that are unverifiable and that defy our understanding of the universe, like the assertion that he was aided by the god Brahma Sahapati.

As such, I don’t think there’s enough evidence to say that the legendary Buddha, as depicted in the Pali Cannon, existed. Now I do think it is likely that a real person (or maybe people) existed as the basis for the Buddha legend, but I can’t really claim this as a fact.

Similarly, I think it is likely that a person named Jesus existed (or perhaps several rabbis who taught similar things), but I don’t think that there is enough evidence to believe the tall tales that sprung up around him.

So as you can see, learning about history is a process of deciding what is most likely to be true and what is least likely to be true depending upon evidence. A bunch of stories don’t cut it.

 

[allhers]

In regards to what we (we as in everyone of any belief) believe, who’s right? Are Catholics right? Muslims? Atheists?
How do we know? Of course, certain things can be proven scientifically, but other things cannot. So how do we know?
Well, I guess we don’t really, do we? I’m sure you believe without any doubt that you know who and what the true God is, or how many of them there are. But are you more sure than someone of another religion?
What makes any of us superior over another? So is only one of us right? Or are all of us right? Or are we all wrong?
I’m merely think aloud, and wanted your opinions.

Personally, I think this is why Jesus founded a visable Church.

 

[Sideline]

I think it was Chesterton who stated something to the effect that I would rather be a Catholic christian who discovers at death that there was no God, rather than and Atheist who discovers at death there is a God.

Interesting.

I would rather face God as an atheist, rather than to return to the Catholic Church out of selfish and self-serving reasons… like getting into heaven.

If I really were going to face some cosmic judge, I’d rather face him/her/it/them/those as honestly as possible, and that means being true to by non-belief.

 

[VociMike]

In regards to what we (we as in everyone of any belief) believe, who’s right? Are Catholics right? Muslims? Atheists?
How do we know? Of course, certain things can be proven scientifically, but other things cannot. So how do we know?
Well, I guess we don’t really, do we? I’m sure you believe without any doubt that you know who and what the true God is, or how many of them there are. But are you more sure than someone of another religion?
What makes any of us superior over another? So is only one of us right? Or are all of us right? Or are we all wrong?
I’m merely think aloud, and wanted your opinions.

So, how would you answer your own question? What standards would you use to determine who is right and who is wrong? And how do you know those are the right standards?

BTW, 99% (give or take) of everything science has ever “known” has later shown to be incorrect, so don’t hold up science as the model here.

 

[buffalo]

Interesting.

I would rather face God as an atheist, rather than to return to the Catholic Church out of selfish and self-serving reasons… like getting into heaven.

If I really were going to face some cosmic judge, I’d rather face him/her/it/them/those as honestly as possible, and that means being true to by non-belief.

Man, I really want to get to heaven. Call it selfish. You can even pin me with fear of hell. However, the real scenario is I desire to be with God out of love. Humans cannot desire what they do not know.

I don’t have a choice who I am going to face. You don’t either.

And that is what is known as being obstinate. You will not turn toward God under any circumstances, which we know as mortal sin.

 

[PJM]

Kat876;4765780]In regards to what we believe, who’s right? Are Catholics right? Muslims? Atheists?

What makes any of us superior over another? So is only one of us right? Or are all of us right? Or are we all wrong?
I’m merely think aloud, and wanted your opinions.

I certainly calim no superiority! But if your seeking THE TRUTH (and there is only ONE) when it comes to Faith and or Morals, the RCC is where it is located. So say’s Jesus Christ Himself:thumbsup:

Matt. 16:13-19

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I (singular) tell you, (singular) you are Peter, and on this (singular) rock I (singular) will build my (singular) church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. (singular) 19 I (singular) will give you (singular) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you (singular) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you (singular) loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

First: we accept the fact that word’s have specific, “common” meeting to those giving utterance and to those being spoken to.

Point One: Why did Jesus select the area of Caesarea Philippi, Reply: Caesarea Philippi is located in the northern part of Judea. The above quoted passage took place on a large hill, and was the location of a very large, and locally famous, Pagan Temple. As a “safeguard” the temple was build behind a huge protective ROCK.

Point Two: In O.T. biblical days it was common for cities to be walled and fortified. Further, they really did have a main gate, and there was a Key to the City, that really locked and unlocked the main gate.

Point Three: In the quoted bible passage: “I,” “you,” “my,” and “church” are all singular for very specific reasons. “Church” for example clearly, indisputably, shows God’s intent to start and Shepherd only “one church.”

Point Four: In every walled city there was a “King” which is the role Jesus assumes in this story. “Hail King of the Jews!” Mark 15:18

Point Five: As one might expect, actually running the city was a whole lot like real work, so it was delegated to another, usually called the “Prime Minister.” So we will use that term for the one who actually ran the city, day in, and day out. The P.M. answered ONLY to “the King.” What the PM ordered done, was done, and what the PM forbid, was legally forbidden, and violators were punished by the PM.

Point Six: The terms, “To Bind and or To Loose” were legal and binding at law, Rabbinical Terms, known and accepted by all those Jesus was speaking too as authority to Govern.

Point Seven: Just as Jesus is the King in this story, Simon, Now “Peter” (Greek for “rock,”) is the new Prime Minister! As such he in given total and complete autonomous rule and daily governance of the New Church that Jesus has just created. “On this “rock” meaning the very person of Peter himself, “I” will build “my” church. Again Words Mean Something!

Point Eight: “I will give you” Peter the Key’s to the Kingdom of Heaven. PERIOD! This is God telling us this fact.

Point Nine: The power to govern is immediate, total, complete, unlimited and binding on all. Amen!

Point Ten: God knew what He was doing, Jesus knew what He was setting up, Peter and the Apostles understood exactly what was meant and accepted and lived in obedience, what God had ordained. We, my friend are to do no less. “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her,” does not mean that sin cannot or for that matter, does not exist within Her. No, what is promised by God is two-fold. First, sin will not prevail! Second, God promised to send the Holy Spirit, as the guarantor of TRUTH, that any official pronouncement from “the chair of Peter,” on matters of Faith and or Morals, cannot, I repeat, cannot be in error, because God Himself say’s so.

First we note in verse 14, that Jesus asked the question: ”who do people say that I am?” In verse 15 He asked His twelve

deciples, “but who do YOU say that I am?” And we find that they are speechless. Then Simon Peter replies: “You are the Christ.” Jesus replies in verse 17: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It’s generally agreed by scholars that the disciples themselves did not write the gospels – the gospels are attributed to them, but their contents probably derived from oral tradition.

There’s nothing that indicates that the gospels were written by the disciples.

And indeed if someone were making the claim that a roman slave did miraculous things, I would certainly not believe that such a slave existed unless there was some good, strong evidence supporting it – not a handful of stories written anonymously by followers of the slave decades and decades later.

No, the point is that the accounts are not contemporary. When we verify whether historical individuals existed, we rely upon contemporary sources to verify their existence

No one is disputing that Christians existed.

I’m sure you’ll agree that followers of Krishna existed, but that doesn’t “prove” that Krishna was an historical individual or a god.

The supposed grisly fates of some of the disciples are also largely unverifiable; and in any event, the willingness of a person to die for a belief doesn’t prove that the belief is true – just that the person was willing to die for it.

No, that is wrong. History is a very well-developed human science based on evidence. While we may not be able to be absolutely certain of the past, we can definitely evaluate claims about history to determine which ones are more likely and which ones are less likely to be true.

I could go through each figure on your list, but I’ll just pick a few – it is incontestable that Washington existed. We have letters that he wrote, things that were written about him by contemporaries (and not all flattering), items he owned, records of land he owned (and people he owned!), Oh, and also, he was president of the United States. He made huge policy decisions and we have testimony of other world leaders meeting him. It would be crazy to assert that George Washington might not have lived.

However, some aspects of his life are less verifiable. Most people concede that the “cherry tree” story is a myth – there’s nothing to confirm it, and it sounds like too much of a self-serving, image-bolstering tall tale.

Indeed, if you read descriptions of great men from history, you will often find tall tales springing up around them – the Roman generals, for example, were written about by Roman historians in ways that made it seem like they had supernatural powers or that they were the recipients of supernatural omens. Tall tales do spring up around figures that inspire people.

So we can say that the “cherry tree” episode of Washington’s life is less likely to be true and probably a myth.

Now, Buddha, on the other hand – the only real information we have about his life comes from the Pali Cannon, written at least a hundred years after he lived by his followers. Furthmore, accounts of his life are mixed with things that are unverifiable and that defy our understanding of the universe, like the assertion that he was aided by the god Brahma Sahapati.

As such, I don’t think there’s enough evidence to say that the legendary Buddha, as depicted in the Pali Cannon, existed. Now I do think it is likely that a real person (or maybe people) existed as the basis for the Buddha legend, but I can’t really claim this as a fact.

Similarly, I think it is likely that a person named Jesus existed (or perhaps several rabbis who taught similar things), but I don’t think that there is enough evidence to believe the tall tales that sprung up around him.

So as you can see, learning about history is a process of deciding what is most likely to be true and what is least likely to be true depending upon evidence. A bunch of stories don’t cut it.

i just spent an hour typing out a reasoned reply, then i see i didnt post it right, so i will briefly recap.

1. that is not the mainstream view, that is the crackpots veiw of the historicity of Christ. check your sources better before you post such things as the general opinion of scholars.
2. the apostles suffered and died becuase they were witnesses to Christs Divine Ministry, show me anywhere else men have done the same thing.
3. you accept historical figures historicity on the basis of documentation that you can verify no more in one case or another. yet you hold Christianity to a higher standard, its documetation is not good enough, though it comes froma large variety of writers.
4. you dont seem to realize that we are the living witnesses to Christ, from Christ to Peter all the way to Pope Benedict today.

you can have all the opinions of an event you like, yet we as a church were the witnesses to those events.

 

[Eucharisted]

In regards to what we (we as in everyone of any belief) believe, who’s right? Are Catholics right? Muslims? Atheists?
How do we know? Of course, certain things can be proven scientifically, but other things cannot. So how do we know?
Well, I guess we don’t really, do we? I’m sure you believe without any doubt that you know who and what the true God is, or how many of them there are. But are you more sure than someone of another religion?
What makes any of us superior over another? So is only one of us right? Or are all of us right? Or are we all wrong?
I’m merely think aloud, and wanted your opinions.

Hello, agonstism. Good-bye, agnostism.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

QUOTE=Sideline;4770801]Interesting.

I would rather face God as an atheist, rather than to return to the Catholic Church out of selfish and self-serving reasons… like getting into heaven.

getting to heaven is fulfilling G-ds will for you. He didnt create you for your own purposes, but for His, and His ultimate purpose for you is for you to be with Him, to love Him, as He loves you.

thats not selfish, its serving someone else. G-d

 

[FightingFat]

In regards to what we (we as in everyone of any belief) believe, who’s right? Are Catholics right? Muslims? Atheists?
How do we know? Of course, certain things can be proven scientifically, but other things cannot. So how do we know?
Well, I guess we don’t really, do we? I’m sure you believe without any doubt that you know who and what the true God is, or how many of them there are. But are you more sure than someone of another religion?
What makes any of us superior over another? So is only one of us right? Or are all of us right? Or are we all wrong?
I’m merely think aloud, and wanted your opinions.

I think you have to apply certain criteria to ascertain the validity of claims of veracity. For example, moral law. You also have to judge in the light of reason. Why is something true? Because someone says it is true? Where is the authority for these claims?

As far as Catholicism is concerned, if you apply these criteria you end up back at Jesus Christ. Now analyse who and what He was and is and you find yourself stumbling on some pretty powerful answers!

 

[Sideline]

Man, I really want to get to heaven. Call it selfish. You can even pin me with fear of hell. However, the real scenario is I desire to be with God out of love. Humans cannot desire what they do not know.

I desire to know the truth about how the entire universe works. I don’t know the truth about how the entire universe works. Ergo… I desire something I don’t know. All I do know is how much I love to discover new things. That certainly doesn’t mean that I am able to discover everything.

I don’t have a choice who I am going to face. You don’t either.

And that is what is known as being obstinate. You will not turn toward God under any circumstances, which we know as mortal sin.

This is why I can not be a Christian. It bothers me to claim as fact things I can’t possibly know.

Unless you are a god, you have no notion at all what I believe about anything. All you can possibly know is what I am willing to print anonymously. For some reason, you have decided to believe that I can not be convinced of a god. The notion is patently absurd. There are numerous ways that I could be convinced that there is a God. It’s just that my standards of evidence are different than yours.

You claim to know me without ever having met me, you even claim to know God, and you think that I am obstinate.

 

[Ignatius]

In regards to what we (we as in everyone of any belief) believe, who’s right? Are Catholics right? Muslims? Atheists?
How do we know? Of course, certain things can be proven scientifically, but other things cannot. So how do we know?
Well, I guess we don’t really, do we? I’m sure you believe without any doubt that you know who and what the true God is, or how many of them there are. But are you more sure than someone of another religion?
What makes any of us superior over another? So is only one of us right? Or are all of us right? Or are we all wrong?
I’m merely think aloud, and wanted your opinions.

This may help clear up some of the confusion: youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6qZd_xP1w

Your servant in Christ.

 

[buffalo]

i just spent an hour typing out a reasoned reply, then i see i didnt post it right, so i will briefly recap.

1. that is not the mainstream view, that is the crackpots veiw of the historicity of Christ. check your sources better before you post such things as the general opinion of scholars.
2. the apostles suffered and died becuase they were witnesses to Christs Divine Ministry, show me anywhere else men have done the same thing.
3. you accept historical figures historicity on the basis of documentation that you can verify no more in one case or another. yet you hold Christianity to a higher standard, its documetation is not good enough, though it comes froma large variety of writers.
4. you dont seem to realize that we are the living witnesses to Christ, from Christ to Peter all the way to Pope Benedict today.

you can have all the opinions of an event you like, yet we as a church were the witnesses to those events.

…and the history of Jesus is well established and you won’t find any serious scholar who denies it.

 

[MegaTherion]

…and the history of Jesus is well established and you won’t find any serious scholar who denies it.

Well established by what? What evidence is there apart from a collection of stories that could have been written by anyone decades and decades (at a minimum) after the supposed events took place?

You need evidence to convince others. If you are convinced by a handful of stories written by anonymous followers of this figure, that’s fine – but you really shouldn’t expect others to be.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well established by what? What evidence is there apart from a collection of stories that could have been written by anyone decades and decades (at a minimum) after the supposed events took place?

You need evidence to convince others. If you are convinced by a handful of stories written by anonymous followers of this figure, that’s fine – but you really shouldn’t expect others to be.

what evidence of george washington is there apart from documentation that may have been forged?

why do you accept the history of george washington, yet not Christ?

as to this idea of anonymous writers, read the first 2 paragraphs of any of the gospels and you willl see the signatures. how much more evidence do you need?

by the standard of evidence you seem to want, you cant prove the existence or activities of any historical figures.

you either accept written documentation or you dont. you cant prove timing or veracity of any of it.

so why hold Christianity to a higher standard than george washington?

you seem to be reading internet pieces meant to support your position, if you care to be taken seriously its important that you realize posting things like the ‘anonymous authors’ ideas is obviously false, i refer you to the signatures of the gospels you have obviously not perused prior to posting.

 

[buffalo]

Well established by what? What evidence is there apart from a collection of stories that could have been written by anyone decades and decades (at a minimum) after the supposed events took place?

You need evidence to convince others. If you are convinced by a handful of stories written by anonymous followers of this figure, that’s fine – but you really shouldn’t expect others to be.

Then go study history. Learn from the historians.

The writers were not anonymous. I gave you a link to start with. Did you bother to read it or will you just continue on with your obstinancy?

 

[PJM]

We should make a list of stupid atheist arguments. The same ones come up over and over again.

Dear friend in Christ,

They will know us by our love

The only “bible” most folks will read is how we, you and me live our lives:clapping:

There is Faith, Hope and Charity, and the greatest of these is LOVE:tiphat:

In all things; Charity and Love:extrahappy:

**PLEASE **

 

[buffalo]

Dear friend in Christ,

They will know us by our love

The only “bible” most folks will read is how we, you and me live our lives:clapping:

There is Faith, Hope and Charity, and the greatest of these is LOVE:tiphat:

In all things; Charity and Love:extrahappy:

**PLEASE **

Agreed.

I think you missed my point. We should make a list of stupid atheist arguments and make a sticky.

 

[Schluns]

Agreed.

I think you missed my point. We should make a list of stupid atheist arguments and make a sticky.

I agree. However, PJM is also correct. It should not be labeled “Stupid Atheist Arguments” But “Catholic Doctrine for Atheists made Simple”