Why do Atheists/Agnostics come to CAF?

[josie_L]

When you say something true and useful I listen. Unfortunately it’s rare

I don’t lie. And moreover I take great pains to research and seek the truth.

 

[josie_L]

Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand.

That wonderful phrase - - - *its a mystery we cannot understand *- - - that right there is the elastic and ever useful ultimate response of apologetics! I can see the old white headed Irish priest of my youth, getting red in the face when we pressed him to explain seeming oddities of logic like what happens to poor babies who die without being baptized and how they must either burn in hell or wait in purgatory or even better, hang out in Limbo! “T’is a mystery”, he would say, which is the same as saying shut up you weak Catholic kids, and quit asking such horrid questions!

Why does everything have to have an answer (there’s a reason it’s called faith)?

 

[yankee_doodle]

How can you agree with Fredriksen when earlier you denied there was a majority of scholars who accepted the partial authenticity of the TF?

I agree with her basic premise, that Josephus did mention Jesus (btw I think she’s a Calvinist).

One day you will believe.

that’s the sales pitch (or the mantra) isn’t it? I’d say one day you’ll find out the truth of the matter, but in fact you won’t (because you’ll die, have a short dream after you flatline, and that’s all she wrote). The harsh reality of life … we die & it’s over. The only sliver of hope we have is science, yet you guys run around trying to obstruct it (with your frenzy of silly myths).

 

[yankee_doodle]

I don’t lie. And moreover I take great pains to research and seek the truth.

sometimes you do, other times you spin it (but one is perfect right)

 

[josie_L]

I agree with her basic premise, that Josephus did mention Jesus (btw I think she’s a Calvinist).

I originally stated that the majority of scholars believed in the partial authenticity of the TF and you denounced me. Now that I added other scholars like Fredriksen (she’s a secular scholar) who stated the very same thing I stated to you earlier, you now concur?

Historical Jesus scholar Dr. Paula Fredriksen writes:

“In Jewish Antiquities 18.63-64, Josephus gives a short summary statement on Jesus. Scholars have debated the historical merits of this passage, some (few, now) maintaining that the whole is authentic, others (another minority), that the whole is a Christian interpolation, that is, a passage written into the manuscript by a later Christian scribe. Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by a Christian scribe.” 1

These were your words:

"oh btw, the few scholars you mention are hardly a “majority of scholars.”** A majority of biblical scholars reject the idea that Josephus wrote about Jesus at all (unless, that is, you limit your sources to Christian apologetic web sites, which I imagine you do). **

that’s the sales pitch (or the mantra) isn’t it? I’d say one day you’ll find out the truth of the matter, but in fact you won’t (because you’ll die, have a short dream after you flatline, and that’s all she wrote). The harsh reality of life … we die & it’s over. The only sliver of hope we have is science, yet you guys run around trying to obstruct it (with your frenzy of silly myths)."

Alright believe whatever you want, I don’t care.

 

[josie_L]

sometimes you do, other times you spin it (but noone is perfect right)

That’s you and . . . :manvspc:

 

[Agripa]

Why does everything have to have an answer (there’s a reason it’s called faith)?

Because then its blind faith which leads to the need to torture people into believing as we do (The Inquisition) or it leads young Muslim men to fly planes into buildings killing thousands thinking (by faith) they get to seduce 35 virgins in heaven.

 

[josie_L]

Because then its blind faith which leads to the need to torture people into believing as we do (The Inquisition) or it leads young Muslim men to fly planes into buildings killing thousands thinking (by faith) they get to seduce 35 virgins in heaven.

So if there is something which is not fully understood due to our limited minds this somehow equates to blind faith? You know Agripa for someone who claims not to know much about God you sure do act like you do.

It’s not understood how original sin is transmitted, if you don’t accept that then fine, but don’t go telling me that it’s through sexual union that such a sin is transmitted, that’s your own confused understanding of original sin.

 

[josie_L]

that’s the sales pitch (or the mantra) isn’t it? I’d say one day you’ll find out the truth of the matter, but in fact you won’t (because you’ll die, have a short dream after you flatline, and that’s all she wrote). The harsh reality of life … we die & it’s over.

If I should die to tomorrow I will have only two regrets, the first will be, not having had the chance to experience great love/marriage, and the other is, the loss of motherhood, but I would still consider myself very fortunate with what God gave me.

 

[Agripa]

So if there is something which is not fully understood due to our limited minds this somehow equates to blind faith? . . . It’s not understood how original sin is transmitted, if you don’t accept that then fine, but don’t go telling me that it’s through sexual union that such a sin is transmitted, that’s your own confused understanding of original sin.

Then riddle me this, friend: If Mary was a properly married woman to Joseph, and if the sexual union within either a Hebrew marriage or a Chistian one is complete, proper, wonderful, beautiful and sanctified, then why could Mary not partake of that most blessed act in such a state either to concieve Jesus or after Jesus was born? And furthermore, would Joseph, a proper Jewish man of the house of David no less, permit himself to be married to a woman who would not complete the marriage pact with him? And how is Jesus of the House of David if Joseph did not contribute to the actual genetic lineage??

It seems the Catholic church is still “on the fence” about sex even within marriage! In fact, if one looks at the Catholic marrital rite from the 1840’s, there is a lot of talk about having to rely on God to deliver married couples from the risk of finding pleasure in sex.

 

[josie_L]

Then riddle me this, friend: If Mary was a properly married woman to Joseph, and if the sexual union within either a Hebrew marriage or a Chistian one is complete, proper, wonderful, beautiful and sanctified, then why could Mary not partake of that most blessed act in such a state either to concieve Jesus or after Jesus was born? And furthermore, would Joseph, a proper Jewish man of the house of David no less, permit himself to be married to a woman who would not complete the marriage pact with him? And how is Jesus of the House of David if Joseph did not contribute to the actual genetic lineage??

It seems the Catholic church is still “on the fence” about sex even within marriage! In fact, if one looks at the Catholic marrital rite from the 1840’s, **there is a lot of talk about having to rely on God to deliver married couples from the risk of finding pleasure in sex. **

Because she wished to remain a maiden, I believe it’s in Luke that she states she is the handmaiden of the lord and this after she was already bethrothed/married to Joseph. This is an indication Mary had taken some vow of celibacy and Joseph respected those vows. I think the thing you have to remember is that they were chosen by God to raise his only begotten Son, so their non-existent sex life was probably not high on their list of priorities.

p.s. I don’t know where you’re getting your ideas from but this isn’t how the Church describes marital sex.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I originally stated that the majority of scholars believed in the partial authenticity of the TF and you denounced me. Now that I added other scholars like Fredriksen (she’s a secular scholar) who stated the very same thing I stated to you earlier, you now concur?

I don’t think she’s “secular” (she writes biblical exegesis … not many biblical enthusiasts in the “secular” crowd )

Historical Jesus scholar Dr. Paula Fredriksen writes:

“In Jewish Antiquities 18.63-64, Josephus gives a short summary statement on Jesus. Scholars have debated the historical merits of this passage, some (few, now) maintaining that the whole is authentic, others (another minority), that the whole is a Christian interpolation, that is, a passage written into the manuscript by a later Christian scribe. Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by a Christian scribe.” 1

These were your words:

"oh btw, the few scholars you mention are hardly a “majority of scholars.”** A majority of biblical scholars reject the idea that Josephus wrote about Jesus at all (unless, that is, you limit your sources to Christian apologetic web sites, which I imagine you do). **

I agree with her premise that Josephus may have referred to Jesus. Most scholars believed for a long time that those references were all interpolations, but I understand the current view is that Josephus probably made some references to Jesus, but there were also several interpolations by Christians.

The reasoning of scholars (and skeptics) is sound enough. Since we know the church misrepresented, or I should say forged these documents, why shouldn’t we discount their authenticity altogether. Obviously new information has shown an increased likelihood some of those references were authentic; but my question is why should it matter?

Why would the church or individual Christians forge these documents in the first place if they contained valuable information in their unaltered form?

Why would have Josephus have remained a Jew if he believed the supernatural stories being floated around about Jesus? In other words the writings of Josephus offer us no relevant information. We’re not even sure to what extent they’re accurate.

They tell us exactly what I’ve been saying they tell us, nothing we didn’t already know!

Alright believe whatever you want, I don’t care.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Because then its blind faith which leads to the need to torture people into believing as we do (The Inquisition) or it leads young Muslim men to fly planes into buildings killing thousands thinking (by faith) they get to seduce 35 virgins in heaven.

I thought it was 72 virgins

 

[josie_L]

I don’t think she’s “secular” (she writes biblical exegesis … not many biblical enthusiasts in the “secular” crowd )

"Liberal commentators such as Robert Frank, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as from Josephus’ hand. So do Jewish scholars, such as Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter, as well as secular scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Paula Frederiksen. Even Jeff Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web and Infidels.org, recognizes the merits of the partial authenticity theory. Paula Frederiksen sums up the state of the question among scholars: “Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by Christian scribes.”

I agree with her premise that Josephus may have referred to Jesus. Most scholars believed for a long time that those references were all interpolations, but I understand the current view is that Josephus probably made some references to Jesus, but there were also several interpolations by Christians.

There’s no “may” he did refer to Jesus, and she is in the majority by stating the partial authenticity theory.

The reasoning of scholars (and skeptics) is sound enough. Since we know the church misrepresented, or I should say forged these documents, why shouldn’t we discount their authenticity altogether. Obviously new information has shown an increased likelihood some of those references were authentic; but my question is why should it matter?

It was a scribe, not the Church. And it wasn’t forged (that implies the whole thing was corrupted), some words were added albeit not because of some sinister purpose. And It matters that Josephus wrote about Jesus because some people in the atheist/agnostic community are trying to convince others that Jesus never existed, despite the the almost universal belief amongst historians and biblical scholars that he did.

Why would the church or individual Christians forge these documents in the first place if they contained valuable information in their unaltered form?

Unrestrained enthusiasm??? I did read about this somewhere I’ll have to check up.

Why would have Josephus have remained a Jew if he believed the supernatural stories being floated around about Jesus? In other words the writings of Josephus offer us no relevant information. We’re not even sure to what extent they’re accurate.

Yes, it does offer relevant information because we have more than one secular source which corresponds to the facts stated in the NT.

They tell us exactly what I’ve been saying they tell us, nothing we didn’t already know!

It tells us a lot more than you first premised.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Why would have Josephus have remained a Jew if he believed the supernatural stories being floated around about Jesus?

I don’t think you’re familiar with Josephus’ biography. Josephus went over to the Roman side during the Jewish Revolt and is acknowledged by many Jews as a traitor to Judaism in that regard. He saw Rome as the superpower of its day, could not see how Judea could fight it, and became a Roman citizen! He arrived in Rome with Titus and the treasures stolen from Jerusalem’s Temple, golden menorahs, etc.

Josephus became Roman and Rome persecuted Christians. It was later in life it seems that Josephus may have felt some guilt at his actions towards his fellow Jews during the Revolt and began making amends to his people by writing Antiquities of the Jews.

 

[josie_L]

I don’t think you’re familiar with Josephus’ biography. Josephus went over to the Roman side during the Jewish Revolt and is acknowledged by many Jews as a traitor to Judaism in that regard. He saw Rome as the superpower of its day, could not see how Judea could fight it, and became a Roman citizen! He arrived in Rome with Titus and the treasures stolen from Jerusalem’s Temple, golden menorahs, etc.

Josephus became Roman and Rome persecuted Christians. It was later in life it seems that Josephus may have felt some guilt at his actions towards his fellow Jews during the Revolt and began making amends to his people by writing Antiquities of the Jews.

Hi Andrew.

 

[yankee_doodle]

"Liberal commentators such as Robert Frank, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as from Josephus’ hand. So do Jewish scholars, such as Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter, as well as secular scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Paula Frederiksen. Even Jeff Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web and Infidels.org, recognizes the merits of the partial authenticity theory. Paula Frederiksen sums up the state of the question among scholars: “Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by Christian scribes.”

I’m not criticizing Ms. Frederiksen because she’s religious, merely pointed it out. She’s obviously a qualified woman.

There’s no “may” he did refer to Jesus, and she is in the majority by stating the partial authenticity theory.

While I accept it as a possibility (even a high probability), there’s been so much forgery and misrepresentation by the church pertaining to this issue for me to be absolutely sure of anything.

It was a scribe, not the Church. And it wasn’t forged (that implies the whole thing was corrupted), some words were added albeit not because of some sinister purpose.

not because of some sinister purpose? Geesh … what’s the use

 

[josie_L]

I’m not criticizing Ms. Frederiksen because she’s religious, merely pointed it out. She’s obviously a qualified woman.

Are you sure she’s religious? I would assume that secular scholar means that she is a non-believer.

While I accept it as a possibility (even a high probability), there’s been so much forgery and misrepresentation by the church pertaining to this issue for me to be absolutely sure of anything.

This is has nothing to do with your misapprehensions of the Church but the diligent research of scholars to authenticate the TF. I will quote my original post to you.

“Most Scholars who accept the “partial authenticity” theory conclude that something similar to the following reconstruction of the TF was likely original to Book 18:”

“At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following among many Jews and among many Gentile origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) had not died out.”

not because of some sinister purpose? Geesh … what’s the use

Are you trying to convert me, what’s with the frustration?

 

[yankee_doodle]

I don’t think you’re familiar with Josephus’ biography. Josephus went over to the Roman side during the Jewish Revolt and is acknowledged by many Jews as a traitor to Judaism in that regard. He saw Rome as the superpower of its day, could not see how Judea could fight it, and became a Roman citizen! He arrived in Rome with Titus and the treasures stolen from Jerusalem’s Temple, golden menorahs, etc.

Josephus became Roman and Rome persecuted Christians. It was later in life it seems that Josephus may have felt some guilt at his actions towards his fellow Jews during the Revolt and began making amends to his people by writing Antiquities of the Jews.

so what’s the point? Don’t you think if Josephus honestly believed a god-man rose from the dead, there might be some indication of this belief in his writings & actions?

You guys can beat this dead horse over the head all you want … we’re still exactly where we were when this discussion started.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Are you trying to convert me, what’s with the frustration?

more amazed than frustrated. You’ll say absolutely anything, regardless of how remote it is from truth, just to make an even small and obscure point.