A Christian Framework

[Orbit]

^^^

 

  

[Wololo]

QUOTE . You speak with complete ignorance about the work that these theologians have done, END QUOTE

 

What theologians? You said it was stripped down to "early church fathers".

It is the work of the modern theologians to understand the work of the early fathers. They are studying it in light of modern philosophical understanding. Of course...you don't care about philosophy, so it's a point that doesn't matter to you.

[Orbit]

 

QUOTE . You speak with complete ignorance about the work that these theologians have done, END QUOTE

 

What theologians? You said it was stripped down to "early church fathers".

It is the work of the modern theologians to understand the work of the early fathers. They are studying it in light of modern philosophical understanding. Of course...you don't care about philosophy, so it's a point that doesn't matter to you.

 

So who are they? Names? Or is it a secret?

[mymistake]

It's really quite simple. Radical Orthodoxy is about a complete return to the fundamental beliefs of the early Church fathers, which is as close to original Christianity as possible. You speak with complete ignorance about the work that these theologians have done, and I say that because you dismiss it off-handedly. Your search may have come up empty handed, but not everyone ends up there. Some of us have found how it fits together.

 

As close to original Christianity as possible is Judaism.  Read the words of the historical Jesus:

 

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=3977004

 

 

 

Is that too close to original Christianity?  Instead you could read the first gospel:

 

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

 

Granted, it's probably not in its original form but neither are any of the works of the New Testament either.  We have no codex older than the 4th century and those are full of errors.

 

"Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.

Split a piece of wood; I am there.

Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

[Roz]

Time for more popcorn, this should be good. 

[Wololo]

 

 

QUOTE . You speak with complete ignorance about the work that these theologians have done, END QUOTE

 

What theologians? You said it was stripped down to "early church fathers".

It is the work of the modern theologians to understand the work of the early fathers. They are studying it in light of modern philosophical understanding. Of course...you don't care about philosophy, so it's a point that doesn't matter to you.

 

So who are they? Names? Or is it a secret?

 

 

They are among the likes of John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, Conor Cunningham, Graham Ward, etc.

[Roz]

1.  Kalam argument, therefore god

2.  Modern people who believe in a religion are searching for anything in history that says their religion is right.  No confirmation bias there.

3.  Because 1 and 2 are logical and true, therefore christian god wins

4.  Stop asking me why he had children murdered.  You're hurting my feelings

 

What will the next episode bring?  Have ex-christians heard this line of thinking before?  No, certainly not.

Here's me wondering if Wololo was one of those people who got high from God's Not Dead, now he's here as a super secret agent for god. 

 

EDIT:  Aw, he just posted.  Still no reply to Ravenstar's post.  I'm as disappointed as Kevin Sorbo.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

QUOTE . You speak with complete ignorance about the work that these theologians have done, END QUOTE

 

What theologians? You said it was stripped down to "early church fathers".

It is the work of the modern theologians to understand the work of the early fathers. They are studying it in light of modern philosophical understanding. Of course...you don't care about philosophy, so it's a point that doesn't matter to you.

 

So who are they? Names? Or is it a secret?

 

 

They are among the likes of John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, Conor Cunningham, Graham Ward, etc.

 

If you are taking Milbank's assertion that "t if the world is to be interpreted correctly, it must be viewed from the perspectives of theology." then you are doomed to failure in a debate. Theological knowledge is based on scripture, which is self-referential--circular, and historically suspect.

[Wololo]

 

 

 

 

QUOTE . You speak with complete ignorance about the work that these theologians have done, END QUOTE

 

What theologians? You said it was stripped down to "early church fathers".

It is the work of the modern theologians to understand the work of the early fathers. They are studying it in light of modern philosophical understanding. Of course...you don't care about philosophy, so it's a point that doesn't matter to you.

 

So who are they? Names? Or is it a secret?

 

 

They are among the likes of John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, Conor Cunningham, Graham Ward, etc.

 

If you are taking Milbank's assertion that "t if the world is to be interpreted correctly, it must be viewed from the perspectives of theology." then you are doomed to failure in a debate. Theological knowledge is based on scripture, which is self-referential--circular, and historically suspect.

 

 

Ugh, you miss the entire point. One of the core premises of RO is that everything falls within the scope of theology.

 

This is philosophy. You don't like philosophy. You want science.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

 

 

QUOTE . You speak with complete ignorance about the work that these theologians have done, END QUOTE

 

What theologians? You said it was stripped down to "early church fathers".

It is the work of the modern theologians to understand the work of the early fathers. They are studying it in light of modern philosophical understanding. Of course...you don't care about philosophy, so it's a point that doesn't matter to you.

 

So who are they? Names? Or is it a secret?

 

 

They are among the likes of John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, Conor Cunningham, Graham Ward, etc.

 

If you are taking Milbank's assertion that "t if the world is to be interpreted correctly, it must be viewed from the perspectives of theology." then you are doomed to failure in a debate. Theological knowledge is based on scripture, which is self-referential--circular, and historically suspect.

 

 

Ugh, you miss the entire point. One of the core premises of RO is that everything falls within the scope of theology.

 

This is philosophy. You don't like philosophy. You want science.

 

And people who use logic and reason reject that notion. That's why you're not getting anywhere. Theology presupposed God, and you are talking to atheists. Before we will accept theology you must prove God exists and scripture is true.

[Wololo]

 

 

 

 

 

 

QUOTE . You speak with complete ignorance about the work that these theologians have done, END QUOTE

 

What theologians? You said it was stripped down to "early church fathers".

It is the work of the modern theologians to understand the work of the early fathers. They are studying it in light of modern philosophical understanding. Of course...you don't care about philosophy, so it's a point that doesn't matter to you.

 

So who are they? Names? Or is it a secret?

 

 

They are among the likes of John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, Conor Cunningham, Graham Ward, etc.

 

If you are taking Milbank's assertion that "t if the world is to be interpreted correctly, it must be viewed from the perspectives of theology." then you are doomed to failure in a debate. Theological knowledge is based on scripture, which is self-referential--circular, and historically suspect.

 

 

Ugh, you miss the entire point. One of the core premises of RO is that everything falls within the scope of theology.

 

This is philosophy. You don't like philosophy. You want science.

 

And people who use logic and reason reject that notion. That's why you're not getting anywhere. Theology presupposed God, and you are talking to atheists. Before we will accept theology you must prove God exists and scripture is true.

 

Then don't talk to me about my sources if you don't like them. They're theologians. They're Christians. I said they were my sources.

[Roz]

Round and round she goes...

 

The premises of christians.

1.  god created (doesn't matter whether big banging or 7 day magic poofing)

2.  god is good (therefore anything he did was good, you just can't see the context)

3.  our philosophy is rooted in theology (we believe number 1)

4.  you don't understand this

 

I need more popcorn, and this beer. 

[Wololo]

Hello, Ravenstar. You took the time to fetch something substantial, so I'm going to give you a decent response.

 

There are actually (proportionately speaking), a lot of manuscripts of Biblical books. I'd like us make a distinction between the Bible (which is merely the name for all the compiled books), and the books that make it up, which were put together by ancient fragments. I'm only going to briefly go over the Old Testament because I don't know very much, but I can focus more heavily on the New Testament, where Jesus is written about.

 

Over a period of about 14 centuries, we've found about 5800 Greek New Testament fragments, and many thousands in other languages. Part of the reason for this is that the religion took hold rapidly and the number of manuscripts in use exploded. What is interesting though, is that the reliability of these texts is astonishing compared to other texts. There are plenty of typographical and grammatical errors, but this is not uncommon, and does not diminish the similiarities. Overall, the New Testament manuscripts are remarkably reliable.

 

Most of the newer manuscripts are not of interest to us though. We care mostly about the oldest ones possible. Sadly, we don't have access to the originals (as far as we know), so we have to settle for copies. The oldest fragment that we're more or less certain of the time range for is the P52 fragment, and it's dated to about 125 AD, which is just under 100 years after the events transpired, and about a few decades after John died. There are a couple that could be older, but it is still not certain whether they are. Those would be reaching very close (or completely into) the 1st century, where it's possible some very old eyewitnesses could have still lived.

 

Overall, there are about a half dozen to a dozen manuscripts or fragments from the 2nd century. The largest one is the P46 papyrus which contains most of Paul's writings. In fact, we have copies of most of the New Testament within the first few hundred years.

 

If we compare this to other classical texts, we find that there is often a 500 year gap between when the author lived, and when we find the texts. We have discovered many hundreds of manuscripts and fragments from the first 500 years of Christianity. No, not all of them are reliable or consistent, but that is still an astonishing number, and if one is willing to sift through them, they can find the consistent core...which is what has been done. Our New Testament is what the historical experts have put together.

 

In terms of archaeological evidence of the Old Testament, you will find some, but not a lot. At least in terms of the Torah, it was a mostly oral tradition that was only written down later. The Hebrews kept an oral tradition for a very long time, in fact they have a whole tradition that isn't written. I don't know enough about the Dead Sea scrolls to give you an answer about most of the Old Testament.

 

Now to address a couple of the points that I do have answers for.

 

It was Judas and the Jewish leaders who arranged for the arrest of Jesus. I don't know why they did it that way, but perhaps they thought it best to do so at night when there wasn't a crowd mobbing Jesus.

 

Pontius Pilate is totally within character. There are a few things that need to be considered here. First, is that the Jews were a volatile bunch, and caused Rome some serious problems several times. They were rebellious and hard to keep down. The Romans understood the threat of rebellion and problems, so rather than antagonizing them by killing them (which could perhaps be done with other groups), he attempted to find a political way to appease them. Because Jesus hadn't actually committed a crime (and Pilate could tell), he found no reason to execute him. As we know, Pilate was later removed for excessive cruelty (by Roman standards!) That explains why he had Jesus crucified anyway. Yes, nice guy.

 

Mm...you've missed an important detail. Joseph of Arimathea requested to have Jesus taken down from the cross to be buried in time for the Sabbath. That explains why he was not left up to rot.

Do you honestly think that Jesus would have survived that? The Romans weren't stupid people. The guy was scourged, had to carry a heavy cross (couldn't even do that), and was nailed to a cross. He was then stabbed with a spear, after having to deal with the excruciating pain of asphyxiation on a cross. Yes, he clearly survived.

 

Crucifixion is one of the most agonizing deaths you can suffer. Here is a wordy medical explanation of what happens, and I will provide a source along with some other ones at the bottom of the post.

 

"The scourging prior to crucifixion served to weaken the condemned man and, if blood loss was considerable, to produce orthostatic hypotension and even hypovolemic shock. When the victim was thrown to the ground on his back, in preparation for transfixion of the hands, his scourging wounds most likely would become torn open again and contaminated with dirt. Furthermore, with each respiration, the painful scourging wounds would be scraped against the rough wood of the stipes. As a result, blood loss from the back probably would continue throughout the crucifixion ordeal.

With arms outstretched but not taut, the wrists were nailed to the patibulum. It has been shown that the ligaments and bones of the wrist can support the weight of a body hanging from them, but the palms cannot. Accordingly, the iron spikes probably were driven between the radius and the carpals or between the two rows of carpal bones, either proximal to or through the strong band like flexor retinaeulum and the various interearpal ligaments. Although a nail in either location in the wrist might pass between the bony elements and thereby produce no fractures, the likelihood of painful periosteal injury would seem great. Furthermore, the driven nail would crush or sever the rather large sensorimotor median nerve. The stimulated nerve would produce excruciating bolts of fiery pain in both arms. Although the severed median nerve would result in paralysis of a portion of the hand, ischemic contractures and impalement of various ligaments by the iron spike might produce a claw like grasp."

 

Further,

 

"Most commonly, the feet were fixed to the front of the stipes by means of an iron spike driven through the first or second inter metatarsal space, just distal to the tarsometatarsal joint. It is likely that the deep peroneal nerve and branches of the medial and lateral plantar nerves would have been injured by the nails. Although scourging may have resulted in considerable blood loss, crucifixion per se was a relatively bloodless procedure, since no major arteries, other than perhaps the deep plantar arch, pass through the favored anatomic sites of transfixion. 

 

The major pathophysiologic effect of crucifixion, beyond the excruciating pain, was a marked interference with normal respiration, particularly exhalation. The weight of the body, pulling down on the outstretched arms and shoulders, would tend to fix the intercostal muscles in an inhalation state and thereby hinder passive exhalation. Accordingly, exhalation was primarily diaphragmatic, and breathing was shallow. It is likely that this form of respiration would not suffice and that hypercarbia would soon result. The onset of muscle cramps or tetanic contractions, due to fatigue and hypercarbia, would hinder respiration even further.

Adequate exhalation required lifting the body by pushing up on the feet and by flexing the elbows and adducting the shoulders. However, this maneuver would place the entire weight of the body on the tarsals and would produce searing pain. Furthermore, flexion of the elbows would cause rotation of the wrists about the iron nails and cause fiery pain along the damaged median nerves. Lifting of the body would also painfully scrape the scourged back against the rough wooden stipes. Muscle cramps and paresthesias of the outstretched and uplifted arms would add to the discomfort. As a result, each respiratory effort would become agonizing and tiring and lead eventually to asphyxia. 

 

The actual cause of death by crucifixion was multifactorial and varied somewhat with each ease, but the two most prominent causes probably were hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia. Other possible contributing factors included dehydration, stress-induced arrhythmias, and congestive heart failure with the rapid accumulation of pericardial and perhaps pleural effusions.  Crucifracture (breaking the legs below the knees), if performed, led to an asphyxic death within minutes."

 

Jesus was a dead man. No swoon theory. Don't even start.

 

Just as another note, the separation of blood and water that is described in the New Testament is a side effect of the heart failure and accumulation of fluids during the process.

 

To further refute the point, the Romans stationed guards outside the tomb. Nobody was getting in or out of the tomb. The Romans didn't act because they had no reason to believe he wasn't dead.

 

Jesus was only popular in Judea, and probably only in certain parts. He was a tiny man in a tiny part of the world. He didn't even live all that long.

 

In terms of your historical figures...

 

I don't really care for Josephus to be honest. He's been referred to as 'the father of lies.' Because of this, I guess I've been biased against him ever since I knew of him. I generally don't mention him, and if I do, it's just off to the side.

 

Asserting that Christians said something is not evidence. I don't use Pliny as a source.

 

I reject your criticism of Tacitus. Did you realize that people made mistakes with their writing? If you misspell a word, you need to correct it. That's quite possibly a reasonable explanation here. Further, "the Good" makes no sense in the context. Christians and "the Good"...as a class? What? This doesn't even take into account the controversy about how the word is supposed to be spelled. This reeks of conspiracy theory, so I'm discarding that criticism.

 

The rest of what you've written, I either don't know enough about to address, or I don't really use as evidence. My conclusion to that part of the matter is that the books of the New Testament have drastically more support than the ancient writers do. There are more manuscripts, they are more reliable, and they are all close to when the original events happened. To discard the manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament is worse than discarding other ancient texts.

 

Oh, are you going to go all Zeitgeist on me. I'll save that for another post if you want to go there. I've had good fun with that one.

 

Yes, let's get into ancient history. I love it.

 

The last thing I would like to do is point you in the direction of a few respected scholars and what they had to say on the matter. You tell me that there is no evidence that Jesus existed, yet the general educated consensus is that he did. His divinity can be disputed, but as a person he can't be. The man existed and I can say that with full confidence and evidence along with the general scholarly consensus behind me.

 

"He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees." B. Ehrman (who is a secular agnositc) from 2011 in Forged : writing in the name of God

 

"In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." from Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant in 2004

 

"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." from Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould in 2004.

 

http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm

http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/crucifixion.htm

http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

[Orbit]

QUOTE "Then don't talk to me about my sources if you don't like them." END QUOTE

 

That's not debate, that's petulance.  Engage the topic.

[mymistake]

 

One of the core premises of RO is that everything falls within the scope of theology.

 

 

That would really suck if theology is false.

 

 

Edit:

I will give Ravenstar the honor of tearing into post 196 but oh boy :facepalm:

[Wololo]

Round and round she goes...

 

The premises of christians.

1.  god created (doesn't matter whether big banging or 7 day magic poofing)

2.  god is good (therefore anything he did was good, you just can't see the context)

3.  our philosophy is rooted in theology (we believe number 1)

4.  you don't understand this

 

I need more popcorn, and this beer. 

I'm not arguing the existence of God. You guys don't listen.

[Wololo]

 

 

One of the core premises of RO is that everything falls within the scope of theology.

 

 

That would really suck if theology is false.

 

They use philosophy to explain how theology is central to the universe. This is universe first, theology as a natural result.

[Roz]

 

Round and round she goes...

 

The premises of christians.

1.  god created (doesn't matter whether big banging or 7 day magic poofing)

2.  god is good (therefore anything he did was good, you just can't see the context)

3.  our philosophy is rooted in theology (we believe number 1)

4.  you don't understand this

 

I need more popcorn, and this beer. 

I'm not arguing the existence of God. You guys don't listen.

 

 

 

the·ol·o·gy

THēˈäləjē/

noun

noun: theology

the study of the nature of God and religious belief.

religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed.

 

Ugh, you miss the entire point. One of the core premises of RO is that everything falls within the scope of theology.

 

This is philosophy. You don't like philosophy. You want science.

 

mmmmm more popcorn!

 

[Ravenstar]

 

Hello, Ravenstar. You took the time to fetch something substantial, so I'm going to give you a decent response.

 

There are actually (proportionately speaking), a lot of manuscripts of Biblical books. I'd like us make a distinction between the Bible (which is merely the name for all the compiled books), and the books that make it up, which were put together by ancient fragments. I'm only going to briefly go over the Old Testament because I don't know very much, but I can focus more heavily on the New Testament, where Jesus is written about.

 

Over a period of about 14 centuries, we've found about 5800 Greek New Testament fragments, and many thousands in other languages. Part of the reason for this is that the religion took hold rapidly and the number of manuscripts in use exploded. What is interesting though, is that the reliability of these texts is astonishing compared to other texts. There are plenty of typographical and grammatical errors, but this is not uncommon, and does not diminish the similiarities. Overall, the New Testament manuscripts are remarkably reliable.

 

Most of the newer manuscripts are not of interest to us though. We care mostly about the oldest ones possible. Sadly, we don't have access to the originals (as far as we know), so we have to settle for copies. The oldest fragment that we're more or less certain of the time range for is the P52 fragment, and it's dated to about 125 AD, which is just under 100 years after the events transpired, and about a few decades after John died. There are a couple that could be older, but it is still not certain whether they are. Those would be reaching very close (or completely into) the 1st century, where it's possible some very old eyewitnesses could have still lived.

 

Overall, there are about a half dozen to a dozen manuscripts or fragments from the 2nd century. The largest one is the P46 papyrus which contains most of Paul's writings. In fact, we have copies of most of the New Testament within the first few hundred years.

 

If we compare this to other classical texts, we find that there is often a 500 year gap between when the author lived, and when we find the texts. We have discovered many hundreds of manuscripts and fragments from the first 500 years of Christianity. No, not all of them are reliable or consistent, but that is still an astonishing number, and if one is willing to sift through them, they can find the consistent core...which is what has been done. Our New Testament is what the historical experts have put together.

 

In terms of archaeological evidence of the Old Testament, you will find some, but not a lot. At least in terms of the Torah, it was a mostly oral tradition that was only written down later. The Hebrews kept an oral tradition for a very long time, in fact they have a whole tradition that isn't written. I don't know enough about the Dead Sea scrolls to give you an answer about most of the Old Testament.

 

Now to address a couple of the points that I do have answers for.

 

It was Judas and the Jewish leaders who arranged for the arrest of Jesus. I don't know why they did it that way, but perhaps they thought it best to do so at night when there wasn't a crowd mobbing Jesus.

 

Pontius Pilate is totally within character. There are a few things that need to be considered here. First, is that the Jews were a volatile bunch, and caused Rome some serious problems several times. They were rebellious and hard to keep down. The Romans understood the threat of rebellion and problems, so rather than antagonizing them by killing them (which could perhaps be done with other groups), he attempted to find a political way to appease them. Because Jesus hadn't actually committed a crime (and Pilate could tell), he found no reason to execute him. As we know, Pilate was later removed for excessive cruelty (by Roman standards!) That explains why he had Jesus crucified anyway. Yes, nice guy.

 

Mm...you've missed an important detail. Joseph of Arimathea requested to have Jesus taken down from the cross to be buried in time for the Sabbath. That explains why he was not left up to rot.

Do you honestly think that Jesus would have survived that? The Romans weren't stupid people. The guy was scourged, had to carry a heavy cross (couldn't even do that), and was nailed to a cross. He was then stabbed with a spear, after having to deal with the excruciating pain of asphyxiation on a cross. Yes, he clearly survived.

 

Crucifixion is one of the most agonizing deaths you can suffer. Here is a wordy medical explanation of what happens, and I will provide a source along with some other ones at the bottom of the post.

 

"The scourging prior to crucifixion served to weaken the condemned man and, if blood loss was considerable, to produce orthostatic hypotension and even hypovolemic shock. When the victim was thrown to the ground on his back, in preparation for transfixion of the hands, his scourging wounds most likely would become torn open again and contaminated with dirt. Furthermore, with each respiration, the painful scourging wounds would be scraped against the rough wood of the stipes. As a result, blood loss from the back probably would continue throughout the crucifixion ordeal.

With arms outstretched but not taut, the wrists were nailed to the patibulum. It has been shown that the ligaments and bones of the wrist can support the weight of a body hanging from them, but the palms cannot. Accordingly, the iron spikes probably were driven between the radius and the carpals or between the two rows of carpal bones, either proximal to or through the strong band like flexor retinaeulum and the various interearpal ligaments. Although a nail in either location in the wrist might pass between the bony elements and thereby produce no fractures, the likelihood of painful periosteal injury would seem great. Furthermore, the driven nail would crush or sever the rather large sensorimotor median nerve. The stimulated nerve would produce excruciating bolts of fiery pain in both arms. Although the severed median nerve would result in paralysis of a portion of the hand, ischemic contractures and impalement of various ligaments by the iron spike might produce a claw like grasp."

 

Further,

 

"Most commonly, the feet were fixed to the front of the stipes by means of an iron spike driven through the first or second inter metatarsal space, just distal to the tarsometatarsal joint. It is likely that the deep peroneal nerve and branches of the medial and lateral plantar nerves would have been injured by the nails. Although scourging may have resulted in considerable blood loss, crucifixion per se was a relatively bloodless procedure, since no major arteries, other than perhaps the deep plantar arch, pass through the favored anatomic sites of transfixion. 

 

The major pathophysiologic effect of crucifixion, beyond the excruciating pain, was a marked interference with normal respiration, particularly exhalation. The weight of the body, pulling down on the outstretched arms and shoulders, would tend to fix the intercostal muscles in an inhalation state and thereby hinder passive exhalation. Accordingly, exhalation was primarily diaphragmatic, and breathing was shallow. It is likely that this form of respiration would not suffice and that hypercarbia would soon result. The onset of muscle cramps or tetanic contractions, due to fatigue and hypercarbia, would hinder respiration even further.

Adequate exhalation required lifting the body by pushing up on the feet and by flexing the elbows and adducting the shoulders. However, this maneuver would place the entire weight of the body on the tarsals and would produce searing pain. Furthermore, flexion of the elbows would cause rotation of the wrists about the iron nails and cause fiery pain along the damaged median nerves. Lifting of the body would also painfully scrape the scourged back against the rough wooden stipes. Muscle cramps and paresthesias of the outstretched and uplifted arms would add to the discomfort. As a result, each respiratory effort would become agonizing and tiring and lead eventually to asphyxia. 

 

The actual cause of death by crucifixion was multifactorial and varied somewhat with each ease, but the two most prominent causes probably were hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia. Other possible contributing factors included dehydration, stress-induced arrhythmias, and congestive heart failure with the rapid accumulation of pericardial and perhaps pleural effusions.  Crucifracture (breaking the legs below the knees), if performed, led to an asphyxic death within minutes."

 

Jesus was a dead man. No swoon theory. Don't even start.

 

Just as another note, the separation of blood and water that is described in the New Testament is a side effect of the heart failure and accumulation of fluids during the process.

 

To further refute the point, the Romans stationed guards outside the tomb. Nobody was getting in or out of the tomb. The Romans didn't act because they had no reason to believe he wasn't dead.

 

Jesus was only popular in Judea, and probably only in certain parts. He was a tiny man in a tiny part of the world. He didn't even live all that long.

 

In terms of your historical figures...

 

I don't really care for Josephus to be honest. He's been referred to as 'the father of lies.' Because of this, I guess I've been biased against him ever since I knew of him. I generally don't mention him, and if I do, it's just off to the side.

 

Asserting that Christians said something is not evidence. I don't use Pliny as a source.

 

I reject your criticism of Tacitus. Did you realize that people made mistakes with their writing? If you misspell a word, you need to correct it. That's quite possibly a reasonable explanation here. Further, "the Good" makes no sense in the context. Christians and "the Good"...as a class? What? This doesn't even take into account the controversy about how the word is supposed to be spelled. This reeks of conspiracy theory, so I'm discarding that criticism.

 

The rest of what you've written, I either don't know enough about to address, or I don't really use as evidence. My conclusion to that part of the matter is that the books of the New Testament have drastically more support than the ancient writers do. There are more manuscripts, they are more reliable, and they are all close to when the original events happened. To discard the manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament is worse than discarding other ancient texts.

 

Oh, are you going to go all Zeitgeist on me. I'll save that for another post if you want to go there. I've had good fun with that one.

 

Yes, let's get into ancient history. I love it.

 

The last thing I would like to do is point you in the direction of a few respected scholars and what they had to say on the matter. You tell me that there is no evidence that Jesus existed, yet the general educated consensus is that he did. His divinity can be disputed, but as a person he can't be. The man existed and I can say that with full confidence and evidence along with the general scholarly consensus behind me.

 

"He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees." B. Ehrman (who is a secular agnositc) from 2011 in Forged : writing in the name of God

 

"In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." from Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant in 2004

 

"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." from Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould in 2004.

 

http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm

http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/crucifixion.htm

http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

 

I will get back to you… long day, tired.

[Orbit]

 

Hello, Ravenstar. You took the time to fetch something substantial, so I'm going to give you a decent response.

 

There are actually (proportionately speaking), a lot of manuscripts of Biblical books. I'd like us make a distinction between the Bible (which is merely the name for all the compiled books), and the books that make it up, which were put together by ancient fragments. I'm only going to briefly go over the Old Testament because I don't know very much, but I can focus more heavily on the New Testament, where Jesus is written about.

 

Over a period of about 14 centuries, we've found about 5800 Greek New Testament fragments, and many thousands in other languages. Part of the reason for this is that the religion took hold rapidly and the number of manuscripts in use exploded. What is interesting though, is that the reliability of these texts is astonishing compared to other texts. There are plenty of typographical and grammatical errors, but this is not uncommon, and does not diminish the similiarities. Overall, the New Testament manuscripts are remarkably reliable.

 

Most of the newer manuscripts are not of interest to us though. We care mostly about the oldest ones possible. Sadly, we don't have access to the originals (as far as we know), so we have to settle for copies. The oldest fragment that we're more or less certain of the time range for is the P52 fragment, and it's dated to about 125 AD, which is just under 100 years after the events transpired, and about a few decades after John died. There are a couple that could be older, but it is still not certain whether they are. Those would be reaching very close (or completely into) the 1st century, where it's possible some very old eyewitnesses could have still lived.

 

Overall, there are about a half dozen to a dozen manuscripts or fragments from the 2nd century. The largest one is the P46 papyrus which contains most of Paul's writings. In fact, we have copies of most of the New Testament within the first few hundred years.

 

If we compare this to other classical texts, we find that there is often a 500 year gap between when the author lived, and when we find the texts. We have discovered many hundreds of manuscripts and fragments from the first 500 years of Christianity. No, not all of them are reliable or consistent, but that is still an astonishing number, and if one is willing to sift through them, they can find the consistent core...which is what has been done. Our New Testament is what the historical experts have put together.

 

In terms of archaeological evidence of the Old Testament, you will find some, but not a lot. At least in terms of the Torah, it was a mostly oral tradition that was only written down later. The Hebrews kept an oral tradition for a very long time, in fact they have a whole tradition that isn't written. I don't know enough about the Dead Sea scrolls to give you an answer about most of the Old Testament.

 

Now to address a couple of the points that I do have answers for.

 

It was Judas and the Jewish leaders who arranged for the arrest of Jesus. I don't know why they did it that way, but perhaps they thought it best to do so at night when there wasn't a crowd mobbing Jesus.

 

Pontius Pilate is totally within character. There are a few things that need to be considered here. First, is that the Jews were a volatile bunch, and caused Rome some serious problems several times. They were rebellious and hard to keep down. The Romans understood the threat of rebellion and problems, so rather than antagonizing them by killing them (which could perhaps be done with other groups), he attempted to find a political way to appease them. Because Jesus hadn't actually committed a crime (and Pilate could tell), he found no reason to execute him. As we know, Pilate was later removed for excessive cruelty (by Roman standards!) That explains why he had Jesus crucified anyway. Yes, nice guy.

 

Mm...you've missed an important detail. Joseph of Arimathea requested to have Jesus taken down from the cross to be buried in time for the Sabbath. That explains why he was not left up to rot.

Do you honestly think that Jesus would have survived that? The Romans weren't stupid people. The guy was scourged, had to carry a heavy cross (couldn't even do that), and was nailed to a cross. He was then stabbed with a spear, after having to deal with the excruciating pain of asphyxiation on a cross. Yes, he clearly survived.

 

Crucifixion is one of the most agonizing deaths you can suffer. Here is a wordy medical explanation of what happens, and I will provide a source along with some other ones at the bottom of the post.

 

"The scourging prior to crucifixion served to weaken the condemned man and, if blood loss was considerable, to produce orthostatic hypotension and even hypovolemic shock. When the victim was thrown to the ground on his back, in preparation for transfixion of the hands, his scourging wounds most likely would become torn open again and contaminated with dirt. Furthermore, with each respiration, the painful scourging wounds would be scraped against the rough wood of the stipes. As a result, blood loss from the back probably would continue throughout the crucifixion ordeal.

With arms outstretched but not taut, the wrists were nailed to the patibulum. It has been shown that the ligaments and bones of the wrist can support the weight of a body hanging from them, but the palms cannot. Accordingly, the iron spikes probably were driven between the radius and the carpals or between the two rows of carpal bones, either proximal to or through the strong band like flexor retinaeulum and the various interearpal ligaments. Although a nail in either location in the wrist might pass between the bony elements and thereby produce no fractures, the likelihood of painful periosteal injury would seem great. Furthermore, the driven nail would crush or sever the rather large sensorimotor median nerve. The stimulated nerve would produce excruciating bolts of fiery pain in both arms. Although the severed median nerve would result in paralysis of a portion of the hand, ischemic contractures and impalement of various ligaments by the iron spike might produce a claw like grasp."

 

Further,

 

"Most commonly, the feet were fixed to the front of the stipes by means of an iron spike driven through the first or second inter metatarsal space, just distal to the tarsometatarsal joint. It is likely that the deep peroneal nerve and branches of the medial and lateral plantar nerves would have been injured by the nails. Although scourging may have resulted in considerable blood loss, crucifixion per se was a relatively bloodless procedure, since no major arteries, other than perhaps the deep plantar arch, pass through the favored anatomic sites of transfixion. 

 

The major pathophysiologic effect of crucifixion, beyond the excruciating pain, was a marked interference with normal respiration, particularly exhalation. The weight of the body, pulling down on the outstretched arms and shoulders, would tend to fix the intercostal muscles in an inhalation state and thereby hinder passive exhalation. Accordingly, exhalation was primarily diaphragmatic, and breathing was shallow. It is likely that this form of respiration would not suffice and that hypercarbia would soon result. The onset of muscle cramps or tetanic contractions, due to fatigue and hypercarbia, would hinder respiration even further.

Adequate exhalation required lifting the body by pushing up on the feet and by flexing the elbows and adducting the shoulders. However, this maneuver would place the entire weight of the body on the tarsals and would produce searing pain. Furthermore, flexion of the elbows would cause rotation of the wrists about the iron nails and cause fiery pain along the damaged median nerves. Lifting of the body would also painfully scrape the scourged back against the rough wooden stipes. Muscle cramps and paresthesias of the outstretched and uplifted arms would add to the discomfort. As a result, each respiratory effort would become agonizing and tiring and lead eventually to asphyxia. 

 

The actual cause of death by crucifixion was multifactorial and varied somewhat with each ease, but the two most prominent causes probably were hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia. Other possible contributing factors included dehydration, stress-induced arrhythmias, and congestive heart failure with the rapid accumulation of pericardial and perhaps pleural effusions.  Crucifracture (breaking the legs below the knees), if performed, led to an asphyxic death within minutes."

 

Jesus was a dead man. No swoon theory. Don't even start.

 

Just as another note, the separation of blood and water that is described in the New Testament is a side effect of the heart failure and accumulation of fluids during the process.

 

To further refute the point, the Romans stationed guards outside the tomb. Nobody was getting in or out of the tomb. The Romans didn't act because they had no reason to believe he wasn't dead.

 

Jesus was only popular in Judea, and probably only in certain parts. He was a tiny man in a tiny part of the world. He didn't even live all that long.

 

In terms of your historical figures...

 

I don't really care for Josephus to be honest. He's been referred to as 'the father of lies.' Because of this, I guess I've been biased against him ever since I knew of him. I generally don't mention him, and if I do, it's just off to the side.

 

Asserting that Christians said something is not evidence. I don't use Pliny as a source.

 

I reject your criticism of Tacitus. Did you realize that people made mistakes with their writing? If you misspell a word, you need to correct it. That's quite possibly a reasonable explanation here. Further, "the Good" makes no sense in the context. Christians and "the Good"...as a class? What? This doesn't even take into account the controversy about how the word is supposed to be spelled. This reeks of conspiracy theory, so I'm discarding that criticism.

 

The rest of what you've written, I either don't know enough about to address, or I don't really use as evidence. My conclusion to that part of the matter is that the books of the New Testament have drastically more support than the ancient writers do. There are more manuscripts, they are more reliable, and they are all close to when the original events happened. To discard the manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament is worse than discarding other ancient texts.

 

Oh, are you going to go all Zeitgeist on me. I'll save that for another post if you want to go there. I've had good fun with that one.

 

Yes, let's get into ancient history. I love it.

 

The last thing I would like to do is point you in the direction of a few respected scholars and what they had to say on the matter. You tell me that there is no evidence that Jesus existed, yet the general educated consensus is that he did. His divinity can be disputed, but as a person he can't be. The man existed and I can say that with full confidence and evidence along with the general scholarly consensus behind me.

 

"He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees." B. Ehrman (who is a secular agnositc) from 2011 in Forged : writing in the name of God

 

"In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." from Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant in 2004

 

"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." from Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould in 2004.

 

http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm

http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/crucifixion.htm

http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

 

The problem with this is that you are using the very scriptures that Ravenstar debunked as evidence, effectively torpedoing your argument. You were meant to come back with something that showed the scriptures were true, and you didn't.

[Orbit]

Dear Wolol,

Theology does not count as an argument here. We don't accept the basic premise of theology, which is that god exists.

[Wololo]

 

 

Hello, Ravenstar. You took the time to fetch something substantial, so I'm going to give you a decent response.

 

There are actually (proportionately speaking), a lot of manuscripts of Biblical books. I'd like us make a distinction between the Bible (which is merely the name for all the compiled books), and the books that make it up, which were put together by ancient fragments. I'm only going to briefly go over the Old Testament because I don't know very much, but I can focus more heavily on the New Testament, where Jesus is written about.

 

Over a period of about 14 centuries, we've found about 5800 Greek New Testament fragments, and many thousands in other languages. Part of the reason for this is that the religion took hold rapidly and the number of manuscripts in use exploded. What is interesting though, is that the reliability of these texts is astonishing compared to other texts. There are plenty of typographical and grammatical errors, but this is not uncommon, and does not diminish the similiarities. Overall, the New Testament manuscripts are remarkably reliable.

 

Most of the newer manuscripts are not of interest to us though. We care mostly about the oldest ones possible. Sadly, we don't have access to the originals (as far as we know), so we have to settle for copies. The oldest fragment that we're more or less certain of the time range for is the P52 fragment, and it's dated to about 125 AD, which is just under 100 years after the events transpired, and about a few decades after John died. There are a couple that could be older, but it is still not certain whether they are. Those would be reaching very close (or completely into) the 1st century, where it's possible some very old eyewitnesses could have still lived.

 

Overall, there are about a half dozen to a dozen manuscripts or fragments from the 2nd century. The largest one is the P46 papyrus which contains most of Paul's writings. In fact, we have copies of most of the New Testament within the first few hundred years.

 

If we compare this to other classical texts, we find that there is often a 500 year gap between when the author lived, and when we find the texts. We have discovered many hundreds of manuscripts and fragments from the first 500 years of Christianity. No, not all of them are reliable or consistent, but that is still an astonishing number, and if one is willing to sift through them, they can find the consistent core...which is what has been done. Our New Testament is what the historical experts have put together.

 

In terms of archaeological evidence of the Old Testament, you will find some, but not a lot. At least in terms of the Torah, it was a mostly oral tradition that was only written down later. The Hebrews kept an oral tradition for a very long time, in fact they have a whole tradition that isn't written. I don't know enough about the Dead Sea scrolls to give you an answer about most of the Old Testament.

 

Now to address a couple of the points that I do have answers for.

 

It was Judas and the Jewish leaders who arranged for the arrest of Jesus. I don't know why they did it that way, but perhaps they thought it best to do so at night when there wasn't a crowd mobbing Jesus.

 

Pontius Pilate is totally within character. There are a few things that need to be considered here. First, is that the Jews were a volatile bunch, and caused Rome some serious problems several times. They were rebellious and hard to keep down. The Romans understood the threat of rebellion and problems, so rather than antagonizing them by killing them (which could perhaps be done with other groups), he attempted to find a political way to appease them. Because Jesus hadn't actually committed a crime (and Pilate could tell), he found no reason to execute him. As we know, Pilate was later removed for excessive cruelty (by Roman standards!) That explains why he had Jesus crucified anyway. Yes, nice guy.

 

Mm...you've missed an important detail. Joseph of Arimathea requested to have Jesus taken down from the cross to be buried in time for the Sabbath. That explains why he was not left up to rot.

Do you honestly think that Jesus would have survived that? The Romans weren't stupid people. The guy was scourged, had to carry a heavy cross (couldn't even do that), and was nailed to a cross. He was then stabbed with a spear, after having to deal with the excruciating pain of asphyxiation on a cross. Yes, he clearly survived.

 

Crucifixion is one of the most agonizing deaths you can suffer. Here is a wordy medical explanation of what happens, and I will provide a source along with some other ones at the bottom of the post.

 

"The scourging prior to crucifixion served to weaken the condemned man and, if blood loss was considerable, to produce orthostatic hypotension and even hypovolemic shock. When the victim was thrown to the ground on his back, in preparation for transfixion of the hands, his scourging wounds most likely would become torn open again and contaminated with dirt. Furthermore, with each respiration, the painful scourging wounds would be scraped against the rough wood of the stipes. As a result, blood loss from the back probably would continue throughout the crucifixion ordeal.

With arms outstretched but not taut, the wrists were nailed to the patibulum. It has been shown that the ligaments and bones of the wrist can support the weight of a body hanging from them, but the palms cannot. Accordingly, the iron spikes probably were driven between the radius and the carpals or between the two rows of carpal bones, either proximal to or through the strong band like flexor retinaeulum and the various interearpal ligaments. Although a nail in either location in the wrist might pass between the bony elements and thereby produce no fractures, the likelihood of painful periosteal injury would seem great. Furthermore, the driven nail would crush or sever the rather large sensorimotor median nerve. The stimulated nerve would produce excruciating bolts of fiery pain in both arms. Although the severed median nerve would result in paralysis of a portion of the hand, ischemic contractures and impalement of various ligaments by the iron spike might produce a claw like grasp."

 

Further,

 

"Most commonly, the feet were fixed to the front of the stipes by means of an iron spike driven through the first or second inter metatarsal space, just distal to the tarsometatarsal joint. It is likely that the deep peroneal nerve and branches of the medial and lateral plantar nerves would have been injured by the nails. Although scourging may have resulted in considerable blood loss, crucifixion per se was a relatively bloodless procedure, since no major arteries, other than perhaps the deep plantar arch, pass through the favored anatomic sites of transfixion. 

 

The major pathophysiologic effect of crucifixion, beyond the excruciating pain, was a marked interference with normal respiration, particularly exhalation. The weight of the body, pulling down on the outstretched arms and shoulders, would tend to fix the intercostal muscles in an inhalation state and thereby hinder passive exhalation. Accordingly, exhalation was primarily diaphragmatic, and breathing was shallow. It is likely that this form of respiration would not suffice and that hypercarbia would soon result. The onset of muscle cramps or tetanic contractions, due to fatigue and hypercarbia, would hinder respiration even further.

Adequate exhalation required lifting the body by pushing up on the feet and by flexing the elbows and adducting the shoulders. However, this maneuver would place the entire weight of the body on the tarsals and would produce searing pain. Furthermore, flexion of the elbows would cause rotation of the wrists about the iron nails and cause fiery pain along the damaged median nerves. Lifting of the body would also painfully scrape the scourged back against the rough wooden stipes. Muscle cramps and paresthesias of the outstretched and uplifted arms would add to the discomfort. As a result, each respiratory effort would become agonizing and tiring and lead eventually to asphyxia. 

 

The actual cause of death by crucifixion was multifactorial and varied somewhat with each ease, but the two most prominent causes probably were hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia. Other possible contributing factors included dehydration, stress-induced arrhythmias, and congestive heart failure with the rapid accumulation of pericardial and perhaps pleural effusions.  Crucifracture (breaking the legs below the knees), if performed, led to an asphyxic death within minutes."

 

Jesus was a dead man. No swoon theory. Don't even start.

 

Just as another note, the separation of blood and water that is described in the New Testament is a side effect of the heart failure and accumulation of fluids during the process.

 

To further refute the point, the Romans stationed guards outside the tomb. Nobody was getting in or out of the tomb. The Romans didn't act because they had no reason to believe he wasn't dead.

 

Jesus was only popular in Judea, and probably only in certain parts. He was a tiny man in a tiny part of the world. He didn't even live all that long.

 

In terms of your historical figures...

 

I don't really care for Josephus to be honest. He's been referred to as 'the father of lies.' Because of this, I guess I've been biased against him ever since I knew of him. I generally don't mention him, and if I do, it's just off to the side.

 

Asserting that Christians said something is not evidence. I don't use Pliny as a source.

 

I reject your criticism of Tacitus. Did you realize that people made mistakes with their writing? If you misspell a word, you need to correct it. That's quite possibly a reasonable explanation here. Further, "the Good" makes no sense in the context. Christians and "the Good"...as a class? What? This doesn't even take into account the controversy about how the word is supposed to be spelled. This reeks of conspiracy theory, so I'm discarding that criticism.

 

The rest of what you've written, I either don't know enough about to address, or I don't really use as evidence. My conclusion to that part of the matter is that the books of the New Testament have drastically more support than the ancient writers do. There are more manuscripts, they are more reliable, and they are all close to when the original events happened. To discard the manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament is worse than discarding other ancient texts.

 

Oh, are you going to go all Zeitgeist on me. I'll save that for another post if you want to go there. I've had good fun with that one.

 

Yes, let's get into ancient history. I love it.

 

The last thing I would like to do is point you in the direction of a few respected scholars and what they had to say on the matter. You tell me that there is no evidence that Jesus existed, yet the general educated consensus is that he did. His divinity can be disputed, but as a person he can't be. The man existed and I can say that with full confidence and evidence along with the general scholarly consensus behind me.

 

"He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees." B. Ehrman (who is a secular agnositc) from 2011 in Forged : writing in the name of God

 

"In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." from Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant in 2004

 

"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." from Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould in 2004.

 

http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm

http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/crucifixion.htm

http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

 

The problem with this is that you are using the very scriptures that Ravenstar debunked as evidence, effectively torpedoing your argument. You were meant to come back with something that showed the scriptures were true, and you didn't.

 

 

Stop being so thick headed. The scriptures have not been debunked. That's precisely what I'm arguing. There is a general scholarly consensus that Jesus was a real man, and this is because there is plenty of written evidence in existence, which if compared to other historical figures that lack controversy, is astonishing. Just because Christians wrote the manuscripts and fragments does not mean they should be discarded.

[Wololo]

Dear Wolol,

Theology does not count as an argument here. We don't accept the basic premise of theology, which is that god exists.

Good thing I don't care. My argument follows from science, to philosophy, to theology. Theology is the last part, after the framework and groundwork as been laid out. There are people equally or more intelligent than me that are far more educated that have put far more effort into this than me.

[Roz]

Not been debunked?! oh man this is really better than sitcoms.

 

Let me do a little editing.

 

Stop being so thick headed. The Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrines and Covenant have not been debunked. That's precisely what I'm arguing. There is a general scholarly consensus that Joseph Smith was a real man, and this is because there is plenty of written evidence in existence, which if compared to other historical figures that lack controversy, is astonishing. Just because Mormons wrote the manuscripts and fragments does not mean they should be discarded.

-The Mormon Wololo

 

In case you can't see the leap from:  Ok, cool, there was a guy named jesus - to - he's the all powerful god of the universe... you need help.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

One of the core premises of RO is that everything falls within the scope of theology.

 

 

That would really suck if theology is false.

 

They use philosophy to explain how theology is central to the universe. This is universe first, theology as a natural result.

 

 

That would add an extra layer of error.  Given how humans have invented millions of different flavors of theology it's obvious that theology is a natural result of humans becoming conscious however that does not mean any of the theology goes anywhere useful.