TranscendentalEmpire comments on Catholic church canonises its first gamer saint, and one of his favourite games was Halo

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

This is a pretty reasonable assumption? No?

Nah, just circular reasoning.

you just quote Wikipedia? The admins on there are neckbeards such as Tgeorgescu who basically had a "no Christian apologists"

"In one sense the entire Christian message is based on oral tradition and is only augmented by using the written revelation of the Old Testament. From this perspective, perhaps 90 percent of the New Testament is based on authoritative oral tradition " catholic.com

"While it might be comforting to imagine that the Scripture was dictated directly from the mouth of God to the hands of the writers, that is just not the way it happened historically. The stories that are collected in our Bible were shared by word of mouth for years, decades, or even centuries before they were written down. This process of telling and retelling these passages from the religious life of God's people is called oral tradition." Ministrymatters.com

The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3 From The Works of Josephus,

Lol, and you have the gall to talk about forgeries....

Again, nothing you have talked about is actual evidence of Christianity being factual. And again, I don't really care about your personal beliefs. I just don't think it's okay that you think your make believe time allows you to harsh other people's make believe times. If society grants you the right to play make believe, you should have the decency to do unto others.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

Nah, just circular reasoning.

You were claiming John couldn't have been written by John because it was written in AD100. I did the maths and shown how it definitely could have been written in AD100

Convenient of you to not actually link the articles, and cut out the important parts of the quote. Here it is in full.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/oral-tradition-in-the-new-testament

Another difficulty is that the doctrine of the apostles came to them in oral form from Jesus. In one sense the entire Christian message is based on oral tradition and is only augmented by using the written revelation of the Old Testament. From this perspective, perhaps 90 percent of the New Testament is based on authoritative oral tradition (from Jesus), and the remain ten percent is from written sources.

They're claiming the apostles wrote down what Jesus wrote. And this is an argument surrounding Sola Scriptura, not Gospel authorship. The rest of the article is then talking about an old testament oral tradition existing, which I do not dispute. That's not the same as the New Testament being an account of Jesus. He's just making a statement against sola scriptura by saying "Well, Jesus didn't literally write this".

The second quote doesn't even contradict anything I said. Just because stories were exchanged orally first, doesn't mean the written accounts are firsthand. If I witnessed a car crash, and went and told my colleagues at work, then family about it at dinner, then the next day the police ask for a written statement, and I submit it in the evening after more talking about it in work, it doesn't devalue my original testimony. As yes, stories of that car crash were told orally before being written down.

Lol, and you have the gall to talk about forgeries....

The main reason people say it is a forgery because Josephus was a practicing Jew and a Jew wouldn't say that (circular reasoning) and that the earliest copy of that is quoted by Eusebius, so it mustn't be reliable. They aren't really good arguments.

So pick a side here. Is it possible for a non Christian to write something in defence of Christianity, or not? If it is possible, then Josephus isn't a forgery. If it isn't, then you cannot dismiss the new testament and Church Fathers, lest you be irrational

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago

You were claiming John couldn't have been written by John because it was written in AD100. I did the maths and shown how it definitely could have been written in AD100

I'm not making a claim, I am rebutting one. I am merely stating there is no evidence to support that John the apostle actually wrote John. There are inferences that lead people to believe that John wrote it, but again, these are oral traditions and are prone to embellishment or errors over time.

The second quote doesn't even contradict anything I said. Just because stories were exchanged orally first, doesn't mean the written accounts are firsthand.

Lol, it contradicts the claims you made about the first quote? It's silly how often your position changes.

The main reason people say it is a forgery because Josephus was a practicing Jew and a Jew wouldn't say that (circular reasoning)

That's not circulatory reasoning..... That's just reasoning. Why would a Jew believe in the resurrection of Christ? Plus, the reason historians almost unanimously agree it's been edited is because how out of place the claims and passages about Jesus are in the original text. We also know that the translators we receive the text from are not reliable narrators.

Is it possible for a non Christian to write something in defence of Christianity, or not?

In defense of Christianity......yes, but they wouldn't believe in the holy resurrection of Christ, as that would make them a Christian.

If it isn't, then you cannot dismiss the new testament and Church Fathers, lest you be irrational

That's a false dichotomy...... Even though I and most historian believe it to be a forgery, if I didn't I could still make a claim that Jesus was simply a historical figure and that there still is no evidence miracles or evidence that's supports him as a diety.

There are plenty of historical records we utilize as important works of history, but understand the authors may not be reliable narrators. Naram-Sin declared himself a diety, and these claims are backed by other contemporary sources... We use these sources to validate his existence as a historical figure, but does that also mean he was really a diety?

I don't really think you understand rationality, you are only using a narrow scope of logic instead of the broader understanding of rationality. Pure logic can lead to logical fallacies like your uses of false dicotomy and circular reasoning.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent