Choosing a faith

I explained the problem with that and you seemed to have ignored it. Yes, it is the majority opinion that has been assumed since about 1900 or so but it is becoming less so.
​

You're repeating your same mistake of seeking evidence of God in things science cannot yet explain. This approach is a continuous retreat for religion because of constantly expanding scientific knowledge.Since we don't know how life began, how do you know it began in a physically impossible way and could only have been brought about by a miracle?How do you even know there is any such thing as a miracle? We certainly have no evidence of miracles, so why are you advocating for something you don't even know is a thing?--Percy

Actually Bauckham doesn't say that. What he does say is that the S on the M was a compilation of things that Jesus said but is not a stand alone sermon. With the abrupt changes in subjects that certainly makes sense.Also Bauckham contends that the Gospel is either directly written by Matthew or more likely from material supplied by Matthew.ABE I thought I'd add this as written by Dennis Barton about 5 years ago.

quote:

---

For nearly 2000 years, it has been held that Matthew wrote his gospel in Jerusalem prior to
the destruction of the city in 70 AD. The reason modern books have transferred its composition to
a later period is so as to conform to the Markan theory. When dating is examined on its own,
without this supposition, the witness of the ancient historians is clearly correct. This chapter will
highlight some of the concerns featured in this gospel that indicate its background
was Palestine and Jerusalem as it existed prior to 70 AD.
The new Christian community was formulating its position with regard to the Hebrew
Scriptures, The Law, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Temple sacrifices, purification rites, the
Sabbath, admission to the community, internal discipline, fasts, prayers, marriage, divorce and
celibacy, as well its attitude to the Samaritans and Gentiles. As we read through the chapters and
verses of Matthew, we see this taking place. This is what gives this Gospel such a Jewish flavor
and points to it being written at that time and place. There are many examples which indicate its
Palestinian background:
5:19 Fulfillment of the law
5:23-24 Bringing gifts to the altar
5:35 Swearing by Jerusalem
10:6 and 15:24 The lost sheep of the house of Israel
15:22 The Samaritan woman
24:21 The Sabbath
19:28 The twelve tribes
23:16-22 Swearing by the Temple and the altar
23:27 White-washed tombs
Luke and Peter/Mark, addressing mainly Gentile audiences, omit these subjects.
Matthew was very conscious of Jews living by ‘The Law’. He used the words just, justice,
lawlessness, worthy, and judgement fifty times. Luke uses them twenty-four times and Mark twice
(NCCHS 710B). This is a sign of a moving away from the Palestinian environment.
Matthew assumes his readers are familiar with the views and customs of the Scribes,
Pharisees, Herodians, and Sadducees. He never explains who they are, which would be expected
if he had a mixed Gentile-Jewish audience towards the end of the first century (RO 233). He is
busy solving the problems of Christian Jews, while ignoring those of the Gentiles who later poured
into the Church. Major theological concepts in Matthew’s Gospel presume an audience possessing
a good understanding of the Old Testament. Matthew uses concepts foreign to Greek thought such
as nuptial tent (9:14-15), bridegroom (17:10-13), and marriage feast (22:7).
54
The Greeks, thanks to Aristotle, had a word for ‘species’. The Hebrews didn’t. They used
expressions such as ‘Son of Man’, ‘Son of Ox’, ‘Son of Crow’, etc. (CTH 30-45, 87, 131).
Matthew in 24:19-20 writes of the Sabbath, yet the corresponding passages in Luke 21:23
and Mark 13:17 omit it. Again, we see the Church drawing further away from her Jewish roots.
Matthew in 16:1-12 attacks the Pharisees and Sadducees four times in a long passage. In
the related passage in Mark 8:11–27, we see the mention of the Pharisees reduced and there is no
mention of the Sadducees. If Matthew had written second, why would he have doubled the
references to the Pharisees and insert the phrase ‘and the Sadducees’ four times? Remember that
after 70 AD, the Sadducees did not exist. If we assume the Markan dating of Matthew (80-85 AD),
why would Matthew (17:24-7) be preoccupied with the half-shekel Temple tax? The Temple
would have ceased to exist ten or fifteen years earlier.
Comparing the two stories in Matthew 15:1-2 and 15:21 with Mark 7:2-4 and 7:28, we see
Mark finding it necessary to explain the act of ‘washing’ and the nationality of a Canaanite.
Matthew, writing for Palestinians, had no need to do this. If Matthew was writing years after Mark
for a mainly Gentile readership, and basing his Gospel on Mark’s Gospel, why did he leave out
the helpful explanations provided by Mark?
Matthew’s Gospel is full of examples claiming Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the
Hebrews (e.g. 1:22, 2:15, 2:17, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:35, 21:4, 27:9). He reports the rending of the
Temple veil (27:51), yet not the destruction of the Temple.
According to Matthew in 12:38-42, Christ said the story of Jonah would be a sign to a
disbelieving Jewish generation. The point of the story (see Jonah chapters 1 and 2) is that the
pagans would flock to be righteous while the chosen people would keep their hard hearts. The
three-day whale incident is ancillary to the main story. If Matthew had written towards the end of
the century, when the Gentiles were flooding into the Church, he would have been able to show
the fulfilment of the prophecy (CTH 42). These are all signs of Matthew writing pre-70 AD.
The disciples knew Christ was aware of the future and asked questions, but Christ was
aiming to make his Apostles single-minded and not waste time on idle curiosity (John 21:22). He
gave them answers, but Christians have been puzzled ever since as to what applied to the
immediate future and what to the end of the world. Whether this was deliberate on the part of
Christ or whether the Apostles became confused, we do not know. We know that a major part of
the prophecy, the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, had been fulfilled within forty years.
If Matthew was writing after 70 AD, why did he fail to unscramble the words of Christ?
Orchard has pointed out that the letters of Paul to the Thessalonians, written in the 50s,
show the influence of Matthew’s Gospel. Orchard comments, “We find the same teaching, the
same metaphors and similes and the same key words, some exceedingly rare” Apart from two in
4:16, the words are used in the same order. The order is not so close in the second epistle, but even
here the words all appear in chapter 24 and the beginning of chapter 25.
55
Other powerful supporting reminiscences of Matthew are to be found in Galatians 1:12,
16, and 1 Cor. 7:1ff and 9:14 (RO 119-120). For a fuller description of these relationships see
‘Biblica 19 (1938): 19-42’.This is more evidence of Matthew writing before the 50s AD.

---

Does ANY biblical historian - note historian, not theologian or apologist - think that the Sermon on the Mount was an actual speech?

He absolutely does! I just heard him say it debating with Ehrman.
(Abe See next post)You don't need anyone else to tell you, you can just read it, it's prose. It's been composed at a writing desk and worked on. Of course it's a composition! Yeh, but most disagree with him, Matthew copied Mark and possibly Q about 40 years after Christ's death but you prefer a minority view just because it suits you.Look, any of these people can imagine any number of hypothetical scenarios and find reason to argue them. The simple fact is that there is no real evidence - none. If there was there woudn't be these daft arguments 2,000 years later.These guys have spent their entire lives studying everything in tiny detail and got used to composing scenarios that they can write a book on, but have forgotten what actual evidence looks like. This stuff is entirely hypothetical and unprovable.What we do know is how flaky the entire edifice is - anonymous writers writing decades after a supposed event. No eye witnesses, redactions, interpolations, forgeries and inventions. You've built a house on sand.

What caught my attention this morning is your phrase "staying in his field" referring to Dawkins but previously applicable to Ray Dalio (no Economist) Sam Harris (another pompous "ass" as you put it IIRC) and a smattering of "believers" who dared cross the line into History.Perhaps I will begin with a question.

Why is a "believer" with a genuine interest in human nature, evidence (or lack of evidence) regarding original sin, and bias against Jesus Christ being a factor not counted as being an expert? I realize I am being facetious and as usual, applying hyperbole in this, but we need to nail down the definition of "expert" and apply that to the overall discussion regarding choosing a faith.

​

I can grant you the fact that an expert by definition is trained academically in the field of discipline related specifically to a category. Some categories would of course be

History

Archeology

Linguistics

Philosophy

Comparitive Religions

Sociology etc.
I am applying the same methodology that you applied to Ray Dalio. And I am not challenging you on your instincts for spotting a fox among hens (con among rubes?)
You were right about Ravi. He was a con among rubes and many Christians were shocked that it was so. We could *not* deny the evidence in front of our faces, however, and chalked it up as a lesson learned.

​

IIRC, back then I was defending Ravi (arguing with you) and scrambled around trying to find evidence in his favor. I found none. He faked his academic credentials. He bamboozled many religious leaders who were guilty of the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity and appeal to emotionalism and in retrospect, was the perfect con.

​

His words were a quite well-tossed word salad and I knew it even back then. I did not trust critics such as you because I thought you were simply bashing the faith and were naturally biased against Jesus Christ. Sometimes I still feel that way, but am evaluating you in a more critical manner. Anyway...back to my point.

Theo writes:

​

As for Dawkins, he needs to stay in his field. He no spokesperson for atheists...

Whom would you list as the best spokespersons for "atheists" (as if atheism is a valid subgroup in and of itself )

​

How on earth could one even be an expert in atheism? The closest I could come would be Matt Dillahunty, but my criticism of him is only that he sells books and makes a profession out of his argument.

Here is Bauckham saying that the Sermon on the Mount was is a collection of sayings made by the evangelists. Start at 38 mins if that's all you want to hear, but best listen to the whole thing and even better listen to the first one in the series too.

I listened to it at the 38-minute mark, but I am wondering why you promote this and why it means something to you for us to hear it. It *does* broaden my perspective, so I figure it can cause me no harm. I wish you followed the links and videos I provide as a tit-for-tat experience, but you guys are convinced I am but a loon! One thing stuck out: "Memories are no better in the ancient world than they are today...which is a valid point. Believers would retort that *important information* is always recalled whereas a "State Of The Union" address is as boring as Biden himself! (Or as loud and obnoxious as Trump! )

Atheism is just an opinion about God, not a single group, club or organization. There's no unanimity of opinion regarding materialism among atheists who think about such things. My daughter's an atheist who never thinks about atheism or materialism.I think you're viewing yourself and your protagonists through the wrong lens. It isn't theists versus atheists but theists/fantabulists versus critical thinkers.Most critical thinkers understand that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Though there is no evidence of anything beyond the material, they don't conclude the immaterial doesn't exist. There's also the definition of the immaterial to consider. Isn't it the same thing as the supernatural or the divine? I'll use the word supernatural for the rest of this message.A critical thinker might say, "Because there is no evidence for the supernatural, it would be improper to categorically state that it doesn't exist. However, given the properties implied by the term 'supernatural' one would have to wonder how it would interact with the natural world. Wouldn't anything supernatural that could interact with the natural world have to be reclassified as natural? Doesn't anything truly supernatural have to remain forever undetectable by the natural world?"--Percy

I think GDR agrees with you and that that's what he's saying at the top of Message 1578. He interpreted your claim in Message 1547 that "Bauckham says outright that Jesus did not give the Sermon on the Mount" as meaning that Jesus didn't say any of the things Matthew says he said. He didn't realize you were only saying that there was no such event as the Sermon on the Mount.--Percy

It wasn't for you Phat, it was for GDR - though you'd learn a lot by listening to all of it and the preceding one too. These are two accredited biblical scholars just flat out disagreeing with each other.Anyway, I said that Jesus never gave the Sermon on the Mount (as an example of how what we're generally told as laity about the gospels being factually wrong). I gave him the wiki saying that we should not see the SotM that way. He said that talked about Bauckham thinks he did. So that video at that timing has Bauckham saying that the SotM was not said by Jesus - it's a written by whoever Matthew was.
​

You answered your own question. Speaking for myself, I don't need a spokesperson. One of our great Newfoundlander comedians, Mary Walsh, has a character named Marg Delahunty.

We're convinced you're a loon by what you write, not by the links you post. Nonsense, of course.

The point I was hoping would get across is that Carrier applies the scientific method to history and as such is a far more impartial evaluator of evidence than are evangelicals. No, Bauckham did not focus on the evidence. Bauckham is a Christian apologist while Carrier is a historian. But I'm just pointing out how different the two are. I definitely have no interest in applying the fallacy of argument from authority.If Bauckham has evidence supporting your position then present it here in the thread. Don't just claim he shows "how all the NT was written either by eye witnesses or by writers with a first person connected to the eye witnesses." (Message 510). We dispensed with that claim already, yet here you are a thousand messages later still pushing Bauckham. Please describe these "multiple contemporary historical references" about Jesus. Previously you had conceded that there weren't any, that the earliest historian writing about Jesus was Josephus sometime around 93 AD. Definitely not contemporaneous, and the one accepted reference is actually to the stoning of James: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James."Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, and was resurrected, but all Josephus knows is that James who was stoned had a brother Jesus who was called Christ. If the gospels were true accounts then Josephus would have had a lot more to say, and so would a lot of others writing in the first century.But consider Menahem ben Judah. He was a contemporary of Josephus and an earlier leader of the Jewish Revolt in which Josephus also fought. According to Josephus he took Masada but died shortly after. We know all about Masada after that from Roman records.But nothing that Jesus ever did or said or that is a direct result of anything he did or said is mentioned historically anywhere.
​
--Percy

People like Wright and Bauckham do just that. It is simply the fact that you don't find their arguments convincing. Everybody starts out with a bias including Carrier.