DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Philawallafox on October 27, 2010, 06:34:33 AM
-
Let's stop derailing BrotherH's thread lol. (sorry Brother!)
This can be the new thread to debate the historical reliability of the bible. So far we're comparing and contrasting the Gospels.
Quote from: GuineaPig on Today at 06:38:00 AM
Except there was this city state called Rome, and they liked to keep records and stuff.
Yeah there was. So why would Luke have contradicted the Roman records if he was writing to a Roman official We don't have all of rome's records and there is already evidence to suggest that Luke was right anyway. Why is it so unlikely that he knew what he was talking about? He was a doctor, not some knucklehead.
Ready fire aim!
-
You know, not that it really is my issue, but I find this artificial requirement for the Bible to be 100% literally and historically correct to be a sign of poor faith.
Even the CC abandoned the idea of literalism, and if there's one thing you can be sure of, it's that the CC doesn't give an inch in matters of faith unless it feels it is absolutely inevitable.
The Bible was written by men, each with their own aspirations that went into the manuscripts. How else could it be that Jesus' quotes in the gospels are of different wording? Or that John disagrees on the order of events?
Regarding the specific question, the Roman records are simple and plain beyond doubt. I'm sorry, I know you want your apostle to be the hero of the day, but it's one dude against Roman maps that thousands of people found their way by.
rumborak
-
Rumby, you definitely have a good head on your shoulders, but I've noticed in several threads that your knowledge of the RCC and how it relates to the other churches is really shakey at best. In matters of faith, RCC isn't just the most likely to give an inch-- many would claim they've already given several miles.
-
PC, the fact that you consider the CC to have given in a mile is exactly my point.
Look at it, the CC sits on a huge stockpile of biblical manuscripts and employs a staggering amount of scholars, I believe whose piety is without doubt (if you think either the scholars or the Pope aren't pious enough, well...)
So, if there was a way to show literal and historical exactness of the Bible, it would have been a field day for the Catholic Church. They would have been the first to be able to show it (they've been at it for a looong time), and thus they could have said "Not only are we the original church, we also show you the literal truth of the Bible."
But they didn't. In fact, they went the other way, and officially admitted that the Bible can not be considered literally exact. Why would an organization of such magnitude admit something like this, when it could spell a lot of doubt on their own teachings? Simply because they saw exactly the same stuff in the manuscripts that we are discussing here. Mistakes, bad translations, plagiarism, the gospels are full of them.
The Protestant churches, at least some, seem to be stuck in a race against each other of who can dislodge their common sense the most in order to look the most pious. "Hah, I believe the Bible is literally true, despite of all the evidence that's presented!". "Hah, heathen, I believe the earth is flat and the flood happened!!"
rumborak
-
Also, the willingness of the Catholic Church to step away from literalism and accept scientific authority on issues such as evolution, cosmology, etc. is a very positive step with regards to the education of its own members. While still draconian in other measures, it's at least something that they can modernize on some issues and realize that the Bible is a book of faith, not a substitute for science or history.
-
Has the CC really abandoned literalism in every context, though? I'm sure their are certain things, like the existence of Jesus, that even scholars in the CC would be excited to historically validate. I'll admit I don't know if they've thrown in the towel in that respect.
-
I think the CC shifted its focus on finding the underlying truth, the one that "permeates" the documents.
rumborak
-
The thing is, that's not actually what I'd consider "not giving an inch" in matters of faith. As you say, they've shifted their focus. Maybe the RCC wants to keep up with a certain ideology, but it'd be a mistake to say that good scholarship doesn't exist from other Christian perspectives.
I'm not inclined to argue that everything the Bible says is historically accurate, mind you. But where historical lacuna exists, I don't see why the records kept in the Bible are inferior to any other ancient source. Plenty of ancient sources are of sketchy historicity, but that doesn't mean they're not important to historicity.
-
I wouldn't be so quick to disregard it. Luke and Matthew both wrote their gospels within one generation of Jesus passing (they had to matthew was one of the 12 and Luke was probably one of the 120 you find in Acts 1)
Well, we don't know either of those things for sure.
an historical discrepancy would have been obvious to the people of the time. If there is an apparent contradiction then it's much more likely that there's something we don't know than something he doesn't know.
Not really. And the ancients didn't always care about "historical discrepancies."
So why would Luke have contradicted the Roman records if he was writing to a Roman official
We don't know that he was writing to a Roman official.
We don't have all of rome's records and there is already evidence to suggest that Luke was right anyway. Why is it so unlikely that he knew what he was talking about? He was a doctor, not some knucklehead.
We don't know that the author of Luke was a doctor, but I agree that he probably wasn't a knucklehead.
-
Look at it, the CC sits on a huge stockpile of biblical manuscripts and employs a staggering amount of scholars, I believe whose piety is without doubt (if you think either the scholars or the Pope aren't pious enough, well...)
So, if there was a way to show literal and historical exactness of the Bible, it would have been a field day for the Catholic Church. They would have been the first to be able to show it (they've been at it for a looong time), and thus they could have said "Not only are we the original church, we also show you the literal truth of the Bible."
This is a good observation, and coupled with what GuineaPig said, why I tend to hold the CC in higher regard from a biblical scholarship standpoint than most Christian sects. They're often demonized by Protestants for obvious reasons--some theological, some residual and psychosocial--but the fact is they have the resources, scholarship, and history that no other single Christian group has.
I think that with regard to official teaching, they're ass-backwards on a lot of things, from theological stuff that has little backing to issues of perceived "morality", but in general, they definitely lead the pack on biblical scholarship.
The Protestant churches, at least some, seem to be stuck in a race against each other of who can dislodge their common sense the most in order to look the most pious. "Hah, I believe the Bible is literally true, despite of all the evidence that's presented!". "Hah, heathen, I believe the earth is flat and the flood happened!!"
:lol I do get this vibe a lot of times. Mainstream Christianity in the U.S. seems to be almost exclusively about outward appearances, at least in the areas where I've lived.
it'd be a mistake to say that good scholarship doesn't exist from other Christian perspectives.
I agree, that would be a mistake. But the point is, the CC has been around for so long and there have been so many theologians and thinkers throughout its history, that it has a lot of very fleshed out (and relatively diverse, in some respects) and well-founded theologies. Not to mention that they have all the manuscripts and other historical resources as well, due to their longevity.
Of course there is plenty of good non-Catholic biblical scholarship too, but not from the type of people that pick up the bible and read it in a vacuum, which is what is encouraged in the majority of Protestant churches I have had any experience with.
-J
-
Has the CC really abandoned literalism in every context, though? I'm sure their are certain things, like the existence of Jesus, that even scholars in the CC would be excited to historically validate. I'll admit I don't know if they've thrown in the towel in that respect.
Actually there are plenty of books and historians who HAVE historically validated the existance of a man named Jesus for which the Bible speaks about. And also let's not forget, the New Testemant is a series of letters, mostly by a single man by the name of Paul who never met Jesus but met and talked with those people who did. There is historical evidence for Paul, Peter, Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, etc who all wrote letters and books about Christ. Million dollar question is, why can't these letters be taken as historical documents that tell of a real man named Jesus? There are also Roman letters which collaberate Christ's execution. Granted these documents are 2000 years old but they have certainly gone through enough study and research to at least give them some credit. I'm quite surprised that just because these letters just happen to be in some book people don't want to believe in, the letters themselves that were written "before" the Bible even existed must be considered fairy tales. I'm not saying just because someone wrote a letter means the letter is 100% true, what I am saying is that I call foul when it comes to people taking the New Testament letters and dismissing them outright but accepting documents older than these as historically accurate. That is we will believe in documents that tell of an Emperor named Pontius Pilate but we won't believe in documents that tell of a man named Jesus Christ.
-
There is historical evidence for Paul, Peter, Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, etc who all wrote letters and books about Christ. Million dollar question is, why can't these letters be taken as historical documents that tell of a real man named Jesus?
I'm not sure what you are objecting to. They are historical documents that tell of a real man named Jesus.
Paul . . . never met Jesus
Well, actually, he did meet Jesus, but that's a different issue.
-
I think people trying to dismiss all that is in the gospels are stupid. I am pretty sure there was a man named Jesus, and I'm pretty sure the basic stuff about him is correct too, that is, his teachings, his crucifixion etc.
But then other stuff can be reasonably dismissed. The resurrection section was a good example of that; it doesn't exist in the oldest fragments, it is of different literary style, and overall it feels tacked on anyway. I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that Jesus did not rise from the dead to talk to the apostles.
I personally, as a non-believer, find it actually refreshing to read the Bible under the starting point that the more outrageous stuff was tacked on. Because frankly, those parts of the gospels (especially in John) make me feel somebody is trying to sell me something. That is, it seems to me the writer is adding the flashy stuff to convince me of what he's writing there.
When read without the flashy stuff, I find I actually appreciate Jesus much more than with it. Because then there is a clear figure that stands out that has outstanding morals and excellent teachings. The flashy stuff, IMHO, only muddies the waters and makes it an unconvincing sales pitch. Not only that, I find a lot of believers get blinded by the flashy stuff and lose what (IMHO) Jesus was really about.
rumborak
-
I think people trying to dismiss all that is in the gospels are stupid. I am pretty sure there was a man named Jesus, and I'm pretty sure the basic stuff about him is correct too, that is, his teachings, his crucifixion etc.
But then other stuff can be reasonably dismissed. The resurrection section was a good example of that; it doesn't exist in the oldest fragments, it is of different literary style, and overall it feels tacked on anyway. I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that Jesus did not rise from the dead to talk to the apostles.
I personally, as a non-believer, find it actually refreshing to read the Bible under the starting point that the more outrageous stuff was tacked on. Because frankly, those parts of the gospels (especially in John) make me feel somebody is trying to sell me something. That is, it seems to me the writer is adding the flashy stuff to convince me of what he's writing there.
When read without the flashy stuff, I find I actually appreciate Jesus much more than with it. Because then there is a clear figure that stands out that has outstanding morals and excellent teachings. The flashy stuff, IMHO, only muddies the waters and makes it an unconvincing sales pitch. Not only that, I find a lot of believers get blinded by the flashy stuff and lose what (IMHO) Jesus was really about.
rumborak
Your opinions are well-thought out Rumby, even though as a believer I disagree. May I point out one sticking point from your post: without Christ' resurrection, Jesus is nothing. The "flashy stuff" is what convinces the Christian. He could have been the best moral teacher to have ever lived, but without his rising from the dead, defeating death and bringing new life to believers, none of it really matters.
-
I don't see that at all really. He would still be the son of God, he would still lead people into the kingdom of God through him. And he would still have died for our sins.
I know the resurrection has been woven into the theological fabric as a supposed necessity for one's salvation, but I don't see how it's actually necessary at all. I find Jesus stands strong enough on his own, without resurrection and parting of skies etc.
I do get your point though about "The "flashy stuff" is what convinces the Christian." That's obviously the reason why it was tacked on in the first place, to convince/persuade people with it. It's lamentable that people only listen to something when the fireworks go off alongside of it, but it also has the effect that people miss the message.
rumborak
-
Your opinions are well-thought out Rumby, even though as a believer I disagree. May I point out one sticking point from your post: without Christ' resurrection, Jesus is nothing. The "flashy stuff" is what convinces the Christian. He could have been the best moral teacher to have ever lived, but without his rising from the dead, defeating death and bringing new life to believers, none of it really matters.
That's a pretty sad thing.
-
I know the resurrection has been woven into the theological fabric as a supposed necessity for one's salvation, but I don't see how it's actually necessary at all. I find Jesus stands strong enough on his own, without resurrection and parting of skies etc.
rumborak
So what else could it be that shows He has the power to defeat death? Perhaps just the strength of his miracles?? Anybody can teach cool things and not be a Savior.
-
So basically you're saying that if there isn't a savior or reward involved, there's no point to being good moral people?
-
So what else could it be that shows He has the power to defeat death? Perhaps just the strength of his miracles?? Anybody can teach cool things and not be a Savior.
I dunno dude, but isn't that a statement of the bankruptcy of your faith? That is, you will only believe in Jesus if he lays down the gauntlet? Christianity is supposedly about unconditional faith; looks like a giant condition on your willingness to believe there.
And again, I'm not particularly surprised. I think the wonders and miracles are really the selling point for many Christians out there.
rumborak
-
Well, it's the miracles and rising from the dead that would separate him from just being a good teacher and a stand-up dude. That's the stuff that *requires* faith, IMO, and it's one of my problems with Christianity.
There have been a lot of great teachers throughout history. But most people don't worship them.
I like the moral code that Jesus preached. I think it's one of the best, practically speaking, that anybody could choose to live their life by, and I generally try to follow it for the most part. But I don't consider myself a Christian, because faith is supposed to be such a central part of it. And the things that require faith are the things that are the most "out-there" for a relatively skeptical dude like me: the resurrection and all the performing of miracles, etc.
-J
-
So basically you're saying that if there isn't a savior or reward involved, there's no point to being good moral people?
No, not in the least. I can be a good, moral person without Christ.
So what else could it be that shows He has the power to defeat death? Perhaps just the strength of his miracles?? Anybody can teach cool things and not be a Savior.
I dunno dude, but isn't that a statement of the bankruptcy of your faith? That is, you will only believe in Jesus if he lays down the gauntlet? Christianity is supposedly about unconditional faith; looks like a giant condition on your willingness to believe there.
rumborak
I am a believer because of the whole package, not conditional on any one aspect.
-
So basically you're saying that if there isn't a savior or reward involved, there's no point to being good moral people?
No, not in the least. I can be a good, moral person without Christ.
So what else could it be that shows He has the power to defeat death? Perhaps just the strength of his miracles?? Anybody can teach cool things and not be a Savior.
I dunno dude, but isn't that a statement of the bankruptcy of your faith? That is, you will only believe in Jesus if he lays down the gauntlet? Christianity is supposedly about unconditional faith; looks like a giant condition on your willingness to believe there.
rumborak
I am a believer because of the whole package, not conditional on any one aspect.
1) Actually, being a Christian means that you admit that you aren't a moral person. I can't tell you how sick I am of "holier-than-thou" types.
2) The only person who's faith was perfect was Christ's. Our faith is shoddy at best, and is rarely unconditional. Which is another reason why we suck.
-
So basically you're saying that if there isn't a savior or reward involved, there's no point to being good moral people?
If there isn't a saviour involved there is no Christianity. Living a moral and good life is extra curricular.
So what else could it be that shows He has the power to defeat death? Perhaps just the strength of his miracles?? Anybody can teach cool things and not be a Savior.
I dunno dude, but isn't that a statement of the bankruptcy of your faith? That is, you will only believe in Jesus if he lays down the gauntlet? Christianity is supposedly about unconditional faith; looks like a giant condition on your willingness to believe there.
rumborak
Christianity hinges solely on Christ's resurrection. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead he din't defeat death. If he didn't defeat death he didn't demosntrate his power above sin. If Jesus is not more powerful than sin then what we believe is for nought. This is why we believe in the historicity of the bible. It says Jesus defeated death and came back to life. Ergo he defeated death and came back to life. Let's get back to the topic people.
-
So basically you're saying that if there isn't a savior or reward involved, there's no point to being good moral people?
If there isn't a saviour involved there is no Christianity. Living a moral and good life is extra curricular.
So what else could it be that shows He has the power to defeat death? Perhaps just the strength of his miracles?? Anybody can teach cool things and not be a Savior.
I dunno dude, but isn't that a statement of the bankruptcy of your faith? That is, you will only believe in Jesus if he lays down the gauntlet? Christianity is supposedly about unconditional faith; looks like a giant condition on your willingness to believe there.
rumborak
Christianity hinges solely on Christ's resurrection. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead he din't defeat death. If he didn't defeat death he didn't demosntrate his power above sin. If Jesus is not more powerful than sin then what we believe is for nought. This is why we believe in the historicity of the bible. It says Jesus defeated death and came back to life. Ergo he defeated death and came back to life. Let's get back to the topic people.
1 cor 15 ftw.
-
Christianity hinges solely on Christ's resurrection.
Ok, let's hear it.
If Jesus didn't rise from the dead he din't defeat death.
Yup, I follow.
If he didn't defeat death he didn't demosntrate his power above sin.
Err, no comprende. Please expound; I do not see a correlation between mastering death and the power over sin.
Besides, I believe the term is "he died for our sins", not "he got resurrected for our sins".
rumborak
-
If he didn't defeat death he didn't demosntrate his power above sin.
Err, no comprende. Please expound; I do not see a correlation between mastering death and the power of sin.
Besides, I believe the term is "he died for our sins", not "he got resurrected for our sins".
rumborak
I had to think about it for a minute, but it made sense. He died for their sins, he took the punishment. Then coming back from the dead would mean was able to rise above the price of sin, or sin itself.
-
The price of something is not the same as the thing itself. He might have overcome the price of sin, but that is, if anything, more bothersome, since he never paid it after all. In my humble opinion, the only way to truly pay the price for the son of God would be to completely die; that is, giving up his seat next to God. I mean, look at it; his death lasted a mere 3 days, then he is alive again and ascends to the seat next to God. I dunno, but where is the sacrifice?
rumborak
-
The price of something is not the same as the thing itself. He might have overcome the price of sin, but that is, if anything, more bothersome, since he never paid it after all.
rumborak
I dunno, you'll get to hear what paul says about it in a little while I'm sure.
-
Suppose you are doing some research, and you stumble along the fact that this single individual named Jesus was bodily resurrected (just play along, even if you disagree). So you think, how did this guy get resurrected? And how is there any way I can achieve this resurrection as well?
So, the natural place to get this question is to ask Jesus how he did it. Since he's obviously not around anymore, we have to dive into the past to see what he has already said. We see that he says he is the Son of God, and that he died for the sins of all mankind, and that he endorses the Old Testament. Those are crazy claims, but if this guy rose from the dead, defying everything we know about life and death...then he earns at least some credibilty on the issue of life and death.
So, while we don't instinctive know about "sin" or how sin causes death, we can find out.
And rumby, he DID pay it. No one said he didn't. He paid it, and rose as evidence that it was paid. If he rose without it being paid, he would have just died again...
-
So, say I consciously take the blame for somebody else's heinous murder, and end up getting life in jail for it. But, I go in, knowing that my big buddy will get me out in three days anyway. Did I sacrifice anything?
rumborak
-
So, say I consciously take the blame for somebody else's heinous murder, and end up getting life in jail for it. But, I go in, knowing that my big buddy will get me out in three days anyway. Did I sacrifice anything?
rumborak
That's a theological question in which I am interested in the answer to as well.
But we are talking about history...we don't necessarily need to know why something happened the way it did, but what actually happened. Once we figure out what, than we can ask why.
-
I always took the whole "eternal life" / "saved from death" thing to just mean that you get to spend the rest of eternity chilling up in Heaven. Why does Jesus have to physically come back to life to "cheat death"?
-
So, say I consciously take the blame for somebody else's heinous murder, and end up getting life in jail for it. But, I go in, knowing that my big buddy will get me out in three days anyway. Did I sacrifice anything?
rumborak
That's a theological question in which I am interested in the answer to as well.
But we are talking about history...we don't necessarily need to know why something happened the way it did, but what actually happened. Once we figure out what, than we can ask why.
Err, the thread started out with the discussion that the resurrection part was tacked on, and was very likely not part of the original manuscripts. If anything, historical evidence points against it.
BTW, in these discussions, many of which come down to "who was Jesus actually, and what did Paul add on later? ", i always have to think of this scene :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtube_gdata_player&v=EJvRdwqctn0
rumborak
-
great movie scene....makes me want to actually see the whole movie.
-
So, say I consciously take the blame for somebody else's heinous murder, and end up getting life in jail for it. But, I go in, knowing that my big buddy will get me out in three days anyway. Did I sacrifice anything?
Also, there was a lot of physical torture going on with Jesus.
-
So, say I consciously take the blame for somebody else's heinous murder, and end up getting life in jail for it. But, I go in, knowing that my big buddy will get me out in three days anyway. Did I sacrifice anything?
Also, there was a lot of physical torture going on with Jesus.
Well we know there was at least some. We don't know how much.
-
Rumby, that really is a good question. The problem is we are talking about the historicity of the resurrection, not the theology behind it. We aren't seeking to know why as we are trying to figure out what actually happened. Once we get an answer to what happened, we can start pondering why things happened the way they did.
-
If I may to speak about rising from the dead it is next to impossible to really prove given that A) It's impossible as far as we know the action B) not many people were witness to seeing Christ after he died. The 12 apostles saw him and even one of them was in the same boat as most people who don't believe that is he wanted pure scientific imperical evidence to back it up. He wanted to see Christ, touch Christ, etc. But to still believe in the resurrection story cannot ultimately come from research it HAS to come through faith. The Bible in itself is a book about God spoken through the human condition using examples from history and experiences from people who encountered God that we (well The Church) felt were geniune experiences. I don't think I ever heard of the resurrection stories getting tacked on later. Luke's Gospel has the biggest section of the resurrection story and historians are convinced Luke wrote all of it and The Acts of the Apostles immediately afterwards. So I would need a source to this claim to read where they are coming from since from what I know of the history of the Bible is that, the letters of Paul come first, written around 40AD. The Gospels come later around 70AD with John being last who also wrote The Book of Revelations.
When it comes to what happened external around Christ, all of this is backed up through historical evidence. We are very familiar with what was happening, who were the major characters, political parties, situations, etc. What we don't have are documents that back up the Gospels, which in my mind would have been a bit strange if we did. This would be like finding a library of files about some random group of fisherman during The Anglo-Saxon war which someone would have to have written. So in reading Paul, if he tacked anything on it would be added human experiences from his perspective, much the same as an eyewitness might talk about an event from a matter of perspective. The Gospels are in the same boat. Again, different authors, two using outside source material we have still yet to find called Q, who simply wrote these books again bringing their experiences into the pages and also writing based on their own disciplinary style: Matthew writing as a teacher, Luke writing to a friend as if recounting events from a journal, John writing in a very stylistic prose that is miles ahead of the other three, obviously better educated in the art of writing.
What actually happened is written in these Gospels and the Letters. Whether you believe these people or not is a matter of faith. I seriously doubt that history can prove that Jesus did not walk on water or cure the sick, etc. All you have to back up these stories are the testimony of rather poor fisherman who have no political power whatsoever. Why it happened I don't think history can answer either.
-
So, say I consciously take the blame for somebody else's heinous murder, and end up getting life in jail for it. But, I go in, knowing that my big buddy will get me out in three days anyway. Did I sacrifice anything?
Also, there was a lot of physical torture going on with Jesus.
Well we know there was at least some. We don't know how much.
you sacrificed 3 days worth of punishment.
When you've got God punishing you it's gonna be pretty painful. Also for the sake of the metaphor you started of being beaten then mocked then scourged (by this point most people are already dead) then you go to Jail and to make sure you're in there good and tight they cuff you to your door, then they move you to solitary and on your third day you break out yourself.
Also the difference between you and Jesus is that he never did anything wrong by any law. You cannot truthfully tell anyone that you have not commited any thing that is punishable under the Jewish Law.
-
I don't think I ever heard of the resurrection stories getting tacked on later.
I don't think that's particularly surprising really. I myself was an altar boy for years, and in none of the sermons was it ever touched that Luke and Matthew don't agree on when Jesus was born.
I mean, obviously no church will seed discord amongst their followers by pointing out sticky issues with the source material.
What actually happened is written in these Gospels and the Letters. Whether you believe these people or not is a matter of faith. I seriously doubt that history can prove that Jesus did not walk on water or cure the sick, etc. All you have to back up these stories are the testimony of rather poor fisherman who have no political power whatsoever. Why it happened I don't think history can answer either.
Here's the thing: I would agree with your argument if all we had was one single source copy of the NT. Then, essentially, everything would either have to be taken at face value, or none at all.
However, that is not the case. There are thousands of manuscripts, and the differences between them give enormous insight into what was the most likely source material, and what parts have veru likely been added. as Ehrmann says, there are more differences in the manuscripts than there are words in the NT. For sure, the majority of those differences are simple spelling differences, but there are many that can't just be brushed away leisurely.
And it's not that we don't have objective measures either. There are very strong guiding principles by which one can infer facts from the manuscripts. For example, there is the principle that no copyist would create a copy of a gospel that would make the object of his copying (Jesus) look worse than the version he has in front of him for copying. From that standpoint, what possible explanation could there be that the oldest manuscripts we have don't include the resurrection part? It would make no sense whatsoever for someone to sit down for hours on end to copy a gospel, but then leave out a whole section from the version he's copying from.
The conclusion is obvious: The resurrection part was added by someone who wanted to improve on the gospel. Maybe he thought the ending was too abrupt, or lacked punch for someone like the son of God to just disappear.
rumborak
-
you sacrificed 3 days worth of punishment.
When you've got God punishing you it's gonna be pretty painful.
Jesus was painfully punished by God during the 3 days he was dead? That is new to me, I would like to see any kind of reference for that.
rumborak
-
The conclusion is obvious: The resurrection part was added by someone who wanted to improve on the gospel. Maybe he thought the ending was too abrupt, or lacked punch for someone like the son of God to just disappear.
rumborak
I'm sorry but I don't agree. I have never heard any historian mention Luke written by two people so I really need a source or citation for this in order to understand where the person is coming from. The current status on the Gospel of Luke is that most people believe it was written by the Companion of Paul, however there are scholars who believe the author is unknown and will never be known however regardless of this revelation I haven't come across the idea from scholars that Luke was spliced and that other elements were added to the text. In fact I have a rather detailed Bible in front of me that gives excellent accounts of historical information as well as commentary and there is nothing in this book (published recently) that indicates that any of the resurrection stories were "added" at a later date. It also wouldn't make sense that the resurrection stories werenot part of the "oral tradition" as the resurrection story is the vital link to it all. Without it we might as well be Muslim or Jewish. The resurrection is a crux of the faith. If that was not part of the original oral tradition then it doesn't make sense why anyone would just go ahead and add that later on and on top of that make sure that the other two did the same. If the resurrection stories were tacked on then they tacked on all three so are we saying that the same scribe wrote all three or that three different scribes did the same thing? Sorry but I really think that's far fetched and something that would be clearly documented and easy to find.
Also when it comes to sermons please understand that one priest is the whole voice of the Church. Every priest is going to be different, have a different approach when it comes to the homily. Some spend their time joking and telling stories, others will preach as if it's 1455, while quite a few will actually introduce you to ideas and expressions of the text and even supply some history, and textual information. I have heard many homilies where the mention the nativity stories of Matthew and Luke and how they do not match. They cite scholars from as far back as 1100 who touch upon this and have incredible things to say about it. Also any priest out there who denies the Bible has inconsistancies isn't paying attention. Of course the Bible is inconsistant, it's a collection of stories from different people, from different eras, trying to teach you something about the human condition and through these expressions and experiences teach you something of the Divine Word. These inconsistanties do NOT invalidate the Word of God given the you must separate the Word of God from the human word. The human word is of opinion while the Word of God is of truth. (This last sentance is a matter of faith. If you don't believe in it, fine. I'm not pushing this on anyone) So I'm always trying to wonder why a person will openly state the Bible is inconsistant and riduculous when you are supposed to dig into the text to find the Word of God. I cannot stress more on reading books from Saints like Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, or Saint John of the Cross. The Saints do a much much better job of opening the Bible and some even provide excellent historical basis and fact. :smiley:
-
you sacrificed 3 days worth of punishment.
When you've got God punishing you it's gonna be pretty painful.
Jesus was painfully punished by God during the 3 days he was dead? That is new to me, I would like to see any kind of reference for that.
rumborak
Me as well. Since when did God ever punish Christ? I would love to read this source. ;)
-
rumby, you keep saying that the resurrection wasn't included in the earliest copies, but I think you are misrepresenting the concept. There was no depiction of a resurrected Jesus in the earliest manuscripts of Mark, but it is clear that he is depicting that Jesus was resurrected. And accounts of the resurrected Jesus (such as they are) were always present in the text of Matthew, Luke, John, and other noncanonical gospels.
So the concept of Jesus being resurrected was present as far back as we can historically show. If we go back further than Mark, to the sayings gospel Q, we see a document that may or may not have included a passion/resurrection sequence, but whether it did or not, it remains a hypothetical construct (although one which I believe existed).
-
I'm sorry but I don't agree. I have never heard any historian mention Luke written by two people so I really need a source or citation for this in order to understand where the person is coming from.
I'm not saying that Mark was written by two people in the sense you are portraying it right there. I am saying there was an original version of Mark, and somebody, not Mark, added the resurrection part.
A web page I just dug up quickly:
https://www.christiancadre.org/member_contrib/Mark_Ending.html
Almost all scholars, whether conservative or liberal, agree that the ending of Mark common to modern English versions -- Mark 16:9-20 -- was not a part of the original text. The reason for such a strong consensus is twofold.
The first is that the oldest manuscripts lack verses 9-20. As Donald Guthrie, notes:
The two Alexandrian Unical Mss, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus" end at 16:8. New Testament Introduction, at 90. Additionally, early Christian writers noted that the ending was not in their earliest manuscripts. "Jerome and Eusebius both state that the best manuscripts available to them did not contain this longer ending.
Douglass Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, page 103. Given the lack of early manuscript evidence, it is very unlikely that these verses were original to the text.
The second reason, is that there are significant linguistic and stylistic differences between 9-20 and the rest of Mark. "The longer ending contains several non-Markan words and expressions." Moo, op. cit., page 103.
As a result of these two facts, "[t]oday it is generally recognized that the report of the Resurrection and Ascension (16:9-20) found in the majority of the manuscripts and versions was not a part of the original Mark." W.G. Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, page 71. Where then, did the modern ending of Mark come from? Most likely later scribes added endings based on how they "knew" the story ended by relying on Matthew, Luke, and, perhaps, John.
So, somebody down the road decided to fluff up Mark to correspond to what his/her impression of the "real" ending was.
rumborak
-
Wait, people didn't know that already?
-
Rumby, I think you and Vivace are sort of talking past each other on this issue. Yes, the account of the actual post-resurrection sightings may not have been in the original manuscript. You are correct on that issue. That is not only common knowledge, but is reflected in virtually every reliable modern translation (usually either by having a footnote appear in verse 8, having the text of verses 9-16 offset, or having the text of 9-16 appear solely in a footnote). So in that sense, you are correct.
I'm not sure whether you were saying the resurrection itself wasn't included, which is I think how Vivace and hef understood your post. If so, you overstated your point. Even if the above does prove the post-resurrection sightings in 16:9-16 were not included in the original text, there is plenty about the resurrection that is there. Jesus makes several predictions about it in earlier chapters. And then we have this in 16:1-8:
1(A) (B) When the Sabbath was past,(C) Mary Magdalene and(D) Mary the mother of James and(E) Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. 3And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away(F) the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" 4And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back—(G) it was very large. 5And(H) entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side,(I) dressed in(J) a white robe, and(K) they were alarmed. 6And he said to them,(L) "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter that(M) he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." 8And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
-
Well, the problem I have with those kind of passages now is, if a scribe is willing to patch on a whole section of formerly non-existent text, I am sure he/she will have had no qualms about modifying previous text too to make it gel better with the new section.
rumborak
-
In the abstract, perhaps you are correct. But in this specific instance, manuscripts that have 16:1-8 and not 16:9-16 intact as quoted above date much earlier than the manuscripts that do contain 16:9-16. So there's no reason to assume 1-8 were modified (unless you are saying the same scribe that you think later patched on 9-16 then went back in time and fixed up 1-8 [as well as mentions earlier in the book of a resurrection] so that they would fit his later addition).
-
In the abstract, perhaps you are correct. But in this specific instance, manuscripts that have 16:1-8 and not 16:9-16 intact as quoted above date much earlier than the manuscripts that do contain 16:9-16. So there's no reason to assume 1-8 were modified (unless you are saying the same scribe that you think later patched on 9-16 then went back in time and fixed up 1-8 [as well as mentions earlier in the book of a resurrection] so that they would fit his later addition).
I'm not saying 16:1-8 were inventions, but the passage in question:
But go, tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee: there you shall see him, as he said to you.
can have many interpretation, including the "mundane" interpretation "Jesus will be with you spiritually on your journey to Galilee, and you will communicate with him (through visions) when you are there".
The later scribe then decided to "flesh out" this section with a more literal interpretation of that passage.
I mean, what is your theory that fits the fact that 16:9-16 didn't exist in the oldest manuscripts and are of distinctly non-Markian writing style?
rumborak
-
I mean, what is your theory that fits the fact that 16:9-16 didn't exist in the oldest manuscripts and are of distinctly non-Markian writing style?
I don't have one. I'm not arguing that it necessary does or does not belong there. I don't think the evidence for or against it is as clear-cut as some make it out to be, but ultimately, I don't think it matters much since there really isn't anything in that one particular passage that we don't get elsewhere in other texts (including earlier passages of Mark).
-
I see what you're saying, and I would agree that it is up to one's choice to decide the magnitude of these changes.
I think what this whole discussion showed though that one can not just make blanket statements about the Bible's historicity. Some are clearly correct, some are clearly not historical at all.
rumborak
-
I see what you're saying, and I would agree that it is up to one's choice to decide the magnitude of these changes.
I think what this whole discussion showed though that one can not just make blanket statements about the Bible's historicity. Some are clearly correct, some are clearly not historical at all.
rumborak
Yeah, I understand where you're coming from. There is clearly room for a lot of debate. But that is true of any other document as well. I mean, there are plenty of well-reasoned, scholarly arguments why a lot of things Tacitus recorded may be fabrications or at least unreliable because of bias. But that doesn't mean his writings don't have immense historical value. I realize it is much easier to write off religious texts when approaching them from a secular perspective. But even if one views the religious perspective as being suspect and views anything supernatural as a complete fabrication, that in and of itself should not necessarily undermine the historicity of a lot of it. At least, that's how I look at it.
-
No reason to add anything Bosk has said it all. Yes.. we were clearly talking past each other. The idea that Mark is incomplete is common knowledge but that's not what I understood from the discussion where it seemed the idea of the resurrection of Christ, the very idea was a simple tack on by scribes after the fact. This is clearly not true at all as it presents a very difficult paradox if it were true. Also this idea that something was "fluffed" seems a bit pointed to me. That is as if the scribe took the document and went "no no no! Let's take this character out and let's re-write this story here and put this here." as if he were brought in to liven things up. I cannot for a second believe that's how scribes looked at documents and worked on them. I take them a bit more seriously than that. In my mind what is added or changed would be like an artist trying to "restore" a work of art or sculpture. If parts of the document were lost then what "should" have been there according to the author not according to the scribe. This is all conjucture by the way but it makes the most sense to me over the idea that Scribes "invented" stuff in order to make it "better". I guess anything is possible, but this just seems something out of a Dan Brown novel to me than actual history.
-
I see what you're saying, and I would agree that it is up to one's choice to decide the magnitude of these changes.
I think what this whole discussion showed though that one can not just make blanket statements about the Bible's historicity. Some are clearly correct, some are clearly not historical at all.
rumborak
Yeah, I understand where you're coming from. There is clearly room for a lot of debate. But that is true of any other document as well. I mean, there are plenty of well-reasoned, scholarly arguments why a lot of things Tacitus recorded may be fabrications or at least unreliable because of bias. But that doesn't mean his writings don't have immense historical value. I realize it is much easier to write off religious texts when approaching them from a secular perspective. But even if one views the religious perspective as being suspect and views anything supernatural as a complete fabrication, that in and of itself should not necessarily undermine the historicity of a lot of it. At least, that's how I look at it.
That's fair enough I think. As you say (and that's a very new tune I hear from you here), one has to look at the specific example. As Hef pointed out, there is no way to reconcile for example the different birth dates that Luke and Matthew give; realistically, neither of them actually knew, and they extrapolated backwards just as we do these days.
rumborak
-
I see what you're saying, and I would agree that it is up to one's choice to decide the magnitude of these changes.
I think what this whole discussion showed though that one can not just make blanket statements about the Bible's historicity. Some are clearly correct, some are clearly not historical at all.
rumborak
The same can and should be said about any history of that era. Things just were not written down as much as they were in the future so having any clear cut knowledge of these periods of time will always be sketchy at best however every year historians and scholars keep uncovering new things and fill in the gaps so maybe at some point down the road we will have a clear cut idea of things. So I would hope that people don't dismiss the Bible and accept other books about the same era as historical fact. I'm not saying the Bible is 100% historical. That's not what the Bible was meant to be. But it is clearly written behind a historical context and background that we can verify and have validated so why a person who dismiss the Bible's information on the Jewish Diasporia yet accept information from another book is beyond me.
-
Also this idea that something was "fluffed" seems a bit pointed to me. That is as if the scribe took the document and went "no no no! Let's take this character out and let's re-write this story here and put this here." as if he were brought in to liven things up. I cannot for a second believe that's how scribes looked at documents and worked on them. I take them a bit more seriously than that. In my mind what is added or changed would be like an artist trying to "restore" a work of art or sculpture. If parts of the document were lost then what "should" have been there according to the author not according to the scribe. This is all conjucture by the way but it makes the most sense to me over the idea that Scribes "invented" stuff in order to make it "better". I guess anything is possible, but this just seems something out of a Dan Brown novel to me than actual history.
I highly, highly recommend to you reading the "Misquoting Jesus" book in that regard. Scribes did change the Bible, for a multitude of reasons. Sometimes they thought somebody before them had altered the original and tried to "revert" it, by that act adding even more modifications. And yes, sometimes they also altered stuff to make it appeal more to their target audience. Just look at the different styles of the gospels themselves; they are clearly written with a target audience in mind, and they differ greatly in details at times, due to that. Don't you for example find it at least a bit "odd" that John would choose to shuffle around the order of events in Jesus' life?
I think you shouldn't underestimate how "living" Christian theology was in those times when the gospels were written down the first time. There was a large spread of beliefs regarding what/who Jesus was, including people who thought he wasn't the Messiah at all. What you are reading as the canon is a snapshot of a particular set of beliefs that ended up winning, more due to politics than because of inherent veracity.
rumborak
-
Also this idea that something was "fluffed" seems a bit pointed to me. That is as if the scribe took the document and went "no no no! Let's take this character out and let's re-write this story here and put this here." as if he were brought in to liven things up. I cannot for a second believe that's how scribes looked at documents and worked on them. I take them a bit more seriously than that. In my mind what is added or changed would be like an artist trying to "restore" a work of art or sculpture. If parts of the document were lost then what "should" have been there according to the author not according to the scribe. This is all conjucture by the way but it makes the most sense to me over the idea that Scribes "invented" stuff in order to make it "better". I guess anything is possible, but this just seems something out of a Dan Brown novel to me than actual history.
I highly, highly recommend to you reading the "Misquoting Jesus" book in that regard. Scribes did change the Bible, for a multitude of reasons. Sometimes they thought somebody before them had altered the original and tried to "revert" it, by that act adding even more modifications. And yes, sometimes they also altered stuff to make it appeal more to their target audience. Just look at the different styles of the gospels themselves; they are clearly written with a target audience in mind, and they differ greatly in details at times, due to that. Don't you for example find it at least a bit "odd" that John would choose to shuffle around the order of events in Jesus' life?
I think you shouldn't underestimate how "living" Christian theology was in those times when the gospels were written down the first time. There was a large spread of beliefs regarding what/who Jesus was, including people who thought he wasn't the Messiah at all. What you are reading as the canon is a snapshot of a particular set of beliefs that ended up winning, more due to politics than because of inherent veracity.
rumborak
I have heard of this book and know a few friends who have read it and I remember a link to a review to which they firmly agreed and sided with.
https://www.denverseminary.edu/article/misquoting-jesus-the-story-behind-who-changed-the-bible-and-why/
I think I fully appreciate what happened during that time. I have studied the period so I clearly don't underestimate it. However I am unclear as to why you think the set of beliefs that "won" should be discredited due to whatever political forces put them into practice? How do we know what "won" isn't the correct answer? How do we know that scholars didn't ponder and research the original texts and develop the proper ideas and flesh out the dogmas that were subsisting in the texts? Why do we immediately distrust what won? Of course you are going to have opposing ideas right at the beginning. The Apostles couldn't even understand Christ when we was speaking to them directly. For example there were the following questions: Is Christ human and divine? Is he just human? Is He just Divine? Did he really rise from the dead? (can't rise from the dead if you are not human). What is this trinity? Is it real? (never mentioned in the Bible and the development of this dogma is incredibly interesting). They aksed a TON of questions. Hence why eventually they had to have a council and finally get everything somewhat fleshed out, especially since they were at that "legal".
These heresies are great reads and I highly recommend anyone who is interested in reading them. There were quite a few and some of them were just over-the-top.
I'll give one example because I have read about these heresies and after reading them and the arguments against and for, people back then were leaps and bounds ahead of most people today. One heresy stated that Christ was Divine but not human. If this were true, then Christ never died, he never rose from the dead, there was no immaculate conception, nor did he perform miracles. All of these events hinge on the idea that Christ was human AND divine. I won't go into that. So to change the Gospel texts to make this more clear is a "good" thing. ;) Now if the text originally read that Christ was only divine then clearly if you understand how the above cannot hold logically, then we must concur that such a text never was written. How can we hold to a God who is true if we hold to His Word that can be immediately and logically disproven? So I still hold on my convictions that 1) no dogma's were changed, added on or removed that would have completely changed the dogmas we have now or were already written down and 2) the resurrection stories were not an added element after the fact. ;)
-
However I am unclear as to why you think the set of beliefs that "won" should be discredited due to whatever political forces put them into practice? How do we know what "won" isn't the correct answer?
I find that a somewhat blue-eyed view of things, to assume whoever won was the right one, especially when it was achieved through pure political power and subsequent eradication of the heretics. Mind you, I am not particularly surprised that this particularly version of theology won; it is undoubtedly the most grand, and puts Jesus on the highest pedestal there is.
I would have to hear a good argument why, with all the different gospels out there (including the non-canonical ones), the canonical ones are inherently superior. Especially a spaced-out one like John. Also, why the theological interpretation of John should be trusted more than the much more down-to-Earth ones of the Synoptic gospels.
rumborak
-
However I am unclear as to why you think the set of beliefs that "won" should be discredited due to whatever political forces put them into practice? How do we know what "won" isn't the correct answer?
I find that a somewhat blue-eyed view of things, to assume whoever won was the right one, especially when it was achieved through pure political power and subsequent eradication of the heretics. Mind you, I am not particularly surprised that this particularly version of theology won; it is undoubtedly the most grand, and puts Jesus on the highest pedestal there is.
I would have to hear a good argument why, with all the different gospels out there (including the non-canonical ones), the canonical ones are inherently superior. Especially a spaced-out one like John. Also, why the theological interpretation of John should be trusted more than the much more down-to-Earth ones of the Synoptic gospels.
rumborak
Because he agrees with them. He just puts everything in a different order. Who said biographies are supposed to be written chronologically anyway?
The non canonical ones are non canonical for a reason. They were written by heretical splinter groups like the Gnostics. If you ever want something spaced out to mull over check out Gnosticism.
-
Because he agrees with them. He just puts everything in a different order. Who said biographies are supposed to be written chronologically anyway?
Err, ok. No comment here, seriously.
rumborak
-
Because he agrees with them. He just puts everything in a different order. Who said biographies are supposed to be written chronologically anyway?
The differences are quite a bit more staggering than just putting everything in a different order.
-
Historically, the differences in the gospels fly in the face of the people that claim that Mat, Lk, and Jn were copied from Mk, or off of each other in general. It also greatly diminishes the chance that the four authors conspired together.
There is a theological answer for why different information was in the gospels, and the order they are in....
Matthew portrays Jesus as king. (the reason for the Davidic lineage, and all the speeches, leadership activities, etc.)
Mark portrays him as a servant. (constant actions performed by Jesus...why you get so many miracles in Mark)
Luke portrays him as a man. (lineage traced back to Adam....also portrays Jesus's emotions, such as "Jesus wept")
John portrays him as a God. (verse 1 states Jesus is God...etc.)
There are also four cherubims....a lion, an ox, a man, and an eagle....those are all types of the four things I just mentioned, in respective order...
And four is the number of creation...
Just some interesting tidbits for ya! :tup
-
Historically, the differences in the gospels fly in the face of the people that claim that Mat, Lk, and Jn were copied from Mk, or off of each other in general. It also greatly diminishes the chance that the four authors conspired together.
No one claims that Matthew, Luke, or John "copied" from Mark. Many scholars think that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source in composing their gospels. That's not the same thing. Furthermore, at least one scholar I've read thinks that John used Mark's passion narrative as a source. No one thinks that the four authors conspired together AFAIK.
There is a theological answer for why different information was in the gospels, and the order they are in....
Matthew portrays Jesus as king. (the reason for the Davidic lineage, and all the speeches, leadership activities, etc.)
Mark portrays him as a servant. (constant actions performed by Jesus...why you get so many miracles in Mark)
Luke portrays him as a man. (lineage traced back to Adam....also portrays Jesus's emotions, such as "Jesus wept")
John portrays him as a God. (verse 1 states Jesus is God...etc.)
There are also four cherubims....a lion, an ox, a man, and an eagle....those are all types of the four things I just mentioned, in respective order...
And four is the number of creation...
Just some interesting tidbits for ya! :tup
I don't agree with your characterizations, I don't know what "four cherubims" have to do with anything, and I don't know what you mean about four being the number of creation, but you are right that each of the gospels portrays Jesus differently, with some differences being much bigger than others.
-
But 4 is half the number represented by Octavarium. And 4 is the number of nuggets in a Happy Meal. So, obviously, nuggets abound.
But wait...it doesn't stop there!
Chickens were not unclean animals, and were thus a permissible food source for the Jews. Cherubim have wings, which indicates a Jewish preference for wings. 4 chickens x 2 wings = 8
8 => TRAPPED INSIDE THIS OCTAVARIUM! And this story, folks, ends where it began.
:octavarium:
^note 4 balls...nugget!
-
:lol
But the thing is...even if the other authors used Mark as a source, they wouldn't have written things that would be so vastly different.
-
Not necessarily. One of the most difficult things about looking at past historical accounts is that we typically can't trace the flow of ideas. There could be written or oral accounts we don't have, or judgments the author made without noting them.
In the example I gave in the other thread about the Roman noble Coriolanus, there's discrepancies between the different accounts of his life that we can't trace. Most puzzling is why Plutarch, who very clearly based his own account off of Livy's, recounted a fate for Coriolanus different then either of the ones Livy suggested. We don't have any insight into how the historical opinions/research changed in the interim; it makes it really difficult for historians now to trace the flow of ideas.
-
:lol
But the thing is...even if the other authors used Mark as a source, they wouldn't have written things that would be so vastly different.
The ones that used Mark (Matthew and Luke) AREN'T vastly different. They mostly include a lot of stuff that Mark didn't have, and occasionally alter something Markan to fit their presentation of Jesus.
John is vastly different, but other than the Passion story, there isn't any evidence whatsoever that he had any knowledge of Mark (or Matthew or Luke).
-
I feel as if I should make a few things a bit more clear as I think my previous posts were not so clear at all.
It is widely known that the Bible has gone through "adjustments" but remember there was no Bible until 382 I believe when the Church got around to putting all "approved" material into a single collection. Now what do we mean by approved? Well the Bible was put together on the basis of Divine Revelation, not on the basis of historical fact. That is in putting together the Bible, the Church was not concerned about inconsistancies of history that had no effect on Christian Dogma. In other words, if two Gospels can't agree on where Christ was born, it doesn't matter as the birth of Jesus as the Son of God is an article of faith. The historical birth of Jesus is not an article of faith if we know for a fact the man was born. Faith rests in the unknowing, not in the knowing. The Bible is more concerned about divine revelation and the Word of God which is not inconsistant but unchanging. We should not also just forsake the very notion of the event actually happening for without the event actually happening, there is no event to speak or write of, so of course there must be some historical context attached.
We need to accept the human imperfection in the Bible but truth in God's perfection. If you are to base your entire faith in God on how historically accurate the Bible is, then I'm afraid you will never attain faith in God in your lifetime. Faith is not created through a measured human restriction. im not saying this to mean either accept the Bible and forget the historical inaccuracies. Not in the slightest. The inaccuracies are interesting in themselves but they should NEVER hinder a person's faith in the Divine Word. So that idea that John's gospel has events for Christ in a different order should not in anyway take away anyone's faith in God for it's not the order of the events but the event's themselves that important. Naturally the events should have a reasonable order, birth first, death last, but whether the beatitudes are first here or further down the road in other gospel when it comes to revelation is irrelavant. What is relavant is the Word itself during the Beatitude and the fact that event did happen.
Also it has been said we should not underestimate the scribes. This is fine and dandy, but then I shall ask that people do not underestimate the scholars who came after the scribes and the historians and theologians today who have and continue to bring the Word of God alive and we hope in the correct form, but if we have faith in God and in His ways, then we should have faith in those who are custodians to the Bible ad therefore have faith that the Bible we have now is the Divine Word of God in absolute correct form and that is complete and 100%. Again this is Catholic Doctrinal Teaching. Others will disagree and have their own Doctrinal teaching on the matter. To remove God from the Bible makes the Bible just another book. If that's what people want to do, that fine, but that's your opinion. ;)
-
However I am unclear as to why you think the set of beliefs that "won" should be discredited due to whatever political forces put them into practice? How do we know what "won" isn't the correct answer?
I find that a somewhat blue-eyed view of things, to assume whoever won was the right one, especially when it was achieved through pure political power and subsequent eradication of the heretics. Mind you, I am not particularly surprised that this particularly version of theology won; it is undoubtedly the most grand, and puts Jesus on the highest pedestal there is.
I would have to hear a good argument why, with all the different gospels out there (including the non-canonical ones), the canonical ones are inherently superior. Especially a spaced-out one like John. Also, why the theological interpretation of John should be trusted more than the much more down-to-Earth ones of the Synoptic gospels.
rumborak
But this is way the human condition sees the Bible. Again, the Bible is the Word of God and we either trust the power of God in the creation of the Bible or not. This is not to say that God was vying for a side the whole time. This is saying, that the right people at the right time were in the right place moved by the will of God to make sure the Bible people had then and have today is the same unchanging word of God. Also I bolded the following above to make an observation. They are superior because they are the true Word of God and we know this because of faith not through argumentation. this is the whole point of the Bible. Textual Criticisms are great in that it brings more light into a rather dimly light world we still don't know everything about, but again, you cannot base faith on historical accurracy on the Bible. Faith comes from the Divine Word.
In hindsight the best thing here is to simply agree to disagree because I understand where you are coming from and unfortunately my ideas will never agree with yours. ;)
-
This is saying, that the right people at the right time were in the right place moved by the will of God to make sure the Bible people had then and have today is the same unchanging word of God.
That is indeed fine if that's your stance, but one comment:
This is of course a nowhere-to-be-verified assumption. Meaning, you stake your life on the hope that whoever copied the manuscripts (and there were many in the chain of copying) were all moved by God to make the right additions/deletions/translations. And mind you, this includes the translation into English that you see today. Your argument inevitably has to extend through 2,000 years of processing the Bible.
With that in mind, looking at how many pious people do nasty and wrong things in the name of God, I can't see how this is a rock-solid assumption to stand on.
Also, where was the "right move" when Luke and Matthew couldn't agree on Jesus' age? How much credence can one give to the nativity narration when Luke or Matthew couldn't decide whether Jesus was 30 or 40? In fact, how much credence can you give to a supposed eyewitness account anyway with that kind of discrepancy of age?
rumborak
-
Actually there are plenty of books and historians who HAVE historically validated the existance of a man named Jesus for which the Bible speaks about.
No there aren't. There are plenty of books written by people passing themselves off as historians who desperately want the NT to be literally true, but the first non-gospel sources that mention Jesus are those of Tacitus and Pliny the Elder, both of whom existed after Jesus alleged life and wrote based on hearsay.
There is historical evidence for Paul, Peter, Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, etc who all wrote letters and books about Christ.
There is plenty written about these people, yes. However, the gospels again were written quite some time after Jesus death, in different countries and in Greek. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, if they were who they say they are, would most likely have been speakers of Aramaic and illiterate - literacy at that time in the population is estimated at around 10%, mostly occupying Roman forces and officials, Jewish clerics and a few other dignitaries. In a subsistence economy, your average itinerant worker isn't going to be able to write or speak Greek.
Paul is more interesting - it is thought that he studied under the well known Pharisee teacher Gamaliel in Jerusalem and would in all likelihood have been able to speak and write Greek as well as Aramaic and possibly Hebrew too. What is more interesting is his portrayal of Jesus according to his own take on how the evolving sects of proto-Christianity should be. The same can be said of the authors of the gospels, but Paul's writings, contradictory though they may be, are accepted as being legitimate as in being Paul's actual words, but as he never met Jesus and outright contradicted some of his teachings, it is difficult to even use these to get an accurate picture of what Jesus may have been like.
. Million dollar question is, why can't these letters be taken as historical documents that tell of a real man named Jesus?
see above
There are also Roman letters which collaberate Christ's execution.
Nope. See Tacitus and Pliny...
what I am saying is that I call foul when it comes to people taking the New Testament letters and dismissing them outright but accepting documents older than these as historically accurate. That is we will believe in documents that tell of an Emperor named Pontius Pilate but we won't believe in documents that tell of a man named Jesus Christ.
Age doesn't have any bearing on historicity.
Pontius Pilate was the governor of the Judea area, not the Emperor, although you could say he acted in the Emperor's name.
The main problem is the authorship of the gospels (and the non-canonical ones too), and the fact that the gospels and Paul all focus on contradictory aspects of the Jesus story, saying what the authors wanted their immediate sect-followers to believe rather than what may have been true. Thay may give us clues, but there's nothing that stands up as primary evidence re Jesus.
As far as I'm concerned, there may well have been a guy called Y'shua bin Youssef, who was later referred to as Jesus, but there isn't a great deal to back any of it up.
Christianity hinges solely on Christ's resurrection. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead he din't defeat death. If he didn't defeat death he didn't demosntrate his power above sin
yup
If Jesus is not more powerful than sin then what we believe is for nought.
Why?... Isn't the message of morality more relevant in the 21st century than some hocus-pocus about resurrection? Dead people don't come back.
This is why we believe in the historicity of the bible. It says Jesus defeated death and came back to life. Ergo he defeated death and came back to life. Let's get back to the topic people.
Nope. Jesus said that that he would return and bring the kingdom of heaven on Earth in the disciples own lifetime. He didn't, and it didn't happen.. hence the shift in theology in the gospel of John written around 90-100CE long after John snuffed it.
-
Just a comment on why the four gospels are so different; They were written to different groups of people.
Matthew: Written to Jews who were familiar with the Law of Moses and the Old Testament. He was trying to persuade the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah.
Mark: Probably written to the Romans because he had to explain Jewish traditions and customs that they would not be familiar with.
Luke: Was written to a believer. Luke 1:4 "so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."
John: Was written to the non-Jew non-believers. John 20:31, "these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." Which is probably why you feel like you're being sold something when you read it, Rumborak.
Anyone giving a speech must know their audience, and as such, with 4 different audiences, there would be 4 different "speeches". We also don't know whether the events that are not in sequential order across the books are the same events or just similar events. We do know that not all the events are recorded across all the books.
-
Also this idea that something was "fluffed" seems a bit pointed to me. That is as if the scribe took the document and went "no no no! Let's take this character out and let's re-write this story here and put this here." as if he were brought in to liven things up. I cannot for a second believe that's how scribes looked at documents and worked on them. I take them a bit more seriously than that. In my mind what is added or changed would be like an artist trying to "restore" a work of art or sculpture. If parts of the document were lost then what "should" have been there according to the author not according to the scribe. This is all conjucture by the way but it makes the most sense to me over the idea that Scribes "invented" stuff in order to make it "better". I guess anything is possible, but this just seems something out of a Dan Brown novel to me than actual history.
There have been literally thousands of amendments, both major and minor from the original texts as time went on. Some of these would have been accidental, some on purpose to reflect changes in belief and to portray what the scribe at the time wanted to say. Let's not forget that much of the gospel stories would have passed between communities via oral tradition, and we all know how the telephone game works, so it is only natural that there will be a low fidelity rate here as they are passed on. It's alos worth remembering that there were no printing presses at this time and any hard copies wre done slowly and laboriously by hand. The fidelity may have been better in this case, but it doesn't stop errors, omissions and additions being made accidentally or unscrupulously.
A great text on this topic is Bart D. Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus' - probably the most readable book on it that I've come across. Well worth a read!
-
^^^ please see my reply above to this as I have already covered your opinion on the matter.
-
This is of course a nowhere-to-be-verified assumption.
Of course not. That's why there is faith.
Meaning, you stake your life on the hope that whoever copied the manuscripts (and there were many in the chain of copying) were all moved by God to make the right additions/deletions/translations.
No, I'm staking my faith in God in moving the human intellect in the right direction.
And mind you, this includes the translation into English that you see today. Your argument inevitably has to extend through 2,000 years of processing the Bible.
Naturally.
With that in mind, looking at how many pious people do nasty and wrong things in the name of God, I can't see how this is a rock-solid assumption to stand on.
Since when can a human act destroy the credibility of God? My assumption is based on faith. Man cannot destroy this. Human acts in all places including among those who do not believe in God only serve to discredit humanity, not God. A Christian doing something "un" Christian is a human being being... well... human. Imperfection in the human condition does not make God imperfect it only cements the need for the perfection of God and shows you that these people who committed these acts were not acting in the light of perfection but in the mind of a human being.
Also, where was the "right move" when Luke and Matthew couldn't agree on Jesus' age?
Is the age of Christ a crux that would give you faith in God? Seems a bit thin don't you think ;)
How much credence can one give to the nativity narration when Luke or Matthew couldn't decide whether Jesus was 30 or 40? In fact, how much credence can you give to a supposed eyewitness account anyway with that kind of discrepancy of age?
Again, how does a discrepancy of age destroy Christian dogma? The only thing it does is show that Luke thinks Christ was one age and Matt think it was another. Does this mean Christ didn't walk on water or rise from the dead? Does this mean that Christian cannot be taken seriously because two people couldn't agree on an age? Should my faith be shaken by something of this magnitude? As I stated before, if a person takes the age of Christ to be a crux that will cause him to no longer have faith, that person "never" possessed true faith in God in the first place. It was misplaced in humanity. Why do you think the passage in Exodus of the Golden Calf exists? It's there to tell you that if you place your faith in that which has no meaning except in a human sense, then your faith has failed you. Much the same can be said about Dawkin's FPM. I'm surprised he even fronted the idea. When you base your faith on an object that has absolutely no human except that which is based on human senses alone then you never had faith in the true divine. I give credence to the authors of Luke because I believe in their experience with the Divine not in their human senses.
-
^^^ please see my reply above to this as I have already covered your opinion on the matter.
Yes, the review by the butthurt fundie is good for a laugh. Not what you'd call an impartial academic opinion though, eh? ;)
As for biblical inerrancy, you'd think that as the resurrection is central to their theology, and that the event itself would have been the most important moment of each of their lives, bearing in mind that they were supposedly there at the time... that there would be a little more continuity in their accounts, wouldn't you? Sadly not....
Jesus’ First Resurrection Appearance
Mark 16:14-15 - Jesus appears to Mary Magdalena but it’s not clear where (in older endings of Mark, he didn’t appear at all)
Matthew 28:8-9 - Jesus first appears near his tomb
Luke 24:13-15 - Jesus first appears near Emmaus, several miles from Jerusalem
John 20:13-14 - Jesus first appears at his tomb
Who Sees Jesus First?:
Mark - Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalena then later to “the eleven”
Matthew - Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalena, then to the other Mary, and finally to ”the eleven”
Luke - Jesus appears first to “two,” then to Simon, then to “the eleven”
John - Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalena, then the disciples without Thomas, then the disciples with Thomas
But yes.... 'faith'...... etc.
-
Odysseus, I'll try to find time to respond to some of your other nonsense later, but knock stuff like this off:
Yes, the review by the butthurt fundie is good for a laugh. Not what you'd call an impartial academic opinion though, eh?
If you can't follow the forum rules and engage in civilized discussion, don't post.
rumborak, just out of curiosity, where does your claim come from that Matthew and Luke have different ages for Jesus? I've heard lots of claims about so-called contradictions in the gospels before, but I must confess, that's a new one on me.
-
This thread is a great read..I am enjoying reading it.. you all are very knowledgable..fascinating and making me think..so thank you!!!
-
rumborak, just out of curiosity, where does your claim come from that Matthew and Luke have different ages for Jesus? I've heard lots of claims about so-called contradictions in the gospels before, but I must confess, that's a new one on me.
I believe he is talking about the difference in possible dates of Jesus's birth as given in Matthew in Luke (at least a 10-year difference).
-
Again, how does a discrepancy of age destroy Christian dogma? The only thing it does is show that Luke thinks Christ was one age and Matt think it was another. Does this mean Christ didn't walk on water or rise from the dead?
Yeah, it might very well mean that.
The issue isn't whether they're just a bit off in their recollection about how old they thought Jesus was when they met. The issue is that they both explain in detail what purportedly happened at birth, Luke claiming Joseph and Mary went to Nazareth due to the census of Quirinius, Matthew saying the family returned from Nazareth after the death of Herod.
So, at least one of the gospel writers simply made stuff up. And if you're telling me that isn't an issue for Christian dogma, I don't know what else would be.
rumborak
-
rumborak, just out of curiosity, where does your claim come from that Matthew and Luke have different ages for Jesus? I've heard lots of claims about so-called contradictions in the gospels before, but I must confess, that's a new one on me.
The claims of Jesus' nativity lie at least 10 years apart between Matthew and Luke. I fail to see how an eyewitness to a 30-year old man doesn't know in what year approximately that man was born.
rumborak
-
rumborak, just out of curiosity, where does your claim come from that Matthew and Luke have different ages for Jesus? I've heard lots of claims about so-called contradictions in the gospels before, but I must confess, that's a new one on me.
The claims of Jesus' nativity lie at least 10 years apart between Matthew and Luke. I fail to see how an eyewitness to a 30-year old man doesn't know in what year approximately that man was born.
rumborak
But where are you getting that from? What I'm saying is I have never heard that the gospels supposedly describe him as two different ages, and having read both of them many times, I don't know what passages in them you are referring to.
-
Matthew claims Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod the Great, who died in 4 B.C.E. Luke claims Jesus was born in Bethlehem due to Mary and Joseph traveling there for the census of Quirinius, which was conducted in 6 C.E.
-
But where are you getting that from? What I'm saying is I have never heard that the gospels supposedly describe him as two different ages, and having read both of them many times, I don't know what passages in them you are referring to.
Well, if both people met the same man at the same time, but then the two place his birthday 10 years apart, isn't that the same as saying they disagree on his age?
BTW, I'm not actually saying that. I'm saying that the nativity, at least the details, is most likely fiction.
rumborak
-
Iirc, scholars tend to side with Matthew on the date of Jesus' birth. Although it still doesn't give us a clear date like Luke does. Probably somewhere between 7 and 4 B.C.E.
-
Well, if both people met the same man at the same time, but then the two place his birthday 10 years apart, isn't that the same as saying they disagree on his age?
Okay, but again, please cite to me where you are getting the information that you believe Matthew and Luke describe him as being different ages.
Matthew claims Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod the Great, who died in 4 B.C.E. Luke claims Jesus was born in Bethlehem due to Mary and Joseph traveling there for the census of Quirinius, which was conducted in 6 C.E.
I don't think your dates are correct.
-
Yeah, they are.
-
Oh, well why didn't you say so? My bad. Let me take a quick look at those sources you provided in response to my several requests for source material, and--oh, wait.
-
The mentions of Herod in Matthew need no source, they're well known. The consensus is that he died in 4 B.C.E., likely from some sort of kidney-related disease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great#Death
1In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.
2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)
3And everyone went to his own town to register.
4So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.
5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
6While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born,
7and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
Luke 2:1-7
But the census of Quirinius was conducted in 6/7 C.E.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
-
Thanks, GP. (I'm still waiting for rumborak's sources because I still can't tell from his posts what he is referring to if it is something different than what you cited) As I understand it, while there is some potential wiggle room regarding the end of Herod's reign, that date is pretty much agreed upon.
But as far as the census, yes, Josephus records a census that we believe was in 6/7 A.D. But (1) his dating of that census is a bit less certain, and more importantly (2) we do not know for certain whether that census is the same one referred to by Luke. That, to me, appears to be where the argument for the 10-year discrepancy falls apart.
While Matthew is a bit fuzzy on chronology at times and isn't always focused on presenting a strict chronology, he is specific enough about mentioning certain events under Herod's reign that I think it is safe to say he was being literal and specific. Luke is also very literal and specific in describing his events, and is very meticulous about those details. Given when those books were written, it is not really reasonable to assume they would not have been careful about the events they were writing about because if they were "fudging" on the linking of events in Jesus' life to other well-known events, they were close enough in time to those events that they could easily have been called on the carpet. To me, it appears the most likely explanation is that Luke is referring to a different census (or Josephus got his dates wrong). I'm sure other plausiable explanations exist as well, but this is the most likely of ones I've seen.
-
Thanks, GP. (I'm still waiting for rumborak's sources because I still can't tell from his posts what he is referring to if it is something different than what you cited)
I don't understand what more I'm supposed to provide. I believe everybody in this thread has put the pieces together that two people who can't agree on the birthday of a person can also not agree on the age of that person.
But as far as the census, yes, Josephus records a census that we believe was in 6/7 A.D. But (1) his dating of that census is a bit less certain, and more importantly (2) we do not know for certain whether that census is the same one referred to by Luke.
Bosk, I don't understand the point of your smokescreening, other than making you feel better about the Bible. Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria after Herod was banished. No matter how you want to twist it, Quirinius can not have issued a census during Herod's time.
rumborak
-
Thanks, GP. (I'm still waiting for rumborak's sources because I still can't tell from his posts what he is referring to if it is something different than what you cited)
I don't understand what more I'm supposed to provide. I believe everybody in this thread has put the pieces together that two people who can't agree on the birthday of a person can also not agree on the age of that person.
You are saying the Bible provides two different ages for Jesus. Where does it say that? I have never seen any such passages, which leads me to the conclusion that either (1) I am mistaken, or (2) you are mistaken. I cannot tell which unless you tell me which passages you are referring to. To put it another way, you are saying "the Bible says X." My question is, "where in the Bible does it say that?"
Bosk, I don't understand the point of your smokescreening, other than making you feel better about the Bible. Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria after Herod was banished. No matter how you want to twist it, Quirinius can not have issued a census during Herod's time.
??? Why not? Luke was obviously writing after Quirinius was governor, so he likely would have referred to Quirinius as governor whether he was talking about events that happened before, during, or after the governorship. Quirinius had a government assignment in Syria between 12 B.C. to 2 B.C. Why do you assume he was not involved in a census during that time period? I mean, other than making yourself feel better about your attacks on the accuracy of the Bible. :)
EDIT: If your argument rests solely on these facts, it is not a good historically-based argument. This is not a personal shot, but that's just not how you examine historical events. If a historical document records a very common event like a census, of which there were many during this time period, and does so with specificity, you don't look at another historical document that refers to one of many censuses and declare "contradiction!" simply because the dates do not match. Stopping there is just sloppy work that a good historian would not do. You have to dig a bit deeper and see whether or not the accounts are reconcileable. Again back to this example, Josephus records a particular census. Okay. Luke records one. Okay. If the dates do not match, there is no reason to assume they are referrig to the same census since, again, a census was a common occurrence.
-
so he likely would have referred to Quirinius as governor whether he was talking about events that happened before, during, or after the governorship.
Not sure in what world, bosk. Can't remember the last time I read that the Obama administration started the Iraq war.
Also, maybe you need a refresher of the wording:
Luke 2:17 - In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria
I feel it's appropriate to quote myself:
The Protestant churches, at least some, seem to be stuck in a race against each other of who can dislodge their common sense the most in order to look the most pious.
rumborak
-
Oh, well why didn't you say so? My bad. Let me take a quick look at those sources you provided in response to my several requests for source material, and--oh, wait.
Bosk, he's talking about Luke's mention of Quirinius. What he refuses to believe is that there was another census. There is actually evidence for it.
Actually there are plenty of books and historians who HAVE historically validated the existance of a man named Jesus for which the Bible speaks about.
No there aren't. There are plenty of books written by people passing themselves off as historians who desperately want the NT to be literally true, but the first non-gospel sources that mention Jesus are those of Tacitus and Pliny the Elder, both of whom existed after Jesus alleged life and wrote based on hearsay.
[/quote]
I suggest you go and ask a first century historian. They'll usually remain agnostic and say that we can't verify that christ was God but they wont deny the existance of a man named Jesus who died and then something mysteriously happened to his body.
There is historical evidence for Paul, Peter, Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, etc who all wrote letters and books about Christ.
There is plenty written about these people, yes. However, the gospels again were written quite some time after Jesus death, in different countries and in Greek. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, if they were who they say they are, would most likely have been speakers of Aramaic and illiterate - literacy at that time in the population is estimated at around 10%, mostly occupying Roman forces and officials, Jewish clerics and a few other dignitaries. In a subsistence economy, your average itinerant worker isn't going to be able to write or speak Greek.
Paul is more interesting - it is thought that he studied under the well known Pharisee teacher Gamaliel in Jerusalem and would in all likelihood have been able to speak and write Greek as well as Aramaic and possibly Hebrew too. What is more interesting is his portrayal of Jesus according to his own take on how the evolving sects of proto-Christianity should be. The same can be said of the authors of the gospels, but Paul's writings, contradictory though they may be, are accepted as being legitimate as in being Paul's actual words, but as he never met Jesus and outright contradicted some of his teachings, it is difficult to even use these to get an accurate picture of what Jesus may have been like.
Let's examine this claim.
Mark - Scribe. He had been trained to record and write stuff down as a vocation. Peter didn't need to be brilliantly eloquent in greek to give Mark the stuff he did.
Matthew - Tax Collector. Would've needed to be literate and understand greek which was the common tongue of the time. look up "koinonia greek"
Luke - Doctor of medicine. He knew greek just from being a doctor. If you actually look at Luke/Acts you can see how Luke preserved the original language styles of the people who talked. You can actually see how Peter fumbles around with his greek and Paul is better but not alot :P
John. I dunno what his occupation was. I reckon he was fairly smart though. He actually 'invented' grammar and distorted old grammar in writing for the purpose of his text so he must've had a decent enough understanding.
Like I said; Greek was the common tongue. People in the area had been speaking it for the last couple of centuries. Peter wasn't very good with it, so he got someone who was to write what he said.
Again 20-50 years is not "quite some time" it's one generation at it's longest.
I'd like to see your references for where Paul contradicts Jesus.
. Million dollar question is, why can't these letters be taken as historical documents that tell of a real man named Jesus?
see above
be a dove
There are also Roman letters which collaberate Christ's execution.
Nope. See Tacitus and Pliny...
where exactly?
what I am saying is that I call foul when it comes to people taking the New Testament letters and dismissing them outright but accepting documents older than these as historically accurate. That is we will believe in documents that tell of an Emperor named Pontius Pilate but we won't believe in documents that tell of a man named Jesus Christ.
Age doesn't have any bearing on historicity.
however manuscript attestation does.
Pontius Pilate was the governor of the Judea area, not the Emperor, although you could say he acted in the Emperor's name.
true i think he made a typo booboo
The main problem is the authorship of the gospels (and the non-canonical ones too), and the fact that the gospels and Paul all focus on contradictory aspects of the Jesus story, saying what the authors wanted their immediate sect-followers to believe rather than what may have been true. Thay may give us clues, but there's nothing that stands up as primary evidence re Jesus.
As far as I'm concerned, there may well have been a guy called Y'shua bin Youssef, who was later referred to as Jesus, but there isn't a great deal to back any of it up.
Where do Paul and te gospels contradict each other?
Christianity hinges solely on Christ's resurrection. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead he din't defeat death. If he didn't defeat death he didn't demosntrate his power above sin
yup
If Jesus is not more powerful than sin then what we believe is for nought.
Why?... Isn't the message of morality more relevant in the 21st century than some hocus-pocus about resurrection? Dead people don't come back.
Nope. Jesus teachings that he was God were inseparable from his ministry. He himself said that he would destroy the temple then rebuild it 3 days later.
This is why we believe in the historicity of the bible. It says Jesus defeated death and came back to life. Ergo he defeated death and came back to life. Let's get back to the topic people.
Nope. Jesus said that that he would return and bring the kingdom of heaven on Earth in the disciples own lifetime. He didn't, and it didn't happen.. hence the shift in theology in the gospel of John written around 90-100CE long after John snuffed it.
that was just before he ascended and he was talking figuratively
and the Gospel was written alot closer to or even before 70 AD. As the latest of the gospels. There had been a rumour that Jesus would come back before John died but that didn't affect the theology of John....
-
so he likely would have referred to Quirinius as governor whether he was talking about events that happened before, during, or after the governorship.
Not sure in what world, bosk. Can't remember the last time I read that the Obama administration started the Iraq war.
I think you misunderstand. When we're writing about something after the fact, we of course often refer to them though a present-tense lens. For example, if I were writing a book about Ronald Reagan and I discussed him meeting Nancy for the first time, I might say something like, "And when President Reagan first met Nancy, ..." Of course he wasn't literally the president at the moment he met Nancy. That doesn't make the description inaccurate. In fact, it is more common than not that in writing about government officials, we use their titles, whether they held the title at the time of the event we are describing or not. How many times after 2000 have you heard the media refer to "President Bill Clinton," or "Former President Bill Clinton?" Both are commonly used, and that is a convention that predated English.
Also, maybe you need a refresher of the wording:
Luke 2:17 - In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria
I feel it's appropriate to quote myself:
The Protestant churches, at least some, seem to be stuck in a race against each other of who can dislodge their common sense the most in order to look the most pious.
rumborak
Not sure what translation you are using, but many translate that passage: "This was the registration before..." And those that do not usually have a footnote pointing out that the Greek is susceptible to either meaning. No real reason to assume one or the other is correct unless one has an agenda for doing so.
-
a lot of stuff
Okay, dude, I'm not trying to pick on you, and I know it can be difficult, but you really NEED to use the quote feature properly, especially with a post that long with so many parts. Following whose arguments are whose is too difficult if you don't.
-
Not sure what translation you are using, but many translate that passage: "This was the registration before..."
NIV: "This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria"
Luther: "und geschah zu der Zeit, da Cyrenius Landpfleger von Syrien war" ("during which Cyenius...")
New International Version (UK): "This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria"
What "special" Bible are you reading, Bosk?
Also, I'm not sure what part of "Augustus" in Luke 2 can be misunderstood. Augustus, not Herod.
rumborak
-
Sorry bosk, i'm trying. the quoting function is different on MP.com so i'm learning this way. I'll get there :(
-
Not sure what translation you are using, but many translate that passage: "This was the registration before..."
NIV: "This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria"
Luther: "und geschah zu der Zeit, da Cyrenius Landpfleger von Syrien war" ("during which Cyenius...")
New International Version (UK): "This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria"
What "special" Bible are you reading, Bosk?
rumborak
I have the ESV which is a word for word translation (the NIV is thought for thought) and it says that the sentence could be translated as the census before because of the ambiguity before.
Not only that but Quirinius was one of Caesar's consuls in the area before what Josephus tells us. Luke sometimes uses the term generally.
-
Not sure what translation you are using, but many translate that passage: "This was the registration before..."
NIV: "This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria"
Luther: "und geschah zu der Zeit, da Cyrenius Landpfleger von Syrien war" ("during which Cyenius...")
New International Version (UK): "This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria"
What "special" Bible are you reading, Bosk?
Also, I'm not sure what part of "Augustus" in Luke 2 can be misunderstood. Augustus, not Herod.
rumborak
No "special" Bible. But most publishers include a footnote to verse 2 that reads something like (the one I am quoting is from https://esv.scripturetext.com/luke/2.htm): "a 2 Or This was the registration before"
EDIT: Interesting. I just went to the NIV page of the same site, and the NIV doesn't list that footnote. I'll have to check my hard copy at home. Not sure why some translations list the footnote and others don't (or if it is just certain publishers; not sure).
Also, I'm not sure what part of "Augustus" in Luke 2 can be misunderstood. Augustus, not Herod.
??? Herod is mentioned in Matthew, not Luke. I'm not following you.
-
No "special" Bible. But most publishers include a footnote to verse 2 that reads something like (the one I am quoting is from https://esv.scripturetext.com/luke/2.htm): "a 2 Or This was the registration before"
Bosk, why don't you just check yourself before you make these kinds of statements:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%202:2&version=NKJV
and flip through the different versions. Your ESV is the only one that says it could mean "before". I mean, man, wouldn't you think every version of the Bible would say "before" if it could actually mean that and make this inconsistency disappear? Wouldn't you think Luther would have translated it as "before" if it could actually mean that?
??? Herod is mentioned in Matthew, not Luke. I'm not following you.
??? Did you by this point forget that the point of this discussion is the comparison between Luke's placement of Jesus' birthday and Matthew's? Matthew says it happened during Herod's time, Luke says during Augustus' time.
rumborak
-
Bosk, you're a pretty smart guy, and usually very level-headed. Maybe it's time to reevaluate your stance on whether one should take the Bible literally in all cases.
rumborak
-
No "special" Bible. But most publishers include a footnote to verse 2 that reads something like (the one I am quoting is from https://esv.scripturetext.com/luke/2.htm): "a 2 Or This was the registration before"
Bosk, why don't you just check yourself before you make these kinds of statements:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%202:2&version=NKJV
and flip through the different versions. Your ESV is the only one that says it could mean "before".
Because my default translation that I use nowadays is the ESV. As I mentioned in my previous post, I'm not sure why some publishers include the footnote and others don't. I'll have to check the publishers' notes in a few Bibles when I get home because I have no idea what the answer is.
??? Herod is mentioned in Matthew, not Luke. I'm not following you.
??? Did you by this point forget that the point of this discussion is the comparison between Luke's placement of Jesus' birthday and Matthew's? Matthew says it happened during Herod's time, Luke says during Augustus' time.
rumborak
Yes, but the passage we are discussing in Luke does not discuss Herod, so you lost me when you brought him back up. What's the connection?
-
Now you're stalling. You don't need to read some special editors' notes, you're sitting in front of the internet, I just gave you a link that enumerated about 20 different translations, 19 of which said unambiguously the same thing. And you know very well why I brought up Herod, because it's the other point in time of Jesus' birthday we're discussing.
Either way, I'm off to a MadMen theme Halloween party!
rumborak
-
Now you're stalling. You don't need to read some special editors' notes, you're sitting in front of the internet, I just gave you a link that enumerated about 20 different translations, 19 of which said unambiguously the same thing.
:lol Dude, what stalling? I want to actually pull the books off the shelf and look at them. That's a great site (I use it all the time), but it only has the text and doesn't have what a physical Bible has: the bunch of introductory notes that talk about why the translators/publishers made the editorial and tranlation choices they made. You've raised an interesting point that I intend to evaluate. I'm not sure I see the problem with that.
And you know very well why I brought up Herod, because it's the other point in time of Jesus' birthday we're discussing.
No, I don't know very well why you brought up Herod. Hence my comment that "I'm not following you." Look, this is about the third or fourth time in the discussion I've pointed out that I don't understand a point of yours and asked for clarification. You can clarify or not, but I don't get why you're suddenly becoming accusatory when I'm telling you I don't follow your logic and ask you to please clarify. I don't know whether you're not communicating the message properly, or I'm not receiving it properly, but frankly, that doesn't matter. I'm telling you I don't get it. Whatever the reasons is that I don't get it, I don't. So either explain it or move on. If you're just doing to be dickish when I'm telling you I don't get your point, why bother having the discussion?
-
^^^ please see my reply above to this as I have already covered your opinion on the matter.
Yes, the review by the butthurt fundie is good for a laugh. Not what you'd call an impartial academic opinion though, eh? ;)
Um... why should we discredit his opinion because he's actually a person who "studies the bible?" Should we discredit Hawkins then when he discusses the Big Bang because we should get an outside opinion on the matter? Or is this because this guy is a man of faith and you will trust only people outside of that. Who's the biased one? Is this seriously how you look at these people? :tdwn Wow.
-
"A historical genre does not necessarily guarantee historical accuracy or reliability. Nor did the evangelists or their first readers engage in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith. These gospels were written 40 to 60 years after Christ and it is generally accepted that they are not eyewitness accounts or even a contemporary account of Jesus's life and teaching. The evangelists did more than compile a notebook of traditions about Jesus. Rather, each shaped the narrative to empahsize particular features of Jesus and his teaching."
In other words, what the Gospels present is a life a Christ told in 4 different manner yet each on building on the exact same foundations. Disprecancies simply come from the notes and scrolls the particular evangelist had. You cannot just openly call the whole Bible wrong because one evangelist add a different idea about Christ's birth over another one. Most people will side with Luke's idea given that Luke was very particular in knowing his details.
Rumborak: it is apparent that you are reading the Bible in a 180 degree turn around than the way I and most Catholics read it. You are demanding that it be 100% perfect in its details and that it be 100% accurate. For this to be the Bible would have to literally been written by God. But more people accept the Bible is written by many many authors and historical accuracy is simply impossible from this fashion. The Bible suffers from human imperfection however one must have faith that the interal connections to God are 100% correct. If for you Christ is not God because two people can't agree on locations, and therefore you must question the rest of his assertations, that's fine, but again, I have faith in the author in presenting the "real" Christ. If that's not good enough then I don't know what else to say in this thread and honestly I don't think I could offer anymore.
Again, arguing historical accuracy is a "good" thing. Allowing it to limit God is a "bad" thing.
-
^^^ please see my reply above to this as I have already covered your opinion on the matter.
Yes, the review by the butthurt fundie is good for a laugh. Not what you'd call an impartial academic opinion though, eh? ;)
Um... why should we discredit his opinion because he's actually a person who "studies the bible?" Should we discredit Hawkins then when he discusses the Big Bang because we should get an outside opinion on the matter? Or is this because this guy is a man of faith and you will trust only people outside of that. Who's the biased one? Is this seriously how you look at these people? :tdwn Wow.
Did you mean Hawking? Knowledge is provisional, we know that. The Greeks knew that before Christian theology and the quest for 'certainty', ironically based on myth and magic put an end to much of the progress brought through rationalism and logic. There is absolutley nothing wrong with being a man of faith as long as the man makes a distinction between his faith and what is provable through evidence and rational argument. Given the amount of shysters religion has produced over the years, I'm wary of people who try and combine fact and faith. I try to be even handed, but I do admit to falling off the fence occasionally!
Odysseus, I'll try to find time to respond to some of your other nonsense later, but knock stuff like this off:
Yes, the review by the butthurt fundie is good for a laugh. Not what you'd call an impartial academic opinion though, eh?
If you can't follow the forum rules and engage in civilized discussion, don't post.
My nonsense, eh? That's a little strong from someone who accepts evidence-free propositions as truth. The butthurt fundie' quote was alluding to Mr. Blomberg, not anyone on here. A brief search on Mr. Blomberg reveals the words 'conservative' and 'evangelical' in tandem much of the time. I don't doubt his credentials in having studied scripture, but given his leanings and writing on behalf on Denver Seminary, his writing is likely to be in support of his take on theology, not an impartial academic stance. Personally, I don't really care what he believes, I'm just interested in historical truth, inasmuch as we can achieve it. That said, it ain't easy.
-
I suggest you go and ask a first century historian. They'll usually remain agnostic and say that we can't verify that christ was God but they wont deny the existance of a man named Jesus who died and then something mysteriously happened to his body.
I have spoken with historians of the period during my studying days. I agree up to a point about the agnostic nature of what we are discussing. However, not denying it is much different to claiming something as true without evidence. I don't deny the existence of a man who became known as Jesus, but in the absence of any reliable evidence, I'd say it isn't a good idea to make any lavish claims. We have clues, but not much that is solid and value-free.
Like I said; Greek was the common tongue. People in the area had been speaking it for the last couple of centuries. Peter wasn't very good with it, so he got someone who was to write what he said.
Nope. Greek was used among the philosophical classes, not among the peasants in rural Judea. Aramaic was the common tongue in the area.
Many claims of NT historicity date from the second and third century attempts to create orthodoxy in a disparate and largely underground faith that was struggling against pretty much everyone else to establish itself, and needed coherence in order to survive as a whole entity. Writers such as Papias and Eusebius were two of the most notable candidates of this work. Once toleration had been extended to the Christian faith in 312, then they were off and running. Constantine converted in 320 (I think) and then the Council of Nicea was convened in 325 to decide what was to be accepted as canon and what was to be discarded from the massive range of what passed for orthodoxy in the multitude of proto-Christians sects of the time. Theocracy, here we come!
I'd like to see your references for where Paul contradicts Jesus.
Jesus told the Jewish crowds that in order to enter the kingdom, they needed to do what God had commanded in the Jewish law. Specifically they needed to carry out the two greatest commandments of the law: love god with all their heart, soul and strength (quoting Deuteronomy 6:4-6) and love their neighbours as themselves (quoting Leviticus 19:18)
"On these two commandments", urged Jesus, "hang all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:40)
However.... Paul said, "You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace" (Galatians 5:4)
One thing that is interesting is the differences in the various sects in how they viewed Christ. Some wanted to portray him against the background of his Jewish roots, others wanted a theology that separated him from this, but found themselves derided for starting a religion that had no tradition, hence the move to reinterpret OT scripture and rework it as prophecy geared towards Jesus. Each author's exegesis will take this into account
a couple of chunks above the one you quoted
Age doesn't have any bearing on historicity.
however manuscript attestation does.
Yes indeed. Reliable manuscript attestation, not letters of dubious authorship that have been amended over years to suit changes in circumstance.
Nope. Jesus teachings that he was God were inseparable from his ministry. He himself said that he would destroy the temple then rebuild it 3 days later.
He allegedly said that he'd bring on the kingdom of God and didn't. 2000 years later we're still waiting... Do people seriously believe that a bloke built a temple in 3 days?.....
that was just before he ascended and he was talking figuratively
and the Gospel was written alot closer to or even before 70 AD. As the latest of the gospels. There had been a rumour that Jesus would come back before John died but that didn't affect the theology of John....
Most theologians I've read say between 90 and 100CE based on the knowledge that the destruction of the temple took place in 70CE so the story could not have been written earlier.
-
On your final point....
Luke is quoted by Paul at least once, to Timothy. That means both Paul and Timothy must have had copies. Allow some time for that copying/distributing process and you'll get a date much earlier than 90 CE.
-
the quest for 'certainty', ironically based on myth and magic put an end to much of the progress brought through rationalism and logic.
That's an opnionate statement and I'm surprised you would back a statement like that. There were plenty of people who came out of Christianity that were rational and logical. Or do you mean that if a person believes in God they no longer can be rational or logical or that Christianity destroyed all hope of rational and logical reasoning that came before? Again, this is false. There was plenty of progress after Christianity that came FROM Christianity itself including Aquinas, Bernard of Clairvaux, Duns Scotus, etc.
There is absolutley nothing wrong with being a man of faith as long as the man makes a distinction between his faith and what is provable through evidence and rational argument. Given the amount of shysters religion has produced over the years, I'm wary of people who try and combine fact and faith. I try to be even handed, but I do admit to falling off the fence occasionally!
Faith is the absense of evidence or fact so if someone said they had absolute fact of a thing, they wouldn't need faith in that thing. If I had 100% proof of Christ and all the mysteries about Christ, then I would no longer have faith in Christ. So for a person to have faith in God then have absolute proof and evidence of God's existance in a contradiction. However you are making a general statement that faith cannot have with it rational reasoning. Again this is an opinion. Faith can have a basis of rational logic behind it.
Yes, the review by the butthurt fundie is good for a laugh.
My nonsense, eh? That's a little strong from someone who accepts evidence-free propositions as truth. The butthurt fundie' quote was alluding to Mr. Blomberg, not anyone on here. A brief search on Mr. Blomberg reveals the words 'conservative' and 'evangelical' in tandem much of the time. I don't doubt his credentials in having studied scripture, but given his leanings and writing on behalf on Denver Seminary, his writing is likely to be in support of his take on theology, not an impartial academic stance. Personally, I don't really care what he believes, I'm just interested in historical truth, inasmuch as we can achieve it. That said, it ain't easy.
Again, what does his being a seminarian have any negative impact on the fact the man is an educated scripture expert? Again, who is being the biased one here? They both have pretty much the same type of educational background. the only reason who are labeling his article as biased is because he is a seminarian. Does this mean that you accept only expert opinions just so long as they are not in conflict with your own ideas? It about the only way I can explain your stance on Blomberg. His expertise should have the same credibility as the author to Misquoting Jesus. I give them both the same credibility. I just presented another expert opinion on the same topic. I would love to go back in time, cut and paste that article and change the author as to remove all traces of him being a priest.
-
In other words, what the Gospels present is a life a Christ told in 4 different manner yet each on building on the exact same foundations. Disprecancies simply come from the notes and scrolls the particular evangelist had. You cannot just openly call the whole Bible wrong because one evangelist add a different idea about Christ's birth over another one.
Well, the point of the matter is, the nativity discrepancy we were discussing showcased the willingness of the authors to add information to "flesh out" a story they might have received only as a basic fragment. Which however means they got the nativity story from God-knows-where really, clearly not directly from Jesus himself (since then both authors would agree on the point in time).
You are demanding that it be 100% perfect in its details and that it be 100% accurate.
No, not really. The only person in this thread who needs that to be is bosk.
My overarching point really is, in order to really get at what and what not Jesus was, you have to go through the thicket of the Bible with a machete and cut away all the stuff that is suspect. And both the nativity story and the resurrection story are highly suspect.
rumborak
-
Well, the point of the matter is, the nativity discrepancy we were discussing showcased the willingness of the authors to add information to "flesh out" a story they might have received only as a basic fragment. Which however means they got the nativity story from God-knows-where really, clearly not directly from Jesus himself (since then both authors would agree on the point in time).
I don't think I should need to repeat myself constantly in this thread.
My overarching point really is, in order to really get at what and what not Jesus was, you have to go through the thicket of the Bible with a machete and cut away all the stuff that is suspect. And both the nativity story and the resurrection story are highly suspect.
Have fun.
-
On your final point....
Luke is quoted by Paul at least once, to Timothy. That means both Paul and Timothy must have had copies. Allow some time for that copying/distributing process and you'll get a date much earlier than 90 CE.
Where in the letters to Timothy is Luke quoted? I don't remember that.
Also, most critical scholars believe that the letters to Timothy (and Titus) are actually non-Pauline, but written much later and attributed to Paul (an opinion to which I also subscribe). If this is true (and I feel the evidence is strong that it is), then this doesn't give you a date "much earlier than 90 CE."
-
On your final point....
Luke is quoted by Paul at least once, to Timothy. That means both Paul and Timothy must have had copies. Allow some time for that copying/distributing process and you'll get a date much earlier than 90 CE.
Where in the letters to Timothy is Luke quoted? I don't remember that.
Also, most critical scholars believe that the letters to Timothy (and Titus) are actually non-Pauline, but written much later and attributed to Paul (an opinion to which I also subscribe). If this is true (and I feel the evidence is strong that it is), then this doesn't give you a date "much earlier than 90 CE."
1 Tim 5:18...there are two cross references. One is to Deut 25:4, the other is to Lk 10:7.
Something I forgot to mention: not only must we allow time for Luke to be copied and distributed, so that both Paul and Timothy could refer to them from different places, but you also have to allow time for Luke to be recognized as scripture. Assuming 1 Timothy is authentic, it's given a date of about 65 CE. Give enough time for the three previous processes, and you can subtract about 10 years. Of course, this is only relevant if 1 Timothy is indeed authentic.
-
Oh, I see.
Well, to me, that's just another piece of evidence in favor of its inauthenticity. By all accounts, Paul was dead by around 62 CE or so. Most scholars date Mark to around 70 CE, and since Luke used Mark as a source, he would have to be later than that (although not much later - I would guess around 80 or so).
But hey, that's just me.
-
:lol Yes, I had a feeling it could work either way.
I am reading a book right now, and, coincidentally, they just brought up this issue. I will totally post it, but I don't know DTF's rules regarding non-DT copyright material...
-
On your final point....
Luke is quoted by Paul at least once, to Timothy. That means both Paul and Timothy must have had copies. Allow some time for that copying/distributing process and you'll get a date much earlier than 90 CE.
Where in the letters to Timothy is Luke quoted? I don't remember that.
Also, most critical scholars believe that the letters to Timothy (and Titus) are actually non-Pauline, but written much later and attributed to Paul (an opinion to which I also subscribe). If this is true (and I feel the evidence is strong that it is), then this doesn't give you a date "much earlier than 90 CE."
Although I don't have this from an "approved" source according to this sub-forum (said with complete sarcasism so put away your Ripley Flame Throwers ;)) sources I do have place the letter at the time Paul was in prison and that he did write the letter. As of right now from what I can recall it's an even split. There are good arguments against Paul and their are good arguments for Paul. No one at this time can be certain with this, but as of right now, without a firm argument to rest on, tradition still places the letter as authored by Paul.
As for the argument of its inauthenticity? I have to ask is this the overall point of the thread? "If the Bible can be proven to have errors in authorship, dates, and anachronisms but yet not one single person has yet to argue anything related to the teachings of Christ and the events related to his passion and therefore we can the Bible a failure" is not a valid argument in my mind in the least. I say that because again you are judging a book that was written through humankind as a book which tells of the revelation of God. If for some reason it is required that we as human beings should be 100% perfect on all accounts when it comes to this book, then I'm sorry, but you've set too high an requirement for humankind.
-
Oh, I see.
Well, to me, that's just another piece of evidence in favor of its inauthenticity. By all accounts, Paul was dead by around 62 CE or so. Most scholars date Mark to around 70 CE, and since Luke used Mark as a source, he would have to be later than that (although not much later - I would guess around 80 or so).
But hey, that's just me.
I'm pretty sure Paul and Petere were killed by Nero after the Great fire of Rome, wasn't that in the 70s?
I think my NT lecturer (and he would agree with my college principle) dates Mark around 55 or 60...Luke/Acts around 65 with Matthew and John close to 70 (possibly very soon after) but I could be wrong. I'm pretty tired and couldn't be bothered to research at the moment.
I think Paul's first letter is commonly dated in the early-mid 50s. and James (being the earliest written) was in the early 40s. The evidence for James being written early is because they think it was before the Council of Jerusalem. (so it predates Galatians) The reason being that he would never have used the language that he did (even though he was talking about a different thing) about Faith and works in the manner that he did after the council (Acts 15)
You know what the interesting thing about all of this is?
The fact that stuff like this wasn't usually commited to written. In that time they were a primarily oral culture. They would memorise huge amounts of information. In that milieu writing stuff like this down in the quantities that the early christians did is actually pretty phenomenal.
-
There are good arguments against Paul and their are good arguments for Paul. No one at this time can be certain with this, but as of right now, without a firm argument to rest on, tradition still places the letter as authored by Paul.
The thing with "tradition" is, tradition didn't try to create the most likely authorship of the Bible, it tried to create the most consistent one. That's where you get for example things like the ESV comment "can also mean 'before'" from, where it's pretty obvious it doesn't mean "before". It was an obvious attempt at resolving a contradiction under the constraint of inerrancy.
So, I find when trying to judge things like this issue, e.g. Paulian vs. non-Paulian, tradition IMHO is a rather weak argument. The non-Paulian arguments rest on objective measures, e.g. lexical consistency between different documents, and apparently 1 Tim is rather different from documents we know for sure were written by Paul.
rumborak
-
I must say, this is definitely one of the best threads I've ever seen on P/R, great job guys!
Overall though I'd say I mostly agree with what Hef has posted. I don't really see any objective reason to believe that the Bible has an infallible authority or anything like that, although both sides are making very good arguments.
-
No, I don't know very well why you brought up Herod. Hence my comment that "I'm not following you." Look, this is about the third or fourth time in the discussion I've pointed out that I don't understand a point of yours and asked for clarification. You can clarify or not, but I don't get why you're suddenly becoming accusatory when I'm telling you I don't follow your logic and ask you to please clarify. I don't know whether you're not communicating the message properly, or I'm not receiving it properly, but frankly, that doesn't matter. I'm telling you I don't get it. Whatever the reasons is that I don't get it, I don't. So either explain it or move on. If you're just doing to be dickish when I'm telling you I don't get your point, why bother having the discussion?
I am not being dickish, but you have a habit of playing dumb in certain types of discussions, you've done that before.
I mean seriously; we're discussing big and wide that Matthew and Luke place Jesus' birthday under different emperors; when I then say that seemingly Luke and Matthew can't agree on Jesus' age, you claim you don't know what I'm referring to. Then, just a few posts down the thread, you claim to now know why I would bring up Herod, when Herod is one of the two emperors mentioned in the Lk and Mt passages, the very two passages we're discussing.
Ok, I will assume this is due to some misunderstanding between the two of us. But, you do have that habit.
rumborak
-
Although I don't have this from an "approved" source according to this sub-forum (said with complete sarcasism so put away your Ripley Flame Throwers ;)) sources I do have place the letter at the time Paul was in prison and that he did write the letter. As of right now from what I can recall it's an even split. There are good arguments against Paul and their are good arguments for Paul. No one at this time can be certain with this, but as of right now, without a firm argument to rest on, tradition still places the letter as authored by Paul.
Of course it isn't a unanimous view. But most critical scholars agree that the Pastorals are non-Pauline.
As for the argument of its inauthenticity? I have to ask is this the overall point of the thread?
I think it falls into the general purveyance of this thread.
"If the Bible can be proven to have errors in authorship, dates, and anachronisms but yet not one single person has yet to argue anything related to the teachings of Christ and the events related to his passion and therefore we can the Bible a failure" is not a valid argument in my mind in the least.
??? It isn't one for me, either. I would never dream of calling the Bible a failure. I just don't think that it's text is divinely inspired.
I say that because again you are judging a book that was written through humankind as a book which tells of the revelation of God. If for some reason it is required that we as human beings should be 100% perfect on all accounts when it comes to this book, then I'm sorry, but you've set too high an requirement for humankind.
No, I'm just saying that we should make the best judgements about the text and what it says that we can. If we are saying that something is authoritative from a doctrinal standpoint because it was included in the Bible because the ancients thought it was written by Apostle X, but we now have evidence that that document was not in fact written by Apostle X, then some debate about its doctrinal authority is not only allowed, but is necessary.
-
Odysseus is kicking some serious butt in this thread.
-
Of course it isn't a unanimous view. But most critical scholars agree that the Pastorals are non-Pauline.
You keep referring to this point. I would like to see what you've seen that has led you to this conclusion.
??? It isn't one for me, either. I would never dream of calling the Bible a failure. I just don't think that it's text is divinely inspired.
Jesus endorsed the Bible himself. Do you need a better reason?
He quotes it constantly. He understands which prophecies he is supposed to fulfill, and at what time he needs to fulfill them. He acknowledges the division of the Tanakh into the law, the prophets, and the writings. He even endorses Adam and Eve, the flood, the burning bush, Sodom and Gamorra, Daniel, and Jonah and the whale.
I'm not saying that historical evidence demands inspiration, because it doesn't. History will lead you to Jesus, though, and his endorsement of Scripture will lead to a belief in inspiration.
When you set aside doctrinal understanding of the word of God when you examine it yourself, you think as the heathen do. You use logic--but human logic. I need not remind you that filled with the discerning power of the Holy Spirit. From a brother to a brother, I think you are neglecting a part of your godly capacity, stooping yourself to a level lower than you really are...
-
And seeing as Vivace and hefdaddy, who are both believers, are dominating the spotlight, I decided against using a PM. But keep in mind that my post is not directed toward anyone that's not a believer, so go ahead and ignore it.
-
No, I don't know very well why you brought up Herod. Hence my comment that "I'm not following you." Look, this is about the third or fourth time in the discussion I've pointed out that I don't understand a point of yours and asked for clarification. You can clarify or not, but I don't get why you're suddenly becoming accusatory when I'm telling you I don't follow your logic and ask you to please clarify. I don't know whether you're not communicating the message properly, or I'm not receiving it properly, but frankly, that doesn't matter. I'm telling you I don't get it. Whatever the reasons is that I don't get it, I don't. So either explain it or move on. If you're just doing to be dickish when I'm telling you I don't get your point, why bother having the discussion?
I am not being dickish, but you have a habit of playing dumb in certain types of discussions, you've done that before.
I mean seriously; we're discussing big and wide that Matthew and Luke place Jesus' birthday under different emperors; when I then say that seemingly Luke and Matthew can't agree on Jesus' age, you claim you don't know what I'm referring to. Then, just a few posts down the thread, you claim to now know why I would bring up Herod, when Herod is one of the two emperors mentioned in the Lk and Mt passages, the very two passages we're discussing.
Ok, I will assume this is due to some misunderstanding between the two of us. But, you do have that habit.
rumborak
I know we're comparing two passages, once of which (Matthew) discusses Herod. What I'm saying is that bringing Herod up in your last post did not make sense to me. I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say in that post, that's all.
Not sure what translation you are using, but many translate that passage: "This was the registration before..."
NIV: "This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria"
Luther: "und geschah zu der Zeit, da Cyrenius Landpfleger von Syrien war" ("during which Cyenius...")
New International Version (UK): "This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria"
The problem with that post is that you are looking at various translations, not the original text. And while we are often forced to rely on translations, sometimes we have to go beyond them and look at the original text.
I did a bit of research over the weekend, and found a couple of plausiable explanations for the Luke passage (as well as some that do not seem plausible that I am not going to bother with). One is the translation issue. Almost every reliable modern translation translates the passage as "during" (or some equivalent). But that appears to simply be an assumption that just stuck, as there is no modifier in the text that demands that it be "during," rather than "before." I found no clues in the translators' notes in any of the editions I have for any of the Bibles in my house (for the record, I primarily use ESV and NKJV, but I also have some others I use for reference, such as NIV, NASB, NRSV, and even KJV). There is a note in my NRSV Oxford Bible (rumby, this is the version generally used for study in universities) that also mentions this. I also looked at the original Greek to verify that there is indeed no modifier and looked at some secondary sources that discussed the issue. In short, the original text and the anslysis thereof supports that the "during" could very well be a translation error that has stuck through tradition.
The second explanation I will mention is something that I also alluded to earlier, which is that there is evidence Quirinius served government post in Syria prior to the legate position GP referred to in 6 A.D. that, chronologically, would have been during Herod's reign.
If you like, I will type excerpts from the sources I looked at. I had hoped to do that over the weekend, but as often happens, just got busy with stuff with the kids (and other stuff that occupies my time) and didn't get to it.
-
the quest for 'certainty', ironically based on myth and magic put an end to much of the progress brought through rationalism and logic.
That's an opnionate statement and I'm surprised you would back a statement like that. There were plenty of people who came out of Christianity that were rational and logical. Or do you mean that if a person believes in God they no longer can be rational or logical or that Christianity destroyed all hope of rational and logical reasoning that came before? Again, this is false. There was plenty of progress after Christianity that came FROM Christianity itself including Aquinas, Bernard of Clairvaux, Duns Scotus, etc.
I don't how you can say that it is an opinionated statement when history backs it up. The introduction of Christianity led to a substantial slowing of the rate of progress to an almost standstill in comparison.
It ain't black and white and shouldn't be taken as such. What I'm saying is that after the introduction of Christianity as the official religion of Rome, there was a marked move away from the rationalism and reasoned logic that was a hallmark of the Greek world in the previous half century or so. This was because the religion was partly taken on board to give an increasingly fragmented Roman empire a sense of certainty. For a long time, the idea of the heavens and the Gods within reflected the status quo of human life at the time - the prior pantheons of Gods were often portrayed with the very human characteristics of anger, jealousy and suchlike. The new form of monotheism lent certainty and divine weight to imperial rule as well as providing the church with state patronage to ensure its reliance on the Emperor for cash and thus compliance with the Emperor's wishes with regard to canon.
Many libraries were sacked in the years following Christianity, and use of Greek-inspired rationalism was frowned upon and regarded as antithetical to the notion of an all-powerful God who is the creator and sustainer and whose will the lowly humans should cower in front of, rather than seek knowledge of that which should be God's realm. Questioning the world whrough science and logic became heresy, for want of a better term. Again, I will reiterate that it didn't happen all the time absolutely everywhere, but it was a marked halt in progress.
Nobody has said that Christians can't be rational and logical, so I don't understand why you are saying it. Look at Darwin and Mendel! :-) We should also be thankful for some of the Greek works that were actively saved by Christian monks too. That said, saving prior works isn't the same thing as building on them, but it was a good thing they did preserve stuff.
There is absolutley nothing wrong with being a man of faith as long as the man makes a distinction between his faith and what is provable through evidence and rational argument. Given the amount of shysters religion has produced over the years, I'm wary of people who try and combine fact and faith. I try to be even handed, but I do admit to falling off the fence occasionally!
Faith is the absense of evidence or fact so if someone said they had absolute fact of a thing, they wouldn't need faith in that thing. If I had 100% proof of Christ and all the mysteries about Christ, then I would no longer have faith in Christ. So for a person to have faith in God then have absolute proof and evidence of God's existance in a contradiction. However you are making a general statement that faith cannot have with it rational reasoning. Again this is an opinion. Faith can have a basis of rational logic behind it.
Faith is belief without proof. I think we're agreed on that, yes? And if there was primary evidence for the proposition then we wouldn't need faith. I think we agree on that too, yes?
I'm not sure about the part where faith can have a basis of rational logic behind it - I'm guessing you mean that there can be certain pointers towards the truth of a proposition - maybe that some people wrote stories or letters about a man whom they said was the son of God. So far, so good.. I'm still with you. But.... this isn't what I would call primary evidence as such. A letter or piece of text (let's say the Gospel of John) may say that the man Jesus was divine.
Fine. But...
1 - as far as we know, the gospel of John wasn't written by the John who was supposed to be a companion of Jesus.
2 - none of the other gospels in canon say that Jesus was divine.
3 - none of the other gospels are held by most theologians to be written by who they were supposed to be written.
4 - theologians say that the texts hav ebeen amended over the years to refect changes in belief.
So, yes, we can use the John text as a pointer, just like the other gospels, and they are important as a form of evidence, but given the lack of continuity in the content and the apparent lack of authenticity with regard to authorship then we would be foolish to make concrete decisions without further proof.
You could say that we should apply these same criteria to the rest of history and you would be exactly right. As I understand it there are certain people in history whose very existence is starting to be thrown into doubt. Such is the provisional nature of knowledge.
So I guess we agree up to a point, but I would say that while certain things can point in a certain direction, religions still rely on a 'leap of faith' (evidence-free, like you said) to establish certain propositions. I think we're largely on the same page here.
Yes, the review by the butthurt fundie is good for a laugh.
My nonsense, eh? That's a little strong from someone who accepts evidence-free propositions as truth. The butthurt fundie' quote was alluding to Mr. Blomberg, not anyone on here. A brief search on Mr. Blomberg reveals the words 'conservative' and 'evangelical' in tandem much of the time. I don't doubt his credentials in having studied scripture, but given his leanings and writing on behalf on Denver Seminary, his writing is likely to be in support of his take on theology, not an impartial academic stance. Personally, I don't really care what he believes, I'm just interested in historical truth, inasmuch as we can achieve it. That said, it ain't easy.
Again, what does his being a seminarian have any negative impact on the fact the man is an educated scripture expert? Again, who is being the biased one here? They both have pretty much the same type of educational background. the only reason who are labeling his article as biased is because he is a seminarian. Does this mean that you accept only expert opinions just so long as they are not in conflict with your own ideas? It about the only way I can explain your stance on Blomberg. His expertise should have the same credibility as the author to Misquoting Jesus. I give them both the same credibility. I just presented another expert opinion on the same topic. I would love to go back in time, cut and paste that article and change the author as to remove all traces of him being a priest.
I'm not criticising Blomberg's credentials with regard to his knowledge of scripture, I'm questioning his integrity with regard to what he is doing with his knowledge. Not all students of scripture are impartial in what they write about for public consumption.
Blomberg is a known conservative evangelical and as such is an advocate of biblical authority and biblical inerrancy - it comes with the territory. So to answer your question above, I'm sure Blomberg is an expert in his field, but I am wary of 'expert opinions' that come from an author who is openly a conservative evangelist and who by definition advocates biblical authority and inerrancy. His is not a value-free and impartial stance - that is why I question him - his interpretations are likely to be coloured by his theological leanings. The letters after his name don't preclude him from playing to the gallery. It doesn't matter what tradition or leanings someone has - they should not be taken seriously unless they can divorce their faith from their work IMO.
Most bible studies I'v eread have been carried out by Christian and Jewish theologians who have wanted to get closer to the word of god, and have chosen to do this through academic study. For the most part they have done a damn fine job, and have passed on their findings with an impartiality that ought to shame some of the others. Without the work of these theologians of high integrity we would still be largely in the dark with regard to the bible. Long may it continue - it's a fascinating field of study.
-
I think you're mistaken Odysseus, and if you'll permit me I'll outline why in a few points.
I think you'll find that rational thought didn't stop in 312. I think you'll find that the rational thought was simply aimed in a different direction. Yes there was a move away from greek philosophy (the same philosophy that brought us such thoughts as stoicism, gnosticism and Manichaeism(sp?)) to Christianity. It moved away from Greek morals (such morals that brought us paedophilia, use of Christians as torches and leaving unwanted babies outside to die of exposure) to Christian morals.
They started to apply this reasoned logic to the bible. They applied their study of the world around them to the bible. They went from general revelation (creation, an idea the greeks held to I believe, I could be wrong) to the specific revelation of the Bible. They lent their minds to understanding this complicated text. They lent themselves to figuring out how it all fits together, how the trinitarian God works, how Christ was God and man etc. This was not an abandonement of logic and reason. Merely a transfer of the application.
Many libraries were sacked in the years following Christianity, and use of Greek-inspired rationalism was frowned upon and regarded as antithetical to the notion of an all-powerful God who is the creator and sustainer and whose will the lowly humans should cower in front of, rather than seek knowledge of that which should be God's realm. Questioning the world whrough science and logic became heresy, for want of a better term. Again, I will reiterate that it didn't happen all the time absolutely everywhere, but it was a marked halt in progress.
Sometimes this was true. Others it wasn't. Unfortunately the dark ages were so called for a purpose when the Roman Church got powermad.
1 - as far as we know, the gospel of John wasn't written by the John who was supposed to be a companion of Jesus.
2 - none of the other gospels in canon say that Jesus was divine.
3 - none of the other gospels are held by most theologians to be written by who they were supposed to be written.
4 - theologians say that the texts hav ebeen amended over the years to refect changes in belief.
1 - As far as i know, He did. Where do you get your knowledge from?
2 - All of them did in fact. In the earliest gospel (Mk) Jesus himself claims divinity.
3 - Yes they are. what sort of theologians are you quoting?
4 - Those theologians are idiots.
-
It's not quite fair for you to sum up greek morality as pedophelia, murding christians and letting babies die, unless you want to also sum up christian morality as murder jews and muslims, raping young boys and creating war all over the world.
Obviously neither are accurate in the slightest bit.
-
1 - as far as we know, the gospel of John wasn't written by the John who was supposed to be a companion of Jesus.
2 - none of the other gospels in canon say that Jesus was divine.
3 - none of the other gospels are held by most theologians to be written by who they were supposed to be written.
4 - theologians say that the texts hav ebeen amended over the years to refect changes in belief.
1 - By this, I assume you are drawing a distinction between John the apostle and John the elder. Yes, it is possible that the two are different, and we have a bit of evidence for that, but it is also quite possible that they are the same figure. In any event, I can't see how it makes a difference. Mark and Luke weren't apostles either. And plenty of people followed Jesus during his earthly ministry--John the elder could easily have been one of them.
2 - John is surely the most obvious in displaying Jesus as God. However, you still do find claims in the Synoptics, specifically in the titles Jesus gives himself. When Jesus walks on water in Mat 14:22-33 and Mk 6:45-52 he refers to himself as "I AM", a reference to God's name in Ex 3:14. Jesus also calls himself the "Son of Man", referring to Dan 7:13-14. In addition, Jesus allows himself to act as only God would, by claiming to have the power to forgive and judge, as well as accept being worshiped. If he was just another messenger from God, he certainly would have corrected his worshipers, much as the angel did in Revelation when John worshiped the angel.
3 - The claim that most theologians believe that the gospels weren't authentic ("authentic" = written by who they are attributed to) is simply not true. Perhaps many secular scholars say this, but most believing theologians do hold the view that at least the synoptics were authentic. Not only that, but inauthenticity itself is also unlikely. For one, we see these names attributed to the gospels as early as AD 125 in Papias's writings. Also, if inauthentic, Mark and Luke would have been unlikely candidates, since they weren't apostles, and obscure figures at that. And Matthew was unpopular as a tax collector. If inauthentic, you should see names like The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Mary, and The Gospel of Thomas. Yes, I know those three examples "exist" but that's a separate issue. My point is that you have to pull a number of historical strings to come up with the idea that the authors weren't named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
4 - This is actually true. Most do accept that the Bible has been changed. However, you leave out the fact that most theologians don't think that the omissions/additions affect any major doctrine. Two examples. First, Mk 16:9-20. All details regarding the resurrection, post-resurrection appearances, the "Great Commission," water baptism, and signs can be found elsewhere. Second, 1 Jn 5:7, the famous verse on the "Trinity". The "Trinity" can be demonstrated in a number of places outside of this verse, so it's being there or not doesn't really change anything.
-
I think you'll find that rational thought didn't stop in 312.
I didn't say it did. I said it slowed down in comparison to the rate at which it had gone before, with regard to science and philosophy. Compare this with the continuation in progress of the Arab areas that had been exposed to Greek thought. Not surprisingly, this progress was brought to a swift halt by the arrival of monotheism too.
I think you'll find that the rational thought was simply aimed in a different direction. Yes there was a move away from greek philosophy (the same philosophy that brought us such thoughts as stoicism, gnosticism and Manichaeism(sp?)) to Christianity. It moved away from Greek morals (such morals that brought us paedophilia, use of Christians as torches and leaving unwanted babies outside to die of exposure) to Christian morals.
I wouldn't have said that early church utilised much in the way of rational thought at all. Witness the amount of squabbling over the Nicene orthodoxy versus Arianism. It is unwise to say that Christian thought suddenly dropped into place over night - much continued as it had been before, as Constantine needed the support of the growing Christian population as well as the support of the pagans, so he was very careful not to tread on too many toes. Couple that with imperial patronage of the Christian church and you end up with the situation where the emperor had a strong hand in deciding the direction of doctrine to suit his own ends, because the church was reliant on him for financial support as well as toleration.
As for paedophilia, you know as well as I do that the church has had a long and sordid history of turning a blind eye to the clergy boffing the kids, and it's still going on today, so a cheap effort at playing to the gallery like that is bound to turn round and bite you in the ass.
They started to apply this reasoned logic to the bible. They applied their study of the world around them to the bible. They went from general revelation (creation, an idea the greeks held to I believe, I could be wrong) to the specific revelation of the Bible. They lent their minds to understanding this complicated text. They lent themselves to figuring out how it all fits together, how the trinitarian God works, how Christ was God and man etc. This was not an abandonement of logic and reason. Merely a transfer of the application.
They started to try and shoehorn their everyday world into the theology of the new testament. I wouldn't say that is a case of reasoned logic, more an exercise in futility, but fair play to them for giving it a go. It is important to look at it through the eyes of the times, but that doesn't mean we should idealize. For example, Ptolemy was a wizard with mathematics and astronomy, but basic assumptions regarding the earth being the centre of the universe were wrong, and so therefore were his results, despite the awesome calculations he made to describe the movement of the stars and suchlike, but you can't take anything away from the guy for his efforts.
Similarly, the early church, in true religious style took a top-down approach starting with the literal truth of the bible - anything that didn't fit in was either bent so it did fit in or jettisoned as heresy. Rational thought? Not much, by our standards.
Take the formulation of the Nicene creed that eventually became doctrine - that is, the doctrine that God, Jesus and the holy spirit are of one substance. Arius and his followers, as well as many others had always believed that Jesus was subordinate to God, and backed this up with scripture, correctly pointing out that scripture depicts Jesus as being separate and subordinate to God - "My god, why have you forsaken me etc etc..." It took a hell of a lot of exegetic contortion to get the Nicene Creed past this rather large hurdle, and a lot of manoevring regarding the terms 'homooussios' and 'homoiousios'. So it would seem that scripture was also subject to some 'creative exegesis' in the service of doctrine too! Understandable from the viewpoint of some of the church fathers at the time who were concerned to make their orthodoxy palatable to the emperor, but rational?.... hmmm....
Many libraries were sacked in the years following Christianity, and use of Greek-inspired rationalism was frowned upon and regarded as antithetical to the notion of an all-powerful God who is the creator and sustainer and whose will the lowly humans should cower in front of, rather than seek knowledge of that which should be God's realm. Questioning the world whrough science and logic became heresy, for want of a better term. Again, I will reiterate that it didn't happen all the time absolutely everywhere, but it was a marked halt in progress.
Sometimes this was true. Others it wasn't. Unfortunately the dark ages were so called for a purpose when the Roman Church got powermad.
Yup, when church and state became inextricable.
1 - as far as we know, the gospel of John wasn't written by the John who was supposed to be a companion of Jesus.
2 - none of the other gospels in canon say that Jesus was divine.
3 - none of the other gospels are held by most theologians to be written by who they were supposed to be written.
4 - theologians say that the texts have been amended over the years to refect changes in belief.
This was an example to illustrate a point in my previous post, not necessarily a point in itself. However...
1 - As far as i know, He did. Where do you get your knowledge from?
2 - All of them did in fact. In the earliest gospel (Mk) Jesus himself claims divinity.
3 - Yes they are. what sort of theologians are you quoting?
4 - Those theologians are idiots.
1 - The jury is still out, apparently. It is thought that it was written in his name by an anonymous author, much like the others. Exeter University, and subsequent study for my own interest.
2 - Gospel accounts have been reworked over time in the early years to reflect church doctrine and prevailing thought. Any NT scholar who reads widely is aware of this.
3 - No they aren't - this outlook is only taken by those who want to bend reality into their beliefs. However, if that's how you want to operate, feel free. Your call, bud. I read the works of Christian and Jewish scholars who are interested in discovering as much historical truth as possible, without the intellectually dishonest practice of cramming it into a rigid pre-existing belief system.
4 - ...Because they don't share your small-minded fundamentalism perchance? You have posted some good stuff in this thread. I'm strangely disappointed with this last effort....
-
It's interesting that Christians mention secular theologians as if they have an agenda contrary to yours. Do you seriously believe that every secular theologian is an anti-Christian theologian? If so, that is quite some persecution complex you've got there. There are many, many Christian scholars that strive to reach historical truth about the bible, and all credit to them. Much of it has been sheer brilliance and a magnificent contribution to the field of study. Similarly there are many many secular theologians that strive for the same. What makes you think that secular theologians are incapable of rational inquiry? Is your position that precarious in your view?
However, there exist a number of charlatans that colour their 'research' (and I use the term loosely!) with their pre-existing assumptions on what the outcome will be. This goes for Christians and anti-Christian scholars alike, and both should be derided on the same grounds - intellectual dishonesty.
Let's talk New Testament historicity with regard to the resurrection. Bear in mind that this is one of the most crucial, if not THE most crucial occasion in Christian theology and of course in the lives of the gospel writers - this is some of the stuff that is the foundation of western theology for hundreds of years to come. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John really ought to have been singing from the same hymn sheet with regard to what happened because they were supposedly there for much of it.
So, bearing this in mind, if we are to believe that the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John themsleves, there really ought to be some continuity in their accounts. They were there, right? It is the most momentous event in their lives. They wouldn't forget what happened.... would they?
Let's have a look...
What time did the women visit the tomb?
Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)
Who were the women?
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
What was their purpose?
Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
Matthew: No (28:2)
Mark: Yes (16:4)
Luke: Yes (24:2)
John: Yes (20:1)
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
Mark: One young man (16:5)
Luke: Two men (24:4)
John: Two angels (20:12)
Where were these messengers situated?
Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
What did the messenger(s) say?
Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)
Did the women tell what happened?
Matthew: Yes (28:8)
Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
John: Yes (20:18)
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
John: No (20:2)
When did Mary first see Jesus?
Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
Matthew: Yes (28:9)
John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)
Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)
Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
John: In a room, at evening (20:19)
Did the disciples believe the two men?
Mark: No (16:13)
Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)
What happened at the appearance?
Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
Where did the ascension take place?
Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
John: No ascension
Paul: No ascension
Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)
Put simply, it is difficult to accept that the gospels were written by the alleged authors themselves when there are so many discrepancies in their accounts. And these are just the resurrection accounts!
New Testament literal historicity? Good luck.....
I'd say the best you can hope for is that the gospels, such as they are, may represent the beliefs and emphases of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but were passed own through oral tradition, losing something along the way, and eventually put in writing by others who wrote in that author's name to lend it more authenticity than it might otherwise have been granted. How else would such errata and inconsistencies have crept in, and why were the accounts so different in simple details?
I'd say faith is the better game plan....
-
You sure spent a lot of time on that.
First of all, you seem more interested in disproving Biblical claims to infallible inspiration. There are answers to all those things you brought up, but the issue we are talking about is historicity--did the historical events happen?
With all historical sources, especially ancient ones, you would not expect absolute uniformity in the details. You are judging the Biblical accounts on a higher level than any other historical source. That's unfair.
Let me quote Blomberg, since he's already been brought up in this thread.
"The gospels are extremely consistent with each other by ancient standards, which are the only standards by which it's fair to judge them...If the gospels were too consistent, that in itself would invalidate them as independent witnesses. People would then say we really only have one testimony that everybody else is just parroting...There is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction."
To say that the discrepencies invalidate their authenticity is beyond me.
-
"The gospels are extremely consistent with each other by ancient standards, which are the only standards by which it's fair to judge them...
I have an issue with this statement. What he is essentially saying is "given the mode of transmission and how long this is ago, we could possibly only ever be 30% sure. Thus, 30% is now the new de facto truth standard."
With the same argument I could create an elaborate story around two Neanderthal's love affair, but since we can only ever know so much about the circumstance of Neanderthals, the spurious evidence I have is now good enough to declare the story true.
If the gospels were too consistent, that in itself would invalidate them as independent witnesses. People would then say we really only have one testimony that everybody else is just parroting...
That's what's happening though, right? Doesn't one gospel even mistranslate an idiom that made sense in the other gospel's original language?
rumborak
-
I have an issue with this statement. What he is essentially saying is "given the mode of transmission and how long this is ago, we could possibly only ever be 30% sure. Thus, 30% is now the new de facto truth standard."
With the same argument I could create an elaborate story around two Neanderthal's love affair, but since we can only ever know so much about the circumstance of Neanderthals, the spurious evidence I have is now good enough to declare the story true.
He's not saying that we accept ancient accounts as automatic truth. I don't know where you got that idea. All that he is saying is that we don't discount material that appears to contradict in minor ways, a common claim of Bible critics.
That's what's happening though, right? Doesn't one gospel even mistranslate an idiom that made sense in the other gospel's original language?
???
That's what "they" say. Frankly, I don't see why that's a valid hypothesis. The Synoptics all contain very similar information. Why release three copies of the same story, when the same could have been accomplished by one? What would be the motive? That would be foolish of them. If they supposedly copied each other, that would greatly decrease the number of contradictions we see. If they wanted to make amendments/corrections to the one they copied off of, they would have simply done so, not rewrite an entire narrative.
And John is generally agreed to have been a complete outside source from the Synoptics, so that's not even in the picture.
It's funny how some of you claim that the gospels originated from passed down oral tradition, and some of you claim that the gospels originated from a single written source that spread out. Two completely opposite things.
The notion is that four guys that followed around a person named Jesus, and later recorded four biographies as independent sources from their own individual perspective, perhaps using the others for reference occasionally, is the most likely scenario that fits snugly into the information that we know.
-
I think you'll find that rational thought didn't stop in 312.
I didn't say it did. I said it slowed down in comparison to the rate at which it had gone before, with regard to science and philosophy. Compare this with the continuation in progress of the Arab areas that had been exposed to Greek thought. Not surprisingly, this progress was brought to a swift halt by the arrival of monotheism too.
i'm pretty sure arabic scholarship took off after the introduction of islam. up to that point it had been mostky poetry if I remember correctly.
I think you'll find that the rational thought was simply aimed in a different direction. Yes there was a move away from greek philosophy (the same philosophy that brought us such thoughts as stoicism, gnosticism and Manichaeism(sp?)) to Christianity. It moved away from Greek morals (such morals that brought us paedophilia, use of Christians as torches and leaving unwanted babies outside to die of exposure) to Christian morals.
I wouldn't have said that early church utilised much in the way of rational thought at all. Witness the amount of squabbling over the Nicene orthodoxy versus Arianism. It is unwise to say that Christian thought suddenly dropped into place over night - much continued as it had been before, as Constantine needed the support of the growing Christian population as well as the support of the pagans, so he was very careful not to tread on too many toes. Couple that with imperial patronage of the Christian church and you end up with the situation where the emperor had a strong hand in deciding the direction of doctrine to suit his own ends, because the church was reliant on him for financial support as well as toleration.
As for paedophilia, you know as well as I do that the church has had a long and sordid history of turning a blind eye to the clergy boffing the kids, and it's still going on today, so a cheap effort at playing to the gallery like that is bound to turn round and bite you in the ass.
There was Squabbling because Arius exposed his heresy by calling another priest a heretic. That combined with him being very good at reducing complex doctrines into fortune cookie statements made his movement strong with the common people.
i'm not saying that Christian thought dropped into place overnight. I'm just saying that after 312 we went from trying to survive and not really having alot of time to put too much thought into theology outside of "we're not evil, please stop killing us" to "ok we can breathe now, let's figure out what the bible actually says"
As for Paedophilia, I'm not denying that the Roman church (I don't think it's as popular among protestants) has weaknesses but The Roman church at least recognises it as Amoral. The greeks celebrated Paedophilia. or at least weren't ashamed of it.
They started to apply this reasoned logic to the bible. They applied their study of the world around them to the bible. They went from general revelation (creation, an idea the greeks held to I believe, I could be wrong) to the specific revelation of the Bible. They lent their minds to understanding this complicated text. They lent themselves to figuring out how it all fits together, how the trinitarian God works, how Christ was God and man etc. This was not an abandonement of logic and reason. Merely a transfer of the application.
They started to try and shoehorn their everyday world into the theology of the new testament. I wouldn't say that is a case of reasoned logic, more an exercise in futility, but fair play to them for giving it a go. It is important to look at it through the eyes of the times, but that doesn't mean we should idealize. For example, Ptolemy was a wizard with mathematics and astronomy, but basic assumptions regarding the earth being the centre of the universe were wrong, and so therefore were his results, despite the awesome calculations he made to describe the movement of the stars and suchlike, but you can't take anything away from the guy for his efforts.
Similarly, the early church, in true religious style took a top-down approach starting with the literal truth of the bible - anything that didn't fit in was either bent so it did fit in or jettisoned as heresy. Rational thought? Not much, by our standards.
Well, There's no point keeping stuff that's heresy. If it's a lie why give it a megaphone with canonisation?
Take the formulation of the Nicene creed that eventually became doctrine - that is, the doctrine that God, Jesus and the holy spirit are of one substance. Arius and his followers, as well as many others had always believed that Jesus was subordinate to God, and backed this up with scripture, correctly pointing out that scripture depicts Jesus as being separate and subordinate to God - "My god, why have you forsaken me etc etc..." It took a hell of a lot of exegetic contortion to get the Nicene Creed past this rather large hurdle, and a lot of manoevring regarding the terms 'homooussios' and 'homoiousios'. So it would seem that scripture was also subject to some 'creative exegesis' in the service of doctrine too! Understandable from the viewpoint of some of the church fathers at the time who were concerned to make their orthodoxy palatable to the emperor, but rational?.... hmmm....
argh. The doctrine of the trinity is confusing enough without having to trace the History of it. Is it alright if we stick to 1+1+1=1?
Arius actually preached that "once the son was not" This is of course not what the bible says so his teaching became anathema. I'm not sure what sort of creative exegesis there is involved in coming to that conclusion.
on the note of making it palatable, I think you'll find that Constantine's mother may have been a supporter of Arius. Combine that with the sheer complexity of the doctrine of the trinity and I think you'll believe me when I say that the church was not there for constantine.
Many libraries were sacked in the years following Christianity, and use of Greek-inspired rationalism was frowned upon and regarded as antithetical to the notion of an all-powerful God who is the creator and sustainer and whose will the lowly humans should cower in front of, rather than seek knowledge of that which should be God's realm. Questioning the world whrough science and logic became heresy, for want of a better term. Again, I will reiterate that it didn't happen all the time absolutely everywhere, but it was a marked halt in progress.
Sometimes this was true. Others it wasn't. Unfortunately the dark ages were so called for a purpose when the Roman Church got powermad.
Yup, when church and state became inextricable.
When either church or state has too much power. Communism for example.
1 - as far as we know, the gospel of John wasn't written by the John who was supposed to be a companion of Jesus.
2 - none of the other gospels in canon say that Jesus was divine.
3 - none of the other gospels are held by most theologians to be written by who they were supposed to be written.
4 - theologians say that the texts have been amended over the years to refect changes in belief.
This was an example to illustrate a point in my previous post, not necessarily a point in itself. However...
1 - As far as i know, He did. Where do you get your knowledge from?
2 - All of them did in fact. In the earliest gospel (Mk) Jesus himself claims divinity.
3 - Yes they are. what sort of theologians are you quoting?
4 - Those theologians are idiots.
1 - The jury is still out, apparently. It is thought that it was written in his name by an anonymous author, much like the others. Exeter University, and subsequent study for my own interest.
2 - Gospel accounts have been reworked over time in the early years to reflect church doctrine and prevailing thought. Any NT scholar who reads widely is aware of this.
3 - No they aren't - this outlook is only taken by those who want to bend reality into their beliefs. However, if that's how you want to operate, feel free. Your call, bud. I read the works of Christian and Jewish scholars who are interested in discovering as much historical truth as possible, without the intellectually dishonest practice of cramming it into a rigid pre-existing belief system.
4 - ...Because they don't share your small-minded fundamentalism perchance? You have posted some good stuff in this thread. I'm strangely disappointed with this last effort....
1 - I'm sorry, I have little regard for critical scholars. Instead of looking for the theological unity of the text, they try to find disunities and construct theologies from that. I think that it was written close enough to John's lifetime that tere doesn't need to be any reason to doubt that he wrote it. people who date it later will usually have an ulterior motive for that.
2- this is why we look for the oldest manuscripts we can find, then we compare and contrast them with the manuscripts that we have. I think you'll find that Christian manuscripts have been more accurately copied than any other manuscripts out there from that general milieu
3 - My NT lecturer says that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd rules of biblical interpretation read thus: The Bible interprets itself he's a smart guy He has a Doctorate in physics and a Masters in theology. Wasn't always a Christian either. I don't think you'll find him cramming what the bible says into a pre existing idea. If he did he'd have stayed a non christian don't you think?
4 - The reason I don't regard your sources very highly is that they do exactly what you're accusing me of. They're reading the bible assuming something beforehand and lo and behold they're finding exactly what they're looking for.
[/quote]
-
I don't have much to add to BrotherH's posts except to say that most of the passages you quoted are discrepant only in semantics or with unimportant matters. Does it really matter which women were recorded as going to the tomb and in which part of the dawn it was? it was dawn, some women went including Mary Magdalene. Other gospels obviously didn't want to introduce new characters at the end.
-
With all historical sources, especially ancient ones, you would not expect absolute uniformity in the details. You are judging the Biblical accounts on a higher level than any other historical source. That's unfair.
Let me quote Blomberg, since he's already been brought up in this thread.
"The gospels are extremely consistent with each other by ancient standards, which are the only standards by which it's fair to judge them...If the gospels were too consistent, that in itself would invalidate them as independent witnesses. People would then say we really only have one testimony that everybody else is just parroting...There is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction."
To say that the discrepencies invalidate their authenticity is beyond me.
I do judge the Bible against other ancient sources, by the same standards. I can do that because I don't think it was "written" by God, just like none of the other ancient sources. But if you believe that it WAS written by God, then obviously it should be able to stand up to higher standards. There shouldn't be that many discrepancies. In fact, there shouldn't be ANY discrepancies, and there would be no need for multiple gospels in the first place.
-
First of all, you seem more interested in disproving Biblical claims to infallible inspiration.
Classic projection. Start with what can be proven within reason and work forward to reach your conclusion. It isn't academically acceptable to start with your conclusion and work backwards, like I said before.
There are answers to all those things you brought up, but the issue we are talking about is historicity--did the historical events happen?
Yes, and one of the strands of this historicity is the question of authenticity with regard to whether the alleged authors of the gospels actually wrote them themselves, was it passed down via oral tradition and then written down, was it made up by unrelated parties, or what? All feed in to the larger topic of historicity.
With all historical sources, especially ancient ones, you would not expect absolute uniformity in the details. You are judging the Biblical accounts on a higher level than any other historical source. That's unfair.
Untrue. The texts are supposedly the accounts of the authors themselves, yet the content differs in the simplest af facts, despite the assertion that they were
a) allegedly there witnessing those events described and
b) allegedly the authors of their accounts.
Biblical texts need to be subjected to the same scrutiny as any other claim of literal historicity. Special pleading is no longer acceptable.
If I expected absolute uniformity then there would be no need for 4 gospels right? There is a reason that there are 4 gospels.
Let me quote Blomberg, since he's already been brought up in this thread.
Blomberg's position is loaded towards his prior beliefs. He's sought out for book material by creationists. "The Bible is correct therefore the Bible is correct". Bog-standard tautology.
To say that the discrepencies invalidate their authenticity is beyond me.
I don't doubt that for a minute.
It's funny how some of you claim that the gospels originated from passed down oral tradition, and some of you claim that the gospels originated from a single written source that spread out. Two completely opposite things.
I can't speak for Rumborak, but I'm not making any claims. We know we don't know. We don't have the evidence to support literalism. The jury is still out after nearly 2000 years and it looks like remaining that way. There isn't enough to make any definite conclusions, so religious claims of inerrancy and absolute historical truth are unfounded.
The notion is that four guys that followed around a person named Jesus, and later recorded four biographies as independent sources from their own individual perspective, perhaps using the others for reference occasionally, is the most likely scenario that fits snugly into the information that we know.
If they used each others for reference then you'd think there would be a lot more continuity - the gospels are choc-full of discrepancies - the ones I posted are just about the resurrection story.
The proof-reader needs shooting! ;-)
As far as I can tell, the 4 gospels chosen as canon were chosen because they represent what the individual schools of thought wanted to say about their views concerning the character and background and theology of Jesus - some emphasised his Jewishness, some wanted to emphasise a new start as a result of Jesus' ministry, some want to emphasise his divinity etc etc. In this thread we are discussing historicity of the new testament texts, not the theology or doctrine that followed it, though of course they will be related. Those topics really deserve their own threads IMO rather than cramming them here amongst this lot.
I'd be wary of trying to find things that 'fit in snugly' personally. Go with what is knowable and move forward from that if you genuinely desire historical truth.
There was Squabbling because Arius exposed his heresy by calling another priest a heretic. That combined with him being very good at reducing complex doctrines into fortune cookie statements made his movement strong with the common people.
i'm not saying that Christian thought dropped into place overnight. I'm just saying that after 312 we went from trying to survive and not really having alot of time to put too much thought into theology outside of "we're not evil, please stop killing us" to "ok we can breathe now, let's figure out what the bible actually says"
Cool. Yes, it is certainly a hell of an interesting period to study, and this thread, including much of your posting, has spurred me to get back into it some more. I thank you for that! The whole Arian vs Nicene period was quite a farce in some ways, and quite intriguing in others!
As for Paedophilia, I'm not denying that the Roman church (I don't think it's as popular among protestants) has weaknesses but The Roman church at least recognises it as Amoral. The greeks celebrated Paedophilia. or at least weren't ashamed of it.
Yeah. The blot on the landscape here is the issue of us imposing a 21st century wordview onto late antiquity and the whole idea of cultural imperialism. I'm not disagreeing with you as such, we need to look at it through the eyes of the times, but not necessarily to try and justify it, OR indeed to condemn it with our own moral outlook. There are cultures that still exist in remote places where girls become mothers very young as a matter of course because that is the way they have always lived - in a subsistence society where the need to grow up quick is part of the cultural make-up. Can we be that judgemental? I dunno. It's a thorny problem that has no real right or wrong answer independent of the cultural context. That said, I haven't looked that fully into the whole Greek penchant for youngsters - I know it went on, but I need to try and understand what was going on there a bit more....
Well, There's no point keeping stuff that's heresy. If it's a lie why give it a megaphone with canonisation?
But that raises the question of what indeed IS heresy and who gets to decide. During early christianity, what passed as heresy was changed and changed again with monotonous regularity. Some of the accounts of the bishops' manoeuvring and skullduggery with regard to the manipulation and reinterpretation of heresy for personal gain and imperial prestige just beggars belief!
argh. The doctrine of the trinity is confusing enough without having to trace the History of it. Is it alright if we stick to 1+1+1=1?
Haha. Ain't that the truth! But.... the history of it is important if we are to understand how the Nicene and Arian positions reached a sort of compromise, no? That's the sort of thing that interests me, but it ain't for everyone I guess...
Arius actually preached that "once the son was not" This is of course not what the bible says so his teaching became anathema. I'm not sure what sort of creative exegesis there is involved in coming to that conclusion.
Well the problem for the original Nicene formula was exactly that - lack of scriptural backing. So the Cappadocian fathers came up with some sort of halfway house regarding the replacement of the term homooussios (identical substance) with the term homoioussios (similar substance) which, with a bit of imperial prodding, kept more people happy... for a while anyway...
1 - I'm sorry, I have little regard for critical scholars. Instead of looking for the theological unity of the text, they try to find disunities and construct theologies from that. I think that it was written close enough to John's lifetime that tere doesn't need to be any reason to doubt that he wrote it. people who date it later will usually have an ulterior motive for that.
2- this is why we look for the oldest manuscripts we can find, then we compare and contrast them with the manuscripts that we have. I think you'll find that Christian manuscripts have been more accurately copied than any other manuscripts out there from that general milieu
3 - My NT lecturer says that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd rules of biblical interpretation read thus: The Bible interprets itself he's a smart guy He has a Doctorate in physics and a Masters in theology. Wasn't always a Christian either. I don't think you'll find him cramming what the bible says into a pre existing idea. If he did he'd have stayed a non christian don't you think?
4 - The reason I don't regard your sources very highly is that they do exactly what you're accusing me of. They're reading the bible assuming something beforehand and lo and behold they're finding exactly what they're looking for.
1 - sounds like projection again, as mentioned earlier. Most scholars worth their salt want truth, not comfort. The stories don't need to be literally true in order to contain metaphorical truth, and I don't think anyone wants to destroy the morality of the stories. Too many people have far too much invested in literal truth IMO, hence the ongoing arguments...
2 - yes, older manuscripts are more likely to have a higher fidelity level IMO. There have still been additions and omissions along the way though.
3 - I'm sure he is a smart guy. I'm not entirely sure what he means by 'interprets itself' though. If he means that you read the stories to get metaphorical truths and an understanding of human nature in general. as well as a feel for theological outlook during the period then I totally agree.
I don't see how this relates to biblical historicity as such though....
You don't need literal belief to be a christian. There are thousands of christian sects who believe different things or have small, medium or large differences in what they think is true. Some christians don't believe in god, some don't even need to believe that Jesus really existed - they just have an agreement with the general ethical practices and outlook supposedly espoused by Jesus in the bible. For some, it's a tip of the hat to clan loyalty or a pleasant way to spend a sunday morning. The bog-standard fundie response to this is - "Well, they're not christians then!" Well.... who gets to decide who is or is not a christian, and what does the fundie hope to gain by trying to take this away from someone who wants to lead a good life? I'm not aiming this at you personally, but it makes me cringe sometimes....
4 - Not so, mate. I already said that you get assholes on both sides who just want to wave their own flag and both sides deserve to get pilloried for their lack of integrity.
It would appear that you're saying that unless a theologian gives you the answer that you are looking for then you will dismiss them out of hand, irrespective of their findings? I hope not, but that's your business and not mine.
Personally I have no vested interest in proving or disproving biblical historicity. If something happened that proved beyond reasonable doubt something the bible says, I say fine and dandy.
I'm just interested in what can be proven true. I'm not really interested in baseless conjecture and wish-thinking. I don't think that my outlook is unreasonable.
Bloody hell... that was a long one! :-0
-
Ok. First i'd like to apologise. I'm currently studying for exams and the stuff we're talking about was last semester lol. Is it alright with you if i finish my exams and then get back to you on this? I'm gonna bookmark this thread in my browser.
-
First of all:
Jeepers our posts are getting long. I'm gonna go point for quote to try to reduce length. So please bear with me.
1/
I wouldn't say that it isn't academically responsible for work backwards from a point as there has to be a point where fundamentals are formed. (I know not much to do with the topic but still lol) then we work backwards from those fundamentals.
2/
Well First of all a strong argument for reliability of oral tradition can be made (at least back in the day). It may not lead to getting quotes exactly right but they had ways of remembering things really well back then. Secondly, those scribes that wrote and copied the OT got it right. They just did. they went to extreme lengths to get that exactly right. Thirdly, The NT started as Oral tradition with alot of creeds but because it spread so quickly they had to get it down on paper so that they weren't stretched too thin.
3/
a/ John was an Eyewitness, Mark was an eyewitnesses scribe, Matthew was an eyewitness and Luke had umpteen sources, some eyewitnesses, some not.
b/They are applied the same scrutiny. More than most because they have such a high profile. Unfortunately the Scholars which you're so happy to cite that look for the historical Jesus are applying the same flawed academic principle that you so harshly criticised by assuming that the bible doesn't portray the historical Jesus. (how many of them dispute the historical Julius Caesar by the way, I think that'd be interesting)
4/
I dunno who Blomberg is but "The Bible is right because the bible is right" isn't...you know...bad. If the Bible is right then of course the Bible is right.
5/
Well snap lol. It escapes me how you can claim that the gospels are so horribly discrepent that they can't possibly be right when most of the examples you cited were so weak. Yes there were a few in there that were good examples but still...Most of them were unimportant...
6/
Actually the Jury's only been out for a few hundred years. If that It was abut the 17th century when deism really emerged and that was not long before peolpe started doubting the accuracy of the bible. Up to that point there was no doubt that the bible was accurate.
7/
They didn't all cross reference precisely...The other gospel writers knew of Mark and Luke (I think) used it keeping it's accuracy. In the mean time they had different sources and different focuses. I like your idea about creating a new thread to discuss the different focusses of the four gospels.
8/ (we're up to my stuff now if you lost track)
Well thankyou. I'll have to have a look at my own lecture notes on the period as well...If I can ever find them again...I just moved house and haven't unpacked properly yet. Yes it's been a busy time for me :P
9/
Unfortunately when men are left to their own devices and gods of their own creation immoral activities appear and become mainstream. Also, The greeks fancied boys. This wasn't about getting women pregnant (though the bible's Mary was only having her voice change so that's what..14-16 years old?) They were actually throwing babies out. People are outraged by late term abortions...This is giving birth to the baby then leaving it in the street to die. So I can't agree with you about the need to populate either...This is what the Christian polemicists were speaking out against. This was 2nd century AD.
10/
I'm pretty sure there wasn't much flip flopping with regards to Heresy. Yes there were back room meetings and People like Athanasius weren't exactly stellar citizens sometimes, but they cared about the bible. Though now I think about it there were a few things that did seem to go back and forth. can't remember them though...not off my head's top. The big things though. Divinity of Jesus, Trinity, Homousion/homoiusion were (while struggled through) set.
11/
Oh I love the history of the doctrine of the Trinity (backflip on myself? Why thankyou, I think I will :P exams are over now :P) it's just...hard to separate from the doctrine of christ and a few other things in history...they all sort of flowed out of the other...and then you've got outstanding thinkers who struggled to figure it out and...it's just convoluted...you know? i'll happy go round by round with you but we should save that for another thread ;)
12/Ok before we go anywhere by "Nicene formula" do you mean the Nicene creed? Sorry I get confused about which creed came from Which council. I thought The Apostles creed came from 312 Nicea and then there was another one later that century which came up with the Nicene creed and they named it anachronistically...I'm probably wrong..i'm pretty tired at the moment lol.
13/
i) What moral truth is gained by a man dying on a cross?
ii) I know that (Br)osephus is likely to have been changed by a monk at a later day but I'm pretty sure the earliest biblical manuscripts weren't edited. We can go back to about 92AD in a letter from one of the Fathers to a church (Clement of Rome to the Corinthians) Which quotes and refers to a bunch of the NT texts and stuff which is the same as what we have today.
iiia) He means that If you find something you can't understand likelihood is that it's a reference or there is some corollary event somewhere else in the bible.
iiib) Christianity is the belief that Jesus died for the sins of the world as an act of penal substitutionary re-atonement. Those people who don't believe this are not Christian, they are... I dunno..followers of a Jesuine (making this word up...I dunno what it should look like) philosophy? The title "Christ" is in itself definitive.
iv)I'm discerning with what I take in. If a "theologian" makes a claim that is ridiculous and not biblical then i'll try to find the value in what he does say before I dismiss him. If what he says has no value then I will dismiss him outright. I take what people say with a grain of salt, if you will.
I'm not going to dismiss anyone for saying something I disagree with. I will however dismiss them for saying something that is wrong. for example: first semester this year i did an essay on Mark(15:37-39). One guy made an argument that The Centurion confessed Jesus as the Son of God because he saw the temple currtain tear, which was why there is the quick Jesus-temple-Jesus flick..thing...lol. Anyway, I dismissed him out of hand and pummeled his argument for sheer stupidity. The reason why? a/ The Temple curtain was inside the temple, b/ the temple doors faced the other way and c/ Golgotha was outside the city walls, the centurion wouldn't have been able to see the curtain be torn
This is the type of scholarship I disregard.
-
2/
Well First of all a strong argument for reliability of oral tradition can be made (at least back in the day). It may not lead to getting quotes exactly right but they had ways of remembering things really well back then. Secondly, those scribes that wrote and copied the OT got it right. They just did. they went to extreme lengths to get that exactly right.
Yeah, but that's the major difference between the OT and the NT. Copying the OT, i.e. the Tora, was in the hands of special clerics, people trained in copying it. Copying the NT was done in households by "enthusiasts" who often didn't even speak the language they were copying that well and thus made errors left and right. If the quality of copying was really as high as you assert, there would be no way the spread of different gospels we observe.
a/ John was an Eyewitness, Mark was an eyewitnesses scribe, Matthew was an eyewitness and Luke had umpteen sources, some eyewitnesses, some not.
That's really just wishful thinking than anything else, phil. You have to distinguish between "tradition", i.e. what the CC asserted hundreds of years ago as "canonical truth", and what is actually there as evidence. There is very little hard evidence that any of the gospels were directly written by eyewitnesses.
I dunno who Blomberg is but "The Bible is right because the bible is right" isn't...you know...bad. If the Bible is right then of course the Bible is right.
You know, many Christians have a more discerning view of the Bible, that it is both right and wrong. Just at different spots.
Actually the Jury's only been out for a few hundred years. If that It was abut the 17th century when deism really emerged and that was not long before peolpe started doubting the accuracy of the bible. Up to that point there was no doubt that the bible was accurate.
Up to the 17th century, nobody was in the position to question the Bible. First of all, heresy was met with death, simple as that. Second of all, the Bible was read in Latin vulgate, which nobody actually understood but the clerics who read them. Thirdly, Enlightenment had to come around for people to apply reason to these matters.
I think it's pretty obvious that only now are we rediscovering the criticism and spread of interpretation of the Bible that very early Christianity saw, and saw with good reason, because nothing was as clear-cut as the CC forced it to be soon-after.
rumborak
-
Yeah, but that's the major difference between the OT and the NT. Copying the OT, i.e. the Tora, was in the hands of special clerics, people trained in copying it. Copying the NT was done in households by "enthusiasts" who often didn't even speak the language they were copying that well and thus made errors left and right. If the quality of copying was really as high as you assert, there would be no way the spread of different gospels we observe.
Why's that? Supposing they believed that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John should all be considered the word of God, as the epistles assert, then I don't see why they would be opposed to copying each and every one of them.
Thirdly, The NT started as Oral tradition with alot of creeds but because it spread so quickly they had to get it down on paper so that they weren't stretched too thin.
That's a plausible theory, and it fits, but we don't really have any evidence that demands it. That's just an idea.
There is very little hard evidence that any of the gospels were directly written by eyewitnesses.
While the evidence for the authenticity of the gospels might not be as strong as you'd like it, the evidence that they weren't written by eyewitnesses is even weaker.
-
Yeah, but that's the major difference between the OT and the NT. Copying the OT, i.e. the Tora, was in the hands of special clerics, people trained in copying it. Copying the NT was done in households by "enthusiasts" who often didn't even speak the language they were copying that well and thus made errors left and right. If the quality of copying was really as high as you assert, there would be no way the spread of different gospels we observe.
Why's that? Supposing they believed that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John should all be considered the word of God, as the epistles assert, then I don't see why they would be opposed to copying each and every one of them.
Again, how do you explain then the massively diverging gospel fragments in existence? Either the copyists didn't see the need to be 100% exact in their copying, or they were incompetent.
There is very little hard evidence that any of the gospels were directly written by eyewitnesses.
While the evidence for the authenticity of the gospels might not be as strong as you'd like it, the evidence that they weren't written by eyewitnesses is even weaker.
What I'm saying is, I am sure somewhere in the chain there was an eyewitness. But I don't think the authors of the gospels themselves were. Especially John was not.
rumborak
-
There is very little hard evidence that any of the gospels were directly written by eyewitnesses.
While the evidence for the authenticity of the gospels might not be as strong as you'd like it, the evidence that they weren't written by eyewitnesses is even weaker.
How do you figure? Given all of the inconsistencies and contradictions, there isn't really ANY evidence from the texts that ANY of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Certainly none of them claim to be, and I'm not sure what other evidence there could be for such a claim.
-
Researchers are convinced Luke was a follower of Paul. Whether he was a witness to Christ is still up for grabs. I don't think research has provided us with any of the Gospel writers as actual eyewitnesses to the life of Christ, but again, this should not be an obstacle to faith in what is written in the Bible.
Again, how do you explain then the massively diverging gospel fragments in existence? Either the copyists didn't see the need to be 100% exact in their copying, or they were incompetent.
As noted before, changes are going to be made and for the most part they were made to battle heresy. If you have a passage that talks about Christ as being Divine and being human and you have a heresy that denies the human element, ammending the text to drive the point of two natures doesn't distort the message. The message was distorted with the heresy. Whether or not a statement is heretical seems a bit illogical but the arguments against the heresies were certainly nothing arbitrary as certainly more than 1 person was campaigning against them. Time gives us greater confidence in Divine teaching as he discern the text. The more heresies you combat the more confident and infallible the text becomes. One wouldhope the incompetent scribes were rooted out eventually.
-
If you have a passage that talks about Christ as being Divine and being human and you have a heresy that denies the human element, ammending the text to drive the point of two natures doesn't distort the message.
Are you serious?
-
Whoa, I don't think you could conjure a better example of how we arrived at the scripture we have in front of us today. It only takes a few Vivaces who insert what "clearly" must be the correct picture of Jesus, and you end up with resurrections, infinite amounts of fish and bread, and all that.
rumborak
-
If the last two posts are an indication of where this thread is going than I'm sorry I posted anything.
When you have a Divine message that is distorted through heresy, then explain to me how correcting the heresy is a distortion in itself? Either I'm not being 100% clear or people are not understanding what is being said here. And to drive the point even better, if you have a perfect circle that someone puts a dent into it, then explain to me how fixing that dent to bring back the perfect circle only makes it worse?
However I really don't care for Rumborak's attitude in his last post. I find it rather insulting especially to my beliefs and if that's the direction I am going to expect from him then you can count me out of any discussion with him on religion.
-
Either I'm not being 100% clear or people are not understanding what is being said here.
Actually, I think you just kinda have to realize that sometimes people can both understand and disagree with what you're saying.
-
If the last two posts are an indication of where this thread is going than I'm sorry I posted anything.
When you have a Divine message that is distorted through heresy, then explain to me how correcting the heresy is a distortion in itself? Either I'm not being 100% clear or people are not understanding what is being said here. And to drive the point even better, if you have a perfect circle that someone puts a dent into it, then explain to me how fixing that dent to bring back the perfect circle only makes it worse?
However I really don't care for Rumborak's attitude in his last post. I find it rather insulting especially to my beliefs and if that's the direction I am going to expect from him then you can count me out of any discussion with him on religion.
Pardon me, but you seemed to be indicating that it was OK to amend a Biblical text because some heretic somewhere was using it to support his beliefs. If I am misrepresenting what you said, please correct me.
-
You know, not that it really is my issue, but I find this artificial requirement for the Bible to be 100% literally and historically correct to be a sign of poor faith.
Even the CC abandoned the idea of literalism, and if there's one thing you can be sure of, it's that the CC doesn't give an inch in matters of faith unless it feels it is absolutely inevitable.
The Bible was written by men, each with their own aspirations that went into the manuscripts. How else could it be that Jesus' quotes in the gospels are of different wording? Or that John disagrees on the order of events?
Regarding the specific question, the Roman records are simple and plain beyond doubt. I'm sorry, I know you want your apostle to be the hero of the day, but it's one dude against Roman maps that thousands of people found their way by.
rumborak
Well, you ruined any credibility in your post for me when you sited the CC as a source for anything. :tick2:
-
wut
-
Tick, did you even read Rumby's post?
-
Tick, did you even read Rumby's post?
Yeah I read it. I'm just saying the CC has no credility with me so what they say or think holds no water. Its a bunch of hypocrisy for me personally.
I was raised a Catholic and when I realized I didn't have to stay one when I got older it was a tremendous feeling of liberty.
I read all the other stuff he said, but when the CC gets mentioned I get a little queasy. :tick2:
That is all.
To all Catholics I say, to each his own if it works for you.
-
.
-
Vivace, the point is that you're modifying what is in front of you based on *your* idea of what is heretical. Meaning, you injected your own theology into the document. Whoever gets the document after you can't distinguish what was your "correction" and will take it for granted, just as you are taking at face value what is in front of you, even though you have no idea whether the previous editors' ideas about Jesus were correct or not.
In essence, your willingness to bring the Bible "in line" is why you can't take it at face value.
rumborak
-
For some reason the idea of the Bible being an ancient predecessor to Wikipedia articles has a certain charm to it.
-
Yeah, pardon me if I'm misunderstanding, but there seems to be some really circular kinda stuff going on here. "We considered a certain faction to be heretics, so we changed the text so that our interpretation would seem way more plausible than theirs. And then we killed them. All."
That'd be like the government claiming there's no "Freedom of Speech" in the US Constitution, rewording the amendment to reflect that opinion, and then saying "see? That amendment never really meant there was 'Freedom of Speech' at all and it's always been that way."
Heck, therein lies the whole problem with Catholic "authority."
-
We had to destroy the village in order to save it.
-
I was kinda hoping Odysseus would reply...we had a nice riff going :(
-
Up to the 17th century, nobody was in the position to question the Bible. First of all, heresy was met with death, simple as that. Second of all, the Bible was read in Latin vulgate, which nobody actually understood but the clerics who read them. Thirdly, Enlightenment had to come around for people to apply reason to these matters.
I think it's pretty obvious that only now are we rediscovering the criticism and spread of interpretation of the Bible that very early Christianity saw, and saw with good reason, because nothing was as clear-cut as the CC forced it to be soon-after.
rumborak
Yes,that was in the West.On the other hand,at the East,the place that the Gospels were written,people continued to speak and write to the same language and they were reading the Gospels.
So at the East they knew what they were talking about,that's why our church is called "Orthodox".
We actually speak and read the same language and we can read the Gospels in the original text without translation,as our ancestors.
I am sorry but most of the stuff i am reading here is made from the centuries of the Western "Dark Ages" and the decision of the Roman Catholic church to write and speak in a language that no person understood at those times except the Pope and some priests.
That was NOT the case in the Greek speaking East.
-
Take the formulation of the Nicene creed that eventually became doctrine - that is, the doctrine that God, Jesus and the holy spirit are of one substance. Arius and his followers, as well as many others had always believed that Jesus was subordinate to God, and backed this up with scripture, correctly pointing out that scripture depicts Jesus as being separate and subordinate to God - "My god, why have you forsaken me etc etc..." It took a hell of a lot of exegetic contortion to get the Nicene Creed past this rather large hurdle, and a lot of manoevring regarding the terms 'homooussios' and 'homoiousios'. So it would seem that scripture was also subject to some 'creative exegesis' in the service of doctrine too! Understandable from the viewpoint of some of the church fathers at the time who were concerned to make their orthodoxy palatable to the emperor, but rational?.... hmmm....
Do you understand what ομοούσιος ('homooussios') means and what ομοιούσιος ('homoiousios')means?
They seem too similar but they mean very different things and the theological consequence of those words are too important to ignore.
Ομοούσιος ('homooussios')means from the same essence.Theologically means that in this context of the Nicene Creed that Jesus Christ is God as God himself is,they are from the same essence,they are "one".The theological concequence of that is that Jesus is God,but not a distinct seperate God like the Greek and Roman Gods.
Ομοιούσιος ('homoiousios') means that he is from a similar essence to God but not the same.
That means that he maybe God but a distinct God from God the Creator.Similar but not the same.
So,in the homoiousios doctrine you have 2 Gods:God the Creator and Jesus.
The words maybe look the same and have near identical meaning to the English speaker but to a Greek speaker they are worlds apart in their meaning and that,in a Theological context is extremely importart,especially in a meeting to clear things up and to fight herecies and false doctrines and interpetations.
Those words still separates Eastern Orthodox churches and churches like some Oriental Orthodox Churches.
So it's very current,not just a misunderstanding or a historical footnote.
And Saint Nicholas was there and you believe it or not he was so frustrated with Arius heresy that he slapped him!
Yes,the historical figure that in the Western forclore became Santa Claus became violent for that matter.
Those people took their faith VERY seriously.Few years ago Saint Nicholas and others were imprisoned just because they were christians and persecuted.
If you think that the Nicene Council was some cover up or a walk in the park you don't know at all Orthodox Christianity.
-
*claps*