|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/12/2010 06:29:56 PM · #1101 |
Originally posted by Louis:
So? This seems to be a recurring "proof" with you. It means nothing. If copy A is suspect, late in the game, had been lost for decades, or is otherwise not an eye-witness first-hand account, the existence of thousands of copies of copy A are irrelevant in trying to discern the veracity of the basic plot. |
You need to realize that Paul's letters were written between about 40-64 CE, some of which were written before the gospels as DrAchoo stated. Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus Christ, yet his letters which were written before the gospels, agree with the gospel accounts that were written by eyewitnesses. If Paul was lying, Matthew and John would have said something about it in their gospels. But they are all in agreement.
Additionally, Paul's letters were written to churches. This means that Christianity was well established within only a few years of Christ's death, and there were churches in existence throughout the known world. Christianity spread like wildfire in the decade after Christ's death. These early Christians did not yet have the New Testament. Their faith was based on the public preaching and testimonies of the apostles. If Christianity was already well established based on the testimony of the apostles, the early Christians wouldn't have copied the New Testament books by the thousands if they disagreed with what was personally told them by the apostles. Think of it this way... if you met President Barack Obama in person, and he told you all about his presidential campaign, and then some dude printed a book about Obama's campaign that contradicted what Obama himself told you, would you keep your mouth shut or would you say something and get the word out so that the book could be taken out of print? I'm assuming the later.
Message edited by author 2010-02-12 18:31:25. |
|
|
|
02/12/2010 06:52:07 PM · #1102 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What do you mean by fourth or fifth hand? |
Where the original author or authors received an account fourth or fifth hand before it was written down in the form that has been subsequently handed down (you say) with a high degree of accuracy.
For example, a follower (fourth hand) of Paul writing after Paul's death a letter later attributed to Paul about a story told by Paul (third hand) who heard it from a person (second hand) who was told it by an apostle (first hand). Each person has an incentive to make the text persuasive, not accurate.
How much reliance do you want to place on the accuracy of the story (regardless of the accuracy of the transcription and translation processes)?
|
|
|
|
02/12/2010 07:01:58 PM · #1103 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What do you mean by fourth or fifth hand? |
Where the original author or authors received an account fourth or fifth hand before it was written down in the form that has been subsequently handed down (you say) with a high degree of accuracy.
For example, a follower (fourth hand) of Paul writing after Paul's death a letter later attributed to Paul about a story told by Paul (third hand) who heard it from a person (second hand) who was told it by an apostle (first hand). Each person has an incentive to make the text persuasive, not accurate.
How much reliance do you want to place on the accuracy of the story (regardless of the accuracy of the transcription and translation processes)? |
Oh, stuff like that. Well, you need to show me evidence that such stuff was happening. At least seven of Paul's letters are universally attributed to Paul (and not a 4th generation author). If we decide to take only the "best of the best" in the New Testament, meaning books which are universally accepted as being written by the claimed author, etc etc, we still wind up with Christianity. Jesus doesn't suddenly ride a Harley around killing people with his magic sword. :)
Take Romans. Romans is universally accepted as being written by Paul. Romans is widely accepted as being written in the 50s AD. Romans is a "desert island book". Everthing you wanted to know about Christianity but were afraid to ask is found in Romans. So even if I give quarter to accept only the highest level of scholarly scrutiny, what does it change? (and of course I don't really give this much.)
If I wanted to go on the offensive I would have to comment that if these books were written by 4th or 5th generation authors who had their own agenda and didn't know each other and had competing priorities it is quite amazing they portray such a coherent story and basis for a religion. |
|
|
|
02/12/2010 07:05:25 PM · #1104 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Skip down to where he talks about Erhlman. |
Ehrman.
This site -- an apologetics site -- only challenges Bart Ehrman on his "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" from 1994. It says nothing substantive about Ehrman's latest work, does not satisfactorily reply to "Misquoting Jesus", and ignores "Jesus, Interrupted". It is apologist in nature, and therefore contains no surprises. I am unconvinced that the authors are half the biblical or textual scholars that Mr. Ehrman is.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What do you mean by fourth or fifth hand? Do you mean that the earliest extant copies we have are likely 4th or 5th generation from the original? I don't have a problem with this because, as we have pointed out, we have a ton of copies. |
So? This seems to be a recurring "proof" with you. It means nothing. If copy A is suspect, late in the game, had been lost for decades, or is otherwise not an eye-witness first-hand account, the existence of thousands of copies of copy A are irrelevant in trying to discern the veracity of the basic plot. |
I know it's an apologetics site (I disclosed that in my post), but it doesn't mean the argument present is not cogent. Otherwise I can just dismiss Ehrlman (I'm now putting the L in just for spite. :)) with the same brush.
As far as you "proof" bit. We start talking about different things:
a) Are current translations of the Bible faithful to the original?
b) Are the events depicted in the Bible based on actual events?
c) Did the events happen as they are portrayed?
d) Is the text inspired by God?
Each of those is a completely different discussion. When I mention "lots of copies" I am talking only about a) in which it is very relevant to the discussion. You can't suddenly jump to b) or c) without warning me. |
|
|
|
02/12/2010 07:24:07 PM · #1105 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The only reason why some historians say 70 CE is because Mark refers to the destruction of the temple in Mark 13:2, which was destroyed in 70 CE. |
Also because Matthew and Luke appear to borrow textual passages from Mark and another common (but unknown) source - indicating that they were written later.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Either way, the date has little influence on the credibility of the authors. |
The fact that they appear both to borrow from earlier texts (Mark and at least one other) does indicate a lack of independence and detract from their credibility.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If any of these four author's had deliberately lied in their gospels, somebody would have noticed. |
Not at the time - they weren't written down before many of the relevant people were dead. In the modern day, people have noticed the problems with the texts.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Do you think a group of people would have much luck spreading false rumors and stories about Lyndon B. Johnson? Probably not. |
IMO, your analogies just don't work: we live in a world in which most people can read, in which the printing press and electronic communications have been invented, in which principles of reporting history have been refined, in which journalism as a concept exists and when the natural world can be interrogated objectively and reliably using the scientific method.
Even with my reservations as to the validity of your analogies, to answer your question I would point to Fox news which seems to be quite good at spreading false rumours for political gain.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2010 01:19:34 AM · #1106 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Either way, the date has little influence on the credibility of the authors. |
Originally posted by Matthew:
The fact that they appear both to borrow from earlier texts (Mark and at least one other) does indicate a lack of independence and detract from their credibility. |
Not really. Mark's gospel is considerably shorter than Matthew and Luke, which means that the majority of Matthew and Luke were written independently. In the first century plagiarism was not considered wrong, and it was very common for one writer to borrow from the works of another. The questions is asked, "if Matthew was a disciple why did he need to use Mark when writing his own gospel?" The most sensible answer is that there was no good reason for Matthew NOT to use Mark's gospel. If Mark's gospel was already accurate, and plagiarism wasn't a negative concept, why not use it? Like they say, "if it aint broke, don't fix it!" Actually, one could argue that the fact that Matthew used Mark's material actually ADDS to the credibility of Mark's gospel. Matthew must have thought Mark's gospel was pretty darn good, otherwise he wouldn't have used it. The fact that Matthew, a disciple of Christ, decided to use Mark's gospel rather than starting from scratch tells us that Matthew must have approved of the gospel.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If any of these four author's had deliberately lied in their gospels, somebody would have noticed. |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Not at the time - they weren't written down before many of the relevant people were dead. In the modern day, people have noticed the problems with the texts. |
I'm not sure what problems you're referring to, but you're first claim is incorrect. Many of the relevant people were still alive. For example the apostle John, "the disciple that Jesus loved" (also the disciple that took care of Jesus' mother after Jesus died) wrote the book of Revelation around 95 AD, which was the last book of the New Testament to be written. So, we know that at the very least, John was still alive after all of the New Testament books had been circulating throughout the known world. We know that John was one of the major figures in the Jerusalem church along with Peter and James. James was an extremely influential and powerful figure, and he would have mentioned something if any of the earlier books were false.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Do you think a group of people would have much luck spreading false rumors and stories about Lyndon B. Johnson? Probably not. |
Originally posted by Matthew:
IMO, your analogies just don't work: we live in a world in which most people can read, in which the printing press and electronic communications have been invented, in which principles of reporting history have been refined, in which journalism as a concept exists and when the natural world can be interrogated objectively and reliably using the scientific method.
Even with my reservations as to the validity of your analogies, to answer your question I would point to Fox news which seems to be quite good at spreading false rumours for political gain. |
And doesn't Fox news receive criticism IMMEDIATELY after broadcasting those false rumors? We don't remember many of Fox's rumors from 20 years ago, but yet we still have The Bible stories from 2,000 years ago.
My analogies do work. The problem is that you know a lot about 21st century culture, but you probably don't know much about 1st century culture. One common error that people make is in assuming that world history is neatly progressive. This is a false misconception. In many ways, the Roman Empire in the 1st century was far more advanced that Europe was in the middle ages. Historians now believe that literacy rates were as high as 60% in cities in the 1st century Roman Empire. Due to spectacular technological advancements in the last few decades, we are more inclined to believe that antiquity was more primitive than it actually was. Consider this... How many people can do long division nowadays? Not many. Reason? Everyone has calculators! How many people can quote Socrates and Plato in comparison to people that lived during the enlightenment era? Not many. Here's my point: The early Christians did not have the privilege of owning half a dozen Bibles. While many people were able to read, it was extremely expensive to own a scroll. The only time Christians were able to hear the Scriptures was on Sunday morning at church. In the first century, Christians church services lasted for hours and typically ran from dawn until early afternoon. Because the early Christians didn't own Bibles, and because they heard Scripture read aloud for hours at a time each week, most early Christians had vast portions of Scripture completely memorized. It's hard for us to understand because our 21st century society is very technological, but the first century Christians lived in cultures that stressed memorization and oral traditions. If every Bible in the United States was burned today, it would be nearly impossible to rewrite. In the first century, it was the exact opposite. Nobody had their own Bible so everyone had to memorize it for themselves!
ETA - We might think that the age of technology is so great, but think about this. If you went around today with a Bible passage written on a piece of paperwith a few mistakes, showed it to some random people on the street and asked them if it was correct, most people wouldprob!ly answer "I don't know". Two thousand years ago a lot of people would have been able to identify the mistakes. They might not noticed if you swapped an "and" for a "but" bit they'd probably notice if you swapped "Jesus" for "John". The same thing would happen if you walked around with an incorrect long division example. Today a lot of people would reach for a calculator. Fifty years ago almost anyone would notice the mistakes. Just because the ancients didn't have computers doesn't mean they were idiots. In many ways, they had to use their brains a lot more than you or I do.
Message edited by author 2010-02-13 02:48:50. |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 09:32:48 AM · #1107 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The only reason why some historians say 70 CE is because Mark refers to the destruction of the temple in Mark 13:2, which was destroyed in 70 CE... |
May I humbly suggest you keep your remarks more succinct. I (and probably others) are less likely to simply skip your posts. For example, someone who offers an accepted bit of scholarship such as the date of Mark in all likelihood doesn't need a history lesson behind that date. Also, for the consideration of others, use more paragraphs.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The only reason why 70 CE is a plausible date is because secular historians don't believe in prophecy. |
You are forever damaging your own credibility. This remark, along with others (such as your stated and willing rejection of all science irrespective of its persuasiveness in favour of your faith) only confirm your credulousness, and do nothing to promote your argument. In short, *no*, the real, tangible evidence suggests that Mark could *not* have easily been written in the fifties. Luke was likewise written after 70CE. Acts was written in the 80s. These are hard scholarly facts. If you wish to modify the facts to fit your particular flavour of belief, then you may safely be ignored going forward.
As for your "rumours" and "conspiracy" stuff, nobody suggested anything of the sort was taking place at the time of the supposed events, and is a red herring (and also has no effect on what results from serious textual criticism).
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Not to mention that pagan historians of that time verified events of Christ's life as well. |
Except among apologists, the Tacitus reference is not universally accepted as reliably from Tacitus. Pliny can't be used to verify that Jesus actually existed, and is concerned only with the early Christian cultists. We all know the problems with Josephus, the salient parts of which are overwhelmingly rejected as corrupted.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2010 09:58:35 AM · #1108 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If Paul was lying, Matthew and John would have said something about it in their gospels. But they are all in agreement. |
That's like saying if Sarah Palin was being an airhead at that teabagging thing, her interviewer would surely have said something about it and challenged her, instead of throwing her a few softball "questions".
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Christianity spread like wildfire in the decade after Christ's death. These early Christians did not yet have the New Testament. |
This was not uncommon in the ancient world. Mystery cults spread like wildfire all through Western civilization long before, and then alongside, Christianity, all without a nicely pressed and annotated handbook. If, for example, Mithraism had done its job properly and supplanted Christianity, you'd be sacrificing bulls today, and getting all knotted up about the correct initiate level you should belong to at this point in your life. The fact that Christianity was popular among the illiterate riff-raff at the lowest level of Roman society says nothing about its veracity.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
...the early Christians wouldn't have copied the New Testament books by the thousands... |
Where did you get that idea? Books in the ancient world were not "copied by the thousands". The proliferation of the bible happened later. Each community had its own single copy, usually transcribed poorly by a half-illiterate volunteer who was the only one capable of doing the copying in his free time. It worked this way right up to the fourth century, when professionals began the work of hand copying (and still making mistakes). (Hence the reason that the earliest manuscripts are so divergent from one another.)
Your analogies don't work. There is no comparison to be made between the transmission of data in the ancient world, and the transmission of data in the modern world.
But, to humour you, and since we are keeping Tolkien with us indefinitely, there are hundreds of errors in all editions of the Lord of the Rings prior to 2004. Some were introduced by printers, some by editors, some by typesetters, some when the manuscript was digitized. Some errors are benign and some egregious. Some change the meaning and context of the story. This all happened within the last fifty years. If modern printing, and even electronic transmission of data, is so unreliable, how reliable do you think the manuscript of some half-literate Roman slave pig farmer is going to be, which is based on the manuscript of some goatherder, which is based on the manuscript of something someone copied from some text they saw a few years before but can't quite place the origin of?
You may fit the facts to your beliefs, if you insist, but I'll have no truck with you in that case. |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 10:49:25 AM · #1109 |
Errors in LOTR? Say it ain't so! Are they fixed?
And yet no one wants to hear of Biff's testimony. Seriously, what DID Jesus do from birth to baptism? |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 11:32:26 AM · #1110 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Seriously, what DID Jesus do from birth to baptism? |
Nothing. He didn't exist. The story aligns perfectly to the myth-making of the time, including the genius kid taking on the wise elders, the baptism stuff, etc. Even an actual, verifiable historical figure, Mithradates the Sixth, was said to have been born under the sign of a brilliant star in the east, 135 years before Christ. And his feats were foretold by innumerable "prophecies" that seemed to confirm everything he did in his life. Godlike hero who wrests the masses from the clutches of evil through heroic preordained acts spelled out in the night sky? Common stuff in the ancient world, a world lacking science and populated with masses of people trying merely to survive. The only shocking and surprising thing is that modern people insist on believing such obvious pap. |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 11:39:03 AM · #1111 |
| ....and others choose global warming, or as it is now called, (man caused) climate change. |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 12:20:50 PM · #1112 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The only reason why 70 CE is a plausible date is because secular historians don't believe in prophecy. |
Originally posted by Louis:
You are forever damaging your own credibility. This remark, along with others (such as your stated and willing rejection of all science irrespective of its persuasiveness in favour of your faith) only confirm your credulousness, and do nothing to promote your argument. In short, *no*, the real, tangible evidence suggests that Mark could *not* have easily been written in the fifties. Luke was likewise written after 70CE. Acts was written in the 80s. These are hard scholarly facts. If you wish to modify the facts to fit your particular flavour of belief, then you may safely be ignored going forward. |
These are certainly not hard scholarly facts. They are theories that are backed up by evidence. Many historians like the later date, many like the newer date. I doubt it's an even split but it certainly isn't unanimous. I'm not modifying any facts, and I never claimed that 70 CE was wrong. I'm simply explaining to everyone in the forum that 70 CE is not a unanimously accepted date as you made it seem. There are alternative theories, which are equally as credible and supported by evidence. The only reason the earlier date theories are less known is because they are more recently developed.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Not to mention that pagan historians of that time verified events of Christ's life as well. |
Except among apologists, the Tacitus reference is not universally accepted as reliably from Tacitus. Pliny can't be used to verify that Jesus actually existed, and is concerned only with the early Christian cultists. We all know the problems with Josephus, the salient parts of which are overwhelmingly rejected as corrupted. [/quote]
I don't know if I'm understanding this correctly, but do you believe that the New Testament Christian authors AND the secular historians at the time (which were enemies of the Christians) were jointly lying about Jesus Christ? Or do you believe that both camps coincidentally agreed about Jesus? If you believe either one of those, I'd LOVE to hear your reasoning!
By the way... if you don't think Tacitus, Pliny, and Josephs are reliable historical accounts, and you don't believe that The Bible is historically accurate, do you believe anything that historians claimed took place in antiquity? Those are about the only sources we have. If you don't think any of them are credible then we might as well completely disregard everything that we know about history prior to 100 CE.
Originally posted by Louis:
That's like saying if Sarah Palin was being an airhead at that teabagging thing, her interviewer would surely have said something about it and challenged her, instead of throwing her a few softball "questions". |
Actually, a better analogy would be if Sarah Palin wrote some false claims about John McCain in her book "Going Rogue", then McCain's friends and staff would probably say something about it. I don't think Matthew ever interviewed Paul...
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Christianity spread like wildfire in the decade after Christ's death. These early Christians did not yet have the New Testament. |
Originally posted by Louis:
This was not uncommon in the ancient world. Mystery cults spread like wildfire all through Western civilization long before, and then alongside, Christianity, all without a nicely pressed and annotated handbook. If, for example, Mithraism had done its job properly and supplanted Christianity, you'd be sacrificing bulls today, and getting all knotted up about the correct initiate level you should belong to at this point in your life. The fact that Christianity was popular among the illiterate riff-raff at the lowest level of Roman society says nothing about its veracity. |
The fact that it spread so quickly might not have been unique, but if you compare Christianity to the other pagan religions of the time, you realize just how unique it actually was. Would you like another history lesson, or do you not need an explanation? Christianity's reception was nothing like mystery cults or pagan religions for numerous reasons. Christianity shook the world like no other religion had.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
...the early Christians wouldn't have copied the New Testament books by the thousands... |
Originally posted by Louis:
Where did you get that idea? Books in the ancient world were not "copied by the thousands". The proliferation of the bible happened later. Each community had its own single copy, usually transcribed poorly by a half-illiterate volunteer who was the only one capable of doing the copying in his free time. It worked this way right up to the fourth century, when professionals began the work of hand copying (and still making mistakes). (Hence the reason that the earliest manuscripts are so divergent from one another.) |
Sorry. Thousands is a bit of an exaggeration. More likely the New Testament books were copied by the hundreds. As you said, each community of Christians had their own copies, and there were hundreds of these communities in the first century. Unfortunately Papyrus deteriorates quickly when it is touched by oily human hands. It is likely that hundreds of copies existed in the first century, even if they don't exist today.
Originally posted by Louis:
Your analogies don't work. There is no comparison to be made between the transmission of data in the ancient world, and the transmission of data in the modern world.
But, to humour you, and since we are keeping Tolkien with us indefinitely, there are hundreds of errors in all editions of the Lord of the Rings prior to 2004. Some were introduced by printers, some by editors, some by typesetters, some when the manuscript was digitized. Some errors are benign and some egregious. Some change the meaning and context of the story. This all happened within the last fifty years. If modern printing, and even electronic transmission of data, is so unreliable, how reliable do you think the manuscript of some half-literate Roman slave pig farmer is going to be, which is based on the manuscript of some goatherder, which is based on the manuscript of something someone copied from some text they saw a few years before but can't quite place the origin of?
You may fit the facts to your beliefs, if you insist, but I'll have no truck with you in that case. |
There is no comparison between 1st century technology and 21st century technology. However, as you have shown, even with the modern technology there are still errors. Does this make LOTR unreliable? No. Why? Because we have plenty of RELIABLE copies in existence that we compare the new copies to, and the errors are corrected. In the first century, this was also possible. It was a common practice for one scribe to proofread the work of another scribe, and we have many manuscripts that show evidence of being corrected.
You damage your credibility when you claim that half-literate slaves scribbled down important documents in the first century. First century scribes were professionals, not farmers that copied documents as a side gig. Copying long documents was extremely tedious and expensive in the first century. It took a lot of time and a lot of money. Copying was a big investment, and not something that was taken very lightly.
If you're going to keep claiming that the historical evidence you like best is the only correct evidence, then I'm not going to continue arguing with you. I'm trying to explain that there are GOOD alternative possibilities. I honestly don't care if Mark was written if 55 CE or 70 CE. That doesn't change what Mark says, which is the important part. I'm not making these claims up. Certainly not like your Roman slave pig farmer claim.
Message edited by author 2010-02-13 12:29:49. |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 04:20:41 PM · #1113 |
Man, I was waiting for Mithras to make an appearance. You are a smart guy Louis, but I have to say you sound like a fringe-dwelling loon when you start to talk about Mithras and the idea that Jesus was created out of whole cloth. I find it surprising that you would gravitate to such theories about the historical Jesus. They just seem too conspirital for you to take seriously.
But to each their own, I guess...
I've asked this question before (I think mainly to Paul in past conversations), but I cannot fathom how the "myth" crowd accounts for Paul in their view (I was going to use "theory", but that would do harm to the word).
Facts which are virtually undisputed among scholarly circles:
1) Paul existed.
2) Paul's earliest letters were dated to about 50 AD.
3) Paul was a Pharisee who self-admittedly found it necessary to persecute a small sect of people claiming that a person named Jesus was, in fact, the son of God.
Assuming you don't go from chief antagonist to chief protagonist overnight (even if we accept Paul's visionary conversion (which I do), it is doubtful the early Christians would overnight accept him as speaking the word of God.), it seem obvious that within 10 years of Jesus' death (or when it was claimed he died), there were enough Christians around to be a nuisance to the ruling theocratic establishment. I fail to understand how a total myth could have arisen so quickly and especially when there were plenty of people around who had actually lived during the period of time it is claimed he existed.
I'm open to your answer. |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 05:55:11 PM · #1114 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I cannot fathom how the "myth" crowd accounts for Paul in their view. |
Perhaps Paul was just as impressed by the strength of conviction demonstrated by early Christians as some people are today. He saw that these people were willing to die for their beliefs, so there "must be something to it" and he decided to join the cause. That's certainly not implausible, although strength of faith is not evidence of truth (Branch Davidians and Heaven's Gate cult members were also willing to die for their faiths). However, Paul never mentions a single miracle in his writings- no virgin birth, no walking on water, no feeding the masses, healing the sick, etc. Moreover, none of the Epistles mention the Lord's Prayer, Sermon on the Mount, parables or any direct quote of Jesus. As a missionary trying to win new converts, those would all be key talking points. The only logical explanation is that the larger than life aspects hadn't been invented yet. |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 05:59:05 PM · #1115 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Man, I was waiting for Mithras to make an appearance. You are a smart guy Louis, but I have to say you sound like a fringe-dwelling loon when you start to talk about Mithras and the idea that Jesus was created out of whole cloth. |
It only sounds like a fringe idea because of the way Christianity is ensconced. It wouldn't seem so outrageous an idea if it were viewed in the context of everything we know about gods and hero worship in the ancient world. The difficult fact is there is precious little verifiable iron-clad historical data to suggest that Jesus was, without any doubt at all, a real historical figure.
Mithras was a real cult deity that really rivalled Christianity. What's so looney about mentioning it? And, I mentioned it in reference to a possible scenario, had Mithraism survived and Christianity perished (a very possibility at the time). It only seems outrageous because the idea that Jesus was just another cultic deity is anathema to you, and we don't live in a society that generally tolerates a real or imagined affront to religion. None of what I said is conspiratorial. |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 05:59:24 PM · #1116 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I fail to understand how a total myth could have arisen so quickly and especially when there were plenty of people around who had actually lived during the period of time it is claimed he existed.
I'm open to your answer. |
How quickly? Louis is positing that Jesus didn't exist, therefore you cannot tie him down to the chronology of Jesus' life and death. If Jesus didn't die in 33 C.E. then we have leeway to make it less quick. Plus, there's no telling what these "Christians" that Paul persecuted were actually like, or if the person they worshipped was anything like the Jesus described in the gospels, which were written after the fall of the Temple. In fact, Paul might not have been worshipping an historical being. Paul talks very little of the biography of Jesus. He is much more interested in creedal statements about resurrection. The life of Jesus was crafted after the fall of the Temple. Certain recent historical figures were picked to be king and prefect, figures and references that don't quite match, like a census, for instance. Nobody knows who it was Paul worshipped, or how much of a Church there really was. We just have a handful of letters that are authentically his. Everything else was just added on later to fit a new post-diaspora religion, that I'm sure grew from Paul's religion, but probably had other sources as well. |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 06:43:53 PM · #1117 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
These are certainly not hard scholarly facts. They are theories that are backed up by evidence. |
Fair enough. What they are not are unfounded assertions about the text, such as the ad hoc statement that Mark could just as easily have been written in 50CE because prophecy is real. That kind of flim-flam is intolerable. The accepted scholarly opinion is that Mark was written after 70CE (Tuckett OBC p. 913ff.), and if the date doesn't bother you or offend your doctrine, you should probably accept it too, because to argue the point is, well, pointless.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I don't know if I'm understanding this correctly, but do you believe that the New Testament Christian authors AND the secular historians at the time (which were enemies of the Christians) were jointly lying about Jesus Christ? |
Nobody said anything like that. The assertion, with good reason (including physical evidence) is that Tacitus is not universally accepted as having written the statement about Jesus, that Pliny mentions only troublesome Christians and has nothing to say about the actual existence of Jesus, and that the overwhelming consensus is that Josephus' "Testimonium" is problematic and not a reliable source information about Jesus (but even if accepted, what it offers is hardly earth-shattering or ground-breaking, or itself iron-clad proof that Jesus was either real, or the real deal).
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
By the way... if you don't think Tacitus, Pliny, and Josephs are reliable historical accounts, and you don't believe that The Bible is historically accurate, do you believe anything that historians claimed took place in antiquity? Those are about the only sources we have. If you don't think any of them are credible then we might as well completely disregard everything that we know about history prior to 100 CE. |
Um... hm. Let me see if I understand you correctly. I have said there are problems of legitimacy in the texts of three of the most important sources for extra-canonical information about the historical Jesus. You counter by saying in that case, we can know nothing about history prior to 100CE.
I see.
It isn't me that has some explaining to do.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Louis:
That's like saying if Sarah Palin was being an airhead at that teabagging thing, her interviewer would surely have said something about it and challenged her, instead of throwing her a few softball "questions". |
Actually, a better analogy would be if Sarah Palin wrote some false claims about John McCain in her book "Going Rogue", then McCain's friends and staff would probably say something about it. |
Um... okay, I'll say it in plain English. They are "all in agreement" because they don't have any reason to disparage one another's accounts. They are working toward the same purpose, just as Sarah Palin's interviewer was working toward the same purpose as she.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
You damage your credibility when you claim that half-literate slaves scribbled down important documents in the first century. First century scribes were professionals, not farmers that copied documents as a side gig. |
BZZZZT... sorry, wrong. The scholarship suggests that professional scribes were not utilized before the fourth century CE (Ehrman MJ p. 71ff.), and that those acting in their "spare time" mostly did the copying in the early centuries of the church. Whether or not any were pig farmers is, I grant you, up for debate. |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 07:12:01 PM · #1118 |
Originally posted by Louis:
The assertion, with good reason (including physical evidence) is that Tacitus is not universally accepted as having written the statement about Jesus, that Pliny mentions only troublesome Christians and has nothing to say about the actual existence of Jesus, and that the overwhelming consensus is that Josephus' "Testimonium" is problematic and not a reliable source information about Jesus (but even if accepted, what it offers is hardly earth-shattering or ground-breaking, or itself iron-clad proof that Jesus was either real, or the real deal). |
Taticus' account of Jesus was not mentioned by anyone until the 14th century, in reference to an 8th century copy of "Annals." Josephus didn't mention the Jesus of Christianity at all (it was added in the 4th century). |
|
|
|
02/14/2010 12:15:15 AM · #1119 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
However, Paul never mentions a single miracle in his writings- no virgin birth, no walking on water, no feeding the masses, healing the sick, etc. |
Ya, the resurrection...it wasn't as impressive as the water into wine bit. |
|
|
|
02/14/2010 12:27:31 AM · #1120 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Man, I was waiting for Mithras to make an appearance. You are a smart guy Louis, but I have to say you sound like a fringe-dwelling loon when you start to talk about Mithras and the idea that Jesus was created out of whole cloth. |
It only sounds like a fringe idea because of the way Christianity is ensconced. It wouldn't seem so outrageous an idea if it were viewed in the context of everything we know about gods and hero worship in the ancient world. The difficult fact is there is precious little verifiable iron-clad historical data to suggest that Jesus was, without any doubt at all, a real historical figure.
Mithras was a real cult deity that really rivalled Christianity. What's so looney about mentioning it? And, I mentioned it in reference to a possible scenario, had Mithraism survived and Christianity perished (a very possibility at the time). It only seems outrageous because the idea that Jesus was just another cultic deity is anathema to you, and we don't live in a society that generally tolerates a real or imagined affront to religion. None of what I said is conspiratorial. |
Perhaps Mithras sounds looney to me because you do it in a context where you claim Jesus never existed. Of all the possible arguments about a historical Jesus, I find this one to be the farthest reach.
Shannon is slightly missing my point of bringing up Paul. The difficult nut to crack with him (for the "myth" crowd) is that he was a self-admitted persecuter of Christians before he became their champion. The point is that Christians existed very quickly after the claimed death of Jesus. And although Don points out that 33AD was only the claimed time of his death, if it was all made up, why would they be so explicit with their detailed history? When all four gospels are counted together, fully a quarter deal with the last week of Jesus' life, and it is very explicit in the detail of when and where he was killed. If you are making this up, wouldn't it be much smarter to make it up at a time when currently alive people were not around? or wouldn't it be smart to keep the details very sketchy so as not to invite scrutiny (wait, I was there that week, nothing like this happened at all!)? While we're at it, what idiots, when making up the story of the founder of their religion, give him a criminal's death; have his disciples acting like cowards; or have Jesus' empty tomb first found by women (my God, WOMEN!) who were not considered admissable witnesses in court? I submit that those who believe Jesus was only a myth are making leaps of faith every bit as big as those they are railing against.
Message edited by author 2010-02-14 00:28:56. |
|
|
|
02/14/2010 01:15:18 AM · #1121 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you are making this up, wouldn't it be much smarter to make it up at a time when currently alive people were not around? or wouldn't it be smart to keep the details very sketchy so as not to invite scrutiny (wait, I was there that week, nothing like this happened at all!)? |
Huh? The first gospel was probably Mark, written in the 70's. He went back 40 years. And let me tell you something, it's very hard to find people to say "I was there" about something that never happened. And... the details are sketchy, and contradictory, many thrown in to fulfill some prophecy or other, to make some connection to the old testament, and yes, to place this fellow in a pre-diaspora context in order to make him the prophet of the diaspora. Let's see, who used to be the king back then... Herod! Okay, we'll use him... and Pilate was the prefect.
Personally, I believe there was a Jesus. But that's becaue of what he said, not because of the biography that was draped over his sayings source by a very clever mythmaker. |
|
|
|
02/14/2010 01:22:49 AM · #1122 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you are making this up, wouldn't it be much smarter to make it up at a time when currently alive people were not around? or wouldn't it be smart to keep the details very sketchy so as not to invite scrutiny (wait, I was there that week, nothing like this happened at all!)? |
Huh? The first gospel was probably Mark, written in the 70's. He went back 40 years. And let me tell you something, it's very hard to find people to say "I was there" about something that never happened. And... the details are sketchy, and contradictory, many thrown in to fulfill some prophecy or other, to make some connection to the old testament, and yes, to place this fellow in a pre-diaspora context in order to make him the prophet of the diaspora. Let's see, who used to be the king back then... Herod! Okay, we'll use him... and Pilate was the prefect.
Personally, I believe there was a Jesus. But that's becaue of what he said, not because of the biography that was draped over his sayings source by a very clever mythmaker. |
You guys keep going back to the gospels as the earliest books written. Think about Paul's epistles. He was writing 20 years earlier than Mark and he a) claims to have met the apostles and other leaders and b) claims Jesus rose from the dead.
I don't quite get your talking about people claiming "I was there". There was a whole establishment with a vested interest in Christianity NOT taking off. You don't think they would find people to say, "I was there during Passover 33 AD and nothing of the sort happened."?
If you believe there was a Jesus, why are you trying to make this argument? I don't get it. |
|
|
|
02/14/2010 01:33:22 AM · #1123 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
However, Paul never mentions a single miracle in his writings- no virgin birth, no walking on water, no feeding the masses, healing the sick, etc. |
Ya, the resurrection...it wasn't as impressive as the water into wine bit. |
Resurrection was a VERY common theme in mythologies of the day. Paul's version wasn't the currently popular story, nor do the four gospels agree on timing OR details of that event. Just read them and compare notes. |
|
|
|
02/14/2010 01:37:22 AM · #1124 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You don't think they would find people to say, "I was there during Passover 33 AD and nothing of the sort happened."? |
Not if Paul was referring to spiritual resurrection. Such an event could not be witnessed (or disputed). |
|
|
|
02/14/2010 02:16:21 AM · #1125 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
However, Paul never mentions a single miracle in his writings- no virgin birth, no walking on water, no feeding the masses, healing the sick, etc. |
Ya, the resurrection...it wasn't as impressive as the water into wine bit. |
Resurrection was a VERY common theme in mythologies of the day. Paul's version wasn't the currently popular story, nor do the four gospels agree on timing OR details of that event. Just read them and compare notes. |
I was just replying to the fact you said no miracles were mentioned by Paul. Obviously this is wrong as I think a resurrection (common or not) is recognized as a miracle by both us and them. Do you want to qualify your statement?
Message edited by author 2010-02-14 02:16:42. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 09:29:49 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 09:29:49 AM EDT.
|
