Is there credibility in the accounts of the ressurection.
The following is taken from a discussion in another place (saves making all the points again here)/
| Quote: |
If you read Matthew (28:1-10), Mark (16:1-20), Luke (24:1-12), and John (20: 1-1 , you will find contradicting stories. They all agreed that the tomb was guarded for three days. However, they reported the discovery of the empty tomb differently.
Matthew (2 and John (20) reported that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were the first to discover the tomb. Mark (16) reports that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome were the first to discover the empty tomb.
Mark (2 reports that there was an earthquake that removed the rock from over the tomb. He says that an angel caused it. The other gospels do not mention of an earthquake. Matthew and Mark say that only ONE man in white clothes was sitting on the tomb when the woman arrived, and that he was an angel.
Luke says that TWO men in white clothes, who were angels, were sitting. Johns says that the two women did not meet anybody the first time they came to the tomb, but when they returned, they saw TWO people, ONE was an ANGEL, and the other was JESUS.
Matthew reports that when the guards reported this to the chief priest, the chief priest paid them a large sum of
money, telling them: "You have to say that his disciples came at night and stole his body." He claims that the soldiers took money and spread the story around and since then, the story had been circulating among the Jews until today (according to Matthew).
The other gospels do not report of any such thing.
35. Which narration now is more authentic?
36.Why is the appearance of Jesus after the crucifixion taken as a proof of his resurrection when there is an explanation that he was not dead because someone else was crucified in his place when God saved Him?
37.How did Matthew know of the claimed agreement between the soldiers and the chief priest? Can't someone say that someone paid the women a large sum of money and told them to spread the word around that Jesus rose from the dead, with the same authenticity as that of the story of Matthew?
38.Why did they believe that man in the white clothes? Why did they believe he was an angel? John's narration is too strange, since he says that Mary did not recognize Jesus(one of the two) while talking to him, and she only recognized him when he called her by her name.
39.How does an empty tomb prove that Jesus was crucified ? Isn't it that God is capable of removing another man from the tomb, and of resurrecting him too?
40.The Gospels are believed to be the verbatim words of God, they are supposed to be dictated by the Holy Spirit to the Disciples who wrote them. If the source were the same, why shouldn't they correspond with
each other in reporting such an important event?
41.How could Matthew, Mark, Luke and John be considered eyewitnesses of resurrection when the Bible implies that nobody at all saw Jesus coming out of the tomb? |
Whilst some of the points are weak - 39 and 40 are the weakest I think - others are fair questions I think.... 1) Easy Points:
39: Jesus wasn't the only ressurrected: Lazarus was as well.
40: The Gospels aren't the "verbatim words of God"; they are accounts of the Life of Jesus Christ, and are most likely from a number of different sources. Keep in mind that they were written down over a hundred years after the fact...(Keep in mind that, strictly speaking, none of The Bible is from God, but is from man's hand; it was inspired by God, but He didn't write it;-)...).
41: They weren't eye-witnesses; see my response to #40...
2) Not trying to be a jerk; just pointing out that The Gospels are pretty much the biggest test of faith in The Bible, in that they may agree with each other on most points, but that falls apart after the ressurrection of Jesus. There's a number of problems (one radio host even has a standing bet on whether or not someone can piece them together logically, and the bet still stands). I'm not going to try to piece them together; just pointing out that it's almost impossible to do, and this is usually where I point out that a literal interpretation is not always the best...for what it's worth...
HM
The gospels may not be like the historical documents we know, but they are credible.
1. They were written and published at a time when some of the eyewitnesses were still alive (e.g. John) and so one could have just gone to him for verification
2. The accounts of the gospels were for an audience who already knew some of the stories (see Luke 1:1 ff).
3. The resurrection accounts may vary in the small details (who were the women who were at the tomb), but they are all unanimous in the one message they would to convey: that despite attempts to discredit the resurrection (see Matthew's account of the bribed soldiers), the witnesses would even die for what they knew
4. The witnesses did die for their proclmation of the risen Christ
5. Even Paul who was not among the original Twelve would claim that he saw the living Christ and died for it (see the whole of Acts)
It's nice to know you're thinking about such thinks Bikerman. Being a Christian, I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. Instead of entering an endless debate, I'll point you to a website which talks about some of the points you raised (you will have to look up the individual verses yourself)-
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_5.htm
For HM there's a timeline here:
http://www.carm.org/diff/table_resurrection.htm
Another, similar site can be found here:
http://www.tektonics.org/TK-MTT.html
I sincerely hope these answer your questions! | Quote: |
| The Gospels are believed to be the verbatim words of God, they are supposed to be dictated by the Holy Spirit to the Disciples who wrote them |
Firstly, the events described in the New Testament are partly eye witness accounts, partly facts collected by devotees of Jesus, partly lated added by christians.
The earliest Christians were much proscecuted and tortured by Romans and Jews. They even lived in caves like hermits, or otherwise secluded way of life. Thats because they prefered their faith to living comfortably without this new religion. They discussed, compared and added to the miracles each have witnessed and heard from reliable sources. Thats how the bible was later created.
Interestingly, they painted in the cave walls events of Jesus's life. In these images Jesus looks more Hellenic and he has no beard! Obviously, very few or none of those early artists have seen Jesus himself.
| Quote: |
| How did Matthew know of the claimed agreement between the soldiers and the chief priest? |
Obviously, Mathew collected it from devotees who have come to know of the facts. The original events MUST have come from the first group of 12 closest disciples of Jesus.
Christianity, my friend is a religion. Religion is based on faith. Faith is based on Truth. A faith backed up only by rumours and fairytales cannot last for 2000 years!
And why is this big fuss over resurrection?
| Quote: |
| Is there credibility in the accounts of the "ressurection" |
(spell check) 
Now, Jesus was considered as the savior, the son of God, the image of God Himself. ("I and my Father are one") All this cant be for nothing. Even people more ordinary can perform "some miracles" with a little discipline and training in their lives. Please read accounts of Yogis and Paul Brunton's "A search in secret Egypt" and "A search in secret India". You will find that coming back from death is not so impossible after all.
Jesus had enough spiritual power and general popularity to evade such a painful crucifixion. But he wanted it to happen, probably to set an example.
Also, a dying man doesnt lie. As Jesus was in an extremely painful state, suffering in that Cross, he promised the kingdom of Heaven to the fellow hanging in the next cross because he showed faith. No ordinary man can do that in the last moments, if not he is mad or a megalomaniac.
Jesus resurrected to fulfill his promise that he will come back from death. He showed it to his disciples to strengthen their faith and to dissipate their fear after his persecution.
| Quote: |
| he was not dead because someone else was crucified in his place when God saved Him |
This is so foolish. If that had happened, the cross would not have been so sacred to christians and the Jesuit faith would'nt have been there. Crucifixion is the crux of the story, man!
Also, dont forget that Jesus had already brought one of his disciples back from the dead (right out of the grave). So why cant such a person come back Himself?Ahhh, Interesting. Find Apparent contradictions in the Bible you have? Consider this. Would consider the the four gospels more or less reliable or creditable if they said the same things or contained exactly the same detail?
Suppose that the gospels were the same in content and details. If this where the case, then it would be easy to say that the authors have copied each other or conspired some grand scheme. If this were the case, then it would be easy to say that these writers where out to gain something. But this is surely cannot be the case because the gospels are different.
This difference reflects the fact that there were indeed four independent accounts to the life of Christ. These differences may be accounted for in a number of options, but that is beside the main message of the the gospels which is Christ. In regards to the resurrection, there are indeed different details presented. The main point is that Christ rose from the dead.
Love God, love people, drink coffee
www.socialoutcast.co.nr
Last edited by socialoutcast on Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:41 am; edited 1 time in total | socialoutcast wrote: |
Ahhh, Interesting. Find contradictions in the Bible you have? Consider this. Would consider the the four gospels more or less reliable or creditable if they said the same things or contained exactly the same detail?
Suppose that the gospels were the same in content and details. If this where the case, then it would be easy to say that the authors have copied each other or conspired some grand scheme. If this were the case, then it would be easy to say that these writers where out to gain something. But this is surely cannot be the case because the gospels are different.
This difference reflects the fact that there were indeed four independent accounts to the life of Christ. These differences can be accounted for in a number of options, but that is beside the main message of the the gospels which is Christ. In regards to the resurrection, there are indeed different details presented. The main point is that Christ rose from the dead. |
A common apologist response that doesn't hold water.
First, the "details" that the gospels differ on are not minor, insignificant details that can be forgotten over time. They are contradictions in the core descriptions of the most major occurrences. Even if the events the gospels describe really did occur, those contradictions show that - at the very least - the writers included some false information. Maybe they were just writing so long after that they forgot stuff and made up things to fill the holes in the narrative. Doesn't really matter. What does matter is that it cannot be argued that some parts of the gospels must be false, because they cannot all be true when they contradict each other.
Second, you casually admit that there are parts of the gospels that contradict - you even go so far as to say that they must contradict, or it doesn't make sense. Alright, fine. You're effectively admitting that you are fully well aware that the gospels are not perfectly reliable. But if you know the gospels are at least partly unreliable... why assume that they are not totally unreliable? For example, you are a police investigator questioning suspects about a murder. You question one suspect, and he claims that he is not the murderer and does not even own a gun like the one used in the killing. You then find out that he does indeed own a gun like the one used in the killing. Why on Earth would you assume, without any further evidence, that everything else the suspect said is true, and thus when he claims he isn't the murderer it must be true? It makes no sense. But that's exactly what you're advocating.
And finally, the problem with your explanation is that it not only doesn't match the fact that there are some core differences, it is that it is perfectly easy to explain another way - despite your claim that it's not. Why do you claim that if the authors copied each other they would end up with perfect copies. That's simply false, and ignores the status of the early Christian movement. The truth is that there were several competing Christian sects, each claiming legitamacy, and each slightly different. The evidence for this is even within the writings of Paul of Tarsus included in the new testament. The current theory is that Mark was the first gospel written, and that Matthew and Luke plagiarized Mark (along with another, lost, document). When they plagiarized Mark, they added details that made the case for Jesus being the promised king stronger - especially Matthew, who bent over backwards to add instances of old testament prophesy coming true. There is even evidence of the gospels trying to discredit other beliefs, which may have been prominent in other sects at the time. So, no, your claim that the gospels would all have been identical if they were all copied from one another just doesn't stand. | illume wrote: |
Firstly, the events described in the New Testament are partly eye witness accounts, partly facts collected by devotees of Jesus, partly lated added by christians.
The earliest Christians were much proscecuted and tortured by Romans and Jews. They even lived in caves like hermits, or otherwise secluded way of life. Thats because they prefered their faith to living comfortably without this new religion. They discussed, compared and added to the miracles each have witnessed and heard from reliable sources. Thats how the bible was later created.
Interestingly, they painted in the cave walls events of Jesus's life. In these images Jesus looks more Hellenic and he has no beard! Obviously, very few or none of those early artists have seen Jesus himself.
|
I accept and agree with some of that, but not all. Firstly I think you overplay the eye-witness card and underplay the 'partly added later' bit. Non of the gospels are accredited to eye witnesses directly with the current consensus on dating around:
* Mark: c. 68–73
* Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view; some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date
* Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
* John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
Also you don't mention the problem of the three synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) which are still the subject of debate amongst Biblical scholars in an effort to explain the remarkable similarities found therein. Many believe the 3 are the product of a single author. | Quote: |
| Most scholars see the similarities as being far too identical, much like three people reporting the same event, and then using exactly the same cultural references, turns of phrase, ordering of content, and on occasion even the same set of words. |
(Wikki)
Here is a time line of the events in this period which may be helpful - I compiled it some time ago for a different debate from a more basic version on the [url=atheism.about.com]about atheism[/url] site.
http://camres.frih.net/resources/religion/NTtimeline.htm
| illume wrote: |
| Christianity, my friend is a religion. Religion is based on faith. Faith is based on Truth. A faith backed up only by rumours and fairytales cannot last for 2000 years! |
I agree with the first two statements but disagree with the next two. There is no logical basis that I know for saying that faith is based on truth, and it follows, since many faiths profess contradictory historical 'truths', that many articles of faith, at least, must be based on untruth.
As for whether a faith containing rumour and fairytale could not last 2000 years - Druidic, paganistic and other similar belief systems have survived for much longer than 2000 years and I would presume that you would not claim them to be based on facts and truth? | illume wrote: |
| Now, Jesus was considered as the savior, the son of God, the image of God Himself. ("I and my Father are one") All this cant be for nothing. Even people more ordinary can perform "some miracles" with a little discipline and training in their lives. Please read accounts of Yogis and Paul Brunton's "A search in secret Egypt" and "A search in secret India". You will find that coming back from death is not so impossible after all. |
I'm familiar with some of Brunton's cannon but I can hardly accept it as evidence in any sense of the word I am familiar with. Evidence, to me, is something capable of being tested and there is little in Brunton that falls into that category. I certainly agree that the idea of returning from death is not new. There is a strong link, for example, between the beliefs of Mythraism and Christianity and some maintain that the Christian scriptures are merely reworkings of the older religion. The same claim is made for Osiris-Dionysus by others.
| illume wrote: |
Jesus had enough spiritual power and general popularity to evade such a painful crucifixion. But he wanted it to happen, probably to set an example.
Also, a dying man doesnt lie. As Jesus was in an extremely painful state, suffering in that Cross, he promised the kingdom of Heaven to the fellow hanging in the next cross because he showed faith. No ordinary man can do that in the last moments, if not he is mad or a megalomaniac.
Jesus resurrected to fulfill his promise that he will come back from death. He showed it to his disciples to strengthen their faith and to dissipate their fear after his persecution. |
But here you are accepting the account and then using elements contained in the account to support the account itself....this is surely circular reasoning? As for a dying man not lying..I suspect that there are many examples in history which would disprove that.No one has mentioned the Shroud of Turin, but this whole debate is pointless. Why argue about the resurrection with someone who doesn’t even believe in God? If they don’t believe in God OBVIOUSLY they don’t believe in the resurrection. No one will ever prove God’s existence by proving the resurrection to someone, so the whole issue is moot. You might as well be talking to a brick wall.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| No one has mentioned the Shroud of Turin, but this whole debate is pointless. Why argue about the resurrection with someone who doesn’t even believe in God? If they don’t believe in God OBVIOUSLY they don’t believe in the resurrection. No one will ever prove God’s existence by proving the resurrection to someone, so the whole issue is moot. You might as well be talking to a brick wall. |
Point taken but I was searching for information genuinely, not to score points or play games. I'm not asking for definitive proof, simply for people's own responses to the original points and I genuinely hope to come across something I'd overlooked or some new angle on the issue which I'd missed.
Although, as you point out, I am definitely an atheist, I am still interested in the historical Jesus who I believe did exist on the balance of the evidence available. I have not contradicted or even engaged with anyone saying it is simply a matter of faith since although I don't share the faith, I can understand those that may do so; and whilst I may think they are being fooled into accepting an establishment-generated mythology I also think that most of us are guilty of that to some extent and in some regards, so I'm not going to throw any stones.
PS - as for the shroud of Turin - that one will, I suspect, run and run. Like many I was hoping that the 1988 carbon dating would provide a definitive answer but the scientific evidence for a mis-dating cannot be dismissed. My own opinion is that if the samples were indeed mis-dated then it is most probably because of the 'patch' theory - ie the samples analysed were actually from later patches applied to the shroud in a 16th century repair after a fire. I remain, as you might expect, sceptical but, I hope, not completely closed to the possibility that it might, at least, be contemporaneous to the life of Christ..The thing that I think is interesting about the Shroud of Turin is that it contains 3D data. That is to say, it is not a flat negative, the image is distorted by warps in the medium exactly as one would expect if it were burned onto something draping over the body. An ancient fabricationist, or even a Medieval one, would never have been able to produce such an effect.
Before the invention of photography, who would have ever even imagined fabricating it as a negative image? I doubt that there is a single example even remotely like this of a negative-like impression in ancient art.
Yes, that is a fair and interesting point...I've not done much reading on the art of the periods concerned but it certainly deserves an answer
I was just wondering about the sources of where our information comes from. So, my question is in regards to questions about the Bible, would you consider such information to be more accurate from religious/biblical, scholastic, or Atheistic sources and why? Because even one point of view form one soure can have a dramatic impact on our conclusions.
To be fair I'll anwser that question. There mostly the best biblical knowledge is going to come from those who study it. So I'm inclined to say biblical sources are more through sources.
Love God, love people, drink coffee
www.socialoutcast.co.nr
Wikipedia research due its peer-reviewed nature that anyone can add/modify its contents. | socialoutcast wrote: |
I was just wondering about the sources of where our information comes from. So, my question is in regards to questions about the Bible, would you consider such information to be more accurate from religious/biblical, scholastic, or Atheistic sources and why? Because even one point of view form one soure can have a dramatic impact on our conclusions.
|
From this period of history the main historical sources would be :
Jewish historian Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, Justin Martyr, Papius, Polybius and Thucydides are the main sources that would occur to me off hand....there are probably many more but I'm no expert on the period....They are considered accurate because some are professional diarists/historians, some are professional reporters and observers and they mostly have a track record of publications on a wide range of issues which can be checked and leads one to a sense of their reliability and particular weaknesses/problems in accurate reporting. The question of faith is only a secondary concern - thus Josephus was a holy Jewish scholar but he was also a recorder of note in the period and that overrides any other issue. Basically, like today, scholars and men of repute are unlikely to distort their accounts without good reason because their reputation is their currency..regardless of their faith...
| Quote: |
To be fair I'll anwser that question. There mostly the best biblical knowledge is going to come from those who study it. So I'm inclined to say biblical sources are more through sources.
|
Not necessarily. A lot of bible study is what I would call interpretation and some of it is just plain fishing. Dates, times, places, numbers - these are the mark of a reliable account historically.
I have no problem with bible scholars - many of them are actually agnostic or atheistic like me - but the primary measure of historical importance I would use would be reliability, precision and moderation in reporting, professional or personal interest in making the account accurate, a good range of figures, facts and places which can be cross-indexed and so on....a fifteenth century theological treatise on the importance of a particular verse in one of the gospels when interpreting cherubic heirarchies in the light of the Anglelic chain of perfection, for example, would be far less interesting to me than an account by someone like Pliny of a day in Jerusalem around 30AD....Qoute: "Although, as you point out, I am definitely an atheist, I am still interested in the historical Jesus who I believe did exist on the balance of the evidence available. I have not contradicted or even engaged with anyone saying it is simply a matter of faith since although I don't share the faith, I can understand those that may do so; and whilst I may think they are being fooled into accepting an establishment-generated mythology I also think that most of us are guilty of that to some extent and in some regards, so I'm not going to throw any stones.
PS - as for the shroud of Turin - that one will, I suspect, run and run. Like many I was hoping that the 1988 carbon dating would provide a definitive answer but the scientific evidence for a mis-dating cannot be dismissed. My own opinion is that if the samples were indeed mis-dated then it is most probably because of the 'patch' theory - ie the samples analysed were actually from later patches applied to the shroud in a 16th century repair after a fire. I remain, as you might expect, sceptical but, I hope, not completely closed to the possibility that it might, at least, be contemporaneous to the life of Christ.."
Atheists don't really exist. If you are a 'I believe in no God' person, you would identify yourself as God. Or something else. The problem is that God created mankind in the image of himself. With a very deep sense of knowing that there is a God who created him, because he is like him. We all know that that is true, that is why you see it so much 
| Quote: |
| Atheists don't really exist. If you are a 'I believe in no God' person, you would identify yourself as God. Or something else. The problem is that God created mankind in the image of himself. With a very deep sense of knowing that there is a God who created him, because he is like him. We all know that that is true, that is why you see it so much |
Thanks for that effort to make my life simpler by telling me what I think, what I believe and whether I exist of not...very helpful...now I realise that I actually do not exist I think I can save a lot of money on clothes, food and accommodation.... | 7Pound7 wrote: |
Atheists don't really exist. If you are a 'I believe in no God' person, you would identify yourself as God. Or something else. The problem is that God created mankind in the image of himself. With a very deep sense of knowing that there is a God who created him, because he is like him. We all know that that is true, that is why you see it so much |
Sorry, none of this makes any sense to me.
A) "you would identify yourself as God. Or something else. " Well, I have no idea why I would identify myself as a god if I didn't believe. And of course, if I IDed myself as a man, that would be "something else"....so what are you saying?
B) If God created man with a " very deep sense of knowing that there is a God who created him", why do so many not believe?
So, please, why are there no athiests?
@Chris- PLEASE! Waste money on clothes! There is just an outside chance that he might be wrong! 
[quote=Bikerman]From this period of history the main historical sources would be :
Jewish historian Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, Justin Martyr, Papius, Polybius and Thucydides are the main sources that would occur to me off hand....there are probably many more but I'm no expert on the period....They are considered accurate because some are professional diarists/historians, some are professional reporters ...[/quote]
Interest choice of historians. Sorry I was slow in this responce because I was reading up a little bit on this people you mentioned and juggling a busy schedule. From what I have read on these men, they have quite the resume for documentation. I have also noticed that most of these men had recorded history under some facet of the Roman Empire and have been in contact with the emperior at the time they were recording history. I understand that these men were highly educated for their time, so I won't question their scholastic methods. But do you think that their ties to the emperior and/or roman government might have had some influance on the way they reported events? Likewise, the authors of the four Gospels could just be as easily been influanced by how they recorded events concerning the Christ which they knew and learned from?
Consider now, the gospel writers Mathew and John traveled with Jesus at the He walked the earth. From what I have read, most of these roman writters had not written anything untill after the crucifixion. Even some some them wrote sooner then the gospel writers.
I guess my point in all this is that regarding such historical events is that these historical documents are written from different points of view (greko-roman versus jewish) by people who have experienced these events in different ways (directly or indirectly).
The the note that these roman historian were "professional" historians, I would assume that they where paid. If this were true, then two things can happen. Either, the writers wrote what they wrote because that's what their employer "told" them to write (in some way), or they wrote what they wrote because it there duty to carefully record history. I would assume the latter was the case at that time. I only ponder that because in todays news media money can have a great influance in what and how news is reported.
Love God, love people, drink coffee
www.socialoutcast.co.nr | socialoutcast wrote: |
Interest choice of historians. Sorry I was slow in this responce because I was reading up a little bit on this people you mentioned and juggling a busy schedule. From what I have read on these men, they have quite the resume for documentation. I have also noticed that most of these men had recorded history under some facet of the Roman Empire and have been in contact with the emperior at the time they were recording history. I understand that these men were highly educated for their time, so I won't question their scholastic methods. But do you think that their ties to the emperior and/or roman government might have had some influance on the way they reported events? |
Most certainly. The extent of the influence, however, is widely discussed and to at least a reasonable level understood by modern historians since most have left sufficient bodies of work to allow very critical and analytical study and cross referencing. This means that we can attach quite good 'historicality' ratings to much of their cannon. | Quote: |
| Likewise, the authors of the four Gospels could just be as easily been influanced by how they recorded events concerning the Christ which they knew and learned from? |
This is a slightly different picture. One problem is that there is still very active debate about who actually wrote the Gospels, and it seems almost definite that the authors left no body of work remotely comparable to the aforementioned historical sources.
| socialoutcast wrote: |
| Consider now, the gospel writers Mathew and John traveled with Jesus at the He walked the earth. From what I have read, most of these roman writters had not written anything untill after the crucifixion. Even some some them wrote sooner then the gospel writers. |
The same objection applies - neither of these gospels was even probable to have been authored by the person in the title. | Quote: |
| The authorship of the Gospel of Matthew is something of a puzzle. It is unlikely that the canonical Matthew represents a straightforward translation of an original Aramaic or Hebrew version composed by the apostle Matthew, since the author of the Gospel of Matthew probably used the Gospel of Mark as a source. Nevertheless, it is probably safe to conclude that the apostle Matthew wrote something in Aramaic or Hebrew that has some connection to the canonical Gospel of Matthew. But what exactly that text was and its connection to the canonical Matthew is difficult to determine. |
Paul is problematic for different reasons. | Quote: |
"John was written for the Greek Christians of the beginning of the second century. These recent converts were more educated, wealthy, and despised the Diaspora Jews who resided in their cities and who enjoyed the respect of Rome. John removes the offensive references to Jesus as a Jewish Messiah that are particular to the earlier gospels, in order to present the Logos in more palatable form. In so doing, John creates a simulacrum that is barely human. The earlier Synoptic traditions are emphatic in presenting Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, descendent of David, and eschatological messenger of the end of the world where God collects his Chosen People. John removes the unpleasantness of Jewish geneaology as well as all references to Palestinian and Davidic descent.
- James Still, "The Gospel of John and the Hellenization of Jesus" |
| socialoutcast wrote: |
| The the note that these roman historian were "professional" historians, I would assume that they where paid. If this were true, then two things can happen. Either, the writers wrote what they wrote because that's what their employer "told" them to write (in some way), or they wrote what they wrote because it there duty to carefully record history. I would assume the latter was the case at that time. I only ponder that because in todays news media money can have a great influance in what and how news is reported. |
Valid point but again I would say that we have a sufficient sample of work which has been cross referenced with other sources and means that scholars have been able not only to detect any such bias but in many cases to quantify it and give an interpretation of how and where such bias has possibly manifest itself. Armed with this it is certainly possible to draw a much more accurate interpretation of most of the sources in question than it is to do the same for the authors of the gospels... | Quote: |
| ...Valid point but again I would say that we have a sufficient sample of work which has been cross referenced with other sources and means that scholars have been able not only to detect any such bias but in many cases to quantify it and give an interpretation of how and where such bias has possibly manifest itself. Armed with this it is certainly possible to draw a much more accurate interpretation of most of the sources in question than it is to do the same for the authors of the gospels... |
So, If one were to gain a more accurate picture of history would it make since to study and draw from peoples thoughts and wittings from several sources and different cultures. That in itself would give a scholar more evidence to sift through and weigh to understand the cultures and the issues of ancient times. Even with any such bias, the writers of the gospels, who loved Jesus so much, that they would record His life to the highest regard and respect and had nothing to loose and nothing to gain for what they wrote except persecution. In contrast, any bias for Roman historians would it make since for working under the emperor to have some political influence? If so, then how can we be certain that the weight of jewish events and roman events were equally weighed by historians/writers and by scholars?
Certainly that good cross references would confirm or question the events of that time.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Likewise, the authors of the four Gospels could just be as easily been influanced by how they recorded events concerning the Christ which they knew and learned from? |
This is a slightly different picture. One problem is that there is still very active debate about who actually wrote the Gospels, and it seems almost definite that the authors left no body of work remotely comparable to the aforementioned historical sources. |
Who is the debate between? just curious. I'll accept names even.I thought this was an interesting artical here on the roman government and the early christians
http://www.cbn.com/special/DaVinciCode/GRobertson_Christianity_PaganRome.aspx | socialoutcast wrote: |
| So, If one were to gain a more accurate picture of history would it make since to study and draw from peoples thoughts and wittings from several sources and different cultures. That in itself would give a scholar more evidence to sift through and weigh to understand the cultures and the issues of ancient times. Even with any such bias, the writers of the gospels, who loved Jesus so much, that they would record His life to the highest regard and respect and had nothing to loose and nothing to gain for what they wrote except persecution. In contrast, any bias for Roman historians would it make since for working under the emperor to have some political influence? If so, then how can we be certain that the weight of Jewish events and Roman events were equally weighed by historians/writers and by scholars? |
To a large degree the work of contemporary historical sources is still available and can, therefore, be re-checked at any time. It should be remembered that Christianity was relatively unimportant to the early historians, being just another sect of Judaism amongst many. Indeed the term Christianity does not appear for some time - the earliest recorded use of the term Christianity (Greek Χριστιανισμός) is by Ignatius of Antioch, at the start of the second century AD. There would be little reason for the contemporary historians and diarists to distort their writings about Christianity - it simply was not important enough to merit such treatment.
As for the writers of the gospels being persecuted...the early Christians would have been persecuted by Jews rather than Romans since Christianity originates as a heretical form of Judaism. Roman persecution really got under way with Nero around 50AD | Quote: |
| Quote: | | This is a slightly different picture. One problem is that there is still very active debate about who actually wrote the Gospels, and it seems almost definite that the authors left no body of work remotely comparable to the aforementioned historical sources. |
Who is the debate between? just curious. I'll accept names even. |
Between most biblical scholars, clerics and historians. There is no definitive timeline for the writing of the Gospels and scholars have different views. More than this, however, there is also much dispute about the sources and authorship of the 4 canonical gospels - Mark, Luke, Matthew and John. The issues of dating and authorship are obviously closely intertwined.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke include many of the same passages in the life of Jesus and sometimes use identical or very similar wording. John expresses itself in a different style and relates the same incidents in a different way.
This has led scholars to label these 3 as the Synoptic Gospels and the problem of explaning the similarities is known as the Synoptic Problem.. There are 3 main explanations:- 1) Because they were divinely inspired the author is actually God and this explains the similarities between the 3.
- 2) Some argue that since the Synoptics all tell the story of the life of Jesus, that they would naturally be similar in their accounts
- 3) Many Bible scholars, however, think the similarities are far too identical - like three people reporting the same event, and then using exactly the same cultural references, turns of phrase, ordering, and sometimes even the same words and grammar. They say another explanation is called for.
The dominant view amongst Bible scholars is currently the 'Two Source' hypothesis. This postulates that Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke, written later, take passages from Mark and from another unknown Gospel - known by scholars as 'Q' (from German: Quelle, meaning "source"). Thew discovery of Thomas' Gospel tends to support this view since it is a strong candidate for 'Q' - containing, as it does, many of the sayings shared only between Matthew and Luke.
The main conmpeting ideas are the Farrer hypothesis and the Griesbach hypothesis
As for dating, the scholarly consensus seems to be as follows (borrowed from Wiki in large part)- Mark: c. 68–73
- Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view; some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
- Luke: c. 80–100
- John: c. 90–110. Raymond Brown* does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
*An Introduction to the New Testament( representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996)Ahhh, 'Q'. As for 'Q', it is nothing more then a list of sayings or hypotheses. that was never written down. This would make since because in those days, history and teachings really haven't been written down but were past down orally. Now the speaker could in fact get away with telling the story how he wishes as long as one condition is met. The essence, message or main idea had to remain the same. If the speaker strayed from the main idea, anyone in thd audience could stand up and correct him. This may also explain such variation in details between the canonical gospels.
You seem like you like to research this kind of stuff, I'm going to through a book title out there. But with your explanation of 'Q', you may have read it already. The book is call, "The Case For Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation for Christ," by Lee Strobel.
If you do decide to read that book I'd suggest to start with the introduction.
I'm currently reading through that book now.
Love God, love people, drink coffee
www.socialoutcast.co.nr
