Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mangling things is what people are good out. And the further away from the event we get the more mangling takes place!! I'm a Vietnam vet and some years ago I realized I wasn't at all certain anymore about some of the events I had related to other people. I began to suspect I had mangled them. I knew it was easier to get shell shock in a nightclub outside Camp Pendleton than it was in Nam, so I began to suspect I had embellished my stories beyond personal credibility.
It's what we do often, without even recognizing ourselves as doing it. It's done in our court systems as well. Eyewitnesses, according to some legal scholars, are the least reliable source. But in the case of Jesus, its not even eyewitnesses, but most likely followers of those eyewitnesses who wrote everything down.
I'm not a "inerrant, infallible" Bible believer. I believe much of the story line while having problems with many of the details, written as it were after the fact, and arising from the lips of uneducated fishermen as those closest to Jesus. That may also be a contributing factor to some of the "miracles" that occurred, since such supernatural events seem to be the bedrock of less educated christians. Even Jesus stated to paraphrase, "if you don't believe me for what I say, believe me for the sake of the miracles." So He apparently was able to do some things we do not consider "natural." And a good reason to accept it or accept that it is an embellishment, is the fact that on at least one occasion He found it necessary to repeat the mechanism of the miracle to make it work!
Yet when we read other types of literature, we do not suggest these weren't the words of King James for instance when we read what others say about what he said. I've studied that "good" king extensively because I'm fairly sure that the force behind the KJV translation was homosexual himself. And have tried to discover if there was any bias toward him because of it. He, himself, wasn't such a great king as he is the direct force behind the rise of witch burnings that began and continued after his death, and which some English immigrants brought to America.
Most historians do NOT have a problem with the words spoken by Jesus in the synoptics. In John, however, there are a number of statements that support the idea that John was written to show Jesus' divinity. Jesus isn't the same personality in John as He is in the other gospels.
Not many biblical scholars doubt Jesus' words--not even Prof. Bart Ehrman, Christian turned agnostic.
I might suggest Reza Asalan's book, Zealot, the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth. Aslan is a Muslim turned christian then reverting back to Mohammedanism. Aslan's book is a more secular view of the times and events during Jesus short journey in the religious world of Judea.
There is a current hypothesis by some scholars that Mark or Q was first written in Hebrew. I haven't studied it yet, but that might throw another monkey in the circus in terms of getting as close as possible to the "original" texts.
One thing is certain, modern Christianity relies very heavily on and makes central the idea of Jesus' resurrection. I say we would have a more godly Christianity if it focused more on His teaching!
You make a very good point about people misremembering events. But also a good one about people making records at the time. There is also the point about collective input. The more accounts you put together, even though they may conflict, the better an idea of what happened generally.
But the point -or my argument - is that the text itself shown another process going on. But I won't go on about it. Let those with ears to hear, hear.
I suppose I have to give a thumbs up..here you are to moving away from doctrines of the supernatural and focussing on the 'teachings', even if that does smack of giving up some untenable ground in order to hold the line against doubt and question.
I rather suspect that Mark was written in Greek, because the Greek is said to be 'rough' (unsophisicated) Greek - it is all in Koine Greek. Now, if it had been written in Hebrew, anyone who could translate it into Greek would write good Greek wouldn't they? And there is the point with Matthew and Mark ("M" material (1) that they have to translate "Abba" and indeed the whole words on the cross from aramaic, which they'd hardly need to do for people who could read hebrew.
On balance I'll go with Greek authorship for all four gospels.
(1) I postulate a version of the synoptic gospel incorporating a version of the feasting that differed from the '5000' men. So it was put in as a different event (feasing he 4,000) - it doesn't turn up in Luke, notably, nor John, for support of Luke. So I suppose both Mark and Matthew based their gospels on the 'M' - amended original, and Matthew - but not Mark -also added in "Q" material., as did Luke.
One thing is certain, modern Christianity relies very heavily on and makes central the idea of Jesus' resurrection. I say we would have a more godly Christianity if it focused more on His teaching!
A more user-friendly, palatable, easier-to-sell, easier-to-digest "Christianity" (i.e., pseudo-Christianity), yes. A more godly Christianity, no. Without the Resurrection, there is no Christianity. Christianity makes the Resurrection central because it is central. Jesus' teaching includes the clear and unequivocal promise of the Resurrection. Without the Resurrection you merely have New Age treacle wearing a Jesus mask.
The disciples did not steal Jesus' body and then immediately become a cohesive unit of bold proclaimers who were willing to die gruesome deaths for their fraud. This theory makes no sense in either historical or psychological terms. Something Extraordinary Happened.
A First Century fictional tale would not have made women key witnesses. Something Extraordinary Happened.
If Jesus' body were anywhere to be found, it would have been found. To borrow the title of one of the better books about the JFK assassination, "Someone Would Have Talked." Something Extraordinary Happened.
I happen to believe the Shroud of Turin is direct evidence Something Extraordinary Happened, but I won't push the point here since I doubt seriously anyone has the depth of knowledge to discuss it intelligently. See www.shroud.com if you're interested, but be prepared to spend 1,000 hours.
Someone gave the example of a policeman who is called to a graveyard, finds an empty grave, and logically assumes a living person removed the body. And the relevance of this is what? It does not fit the facts of what occurred before or after the Resurrection. Christians acknowledge that the Resurrection was a unique event. As N. T. Wright has shown, there was no real parallel for it in ancient mythology, and the term "resurrection" would have had only one meaning for first century Jews. There is no historical parallel for the aftermath of the Resurrection either - from the transformation of the disciples, to the refusal of the faith to wither and die in the face of brutal Roman persecution, to the eventual transformation of the Western world.
Something Extraordinary Happened, something far more significant than visions, apparitions or cognitive dissonance on the part of the disciples. You can write the Resurrection out of your "Christianity," but the resulting New Age treacle will not be Christianity.
One thing is certain, modern Christianity relies very heavily on and makes central the idea of Jesus' resurrection. I say we would have a more godly Christianity if it focused more on His teaching!
Amen, Warden, because properly interpreted His scourging, crucifixion, and resurrection EXEMPLIFY the Holy Spirit of Agape love that should motivate all our interactions. His unconditional love, even for His torturers and murderers, IS the Gospel message contained in His instructions to us to love God and each other every day and repent when we don't. Why the mainstream completely misses this is beyond me.
The disciples did not steal Jesus' body and then immediately become a cohesive unit of bold proclaimers who were willing to die gruesome deaths for their fraud. This theory makes no sense in either historical or psychological terms. Something Extraordinary Happened.
Why would the disciples of Jesus have to "steal" the body? Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were disciples of Jesus. So his followers already had legal possession of the body, and every legal right to inter the body wherever they chose. They first took the body of Jesus to Joseph's personal tomb to be washed and wrapped. The reason for taking it there was because it was late in the day, and the tomb was "nigh at hand" to the place where Jesus was executed. (John 19:42) Sometime the next day the Jewish priests got permission to secure Joseph's tomb. Finding the tomb entrance covered by a large stone, the priests placed seals on the tomb and set a guard. But the tomb proved to be empty the following morning. Clearly then the tomb was empty when the priests took possession of it, and it was empty because Joseph never intended his brand new family tomb to be the final resting place for Jesus, who was NOT a family member. The of Jesus body was buried elsewhere. Which Joseph had every legal right to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troglodyte74
If Jesus' body were anywhere to be found, it would have been found. To borrow the title of one of the better books about the JFK assassination, "Someone Would Have Talked." Something Extraordinary Happened.
Who is it that you suppose was looking for it? This entire adventure stimulated so little interest at the time that no one even bothered mentioning ANY of it for about a quarter of a century. Jesus died (according to the timeframe found in the Gospels) circa 30 AD. The very first mention of the resurrection story occurs in 1 Corinthians, written circa 55 AD.
And suppose that someone "talked." What difference does that make to the true believer? How much "talking" would it take to talk you out of your beliefs? Committed believers accept the versions of events that they choose to believe, and resolutely refused to be dissuaded by any other evidence, no matter how compelling. Did "something extraordinary" happen to spark the rise of Islam, or Mormonism, as examples. Or were these people simply poor gullible saps? Because they will not be dissuaded from their beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troglodyte74
I happen to believe the Shroud of Turin is direct evidence Something Extraordinary Happened, but I won't push the point here since I doubt seriously anyone has the depth of knowledge to discuss it intelligently. See The Shroud of Turin Website - Home Page if you're interested, but be prepared to spend 1,000 hours.
The shroud of Turin is first mentioned historically in the 14th century. When the shroud was carbon dated the date came back 13th-14th century. Even the Catholic church does not assert that the shroud is valid. The faithful of course will not be dissuaded by evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troglodyte74
Someone gave the example of a policeman who is called to a graveyard, finds an empty grave, and logically assumes a living person removed the body. And the relevance of this is what? It does not fit the facts of what occurred before or after the Resurrection. Christians acknowledge that the Resurrection was a unique event. As N. T. Wright has shown, there was no real parallel for it in ancient mythology, and the term "resurrection" would have had only one meaning for first century Jews. There is no historical parallel for the aftermath of the Resurrection either - from the transformation of the disciples, to the refusal of the faith to wither and die in the face of brutal Roman persecution, to the eventual transformation of the Western world.
Wikipedia
Dying-and-Rising God
Examples of gods who die and later return to life are most often cited from the religions of the Ancient Near East, and traditions influenced by them including Biblical and Greco-Roman mythology and by extension Christianity. The concept of a dying-and-rising god was first proposed in comparative mythology by James Frazer's seminal The Golden Bough. Frazer associated the motif with fertility rites surrounding the yearly cycle of vegetation. Frazer cited the examples of Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis and Attis, Dionysus and Jesus Christ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-rising_god
I happen to believe the Shroud of Turin is direct evidence Something Extraordinary Happened, but I won't push the point here since I doubt seriously anyone has the depth of knowledge to discuss it intelligently.
A more user-friendly, palatable, easier-to-sell, easier-to-digest "Christianity" (i.e., pseudo-Christianity), yes. A more godly Christianity, no. Without the Resurrection, there is no Christianity. Christianity makes the Resurrection central because it is central. Jesus' teaching includes the clear and unequivocal promise of the Resurrection. Without the Resurrection you merely have New Age treacle wearing a Jesus mask.
The disciples did not steal Jesus' body and then immediately become a cohesive unit of bold proclaimers who were willing to die gruesome deaths for their fraud. This theory makes no sense in either historical or psychological terms. Something Extraordinary Happened.
A First Century fictional tale would not have made women key witnesses. Something Extraordinary Happened.
If Jesus' body were anywhere to be found, it would have been found. To borrow the title of one of the better books about the JFK assassination, "Someone Would Have Talked." Something Extraordinary Happened.
I happen to believe the Shroud of Turin is direct evidence Something Extraordinary Happened, but I won't push the point here since I doubt seriously anyone has the depth of knowledge to discuss it intelligently. See www.shroud.com if you're interested, but be prepared to spend 1,000 hours.
Someone gave the example of a policeman who is called to a graveyard, finds an empty grave, and logically assumes a living person removed the body. And the relevance of this is what? It does not fit the facts of what occurred before or after the Resurrection. Christians acknowledge that the Resurrection was a unique event. As N. T. Wright has shown, there was no real parallel for it in ancient mythology, and the term "resurrection" would have had only one meaning for first century Jews. There is no historical parallel for the aftermath of the Resurrection either - from the transformation of the disciples, to the refusal of the faith to wither and die in the face of brutal Roman persecution, to the eventual transformation of the Western world.
Something Extraordinary Happened, something far more significant than visions, apparitions or cognitive dissonance on the part of the disciples. You can write the Resurrection out of your "Christianity," but the resulting New Age treacle will not be Christianity.
Just a couple of points -
The fact that women found the empty tomb and normally womens' testament would not be considered very compelling is a point for the empty tomb. But so is the fact that all four gospels agree the empty tomb. But after that, even though the women are recorded as doing or seeing this or that, since all of that is in fatally discrepant accounts, it makes the resurrection accounts worthless testimony, no matter whom is claimed to have seen it.
It is rather amusing that the analogy of a policeman finding an empty tomb and supposing someone removed the body is dismissed - because it does not fit a demonstrably fabricated ale old by unreliable witnesses. It was reading a suggestion (it may have been in 'Who moved the stone?' of a detective story set in 1st c Jerusalem where the investigator comes to the conclusion that a resurrection happened would no doubt be approved by your - though in fact a resurrection is not the conclusion an investigator would come to, but a swiping of the body and cover -up. I'm willing to support that if you don't believe me.
The shroud of Turin, despite your snobby remark has been discussed here in intellectual depth at times, and - after all the claims and counter claims and accusations of fakery or bias, the bottom line or two bottom lines is that the image is not a wrap around image but a flat one. That cannot ever have been wrapped around a body. Obscura "Photographic" or painted, it has to be be something other than a body wrapping.
The other Line being that it follows John's gospel with the spear -stab, and John doesn't even have a sheet, but Lazarus -style bandages.
Your attempt to validate the fabricated tales of the resurrection after the event by appeal to how successful the cult became only tells us that it was a successful cult. Many religions in their time have been very successful - that does not make them true. And the attempt to link the empty tomb - which I accept is as reliable as anything in the Bible (which isn't much) with the resurrection -claim though what the disciples are supposed to have died for, fails, because we already did Paul's resurrection belief (and therefore derived from that of the disciples) not matching the Gospel resurrection claim, and the various traditions about how the disciples met their end not really carrying much weight.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-07-2017 at 05:50 AM..
I'm not aware of any verse that says that. Even so, many people on this board probably believe that, as well.
Quote:
The only thing that would be different if Jesus was not resurrected from the dead is your perspective on reality. Nothing else in the physical world would change.
It would, as Paul said, mean that there is no resurrection and we are all to be pitied.
I'm not aware of any verse that says that. Even so, many people on this board probably believe that, as well.
2Cor.12
[1] It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
[2] I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; such an one caught up to the third heaven.
[3] And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;
Paul converted to Christianity years after Jesus was executed. During a time in which he was deathly ill, Paul hallucinated visions of the years dead Jesus, and believed them to be valid. Paul believed that he spoke to a dead man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by "BaptistFundie
It would, as Paul said, mean that there is no resurrection and we are all to be pitied.
If there was no resurrection then nothing has actually changed at all, other then your view of reality. But it was never a realistic view from the beginning, because it is based on an entire series of assumptions which do not correspond to any actual physical observation. In other words, you believe in make believe.
2Cor.12
[1] It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
[2] I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; such an one caught up to the third heaven.
[3] And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;
Paul converted to Christianity years after Jesus was executed. During a time in which he was deathly ill, Paul hallucinated visions of the years dead Jesus, and believed them to be valid. Paul believed that he spoke to a dead man.
You mean Jesus? You think Jesus is dead? No..he isn't. He is alive and interceding for us right now in Heaven. He rose from the dead, and he never died again.
Quote:
If there was no resurrection then nothing has actually changed at all, other then your view of reality. But it was never a realistic view from the beginning, because it is based on an entire series of assumptions which do not correspond to any actual physical observation. In other words, you believe in make believe.
It's interesting to see you making such statements about assumptions and such. I mean...you probably believe a lot of things based on assumptions, but you have an issue believing the eye witness accounts of men.
You mean Jesus? You think Jesus is dead? No..he isn't. He is alive and interceding for us right now in Heaven. He rose from the dead, and he never died again.
It's interesting to see you making such statements about assumptions and such. I mean...you probably believe a lot of things based on assumptions, but you have an issue believing the eye witness accounts of men.
Now, explain to me how this claim does not perfectly describe make believe at work. You believe that a corpse came back to life and then flew off up into the sky. In what way can you show that this claim is in any way different from claiming that Santa has a team of flying reindeer?
The "eye witness" accounts were made exclusively by the followers of Jesus shortly after his execution. I am perfectly willing to accept the fact that people with their own personal agenda are capable of spreading false rumors. But the story of a corpse coming back to life and flying away cannot be made plausible or reasonable simply because some few claimed that it occurred.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
to moving away from doctrines of the supernatural and focussing on the 'teachings', even if that does smack of giving up some untenable ground in order to hold the line against doubt and question.
has been discussed here in intellectual depth at times, and - after all the claims and counter claims and accusations of fakery or bias, the bottom line or two bottom lines is that the image is not a wrap around image but a flat one. That cannot ever have been wrapped around a body. Obscura "Photographic" or painted, it has to be be something other than a body wrapping.
