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.
Two main points there - the 'John wrote from a different point of view' apologetic and the one I hadn't seen before: Jesus used the Septuagint.
It don't think the first adds up because whatever the purpose in the John gospel, that not a hint is given of the wrangles in the temple (and Matthew adds a lot that you don't get in Mark or Luke), apart from the question on Authority..I'll check.. yes. Authority, but Jesus's answer is different from the evasion of the synoptics ("If you won't answer whether John's message was divine or not, I won't answer you") and the remark about making it a place of trade (the synoptics make it 'A den of robbers") must argue that the wrangles were invented for the original synoptic gospel -text, further amended by the three (1).
And as I recall, Matthew's divergence from the actual Hebrew OT passage because of a Septuagint rendering isn't found in the version by Mark and Luke. Just as they don't make the error about the two donkeys, nor indeed the reading of Bethulah (or it may be Alma) as 'Parthenos'. Though this 'prophecy' is his own and we don't find it anywhere else.
This is just Matthew of course, and one could argue that at least Luke and Mark have original Jesus, even if Matthew edits massively (so does John), bu Luke falls down on other grounds, like the announcement in the synagogue refuted by the same 'is this not Joseph's son' passage (variously amended) in a different place and without all the rest of the nonsense about a row in the synagogue and assassination attempt. For sure, the Decapolis material (shared with Matthew) apart, Mark is the nearest to the unamended synoptic form, but with a few additions of his own. But as we saw with the lack of a transfiguration in John, and his calling the disciples in Jordan rather than Galilee, and of course going on donkey -back to the temple next morning, not direct on arrival, and such problems all through the book, that means that taking the gospel account even generally as reliable is not, I argue, justified. And certainly a huge amount of Matthew and indeed Luke and John of course, who wrote not a hint of a parable but long sermons that are not hinted at in the synoptics, notwithstanding that their theological explanations ought to have been more important than a string of parables, is surely invented by the individual writers (2).
So I just have to sand up when 'Jesus said this' is rolled out as something reliable, because a massive amount is demonstrably not what he could feasibly have said. Why, even the lord's prayer' is not original synoptic, but something from 'Q" document.
Again, I apologize for the diversion, but if anything is basically wrong despite being basically universal in Bible study, it is the assumption that Jesus' sayings are to be credited as what he really did say.
(1) the 'different temple -cleansing excuse (which I haven't seen for some time) doesn't stand up. The conflation of Isaiah and Jeremiah is strained, not to say irrelevant, and the question on authority links the two events, and that the synoptics have no such pre-baptism event while the '2nd' cleansing is missing from John 12 19/20, where it ought to be, shows that it is the same event -shifted.
(2)I know, I know; there are more 'witnesses don't always agree" and "well, perhaps.." excuses as well as 'different point of view' excuses for these problems than prickles on a porcupine, but I assert that witnesses contradicting each other so badly while at the same time showing personal amending of a basically spoonfed story would get them a perjury charge, not an approving 'that they disagree means they haven't been fed an agreed story". Which is another apologetic -for -reliability. The synoptics demonstrably HAVE a common story, but they equally demonstrably mangle it as much as they mangle the OT to extract prophecies from out of it, to suit themselves.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-05-2017 at 12:48 AM..
I stare at the empty tomb and realize that no one can deny the truth.
Suppose that you were a policeman. You are called to a graveyard. A grave is empty, the body missing. Is your first suspicion going to be that the corpse returned to life and left the grave of its own volition? Or is your first suspicion going to be that someone living is responsible?
Now consider the story of the empty tomb provided by the gospels. The gospels indicate that the Jewish priests got permission for the Roman governor to place a guard at Joseph's tomb because they suspected that a plot existed among the followers of Jesus to spread the rumor that Jesus had risen from the dead. So, finding the tomb closed off by a large stone, and given the nature of the high holy day, the priests placed seals on the tomb, set a guard, and waited. The next morning however the tomb proved to be empty. Just as they feared.
Now the next question becomes, who was last to be in obvious possession of the body? And that would be Jesus' followers! The very individuals whom the priests suspected of intending to spread the rumor that Jesus had risen from the dead. Which is in fact exactly what the followers did. We are left with the clear and obvious recognition that the reason that the tomb was empty, is because the followers of Jesus had taken it elsewhere. And the realization that Joseph's tomb was never intended to be the final resting place for Jesus, but was only used a private place to wash and prepare the body. Because the tomb was Joseph's property, and it was conveniently close to Calvary.
So what significance does the story of the empty tomb actually hold? None at all actually. Except that Christians love it.
Two main points there - the 'John wrote from a different point of view' apologetic and the one I hadn't seen before: Jesus used the Septuagint.
It don't think the first adds up because whatever the purpose in the John gospel, that not a hint is given of the wrangles in the temple (and Matthew adds a lot that you don't get in Mark or Luke), apart from the question on Authority..I'll check.. yes. Authority, but Jesus's answer is different from the evasion of the synoptics ("If you won't answer whether John's message was divine or not, I won't answer you") and the remark about making it a place of trade (the synoptics make it 'A den of robbers") must argue that the wrangles were invented for the original synoptic gospel -text, further amended by the three (1).
And as I recall, Matthew's divergence from the actual Hebrew OT passage because of a Septuagint rendering isn't found in the version by Mark and Luke. Just as they don't make the error about the two donkeys, nor indeed the reading of Bethulah (or it may be Alma) as 'Parthenos'. Though this 'prophecy' is his own and we don't find it anywhere else.
This is just Matthew of course, and one could argue that at least Luke and Mark have original Jesus, even if Matthew edits massively (so does John), bu Luke falls down on other grounds, like the announcement in the synagogue refuted by the same 'is this not Joseph's son' passage (variously amended) in a different place and without all the rest of the nonsense about a row in the synagogue and assassination attempt. For sure, the Decapolis material (shared with Matthew) apart, Mark is the nearest to the unamended synoptic form, but with a few additions of his own. But as we saw with the lack of a transfiguration in John, and his calling the disciples in Jordan rather than Galilee, and of course going on donkey -back to the temple next morning, not direct on arrival, and such problems all through the book, that means that taking the gospel account even generally as reliable is not, I argue, justified. And certainly a huge amount of Matthew and indeed Luke and John of course, who wrote not a hint of a parable but long sermons that are not hinted at in the synoptics, notwithstanding that their theological explanations ought to have been more important than a string of parables, is surely invented by the individual writers (2).
So I just have to sand up when 'Jesus said this' is rolled out as something reliable, because a massive amount is demonstrably not what he could feasibly have said. Why, even the lord's prayer' is not original synoptic, but something from 'Q" document.
Again, I apologize for the diversion, but if anything is basically wrong despite being basically universal in Bible study, it is the assumption that Jesus' sayings are to be credited as what he really did say.
(1) the 'different temple -cleansing excuse (which I haven't seen for some time) doesn't stand up. The conflation of Isaiah and Jeremiah is strained, not to say irrelevant, and the question on authority links the two events, and that the synoptics have no such pre-baptism event while the '2nd' cleansing is missing from John 12 19/20, where it ought to be, shows that it is the same event -shifted.
(2)I know, I know; there are more 'witnesses don't always agree" and "well, perhaps.." excuses as well as 'different point of view' excuses for these problems than prickles on a porcupine, but I assert that witnesses contradicting each other so badly while at the same time showing personal amending of a basically spoonfed story would get them a perjury charge, not an approving 'that they disagree means they haven't been fed an agreed story". Which is another apologetic -for -reliability. The synoptics demonstrably HAVE a common story, but they equally demonstrably mangle it as much as they mangle the OT to extract prophecies from out of it, to suit themselves.
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!
There would be NO GOSPEL if He didn't resurrect. That IS the heart of the gospel, the DEATH, BURIAL AND RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. Without it, you got the Mohammeds, the Buddhas, ect., nothing to write home about. Peace
Some critics of the Bible point out that Paul makes no mention of the empty tomb, and seems to have been unaware of the story. How important is the empty tomb to Christian doctrine? If the tomb was empty for natural reasons rather than supernatural reasons, would that impact Christian doctrine? Or would the Christian system of belief still be just as firm?
In 1 Cor 15 Paul states explicitly that if not for the resurrection (and empty tomb), we would all be lost in our sin, and fools.
In 1 Cor 15 Paul states explicitly that if not for the resurrection (and empty tomb), we would all be lost in our sin, and fools.
Paul also believed that he spoke to dead people. 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.
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.
