- Oct 17, 2015
- 15,722
- 16,445
- 80
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Unorthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
We presently have about 10,000 ancient manuscripts and no two of them are identical.
Upvote
0
We presently have about 10,000 ancient manuscripts and no two of them are identical.
It's your logic that doesn't make sense. I'm not sure this is a good comparison, but it just came to mind. If you sent four war correspondents to report on a conflict... do you think you would get identical reports? No. Would that make the conflict any less real, the reason for the war different, the dissimiliar events reported any less true, reports on the same events from different perspectives identical, the different characters in the stories contradicting? No. And yet you would claim it not a unified report, and the authors uninspiring. You're grasping at straws again.
Just imagine how much of an uproar a work by someone unknown, which did not depict the events of Jesus' life in the way the still living eyewitnesses among the relatively small group of first century Christians would have known them to be. Again, such misrepresentations would certainly not have become a revered writing in the Christian community.
I'm confident that all prominent Christians during the time would have known who the gospel authors were. There are a couple possible reasons the original works weren't originally autographed: 1) maybe the authors weren't that willing to be martyerd due to the first century atmosphere; 2) maybe it was a Christian thing and they weren't wanting to promote themselves, and felt it was everyone's story. Even so, it is generally agreed among bible scholars that the subsequent name additions were in fact the authors.
Of course, but my point was that those who have hand-copied biblical works, OT or New, revered the writings and would have protected their integrity in both cases.
And even though the Roman empire was on a slow and steady decline, the Roman 'church' still carried high authority as a theocracy.
what hard geological evidence would / should exist, which does not exist ?
St. Peter and the other Apostles could not have kept "changing their tune", or the thousands (Acts 2) and thousands (Acts 4) of "first-round listeners" would've noted the embellishments and called them on it
------
moreover, you are ignoring context
1st century Judea was abuzz with Messianic fever. Everybody and their brother was claiming to be "Messiah, Lord of Lord, King of Kings, Son of the Stars". None of those other Messianic claimants' stories were gradually embellished & exaggerated.
They just interpreted some events as a favorable omen, and started boasting about being the unique one-of-a-kind Messiah in all of human history, "Lord of Lord, Kings of Kings, Son of the Stars".
Of course, Rome defeated them all -- even when they were backed by Parthia (as alleged by Gerhard Baudy).
But my point is, Jesus was one Messianic claimant amongst many. (Very) superficially, his claims were the same as everybody else's -- "Lord of Lords, King of Kings" etc.
None of the other Messianic claimants' stories were gradually embellished over time -- none of the other claimants even survived decades for their stories to gradually grow! They just up and "wham! boom!" started claiming some sign showed they were "Lord of Lord, King of Kings"... they immediately attracted followers... took up arms against Rome... [only to be defeated]
But one more time, no other Messianic claimant started out as "just some itinerant preacher guy"... and gradually over decades became larger than life...
given 1st century Judean Messianic fever, they all tried to "cash in" and just up and boom! started claiming everything under the sun.
Was Jesus different???
If you want the "itinerant preacher come MESSIAH" exaggeration... just read the Gospels! That *is* what happened...
Jesus was an itinerant preacher for three (3) years, approximately 27-30 AD
Over those three (3) years, more & more miracles were reported & attributed to God the Father on Jesus' Messianic behalf. By 30 AD, thousands of Jews were hailing Jesus as the Messiah as he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey (Matthew 21)
right there -- that is Jesus the itinerant preacher become larger than life!
-----
no way the Gospels were gradually exaggerated after the Crucifixion.
Jesus' reputation gradually grew for 3 years until the Crucifixion and reported Resurrection.
Afterwards, the Apostles preached Jesus Resurrected, Ascended on High to the Throne of God the Father
they couldn't have exaggerated anything further because "Messiah" was second in rank only to God the Father
the only room for "exaggeration" would have been to flat out equate Jesus Christ with God the Father, which is the only thing Christians haven't completely quite done
The legalization and later canonization of Christianity actually initiated a persecution of all things pagan. If we were to put the Christian persecution of the Pagans following Constantine into a present day context we might do so as follows. It will start with crowds harassing ministers and priests in the streets. It proceeds to riots and the burning of churches with the consequent killing of pastors and prominent members of congregations. This proceeds to attacking bible colleges and seminaries. The faculty are murdered, the libraries are burned and the buildings demolished. In the meantime church after church is attacked and burned. The diehard Christians are shipped off to concentration camps for interrogation (torture) and execution. Now, imagine that not only Christian institutions are treated in this way but every institution that has Christians in the faculty. Everything tainted in the least bit with Christianity is attacked and destroyed and any objectors are tortured and killed. One after another our schools and academies and universities are destroyed, their teachers tortured and killed. Libraries great and small are put to the torch. Die hard Christians are hunted down to the few remaining churches and die en masse as martyrs to their faith. Now imagine this happening over three centuries. In the end the world devolves into a very long dark age of ignorance and superstition. Reverse the words Christian and Pagan and you might begin to imagine the persecution and the suffering and why the Roman Empire collapsed into barbarism for centuries.
The focal point of your skepticism seems to be the lack of eyewitness accounts. So, let’s skip the synoptics for now and discuss John. John was a Disciple of Jesus, among the twelve, with Him continually, even at the foot of the cross. St. Irenaeus later identified John as the author, who got the information from his teacher, Polycarp, who was born shortly after the crucifixion and was a student of John’s. That put Polycarp in the position of hearing first-hand accounts about Jesus from John in person. Do you not believe that to be pretty reliable testimony for WHO wrote the Book of John, and the likely range of years for WHEN?We then also have extremely scant writings of widely told tales of a resurrection. None of them match, especially the further one goes backwards. As stated prior, the earliest partial Gospel manuscript we actually has a date of around 150-200 AD. It is the size of cue card. Full manuscripts do not spring up until centuries later. And again, the further one goes back, the wider the discrepancies.
Why is this so significant? In regard to the actual synoptics, and John, this is the very earliest published worked we have located. We have no real clue WHO wrote what, and WHEN?
So, according to you, Jesus started off as "just a humble itinerant preacher" c.30 AD...I feel we are speaking right past each other
My point is that for the claims of seeing the walking dead, or the rising dead, there would be absolutely no hard evidence left behind. None. This is the beauty of the claim
My good man. Nice try. Please read my later subsequent responses. It seems to answer your assertions quite adequately.
The focal point of your skepticism seems to be the lack of eyewitness accounts. So, let’s skip the synoptics for now and discuss John. John was a Disciple of Jesus, among the twelve, with Him continually, even at the foot of the cross. St. Irenaeus later identified John as the author, who got the information from his teacher, Polycarp, who was born shortly after the crucifixion and was a student of John’s. That put Polycarp in the position of hearing first-hand accounts about Jesus from John in person. Do you not believe that to be pretty reliable testimony for WHO wrote the Book of John, and the likely range of years for WHEN?
Which New Testament book was written first? Mark. Or Pauls epistle to the Colossians?Let's see:
John(the apostle)>>>Polycarp>>>Irenaeus>>>John(the evangelist)
Is this correct? So John the evangelist is a third generation Christian who got his information second hand. Even in a culture that values oral transmission the chance of getting the straight goods after 60 to 70 years is minimal.
In the early years of the 20th century a great deal of research went into the study of societies that were largely illiterate and still in the oral phase of passing information. Researchers went to the far corners of the word to study these societies using the newly developed sound recording machines. The results were instructive. The professional story tellers never told the same story exactly the same twice. They did work from a bare bones outline but they tailored the stories to the interests and moods of their audiences. Once such as story is recorded in the written word, it becomes impossible to determine what is the barebones outline of truth and what is the story tellers embellishments on that truth. I suspect that the same sort of thing has happened in our own scriptures as they emerged from the oral tradition into the written tradition.
I regard the gospels as interpretive narratives written by second or third generation Christians attempting to understanding the meaning of the life and teaching and death of Jesus. To do this they used the techniques of the Hebrew/Jewish literature, primarily haggadic midrash. Also, when viewed in chronological order of writing, we see an evolution of Christological development from Mark to John.
I don't know why you would want to phrase it in such a skeptical way? John was with Jesus to the end. John taught Polycarp, who taught Irenaeus. St Irenaeus then conveyed what he had heard, specifically that John was the author. You either believe it, or not.Let's see:
John(the apostle)>>>Polycarp>>>Irenaeus>>>John(the evangelist)
Is this correct? So John the evangelist is a third generation Christian who got his information second hand. Even in a culture that values oral transmission the chance of getting the straight goods after 60 to 70 years is minimal.
Which New Testament book was written first? Mark. Or Pauls epistle to the Colossians?
don't know why you would want to phrase it in such a skeptical way?
I’d say Mark was written first because Colossians 2:8 cautions against deceptive philosophy (which by the way is still applicable to this conversation), so it seems a Christian philosophy would have already been established... what else could it have been but what Mark had written?Which New Testament book was written first? Mark. Or Pauls epistle to the Colossians?
Not a philosophy.I’d say Mark was written first because Colossians 2:8 cautions against deceptive philosophy (which by the way is still applicable to this conversation), so it seems a Christian philosophy would have already been established... what else could it have been but what Mark had written?
You got me again jeff... yes, not reason and rationality, but faith. I'm gonna have to watch you.Not a philosophy.
So, according to you, Jesus started off as "just a humble itinerant preacher" c.30 AD...
and over the ensuing decades, was gradually lionized into "Messiah, Lord of Lord, King of Kings, Focus of Creation & all human history"
So...
why was "just an itinerant preacher" Crucified in 30 AD ??
If Jesus was not already claiming to be Christ, Messiah, Lord of Lord & King of Kings... over & above & against Caesar & Temple Priesthood... why was he Crucified?
Why did Pilate put a sign over his head, "King of the Jews" ?
Secular history write of Pilot in a different light, versus the Bible.
No doubt Pilate probably was (and probably did) all the things you state, but why would the Bible accounts have portrayed him in a different light from what actually took place?In truth the Biblical portrayal of Pilate is far from factual. He was an ambitious, greedy and brutal man. He once ordered his troops into the temple to loot the treasury. It must be noted that he was not the first nor the last Roman governor to do this. This serves to indicate just how much he was swayed by the opinions or threats of the elders or the high priest who was after all his personal appointee. He was also responsible for the suppression of a number of rebellions at great loss of life. His main objective during his tenure of office seems to have been to be to see just how much he could get away with in offending Jewish religious sensibilities. He was eventually dismissed from office by the emperor for "causing an unnecessary massacre". I suppose that this is by way of contrast to all the necessary massacres he was responsible for. Are these the marks of a wimp? of a reasonable man? Certainly not! The trial of Jesus, if there was one, was in name only. Jesus had challenged Roman political authority.