'Gospel of Judas', Manuscript authenticated by carbon dating to 300 A.D

Asiaprod

For your enjoyment, here is the latest info on so called Gospel of Judas which would appear to tell a very different story of the betrayal

Text might be hidden 'Gospel of Judas', Manuscript authenticated by carbon dating to 300 A.D.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- For 2,000 years Judas has been reviled for betraying Jesus. Now a newly translated ancient document seeks to tell his side of the story.
The "Gospel of Judas" tells a far different tale from the four gospels in the New Testament. It portrays Judas as a favored disciple who was given special knowledge by Jesus -- and who turned him in at Jesus' request.
"You will be cursed by the other generations -- and you will come to rule over them," Jesus tells Judas in the document made public Thursday.
The text, one of several ancient documents found in the Egyptian desert in 1970, was preserved and translated by a team of scholars. It was made public in an English translation by the National Geographic Society.
Religious and lay readers alike will debate the meaning and truth of the manuscript.
But it does show the diversity of beliefs in early Christianity, said Marvin Meyer, professor of Bible studies at Chapman University in Orange, California.
The text, in the Coptic language, was dated to about the year 300 A.D. and is a copy of an earlier Greek version.
A "Gospel of Judas" was first mentioned around 180 A.D. by Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon, in what is now France. The bishop denounced the manuscript as heresy because it differed from mainstream Christianity. The actual text had been thought lost until this discovery.
Elaine Pagels, a professor of religion at Princeton University, said, "The people who loved, circulated and wrote down these gospels did not think they were heretics."
Added Rev. Donald Senior, president of the Catholic Theological Union of Chicago: "Let a vigorous debate on the significance of this fascinating ancient text begin."
Senior expressed doubt that the new gospel will rival the New Testament, but he allowed that opinions are likely to vary.
Craig Evans, a professor at Acadia Divinity College in Nova Scotia, Canada, said New Testament explanations for Judas' betrayal range from money to the influence of Satan.
"Perhaps more now can be said," he commented. The document "implies that Judas only did what Jesus wanted him to do."
Christianity in the ancient world was much more diverse than it is now, with a number of gospels circulating in addition to the four that were finally collected into the New Testament, noted Bart Ehrman, chairman of religious studies at the University of North Carolina.
Eventually, one point of view prevailed and the others were declared heresy, he said, including the Gnostics who believed that salvation depended on secret knowledge that Jesus imparted, particularly to Judas.
The newly translated document's text begins: "The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot."
In a key passage Jesus tells Judas, "You will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me."
This indicates that Judas would help liberate the spiritual self by helping Jesus get rid of his physical flesh, the scholars said.
"Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom," Jesus says to Judas, singling him out for special status. "Look, you have been told everything. Lift up your eyes and look at the cloud and the light within it and the stars surrounding it. The star that leads the way is your star."
The text ends with Judas turning Jesus over to the high priests and does not include any mention of the crucifixion or resurrection.
National Geographic said the author believed that Judas Iscariot alone understood the true significance of Jesus' teachings. The author of the text is not named in the writings.
Discovered in 1970, the papyrus was kept in a safety deposit box for several years and began to deteriorate before conservators restored it. More than 1,000 pieces had to be reassembled.
The material will be donated to the Coptic museum in Cairo, Egypt, so it can be available to all scholars said Ted Waitt of the Waitt Institute for Historical Discovery, which helped finance the restoration.
In addition to radio carbon dating, the manuscript was also authenticated through ink analysis, multispectral imaging, content and linguistic style and handwriting style, National Geographic reported.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Akrasia

Is this testament an argument in favour of allowing Euthenasia?
Judas helped to kill his close friend at his friends own request because he believed it was the only right thing to do?

Excelsior

300AD? That means it is as far from the events as we are from the US Declaration of Independence.

I really need to track down Thomas Jefferson's family tree and ask them what he was thinking....

This is a fascinating find that casts considerably more light on the huge spectrum of gnosticism that covered the Mediterranean. But it tells us as much about Christianity as it does Kabballah.

hairyheretic

Excelsior wrote:

300AD? That means it is as far from the events as we are from the US Declaration of Independence.

It might be fairer to say that that copy is as far from events as you say. In comparison, what is the earliest verified copy of any of the other gospels that has been found and dated?


The story also mentions a bishop denouncing it as heresy 120 years earlier. If a Bishop in France is denouncing it as heresy, that would imply to me that its been around for a while, and has some degree of widespread influence and/or popularity.

I've no idea the authenticity of this, but it might make for interesting reading.

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

300AD? That means it is as far from the events as we are from the US Declaration of Independence.

It wasn't written in 300AD it was copied in 300AD, so its as close to the events as any of the other versions of the New Testement, and closer than a lot of the modern translations people use today.

I'm not saying it is in any way historically accurate, but then none of the Bible is in any way historically accurate. It is not evidence for what actually happened to Jesus, but it is a very interesting document in relation to the beliefs of the early Christians.

Excelsior wrote:

But it tells us as much about Christianity as it does Kabballah.

Actually, as the article says, it tells us a lot of about the different beliefs and sects of the early Christians. It shows that the beliefs of the Christian church and the understanding of Christ's life are not as clear as one would think from looking at modern day Christian beliefs.

Excelsior

Wicknight wrote:

It wasn't written in 300AD it was copied in 300AD, so its as close to the events as any of the other versions of the New Testement, and closer than a lot of the modern translations people use today.

It is not closer than modern translations. Lads, modern translations are using documents from 110 to 150AD for each of the Gospels. These Gospel manuscripts are categorically the oldest of any of the Christianese documents around. (that should answer hh too)

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not saying it is in any way historically accurate, but then none of the Bible is in any way historically accurate. It is not evidence for what actually happened to Jesus, but it is a very interesting document in relation to the beliefs of the early Christians.

Lots of the Bible is historically accurate. All of the New Testament for example! You can't go around making those kinds of assertions without backing it up.

Wicknight wrote:

Actually, as the article says, it tells us a lot of about the different beliefs and sects of the early Christians. It shows that the beliefs of the Christian church and the understanding of Christ's life are not as clear as one would think from looking at modern day Christian beliefs.

Argh! If only there were more Jews in Ireland. The Judas codex is a Gnostic text. Gnosticism drew heavily on Christianity but it is not Christian. Practically everything that was written by Ireneaus or the rest of the Patristic fathers drips with the clear distinction between the Christian churches that were spreading across the Mediterranean and the Gnostic sects that pre-dated Christianity and drew on its philosophy. There is a slight of hand here that relies on an utter ignorance of:
1) Judaism in the 2nd Temple Period
2) The writings of the early church

Judaism as practiced in the 2nd Temple is far far removed from Gnostic thought. (Judaism however, would have given inspiration to the Gnostics who were the ultimate remixers ) And in the Gospels you will constantly see reference to Jesus' humanity. There is a thread going on in this forum at the moment where I am debating with people who doubt Jesus' divinity. In the Judas codex we have a belief system that distrusted all humanity. And yet the canon Gospels refer to Jesus eating (especially AFTER Resurrection), crying, sleeping, hurting. The Jews who wrote the Gospels (Luke excepted) were keen to clarify that Jesus was a man. And that after he came back from life after death, he was still a man, but different.

Familiarity with this earthy nature of Jewish thought that the Jews who founded Christianity brought with them (that Jesus as Jew would have held) would clarify the distinction between Christian churches (who held a tightly defined identity amongst themselves that spanned from Lyon to Jerusalem, from Cairo to Tipoli within 100 years) and the Gnostic sects.

2) All the writings of the Early Church fathers deal with the question "How then shall we live" in the post-Resurrection era. Even under persecution, they communicated across the known world with each other around a clearly articulated creed that found its basis in the "four-fold Gospel" (their phrase). This canonical Gospel are the 4 Gospels we use today and they were in unanimous use by 180AD when Ireneaus had a go at the Gnostics and their Judas codex.

Churches shared a common identity as "Christian" around key doctrinal issues and they distinguished themselves easily from Gnostic "heresies" which diverged from the doctrinal issues. It isn't fair to say that both are Christian. It is truer to say that there was a rapidly emerging Jesus movement which saw itself very clearly and was having a tremendous effect on the societies they lived in. Alongside that there was a pre-existing Spirtuality tradition much closer to Greek and Roman state religion which had a history of drawing on all kinds of faith and weaving them into a complex pattern.

The Gnostics didn't think they were Christians and the Christians didn't think they were Gnostics.

Furthermore, the Gnostics didn't think the historical details counted for much and the Christians based their whole argument on the fact that they knew Jesus in person.

joseph dawton

Excelsior has obvious in-depth knowledge of Christian history but somewhat coloured by a very strong personal opinion. I agree with Wicknight that none of the new testament or apocrypha can be verified as accurate in any respect other than place names or major historic events etc as also recorded by secular sources such as the Roman administration, local civil servants, or historians of that era.

Matters of religion are matters of opinion: because a large or influential group of 'Christians' approved a limited version (ie the 4 gospels that the modern churches have inherited) it does not necessarily invalidate the other 30 accounts in existence that were dismissed as heresy.

Carbon dating is only accurate within a hundred years or so, hence arguing about the chronology of one document over another within the first 300 years is pointless as these are all copies and it appears that none of the absolute originals still exist. As to the validity of their content - that is subjective and the interpretation depends on the agenda of the 'church' and its doctrines.

Things are no different today - the Greek Othordox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Coptic etc all use the 4 gospels but even so they have slightly different doctrines, rituals etc. Who is to say which of them is right, never mind the churches of 1800+ years ago?

http://www.electricpublications.com

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

It is not closer than modern translations. Lads, modern translations are using documents from 110 to 150AD for each of the Gospels. These Gospel manuscripts are categorically the oldest of any of the Christianese documents around. (that should answer hh too)

Well some parts are. Remember the New Testement was not a single book until the 4th century.

Most of the new editions are based on the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanu which both were written in the 4th century. These are some of the oldest "bibles" that survive today. The Novum Testamentum Graece, (the bible in the original Greek) which a lot of English modern bibles are based on, contains these along with other fragments of the gosspels that have been found over the years.

Excelsior wrote:

Lots of the Bible is historically accurate. All of the New Testament for example! You can't go around making those kinds of assertions without backing it up.

Nothing from that time that was written decades after the events it describes can be considered a serious historical document about said events. Add to the fact that the Bible was written as religious propaganda rather than a historical document.

Excelsior wrote:

The Judas codex is a Gnostic text. Gnosticism drew heavily on Christianity but it is not Christian. Practically everything that was written by Ireneaus or the rest of the Patristic fathers drips with the clear distinction between the Christian churches that were spreading across the Mediterranean and the Gnostic sects that pre-dated Christianity and drew on its philosophy.

Fair enough, if the distinction is important to you. I would note thought that the distinction is made by the early Christian preachers like Ireneaus. The phrase "History is written by the victor" springs to mind.

BrianCalgary

joseph dawton wrote:

Excelsior has obvious in-depth knowledge of Christian history but somewhat coloured by a very strong personal opinion. I agree with Wicknight that none of the new testament or apocrypha can be verified as accurate in any respect other than place names or major historic events etc as also recorded by secular sources such as the Roman administration, local civil servants, or historians of that era.

The entire New Testament has been shown to be true, through historical biographical analysis that is used by historians to test any historical event. Any historical document of the time written by both Jewish and Roman historians corroborate the events as recorded in the New Tesatament.

joseph dawton wrote:

Matters of religion are matters of opinion: because a large or influential group of 'Christians' approved a limited version (ie the 4 gospels that the modern churches have inherited) it does not necessarily invalidate the other 30 accounts in existence that were dismissed as heresy.

An influential group did not approve the version of the New Tesatamnet. Because of books like the gospel of Judas, that contradicted the generally accepted teachings of the NT, people wanted to know which ones to believe. The reason the books of the NT are their fits certain criteria, they had to be generally accepted, the author had to be connected to the apostles, and they had to fit within the teachings of Christ.

joseph dawton wrote:

Carbon dating is only accurate within a hundred years or so, hence arguing about the chronology of one document over another within the first 300 years is pointless as these are all copies and it appears that none of the absolute originals still exist. As to the validity of their content - that is subjective and the interpretation depends on the agenda of the 'church' and its doctrines.

The earliest copy of a New Tesatament book dates all the way back to I believe AD60. I will check where the fragment is and what book it is from. Doctrines and goals of a church depend on it's interpretation as any church worth it's salt allows the scripture to be their authority. As we demonstrate on this board again and again, we Christians disagree on some theologies, but we do not waver on the deity of Christ, the authenticity and authority of the bible and salvation through Christ alone. The other issues are fun to discuss and bring us into the word.

joseph dawton wrote:

Things are no different today - the Greek Othordox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Coptic etc all use the 4 gospels but even so they have slightly different doctrines, rituals etc. Who is to say which of them is right, never mind the churches of 1800+ years ago?

http://www.electricpublications.com

See above.

Akrasia

BrianCalgary wrote:

The entire New Testament has been shown to be true, through historical biographical analysis that is used by historians to test any historical event. Any historical document of the time written by both Jewish and Roman historians corroborate the events as recorded in the New Tesatament.

You can not make that categorical assertion. Historians disagree about events that happened only a few decades ago, and that is for events that have far more primary data to investigate.
One can not verify any of the important parts of the new Testiment with enough certainty to say that they were definitely true. Many of the events were only witnessed first hand by a handful of people, and the accounts are rarely first hand observations, and are often based on rumour and legend.

Yossie

The search for a historical Jesus has completely failed. There is an obvious absence of a “human Jesus” in any of the earlier first century documents. No mention of details of his life and ministry, the circumstances of his death, the nature of his teachings, nor any description of his miracles. The other people/places of the myth, like Mary, Joseph, John, Judas, Calvary, and Pilate also fail to receive a mention in any of the christian correspondence of the first century. Naturally, he is also absent from the non-christian texts. What they do refer to is a mythical transcendent “christ Jesus” who is the son of god and who is revealed to them by god through the holy spirit, not history. This “christ Jesus” is combined with the already well established Mithras tradition to give us the gospel narrative.

Taking the gospels as historically accurate is ludicrous. It’s agreed that Mark was the first to be written and that it was probably based on two earlier sources; Thomas and Q. Both of these have central themes that are about “teachings” (based around ideas from the Greek Cynics), not salvation through death. Perhaps “historical” journeys/analysis of people with a deep faith on the subject ain’t really all that objective.

BrianCalgary

Akrasia wrote:

You can not make that categorical assertion. Historians disagree about events that happened only a few decades ago, and that is for events that have far more primary data to investigate. .

Yes you can. When you apply the rules of historical biographical evidence to the available manuscripts, of which there are over 24,000 of the NT within 1,000 years of the events. In comparison the next in line is the Iliad at just over 900 within 1,000 years. The evidence behind the events of the New Testament are far more abundant than any other ancient historical event.

Akrasia wrote:

One can not verify any of the important parts of the new Testiment with enough certainty to say that they were definitely true. Many of the events were only witnessed first hand by a handful of people, and the accounts are rarely first hand observations, and are often based on rumour and legend.

The accounts of the NT were witnessed by far more than just a handful of people, based on eyewitness accounts. It is interesting to note that none of the events of the NT are contradicted by any other writing. The crucifixion as an example was witnessed by hundreds of thousands as it was the Passover in Jerusalem, and since Christ's ministry had taken place over the last three years, everyone would have been aware of all the miracles and messages that Christ performed and gave.

Fewer people witnessed Washington crossing the Delaware, but that happened. Fewer still saw the Little Big Horn. To mention a few modern events.

Would you ague with any of the events mentioned in this essay?

http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/caesar.html

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

The entire New Testament has been shown to be true,

Actually hardly any of the New Testament has been "shown" to be true by external sources. Which isn't really surprising given the time, but the assertion that everything described in the New Testement definiately happened is seriously flawed. There is no proper evidence for that.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

The crucifixion as an example was witnessed by hundreds of thousands as it was the Passover in Jerusalem, and since Christ's ministry had taken place over the last three years, everyone would have been aware of all the miracles and messages that Christ performed and gave.

And how many of those hundreds of thousands recorded the event, or where around 80 years later when it was first written down to complain that someone had got the facts wrong?

Besides, hundreds of thousands did not witness the resurrection, that last supper, the market square etc etc. In fact the cruixifiction is the lost probably of all events described in the Bible, but the least important to Chrisitans since there is very little "teaching" in being nailed to cross.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Actually hardly any of the New Testament has been "shown" to be true by external sources. Which isn't really surprising given the time, but the assertion that everything described in the New Testement definiately happened is seriously flawed. There is no proper evidence for that.

There certainly is. Supported by Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and other historians from the period.

Without the NT we know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth. Was a carpenter. He spent three years wandering the area of Judea. He ticked off the Pharisees with His philosphy. We know that people worshipped Him as God and claimed that He was resurrected from the dead.

The movement He started grew by leaps and bounds and was considered a threat to Roman and Jew. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

Without the NT we know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth. Was a carpenter. He spent three years wandering the area of Judea. He ticked off the Pharisees with His philosphy. We know that people worshipped Him as God and claimed that He was resurrected from the dead.

Now, I'm no expert, but doesn't Tacitus only refer to Christianity as a new sect of Judaism and simply comments on what they believe.

Yossie

BrianCalgary wrote:

There certainly is. Supported by Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and other historians from the period.

Without the NT we know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth. Was a carpenter. He spent three years wandering the area of Judea. He ticked off the Pharisees with His philosphy. We know that people worshipped Him as God and claimed that He was resurrected from the dead.

The movement He started grew by leaps and bounds and was considered a threat to Roman and Jew. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

Untrue! There are no non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any known historian of the time during and after Jesus's purported advent.

Josephus www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

Pliny/Tacitus www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm

BrianCalgary

Yossie wrote:

Untrue! There are no non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any known historian of the time during and after Jesus's purported advent.

Josephus www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

Pliny/Tacitus www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm

Sorry but I have read excerpts of Josephus, Pliny and Tacitus and all of them talk about Jesus.

Acharya S seems to have an agenda to disprove the historians that are in agreement on the authenticity of the writings that I have read? Plus, book sales.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Without the NT we know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth. Was a carpenter. He spent three years wandering the area of Judea. He ticked off the Pharisees with His philosphy. We know that people worshipped Him as God and claimed that He was resurrected from the dead.

Not really.

Josephus does referr to a man named Jesus twice, and that he was executed for being the leader of a Jewish movement. But little of the person is described. There is also doubt that this description is even authentic as it seems to contradict other writings of Josephus.

Phily references a Jewish cult known as Christius, but not Jesus himself.

Tacitus again discribed the Christian cult and that their lead was executed. But he gets a lot of his facts wrong, including the position of Pilate, which isn't surprising considering he was born 100 years after Jesus.

There is a complete lack of mention of Jesus in the Jewish records of the time, which isn't that surprising considering it was a small cult or little importance (at the time).

But again, none of this athenticates the events described in the New Testement.

What we can be nearly certain of is that there was an religious movement taking place around 50-BCE-10CE that involved Jewish beliving the messiah had returned. This cult had a leader, possibly a few, that developed into the Jesus figurehead. He, or at least one of the leaders, was probably executed. This wouldn't have been surprising, a lot of people were executed.

Beyond that things get, historically speaking at least, very sketchy. You certainly cannot take passages of the New Testement that describe converstaions, actions, event etc and say with any level of seriousness that they actually happened as described.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Beyond that things get, historically speaking at least, very sketchy. You certainly cannot take passages of the New Testement that describe converstaions, actions, event etc and say with any level of seriousness that they actually happened as described.

Why not? The oral tradition of the time was fully entrenched. The writers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John recorded what was dictated to them by the apostles. So yes you can take what was written as being what actually happened.

How many times do you need Josephus to refer to Jesus before you would accept the fact that He did exist? Those who doubt the authenticity of the Josephus writings have been found to be incorrect.

Pliny refers to Jesus and His followers.

One of the best books that covers the whole topic of the historic Jesus is 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel. Well worth the read.

Akrasia

Why not? The oral tradition of the time was fully entrenched. The writers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John recorded what was dictated to them by the apostles. So yes you can take what was written as being what actually happened.

Brian, previously you mentioned that the second best documented event of that period, after the life and times of jesus, was Homer's Iliad.
Do you believe that the Iliad is a historical document?

This was an example of the kind of oral tradition that existed at the time. (the Iliad and Odyssey were oral stories handed down until they were written down in poetic verse) Stories, that may have been based on true events, were embellished and exaggerated so that heros are born and amazing feats are achieved with the help of the Gods.

BrianCalgary

Akrasia wrote:

Brian, previously you mentioned that the second best documented event of that period, after the life and times of jesus, was Homer's Iliad.
Do you believe that the Iliad is a historical document?

This was an example of the kind of oral tradition that existed at the time. (the Iliad and Odyssey were oral stories handed down until they were written down in poetic verse) Stories, that may have been based on true events, were embellished and exaggerated so that heros are born and amazing feats are achieved with the help of the Gods.

No the Iliad is not a historical document nor was it ever presented as anything but mythical fiction. The point, that I didn't make very well, is that what we have of the Iliad is accepted to be what Homer actually wrote and it pales in comparison to the manuscript evidence on the NT. Which means that what we currently have as the NT is as it was written by the original authors.

Now did the authors write about what actually happened? Absolutely. That is corroborated by the accounts of the times by other historical authors of the period.

There is no doubt by historians about the existence of Jesus or what He accomplished.

robindch

> There is no doubt by historians about the existence of Jesus or
> what He accomplished.

I'd be tempted to rephrase it that nobody's in any very serious doubt that a man called Jesus Christ, or something similar, lived in first-century Palestine and was alluded to by a few contemporaneous authors, as many more were.

What many, many people do doubt, however, is that the stories that were written down about him are historically accurate. Almost all of the "important" bits appeared in previous religious texts (the trinity, the resurrection, the assumption, coming to judge, etc, etc) and none of these are reported as fact by any external authorities. Given, for example, Pliny's ability to produce unlikely stories and his extensive writings on medicine, doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that he wouldn't have mentioned the case of the death and coming back to life of a man, had it happened? Or could you admit the possibility that this particular bit could have been invented, or copied over from Zoroastrianism, when the NT texts were written, or added sometime soon afterwards?

Almost all of the texts of the time are replete with grand magical events and amazing feats of endurance etc. In the ancient style of biography, it was normal to put words into the mouth of the subject, in which the author wrote what he thought the subject would say. It's therefore a trifle presumptous to assume that the NT texts accurately report exactly what happened, or even what JC said, assuming he existed.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Why not? The oral tradition of the time was fully entrenched.
...
So yes you can take what was written as being what actually happened.

It would be very historically flawed to make that assumption.

People exaggerate, people make details up, people forget things, and people fill in the blanks with there own stories. You only have to look at examples of modern day religions (scienitology for example, or any number of cults) to see how stories and exaggerations can develop very quickly, even in this age of digial recordings and instant messaging. Look at the modern day myths that surround things like asylum seekers (a friend of a friend of a friend knows they get hair cuts and spending money) or the gossip of celebraties. Hell watch the scene of the slipper in Life of Brian for a comical example

The writters of the gosspels were not trying to correctly record history, they were interested in spreading their religion. The were doing that through these stories.

What we can be pretty sure of was that there was some Jewish cult around between 50 B.C.E and 50 B.E that was developing and causing trouble for local authorities. They believed the messiah had returned. It probably had a leader (ie Jesus, who was the Christ or messiah) or possibly a number of different leader. One, or a number of them, were probably executed, possibly by cruxificion, why exactly is not clear.

Beyond that the details of the New Testement should be taken with a grain of salt.

toothfairy

BrianCalgary wrote:

Sorry but I have read excerpts of Josephus, Pliny and Tacitus and all of them talk about Jesus.
Acharya S seems to have an agenda to disprove the historians that are in agreement on the authenticity of the writings that I have read? Plus, book sales.

I suggest you read all the material and not just excerpts or secondary sources for these ancient historians.

Everyone has an agenda, but to suggest Acharya S or anyone else's agenda is anything but the honorable search (which you might claim) and revelation of Truths is disingenous. It is no arguement at all against the falsehoods spread about what Josephus, Pliny or Tacitus said, nor the certain integrity of the material as we have received it today.

If you are really interested in truth, then you will read the post articles by Acharya S and then if you wish show proof of where she is wrong.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

The writters of the gosspels were not trying to correctly record history, they were interested in spreading their religion. The were doing that through these stories.

What we can be pretty sure of was that there was some Jewish cult around between 50 B.C.E and 50 B.E that was developing and causing trouble for local authorities. They believed the messiah had returned. It probably had a leader (ie Jesus, who was the Christ or messiah) or possibly a number of different leader. One, or a number of them, were probably executed, possibly by cruxificion, why exactly is not clear.

Beyond that the details of the New Testement should be taken with a grain of salt.

Luke certainly did. He was very commited to historical detail. Hence his writings were accurate. Jesus was not the leader of the church as Christianity did not grow until after the resurrection. The leaders of the church were the apostles who took the gospel to the rest of the world.

Christianity was a religion that suffered huge persecutions to th efirst generation after Christ died. One of the reasons for the persecution was because the religion was a threat to the leadership of the time. All the leadership had to do was disprove any of the events of Christ's life that made Him to be God. Such as His miracles and especially the resurrection. Disprove the resurrection and the cult dies. But they couldn't disprove it, why because it was true. It was witnessed by too many people who were still alive. So it was true. Should I believe eyewitnesses to the events or a book written by someone in the 20th or 21st century?

As for the deaths of the apostles the only one that is not recorded is John who died while in exile on the Island of Patmos.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Luke certainly did. He was very commited to historical detail. Hence his writings were accurate.

What are you basing that on, did you know him personally?

Besides the gosspal of luke was written at least later than 70CE and was probably based on the writing of Mark, or at the very least Paul.

Also the earliest records of Luke date from 3rd century CE, nearly 200 years after they would have originally been written.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Jesus was not the leader of the church as Christianity did not grow until after the resurrection.

Jesus was the leader of a small Jewish cult. That is one of the only things that is verified by external sources (weakly mind)

BrianCalgary wrote:

Christianity was a religion that suffered huge persecutions to th efirst generation after Christ died.

No more than any of the other unoffical religions.

BrianCalgary wrote:

One of the reasons for the persecution was because the religion was a threat to the leadership of the time.

Not really. Christianity was not recorded in any of the Jewish legal documents from the time. It is doubtful it was taken that seriously.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Disprove the resurrection and the cult dies.

Yeah, and to stop Heavens Gate all topping themselves you just have to explain that there isn't a space ship hidden behind a comet. Unfortunately religion doesn't really work like that.

BrianCalgary wrote:

It was witnessed by too many people who were still alive. So it was true. Should I believe eyewitnesses to the events or a book written by someone in the 20th or 21st century?

Who witnessed it? Who witnessed it that wasn't part of the religion (ie independent) and who didn't record this event decades after it happened?

archdukefranz

Wicknight wrote:

What are you basing that on, did you know him personally?

You claim that the Gospel writers weren't trying to record history but spread their religion, assuming that you hold yourself to the same standard you hold Brian to then you must know all the gospel writers?

Wicknight wrote:

Besides the gosspal of luke was written at least later than

Wicknight wrote:

70CE and was probably based on the writing of Mark, or at the very least Paul.

That is a possibility, but it is also possible that the person who wrote it met Jesus... more likely is that he met people that met Jesus.

Wicknight wrote:

Jesus was the leader of a small Jewish cult. That is one of the only things that is verified by external sources (weakly mind)

What qualifies it as a cult? You don't use the word lightly I trust?

Wicknight wrote:

No more than any of the other unoffical religions.

How did you measure that?
I'm not being smart, I can't even start to think of a way to measure level of persecution.

Wicknight wrote:

Not really. Christianity was not recorded in any of the Jewish legal documents from the time. It is doubtful it was taken that seriously.

Thats odd for a religion that spread so quickly don't you think?

Wicknight wrote:

Yeah, and to stop Heavens Gate all topping themselves you just have to explain that there isn't a space ship hidden behind a comet. Unfortunately religion doesn't really work like that.

It must be great to feel justified in generalising the relgious as nutjobs.
I wish I could make such generalisations in good conscience.
Comparing Christians to a cult trying to commit suicide is low to put it simply.

Wicknight wrote:

Who witnessed it? Who witnessed it that wasn't part of the religion (ie independent) and who didn't record this event decades after it happened?

Thats hardly unusual for the only historical documents we have to be written many years after the event

UU

It sounds like an interesting read indeed! It is good as it portrays parts of Christianity in a different light and expands one's understanding. I do think that many take the Bible too serious not on a spiritual scale but on a historical basis.

So what if the Red Sea never parted or God created the world in six days or even if Judas "betrayed" Jesus? What's done is done and IMO it is totally irrelevant in this day and age. I'm not saying that none of the events in the Bible never happened but each story tells a tale of humankind that is still relevant today. Today, people continuously betray each other but there is always forgiveness.

That's what I like most about the Bible. I really don't care if Jesus was really the son of God or not or if Judas really did betray him but that there is the pure possibility of a different meaning in every text which tells us something about the world in which we live in.

Daniel

Zombrex

archdukefranz wrote:

You claim that the Gospel writers weren't trying to record history but spread their religion, assuming that you hold yourself to the same standard you hold Brian to then you must know all the gospel writers?

Know, we know this because they were trying to spread there religion, all their actions point to this. Its obvious. Brain claimed Luke was very interested in historical accuracy. There is no evidence of that.

archdukefranz wrote:

That is a possibility, but it is also possible that the person who wrote it met Jesus... more likely is that he met people that met Jesus.

Exactly, he met people who claimed to have met Jesus, years before. So even if Luke was very careful about what he recorded all his information was at the very best second hand

archdukefranz wrote:

What qualifies it as a cult? You don't use the word lightly I trust?

A cult is a small religious following, normally devote of proper organisational structure, and normally on the finges of a more mainstream religion. Which is exactly what the early Christians were. A cult.

archdukefranz wrote:

How did you measure that?

You measure it by the records of how the Romans dealth with unoffical religions. The authorities dealth with the Christians in exactly the same way they dealt with any other new religion of the time, and there were a few. There is no reason to believe the Christians were in any way exceptional in this regard.

archdukefranz wrote:

Thats odd for a religion that spread so quickly don't you think?

Define "quickly". Actually define "odd".

Islam spread much much quicker than Christianity, so if that is the bentchmark of a good religion then I guess we should all be praying to Allah.

archdukefranz wrote:

Comparing Christians to a cult trying to commit suicide is low to put it simply.

You used the term "nut job" not me.

I would point out early Christians were prepared to endure death by being eatten alive by Lions rather than give up their faith. That seems pretty fundamentalist to me. One mans fundamentalist is another mans true believer.

The point was the idea that all the Romans had to do was explain to them that Christ didn't actually rise from the death and they would give up their faith, is ridiculous in the extreme.

archdukefranz wrote:

Thats hardly unusual for the only historical documents we have to be written many years after the event

Its not unusual at all. Still doesn't mean they are in any way accurate though does it?

archdukefranz

Wicknight wrote:

Know, we know this because they were trying to spread there religion, all their actions point to this. Its obvious. Brain claimed Luke was very interested in historical accuracy. There is no evidence of that.

Look stop answering something I didn't ask and please don't say its obvious, that just shows up your lack of ability to understand that 2 reasonable people can disaggree on something basic and really makes me more apathic about this arguement.

If you want to have a argument about the motives of Luke with Brian, question what makes him think that using the evidence available, if you ask did he know luke personally, you set a standard you fail in.

Wicknight wrote:

Exactly, he met people who claimed to have met Jesus, years before. So even if Luke was very careful about what he recorded all his information was at the very best second hand

You are not aggreeing with me, why say "exactly"? I said its a likely possibility you say its a fact.

Wicknight wrote:

A cult is a small religious following, normally devote of proper organisational structure, and normally on the finges of a more mainstream religion. Which is exactly what the early Christians were. A cult.

A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
Thats the definition of a cult I took from dictionary.com, it seems to be the most commonly used meaning.
You define a cult using words not considered derogatary, do you not know that this word implies something bad?

Wicknight wrote:

You measure it by the records of how the Romans dealth with unoffical religions. The authorities dealth with the Christians in exactly the same way they dealt with any other new religion of the time, and there were a few. There is no reason to believe the Christians were in any way exceptional in this regard.

Oh you are talking about solely within the Roman empire, I thought you meant within a larger scale. I find it hard to believe that the number of Christians punished for religious reasons didn't outnumber other religions?

Wicknight wrote:

Define "quickly". Actually define "odd".

Islam spread much much quicker than Christianity, so if that is the bentchmark of a good religion then I guess we should all be praying to Allah.

You are arguing the wrong argument, I'm comparing Christianity to whatever was around at the time, not a religion that came 500 years later.
Islam spread the same way "Christianity" did during the Crusades, through power. It was more advantageous for the people under such power to be of that religion. The first time Christians recieved such power was when Constantine became a Christian, something I personally think we would have done better off without.

Wicknight wrote:

You used the term "nut job" not me.

I would point out early Christians were prepared to endure death by being eatten alive by Lions rather than give up their faith. That seems pretty fundamentalist to me. One mans fundamentalist is another mans true believer.

I just filled in your blanks
You did as much as write n*t job
People have fought killed and died over a lot less than the right to believe in the religion of your choice. Do you not admire Martin Luther King's fight for civil rights? Did he not risk his life in what he did, and in the end lose it.

Wicknight wrote:

The point was the idea that all the Romans had to do was explain to them that Christ didn't actually rise from the death and they would give up their faith, is ridiculous in the extreme.

It wasn't simply the Romans but rather the Jewish Scholars at the time, of which there were many didn't seem to make any move to stop this movement.
Granted not everyone would have left, but had they been able to prove that Jesus wasn't the messiah in the scriptures or explain to the people why the stone was rolled back Christianity would have died out.

Wicknight wrote:

Its not unusual at all. Still doesn't mean they are in any way accurate though does it?

No but I'm not arguing for their accuracy, I'm arguing that the standard by which a document is considered historically valid is achieved within these documents. What are you trying to argue?

archdukefranz

UU wrote:

It sounds like an interesting read indeed! It is good as it portrays parts of Christianity in a different light and expands one's understanding. I do think that many take the Bible too serious not on a spiritual scale but on a historical basis.

So what if the Red Sea never parted or God created the world in six days or even if Judas "betrayed" Jesus? What's done is done and IMO it is totally irrelevant in this day and age. I'm not saying that none of the events in the Bible never happened but each story tells a tale of humankind that is still relevant today. Today, people continuously betray each other but there is always forgiveness.

That's what I like most about the Bible. I really don't care if Jesus was really the son of God or not or if Judas really did betray him but that there is the pure possibility of a different meaning in every text which tells us something about the world in which we live in.

Daniel

Are you saying that the Bible has worth without God?
The Bible is about mans relationship with God, if there is not God of the Bible then whats the point in the book. If that God exists but the Bible is not accurate in some parts, what parts are they and how do you know, then once again the Bible is pointless.
Either the Bible is true and is worth something, or you say what you just said and the Bible can sit on bookshelves and look pretty.

Zombrex

archdukefranz wrote:

Look stop answering something I didn't ask and please don't say its obvious, that just shows up your lack of ability to understand that 2 reasonable people can disaggree on something basic and really makes me more apathic about this arguement.

You asked me how I can say that they writers of the Bible were interested in spreading their religion. Apart from it being blindingly obvious they were interested in spreading their religion, hence all the Bible writing :rolleyes: , it is also backed up by the writing itself and the actions of the early christians, they way they spread and preached.

archdukefranz wrote:

If you want to have a argument about the motives of Luke with Brian, question what makes him think that using the evidence available, if you ask did he know luke personally, you set a standard you fail in.

I did ask him. Twice. So far no answer. Not going to hold my breath ...

archdukefranz wrote:

You are not aggreeing with me, why say "exactly"? I said its a likely possibility you say its a fact.

What?

At the very most Luke only had second hand stories of the events around Jesus life.

archdukefranz wrote:

A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

That described the early Christians perfectly, don't you think.

archdukefranz wrote:

do you not know that this word implies something bad?

The goodness or badness of a cult is relative. It ain't bad if you are in it. Both the Romans and the Jewish autorities considered the early Christians bad. The Christians themselves obviously didn't

archdukefranz wrote:

I find it hard to believe that the number of Christians punished for religious reasons didn't outnumber other religions?

Why?

archdukefranz wrote:

People have fought killed and died over a lot less than the right to believe in the religion of your choice.

And? Do you even know what point you are arguing?

Brian claimed that all the Romans had to do was disprove the resurrenction happened and that would be that. He was using this as (very weak) evidence that the resurrection must have happened other wise the Romans would have just explained to the early christians that it didn't happen. That, as I explained, is not how religion works, be it Heaven Gate, Christiainity or Martin Luther King (no idea how he got into this discussion).

archdukefranz wrote:

It wasn't simply the Romans but rather the Jewish Scholars at the time, of which there were many didn't seem to make any move to stop this movement.

It was too small and not that different from all the other religions springing up at the time.

archdukefranz wrote:

Granted not everyone would have left, but had they been able to prove that Jesus wasn't the messiah in the scriptures or explain to the people why the stone was rolled back Christianity would have died out.

Prove how? Brian was working under the assumption that hundreds witnessed and recorded the resurrection, which like most of this, is nonsense.

archdukefranz wrote:

No but I'm not arguing for their accuracy, I'm arguing that the standard by which a document is considered historically valid is achieved within these documents. What are you trying to argue?

I'm arguing that the Bible cannot be considered at all an accurate record of history it describes since it was written decades after the events, often written by people who weren't there but got the descriptions second hand, and written as a propaganda piece for a small religion.

BendiBus

I haven't time to read through the thread, but there's a programme about this on National Geographic right now, 9-11pm

Scofflaw

archdukefranz wrote:

Are you saying that the Bible has worth without God?
The Bible is about mans relationship with God, if there is not God of the Bible then whats the point in the book. If that God exists but the Bible is not accurate in some parts, what parts are they and how do you know, then once again the Bible is pointless.
Either the Bible is true and is worth something, or you say what you just said and the Bible can sit on bookshelves and look pretty.

If you listen to the story of any relationship, such as between a man and a woman, you can form a pretty clear picture of the relationship itself, despite the way the facts are usually misremembered or distorted. Same with the Bible - it's possible to read it and come away with an idea of how it thinks man should relate to God - you don't have to follow the history at all, or believe it.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

archdukefranz wrote:

If you want to have a argument about the motives of Luke with Brian, question what makes him think that using the evidence available, if you ask did he know luke personally, you set a standard you fail in.

Brian has suggested something that is non-obvious (that Luke was a stickler for accuracy), wicknight is suggesting something completely obvious (that the apostles were trying to spread Christianity). His standard, of personally knowing Luke, is relevant for Brian's assertion, but not for his.

regards,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

archdukefranz wrote:

Are you saying that the Bible has worth without God?
The Bible is about mans relationship with God, if there is not God of the Bible then whats the point in the book.

I think his point is that you can still take away the central moral messages from a book like the New Testement (be good to each other, love each other, don't judge or discriminate, you know, all that crap ) without having to actually believe it is coming from a god or believe any of the supernatural elements, or even believe any of it happened.

Even if the Bible is just a book written by a bunch of men 2000 years ago, it's lessons and stories still can hold moral value. I mean the tortoius didn't really race the hare, but you can still get the message behind that.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

I did ask him. Twice. So far no answer. Not going to hold my breath ...
.

The four gospels are written from different points of view. Matthew's is targeted to Jewish leaders. Matthew was a tax collector also known as Levi.Written before AD70
Mark was the son of Mary, his cousin was Barnabas and he travelled with Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey. He stresses facts in his gospel writing. Written about AD55
Luke was a physician and a companion of Paul. He wrote between AD59 and 63. He wrote with Gentiles in mind explaining Jewish customs.
Written by the apostle John about AD85. It accentuates evangelism. Explaining issues as opposed to giving a chronological account of Jesus' life.

Wicknight wrote:

At the very most Luke only had second hand stories of the events around Jesus life. .

I received a second hand account of yesterdays Chelsea match? Do I believe the accounts or not? The accounts are from people who were at the match. As are the accounts from the gospel writers written on advice from thoses who witnessed the event.

Wicknight wrote:

Brian claimed that all the Romans had to do was disprove the resurrenction happened and that would be that. He was using this as (very weak) evidence that the resurrection must have happened other wise the Romans would have just explained to the early christians that it didn't happen. That, as I explained, is not how religion works, be it Heaven Gate, Christiainity or Martin Luther King (no idea how he got into this discussion).

The whole of Christianity hinges on the resurrection. If it doesn't happen we have nobody to put our trust in. Over 500 people witnessed the risen Christ. The Romans had possesion of the body. All they had to do was produce it and no more Christianity, it would have died. There is not one single ancient writing that says the resurrection didn't happen, yet we have the testimonies of eyewitnesses who said it did. This is not a weak argument. When you study history, you read accounts of events from different points of view and try to determine what did happen. Unfortunately for the anti-Christian crowd there are no writings to take from regarding the resurrection.

Wicknight wrote:

Prove how? Brian was working under the assumption that hundreds witnessed and recorded the resurrection, which like most of this, is nonsense.

Not an assumption. Paul refers to the over 500 witnesses that were still alive at the time. Meaning that if you don't believe what he is saying and want to check, here are those who saw it.

Just as if I don't believe Chelsea won yesterday, there are probably millions who did witness it. All I have to do is ask any one of them and I can get my report.

Wicknight wrote:

I'm arguing that the Bible cannot be considered at all an accurate record of history it describes since it was written decades after the events, often written by people who weren't there but got the descriptions second hand, and written as a propaganda piece for a small religion.

An this is were your are mistaken. The Bible has been shown time again to be an accurate account of the life of one Jesus of Nazareth, His teachings, activities and the growth of His church. Just as Josephus' writings are an accurate account of history, as are Tacitus' and Pliny, etc.

Excelsior

Wicknight wrote:

It would be very historically flawed to make that assumption.

I don't think he was extending an assumption. He was extending an argument.

Wicknight wrote:

People exaggerate, people make details up, people forget things, and people fill in the blanks with there own stories.

Are there examples you can think of in our society where this wide tendency is neutered by the genre of testimony demanded? Let me propose an example: court. Here, society recognises the tendency to exaggerate and demands that we curb that natural impulse. Further, our oath bound submissions are tested and investigated before being considered fully.

Now consider an oral culture (where preservation of important data has been proven in societies in the 20th Century, never mind the 1st, to be more than possible within oral traditions) that was dealing with a claim that the promised hope it had built its identity around for the whole of its life had come true. It is faith on your behalf, and perhaps a reverse naivety of histography that leads you to your refutations. It certainly isn't evidence.

Wicknight wrote:

You only have to look at examples of modern day religions (scienitology for example, or any number of cults) to see how stories and exaggerations can develop very quickly, even in this age of digial recordings and instant messaging.

You are not comparing like with like. There is no ancient equivalent to clambake.org refuting the claims of Christ. There is no comparison between the couple of million people scattered around who believe Hubbard's nonsense and the extent and growth of the Christian "cult".

Wicknight wrote:

Look at the modern day myths that surround things like asylum seekers (a friend of a friend of a friend knows they get hair cuts and spending money) or the gossip of celebraties. Hell watch the scene of the slipper in Life of Brian for a comical example

And your post initially began as a critique of someone else's historical methodology...

Wicknight wrote:

The writters of the gosspels were not trying to correctly record history, they were interested in spreading their religion. The were doing that through these stories.

The writers of the Gospel literally describe their purpose as recording the things they and their friends had seen happen. They, like all historians, had a perspective but that in no way reflects on their ability to describe events. They, like all historians, intended their accounts to be promulgated. What you have described is assumption without evidence. The sheer weight of cultural belief against Christianity will carry your argument in this forum but I doubt the realisation that what you have written is faith can be silenced.

Wicknight wrote:

What we can be pretty sure of was that there was some Jewish cult around between 50 B.C.E and 50 B.E that was developing and causing trouble for local authorities. They believed the messiah had returned. It probably had a leader (ie Jesus, who was the Christ or messiah) or possibly a number of different leader. One, or a number of them, were probably executed, possibly by cruxificion, why exactly is not clear.

I am sorry but I'm gonna have to call time on this conjecture. Whatever the substance of the claims made by Christianity, it is dated without controversy to 40AD onwards, when the first segments of Paul's letter to Thessalonika have been discovered. That is, about 8 years after the certain death of Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph. It is not even historically accurate to simply say they believed the Messiah had returned, since "they" would have understood the Messiah as a political liberator until they saw Jesus' mission unfold. There is no argument I have ever come across that there were different or more leaders than Jesus of Nazareth. Of the over 100 Messiah movements we have evidence for, the movement initially called The Way that held that Jesus was the Messiah but not what was expected of Messiah stands utterly different to the apparently parallel movements. It is also without doubt that he was convicted and crucified for the claim of Kingship, as was each of the other Messiah figures. The major difference between Jesus of Nazareth and all the rest is that after he died, his movement began. People made these utterly bizarre claims to have seen him alive, back from the after-life.

Beyond that point, the details of the New Testement should be taken with a heavy historical weight as they discuss how this movement began to work out its self-understanding.

Akrasia

Excelsior, are you trying to suggest that people didn't make things up 2,000 years ago and that we've only started exaggerating things in modern society?

The Oral tradition doesn;t mean that everyone remembered everything exactly as they happened.
Once again, the example of the Iliad comes up, It was most likely a story of a real battle that was passed down through generations until it became the legend of Troy.
Now, obviously nobody believes in all the spectacular things that were mentioned in the Iliad, but this is because many generations had passed between the truth and the legend finally being written down. With christ, the events were recorded within 100 years (probably) and there weren't too many amazing qualities attributed to christ apart from the few miracles (walking on water, raising people from the dead, loaves and fishes, curing lepers...) These are stories that are believable enough to pass as 'truth' but exciting enough that people would be really impressed by them.

The fact that there weren't internet watchdogs and an inquisitive press means that nobody could challenge the claims that Jesus had lived without sin. There are televangalists out there today who have supporters who believe they are wonderful people, and this is despite the evidence available to them. People will believe what they want to believe, and others will write down, what they want others to believe.

3greenrizla's

...i think this thread has gone a bit off track, but most of the above is over my head, so what do i know?

however,

BrianCalgary wrote:

The four gospels are written from different points of view.

would the gospel of judas (& mary magdelen & whoever else) not show even different view points, giving us a greater understanding of jesus?

i believe the bible is very heavily edited, but why dose the church seem to turn away from anything that is not matthew mark luke or john?

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

Now consider an oral culture (where preservation of important data has been proven in societies in the 20th Century, never mind the 1st, to be more than possible within oral traditions) that was dealing with a claim that the promised hope it had built its identity around for the whole of its life had come true. It is faith on your behalf, and perhaps a reverse naivety of histography that leads you to your refutations. It certainly isn't evidence.

I'm not quite sure what point you are making, but if it is that oral story telling is an accurate way of recording history over decades I would have to say that that is, as Akrasia describes, nonsense. Oral history is the worst form of historical recording.

Excelsior wrote:

You are not comparing like with like. There is no ancient equivalent to clambake.org refuting the claims of Christ.

Exactly, they were spreading these stories and history in a vacume. No one would have challanged the accuracy of any of the events since very few even knew of them.

Excelsior wrote:

The writers of the Gospel literally describe their purpose as recording the things they and their friends had seen happen. They, like all historians, had a perspective but that in no way reflects on their ability to describe events.

No, what reflects on their ability to describe the events accurately is their faith in the religion itself.

Take something like ghost watching. If you take someone who really believes in ghosts to a "haunted house" and make them spend the night there you can be pretty sure they will come out saying they saw a ghost. Does that mean there actually was a ghost there? No idea. You can't really say either way. You can't take the believers descriptions at face value, because they are biased. You need a neutral record of events. If you take someone who has no opinion on ghosts and they see something too, then you are on to something.

The problem with the Bible from a histoical point of view is that it is written by biassed parties. There is very little that is neutral that you can compare it too.

I'm not saying they made it all up. We don't know either way, thats my point.

Excelsior

Quick response to Wicknight:
You have not cited any examples or even any sources to back up your faith assertion that oral tradition is the "worst" record keeping mechanism. What you are trying to do is pass of a common fallacy as truth. But there are lots of examples of successful oral traditions even in the 20th century.

Christianity, whatever about its merits, was the most striking social phenomenon of the ancient era. Everyone knew about it. Everyone wrote about it. And it stood directly oppossed to two of the most learned institutions of the day: Rome and her Empire and Judaism and her priestly system. There were plenty of people to protest and protest they did. But curiously, they don't protest either:
a) The things you cited in the post I challenged
b) The claims of the Resurrection!

Think about b) for a second. Does that not strike you as odd?

All history is written by biased parties and no worldview can be legitimately dismissed as "over-biasing". Are you suggesting that a Christian's historical record should be dismissed but a secular humanist's be kept? Of course the secular humanist doesn't lack belief. They have as many beliefs and therefore as many natural biases and prejudices as the Christian. The method you propose (that since many of the New Testament writers claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected they can't be permitted as witnesses) is absurd.

Quick response to Akrasia:
I am not proposing that people only start exaggerating in the modern era. I am proposing that societies can only function when there are mechanisms to limit the natural tendency to be loose with the truth of one's account at vital testimonies. In pre-modern societies they developed an effective oral tradition for the most vital of testimony. It is not as solid or as cross-referenced as a modern testimony, but it more than suffices for the purposes of truth evaluation. Let me try that sentence again: I am proposing that oral traditions record history well enough to be considered viable by historians. History didn't begin after the word press after all.
The leading historian studying the New Testament is NT Wright. He is 3 books into his 6 or 7 part series on the roots of Christianity and I think he would be an exhilirating read for you guys who obviously have an interest in the beginnings of this weird movement.

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

Quick response to Wicknight:
You have not cited any examples or even any sources to back up your faith assertion that oral tradition is the "worst" record keeping mechanism.

Well I didn't think I had to, I would have thought it would be obvious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_History

As the article says every time a memory is reconstructed the details can change, while the core memory remains. That doesn't happen with written records. Even translations have better retention than that.

Excelsior wrote:

Think about b) for a second. Does that not strike you as odd?

Not quite sure what your point is? Are you saying the Romans knew the resurrection had happened and that is why they didn't say it didn't happen. I'm not sure where you are getting the evidence for that theory.

Excelsior wrote:

All history is written by biased parties and no worldview can be legitimately dismissed as "over-biasing".

All history is written by biased parites, which is why no single source should be considered totally reliable. Thats the problem with the early Christian movement, and the life of Jesus. All we have is accounts from within the religion itself.

If Tom Cruise wrote a book on the history of Scientology would you take it as "gosspel" (excuse the pun). (And before anyone gets offended, I am not comparing Hubards "nut jobs" with Christianity, it is just an example)

What if John Trovolta wrote another book about Scientology that backed up most of what Tom Cruise had written. Would that mean that Cruises views on Scientology were accurate? Or would you take them with a grain of salt until you had read a book on Scientology written by someone independent and not in the church?

Excelsior wrote:

Are you suggesting that a Christian's historical record should be dismissed but a secular humanist's be kept?

No, I'm saying that a historian should view both with skeptacism and look at what parts matched with each other. You need a number of different sources to get a true picture, especially when you are dealing with something like religion and belief.

Take the Cruise example above. If Tom Cruise wrote about a meeting with Hubbard in a Holiday Inn conferencen centre with which a number of news reporters also recorded the event in the same way as Cruise, you can be pretty sure that meeting happeed the way Cruise said it did. You have a number of sources, independent of each other, within the church and independent of the church, describing the event in a similar manner.

If Cruise in this fictional history book, went on to describe a private meeting that happened an hour later in a hotel room where Cruise saw Hubbard talk to an alien, but no one else saw it, I assume you would be more skeptical for this account. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but with nothing but a member of the religion for verification a historian would naturally be very skeptical that everything described by Cruise actually happened.

And more importantly, you would not automatically assume Cruise's account was completely accurate just because his previous account of the conference centre was accurate.

Excelsior wrote:

That since many of the New Testament writers claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected they can't be permitted as witnesses

I have never said they should be automatically dismissed.

But they are describing something rather fantastical with very little external verification. Therefore discriptions of the event should not be assumed to be historically accurate just because they are describe.

In history you look at teh source, you look at where the source is coming from, and you look to see if anything external can verify the source

BrianCalgary

3greenrizla's wrote:

...i think this thread has gone a bit off track, but most of the above is over my head, so what do i know?

however,



would the gospel of judas (& mary magdelen & whoever else) not show even different view points, giving us a greater understanding of jesus?

i believe the bible is very heavily edited, but why dose the church seem to turn away from anything that is not matthew mark luke or john?

They would show a different point of view. The question being; is it an accurate point of view?

The four gospels were written by men who had direct access to participants in the events described.

The writers of the other gospels did not.

There are over 27,000 manuscripts of the NT in existence (source; The Case for Christ; Evidence that Demands a Verdict); however there is only the one copy of the gospel of Judas. We should ask why?

The reason is that the four gospels where recognised by those living at the time as being accurate accounts of the events, therefore people copied them and distributed them for use in the churches. The gospels of Judas, Mary, Barnabas, thomas, etc., are so rare because they were not copied or used or in demand because they were recognised as not being authentic.

When all manuscripts are compared from the earliest to the latest they are found to have no editing (except for a couple of passages that Bible publishers point out are excluded from some manuscripts). The only differences are spelling changes (color vs colour). All 27,000 manuscripts are 98% similar except for the spelling differences.

The reason we recognise Matt, Mark, Luke and John is because they were recognized by those who lived during the period they were written.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

All history is written by biased parites, which is why no single source should be considered totally reliable. Thats the problem with the early Christian movement, and the life of Jesus. All we have is accounts from within the religion itself.

If Tom Cruise wrote a book on the history of Scientology would you take it as "gosspel" (excuse the pun). (And before anyone gets offended, I am not comparing Hubards "nut jobs" with Christianity, it is just an example)

What if John Trovolta wrote another book about Scientology that backed up most of what Tom Cruise had written. Would that mean that Cruises views on Scientology were accurate? Or would you take them with a grain of salt until you had read a book on Scientology written by someone independent and not in the church?

Lets look to a place where this actually happened. It is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, aka. Mormons. Joseph Smith found gold tablets that are a latter day revelation about Christ's time spent in the Americas and the civilisation that he witnessed to. The testimony of events was witnessed by 12(?) signatories, being Joseph and his brothers and cousins.

The problem being is that there is no archaeological evidence to support the existence of a Noth American civilisation described in the book of Mormon.

There is evidence to support all the history presented in the NT (we can discuss the OT another time, prior to Exodus). As well as written evidence through the writings of historians of the time. In conclusion biblical history is supported by sources outside Christianity that do support the events as written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.


PS; Wishing everyone a Happy Easter and a celebration of our risen Lord.

He is risen.

3greenrizla's

BrianCalgary wrote:

There are over 27,000 manuscripts of the NT in existence (source; The Case for Christ; Evidence that Demands a Verdict); however there is only the one copy of the gospel of Judas. We should ask why?

The reason is that the four gospels where recognised by those living at the time as being accurate accounts of the events, therefore people copied them and distributed them for use in the churches. The gospels of Judas, Mary, Barnabas, thomas, etc., are so rare because they were not copied or used or in demand because they were recognised as not being authentic..

...but copies were made otherwise we would not have this one copy of the gospel of judas, and according to the national geographic programe another copy was denounced when the NT was chosen (cant remember the year). Surley these important figures in the bible (Judas, Mary, Barnabas, thomas, etc) had there own accounts, just as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

BrianCalgary wrote:

When all manuscripts are compared from the earliest to the latest they are found to have no editing (except for a couple of passages that Bible publishers point out are excluded from some manuscripts). The only differences are spelling changes (color vs colour). All 27,000 manuscripts are 98% similar except for the spelling differences.

stand corrected

BrianCalgary

3greenrizla's wrote:

...but copies were made otherwise we would not have this one copy of the gospel of judas, and according to the national geographic programe another copy was denounced when the NT was chosen (cant remember the year). Surley these important figures in the bible (Judas, Mary, Barnabas, thomas, etc) had there own accounts, just as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Not neccesarily. Judas died the night of Christ's crucifixion. He wouldn't have time to write one.

Mary was probably couldn't read or write, being a woman. These works were written many years after the events that the Barnabas of Acts couldn't have written it, The same with Thomas.

The Bible was finally put together at the council of Nicaea in the 4th century. The contents are based on universal acceptance, content, and the proximity of the writers to Christ.

3greenrizla's

Brian, that is called Brian, I bow to your supieror Knowledge,
still i find it hard to believe that there is only four accounts of the life of Jesus about!
(even if it was 2000 years ago, he was fairly important)
i'm going to research the council of Nicaea a bit,
but not right now because i'm going to bed,
i work for heathens & have to work tomorrow.

night night

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

There is evidence to support all the history presented in the NT (we can discuss the OT another time, prior to Exodus). As well as written evidence through the writings of historians of the time.

There is no external evidence (that I'm aware off) for any of the mircles described in the Bible, including the resurrection.

There is very little external evdience to support any of the descriptions of events in the NT, from the interactions between the athorities and Jesus, to events like the last supper and cruxificion.

robindch

> There is evidence to support all the history presented in the NT (we can
> discuss the OT another time, prior to Exodus). As well as written evidence
> through the writings of historians of the time. In conclusion biblical history
> is supported by sources outside Christianity that do support the events
> as written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Unfortunately, there isn't a single word of evidence written by any contemporaneous author that I'm aware of to support even one of the extraordinary claims made by the authors of the NT. And as I've said before, contemporaneous authors were no slouches when it came to reporting odd stuff.

At best, it's fair to say that none of the events in the NT which are reported elsewhere, are contradicted elsewhere. But given that the NT is an inward looking text, with very, very few references outside its own concerns, that's hardly surprising.