Who do you think Jesus was

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm saying that what Biblical scholarship we have demonstrates that he is more than likely wrong.

No you haven't. Biblical scholarship has shown that after about 250AD there has been very little changes to New Testament.

Jakkass wrote: »

Although we don't have the absolute original manuscripts there are thousands of copies of them.

Not from the date range we are talking about.

Jakkass wrote: »

It might be a comfortable thing to believe in, but there is absolutely no evidence that the Bible was altered significantly beyond its original.

There is no evidence it wasn't. The surviving copies are editions far down the line from when the original manuscripts would have been produced, at a time when the church would have been small and scattered.

And since the vast vast vast majority of books are altered at some point it would be foolish to hold the New Testament as some how special in this regard, unless you wish to invoke supernatural claims.

This is of course before we get into the issue that the manuscripts are reflections of the oral history.

It would be very foolish to hold the New Testament up as some sort of special case in regard to historical transmission without any reason beyond faith in a supernatural director.

philologos

c_man wrote: »

It's just the way I picked up on krudler's "The magic tricks and zombie stuff was added in later to spice up the tale."

My point is that there is no evidence that this was the case, and indeed that there is Biblical scholarship that could question this strongly.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

My point is that there is no evidence that this was the case, and indeed that there is Biblical scholarship that could question this strongly.

So, do we have the originals?

Do we know who wrote them?

Do we know what changes were made?

Are we able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the authors were utterly reliable, utterly honest people who would not -- as was standard at the time -- make up speeches, events and entire panoramas in order to cast a particular light on the story?

oldrnwisr

Jakkass wrote: »

I can trust that Mark 16:9-20 nonetheless occurred because it is merely restating what is already in Matthew 28 which isn't in doubt.

How's that?

I'm talking about this Mark 16:9-20

Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Where exactly is this (particularly the highlighted sections) stated in Matthew 28?

oldrnwisr

robindch wrote: »

1. So, do we have the originals?

2. Do we know who wrote them?

3. Do we know what changes were made?

4. Are we able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the authors were utterly reliable, utterly honest people who would not -- as was standard at the time -- make up speeches, events and entire panoramas in order to cast a particular light on the story?

1. No. See my earlier post for more details.


2. No.


3. We do have some idea of the changes made.

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

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

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


4. Hell no.

robindch

oldrnwisr wrote: »

No

Hey, I'm aware of that -- I'm interested to see Jakkass's response

oldrnwisr

robindch wrote: »

Hey, I'm aware of that -- I'm interested to see Jakkass's response

My bad.:o

philologos

robindch wants my answer:

No we don't have the originals, but we do have 40,000 manuscripts to compare. With this many manuscripts it would be nigh on impossible to make significant changes to the New Testament.

We do know who wrote most of the texts not all. Matthew, Mark do not explicitly mention who wrote each. There is evidence both in the text and in early church history that John wrote his Gospel, and Luke explicitly identifies himself in the text.

We know that 40 passages are in doubt. Of these passages the vast majority are repeated in other parts of the New Testament which aren't in doubt.

We don't know this, but it is incredibly unlikely that they would, or indeed even go out into the depths of the Roman Empire to risk their lives were it not true. This leads into an argument about the veracity of the Resurrection. One would have to ask what gain there would be in concocting such a story. Indeed one would have to ask why the New Testament invites such scrutiny and embarrassing details that would have been glossed over in Jewish society were they false:

1. Women were the first witnesses to the risen Jesus at a time when the testimony of a woman was half that of a man.
2. The New Testament publicises the sheer unbelief of the disciples after Jesus died to the extent of locking themselves in a room in fear for what the authorities would do them. Hardly the seal of those who firmly believed in the message of their teacher?
3. Paul mentions explicitly in the New Testament that there were 500 witnesses of the Resurrected Jesus. Witnesses that people could have visited were they curious about the truth of the Gospel.

If one wanted the New Testament not to be questioned why would it invite scrutiny like this? What it seems to be to me as far as I'm concerned, is the full, raw and honest truth.

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

We don't know this, but it is incredibly unlikely that they would, or indeed even go out into the depths of the Roman Empire to risk their lives were it not true. This leads into an argument about the veracity of the Resurrection.

No it doesn't. We've covered this before.
You have cults like Falun Gong espousing their supernatural beliefs even under the persecution of the Chinese Government.
You've offshoots of Christianity like Mormonism putting forward silly beliefs despite attacks from other Christians.

Jakkass wrote: »

One would have to ask what gain there would be in concocting such a story.

Of course you don't need an incentive to make stuff up.
Why do people concoct stories about alien abduction or ghosts or psychics?

Jakkass wrote: »

3. Paul mentions explicitly in the New Testament that there were 500 witnesses of the Resurrected Jesus. Witnesses that people could have visited were they curious about the truth of the Gospel.

Surely you understand the difference between 500 witness and one guy saying there was 500 witnesses?

philologos

My point was that it invites scrutiny. Someone could have easily checked it up at the time when Paul was writing. Why would it do this if there were clearly not 500 witnesses unless one really wanted people to outright dismiss it as factually incorrect?

Point being, there is a much stronger case to say that the New Testament wasn't significantly altered than the case to say that it has been. If anyone has any evidence to demonstrate that this is the case I'll gladly go away and read what they provide me.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

We don't know this, but it is incredibly unlikely that they would, or indeed even go out into the depths of the Roman Empire to risk their lives were it not true.

Seriously?

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

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

My point was that it invites scrutiny. Someone could have easily checked it up at the time when Paul was writing. Why would it do this if there were clearly not 500 witnesses unless one really wanted people to outright dismiss it as factually incorrect?

Point being, there is a much stronger case to say that the New Testament wasn't significantly altered than the case to say that it has been. If anyone has any evidence to demonstrate that this is the case I'll gladly go away and read what they provide me.

And the writings of L. Ron Hubbard contain many, many factual inaccuracies that can only be outright lies and at the time those writings were open to scrutiny and the facts could have been easily checked up.
And they were and the things in the writings were shown to be false.
So how come there are still scientologists?

Hookah

Jakkass wrote: »

c-man: They could be totally nonsense, that isn't what is being argued. What is being argued is that the New Testament manuscripts have been significantly altered, which is false as far as I can see.

There is a another, separate argument regarding 'Who is Jesus?'

Was Jesus a gnostic, as evinced in the Nag Hammadi library, teaching a knowledge-based, practical spirituality, a la Buddha, or was he teaching a faith-based route to heaven, the supporters of which notion won out at the Council of Nicea?

philologos

liamw wrote: »

Seriously?

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

The intention doesn't seem to involve mass suicide. The message that they brought to the people doesn't even encourage suicide. It seems like you're pulling out inadequate excuses. The message involves living new lives, becoming a new creation, living each and every day for the Gospel.

If the Christian message was in earnest about mass suicide you wouldn't see Christianity here today. It's a bad example you're presenting and I think pretty much anyone can see that.

King Mob: I'm not here to argue about Scientology, but perhaps we could meet up some time and read Dianetics together first before we aim to discuss what claims this book makes

As for your argument with the Vatican. Here's a couple of points for you that might make this clearer:
N.B - I personally think the RCC is important as a Christian church amongst many, but I do have my disagreements.
1. Despite what claims people may make about the RCC being the first church there is simply no evidence, and indeed evidence to the contrary that it was the only church up until the Reformation.
2. Secondly, you are missing the point since none of the Apostles benefited from the power structure of the RCC, or the wealth it has. Indeed such gains would have been completely counter-intuitive. Paul lived in poverty for the churches that he served. He writes that he knows what it is like to have much and what it is like to have little. Indeed there is textual evidence to suggest that Paul worked while he was with the churches.
So King Mob, what exactly was your point here? Or are you pretty much saying that Pope Benedict XVI is benefiting from the suffering of the Apostles? If so that is a separate argument that I would suggest that you take up with members of the RCC, or indeed others you deem worthy of this.

Your point about the Falun Gong can actually help me. Do you think the Falun Gong are dying for what they believe to be true, or are they dying for a lie that they made up. The truth value of the Gospel isn't even necessary for me to make my point. The argument being presented is that they died for a lie that they concocted. If the Falun Gong are doing this then I would be surprised, but I would suspect the Falun Gong are dying because they earnestly believe what they did. Don't you?

philologos

Hookah wrote: »

There is a another, separate argument regarding 'Who is Jesus?'

Was Jesus a gnostic, as evinced in the Nag Hammadi library, teaching a knowledge-based, practical spirituality, a la Buddha, or was he teaching a faith-based route to heaven, the supporters of which notion won out at the Council of Nicea?

Gnostic texts come far too late to be considered as more reliable than the New Testament accounts. The reason the texts were chosen as they were as the Council of Nicea was because they were the earliest known texts used in the churches. All of these texts were written in the 1st century many of them by eyewitnesses of Jesus. The texts found at Nag Hammadi were certainly not written by eyewitnesses of Jesus even in the smallest part, and certainly weren't written in the first century.

I have a collection of the Nag Hammadi texts in a single volume. They make for interesting reading and comparison but certainly cannot be considered and reviewed with the same authority as the New Testament is.

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

King Mob: I'm not here to argue about Scientology, but perhaps we could meet up some time and read Dianetics together first before we aim to discuss what claims this book makes

But it's an example of a cult which you think is totally wrong which people believe in despite it's obvious wrongness. So showing your point that Paul would be called out for a lie, therefore wasn't as being false

Jakkass wrote: »

So King Mob, what exactly was your point here? Or are you pretty much saying that Pope Benedict XVI is benefiting from the suffering of the Apostles? If so that is a separate argument that I would suggest that you take up with members of the RCC, or indeed others you deem worthy of this.

It was an off handed joke. My main point was the second one were you don't need an incentive to make stuff up.

Jakkass wrote: »

Your point about the Falun Gong can actually help me.

Well sure, if your premise is that the gospel isn't an accurate record.

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you think the Falun Gong are dying for what they believe to be true, or are they dying for a lie that they made up. The truth value of the Gospel isn't even necessary for me to make my point. The argument being presented is that they died for a lie that they concocted. If the Falun Gong are doing this then I would be surprised, but I would suspect the Falun Gong are dying because they earnestly believe what they did. Don't you?

They truly believe in their supernatural powers.
This could be from a combination of being told lies, being told earnestly believed things that aren't true and plain old self delusion.

But since they are willing to suffer for their beliefs, they must be true right?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

All of these texts were written in the 1st century many of them by eyewitnesses of Jesus.

You have absolutely no idea if that is actually true or not. :rolleyes:

Man alive Jakkass, could you be any more naive about this stuff. Why would you think the New Testament would be any different from the Gnostic texts?

Hookah

Jakkass wrote: »

Gnostic texts come far too late to be considered as more reliable than the New Testament accounts. The reason the texts were chosen as they were as the Council of Nicea was because they were the earliest known texts used in the churches. All of these texts were written in the 1st century many of them by eyewitnesses of Jesus. The texts found at Nag Hammadi were certainly not written by eyewitnesses of Jesus even in the smallest part, and certainly weren't written in the first century.

I have a collection of the Nag Hammadi texts in a single volume. They make for interesting reading and comparison but certainly cannot be considered and reviewed with the same authority as the New Testament is.

50 years in the difference to the first Gnostic Gospel.

Is that why they weren't deemed heritical, beacuse they came slightly later?

Or did those at the Council of Nicea not like the idea of teachings that said one could have a direct experience of God without the need for a priestly hierarchy?

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

But it's an example of a cult which you think is totally wrong which people believe in despite it's obvious wrongness. So showing your point that Paul would be called out for a lie, therefore wasn't as being false

You've been on this section of the board long enough to know what my policy is in respect to other religions particularly those I don't know about. I only discuss them when I know their tenets sufficiently, and when there is someone of that faith there to present it to me. This mightn't have always been the case but in the most part it is.

I don't know enough about the Church of Scientology to adequately discuss its teaching. Hence why I made the admittedly tongue in cheek comment about meeting up and reading it together for clarity

If Paul was telling a lie at that time in that church people could have traveled to confirm that this was indeed the case. It is a verifiable claim rather than an unverifiable claim. I'm asking you clearly why Paul would include such a detail in 1 Coirinthians 15 when he is trying to stress the importance of the Resurrection for any other reason than trying to back up his argument. The people in Corinth could have called him out as a liar easily or sent someone out to Israel to see if this was true.

King Mob wrote: »

It was an off handed joke. My main point was the second one were you don't need an incentive to make stuff up.

Fair enough, but surely you can see how it is an inadequate comparison.

King Mob wrote: »

Well sure, if your premise is that the gospel isn't an accurate record.

For the purpose of this argument it doesn't matter a pick. I believe that the Gospel is the full truth of God, but if you look to krudler's argument he is claiming that the Gospel was concocted. There is simply no reason to believe this given the first century history of the church. If we were discussing the conclusion as to whether or not the Apostles were completely deluded as to whether Jesus rose from the dead I would take that argument way more seriously because they have absolutely no positive reason to die for a lie that they concocted.

King Mob wrote: »

They truly believe in their supernatural powers.
This could be from a combination of being told lies, being told earnestly believed things that aren't true and plain old self delusion.

But since they are willing to suffer for their beliefs, they must be true right?

See above. For the purpose of refuting krudler's argument it isn't even required for it to be true. It is only required for it not to be concocted. If we can agree that it is unlikely that the Gospel accounts were concocted we can definitely move on to talking more about their veracity, if you'd like. Otherwise we should probably establish this first.

The Falun Gong and the Apostles may be both thoroughly deluded, I'm more than happy to say that for now. What we must be able to agree on is that it is highly unlikely that people would go out and die for lie that they themselves concocted. If we can't agree on this we need to go back to basics here.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

The intention doesn't seem to involve mass suicide. The message that they brought to the people doesn't even encourage suicide. It seems like you're pulling out inadequate excuses. The message involves living new lives, becoming a new creation, living each and every day for the Gospel.

If the Christian message was in earnest about mass suicide you wouldn't see Christianity here today. It's a bad example you're presenting and I think pretty much anyone can see that.

Man alive Jakkass.

When did I say Christianity was about mass suicide?

The point is that people are willing to go as far as killing themselves under a delusion. Your argument was that followers of Jesus would be unlikely to risk their lives if Christianity wasn't true is clearly invalid, as is evident from the cases presented.

tallaghtmick

im gonna go with a far out theory.......jesus was an advanced being:pac:an alien who used technology to look deadly.......waits for people to bash my post and mod to ban me :pac:

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

You have absolutely no idea if that is actually true or not. :rolleyes:

Man alive Jakkass, could you be any more naive about this stuff. Why would you think the New Testament would be any different from the Gnostic texts?

We know from dating and from the accounts themselves that it is highly unlikely that it was concocted. I'm more than happy to discuss this as well. We need to establish whether or not the documents are actually authentic before we can skip to understanding whether or not they may be true. The accounts can be as they were written and still be a load of nonsense, I'm not precluding that possibility for now. What I am considering is that the New Testament is largely as it was written in the first century.

Hookah: I need your source on that.

philologos

liamw wrote: »

Man alive Jakkass.

When did I say Christianity was about mass suicide?

The point is that people are willing to go as far as killing themselves under a delusion. Your argument was that followers of Jesus would be unlikely to risk their lives if Christianity wasn't true is clearly invalid, as is evident from the cases presented.

Your comparison to mass suicide is completely inadequate to back up this argument in this particular case. Yes people have mass suicided, but the intention of what they advocated didn't even encourage mass suicide. If it did we wouldn't be here, I wouldn't be on this forum right now if I genuinely believed in it.

I didn't even ask the question you think I did. I asked why would they die for what they clearly knew was a lie. I'm not closed to the possibility that they were full on deluded about whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. I am doubting heavily the possibility that people would die for a lie that they themselves concocted in the full knowledge that it was a lie.

Hookah

Jakkass wrote: »

Hookah: I need your source on that.

Of which? The dates?

philologos

Dates and which document you're talking about. I'm pretty sure the texts were limited to the first century in their assessment of what should go in the New Testament canon.

Hookah

Jakkass wrote: »

Dates and which document you're talking about. I'm pretty sure the texts were limited to the first century in their assessment of what should go in the New Testament canon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas#Date_of_composition

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

You've been on this section of the board long enough to know what my policy is in respect to other religions particularly those I don't know about. I only discuss them when I know their tenets sufficiently, and when there is someone of that faith there to present it to me. This mightn't have always been the case but in the most part it is.

I don't know enough about the Church of Scientology to adequately discuss its teaching. Hence why I made the admittedly tongue in cheek comment about meeting up and reading it together for clarity

Well long story short, L. Ron Hubbard lied about his elements of his personal history and military service.

Jakkass wrote: »

If Paul was telling a lie at that time in that church people could have traveled to confirm that this was indeed the case. It is a verifiable claim rather than an unverifiable claim. I'm asking you clearly why Paul would include such a detail in 1 Coirinthians 15 when he is trying to stress the importance of the Resurrection for any other reason than trying to back up his argument. The people in Corinth could have called him out as a liar easily or sent someone out to Israel to see if this was true.

But first off it's not a verifiable claim. Even if he supplied a list of every single one of those 500 people (which he didn't) there's little chance of even finding those people. And even if they went and checked and didn't find anyone then there's the excuse "They're in hiding" or something similar.
And that's assuming that they'd check. But as the scientology example shows people will believe a claim regardless of whether it's verifiable or even falsified.
People today are calling L. Ron out as a liar, yet people still believe him.
So why would it be any different in Paul's time?
And do you actually think that it was exactly 500 people?

Jakkass wrote: »

For the purpose of this argument it doesn't matter a pick. I believe that the Gospel is the full truth of God, but if you look to krudler's argument he is claiming that the Gospel was concocted. There is simply no reason to believe this given the first century history of the church.

It's entirely possible that there are some true stories about a preacher or group of preachers. But the magic ones would need a bit more back up before they can be taken any more seriously or accurately than Aesop's fables. These stories could be embellished, exaggerated, mistold or even out and out made up.

Jakkass wrote: »

If we were discussing the conclusion as to whether or not the Apostles were completely deluded as to whether Jesus rose from the dead I would take that argument way more seriously because they have absolutely no positive reason to die for a lie that they concocted.

Jakkass wrote: »

The Falun Gong and the Apostles may be both thoroughly deluded, I'm more than happy to say that for now. What we must be able to agree on is that it is highly unlikely that people would go out and die for lie that they themselves concocted. If we can't agree on this we need to go back to basics here.

And we can point to hundreds of examples of people being self deluded.
But it's also possible that they were deliberately lying then were simply caught and punished, leaving the spin up to the rest.
Given that the only records of the martyrdom of some of the apostles is the bible, the facts could be easily embellished, distorted and fabricated.

For example when L. Ron died, he didn't just die cause that wouldn't be possible with his scientology powers. He in fact left this plane of existence to conduct research, promising to someday return.

oldrnwisr

Jakkass wrote: »

We do know who wrote most of the texts not all. Matthew, Mark do not explicitly mention who wrote each. There is evidence both in the text and in early church history that John wrote his Gospel, and Luke explicitly identifies himself in the text.

Biblical scholars and historians don't agree with you there, Jakkass.

The Gospel of John is stated to be written by "the disciple which Jesus loved the most." However, the majority of biblical scholars have agreed that neither John nor any other eyewitness wrote it and that it was instead pieced together from a base of second-hand eyewitness accounts, added to from other sources and finally edited in about 90CE. Raymond Brown, a Catholic priest and scholar outlined this originally in 1979 in "The Community of the Beloved Disciple" and in several other works since.

The Gospel of Luke is usually credited to Luke who was a companion of Paul. However the consensus is that the author is unknown. It is agreed among scholars that the Gospel of Luke was written no earlier than 60CE and is a later work than the Gospel of Mark which it uses as a source. Also since it was written in common Greek, most scholars have concluded that it is not an eyewitness account.

The Gospel of Mark is again concluded to be anonymous and is not referred to as the Gospel of Mark before the 2nd Century. The scholarly consensus is that it was written around 60CE, possibly in Syria.

The Gospel of Matthew is again not linked to Matthew before the 2nd century. It is likely to have been written around 90CE and again in Greek.

Jakkass wrote: »

This leads into an argument about the veracity of the Resurrection. One would have to ask what gain there would be in concocting such a story.

First of all there isn't much of an argument there. There is no physical evidence only documentary evidence. The only references to the resurrection are the Gospels and Corinthians. The Gospels have already been established as not likely to have been eyewitness accounts. The only account which could plausibly be asserted as an eyewitness account is 1 Corinthians 15. However, there is a problem in basing the veracity of the resurrection on a single eyewitness account. (Just because Paul asserts there are 500 witnesses doesn't mean that there were). This problem is that mainline Christians are perfectly happy to accept the testimony of Paul as reliable and yet dismiss the documented eyewitness testimonies from Joseph Smith that are presented in the Book of Mormon.

Secondly, as to why someone would concoct such a story, are you kidding? The resurrection is for the most part the lynchpin of the Christian faith. The veracity of the resurrection is what elevates Christianity to mystical levels. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead then he was just another guy who preached a religion and performed some dubious magic tricks. Without the resurrection, Jesus is just another cult leader.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

We know from dating and from the accounts themselves that it is highly unlikely that it was concocted.

We most certainly do not know that. The only argument for such an unsupported argument is theological (God made sure of it)

The rest of us have no idea if the books were actually written by eye witnesses or not. There is no historical support for that claim at all. The only supported historical theories are that they weren't written by eye-witnesses of Jesus, as Oldrnwisr points out.

Jakkass wrote: »

We need to establish whether or not the documents are actually authentic before we can skip to understanding whether or not they may be true. The accounts can be as they were written and still be a load of nonsense, I'm not precluding that possibility for now. What I am considering is that the New Testament is largely as it was written in the first century.

To which you have no historical evidence for.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I am doubting heavily the possibility that people would die for a lie that they themselves concocted in the full knowledge that it was a lie.

Which is why Jim Jones is still alive. Oh wait. :rolleyes:



By the way Jim Jones also "cured" people of demons, and was supported financially by his followers who were more than happy to give to his church.