The Jesus Myth

[Socrates]

The Gospels of Jesus Christ were written about a specific historical man in a specific historical time and place, and all the evidence suggests that they were written by eyewitnesses, or by the immediate disciples of eyewitnesses.

It is not a vague myth set in no particular historical setting, such as the tales of Horus, etc. No one claims to have personally witnessed the events of the Horus myth, nor to have been an original disicple of Horus. (Same is true of any other pagan god.)

The Gospels are clearly a different type of account than pagan mythology.

For those who say we cannot prove the existence of Christ or events of the Gospels, to be consistant we would have to say we have no proof of the existance of Socrates, Plato, Alexander the Great, or Julius Caesar.
For knowledge of those men, we must rely also on ancient writings and records (most of which were written much longer after-the-fact than the Gospels of Christ).

And there is absolutely zero solid historical evidence that the writers of the Gospels or the early Church were influenced in any way by Egyptian myth, Hinduism, or anything else. That is nothing but idle speculation. The original Christians were devout Jews who would have avoided any such paganism.

And this great skepticism regarding the Gospels is inconsistant coming from one who has suggested Christ was a space alien, and other wild claims.

[mortify]

[quote]In case of you haven’t figured this out yet that no matter what language the Bible was written in, no matter how accuarate the language, no matter how accurate the translation, we cannot prove that there was a Moses, we cannot validate that there was a flood and that Noah was chosen to head the expedition on the "Lord's" command. You may be able to prove that there was a man named Jesus but you cannot prove that he performed miracles, was crucified or was resurrected. You might be able to speculate that the authors of the Bible were in contact with some sort of intelligence but you will not be able prove that they were inspired by a one and only true Supreme Being and if you have any factual evidence to support this, I would be willing to seriously consider it. [/quote]There is no doubt concerning the following: Jesus existed, He was executed via Crucifixion, that He was buried by a Joseph of Arrymathia, and that three days later His Apostles and disciples were convinced that they saw and interacted with a ressurected Christ. These facts, more or less, are preserved not only in Christian writings but non-Christian as well and archeology (a Tubungen Scholar believes he discovered the ACTUAL Tichelas (sp? The plank over Christ's crucified head)! Imagine that, TUBUNGEN!! Not like they have a history of defending the Christian faith) I always wonder, if Jesus wasn't a miracle worker, why did the Jews regard Him as a magician? If He wasn't crucified, or if He never existed, why weren't the Jews puzzled by a bunch of fisherman wandering around claiming the religious authority crucified the Messiah? Imagine if some Rabbi or Roman slammed the Cult of Christ by simply saying this Man never existed. Of course, that didn't happen, because for them to deny the existence of Christ would be absurd because He did exist, He was crucified, and He did perform extraordinary acts.

Now the question is, if Christ was crucified, and His dead body was buried in a tomb, what happened three days later? Someone took His body and hid it? This doesn't explain the fact that His apostles and disciples were convinced they saw Him, and that He ordered them to go to the farthest reaches of the world and spread His Gospel. The fact is, these people were CONVINCED they saw Christ, and this belief motivated them to undergo the most horrific punishments to spread His message. Thus I ask you, can you offer a simpler explanation than the resurrection of Christ?

[quote]Good, let’s go with that word "advance". Compare to the knowledge that they had back them compared to the scientific facts and studies we have today, do you still believe the earth to be the center of the universe? Your bishops and cardinals and linguists do not impress me as much as they do you. I do not know them, I never met them, I do not know what purpose or agenda that they had for the Bible and they cannot be reached for further questioning or understanding.[/quote]

This is absurd, science can't travel back in time, it's obvious people who lived in proximity to the events in terms of time and geography are more reliable. Do you honestly suppose someone like St Ireneus, who was the pupil of St Polycarp, who was the Pupil of St John, who was the Apostle of Christ, knew less than some Scholar living 2,000 years later? We have difficulty discovering what happened a hundred years ago, what of thousands of years?

Again, it's absurd, but here's the dilemma: from the Scholar's point of view, Christ CAN'T be Divine, He COULDN'T have resurrected, there MUST be a natural explanation. It's impossible that anyone witnessed Christ changing water to wine, or healing some incurable disease, or resurrecting from a grave, this [i]must[/i] be fake. The problem is we have the writings of Apostles, the pupils of those Apostles, and the pupils of those pupils and they all have a consistent belief. The solution is to doubt the gospels, ascribe some sort of anonymous writer distant from the events, who collected some spurious narrations of Christ and later had his writing attributed to an apostle by a naive community. The problem is, in the case of John's Gospel for example, his successors ascribe the Gospel to him, yet the modern scholar will have us believe they wrote it. That's simply unintelligent. In the case of Mark's Gospel, St Papias who was a pupil of St John and learned from pupils of other apostles, said St Mark was a pupil of St Peter, who faithfully committed Peter's sayings of Christ to memory and wrote them word for word. This is totally plausible, we know the Jews had an oral tradition which consisted of carefully memorizing narrations verbatim. Plus, it's possible St Peter was around to guide St Mark in composing the Gospel. Thus we see the faith was carefully passed down to succeeding generations by men who KNEW Christ, and these pupils of Apostles were convinced of the testimony the Apostles. Direct witness account of people who actually were among Christ's inner circle is incredibly valuable. Thus we return to the dilemma, these witnesses point to what the scholar simply can't accept.

The earliest Christians, like Sts Papias and Ireneus were not some gullible geniuses who accepted a gospel from nowhere. They were intelligent and deeply concerned with preserving the truth of Christ. If any scholar claims that Christ was fictionalized, he must demonstrate how and when this happened, since we know these early Christian leaders were aggressive in rooting out error and preserving the historical truth of Christ.

A good site: [url="http://www.tektonics.org/"]http://www.tektonics.org/[/url]

Edited April 23, 2007 by mortify

[dairygirl4u2c]

you have some compelling arguments mortify (and a unique buddy icon). and you're definitely right, or at least in the right direction.

i think we'd have to agree the gospels could be false. given the Q gosple could be a foundation from all those past 15 saviros, and tehy smply made some of the old testament prophesies fit the old testament, or any number of things.

but the writings of those who said they talked to the apostles in person, when they said the apostles said they saw jesus resurrected etc is the best proof.
i think i should look at some of the specific writings from those persons who talked to the apostles:
to see where they actually said they talked to the apostles and heard these miralces and resurrection etc.
to see how we are calling them their successors, what's the basis for that?
to see what exactly they are basing their relationship on. what is "pupil of st. john" based on for example?
and how they date the letters of certain writings. if they date they assuming it's all true, that might not be the best basis.
do you know the best way to locate this specific information?

and ya know. probably the best evidence was from saint paul. unless we were to believe all that happened was fake, and st. paul had an illusion (or was lying which i don't know why we'd beleive). the chances of that isn't very high.

Edited April 23, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[carrdero]

[quote name='SJP' post='1253338' date='Apr 22 2007, 06:13 PM']I'm sure you're already aware of this, but if by "prove" you mean a scientifically verifiable fact, than we are in complete agreement. We don't attempt to "prove" the existence of Moses, the flood, or the miracles of Christ. We hold these beliefs through faith.[/quote]

I can respect the belief but I cannot cater to your faith (that much is personal). I can examine and reason, share, compare and in some cases help you conclude them but it is more difficult to discern them when they are sheltered in faith. Besides why would you want to hold your beliefs in faith? When someone is exercising with weights, they do not get results by "holding" the weight bar. YOU get bigger and stronger by "working with" the weights. The only thing YOU get from "holding" something is fatigue.
[quote]SJP writes: To be honest with you, we all believe things that we cannot "prove"[/quote]
And there is no shame in that. But applying faith to the belief is not going to make it any more acceptable or attractive or get you any nearer to the belief being a Truth or an Untruth.

[carrdero]

[quote]Mortify writes: Of course, that didn't happen, because for them to deny the existence of Christ would be absurd because He did exist, He was crucified, and He did perform extraordinary acts.[/quote]Some people believed that another man took Jesus’ place on a cross. Another group of people say he had never died. One group of people says that he was nailed to a pole, another says a cross. One group says that Jesus was God, another group say that he was the son of God, another states that he was just a man who knew better. Another group of people say he was married. Another group of people say he had children. One group claims that Christ resurrected after death another group claims that Jesus visited America soon after. One group claims that Jesus will come again, another group claims that he hasn’t come at all and another person believes that Jesus has reincarnated to earth many times already. Can all these people be correct? No. Can we believe all these beliefs? Certainly, I say!!! Why? Because the possibility exists one of these scenerios could be True or they could all be Untrue. The Jesus myth seems to be ever-growing, ever changing, ever evolving and it doesn’t seem like someone’s faith is going to stop anyone from continuing to propose theories.


[quote]Mortify writes: The solution is to doubt the gospels, ascribe some sort of anonymous writer distant from the events, who collected some spurious narrations of Christ and later had his writing attributed to an apostle by a naive community.[/quote]
Or God could “inspre” another human to write another Bible to restore clarity and understanding to a gospel lost in transition but who could believe it?

[quote]Mortify writes: That's simply unintelligent. In the case of Mark's Gospel, St Papias who was a pupil of St John and learned from pupils of other apostles, said St Mark was a pupil of St Peter, who faithfully committed Peter's sayings of Christ to memory and wrote them word for word.[/quote]Already we have second hand information. The life and story of Jesus marinated for well over a third of a century before anyone decided to construct this into a comprehensive narrative. If Jesus were alive today, would you wait 35 years after his death to document his impressive ministry? The real author of the New Testament gospels should have been Jesus Himself, Who else would have been more qualified to receive His Father’s “inspirations” than the earthly form of His son?

[quote]Mortify writes: The earliest Christians, like Sts Papias and Ireneus were not some gullible geniuses who accepted a gospel from nowhere. They were intelligent and deeply concerned with preserving the truth of Christ.[/quote]
Preserving the Truth or the faith? You cannot have both. Because in the face of undeniable Truth, faith is no longer necessary.

Edited April 23, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: The Catholic Church has never ever made any infallible proclamations on matters of science, such as cosmology. She can teach infallibly on faith and morals alone, as every informed person knows, so your example isn't relevant.[/quote]It was not my intention to lead you to believe that the Catholic Church started or promoted this theory (I do not think I even mentioned the words 'Catholic Church') but at one time this was a held belief in primitive societies to what we understand today. This is advancement. There have been other examples of primitive superstitions that we have out grown over the centuries through scientific and social advancement.

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: There is no ethical teaching in this world to rival, "You have heard it said, 'Love your neighbours and hate your enemies, but I tell you, Love your enemies and bless those whose persecute you." These were not just cheap words. Jesus lived what He taught. I have yet to meet the person who even claims to advance on that.[/quote]

And there are many ways that you can prove that in your lifetime. Jesus and first century Christians did not hold a monopoly on wisdom. In fact some of the best examples of wisdom aren’t read from a book, they are experienced first hand. There are many teachings in the Bible that are practical and can be applied in today’s current society (the quotation you cited above is a fine example). There are also some teachings that can’t be applied to today’s society. Animal sacrifices, stoning disobedient children and owners of unruly oxen to death or the killing of unbelieving men, women and children who won’t give up their land that has been promised to someone by a Supreme deity I would admit isn’t a very wise or practical idea in this day and age.

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: The Bible can speak for itself on this issue. No myth-maker would create the kind of things that Jesus taught.[/quote]Apparently you haven’t read Aesop’s Fables or Grimm’s Faity Tales or Hans Christian Anderson.

'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes:This does not amount to definitive, irrevocable 'proof', such as a Made in Heaven stamp. But it is a lot better than the evidence to the contrary that you have provided so far.

How would you know? Did you watch the video? Are you ready to challenge the information contained therin? Did you read The Gods Of Eden book yet or did you just do a quick internet search and immediately conclude that you have already been well informed of this understanding?Actually there is no difference. It is someone’s word against another person’s word. If I wrote a book claiming to be inspired by GOD and if the inspirations in this book made complete sense but were different than what the Bible taught, would you give it the same consideration as the Bible? Do you think that you would be completely overwhelmed by my authorship or would you treat these “scriptures” skeptically?

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: There is geological evidence for a great flood of some description, such as the flood stratum discovered by the archaelogist and geologist Leonard Woolley as he was excavating in what was once Mesopotamia.[/quote]
Great floods I am not disputing, there was one in New Orleans a couple of years ago. An aged old man who was instructed to build an ark to carry 10,000 species from a BEing claiming to be God I may need more convincing with.

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: The existence of Moses and the other people featured in the Bible is undisputed by all but a few hardened conspiracy theorists, as his memory and legacy were passed down the tribes of Israel - together with the Torah scrolls.[/quote]Okay so maybe the existence of Moses is easy on the belief meter but staffs that turn into snakes, rivers that turn to blood and seas that split and divide on demand to allow slaves to safely pass I may need more convincing with.


[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Questioning his miracles is reasonable enough, but questioning his existence is nothing short of absurd.[/quote]
Okay we will set aside the miracles for now but when do we get to the accurate information that these Biblical authors were inspired from God?

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Calling somebody a conspiracy theorist is hardly defamation.[/quote]So what you are telling me is that their claims and writings are to be considered and taken as seriously as the Biblical prophets, saints, scholars, bishops and university degree authors that you are interested in?

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: The Church is the canvas, and has been since AD 33. The Protestants only began painting in the sixteenth century, and I'm not a fan of modern art.[/quote]
How did the Protestants get mixed up in this conversation

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: That is totally irrelevant to what I wrote, which was, "I look for reputable scholars." [/quote]Define reputable and please include qualifications of expertise in relation to God inspirations….
[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: I will read anything providing it was written by a well educated person with a good head on their shoulders. And yes, I do believe that many non-Catholics fall into that category. But William Bradley isn't one of them. Neither are two comedians who specialise in conjuring tricks, like Penn and Teller.[/quote]….And while you are looking reputable up, I think we should revisit the definition of defamation.
[b]2 : to harm the reputation of by libel or slander[/b]
So what you are saying is (and you may correct me if I am mistaken) that the reason you will not consider the sources that I have provided for you is because you believe the authors of these sources of information by reputation are lying, ignorant, inferior, uninformed, stupid con men who do not rate with your specific definition of intelligence and are unworthy of your time, reasoning abilities and consideration.

[color="#000080"]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Let's not forget that Penn and Teller's 'research' also led them to conclude that secondhand smoke cannot cause cancer.[/color]

From what I am to understand the evidence that was presented to them only came to light after that show was aired. Whether this was true or not I can't confirm but they freely and honestly admitted this error in judgment and amended it in an upcoming show.

Edited April 23, 2007 by carrdero

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]Define reputable and please include qualifications of expertise in relation to God inspirations…. [/quote]But we weren't talking about 'God's inspirations'. We were talking about Biblical exegesis and Church history. In this modern age, when people begin to expound on the Bible and profess to teach about Christian history I look for the following:

1.) Fluency in the languages in which the Scriptures were written. (A lot of people propose maverick theories based on linguistic loopholes.)
2.) An in-depth knowledge of first-century Jewish culture and tradition - the sort that can only be gained through a thorough course in anthropology.
3.) Great familiarity with the canon of Catholic theologians throughout the ages.
4.) A qualification that attests to the soundness of your research methodology and the scope of your reading - usually a PhD in your specialist subject.

To the best of my knowledge, William Bradley and P&T do not meet a single one of those criteria.

[quote]So what you are saying is (and you may correct me if I am mistaken) that the reason you will not consider the sources that I have provided for you is because you believe the authors of these sources of information by reputation are lying, ignorant, inferior, uninformed, stupid con men who do not rate with your specific definition of intelligence and are unworthy of your time, reasoning abilities and consideration.[/quote]

I did not say that they were lying. I did not say that they were inferior. I did not say that they were stupid. I did not say that they were conmen.

The only word there that I will accept is uninformed. Couple that with unqualified and you have my views. If you linked me to a marine biologist who claimed to be able to teach me about Thomist philosophy, despite never having formally studied the subject in his life, I would say the same thing. This is neither slander nor libel but a simple statement of fact.

[quote]So what you are telling me is that their claims and writings are to be considered and taken as seriously as the Biblical prophets, saints, scholars, bishops and university degree authors that you are interested in? [/quote]No, they are not. By your definition, I would be defaming the character of my six-year-old nephew if I said that I am better qualified than he is to translate Middle English.

[i]How did the Protestants get mixed up in this conversation[/i]

You began to talk about 'personal interpretation' of the Bible, which is a Protestant concept.

[i]And there are many ways that you can prove that in your lifetime. Jesus and first century Christians did not hold a monopoly on wisdom.[/i]

No, they didn't. My point is that Jesus is wisdom personified. No one has possessed, or ever will possess, greater wisdom than the Son of Man. As for your remark about the Old Testament...that proves my point. Wisdom was revealed gradually and reached its completion in Jesus Christ. When I referred to the perfect of God's Law, I referred to the Person who is at the heart of the Gospels: Jesus. In the two thousand years since His death, no one has been able to offer an improvement on Gospel teaching.

[quote]Apparently you haven’t read Aesop’s Fables or Grimm’s Faity Tales or Hans Christian Anderson.[/quote]

Oh, I have. And I stick to my point: no myth-maker would create the kind of thing that Jesus taught. Aesop's fables are moral tales; in the style of the Greek pedagogues, he expected people to attend to the message and not the outer framework of the story. The Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen specialised in fantasy. They expected to entertain, not to be believed. And even in the height of their fantastical creations, these authors did not come close to the kinds of things that Jesus taught. Because even in fantasy, God does not wash His followers' feet and love them to the point of death. Red shoes that dance for an eternity are more acceptable than that.

[quote]If I wrote a book claiming to be inspired by GOD and if the inspirations in this book made complete sense but were different than what the Bible taught, would you give it the same consideration as the Bible? Do you think that you would be completely overwhelmed by my authorship or would you treat these “scriptures” skeptically?[/quote]Do you seriously believe that the Bible was written by one person all in one go? The numbers of Biblical authors (some of whom never even met) is one of its greatest proofs of authenticity, as despite living far from each other and in some cases writing with a gap of centuries in between them, their works speak with one voice.

[quote]How would you know? Did you watch the video? Are you ready to challenge the information contained therin? Did you read The Gods Of Eden book yet or did you just do a quick internet search and immediately conclude that you have already been well informed of this understanding?[/quote]

I am a university student on a limited budget. When I buy books, I choose wisely and make sure that they are good books. And as a student of literature and linguistics, I am able to separate the wheat from the chaff without having to spend hours reading the work in question. A few pages, a glance at the reviews in solid critical publications, and a summary of the author's qualifications is usually enough to make a sound judgement when it comes to non-fiction (or books that purport to be non-fiction).

[quote]Great floods I am not disputing, there was one in New Orleans a couple of years ago. [/quote]No, there wasn't. Several thousand years from now the geological evidence for that flood will have dissipated. Compared to the evidence for a really huge flood that has been found in Mesopotamia and around the Mediterranean, the New Orleans flood was a puddle.

[quote]An aged old man who was instructed to build an ark to carry 10,000 species from a BEing claiming to be God I may need more convincing with.[/quote]

It is ironic that somebody who will believe anything he sees on the television providing it is 'controversial' enough has difficulty with the concept of Divine Revelation.

[quote]Okay we will set aside the miracles for now but when do we get to the accurate information that these Biblical authors were inspired from God?[/quote]

As I have already explained, we can reach the conclusion that the Bible was God-inspired by taking into consideration a variety of factors, which other Phatmassers and I have already outlined. This means thinking critically, not deciding that everything you see on the TV screen is worthy of belief.

[SJP]

carrdero said:
"I can respect the belief but I cannot cater to your faith (that much is personal)."

But who said anything about catering to my faith? You stated that we could not "prove" many of the tenents of our faith, I agreed. However, you did not clairfy what your standard for proof was. If by proof you mean scientifically verifiable facts, then I would argue that requiring such proof in order to believe in anything would rob us of our humanity. How can you "prove" that you love someone? How can you "prove" that you trust someone? How can you "prove" that you have hope?

The truth of the matter is that we all live by faith, there is no experiment that can determine ones degree of love or commitment. Love, hope, trust all require [i]faith[/i].

Would you agree?

Carrdero said:
"I can examine and reason, share, compare and in some cases help you conclude them but it is more difficult to discern them when they are sheltered in faith. "

But I could say the same for you. Everything becomes difficult to discern when one is sheltered in a state of perpetual scepticism.

Edited April 23, 2007 by SJP

[carrdero]

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: The only word there that I will accept is uninformed. Couple that with unqualified and you have my views. If you linked me to a marine biologist who claimed to be able to teach me about Thomist philosophy, despite never having formally studied the subject in his life, I would say the same thing. This is neither slander nor libel but a simple statement of fact. To the best of my knowledge, William Bradley and P&T do not meet a single one of those criteria.[/quote]William Bramley is a practicing attorney with an interest in history and religion.

Telller taught High School Latin in Lawrenceville, NJ

Both Penn And Teller are visiting scholars at MIT.

And Jesus…well, Jesus was just a carpenter.

In the pursuit of understanding and enlightenment (spiritual or otherwise) I am concerned that one feels it is imperative to judge the teachers and disregard the teachings. I am concerned with the freedom of belief, our right to compare, reason and conclude our beliefs and the arrogant suppositions that one has to obtain a degree or follow anothers personal criteria to be considered intelligent, knowledgeable or even credible. It is this kind of judgment; it is this kind of prejudice and unsolicitied opinon that keeps some people in ignorance and encased in faith.

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: You began to talk about 'personal interpretation' of the Bible, which is a Protestant concept.[/quote]Personal interpretation and free thinking was fashionable way beore it became a Protestant concept.
[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: No, they didn't. My point is that Jesus is wisdom personified. No one has possessed, or ever will possess, greater wisdom than the Son of Man.[/quote]There are many people and many religions that may disagree with you. I also find it interesting how you could conclude this belief about one man (that you have never known or personally met) or from just one book that only explains a three year ministry. There are many years of Jesus’ life that are unaccounted for. Are you aware of the events that transpired during these missing years? Wisdom is also aquired knowledge applied to experience, you cannot possibly convince me of such a bold assumption unless you are familiar with the lives of every single human BEing that has ever lived or is currently living.

[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Do you seriously believe that the Bible was written by one person all in one go?[/quote]
No, but I do believe that the Biblical authors should not have been bound and that that everyone should have been able to make their own discernments about the individual author’s particular relationships and writings with “divinity”.
[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: I am a university student on a limited budget. [/quote]It’s called a library and it’s free.
[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: As I have already explained, we can reach the conclusion that the Bible was God-inspired by taking into consideration a variety of factors, which other Phatmassers and I have already outlined. This means thinking critically, not deciding that everything you see on the TV screen is worthy of belief.[/quote]The only thng that you have revealed to me is how far your will extend your faith in the absence of evidence.

Edited April 23, 2007 by carrdero

[Mateo el Feo]

Poor carrdero...so misunderstood.

[mortify]

Dairygirl said,
[quote]i think we'd have to agree the gospels could be false. given the Q gosple could be a foundation from all those past 15 saviros, and tehy smply made some of the old testament prophesies fit the old testament, or any number of things. [/quote]I don't fully understand your point here, but the "Q gospel" is speculation. It's a way for Scholars to explain the the similarity between the gospels. There are other (secular) explanations for the similarity between the gospels.

Carrdero said:
[quote]One group claims that Jesus will come again, another group claims that he hasn’t come at all and another person believes that Jesus has reincarnated to earth many times already. Can all these people be correct? No. Can we believe all these beliefs? Certainly, I say!!! Why? Because the possibility exists one of these scenerios could be True or they could all be Untrue. The Jesus myth seems to be ever-growing, ever changing, ever evolving and it doesn’t seem like someone’s faith is going to stop anyone from continuing to propose theories.[/quote]

The problem is you're not making any qualitative distinctions between the groups. The Gnostics believed some far out things that were not only totally disconnected from Apostolic Christianity but from Judaism as well. To suggest a Gnostic claim about Christ is equal to an Apostolic one is silly and this is precisely how the early Christians defeated the Gnostics. When the Gnostics were walking around claiming some Apostle handed them a secret teaching that is required for salvation, a Bishop like St Ireneus, who actually is a successor of Apostles, asked why he had not heard of such a thing. It was [b]apostolic succession[/b], which the gnostics lacked, that led to their defeat, and their erroneous ways were extinct for thousands of years.

[quote]Already we have second hand information. The life and story of Jesus marinated for well over a third of a century before anyone decided to construct this into a comprehensive narrative. If Jesus were alive today, would you wait 35 years after his death to document his impressive ministry?[/quote]

Think about this for a moment, are you saying Christians were ignorant about Christ for 35 years? We are talking about a religion [b]totally centered[/b] on the life, works, and teachings of Jesus Christ, I can't imagine Christians accepting the Lord and dying for Him without knowing anything about Him, it's simply not logical. The more reasonable explanation is that the Apostles, being from a culture which had a strong oral tradition, passed down the teachings this way. Jesus Himself most likely repeated the parables on numerous occasions, perhaps in slightly different forms, and by their very nature they would have been easy to memorize. This may explain why certain narrations of Christ are slightly different, or why they may be in a different order relative to others, because one Apostle may have remembered one form over another, and he may have recalled it occuring in one time before another.

That's the case for the parables, but take a look at the Passion narrative (from the Last supper to the Resurrection), what do you notice about it? It is incredibly consistent among gospels. What does this mean? It means the early Christians found this part of Jesus's life to be extremely important, thus they memorized not just the actions and sayings, but the chronology of events. This also reflects some theology, because it tells us the early Christians were very conscious that the center of their faith rested on the Crucifixion of Christ.

Now that's just oral tradition, what about writings that simply did not survive unto our times?[b] We have to accept the reality that the early Christians had tons of evidence before them which simply no longer exist[/b], and not because of some sinister motive but because the materials they wrote on decayed into non existence. It is perfectly possible that an apostle such as St Matthew, who was a tax collector and thus would have been knowledgeable of three languages (latin, aramaic, and greek) would have written some of the Lord's sayings down. The fact that Jesus chose someone who could write suggests He may have intended them to serve as a Chronicler of sorts. Even among the Apostles who could not write as well, it's possible they had a pupil or scribe whose sole purpose was to document the life of Christ.

It's obvious that Christianity being a religion which totally centers around Christ would have necessitated a means of preserving the sayings of Christ. In the beginning they would have memorized sayings of Christ, passed down certain creeds, and even some personal writings. St Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 testifies to this living tradition which passed down knowledge unto him, and keep in mind St Paul is writing some twenty years after the Lord's resurrection when the Apostles were STILL LIVING. More so, from the Apostles to their successors, we see a great focus on preserving the Truth. From the beginning St Paul was prolifically writing, even from jail, to ensure the communities he passed the faith onto were sticking to the Apostolic teachings. In other words, Christians did not lay back and allow their faith to disintegrate before them, they were aggressive in making sure the Faith was accurately passed down.


Finally, I'd like to see any 2,000 year old secular writing pass the criteria some of you people try to fit the bible through.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]William Bramley is a practicing attorney with an interest in history and religion.[/quote]I'm a published and award-winning author in the field of autistic spectrum disorders. By your logic, I'm qualified to write on cosmology as well. After all, I have an interest in it. Unfortunately, being 'interested' in something does not mean that you are qualified to talk about it - especially if your 'interest' can be summed up in the very vague category of 'history and religion'. Bradley's status as an attorney has no relevance whatsoever to the subject of his book.

[quote]Telller taught High School Latin in Lawrenceville, NJ[/quote]

Unfortunately the Bible wasn't written in Latin. As for teaching [i]high school[/i] Latin...that is not exactly much to write home about. High school Latin is easy. How does this give Teller the necessary exegetical and linguistic knowledge to make a thorough and informed study of the Bible?

[quote]Both Penn And Teller are visiting scholars at MIT.[/quote][i]In what?[/i] Engineering? Mathematics? The knitting of fluffy socks? Something else totally unrelated to the topic of their programme?

[i]And Jesus…well, Jesus was just a carpenter.[/i]

And Jesus is the [i]subject[/i] of the discussion, not the person responsible for making sure that it is well informed and conducted with due academic rigor.

[quote]In the pursuit of understanding and enlightenment (spiritual or otherwise) I am concerned that one feels it is imperative to judge the teachers and disregard the teachings.[/quote]

When I learn something, I want to make sure that I am learning it from a good teacher. A reasonable stipulation, I think.

[quote]I am concerned with the freedom of belief, our right to compare, reason and conclude our beliefs and the arrogant suppositions that one has to obtain a degree or follow anothers personal criteria to be considered intelligent, knowledgeable or even credible.[/quote]I return to what I said earlier: by your standards I am being 'arrogant' when I say that my six-year-old nephew is not as well qualified as I am to translate Middle English. There are objective standards in certain fields of education and learning. Some things can be learnt by experience, but ecclesiology and New Testament Greek don't fall under that umbrella.

[quote]It’s called a library and it’s free.[/quote]

Cambridge is the home of a world renowned university. Our libraries don't stock rubbish titles.

[quote]The only thng that you have revealed to me is how far your will extend your faith in the absence of evidence.[/quote]

That is a strange remark coming from someone who believes that a high school Latin teacher's qualification is equivalent to those of someone who has spent fifty years immersed in Biblical languages.

[carrdero]

[quote]SJP writes: But who said anything about catering to my faith?
You stated that we could not "prove" many of the tenents of our faith, I agreed. However, you did not clairfy what your standard for proof was. If by proof you mean scientifically verifiable facts, then I would argue that requiring such proof in order to believe in anything would rob us of our humanity. How can you "prove" that you love someone? [/quote]Ask yourself. And if your response is “I think I do,” it is pretty safe to assume you need more understanding about love. If your response is “I hope I do,” then you may be inviting all the irregularities that hope embraces, like discouragement and disappointment.
[quote]SJP writes: How can you "prove" that you trust someone?[/quote]
Ask yourself, ask the person that you have a concern of trust about. Wait until that person proves that you can or cannot trust them.
[quote]SJP writes: How can you "prove" that you have hope?[/quote]Hope is a disturbing distraction to reality.
[quote]SJP writes: The truth of the matter is that we all live by faith,[/quote]
No that is an Untruth. I do not live by faith. How do you think that I have been able to accumulate, encourage and examine so many beliefs? If I am not mistaken here, I think that you may be confusing the concepts of belief, faith and Truth.
[quote]SJP writes: there is no experiment that can determine ones degree of love or commitment. [/quote]First you have to decide what kind of love you will be in acceptance of. Once you have established that, you try to discover someone who shares this kind of love, if that is what you desire.
[quote]SJP writes: Everything becomes difficult to discern when one is sheltered in a state of perpetual scepticism.[/quote]
I would recommend that a little skepticism is healthy. Though I am an avid collector of beliefs, I am careful not to abuse or insult by beliefs by displaying or describing them to be something they are not.

Edited April 24, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote]Carrdero quotes:Some people believed that another man took Jesus’ place on a cross. Another group of people say he had never died. One group of people says that he was nailed to a pole, another says a cross. One group says that Jesus was God, another group say that he was the son of God another states that he was just a man who knew better. Another group of people say he was married. Another group of people say he had children. One group claims that Christ resurrected after death another group claims that Jesus visited America soon after. One group claims that Jesus will come again, another group claims that he hasn’t come at all and another person believes that Jesus has reincarnated to earth many times. Can we believe all these beliefs? Certainly, I say!!! Why? Because the possibility exists one of these scenerios could be True or they could all be Untrue. The Jesus myth seems to be ever-growing, ever changing, ever evolving and it doesn’t seem like someone’s faith is going to stop anyone from proposing theories.[/quote][quote]Mortify writes: The problem is you're not making any qualitative distinctions between the groups.[/quote]And if it is okay, I’d like to keep it that way. It is unfair to introduce labels into this discussion. Some people tend to put too much attention or undeserved judgment on the group and not enough focus on the belief.
[quote]Mortify writes: The Gnostics believed some far out things that were not only totally disconnected from Apostolic Christianity but from Judaism as well.....[/quote]See what I mean?

These are the Jesus myths. Many of them have been documented and published. I am more interested in why people don’t believe in some or all of these Jesus myths. They’re still valid beliefs, many of them are still in circulation and all of them are beliefs that haven’t been proven yet.

[quote]Mortify writes: Think about this for a moment, are you saying Christians were ignorant about Christ for 35 years?[/quote]No, not at all. What I am trying to express is that 35 years is a long time to begin writing the biography of a man who was to be the most influential religious figure to the world past, present and future.

[quote]Mortify writes: This may explain why certain narrations of Christ are slightly different, or why they may be in a different order relative to others, because one Apostle may have remembered one form over another, and he may have recalled it occuring in one time before another.[/quote]I never had any concerns about the narrations or the way that they were written or organized but at the same time I do not feel it was necessary to include four different versions. What I would have preferred were more alternative views from different authors and scribes (if they were available) to get a balanced view of Jesus’ life and try to get a fuller understanding of the way other people had perceived him. The NT books that are present in the gospels are a bit biased, they are, after all, written, compiled and bound by followers of Jesus. Their agenda was not to include or write about or describe Jesus in an unfavorable light.

[quote]Mortify writes: Finally, I'd like to see any 2,000 year old secular writing pass the criteria some of you people try to fit the bible through.[/quote]
Mortify…It’s not a test.

Great post by the way, you brought out some very interesting points worthy of thought

Edited April 24, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: I'm a published and award-winning author in the field of autistic spectrum disorders. By your logic, I'm qualified to write on cosmology as well.[/quote]Why not, if you have something to add to the field or just want to share your beliefs and theories on the subject, writing and publishing is a great way to get your point across to other people. Hey, if John The Fisherman can write about the life of Jesus and the Book Of Revelation and other spiritual matters, why can’t you write a book about cosmology?

[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Bradley's status as an attorney has no relevance whatsoever to the subject of his book.[/quote]

But it does tend to lead towards the evidence that he had to go to college and that he may have taken other courses to strengthen his knowledge in those particular fields of studies. Unfortunately a fruitless internet search provided no biographical information on him but I did discover he recently wrote another book.

[b]Jesus Goes to Hollywood: The Alternative Theories About Christ[/b]
By William Bramley
[b]Book Description[/b]
You've heard the theories, now here's the evidence! Jesus Goes to Hollywood: The Alternative Theories About Christ is a fascinating and extensively-researched exploration of the many controversial theories that have been expressed about Jesus over the centuries. For the first time ever, these theories and the evidence surrounding them are brought together in a single book that is both scholarly and highly readable. It would take a reader years of digging through hundreds of sources to get the information found in this remarkable one-of-a-kind volume. Jesus Goes to Hollywood is truly a "must read" for any person who wants to discover more about the historical Jesus, his life, and his teachings.

It got a Five Star rating!!

[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Unfortunately the Bible wasn't written in Latin. As for teaching high school Latin...that is not exactly much to write home about. High school Latin is easy. How does this give Teller the necessary exegetical and linguistic knowledge to make a thorough and informed study of the Bible?[/quote]Did I mention he had a degree from B.S.U.?
So in order for anyone to make a thorough and informed study of the Bible everyone has to learn, read and write Hebrew and Greek before they can explain or debunk The Bible and it's history and doctrine?

[quote]Carrdero quotes: And Jesus…well, Jesus was just a carpenter.[/quote]

[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes:And Jesus is the subject of the discussion, not the person responsible for making sure that it is well informed and conducted with due academic rigor.

Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: “The only word there that I will accept is uninformed. Couple that with unqualified and you have my views. If you linked me to a marine biologist who claimed to be able to teach me about Thomist philosophy, despite never having formally studied the subject in his life, I would say the same thing. This is neither slander nor libel but a simple statement of fact.”[/quote]Now let me see if I understand this correctly-You would never accept the teachings of Thomist Philosophy from a marine biologist, you refuse to be informed of the researched historical and religious investigations from two magicians and a attorney but yet you do not have a problem whole heartedly accepting the “spiritual” life teachings, and “Godly wisdom” from a carpenter or defending the scriptural insights and inspirations from a fisherman. I find that to be a bit hypocr-well let’s just say it’s unfair.

[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: When I learn something, I want to make sure that I am learning it from a good teacher. A reasonable stipulation, I think.[/quote]
Again, I must ask, if you cannot accept or consider the ramblings of my “unqualified/uninformed” candidates, what credentials and qualifications did Jesus and his apostles possess that you seem to accept without question and why do you adamantly embrace them wholeheartedly as expert teachers? What special and unique teachings could they possibly profess that you could not arrive at by yourself in this day and age or with the assistance from another existing entity?

[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Cambridge is the home of a world renowned university. Our libraries don't stock rubbish titles.[/quote]

I bet they have an extensive religious section though.

Edited April 24, 2007 by carrdero