by ackack 79 Replies latest watchtower bible
I believe the core of the sort of person he was shines through all the clutter quite nicely.
I believe the same about Mother Theresa and Ghandi (both of which I spelled wrong prolly)
btw AuldSoul, I still need to kick yer arse on the trinity thread when I get some time... ya bastard!
Gumby
My current view is that the gospels are genuine.
Did the later gospels copy the earlier gospels? It appears so. Did they use a Q document as a soure? It appears so. But, they aren't identical and each adds an interesting point or two or a different perspective. I would love someone to find the Q document; that would be incredible.
Why didn't Paul mention the gospels? I don't know. Perhaps he was more interested in preaching the teachings of Jesus to god-fearers rather than discussing the historical life of Jesus.
Not that the writers of the gospels weren't interested in preaching as well but they also wanted us to know something about Jesus life.
I think some of the most interesting stuff is comparing accounts between Luke's Acts and Paul's letters.
I'm not ready to shed my faith in the scriptures. I am ready to say some things just don't make sense and some things don't seem to agree; but I still have faith that Jesus died for my sins and I will receive my reward (what that is I'm still not quite sure).
Read you "All Scripture is Inspired" book. You'll see so much special pleading it'll make your head spin. A lot of canonical signs are: did the church fathers use them/know of them? do they harmonize with other parts of what are considered sacred/canonical writings? do they/did they have any real import to their intended audience and might they be useful in the future?
The bible is a product of man. Useful in some respects (the study of history, language, theology). Completely unneeded for morality, determining the ultimate purpose of life, finding inner oeace. Very destructive when used to back ideologies of warfare, legislated moral codes, and any intrusion into governmental affairs.
Listener, It will never be found as it never existed. The hypothesized Q document seems to have it's attractiveness because it presumes an historical personage as source of at least some of the Gospel material. It really stands as the last obstical to accepting that Jesus is an idealistic literary creation drawn from OT patterns and nearly universal 'dying and rising god' and 'Sacred King' motifs. This is why it is so doggedly insited upon by both theologians and secular scholars dispite the lack of any empirical evidence. Once it is recognized that the writers of Mark and Matt were authors and not reporters the picture changes considerably.
The letters that Paul wrote to the Ephesians, Galatians, Colossian etc, were just that - letters.
Who assumed they were inspired at the time?
A letter is far different than a novel.
Were Paul's letters held in enough regard to warrant the Scribes copying them?
AuldSoul,
I should have highlighted my comment:
Even if there was a historical Jesus none of the Gospels is a historical account of his life (or teachings).Or (the other side of the coin): the "Jesus" of Christian faith is not a historical character. (Otoh he is a historicised character.)
Iow: if there was a historical character (or several) behind some Gospel stories -- let's say a "Jesus" who would not walk on the sea -- this character would just not be identical to the object of Christian faith. Which object is not a historical character.
(Think about it twice: this is only superficially superficial )
The entire Jesus story is the Myth of the dying and rising Godman going all the way back to Osiris in Egypt. Christ is far more powerful in my life now that I know "Christ" is the eternal Christ principle within us all.
AuldSoul, just one point I wanted to ask you. You mention that the gospels would not have been "scripture" to Paul, but don't you think its odd that Paul doesn't refer to anything Jesus ever said or did? Why wouldn't he have?
Or in any of the OT examples Paul uses, there wouldn't be a single NT example or any of the NT characters referred to by Paul?
Kinda feels like Paul and the gospels are completely disconnected.
ackack
defd, how do you argue against the ideas in my first post? I'm honestly wondering as a believer, how do you reconcile such things?
ackack
There is no evidence a world-wide flood occurred 4,000 years ago.
Worse, there is ample evidence that such a flood did NOT occur.
Jesus spoke of the flood as a historical event.
From that, I conclude that the gospels are not genuine. Perhaps there are some aspects that are correct, maybe even historically. But the great thing about claiming inspiration is that if there's anything wrong, you just proved it ain't inspired.
Beyond that, are they genuinely people's views of what happened at that time? I defer to the others that have done real, live research! (It sounds like not) But once you know they weren't inspired, why bother? There's lots of old books to read, why focus on this one?
Dave
