by Shining One 103 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Amen brother in the Lord....Amen!.....and....hallelujah!!
I have a fondness for the man in the gospels....even if he may have never existed. If he was just a ghandi type guy with no superhuman qualities...I'd admire him just the same. He said some good stuff, but others put words in his mouth that he never said and tried to ruin his reputation. I still think Paul was a dickhead.
Gumghandi
I dislike the word "fabrication". It implies that those writing the gospels were trying to perpetuate a fraud. I doubt most who critically examine the literary history of the gospels hold such a view. I think most scholars who take them as works of literature rather than history recognize that they are statements of faith, that their authors believed what they are writing was true. So if an author was constructing a narrative out of material from the OT, for example, it would have been more likely because the author believed that such-and-such must have happened to Jesus because of what is stated in the OT....
I dislike the word "fabrication". It implies that those writing the gospels were trying to perpetuate a fraud.
That's a fair point. Perhaps the gospels were started with benign intentions but can we be sure that no fraud was committed in perpetuating the myth? What about those miracles?
And anyway, who'd trust bloody post number 6666 from anyone?!
I agree with Leolaia. One of the things that bothered me BAD when I was beginning to look at the bible from a sceptical viewpoint( reading books on this matter), was whether or not these writers were sincere.. or whether it was done maliciously by a bunch of heartless, lying men who had devious ideas with a selfish agenda. I never swallowed the latter.
I still need to learn more concerning just HOW these supposed "contemporary" authors who knew jesus or knew those who knew him and wrote about him, can have a group of people living at the same time called the Gnostics( believed in a "spiritual" non-historica jesus) , and that these gnostic did not ALSO believe in a literal Jesus. Why didn't they? They were there as were jesus diciples and apostles were they not? Why didn't THEY also see miracles and check out these wonderous stories about this man Jesus?
What MADE the authors of the gospels REALLY believe in Jesus as a god/man/messiah? Were the "authors" REALLY the authors? Critics say no, and these were written a generation past jesus time.
Gumby.....bows down and prays god will move leolaia ..or someone, to answer me soon.
Perhaps the gospels were started with benign intentions but can we be sure that no fraud was committed in perpetuating the myth?
Well, what is meant by the word "fraud"? What I'm getting at is that I doubt the authors were intentionally trying to deceive or relate things they did not believe to be true. This is relevant also to the question of pseudepigraphy found in the OT (e.g. Daniel), the NT (e.g. 2 Peter), and parabiblical texts (e.g. 1 Enoch, regarded by the author of Jude as inspired prophecy). Did you know it was believed by some first-century Jews and Christians that the Pentatuech and other purportedly pre-exilic books were destroyed in Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem, and that the scribe Ezra restored the books through divine revelation, tho he had no copies before him? In that sense, the belief was that much of the OT was pseudepigraphal, but that its content was true because Ezra was inspired. Whatever miracles and stories the evangelists passed on were believed by them to be true, even if they relied on no pre-existing texts or even oral traditions; Jesus had to have fed a multitude by multiplying loaves because Elisha did the same thing (cf. 2 Kings 4:42-44), and Jesus is greater than Elisha, and similarly he must have fed more people than Elisha because, again, he is greater than Elisha, etc.
I'm just curious. How many of you fine folks that spend so much time reading books & articles from one side of the debate (the skepital side) on the Scriptures, have actually read books & articles from the other side (the believers) side. Now I know, I am sure that you will tell me that the believers have an axe to grind, but doesn't the other side have a an axe to grind also?
One of the things that I learned how to do in college, is to research both sides of an issue. To become so familiar with both sides, that you could atack or defend both sides without giving up your own personal opinion.
Just curious if any have actually done that.
to answer me soon.
What a fascinating thread.
I still think Paul was a dickhead.
Me too Gumbnuts. I reckon if he was around now he'd be a Jehovah's Witness.
One of the things that I learned how to do in college, is to research both sides of an issue. To become so familiar with both sides, that you could atack or defend both sides without giving up your own personal opinion.
True enough bro, but here we have a burden of proof, and I don't personally think it's with the skeptic.
I still need to learn more concerning just HOW these supposed "contemporary" authors who knew jesus or knew those who knew him and wrote about him, can have a group of people living at the same time called the Gnostics( believed in a "spiritual" non-historical jesus) , and that these gnostic did not ALSO believe in a literal Jesus. Why didn't they? They were there as were jesus diciples and apostles were they not? Why didn't THEY also see miracles and check out these wonderous stories about this man Jesus?
Nowhere do the synoptic writers claim to have personally "known" Jesus. Even second-century traditions about Luke and Mark (which themselves stem from Papias of Hierapolis, who is not exactly trustworthy) acknowledged that the authors were at least a generation removed (tho had personal contacts with apostles).
I'm not sure it is fair to homogenize everything on the gnostic spectrum as all involving a "non-literal" interpretation of gospel narratives. To a large extent they are treated as allegorical, which is along the lines of Platonism (cf. Philo of Alexandria, who allegorized on the stories of the Pentateuch), and the second and third century gnostics were heavily influenced by Middle Platonism to be sure. But not all approaches to myths in antiquity were "non-literal" (we have the euhemerist approach which treated myths as concerning deified heroes, for instance) and it is not clear whether proto-gnosticism (which was closer to our NT material) was less allegorical than what is found in later texts. I am personally not convinced that a non-literal "Jesus myth" lay at the earliest substratum of Christianity. It is, to be sure, found in the earliest texts, namely Paul, but was Paul representative of the broad spectrum of primitive Christianity? I have my doubts about that. I find G. A. Wells' view more plausible that there was likely a historical Jesus who became merged with a co-existing "savior myth" in Hellenistic Christianity (i.e. in Paul and Mark), with (in my view) the earlier Jewish-Christian community reinterpreting the meaning of Jesus' death-resurrection from one of vindication and justice (along traditional Jewish OT and Maccabean models) to one of salvation and redemption.
That a historical figure can be "mythologized" after his death even by people who knew him has a precedent in the Qumran community who mythologized the Essene "Teacher of Righteousness" (the founder of the community, who lived in the early second century BC) into a figure who suffered (cf. the Qumran Pesharim), who taught truth against the "Wicked Priest", who established the true understanding of the Law (similar to how Jewish-Christians understood Jesus, cf. Matthew), who was exalted after his death (if 4Q427 is to be understood in that light), and who would teach righteousness in the end times (cf. the Damascus Document). All this would have been based on contemplation on the Teacher of Righteousness' role in the scheme of things...
Muslims believe that Jesus (called 'Isa in Arabic) was the son of Mary, and was conceived without the intervention of a human father. The Qur'an describes that an angel appeared to Mary, to announce to her the "gift of a holy son" (19:19).
Excuse my ignorance as I'm on new ground here, but do Islamic researchers have any evidence of Jesus's existence, and where do their "links" derive?
(Clam, whose biggest fear is patronising return posts)
