PSacramento: " Until there is prove that the Gospels were NOT written by those that tradition claimes to have written them, then there is no real reason to dispute tradition, is there? " Yes there is. I got that indication from Bartman's "Jesus Interrupted". In reality, there is no proof either way. What there is is sufficient indication that the writers were not the ones attributed in the work because they were illitereate. Not only does the Bible say so, but parallel knowledge of the times confirms that people with such skills as the apostles were not only uneducated but didn't speak Greek as the grammar and style in the manuscripts indicates.
I can't imagine not believing in God.
by MsGrowingGirl20 643 Replies latest members private
-
-
Etude
tec: You cannot have evidence against something that does not exist. You can only have evidence that fails to sustain that something exists. What you're saying is like having evidence against that invisible man over there. I hope you get the subtle difference.
"I am a big proponent of the fact that the bible has errors and is not inerrant" and yet you appear intent, at least to a certain degree, to stick with its story and message.
"The bible is not one source. It simply holds the accounts from many sources. So... more than one reference. But again, it is a finger... pointing... to Christ." Basically, it is the ONLY finger pointing to Christ. So, I guess what I'm gleaning from that statements is that you recognize that there are problems with the Bible (to what degree, I'm not sure), but that you see it as a collective of different sources (I presume some more reliable than others) and you get to pick and chose, after your examination of them, which you trust and which you don't. Is that right? If that's what you do, then your belief is indeed self-contained.
"It is not the fact that something is written in the bible that matters to me. It is the truth of what is written." Huh?????? So, in a way you're saying that it wouldn't really matter where this "truth" is written. Well, if I just take the that last sentence of yours, it all goes back to the way you choose or how you select what you're going to pick and choose from the Bible to justify your belief.
" One such truth is that Christ is here and is alive and speaks... as the Spirit. " Really? Where can I go listen, or what channel do I tune into, or what kind of altered state do I need to achieve (other than just accepting and without mushrooms) in order to perceive the Christ here and alive and as a Spirit? Your "truth" would go a long way if it affected us just like gravity and confronted those who don't believe in him or have some misgivings about him. And so, it becomes evident that this is a common problem with your "evidence". You simply state "one such truth is" without any need for verification of substantiation. Please, help us poor ignorant ones out here.
"Since I know that is true (because He has spoken to me, via the spirit)..." OK. Please provide some details about this spirit that a reasonable person can explore in order to ascertain its existence. This is not a dare and I realize you don't have to. But I sincerely would like to know and it would be kind gift on your part if suddenly I found myself at the threshold of something I completely ignore. If you use the Bible to explain it, then you get into a sticky wicket about the veracity of such concepts, which also seem indistinguishable from those conceived by individuals who were smoking some substance in the fungi genus. Therefore, I fail to see how you establish the "actual truth and/or validity in something written" unless you do it in terms of itself. That's bad form.
"Luke investigated what he wrote... from others." That may be partially true. Except that there's no way to determine that Luke (the apostle) ever wrote anything. More accurately your statement should read: "Whoever wrote Luke investigated from others". The reason is that the overwhelming indication from historians is that Mark the gospel was an earlier document and that the writers of Mathew and Luke referred from it or used it as a foundation in addition to "Q", an unknown source.
"We also have written at the end of the book of John that one of the disciples DID write things down." Again, you miss the point that just because some document says it was written by someone doesn't mean they actually wrote it. I once signed "Donald Duck" on credit a card receipt to see if anyone checked it. Had they checked it, it would not have been their assumption that I was a Disney character due to my signature. If you've read other opinions that contradict the timing of the Gospels, by all means let me have it.
Please read Acts 4:13 and notice what the Bible says about the illiteracy of Peter and John. They were not exceptions to the apostles. Besides that, there is corroboration from other non-biblical sources that show that individuals of such ranks in that society (fishermen, carpenters, etc) were not educated and most likely illiterate. Beyond that, I have to rely on linguists who can point to the use of complex sentences of the Greek in that period and find the same markings in the Gospels, something that was more typical of someone in a higher societal echelon. Ad that to the historical knowledge that in that period of time and place the men that would have been the apostles only spoke Aramaic and you have the perfect circumstance for someone much more erudite to have written the gospels for his own purposes.
"The writings and testimonies in the bible and elsewhere..." Where? That would really help because as you already agree, there are problems with the Bible. Is there something that historical critics missed or did I just fail to read about it? Unless you can assail that reasoning on the gospels as false with some other evidence (not just say so or from a spirit I can't dial up), I don't see how you can have reasonable confidence that what you base your belief on is actually so. You can have confidence in what you believe, but not based on any reasonable foundation.
-
PSacramento
Yes there is. I got that indication from Bartman's "Jesus Interrupted". In reality, there is no proof either way. What there is is sufficient indication that the writers were not the ones attributed in the work because they were illitereate. Not only does the Bible say so, but parallel knowledge of the times confirms that people with such skills as the apostles were not only uneducated but didn't speak Greek as the grammar and style in the manuscripts indicates.
Bart is ONE scholar, His own teeacher disagrees as do MANy others.
One wonders why people that choose to doubt the bible focus solely on HIS works and ignore the works of other scholars...
There is no indication that any of the writers of the gospels were illiterate. Luke was educated, if Matthew wrote Matthew, He was tax collector, there is no indication that Mark was illiterate.
There is something that also needs to be cleared up and that is that the disciples that the gospels are attributed were the ones thw WROTE the actual manuscirpts that circulated. The GOJ, of example, states that the Gospel was AT LEAST edited by others.
IMO, it is quite possibel the some of the Gospels were probably dictated and then put into final form by others ( with the possible exception of original Mark and proto/aramaic Matthew).
There is no reason to believe that Luke was NOT the original writer of ACTS and GOL however.
-
PSacramento
"I am a big proponent of the fact that the bible has errors and is not inerrant" and yet you appear intent, at least to a certain degree, to stick with its story and message.
My point is simply this, unless we nahe solid and concrete evidence to go against tradition, the best we can do is expres our concerns over the issues and suggest a possibility but admit that it is only conjecture.
IMO, the bible has been copied and edited over time, the bible itself warns that over time scribes may have altered it ( Jeremiah).
IN regards to the NT, it is a vital and important source that gives witness to Christ and the views of His disciples and followers.
-
EntirelyPossible
My point is simply this, unless we nahe solid and concrete evidence to go against tradition, the best we can do is expres our concerns over the issues and suggest a possibility but admit that it is only conjecture.
The best we can do is look for better evidence and take a scientifically plausible position of "unknown". We already know the bible riddles with falsehoods and errors, why default to "it's right unless you prove it wrong"? That's never been the right answer for anything.
-
PSacramento
The best we can do is look for better evidence and take a scientifically plausible position of "unknown". We already know the bible riddles with falsehoods and errors, why default to "it's right unless you prove it wrong"? That's never been the right answer for anything.
Fair enough but we are not talking about the bible being right, we were talking about the validity of tradition.
My point is that passing off speculation as "proof" is incorrect.
Tradition says that Mark, the follower of Peter wrote the Gospel of Mark, there is no reason to beleive that tradition is wrong unless proof is found that someone else did. What CAN be called into question is HOW he wrote it ( based on what source) and how much what we have has been changed from the original ( if anything).
Tradition states that Mark, a follower of Peter wrote the GOM, probably around mid to early late 1st century.
Copies then circulated, copies of which the subsequent generations of Christians continued to attribute the core to the original GOM.
The oldest copies and samples we have now date to late 200 AD although there may be a fragment thatis dated to the 1st century, we won't know that till next year I think.
These copies were made by followers and while there is no way to confirm how faithful they are to the original, the majority of scholars and historians believe them to be historically accurate.
We can point out issues from one copy to another, which has been done for centuries, but historians and translators tend to go with the earliest forms available to them.
Now, untill some concrete evidence to the contray comes up, all we can do is voice specualtion and conjecture about any issues and true to solve them as best we can. We CAN'T deny the issues but we can't jump to conclusions either.
-
EntirelyPossible
Fair enough but we are not talking about the bible being right, we were talking about the validity of tradition.
It's kind of funny that those pushing for the Bible because of tradition wouldn't be in this spot had the people before them in the earlier centuries been overthrowing tradition.
My point is that passing off speculation as "proof" is incorrect.
So why do you keep doing it?
Now, untill some concrete evidence to the contray comes up, all we can do is voice specualtion and conjecture about any issues and true to solve them as best we can. We CAN'T deny the issues but we can't jump to conclusions either.
But you are. You are jumping to the conclusion that the tradition is right (when there are real reasons for doubting it) and insisting we all stay there.
-
PSacramento
It's kind of funny that those pushing for the Bible because of tradition wouldn't be in this spot had the people before them in the earlier centuries been overthrowing tradition.
Nah, no one is pushing the bible at all.
Go back to the issue at hand, which is who authored the Gospels?
Tradition says one thing and they base that on the views of those closest to the source(s).
Were they right? perhaps yes or perhaps not is the correct way to approach it.
What evidence do we have that those people that the gospels were attributed to, did NOT write the originals ?
Well, some say there are concerns about the language being used, the style of writing and so forth.
WHat are the arguments Pro and against them?
Are these arguments based on solid facts? speculations? legit concerns? ( usually a combination of them).
WHat it boils down to is this:
The evidence we have for the writers being those named by tradition is evidence from those closest to the sources of the originals.
The evidence we have for doubting the authorship is due to issues that may or may not have to do with the originals or the copies we have, we just don't know for sure.
AT best what we can say is that: The original gospels were probably authored by those they are attributed to BUT we do NOT know who copied them and edited them over the centuries or how close they are to the originals but that most scholars and historians are statisfied with their historosity.
-
EntirelyPossible
The evidence we have for the writers being those named by tradition is evidence from those closest to the sources of the originals.
That's just evidence that someone attributed the writings to certain people, it's in no way evidence of that being correct.
The evidence we have for doubting the authorship is due to issues that may or may not have to do with the originals or the copies we have, we just don't know for sure.
Inconsistencies, language, culture, etc., all point against.
You are counting the hits and ignoring the misses.
AT best what we can say is that: The original gospels were probably authored by those they are attributed to BUT we do NOT know who copied them and edited them over the centuries or how close they are to the originals but that most scholars and historians are statisfied with their historosity.
You have no reason to add "probably" in there other than wishful thinking.
-
PSacramento
Inconsistencies, language, culture, etc., all point against.
All answered:
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/ntintro/mark.htm
Of course you can choose to not accept that view but the point is that there is no concrete evidence that Mark did NOT write the original gospel attributed to him.
Now, do I PERSONALLY think that Mark wrote it?
I think that the evidence points to that the original was written by A Mark, Not sure which but IF tradtion is correct, it was John Mark, the "interpreter" of Peter. BUT I think that the original was a collection of sayings and "points" that were later collected and made into the Gospel of Mark as was passed on over the centuries. Probably by Mark's followers.
As we also know, there are issues on how Mark ends, the original having been lost, so we do NOT know how the original ended.