by Island Man 29 Replies latest watchtower bible
This lecture by Dr. Richard Carrier will definitely give you something to think about (please note that the video is linked to start about half hour into the video which is when the lecture starts):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILldt2XHZw0&feature=player_detailpage#t=1659
If the timing doesn't work just move the play head to the 27:00 mark. I think there is also a link in the video to jump to the start of the lecture.
Myth.
Both. They are the Q documents mixed with some oral tradition embellished with Greco/Roman mythology.
The apostle Paul's travels and preaching preceded the gospels, and Paul "became all things to all men", ie, he engaged in a sort of "pious fraud" by tolerating and winking at the pagan converts oral embellishments of Jesus where they added their own bits and pieces from their own mythologies. Whatever it took to get them to convert to Christianity, Paul allowed it.
These embellished oral accounts eventually crystallised into the written gospels a few decades later, starting with Mark's gospel which was written for the purpose of converting pagans and upon which the other gospels were based.
Good video.
I am starting to rethink the whole thing over, I suppose the gospels could have been acurate history records, but now I am doubting this. I dont know yet.
I don't think the Gospels of Matthew,Mark or John set out to be accurate history at all. They were written purely to give a boost to the Jesus Christ Cult.
Luke pretends he has checked everything out, but proceeds to write some singularly inaccurate "history". He seems to be, in his gospel and in Acts, trying to cover over the inconsitences of the others.
So, basically everything we have about Jesus of Nazareth can be put in the Literary Genre of Myth. That does not mean to say that the books do not contain true accounts of actual events and people, they may well do so, but they must be taken with a huge sack of salt.
Anyone who tries to tell you they are absolute truth and totally correct is a numbnuts.
These videos might follow well with this, you decide...
Real historical background is no guarantee of a true story.
For exmple, "Mad Men" series is historically correct — but the story is still fiction.
Same goes for the gospels.
It is hardly possible to read the gospels and still believe they are factual accounts.
The idea only survives because most people pick favourite verses rather than read them as books
Let's abandon the notion of truth or history for a moment.
If I hear about something which sounds wonderful I cannot ignore it, can I?
If that "something" has already happened (or so I'm told) I cannot visit the events themselves. I can seek out those who claim they were there.
Ultimately, after the fact (or presumed fact) second hand information (or presumed information) is only as good as your source.
Trust is not the issue. It seldom is a satisfactory solution to believability, historicity or accuracy.
