HISTORICAL METHOD and the Question of Christian Origins

[Doc Doom]

Maybe it's because I'm jumping in the middle here Hawkins asked for examples of primary historical sources, not primary historical sources of the existence of Jesus. Hence my indication of Caesar's books, Josephus (writing about the Jewish Wars, in which he was a participant) etc

Not a problem.

 

[Logicman]

This from a Non-Profit Christian Organization so I would expect this to be biased.

I think the bias is on your end, to precipitously make a judgment like that.

What I see is this. Firstly none of the NT writers saw a Jesus and are writing from second hand accounts and versions of other stories. The books of the NT are written by anonymous authors and go under assumed names. And for this to be such a popular text there was not even a mention of the Gospels until the Second Century....

Nope. The historical record shows otherwise.

Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

If you compare the books side by side Matthew contains 606 of the 661 verses out of Mark. Luke contains 321 verses out of Marks 661 verses. 76% of Luke and Matthew are reproduced from Marks work.

Does the above mean anything? I would assume that each had access to the others writings along the way so copying each other I would think is not that uncommon. The glaring thing that jumps out at me is that through all these writings not one of them mention what this Jesus looks like. There is absolutely no physical description of him in any of these text.

Nope. They're not exactly alike. There's plenty of word variations, curious if they just copied verbatim. In addition, they all had the following source, which isn't Q (Q isn't needed):

"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." - John 14:26

Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark......Luke used the Gospel of Mark as his historical chronology and the hypothetical sayings in the Q document for the sayings of Jesus.

Q is a highly discredited HYPOTHESIS.

Ten Reasons to Question Q

The Case Against Q: Ten Reasons

Fallacies at the Heart of Q

The Case Against Q: Fallacies at the Heart of Q

One other thing: If they did copy Q or another Gospel, Jesus is still resurrected. Give your life to Jesus.

 

[Logicman]

There are a number of issues with the so called 'eye witness' testimony

Tell it to somebody who believes your nonsense.

 

[RAMOSS]

Tell it to somebody who believes your nonsense.

I did. I wasn't tell you. I was giving my analysis to the forum as a whole, On the other hand you should be happy someone actually read one of your raw links.

 

[Logicman]

I did. I wasn't tell you. I was giving my analysis to the forum as a whole...

Then address it to them, and leave me out of your nonsense postings.

 

[Doc Doom]

I think the bias is on your end, to precipitously make a judgment like that.



Nope. The historical record shows otherwise.

Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship



Nope. They're not exactly alike. There's plenty of word variations, curious if they just copied verbatim. In addition, they all had the following source, which isn't Q (Q isn't needed):

"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." - John 14:26



Q is a highly discredited HYPOTHESIS.

Ten Reasons to Question Q

The Case Against Q: Ten Reasons

Fallacies at the Heart of Q

The Case Against Q: Fallacies at the Heart of Q

One other thing: If they did copy Q or another Gospel, Jesus is still resurrected. Give your life to Jesus.

You don't know much about this stuff do you? Anyway I digress. This may help:

The Historical-Critical Method

 

[RAMOSS]

Then address it to them, and leave me out of your nonsense postings.

No, It is responding explicitly to your claim. I am going to be using your claim as a reference point. You, of course, do not have to respond to my point if you do not wish. That is your right and your privilege. If you don't want me responding to bad claims, don't make bad claims.

 

[Logicman]

You don't know much about this stuff do you? Anyway I digress. This may help:

The Historical-Critical Method

I recommend you get the Holy Spirit through Jesus, so you can understand Biblical truths (1 Corinthians 2:14).

 

[Doc Doom]

I recommend you get the Holy Spirit through Jesus, so you can understand Biblical truths (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Thats kind of a disheartening post there dude...Especially since you have spent all this time trying to prove the Bible with the Bible which I have never seen work.

 

[Logicman]

Thats kind of a disheartening post there dude...Especially since you have spent all this time trying to prove the Bible with the Bible which I have never seen work.

Show me a lie in the Gospels, and document it?

 

[Doc Doom]

Show me a lie in the Gospels, and document it?

What lie am I suppose to be pointing out? Especially since I never said anything about a lie.....I said proving the Bible with the Bible that is not saying anything about some lie. Pull this train back on track and stop trying to misdirect with Jedi mind games dude.

 

[Logicman]

What lie am I suppose to be pointing out? Especially since I never said anything about a lie.....Pull this train back on track and stop trying to misdirect with mind games dude.

If you don't believe the Gospels accounts then give me a concrete example why. But if you do believe them then fine, no problem.

 

[RAMOSS]

I recommend you get the Holy Spirit through Jesus, so you can understand Biblical truths (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Of course, this is assuming that Paul/Saul is correct. I personally do not accept that writing as being authoritative.

 

[Visbek]

Nope. The historical record shows otherwise.

Afraid not. The historical record is quite thin, and it's not clear that you understand exactly how thin it is. Re-read some of my recent posts.

Nope. They're not exactly alike. There's plenty of word variations, curious if they just copied verbatim. In addition, they all had the following source, which isn't Q (Q isn't needed):

Copies aren't always precise. It is well known that copying methods can introduce errors, redactions and interpolations. We have lots of evidence of that with Medieval manuscripts, produced by hand, before the invention of movable type.

What we do know is that the closeness of many of the texts makes it readily apparent that people were copying from one another. The exact order is not clear -- e.g. some hold that Matthew and Luke were copying Mark; that Matthew, Mark and Thomas may have copied from another early source, now lost; that John was likely not copying Mark, Matthew, Luke or Thomas; some assert that Matthew came first, and Mark saw unpublished versions of Luke's gospel.

It's not clear if Q is needed. What is fairly evident is that Matthew and Luke share a source in addition to Mark, and that attempts to resolve the Synoptic Problem without Q are equally problematic as the Two Source Theory. (E.g. why was Mark's gospel shorter than that of his source? What is the source of the Double Tradition?)

Q is a highly discredited HYPOTHESIS.

Uh... No, it really isn't. Its existence is widely accepted. E.g. from the Jesus Seminar:

As we enter a new century, some form of the Two Source hypothesis continues to be preferred by an overwhelming majority of critically trained New Testament scholars as the theory that is best able to resolve the synoptic problem. Although the Jesus Seminar did not formally endorse any single theory of the relationship between Matthew, Mark & Luke, the fact that the Two Source hypothesis was presupposed by most Fellows in their own analysis of gospel texts inevitably made it the common frame of reference for most of the Seminar's debate about the sayings & deeds of Jesus.

This does not mean every scholar accepts it, or that every scholar must accept it, or that it is wholly uncontroversial. However, it is certainly not "highly discredited" because one scholar (Goodacre) wrote a few books on it over 10 years ago.

One other thing: If they did copy Q or another Gospel, Jesus is still resurrected. Give your life to Jesus.

lol

Yeah, not so much. These types of textual discussions neither prove nor disprove a supernatural belief. It's more like figuring out a puzzle, where half the pieces are missing.

 

[Logicman]

Afraid not. The historical record is quite thin, and it's not clear that you understand exactly how thin it is. Re-read some of my recent posts.

Copies aren't always precise. It is well known that copying methods can introduce errors, redactions and interpolations. We have lots of evidence of that with Medieval manuscripts, produced by hand, before the invention of movable type.

What we do know is that the closeness of many of the texts makes it readily apparent that people were copying from one another. The exact order is not clear -- e.g. some hold that Matthew and Luke were copying Mark; that Matthew, Mark and Thomas may have copied from another early source, now lost; that John was likely not copying Mark, Matthew, Luke or Thomas; some assert that Matthew came first, and Mark saw unpublished versions of Luke's gospel.

It's not clear if Q is needed. What is fairly evident is that Matthew and Luke share a source in addition to Mark, and that attempts to resolve the Synoptic Problem without Q are equally problematic as the Two Source Theory. (E.g. why was Mark's gospel shorter than that of his source? What is the source of the Double Tradition?)

Uh... No, it really isn't. Its existence is widely accepted. E.g. from the Jesus Seminar:

As we enter a new century, some form of the Two Source hypothesis continues to be preferred by an overwhelming majority of critically trained New Testament scholars as the theory that is best able to resolve the synoptic problem. Although the Jesus Seminar did not formally endorse any single theory of the relationship between Matthew, Mark & Luke, the fact that the Two Source hypothesis was presupposed by most Fellows in their own analysis of gospel texts inevitably made it the common frame of reference for most of the Seminar's debate about the sayings & deeds of Jesus.

This does not mean every scholar accepts it, or that every scholar must accept it, or that it is wholly uncontroversial. However, it is certainly not "highly discredited" because one scholar (Goodacre) wrote a few books on it over 10 years ago.

lol

Yeah, not so much. These types of textual discussions neither prove nor disprove a supernatural belief. It's more like figuring out a puzzle, where half the pieces are missing.

The Jesus Seminar involved a pack of liberal anti-supernaturalists voting with colored beads, LOL.

Anyway, I'll stick with what I've presented, and you're welcome to your beliefs.

 

[RAMOSS]

The Jesus Seminar involved a pack of liberal anti-supernaturalists voting with colored beads, LOL.

Anyway, I'll stick with what I've presented, and you're welcome to your beliefs.

Since you are fuming so much about 'anti-supernaturalists', can you show that the opposite concept as any validity what so ever? Do you have something more than complaining about 'anti-supernatural bias'.

 

[CrabCake]

Uh... No, it really isn't. Its existence is widely accepted. E.g. from the Jesus Seminar:

While you are right that Q finds widespread, though not universal, acceptance among New Testament Scholars, choosing the Jesus Seminar as an example was a really poor choice. I don't know of a group of New Testament scholars whose work is considered less credible than the Jesus Seminar and those involved in the Third Quest.

I find it far more telling that even Jerry Falwell's Liberty University teaches Q. The same University that teaches Young Earth Creationism and is known as a bulwark of fundamentalism teaches all of its theology students about the synoptic problem and Q as a viable solution.

 

[Logicman]

Since you are fuming so much about...

Don't bother me with your nonsense.

 

[Doc Doom]

If you don't believe the Gospels accounts then give me a concrete example why. But if you do believe them then fine, no problem.

Stop trying so hard to put words in my mouth please......No where again did I say I did not believe them......Your trying so hard to bully this stuff on people. I am through with this debate now as there is no debating you. Your right and everyone else is wrong which is a typical christian approach in a volley like this.....

 

[Logicman]

Stop trying so hard to put words in my mouth please......No where again did I say I did not believe them......Your trying so hard to bully this stuff on people. I am through with this debate now as there is no debating you. Your right and everyone else is wrong which is a typical christian approach in a volley like this.....

Bye bye.

 

[Somerville]

Show me a lie in the Gospels, and document it?

Nice. The core of the problem when discussing the origins of the Christian faith lies in the ever so small fact that once Christianity had become the state religion of the Roman Empire, all heretical documents were destroyed on the orders of various bishops and Church Fathers.

ALL of the 'pagan' documents we have today are copies made by Christian scribes. We simply do not know what the original forms of those texts might have been.

There are a couple of problems to be found in the Gospels:
1: No earthquake
2: No zombies
3: No eclipse
4: Bad geography
5: Date of the census

 

[Logicman]

Nice. The core of the problem when discussing the origins of the Christian faith lies in the ever so small fact that once Christianity had become the state religion of the Roman Empire, all heretical documents were destroyed on the orders of various bishops and Church Fathers.

ALL of the 'pagan' documents we have today are copies made by Christian scribes. We simply do not know what the original forms of those texts might have been.

There are a couple of problems to be found in the Gospels:
1: No earthquake
2: No zombies
3: No eclipse
4: Bad geography
5: Date of the census

Yada yada...

I've seen those arguments (1-5) before and none have held up to close scrutiny.

But here's a question for you: If what we have are copies of the Gospels and Acts and a few others, they all still say Jesus is resurrected. You should embrace that.

 

[Somerville]

Yada yada...

I've seen those arguments (1-5) before and none have held up to close scrutiny.

But here's a question for you: If what we have are copies of the Gospels and Acts and a few others, they all still say Jesus is resurrected. You should embrace that.

"Yada yada..." is not an answer

Telling us you "have seen those arguments before" is not an answer

The ever so small fact that all of the books found in the New Testament support your version of the Christian faith is owing to the ever so small fact that almost all competing versions of the story were deliberately destroyed during a time when the vast majority of Christians were illiterate. All that most believers knew is what they were told by those men who were allowed to speak on the matter. In Europe and North Africa, those who called themselves Christian but held different beliefs from the accepted ones were persecuted to a far greater extent than the Romans' persecution in the first two centuries of the faith.

Now, take the time and provide us with some of the knowledge gained in your "40 years of studying the Bible". Explain to us exactly how the events noted in post #321 are not found in any of the pagan writings of the period. Or not - you have consistently failed in all of those threads to do anything more than link to certain websites and to parrot the words of other evangelicals, so I don't really expect you to provide an answer which is actually on topic. The topic is not the veracity of the tales told in the Bible, rather is discussion of the origins of the faith

 

[Logicman]

"Yada yada..." is not an answer

Telling us you "have seen those arguments before" is not an answer

The ever so small fact that all of the books found in the New Testament support your version of the Christian faith is owing to the ever so small fact that almost all competing versions of the story were deliberately destroyed during a time when the vast majority of Christians were illiterate. All that most believers knew is what they were told by those men who were allowed to speak on the matter. In Europe and North Africa, those who called themselves Christian but held different beliefs from the accepted ones were persecuted to a far greater extent than the Romans' persecution in the first two centuries of the faith.

Now, take the time and provide us with some of the knowledge gained in your "40 years of studying the Bible". Explain to us exactly how the events noted in post #321 are not found in any of the pagan writings of the period. Or not - you have consistently failed in all of those threads to do anything more than link to certain websites and to parrot the words of other evangelicals, so I don't really expect you to provide an answer which is actually on topic. The topic is not the veracity of the tales told in the Bible, rather is discussion of the origins of the faith

Jesus is Lord. Always has been. That's all you need to know.

 

[TheGoverness]

Jesus is Lord. Always has been. That's all you need to know.

"Yada yada"...