FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-22-2001, 11:33 PM   #21
Opus1
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 177
Post

Tercel wrote:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I present the unanimous writings of the early Church on the subject.</font>
All from the mid 2nd century onward. And all from the "Orthodox" Pauline church, after the Jewish Christians had been either expelled or killed.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> If you wish to ignore these please give one of the following:
1) A reason for the Christian writers who believe a religion which extolls good deeds, love, and truthfullness to lie.
</font>
It is obvious that you are not even reading what I posted. I said that the early Christians used detective work to try to figure out who wrote the gospels, but that they drew firmer conclusions than the evidence warranted. This is not lying in any sense of the word. Had you read and understood what I wrote, perhaps you wouldn't say such stupid things.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
2) A reason for them to be unknowledgeable about their subject matter, or a reason for their inability to obtain true information.
</font>
The original gospels were anonymous. The earliest references we have to them are at least 50 years after the fact, at a time when literacy was rare and the average human lifespan was about 25 years. Suppose you lead a church in Philippi. One day you receive an anonymous gospel from a town many miles away. How do you find information about it? Send a telegram? E-mail someone? No. Any communication would take months or years, be very costly, and may not get you any closer to the information you need. So you take it as an anonymous gospel, and leave it as such. Eventually, somebody gets the bright idea of trying to figure out who wrote the gospels, and makes educated guesses. So the next time he copies it, he puts the name that he's come up with on it, believing it to be correct. Copies are made and sent out, and before you know it a previously anonymous gospel has become the gospel of John, or Matthew, or Luke, or Mark.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
As for 2), it seems obvious that they would have hade access to 100s of times the documents we have now on the matter. </font>
It may seem obvious to you, but not to me. Documents were rare and expensive in those times. Paul's letters to the various churches, which are now reproduced in literally billions of Bibles in hundreds of languages around the world, were unavailable to most people until around 125-130 CE, when people began collecting them. Thus the only way that you could look at the epistle Galatians is if you happened to worship in a church in the city of Galatia.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Papias lived early enough to be able to have talked to people who had known the gospel writers. Furthermore these are the leaders of the Church writing here - they would have had access to all Church records, teachings, people etc.</font>
You're assuming your conclusion here--which is that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses and disciples. If this is not true, then Papias would not have interviewed anybody, because he would have had no reason to do so. You're also assuming that Eusebius--writing two centuries later--faithfully recorded what Papias wrote. You're also assuming that all the legends about disciples like John living to be 96 are accurate and not a bunch of Christian mythology. Papias was bishop of Hierapolis around 130. We have to have disciples living into the (and their) 80's and 90's in order for him to speak with them.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Of course you could always claim they were lying, but I hope you realise just what you would be claiming by this - that these great figures/leaders/scholars were going against all that their own religion stood for.
</font>
Once again with the strawman. As I've already rebutted, I emphatically do not claim that anyone was lying in their attributions of the gospel names. However, if you want to press the point, I do have ample evidence that lying was common in early Christianity. For example:

Many apocryphal texts claim to be written by disciples or other key figures in Jesus' life (Pilate), but we know that they were not.

Many apocryphal texts contain events that appear to have been woven from whole cloth, such as the infancy story of Mary, or the Acts of Andrew.

A certain early church father (Can't remember who--Justin Martyr or Eusebius, I think) specifically said that it was okay to lie to further Christianity.

Most scholars are of the opinion that at least six of the letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament aren't by him.

One early codex has a marginal note by a monk chastising another monk for altering the text.

Numerous textual variants exist in the NT, many of which could only have gotten there via a conscious decision by a scribe to insert or delete a certain part.

"Luke" himself admits that certain gospels of Jesus are not accurate, which is why he is writing his version.

Non-Christian texts, such as those of Josephus, were clearly altered by Christian scribes to make them more acceptable.

Finally, is there any evidence whatsoever that would convince you that the gospels were not written by the men to whom they are accredited? Or are you one of those who believes every jot and tittle of the Bible just because it's the Bible?
Opus1 is offline  
Old 03-23-2001, 01:03 AM   #22
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by soulofdarwin:
Manuel asserts that the GOSPELS are eyewitness accounts of Jesus the Resurrected Jewish Messiah (JRJM):

Quote:
Each eyewitness to JRJM (persons who saw him alive after resurrection and gave their Testimony) were arrested and tortured during the decades following the incident and none of them ever recanted under extreme duress of their Testimony. They had remained visible public figures in their communities for all those years, and some, like John, even went to write several books on their first hand experience with JRJM and died of old age. Interestingly, John's book on JRJM, which was written decades after the three previous books on JRJM made by the other eyewitnesses, has surviving fragments from 30 years after he published it. No other books in history have so many existing ancient copies, partial or complete, yet no other books are so much slandered, grilled or excoriated than them.
__________________
Manuel Alonso desde el jurutungo de Bairoa
</font>


OK, scholars, a bible 101 question:

I recall no discussion of the gospels as being eyewitness accounts, that is to say, written by the ORIGINAL DISCIPLES of Christ. To the contrary, what I have read and heard on the matter has led me to believe that the gospels are sourced in oral tradition - HERESAY, NOT TESTIMONY. What's the real deal here?

[This message has been edited by soulofdarwin (edited March 18, 2001).]

Meta =&gt; First, that is debatable. The Evangelical camp is convenced, as Chruch history records, that the Gospels were either written by eye witnesses (Matt. John) or by those who knew eye witnesses (Luke, Mark). Mark is suppossedly the testimony of Peter distilled to Mark, his interpriter.

Be that as it may, what is certrain is that oral tradition is not heresay! It is merely an oral record. This in no way means that they were just spreading rumors. The Gospels were produced by communities, people living togther or near each other and working together and sharing their faith. This means that these stories were subjected to the community all the time, perhaps in group seesions. It is highly likely that each community has living in it many eye witnesses. So the record, though oral, was still subjected to the criticism of those who were there. The community was the author and the community witnessed the events.

 
Old 03-23-2001, 01:11 AM   #23
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by offa:
John was completed before the Saul of Tarsus
showed up (37 CE) and Jesus dictated most of
what was written. Everybody says John was written last because another writer also called John (for this very reason) made a few additions after the other three gospels were completed. Oh, Jesus was quite human and survived the crucifixion. That is why St. Paul was able to become an apostle and, also, St. Paul was able to claim Jesus talked to him. The only way the myth could survive is to make Jesus a puka (Harvey the rabbit).

thanks, offa
</font>

Meta =&gt;I'm sorry, the Christ survived the resurrection thing has been discredited time and time again. It goes back to the 17th century and was totally debuncked by Albert Schweitzer in the 1906 work The Quest of hte Historical Jesus. There is no reaosn to accept it as it is groundless an flys in the face of most of the evidence. Dr. Theirien revived it most recently but her book is a joke, and you wont find any major scholars who take it seriously.


Her major gimick was to insist, even against all textual validity, that the Gospels are Peshers, a Jews genre which encodes hidden messages in wirting. But this allows her to interprit the things anyway she wants to on the grounds that only she can decode the puzzel (Pesher = Puzzell). Moreover, her method of understanding Pesher is totally at odds with real peschers found at Qumran.


John is assumed to have been written last because one can see from the text that it makes some use of Mark, or a common source with Mark, and form the statements about them temple and other evidence in the text.

The bit about Jesus surviving the crucifiction has no support whatsoever, and theiene doesn't argue for it ratinoally but assumes based upon certain statemetns that Jesus was dictating. There is no reason to assume that.

 
Old 03-23-2001, 01:26 AM   #24
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:
Quote:
Originally posted by Tercel:
Quote:
Originally posted by soulofdarwin:
I recall no discussion of the gospels as being eyewitness accounts, that is to say, written by the ORIGINAL DISCIPLES of Christ. To the contrary, what I have read and heard on the matter has led me to believe that the gospels are sourced in oral tradition - HERESAY, NOT TESTIMONY. What's the real deal here?</font>
It's the traditional Christian position (Going right back to Papias who lived early 2nd century AD) that the GoMatthew (Gospel of) was written by Matthew the disciple. The GoMark by Mark a friend of Peter. The GoLuke by Luke a friend of Paul, and the GoJohn by John the disciple.



Most non-Christians aren't prepared to accept the idea that the Gospels record eyewitness accounts, or they insist on later heavy editing.


MEta =&gt;So? Why should we be concerned with what those who dont' care about it say? We should be concerned with what scholars say.That doesn't change or deny the facts.

"Christian tradition" came over a hundred years after Jesus' death and there are good reasons for not accepting the words of the so-called church fathers.

MEta =&gt;No that's not true. The taditino begins immediately. What we have in writting 100 years latter comes from the original community and extends in time to the present. It's an unbroken tradition. Nor do the chruch father's writtings being 100 years latter. Christ died in 33 not 1, Clement of Rome worte in 95 and he knew Peter and Paul.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Furthermore, it is not "non-Christians" only who question the authorship of the narratives. Christian scholar, Francis Wright Beare, writes: "All the gospels are anonymous documents, and nothing is known of the authors. The traditional names attached to them are second-hand guesses. If we continue to speak of them by the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, it is simply for the sake of convenience." The Earliest Records of Jesus, P. 13.</font>
Meta =&gt; But that still assumes the community as author theory which I mention above. It doesn't mean that the Gospels are just made up nor does it mean they are rumars. But rather, the witnesses living in the original community told the sotry over and over again to those who came to join them untill it was written down. There is good evidence that Luke wrote Luke and that he was in contact with and interviewed eye witnesses.

There's certainly nothing against them being eyewitness accounts (apart from not wanting them to be).

This is simiply not true. There are problems with every narrative. THAT is the reason scholars, Christian and non-Christian, question their authorship.

Meta =&gt; What problems? Redaction is not a problem, nor does it eliminate eye-witness testimony. There is good evidence that John was a witness. He doesn't have to be the Apostle John to be a witness. It is quite likely that Luke's Gospel is theo only one really written by its namesake, but that doesn't mean the others don't have eye witness testimony behind them.

The account of Jesus writing on the ground (See John 8:6-8) serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
If Jesus practiced magic, and there is a large body of evidence suggesting he did, it serves a very real purpose. Jewish magicians wrote or drew on the ground in some instances.</font>
MEta =&gt; That so called "large body" goes back to Martin Smith who probably forgged Secret Mark. There is no actual substantial evidence for this assertion, it is based mainly upon streching "hints" in the text until they resemble some sort of magical practice.

It is purely and simply descriptive. Either the author is making up a completely and utterly purposeless detail

It would make no sense for the writer to make up an irrelavant detail.

Meta =&gt;What sense would it make to include hints that Jesus did magic and not state it openly?


or he is recording an eyewitness account of what happened, and includes it simply because he saw it. Thus this particular bit of John looks to me like an eyewitness account... of course that doesn't necessarily mean the rest is.

The writer could be merely repeating things others believed and said about Jesus.

rodahi

Meta =&gt;But who are these "others?" The original Kyrigma was shared by the communities in open sessions in which eye witnesses who lived in the community recounted what they knew.


The baic proof of this is the fact that none of the altnerante Gospels disagree on any major fact about the story. they differ on small deatils such as who got tot he tomb first, but none of them, not one, neither Gnsoeic or Otherwise differ on curucial things such as place of death, manner of death, time of death, time of the year, the principle palyers in the drama and so on. This can ony mean that the basic facts were known to the whole community,and even to the larger community of Jerusalem. No one poduced an account of Jesus being stoned (not until the middle ages) becasue everyone knew he was cricified and it was set in stone at an early date.


[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited March 18, 2001).]
 
Old 03-23-2001, 01:35 AM   #25
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by lpetrich:
The Gospels contain evidence of rewritten history; consider he varying prohibitions of divorce. Mark and Luke make it absolute; Matthew makes an exception for sexual mischief. With history-rewriting like this, I would not be surprised that the attributions of the Gospels are completely bogus. And rewriters of history generally consider themselves correctors of the historical record.

And Jesus Christ was certainly unloving toward:

* Those sent to Hell
* Scribes and Pharisees
* A certain fig tree
* A certain herd of pigs
</font>

Meta =&gt; That's a big mistake to think that redaction means re-written. We know from the Manuscrpts the nature of most redaction. The science of textual criticism is very exact and very accurate. we can reconstruct the original text to within 2% of its content. We know basically what the atuographs said. No actual history was re-wrtten. An exmple of the kind of changes that krept in is found in Helmut Koster's work Ancient Christian Gospels

Based upon the Disatessoronan attmeted Gospel haromny compiled by Titian in 270, we know that the orignal of 'render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasers" probably said "give to kingdoms what pertains to Kingdoms." That really doens't even change the meaning. That is an example of the kind of changes made. And as I said above the lack of any other versions of the story in Gonstic and other non-canonical Gospels indicates that the basic facts were set in stone early and could not be altered.


Jesus was not unloving to the fig tree. What difference does that make? One does not love temproal things. It is not unloving to prune a fig tree. God is not unloving to people in hell Jesus even went there to preach to them so they would have a changce (another detail found in two non-canonical Gospels and mentioned in Peter). Jesus wasn't unloving to anyone. The examples of righteious anger you mention were just!

 
Old 03-23-2001, 01:56 AM   #26
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Opus1:
[b]Tercel wrote:


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I present the unanimous writings of the early Church on the subject.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

All from the mid 2nd century onward. And all from the "Orthodox" Pauline church, after the Jewish Christians had been either expelled or killed.


Meta =&gt; That is a completely unfounded assetion. first, many writtings of chruch fathers are well before the second century. Papias wrote around 130 and he knew eye witnesses both aposltes and others.

Clment of Rome wrote in 95 he knew Peter and Paul.

Ignatious probably wote around 110, Hegesipeus was in the first part of the second century. Polycarp was writing in the first half.

None of these figures were any more related to the Pauline chruch than to the Johonnie, in fact Ignatious' writtings bear plain marks of the Johonnie school.And so what if they were Pauline? That is merely the genetic fallacy.

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to ignore these please give one of the following:
1) A reason for the Christian writers who believe a religion which extolls good deeds, love, and truthfullness to lie.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

It is obvious that you are not even reading what I posted. I said that the early Christians used detective work to try to figure out who wrote the gospels, but that they drew firmer conclusions than the evidence warranted. This is not lying in any sense of the word. Had you read and understood what I wrote, perhaps you wouldn't say such stupid things.</font>
MEta =&gt;Why detective work when they have people who knew the principles?

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) A reason for them to be unknowledgeable about their subject matter, or a reason for their inability to obtain true information.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The original gospels were anonymous. The earliest references we have to them are at least 50 years after the fact, at a time when literacy was rare and the average human lifespan was about 25 years.


MEta =&gt;Not ture. Senica lived to be 80. Its wasn't that uncommon. And the earliest references do not come 50 years latter. Paul is the earilest and he was wrtting only 20 years after. Good evidence suggests that the first writing of the Gospel, the per-markan passion narrative was compossed just 18 years after the original. (see Helmut Koester Ancient Christian Gospels, also Crossan agrees with that).

Suppose you lead a church in Philippi. One day you receive an anonymous gospel from a town many miles away. How do you find information about it? Send a telegram? E-mail someone? No. Any communication would take months or years, be very costly, and may not get you any closer to the information you need. So you take it as an anonymous gospel, and leave it as such. Eventually, somebody gets the bright idea of trying to figure out who wrote the gospels, and makes educated guesses. So the next time he copies it, he puts the name that he's come up with on it, believing it to be correct. Copies are made and sent out, and before you know it a previously anonymous gospel has become the gospel of John, or Matthew, or Luke, or Mark.

Meta =&gt;The problem with that is that they wouldt just buy into some analymous Gospel. They wouldnt' just accept anything, that's what Bishops were for. They used a net work and they hd to have the Bishops approaval to read in chruch any work claiming to be of a spiritual nature.

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for 2), it seems obvious that they would have hade access to 100s of times the documents we have now on the matter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

It may seem obvious to you, but not to me. Documents were rare and expensive in those times. Paul's letters to the various churches, which are now reproduced in literally billions of Bibles in hundreds of languages around the world, were unavailable to most people until around 125-130 CE, when people began collecting them. Thus the only way that you could look at the epistle Galatians is if you happened to worship in a church in the city of Galatia.

Meta =&gt;They made compies and sent them to all the chruches. We see that process happening in Paul's letters. To read it in chruch (which was how they handaled not having publishing they shared the book with the whole group) the Bishop of the place it is sent form had to recommend it, and the Bishop where it was sent had to approve it. So that way they could account for who worte it and who sent it and whose authority stood behind it. If not the person, the school.

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Papias lived early enough to be able to have talked to people who had known the gospel writers. Furthermore these are the leaders of the Church writing here - they would have had access to all Church records, teachings, people etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're assuming your conclusion here--which is that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses and disciples. If this is not true, then Papias would not have interviewed anybody, because he would have had no reason to do so.

MEta =&gt;That's wrong! Papias tells us he knew Aposotles and he knew other disciples not because he was investigating authorship, but because he wanted to hear first hand, he prefurred the sopken word, that's what he tells us.


You're also assuming that Eusebius--writing two centuries later--faithfully recorded what Papias wrote.

Meta =&gt; No actually there are several large fragments of Papias work that come to us independently of Eusebuis and that agree with his work.

You're also assuming that all the legends about disciples like John living to be 96 are accurate and not a bunch of Christian mythology. Papias was bishop of Hierapolis around 130. We have to have disciples living into the (and their) 80's and 90's in order for him to speak with them.


Meta =&gt; He didn't know John when he was Bishop, but when he was a young man, whicih would have been in the AD 80s. Moerove I doubt that John wrote John, that doens' mean it wasn't an eye witness.

quote:
 
Old 03-23-2001, 08:36 AM   #27
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[Metacrock:]
Jesus was not unloving to the fig tree. What difference does that make? One does not love temproal things.
[LP:]
So you hate your pets? Or will dogs and cats go to Heaven, because they are eternal?

[Metacrock:]
It is not unloving to prune a fig tree.
[LP:]
Which is not the same as saying "Nobody will ever eat figs from you again!!!" when discovering an absence of figs, and supposedly killing that tree as a result.

[Metacrock:]
God is not unloving to people in hell Jesus even went there to preach to them so they would have a changce (another detail found in two non-canonical Gospels and mentioned in Peter).
[LP:]
Not the impression that one would get from the Gospels, where JC seems to enjoy the thought of people suffering in Hell.

[Metacrock:]
Jesus wasn't unloving to anyone. The examples of righteious anger you mention were just!
[LP:]
Says who? Some of the rhetoric is remarkably intemperate.
 
Old 03-23-2001, 10:09 AM   #28
Opus1
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 177
Post

Metacrock wrote:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">That is a completely unfounded assetion. first, many writtings of chruch fathers are well before the second century. Papias wrote around 130 and he knew eye witnesses both aposltes and others.
</font>
Did you read anything I wrote?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Clment of Rome wrote in 95 he knew Peter and Paul.
</font>
Obviously not. We're talking about gospel authorship. I am well aware that we have an epistle from Clement that dates to 96 CE. But it does not mention the name of any gospels.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Ignatious probably wote around 110, Hegesipeus was in the first part of the second century. Polycarp was writing in the first half.
</font>
Do any of them mention gospel authors by name?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
None of these figures were any more related to the Pauline chruch than to the Johonnie, in fact Ignatious' writtings bear plain marks of the Johonnie school.And so what if they were Pauline? That is merely the genetic fallacy.
</font>
If you had read the quotes by Sanders, you'll see why this is so important. The winners attached names to the gospels. Gnostics believed that Thomas wrote the Gospel of Thomas. Do you?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Why detective work when they have people who knew the principles?</font>
Again, please read what I wrote. It is highly unlikely that people knew the disciples but did not attach any names to the gospels until the middle of the 2nd century.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Senica lived to be 80. Its wasn't that uncommon. And the earliest references do not come 50 years latter. Paul is the earilest and he was wrtting only 20 years after. Good evidence suggests that the first writing of the Gospel, the per-markan passion narrative was compossed just 18 years after the original. (see Helmut Koester Ancient Christian Gospels, also Crossan agrees with that).
</font>
Wow! One person living to 80 totally disproves my entire argument. Good one metacrock!

And once again, do you have any clue what you're talking about? Where does Paul mention the name of any gospel writer?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
The problem with that is that they wouldt just buy into some analymous Gospel. They wouldnt' just accept anything, that's what Bishops were for. They used a net work and they hd to have the Bishops approaval to read in chruch any work claiming to be of a spiritual nature.
</font>
People wouldn't accept anonymous gospels, huh? Funny, my Bible has Judges, Kings, Chronicles, and Hebrews. People didn't have any problems accepting anonymous texts. And once again, read Sanders' quote about the value of anonymous texts in the ancient world.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">They made compies and sent them to all the chruches. </font>
Yes, but this didn't happen until the early-middle 2nd century (at least with Paul's letters).

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Papias tells us he knew Aposotles and he knew other disciples not because he was investigating authorship, but because he wanted to hear first hand, he prefurred the sopken word, that's what he tells us.
</font>
Eusebius, quoting a copy of Papias, two centuries later tells us this. And Papias interviewed the followers of the original disciples, not the disciples themselves:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Clearly, Papias was no scholar. For he based his opinions on hearsay rather than on the comparison of texts. Moreover, Papias himself did not claim to be a disciple of "the elders," but rather a reporter who sought interviews with those who were their followers. Therefore, Papias' testimony is at best two steps removed from the apostolic generation, & even more from Jesus himself. This needs to be kept in mind in evaluating his comments about the composition of the gospels.
</font>
(from: http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/papias.html)

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">He didn't know John when he was Bishop, but when he was a young man, whicih would have been in the AD 80s. Moerove I doubt that John wrote John, that doens' mean it wasn't an eye witness.
</font>
Aarrgh! This is what we're arguing about in the first place! Please tell this to Tercel, who is absolutely certain that the four gospels were written by the men whose names they bear!
Opus1 is offline  
Old 03-23-2001, 10:28 AM   #29
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
The narratives are anonymous and anyone who says he KNOWS who wrote them is blowing smoke. Where is the evidence to back up your claim? And don't present what someone else thinks; present evidence.
rodahi

[/B]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I present the unanimous writings of the early Church on the subject. If you wish to ignore these please give one of the following:
1) A reason for the Christian writers who believe a religion which extolls good deeds, love, and truthfullness to lie.
2) A reason for them to be unknowledgeable about their subject matter, or a reason for their inability to obtain true information.
As for 2), it seems obvious that they would have hade access to 100s of times the documents we have now on the matter. Papias lived early enough to be able to have talked to people who had known the gospel writers. Furthermore these are the leaders of the Church writing here - they would have had access to all Church records, teachings, people etc.

Of course you could always claim they were lying, but I hope you realise just what you would be claiming by this - that these great figures/leaders/scholars were going against all that their own religion stood for.


You still haven't presented any evidence. Here is a challenge: Produce the nomenclature of just ONE extant MS that pre-dates the third century CE and names the writer of any one of the anonymous narratives.

rodahi

 
Old 03-23-2001, 07:15 PM   #30
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lpetrich:
[Metacrock:]
Jesus was not unloving to the fig tree. What difference does that make? One does not love temproal things.
[LP:]
So you hate your pets? Or will dogs and cats go to Heaven, because they are eternal?
[/font]

Meta =&gt;Doggie is not fig tree. Who says doggies aren't eternal? My dog has a soul. Havne't you ever heard of Doggie Heaven?

[Metacrock:]
It is not unloving to prune a fig tree.
[LP:]
Which is not the same as saying "Nobody will ever eat figs from you again!!!" when discovering an absence of figs, and supposedly killing that tree as a result.


METa =&gt;That's not unloving either. Have you ever seen the flowers in front of a sky scrapper? Do you know that most gardening services rip those up and instal new ones every month, dependeing on wheather they want to change the "corlor bed." Why don't you protest that? start a group for the rights of plants?

[Metacrock:]
God is not unloving to people in hell Jesus even went there to preach to them so they would have a changce (another detail found in two non-canonical Gospels and mentioned in Peter).
[LP:]
Not the impression that one would get from the Gospels, where JC seems to enjoy the thought of people suffering in Hell.


Meta -=&gt;That's your own subjective imagination. I've never gotten that sense. what passage?

[Metacrock:]
Jesus wasn't unloving to anyone. The examples of righteious anger you mention were just!
[LP:]
Says who? Some of the rhetoric is remarkably intemperate.

MEta =&gt;Says who? Its your argument! Give some examples, back it up, it's not my burden of proof.

 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:20 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.