Celsus

CJD, judge: Thanks for the responses. Do you think the metaphysical gulf between theists and nontheists would be an interesting one to discuss?

Magus: I note that you completely ignore the thread topic and then go on to beg the question by quoting more verses. Could you at least try a response?

Jeremiah: Your argument is essentially a rehashed Pascal's wager. Would you try defending the Bible?

Finally,
Aramaic NT? Could you elaborate on this, or are you following in the same school as Yuri?

Joel

Doctor X

Ah . . . I thought that poor Judge had been ignored.

It is my understanding [Which is worth nothing.--Ed.] that the NT Synoptic were written in Greek. Indeed, you can check out the recent issue of the Journal of Biblical Literature which has an article on Mt's use of the Septuagint [Greek OT, abbreviated as "LXX."--Ed.].

Anyways, check this out . . . compare the birth narrative in Mt to the narrative in Lk . . . notice that they are attached to two mutually exclusive historical events--Herod versus a Census.

Even easier . . . compare the genealogies of Mt with Lk.

--J.D.

Celsus

Actually judge,

Are you the person involved in this debate over at Theology Web? If so, I would like to say that you are currently being trounced (sorry).

Joel

judge

Hi Celsus, I think this gulf is interesting, but I don't know if I can give it the time at the moment. I 've done a bit of it in the past, but only really have time to "snipe" at the moment.

As to the Aramaic I differ from Yuri. There is a thread here where we had a good discussion. Yuri is way ahead of me scholastically though.

A couple of years ago I began my own investigation of "what the bible was".
I had always been told that the NT was written in greek. I tend to think that once whether or not this was actualy the case has never been investigated by western Christians.
With the break away of 'protestantism in the west the issue of "sola scritura" became extremely important. If one is going to look to the scriptures rather than the church (and this is a gross oversimplification I know), then one must make sure one has something reliable...if you get my drift.

Anyway it seems that there are Aramaic speaking christians , the COE for example who think that their scriptures (NT) are the original NT.

You try telling an assyrian that the NT was written in greek...."What the!!??!....watchyou talking'bout"??!!...will probably be the reply.

But religious institutions in the west are controlled by people who have spent much time and money learning ancient greek....so there is a lot of resistance to this idea. (at least that my take)

Yes that's me at theology web...and, "trounced"?... it's just a flesh wound!...

judge

Hi there Dr X!

The Nt does not actually quote the LXX.
What it does is quote a version of the scriptures that existed in Jesus's day that agreed more with the LXX than it does with the hebrew massoretic text used in English translations. this should not surprise us often the hebrew scriptures from the dead sea scrolls agree wityh the LXX over the hebrew text we use!

In ephesians chapter 4 paul quotes psalm 68 (?).

The version of psalm 68 that Paul quotes does not agree with the LXX or the hebrew version we have!
But guess what? It does agree with an aramaic targum (translation).

There are other examples as well where when Jesus refers to the OT he seems to refer to the aramaic targums rather than the LXX or the hebrew we use! Surprised?

I'll try to find a reference online if you like.

(added in edit)..here is one...
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/9t5/9t5098.html

Additionally if you follow the link from celsus you will find another discussion I am in. In the "wraslin' rang". At least assume the link is ok for some reason my computer is playing up ...(must be the devil!)

When we read the Aramaic geneologies we find that the geneologies do not contradict. Mary's husband and father were both called joseph.
The Joseph in matthew 1:16 is marys father.

There are other examples of contradictions that occur in our english translations that are the result of the greek texts being incorrectly translated also.

Jeremiah

I agree that many religious zealots are willing to die for their cause and that only proves that they believe in something strongly enough to give their life for it. My point about the NT testament is that most of the authors were eyewitnesses and either died to propagate lies or they cherished the truth more than life.

They weren’t just witnesses to the event of Jesus’ life, but they claimed to be witnesses to many miracles including the resurrection. Even Paul states that Christ appeared to him after his resurrection.

I Cor 15

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[1] : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[2] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

So you can argue that they conspired together to propagate lies or you can accept their statements.

Jeremiah

I think this article below makes a good case why this debate will continue well past our words.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ine_none.htm

Ultimately, people choose sides. I am here to learn your reasons for disbelief and if you are interested, I will share my reasons for belief.

CX

This is a convenient dodge I've seen used repeatedly, however as someone who has read and studied Xian New Testament I think I have a reasonable understanding of the text. That is to say I know what it says and means and can confirm that in my agreement with believers who study the text. Understanding the text and believing it's theological implications are two very different things.


This presents a twofold problem. First off as I already suggested, the "Gospel" is not meaningless to "unbelievers" who have carefully studied the text. I get the meaning just fine. Secondly, if the "Gospel" is truly meaningless to unbelievers then it is totally self-defeating since the primary stated goal of preaching the gospel is to save unbelievers.

All in all this is just a convenient rhetorical trick to dismiss anyone who disagrees with your interpretation simply because he or she is not a believer regardless of the fact that there may be a plurality or a majority of believers who interpret the text in the same way.

CX

Hmmm... Let's see

GMT Author unknown; Attributed to The Apostle Matthew; Possibly written by an eyewitness, but no strong evidence.

GMk Author unknown; Attributed to Mark and interpreter of Peter; Not written by an eyewitness

GLk Author Unknown; Attributed to Luke Paul's beloved physician; Not an eyewitness

GJn Author Unknown; Attributed to John son of Zebedee the Apostle; Possibly an eyewitness, but no strong evidence

Acts Author Unknown, but presumably written by the same author as GLk; Attributed to Luke; Does not describe the life of Jesus in detail

13 Epistles attributed to Paul; Some of considered pseudepigraphal by most scholars; Either way Paul was not an eyewitness to Jesus' life or ministry.

Hebrews; Author unknown; Consider to possibly have been written by Paul but generally considered anonymous; not an eyewitness

James; Attributed to James the Brother of Jesus; James was apparently not involved in Jesus' ministry and does not figure prominently in the Gospels; eyewitness status unknown

1&2 Peter; Attributed to Peter the disciple of Jesus; Regarded by nearly all scholars as pseudepigraphal and late; Doesn't describe in detail the life an ministry of Jesus.

1,2&3 John; Author known only as hO PRESBYTEROS in 2&3 and not identified in 1. "The elder" is regarded by most as the "Presbyter John" mentioned by Papias who he clearly distinguishes from John son of Zebedee. Not an eyewitness.

Jude; Author identified as Jude the brother of James; traditionally regarded as Jesus' brother; Most scholars conclude it was some other Jude; Jude is not mentioned by name in the gospels at all and the gospels give the impression that Jesus' family thought he was "mad". Eyewitness status unknown, but likely minimal.

Revelation; Author known as "John of Patmos"; Traditionally attributed to John son of Zebedee, but this attribution is not accepted by a majority of scholars; Describes apocalyptic visions not the life and ministry of Jesus; Eyewitness to what?

Thus even if we accept the traditional authorial attributions (which is extremely tenuous and not really justified) GMt, GJn, 1&2Peter, James, Jude and Revelation are the only books even potentially by eyewitnesses to Jesus life and ministry. Thats 7 out of 27 which hardly constitutes "most of the NT". Even if we accept the erroneous identification of the Johannine letters with John son of Zebedee that amounts to 10 books out of 27. Of those only GMt and GJn have any significant details of Jesus' life and ministry.

CJD

1. I am still learning to not take offense when an unlearned fellow believer gets slammed by the stupidity of his/her own argument. That is to say, I empathize with them, while at the same time desiring that they would just be quiet and leave this place. In some sense, then, I am grateful that their ignorance of the holy text is exposed. Ideally, however, this should take place in a Christian setting.

2. I think anyone who has "the upperhand" in terms of scholarly depth must needs be gracious, or just ignore the obnoxious ones. This always includes avoiding stereotyping. Few things bother me more (and I am guilty of it!).

My apologies. What I disdain most I turned around and slung back.

Well . . . I don't know about that. At IIDB I see an abundance of atheists who "take the least charitable interpretation to belong to all theists." I should note that it is no coincidence that those who do not engage in such practices here have also shown themselves to be the most learned.

At any rate, thanks for checking my non sequitur.

Absolutely not. Re-read the following from my above post: ". . . (this is the crux) that understanding the text requires a bit more than picking up the book, sitting in your armchair, and 'comprehending' the words. Put differently, the biggest question begged in this forum is not over the authority of Scripture, but the presumption with which many afford their interpretations of the text."

Koy, it's really that simple. Textual criticism—in any field—is a skill that must be learned.

No, in order for one to consciously put himself or herself under the authority of the Christian Church, one must first accept its accuracy. Do I still need to justify this to you? You see, Magus55 was answering the wrong question. He/she was giving the Christian reasons as to why—even if we were to agree on what the text actually says (e.g., that the local flood account is a polemic against other ANE myths)—we differ on the amount of authority each of us gives the text.

Finally, Celsus. Greetings. Yes, I do think the topic would make an interesting discussion, since any discussion of why must include at least acknowledging the metaphysical gulf between us. Before or after this, we could go on to discuss societal factors that have shaped us (and us them). I am not quite sure, though, how once we do acknowledge said gulf, what would be left for us to say. It seems that in order for such a discussion to continue one of us would have to adopt the other's starting point. It would be my intent, then, to get you to do that as much as possible. On the other hand, I think that bracketing the metaphysical still gives us plenty to talk about. As I noted previously, arguing for the authority of the Scriptures ultimately falls into the metaphysical category.

Regards,

CJD