Toto

Have you compared the Christian teachings to the pagan mythologies and Greek philosophers who were prevalent about that time? If you do, you find a lot of similarities. Would you say that it is also more likely that Christians borrowed from their neighbors?


DH: this is so weak a feather could knock it over.

I may take time later for a more detailed refutation, but why don't you at least familiarize yourself with the many well researched arguments against your position.

Start with Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: a look into the world of the gospels

Or try the Infidels book of the month from last month:
Jesus : One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard.

You will find very few historians who think that the Bible is a reliable historical source. You do not find any real mention of miracles in documents that can be reliably dated to the first century, in the letters of Paul, for instance. The Gospels are usually dated after 70 AD, and some scholars date their final forms to the 2nd century. So you cannot show definitively that the first century Christians believed that Jesus was a miracle worker.

There have been previous discussions of miracles in this forum.

Marduk

If they occured at all any miracles in the Bible that are claimed to be of divine origin can be just as easily and with less of a stretch of the imagination be attributed to Aliens. The Bible could just as soon be an account of close encounters of the third kind. Flaming Chariots anyone?

Muad'Dib

Deathscyth, it would be somewhat easier to read your posts if you would use UBB code to quote people.

"Quoting Other Messages" is about 2/3 of the way down the page.

[ September 30, 2001: Message edited by: Muad'dib ]

Deathscyth Hell

Have you compared the Christian teachings to There is a pretty good chance that the Greek Philosophers and pagan mythologies had some influence on later christianity. They may have even had a small influence on earlier christianity. But there is something that you have to rememeber about the early christians. A lot of them were Jews, and Jews don't tend to let pagan ideas into their religion. Especially after the return from the exile to babylon. I mean, just look at the way they treated the samaritans and the Romans. A Roman house was considered unclean, as were samaritians. But as Christianity spread to Gentiles, i'm sure that some of them incorporated some of their earlier beliefs into the religion. Jews usually tended not to borrow from their neighbors after the Exile, before is another story though.

Yes, Mark 70, matthew and luke around 80, and John 90+. As for some scholars dating their final forms in the second century, you do know about the manuscript (fragment) that they found in Egypt, don't you. The one that dates to 130A.D. It is of the Gospel of John, which was the latest to be written, by the way. Since a manuscript is a copy of the origional, I think it would be safe to say that mark was written prior to the 2nd century. Curious, what Criteria are you going by that says that anything written 100 years after the actual even cannot be true? As for Paul never mentioning miracles, that doesn't prove anything. In Paul's letters, his references to Christ usaully tend to be after the ressurection and ascension, and usually deal with the actual teachings of the church than the life of Christ. Since he was writing to christians, I don't see any reason why he would include any miracles in his work. As for mainstream scholarship not thinking that the bible is reliable, can you give me some proof?

Wahrheit

Hi devnet,

You've never witnessed a miracle, nor have you heard any conclusive evidence of a miracle -- that doesn't mean miracles cannot occur.

Of course, on the basis that you have never had experience of a miracle, you are entitled to highly doubt that miracles can occur, but to outright reject any truth in any documentation of a miracle, whether it be in the Bible or anywhere else, is closed-mindedness, because if you reject miracles a priori, how is there the possibility that any miracle at any time could convince you?

Wahrheit

Toto

DH: This is getting too far afield. We have had a number of threads on these topics, and books have been written. My point was that there is no reliable evidence that first century Christians saw Jesus as a miracle worker, as opposed to a risen savior or perhaps a teacher of wisdom. The Gospels were written between 70 and 150 AD, but you can't prove exactly when. A small fragment of words found in John was dated to 125 AD, but we don't know if that came from an earlier document used as a source for John. And there is no real proof that John was written much later than the other gospels.

The idea that Jews never incorporated pagan ideas into their thinking is demonstrably false.

We could debate what is "mainstream" scholarship, but have you heard of the Jesus Seminar? With all its shortcomings, it does try to find a consensus among people with PhD's in theology.

It sounds like you have only heard the unsophisticated Christian view of things. Why don't you try reading The Jesus Puzzle and see what you think? You will probably disagree with it, but you should be aware of the other side if you are going to carry on a discussion here.

emotional

</STRONG>

Of course they can. And I suppose, if I flap my arms long enough, I could fly like Daedalus and Icarus. Point is, apart from biased scriptures like the Bible and Qur'an (their bias is that of showing people how powerful God is, akin to a human dictator's triumphal processions), the Universe shows every sign of being anti-miracle. You see, it's not just the negative aspect of not having seen miracles; it's also the affirmative aspect of seeing everything in the Universe act in an entirely anti-miraculous way. Not one of my grandparent's family who were thrown into the crematoria by the Nazis in WW2 got out alive, thought they were all religious, but presumably of lesser value in the eyes of the loving God than Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego. Not one of the children starving in Africa is saved by prayer, and the aid sent there suffices only according to its amount, contrary to the stories of a few loaves sufficing for thousands of people. Not one of the dead of the WTC attack has been raised from the dead yet, contrary to the stories about holy men having ability to raise from the dead. It seems to me the God of the Bible, if he exists, is doing the utmost to make people disbelieve.

</STRONG>

You call it close-mindedness, but I call it cautiousness. So many people have been fooled in the past. The Bible has done a great job of fooling the majority of mankind.

No, Wahrheit, I don't reject miracles a priori, I reject hearsay of miracles, that is, I reject miracles when I read them in books of past account. It is my conviction that the Power of God is not to be conveyed historically (for then God becomes "I was" instead of "I am"), but personally, at present. I did try, in past, to pray to God to give me a sign by making me able to move things from afar, and I will believe in the Power of God when he answers my wish to fly by flapping my arms. Or let's make it unselfish: God could easily make the starving countries of Africa prosperous, so that children will not die, or he can raise the dead of the WTC attack, so that there would be no need for any Falwell or Robertson to call for a revival. But I don't expect much from the one who gave teeth to the lion for preying on the lamb instead of giving them both equally food from the sky.

I want miracles NOW, not in the past; as it happens, NOW I perceive only a totally natural, anti-miraculous Universe.