Vorkosigan

I'm tired of this twisting.

1. Jesus is a "myth" not a fiction. The narrative histories of Jesus are fictions. Note that the fictionality of the gospels does not mean that Jesus was not a historical character, any more than the fictional Alexander Romance implies that Alexander never lived.

2. The writers of the Gospels were all Christians AFAIK. What do you mean by "foreigners?" They were all residents of the Roman empire.

3. Yes, many people decided to write narratives that could be performed. (Is Mark a "play?" Not in any sense I am aware of. Where did you get "Play" from?) Public readings of texts were the usual way in which texts were presented in ancient times.

4. Yes, that's correct. In the second century the Church embraced certain texts and rejected others.

Later a large number of psuedoepigraphical epistles were written, some of which were accepted by the Church, and others rejected. That's mainstream scholarship, Prax. Are you not aware of this research?

At the beginning it was a religious movement embracing a wide variety of beliefs (when did I say "play thing" or "social help group"? Where do you get this stuff?). As the movement began to search for a structure, one section of it hit upon an organizational form that is common , especially among groups that are marginal or oppressed, that of centralized, cell-structured, system today we refer to as Leninist (I didn't use the word "totalitarian" as AFAIK there was no coercive aspect to this structure, people could go in and out).

Not really. You still don't seem to get the idea of evolution rather than conspiracy, and that colors all your thinking.

Vorkosigan

Steven Avery

Ok, so all the folks in the Gospels could actually could have lived, and Jesus was actually a special person but the foreign (outside of Israel) writer's group started with some preliminary information about them (oral or written?) and embellished it to the Gospels.
They were all Christians, believers in the Jesus Christ as Messiah, before they wrote the Gospels, based on oral reports to their foreign lands, but the gospels they wrote about him were myth ?

Unfamiliar with, not living and separated from the land and events where the Gospels were taking place, Israel. They wrote from a distance, using maps and encyclopedias and the reports of travelers.

" It was certainly read aloud to crowds, and probably performed as well,"

If you perform a fictional narrative, it seems like a "play" is as appropriate a word as you could fine. Would theater be better ?

So the writers of the cult group were "Christians", but embracing a wide variety of beliefs.

Ok, a non-totalitarian Leninism.

Thanks.
Got it, sort of.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Johnny Skeptic

Message to praxeus: John 10:37-38 say "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." Acts 14:3 says "Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony [confirmation] unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands." As I said previously, the Bible, including the New Testament canon, depends lock stock and barrel upon claims of miracles, and miracles in any Bible translation still means miracles, and authenticating miracles is a necessary prerequisite to discussing the New Testament canon. Logically, deeds (miracles) authenticate God's power, most certainly not his words.

None of your criteria for evaluating what writings should have been included in the New Testament are anywhere near being valid. As the Scriptures that I just mentioned prove, it was miracles that supposedly validated the New Testament, not geography and who went where. There were many writings to choose from other than they writings that were chosen for the New Testament canon. Upon what criteria did the choosers make their choices? Why couldn't they have made some mistakes?

Revelation chapter 22 indicates that tampering with the original texts is possible, and we have proof that this has happened since Roman Catholic Bibles and Protestant Bibles are different. Additional proof is the fact that it has never been difficult to revise the Bible and convince some people who live in remote jungle regions that the revised version is a copy of the original. So, we don't even know if the version of the original New Testament canon is the same version as the versions that we have today. So much for the New Testament canon, and so much for Biblical inerrancy.

Vorkosigan

It's mainstream to say that the gospel writers were all writing from outside of Palestine.

The evolution of Jesus of the narratives began with the writer of Mark's use of Paul. That was the preliminary information that he drew on. The rest of the narrative is put together from numerous sources. I think "embellished" is a wrong term, as it still presumes historicity. I prefer a term like "constructed." Mark's Jesus is a constructed/created figure.

No, fictions, not myth. The gospels are fictions. I am sure the author of Mark never intended his document to be read as history. I am not certain how Matthew viewed his work, and Luke-Acts is a knowing fiction posing as history.

Yes, they were all Christians, believing in Jesus as Messiah. IMHO their beliefs were based on a novel reading of the Jewish scriptures spread by itinerant preachers like Paul, not on oral reports from Palestine. Such religious syncretism is the norm in human cultures.

What's not compatible between being Christian and writing fictions about Jesus? The gnostics all did it, and so have thousands of Christians since, from the Gospel of Philip to Ben Hur, Left Behind, and Ann Rice's new opus.

Yes, that is how the fiction of the first and second centuries was put together. For example, Chaereas and Callirhoe takes place in Persia, Egypt, Sicily, Greece, and several other places around the Med basin. It is unlikely that the author was personally familiar with all of those places. It was routine for Greek fiction to borrow characters from history, draw on historical sources as both sources of information and as structuring tales for the fiction -- the ending of Chareas and Callirhoe draws on the story of Aegospotomi to create its final battle. Apollonius, King of Tyre, parallels the Odyssey in several places, etc -- and locate its tales in faraway places, to which it acts as an introducer, bringing the exotic customs of the faraway barbarians back home.

I have no idea if the gospel authors used maps or traveler's tales. Most likely they drew on Josephus, at minimum. IMHO Luke probably used a periplus to construct Paul's tale of his journeys around the Med, which are vintage Greek fiction, but I have no way to demonstrate that.

I prefer "perform" as it does not make any assumptions about venue and literary structure. "Acted-out" might be even better. Mark is clearly not a play though there may seem dramatic vestiges to it (several exegetes have proposed five-part structures for Mark, a common structural division in Attic drama, but none are convincing). You're just twisting what I am saying to make it seem more outlandish than it is. Mark-as-performance is a very common position in studies of Mark -- see the work of David Rhoads, W. Shiner, etc. Texts in antiquity were presented at public readings, and the reader was at minimum a performer of some kind. What exactly is difficult to accept about the idea that the gospels might have been performed? Why does that strike you as outlandish?

Vorkosigan

Steven Avery

The views vary quite a bit among the King James Bible supporters.

However, part of the construct is very moot,
unless someone comes up with the 'original Greek'.
It is hard to compare that which does not exist.

In a sense you got it. God is no respecter of persons.

"If God spare my life, ere many years pass, I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scriptures than thou dost." - William Tyndale

Tyndale's efforts bore fruit, and the ploughman can have His Word read from his very hands as clear and powerful and beautiful and majestic and authoritative and inspired as any pointy-head seminarian who studies years here and there stumbling over unused dialects and languages.

Isn't that quite beautiful

Psalm 19:14
Let the words of my mouth,
and the meditation of my heart,
be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD,
my strength, and my redeemer.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

Origen is the first to clearly mention the second epistle of Peter, acknowledging it is disputed, while he himself quoted it frequently. Of course there are a good number of earlier less clear allusions/citations, and the indication that Clement of Alexandria wrote a commentary.

Basically all 'official' canonization was fourth century, and for 2 Peter that was Hippo and Carthage and Laodecia and Rome, also lists from Cyril of Jerusalem, Apostolic Canons, Gregory of Nazianzus and Jerome, and then other citations by various 4th century writers. I don't see that any of the 4th century canon lists omitted 2 Peter. At the same time our alexandrian manuscripts also include 2 Peter.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Seek, and ye shall find.

Let's just say that I have a certain hope and expectation
and confidence that more will be forthcoming.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

That's true.. but the post was for the archaelogy find thread

Johnny Skeptic

Message to praxeus: Since at least most of the New Testament writers did not give any indication whatsoever that they were writing Scripture, how in the world could other people reliably make declarations that even the writers themselves didn't make? Surely there were many writings that were not included in the New Testament canon that you would have found to be appropriate if they had been included in the canon. It seems to me that what you are saying is that "anything" that appeared in the canon would be God's word because it appeals to your emotions that God wouldn't allow anyone to tamper with Scripture, but we know full well that that has already happened on a number of occasions. How could the people that put the canon together have known that they hadn't made any mistakes? How did they decide which writings to accept and which writings to reject? Why were any discussions necessary in the first place if they already knew what should have been included in the canon?

Steven Avery

Hi Johnny. You tend to ask a lot of questions along the line of "if this puppy were a bear would you run fast ?". It's a good question under certain circumstances, but the puppy ain't a bear.

God is sovereign, the same God who spoke this beautiful world into existence is the same One who robed Himself in flesh and walked the shores and water of Galilee, and is the same One who inspired the authors of the scriptures, and is fully capable of preserving His Word, despite the various foibles and rebellions and lack of knowledge and insight of men.

Tis His Word, Genesis to Revelation.

I grant you if one doesn't even see His handiwork on a beautiful fall day, tis not likely to see His hand preserving His Word. One Lord, one faith, one baptism (Ephesians) .. one Bible, inspired and preserved.

Psalm 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God;
and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Day unto day uttereth speech,
and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

Shalom,
Steven