Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 10-14-2011, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

IMO the reason the synoptics contain identical wording in many places is simple:

People are lazy. If they can copy something without putting the effort into rewriting it, they will be inclined to do so -- unless, of course, there is a need for rewrite.

Laziness is a reasonable reason.

Do you think that those that copied the original ALSO were very aware that they were writing fiction, allegories, and were simply adding their own twists on the big fiction? Or do you maintain that only the originator (perhaps Mark) wrote with that purpose, with the copiers thinking they were adding onto an original historical account?

stephan huller · 10-14-2011, 11:38 AM

Quote:

I'd like to see the comments for the part bolded.

we have a thing called google nowadays that allows you do research quite easily. Just type the keywords "adamantius, matthew, john, marcion" and you should find it. It appears in the early part of the debate, the one with Megethius as the Marcionite representative.

Toto · 10-14-2011, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

IMO the reason the synoptics contain identical wording in many places is simple:

People are lazy. If they can copy something without putting the effort into rewriting it, they will be inclined to do so -- unless, of course, there is a need for rewrite.

Laziness is a reasonable reason.

Do you think that those that copied the original ALSO were very aware that they were writing fiction, allegories, and were simply adding their own twists on the big fiction? ...

I suspect that they didn't even think in those terms. They had a narrative, and they thought that the narrative needed to be built upon, expanded - otherwise why write another gospel? They were after a higher and nobler truth than historical accuracy.

TedM · 10-14-2011, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

IMO the reason the synoptics contain identical wording in many places is simple:

People are lazy. If they can copy something without putting the effort into rewriting it, they will be inclined to do so -- unless, of course, there is a need for rewrite.

Laziness is a reasonable reason.

Do you think that those that copied the original ALSO were very aware that they were writing fiction, allegories, and were simply adding their own twists on the big fiction? ...

I suspect that they didn't even think in those terms. They had a narrative, and they thought that the narrative needed to be built upon, expanded - otherwise why write another gospel? They were after a higher and nobler truth than historical accuracy.

Wow, it's really hard for me to even consider as plausible the idea that those who decided to write their own gospels had no interest in whether they were using historical or fictional material in their presentation of the Messiah, the Savior, the One who would determine their ultimate fates.

aa5874 · 10-14-2011, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

.....Wow, it's really hard for me to even consider as plausible the idea that those who decided to write their own gospels had no interest in whether they were using historical or fictional material in their presentation of the Messiah, the Savior, the One who would determine their ultimate fates.

You need to get back to reality. The Jesus stories show blatant signs of KNOWN fiction.

The birth narratives in gMatthew and gLuke show two CONTRADICTORY stories.

In gMatthew, Herod had to kill ALL the Children two years and younger because the Magi did NOT ever return to tell Herod where the "King of the Jews" was born and before the massacre, an angel,( NOT the angel in gLuke???) told Mary and Joseph to flee to Egypt.

However, in gLuke Herod had NO NEED to kill the Children because there was a HEAVENLY CELEBRATION with ANGELS while the Shepherds watch their flocked.

And NOT ONLY was there an ANGELIC celebration but an Angel did GIVE the Shepherds DIRECTIONS to FIND the baby and even details about the Clothes the BABY Jesus was wearing.

Both birth narratives cannot be true. It is EITHER ONE or both ANGELS OR one or BOTH Authors were LYING.

EXAMINE the words of the angels in gLuke and gMatthew.

Luke 2

Quote:

8And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field......And, lo, the angel of the Lord........ said unto them.........For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. 12And this shall be a sign unto you, Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.....

Matthew 2

Quote:

13And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word, for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him....

In gLuke, Herod does not need to kill the Children in Bethlehem and all over the region. The Shepherds were given PUBLIC DIRECTIONS to the City and manger where Jesus was born.

Which angel or author was LYING?

Were both LYING?

We have NO records of the Killing of the Innocent and we have NO records of an Angelic Celebration.

TedM · 10-14-2011, 02:07 PM

Sure people believe all kinds of things. But, showing no concern for whether their Messiah was story-made or had walked among them is a different matter entirely. Not even comparable IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

You are imposing modern historical sensibilities on ancient people. I can honestly say that I have had dealings with people from Africa who (a) were convinced that corn had magical power to make them work better (b) that relatives or neighbors back in Africa were casting spells to prevent them from being successful and (c) that AIDS was an evil spirit that would not affect their unsafe sexual practices because they washed their privates with soap or because they consulted a medicine man. People in different cultures think differently. Lesson to remember when dealing with antiquity.

stephan huller · 10-14-2011, 02:09 PM

It's perfectly comparable because people who believe in this kind of nonsense would be impossible to arrive at a critical understanding of the development of the gospel narrative. I am afraid that our country is reverting back to the same moronic behavior.

TedM · 10-14-2011, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

We have NO records of the Killing of the Innocent.

That is a falsehood. Slavonic Josephus records the Killings and provides specifics not found in the gospels.

Irregardless, accounts with fictional components need not convict the authors of ill intent.

stephan huller · 10-14-2011, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Irregardless

regardless or irrespective

archibald · 10-14-2011, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

IMO the reason the synoptics contain identical wording in many places is simple:

Whoever copied from the other took the material to be TRUE HISTORY. This is consistent with my belief that those who believed in Jesus as the Christ, the Savior of their souls, would NOT have written a gospel for entertainment, as though they were embellishing a fun story about someone known to not have been real, like a Superman. Nor would they have written it as an 'educational tool'--an instructional allegory that people could relate to more easily than a 'savior in another sphere'. I think they took the representation of their Messiah very seriously, and were endeavoring to write what they truly believed was historical truth.

But, could those copiers have been 'duped' by the original writer(s)?

Is it possible then that the originator(s) of the original material that was later being copied, did not believe they were passing along true history? Sure, they could have mined the OT for details, but can we really believe that whoever placed it in the historical setting of the times of JTB and Pilate KNEW FOR A FACT that it was not real history while successfully duping all of those writers of the 'many' other gospels?

Comments?

Yes, I think it's more likely that they thought it was about someone who had existed. It may not have been about somebody who existed, but it appears more likely that they thought it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-14-2011, 02:09 PM	#17
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It's perfectly comparable because people who believe in this kind of nonsense would be impossible to arrive at a critical understanding of the development of the gospel narrative. I am afraid that our country is reverting back to the same moronic behavior.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.