Radorth

No, that's just what I'm doing here. I was simply trying to stick to Doherty's theory, show that it negates a plethora of even liberal scholarly stances and arguments, and that the clear implication of his theory is that the evangelists were basically liars. You've been a big help though because anyone who's read the link knows that Doherty is now accusing John of copying as well. (no proof given other than the ubiquitous "some scholars believe") But so he must pontificate, otherwise we have an independent account which undermines his bogus theory.

'Tis thee who wishes to move the goal posts. I think Steve has you and I confused.

Anyway, getting back to the thread subject, let us look at how Doherty contradicts the argument that the Gospels do not corrobertate one another. He asserts in Part III:


"Gone is the old pious view that the four Gospels are independent and corroborating accounts. Instead, their strong similarities are the result of copying."

So if they were more divergent in content, would he see evidence they were not copied? Or would he say they simply did not corroborate one another, and were "crafted" much later? Take a wild guess.

"This means that for the basic story of Jesus' life and death we are dependent on a single source: whoever produced the first version of Mark. By rights, our sources should be numerous."

How doe he know Q is a single source? Ridiculous. The number of arguments he makes from presumption is astounding really.

"Christian missionaries, supposedly led by the Twelve Apostles, fanned out across the empire; oral transmission, we are told, kept alive and constantly revitalized the story of Jesus' words and deeds. Written versions of that story should have sprung up in many centres, truly independent and notably divergent."

What kind of divergence might he be looking for? Different accounts of Jesus last words on the cross? What kind of divergence would muzzle any skeptic here? Someone please advise.

Radorth

Family Man

So you concede that the Bible does contain "lies" in the sense that many of the stories did not occur? After all, that seems to be the basis of your argument, you haven't made much of an argument for it, and if you are conceding that I'm not sure what your argument is. And if you're not conceding, then how does John's independence help you when even Christian scholars say it contains nothing of historical value?

And why should my opinion of John count against Doherty? I haven't read his arguments and it is possible I'm wrong. Just because I buy into the argument that John is different from the synoptics it hardly invalidates Doherty's opinion.

In short, I'm open to Doherty's opinion; I simply haven't had the time to examine them thoroughly yet. Your unsupported opinions, however, I am familiar with and they are worthless.

Radorth

Care to quote me correctly or be more specific? Some NT versions contain some interpolations IMO and redactions, but your generalizing and misquoting does not permit useful debate.

I do find it laughably ironic that one of the longest and most controversial ones is in Mark, (and it is the only one which might contradict Paul's doctrine). I guess it wasn't in the version Matthew, Luke and John supposedly plagerized, or they recognized it as an addition. It reads like it was tacked on.

I'm in the company of some eminent skeptics, not to mention NT scholars, of unimpeachable character and credentials, but you are entitled to your opinion of course. In my case I don't even need to post an opinion per se. All I have to do is post opinions of other (and more learned) skeptics to show that ED's thinking is so hypocritical or self-defeating, it can be safely ignored.

Radorth

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Iasion

Greetings all,

I've put together some excerpts from Marcion helping to show his views :
<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Marcion.html" target="_blank">Marcion</a>

In short, Marcion's contemporaries claimed he argued as follows:[*] Jesus Christ was only a phantasm or ghostly being.[*] Jesus Christ was not “born of Mary”, but of a higher, hidden, Good God. [*] Jesus Christ descended from the higher worlds, independent of birth.[*] There are two Gods – a higher Good God, and a lower just or even evil God, the Demiurge.[*] The lower Demiurge was the creator of the world, the higher God created Jesus Christ.[*] To Abstain from marriage, fornication and meat-eating


Quentin David Jones

Family Man

Radoth --

You post a quote entirely out of context, go on a rant about "conspiracies", "hoaxes", and "lies" that may or may not have been what Doherty was talking about, and you're asking me to be specific? This is even more ridiculous considering I've made specific arguments in past which you've ignored. You expect me to repeat myself because you refused to reply to them when you had a chance?

In case your having trouble understanding this, the quote you're having so much trouble with appears to me to be a general statement about the gospels themselves. All I have to show is that it is in general line with what most NT scholars say. I have done that with very specific, verifiable evidence. You need to show that Doherty was talking about the specific cases you raved about in your first post. You haven't even come tried to do that. Frankly, I think you just get a kick out of saying "slavishly copied", even though no where did Doherty say that.

So, no, with this particular topic you appear to be diametrically opposed to general scholarly opinion. It appears to me that Doherty is repeating mainline NT scholarship here. You may be in line with NT scholars on other issues, but not this particular one. Your reluctance to even refer to the specific arguments I've made just reinforces the impression I have that you have no idea what you're talking about. That's not to say that you can't make a case -- perhaps Doherty was talking about the specific instances you mentioned. But with every "slavishly copied" remark you make, you're hurting your own reputation.

Radorth

Excuse me while I talk about something relating to the thread title instead of my personal weaknesses.

Now skeptics are denying that there were any deliberate lies, asserting something like "well, they were just doing what folks did back then, ya know? Everybody just went around making up myths and lying about stuff. I wouldn't call them liars."

But that is not what Iasion argued in this exchange.

Iasion and at least one other skeptic here believes somebody lied. And guess what? I agree, if in fact the story is false.

Nor is it what Scigirl argued when she said the "redacted, expunged and burned" what did not fit their agenda.

And no one has really convincingly addressed how this myth grew up faster than anything in history to be accepted as absolute truth by so many people all in one or two generations.

Doherty is a Jesus-myther, Family man. One "Chrstian" scholar does not a creed make. He's not in line with any majority, except those ordained by skeptics.com.

Radorth

Steven Carr

How many people? 10 to 1 says you won't produce any numbers for how many Christians there were in one or two generations.

Explain how Mormonism has grown faster. Even Falun Gong and Islam grew faster.

And in one or two generations, Christians were hopelessly divided by doctrinal claims ,as 2 John shows.

Steven Carr

I managed to find a 'slavishly copying' bit on Doherty's Web Page.

As expected, it is a far cry from Radorth's mischaracterisation.

<a href="http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/partthre.htm" target="_blank">http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/partthre.htm</a>

'Yet when Matthew comes to write his own version of Jesus' trial and crucifixion, all he can do is slavishly copy some document he has inherited, adding a few minor details of his own, such as the guard at the tomb. Luke does little more.'

Notice how Radorth turns this into 'This is inconsistent with the latest fad theory that the Gospels have a single source, and inventor named Mark, and were "slavishly copied" with a few things thrown in.'

So Doherty restricts himself to the trial and crucifixion , and Radorth turns this into 'The Gospels'.

I recommend that Radorth goes back and reads the articles he is criticising as his memory of them is letting him down in this discussion.

Radorth

He does not restrict himself. Read on to where he says:

This picture of Gospel relationships is really quite astonishing. Even John, in its narrative structure and passion story, is now considered by many scholars (see Robert Funk, Honest to Jesus, p.239) to be based on Mark or some other Synoptic stage. Gone is the old pious view that the four Gospels are independent and corroborating accounts. Instead, their strong similarities are the result of copying. This means that for the basic story of Jesus' life and death we are dependent on a single source: whoever produced the first version of Mark.

He says "LIFE AND DEATH." It is not I who extended it, and while I should not have applied the term "slavishly copied" to the whole story, ED doesn't seem to believe much different, and now says even John's story of Jesus' "life and death" is copied from earlier accounts, so he is not independent. We know this because one or two scholars think so. No evidence, no nothing. Just assertions like "is thought to have been.." Innuendo must suffice for the skeptics here.

To put teeth in his bogus theory he starts talking about how even Q went through many changes, redactions, etc. When did this start? In 75 CE? First he tells us the fist Gospel was written very late, about 80, then tells us there were all kinds of changes and redactions made to earlier accounts. Man those guys were on one tight schedule. In fact, the Mormons are starting to look pretty slow on the draw.

Criminy. Well I'm glad somebody read part of ED's nonsense, anyway.

Radorth

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Plebe

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_m_mangasarian/truth_about_jesus.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_m_mangasarian/truth_about_jesus.html</a>
Check out the info. on Origen and Celsus and more that brings into question the veracity of NT scriptures that begins at the end of the Parable story.