GreggLD1

I wanted to add to this:

When the other Gospel writers make changes to Mark (or in the case of John, whatever Synoptic he was looking at), it's becoming increasingly apparent that they did not do so willy-nilly, or because they remembered events or Jesus' words differently or better than Mark. They did so because they had different theological views from Mark, because they had different points to make, because their communities had different needs. So they took many liberties with Mark's story. But it is still glaringly apparent to those who are educated in such matters, and even many who aren't, that Matthew, Luke, and likely John as well, are all ultimately dependent on Mark for their basic narrative structure and big chunks of their content. Truly independent accounts simply would not be so similar in so many basic ways. Again, this is the opinion of many scholars, including those who accept a historical Jesus--it's not limited to Doherty and his supporters.

I guess you could argue that before leaving Jerusalem, all the apostles and disciples sat down and agreed on exactly how they would tell the Gospel story, word for word, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph (one wonders why they didn't just write it down then and there, if it was so important to tell it just so). Then they went out and founded all these churches and got the leaders to memorize the story just so. Then finally, three decades or more letter, a few people finally get the bright idea to write the story down--but for some reason, they take this story, so painstakingly handed down by eyewitnesses through oral transmission, and while leaving it essentially unchanged in certain respects, make changes both minor and major in other areas...even to the point of writing contradictory versions of various crucial events!

Also very strangely, they spend lots of time communicating via letters, but never mention any details of the Gospel story because "everybody already knew all that." Yet in the letters we find evidence that there were Christians--individuals and groups--going around saying there was no resurrection of the dead, or that Christians had to be Jews before they could be Christians, and other things that anyone who knew the Gospel story by heart should have had no questions about. But they don't bother to say, "Hey! The very people who sat at the Lord's feet and touched his resurrected body and saw him vanish into the sky expounded his ministry and teachings to you in detail, and verified that you had it memorized exactly as it was told to you before they left you. What is your problem?"

I know I've pointed all this out many times before, but oh well...

Gregg

Radorth

Of course he makes it up. Finding one or two single fringe scholars to agree with him and calling that "research" is just goofy.

He tells us the resurrectiion story in John is now "believed to be based on" a synoptic. This is pure bull, based on any body of research you want to find. And it's bull because those who say the stories are "too different" to be believed base their assertions on many more scholarly opinions. The fact is scholars are just as biased and subjective as anybody.

You give no examples to discuss, so all you are saying is "They are too different in the ways which support my case, and too similar in ways that support my case."

I know you are merely biased because you say "The overall structure is clearly borrowed." What kind of nonsense is that? If they were true, the overall structure certainly would be the same, which is what skeptics like Durant admit and you don't.

Sheesh.

Rad

Radorth

No and that is the whole point. Many people knew the story, and wrote separately, but recalled details differently. Some remember (or worote down) some parables and some remember others.That is why Durant calls your objections minutiae. Durant realizes that in all of history there is not any like example of various people writing 30-60 years after the event, and getting the basic story straight, which even you seem to admit. The variations are, to the trained historian, just about right in any true account, and are only evidence of it's veracity and it's wide circulation.

I've often said that if there were only one Gospel, I wouldn't believe it. Likewise if they had got together and written down four Gospels which were suspiciously identical, neither of us would believe it. I'm basically using your own arguments or those of other skeptics, you see.

Rad

Radorth

That's quite similar to what Paul says up to a point. The rest is based on some silly assumption that they would have made sure people "memorized exactly" what they were told. We agree they didn't do that, so there is nothing worthwhile to discuss here. The fact that some people believed there was no resurrection proves nothing.

Rad

aikido7

Radorth,

If Jesus spoke in parables to illustrate the coming Kingdom of God, couldn't his followers have used parabolic language to describe Jesus?

GreggLD1

From www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

History

The Nicene Creed was first adopted at the first Ecumenical Council in 325 A.D., which was also the First Council of Nicaea. At that time, the text ended after the words "We believe in the Holy Spirit." The second Ecumenical Council in 381 A.D. added the remainder of the text except for the words "and the son"; this is the version still used by Eastern Orthdox and Greek Catholic churches today. The third Ecumenical Council reaffirmed the 381 version, and stated that no further changes could be made to it, nor could other creeds be adopted. The phrase "and the son" (filioque in Latin) was first used in Spain in about the 5th century, and was acknowledged as early as 447 at Rome by Pope Leo I without the consultation or agreement of the other four patriarchs of the Church at that time. The dispute over the filioque clause and the manner of its adoption was one of the reasons for the Great Schism.

325 A.D. It took 300 years or more for Christians to decide just what they believed, and even then they didn't agree.

But my point was, modern Christians seem to think they're qualified to understand how 1st century Christians thought, based on nothing but the fact that they're Christians, too. They don't seem to see any need to understand the worldview people held at that time, the ideas Christians were absorbing from the world around them--Hellenistic philosophy and cosmology, dying/rising savior god mythology, and so on. They feel they can discount these influences as minor and neglible.

Further, they don't seem to feel that living in the modern age, with technology that would seem like magic (or witchcraft) to a 1st century person, space travel, an awareness that we're living on a round earth, in a heliocentric solar system, in an unimaginably huge galaxy that is just one galaxy out of billions in an unimaginably vast universe, has any significant impact on the way they think about things versus the way a 1st century Christian might think of them. But how could they NOT affect the way you think about and interpret things, even if it's only subconsciously?

Gregg

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Radorth
Of course he makes it up. Finding one or two single fringe scholars to agree with him and calling that "research" is just goofy.

Name the "fringe" scholars, please. AFAIK Doherty draws mostly on respected scholars.

He tells us the resurrectiion story in John is now "believed to be based on" a synoptic. This is pure bull, based on any body of research you want to find. And it's bull because those who say the stories are "too different" to be believed base their assertions on many more scholarly opinions. The fact is scholars are just as biased and subjective as anybody.

You cannot simultaneously argue that Doherty's position is "pure bull" and then claim that scholarly opinion is as subjective as anybody's. It cannot be pure bullshit if all opinions are equally subjective and biased.

I know you are merely biased because you say "The overall structure is clearly borrowed." What kind of nonsense is that? If they were true, the overall structure certainly would be the same, which is what skeptics like Durant admit and you don't.

They are clearly borrowed. See the 200 dollars in John 6, a detail which indicates copying from a text, and the intercalations in the Passion story, which John preserves (for example). John has, of course, been redacted several times. Nevertheless, Johannine dependence on the Synoptics is clear, and as Brown points out in his Intro, the pendulum of scholarly consensus is swinging back toward the dependence hypothesis. Far from being "pure bull," many respected scholars believe John is dependent on Mark for his story. In other words, we do not have stories from several witnesses, we have a story written once by a non-witness writing decades after the events in question, and then copied.

I've often said that if there were only one Gospel, I wouldn't believe it.

Then why are you here discussing? Your mind is made up, and cannot be moved by fact or argument. Are you just a troll?

And why do you rely on Durant, a writer of popular history who worked almost entirely with secondary sources? Why not cite Brown or Crossan or someone with real weight?

Vorkosigan

Radorth

Who decides that? You?

I thought we were talking about overall structure. And what would you say if the overall structure were very dissimilar? Please.

They aren't. But you'll notice I use many arguments from non-Christians because, unlike you, I don't trust friendlies for the whole truth.

Yeah the pendulum will always swing back and forth untill the HC is seen for what it is- dependent on minutiae and tortured scripture interpretations for questionable conclusions. And so what if John appears "dependent" on Mark for some information. He could be dependent on the same sources Mark was. There were likely notes taken, stories repeated to both- there are all kinds of reasons they John could be "dependent." There is zero proof of copying. And why you think 2 people couldn't remember "200 denari" is completely beyond me.

Well I've never seen you waver so if that makes a troll, say hello.

This is a standard objection to Durant. I depend on his logic, his knowledge of mythmaking, his list of "negatives" which would never appear in a fake story, etc. If you want to take him and his logic on, I'll give you an outtake from "Caesar and Christ."

If Richard Carrier can find major problems with Doherty's work and complain about the same hyperbole, lack of scholarly support, denigration of respected conservative scholars and gratuitous assertions I do, then I think "bull" is quite appropriate.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...shtml#Problems

Rad

Radorth

"The Gospel stories are too similar to be trusted."

"The Gospel stories are too different to be trusted."

So which is it and why? And what parts of them are we talking about? Why can't two people remember the same details? Why shouldn't the overall structure of true stories be the same?

As usual, all we have is more confusion, conflicting logic and premises and more questions than we had to begin with- all because of the a pervasive cynicism, not genuine rational skepticism. I can make a case that many true skeptics became Christians because they were skeptical of everything, including skeptics.

Rad

Vorkosigan

Who decides that? You?

Once again, please supply the list of scholars used by Doherty who are "fringe" scholars.

Well I've never seen you waver so if that makes a troll, say hello.

You're not a troll for having a firm position. You're a troll because each one of your posts is more or less the same. You don't add anything to the conversation, 'dorth.

Vorkosigan