29 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou continue to ignore the view, widely accepted among Biblical scholars, that the Gospels drew from an oral tradition, or the hypothetical Q document held to be based on the oral tradition, which sprang up around the life and works of Jesus. Naturally oral tradition differs from an eye-witness account, and legendary admixtures are par for the course -- witness the legends that entwine themselves around the life of Shaka, as preserved by Zulu oral tradition, let alone more remote figures such as Apollonius of Tyana (in an age where magic & miracles were commonly expected) -- but that in itself speaks for the comparative authenticity of the Gospels as opposed to Paul, whose work was manifestly his own invention (unless you accept his account of events).
Considering that he himself did not often quote Jesus, one might guess that the answer is yes.
Considering that the gospels were written after Pauls writings we really don't know whether Paul, or anyone he knew, actually knew the words of Jesus.
This book review should give you an idea of this viewpoint:
http://www.hendrickson.com/html/product/36678.acad.html?category=academic
29 May 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI do not think I have ignored that at all.
You continue to ignore the view, widely accepted among Biblical scholars, that the Gospels drew from an oral tradition, or the hypothetical Q document held to be based on the oral tradition, which sprang up around the life and works of Jesus.
Naturally oral tradition differs from an eye-witness account, and legendary admixtures are par for the course -- witness the legends that entwine themselves around the life of Shaka, as preserved by Zulu oral tradition, let alone more remote figures such as Apollonius of Tyana (in an age where magic & miracles were commonly expected) -- but that in itself speaks for the comparative authenticity of the Gospels
No it doesn't. Do you know any authentic Shaka quotes? What would you trust, the Movie "Shaka Zulu" or the writings of an explorer who passed through the region soon after Shakas death and decided to become a Zulu.
as opposed to Paul, whose work was manifestly his own invention (unless you accept his account of events).
Paul supposedly did know some Christians and must have got some information from them, or we would have to consider accepting that his claim to heavenly inspiration is in fact true.
I fail to see why the gospel writers who depended on oral tradition should be trusted over Paul who also depended on oral tradition. It is quite clear that the gospel writers were not above letting their own theology taint the accounts.
29 May 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadHe depended on it how? He went beyond it. The other writers interpreted the tradition -- it's not a question of 'tainting', that's a puritanical 'sola scriptura' viewpoint. A tradition isn't live if it can't be interpreted. But Paul made a radical break from tradition, if he was ever part of it. Remember he had his Damascus moment while en route to persecute some Christians.
I fail to see why the gospel writers who depended on oral tradition should be trusted over Paul who also depended on oral tradition. It is quite clear that the gospel writers were not above letting their own theology taint the accounts.
29 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt's not my position that's incoherent it's to do with the inherent contradictions and basic messiness of the Gospel. Jesus was , is and always will be the Son of God but this is not to say that there is not a process at work as well because he is also fully human.
Jesus taught salvation through righteousness.
All I continue to hear from you are rationalizations as to why you don't want to believe Him.
You continue to make stuff up to try to prove your points.
For example:
At one turn you've stated that you believe Jesus has always been and will always be.
At another you say stuff like this:
"Jesus ...[text shortened]... revealed to him what he would do for mankind on the cross."
Your position is incoherent.
For example , we know that the full scope of what the Father had planned for him on the cross was not fully revealed to him until his Garden of Gethsemane experience. It's also logical to assume that he learnt things as he went along , presumably maturing from adolescence into manhood. It's also clear that he was growing in intimacy and fellowship with his Father through a consistent prayer life.
Jesus did indeed teach salvation through righteousness but then so did Judaism through the ages. The problem Judaism faced was how man's righteousness could bridge the gap to a Holy God (to whom all our supposed righteousness is "as rags" ). The solution is to be found in the "new covenant" with God that Jesus speaks about more as the Gospels progress in relation to his death on the cross (eg last supper). Jesus then consciously positions himself as the "lamb of God" in this symbolism thus throwing a whole new light on the kind of righteousness that is to bring us to salvation. We are to be covered or "clothed" in Christ's righteousness and to claim it as if it were our own. This is the theme that St Paul quite rightly picks up and runs with after what Jesus himself had said.
Now , you may dismiss this as an "interpretation" but it is clearly based on what Jesus taught about himself and explicitly connected with Jewish theology and symbolism(of which Jesus was acutely aware). So the question is not "did Jesus teach salvation through righteousness" but " whose righteousness can bring salvation"? (yours or Jesus's) . The problem with your salvation is that it will always be impure , imperfect and tainted and cannot stand before the furnace of a Holy God (Jewish theology). So let's cut the BS and stop prentending that I have no coherent point to make please. The way you talk about Jesus it's as if you forget he was actually a Jew. He knew his theology. It's amazing that you can dismiss the significance of the imagery in the last supper as a mere "ritual" and then accuse me of "rationalizations". If you want a proper exploration of the WHOLE of Jesus's teachings then by all means have one. Until then stop talking as if you have all of the puzzle with only half the pieces.
29 May 08
Originally posted by PalynkaA quote about Jesus himself contains later additions beyond any question. But the I haven't heard any serious objections to the authenticity of the references to James, Jesus' brother who appears to have been pretty well known in Jerusalem.
There's substantial evidence against Josephus' text being authentic.
29 May 08
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadAntiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.
References please.
And do you know if he wrote it before or after the gospel of Matthew was written?
A good discussion of the Josephus' passages is here; I guess the most radical "Jesus is all myth" have claimed that all passages in Josephus which mention Jesus (even disparagingly i.e. the "so-called" Christ) are later interpolations. I think the arguments presented here are pretty overwhelming.
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/josephus.html
EDIT: Antiquities was finished in 93 AD well after the Synoptics. However, Josephus was not a Christian and Antiquities deals with Jewish history, so it is pretty clear that Josephus would not have relied on Christian documents even if he had read them (which is doubtful).
29 May 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneJesus also taught that it was the will of the Father to establish a new covenant with man via his Son's blood and that we should break bread and drink wine to recognise Jesus as the Lamb of God "slain for the remission of sin". Jesus also taught that we should receive the Holy Spirit and 'live in the Son as the Son lives in the Father".
Jesus taught one to follow the will of the Father, i.e., live a life of truth, love, compassion, justice, humility etc.. If one follows the will of the Father, is he not also following what Jesus taught? Even if he doesn't profess to follow Jesus, is he not a follower?
If one doesn't follow the will of the Father, is he following what Jesus taught? Even if he professes to follow Jesus, is he truly a follower?
So how do you incorporate these teachings into all this? I will be interested to hear your rationalisations.
29 May 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterReferences please.
Jesus also taught that it was the will of the Father to establish a new covenant with man via his Son's blood and that we should break bread and drink wine to recognise Jesus as the Lamb of God "slain for the remission of sin". Jesus also taught that we should receive the Holy Spirit and 'live in the Son as the Son lives in the Father".
So how do ...[text shortened]... orporate these teachings into all this? I will be interested to hear your rationalisations.
29 May 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'll quote exactly what I said and you explain to me how my argument that the Synoptics are more reliable than John rests purely on when they were written:
I cant find any post in which you did. You justify why the synoptics are more accurate than John but I don't see where you justify them being more accurate than Paul.
In fact since your justification of the synoptics is that they were written earlier you cant really justify claiming they are more accurate than Pauls writings which were written earlier st ...[text shortened]... we really don't know whether Paul, or anyone he knew, actually knew the words of Jesus.
It's quite possible the Synoptics are all partly copied from a common source or that two of the Gospels are partly copied from one of the others (probably Mark's). These Gospels all pre-date John's by at least 10 and more probably 30 years and if they are derived from an earlier source, that would make that source much closer to Jesus' time. While it may not be a "definite conclusion" (of course, I never claimed it was), it is pretty logical to assume that contemporaneous documents are more accurate describing events than ones written 60 years later. If you had bothered to read my whole post (or the link I gave), you'd know that the Gospel of John also radically differs from all of the Synoptics in its description of events, style (Jesus never uses parables; Jesus constantly berates Jews, etc. etc.), claims of Jesus' divinity (notice DF ONLY can quote John to support his flimsy claims), etc. etc. etc. All these facts lead to the conclusion that John is an ahistorical document rewriting the facts to fit later religious orthodoxy.
Paul's letters were put in writing before the Gospels that we have were. However, the Synoptics are asserted to be descriptions of the events of Jesus' life and a record of his words. It seems pretty logical that someone of the early Christians would have attempted to preserve Jesus' words, doesn't it? If they did, the Synoptics being mutually supportive of each other as to what those words were (in the vast majority of cases) and what events happened seem pretty consistent.
Paul letters, by contrast, are mere instructions and exhortations to various Christian outposts that never quote Jesus at all. Paul admittedly never met Jesus and rather rarely interacted with the surviving Apostles in Jerusalem (and those interactions were often on not good terms). In short, there is no reason to suppose that Paul's radical changing of Christian doctrine had anything to do with Jesus' words. I'm sure that Paul himself believed that he had correctly divined what Jesus' life, and more importantly to Paul, his death meant but that does not make his theology an accurate transmission of Jesus'.
29 May 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe bottom line is that I believe in the teachings of Jesus while you believe in the teachings of Paul.
It's not my position that's incoherent it's to do with the inherent contradictions and basic messiness of the Gospel. Jesus was , is and always will be the Son of God but this is not to say that there is not a process at work as well because he is also fully human.
For example , we know that the full scope of what the Father had planned for him on t ...[text shortened]... alking as if you have all of the puzzle with only half the pieces.
What I believe in is plainly stated. The foundation is solid.
What you believe in can only be arrived at through fabrication and the extrapolation of "imagery" and "symbolism". The foundation is lacking.
Luke 6:46-49
Why do you call me,'Lord, Lord,' and don't do the things which I say?
Everyone who comes to me, and hears my words, and does them, I will show you who he is like.
He is like a man building a house, who dug and went deep, and laid a foundation on the rock. When a flood arose, the stream broke against that house, and could not shake it, because it was founded on the rock.
But he who hears, and doesn't do, is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream broke, and immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great.