Is Jesus the only way to God

[bob x]

Because logically, John is the best candidate?
Or put another way, no other candidate fits the bill, whereas nothing about the Gospel we have precludes the John of tradition, whilst everything about John suggests it was him.

Everything about the book screams that it is not first-generation material. The utter absence of any mention of the book or of any quotes remotely matching the book in early sources is confirmation that it is not early.
The epistle of Polycarp, for example, is significant because he is responding specifically to a query asking what books the Philippians should read; he commends the epistles of Paul, and Ignatius, and the preachings of Zosimus and Rufus, and says nothing about any gospel or epistles by John, although Polycarp supposedly was a close disciple of John's. One line in that epistle is almost verbatim from the 1st epistle of John, and yet, is not attributed to John; the clear inference (although Christian scholars naturally shy away from it) is that the "epistles of John" are quoting Polycarp and not the other way around. Papias is also associated with the "Johannine" community and says he knew John, and he discusses "Mark" (plainly, the book we have now) and "Matthew" (plainly not the book we have now, but an earlier draft consisting only of the "Q" material, no narrative, and in Hebrew/Aramaic, not Greek) but has never heard of any "gospel of John". Eusebius says some lines from the Johannine Epistles are found in Papias, but does not give the quotation; in view of what we see in Polycarp, it is possible the "epistles of John" quote Papias also; or, perhaps, when Papias is writing the "epistles" are already in circulation but the "gospel" is not.

The final redaction of the Gospel of John predates the Johannine Epistles

Says who? The Gospel of "John" remained an "open" book, continuing to accrete new materials, much longer than anything else in the NT, still acquiring additions as late as the 5th century.

Most scholars recognise the existence of a Johannine Community as yet distinct and separate from other Christian communities. They certainly do not talk of an 'institutionalised' church at this early date, and I don't think you can say anything like that, with the implication it carries.

The only kind of "institutionalization" I am referring to is the recognition of certain leaders as teachers, from whom alone you could get "The Truth(TM)".

So.... archeologists have been looking for evidence, in the desert, of a people who wandered around like nomads without ever establishing a permanent settlement

Supposedly they were a party of a couple million, who ought at the least to have left a large cluster of latrine pits, and an abundance of dropped objects. Now, if we are really talking about a group of a couple hundred at most, zero trace would be a perfectly reasonable expectation.

 

[Thomas]

Everything about the book screams that it is not first-generation material.

Actually, everything about the book screams of a first-person, eye-witness testimony, as a huge swathe of scholarship testifies. That the source material has been edited is not disputed, however the long-standing assertion that the High Christology of John is a later theological development has now been shown to be erroneous — along with the attribution of those concepts to Greek mystical speculation.

The utter absence of any mention of the book or of any quotes remotely matching the book in early sources is confirmation that it is not early.

You know that's just not true.

John is mentioned by Papias, and in the Muratorian fragment, which are themselves earliest references. And we have the Rylands Fragment.

The epistle of Polycarp, for example, is significant because he is responding specifically to a query asking what books the Philippians should read;

I can't see that ... can you reference the specific query for me? All I see is Polycarp recommending non-Scriptural materials.

he commends the epistles of Paul, and Ignatius, and the preachings of Zosimus and Rufus, and says nothing about any gospel or epistles by John, although Polycarp supposedly was a close disciple of John's.

Bob, this argument is thin gruel indeed.

Polycarp says: "For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures," and references the Psalms and Paul's letter to the Ephesians — so we may assume that he understands 'Sacred Scriptures' to refer to what we call Old and New Testament text.

Polycarp says: "The Epistles of Ignatius written by him to us, and all the rest [of his Epistles] which we have by us, we have sent to you, as you requested. They are subjoined to this Epistle, and by them ye may be greatly profited; for they treat of faith and patience, and all things that tend to edification in our Lord."
So he's saying he's sending additional, non-scriptural materials, for the edification of the Philippians.

And again: "I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as ye have seen before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles."
I suggest this is not about writings, as you surmise, but about the profession of faith and the manner of Christian conduct — faith and morals, in fact.

One line in that epistle is almost verbatim from the 1st epistle of John, and yet, is not attributed to John

There you go then — Polycarp makes numerous scriptural references, and none of them are attributed ... so that's a spurious argument ... unless you want to argue he wrote the Hebrew Scriptures and the rest of the NT Canon as well?

the clear inference (although Christian scholars naturally shy away from it) is that the "epistles of John" are quoting Polycarp and not the other way around.

Rubbish — that's not clear at all — again, by this argument the whole Bible is written by Polycarp.

Papias is also associated with the "Johannine" community and says he knew John ... but has never heard of any "gospel of John". Eusebius says some lines from the Johannine Epistles are found in Papias, but does not give the quotation

You're doing it again, Bob — selecting data and presenting it in a negative manner. Scholars reference Papias' reference of Johannine language and a reference to John 14:2 as proof that he knew of the gospel — but I suppose the contra argument is that Papias wrote it, or read it of Polycarp.

in view of what we see in Polycarp, it is possible the "epistles of John" quote Papias also; or, perhaps, when Papias is writing the "epistles" are already in circulation but the "gospel" is not.

But most unlikely.

Says who? The Gospel of "John" remained an "open" book, continuing to accrete new materials, much longer than anything else in the NT, still acquiring additions as late as the 5th century.

Can you can validate that claim with any actual evidence?

Thomas

 

[bob x]

Actually, everything about the book screams of a first-person, eye-witness testimony, as a huge swathe of scholarship testifies.

You will find very few scholars outside of fundamentalist Protestant circles who believe it is "eye-witness". It certainly does not read like it is: only if you already have that fixed belief in your mind before you approach the material would it seem so. John the Baptist is depicted as saying over and over "Behold the Lamb of God" etc. when he sees Jesus: oh yeah? How come John's followers don't know anything about John's attitude toward Jesus? From the very first chapter we see that we have very late political propaganda, not consistent with what actually happened at the time.

John is mentioned by Papias

In Papias, John is the source of a strictly oral tradition which he knows (and considers superior to any written tradition: in discussing the gospels of Mark and Matthew he says "I esteem books as nothing, in comparison to the living tradition I have received"); Papias knows nothing about any BOOK by John, and his failure to mention any "gospel of John" when he is specifically talking on the subject of what books are available is very telling.

and in the Muratorian fragment, which are themselves earliest references.

Muratori is from c. 180; there is no question that a gospel of John, already quite similar to what we now have, existed by that date. It may or may not have yet included the opening ("In the beginning was the Word..."; still not part of John when Tatian writes, c. 150) or chapter 21 (the end of chapter 20 is a "wrap-up", and chapter 21 has to be a fairly late addition, although the 3rd century manuscripts all have it), but certainly it would not yet have "the woman taken in adultery" (first appears in the 5th century).
At the time of Muratori, the epistles were still understood to be pseudepigrapha, but accepted anyway, as well-intentioned pseudepigrapha: "We receive two epistles, one saying it is of John, the other labelled John in the superscription, as we receive the Wisdom of Solomon, written by men of friendly spirit in Solomon's name". 3rd John had not yet been added to the epistles.

And we have the Rylands Fragment.

A very early fragment (120-130), unfortunately small, from a stage at which the "Discourses" material has not yet been added. It contains some verses from the "Passion" narrative, missing some of what we now have:
...Pilate says, "Are you a king? What is the truth?"... as opposed to
Pilate says, "Are you a king?" And Jesus replied, "My kingdom is not of this world; if it were of this world, my disciples would have fought for me" Then Pilate said, "What is the truth?"...

All I see is Polycarp recommending non-Scriptural materials.

The Christians didn't HAVE their own canon of Scripture then. He is recommending what they should read: the Tanakh, the epistles of Paul, the epistles of Ignatius, the preachings of Zosimus and Rufus.

Polycarp says: "For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures," and references the Psalms and Paul's letter to the Ephesians — so we may assume that he understands 'Sacred Scriptures' to refer to what we call Old and New Testament text.

We may assume that the Sacred Scriptures refers to the Psalms.

Polycarp says: "The Epistles of Ignatius written by him to us, and all the rest [of his Epistles] which we have by us, we have sent to you, as you requested. They are subjoined to this Epistle, and by them ye may be greatly profited; for they treat of faith and patience, and all things that tend to edification in our Lord."
So he's saying he's sending additional, non-scriptural materials, for the edification of the Philippians.

They have asked him what books they should trust: he mentions first of all, naturally, the "Sacred Scriptures" which meant nothing more than the Tanakh at that time; he goes on to commend the epistles of Paul, taking for granted that they have copies of some of those; he further commends the epistles of Ignatius, enclosing copies; he also endorses Zosimus and Rufus, authors we no longer have.

And again: "I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as ye have seen before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles."
I suggest this is not about writings, as you surmise, but about the profession of faith and the manner of Christian conduct — faith and morals, in fact.

The question is whose words are to be trusted as "the word of righteousness"; he advises trust in the teachings of those who have exhibited "endurance" (a better translation than "patience"; the reference is to undergoing suffering for the sake of the faith), and endorses Ignatius, Zosimus, Rufus, Paul, and others (there is no "closed canon" of scripture yet: this is still the period when Clement writes "Just as God spoke through Paul when he wrote to you [the Corinthian church] so God is speaking through me when I write now...") leaving it up to their judgment to determine who else is teaching "the word".

There you go then — Polycarp makes numerous scriptural references, and none of them are attributed

Huh? He does not give a footnote after each quote, if that's what you mean, but he is careful to list the sources he is drawing from.

Scholars reference Papias' reference of Johannine language and a reference to John 14:2 as proof that he knew of the gospel — but I suppose the contra argument is that Papias wrote it, or read it of Polycarp.

Precisely. Papias and Polycarp are precisely the kinds of people who are good candidates for the authors of the Johannine literature. The gospel and epistles of John are by well-educated native speakers of Greek, not by a Galilean fisherman: as early as the 4th century, Dionysius of Corinth notes that the severe difference in language between the Revelation (thoroughly barbarous in its grammar) and the Gospel make it impossible to believe them by the same author. The Revelation is surely what the Galilean fisherman actually sounded like; the Gospel on the other hand is what his followers from a generation or so later sounded like.

Can you can validate that claim with any actual evidence?

The very late accretions to the Johannine literature (the gospel receiving a new story in the 5th century; the epistles receiving a new verse in the 8th) are notorious.

 

[Marsh]

The authority on which I speak regarding all my beliefs is based on the bible. If someone says that they dont except that as a basis for any factual evidence.. I cannot have a reasonable discussion with them. It would be completely one-sided.

Precisely. It's the easy road to say, "Well, since every single detail of the Bible hasn't been proven by scientific, archeological, or literary fact, then we can safely assume that it is not authoritative." This is the same reasoning that people use to "prove" the Big Bang theory; since there's nothing to prove that it didn't happen, we can say that it did happen.

Why is it that science never seems to have to carry any burden of proof? Science is correct until proven incorrect, while faith is incorrect until proven correct, yeah?

The authentic nature of the Bible is not something that you're going to find by digging up fragments of papyrus and petrified latrine artifacts. The authentic nature of the Bible is something that can only be felt by someone who studies it with an open mind. Of course, anyone who actually believes the Bible is assumed to be close-minded and unsophisticated, while anyone who joins the parade of pop-culture agnosticism is assumed to be open-minded, so just as you said before Faithful, this conversation is likely to go nowhere because anyone who doesn't believe puts it to those of us who do to prove what God never intended to prove.

 

[Thomas]

And it was us Bible-thumpers who came up with the Big Bang Theory in the first place ... so we do good Theology and good Science!

 

[Thomas]

Hi Bob —

In my studies, we have to review all sides of the argument (following Aquinas!) in the Socratic method, so I have looked at the rebuttals of tradition.

It remains that many of the assertions we make derive from textual interpretation, and of course our interpretations are based on our presuppositions. It does seem to me that you are reading the absence of data as significant, when such is not necessarily the case.

So I guess what I'm saying is that neither of us can present our theses as 'facts', but only as viable theses according to reading of the available evidence — any of course my thesis is always more viable than yours!

Catholic reading will always be weighted on the side of tradition. If tradition has always assumed 'X', then unless there is a compelling argument not to, the tradition stands. Down through history there have been plenty of reasons to show that tradition is not always true. However, that is no reason to discard all, or any of it, purely on a matter of personal doubt or incredulity.

On the other hand, down through history there have been plenty of times when scholarship has been obliged to abandon a 'dogmatic' teaching, so there is no reason to assume that scholardship is any more reliable or more authoritative than tradition. Bultmann unquestionably dominated the biblical criticism scene for generations purely on the weight of his reputation ... in some minds he still does ... even though it has been shown that many (if not all) of his assumptions and assertions regarding the gospels are his own opinion.

What annoys critics is they like to make absolute statements: John did not write the Gospel that bears his name, for example, even though they cannot prove that. The Church is a lot more circumspect in what she asserts these days — that the gospel attributed to John the disciple of Christ bears all the marks of a furst-hand eye-witness testimony, a document that has been edited subsequently.

For example tradition has always held "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" (in that order). Scholarship suggests Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. I favour a Hebrew Matthew (saying document, possibly not unlike Thomas), Mark, Luke, John, but I am under no obligation of faith to believe that in each case a man named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospel that carries his name. We're very precise on that point.

So on the one hand we get criticised for making dogmatic statements, on the other criticised for being circumspect — we cannot win. There is a rreasoning behind this, however, and secular science should have learned the lesson we have (sometimes painfully) learned, but seemingly it hasn't and still believes in its own infallibility, and its own omnipotence.

Be sure about what you can be sure about, but be honest about what you cannot be sure about.

Regarding Scripture, we affirm that the self-disclosure of God that we call 'Revelation' regarding man and his salvation is consigned to the page according to the mind of the sacred scribe — we nowhere say who the scribe is, only that God employs men and their faculties that they place at His disposal — but that by virtue of the source of the Revelatory data — the Holy Spirit — that data alone in inerrant — not that every word of Scripture is inerrant, as fundamentalists would insist.

So if a 5th century scribe was demonstrably proven, that does not render the Gospel invalid. The question then would be, was that scribe working under divine inspiration? Does that seem a cop-out, or a lawyer's way out? To some, perhaps. I would say it's common sense. Don't assert as a fact what you don't know for sure.

On the other hand, the whole 'Q' thing is an invention to get over a problem ... Oral tradition.

I very much believe that no gospel finished up in the state it started off in. All draw on and are shaped by oral tradition, experience, etc., something that Biblical Criticism can't quantify and therefore tends to ignore in the process. So they come up with a hypothetical document, Q, which by-passes the problem by sleight of hand, and has now assumed a life of its own.

Not one source in 2,000 years mentions such a document. Not one text refers to it. No source speaks of it at all, which seems suuficient enough to dispose of documents we know exist ... Critics cannot say what it comprises, what it looked like, who wrote it, where or when, beyond 'finger in ther air' speculation. But still it pops up in discussion.

The paradox is, why do they accept something which no longer exists, which might never have existed, with not a shred of evidence at all to support it, when they so hotly dispute the evidence in support of the material they do have?

My faith is my faith, but my interest is now very much 'the faith of the community' — Christian Scripture, Christian Liturgy, Christian ortho and praxis spring from that original community ... so I defend the position that community took, that the foundation of the Gospel of John is the testimony of perhaps Jesus's closest companion whilst he walked the earth.

Thomas

 

[Marsh]

You will find very few scholars outside of fundamentalist Protestant circles who believe it is "eye-witness". It certainly does not read like it is: only if you already have that fixed belief in your mind before you approach the material would it seem so. John the Baptist is depicted as saying over and over "Behold the Lamb of God" etc. when he sees Jesus: oh yeah? How come John's followers don't know anything about John's attitude toward Jesus? From the very first chapter we see that we have very late political propaganda, not consistent with what actually happened at the time.

And I would say that it does read like the memoirs of an eyewitness; it only seems like propaganda to someone who comes to it with the assumption that it is a fabrication, Bob. So far, all I've heard from you is "it's propaganda because it's propaganda," supported by big stretches like "How come John's followers don't know anything about John's attitude toward Jesus?" How do you know that they didn't know anything about John's attitude toward Jesus? Because the gospel of John doesn't say so? But if it said so, that wouldn't even matter because you've already asserted that the whole thing is propaganda anyways!

Give all the examples of fragments and dead theologians that you want, but the fact remains that none of it addresses the issue because it is an issue of belief, and if one has no belief to begin with, no proof will be enough for them.

I didn't always believe that the Bible is God's message; actually, I went through about ten years of being extremely skeptical. Then I actually read the thing-- really read it, and having read it the idea that Jesus would have said that he is the way, the truth, and the life makes complete sense to me, because it's consistent with everything else I have read, and because it feels true. Not true because it gives me a sense of power, like I can hang it over the head of anyone who doesn't accept Jesus as Christ, but because it feels true. That's a kind of proof that's personal; you won't find it in any fragment of papyrus.

 

[wil]

And I would say that it does read like the memoirs of an eyewitness; it only seems like propaganda to someone who comes to it with the assumption that it is a fabrication, Bob....

I didn't always believe that the Bible is God's message; actually, I went through about ten years of being extremely skeptical.

I can hang it over the head of anyone who doesn't accept Jesus as Christ, but because it feels true. That's a kind of proof that's personal; you won't find it in any fragment of papyrus.

Namaste Marsh,

No one is saying, or at least I'm not saying and the way I read Bobx he isn't saying it is a fabrication, just not an eyewitness account.

I also believe the Bilble is G!d's message, just not that it is litterally and historically accurate.

If the proof is personal and not based on a fragment of papyrus...wouldn't that make the bible invalid and not required...as you are getting your personal proof (as am I) based on those fragments of papyrus?

Listening to Thomas Moore today and he made a comment of how he feels it odd that 'Christians' can blast others on the path so beligerently for being what they consider blasphemous all the while not contemplating their own beligerence...

And from Bishop Spong's email today...

I think I can demonstrate that all four of the gospel writers knew they were not writing either history or biography. Each was interpreting Jesus in the context of their relationship with the Synagogue and their time in history, most especially following the Jewish-Roman War when in 70 CE the city of Jerusalem was leveled by the Roman invaders.

If we looked at the gospels as portraits of Jesus painted by the second or even third generation of Christians and not as photographs or tape recordings capturing his exact deeds and words, I think we would be closer to the truth.

I believe the gospels give us insight into the impact of a man of history and they open the doors for an exploration into the mystery and wonders of God. That is why I treasure them.

 

[Thomas]

No one is saying, or at least I'm not saying and the way I read Bobx he isn't saying it is a fabrication, just not an eyewitness account.

The point is you can't say that as a definite statement of fact ... only a statement of your belief.

If one was to be honest, then the message is John of the Twelve is traditionally accepted as the source of the material of gospel. In recent times, more evidence has come forward which supports that claim. However, the case is not proven, and many dispute that claim, and there are many contenders for authorship ... but when you line them all up, John is still the 'favourite' as the one originating source that fits and fills the conditions.

All one can say is I choose to accept/not accept John — nothing is proven.

I also believe the Bible is G!d's message, just not that it is litterally and historically accurate.

We say no different, but then we also say that parts of it are indeed historically accurate. John offers a view of Jerusalem which is historically accurate and a wealth of incidental detail which can be checked and verified.

Luke and Acts offers a wealth of data to historians, Acts is now being quoted as a source from which telling insights can be made about the political balance and tensions in the region.

A new school of thought suggests that certain 'primitive' accounts in John, such as the miracle of walking on the water, are older than the accounts in the Synoptics ... that is less 'worked over' ... which suggests that although John was written late, it adds less to the core text than the Synoptics.

All the above are recognised philosophical and theological positions. You can't deny them, you either accept them, or not.

But there is an increasing groundswell of evidence to suggest that the Bible is historically reliable, although that data is mostly incidental to the text. The Bible isn't history, its testimony.

Then again, if there is no history, then it is a work of fiction, and your faith is in vain? St Paul said the same thing — if there is no Resurrection, then our faith is in vain — I keep coming back to this Wil, you profess a faith, but then argue against the validity of the text that presents it, so to me you're arguing against what you say you believe in?

Thomas

 

[wil]

However, the case is not proven, and many dispute that claim, and there are many contenders for authorship ... but when you line them all up, John is still the 'favourite' as the one originating source that fits and fills the conditions.

All one can say is I choose to accept/not accept John — nothing is proven.


Then again, if there is no history, then it is a work of fiction, and your faith is in vain? St Paul said the same thing — if there is no Resurrection, then our faith is in vain — I keep coming back to this Wil, you profess a faith, but then argue against the validity of the text that presents it, so to me you're arguing against what you say you believe in?

Thomas

Namaste Thomas,

I agree Thomas, it could be John, I find it unlikely. You indicate he is the favorite. Again I agree. But like a horse race. You've got the favorite against 12 other horses. If I had to choose one and only one, I'd agree the favorite is the most likely. But the odds are one of the other 12 will be the victor. So while you believe in the #1 horse, I believe some unkown in the field is the author. Please this analogy is not how I came to me decision, but it is my way of explaining that the odds are against it being John...we haven't finished the race.

Genesis 1 and 2 are largely works of fiction no? You get no use from them? Jonah a work of fiction, no benefit from reading? Just because the rabbit never pulled the thorn from the lion's paw or gulliver never traveled and the three little pigs never built houses, does that mean we can't gain from the story?

I am saying Christianity will continue to benefit by examination and exposure of that which is conjecture, story, allegory, mythology, parable, fable and all the while also expose its spritual value. However ir we insist on the literal truth and innerant bible and continue to build museums distorting facts Christianity will go the way of the Norse, Greek and Roman religions...all of it relegated to mythology.

The baby will be thrown out with the bath water.

This is my battle, Jesus has value, and like geology books, history books, math books, as new information comes forward the old books are edited, footnoted, new information provided. While I believe with all my heart, all my soul, all my mind that the bible is valuable in every moment of my life and everyone elses should they choose to use it... it has many historical, and scientific errors and is full of hyperbole in order to make a point, not to believe the hyperbole.

 

[juantoo3]

We say no different, but then we also say that parts of it are indeed historically accurate. John offers a view of Jerusalem which is historically accurate and a wealth of incidental detail which can be checked and verified.

Luke and Acts offers a wealth of data to historians, Acts is now being quoted as a source from which telling insights can be made about the political balance and tensions in the region.

But there is an increasing groundswell of evidence to suggest that the Bible is historically reliable, although that data is mostly incidental to the text. The Bible isn't history, its testimony.

Then again, if there is no history, then it is a work of fiction, and your faith is in vain? St Paul said the same thing — if there is no Resurrection, then our faith is in vain — I keep coming back to this Wil, you profess a faith, but then argue against the validity of the text that presents it, so to me you're arguing against what you say you believe in?

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I would like to chime in if I may...

You strike some interesting notes, as usual Thomas.

The points you make regarding John have a correspondence with those who attempt to vilify Paul and thereby detract from his contributions. As I have argued before with others regarding Paul, the same ad-hominem arguments can be used to undermine the entire New Testament, and from there the entire Bible. Why not apply the same to every sacred text around the world?

I agree wholeheartedly that even if the New Testament, the Gospels in particular, are primarily testimony that without some historical validation they become little more than morality myths and folklore wisdom. But the biggest quandary, and the hardest piece of the puzzle I have yet to reconcile even in my own search for the real Jesus of history, is that without the resurrection the rest is baseless and ungrounded advice. It all hinges on the resurrection, doesn't it?

 

[juantoo3]

it has many historical, and scientific errors and is full of hyperbole in order to make a point, not to believe the hyperbole.

It seems to me the point has become lost in the hyperbole though wil. Maybe the truth stretching is to make the point, I don't know. I think it is a little disingenuous of "us" living today to hold people writing two thousand years ago (almost) to the same standard of truth, not having or holding the same yardsticks to measure by. Having said that, C.S. Lewis' point also is valid here, in that if Jesus did not resurrect then the rest of the story is pretty much a morality myth just like all of the other morality myths, and Jesus becomes a liar or a fraud.

I can get tidbits of wisdom anywhere. What makes Christianity unique is that our Messiah not only worked miracles, but rose from the dead.

Tough to reconcile with history...but just the same, Christianity is nothing worth adhering to especially, without the metaphysical Jesus.

 

[wil]

It seems to me the point has become lost in the hyperbole though wil. Maybe the truth stretching is to make the point, I don't know. I think it is a little disingenuous of "us" living today to hold people writing two thousand years ago (almost) to the same standard of truth, not having or holding the same yardsticks to measure by. Having said that, C.S. Lewis' point also is valid here, in that if Jesus did not resurrect then the rest of the story is pretty much a morality myth just like all of the other morality myths, and Jesus becomes a liar or a fraud.

I can get tidbits of wisdom anywhere. What makes Christianity unique is that our Messiah not only worked miracles, but rose from the dead.

Tough to reconcile with history...but just the same, Christianity is nothing worth adhering to especially, without the metaphysical Jesus.

I believe it isn't stretching the truth...it is the nature of storytelling. When you have an oral tradition the story needs to be fantastic..or it isn't retold. And yes folks emphasize and amplify over time so yes the point can get lost in the hyperbole.

No I agree, I don't hold the authors of yesteryear to the same yardstick, but choose to admire them for what they are and what they did...which is keep the mystery and stories alive.

No matter what is proved or disproved; proving Jesus lied or misled is even a task that does not intrigue me at all. As we have NO recordings of his talks and NONE of his writings, we do have second, third, fourthhand information and visions of folks that never met him...so Jesus can be held accountable for NONE of what is written in the bible about him.

 

[juantoo3]

I believe it isn't stretching the truth...it is the nature of storytelling. When you have an oral tradition the story needs to be fantastic..or it isn't retold. And yes folks emphasize and amplify over time so yes the point can get lost in the hyperbole.

I think I understand what you are saying, but in the strictest sense then there is little difference between the Christian commission to carry the Gospels to the world and Aesop's "the Ant and the Grasshopper," as just one example. I understand the poetic license, and I understand how people are prone to argue over the silliest tiny little points of irrelevence (my favorite being the emphasis on the italisized words in the KJV, italisized because *they are not* in the original manuscripts). Or the complications relating to grammar, since the grammar points are so difficult to cipher from the Greek.

I don't hold the authors of yesteryear to the same yardstick, but choose to admire them for what they are and what they did...which is keep the mystery and stories alive.

To this you and I are in full agreement then. About the only minor difference perhaps being my pursuit of sifting the original intent out of the Pagan chimera it became.

No matter what is proved or disproved; proving Jesus lied or misled is even a task that does not intrigue me at all. As we have NO recordings of his talks and NONE of his writings, we do have second, third, fourthhand information and visions of folks that never met him...so Jesus can be held accountable for NONE of what is written in the bible about him.

You make a valid point, in that we can't say with absolute certainty that the words attributed to Jesus are actually his...he wrote nothing firsthand that survives. The Gospels in the best of circumstances are a collection of secondhand, possibly third and even possibly fourth-hand recollections, liberally embellished after the fact. The laity are not want to hear of these things, but scholarship has largely established such.

I don't see any difficulty with realizing how commingled Pagan hero attributes are mixed with Jewish ideology to create a Christian Messiah, that to me seems self-evident after exploring the broader context. But there *is* an element of...surprise?...that makes me wonder just what the heck was so special about this particular itinerant radical rabbi that so attracted the Pagan multitude that even the political powers that be couldn't eradicate him outright. In context, the Romans loathed the Jews, so the whole thing is so counter-intuitive that it literally makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...and yet here is Christianity almost two thousand years later.

Go figure...I've been trying to for twenty odd years and still haven't figured it out.

 

[Dream]

....what the heck was so special about this particular itinerant radical rabbi that so attracted the Pagan multitude that even the political powers that be couldn't eradicate him outright. In context, the Romans loathed the Jews, so the whole thing is so counter-intuitive that it literally makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...and yet here is Christianity almost two thousand years later.

Perhaps one of the more attractive things was in the extreme well known differences. Take the concept of Truth for an instance: Rome altered its own history to whatever was in vogue, so it that had multiple falsified histories. "What is truth?" was a Roman way of life. Jews had both real history and a history of being inflexible. Jews of the diaspora upheld the concept of unchanging truth. Maybe truth became an idea whose time had come, and perhaps a grudging respect began to grow.

 

[Quahom1]

Perhaps one of the more attractive things was in the extreme well known differences. Take the concept of Truth for an instance: Rome altered its own history to whatever was in vogue, so it that had multiple falsified histories. "What is truth?" was a Roman way of life. Jews had both real history and a history of being inflexible. Jews of the diaspora upheld the concept of unchanging truth. Maybe truth became an idea whose time had come, and perhaps a grudging respect began to grow.

There are times when I don't want half caff decaf triple mint twisted latte with a hint of coffee somewhere inside the bottom of the cup. I just want pure, cool water...

 

[juantoo3]

There are times when I don't want half caff decaf triple mint twisted latte with a hint of coffee somewhere inside the bottom of the cup. I just want pure, cool water...

Indeed. But the best I've been able to find so far still tastes like citified chlorinated water. Sad to say, but true.

 

[Quahom1]

Indeed. But the best I've been able to find so far still tastes like citified chlorinated water. Sad to say, but true.

Well, as greymare can state, my water comes from an artesian well...

 

[bob x]

It does seem to me that you are reading the absence of data as significant, when such is not necessarily the case.

How significant an absence may be depends on how strongly we should expect a presence. When the topic of discussion is precisely what books are available, a failure to mention particular books is an indication that they were either non-existent, not widely circulated, or not considered of much significance. From the late 2nd century onward, you would not find any Catholic/Orthodox author talking about the scriptures and leaving out some or all of the gospels.

Catholic reading will always be weighted on the side of tradition. If tradition has always assumed 'X', then unless there is a compelling argument not to, the tradition stands.

There is no reason to accept such a bias. We know very well that many religious people are not particularly honest, finding nothing wrong about telling a tall tale to "sell" the faith; and that others who may be perfectly sincere are nonetheless prone to spread the products of their exuberant imaginations as inspirations from God: we see this in mass-circulated e-mails telling what sound to the unbelievers like absurd fantasies, but are received as "gospel" by the faithful. And in the first few centuries AD, many varieties of Christian (as many varieties of Jew had been doing for some time) produced pseudepigrapha by the bushelful, some of worse quality than others to be sure, but just because the books accepted into the NT are generally of better quality than those rejected does not remove the default assumption that they are of similar origin to the bulk of the Christian literature.

Down through history there have been plenty of reasons to show that tradition is not always true. However, that is no reason to discard all, or any of it, purely on a matter of personal doubt or incredulity.

Sure it is. A claim that a book is genuinely from an early author needs to be proven, like any other claim; a statement within the text itself, or by early citers of the book, is evidence for the claim, but not very strong evidence when the text itself is from a tradition so thoroughly permeated by pseudepigraphy, and when the earliest citers are from well after the purported author's death.

What annoys critics is they like to make absolute statements: John did not write the Gospel that bears his name, for example, even though they cannot prove that.

The burden of proof is on the party making the positive claim, that John did write it.

The Church is a lot more circumspect in what she asserts these days — that the gospel attributed to John the disciple of Christ bears all the marks of a furst-hand eye-witness testimony, a document that has been edited subsequently.

You keep saying that, but you have not cited any such "marks". I have cited for the opposite contention that: the language is not that of a Galilean fisherman, but of an educated native Greek-speaker; the portrayal of John the Baptist is wholly inconsistent with the portrayal of him by other sources; the editing you refer to appears to be a long, multi-layered process in which, in particular, the extended speeches of Jesus look to be late additions.
Wil asked the question: is the portrayal of John son of Zebedee consistent with the other sources either? Why don't we look at where he shows up in the synoptics, and compare? Two passages come to mind: where Zebedee's wife asks Jesus to make sure that her sons John and James get high-ranking jobs in the new world government and Jesus has to gently let her down about how things work; and where John and James ask Jesus to call down fire and brimstone on some unreceptive towns, and he nicknames them Boanerges glossed "sons of thunder" (baney regesh "sons of rumbling"?) and rebukes them, "You don't know what kind of demon you are invoking." None of this shows up in "gospel of John"; rather, this is more reminiscent of Revelation, whose author shows a keen interest in taking over the world and is gleeful about destroying all the enemies; the more sedate author of the gospel is a couple generations of watering-down removed from Thunder Boy.

So if a 5th century scribe was demonstrably proven, that does not render the Gospel invalid. The question then would be, was that scribe working under divine inspiration? Does that seem a cop-out, or a lawyer's way out?

Yes. The 5th century scribe was perpetrating a fraud, passing off his words as coming from an ancient source. The story may be very good and useful (who doesn't like "the woman taken in adultery" story?) but if you believe in a God who practices fraud, there is an unbridgeable gulf between our moralities.

So they come up with a hypothetical document, Q, which by-passes the problem by sleight of hand, and has now assumed a life of its own.
Not one source in 2,000 years mentions such a document. Not one text refers to it. No source speaks of it at all

I disagree. When Papias speaks of "Matthew" as a book of sayings only (contrasted with Mark, a narrative of events), written in the "Hebrew" (he may mean Aramaic salted with some Hebrew words and phrases; ancients were not always precise about linguistic distinctions), with competing translations into Greek none of which have yet been accepted as standard, he is describing "Q", not the canonical Matthew. The combination of this earlier "Matthew" with an altered version of the Markan narrative and a little extra material has to have happened later than Papias (unfortunately we don't know exactly when Papias was writing).
Weaker: the Acts of Barnabas describe Barnabas as circulating the "two books of Matthew", also referring to some earlier stage in the composition of Matthew as we now know it, in which two pieces were kept distinct (the sayings in one book; an altered version of the Markan narrative in another?) I say this is not strong because Acts of Barnabas is a late pseudepigraph (with an absurdly fraudulent claim to be written by Mark), a 4th century effort to establish that the church of Cyprus is ancient and apostolic and therefore deserves to remain independent of Constantinople's pretensions: you object to looking for the political motivations behind texts, but that is essential to figuring out what parts of it might be true; here, I think the "two books of Matthew" most likely to be a genuine preservation of an early tradition because there is no evident motive for inventing it. Therefore, if scholars want to find a preserved "Q" manuscript, Cyprus would be an excellent place to look.

But there *is* an element of...surprise?...that makes me wonder just what the heck was so special about this particular itinerant radical rabbi that so attracted the Pagan multitude that even the political powers that be couldn't eradicate him outright. In context, the Romans loathed the Jews, so the whole thing is so counter-intuitive that it literally makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...and yet here is Christianity almost two thousand years later.

The ancient religions were all losing their credibility. One function of the myths was to help explain the cosmos, and the myths were not working anymore in that respect, given the advances of science (classical science may seem rather weak to our jaded modern eyes, but it was enough to jolt a lot of people out of animistic credibility). But the main function had been to bind communities together, sanctifying their leaderships and customary laws: Roman rule meant that the Apis bull did not sanctify a Pharoah anymore, and that Ephesians were no longer governed by what Diana's priestesses had to say; and the old communities were becoming more intermingled as people moved around, and the communities' traditions had no authority over the young. In Roman times we find many people desparate from something new to believe in, grabbing gods from far away as if they would be better than their own: Cybele Mother of Syria for some reason was popular in Britain; Anubis the jackal-headed god of death became a fad in Italy; Mithra, from the Parthian Empire, did fairly well all over the Roman Empire (it helped that there was almost no contact with the original Mithra-believers in Parthia, so Roman Mithraism could evolve into something else entirely).

The Jews were, politically, trouble-makers, and often unpopular. But what they had was a source of envy to a lot of thinking Romans: a system of customary law that seemed more based in universal principles than the rather ad-hoc rule-codes of many local paganisms, and which was retaining the allegiance of its community even without a surviving dynasty (sometimes they had their own kings, sometimes not; when they did, their kings were often weak; yet the cohesiveness of the Jews didn't seem affected much either way), and purporting to derive from a god of universal rather than local reach. Converting to Judaism was a difficult and rare step, but there were lots of "Theophiloi" (God-lovers) who supported Jewish synagogues, and read the Jewish scriptures. What Christianity offered was a lot of the Jewish package without a lot of the Jewish baggage: a bonding among people that reached across the divisions of ethnic communities and social classes that kept people apart.

 

[greymare]

Well, as greymare can state, my water comes from an artesian well...

Mmmmmm everything tastes better there.