Namaste Ma'at,
Welcome to CR....I'm just a little confused...don't be a true believer, question authority..not implying they are right but they are...
Just one question...under whose authority are they right and do you truly believe it to be so?
Jesus: fiction or non
- Thread starter Sunny C.
- Start date
Welcome to CR....I'm just a little confused...don't be a true believer, question authority..not implying they are right but they are...
Just one question...under whose authority are they right and do you truly believe it to be so?
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
I have been wanting to believe it was true... But, I dunno It doesn't add up... If we take the story straight from the horse's mouth, there are two places in the NT where the genealogy of Jesus (son of Mary) is mentioned. I spoke of this in the bible contradiction thread.... Matthew 1:6-16 Which goes from Abraham.... All the way to Joseph... (son of Jacob AND! son of He'li??) and Luke 3:23-31 goes from Adam all the way to Joseph, they both give the ancestors of the claimed husband of Mary and step father of Jesus.... They both differ apart from one common name that is inbetween David and Jesus... Which is? Joseph... So how's that work? Also if (the majority) of christains (even Muslims) believe that JC has/had no father.... Why is he in the genealogy???
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
Well, I've read The Hiram Key. The problem is that it's mostly conjecture. IOW, it's reality based fiction, otherwise you'd see it in the History section at your local book seller. It was interesting and I enjoyed it, but it's not on the level of peer reviewed historical analysis.
In the interest of full disclosure: I'm Sunny C,
Chris
greymare
Well-Known Member
q not meaning to offend you but I stilldont get the IS part not Was. I am a disgruntled catholic ( probably need a lot of confessional before theyd let me back in) .I understand that he was a fantastic leader and a righteous man, to me a prophet. I need clarification. once again Im not meaning to get you cranky or anything, maybe you canexplain it a bit betterfor me please. love the Grey
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
No explanations??? Again? You people seem to be ducking and dodging this, and this is one of the many things, that makes christianity a pack of freaking lies? Can't anyone somehow dismiss this? Any-freaking-one? It seems like your acknowledging it but then thinking oh well and carrying on living in a faith that is just fairy tale...... I am truly hoping someone can explain it and tell me why there are all these golden human errors, which show this ain't no divine book... It's just a book... Harmony my aris.
No offense taken. To use the term "was" indicates past tense. Since Jesus died, then rose again, He still "is". One has to think of Jesus in the present tense in order to realize the nearness of He to us. When for example, I am driving on the "right" side of the road, in my "left" side steering wheeled truck, I perceive Him as sitting next to me as I head to work (us dopeys need all the help we can get...)
In short, I perceive Jesus as viable and near, guiding, encouraging and mentoring, not watching from a distance.
Hi 17th —
On the genealogy question, there are a few assumptions that have to be cleared first. One is that the Gospels are not historical accounts, as we would have them today — how we regard 'history' today conforms to a methodology that has been established only since the 17th century. They are 'testimonies' — witness histories, and they are evangelion — accounts of that which is preached.
I had a girlfriend who's father served in North Africa from 1941-1943, and was part of a celebrated action ("Snipe") at El Alamein. I have read detailed historian accounts of the battle, and I have heard the story of RSM Topp, who describes the whole thing from the viewpoint of someone watching from a slit trench.
You'd never realise the 'official' and the 'eye witness' reports were of the same thing — so much so that for a while I thought he was an 'old soldier' spinning me a yarn. Not so, as it turned out. But if someone asked me to describe the battle, if someone asked 'what happened?' — I'd give his version every time.
So in the Gospels we have a version of what happened ... and how the author understood what happened ... and what it means ... and the point he is trying to make. (RSM Topp's point was that this 'celebrated act of heroism' was another typical army cock-up in which he and his men had to 'carry the can', with friendly fire incidents, promised support not materialising... etc.)
The genealogies:
One solution:
St. Matthew gives a list of ancestors from Abraham to Joseph, but he does not link up the list from Joseph to Jesus. He simply tells his reader that Joseph was the husband of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and then he goes on to explain that Jesus, in fact, had no human father, because He was conceived supernaturally of the Holy Spirit.
Matthew is speaking of carnal descent, using the word “begot” (ε̉γεννησεν), down to Joseph, thus emphasizing that Joseph was not the carnal father of Jesus.
The Matthaean list of ancestors signifies the prophetic ancestry of Jesus, not his physical ancestry, but rather shows to his audience that Jesus belongs to the line that has been prophesied. It is a 'legal' and 'spiritual' claim to be the one of whom the prophets have spoken.
Does St. Matthew think he is writing history? Possibly, but not necessarily. Matthew opens with, "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ... ", the expression “the book of the generation,” could refer to an actual document which Matthew had and copied. Certainly St Matthew contrasts the names in this "book" with how the generation of Jesus really took place, when at verse 18 he says: "Now the generation of Jesus was (that is, really was) in this wise... "
Another solution:
St. Luke starts his genealogy with the words, "And Jesus ... being, as it was supposed, the son of Joseph... " (3:23) so it is clear that St. Luke is saying that Jesus was supposedly the son of Joseph, and he is not affirming this to be historical truth, as in the verse before he has God claiming paternity of Jesus.
So it would seem that neither apostle is claiming an historical reality of the genealogical records, but rather, this is what people think ... so neither saw it necessary to iron out every wrinkle in the record, as it were.
It also, as an aside, refutes the idea that the gospels derive from one account, as the skills of the two authors is evident, and it's almost impossible to make the kind of 'error' in transcription that this would imply.
Another solution:
Marriage according to Levirate Law. Matthew's genealogy says that “Jacob begot Joseph,” whereas Luke's list says that Joseph “was (the son) of Heli (Eli).” If we assume that both of the genealogies are historically accurate, how does this work? The Law of the Levirate of the Old Testament states: “When brothers dwell together, and one of them dies without children, the wife of the deceased shall not marry another, but his brother shall take her and raise up seed for his brother. And the first son he shall have of her he shall call by his name, that his name not be abolished out of Israel” (Deut 25:5-6). According to the earliest version of this solution, Joseph's grandmother (Estha) bore Jacob to one husband (Matthan) and Eli to a second husband (Matthat). Joseph's mother married Eli, who died without children; then she married Eli's uterine brother Jacob, who raised up Joseph as seed to Eli. Thus Joseph had Eli as his legal father and Jacob as his biological father. The genealogy of Matthew would thus show the biological ancestry of Joseph, and that of Luke the legal ancestry. This solution was recorded by Julius Africanus in the first half of the third century, who claimed that it was handed down to him by relatives of Joseph. St. John Damascene adhered to this explanation. Urban Holzmeister notes as a difficulty of this theory that the two husbands of Estha would not necessarily have borne the same male seed, but Jacques Masson points out that Mathan and Matthat could have been close relatives descended from a common male ancestor and thus would have borne the same male seed.
Another solution:
Marian genealogy. While Matthew's genealogy gives the ancestry of Joseph, Luke's genealogy gives the ancestry of Mary. St. Paul (Rom 1:3) says that Jesus was born “from the seed of David according to the flesh.” St. Peter (Acts 2:30) speaks of Jesus as a biological descendant of David. But, if Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, why does he tie it to Joseph, as he says “the son of Joseph, who was of Heli (Eli)”? And wasn't Mary the daughter of Joachim, as an extra-biblical tradition holds?
Cornelius a Lapide explains that Luke is calling Joseph the son-in-law of Eli, which is a shortened form of Eliachim, and that Eliachim is an alternative name for Joachim (cf. 2 Chron 36:4). In opposition to this idea, it has been pointed out (by F.X. Patrizzi) that there is no example in the Bible of the shortening of the name Eliachim (or Eliakim) to Eli, and that Eli comes from a different Hebrew root. But this change could have taken place in the popular shortening of names.
What could be concluded here is that Luke's genealogy seems in the plain and simple reading of the text to belong to Joseph, but it could belong to Mary in a deeper historical reading of the text, above all if there are historical reasons to explain why Joseph rather than Mary is mentioned in this genealogy.
It was not customary to mention women in genealogies. St. Joseph would probably have registered himself and the Baby Jesus at Bethlehem (cf. Luke 2:5) according to his line of descent as recorded in Matthew 1. But when the Holy Family was returning from Egypt after the attack of King Herod on the life of Jesus, it would have been very risky to use this same card of identity. Hence, St. Joseph could have adapted Mary's genealogy for his own use as the adopted son of Mary's father and for the use of Jesus as the true biological grandson of Mary's father.
Another solution:
Legal adoption. If Mary was an only child, it was in keeping with Old Testament law and custom for her father to adopt her husband and transfer to him all of his rights and possessions. If this happened, the genealogy of Luke, while remaining materially the genealogy of Mary, would formally have become the genealogy of Joseph, who had inherited Mary's ancestry from her father by way of adoption.
Some critics reject this theory on the ground that, according to St. John Damascene, Joachim, Mary's father, was the son of Barpanther, son of Panther, son of Levi, and not the son of Eli, son of Matthat, son of Levi, as the Lukan genealogy reads. But F.X. Patrizzi, after studying the same testimony of St. John Damascene, concluded that St. Joseph must have been Blessed Mary's uncle, and, therefore, he would have had the same genealogy as Mary from Levi on backward (even prescinding from the idea that Eli was actually Joachim, which Patrizzi rejects).
Fits nicely with the idea of keeping it 'within the family'.
Another solution:
Consanguinity. Cornelius a Lapide elaborates on the theory of Marian genealogy to speculate that both of the genealogies may actually present the ancestry of Mary. He affirms that, while Eli (of Luke's list) was Joachim, the father of Mary, so Matthan (of Matthew's list) was the biological grandfather of both Joseph and Mary, inasmuch as Jacob (who begot Joseph according to Matthew's list) was the brother of Anne, Mary's mother. Thus, according to this theory, Matthew gives the ancestry of Mary through her mother Anne, but, in keeping with the Hebrew custom of favoring male names in genealogies, Anne's brother Jacob is mentioned instead of Anne, just as Joseph is mentioned instead of Mary. In defense of the idea that Mary and Joseph could have been cousins, a Lapide notes that, according to Num 36:6-10, women who are heiresses of their parents' property are ordered to marry, not only within the same tribe, but also within the same kindred and closely-related family, lest the inheritance pass to outsiders. He points out also that authorities such as Ambrose, Jerome, Theodoretus, Jeremiah, Bernard, and Suarez hold that the Blessed Virgin Mary was also a descendant of David through Solomon, and, therefore, in the line of Matthew's genealogy. Patrizzi reasons that Joseph was the paternal uncle of Mary and the brother of her father Joachim, and that Joachim, Cleophas, and Joseph were the three sons of the last Jacob in Matthew's genealogy. In Jewish law, marriage of an uncle with his niece was sometimes permitted, especially by way of the Law of the Levirate (see solution three above). Masson agrees with a Lapide that St. Anne was the sister of Jacob and the aunt of St. Joseph. Hence, according to Masson, Mary and Joseph were first cousins on her mother's side.
Pick whichever one you like! Seriously, there are solutiuons, but you have to dig around for them.
I favour the 'keep it in the family' solution, as it works both ways — if their daughter is lying, then at least they've limited the scandal. If she's not, then they know under who's roof she will be living. It offers a selfish and magnanimous solution in one go!!
As to why bother with genealogies ... Matthew wanted to show that Jesus was He whom the prophets had spoken, and Luke traces Jesus back through Joseph, David, Abraham, Adam ... God, to show a continuity in the Hebrew Scriptures to his gentile audience, who would otherwise ask, what have the Jews to do with Jesus?
The point is, 17th, these are very technical questions, and they require technical answers. The assumption that Scripture should make sense to anyone who reads it is really a nonsense, in the same way that anyone who reads Scripture thinks they understand it, because all that's required is that one can read, is likewise nonsense.
I've read the manual for our TV, our Freeview tuner and our DVD recorder, but recording the right thing at the right time is something of a lottery still. Why anyone thinks that they can read SAcripture and understand it completely escapes me.
Thomas
On the genealogy question, there are a few assumptions that have to be cleared first. One is that the Gospels are not historical accounts, as we would have them today — how we regard 'history' today conforms to a methodology that has been established only since the 17th century. They are 'testimonies' — witness histories, and they are evangelion — accounts of that which is preached.
I had a girlfriend who's father served in North Africa from 1941-1943, and was part of a celebrated action ("Snipe") at El Alamein. I have read detailed historian accounts of the battle, and I have heard the story of RSM Topp, who describes the whole thing from the viewpoint of someone watching from a slit trench.
You'd never realise the 'official' and the 'eye witness' reports were of the same thing — so much so that for a while I thought he was an 'old soldier' spinning me a yarn. Not so, as it turned out. But if someone asked me to describe the battle, if someone asked 'what happened?' — I'd give his version every time.
So in the Gospels we have a version of what happened ... and how the author understood what happened ... and what it means ... and the point he is trying to make. (RSM Topp's point was that this 'celebrated act of heroism' was another typical army cock-up in which he and his men had to 'carry the can', with friendly fire incidents, promised support not materialising... etc.)
The genealogies:
One solution:
St. Matthew gives a list of ancestors from Abraham to Joseph, but he does not link up the list from Joseph to Jesus. He simply tells his reader that Joseph was the husband of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and then he goes on to explain that Jesus, in fact, had no human father, because He was conceived supernaturally of the Holy Spirit.
Matthew is speaking of carnal descent, using the word “begot” (ε̉γεννησεν), down to Joseph, thus emphasizing that Joseph was not the carnal father of Jesus.
The Matthaean list of ancestors signifies the prophetic ancestry of Jesus, not his physical ancestry, but rather shows to his audience that Jesus belongs to the line that has been prophesied. It is a 'legal' and 'spiritual' claim to be the one of whom the prophets have spoken.
Does St. Matthew think he is writing history? Possibly, but not necessarily. Matthew opens with, "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ... ", the expression “the book of the generation,” could refer to an actual document which Matthew had and copied. Certainly St Matthew contrasts the names in this "book" with how the generation of Jesus really took place, when at verse 18 he says: "Now the generation of Jesus was (that is, really was) in this wise... "
Another solution:
St. Luke starts his genealogy with the words, "And Jesus ... being, as it was supposed, the son of Joseph... " (3:23) so it is clear that St. Luke is saying that Jesus was supposedly the son of Joseph, and he is not affirming this to be historical truth, as in the verse before he has God claiming paternity of Jesus.
So it would seem that neither apostle is claiming an historical reality of the genealogical records, but rather, this is what people think ... so neither saw it necessary to iron out every wrinkle in the record, as it were.
It also, as an aside, refutes the idea that the gospels derive from one account, as the skills of the two authors is evident, and it's almost impossible to make the kind of 'error' in transcription that this would imply.
Another solution:
Marriage according to Levirate Law. Matthew's genealogy says that “Jacob begot Joseph,” whereas Luke's list says that Joseph “was (the son) of Heli (Eli).” If we assume that both of the genealogies are historically accurate, how does this work? The Law of the Levirate of the Old Testament states: “When brothers dwell together, and one of them dies without children, the wife of the deceased shall not marry another, but his brother shall take her and raise up seed for his brother. And the first son he shall have of her he shall call by his name, that his name not be abolished out of Israel” (Deut 25:5-6). According to the earliest version of this solution, Joseph's grandmother (Estha) bore Jacob to one husband (Matthan) and Eli to a second husband (Matthat). Joseph's mother married Eli, who died without children; then she married Eli's uterine brother Jacob, who raised up Joseph as seed to Eli. Thus Joseph had Eli as his legal father and Jacob as his biological father. The genealogy of Matthew would thus show the biological ancestry of Joseph, and that of Luke the legal ancestry. This solution was recorded by Julius Africanus in the first half of the third century, who claimed that it was handed down to him by relatives of Joseph. St. John Damascene adhered to this explanation. Urban Holzmeister notes as a difficulty of this theory that the two husbands of Estha would not necessarily have borne the same male seed, but Jacques Masson points out that Mathan and Matthat could have been close relatives descended from a common male ancestor and thus would have borne the same male seed.
Another solution:
Marian genealogy. While Matthew's genealogy gives the ancestry of Joseph, Luke's genealogy gives the ancestry of Mary. St. Paul (Rom 1:3) says that Jesus was born “from the seed of David according to the flesh.” St. Peter (Acts 2:30) speaks of Jesus as a biological descendant of David. But, if Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, why does he tie it to Joseph, as he says “the son of Joseph, who was of Heli (Eli)”? And wasn't Mary the daughter of Joachim, as an extra-biblical tradition holds?
Cornelius a Lapide explains that Luke is calling Joseph the son-in-law of Eli, which is a shortened form of Eliachim, and that Eliachim is an alternative name for Joachim (cf. 2 Chron 36:4). In opposition to this idea, it has been pointed out (by F.X. Patrizzi) that there is no example in the Bible of the shortening of the name Eliachim (or Eliakim) to Eli, and that Eli comes from a different Hebrew root. But this change could have taken place in the popular shortening of names.
What could be concluded here is that Luke's genealogy seems in the plain and simple reading of the text to belong to Joseph, but it could belong to Mary in a deeper historical reading of the text, above all if there are historical reasons to explain why Joseph rather than Mary is mentioned in this genealogy.
It was not customary to mention women in genealogies. St. Joseph would probably have registered himself and the Baby Jesus at Bethlehem (cf. Luke 2:5) according to his line of descent as recorded in Matthew 1. But when the Holy Family was returning from Egypt after the attack of King Herod on the life of Jesus, it would have been very risky to use this same card of identity. Hence, St. Joseph could have adapted Mary's genealogy for his own use as the adopted son of Mary's father and for the use of Jesus as the true biological grandson of Mary's father.
Another solution:
Legal adoption. If Mary was an only child, it was in keeping with Old Testament law and custom for her father to adopt her husband and transfer to him all of his rights and possessions. If this happened, the genealogy of Luke, while remaining materially the genealogy of Mary, would formally have become the genealogy of Joseph, who had inherited Mary's ancestry from her father by way of adoption.
Some critics reject this theory on the ground that, according to St. John Damascene, Joachim, Mary's father, was the son of Barpanther, son of Panther, son of Levi, and not the son of Eli, son of Matthat, son of Levi, as the Lukan genealogy reads. But F.X. Patrizzi, after studying the same testimony of St. John Damascene, concluded that St. Joseph must have been Blessed Mary's uncle, and, therefore, he would have had the same genealogy as Mary from Levi on backward (even prescinding from the idea that Eli was actually Joachim, which Patrizzi rejects).
Fits nicely with the idea of keeping it 'within the family'.
Another solution:
Consanguinity. Cornelius a Lapide elaborates on the theory of Marian genealogy to speculate that both of the genealogies may actually present the ancestry of Mary. He affirms that, while Eli (of Luke's list) was Joachim, the father of Mary, so Matthan (of Matthew's list) was the biological grandfather of both Joseph and Mary, inasmuch as Jacob (who begot Joseph according to Matthew's list) was the brother of Anne, Mary's mother. Thus, according to this theory, Matthew gives the ancestry of Mary through her mother Anne, but, in keeping with the Hebrew custom of favoring male names in genealogies, Anne's brother Jacob is mentioned instead of Anne, just as Joseph is mentioned instead of Mary. In defense of the idea that Mary and Joseph could have been cousins, a Lapide notes that, according to Num 36:6-10, women who are heiresses of their parents' property are ordered to marry, not only within the same tribe, but also within the same kindred and closely-related family, lest the inheritance pass to outsiders. He points out also that authorities such as Ambrose, Jerome, Theodoretus, Jeremiah, Bernard, and Suarez hold that the Blessed Virgin Mary was also a descendant of David through Solomon, and, therefore, in the line of Matthew's genealogy. Patrizzi reasons that Joseph was the paternal uncle of Mary and the brother of her father Joachim, and that Joachim, Cleophas, and Joseph were the three sons of the last Jacob in Matthew's genealogy. In Jewish law, marriage of an uncle with his niece was sometimes permitted, especially by way of the Law of the Levirate (see solution three above). Masson agrees with a Lapide that St. Anne was the sister of Jacob and the aunt of St. Joseph. Hence, according to Masson, Mary and Joseph were first cousins on her mother's side.
Pick whichever one you like! Seriously, there are solutiuons, but you have to dig around for them.
I favour the 'keep it in the family' solution, as it works both ways — if their daughter is lying, then at least they've limited the scandal. If she's not, then they know under who's roof she will be living. It offers a selfish and magnanimous solution in one go!!
As to why bother with genealogies ... Matthew wanted to show that Jesus was He whom the prophets had spoken, and Luke traces Jesus back through Joseph, David, Abraham, Adam ... God, to show a continuity in the Hebrew Scriptures to his gentile audience, who would otherwise ask, what have the Jews to do with Jesus?
The point is, 17th, these are very technical questions, and they require technical answers. The assumption that Scripture should make sense to anyone who reads it is really a nonsense, in the same way that anyone who reads Scripture thinks they understand it, because all that's required is that one can read, is likewise nonsense.
I've read the manual for our TV, our Freeview tuner and our DVD recorder, but recording the right thing at the right time is something of a lottery still. Why anyone thinks that they can read SAcripture and understand it completely escapes me.
Thomas
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
Thank you very much for the reply Thomas... Shall read it now.
Pico
Well-Known Member
Ones a geneaology of Joseph, and the other's the genealogy of Mary. I dunno why it says Joseph in both cases. It must have something to do with the culture and stuff back then.
greymare
Well-Known Member
AHHHHHHH, now I get it
I didn't believe Jesus existed at all until recently. It has been scientifically proven he existed by various methods, one of the main one's being archiologically. If his family existed (which they did cause they found all their osseries) then he must have! Question is not if he existed but was/is he the son of god. My thoughts!
Pico
Well-Known Member
Let me ask you something. Would you willingly give up your life for something if you knew it was a lie?
All of Jesus' disciples (except for John) died horrible deaths for proclaiming Jesus' resurrection, and it didn't happen all at once, they were slowly martyred (and some had suffered horrible deaths) one at a time with each apostle knowing full well what may happen to them. They also suffered immense persecution--stoning, jail, flogging, etc.
Now these people claimed to have seen Jesus after his resurrection. If they had lied, why would they willingly go to their deaths for it?
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
I think that there are two issues that should be separated. One question is: Was there a real, historical Jesus? The other: Are the Gospels a historically accurate account of Jesus' life?
Chris
Chris
Pico
Well-Known Member
There's a book written by a journalist who investigates those very two questions, and many others about Jesus. It's called the Case for Christ.
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
Your link is to Amazon.com. You should read the customer reviews. Here's and excerpt:
Apologetics are fine. Evangelical apologetics are fine. Evangelical apologetics packaged as objective journalism isn't fine. It's blatantly disingenuous.
Chris
Apologetics are fine. Evangelical apologetics are fine. Evangelical apologetics packaged as objective journalism isn't fine. It's blatantly disingenuous.
Chris
Hi Chris —
I think, Dawkins aside, secular scholarship now agrees that there was such a figure in history, at the time spoken of. There is much evidence to show that such a radical myth with its content and scale could not have occurred overnight.
In short it's more fantastic to believe there wasn't, than there was.
(There's a lovely 'interview' on YouTube in which a 'scientist' argues that Richard Dawkins does not exist — a spoof, utilising Dawkins' own argument. I'll track down the url)
Then you have to question what we and the apostles understand by 'history'. Our view is clinical and forensic, which Antiquity would not have understood at all.
The Gospels are an account of the experience of meeting Jesus:
Mark 1:1
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."
Luke 1:1-4
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us, According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed."
1 John 1:1-3
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled, of the word of life. For the life was manifested: and we have seen and do bear witness and declare unto you the life eternal, which was with the Father and hath appeared to us. That which we have seen and have heard, we declare unto you: that you also may have fellowship with us and our fellowship may be with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ."
No-one claimed to have written a 'history' but a 'testimony' and as Mark's Gospel is believed the earliest, about 60AD, he already is claiming Jesus is the Son of God, which means this is what the community believed from the very beginning, as the community did not form around the Gospels, but the Gospels were written at the instigation of the community to ensure the transmission of the 'real' and 'authentic' teaching, in the face of all manner of distortion, invention and perversion.
Thomas
I think, Dawkins aside, secular scholarship now agrees that there was such a figure in history, at the time spoken of. There is much evidence to show that such a radical myth with its content and scale could not have occurred overnight.
In short it's more fantastic to believe there wasn't, than there was.
(There's a lovely 'interview' on YouTube in which a 'scientist' argues that Richard Dawkins does not exist — a spoof, utilising Dawkins' own argument. I'll track down the url)
Then you have to question what we and the apostles understand by 'history'. Our view is clinical and forensic, which Antiquity would not have understood at all.
The Gospels are an account of the experience of meeting Jesus:
Mark 1:1
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."
Luke 1:1-4
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us, According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed."
1 John 1:1-3
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled, of the word of life. For the life was manifested: and we have seen and do bear witness and declare unto you the life eternal, which was with the Father and hath appeared to us. That which we have seen and have heard, we declare unto you: that you also may have fellowship with us and our fellowship may be with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ."
No-one claimed to have written a 'history' but a 'testimony' and as Mark's Gospel is believed the earliest, about 60AD, he already is claiming Jesus is the Son of God, which means this is what the community believed from the very beginning, as the community did not form around the Gospels, but the Gospels were written at the instigation of the community to ensure the transmission of the 'real' and 'authentic' teaching, in the face of all manner of distortion, invention and perversion.
Thomas
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
I think it doesn't matter.... Who ever is willing to apologise for their actions, that is good enough for me!
Another aspect of this discussion is that the 'truth or lies' of faith are not solely dependent upon Scripture.
What should not be ignored is the Liturgy and the Sacraments, which was there before the Scriptures were — baptism was a condition of faith before any Gospel was written — the Creed, for example, is reckoned to be taken from the Baptismal Rites as practiced in Jerusalem and Antioch.
So the existence of a community is evidence in itself.
Thomas
What should not be ignored is the Liturgy and the Sacraments, which was there before the Scriptures were — baptism was a condition of faith before any Gospel was written — the Creed, for example, is reckoned to be taken from the Baptismal Rites as practiced in Jerusalem and Antioch.
So the existence of a community is evidence in itself.
Thomas
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
Thomas said:
That, to me, is the salient point. As you say, the Gospels were not written as an historical account. They are written around major OT themes. Each author chose to incorporate and highlight those themes and major characters which he felt best illustrated his conception of the character, nature, and mission of the Christ. The differing genealogies are a perfect example of this. We've been through this before, so I won't belabor the point. As always I enjoy your knowledge and objectivity.
Chris