 |
| |
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
That is not a good analogy. We have canonical proof that the 4 Gospels were written between 50 and 70 AD by their true authors. |
We don't have original manuscripts. We have guesswork about when they were written (and, by the way, the dates I've heard most commonly are 65-90 A.D., not 50-70), but not original sources (as someone here pointed out, the "originals" are translated from the Greek, not the Aramaic, which is pretty good evidence that they're not originals). This is exactly why the Life of Johnson analogy holds. If you picked up the Life of Johnson today, you could tell that it was probably written in the 18th century -- but without any extant 18th century versions of the text, could you ever be sure?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
 |
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
We don't have original manuscripts. We have guesswork about when they were written (and, by the way, the dates I've heard most commonly are 65-90 A.D., not 50-70), but not original sources (as someone here pointed out, the "originals" are translated from the Greek, not the Aramaic, which is pretty good evidence that they're not originals). This is exactly why the Life of Johnson analogy holds. If you picked up the Life of Johnson today, you could tell that it was probably written in the 18th century -- but without any extant 18th century versions of the text, could you ever be sure? |
I can go with 65-90 AD.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
The Gospels were copied down over te centuries by the Early Church. There is every reason to believe that they were written by their true authors. |
Then name one.
Why should I believe that Matt, Mark, and John were the true authors of the Gospels which carry their names, yet the Gospels of Thomas or Mary Magdelene are not?
Why shouldn't I believe that the Gospels were altered over the centuries? One only needs look at the King James Bible to see what happens when the Bible is recopied, especially from one language to another: Aramaic --> Greek --> Latin.
quote:
For example what the King James Bible translates as, "Our Father which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven," Douglas-Klotz translates as, "O Birther, Father-Mother of the Cosmos, Focus your light within us—make it useful: Create your reign of unity now—Your one desire then acts with ours, as in all light so in all forms." |
http://www.selfknowledge.org/resour...ofthecosmos.htm
Here's a nice page of translations: http://www.songofhome.com/Klotz.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
If you have an autobiography or a biography written decades later that contradicts the autobiography, which would you rely on? |
Depends on the research. Why should I necessarily believe what is purported to be an autobiography? Was the autobiography of Hitler true? Was the autobiography of Jack the Ripper true? According to the researchers I've read, all of the Gospels seem to point to an earlier work referred to academically as "Q," which is supposed to have been a "book" of the sayings of Jeshua.
Anyway, the fact that the accounts are contradictory doesn't mean the "earliest surviving" ones are correct. It means they are contradictory. Given the passage of time between the life of Jeshua and the written accounts, there was plenty of time for memories to have altered, oral changes to have taken place, mistranslations, and differering opinions on what Jeshua did or meant. Heck, look at all the varients of Marxism where there is a clear written record, and the actual manuscripts of the founders of the movement. It takes no time for people to start aruging what you really meant after you're dead.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
|
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:30
|
|
About the passage of time:
The general agreement is that John's Gospel was written last, probably around 90 ad. In 90 ad, Christ would have been 96 years old, so John was, what, maybe in his late 80s? And the structure of John's gospel is generally agreed to reflect Greek modes of rhetorical expression ("In the beginning was the word..."), not Aramaic/Judaic modes. So we are to believe that John lived well into his 80s, then recorded his memories in the rhetorical form of a language not his own. Sure, it could have happened; but if you were weilding Occam's Razor, it this what the shave would look like?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
|
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
No, you're wrong. Recent events are easier to verify than older ones. The Gospels are much more recent in time that the Iliad. So, they would be easier to verify than the Iliad.
Furthermore, this "no-name rabbi" as you say, was not obscure. He spawned an entire religion. The events of te early church affected even the Roman Empire. Paul was taken to Rome and spoke the Gospel. The strong impact that Jesus had on the society of his day, also makes it easier to verify the events. And, we have many sources, like Josephus, who can help us collaborate our findings. |
Again, IIRC, we only have one reference to Jesus in any writing that was not written by an early Christian. Of course Christian writing would make Christ seem important; that's the whole point. But it is funny that, based on the other records we have -- Roman and Jewish sources -- He seems not to have made any impression at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
About the passage of time:
The general agreement is that John's Gospel was written last, probably around 90 ad. In 90 ad, Christ would have been 96 years old, so John was, what, maybe in his late 80s? And the structure of John's gospel is generally agreed to reflect Greek modes of rhetorical expression ("In the beginning was the word..."), not Aramaic/Judaic modes. So we are to believe that John lived well into his 80s, then recorded his memories in the rhetorical form of a language not his own. Sure, it could have happened; but if you were weilding Occam's Razor, it this what the shave would look like? |
if he was hanging arround greeks there is no problem at all
also, John was a young man ( read teens), Jesus was in his early 30s so John was probably late 70s early 80s (and people did live that long back than)
that age would go with someone else assisting in the writing actually (maybe a greek dude), also John was a young man at Jesus's death, he might have had greek influences later in life (depending on what path it took)
Paul deffinitely had a lot of latin/greek influence
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeH
Protestantism started off when Henry VIII wanted to get divorced and the pope wouldn't let him, it's just an evolution of Catholicism.
So they didn't reject "The Church" they rejected "A Church". |
You're sort of right. Henry had begun to sympathise with the Lutherans in Germany before he initiated his request to anull his marriage to Catherine. Spiritually he felt that the Roman Catholic Church had strayed and beome corrupt, but he couldn't bring himself to seperate partially because of Catherine's influence and partially because ...well, heck, to an absolute monarch the very idea of rebellion is nearly unthinkable. When he finally did break with the Roman Church he appointed an Archbishop who instituted really modest simple reforms.... the removal of phony relics, the abolition of indulgences, the removal of the screens in front of the sacristy which had been used in churches to seperate the clergy from the people, and the translation of services and the Bible into English.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
|
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
Diplo- I wish you had given the Gnostic gospels more attention than a cursory look at how various fundy sites want to portray them. You would have found that the verse you refer to is largely seen as something that was tacked on by overzealous editors much later, not unlike the last part of Mark. It is the last verse in the whole book, and uses slightly differernt language, which have led most scholars to believe it was added at a later date.
In any event, I am not saying that the Gospel of Thomas is inerrant. It is merely the work of man after all. All I am saying is that, on balance, it provides a more accurate look at Jesus than the bible that centuries upon centuries of religious dogma has created. You are welcome to disagree of course, but I would prefer you actually try to read them with an open mind before doing so. Such a request may be asking the impossible but hey, I gotta try.  |
You are not asking the impossible. I am willing to read them with an open mind. Just realize that I am a real stickler for traditional doctrine, so I can't guarantee that I'll agree with what I read.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
|
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
I think we have to give some deference to the people at the time who made the decision, and who were probably much more familiar with the texts and their veracity then the modern reader. I am sure if the GoT and the like were considered authentic they would have made their way into the Bible or at least be considered supplementary religious texts. |
Except that the people of the time were engaged in power plays over which version of Christianity would actually prevail. Look at the Council's of Nicea and Ephesus, which branded Arian and Nestorian Christianity as heresies. The Arians and Nestorians both held that Christ was not both man and God simultaneously; the Arian's held that he was divine but inferior to God, while the Nestorians held that he was man on earth but God in Heaven. The mainstream church held that he was always, in all places, both man and God. And how did they determine this Christian "truth"? I mean, how could you determine something like that? The answer is that they put it to a vote of church fathers; the Trinity won, and the Nestorians and Arians wer deemed heretics.
Let me say that again: the divinity of Christ, the central tenet of Christianity for most Christians, was determined by voting on it. This is not a model of getting at the "truth" of anything, which is why I'm not sure we should give some deference to the people who sorted it out. They clearly had an agenda, one which the 4 NT Gospels served while others did not.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-08-2003 01:04
After reading it I denounced all religion and wipped my asss with the pages...
|