How did the writings of the NT come to be?

[Brian37]

Muslims claim that Mohammed is real so why are you not a Muslim?

Hey, muslims claim that mohammed flew up to heaven, too. And he went jesus one better by taking his fucking horse with him.

There is nothing new under the sun. What allows myth to fester falsely as fact is people use details to distract that they got their ideas from prior cutural memes.

Assention motif also existed in Egypt with Horus. Horus also was seen as a divine child, and they also had the trinity in judgment of the dead with Ra(the sun god) and Osirus and Horus sitting in judgment of humans.

First people motifs and flood motifs existed prior to the hebrews in the Caanites lead by the head god El as part of the divine family in which Yahweh(sounds familure doesn't it) was merely a lesser god under the head god El as part of the divine family.

We find in the Ugartic Texts the same quote as the OT ("Let us make them in our immage) which got adapted by the Hebrews and rewritten.

Gelgimesh has a flood story much older than the early Hebrew writings.

The only out theists of all three try to argue is stupid si fi crap where satan took a time machine back in time to plant those motifs on humans to confuse them.

Gods do not exist and only our ability to buy and sell our human invented superstitions is the real reality.

The Hebrews were not even the first to claim a monotheistic "one true god". Both the single attempt by Akonaton(sp), whose one rule attempt to make Ra the only god, got shot down after he died, and the Zoroastrians were also a much older attempt at a monotheistic god.

The truth of humanity is we love our myths, but volcanos were never gods, the polytheistic gods were never real, and the monotheistic gods of today are still all the same product of human ignorance and credulity. It still boils down to if you want to believe something bad enough, you will.

[John V]

What's strange about it?

You have one (alleged) second-hand account and the (alleged) first-hand one uses the other as its basis?
Then the third account incorporates some "research", which envolves much hearsay and (considering the extra-ordinary nature of the account, likely) made up stuff.

Repeating the scenario doesn't answer the question. What's strange about it?

Oh, just something different from what already existed. Extraordinary tales were everywhere "on this time period"... on this "place period".
Middle East/Greece... Mesopotamia... India...
Look at it, there were some ~500~1000 years of amazing claims from every corner of that general area [way precise mapping required]. Why would these people have a problem with some new super-natural claim?

As previously noted, there's no reason to expect people who didn't believe a claim to take the effort and expense (no keyboards back then) to record that claim and to copy it in sufficient number for it to survive today, so that requirement is unreasonable.

Where does that link indicate that "the texts seem to have been embellished at one point (Paul?) and sent out to the world, hence the (somewhat) consistency among them...."?

Oh, sorry, that was from what someone wrote on this thread... Drich, page 1.

Still don't see it. Can you quote the post you're referring to, and explain your point? This part of the discussion is about as clear as mud.

[The Grand Nudger]

You do realize that a great deal of what we know about the superstitions of ancient cultures and civilizations comes from people who did not share in those superstitions, correct? The Romans were fairly industrious in describing the superstitions of those peoples they came into contact with and/or conquered and even civilizations which had crumbled by the time they came into power (granted, we now suspect they often got it hilariously wrong or engaged in some fun propaganda).

There's nothing unreasonable about expecting them to record the superstitions (regardless of whether or not they agreed with them) of christains or jews. They recorded the claims of countless cults and religions (even as they actively suppressed them in favor of the state religion). Your argument attempts to create a gap , but this seems pointless - as that wont begin to establish a compelling case for your deity or the narratives that you point to as somehow historically accurate. Note, by the way, that the romans were also fairly productive at recording absolute garbage, just tedious day to day shit....so, the dead rising, god coming to earth, miracles......that would probably make somebodies list (even if only to mock them).

[John V]

You do realize that a great deal of what we know about the superstitions of ancient cultures and civilizations comes from people who did not share in those superstitions, correct? The Romans were fairly industrious in describing the superstitions of those peoples they came into contact with and/or conquered and even civilizations which had crumbled by the time they came into power (granted, we now suspect they often got it hilariously wrong or engaged in some fun propaganda).

There's nothing unreasonable about expecting them to record the superstitions (regardless of whether or not they agreed with them) of christains or jews. They recorded the claims of countless cults and religions (even as they actively suppressed them in favor of the state religion). Your argument attempts to create a gap , but this seems pointless - as that wont begin to establish a compelling case for your deity or the narratives that you point to as somehow historically accurate. Note, by the way, that the romans were also fairly productive at recording absolute garbage, just tedious day to day shit....so, the dead rising, god coming to earth, miracles......that would probably make somebodies list (even if only to mock them).

No, I'm not aware of that. Others are claiming that the Romans didn't make so many of such records that we can reasonably expect records of NT claims to have survived. I honestly don't know which is correct, though I suspect you're not. Neither side is offering evidence, despite the lip service paid to evidence.

[Darkstar]

How do you offer evidence of non-evidence? There is no evidence. It would be expected that claims like these would be recorded, especially if they were the origin of a new religion. There are no record of such claims. The theists are just saying "but there might be some we haven't found, so why think [it is more likely that] nobody wrote about him?"

[The Grand Nudger]

Why would you suspect that I'm incorrect? Just who do you think recorded the beliefs of the various cults that existed under roman rule, pagan europe, the hellenistic world, and egypt for us to fawn over for centuries? The laziest of google searches will turn up a treasure trove of information handed down to us by roman scribes. If you didn't know this it isn't because it is obscure knowledge but because you did not want to know it.

(Why do you think that early christian forgers were so keen on inserting their god into roman accounts? They were seen as something of an authority on the subject of history.)

[John V]

Why would you suspect that I'm incorrect?

Because it would have been a huge expenditure of resources to contemporaneously document all the claims of all the religions in the Roman empire.

Just who do you think recorded the beliefs of the various cults that existed under roman rule, pagan europe, the hellenistic world, and egypt for us to fawn over for centuries?

The adherents to those beliefs for the most part.

The laziest of google searches will turn up a treasure trove of information handed down to us by roman scribes.

Then it will be easy for you to support your position by showing Roman documentation of current religious claims during the first century.

[The Grand Nudger]

Because it would have been a huge expenditure of resources to contemporaneously document all the claims of all the religions in the Roman empire.

Good thing they had resources to spend then eh?

The adherents to those beliefs for the most part.

You think that the Romans allowed conquered peoples to write history? That's rich.

Then it will be easy for you to support your position by showing Roman documentation of current religious claims during the first century.

LOL, look at you trying to narrow the scope of my statement in your response in the hopes that nothing survives. Normally I'd call shenanigans...but in this case it doesn't matter....

You mean documentation like Annals, Histories, and Germania..just to invoke three examples from a single author? All three works make mention of various (current) religious practices and claims of "pagan europe" (information, I have to add, we cannot seem to source from these people themselves as they don't seem to have been so keen on writing this down as you imagined they would be). Religions and superstitions that the Romans were unlikely to have shared. Perhaps you would prefer to read what Plutarch had to say about Mithras? Pliny the Elder wrote a great deal on the "history" of the magical arts, including those bits considered "superstitio". That's the lazy google search version (with your demands of narrowing scope also accounted for). Enjoy. Turn the dial back or wrench it forward and we find even more. Romans were interested in this sort of shit, at least interested to write a ton of it down - except...apparently...in the case of Jesus......

[John V]

You think that the Romans allowed conquered peoples to write history? That's rich.

Ah, so it was Romans who wrote the gospels, and we've had Roman accounts all along!

[Minimalist]

No, I'm not aware of that.

Learn.


Tacitus. Germania

Chapter 10

Auguries and Method of Divination.Augury and divination by lot no people practice more diligently. The use of the lots is simple. A little bough is lopped off a fruit-bearing tree, and cut into small pieces; these are distinguished by certain marks, and thrown carelessly and at random over a white garment. In public questions the priest of the particular state, in private the father of the family, invokes the gods, and, with his eyes toward heaven, takes up each piece three times, and finds in them a meaning according to the mark previously impressed on them. If they prove unfavorable, there is no further consultation that day about the matter; if they sanction it, the confirmation of augury is still required. For they are also familiar with the practice of consulting the notes and flight of birds. It is peculiar to this people to seek omens and monitions from horses. Kept at the public expense, in these same woods and groves, are white horses, pure from the taint of earthly labor; these are yoked to a sacred car, and accompanied by the priest and the king, or chief of the tribe, who note their neighings and snortings.

No species of augury is more trusted, not only by the people and by the nobility, but also by the priests, who regard themselves as the ministers of the gods, and the horses as acquainted with their will. They have also another method of observing auspices, by which they seek to learn the result of an important war. Having taken, by whatever means, a prisoner from the tribe with whom they are at war, they pit him against a picked man of their own tribe, each combatant using the weapons of their country. The victory of the one or the other is accepted as an indication of the issue.

Pliny the Elder - On the Druids

"The Druids (so they call their wise men) hold nothing in greater reverence than the misletoe, and the tree on which it grows, so that it be an oak. They choose forests of oaks, for the sake of the tree itself, and perform no sacred rites without oak leaves; so that one might fancy they had even been called for this reason, turning the word into Greek, Druids. But whatever grows upon these trees, they hold to have been sent from heaven, and to be a sign that the Deity Himself has chosen the tree for his own. The thing, however, is very rarely found, and when found is gathered with much ceremony; and above all, on the sixth day of the moon, by which these men reckon the beginnings of their months and years, and of their cycle of thirty years, because the moon has then sufficient power, yet has not reached half its size. Addressing it in their own language by the epithet of all healing, after duly preparing sacrifices and banquets under the tree, they bring to the spot two white bulls, the horns of which are then for the first time garlanded. The priest clothed in a white dress ascends the tree, and cuts the misletoe with a golden knife; it is caught in a white cloak. Thereupon they slay the victims, with a prayer that the Deity may prosper His own gift to them, to whom He has given it. They fancy that, by drinking it, fertility is given to any barren animal, and that it is a remedy against all poisons."