Illiterate men.

[Drich]

[quote='FallentoReason' pid='274880' dateline='1334844049']
[quote]Thanks for your response Drich. I always look forward to reading what you have to say.

Firstly, to avoid confusion between my beliefs and what the members of the forum see as my beliefs, I just want to state that within this thread the framework that I am using to deal with the ideas at hand is one that is entirely within the pages of the NT. That is, by agreeing or disagreeing with arguments I am not implying that I believe that to reflect history (with all due respect Drich ). Now, on wards![/quote]
Sorry I did not respond earlier. I have been quite busy.

[quote]How does this fit in with the fact that the Apostles were all martyred? I'm not entirely familiar with the approximate dates of their deaths. So, did the canonical authors actually die after the 70 year gap, enabling them to make the Gospels?[/quote]Not all were. John was not, it's been said he live a very long life in Ephesus. His gospel was constructed in 3 phases over that time span. (completed around 90 AD just before his death)
With the death of Peter in or around 70AD the need to transfer the teachings of John Mark's Mentor (Peter) was sealed, as it was becoming more and more apparent that the second coming would take longer than previously thought. Luke was constructed during the life time of the Apostle Peter, but was not recognized as a synaptic gospel till much later. Luke was a slave/Historian/Doctor/scribe for His Master Theophilus the account of luke was ment for his Master. Matthew is said by the church to have been written by the Apostle of the same name around 50 AD. But the earliest quote of said book can only be traced back to 115 AD. So the age of the book has recently been contested when compared to it's earlier pedigree.

[quote]Even nowadays I highly doubt that a child has the ability to fast track their mental capabilities. Even less probable for this to happen within the span of 3 days.[/quote]No, Jesus was not left at the temple to be taught for three days. He Taught for three days at the temple. He was asked "why did you not follow us out of the city?" He said "Because I was going about my Father's business."
At that young Age Christ had already exceeded the teachers of His day.

[quote]OK, for this one let me step out of the framework I defined and talk about history as I currently know it. What do you think about the possibility that Revelations was the first book written, even before the Gospels? Does that change anything?[/quote]
If it has, it destroys the time line the church places on the conical books of the bible, but I do not see how the perceived order of what was written matters a great deal.

[KichigaiNeko]

This "Jesus" character was a 'Jew' so as a 'good Jew' he could "read" the Torah ....Yes? This counted for literacy in those days ...yes??

[Cinjin]

It says in Star Wars that Luke Skywalker had a light saber.

(Hint: That's fiction, too.)

Exactly.
This is always a contentious point for me too. Lets say that at age 65 I wrote down my life story in a journal. You would most certainly find many historical facts that could be easily verified. Names of bars, friends, politicians, cities I'd been to, world events and so on and so forth. There are some things that could not be verified however. Lets say that I wanted to make my book more interesting for the reader. With that in mind, in chapter six, 4th paragraph, I wrote that I had a week long orgy/party with four supermodels in a Vegas penthouse suite. I write about it in detail and even mention the reactions of some of the hotel staff who witnessed the general goings-on in and around the hotel. Lets say I wrote the whole journal this way ... mentioning all the amazing places I'd been and the thoughts I had on the world around me, all the while adding amazing stories about spelunking African diamond mines while dating movie stars and becoming a cult icon. Then I died. My journal was published immediately and quickly forgotten. However a few of them were saved in various libraries and what not.

500 years later, my book is found ... and voila! I'm a fucking bad-ass pimp. Sure, there are people who question it, but true fans of my now legendary persona quickly point to the fact that my book must be true because it is congruent with known historical data. "Those cities existed," "that event happened... it must be true," Add to the fact that I was smart enough when writing my little journal to include "witnesses" to my week long orgy in Vegas. Now, not only do I have an awesome story, but I have "witnesses" to the event. Nevermind the fact that they're completely non-verifiable, my fans don't care and they'll use these witnesses as proof of the truth of the story. I'm a legend thanks to the fact that I simply included real events and places from the time period in which I lived.

My whole point here, is that whenever someone highlights something written in the Bible as evidence of the Bible it immediately makes me think that the person in question is mentally handicapped. (Either that, or how can someone be so fucking retarded?) Add to that fact that the Bible was not written by merely one or two people, but by dozens and dozens and then edited for 2000 years and it makes you wonder how ANYONE could attempt using the bible as proof of the bible.

Anyway, right on Minimalist. You and I both know they won't see this point, but we keep trying to show them none the less.

[Drich]

This "Jesus" character was a 'Jew' so as a 'good Jew' he could "read" the Torah ....Yes? This counted for literacy in those days ...yes??

Not all Jews could read. This didn't make them good or bad. There was just very little to read in those days. Not every temple had complete sets of the Torah let alone family owned copies. Back then the writings of God were considered Holy and were only to be touched by certain orders of the priesthood.. In places like Galilee (where Christ grew up) temples shared copies of the Torah and they were rotated with other temples by this line of priest. It is my understanding in the story of the good Samaritan one of the two priests that left his beaten and battered countryman to die on the side of the road, was one such priest. it was his job to see to the delivery of the Holy text to the receiving temple.

The irony of the story shows that the delivery of the message that tell us to "do unto others" far exceeded that priest's desire to put that message into practice. (For the sake of preserving his reputation.)

---

It says in Star Wars that Luke Skywalker had a light saber.

(Hint: That's fiction, too.)

Exactly.
This is always a contentious point for me too. Lets say that at age 65 I wrote down my life story in a journal. You would most certainly find many historical facts that could be easily verified. Names of bars, friends, politicians, cities I'd been to, world events and so on and so forth. There are some things that could not be verified however. Lets say that I wanted to make my book more interesting for the reader. With that in mind, in chapter six, 4th paragraph, I wrote that I had a week long orgy/party with four supermodels in a Vegas penthouse suite. I write about it in detail and even mention the reactions of some of the hotel staff who witnessed the general goings-on in and around the hotel. Lets say I wrote the whole journal this way ... mentioning all the amazing places I'd been and the thoughts I had on the world around me, all the while adding amazing stories about spelunking African diamond mines while dating movie stars and becoming a cult icon. Then I died. My journal was published immediately and quickly forgotten. However a few of them were saved in various libraries and what not.

500 years later, my book is found ... and voila! I'm a fucking bad-ass pimp. Sure, there are people who question it, but true fans of my now legendary persona quickly point to the fact that my book must be true because it is congruent with known historical data. "Those cities existed," "that event happened... it must be true," Add to the fact that I was smart enough when writing my little journal to include "witnesses" to my week long orgy in Vegas. Now, not only do I have an awesome story, but I have "witnesses" to the event. Nevermind the fact that they're completely non-verifiable, my fans don't care and they'll use these witnesses as proof of the truth of the story. I'm a legend thanks to the fact that I simply included real events and places from the time period in which I lived.

My whole point here, is that whenever someone highlights something written in the Bible as evidence of the Bible it immediately makes me think that the person in question is mentally handicapped. (Either that, or how can someone be so fucking retarded?) Add to that fact that the Bible was not written by merely one or two people, but by dozens and dozens and then edited for 2000 years and it makes you wonder how ANYONE could attempt using the bible as proof of the bible.

Anyway, right on Minimalist. You and I both know they won't see this point, but we keep trying to show them none the less.

The irony here is the same phenomena that you have pointed out here happens in archeology and in anthropology, and yet very little is questioned when a "new discovery" is documented.

That said know the bible was not written in a vacuum. Where their was sole authorship and no verification of any of the historical events, as your story suggests. There are many 10's of thousands of collaborating works. to the degree that the bible is the authority and bench mark on ancient writings. If what we know of the bible can not be view upon as a legitimate work, then everything upto the point in our collective history where the printing press and writing materials were made available to the public is also in question.

[Phil]

This "Jesus" character was a 'Jew' so as a 'good Jew' he could "read" the Torah ....Yes? This counted for literacy in those days ...yes??

Still the vast majority of Jews can't read the Torah in Hebrew. That is why there are classes prior to your Bar or Bat Mitzvah. The reason Jews chant the Torah is the same reason why most people can sing many songs, it makes it easier to remember and there really is no reading required.

[FallentoReason]

Not all were. John was not, it's been said he live a very long life in Ephesus. His gospel was constructed in 3 phases over that time span. (completed around 90 AD just before his death)

So he didn't die when he was boiled in oil? I'm only asking because I discussed this with a Christian friend and he was convinced that he died a martyr as opposed to a natural death which is what I used to think.

Matthew is said by the church to have been written by the Apostle of the same name around 50 AD. But the earliest quote of said book can only be traced back to 115 AD. So the age of the book has recently been contested when compared to it's earlier pedigree.

Is the authorship verifiable somehow within scripture, or is it through Church tradition that you know this i.e. just accept it was Matthew because the top of the page has his name?

No, Jesus was not left at the temple to be taught for three days. He Taught for three days at the temple. He was asked "why did you not follow us out of the city?" He said "Because I was going about my Father's business."
At that young Age Christ had already exceeded the teachers of His day.

Ah I see. Hmm I still find it somewhat far fetched. I mean if you look at all the fundamental scientific discoveries they were done by PhD students in their early 20's (all except Planck I think). So it's believable that you can be brilliant in your early life, but I don't know about a theological genious around the age of 12-14...

Still the vast majority of Jews can't read the Torah in Hebrew. That is why there are classes prior to your Bar or Bat Mitzvah. The reason Jews chant the Torah is the same reason why most people can sing many songs, it makes it easier to remember and there really is no reading required.

Pretty sure that poems originated from (or were at least heavily used by) messengers back in the day running from city to city. It would make it extremely easier for them to remember the message if they rhymed the words.

[Drich]

So he didn't die when he was boiled in oil?

Not all believe he was boiled in oil this is just a cathloic church tradition. Because he was not harmed the officials who had him boiled in oil banished him to the isle of Patmos where he supposedly wrote the book of revelations. This is what I found on wiki:

Roman Catholic tradition states that after the Assumption, John went to Ephesus and from there wrote the three epistles traditionally attributed to him. John was allegedly banished by the Roman authorities to the Greek island of Patmos, where some believe that he wrote the Book of Revelation. According to Tertullian (in The Prescription of Heretics) John was banished (presumably to Patmos) after being plunged into boiling oil in Rome and suffering nothing from it. It is said that all in the entire Colosseum audience were converted to Christianity upon witnessing this miracle. This event would have occurred during the reign of Domitian, a Roman emperor who was known for his persecution of Christians in the late 1st century.

When John was aged, he trained Polycarp who later became Bishop of Smyrna. This was important because Polycarp was able to carry John's message to future generations. Polycarp taught Irenaeus, and passed on to him stories about John. In Against Heresies, Irenaeus relates how Polycarp told a story of

“ John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within."[12] ”

It is traditionally believed that John survived his contemporary apostles and lived to an extreme old age, dying naturally at Ephesus in about AD 100.[13] John's traditional tomb is thought to be located at Selçuk, a small town in the vicinity of Ephesus.

That said many apologists say the writing styles of the books of John and the writing of John of Patmos had to have come from different people. That is why there is always a distinction between the two.

It is not beyond the scope of God to save someone like this but know this tradition generally does not go too far past the roman cathloic Church.

I'm only asking because I discussed this with a Christian friend and he was convinced that he died a martyr as opposed to a natural death which is what I used to think.

I would say 99% of church tradition puts John death on old age.

Is the authorship verifiable somehow within scripture, or is it through Church tradition that you know this i.e. just accept it was Matthew because the top of the page has his name?

there are ques but the interpretation of said ques fall back on a traditional understanding of who Mat was.

Ah I see. Hmm I still find it somewhat far fetched.

It would be unless He was God.

I mean if you look at all the fundamental scientific discoveries they were done by PhD students in their early 20's (all except Planck I think). So it's believable that you can be brilliant in your early life, but I don't know about a theological genius around the age of 12-14...

I agree if you are left to your own devices to learn the ins and outs of religion. however true wisdom is not the result of an academic effort but it is a gift from God. A gift that can be given or taken at any time.

In my time teaching youth groups I found the very young often times have a better understanding of God than those who focus on the religious aspects of traditional worship.

All of that aside, Would not the son know his Father better (even at 12-14) than men who study what the Father has written?

[The Grand Nudger]

The very young will believe most of what figures of authority tell them too,regardless of whether or not the authority figure is completely full of shit ...... I wouldn't boast too much about the understanding of children when it comes to the area of god after invoking time spent preaching to them, personally.

[Cinjin]

The irony here is the same phenomena that you have pointed out here happens in archeology and in anthropology, and yet very little is questioned when a "new discovery" is documented.

That said know the bible was not written in a vacuum. Where their was sole authorship and no verification of any of the historical events, as your story suggests. There are many 10's of thousands of collaborating works...

... Not even one of which you would take the time to name - thereby backing your claim. Yeah, I've seen this "collaborating evidence" before. Some obscure Hebrew/Greek scroll that was once even considered by the church for augmentation into the Bible but didn't quite make it is now "collaborating evidence" for the Bible. It's the same old cyclical bull shit.

Drich would say, "see there's lots of writings about Jesus and the disciples and look how many books mention all the real cities and real politicians that the Bible does from the same time period... it must be true." **everyone in the room facepalms**


Once again the whole point of my fictional journal is lost. Yes sheep, there would certainly be many other books that would point out to legitimate historical people and events in my journal ... that doesn't make my account of any story remotely true. I could even get other people to rewrite my story in other books and even sell the rights to my life so that other authors could write all new stories about me in other books ... it doesn't mean jack shit.
Pay attention now ... REAL historical events in a fictional book don't make any of the fanciful stories true.

[Drich]

The irony here is the same phenomena that you have pointed out here happens in archeology and in anthropology, and yet very little is questioned when a "new discovery" is documented.

That said know the bible was not written in a vacuum. Where their was sole authorship and no verification of any of the historical events, as your story suggests. There are many 10's of thousands of collaborating works...

... Not even one of which you would take the time to name - thereby backing your claim. Yeah, I've seen this "collaborating evidence" before. Some obscure Hebrew/Greek scroll that was once even considered by the church for augmentation into the Bible but didn't quite make it is now "collaborating evidence" for the Bible. It's the same old cyclical bull shit.

Drich would say, "see there's lots of writings about Jesus and the disciples and look how many books mention all the real cities and real politicians that the Bible does from the same time period... it must be true." **everyone in the room facepalms**


Once again the whole point of my fictional journal is lost. Yes sheep, there would certainly be many other books that would point out to legitimate historical people and events in my journal ... that doesn't make my account of any story remotely true. I could even get other people to rewrite my story in other books and even sell the rights to my life so that other authors could write all new stories about me in other books ... it doesn't mean jack shit.
Pay attention now ... REAL historical events in a fictional book don't make any of the fanciful stories true.

Another straw man fallacy.

You fail to acknowledge or address the primary point of my last post to you.
The manuscripts supporting the bible, (Not only number of manuscripts, but also collaberation of text that have been gathered from all over the ancient world) Is THE Standard in which the legitimacy of all other ancient texts are measured. For no other work comes even close to the tens of thousands of manuscripts supporting the NT of the bible.

The closest is Homer's Iliad with 643 known manuscripts. To call in question the authenticity of the NT is to call into question of every single work from the era with less of a provenance.

Why don't you take the time to address this, rather than skirting the issue with another appeal to my personal pride?