Illiterate men.

[The Grand Nudger]

Jesus-as-normal guy, wouldn't this put Jesus and George Carlin at an even keel, entirely trash the god claims made by "holy scriputres", and remove just about every objectionable thing about christianity (and it's apologists) that I despise so much? Sounds good to me.

I still prefer George. I still dont agree with Normal-Guy-Jesus' teachings and principles (even the ones that don't involve a god). As a bonus, George was actually entertaining, and witty.

[Rhizomorph13]

Ok, so I don't know if Jesus could write or read or whatever, but speaking to the idea that there are a bunch of years where nothing was written about Jesus, I have read some writings about those middle years of Jesus growing up and how he treated people. There is a reason they were not canonized! I was seriously seeking Christ back then and a friend of mine who was really into Jesus lent me a book of the secret writing of Jesus or the additional writings about Jesus, I forget what the name of the book was, and the first couple of stories ruined it for me. Jesus was a cocky shit to everyone that questioned him, he knew everything from birth and when people came to teach him stuff he made big showing of how ignorant they were about the ABCs. There was a story where a kid pissed him off and he killed him, then resurected him. There was another story where Jesus just killed a kid and when asked to resurect him, he was like, "Nah." Anyway, that is my couple cents on the subject.

[The Grand Nudger]

Stories of demi-gods and avatars are varied and numerous. Does this make those stories authentic or factually accurate? Nope, case in point, none of them seem to be anything of the sort. Before some apologist jumps in to defend his master, I have to say, Jesus did no such things, of course he didn't do the things that those apologists would claim either, so....even keel.

[Drich]

[quote='Minimalist' pid='275815' dateline='1335075629']
[quote]Tradition meaning Church held documents and historical records.[/quote]

[quote]No, church "tradition" is simply shit they have made up over the years to fill in the blanks in your holy horseshit...[/quote]In some cases yes in others no. There are thousands upon thousands of volumes of different manuscripts that attest to all sorts of stories and accounts from the names of the three wise men to the boyhood miracles of Jesus. "Church traditions" is the process that describes which accounts are held on to and which are dismissed.

[quote]such as the name of the three kings who came to snifJesusus' diaper.[/quote]the word is:
magos
Pronunciation

mä'-gos (Key)


Part of Speech
masculine noun

Root Word (Etymology)

Of foreign origin רב מג (H7248)

TDNT Reference
4:356,547
Vines
View Entry

Outline of Biblical Usage 1) a magus

a) the name given by the Babylonians (Chaldeans), Medes, Persians, and others, to the wise men, teachers, priests, physicians, astrologers, seers, interpreters of dreams, augers, soothsayers, sorcerers etc.

b) the oriental wise men (astrologers) who, having discovered by the rising of a remarkable star that the Messiah had just been born, came to Jerusalem to worship him

The average working man could not afford the gifts given by these men to Mary and Joseph, likewise astrology in those days (In that soceity) was reserved for the aristocracy . Maybe not kings persay, but close.

That is why in most versions of Matthew the word is Maji or Wisemen. Not king. I think catholics are the only one who hold on to that tradition.

[quote]Matty..the ONLY source...does not name them...does not say they were kings...and does not say there were 3 of them.[/quote]Again chruch tradition point to thier names. after a simple google search I found that They were first named in a document found in Alexandria around 500 AD that, when translated in to Latin from Greek, is titled "Excerpta Latina Barbari". This is the first written instance of their names from oral history.

Again, Church tradition being based on the written documentation they have in their archeives. What makes it "tradition" rather than fact is because at this point we can not verify every document the cathloic church holds.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd be satisfied if you could "verify" the document you yourself hold, the bible in your possession. In this regard both you and the Vatican are on even ground. Neither of you is prepared or willing to demonstrate that the works of literature in your possession are anything more than fantasy written over the fabric of reality.

You have your favorite fairy tales, they have theirs, I find both sets completely unconvincing.

[Minimalist]

Pehaps you will reach the Thomas Jefferson level, a true thinker who believed Jesus' was a real person

I can forgive Jefferson because he lived long enough ago to not know about evolution, genetics and the archaeological trashing of your fucking bible.

You have no excuse. You are just an ignorant bastard and you prefer to stay that way.

[Drich]

True. I shouldn't have extrapolated.

Well, if the Gospel of Matthew sits on shaky foundations

Not shaky, We just do not know exactly who wrote the account, nor do we have a clear time frame in which it was written. We assume Matthew because the possibilities of who could have written this account in the format in which it was written are few and far between, not to mention Matthew (aside from Judas) was the only other apostle with the means to record an account of the life of Jesus himself.
All of that aside we have three collaberating accounts that paint the same picture.

then doesn't that start to paint a new picture about the credibility of the other witnesses?

How so?

Let's look at the intentions that Luke had when he wrote his account:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainly concerning the things you have been taught.

So in 1:1 he acknowledges that he was familiar with previous texts describing the events i.e. Mark. Now, this is what wikipedia says about this introduction:

Luke was not speaking to the account of Mark. Luke was telling theolopus that his work his responsiblity likened him to a phrophet of old. (Like those from the beginning who recorded the word of God.) Because at the time Luke wrote this letter there were no other accounts of the gospel. We know Luke's account was written well before John Mark's (the Apstole Peter's protege.) Because, As I said Mark's work was not penned down till after the death of Peter.(70 AD) It wasn't till Peter's death, that the rest began to accept the second comming of Christ was not to the time frame they thought it to be. So they needed to ensure the word was avaible for the subsequent generations.

Luke's work was written much earlier for a very different reason. We know this because Luke was mentioned in Collossians, 2 Timothy, and Philemon which were all written in the life time of Peter.( died around 70 AD) and Paul(who was acredited to writting those three books died in 67 AD)

Remeber Luke's Letters (The book of Luke and the Book of Acts) were written to his, at the time, Master (Theopolus.) Luke's efforts in the other three books written by Paul were after Luke had been released from the service of Theolopus, and was now acting as an understudy to Paul himself. (Well before 67 AD)

So the book/The letters of Luke were written first to Theolopus for his personal/family usage. However They were not considered to be apart of the conical gospels till late 2nd century (Some say 4th century) But either way the actual text of Luke was recorded before the work of Mark was even penned.

The traditional view is that Luke, who was not an eye-witness of Jesus' ministry, wrote his gospel after gathering the best sources of information within his reach (Luke 1:1-4)

Again the best sources being Peter and Paul.. The writer of that wiki page didn't seem to take into account all of the other words and deeds luke was responsible for, as recorded in the bible.

Which makes sense with the fact he had access to the Gospel of Mark. Conclusion? The author couldn't have been the Apostle Luke as he didn't witness anything but merely relayed on the information he gathered. So once again it is Church tradition that holds together the ideal possibility that we are reading what the Apostles wrote. Not very convincing..

If only 2 out of the 10 deciples could read and write and one committed suicide then which apstoles do you suppose would write the gospel accounts? Matthew is the only one known to have been in a position where he needed to be literate, so we attribute the one gospel who maticulessly records and compares the Jewish text aganst what he saw (just as a tax collector would) To Matthew.

John's text is said to have been a collaberation between himself and a scribe.

JohnMark's was the account of Peter, and Luke was an outsider/gentile's look at the whole thing.

[FallentoReason]

Not shaky, We just do not know exactly who wrote the account, nor do we have a clear time frame in which it was written.

Agreed. So not only do you need faith in Christ, but you need to have faith that it was a witness who wrote these things, which we can't know for sure. To me, that's a 'shaky foundation' to go from.

All of that aside we have three collaberating accounts that paint the same picture.

Are you sure about that? Mark is missing a birth story and resurrection story. John is set apart from the synoptic Gospels because it's different enough in content and theology from the other 3. Luke must an extrapolation (like Matthew) of Mark because according to scholars Mark was the first written. Archaeology backs this up as well so far.

How so?

We can be suspicious of the other accounts because once you realise the infallible word of God contains hearsay in the form of the Gospel of Matthew, then that throws the doors wide open for the others. Who wrote them?

Luke was not speaking to the account of Mark.

Scholars and archaology are in agreement that Mark was already written. Luke had access to it just like Matthew did.. hence the synoptic Gospels.

[Minimalist]

If only 2 out of the 10 deciples could read and write and one committed suicide then which apstoles do you suppose would write the gospel accounts?

If there were any "disciples" (you should learn how to spell it even if they are as fictional as your god) the names were not attached to these particular pieces of fiction until late in the second century.

Coincidentally ( or not ) they were first named by Irenaeus who also coincidentally along with Hegesippus introduced the concept of "apostolic succession" as some sort of bogus rationale for claiming that later bishops were direct descendants of the original crew of ficitional losers.

I don't believe in coincidences....although I'm sure you believe in nothing else.

[Drich]

Agreed. So not only do you need faith in Christ, but you need to have faith that it was a witness who wrote these things, which we can't know for sure. To me, that's a 'shaky foundation' to go from.

Actually Faith in God is enough. For if one has Faith in the God of the bible then it is up to said God to preserve that bible.

Are you sure about that? Mark is missing a birth story and resurrection story.

Yet Luke's nor Matthew's account does not. Funny how if they were a simple copy of the work of John Mark they confirm each other's account, and not the account in which they were supposedly copied from.

John is set apart from the synoptic Gospels because it's different enough in content and theology from the other 3.

can you elaborate? Or are you trying to dismiss what you can not account for?

Luke must an extrapolation (like Matthew) of Mark because according to scholars Mark was the first wrArcheologyaeology backs this up as well so far.

Perhaps just to the scholars and archaeologist you wish to quote, or perhaps they/you have not read the bible for yourself. How else do you explain the fatal flaw in your scholarly view? The flaw that neither you nor your difference to your source material accounts for. I pointed to a time line of biblically recorded events that directly contradicts what you have represented to be true, and it seems you are choosing to ignore, rather than discuss.

How so?

We can be suspicious of the other accounts because once you realize the infallible word of God contains hearsay in the form of the Gospel of Matthew, then that throws the doors wide open for the others. Who wrote them?

what Hearsay?

Luke was not speaking to the account of Mark.

Scholars and archeology are in agreement that Mark was already written. Luke had access to it just like Matthew did.. Hence the synoptic Gospels.

Then perhaps you or one of the Scholars you represent can explain the discrepancy in the time line I have presented.

What i have done here is not something new. Understand you and the Scholars you represent are working with the "official Catholic acceptance of the canonical scriptures, in the order they were received or accepted into the church. This does not mean to say the order in which they were written, adheres to the official church's Traditional acceptance into the cannon of scripture.

The account of Luke and his work with Paul, verses his charge from Theolopus (all contained with in the bible itself) points to his letters/Books being written long before the work of Mark.. If you or any of your scholars wish to address this then we can have a discussion. Otherwise know simply insisting that I take on FAITH that you and/or your scholars have the correct understanding of the bible, when it is apparent you have not even read it... Well lets just say if i have to take something on faith it will be from God, and not from some one who's knowledge of Him is based on what he understands of another's work.. ;P

---

Coincidentally ( or not ) they were first named by Irenaeus who also coincidentally along with Hegesippus introduced the concept of "apostolic succession" as some sort of bogus rationale for claiming that later bishops were direct descendants of the original crew of ficitional losers.

Actually no. We no not know who was ultimately responsible, but In the latter half of the second century, then, between the time of Justin and Papias, and the time of Theophilus and Irenaeus, the Four Gospels were undoubtedly compiled/Named. That is nearly a 75 year time span. Bottom line is we do not know for sure who named what, but it is agreed that between the four men that were in a position of authority during that time period the names of the books were ascribed.

---

I'd be satisfied if you could "verify" the document you yourself hold, the bible in your possession. In this regard both you and the Vatican are on even ground. Neither of you is prepared or willing to demonstrate that the works of literature in your possession are anything more than fantasy written over the fabric of reality.

You have your favorite fairy tales, they have theirs, I find both sets completely unconvincing.

So what? What does it matter what you find convincing? That is the point of this life. It is to choose your own path. If you choose God, then good for you. If you don't, then again good for you. You have full filled the meaning of life in your choice whatever that choice maybe.

The reason no one feels obligated to "prove" anything to you is because no one owes you an explanation, aside from God Himself (Via His own promises to us.) If you wish to get this proof/explanation from God then I can point the way. If you are afraid what you might find, or whatever have told yourself to hang on to your current mind set, then you are free to remain where you are and demand "proof" till it finds you.

Just understand that "we" are not here to provide you with anything you do not seek, and even then we are only obligated to provide you with what we can. Nothing more. "Proof" is in the Realm of God himself, and is out of our Hands. that said I can point you in the direction of God if you wish to challenge Him yourself.