Questions from a skeptic...

[dave4shmups]

OK, I've read the New Testament-why would the gospel writers invent a Messiah who talked to women (when giving instruction to women in those days was seen as pointless) and was resurrected when they didn't expect either? AFIK, the Jews at that time thought that the Messiah would come and deliver them from Roman occupation.

[eric209]

It would appear this belongs in the http://atheistforums.org/forum-44.html Christianity section.

[Disclaimer. This was written as a response appropriate to the atheism forum the thread was posting in. I wasn't try to flame.]

My response to this as an skeptic is that people have many motives and the new testament was written from manuscripts of manuscripts of the supposed original texts. There is already proof of christian revisionism and that clearly shows they had motives that arent seeking the truth.

[Shell B]

Thread moved to Christianity section.

[Minimalist]

why would the gospel writers invent a Messiah

There is some evidence that they did not "invent" him. He had been invented some time earlier.


http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0...85,00.html

A 3-ft.-high tablet romantically dubbed "Gabriel's Revelation" could challenge the uniqueness of the idea of the Christian Resurrection. The tablet appears to date authentically to the years just before the birth of Jesus and yet — at least according to one Israeli scholar — it announces the raising of a messiah after three days in the grave. If true, this could mean that Jesus' followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day — and it might even hint that they they could have applied it in their grief after their master was crucified. However, such a contentious reading of the 87-line tablet depends on creative interpretation of a smudged passage, making it the latest entry in the woulda/coulda/shoulda category of possible New Testament artifacts; they are useful to prove less-spectacular points and to stir discussion on the big ones, but probably not to settle them nor shake anyone's faith.

Scholars have since determined that the word in question means "live."

http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/extra.asp?Ar...ticleID=14

after reviewing the document, I came to the conclusion that the reading suggested by Professor Knohl for the third word of line 80—HAYE “live”—seems to be the only plausible reading of that word. Thus, the first five words of this line should be translated as: “In three days live, I Gabriel.”

As this refers to a revolt which broke out in 4 BC upon the death of Herod the Great we can see that there was at least a sub-set of Judaism which had concocted the basic story. The revolt was ruthlessly suppressed by Publius Quinctillius Varus and the leaders crucified. So it would seem that all the gospel writers had to do was dust off what must have been an underground myth and write their boy into it.

[diffidus]

OK, I've read the New Testament-why would the gospel writers invent a Messiah who talked to women (when giving instruction to women in those days was seen as pointless) and was resurrected when they didn't expect either? AFIK, the Jews at that time thought that the Messiah would come and deliver them from Roman occupation.

Diffidus:

The earliest Gospel is attributed to Mark who based it on a testimony given by St Peter, a disciple of Jesus. This Gospel was written ~ 65 AD, and since Christ died at ~ age 30 this was written about 35 years after the events. This is not so long a period. I can easily remember my friends at school in the 1970s and could give reasonable accounts of there lives and achievements at that time - and these were quite unremarkable people.

At the time they were written, the authors could not possibly have anticipated that Christianity would grow into the world religion that it eventually did and they must have known that belief in Christ was dangerous and would likely result in being thrown to the lions.

For these reasons, I do not think the Gospels can be dismisssed. They are important evidence for the existence of a remarkable person and although I would not advocate hanging on their every word, I would keep an open mind - who knows what evidence may be unearthed in the future.

[eric209]

OK, I've read the New Testament-why would the gospel writers invent a Messiah who talked to women (when giving instruction to women in those days was seen as pointless) and was resurrected when they didn't expect either? AFIK, the Jews at that time thought that the Messiah would come and deliver them from Roman occupation.

Diffidus:

The earliest Gospel is attributed to Mark who based it on a testimony given by St Peter, a disciple of Jesus. This Gospel was written ~ 65 AD, and since Christ died at ~ age 30 this was written about 35 years after the events. This is not so long a period. I can easily remember my friends at school in the 1970s and could give reasonable accounts of there lives and achievements at that time - and these were quite unremarkable people.

At the time they were written, the authors could not possibly have anticipated that Christianity would grow into the world religion that it eventually did and they must have known that belief in Christ was dangerous and would likely result in being thrown to the lions.

For these reasons, I do not think the Gospels can be dismisssed. They are important evidence for the existence of a remarkable person and although I would not advocate hanging on their every word, I would keep an open mind - who knows what evidence may be unearthed in the future.

Fact->Adult life expectancy was about 35 for men and 30 for women

You realise that even if those proposed numbers are accurate it 35 years was a whole lifetime back then. Also if those proposed remarkable events happened who would wait 30+ years to start writing them down.

[diffidus]

OK, I've read the New Testament-why would the gospel writers invent a Messiah who talked to women (when giving instruction to women in those days was seen as pointless) and was resurrected when they didn't expect either? AFIK, the Jews at that time thought that the Messiah would come and deliver them from Roman occupation.

Diffidus:

The earliest Gospel is attributed to Mark who based it on a testimony given by St Peter, a disciple of Jesus. This Gospel was written ~ 65 AD, and since Christ died at ~ age 30 this was written about 35 years after the events. This is not so long a period. I can easily remember my friends at school in the 1970s and could give reasonable accounts of there lives and achievements at that time - and these were quite unremarkable people.

At the time they were written, the authors could not possibly have anticipated that Christianity would grow into the world religion that it eventually did and they must have known that belief in Christ was dangerous and would likely result in being thrown to the lions.

For these reasons, I do not think the Gospels can be dismisssed. They are important evidence for the existence of a remarkable person and although I would not advocate hanging on their every word, I would keep an open mind - who knows what evidence may be unearthed in the future.

Fact->Adult life expectancy was about 35 for men and 30 for women

You realise that even if those proposed numbers are accurate it 35 years was a whole lifetime back then. Also if those proposed remarkable events happened who would wait 30+ years to start writing them down.

Diffidus:

Although the life expectancy was quite low, this does not mean that there were not older people. The average life expectancy in this era tends to get skewed by the extremely high infant mortality rates. The average life expectancy of an adult at this time was ~ 45.

The Gospel by Mark was based upon testimony given by Peter who preached about the life of Jesus. Peter himself was a disciple of Jesus and so this is about as direct as you can get. The reason why these writings were not written down ealier is most likely due to the fact that Peter, being a fisherman, was most likely illiterate. He played a central role in preaching but relied upon interpreters and scribes such as Mark to write things down. This was not unusual at the time, since the oral tradition was still very strong.

I don't think the 35 year period is so long a time that basic facts are likely to have been forgotten in the oral tradition. It is likely that some of the facts were embellished and even exagerated - in the same way that people today describe their heroes of the past.

How much of the Gospel is accurate is open to speculation. However, I think it must be considered likely that it was written about a person who made a significant impact on the people's lives with whom he came into contact and that this was the most likely motivation for trying to record his sayings.

[eric209]

The adult life expectancy was 35. That only counted people that made it to adulthood and that number was not skewed by child death rates.

[diffidus]

The adult life expectancy was 35. That only counted people that made it to adulthood and that number was not skewed by child death rates.

Diffidus:

OK, I got my estimate from Figure 3: http://eh.net/XIIICongress/Papers/Koepke.pdf which could be wrong.

I guess there must be a certain uncertainty in this estimate and I am not an expert. I don't think the extra 10 years would make that much difference to the main points however.

[eric209]

Also the eye witness accounts of miracles are nothing special. Plenty of other religions have them and there are people livng today that will claim they have seen all of the miracles that Jesus has done by other people currently living. Eyewitnesses accounts are very unreliable. It also does not say much when there is no historical documents even mentioning Jesus. None of his proposed miracles were even unheard of before his time.