Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You are correct. On that issue there is no consensus. And on that issue I go with the view that the text began with an eyewitness account, to which subsequent legends and myths and theological editings were added.
Why? Why do you assume there was an eyewitness account? Why do you prefer that concept to the more realistic idea of people just making up stories?
Because the probability of it is simply far more likely. Most legends have a truth at their core. At its core, the gospels tell the story of a Jewish man who followed Judaism, who went around teaching Torah, and arguing for bet Hillel halakhah against bet Shammai halakhah in a time where that was extremely common.
You expect me to have a list memorized? This forum is not on that level. I've read books and studies online, but I have not memorized the names of the sources.
I disagree. If I am able to maintain my beliefs of Judaism while scholasticly remaining obective, then it follows they can do similar. This is the mark of a true academic.
If anything the probability is that the stories were cobbled together from the travels of numerous thirty-something preachers trying to make a name for themselves and getting a following.
The point being that what we currently have are not eye-witness accounts.
Ridiculous. You aren't going to have the twelve original disciples willing to be martyred for story cobbled together. They were faithful to a historical person.
Hardly. I've been told that I'm an agnostic monotheist, so while I'm a believer in God, I possess a highly skeptical mind. If I went atheist, I would still hold this position.
Such as the case where skeptics believed that that the Iliad was entirely made up out of whole cloth... UNTIL we found the city of Troy. Now we must admit that we don't know where the dividing line is between the historical and the myth.
Not at all. I for example find the gospels interesting from a Jewish perspective, as part of the caldron of ideas from which Rabbinic Judaism emerged. There are for example, some links to what became established Oral Law, and arguments in the same tradition as are set down in the Talmud.
Dr. Robert Eisenmann, Cal State Long Beach, an atheist (known mostly for his ground breaking work on the Dead Sea Scrolls, author of "James, the brother of Jesus") He saw Jesus as historical, a kind of religious revolutionary. I had forgotten him. I studied under him. He is quite the brain.
Yes, I am confident that, as an agnostic monotheist, I do. Remember that Judaism is all about orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. I loved being Orthodox, but I left it for Conservative Judaism because I simply did not believe a lot of what was taught. I am very comfortable in my shoes being an observant Jew who is open to science and research. It just doesn't threaten me. All truth belongs to God.
