The Most Dangerous Myth In The World

[bunny1ohio]

That Christ is not mentioned outside of religious literature is inconclusive and cannot be used as evidence.

Ummm... actually it means someone wrote a cool story and it bears no likeness to historical proof that there was ever such a man walking the earth. It shows that nobody outside of the creators of the church knew or heard anything about him.

We have to explain how three documents (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) share a hypothetical sayings source Q with some sayings in the Gospel of Thomas and parallel witnesses in the Acts of Peter. There is a common source to these documents, which points to a singular witness or group of witnesses... It just doesn't seem plausible to me that all of these writers sat around a campfire and made up sayings of someone that they made up. Curious that the sayings are dereft of myth.

No human being knows when they were written, or where. Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four. The chief reasons for this conclusion are that this Gospel is shorter, simpler, and more natural, than any of the other three. It is shown that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord's prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke.

Mark copied and enlarged an earlier document which is called the "original Mark." This original source perished in the early age of the Church. What it was, who wrote it, where it was written, nobody knows. The Gospel of John is admitted by Christian scholars to be an unhistorical document. They acknowledge that it is not a life of Christ, but an interpretation of him; that it gives us an idealized and spiritualized picture of what Christ is supposed to have been, and that it is largely composed of the speculations of Greek philosophy. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are called the "Synoptic Gospels," on the one hand, and the Gospel of John, on the other, stand at opposite extremes of thought. So complete is the difference between the teaching of the first three Gospels and that of the fourth, that every critic admits that if Jesus taught as the Synoptics relate, he could not possibly have taught as John declares. Indeed, in the first three Gospels and in the fourth, we meet with two entirely different Christs. Did I say two? It should be three; for, according to Mark, Christ was a man; according to Matthew and Luke, he was a demigod; while John insists that he was God himself.

Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.

How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon.

But the Gospels are written in Greek -- every one of them. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts -- such is the evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus lived.

Since when does a myth need contact with history?

I never said it must... I'm just saying he is completely mythological. Therefore I disagree with the OP that his is the most "dangerous myth in the world" because there is no evidence to base the myth on.

 

[bunny1ohio]

What political goals can drive a person to deify a crucified criminal?

On the theory that Christ was crucified, how shall we explain the fact that during the first eight centuries of the evolution of Christianity, Christian art represented a lamb, and not a man, as suffering on the cross for the salvation of the world? Neither the paintings in the Catacombs nor the sculptures on Christian tombs pictured a human figure on the cross. Everywhere a lamb was shown as the Christian symbol -- a lamb carrying a cross, a lamb at the foot of a cross, a lamb on a cross. Some figures showed the lamb with a human head, shoulders and arms, holding a cross in his hands -- the lamb of God in process of assuming the human form -- the crucifixion myth becoming realistic. At the close of the eighth century, Pope Hadrian I, confirming the decree of the sixth Synod of Constantinople, commanded that thereafter the figure of a man should take the place of a lamb on the cross. It took Christianity eight hundred years to develop the symbol of its suffering Savior. For eight hundred years, the Christ on the cross was a lamb. But if Christ was actually crucified, why was his place on the cross so long usurped by a lamb? In the light of history and reason, and in view of a lamb on the cross, why should we believe in the Crucifixion?

The word "Christ," the Greek equivalent of the Jewish word "Messiah," was not a personal name; it was a title; it meant "the Anointed One."


The Jews were looking for a Messiah, a successful political leader, who would restore the independence of their nation. Josephus tells us of many men who posed as Messiahs, who obtained a following among the people, and who were put to death by the Romans for political reasons. One of these Messiahs, or Christs, a Samaritan prophet, was executed under Pontius Pilate; and so great was the indignation of the Jews that Pilate had to be recalled by the Roman government.


These facts are of tremendous significance. While the Jesus Christ of Christianity is unknown to history, the age in which he is said to have lived was an age in which many men bore the name of "Jesus" and many political leaders assumed the title of "Christ." All the materials necessary for the manufacture of the story of Christ existed in that age. In all the ancient countries, divine Saviors were believed to have been born of virgins, to have preached a new religion, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified as atonements for the sins of mankind, and to have risen from the grave and ascended into heaven. All that Jesus is supposed to have taught was in the literature of the time. In the story of Christ there is not a new idea, as Joseph McCabe has shown in his "Sources of the Morality of the Gospels," and John M. Robertson in his "Pagan Christs."

 

[bunny1ohio]

We have to explain how three documents (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) share a hypothetical sayings source Q with some sayings in the Gospel of Thomas and parallel witnesses in the Acts of Peter. There is a common source to these documents, which points to a singular witness or group of witnesses...

The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of traditional sayings, prophecies, proverbs, and parables of Jesus. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas was translated from the Greek; in fact, several fragments of this Greek version have been preserved, and can be dated to about 200 C.E. Thus the Greek (or even or Aramaic) collection was composed in the period before about 200 C.E., possibly as early as the second half of the first century, in Syria, Palestine, or Mesopotamia. The authorship of the Gospel of Thomas is attributed to Didymos Judas Thomas, that is, Judas "the Twin," who was an apostle of Jesus.

The relationship of the Gospel of Thomas to the New Testament gospels have been a matter of special interest: many of the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas have parallels in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). A comparison of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas with their parallels in the synoptic gospels suggests that the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas either are present in a more primitive form or are developments of a more primitive of such sayings. Indeed, the Gospel of Thomas resembles the synoptic sayings source, often called "Q" (from the German word Quelle, "source"), which was the common source of sayings used by Matthew and Luke. Hence, the Gospel of Thomas and its sources are collections of sayings and parables are closely related to the sources of the New Testament gospels. Because of the close parallel between many of the sayings in Thomas and the Gospels, some scholars have suggested that Thomas is also based on the Q source or is actually Q itself. Of course, these remain only hypotheses since there is no conclusive proof that a Q source ever existed. Still, the existence of a collection of sayings of Jesus as early as the dates proposed for Thomas suggests that there did exist such a collection in the early church. Some authorities have referred to this sacred text as the Fifth Gospel (5th Gospel)


A primary criticism to the Gospel of Thomas is of its Gnostic origin. This is primaraly due to the fact most ancient Gnostic writings are in Coptic and that the Gospel of Thomas was found among other Gnostic writings. This is a clear case of judgement by association. Greek fragments older than the Coptic version prove the Gospel of Thomas predates Gnosticism so the Gnostic bias should be removed. The Apostle Thomas was also called Didymus which in the Greek means Twin or Double.

"The Gospel of Thomas may have failed to be included in the canon of the New Testament because:

• It was deemed heretical.
• It was deemed inauthentic.
• It was unknown to the Canonizers.
• It was thought to be superseded by the narrative Gospels.
• It belonged to a branch of Christianity outside the triumphant Athanasius of Alexandria circle.
• Its emphasis on individual spirituality apart from the Church was deemed anathema to the interests of organized religion.
• It was never seriously considered for the canon. "

quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

And one more...

"The main argument put forth by the late camp is an argument from redaction. Under the most commonly accepted solution to the Synoptic problem, Matthew and Luke both used Mark, as well as a lost sayings collection called Q, to compose their gospels. Sometimes Matthew and Luke modified the wording of their source, Mark (or Q), and the modified text is known as redaction. Proponents of the late camp argue that some of this secondary redaction created by Matthew and Luke shows up in Thomas, which means that Thomas was written after Matthew and Luke were composed. Since Matthew and Luke are generally thought to have been composed in the 80s and 90s, Thomas would have to be composed later than that. Members of the early camp respond to this argument by suggesting that second-century scribes may have been the ones responsible for the Synoptic redaction now present in our manuscripts of Thomas, not its original author. Both camps agree, however, that the fluidity of the text in the 2nd century makes dating the Thomas very difficult."

Sorry these were so long and all bunched up, but I've been gone for a day and didn't have a chance to spread them out.... and there was a lot I wanted to reply to

 

[Glaswegian]

Do you know what you've done to the mythical figure Jesus in the three preceding posts, bunny1ohio? You've nailed him! Superb.:clap

 

[sojourner]

Ummm... actually it means someone wrote a cool story and it bears no likeness to historical proof that there was ever such a man walking the earth. It shows that nobody outside of the creators of the church knew or heard anything about him.



No human being knows when they were written, or where. Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four. The chief reasons for this conclusion are that this Gospel is shorter, simpler, and more natural, than any of the other three. It is shown that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord's prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke.

Mark copied and enlarged an earlier document which is called the "original Mark." This original source perished in the early age of the Church. What it was, who wrote it, where it was written, nobody knows. The Gospel of John is admitted by Christian scholars to be an unhistorical document. They acknowledge that it is not a life of Christ, but an interpretation of him; that it gives us an idealized and spiritualized picture of what Christ is supposed to have been, and that it is largely composed of the speculations of Greek philosophy. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are called the "Synoptic Gospels," on the one hand, and the Gospel of John, on the other, stand at opposite extremes of thought. So complete is the difference between the teaching of the first three Gospels and that of the fourth, that every critic admits that if Jesus taught as the Synoptics relate, he could not possibly have taught as John declares. Indeed, in the first three Gospels and in the fourth, we meet with two entirely different Christs. Did I say two? It should be three; for, according to Mark, Christ was a man; according to Matthew and Luke, he was a demigod; while John insists that he was God himself.

Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.

How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon.

But the Gospels are written in Greek -- every one of them. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts -- such is the evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus lived.



I never said it must... I'm just saying he is completely mythological. Therefore I disagree with the OP that his is the most "dangerous myth in the world" because there is no evidence to base the myth on.

Bunny, you really should cite your sources when copying large amounts of other peoples' work to publish as your own thoughts.

Some of the information here is clearly wrong. See what I've highlighted in red and blue.

Yes, Matt. and Luke enlarged Mark, but they enlarged from a source earlier than Mark (not from their own material). That would place their source about thirty years before Mark was written. so, features added to Mark were added from this earlier source.

The best scholarship we have date all the gospels much, much earlier than your source claims. Mark was written ca. 66-70 c.e.; Matt. was written in the 80's c.e.; Luke, 85-90 c.e.; John, 90-100 c.e.

So, the gospels were written 33-67 years following the death of Christ, not 150 years after his crucifixion. (Plus, the earlier source that Matt. and Luke draw from, was written before the year 40 c.e.)

We're pretty certain the documents are genuine.

How? Jesus and his apostles all spoke Koine' Greek.

 

[sojourner]

On the theory that Christ was crucified, how shall we explain the fact that during the first eight centuries of the evolution of Christianity, Christian art represented a lamb, and not a man, as suffering on the cross for the salvation of the world? Neither the paintings in the Catacombs nor the sculptures on Christian tombs pictured a human figure on the cross. Everywhere a lamb was shown as the Christian symbol -- a lamb carrying a cross, a lamb at the foot of a cross, a lamb on a cross. Some figures showed the lamb with a human head, shoulders and arms, holding a cross in his hands -- the lamb of God in process of assuming the human form -- the crucifixion myth becoming realistic. At the close of the eighth century, Pope Hadrian I, confirming the decree of the sixth Synod of Constantinople, commanded that thereafter the figure of a man should take the place of a lamb on the cross. It took Christianity eight hundred years to develop the symbol of its suffering Savior. For eight hundred years, the Christ on the cross was a lamb. But if Christ was actually crucified, why was his place on the cross so long usurped by a lamb? In the light of history and reason, and in view of a lamb on the cross, why should we believe in the Crucifixion?

The word "Christ," the Greek equivalent of the Jewish word "Messiah," was not a personal name; it was a title; it meant "the Anointed One."


The Jews were looking for a Messiah, a successful political leader, who would restore the independence of their nation. Josephus tells us of many men who posed as Messiahs, who obtained a following among the people, and who were put to death by the Romans for political reasons. One of these Messiahs, or Christs, a Samaritan prophet, was executed under Pontius Pilate; and so great was the indignation of the Jews that Pilate had to be recalled by the Roman government.


These facts are of tremendous significance. While the Jesus Christ of Christianity is unknown to history, the age in which he is said to have lived was an age in which many men bore the name of "Jesus" and many political leaders assumed the title of "Christ." All the materials necessary for the manufacture of the story of Christ existed in that age. In all the ancient countries, divine Saviors were believed to have been born of virgins, to have preached a new religion, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified as atonements for the sins of mankind, and to have risen from the grave and ascended into heaven. All that Jesus is supposed to have taught was in the literature of the time. In the story of Christ there is not a new idea, as Joseph McCabe has shown in his "Sources of the Morality of the Gospels," and John M. Robertson in his "Pagan Christs."

The whole argument here is based on a misunderstanding of theology. The reason Christ is depicted as a lamb has to do with the idea we call substitutionary atonement. That is, in Jewish Temple worship, Jews were required, once a year, to bring (preferably) their best lamb to the Temple. There, the high priest would sacrifice the lamb on the altar for the expiation of the sins of the person that brought the lamb. When Christ sacrificed himself, he completely fulfilled the Jewish Law of atonement. His sacrifice is once for all. so, theologically, Jesus replaces the sacrificial lamb. That's why Jesus is referred to as the "Lamb." That's why Jesus is depicted that way.

As far as the title "Christ": Jesus was not a military messiah, but a spiritual messiah, coming to establish God's spiritual kingdom on earth. It doesn't matter what the Jews expected. Again, it's a question of theology and not history.

You can't refute the existence of the historical Jesus using badly-formed theological arguments.

 

[sojourner]

The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of traditional sayings, prophecies, proverbs, and parables of Jesus. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas was translated from the Greek; in fact, several fragments of this Greek version have been preserved, and can be dated to about 200 C.E. Thus the Greek (or even or Aramaic) collection was composed in the period before about 200 C.E., possibly as early as the second half of the first century, in Syria, Palestine, or Mesopotamia. The authorship of the Gospel of Thomas is attributed to Didymos Judas Thomas, that is, Judas "the Twin," who was an apostle of Jesus.

The relationship of the Gospel of Thomas to the New Testament gospels have been a matter of special interest: many of the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas have parallels in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). A comparison of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas with their parallels in the synoptic gospels suggests that the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas either are present in a more primitive form or are developments of a more primitive of such sayings. Indeed, the Gospel of Thomas resembles the synoptic sayings source, often called "Q" (from the German word Quelle, "source"), which was the common source of sayings used by Matthew and Luke. Hence, the Gospel of Thomas and its sources are collections of sayings and parables are closely related to the sources of the New Testament gospels. Because of the close parallel between many of the sayings in Thomas and the Gospels, some scholars have suggested that Thomas is also based on the Q source or is actually Q itself. Of course, these remain only hypotheses since there is no conclusive proof that a Q source ever existed. Still, the existence of a collection of sayings of Jesus as early as the dates proposed for Thomas suggests that there did exist such a collection in the early church. Some authorities have referred to this sacred text as the Fifth Gospel (5th Gospel)


A primary criticism to the Gospel of Thomas is of its Gnostic origin. This is primaraly due to the fact most ancient Gnostic writings are in Coptic and that the Gospel of Thomas was found among other Gnostic writings. This is a clear case of judgement by association. Greek fragments older than the Coptic version prove the Gospel of Thomas predates Gnosticism so the Gnostic bias should be removed. The Apostle Thomas was also called Didymus which in the Greek means Twin or Double.

"The Gospel of Thomas may have failed to be included in the canon of the New Testament because:

• It was deemed heretical.
• It was deemed inauthentic.
• It was unknown to the Canonizers.
• It was thought to be superseded by the narrative Gospels.
• It belonged to a branch of Christianity outside the triumphant Athanasius of Alexandria circle.
• Its emphasis on individual spirituality apart from the Church was deemed anathema to the interests of organized religion.
• It was never seriously considered for the canon. "

quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

And one more...

"The main argument put forth by the late camp is an argument from redaction. Under the most commonly accepted solution to the Synoptic problem, Matthew and Luke both used Mark, as well as a lost sayings collection called Q, to compose their gospels. Sometimes Matthew and Luke modified the wording of their source, Mark (or Q), and the modified text is known as redaction. Proponents of the late camp argue that some of this secondary redaction created by Matthew and Luke shows up in Thomas, which means that Thomas was written after Matthew and Luke were composed. Since Matthew and Luke are generally thought to have been composed in the 80s and 90s, Thomas would have to be composed later than that. Members of the early camp respond to this argument by suggesting that second-century scribes may have been the ones responsible for the Synoptic redaction now present in our manuscripts of Thomas, not its original author. Both camps agree, however, that the fluidity of the text in the 2nd century makes dating the Thomas very difficult."

Sorry these were so long and all bunched up, but I've been gone for a day and didn't have a chance to spread them out.... and there was a lot I wanted to reply to

Wikipedia is unreliable for scholarly information with regard to scripture. See the issues in red.

Thomas was parobably written in Syria in the latter half of the first century (about the same time as Mark.) The place and date are more precise than Wiki lets on.

The fact that Thomas and Q share some source material is very positive evidence for the veracity of Thomas. Most scholars reject that Q and Thomas are the same document. They share the same source, but the communities that produced the documents separated before the year 40 c.e.

Most scholars agree on the existence of Q.

There is no conclusive evidence that Thomas is Gnostic. Guilt by association, while compelling, is not conclusive.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you know what you've done to the mythical figure Jesus in the three preceding posts, bunny1ohio? You've nailed him! Superb.:clap

Thanks for the response, sojourner. I'm not so forgiving when it comes to plaigarism.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Wikipedia is unreliable for scholarly information with regard to scripture. See the issues in red.

Thomas was parobably written in Syria in the latter half of the first century (about the same time as Mark.) The place and date are more precise than Wiki lets on.

The fact that Thomas and Q share some source material is very positive evidence for the veracity of Thomas. Most scholars reject that Q and Thomas are the same document. They share the same source, but the communities that produced the documents separated before the year 40 c.e.

Most scholars agree on the existence of Q.

There is no conclusive evidence that Thomas is Gnostic. Guilt by association, while compelling, is not conclusive.

I greatly appreciate your work here, but I think that you should refresh your memory on Q. The preface and introduction to the Critical Edition of Q and some sources that question Q should do nicely. Perhaps also the Anchor Bible Dictionary entry.

 

[Glaswegian]

Instead of inventing wild myths about what theists think, feel and believe, why don't you try listening to us?

That is just Christian subterfuge. It is the same form of subterfuge that was employed by all those Muslims who pretended to be offended by the Mohammed cartoons. What it seeks to do is undermine the critic of religion by appealing to his sense of pity. When the religious person employs this subterfuge what he is effectively saying is this: 'I know that my religion is indefensible on any grounds. I know that it has no basis in reality. I know that I am contemptible and foolish for believing it. But please don't remind me of this fact!'

 

[angellous_evangellous]

'I know that my religion is indefensible on any grounds. I know that it has no basis in reality.

Both sides of the debate are going to have a dificult time proving their case to one another, because we cannot force eachther to share the same presuppositions. It seems as if you're assuming naturalism, and the other person assumes a supernatural existence of some kind, like God. Any time a theist tries to apply the myth of the supernatural to reality, a naturalist can say that the theist has no basis in naturalistic reality.

Here your profound, relentless ignorance of Christianity and many other religious traditions rears its ugly head. Many religious traditions confess that they do not have their origins in a naturalistic philosophy. They freely admit that their basis is not in reality, but in the supernatural. Naturalism cannot prove that the supernatural does not exist. It assumes that the supernatural does not exist because it cannot prove that it does.

I know that I am contemptible and foolish for believing it. But please don't remind me of this fact!'

Well that's what Nietzsche said. We are free to happily ignore him and merrily continue on our way.

 

[sojourner]

The disciplines of theology, philosophy and science have always been employed to help us make sense of the universe in which we live. It's shortsighted to say that, because one or two do not presuppose the same things and do not seek to explain things in the same way, they are not useful, or do not have a basis in reality (also a presupposition of just what constitutes reality).

 

[bunny1ohio]

Bunny, you really should cite your sources when copying large amounts of other peoples' work to publish as your own thoughts.

Pardon me... if you couldn't tell by the end of the posts, I was in a bit of a hurry since I didn't have much time... therefore I did a lot of cut and paste into a word document and then copied that into the post to illustrate my point... not to claim as my own (if you have seen my prior posts, I am typically very good about citing my sources)... I could always go back and find the sites again if you need references, although I don't see where that has anything to do with what was said... just who said it to which I could ask you the same thing... where did you get your information from since mine is so obviously "wrong"?

Some of the information here is clearly wrong. See what I've highlighted in red and blue.

The Coptic Gospel of Thomas was translated from the Greek; in fact, several fragments of this Greek version have been preserved, and can be dated to about 200 C.E. Thus the Greek (or even or Aramaic) collection was composed in the period before about 200 C.E., possibly as early as the second half of the first century, in Syria, Palestine, or Mesopotamia

What is wrong with the statement that they were composed BEFORE 200 according to what we have to work with?

Indeed, the Gospel of Thomas resembles the synoptic sayings source, often called "Q" (from the German word Quelle, "source"), which was the common source of sayings used by Matthew and Luke. Hence, the Gospel of Thomas and its sources are collections of sayings and parables are closely related to the sources of the New Testament gospels. Because of the close parallel between many of the sayings in Thomas and the Gospels, some scholars have suggested that Thomas is also based on the Q source or is actually Q itself. Of course, these remain only hypotheses since there is no conclusive proof that a Q source ever existed

Again... what is wrong with this and where do you get the information telling you it's wrong? Instead of just saying it's wrong... tell me what about it is wrong and why?

Yes, Matt. and Luke enlarged Mark, but they enlarged from a source earlier than Mark (not from their own material). That would place their source about thirty years before Mark was written. so, features added to Mark were added from this earlier source.

What source and can you prove it?

The best scholarship we have date all the gospels much, much earlier than your source claims. Mark was written ca. 66-70 c.e.; Matt. was written in the 80's c.e.; Luke, 85-90 c.e.; John, 90-100 c.e.

Very generalized statement... what scholarship, by whom and how were they dated?

So, the gospels were written 33-67 years following the death of Christ, not 150 years after his crucifixion. (Plus, the earlier source that Matt. and Luke draw from, was written before the year 40 c.e.)

This is conjectural since no orignial documents have survived to base that claim on.

How? Jesus and his apostles all spoke Koine' Greek.

Acoording to whom, and how do you know when to the best of my knowledge Aramaic was the language of his region and time?

 

[bunny1ohio]

The whole argument here is based on a misunderstanding of theology. The reason Christ is depicted as a lamb has to do with the idea we call substitutionary atonement. That is, in Jewish Temple worship, Jews were required, once a year, to bring (preferably) their best lamb to the Temple. There, the high priest would sacrifice the lamb on the altar for the expiation of the sins of the person that brought the lamb. When Christ sacrificed himself, he completely fulfilled the Jewish Law of atonement. His sacrifice is once for all. so, theologically, Jesus replaces the sacrificial lamb. That's why Jesus is referred to as the "Lamb." That's why Jesus is depicted that way.

The sacrifice of Christ may have been "substitutionary atonement" but your answer still does not tell me why they would depict a lamb when it was a man that was sacrificed. Why would they not depict their messiah as the ultimate sacrifice if that is what they believed?

As far as the title "Christ": Jesus was not a military messiah, but a spiritual messiah, coming to establish God's spiritual kingdom on earth. It doesn't matter what the Jews expected. Again, it's a question of theology and not history.

Nothing in that post said he was a military leader or even vaguely implied that... only that the title christ was a commonly used one in his time.

Wikipedia is unreliable for scholarly information with regard to scripture.

But not on everything else? How does that happen? I have seen many many people in this board citing wikipedia in argument FOR the scripture... if I'm not mistaken that includes angellous... but wiki is a very reliable site for all sorts of information... you can't just pick and choose what you think is good information or bad... either it's all reliable or none of it is.

Thomas was parobably written in Syria in the latter half of the first century (about the same time as Mark.) The place and date are more precise than Wiki lets on.

The fact that Thomas and Q share some source material is very positive evidence for the veracity of Thomas. Most scholars reject that Q and Thomas are the same document. They share the same source, but the communities that produced the documents separated before the year 40 c.e.

Most scholars agree on the existence of Q.

Again and one last time... based on what? Which scholars? And since Q no longer even exists how can you use it to base an argument on without even being able to show it is a real source? And again... NO original documents survive that can be dated earlier than the mid second century.

Thanks for the response, sojourner. I'm not so forgiving when it comes to plaigarism.

Please refer to my response to Sojourner on this one... I won't even dignify this remark with anything else.

 

[bunny1ohio]

[/i]
Both sides of the debate are going to have a dificult time proving their case to one another, because we cannot force eachther to share the same presuppositions.

Very true angellous.

Here your profound, relentless ignorance of Christianity and many other religious traditions rears its ugly head.

A bit harsh since most atheists/agnostics were at one time religious.

It assumes that the supernatural does not exist because it cannot prove that it does.

A rather natural assumption if you ask me. Although I am not religious, I have never said I do not believe in the possibility of the supernatural... in fact I am quite fond of it... I just said I don't believe in G-d.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A bit harsh since most atheists/agnostics were at one time religious.

Atheism is fine with me. Religiousity is fine with me. Glas' profound inability to interact with either of them is tiresome.

Atheists have learned to respect the religious myths of the pious. Glas has turned from focusing on what he illogically concluded was the most dangerous myth to rejecting all myths.

 

[Karl R]

Instead of inventing wild myths about what theists think, feel and believe, why don't you try listening to us?

That is just Christian subterfuge. It is the same form of subterfuge that was employed by all those Muslims who pretended to be offended by the Mohammed cartoons. What it seeks to do is undermine the critic of religion by appealing to his sense of pity.

How on earth do you arrive at this conclusion? :bonk:

Did you read the entire post by Jim Rigby? (Remember him?)
"It's been interesting to see that atheists can be just as narrow-minded as believers. Some of Jensen's critics expressed an infallible belief that religious people like me are idiots by definition. Inflexible beliefs on matters where one has no experience is superstition whether one is a believer or in an atheist.

Atheism can become self-parody when it forms a rigid belief system about religion. There is a difference between true atheism and anti-theism. Atheism can be the naked pursuit of truth, but anti-theism is more often the adolescent joy of upsetting and mocking religious people."

I'm not looking for pity. I'm too busy laughing my *** off. :biglaugh:

When the religious person employs this subterfuge what he is effectively saying is this: 'I know that my religion is indefensible on any grounds. I know that it has no basis in reality. I know that I am contemptible and foolish for believing it. But please don't remind me of this fact!'

Another amazing example of self-parody :clap

Do you have any idea how accurately this describes your beliefs as you've expressed them in every post of yours?

 

[bunny1ohio]

Atheism is fine with me. Religiousity is fine with me. Glas' profound inability to interact with either of them is tiresome.

Atheists have learned to respect the religious myths of the pious. Glas has turned from focusing on what he illogically concluded was the most dangerous myth to rejecting all myths.

I don't ever discount anything out of hand... I prefer to dig and research into things to try to understand them better. And yes, I tolerate and respect all religions as to me they are all a matter of the dreaded word "faith"... and I feel everyone must follow their heart in regards to that. Myths are fascinating... they can be dangerous, but not in and of themselves... someone must misuse them to become dangerous :kat:

I don't think he has an inability to interact with them... just he questions them and the fervor caused by the beliefs of the zealots and finds that aspect dangerous... but I understand what you're getting at... the OP was rather a harsh criticism of Christianity in particular not just religion and myth. Maybe he just doesn't like the Christian view?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't ever discount anything out of hand... I prefer to dig and research into things to try to understand them better. And yes, I tolerate and respect all religions as to me they are all a matter of the dreaded word "faith"... and I feel everyone must follow their heart in regards to that. Myths are fascinating... they can be dangerous, but not in and of themselves... someone must misuse them to become dangerous :kat:

I don't think he has an inability to interact with them... just he questions them and the fervor caused by the beliefs of the zealots and finds that aspect dangerous... but I understand what you're getting at... the OP was rather a harsh criticism of Christianity in particular not just religion and myth. Maybe he just doesn't like the Christian view?

We shouldn't forget that people create myths for the purpose of action. It's hard to seperate myth from being dangerous in and of itself if the myth is created to harm people. We just can't use the same logic behind "guns don't kill people, people kill people" to all objects or ideas. Guns can be made to kill animals. Some things are invented specifically for harm.

For example, if I was the leader of an army and we conquered a nation and did the following:

1) killed all of the educated people and
2) cut the rest of the people off from all that they needed to rebel
3) invented a myth that said that I was god and the people had to sacrafice 100 virgins to me a year, and their station in life was pleasing and they would get a better life in the netherworld, provided they made sacrafice and did not rebel == otherwise I kill them in this life and punish them for eternity in the next.
4) I train my children as preists and have them perpetuate the myth, and train more preists among the people
5) I kill all heretics and have a mythic text written
6) I give new mythic meaning to all ancient rituals (eating, bathing, fasting, birth, death, even sports, and especially education)

Viola! The next great world religion.

Myths are written for a reason! Unfortunately, sometimes the reason is not good.

A healthy attitute towards religious mythmaking is to approach it like poetry, art, and music rather than science. We are forced to recognize that religious myth-making is a human expression that some of us have. We cannot ignore the awesome gift of art and music simply because a lot of people who are not gifted and produce ignoble and useless work. However, quality music, art, and poetry is difficult to distinguish for people who are ignorant and tasteless.

 

[bunny1ohio]

We shouldn't forget that people create myths for the purpose of action. It's hard to seperate myth from being dangerous in and of itself if the myth is created to harm people. We just can't use the same logic behind "guns don't kill people, people kill people" to all objects or ideas. Guns can be made to kill animals. Some things are invented specifically for harm.

Guns do not kill animals of their own accord though, it takes the human holding the gun to pull the trigger. Yes they are... such as the iron maiden *shudders*

For example, if I was the leader of an army and we conquered a nation and did the following:

1) killed all of the educated people and
2) cut the rest of the people off from all that they needed to rebel
3) invented a myth that said that I was god and the people had to sacrafice 100 virgins to me a year, and their station in life was pleasing and they would get a better life in the netherworld, provided they made sacrafice and did not rebel == otherwise I kill them in this life and punish them for eternity in the next.
4) I train my children as preists and have them perpetuate the myth, and train more preists among the people
5) I kill all heretics and have a mythic text written
6) I give new mythic meaning to all ancient rituals (eating, bathing, fasting, birth, death, even sports, and especially education)

Viola! The next great world religion.

Okay... I know this is going to upset some people but I think it needs said at t his point in the topic... 1) happens all the time in conquered nations even still today
2) Same thing... still goes on
3) Sounds very familiar to many of the ancient texts of numerous religions
4) Again the same
5) Depending on one's view this could even be applied to Christianity. At the very least the killing of heretics... Spanish Inquisition anyone :areyoucra
6) Again applies to most religious texts and teachings.

Myths are written for a reason! Unfortunately, sometimes the reason is not good.

Sometimes not... sometimes they are strictly for self-gain which is wrong...but typically it is in an attempt to explain the unknown.

A healthy attitute towards religious mythmaking is to approach it like poetry, art, and music rather than science. We are forced to recognize that religious myth-making is a human expression that some of us have.

Good take on that... To me the Bible is a beautiful story... but nothing more... rather like Aesop's fables it teaches many good things, but it also teaches the bad things and gives us a reason why we shouldn't do them. Religion is not just expression... it is also a deep seated need in the human psyche to answer that nagging question of "why"? What better way to express it than to make such a powerful and inspiring story? This is the way with most myths... not all mind you... but most