Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Very nice sir, but I still have a few questions.
1. What is the generaly scholarly view on the accuracy of this report?

Scholarly views varies. But even the most secular scholars date the Gospels to all be written before 70 A.D., with the exception of the book of John. It is also worth mentioning that throughout the history of the early church, the authors of the Gospels was never in dispute. The dispute comes hundreds of years later by bible critics who are looking for any reason to NOT accept the faith.

2. Even though Irenaeus says that these people wrote their respective gospels, does it neccesary imply that the earlierst sources that we have are the actual copies that the disciples themselves wrote? And if this is the case, how much could the information within the gospesl have changed?

Because we have LOTS of copies from various geographical locations and times in history, and the more the copies agree with each other, the more reliable they are. Not to mention the fact that some are dated just a few generations from the events themselves. The further you go back, the closer you will come to the original source, and the closer you get to the original source, the more reliable the documents become. Legendary accounts normally occur hundreds of years after the fact, but an argument can be made that the first Gospel was written around early to late 50 A.D., which is only 20 years after the Ressurection. And Pauls letters predate all of the Gospels (at least most of them), so the "preaching/concept" of Christianity dates back even earlier than the Gospels, so you are that much closer to the actual event itself.

3. Can you cite a source that shows that we have a copy of the bible written in Hebrew during the time of the disciples.

A copy of the bible, or a copy of the Gospels? Either way, it is irrelevant because all scholars agree that the Gospels were written between 50 A.D. and 70 A.D, regardless of the language, what is important is the word was put out.

Basically, that is a good source that you quoted, but it is the writings of one man.

Eusebius also cited one of the Church Fathers (Origen) as claiming that Matthew wrote his Gospel in his History of the Church 3:39.

I think that there are copies of the gospels written just like you have said, the problem with that is that the earliest copies we have direct knowledge of, aka existing copies of them, was not until much later. Without the actual copies that the apostles actually wrote, we have no idea what was in them or how they correlate to the existing copies that we do have. Basically, we have no clue how the gospels that you listed as being written directly by the apostles compare with those that we actually have records of. For all we know the actual copies written by Mathew and Mark could have totally changed through translation and various other means by the time we have actual records of.

So you are basically saying we can't trust any historical document that we don't have original copies of. Other ancient writings usually have a bare minimum of at least a hundred year gap between the original and the earliest surviving copy. What we have with the earlies copies of NT is copies that were written within a couple generations from the originals. Not only that, the very belief of Christianity can be rooted to within the first 5 years after the Resurrection, as is implied in 1 Cor 15:3-8. So the Christian belief as a whole can be dated to within 5 years of the event, and everything else is history...literally.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

After further inspection, Iranaeus is definitely not a credible source, sorry. He clearly has an agenda, and he is writing about a subject that occurred nearly 100 years prior to his life.

Every contemporary historian writes prior to their life, are you serious?? If Iranaeus is not a reliable source since he wrote "100 years prior to his life", then no contemporary history should be allowed to write about or teach history post WWI.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well the thing is that we have access to primary sources such as Abraham's actual writings, and of course things that were written during their actual occurrence rather than years after.

"Years later", as you put it, were between 20-30 years afterwards. That is still within the lifetime of the disciples. The Jonestown suicides took place in 1978. In 2010, there was a documentary special on tv about it. This was 32 years later, and people are STILL talking about it. Former members of that "establishment" was/are still alive, and they are able to be interviewed talk about the experience, and vividly remember what happened during that time, some 32 years later.

So we have living proof and experience that these things happen. So what is the big deal about the Gospels being written "years later"? Survivors of Jonestown can write about their experiences, "years later".

We don't have any of the original gospels unaltered or preserved.

We dont have originals of a lot of ancient writings, but historians recognize that having original documents handy is not a requirment for establishing historical facts.

We also have strict rules in place for writing and publishing historical books.


Can you say that these same rules applied back then?

Did Arrian and Plutarch, who were two Roman historians...did they have those same rules? They wrote the autobiographies of Alexander the Great four hundred years after his death, and historians STILL consider the autobiographies to be trustworthy.

Look, this is no more than the taxi cab fallacy. You are accepting this "criteria" for everything else BUT the bible.

But the writings of today are also continously challenged. Beliefs about our presidents have changed over the years as new information is reviewed, new documents are brought up. There is a continous evolving discussion about our history. This is done for the Gospel as well.

Well, I will worry about that when I see some "new information".

Consensus among scholars today is appearing to be in agreement that Matthew was written by multiple sources. Most scholars are in agreement that Mark ends at chapter 16:8 with the empty tomb and resurrection was added later.

LoL notice you said Mark ends with chapter 16:8, and the empty tomb and Resurrection was added later. But did you notice that the verses prior to verse 8, Jesus had already risen and the tomb was already empty?? Verse 6 states

"Don't be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen!!! He is not here. See the place where they laid him."

I don't know why skeptics keep throwing the omission of verses 9-19 as if that is supposed to prove that Marks gospel don't record the Resurrection, when it clearly does.

Luke is believed to be copied from Mark, and John has a different timeline than the other three gospels.

Maybe he did, but so what? Luke clearly states in his intro

"Many have untaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you..."

And this mirrors what Paul said in 1 Cor 15:3..that the creed was passed on to them by eyewitnesses. So...so what if Luke used Mark as a source...Mark was the disciple of Peter and last I checked Peter was one of the "big three" and thus a reliable source.

So again, taxi cab fallacy.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Of course they change

but for 600 years (despite the verse prior saying that people should only live 120) Noah was blameless/guiltless/without fault before God. We have no idea if he maintained it afterwards, but we know for a fact that for 600 he did. To say he didn't after would just be speculation.

So, Noah could of died on the cross for our sins, gotcha.

 

[nash8]

Scholarly views varies. But even the most secular scholars date the Gospels to all be written before 70 A.D., with the exception of the book of John. It is also worth mentioning that throughout the history of the early church, the authors of the Gospels was never in dispute. The dispute comes hundreds of years later by bible critics who are looking for any reason to NOT accept the faith.

Can you cite some evidence of the 70 A.D. thing because all of my knowledge says the exact opposite. At least in regard to the oldest manuscripts we actually possess. Mmmhhmm, but what were the motives of the dominating contingent of the early church fathers?

Because we have LOTS of copies from various geographical locations and times in history, and the more the copies agree with each other, the more reliable they are. Not to mention the fact that some are dated just a few generations from the events themselves. The further you go back, the closer you will come to the original source, and the closer you get to the original source, the more reliable the documents become. Legendary accounts normally occur hundreds of years after the fact, but an argument can be made that the first Gospel was written around early to late 50 A.D., which is only 20 years after the Ressurection. And Pauls letters predate all of the Gospels (at least most of them), so the "preaching/concept" of Christianity dates back even earlier than the Gospels, so you are that much closer to the actual event itself.

This is true, but the copies don't agree with each other. They list different genealogies for different people, the histories are different amongst different gospels, some things are omitted, where in other gospels they seem to be of supreme importance. The legendary accounts timeline is a huge assumption to say the least. And they're are many that argue that what Paul taught was not near what Jesus actually taught, and the he "gentiled" his approach in order make it more apeealing to the massess especially those outside of Judea.

A copy of the bible, or a copy of the Gospels? Either way, it is irrelevant because all scholars agree that the Gospels were written between 50 A.D. and 70 A.D, regardless of the language, what is important is the word was put out.

Again, can you cite some evidence of this because I don't seem to recall that being the case. Maybe the original gospels, but we don't have those anymore, and can't really say with any sense of assuridity that they say anything like what the "copies" of them say through mistranslation and/or purposeful addition or reduction.

So you are basically saying we can't trust any historical document that we don't have original copies of. Other ancient writings usually have a bare minimum of at least a hundred year gap between the original and the earliest surviving copy. What we have with the earlies copies of NT is copies that were written within a couple generations from the originals. Not only that, the very belief of Christianity can be rooted to within the first 5 years after the Resurrection, as is implied in 1 Cor 15:3-8. So the Christian belief as a whole can be dated to within 5 years of the event, and everything else is history...literally.

Not with 100% assuredly. The historicalness of Jesus is, without a doubt, one of the most historically supported stories. What I'm arguing is more along the lines of, do the copies accurately portray the story of Jesus. For example, there would be few people capable of writing such a large manuscript in those times, so it would be likely that there would only be a few copies. If those copies fell into the wrong hands, it would be very likely that the "story" would have been altered to suit the needs of those whose hands they fell into.

Every contemporary historian writes prior to their life, are you serious?? If Iranaeus is not a reliable source since he wrote "100 years prior to his life", then no contemporary history should be allowed to write about or teach history post WWI.

No, it's more along the lines that Iranaeus was clearly not an objective historian in any sense of the word. His main goal was to oppose the early gnostic sect of Christianity. So his writings would clearly be skewed toward that opinion.

Irenaeus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, I believe it was Irenaeus and those like him who were at the basis of forming Christianity into something it wasn't, or at the least, something less than Jesus had intended it to be in it's totality.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Scholarly views varies. But even the most secular scholars date the Gospels to all be written before 70 A.D., with the exception of the book of John.

Really? Let's see:

"Luke is dependent on Mark and probably also on Matthew. Mark may not have been written until after 70 CE (its earliest accepted date is 64 CE). Luke was certainly not written before the Fall of Jerusalem (see 21.20). The generally-agreed date is in the 80s or 90s, perhaps towards the end of this span if the theory that Luke knew Matthew is adopted"

Knight, J., & Nfa, J. K. (1998). Luke's gospel. Routledge.

Ok, but that's just one source and it's from a book on Luke, not the gospels and/or Jesus per se. So maybe we'll have better luck with Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch by TheiBen & Merz. After all, it's a textbook on the historical Jesus, and is not designed to promote individual views but for as a university textbook.

For Mark we have, under Ort und Zeit der Entstehung (Place and time of origination), the following:

"Mk ist um das Jahr 70 herum entstanden, da der jüdisch-römische Krieg (66-74 n.Chr.) sich deutlich im MkEv niederschlägt"

[Mark was composed in about the year 70, as the Jewish-Roman War (66-74 A.D.) is clearly expressed in Mark's Gospel"

Hm. That's odd. What about Matthew? Well, once again "Am wahrscheinlichsten ist eine Entstehung in den 80er, spätestens 90er Jahren." [probably composed in the 80s, at the latest the 90s].

Clearly they're wrong (plus can we really trust Germans here?) How about a Catholic priest and professor? "I accept the standard view in NT research today: Mark, using various colletions of oral and possibly written traditions, composed his Gospel somewhere around A.D. 70. Both Matthew and Luke working independently of each other, composed larger Gospels in the 70-100 period (most likely between 80 and 90)" (from the first of J. P. Meier's 4 volume set on the historical Jesus, A Marginal Jew).

That's not right! "Standard view"? You said the standard view was that they were all written pre-70, and Meier gives us that date as the starting point!

Clearly we can't trust Catholics anymore than Germans. So let's try J.D.G. Dunn's Jesus Remembered:
"A very large consensus of contemporary scholarship dates Mark somewhere in the period 67-75 CE."

Fine. What about a scholar who's taking on a skeptic like Wells? Well, if we look at Dunn's 1985 book or better yet, Habermas' Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, we find "A fourth major problem in Wells' thesis is his late-dating of the Gospels, in conjunction with his belief that no New Testament source prior to AD 90 links the death of Jesus with Pilate." We are told that "such dates for the Gospels may have been popular" back in the 19th century, but not today, when "most critical scholars date Mark about AD 65-70, and Matthew and Luke about AD 80-90."

We could keep on going (I have a bunch more on specific gospels or the NT or Jesus in general), but why are we finding conservative and non-secular scholars all agreeing that Mark was first and was written ~70 CE?

It is also worth mentioning that throughout the history of the early church, the authors of the Gospels was never in dispute.

This isn't accurate. Just an FYI.

The dispute comes hundreds of years later by bible critics who are looking for any reason to NOT accept the faith.

Actually it started mainly with one biblical critic doing this and a bunch of others trying to rescue Jesus from the attack (only to be knocked down again by Strauss). But there are Christian scholars, Jewish scholars, and non-religious scholars all who have studied the gospels from a historical perspective. That doesn't mean they believe the historical portraits they paint, just that they understand what W. L. Craig misses despite how blatantly obvious it is: history is about determining what most likely happened. Miracles are by definition as improbable as can be. So there literally is historical approach, even The Da Vinci Code written as history, that could be less likely than that Jesus rose from the dead.

Because we have LOTS of copies from various geographical locations and times in history, and the more the copies agree with each other, the more reliable they are.

No 2 copies are the same.

The further you go back, the closer you will come to the original source

If a 12th century monk copied a 2nd century manuscript now lost to us, and we had a 5th century manuscript that had been copied dozens of times from the 2nd century to the 5th, why is the 5th century one more reliable?


, and the closer you get to the original source, the more reliable the documents become. Legendary accounts normally occur hundreds of years after the fact, but an argument can be made that the first Gospel was written around early to late 50 A.D., which is only 20 years after the Ressurection. And Pauls letters predate all of the Gospels (at least most of them), so the "preaching/concept" of Christianity dates back even earlier than the Gospels, so you are that much closer to the actual event itself.

it is irrelevant because all scholars agree that the Gospels were written between 50 A.D. and 70 A.D

Casey, Paul R. Eddy, Boyd, Wright, Stanton, and other non-secular or more conservative scholars disagree, just like those mentioned above.

Eusebius also cited one of the Church Fathers (Origen) as claiming that Matthew wrote his Gospel in his History of the Church 3:39.

He also says that Papias claimed Matthew was written in Hebrew, which it wasn't.

Other ancient writings usually have a bare minimum of at least a hundred year gap between the original and the earliest surviving copy

Actually the standard is closer to 1,000 years than 1,00. And that's if we have a surviving copy rather than a reference or quote in another manuscript.

 

[SonofSonofGod]

Is the proof that we exist proof enough that he exist?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

"Years later", as you put it, were between 20-30 years afterwards. That is still within the lifetime of the disciples. The Jonestown suicides took place in 1978. In 2010, there was a documentary special on tv about it. This was 32 years later, and people are STILL talking about it. Former members of that "establishment" was/are still alive, and they are able to be interviewed talk about the experience, and vividly remember what happened during that time, some 32 years later.

So we have living proof and experience that these things happen. So what is the big deal about the Gospels being written "years later"? Survivors of Jonestown can write about their experiences, "years later".



We dont have originals of a lot of ancient writings, but historians recognize that having original documents handy is not a requirment for establishing historical facts.



Did Arrian and Plutarch, who were two Roman historians...did they have those same rules? They wrote the autobiographies of Alexander the Great four hundred years after his death, and historians STILL consider the autobiographies to be trustworthy.

Look, this is no more than the taxi cab fallacy. You are accepting this "criteria" for everything else BUT the bible.



Well, I will worry about that when I see some "new information".



LoL notice you said Mark ends with chapter 16:8, and the empty tomb and Resurrection was added later. But did you notice that the verses prior to verse 8, Jesus had already risen and the tomb was already empty?? Verse 6 states

"Don't be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen!!! He is not here. See the place where they laid him."

I don't know why skeptics keep throwing the omission of verses 9-19 as if that is supposed to prove that Marks gospel don't record the Resurrection, when it clearly does.



Maybe he did, but so what? Luke clearly states in his intro

"Many have untaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you..."

And this mirrors what Paul said in 1 Cor 15:3..that the creed was passed on to them by eyewitnesses. So...so what if Luke used Mark as a source...Mark was the disciple of Peter and last I checked Peter was one of the "big three" and thus a reliable source.

So again, taxi cab fallacy.

Actually no, it's not a taxi cab fallacy as I note that the history is within the best of knowledge available. If new evidence is brought up
That revises previous conclusions about history I will change accordingly.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We don't have any of the original gospels unaltered or preserved.

True. But we do have ~6,000 manuscripts in Greek alone, not counting the quotations of church fathers (which by themselves would allow us to put together the entire NT), translations from the Gothic by Wulfilas to the diatesseron of Tatian and the vulgate of Jerome. John was composed sometime around the end of the 1st century. Our earliest fragment (p52) dates from the first half of the 2nd century.

There is no collection until the printing press that rivals the NT in terms of manuscript witnesses and other textual evidence. NT textual critics have a harder job than those who deal with most classical authors because for most we have a handful of medieval documents, not thousands and thousands of them.

We also have strict rules in place for writing and publishing historical books.

Not really. Publishers that care about how they are perceived by academics, such as university presses or specialty presses like Brill, Elsevier, Springer, Mouton de Gruyter, World Scientific, Routledge, the STNS monograph series, etc., will not publish The Templar Revelations or The Jesus Mysteries. Others will, because their business depends up your average customer, not your average specialist.

Consensus among scholars today is appearing to be in agreement that Matthew was written by multiple sources

It isn't. Despite challenges to Holtzmann and/or the 2-source hypothesis for the last 100+ years, it is still the consensus.

Most scholars are in agreement that Mark ends at chapter 16:8 with the empty tomb and resurrection was added later.

The empty tomb is enough. And before Mark Paul already wrote about Jesus' resurrection.

Luke is believed to be copied from Mark

Luke is believed to have used Mark, just like Matthew.

and John has a different timeline than the other three gospels.

The Johannine community does present significant difficulties, but this is not one. I can order a book now about events that happened in my own life, from presidents to the fall of the Berlin wall and get disagreements over timelines. Currently, I know that there exists some disagreement as to the helicopter crash and the events surrounding the death of Osama bin Laden thanks to one ex-operator who claims to know what "really" happened. His timeline doesn't match up with the official report. Does this make the whole thing ahistorical?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

True. But we do have ~6,000 manuscripts in Greek alone, not counting the quotations of church fathers (which by themselves would allow us to put together the entire NT), translations from the Gothic by Wulfilas to the diatesseron of Tatian and the vulgate of Jerome. John was composed sometime around the end of the 1st century. Our earliest fragment (p52) dates from the first half of the 2nd century.

There is no collection until the printing press that rivals the NT in terms of manuscript witnesses and other textual evidence. NT textual critics have a harder job than those who deal with most classical authors because for most we have a handful of medieval documents, not thousands and thousands of them.



Not really. Publishers that care about how they are perceived by academics, such as university presses or specialty presses like Brill, Elsevier, Springer, Mouton de Gruyter, World Scientific, Routledge, the STNS monograph series, etc., will not publish The Templar Revelations or The Jesus Mysteries. Others will, because their business depends up your average customer, not your average specialist.


It isn't. Despite challenges to Holtzmann and/or the 2-source hypothesis for the last 100+ years, it is still the consensus.



The empty tomb is enough. And before Mark Paul already wrote about Jesus' resurrection.


Luke is believed to have used Mark, just like Matthew.




The Johannine community does present significant difficulties, but this is not one. I can order a book now about events that happened in my own life, from presidents to the fall of the Berlin wall and get disagreements over timelines. Currently, I know that there exists some disagreement as to the helicopter crash and the events surrounding the death of Osama bin Laden thanks to one ex-operator who claims to know what "really" happened. His timeline doesn't match up with the official report. Does this make the whole thing ahistorical?

My point is that given other sources we would take the historical knowledge as the best we have, as more information comes to light we would adjust accordingly. I don't doubt that the gospels are historical accurate but I will say that people hold them to a harder line of unalterable truth that is not found for other historical works.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Scholarly views varies. But even the most secular scholars date the Gospels to all be written before 70 A.D., with the exception of the book of John. It is also worth mentioning that throughout the history of the early church, the authors of the Gospels was never in dispute. The dispute comes hundreds of years later by bible critics who are looking for any reason to NOT accept the faith.



Because we have LOTS of copies from various geographical locations and times in history, and the more the copies agree with each other, the more reliable they are. Not to mention the fact that some are dated just a few generations from the events themselves. The further you go back, the closer you will come to the original source, and the closer you get to the original source, the more reliable the documents become. Legendary accounts normally occur hundreds of years after the fact, but an argument can be made that the first Gospel was written around early to late 50 A.D., which is only 20 years after the Ressurection. And Pauls letters predate all of the Gospels (at least most of them), so the "preaching/concept" of Christianity dates back even earlier than the Gospels, so you are that much closer to the actual event itself.



A copy of the bible, or a copy of the Gospels? Either way, it is irrelevant because all scholars agree that the Gospels were written between 50 A.D. and 70 A.D, regardless of the language, what is important is the word was put out.



Eusebius also cited one of the Church Fathers (Origen) as claiming that Matthew wrote his Gospel in his History of the Church 3:39.



So you are basically saying we can't trust any historical document that we don't have original copies of. Other ancient writings usually have a bare minimum of at least a hundred year gap between the original and the earliest surviving copy. What we have with the earlies copies of NT is copies that were written within a couple generations from the originals. Not only that, the very belief of Christianity can be rooted to within the first 5 years after the Resurrection, as is implied in 1 Cor 15:3-8. So the Christian belief as a whole can be dated to within 5 years of the event, and everything else is history...literally.

Resorting to blatant lies to prove a point in an argument that has long been lost...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

My point is that given other sources we would take the historical knowledge as the best we have, as more information comes to light we would adjust accordingly.

One would hope. Sometimes people seem to prefer the history they knew, rather than the one that was.

I don't doubt that the gospels are historical accurate

I don't doubt that they are historiography, but accurate? Well, I suppose that's pretty relative.

but I will say that people hold them to a harder line of unalterable truth that is not found for other historical works.

Why do all the prophets die?
We hate the Truth and love the Lie

I've always respected C. S. Lewis, and I believe him to be the greatest apologist of the 20th century. But (like many) I was first exposed to him through the chronicles of Narnia which my father read to us. There is a scene in The Silver Chair in which the evil queen of an underground realm is playing mind games with our heroes. She is trying to convince them that this overland, with its sun and all the things they describe is pure fantasy. The allegory is clear, but I don't know why Lewis has one of our heroes (Puddleglum, as gloomy as the name sounds) say the following:
“One word, Ma'am,” he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. “One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things—trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a playworld which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say.”


Paul wrote that if Jesus did not rise, the faith of Christ's followers was in vain. Lewis himself, in the Last Battle, portrays the dwarves as "none so blind as they that will not see." So why would a highly educated Christian apologist, thoroughly familiar with theology and philosophy from the ancient Greeks through the scholastics to the modern and early modern philosophers, believe that living a lie would be better than the truth? Sartre and even Nietzsche wrote about how devastating the cultural death of God was, yet here we find one who is at least their equal essentially arguing that if Christianity is wrong, if it is false, it's better to believe in the lie that comforts than the truth that hurts. That isn't faith through reason, but folly.

 

[nash8]

Not really. Publishers that care about how they are perceived by academics, such as university presses or specialty presses like Brill, Elsevier, Springer, Mouton de Gruyter, World Scientific, Routledge, the STNS monograph series, etc., will not publish The Templar Revelations or The Jesus Mysteries. Others will, because their business depends up your average customer, not your average specialist.

What's your view on the Jesus Mysteries, The Templar Revelations, and/or The Lost Years Of Jesus ?

I identify with many of the ideas propoosed in these theories, but I I prefer a combination of them together. What Ideas do are historically supported, at least to some degree, and which ones are not in your opinion?

 

[nash8]

I've always respected C. S. Lewis, and I believe him to be the greatest apologist of the 20th century. But (like many) I was first exposed to him through the chronicles of Narnia which my father read to us. There is a scene in The Silver Chair in which the evil queen of an underground realm is playing mind games with our heroes. She is trying to convince them that this overland, with its sun and all the things they describe is pure fantasy. The allegory is clear, but I don't know why Lewis has one of our heroes (Puddleglum, as gloomy as the name sounds) say the following:
“One word, Ma'am,” he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. “One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things—trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a playworld which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say.”


Paul wrote that if Jesus did not rise, the faith of Christ's followers was in vain. Lewis himself, in the Last Battle, portrays the dwarves as "none so blind as they that will not see." So why would a highly educated Christian apologist, thoroughly familiar with theology and philosophy from the ancient Greeks through the scholastics to the modern and early modern philosophers, believe that living a lie would be better than the truth? Sartre and even Nietzsche wrote about how devastating the cultural death of God was, yet here we find one who is at least their equal essentially arguing that if Christianity is wrong, if it is false, it's better to believe in the lie that comforts than the truth that hurts. That isn't faith through reason, but folly.

Extremely interesting. Very nice post sir, frubals to you.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What's your view on the Jesus Mysteries, The Templar Revelations, and/or The Lost Years Of Jesus ?

I haven't read the last one. The Templar Revelation is no better or worse than Holy Blood, Holy Grail. It's just filled with inaccuracies and speculations with clouds for foundations. But they also cover a wide range of periods and topics, so anybody who reads them has been exposed to a lot of falsehoods and speculations but spread out over 2,000 years. And they do hit on some truth and perhaps some of those speculations are not that far off the mark. They are fairly harmless as far as I'm concerned, and probably in the long run do more good by getting people interested in historical topics they did not know of, even if their first exposure isn't all that accurate.
The Jesus Mysteries, however, is another story (and one that hits all of my buttons, so to speak). It is a pernicious, seemingly innocuous, falsely constructed charade of objectivity making the utter lies, distortions, and injustice to history unforgivable. The authors hide behind their veneer of objective investigators who are surprised to find their results: "When we began to uncover such extraordinary similarities between the story of Jesus and Pagan myth we were stunned". This theme of two surprised but thorough researchers runs throughout their book and is very convincing in its presentations (heavily footnoted and, unlike Holy Blood, Holy Grail and other such works, very focused on a single time period).

They didn't just get speculative. They lied. Their presentation of the gnostics as one singular group we barely knew of, thanks to a massive cover-up, until the Nag Hammadi finds, is belied by their bibliography. They cite Mead, Inge, Barnstone, Jung, Harrison, Cumont, and several others to support their understanding of Gnosticism, yet all of these wrote before the gnostic texts were published. Mead, probably the most cited (or close) wrote in 1906. So if this vast cover-up only came to light with the Nag Hammadi finds, why are they relying so much on authors ho wrote before these were found?

In fact, few things give them away as much as their bibliography. When someone goes out looking to see what is or isn't true, they usually don't know where to start. So they get a couple of books, maybe read some online stuff (especially now), and get some feel for the land before creating a massive bibliography. They cite Robin L. Fox. His work in unsurpassed in meticulous attention to detail and its breadth and scope. But he wasn't starting from a position of ignorance but education. The only way one could get the bibliography Freke and Gandy did is by deliberately ignoring almost all the literature on every single subject they touch on. Many of the books are out of print and would be hard to find (at least, before google books).

Unlike Acharya S/ D. M. Murdock, who simply mistranslates or selectively quotes from classical sources and interprets them freely, Freke and Gandy actually made up a word. On pg. 32, they talk about katalemna as the word used for "stable" in the Greek NT, and how it could mean cave. Only there is no word katalemna in the NT. There is no word katalemna in Greek or any other language.

In the 19th century alone, some 60,000 books were written on the historical Jesus by learned men (for the most part; alas, sexism was pervasive). The literature on the subject in the 20th century is far broader and, unlike the mess of the 19th century, began to seriously come into its own as a historical, rather than christological-historical hybrid. So who do they cite? Gibbon's Rise & Fall of the Roman Empire from 1796, the professor of German studies Wells, the 1920s & 30s scholar Eisler, and if citing outdated sources weren't bad enough they repeatedly cite Stanton, who has written extensively on the historical Jesus and is on the conservative side (compared to e.g,. Funk, Mack, Dibelius, Schweitzer, Harnack, Bultmann, Crossan, Ehrman, etc.). They also cite Mack and other genuine modern specialists, but ignore anything in the works they cite they don't want to use.

I can honestly say I've never seen a more deceptive, more despicable, more manipulative (to an audience looking for answers and seeing what appears to be an authoritative source), more pernicious, and more dishonest partnership than that of Freke & Gandy. It's one thing to tell a good story, be sensationalist, be speculative, etc., when one isn't a historian. it's another to lie to your audience on every page. They do. I tried to tally up the lies at one point (my original goal was going to be a review of the book, but it ended up getting longer than the book, so I changed tactics). There were too many.

I have no problem with those who believe that they can find within religious texts or eclectic traditions a path that seems to them (and very well may be) that of truth and wisdom. I am limited to what evidence there is in this mundane world I live in, and I envy those who see more clearly what I view only with doubt and skepticism. But this makes honest presentation all the more important in my eyes. If the authors had wanted to present their view, and do so honestly, I would have no trouble with it. Instead they handpicked sources most biblical scholars don't know because they have faded into oblivion and have misrepresented both these and virtually every scholar they do. They show how the NT steals from myths that didn't exist until after the gospels were written, which is a bit like accusing Shakespeare of stealing from West Side Story.

If I keep ranting, I'm liable to have a heart attack or, even worse, take up a dozen posts and totally usurp this thread. If you have specific questions that you want a historical view about, whether it involves primary or secondary sources or a point the authors made, feel free to ask. Perhaps I'll even improve my opinion of them when their work is presented in another light.

 

[The Wizard]

I say it's irrational because I believe in something that there is no evidence for. That makes the rationality of my believe low.

But that is a twistyroo trick of semantics. Actually, a false position in the first place to think one requires physical "evidence" to support a belief. If there were evidence then it would be knowledge and not a belief. I never understand why anyone would look for proof or evidence for a belief. What is the definition of a belief again? They are traveling backwards...

Because the rationality of a belief is measured on the physical benefits and values that belief creates for someone. How it affects their life. Not what people think or if it may hold some vague attribute in meatspace central. There is where we find the reason of the why of many beliefs in the first place....IMO.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

One would hope. Sometimes people seem to prefer the history they knew, rather than the one that was.


I don't doubt that they are historiography, but accurate? Well, I suppose that's pretty relative.



Why do all the prophets die?
We hate the Truth and love the Lie

I've always respected C. S. Lewis, and I believe him to be the greatest apologist of the 20th century. But (like many) I was first exposed to him through the chronicles of Narnia which my father read to us. There is a scene in The Silver Chair in which the evil queen of an underground realm is playing mind games with our heroes. She is trying to convince them that this overland, with its sun and all the things they describe is pure fantasy. The allegory is clear, but I don't know why Lewis has one of our heroes (Puddleglum, as gloomy as the name sounds) say the following:
“One word, Ma'am,” he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. “One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things—trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a playworld which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say.”


Paul wrote that if Jesus did not rise, the faith of Christ's followers was in vain. Lewis himself, in the Last Battle, portrays the dwarves as "none so blind as they that will not see." So why would a highly educated Christian apologist, thoroughly familiar with theology and philosophy from the ancient Greeks through the scholastics to the modern and early modern philosophers, believe that living a lie would be better than the truth? Sartre and even Nietzsche wrote about how devastating the cultural death of God was, yet here we find one who is at least their equal essentially arguing that if Christianity is wrong, if it is false, it's better to believe in the lie that comforts than the truth that hurts. That isn't faith through reason, but folly.

I guess the reason Is because we live in a world that's assumed to be wicked but also not changeable. Despite how much societies and cultures have changed, it's still assume that they can't change further. So the idea of something better remains as the overarching point of our existence.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I guess the reason Is because we live in a world that's assumed to be wicked but also not changeable.

"There is nothing new under the sun"

Despite how much societies and cultures have changed, it's still assume that they can't change further.

The world, it was the old world yet
I was I, my things were wet
And nothing now remained to do
But begin the game anew
Therefore since the world has still
Much good, but much less good than ill
And while the sun and moon endure
Luck’s a chance, but trouble’s sure
I’d face it as a wise man would
And train for ill, and not for good
- AE Housman

So the idea of something better remains as the overarching point of our existence.

I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of something better. Were I capable of seeing it so, I would dedicate my wasted life to such pursuits. It's the notion of living a lie just because it is better that is so repugnant to me; not in general, of course, but for C. S. Lewis to argue believing in a lie is better than a truth when he, as the inheritor to a 1,000+ years of trying to understand Truth (and therefore his God) argues that "the noble lie" is better than the staring into they abyss, I can't help but wonder.

I do not believe that Lewis wouldn't "admit that there's no evidence for God" because he believed that there wasn't and was lying to himself. Quite the contrary. But never so clearly has he expressed a view that the lie is better than the truth if it comforts. Nietzsche's madman (Der tolle Mensch) had more foresight here. I do not wish, like G. K. Chesterton's adventurer who sets out only to discover his own land, to feel, like he, better for finding what was sought in what there already was to begin with.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Ok, I will play along. Answer the following questions for me...this unicorn;

1. Is it ominpresent
2. Is it ominipotent
3. Is it omnibenevolent
4. Is it ominiscient
5. Is it immaterial
6. Did it create the universe

Of course I see where you are going with this, and these are trick questions, and I am already letting you know that you will fall right into the trap even before it happens

So go ahead, answer those questions how you see fit.

Why does this matter? But for the sake of playing along. Yes to all but again there is zero proof of any of this except for what someone said in Ancient China 4000 years ago.

Not so fast. Before you have your victory celebration, please answer the questions above. Go ahead, pick a card :beach:

I won't lie. This looks like fun. Its like TV watching what you come up with.

 

[nash8]

"There is nothing new under the sun"

There's a ton of new stuff under the sun, atleast our sun.

I do not believe that Lewis wouldn't "admit that there's no evidence for God" because he believed that there wasn't and was lying to himself. Quite the contrary. But never so clearly has he expressed a view that the lie is better than the truth if it comforts. Nietzsche's madman (Der tolle Mensch) had more foresight here. I do not wish, like G. K. Chesterton's adventurer who sets out only to discover his own land, to feel, like he, better for finding what was sought in what there already was to begin with.

What is the truth though? You yourself have stated that truth and/or proof only exists in mathematics. Does mathematics say that truth is comfort/happiness or that truth is discomfort/unhappiness? How do you believe in a lie or in a truth when nothing can realistically be proven or disproven?