Mysteries of the Bible

[Adalbertus]

The dates are highly debatable. John is often thought to be from 150 AD.

For John, I know only of around 90 AD. The other three usually are dated before the destruction of the Temple in 67 AD, which was around 30 years after the death of Jesus. At that time, there should have been still enough people around who remembered what happened.

Well Julius wrote his one books. Others wrote about him. There are statues from HIS time and coins and much else besides a few books. For Jesus there are only religious books and they do not agree on all things.

Certainly, but everything is Roman and Augustus had certainly better means to fake a person than the evangelists. (Btw. from a teacher who taught latin and religion, I've heard a birth story of Augustus, him being a son of gods, similar to Jesus ...)

In a similar way, there is even a historian who claims Charlemagne and the century around him is a fake

The problem with all historical accounts is that when you forbid sources written by those who are interested in a certain person, you can question everything.

That is mere evasion. Free will has nothing to do with a design so bad ALL but eight are evil.

To put things clear: I don't believe in the Bible literally as written by God. Especially the beginning of Genesis contains myths, adopted from mesopotamia. There was a big flood, which evolved into the Utnapishtim(?) (I think he was the mesopotamian Noah) / Gilgamesh epos, and later to Noah. Anyway, the flood was first, then came the myth and later the Jews looked for an explanation.

If you look at the story not as a historical account but a theological writing, the consequences are completely different: Even if there were only eight in all the humanity who are just, and God is really upset by all others, God doesn't drown them with the others but saves them.

The first thing I would take "half-historically" is Abraham, in the sense that there was a (nomad) family or group who moved from Mesopotamia to Egypt and in which most of the religion/tribe was formed.


Similarly with the gospels: They "historical" accounts serve as a background story for the tradition of the teaching and the passion of Jesus. The miracles also have much more of a theological background (your faith has helped you) than as a direct historical account.

Aldabertus: what do Matthew and Luke say?

Sorry, in what respect exactly? They say a lot
Both of them give a decendence list of Jesus, Matthew starting with Abraham, Luke starting with Adam.

The idea of what exactly means Jesus being the son of God has changed during the time the gospels were written. The oldest, St. Mark, doesn't contain a birth story, and Jesus claims the Messiah is not son of David. What Jesus made being son of God was a sort of being adopted, during his baptism by John Baptist. Mark, 1, 9-11:

9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

(All gospels agree on that).

Matthew and Luke, who were written somewhat later, both say explicitly that Jesus is begotten by God Father, and give the descendence list leading to Joseph. (The question is here if being the legal father, i. e. the husband of the mother, is what makes him of the line of David; I don't know the Jewish ideas about that of 2000 years ago).

Only the latest gospel, St. John, says something like that the Son existed from the beginning of time. (and again, no account on birth or childhood).

I hope that is what you meant ...

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Biblethumpers tend to think, Ethelred, that if you don't believe in their interpretation of the Bible, you must be a heathen atheist.

I don't believe in the Bible, and I am not an atheist. Chew on that!

I am Agnostic. A general undefined god can be neither proven or disproven. However a god or at least the writings about the god can be disproven if they are specific enough. The Bible is pretty specific in some places. It doesn't fit reality very well in some places.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Adalbertus
For John, I know only of around 90 AD. The other three usually are dated before the destruction of the Temple in 67 AD, which was around 30 years after the death of Jesus. At that time, there should have been still enough people around who remembered what happened.

That is the only reason for the date you are using. I am talking about historical evidence. When the first signs of the gospels show up in history.

Certainly, but everything is Roman and Augustus had certainly better means to fake a person than the evangelists. (Btw. from a teacher who taught latin and religion, I've heard a birth story of Augustus, him being a son of gods, similar to Jesus ...)

Not true. There is evidence outside of Roman sources unless of course you are claiming every place that Rome touched is Roman.

There are no statues of Jesus from his time. Agustus could not make statue of Julius in the time of Julius without access to a time machine.

In a similar way, there is even a historian who claims Charlemagne and the century around him is a fake

While there IS a load of myth surrounding Charlemagne there seems to be ample evidence that he actually existed.

The problem with all historical accounts is that when you forbid sources written by those who are interested in a certain person, you can question everything.

I am only saying you can't prove the Bible with the Bible. There is nothing supernatural about Julius. The Bible is claiming something supernatural. That is an extraordinary claim. By the standards you are trying to use we should accept The Book of Mormon. Of course for that there should be evidence that doesn't exist. Then again the same holds true for Genesis.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

To put things clear: I don't believe in the Bible literally as written by God. Especially the beginning of Genesis contains myths, adopted from mesopotamia. There was a big flood, which evolved into the Utnapishtim(?) (I think he was the mesopotamian Noah) / Gilgamesh epos, and later to Noah. Anyway, the flood was first, then came the myth and later the Jews looked for an explanation.

Which makes it mere myth and legend. Nothing special. In fact it is less special than Gilgamesh because Gilgamesh came first.

If you look at the story not as a historical account but a theological writing, the consequences are completely different: Even if there were only eight in all the humanity who are just, and God is really upset by all others, God doesn't drown them with the others but saves them.

Which is rewriting the Bible. If it is that inacurate there is no reason to believe the god that is in it. We know the Flood did not happen so there is no reason to believe in the god that is associated with that flood.

The first thing I would take "half-historically" is Abraham, in the sense that there was a (nomad) family or group who moved from Mesopotamia to Egypt and in which most of the religion/tribe was formed.

Possibly but there is no sign of Israelites till much later. However that doesn't mean they didn't exist as nomads don't leave a lot of evidence behind.

Similarly with the gospels: They "historical" accounts serve as a background story for the tradition of the teaching and the passion of Jesus. The miracles also have much more of a theological background (your faith has helped you) than as a direct historical account.

If you treat the miracles as mere stories you no longer have anything special.

Sorry, in what respect exactly? They say a lot
Both of them give a decendence list of Jesus, Matthew starting with Abraham, Luke starting with Adam.

They give different lists. Not just concerning the starting point either. So at least one is wrong.

[Adalbertus]

That is the only reason for the date you are using. I am talking about historical evidence. When the first signs of the gospels show up in history.

Usually you can also get hints about the time of writing when you look at what books refer to and what not. (Of course it's safer to look at what they know). The language itself can give some hints. It is evident (at least for philologists) that Matthew and Luke both copied from Mark (and another source), therefore Mark is earlier. Luke was an adherent of Paul, and he doesn't write anything about Peter or Paul being dead or killed. If they were martyrs, it would have been certainly a reason to write about, if they were not, he'd probably written about this. According to the tradition (which you may have doubts about) they became martyrs in 67 or 68 during the prosecutions. So it is at least highly probable that the gospels of Mark and Luke were written before 68. And at least Peter certainly wasn't much younger than Jesus, such that if he still lived 100 AD he would have been very old.
- so far to the dating if you don't believe that it is possible to fake contemporary persons in a large scale.

What about Qumran? I'm not on the current with all the findings, but I thought this place was "closed down" by the Romans about 70 AD. Weren't there also some parts of the New Testament found?

They give different lists. Not just concerning the starting point either. So at least one is wrong.

I already said that.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Adalbertus

Usually you can also get hints about the time of writing when you look at what books refer to and what not. (Of course it's safer to look at what they know). The language itself can give some hints. It is evident (at least for philologists) that Matthew and Luke both copied from Mark (and another source), therefore Mark is earlier

Skipping on a bit to save server space.

- so far to the dating if you don't believe that it is possible to fake contemporary persons in a large scale.

Its mainly John that is in question. The others may or may not be from the Apostles in the Bible as the internal evidence can be used either way. They may also be two oral variants of one original that were not written till significantly later. My own thought is that Luke is the most likely to have written down by the putative author. The others may have been told by Mathew and Mark though.

What about Qumran? I'm not on the current with all the findings, but I thought this place was "closed down" by the Romans about 70 AD. Weren't there also some parts of the New Testament found?

Had to look that up. I don't think of the place but the artifacts. That is the Dead Sea Scrolls. I have never heard of anything from the New Testament being found there. I think that would be something both of us would be aware of.

Well here is the first link I found

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Library/library.html

Nothing mentioned there about the New Testament.

I already said that.

Sorry if I missed that. I still don't see you saying it though with a second look. Especially the part about one of them having to be wrong.

[Adalbertus]

Its mainly John that is in question.

Saint John is the one which seems to be most affected by other philosophies (gnosis), too.

Sorry if I missed that. I still don't see you saying it though with a second look. Especially the part about one of them having to be wrong.

Zevico, It's interesting that there are two different genealogies which relate Jesus to David, Matthew1,2-16, and Luke 3,23-31. They even don't agree on Josephs father. In Mark, 12,35-36, Jesus explains that the Messiah cannot be the son of David.

My third post on this thread, still page one. If one of the genealogies is correct, the remark of Mark would be somewhat strange...

Unfortunately enough, the Catholic Church seems to keep close hands on the Qumran site and findings. Perhaps there is something that doesn't please someone

[Ethelred]

Unfortunately enough, the Catholic Church seems to keep close hands on the Qumran site and findings. Perhaps there is something that doesn't please someone

This notion you have seems a bit obsolete. Most of it has been published. Lots on the web.

http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/dssfacts.html

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/intro.html

There does seem to be a lot odd stuff going on though. Incompetence may be the main cause though.

[MrFun]

What I find interesting, is how the early Christian religion tried to massage different pagan ideas into their religion, in order to convert those pagans.

For instance, with the neo-Platonic, pagan philosophers such as these guys:

Plotinus, Porphery, and Simplicius