Personal Spiritual Problems

[Sava]

hallowed are the ori

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
By interesting coincidence, there's a review in today's Salon of what sounds like a completely goofy book -- by one of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail -- that purports that Jesus faked his own death. That's not worth dwelling on. But the review -- which would seem to be both more thoughtful and better-written than the book it's reviewing -- does make this point rather eloqently:

~PLato~
Date Written: 400 b.c./ Earliest copies: a.d. 900/ Time gap: 1300 years/ Number of copies: 7

~Caesar: Gallic Wars~
Date Written:100-44 b.c./ earliest copies: a.d. 900/ Time gap: 1000 years/ number of copies: 10

~herodotus: history~
Date Written 480-425 b.c./ Earlist copies: a.d. 900/ Time Gap 1350 yrs./ Number of Copies: 8

~Demosthenes~
Date Written: 300b.c./ Earliest Copies: a.d 1100/ Time Gap: 1400 yrs./ Number of copies: 200

People trust these works. No one questions their authenticity. Then we have the New Testament....

~New Testament~
Date Written: a.d. 50-100/ Earliest Copies: a.d. 114 (fragment), a.d. 200 (books) a.d. 250 (Most of the NT) a.d. 325 (complete NT)/ Time gap: +50 (fragment), 100 (books), 150 (most of the NT) 225 (complete NT)/ Number of copies: 5366

In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the document, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity.

The academic discipline of "textual criticism" assures us that the Bible translations we have today are essentially the same as the ancient Bible manuscripts, with the exception of a few inconsequential discrepancies that have been introduced over time through copyist error. We must remember that the Bible was hand-copied for hundreds of years before the invention of the first printing press. Nevertheless, the text is exceedingly well preserved. Again, I pondered this -- of the approximately 20,000 lines that make up the entire New Testament, only 40 lines are in question. These 40 lines represent one quarter of one percent of the entire text and do not in any way affect the teaching and doctrine of the New Testament. I again compared this with Homer's Iliad. Of the approximately 15,600 lines that make up Homer's classic, 764 lines are in question. These 764 lines represent over 5% of the entire text, and yet nobody seems to question the general integrity of that ancient work.

To my real surprise, I discovered the Bible to be better preserved -- by far -- than other ancient works I've read and accepted over the years, such as Homer, Plato and Aristotle. As far as my "interpretation of an interpolation of an oral tradition" theory, I found that the Bible was not changed or interpreted from the ancient source texts. Simply, as the Bible was carried from country to country, it was translated into languages that don't necessarily mirror the original languages of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. However, other than some grammatical and cultural differences, the "Bible manuscripts" are absolutely true to their original form and content, and remarkably well-preserved in their various translations.

-- FF Bruce

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Except that the books you cite are either

1) Not used as historical sources, or

2) Have content that has been been independently verified by other sources, archeological research, etc.

I know of no historian who treats everything in Heredotus or Tacticus as true; they are starting points into an inquiry of what actually happened. I'm happy to treat the NT as a starting point into what actually happened, but that notion seems to make many Christians go ballistic.

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Sava
hallowed are the ori

Funny stuff - didn`t think you would get anything out of it but then did you really want to?

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Except that the books you cite are either

1) Not used as historical sources, or

2) Have content that has been been independently verified by other sources, archeological research, etc.

I know of no historian who treats everything in Heredotus or Tacticus as true; they are starting points into an inquiry of what actually happened. I'm happy to treat the NT as a starting point into what actually happened, but that notion seems to make many Christians go ballistic.

Thats cool - check out the Nag Hammadi find if you really want the truth of the matter. Its been supressed by the secular (for the lack of a better term) because of the overwhelming proof and the orthodox church because it flies in the face of dogma.

If you want to know other sources other than the Bible of early Christian thought and historical evidence in detail check out the 1945 uncovering of a huge amount of what was also considered scripture by early Christians.

[Jon Miller]

No one argues that there were not some (many even) gnostics. To suggest that that was the common beleif among followers of Christ is reaching though (and without evidence).

Jon Miller

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
No one argues that there were not some (many even) gnostics. To suggest that that was the common beleif among followers of Christ is reaching though (and without evidence).

Jon Miller

Jon, I hear this from other theologians all the time. They 'know' without doubt it is heresy but the funny thing is, none of them actually read the texts for themselves. How can these guys be so sure when they haven`t taken the time to check for themselves?

That would be like me telling you how to do your job, I don`t even know what you do for a living.

Have you read the Nag Hammadi texts?

[Jon Miller]

I have read some of the gospel of Thomas

I should (and plan on) reading more

I have read a bit about the gnostics, however, and it seemed fairly obviously heavily influenced by some other thought (I think greek)

JM

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by beingofone


Thats cool - check out the Nag Hammadi find if you really want the truth of the matter. Its been supressed by the secular (for the lack of a better term) because of the overwhelming proof and the orthodox church because it flies in the face of dogma.

If you want to know other sources other than the Bible of early Christian thought and historical evidence in detail check out the 1945 uncovering of a huge amount of what was also considered scripture by early Christians.

"Surpressed by the secular?" What in the name of Christ on a crutch are you talking about? Elaine Pagels' book on the Nag Hammadi find, The Gnostic Gospels was a best-seller and won the National Book Award, the National Book Critics Circle Award, and was named by the Modern Library as one of the hundred most important books of the 20th century. On top of that, her more recent book on one of the texts, the "Gospel of Thomas," was also a best-seller. If that's suppression, it's got to be the very worst act of suppression ever.

As for checking out the sources, I have. "Overwhelming proof"? Of what? That Jesus existed? I've already said I believe that. But Nag Hammadi isn't overwhelming proof of anything except that nobody really knows what Jesus said and did. Nag Hammadi opens up many, many questions, and answers none -- which is why Athanasius ordered those texts destroyed to begin with.

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I have read some of the gospel of Thomas

I should (and plan on) reading more

I have read a bit about the gnostics, however, and it seemed fairly obviously heavily influenced by some other thought (I think greek)

JM

Anything that is not cannon is dubbed 'gnostic'. Its ridiculous really. Read them for yourself and come to your own conclusion.


Rufus T. Firefly:

"Surpressed by the secular?" What in the name of Christ on a crutch are you talking about? Elaine Pagels' book on the Nag Hammadi find, The Gnostic Gospels was a best-seller and won the National Book Award, the National Book Critics Circle Award, and was named by the Modern Library as one of the hundred most important books of the 20th century. On top of that, her more recent book on one of the texts, the "Gospel of Thomas," was also a best-seller. If that's suppression, it's got to be the very worst act of suppression ever.

Hold on to your flame and I will explain.


I am very familiar with Pagels` take on the texts. She really should reread them and try to remain objective. Her spin is really out of control and most everyone uses her(and others) glasses to filter what was written.

As for checking out the sources, I have. "Overwhelming proof"? Of what? That Jesus existed? I've already said I believe that. But Nag Hammadi isn't overwhelming proof of anything except that nobody really knows what Jesus said and did. Nag Hammadi opens up many, many questions, and answers none -- which is why Athanasius ordered those texts destroyed to begin with.

On the contrary, it tells us that the early Christian movement did not have a "dogma". It did not have a hierarchy as it is known today.
And most importantly - it tells us that Jesus was commonly believed to be resurrected. Regardless Pagels and her spin.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by beingofone

On the contrary, it tells us that the early Christian movement did not have a "dogma". It did not have a hierarchy as it is known today.

Not only do I know that, it's what I myself was arguing 3 pages ago.

And most importantly - it tells us that Jesus was commonly believed to be resurrected. Regardless Pagels and her spin.

Pagels doesn't deny that; far from it. She does note, however -- as other scholars have -- that the earliest texts, either canonical or non-canonical, don't feature the resurrection, and that it seems to have been added in later.

But I'm not sure what your point is. That because all early Christians believed something, it is likely to be true? That's practically tautological, but at any rate its certainly not good reasoning.

[beingofone]

Rufus T. Firefly:

Not only do I know that, it's what I myself was arguing 3 pages ago.

Cool - then we agree.

Pagels doesn't deny that; far from it. She does note, however -- as other scholars have -- that the earliest texts, either canonical or non-canonical, don't feature the resurrection, and that it seems to have been added in later.

See - thats it right there, that is just not true. Almost every NT book contains reference to the resurrection.
I will check into the dating of the Nag Hammadi as I have never checked so I cannot say one way or the other.

But I'm not sure what your point is. That because all early Christians believed something, it is likely to be true? That's practically tautological, but at any rate its certainly not good reasoning.

Only if you dicount the fact that substantial portions of the Roman Empire had groups of Christians scattered throughout by the end of the first century.

Think about what it would take to pull that off. Also books were extreemly expensive and involved not just one person as today but usually several if not dozens to cooperate.

We are talking the biggest hoax in the history of mankind under the nose of the efficient Romans.

Anyway this is kind of a threadjack and so I enjoyed talking with you and will read carefully your response and then call it.

Take care Rufus

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by beingofone
Rufus T. Firefly:



Cool - then we agree.



See - thats it right there, that is just not true. Almost every NT book contains reference to the resurrection.
I will check into the dating of the Nag Hammadi as I have never checked so I cannot say one way or the other.

But not every book has stayed the same over time. The oldest versions we have of Mark -- the oldest of the 3 synoptic gospels -- contain no reference to the resurrection. So teh resurrection was added in, at least 30 years after the supposed event.

Only if you dicount the fact that substantial portions of the Roman Empire had groups of Christians scattered throughout by the end of the first century.

Think about what it would take to pull that off. Also books were extreemly expensive and involved not just one person as today but usually several if not dozens to cooperate.

We are talking the biggest hoax in the history of mankind under the nose of the efficient Romans.

Anyway this is kind of a threadjack and so I enjoyed talking with you and will read carefully your response and then call it.

Take care Rufus

It's not a hoax, it's a belief. Moreover, it is a tautology. If you define "Christians" as people who believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and then point out that the bodily resurrection of Jesus was widely believed in by Christians, you're not exactly advancing an argument, are you?

Still, I think we're more on the same page than not.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Alright. Now can you tell me how that compares to all the other historical figures that we accept at first hand from the same period? How do we know anything about Julius Caesar or Octavian, or any of the Romans for that matter.

BK, we have gone through this same thing millions if not billions of times.

The big difference is all these other historical figures have external evidence to support their existence. Jesus of Nazareth has none.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How many copies do we have of these sources which have been copied and translated over the last 2000 years?

You miss the point really badly here. Maybe lightyear is the unit to use.

[trev]

If God is a superior being and intelligence and power than us, then any discussion on truth should be on what God has taught, not on what humans think. Therefore the most vital decision to be made is whether God has authored any religious or other writings ( through humans or by any other means) and which ones. If a particular set of writings is accepted as God,s word, then full trust needs to be placed in that writing and we should live our lifes in harmony with God's word as much as is humanly possible.
If there are no writings that we can accept as God's word, then we need to follow our instincts and live as best as we can by them. If we decide God is not a higher power or intelligence, then the subject can be ignored.
But as for me, I, through study of the bible and the universe and my experiences of human life have led me to conclude that the Bible is Gods word. Therefore I place my full trust in it and its teachings and as it is a book that is very specific in its teaching of what being a christian is, I can on that basis state that any person who does not believe that Jesus is the sinless Son of God who came to earth as a human being, was crucified and died, and was then resurrected from the dead on the third day is not a christian. A true christian also believes that they have committed evil in their lives and therefore needs God's forgiveness which is offered to all by Jesus Christ through the cleansing power of his blood.