Reliability of the Gospels
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-12-2012, 03:15 AM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(15-12-2012 02:57 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(15-12-2012 01:19 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  Smile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_M...nd_sources

oddly enough

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_for_Jesus#Eusebius

Eusebius is considered the most likely perpetrator of the claimed mention of Jesus in Josephus.
If you haven't read my post at #84, check it out for a fascinating explanation of the origin of the gospels
I like Mark's radically different views of things. He makes us think out of the box, which is a good thing. I don't know if I can agree with the Vespasian inventing Jesus as Messiah, using Josephus, though. There may be some kernel of truth in there, but Josephus spent so much time debunking all the other messiah "pretenders", in favor of (just) Vespasian, I doubt he would have been complicit in a project which went against his main thrust. Maybe though, just for the Jews ?? But if Josephus was up to that, (and he certainly was a whelp, doing whatever "massah" (the Emperor), or whatever he *thought* the Emperor wanted, him to do to make Vespasian look like the messiah), then he would have spent time in his writings trying to establish that .. and it seems he didn't. Since there were so many gospels, I do think we can be pretty sure they were liturgical texts for use in worship, as proclamations of beliefs. (They certainly were not written for "general reading", as the literacy rate was so low, and they cost so much, and took so much trouble to create.)

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
15-12-2012, 04:16 AM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(15-12-2012 03:15 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(15-12-2012 02:57 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  If you haven't read my post at #84, check it out for a fascinating explanation of the origin of the gospels
I like Mark's radically different views of things. He makes us think out of the box, which is a good thing. I don't know if I can agree with the Vespasian inventing Jesus as Messiah, using Josephus, though. There may be some kernel of truth in there, but Josephus spent so much time debunking all the other messiah "pretenders", in favor of (just) Vespasian, I doubt he would have been complicit in a project which went against his main thrust. Maybe though, just for the Jews ?? But if Josephus was up to that, (and he certainly was a whelp, doing whatever "massah" (the Emperor), or whatever he *thought* the Emperor wanted, him to do to make Vespasian look like the messiah), then he would have spent time in his writings trying to establish that .. and it seems he didn't. Since there were so many gospels, I do think we can be pretty sure they were liturgical texts for use in worship, as proclamations of beliefs. (They certainly were not written for "general reading", as the literacy rate was so low, and they cost so much, and took so much trouble to create.)
Hi Bucky! Nice to hear from you. I'm glad you read that.

I think, if there's truth in this theory, Titus was trying to convince Jews that their messiah had already been and gone. What that meant was that he hoped to rob them of their inspiration to start another war.

It's not as far-fetched a theory as it first sounds. There's no doubt Rome was pissed off with the Jews, and was trying to control them.

It nicely explains how Christianity "began," particularly as we now know the original disciples of Yeshua were never Christians (they were, of course, fundamentalist Jews).
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2012, 09:35 AM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
Quote:
Quote:In video 16 A, the narrator starts in on his attempt to claim that the Gospel of Mark was written anonymously, and therefore is invalidated.

Narrator says that Mark recorded the statements of the apostle Peter and therefore the Gospel of Mark should be considered hearsay.

Argument against this is quite simple. If an office secretary took dictation from his/her employer and typed it in a letter, would it then be the statement of the secretary, or would the letter more accurately still reflect the statements of the employer?

Obviously the letter would still reflect the statements of the employer, and the same is true for the Gospel of Mark. Mark would simply be the secretary, and Peter would be the employer.

The author of the Gospel of Mark does not identify himself in his work, as such we have no way of knowing who wrote it. This argument is also supported by the fact that we have no original version of it. He fulfills all of the criteria for being classified as anonymous. Furthermore, the Gospel of Mark is considered to be hearsay by the maker of these videos precisely because he wasn't an eyewitness to the events and had to rely on the accounts of someone else as a consequence.


But that is not my argument. Here's the short version:


The narrator uses historical evidence to claim that the Gospel of Mark was dictated to by the Apostle Peter, and therefore calls that Gospel hearsay.

This destroy's the narrator's position immediately for 2 solid reasons:

1. Since the narrator claims Peter as the originator of the Gospel of mark, then that Gospel is not annonymous.

2. Since the narrator claims that Peter is dictating to Mark what to say, then Mark is merely holding the pen, but Peter is the actual author. This makes Peter a 1st hand witness, and not hearsay.


Seriously, the narrator didn't think this through at all. If he is going to use historical evidence in his claims, then that opens the door for me to do the same, and that is precisely what occurs in a court of law. If he is going to claim that Peter dictated the Gospel to Mark to write down, then obviously, according to the narrator's own evidence, Peter is the originator of that Gospel, and therefore is not anonymous nor using hearsay.

Not that I believe any of this crap, mind you. Merely pointing out the flaws in the narrator's argument. He shot himself in the foot.


Quote:
Quote:Narrator claims that since the Gospel of Mark is a copy of previous copies, it cannot be trusted.

Another argument against this is that if a secretary made a a few copies of a letter to be sent out, does it mean that the content of the letter has changed just because it was copied? Since the narrator fails to prove that the copy we currently possess is different from the original text, then his argument is unsubstantiated.

I thought the last analogy was already unfitting, but this one actually qualifies for the fallacy of the false analogy. A printer creates an exact copy of a document which is identical to the original. The secretary who operates the printer has no influence on the content of the copy, it will be the exact same document as the original. Now, copying a manuscript manually (by hand) allows one to make deliberate changes to the original, such as altering stories and messages, leaving things out and it opens up the possibility of making mistakes by accident. This is not the case with a printer.

The problems with your argument above are the following:

1. You injected a "printing device" into my analogy, when none was specified.

2. You inject an assumption into my analogy that that someone would make deliberate changes to the text when they copy it.

You added to the analogy in an attempt to render it as a false analogy. I cannot let you do that, dude.

Take it for what it is.

Quote:As has been demonstrated by the creator of these videos, changing certain passages to fit one's ideology was not an uncommon practice among the Gospel writers. The fact that we have no original of the Gospel of Mark is exactly the reason why it's not reliable. For all we know, the original could've been changed numerous times throughout the years.

This is yet another assumption. The narrator in these video's failed to show any substantive redaction of the texts that would fairly demonstrate enough redaction to qualify the current texts as having any substantial difference from the original. Changing an "e" to an "i" to correct a misspelling so that the subject is clearly identified is hardly a significant alteration of the text.

The narrator failed to demonstrate any significant alteration of the texts from the originals, since that would be impossible, since we do not have the original.

Therefore, he has proven nothing due to a lack of any viable physical evidence.



Quote:[quote]
Narrator's position on Hearsay is disputed, as he failed to understand that if Mark took dictation from Peter, as the narrator claims, then by no means can he claim the author of that Gospel is anonymous, as he is demonstrating evidence that suggests the Gospel's author is actually the Apostle Peter. Nor can he dismiss the Gospel as hearsay since he now admits it to be a first-hand account by the Apostle Peter./quote]

He actually didn't admit that the Gospel of Mark is the first-hand account of the Apostle Peter, he stated it's hearsay because whoever wrote the Gospel of Mark wasn't an eye-witness to the events that are described in it.

His premise was indeed to use historical references to prove his point. Unfortunately for him, the very historical references he uses also destroys his premise.

Quote:Also, his evidence actually demonstrates that the anonymous writer of the Gospel of Mark and Peter are two different persons. You should take a look at the citations from Irenaeus (03:31) and Eusebius (03:46) again. You should also take a look at the examples the narrator of the video gives for geographical errors (08:11), internal contradictions (06:46-07:50) and implausibilities (10:03) in Mark's account.

I haven't gotten that far yet, so give a little time.


Quote:With all due respect, I'd be disappointed if this is all you got.


I believe that so far, the damage to the narrator's position is already catastrophic.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2012, 10:13 AM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
Quote:What Happened to the Nazarenes?


“It is to the Nazarene records that we ought chiefly to look for our knowledge of Jesus, and we must regard Nazarenism as the true Christianity. As the Nazarenes throughout the period of personal recollection and down to the third generation, that is to say at least seventy five years after the death of Jesus, denied his deity and his virgin birth, we
must recognize that these are alien doctrines subsequently introduced by a partly paganized Church, as Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century more or less admits. The Church which received them had no other course open
than to belittle the Nazarenes and denounce them as heretics. The historian here has no difficulty in detecting the real heretics.”


(Hugh Schonfield)

The Nazarenes were the bona fide disciples of Yeshua. Much of their history is missing because the early Christians were zealous in destroying their record. Yet the tale of what happened to them can be pieced together.


James sent missionaries as far away as Rome in the 40s CE.


Paul, who masqueraded as a Nazarene, sent what is now a famous letter to the Romans urging them to obey their Roman rulers. Yet his teachings were at odds with Nazarene doctrine. From their perspective, Paul was a rank outsider. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus (d. 236 CE), Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius (c. 310 – 403 CE, bishop of Salamis)and Jerome all confirmed that the Ebionites (as the Nazarenes were later called, see below) opposed Paul as a false Apostle.


The Roman Emperor Nero may have blamed them for the great fire of 64 CE, and executed them. Christians today often incorrectly call Nero’s casualties Christians, whereas they were, if this really happened, Nazarenes. There is a Christian tradition that Peter was crucified at this time in Rome, but there’s no contemporary evidence to confirm the claim.


Hegesippus (c. 110 - 180 CE), a Christian chronicler of the early Church who may have been a Jewish convert, writes that after the death of James in 62 CE, the Nazarenes selected Symeon (aka Simeon), son of Cleophas, to be their new leader. He was either the brother or the first cousin of Jesus.


During the first Jewish war of 66-70 CE, some of the Nazarenes may have fled across the River Jordan to Pella. Yet many of them probably tried to defend Jerusalem and therefore perished. They might have expected Jesus to return in all his glory to save Jerusalem. That didn’t happen, and they must have been bitterly disappointed.


The Nazarenes never recovered their status and influence after the war. Their numbers had been decisively decimated. Yet the remaining rebels reorganized and moved back into Jerusalem in 72 CE.


Prior to 80 – 90 CE, the Nazarenes were still worshipping in synagogues alongside Pharisees. Yet they soon began to be viewed as trouble causers, probably because of their nationalistic ambitions. The Pharisaic Jews referred to them as “minim” (Hebrew for heretic). A heretic is someone who still remains within the faith, but believes in elements not acceptable to the orthodoxy, so mainstream Jews never imagined the Nazarenes were Christians. After this time a deep schism started to form between Pharisees and the Nazarenes. By 90 CE, Nazarenes were shut out from some synagogues. I suspect some Jews opted out of Nazarenism because opposing Rome was dangerous.


In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius of Caesaria wrote of the grandchildren of Jesus’ brother Jude, who were living in Galilee during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian (81–96 CE). (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm, book 3, chapter 20). He says they became dynastic leaders of various “Christian” (a misnomer) churches, and continued to be so up until the time of the Emperor Trajan (98–117 CE).


Kamal Salibi, a formerEmeritus Professor at the American University of Beirut, Department of History and Archaeology, wrote that after Symeon's death, twelve others followed in turn whose names are preserved down to 135 CE (the time of the Second Jewish Revolt). So there were fifteen leaders of the Nazarene sect after Jesus, all of whom were circumcised Jews and relations of Jesus. The word “Desposyni” was reserved uniquely for Jesus' blood relatives
and literally meant “belonging to the Lord.” They governed the ancient Nazarene church. Each carried one of the names traditional in Jesus' family: Zachary, Joseph, John, James, Joses, Symeon, Matthias, and others, although no later Desposynos was ever called Yeshua.


Eusebius wrote that they didn’t fight in the second war (135 CE) against the Romans, as they considered Simon bar Kochba, the Jewish commander, to be a false messiah. After this war, the fifteenth Nazarene leader was exiled with the remaining Jewish population when the Emperor Hadrian banned all Jews from Jerusalem.


Over the next few centuries, the Nazarene church headed by Yeshua’s relatives continued as a movement that some Jews joined. They were well respected in their own locales. From the historian Julius Africanus (160–240 CE), we learn that they took pride in their Davidic descent and circulated the genealogy that now stands at the head of Matthew’s Gospel. They moved northeastward, eventually making their way to the Tigris-Euphrates basin, spreading throughout Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia.


The early Christians considered the Nazarenes a heretical sect, so they ignored and later suppressed them. Justin Martyr denigrated their beliefs. The developing orthodox Catholic Church deliberately called them the Ebionites “the poor ones” (although Jews did not consider this term derogatory; in fact they used the term to refer to the righteous). This term wasn’t used by Christians prior to Irenaeus, who wrote


“Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates.” (These men were Gnostics who believed Jesus was a very human teacher.) “They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavor to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practice circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God”(Against Heresies 1:26).


Eusebius considered them heretics because


“they regarded [Jesus] as plain and ordinary, a man esteemed as righteous through growth of character and nothing more, the child of a normal union between a man and Mary; and they held that they must observe every detail of the Law—that by faith in Christ alone they would never win Salvation” (Ecclesiastical History 3.7). It’s apparent that Irenaeus and Eusebius depicted them honestly.


Gentile Christians came to refer to them indiscriminately as “Jewish Christians,” another misnomer, because they never
were Christians.


The gospel of Matthew that Irenaeus that refers to was probably the same gospel that Jerome (342–420 CE) and Epiphanius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13393b.htm) called the Gospel of the Nazarenes/Hebrews,
which was written in Aramaic. Jerome mentions that he made translations of it into Greek and Latin. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, no significant part of this Gospel survives today. Some scholars believe that it was loosely linked
to canonical Matthew, which fits with Matthew being the most pro-Jewish gospel of the four. It’s possible that this was how some facts about Yeshua the Nazarene insurrectionist made it into the gospels.


By the beginning of the fourth century, the Roman Catholic Church was becoming dominant and there were confrontations with Jews, including the Nazarenes. With the Synod of Elvira, held in 306 CE, prohibitions against eating, marriage, and sex with Jews were enacted in the Roman Empire. Nazarenes were included in this ban, which in effect excluded them from all social and religious association with those in the growing gentile Pauline church.


The Emperor Constantine appointed Sylvester as the head bishop of the universal church in 313 CE. According to the Irish Jesuit historian Malachi Martin, a meeting took place in 318 CE in Rome between Pope Sylvester I and the
Desposyni. Sylvester provided sea travel for the Nazarene leaders as far as the Roman port of Ostia, thirty kilometres west of Rome. The fact that Sylvester thought it necessary to meet with them suggests that he was curious. Yet he
initiated the meeting with the intention of exerting his pontifical authorityover them.


The Nazarene leaders who appeared before Pope Sylvester thought they represented the true legacy of Yeshua. They were, after all, his blood relations, as there were at least three well-known and authentic lines of legitimate blood descent from Yeshua's own family. They were eight in number, and Joses, the oldest of them, spoke on their behalf. They bluntly refused to recognize the Roman church as having any authority, and made the following demands:


(1) that the confirmation of the Christian bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus and Alexandria be revoked;


(2) that these bishoprics be conferred on members of the Desposyni;


(3) that the Law be reintroduced, which included the Sabbath and the Holy Day system of Feasts, and


(4) that Christian Churches resume sending money to the Desposyni Church in Jerusalem, which was to be regarded as the “Mother Church.”


Such bold claims of authority must have come as a surprise to Sylvester, who refused their demands.They were told that Jesus’ church had moved to Rome, and that they had no jurisdiction. Sylvester must have known his church was the foreign impostor, but that didn’t concern him. The politics of power were more important than the truth. This was
the last known formal dialogue between Christian and Nazarene leaders.


A few years later Nazarenes began to surface in southern Upper Egypt. In this remote locale, far from the center of gentile Christianity, they continued to practice their beliefs.


In 364 CE, the Catholic Council of Laodicea decreed anathema on any “Jewish Christians” who continued to observe the
seventh-day Sabbath. Historical references to Nazarenes became scarce after this date. Inevitably the few remaining believers petered out.


The Nazarenes were a Jewish sect that, at least in the first century, had strong political ambitions. Christianity
stole Yeshua the Nazarene’s identity, and reinvented him, not only as its founder, but also as God incarnate and the savior of the world. Christians then denied the Nazarene’s real link with Jesus. The Nazarenes struggled on for four
centuries after Yeshua’s death, when Christians snuffed them out. If Yeshua and his original disciples were alive today, they’d be dumbfounded at the distortion of their legacy.


References:


Eisenman, Robert H. “James the Brother of Jesus:
The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea
Scrolls”


Klinghoffer, D. 1965 “Why The Jews Rejected Jesus”. Doubleday.United States Of America.


Lockhart, D. 1997 “Jesus The Heretic”. Element Books. Dorset.


Lockhart, D. 1999 “The Dark Side Of God”. Element Books. Dorset


Schonfield, H. 1969 “Those Incredible Christians”. Bantam.
New York.


Thijs Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon co-wrote “Operation Messiah”


http://douglaslockhart.com/pdf/THE
NAZORAEAN SECT.pdf


http://www.yashanet.com/library/nazarene_judaism.html


Okay, here's the problem.

When you group James and John together, it is very easy to understand that you are speaking of John and James, the Sons of Thunder, brothers from the Gospel record.

I have no problem with James, the brother of Jesus, actually being the brother of Jesus.


Now, in regards to the Nazarene ...

I have checked your references and what I find is not complete. Although these historians are quite qualified, the lack of direct historical evidence to support their position is very very scant. At best those historians are formulating a plausible theory based upon the scant evidence they have, and for much of it I agree, but also for much of it I cannot agree because of the lack of supporting evidence.

However, I can accept most of the evidence regarding Yeshua and the Nazarene based upon the higher probability argument. In this respect, your explanation is acceptable.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2012, 11:13 AM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(15-12-2012 09:35 AM)Free Wrote:  But that is not my argument. Here's the short version:


The narrator uses historical evidence to claim that the Gospel of Mark was dictated to by the Apostle Peter, and therefore calls that Gospel hearsay.

This destroy's the narrator's position immediately for 2 solid reasons:

1. Since the narrator claims Peter as the originator of the Gospel of mark, then that Gospel is not annonymous.

2. Since the narrator claims that Peter is dictating to Mark what to say, then Mark is merely holding the pen, but Peter is the actual author. This makes Peter a 1st hand witness, and not hearsay.


Seriously, the narrator didn't think this through at all. If he is going to use historical evidence in his claims, then that opens the door for me to do the same, and that is precisely what occurs in a court of law. If he is going to claim that Peter dictated the Gospel to Mark to write down, then obviously, according to the narrator's own evidence, Peter is the originator of that Gospel, and therefore is not anonymous nor using hearsay.

Not that I believe any of this crap, mind you. Merely pointing out the flaws in the narrator's argument. He shot himself in the foot.
(15-12-2012 09:35 AM)Free Wrote:  His premise was indeed to use historical references to prove his point. Unfortunately for him, the very historical references he uses also destroys his premise.
As I've said in my last post, his evidence demonstrates that the two of them are not one and the same person. Further down this post, you said that you haven't looked at the parts I was talking about yet, so I'm going to wait until you have done that.

With that aside, I think we differentiate on the definition of hearsay.

Article VIII. Hearsay Wrote:Rule 801. Definitions
The following definitions apply under this article:

(a.) Statement.—A ‘‘statement’’ is (1.) an oral or written assertion or (2.) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion.
(b.) Declarant.—A ‘‘declarant’’ is a person who makes a statement.
(c.) Hearsay.—‘‘Hearsay’’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
(d.) Statements which are not hearsay.—A statement is not hearsay if—

(1.) Prior statement by witness.—The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is
(A.) inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding,or in a deposition, or
(B.) consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or
(C.) one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person; or

(2.) Admission by party-opponent.—The statement is offered against a party and is
(A.) the party’s own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity or
(B.) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or
(C.) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or
(D.) a statement by the party’s agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, or
(E.) a statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The contents of the statement shall be considered but are not alone sufficient to establish the declarant’s authority under subdivision (C.), the agency or employment relationship and scope thereof under subdivision (D.), or the existence of the conspiracy and the participation therein of the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered under subdivision (E.).

Rule 802. Hearsay Rule
Hearsay Rule Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority or by Act of Congress.
According to the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Gospel of Mark, if the anonymous writer was relying on the accounts of someone else (Paul), qualifies as hearsay.

(15-12-2012 09:35 AM)Free Wrote:  The problems with your argument above are the following:

1. You injected a "printing device" into my analogy, when none was specified.

2. You inject an assumption into my analogy that that someone would make deliberate changes to the text when they copy it.
1. Do you want to claim that a secretary wouldn't be using a printer/computer to make an exact copy but copy them manually using her own hands? Granted, you didn't specify which method she would use to copy the documents, but if neither of the aforementioned devices were used by her in your analogy, then your usage of the term "secretary" is misleading, because it has several implications and connotations.

2. No. I stated that your analogy is poor because there is no reason and no way for the secretary to make any changes, whereas a motivation and the possibility existed for the author of the Gospel of Mark. The narrator demonstrated that these types of changes have been made. Furthermore, a secretary who is copying letters for her employee, regardless of the device she uses, has no reason to make any deliberate alterations to them. More than that, if she were to change the content of the letters, she would be at risk of loosing her job. No such concerns existed for the Gospel writers.

(15-12-2012 09:35 AM)Free Wrote:  This is yet another assumption. The narrator in these video's failed to show any substantive redaction of the texts that would fairly demonstrate enough redaction to qualify the current texts as having any substantial difference from the original. Changing an "e" to an "i" to correct a misspelling so that the subject is clearly identified is hardly a significant alteration of the text.

The narrator failed to demonstrate any significant alteration of the texts from the originals, since that would be impossible, since we do not have the original.

Therefore, he has proven nothing due to a lack of any viable physical evidence.
I'd prefer if you would stop claiming that he doesn't demonstrate X until you have watched the entire series. The narrator gives much more significant examples than that of changing Chrestianos to Christianos to demonstrate the the Gospels' contents have been altered by others.

(15-12-2012 09:35 AM)Free Wrote:  I haven't gotten that far yet, so give a little time.
Sure.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2012, 02:44 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(14-12-2012 11:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(14-12-2012 10:28 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  

Thanks for posting this. Free, you need to watch it.

Bart claims the authors were retelling stories they had heard. I disagree. I think Mark's gospel (the first to be written) was probably manufactured de novo.


I have seen this video, and agree with it about 90%.

However, what is being missed in this video? Bart is telling us that the consensus is that the scholars can list at least 8 things about Jesus/Yeshua from the Gospels that have a high degree of historical value.

This indicates that even Bart himself agrees that the Gospels do indeed have some degree of historical value.

Personally, I am satisfied with stating that somebody named Jesus who was considered to be the Messiah by many Jews in 1st century Israel was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

The rest I could give two shits about.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2012, 06:14 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(15-12-2012 09:35 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:The author of the Gospel of Mark does not identify himself in his work, as such we have no way of knowing who wrote it. This argument is also supported by the fact that we have no original version of it. He fulfills all of the criteria for being classified as anonymous. Furthermore, the Gospel of Mark is considered to be hearsay by the maker of these videos precisely because he wasn't an eyewitness to the events and had to rely on the accounts of someone else as a consequence.


But that is not my argument. Here's the short version:


The narrator uses historical evidence to claim that the Gospel of Mark was dictated to by the Apostle Peter, and therefore calls that Gospel hearsay.

This destroy's the narrator's position immediately for 2 solid reasons:

1. Since the narrator claims Peter as the originator of the Gospel of mark, then that Gospel is not annonymous.

2. Since the narrator claims that Peter is dictating to Mark what to say, then Mark is merely holding the pen, but Peter is the actual author. This makes Peter a 1st hand witness, and not hearsay.


Seriously, the narrator didn't think this through at all. If he is going to use historical evidence in his claims, then that opens the door for me to do the same, and that is precisely what occurs in a court of law. If he is going to claim that Peter dictated the Gospel to Mark to write down, then obviously, according to the narrator's own evidence, Peter is the originator of that Gospel, and therefore is not anonymous nor using hearsay.

Not that I believe any of this crap, mind you. Merely pointing out the flaws in the narrator's argument. He shot himself in the foot.


Quote:I thought the last analogy was already unfitting, but this one actually qualifies for the fallacy of the false analogy. A printer creates an exact copy of a document which is identical to the original. The secretary who operates the printer has no influence on the content of the copy, it will be the exact same document as the original. Now, copying a manuscript manually (by hand) allows one to make deliberate changes to the original, such as altering stories and messages, leaving things out and it opens up the possibility of making mistakes by accident. This is not the case with a printer.

The problems with your argument above are the following:

1. You injected a "printing device" into my analogy, when none was specified.

2. You inject an assumption into my analogy that that someone would make deliberate changes to the text when they copy it.

You added to the analogy in an attempt to render it as a false analogy. I cannot let you do that, dude.

Take it for what it is.

Quote:As has been demonstrated by the creator of these videos, changing certain passages to fit one's ideology was not an uncommon practice among the Gospel writers. The fact that we have no original of the Gospel of Mark is exactly the reason why it's not reliable. For all we know, the original could've been changed numerous times throughout the years.

This is yet another assumption. The narrator in these video's failed to show any substantive redaction of the texts that would fairly demonstrate enough redaction to qualify the current texts as having any substantial difference from the original. Changing an "e" to an "i" to correct a misspelling so that the subject is clearly identified is hardly a significant alteration of the text.

The narrator failed to demonstrate any significant alteration of the texts from the originals, since that would be impossible, since we do not have the original.

Therefore, he has proven nothing due to a lack of any viable physical evidence.



Quote:
Quote:
Narrator's position on Hearsay is disputed, as he failed to understand that if Mark took dictation from Peter, as the narrator claims, then by no means can he claim the author of that Gospel is anonymous, as he is demonstrating evidence that suggests the Gospel's author is actually the Apostle Peter. Nor can he dismiss the Gospel as hearsay since he now admits it to be a first-hand account by the Apostle Peter./quote]

He actually didn't admit that the Gospel of Mark is the first-hand account of the Apostle Peter, he stated it's hearsay because whoever wrote the Gospel of Mark wasn't an eye-witness to the events that are described in it.

His premise was indeed to use historical references to prove his point. Unfortunately for him, the very historical references he uses also destroys his premise.

Quote:Also, his evidence actually demonstrates that the anonymous writer of the Gospel of Mark and Peter are two different persons. You should take a look at the citations from Irenaeus (03:31) and Eusebius (03:46) again. You should also take a look at the examples the narrator of the video gives for geographical errors (08:11), internal contradictions (06:46-07:50) and implausibilities (10:03) in Mark's account.

I haven't gotten that far yet, so give a little time.


Quote:With all due respect, I'd be disappointed if this is all you got.


I believe that so far, the damage to the narrator's position is already catastrophic.
Re the Peter/Mark/Papias spiel....

This was obviously an invention. Papias died in 163 CE. He couldn't have written about about "Mark" (the author of the gospel,) because "Mark" is only first mentioned as the author of a gospel c.180 CE (by Irenaeus).

Papias' writings haven't survived...we only read about them in quotes from others. This is another example of "pious fraud"...an attempt to prove a connection between the gospels and Yeshua.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2012, 02:35 AM
Reliability of the Gospels
Free is a phony. He/she is a closet theist trolling you guys. Even in the face of blatant misapplication if analogy to fit his/her strange agenda, he/she merely says "no I didn't". Very weak and sad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2012, 02:54 AM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
Free, please read post 114 and explain to me what you were on about. I need to understand so my point (in the book) is clear. I still have no idea what you were talking about.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2012, 03:06 AM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(15-12-2012 10:13 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:What Happened to the Nazarenes?


“It is to the Nazarene records that we ought chiefly to look for our knowledge of Jesus, and we must regard Nazarenism as the true Christianity. As the Nazarenes throughout the period of personal recollection and down to the third generation, that is to say at least seventy five years after the death of Jesus, denied his deity and his virgin birth, we
must recognize that these are alien doctrines subsequently introduced by a partly paganized Church, as Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century more or less admits. The Church which received them had no other course open
than to belittle the Nazarenes and denounce them as heretics. The historian here has no difficulty in detecting the real heretics.”


(Hugh Schonfield)

The Nazarenes were the bona fide disciples of Yeshua. Much of their history is missing because the early Christians were zealous in destroying their record. Yet the tale of what happened to them can be pieced together.


James sent missionaries as far away as Rome in the 40s CE.


Paul, who masqueraded as a Nazarene, sent what is now a famous letter to the Romans urging them to obey their Roman rulers. Yet his teachings were at odds with Nazarene doctrine. From their perspective, Paul was a rank outsider. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus (d. 236 CE), Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius (c. 310 – 403 CE, bishop of Salamis)and Jerome all confirmed that the Ebionites (as the Nazarenes were later called, see below) opposed Paul as a false Apostle.


The Roman Emperor Nero may have blamed them for the great fire of 64 CE, and executed them. Christians today often incorrectly call Nero’s casualties Christians, whereas they were, if this really happened, Nazarenes. There is a Christian tradition that Peter was crucified at this time in Rome, but there’s no contemporary evidence to confirm the claim.


Hegesippus (c. 110 - 180 CE), a Christian chronicler of the early Church who may have been a Jewish convert, writes that after the death of James in 62 CE, the Nazarenes selected Symeon (aka Simeon), son of Cleophas, to be their new leader. He was either the brother or the first cousin of Jesus.


During the first Jewish war of 66-70 CE, some of the Nazarenes may have fled across the River Jordan to Pella. Yet many of them probably tried to defend Jerusalem and therefore perished. They might have expected Jesus to return in all his glory to save Jerusalem. That didn’t happen, and they must have been bitterly disappointed.


The Nazarenes never recovered their status and influence after the war. Their numbers had been decisively decimated. Yet the remaining rebels reorganized and moved back into Jerusalem in 72 CE.


Prior to 80 – 90 CE, the Nazarenes were still worshipping in synagogues alongside Pharisees. Yet they soon began to be viewed as trouble causers, probably because of their nationalistic ambitions. The Pharisaic Jews referred to them as “minim” (Hebrew for heretic). A heretic is someone who still remains within the faith, but believes in elements not acceptable to the orthodoxy, so mainstream Jews never imagined the Nazarenes were Christians. After this time a deep schism started to form between Pharisees and the Nazarenes. By 90 CE, Nazarenes were shut out from some synagogues. I suspect some Jews opted out of Nazarenism because opposing Rome was dangerous.


In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius of Caesaria wrote of the grandchildren of Jesus’ brother Jude, who were living in Galilee during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian (81–96 CE). (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm, book 3, chapter 20). He says they became dynastic leaders of various “Christian” (a misnomer) churches, and continued to be so up until the time of the Emperor Trajan (98–117 CE).


Kamal Salibi, a formerEmeritus Professor at the American University of Beirut, Department of History and Archaeology, wrote that after Symeon's death, twelve others followed in turn whose names are preserved down to 135 CE (the time of the Second Jewish Revolt). So there were fifteen leaders of the Nazarene sect after Jesus, all of whom were circumcised Jews and relations of Jesus. The word “Desposyni” was reserved uniquely for Jesus' blood relatives
and literally meant “belonging to the Lord.” They governed the ancient Nazarene church. Each carried one of the names traditional in Jesus' family: Zachary, Joseph, John, James, Joses, Symeon, Matthias, and others, although no later Desposynos was ever called Yeshua.


Eusebius wrote that they didn’t fight in the second war (135 CE) against the Romans, as they considered Simon bar Kochba, the Jewish commander, to be a false messiah. After this war, the fifteenth Nazarene leader was exiled with the remaining Jewish population when the Emperor Hadrian banned all Jews from Jerusalem.


Over the next few centuries, the Nazarene church headed by Yeshua’s relatives continued as a movement that some Jews joined. They were well respected in their own locales. From the historian Julius Africanus (160–240 CE), we learn that they took pride in their Davidic descent and circulated the genealogy that now stands at the head of Matthew’s Gospel. They moved northeastward, eventually making their way to the Tigris-Euphrates basin, spreading throughout Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia.


The early Christians considered the Nazarenes a heretical sect, so they ignored and later suppressed them. Justin Martyr denigrated their beliefs. The developing orthodox Catholic Church deliberately called them the Ebionites “the poor ones” (although Jews did not consider this term derogatory; in fact they used the term to refer to the righteous). This term wasn’t used by Christians prior to Irenaeus, who wrote


“Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates.” (These men were Gnostics who believed Jesus was a very human teacher.) “They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavor to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practice circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God”(Against Heresies 1:26).


Eusebius considered them heretics because


“they regarded [Jesus] as plain and ordinary, a man esteemed as righteous through growth of character and nothing more, the child of a normal union between a man and Mary; and they held that they must observe every detail of the Law—that by faith in Christ alone they would never win Salvation” (Ecclesiastical History 3.7). It’s apparent that Irenaeus and Eusebius depicted them honestly.


Gentile Christians came to refer to them indiscriminately as “Jewish Christians,” another misnomer, because they never
were Christians.


The gospel of Matthew that Irenaeus that refers to was probably the same gospel that Jerome (342–420 CE) and Epiphanius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13393b.htm) called the Gospel of the Nazarenes/Hebrews,
which was written in Aramaic. Jerome mentions that he made translations of it into Greek and Latin. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, no significant part of this Gospel survives today. Some scholars believe that it was loosely linked
to canonical Matthew, which fits with Matthew being the most pro-Jewish gospel of the four. It’s possible that this was how some facts about Yeshua the Nazarene insurrectionist made it into the gospels.


By the beginning of the fourth century, the Roman Catholic Church was becoming dominant and there were confrontations with Jews, including the Nazarenes. With the Synod of Elvira, held in 306 CE, prohibitions against eating, marriage, and sex with Jews were enacted in the Roman Empire. Nazarenes were included in this ban, which in effect excluded them from all social and religious association with those in the growing gentile Pauline church.


The Emperor Constantine appointed Sylvester as the head bishop of the universal church in 313 CE. According to the Irish Jesuit historian Malachi Martin, a meeting took place in 318 CE in Rome between Pope Sylvester I and the
Desposyni. Sylvester provided sea travel for the Nazarene leaders as far as the Roman port of Ostia, thirty kilometres west of Rome. The fact that Sylvester thought it necessary to meet with them suggests that he was curious. Yet he
initiated the meeting with the intention of exerting his pontifical authorityover them.


The Nazarene leaders who appeared before Pope Sylvester thought they represented the true legacy of Yeshua. They were, after all, his blood relations, as there were at least three well-known and authentic lines of legitimate blood descent from Yeshua's own family. They were eight in number, and Joses, the oldest of them, spoke on their behalf. They bluntly refused to recognize the Roman church as having any authority, and made the following demands:


(1) that the confirmation of the Christian bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus and Alexandria be revoked;


(2) that these bishoprics be conferred on members of the Desposyni;


(3) that the Law be reintroduced, which included the Sabbath and the Holy Day system of Feasts, and


(4) that Christian Churches resume sending money to the Desposyni Church in Jerusalem, which was to be regarded as the “Mother Church.”


Such bold claims of authority must have come as a surprise to Sylvester, who refused their demands.They were told that Jesus’ church had moved to Rome, and that they had no jurisdiction. Sylvester must have known his church was the foreign impostor, but that didn’t concern him. The politics of power were more important than the truth. This was
the last known formal dialogue between Christian and Nazarene leaders.


A few years later Nazarenes began to surface in southern Upper Egypt. In this remote locale, far from the center of gentile Christianity, they continued to practice their beliefs.


In 364 CE, the Catholic Council of Laodicea decreed anathema on any “Jewish Christians” who continued to observe the
seventh-day Sabbath. Historical references to Nazarenes became scarce after this date. Inevitably the few remaining believers petered out.


The Nazarenes were a Jewish sect that, at least in the first century, had strong political ambitions. Christianity
stole Yeshua the Nazarene’s identity, and reinvented him, not only as its founder, but also as God incarnate and the savior of the world. Christians then denied the Nazarene’s real link with Jesus. The Nazarenes struggled on for four
centuries after Yeshua’s death, when Christians snuffed them out. If Yeshua and his original disciples were alive today, they’d be dumbfounded at the distortion of their legacy.


References:


Eisenman, Robert H. “James the Brother of Jesus:
The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea
Scrolls”


Klinghoffer, D. 1965 “Why The Jews Rejected Jesus”. Doubleday.United States Of America.


Lockhart, D. 1997 “Jesus The Heretic”. Element Books. Dorset.


Lockhart, D. 1999 “The Dark Side Of God”. Element Books. Dorset


Schonfield, H. 1969 “Those Incredible Christians”. Bantam.
New York.


Thijs Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon co-wrote “Operation Messiah”


http://douglaslockhart.com/pdf/THE
NAZORAEAN SECT.pdf


http://www.yashanet.com/library/nazarene_judaism.html


Okay, here's the problem.

When you group James and John together, it is very easy to understand that you are speaking of John and James, the Sons of Thunder, brothers from the Gospel record.

I have no problem with James, the brother of Jesus, actually being the brother of Jesus.


Now, in regards to the Nazarene ...

I have checked your references and what I find is not complete. Although these historians are quite qualified, the lack of direct historical evidence to support their position is very very scant. At best those historians are formulating a plausible theory based upon the scant evidence they have, and for much of it I agree, but also for much of it I cannot agree because of the lack of supporting evidence.

However, I can accept most of the evidence regarding Yeshua and the Nazarene based upon the higher probability argument. In this respect, your explanation is acceptable.
Um....so where, exactly, is "the problem?"

Which part of the Nazarene story do you find "a lack of direct historical reference for?"
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: