Reliability of the Gospels
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-12-2012, 08:35 AM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(17-12-2012 03:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(15-12-2012 10:13 AM)Free Wrote:  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Which part of the Nazarene story do you find "a lack of direct historical reference for?"


You have quoted scholars who say this or that. However, you have not quoted much at all in the way of historical documents that these scholars supposedly used to formulate their position.

Until then, there is no way we can verify whether or not their position is basely loosely on fact, or strongly, and I am not about to go do the research for you.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious 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
17-12-2012, 08:40 AM (This post was last modified: 17-12-2012 09:18 AM by Free.)
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(17-12-2012 02:54 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.
You do not seem to understand what I said in post # 114. I suggest you take the train of thought back to where it originated and read it again, because I have now explained it twice and you still do not understand it. But here is a clear explanation beginning with quotes. Follow the train of thought and the evidence.

Quote:
Quote:So the “first great theologian of the church” asserted Jesus lived seventy or more years later than what is now stated in the gospels. He obviously knew or made up details about Jesus that contradicted what became the accepted story. This demonstrates that the gospels were still evolving in the late second century.

But the quote of Irenaeus (original mistype Origen) regarding what John said is not in the Gospel record, so you really have no point there.

In the quote above you attempted to say that because Irenaeus asserted that Jesus lived 70 years or more later than what was stated in the gospels, it somehow demonstrates that the gospels were still evolving in the late 2nd century.

First of all, if you had read the text thoroughly you would know that Irenaeus asserted no such thing, but was merely relaying information on what John has supposedly said.

Secondly, how the hell does what Irenaeus said in any way, shape, or form, demonstrate that the gospels were evolving late in the 2nd century? We do not see anything of what Irenaeus said regarding what John said anywhere in the Gospel record, so how the hell do you substantiate this? You cannot.

Therefore, your quoted statement is nonsense, has no support, and subsequently has not one iota of a point.

So, thinking I had clearly demonstrated that you have no point at all, since you failed to connect how the gospels were evolving to what Irenaeus said, you then responded with the following:

Quote:Whether what Irenaeus wrote is in the gospels or not is irrelevant. He was a very important church father. He should have known how old Jeebus was. Obviously Jeebus hadn't finished evolving when Irenaeus wrote this.

Oh, so now instead of talking about the Gospels evolving, we are now talking about Jesus evolving?

Since I demonstrated clearly that you had no point about the Gospels evolving, and since you then switched it to something about Jesus evolving, it can be very fairly stated that you have Moved the Goalposts , since the subject of Jesus evolving was not in the original context.

I thought you could figure this out. I overestimated you.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious 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
17-12-2012, 09:14 AM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(17-12-2012 08:40 AM)Free Wrote:  
(17-12-2012 02:54 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.
You do not seem to understand what I said in post # 114. I suggest you take the train of thought back to where it originated and read it again, because I have now explained it twice and you still do not understand it. But here is a clear explanation beginning with quotes. Follow the train of thought and the evidence.

Quote:But the quote of Irenaeus regarding what John said is not in the Gospel record, so you really have no point there.

In the quote above you attempted to say that because Irenaeus asserted that Jesus lived 70 years or more later than what was stated in the gospels, it somehow demonstrates that the gospels were still evolving in the late 2nd century.

First of all, if you had read the text thoroughly you would know that Irenaeus asserted no such thing, but was merely relaying information on what John has supposedly said.

Secondly, how the hell does what Irenaeus said in any way, shape, or form, demonstrate that the gospels were evolving late in the 2nd century? We do not see anything of what Irenaeus said regarding what John said anywhere in the Gospel record, so how the hell do you substantiate this? You cannot.

Therefore, your quoted statement is nonsense, has no support, and subsequently has not one iota of a point.

So, thinking I had clearly demonstrated that you have no point at all, since you failed to connect how the gospels were evolving to what Irenaeus said, you then responded with the following:

Quote:Whether what Irenaeus wrote is in the gospels or not is irrelevant. He was a very important church father. He should have known how old Jeebus was. Obviously Jeebus hadn't finished evolving when Irenaeus wrote this.

Oh, so now instead of talking about the Gospels evolving, we are now talking about Jesus evolving?

Since I demonstrated clearly that you had no point about the Gospels evolving, and since you then switched it to something about Jesus evolving, it can be very fairly stated that you have Moved the Goalposts, since the subject of Jesus evolving was not in the original context.

I thought you could figure this out. I overestimated you.
Well all I can do is appeal to someone else. If anyone out there understands what Free is saying in post 114, if you have the time, could you explain it to me? If my position isn't clear, please do the same.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2012, 09:24 AM (This post was last modified: 17-12-2012 09:28 AM by Free.)
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
Quote:Well all I can do is appeal to someone else. If anyone out there understands what Free is saying in post 114, if you have the time, could you explain it to me? If my position isn't clear, please do the same.

It would do you well to properly learn to quote in its entirety what people have posted, instead of selectively leaving out critical parts of their posts which mislead the readers as to the actual content of the discussion.

It isn't much wonder why you are having problems understanding what I am saying when you refuse to acknowledge the post in its entirety.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious 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
17-12-2012, 05:13 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(17-12-2012 09:24 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Well all I can do is appeal to someone else. If anyone out there understands what Free is saying in post 114, if you have the time, could you explain it to me? If my position isn't clear, please do the same.


It would do you well to properly learn to quote in its entirety what people have posted, instead of selectively leaving out critical parts of their posts which mislead the readers as to the actual content of the discussion.

It isn't much wonder why you are having problems understanding what I am saying when you refuse to acknowledge the post in its entirety.


Hi Free, early this am, when I read your edited explanation, I understood what you've been saying. Thanks!

When I get the time tonight I'll discuss it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2012, 06:09 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(17-12-2012 08:35 AM)Free Wrote:  
(17-12-2012 03:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Um....so where, exactly, is "the problem?"

Which part of the Nazarene story do you find "a lack of direct historical reference for?"



You have quoted scholars who say this or that. However, you have not quoted much at all in the way of historical documents that these scholars supposedly used to formulate their position.

Until then, there is no way we can verify whether or not their position is basely loosely on fact, or strongly, and I am not about to go do the research for you.



I've done the research. I've put together chapters discussing James and the Nazarenes. That's the result of many months of hard work, and I've "flopped it on your lap," so it's hardly fair to imply I'm the lazy one. If you care to read what I've written, you will see I mention numerous sources. As an author, writing a book on a very broad topic, for consumption by the average person, I can't quote every single source, unless I want to lose the reader by giving too much detail.

You can, however, check out any of these sources yourself and even contribute to the discussion if you're genuinely interested in this topic (the Nazarenes). You have my essays as a frame. All you need do is google any of the following combinations ...

James/ Nazarene or Nazorean or Ebionite or Nazarite or "Jewish Christian (a misnomer) (they're all the same thing), couple this with the NUMEROUS sources I mention...for example...

Eusebius, Jerome, Hegesippus, Josephus, book of Acts, Dead Sea Scrolls, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Julius Africanus, Pope Sylvester


Why not Google "Desposyni" or "flight to Pella?"
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2012, 04:36 AM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(17-12-2012 05:13 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(17-12-2012 09:24 AM)Free Wrote:  It would do you well to properly learn to quote in its entirety what people have posted, instead of selectively leaving out critical parts of their posts which mislead the readers as to the actual content of the discussion.

It isn't much wonder why you are having problems understanding what I am saying when you refuse to acknowledge the post in its entirety.


Hi Free, early this am, when I read your edited explanation, I understood what you've been saying. Thanks!

When I get the time tonight I'll discuss it.
I went back to the original translation from Irenaeus. It's verbose, and difficult to understand. Here it is...

"3. But it is greatly to be wondered at, how it has come to pass that, while affirming that they have found out the mysteries of God, they have not examined the Gospels to ascertain how often after His baptism the Lord went up, at the time of the passover, to Jerusalem, in accordance with what was the practice of the Jews from every land, and every year, that they should assemble at this period in Jerusalem, and there celebrate the feast of the passover. First of all, after He had made the water wine at Cana of Galilee, He went up to the festival day of the passover, on which occasion it is written, “For many believed in Him, when they saw the signs which He did,”3126
391
as John the disciple of the Lord records. Then, again, withdrawing Himself [from Judæa], He is found in Samaria; on which occasion, too, He conversed with the Samaritan woman, and while at a distance, cured the son of the centurion by a word, saying, “Go thy way, thy son liveth.”3127 Afterwards He went up, the second time, to observe the festival day of the passover3128 in Jerusalem; on which occasion He cured the paralytic man, who had lain beside the pool thirty-eight years, bidding him rise, take up his couch, and depart. Again, withdrawing from thence to the other side of the sea of Tiberias,3129 He there seeing a great crowd had followed Him, fed all that multitude with five loaves of bread, and twelve baskets of fragments remained over and above. Then, when He had raised Lazarus from the dead, and plots were formed against Him by the Pharisees, He withdrew to a city called Ephraim; and from that place, as it is written “He came to Bethany six days before the passover,”3130 and going up from Bethany to Jerusalem, He there ate the passover, and suffered on the day following. Now, that these three occasions of the passover are not included within one year, every person whatever must acknowledge. And that the special month in which the passover was celebrated, and in which also the Lord suffered, was not the twelfth, but the first, those men who boast that they know all things, if they know not this, may learn it from Moses. Their explanation, therefore, both of the year and of the twelfth month has been proved false, and they ought to reject either their explanation or the Gospel; otherwise [this unanswerable question forces itself upon them], How is it possible that the Lord preached for one year only?
4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master,3131 He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged3132 by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had3133 appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God3134—infants,3135 and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be “the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence,”3136 the Prince of life,3137 existing before all, and going before all.3138
5. They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, “to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus,] they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: “Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,”3139 when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first
stage of early life embraces thirty years,3140 and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.3141 And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.3142 Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemæus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?

6. But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?”3143 Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being3144 of flesh and blood. He did not then want much of being fifty years old;3145 and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year, unless indeed, among their Æons, there be so long years assigned to those who sit in their ranks with Bythus in the Pleroma; of which beings Homer the poet, too, has spoken, doubtless being inspired by the Mother of their [system of] error:—"

Yawn....sorry about the length of that.

Now it seems he ( Irenaeus ) may have been saying that he thought the gospels had got it wrong about Jeebus only being about 30 years old. So...he was implying (?all 4) gospels got Jeebus' age wrong. Therefore this quote doesn't, as I thought, suggest "Jeebus" or the gospels were "still evolving" If that's what you meant Free....you were right and I was wrong. Thanks to Free, I will remove my wrong line from my text.

It is still noteworthy that Irenaeus was directly challenging what was written. This is only one less example of the fact that the gospels were altered as the generations went by.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2012, 08:28 AM (This post was last modified: 19-12-2012 08:44 AM by Free.)
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
Quote:Now it seems he ( Irenaeus ) may have been saying that he thought the gospels had got it wrong about Jeebus only being about 30 years old. So...he was implying (?all 4) gospels got Jeebus' age wrong. Therefore this quote doesn't, as I thought, suggest "Jeebus" or the gospels were "still evolving" If that's what you meant Free....you were right and I was wrong. Thanks to Free, I will remove my wrong line from my text.

No problem.

Irenaeus had good reason to suspect that the age of Jesus was more than just 30 years of age. His logic and reasoning is perfectly acceptable considering the text in the Gospel of John where the Jews had said to Jesus, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" I myself had also used precisely the same reasoning. If Jesus was only 30, then it would have been visibly apparent to those Jews, and logically they should have said, "You are not yet forty years old ... ."

However, Iranaeus may also be going off the deep end here. He seems to be attempting to convince people that although Jesus was likely aged somewhere in his 30s according to Luke, he may have had lived close to 50 (a decent argument really), but then without textual support Iranaeus is trying to say that Jesus "sanctified" infants while he himself was an infant, youths while he was a youth, and so on. Iranaeus appears to be trying to justify an apparent contradiction in the Gospel records between Luke and John and creating another myth about Yeshua, in my opinion.

Since Luke is saying that Jesus was about 30 years old, and John's quote of the Jews logically shows Jesus to be between 40 and 50, Iranaeus is trying his best to justify the apparent contradiction regarding the age of Jesus to dispute the claims that Jesus died at 31, and to dispute the assertions of others who say that Jesus taught for only one year before he died around the age of 31.

Another thing Iranaeus asserts here is that Jesus was crucified in January, which is the earliest record of a date of the crucifixion we have.

Quote:It is still noteworthy that Irenaeus was directly challenging what was written. This is only one less example of the fact that the gospels were altered as the generations went by.

It's not so much of a challenge- since everything he says is actually written in those two Gospels- as much as it is an effort to explain the apparent contradictions (from my point of view, but whether Iranaeus knew it was a contradiction or not is unknown) between two gospels records in his attempt to dispute Ptolemæus' declared age of Jesus when he died, and also this is an example of an early church theologian attempting to create yet another myth to add to the embellishment of the life of Yeshua.

As you and Bucky might say, "It's another attempt at pious fraud by the early Christians."

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious 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
18-12-2012, 08:56 AM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(17-12-2012 06:09 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(17-12-2012 08:35 AM)Free Wrote:  You have quoted scholars who say this or that. However, you have not quoted much at all in the way of historical documents that these scholars supposedly used to formulate their position.

Until then, there is no way we can verify whether or not their position is basely loosely on fact, or strongly, and I am not about to go do the research for you.



I've done the research. I've put together chapters discussing James and the Nazarenes. That's the result of many months of hard work, and I've "flopped it on your lap," so it's hardly fair to imply I'm the lazy one. If you care to read what I've written, you will see I mention numerous sources. As an author, writing a book on a very broad topic, for consumption by the average person, I can't quote every single source, unless I want to lose the reader by giving too much detail.

You can, however, check out any of these sources yourself and even contribute to the discussion if you're genuinely interested in this topic (the Nazarenes). You have my essays as a frame. All you need do is google any of the following combinations ...

James/ Nazarene or Nazorean or Ebionite or Nazarite or "Jewish Christian (a misnomer) (they're all the same thing), couple this with the NUMEROUS sources I mention...for example...

Eusebius, Jerome, Hegesippus, Josephus, book of Acts, Dead Sea Scrolls, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Julius Africanus, Pope Sylvester


Why not Google "Desposyni" or "flight to Pella?"
I am not implying anything here. What I am suggesting is for you to review your notes and logically determine whether or not the scholars you are using are in fact accessing enough historical documents to reach a tenable conclusion.

For example, they speak about the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Ebonites as finding their origins with the original Church of Jerusalem which was started by James. Is this assertion, or can it be demonstrated to be factual?

It's stuff like that which I have issues with.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious 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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: