Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-21-2019, 01:18 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
I guess it depends on how you define your terms. Something, that it seems not unreasonable to refer to as "Christianity," existed before Paul got involved with it.

But it absolutely is a matter of debate, and we'll never know for sure, how much of what we think of today as "Christianity" originated with Paul, or how much different it would be if Paul had never gotten involved.

Still, it seemed wrong to me to claim, unequivocally, in the General Questions forum, that "Paul started Christianity," for reasons explained in the article I linked to.
Yes, "how much of what we think of today as "Christianity" originated with Paul, or how much different it would be if Paul had never gotten involved" is very much a matter for debate.
  #52  
Old 12-21-2019, 10:08 AM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Actually, no. Mark and Matthew are based mostly on Q, and Q is thought to be more or less contemporary with Jesus. The Gospel of John was likely dictated to the Apostle John's followers when John was a very old man.
There is an alternative hypothesis, the Farrer Hypothesis, that posits that there never was a Q (and we certainly don’t have a Q now) and that the order goes Mark, Matthew, Luke, with Matthew making shit up to make the content of Mark fit more in line with the Old Testament and to make Jesus appear to fulfill OT prophecies. Then Luke came along and, based on Mark and Matthew both, modified the message to make the religion a little less Jewish and focus more on Christ's humanity and his innocence, among other things.

And then John came way out of left field, the latest of the canonical gospels. We don’t need to go into it here (other thread), but I’ll reiterate that "John as an eyewitness account" is very much disputed, and that my take on the consensus is that NONE of the gospels are considered to be eyewitness accounts.

I personally find the Farrer Hypothesis more convincing than the two-source/Q hypothesis because the former makes fewer assumptions. That is, it does not assume there was yet another "important historical document" that somehow found its way into canon indirectly through the other gospels and so was clearly important to early Christians and largely compatible with what eventually DID make it into canon, but somehow failed to be preserved itself, even as a great many more dubious sources (such as the majority of the epistles) were included in canon.

Last edited by ASL v2.0; 12-21-2019 at 10:09 AM.
  #53  
Old 12-22-2019, 08:24 PM
fedman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 315
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Thanks everyone for responding. Regarding this, are the actual words of Jesus that much different between the Gospels?

(I understand that they were written years later and whatnot)

And this: "The problem I think they'd run into is that there's a LOT that Jesus didn't say anything about...

Homosexuality? Nothin'. Masturbation? Nope. Priests, church services, hymns? Nada"

I would think that would be sort of the point.
He referred to "husband and wife" numerous times but not "husband and husband"
  #54  
Old 12-23-2019, 07:31 AM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 21,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by fedman View Post
He referred to "husband and wife" numerous times but not "husband and husband"
I call this a "kangaroo argument". Since the Bible nowhere mentions kangaroos, they clearly do not exist.
  #55  
Old 12-23-2019, 09:33 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 59,680
Even if you tried to do this, you'd run into the "Yeah, but" people. Did Jesus say "Judge not, least ye be judged?" Yeah, but...."Did Jesus tell the woman taken in adultery to go and sin no more, but totally ignore the guy" Yeah, but.....

Some vegetarian groups argue that John did not eat locust and Jesus did not eat fish. No, John ate locust bean (carob) and Jesus ate fish plant (seaweed).
  #56  
Old 12-23-2019, 09:47 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL v2.0 View Post
I personally find the Farrer Hypothesis more convincing than the two-source/Q hypothesis because the former makes fewer assumptions. That is, it does not assume there was yet another "important historical document" that somehow found its way into canon indirectly through the other gospels and so was clearly important to early Christians and largely compatible with what eventually DID make it into canon, but somehow failed to be preserved itself, even as a great many more dubious sources (such as the majority of the epistles) were included in canon.
There is no factual answer.

I don't have my references with me at the moment but there are some references to the sky opening up and angels coming down out of the heavens - or something like that - at the start of one of the primary (synoptic) gospels or something that became one. I'll update later if I'm wrong but I think one was from Justin Martyr and the other is an Arabic work that describes an early version of the Diatessaron and also includes such a description. I am inclined to believe that this comes from an early version of Matthew AKA, the Gospel of the Hebrews, which is consistently described as starting around Luke 3, jumping straight to Luke 4.

The Gospel of Marcion also has this beginning - no angels, just that placement.

The historic record tells us that Mark was created after Matthew but the historic records of Matthew do not match what we see. As said, the beginning wasn't there and it seems to have had a bit about angels coming out of the sky near the beginning.

The historic record does tell us that the Gospel of Marcion was a chopped down version of Matthew, by a Roman who thought that they should just focus on Paul's religion and say the heck with the Jerusalem church. The Gospel of Mark does largely match what we would expect to see if we imagine a Gospel of the Hebrews and then cropped it down to remove anything overtly Jewish.

And, well, Mark <-> Marcion. Not a terribly fancy argument but ignoring it for being obvious is possibly being too clever by half.

My personal guess, based on one or two other things, is that the part that the historic record got wrong wasn't the order of the Gospels, it was that when they reviewed "The Gospel of Marcion", they were actually looking at Hebrew Matthew or an earlier version of Luke that the Marcionites had accepted that had built off of Mark.

I would also guess that Mark, the scribe of Paul, was in fact Marcion and that The Gospel of Mark was the official Gospel of the Roman church during and just after Paul's tenure.

Luke, as a Roman, would naturally work off of their trimmed down version, so he developed it out - possibly from a version that hadn't yet been chopped down quite so much as our Mark or, as said, was shorter than it is now at the point in time when the Marcionites split off.

But, meanwhile, the Roman and Eastern churches were negotiating a "shared" text that they would both agree to. There was an early attempt to fulfill the declaration of the Council of Jerusalem and to find a harmony between the different teachings of the two churches. Through that process of revisions, Hebrew Matthew was developed into what we see today - sufficiently revised by committees, haggling it out over a few years that it is scarcely connected to the original - but, still the most Jewish of the bunch since the church in Antioch and elsewhere had half a say in what went into it.

Hebrew Matthew - Marcion = Gospel Mark

Gospel Mark + Luke = Gospel Luke

Hebrew Matthew + Committees +? Gospel Luke = Gospel Matthew

IMHO

Particularly if we take the idea that the Marcion created Mark but the Marcionites took an early variant of Luke that was based off of that, all of the historic record and dates line up.
  #57  
Old 12-23-2019, 11:47 AM
md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 15,485
Thanks Sage Rat

Plus we have to remember in the days before printing presses and mass media, and when matching the spiritual message counted more than historical accuracy - every copy of every work had to be written by hand; meaning a moderately educated person with the resources and time to create a copy. No doubt some were done from memory, some were edited to fit (as mentioned about Marcion) either the audience or the author's predilections. Some were created from the imagination, as evidence the variety of legends about figures such as Robin Hood or King Arthur (or even George Washington and the cherry tree - the GW Principle - "It's easy to tell the truth when you're the one holding the axe"). It's pretty easy to conclude that stories about childhood Jesus zapping his teacher were the imaginings of a bored scribe. It's pretty easy to imagine someone wanting to impress his view - whether Jesus was human, or a divine apparition, etc. - those doctrinal assertions being inserted into someone's personal copy and/or spread to others. It's even easy to imagine - like Jefferson - that miracles were later legends inserted to drive home the message of divinity. (Or, they could be as meaningful as the miracles performed at Lourdes or by southern fundamentalist preachers)

Councils later would suppress not only what they saw as obviously fake texts, but also those that disagreed with the "party line".

the short answer is we'll never know. All we can do is read between the lines and make educated guesses.

Last edited by md2000; 12-23-2019 at 11:48 AM.
  #58  
Old 12-23-2019, 01:48 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by fedman View Post
He referred to "husband and wife" numerous times but not "husband and husband"
He didn't refer to space travel either, but that doesn't mean astronauts are bad Christians.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #59  
Old 12-24-2019, 08:31 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 59,680
How does anyone know what Jesus said anyways? It's not like his ever utterance was recorded. SSo how do you know he never referred to "husband and husband." Paul, being the asshole he was, would not have made reference to it. He was too busy telling women to sit down and STFU in church.
  #60  
Old 12-24-2019, 10:25 AM
md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 15,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
How does anyone know what Jesus said anyways? It's not like his ever utterance was recorded. SSo how do you know he never referred to "husband and husband." Paul, being the asshole he was, would not have made reference to it. He was too busy telling women to sit down and STFU in church.
Like everything else in antiquity, we have very few original sources. People wrote down or told others what they heard, and then someone copied that into what they were writing, etc. Later writers maybe polished, embellished, or "clarified". Sometimes nuggets of truth shine through.

St. Paul, who also claimed he was an apostle despite never having met Jesus, and also claimed to talk to Jesus regularly after he had a seizure on the road to Damascus, is probably not a reliable source for actual quotes. Actual apostles, maybe.

Plus, if there's a guy spending several years preaching to bigger and bigger crowds using parables, you can be sure that the bible probably only captures a fraction of the stories he told over that time. A lot has likely been lost.

As for "husband and husband" - the bible does say that when confronted with a woman who had violated sexual mores and Jewish law, Jesus said essentially nobody had the right to punish her. Why would anything different apply to men?

(He did say "Love thy neighbour" )

Last edited by md2000; 12-24-2019 at 10:26 AM.
  #61  
Old 12-24-2019, 01:55 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
How does anyone know what Jesus said anyways? It's not like his ever utterance was recorded. SSo how do you know he never referred to "husband and husband." Paul, being the asshole he was, would not have made reference to it. He was too busy telling women to sit down and STFU in church.
Even in areas and times when homosexuality was tolerated or even common, afaik, no one thought of "Gay marriage". Marriage was for making kids. It's only recently it has so many legal ramifications, like taxes, that gay marriage has become a necessity.

Jesus made it clear what he thought of rules like "no gay sex' "no adultery" etc "Let those without sin cast the first stone." Love and forgive.
  #62  
Old 12-24-2019, 05:18 PM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
Like everything else in antiquity, we have very few original sources. People wrote down or told others what they heard, and then someone copied that into what they were writing, etc. Later writers maybe polished, embellished, or "clarified". Sometimes nuggets of truth shine through.
But what are those "nuggets of truth" when it comes to Jesus? How do we know? It is so clear that each of the gospel writers had their own agenda in crafting an image of Christ that I donít see how we can really take any of them as "gospel."

For instance...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Jesus made it clear what he thought of rules like "no gay sex' "no adultery" etc "Let those without sin cast the first stone." Love and forgive.
Oddly enough, that particular passage in John is among the most troublesome. Not only because it would appear to equate all wrong-doing as equal and therefore preclude any notion of a human justice system (I mean, what other "sins" do we have to cast a blind eye to just because everyone said a cross word to their parents once in a while as a kid?), but also because itís authorship and place in the gospel is somewhat questionable (more so than other random sayings attributed to Christ), as it is noticeably absent from the oldest manuscripts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_...extual_history

What I keep coming back to is that we have no way of knowing what Jesus actually said, but then even if we did Iím not sure why anyone should care.
  #63  
Old 12-24-2019, 05:55 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL v2.0 View Post
...
What I keep coming back to is that we have no way of knowing what Jesus actually said, but then even if we did Iím not sure why anyone should care.
why do we care what the Buddha said? Or Confucius? or Mohammed? Or Socrates? Or anyone not alive today? Because their teachings and sayings are immortal.
  #64  
Old 12-24-2019, 06:30 PM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
why do we care what the Buddha said? Or Confucius? or Mohammed? Or Socrates? Or anyone not alive today? Because their teachings and sayings are immortal.
I donít care. Maybe thatís why you care, but I donít. If a saying is true or useful, it is so irrespective of who said it. Iíll leave it at that because weíre in GQ, but needless to say I disagree.
  #65  
Old 12-25-2019, 09:46 AM
Flyer is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL v2.0 View Post
There is an alternative hypothesis, the Farrer Hypothesis, that posits that there never was a Q (and we certainly donít have a Q now) and that the order goes Mark, Matthew, Luke, with Matthew making shit up to make the content of Mark fit more in line with the Old Testament and to make Jesus appear to fulfill OT prophecies. Then Luke came along and, based on Mark and Matthew both, modified the message to make the religion a little less Jewish and focus more on Christ's humanity and his innocence, among other things.

And then John came way out of left field, the latest of the canonical gospels. We donít need to go into it here (other thread), but Iíll reiterate that "John as an eyewitness account" is very much disputed, and that my take on the consensus is that NONE of the gospels are considered to be eyewitness accounts.

I personally find the Farrer Hypothesis more convincing than the two-source/Q hypothesis because the former makes fewer assumptions. That is, it does not assume there was yet another "important historical document" that somehow found its way into canon indirectly through the other gospels and so was clearly important to early Christians and largely compatible with what eventually DID make it into canon, but somehow failed to be preserved itself, even as a great many more dubious sources (such as the majority of the epistles) were included in canon.
I personally am quite dubious as to the existence of Q itself. However, it is not "making assumptions" to think that other sources existed, when Luke explicitly tells us that they did. "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us. . . ." (Luke 1:1) That's the whole reason why Luke wrote his Gospel, because some of those other sources evidently did not have as much knowledge about what Jesus said and did as Luke.

Incidentally, any "consensus" by scholars (who evidently are not worthy of the title), that none of the Gospels are eyewitness accounts, is worth diddly-squat. Luke explicitly tells us that he was an eyewitness. And if you're going to ignore or designate as unreliable the vast bulk of the primary source material just because you don't like what it says, any subsequent research is going to invariably lead you to false conclusions.

It's amazing to me how so many people who consider themselves to be academics and researchers in pursuit of the truth treat research into Jesus so much differently that research into other ancient figures. You never see researchers into Aristotle, for example, throw out 90% of the source material right off the bat and then construct hypotheses from the remaining 10%. Like it or not, the four Gospels are our primary sources of information regarding Jesus, and any research that ignores or denigrates that fact is worthless.
  #66  
Old 12-25-2019, 10:08 AM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
I personally am quite dubious as to the existence of Q itself. However, it is not "making assumptions" to think that other sources existed, when Luke explicitly tells us that they did. "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us. . . ." (Luke 1:1) That's the whole reason why Luke wrote his Gospel, because some of those other sources evidently did not have as much knowledge about what Jesus said and did as Luke.
It would have been really awesome for Luke (here referring to the anonymous author or authors) to actually name his sources. That he did not might tell us something about just how rigorous his source-gathering methodology was. With that said, I’m happy to concede that he would have used at least two sources: Mark and something else (my vote is for Matthew, but as previously discussed, many scholars still hold to Q). Those two sources alone quite obviously could account for the bulk of the content in Luke, and the differences seem to point to just kind of making things up to sell his particular narrative on the nature of Christ, rather than to other (unnamed) sources.

Quote:
Incidentally, any "consensus" by scholars (who evidently are not worthy of the title), that none of the Gospels are eyewitness accounts, is worth diddly-squat. Luke explicitly tells us that he was an eyewitness.
Kindly cite chapter and verse for that. My impression was that, at best, assuming we take his word for it on his sources, he claimed to have spoken with eyewitnesses, but not to actually have been one himself. Wasn’t the traditional view of scholars that the author of Luke-Acts was merely a follower of Paul?

Quote:
It's amazing to me how so many people who consider themselves to be academics and researchers in pursuit of the truth treat research into Jesus so much differently that research into other ancient figures. You never see researchers into Aristotle, for example, throw out 90% of the source material right off the bat and then construct hypotheses from the remaining 10%. Like it or not, the four Gospels are our primary sources of information regarding Jesus, and any research that ignores or denigrates that fact is worthless.
Nobody bases their religion on Aristotle or, by extension, tries to enact policy "because Aristotle said." At least not lately, anyway (the medieval Church being a notable exception).

But if memory serves, the historicity of at least one of the Socrates/Plato/Aristotle trio (I’m thinking Plato) is sometimes called into question, positing that he was merely a character employed in dialogues. With that said, whether he existed or not does not lend any more or less weight to his philosophy. The same should be true of Jesus, but alas many people take "he probably existed" and then run with it to to conclude that he was also "probably was resurrected, and probably was the son of God, which means god exists and all the stuff that we attribute to Jesus is true, and so is everything in the Old Testament, whether we have to follow it (Matthew's Jesus) or not (Luke's Jesus)."

Last edited by ASL v2.0; 12-25-2019 at 10:10 AM.
  #67  
Old 12-25-2019, 10:43 AM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 21,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
Incidentally, any "consensus" by scholars (who evidently are not worthy of the title), that none of the Gospels are eyewitness accounts, is worth diddly-squat. Luke explicitly tells us that he was an eyewitness. And if you're going to ignore or designate as unreliable the vast bulk of the primary source material just because you don't like what it says, any subsequent research is going to invariably lead you to false conclusions.

It's amazing to me how so many people who consider themselves to be academics and researchers in pursuit of the truth treat research into Jesus so much differently that research into other ancient figures. You never see researchers into Aristotle, for example, throw out 90% of the source material right off the bat and then construct hypotheses from the remaining 10%. Like it or not, the four Gospels are our primary sources of information regarding Jesus, and any research that ignores or denigrates that fact is worthless.
Oh, boy.

Here's the Wikipedia article on the Authorship of Luke-Acts. Note that while likely written by the same person and there is some bits in Acts that suggest that the author was a traveling companion of Paul and witnessed at least part of Paul's mission first hand, the Gospel of Luke is another thing entirely.

Quoting from the article:

"The traditional view recognizes that Luke was not an eyewitness of the events in the Gospel, ... " [My emphasis.]

Note that this is the traditional view.

To go around slamming people who clearly know more about this than you do is ridiculous.

The author of Luke-Acts clearly did not witness a lot of what he wrote about. He gets a lot of historical facts wrong. Acts is the most error filled book in the New Testament.

If you were going to pick one of the four gospels to be the most likely one written by an eyewitness, Luke is the last one you'd choose.

Flyer, it is you that is ignoring the material in the New Testament.

Last edited by ftg; 12-25-2019 at 10:45 AM.
  #68  
Old 12-25-2019, 12:07 PM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL v2.0 View Post
Nobody bases their religion on Aristotle or, by extension, tries to enact policy "because Aristotle said." At least not lately, anyway (the medieval Church being a notable exception).

But if memory serves, the historicity of at least one of the Socrates/Plato/Aristotle trio (I’m thinking Plato) is sometimes called into question, positing that he was merely a character employed in dialogues.
Correction to the above: the answer is Socrates. Though Socrates is acknowledged as a historic character (as, FWIW, Jesus currently is), the words attributed to him are passed down to us primarily (exclusively?) through the works of his student, Plato, and other philosophers of the era. As with Jesus, the views expressed by Socrates in these various surviving works and the details of his life tend to vary—or even contradict one another—and so cast doubt on whether or not we can ever actually know "what Socrates said," in spite of the wide volume of works that are supposed to feature him. It's known as the Socratic problem and is, I think, a perfectly appropriate analogue to the problem of someone claiming "Jesus said."

The difference is, honest historians acknowledge this and no one finds it particularly controversial because Socrates is not a major religious figure. But try and apply a similar level of skepticism to the sayings attributed to Jesus and, well, you get some of the responses in this thread.

Even if I grant (for the sake of argument) that the gospels are eyewitness accounts or the work of good historians (for their time), it should not be a controversial view at all that the words of Jesus may not have actually been spoken by Jesus, but rather were put into his mouth by (possibly much later) followers trying to advance their own particular philosophy.

Last edited by ASL v2.0; 12-25-2019 at 12:08 PM.
  #69  
Old 12-27-2019, 01:18 AM
ALOHA HATER is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 157
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned what they call the Sayings Gospels, which (like Q) are a theoretical lost work that the canonical gospels and other books drew from. The idea is that it was pretty much a list of quotes from Jesus, rather than a narrative work.

Someone did mention the Jesus Seminar, which is relevant.

As a nonexpert, I don't believe that there's some secret key to the sources of early Christian writing. There must have been countless texts going around which all influenced each other. There were a good roughly 40 years between crucifixion and the earliest gospel. That's plenty of time for ideas to intermix.
  #70  
Old 12-27-2019, 01:10 PM
md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 15,485
Having sat through the church readings of the nativity story in the last few days, it is hard not to appreciate the obvious embellishment present in the gospel stories. There was a Syrian census a few years BC, but nobody - especially not day labourers - had to traipse halfway across the country for days to simply register where they did not live. It sounds like something someone else would have added decades later to twist their messiah to be of divine origin. Similarly, Josephus had no problem describing Herod the Great's misdeeds and misfortunes in detail, (Including his rotting genitals) and never thought to mention that he ordered the massacre of all (male) babies in a wide area of his kingdom? So widespread that one would need to travel all the way to Egypt to escape?

As a non-expert, it seems to me the nativity gospels provided several things that advanced the young church's party line - affirmed Jesus' divine lineage, his link to David (wait, through Joseph who actually wasn't his father??), the fact that he was also fully human from birth, not just a divine apparition (to contrast another early "heresy"), and that both the heavens and civil authorities believed his divinity and the prophecies.
  #71  
Old 12-27-2019, 03:23 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
Having sat through the church readings of the nativity story in the last few days, it is hard not to appreciate the obvious embellishment present in the gospel stories. There was a Syrian census a few years BC, but nobody - especially not day labourers - had to traipse halfway across the country for days to simply register where they did not live.
While the story is almost certainly made up, having spoken to people who live in places where you have to register with the government, notify them of movements, get permission to move, etc. it seems common to simply let your data linger in an old condition. A married couple might, officially, live in different provinces just because one of them never bothered to update their registration, even though they've been living together under the same roof for the last decade.

But that does inconveniences at time since you might be called upon to continue the lie, report to vote, or whatever.

So, I could conceive of a situation where you might end up having to go back to where you're registered as living, for some government thing.

A bigger issue is that the "prophecy" that the Bethlehem birth was supposed to fill had already been filled. Micah 5.1 is (pretty likely) an addition to the original works of Micah (chapters 1-3). The later parts were written after Israel was taken over by Cyrus the Great and then given great freedom and money to rebuild the Temple.

The king at the time (a descendant of David), and the person who commissioned the Bible was Josiah.

The prophecies refer to the works of Josiah and Cyrus, establishing the rightness of the work they were doing by putting words into the mouths of earlier religious leaders. This is less apparent if you quote snippets of text out of the prophecies but become more clear if you read about Cyrus and Josiah and then read through the whole text with that context set.

We don't know where either man was born. I'd lean towards suspecting that Josiah was born in Bethlehem on the basis of Micah.
  #72  
Old 12-27-2019, 03:51 PM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 21,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
As a non-expert, it seems to me the nativity gospels provided several things that advanced the young church's party line - affirmed Jesus' divine lineage, his link to David (wait, through Joseph who actually wasn't his father??), ...
Note that there are two significantly different genealogies for Jesus given in Matthew and Luke. (Which in the older parts also disagree with the Old Testament.) One explanation for some of the differences is one is goes thru Mary rather than Joseph. But that, and a bunch of other explanations are all problematical.

That neither the of author's of Mark and John didn't care about genealogy, virgin births, etc. and pretty much picked up the story with John the Baptist and then Jesus getting baptized is telling, facts-wise. Paul clearly didn't care about any of this. (He, in fact, stressed how Jesus was born in a not unusual way.)

All these facts were known to early Church scholars, and yet ...
  #73  
Old 12-27-2019, 07:24 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL v2.0 View Post
...
Even if I grant (for the sake of argument) that the gospels are eyewitness accounts or the work of good historians (for their time), it should not be a controversial view at all that the words of Jesus may not have actually been spoken by Jesus, but rather were put into his mouth by (possibly much later) followers trying to advance their own particular philosophy.
Sure, that certainly could have happened. We do think that MOST of the sayings were the Words of Jesus, but I dont believe in divine intervention to make them all 100% kosher (pun intended).
  #74  
Old 12-27-2019, 07:37 PM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Sure, that certainly could have happened. We do think that MOST of the sayings were the Words of Jesus, but I dont believe in divine intervention to make them all 100% kosher (pun intended).
Who is "we" and on what grounds?
  #75  
Old 12-27-2019, 07:50 PM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 2,407
Since the existence of Yeshua bir Miryam is uncorroborated, and many attributed sayings in both canonical and apocryphal books have long lineages, one can find or invent almost any Wisdom Saying or Divine Relevation to blame on that Holy Mouthpiece. Thus Xianity is the most flexible of religions, infinitely malleable, like tinfoil.
  #76  
Old 01-22-2020, 07:28 AM
kanicbird is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, "how much of what we think of today as "Christianity" originated with Paul, or how much different it would be if Paul had never gotten involved" is very much a matter for debate.
Actually in practice quite a lot of the church's authority is usually a cite to Paul. But it appears that when Paul states the authority of the church he is stating things from what he knew as a expert of Jewish temple law, which is what Jesus came to free us from. Paul admits what he says is sometimes things knowingly not of God but only from Paul himself, and other times that Paul states a command from God which Paul is apparently not in agreement with. Paul frequently talks about this war going on inside himself.

And that's the whole Paul founded Christianity thing, as a mix of what people ask for (wanting rules, leaders), and what God wants (Christ is sufficient). It is the same thing that God did with the Jewish people, giving them things to try to get them to understand they never needed them.

Contrast this to what Jesus taught, the kingdom is near, drop everything and follow me, lean accept and do as I do. That is not Christianity as we know it, however it may be a stepping stone to the way Jesus lives and teaches for those willing to make the leap of faith.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017