No fabrication in Gospels (page 4)

Shining One

XJW,
The great majority of the above replies do indeed seem to be just as you describe...
>I'm just curious. How many of you fine folks that spend so much time reading books & articles from one side of the debate (the skepital side) on the Scriptures, have actually read books & articles from the other side (the believers) side. Now I know, I am sure that you will tell me that the believers have an axe to grind, but doesn't the other side have a an axe to grind also?

Of course they have their own presuppositions and just like when they were with Momma Watchtower, they get themselves a new world view that allows self-exaltation a priority. They are now 'too smart' and 'wise in their reasonings' to fall for any 'religious crap'. They look down their noses at anyone who has faith and evidence of the supernatural.
It is the same with creationism/evolution debate. They read what they want to hear and do not challenge their beliefs because they are now 'scientific' and 'science' says that nothing supernatural can happen. This was the attitude of the infamous Jesus Seminar and I see several people here that are 'to the left' of those people!
Rex

XJW4EVR

So you are saying that you know that all of the above are 'a fabrication'? How could you possibly KNOW that? What supernatural attributes allow you to make that statement as a fact?
For crying out loud Rex! ; Please wake up man! ; What supernatural attributes do I need to know that 1+1 does not equal 3?

Correct, Nic. However, you seem to have forgotten or ignored the fact that 1x1x1=1.

XJW4EVR

Release yourself from the bondage of cynicism. Just because Mother Watchtower is fake doesn't mean she was right about true Christianity!

oh give it a rest, Rex. And what is "true christianity"?? The gospel according to "shining one" ?? All you have done in your life is replace one form of brainwashing (the watchtower) with ANOTHER form of brainwashing "Right-wing, bible-belt christian fundamentalism".....Its all the same crap, just another pile. .....yawn......

This makes me laugh. So you have simply exchanged your WT theology for the brainwashing of the post-modern secular humanism?

Narkissos

So if an author was constructing a narrative out of material from the OT, for example, it would have been more likely because the author believed that such-and-such must have happened to Jesus because of what is stated in the OT....

While I very much agree that terms like "fabrication" or "fraud" are seriously misleading, I don't believe that the people who made up most of the "Jesus stories" (not only the Gospel writers, but also the storytellers who contributed to the oral traditions upstream of the Gospels) would necessarily believe that what they told did happen in real life. To me there is a huge difference between their notion of religious "truth" and our notion of historical "truth". The inventors/writers of religious myths, legends, tales, midrashim. might have been perfectly aware that they were creating stories and still doing so out of faith -- not faith in objective history but in the theology they wanted to illustrate.

I think such a religious attitude, from many different theological stances, is actually behind most of the so-called "historical" texts of the Bible, from the Deuteronomistic history down to the book of Acts, from the patriarchal stories in Genesis to the books of Jonah, Esther or Daniel. To them factual history is not "sacred," it is a flexible material which can be re-told and re-written to suit religious or political ideas. That's definitely not our view of "objective history," but it is not "bad" unless we consider our intellectual/moral standards as retrospectively absolute.

XJW4EVR,

How many of you fine folks that spend so much time reading books & articles from one side of the debate (the skepital side) on the Scriptures, have actually read books & articles from the other side (the believers) side

I spent about 14 years of my life as a JW and another 3 in an Evangelical college. While JWs and Evangelicals are quite different on doctrine, I found their stances and arguments on Biblical apologetics to be essentially the same -- around the common (mis-)understanding of Bible stories as history. About any argument an xJW can read in favor of the historicity of the Bible is something s/he has heard and preached hundreds of times. I'm afraid there is not too much to expect from this side of the debate.

Clam,

There are some very interesting links between Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions about Jesus (but that's another topic I guess).

XJW4EVR

XJW4EVR,
How many of you fine folks that spend so much time reading books & articles from one side of the debate (the skepital side) on the Scriptures, have actually read books & articles from the other side (the believers) side

I spent ;about 14 years of my life as a ;JW and another 3 in an Evangelical college. While JWs and Evangelicals are quite different on doctrine, I found their stances and arguments ;on Biblical apologetics ;to be ;essentially the same -- ;around the common (mis-)understanding of Bible stories as history. About any argument an xJW can read ;in favor of the historicity of the Bible is something ;s/he has heard and preached hundreds of times. I'm afraid there is not too much to expect from this side of the debate.

14 years as a JW and 3 years at an unnamed "Evangelical" college does not impress me much. As far as the rest of your post I don't see any mention of conservative scholars. Why is that?

As for your last statement: it only appears that you have found a way to affirm your presupposition, and you obviously think there is no need to challenge it. This is intellectual laziness.

gumby

Rex...all lies eh? Perhaps you should read some of statements from the mouths of the church fathers/editors about "lying for the sake of truth/Jesus"

I am personally not convinced that a non-literal "Jesus myth" lay at the earliest substratum of Christianity.

I dunno either Leolaia. Had not the christians destroyed their writings and worshipping grounds, we'd know a bit more about them and the events surrounding jesus day.

A question. Isn't it believed the gospels were written AFTER the letters? What is the believed date of the first book of the N.T. If it's not a gospel but rather a letter, it would seem a gnostic jesus was believed BEFORE literal Jesus was. I need help, I've forgotten things I've read...lol

It is, to be sure, found in the earliest texts, namely Paul, but was Paul representative of the broad spectrum of primitive Christianity? I have my doubts about that.

Was Paul the only writers from the epistels who never mentioned an earthly historical Jesus? Peter, James, Timothy, etc. Why did Paul seem any more gnostic than the others?

I find G. A. Wells' view more plausible that there was likely a historical Jesus who became merged with a co-existing "savior myth" in Hellenistic Christianity (i.e. in Paul and Mark), with (in my view) the earlier Jewish-Christian community reinterpreting the meaning of Jesus' death-resurrection from one of vindication and justice (along traditional Jewish OT and Maccabean models) to one of salvation and redemption.

Since godmen stories were prevalent in jesus day already, it would be understandable how a story started out from a good man eventually becoming the savior god but as I say I need help on who was first....gnostics (epistles) or gospel stories( literalists)

Gumby

hallelujah

There are some very interesting links between Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions about Jesus (but that's another topic I guess).

This is something which is very relevant in today's world. The concept of virgin birth due to divine intervention into the womb of Mary is really quite an abhorent speculation. This is another of those definitive issues which persuaded me that the Bible is a man made myth. While I am still inclined to think that Jesus did exist, and was a man, and a good man, I have no intrinsic faith in the words ascribed to him, other than that they stand or fall on their own merits. JW's believe that Jesus is divine. The WTBTS believes that Jesus is not God, but that God implanted his seed in Mary's womb, literally. As for the gospel stories about his birth and death, these are in terms of Christianity given far more importance than the teachings ascribed to him - such as love thy enemies, turn the other cheek, etc which are routinely ignored.

nicolaou

(Matthew 14:19-21) . . . he commanded the crowds to recline on the grass and took the five loaves and two fishes, and, looking up to heaven, he said a blessing and, after breaking the loaves, he distributed them to the disciples, the disciples in turn to the crowds. 20So all ate and were satisfied, and they took up the surplus of fragments, twelve baskets full. 21 Yet those eating were about five thousand men, besides women and young children.

That is a mathematical impossibility.It is either an elaborate and complex hoax, which I doubt, or it never happened and is simply a lie which is what I strongly suspect.

C'mon Rex, does god/jesus break his own laws?

XJW4EVR

Correct, Nic. However, you seem to have forgotten or ignored the fact that 1x1x1=1.

Not too sure whay you're getting at here mate.

SickofLies

XJW4EVR ;
Correct, Nic. However, you seem to have forgotten or ignored the fact that 1x1x1=1.
Not too sure whay you're getting at here mate.

LOL, my thoughts exactly!

Leolaia

Isn't it believed the gospels were written AFTER the letters? What is the believed date of the first book of the N.T. If it's not a gospel but rather a letter, it would seem a gnostic jesus was believed BEFORE literal Jesus was.

Yes, Paul's letters are the earliest surviving documents from Christianity, but my question is one of representativeness. Paul wasn't the founder of the Jesus movement for he acknowledged that there were followers before him, and from the stance Paul took on the Law and his difficulties with Law-observant Jewish Christians, it is clear that his views were not necessarily representative of all Christians. Rather, it is recognized that like Judaism itself, primitive Christianity was theologically diverse as can be witnessed by the NT itself. I find it more plausible that both streams are early, but represent different theological approaches within the movement.

No fabrication in Gospels

Share this