Now onto the topic which is the theme of the thread.
It was observed by several in the thread that the answer depends on what is meant by "Fraud" or "Fabrication". I think Leo and a few others expressed the view that they thought the writers of the gospels at least thought they were reporting genuine events and that eliminate the "mens rea" necessary to sustain the charge of fraud or fabrication. I wholeheartedly agree. Although I disagree with the liberal camp as to the authorship and time of writing of the gospels, It is quite obvious in the case of several of them, namely Luke and Mark, that they were reporting things second hand. The other two are debatable, but I think we can agree on that.
Luke addressed his gospel to one Theophilis, using a form of salutation indicating the man to be someone of prominence and power. He also assured the man that "I resolved also , because I have traced all things with accuracy, to right them in logical order, to you" (Luke 1:3). Luke also acknowledged the existence of other accounts, which is significant. That acknowledgement tells us that there were other accounts to compare his with and eye witnesses of those events as well. So Luke is inviting his reader to check the facts for himself and confirm the accuracy of the account. Now I don't know about anyone else, but I am not about to place such a statement in anything I wrote and try to include any fabrications. Back in those days, that could cost one more than just losing a paycheck! So I think that it can safely said that Luke wrote what he was confident was the truth.
Since much of what he wrote can also be found in the other two Synoptic Gospels, I think we can be confident that the other two represent the gospel story as the early Christian community understood to be truthful. John is universally understood to be significantly later in writing than the other three and is on a different plane. To me, it speak of a writer who was trying to express the story in light of a lifetime of thinking on its significance. Much of the difference between it and the Synoptic Gospels can be in that orientation. If it was not written by an eyewitness to the events, it certainly represent a tradition among early Christians which the writer believed to be true.
If the Synoptic gospels were written within the first century, as both camps seem to agree they were, it would've been very dangerous to fabricate the story since Official Roman archives were still available for inspection and the truth of the matter could be readily uncovered. Remember, Christianity was not liked very well in those days and there were plenty of Roman scholars who would've been only too happy to expose Christianity as a complete fraud.
So from the foregoing, I think we can conclude that there was no fraud in the gospels. Those stories represent a truthful depiction of the events as the ancient world understood them. Of course I know what many mean by fraud when spaeaking of the gospel stories. But that falls more into a philisophical debate about whether miracles happen or not and is not part of the scope of the question as Leo and others have already pointed out.
Forscher
Forscher
JoinedPosts by Forscher
-
103
No fabrication in Gospels
by Shining One inhttp://www.rzim.org/publications/jttran.php?seqid=52 .
"what cannot be doubted is that many new testament critics have approached the gospels with an utterly unjustified skepticism--a skepticism that wouldn't be considered justified in any other branch of ancient history.
new testament scholar r. t. france declares that "at the level of their literary and historical character we have good reason to treat the gospels as a source of information on the life and teachings of jesus, and thus on the historical origins of christianity.
-
-
Forscher
-
103
No fabrication in Gospels
by Shining One inhttp://www.rzim.org/publications/jttran.php?seqid=52 .
"what cannot be doubted is that many new testament critics have approached the gospels with an utterly unjustified skepticism--a skepticism that wouldn't be considered justified in any other branch of ancient history.
new testament scholar r. t. france declares that "at the level of their literary and historical character we have good reason to treat the gospels as a source of information on the life and teachings of jesus, and thus on the historical origins of christianity.
-
-
Forscher
I can't help pondering on the feeling of tiredness and boredom which seems to prevail on both sides of this debate. In spite of the amazing amount of newly found material (Qumran, Nag Hammadi, etc.) on the context and inner diversity of early Christianity, we are still basically stuck, on the popular level, in the same late 19th- early 20th-century methodological arguments.
On the scholarly level, things are a bit different I think. Nobody expects conservative scholars to propose new models of interpretation taking the additional data into account. This positive task naturally falls upon the so-called "critics". On the other hand, conservatives have been pretty good at criticising the new proposals, pointing to their (often real) flaws. Iow, I feel the so-called "critical" scholars now spend less time and efforts attacking anything than trying to reconstruct something. And most conservative scholars are increasingly "critics" of every new reconstruction. What is fading, I feel, is the notion of "consensus".
Somehow I missed that when I was so focused on what was going on between Leo and myself. When I read it, I felt that it was insightful enough to bear repeating, Narkissos. I would like to add that not all conservative scholars are all that stuck in attack mode. they just kind of get lost in the squabble between the two camps and what ever new insights they have to lay on the table tend to get ignored by both camps.
The problem tends to be the extreme points from which the most prominent members of both camps come and their insistence that the other side has anything relevent to say (Please note I said both sides, I am not picking on either one alone with my comment). Although I am more in the conservative camp, I do not deny that some things coming out of the liberal camp can illuminate our understanding of the scriptures. For instance, the Q document theory points out the obvious, that one or more of the synoptic writers worked with one or more previously written documents. Although I've lightly engaged with Leo in a bit of debate about which document that might have been, it really isn't all that important to me one way or the other. The important part consists in the high probabilty of coordination that possibility reveals. And it suggests roads for research into the early church which neither camp has properly explored. They are just too busy trying to cut each other's throats.
I know I've not said much good about Dominic Crossan. But I'll give him his due right here because he has tried to do what I am talking about. My problem with him is with his assumptions and hence the methodologies which he uses. Of Course, I realise that since he is bound to anthropology with its secular orientation, he is also bound to it's atheistic assumptions. That leads him down the wrong road in my opinion. It also led him into his work with the "Jesus seminar" and its dubious conclusions. How anyone who as a Catholic priest claims to speak for God could go down that road beggars the inagination as far as I am concerned.
I hold a bachelor's degree in a related field and a minor in anthropology (my anthropology professors did try to get me to change my major, but I was not in a real good position to make that change at the time and realistic enough to realise that my personal beliefs would be a hinderance to going on since it is now becoming a practice to deny those who hold beliefs like mine a graduate education in that field). So I am in a position to evaluate his work.
I'll give you your due as well Narkissos. I think it was you who said you spent three years in an Evangelical university and wasn't really impressed with the conservative argument. Although I disagree with your conclusions, You are entitled to them and I will not question either your right to them, or your credentials. I think it is uncalled for on your critic's account to dismiss them so lightly. Although we disagree at times, I find your argumentation knowledgeable, and respectful. And that is as it should be. We should all be prepared to let the arguments stand on their own merit when we enter this arena and respect the other man.
My best wishes to all for the moment.
Forscher -
43
Latest WT study article - preparation for upcoming new light?
by truth_about_the_truth in.
the latest wt study article seemed like an article to prep the masses for 'new light' to be revealed in the very near future.. i have never seen an article like this one where they summarized their 'flashes of light' in their history in this manner and bombarded the minds with the need to accept all and any change within the org.. it could be for the purpose of getting the rank and file to accept a pretty big change or a series of big changes very soon.. what do you think?
what do you think it'll be?.
-
-
Forscher
Since I am unaware of any genuine scholar, even of the low status of Freddy Franz, on the GB. I don't look for anything that would be half-way innovative or earth shattering. Those folks are pretty much in the same phase as the old politburo in the Soviet Union during the 80s. Whatever they do, it is going to be self-serving and likely just as cynical as my post.
Of course, they could surprise me. But then, what would really be the chances of that?
Forscher -
10
LXX -vs- MT, Jeremiah 25:11,12
by Death to the Pixies innot looking to debate here, just getting some ideas.
if you would, please give which text you accept and briefly give a reason or two for your conclusions.
i posted this on another forum but realized the only people who care about this are jws and x-jws.
-
-
Forscher
Well pixied one,
The LXX is pretty much acknowledged as the "Readers Digest" version of the OT. That is because some of of the prophetic books appear somewhat edited when compared to the Masoretic text. Among the Dead Sea finds was a copy in Hebrew which is pretty much the same as the LXX. That set off a debate as to whether the LXX represents a more ancient text, possibly the original. I am going to go out on a limb and say that the scholars who hold that it does represent the original may have a point (see Leo, I don't always reject those folks out of hand.). Since the difference is relatively minor and doesn't change the message in any important way (despite substituting "nations" for "king of Babylon"), I think it is just as acceptable.
Maybe Leo can give us the current thinking from her side of the aisle on that one.
Forscher -
35
Help me out, I'm scheduled to give this talk!
by drew sagan inthe dangers of pride and a rebellious attitude rs p. 3911-2 .
here is what the information says... .
reacting to situations on the basis of pride .
-
-
Forscher
Piece of cake Drew!
You know the dog and pony show that is expected for that topic. They'll really want you to blast apostates and warn of the dangers developing apostates pride if one has anything to do with them. All you have to know is which way the wind is blowing in order to give a talk that will have the elders drooling with pleasure.
I could do that talk if it was given to me right after I walked in the hall for the meeting!
Forscher -
9
HALL CLEANING
by buffalosrfree ini found it fascinating that when 0ur book study was assigned the cleaning of the hall it always seemed to fall to two familites, mine and the book study conductors.
despite all the others in the book study it was me and my family that cleaned the hall on meeting days and on saturdays.
i often wondered what gives, one other in the congregation a ministerial servant and his family almost never showed up.
-
-
Forscher
You guys remember all those nice littles stories about elders cleaning toilets as an example of humilty for the rest of us? I never saw it happen! Usually they were just like any other white hats, just standing around gossipping among themselves and telling the rest of us what to do. Usually, the toilet job fell to moi, or one of the sisters if my strength or height was needed elsewhere.
What can I say, I was usually the guy who came to mind when there was a dirty jodb to be done and they needed somebody who could be counted on to do it. That, was the story of my life in the Borg.
Forscher -
31
How Were You Affected By Elder/Ministerial Servants/Pioneer Appointments?
by minimus inwere you ever affected by seeing a man or even a teenager being made a ministerial servant or a young man being appointed an elder-----knowing that the person is not really qualified?
you could be thinking, "i can't believe he gets to be an elder when my husband (or brother or father or friend) is doing everything but headstands for the elders!
" when such appointments were made did you see to it that you would not go to that person for direction or counsel?
-
-
Forscher
By the time I was 24, I was the only male above about 20 in my congregation who was not on the servant body (elder or ministerial servant). That didn't mean I wasn't busy. I pretty much supervised the mike handlers, took care of the sound, helped in the Magazine department, and assisted with an isolated group about 40 miles away (it was during the gas crisis and the elders and ministerial servants were all too cheap to put the gas in their tanks and drive out there. So the little group was supervised by a ministerial servant who couldn't get out of it and me.).
I was told, however, that since I wasn't married, I couldn't be recommended for any postion which required appointment by the society. They cited the requirement in 1 Timothy that those selected be "husbands of one wife", they held that meant that only married brothers could bre appointed. I knew better, but had no recourse but to go along with the game. When I married, the mask came off and I was told point-blank not to think that my new status as a married brother would matter a wit. Then I was relieved of all responsibilities I'd been caring for.
It goes without saying that it was very depressing to sit there year after year and watch some very incompetent men get appointed within a year or two after they came in if they were already married, or shortly after they married. Many of them didn't even bother to do their appointed jobs after they were appointed and got away with it for years. At one point, the congregation had avbout 11-12 elders and about 16 ministerial servants. That was a servant body of about 28 for a congregation of a little over 100. I remember a couple of those elders couldn't even read publicly or give a public talk!
Like I said, it was pretty depressing to be the only brother over twenty not on the servant body. And that despite the fact that several COs in a row pushed for me to be appointed.
By the way, when my position as assistant to the isolated group was taken away, the group was disbanded by the elders and forced to drive that 40 miles to the sunday meetings and bookstudy since they couldn't find a replacement for me. Within a few years, the WTBS took that territory away from the congregation and gave it to another about the same distance away, who would at least support a book study group out there. By that time, about half the group had either quit or been disfellowshipped. And all because the sorry elders in my congregation didn't want the responsibility!
Forscher -
5
Elder's visit
by flag inso, i finally had my first elder visit after 3 months!!!.
he showed up unannounced on saturday around 9:30 am but i was still on bed so i did not answered the door.
i thought that he wont come back but to my surprise he showed up again around 10:30 and this time i couldn't get away with not anwering because i had the music on plus my door has a window and he saw me in the living room.. he was by himself, (which is a big no,no,) when visiting a sister.. he was not very pushy, he said they miss me at the meetings, blah,blah,blah.. you won't believe what was his reasoning to justify that the end was near!.
-
-
Forscher
Evidently, he didn't live during the 60's and the 70's.
That was rich, Blondie, and probably very true!
Forscher -
37
Pedophilia with 3-year old slave girls in the Bible!
by mike87 ingirls at the age of 3 were forced into sex in both the talmud and the bible.
also, the age consent in us and europe was as low as 10:.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/age3.htm.
-
-
Forscher
By the way, did anyone note that the Talmudic passage associate menstruation with a three year old girl? I noticed it after my post. What would you like to bet that the number was mistranslated and should read "13 years and one day"? That would make more sense in that passage.
Forscher -
37
Pedophilia with 3-year old slave girls in the Bible!
by mike87 ingirls at the age of 3 were forced into sex in both the talmud and the bible.
also, the age consent in us and europe was as low as 10:.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/age3.htm.
-
-
Forscher
Here is th biblical verse that was cited to prove the claim about sex at three years of age:
Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
The Biblical verse doesn't give the age as was pointed out earlier. He inferred it from the talmudic passage:
Said Rabbi Joseph, "Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And one can be liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating, to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer [of what lies beneath]. If she was married to a priest, she may eat food in the status of priestly rations. If one of those who are unfit for marriage with her had intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If any of those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her had intercourse with her, he is put to death on her account, but she is free of responsibility [M.Nid. 5:4].
Sanhedrin 7/55B [132]
Again, as pointed out earlier that is a horse of a different color. We all know that the leaders of Jesus day were corrupt and perverted. So it is no surprise that they would see nothing wrong with that perversion. By the way, I am aware that the Talmud was written a few centuries later, but many of the Rabbis it cited were contemporaries of Jesus. That is why my statement.
Forscher