Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Did Jesus Exist?


R. S. Martin

Recommended Posts

Alright, lets hear it. You've shown that you can post evidence of xians (which were never in dispute since they obviously exist) but from what I can see here what you are telling me is that you believe the anonymous gospel accounts and Paul's letters. Combined with the fact that someone believed all this before you did makes it true to you.

 

So, if you will indulge me, what makes the anonymous author of Matthew trustworthy? Likewise the anonymous authors of Mark, Luke and John?

 

What other works of theirs have shown themselves to be reputable or what testimony do we have of the authors that would place them in such a position?

 

mwc

 

The canonical gospel accounts (and the extra-canonical accounts such as the Gnostic gospels) seem to me reasonably reliable accounts of the life of the man from Nazareth, whom we call Jesus. I see no reason to doubt the major points of these accounts: birth of a Jesus; ministry of John; ministry of Jesus; teachings and healings of Jesus; arrest, execution and resurrection. The minor details are not of much concern to me. There exists a mountain of information about these writings that is easily available. In looking at it, from various perspectives, I find it reasonable for me to accept the broad account as an accurate portrait of Jesus' life. No one need feel likewise; just stating things as I see them.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 252
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • currentchristian

    101

  • mwc

    40

  • Antlerman

    22

  • R. S. Martin

    17

The canonical gospel accounts (and the extra-canonical accounts such as the Gnostic gospels) seem to me reasonably reliable accounts of the life of the man from Nazareth, whom we call Jesus. I see no reason to doubt the major points of these accounts: birth of a Jesus; ministry of John; ministry of Jesus; teachings and healings of Jesus; arrest, execution and resurrection. The minor details are not of much concern to me. There exists a mountain of information about these writings that is easily available. In looking at it, from various perspectives, I find it reasonable for me to accept the broad account as an accurate portrait of Jesus' life. No one need feel likewise; just stating things as I see them.

I had a feeling that my questions were going to put you in the hot seat (or if you watch The Daily Show, The Seat of Heat ;) ).

 

The point wasn't to attack you personally but to show something I know you already knew and that was that these things are anonymous. In addition when we look to the past we need to basically rate historians and their accounts. We rate Josephus to be accurate because, despite his failures, he does quite well overall. He mentions something about, for example the temple, and people go digging and there it is. He scores highly in that regard. He mentioned Masada but no one could find it until recently (relatively speaking). He said it was made of marble. It wasn't at all. So he knew of it but he probably never visited it.

 

But who are these anonymous authors of the gospels? Mark writes something that's likely sourced from at least one other item (possibly two or more). Along comes Matthew who copies him (about 80% worth). Luke does likewise but fixes a number of problems. Luke who people say is a historian never says he is but simply mentions he's trying to put together a coherent story where others failed:

 

1 As a number of attempts have been made to put together in order an account of those events which took place among us, 2 As they were handed down to us by those who saw them from the first and were preachers of the word, 3 It seemed good to me, having made observation, with great care, of the direction of events in their order, to put the facts in writing for you, most noble Theophilus; 4 So that you might have certain knowledge of those things about which you were given teaching.

 

This doesn't scream historian to me. It says a number of attempts were made. They were handed down from those who saw them and were preachers of the word. So, and here's where he gets his reputation, he made observation and great care put it in writing. This looks like he simply organized the mess of writings from verse one into the coherent whole that is the book of Luke. He's an organizer and not a historian.

 

Then finally we have John which is another story altogether. He has his own thing going on. People like him because he isn't so cryptic. "Are you god?" "Yep, I'm god. Sure, why not?" People like that straight forward attitude.

 

The point is that other than the names attributed they are anonymous and they simply have no reason to be trusted. But they are. Okay, they get some points right. Pilate existed and so on but they get quite a lot wrong too. Many things that Jews of that era shouldn't get wrong. Locations. The activities of their high court. Simple things like that. Things that later Jews wouldn't know and could very well get wrong since it would no longer be part of their daily lives.

 

As for what you say, I call into account the conflicts of the birth of Jesus and the whole passion story. They don't work across the witnesses. You can't get this guy killed off at the right time and his birth has any number of issues. You can ignore them if you like but they are problematic. If you say that's only when taken across gospels then you'd be wrong and I'm about done with something that will show just that (not so much for his birth but for his death...it's not definitive...what is? but I think it'll make you think ;) ).

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for this fine essay, mwc. But as you know, for 1800 years everyone attested to the fact that Matthew was written by Matthew, Mark by Mark, Luke by Luke, and John by John. Then along came 19th-century German historical-critical method saying otherwise. These scholars may have been right, and tradition may have been wrong. But I don't image these things are as black and white as you make them out to be. There's lots of shifting sand here, lots of gray, lots of "don't know's."

 

Remember that the gospel account of Pilate, even, was quite doubtful until 1961. Many thought he never existed because there was no accounting for him outside the Bible and Josephus (I think that was it...should look it up). Then in 1961 an inscription was found--the first physical evidence for his existence. This is just one example of extra-biblical near-silence meaning only one thing: there is little extra-biblical evidence for something.

 

Please, if you would, point out a specific problem with the gospels. Not a minor one, as we all know these exist. I really do like to research these things, so would enjoy it and I enjoy our correspondence and would enjoy more of that, too.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for this fine essay, mwc. But as you know, for 1800 years everyone attested to the fact that Matthew was written by Matthew, Mark by Mark, Luke by Luke, and John by John. Then along came 19th-century German historical-critical method saying otherwise. These scholars may have been right, and tradition may have been wrong. But I don't image these things are as black and white as you make them out to be. There's lots of shifting sand here, lots of gray, lots of "don't know's."

Your welcome. The essays just sort of "happen" off the top of my head. Sometimes I manage to stop before they get away from me (and sometimes...well...what can I say?).

 

Well, actually, the naming of the gospels is a black and white issue. Do the authors give their names? Yes or No? No. That's rather black and white as I see it. :) A quick look around shows Papias and Iranaeus appear to be the earliest known references to the names (Google turns up a number of references on this). However, Iranaeus also says that Jesus lived to be about 50 and a number of other things. I guess I believe him after all. He sounds pretty good to base any/all traditions on, right? Too late to say "no."

 

Also, I will take it that you accept that the tradition of the authors being reliable is what you accept is reliable. This is the best I can do with what you gave me. Do I get 4 "gimmies" too? ;)

 

Remember that the gospel account of Pilate, even, was quite doubtful until 1961. Many thought he never existed because there was no accounting for him outside the Bible and Josephus (I think that was it...should look it up). Then in 1961 an inscription was found--the first physical evidence for his existence. This is just one example of extra-biblical near-silence meaning only one thing: there is little extra-biblical evidence for something.

True enough, but I was confident in my facts about the naming issues before I brought them up (I just didn't have the names handy). But we're supposed to be trying to at least figure out "Did Jesus Exist?" are we not? We have to start digging around a little closer to home. You posted many wonderful statements that we all got to look at. It showed that xians existed. Now we need to start moving towards up the chain a little bit to see what all they pointed to. For my contribution so far I have tried to show that they could have been pointing to a plethora of "Christs" and not any specific Christ figure, namely a "Jesus" Christ. Only the highly disputed Josephus passages and the gospels really are acceptable testimony of this earthly version. Paul is "iffy" and the "church fathers" are mostly too late and extremely biased. I do believe they serve a purpose and most definitely should not be dismissed as utterly irrelevant (as such I am referring to them above) but they are not historians which I'm sure you'll agree. Although I do accept my pal Iranaeus above. He's just swell. ;)

 

Please, if you would, point out a specific problem with the gospels. Not a minor one, as we all know these exist. I really do like to research these things, so would enjoy it and I enjoy our correspondence and would enjoy more of that, too.

I had written, as you will likely believe, a rather lengthy response to this but I erased it. I think I said enough above. However, I would like your opinion on the whole "Luke" thing I mentioned. It's not a specific gospel issue but it is one that I found interesting.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for this fine essay, mwc. But as you know, for 1800 years everyone attested to the fact that Matthew was written by Matthew, Mark by Mark, Luke by Luke, and John by John. Then along came 19th-century German historical-critical method saying otherwise. These scholars may have been right, and tradition may have been wrong. But I don't image these things are as black and white as you make them out to be. There's lots of shifting sand here, lots of gray, lots of "don't know's."

You need to subtract a few years there. First, there is no clear reference to the gospels in their current form before c. 150 CE. Subtract that from the early 1800's and you get 1650-1700 years. Yeah, I know, picky. :shrug: But why would you trust church tradition to begin with regarding itself? People have been attesting to the "inerrancy" of the scriptures for a long time too. Does that make it more valid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for this fine essay, mwc. But as you know, for 1800 years everyone attested to the fact that Matthew was written by Matthew, Mark by Mark, Luke by Luke, and John by John. Then along came 19th-century German historical-critical method saying otherwise. These scholars may have been right, and tradition may have been wrong. But I don't image these things are as black and white as you make them out to be. There's lots of shifting sand here, lots of gray, lots of "don't know's."

You need to subtract a few years there. First, there is no clear reference to the gospels in their current form before c. 150 CE. Subtract that from the early 1800's and you get 1650-1700 years. Yeah, I know, picky. :shrug: But why would you trust church tradition to begin with regarding itself? People have been attesting to the "inerrancy" of the scriptures for a long time too. Does that make it more valid?

 

Thank you for the more exact dating. You are right.

 

While the gospels are anonymous in that there is no byline, it seems plausible to me that Matthew and John were written by disciples of Jesus; Mark was written by a disicple of Peter; and Luke was written by one of Paul's companions. Do we know with certainty, the way we know that Paul wrote Romans? No. But there are good reasons for embracing the traditional view and, even if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, this fact does not discount their potential as valid works containing a good measure of historical integrity.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In three of the letters ascribed to Paul, he mentions a traveling companion named Luke (Colossians, II Timothy and Philemon). Luke is described as "the beloved physician" in Colossians and as a fellow-worker and partner in travel in II Timothy and Philemon.

 

If one could tie this Luke to the gospel of the same name and the early history of the church called Acts of the Apostles, one could support a conclusion that the Jesus of Luke and the Jesus of Paul are one and the same.

 

Here is a excerpt from a much longer article that seeks to support the view that the traveling companion of Paul named Luke, the physician, was the author of Luke and Acts.

 

<<<<< If the author is Luke, as described in Colossians 4:14, the use of this language would make sense. The author pays attention to minute details which would seem to be of little or no significance to the average [non-medical] reader. In the gospel of Luke there is a longer account of the virgin birth than any of the other gospel writers (Luke 1:26-56; 2:1-20). Luke is the only gospel writer to tell of the birth and childhood of John the Baptist (1:5-25, 57-80).This author tends to put emphasis on the length of infirmities that had been miraculously healed. The crippled man outside the temple had been that way "from birth" (Acts 3:2). In Acts 9:33 the detail is given that Aeneas had been paralyzed for eight years. In Acts 14:8 there is another crippled man who had been in that condition "from birth and had never walked". In Acts 5:16 and 19:12 a distinction is made between diseases and demon possession. By this it is implied that the author is advanced in medicine and thinks rationally as a trained physician should. The physicians in an earlier time period would have approached this much differently.

 

‘The early Egyptian physicians were primarily priests, and secondarily medical men. Sickness was considered due to the presence of evil spirits in the afflicted person, and these evil spirits had to be exorcised by incantations and magic known only to the priests’ (Pousma, p.788).

 

There are many terms in Luke-Acts which are used by Luke exclusively in the New Testament. These are either technical medical terms or statements that are made in the fashion of a medical writer.

 

In Luke 4:38 the author states that Simon's mother-in- law was suffering from a high (megalow) fever. The other Synoptics do not include this designation (Matt. 8:14; Mark 1:30). Vine (p. 91) states that "Luke, as a physician, uses the medical distinction by which the ancients classified fevers into great and little." Luke makes the distinction that a man was "full" of leprosy (5:12) while Matthew and Mark simply state that the man was a leper. Luke appears to be noticing details that would not be of concern to the layman. In the case of the man with the withered hand Luke points out that it was his "right"hand (6:6) (Editor - This may of course have been due to his source) while Matthew (12:10) and Mark (3:1) make no distinction. The dead man "sat up" (anekathisen) in Luke 7:15, which Robertson notes (p. 96) is the word "used by medical writers in the intransitive sense for sitting up in bed." In the narrative of the Gerasene demoniac, only Luke gives the detail that the man was wearing no clothes (Luke 8:27; Matt. 8:28; Mark 5:2).

 

When Jairus' daughter was raised from the dead, only Luke mentions that Jesus gave orders for something to be brought for her to eat (Luke 8:55; Matt. 9:25; Mark 5:41). Luke records the only account in the New Testament of a person suffering from dropsy (14:2-4). Again, a probable distinction can be made that Luke is viewing people through a physician's eyes. All three Synoptics record Jesus' teaching concerning how difficult it can be for the wealthy to enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25), but Luke employs a different term for "needle" (belona). In both Matthew and Mark it is the needle used "to sew" (Vine, p. 106), but in Luke it is "the word that Galen uses for the surgeon's needle, a distinct trace of medical authorship" (Robertson, p. 95). "It should also be noted that in the case of the woman suffering from hemorrhage, Luke omits the comment that she had spent her savings on doctors and was not cured (cf. Mark 5:26; Luke 8:43)" (Guthrie, p. 118).

 

Out of the six miracle accounts that are unique to Luke's Gospel, five of them are miracles of healing. The case of the dead man from Nain receiving resurrection from Jesus (7:11-15);Jesus healing the woman who had been bent over double for eighteen years (13:11-13);Jesus healing the man with dropsy (14:2-4);the cleansing of the ten lepers (17:12-14); and, finally, the restoring of Malchus's ear (22:51).

 

In Acts, a number of terms connected with the medical profession are used. In Acts 1:3 the word "proofs" (tekmahrioi )occurs, and is the only place in the New Testament it can be found. This word "was technically employed in medical language" (Robertson, p. 99). In Acts 3:7-8 several interesting observations take place concerning the crippled beggar who was healed. It is noted that the man's feet and ankles are strengthened, and that he leaps, stands upright, and walks. A great number of people were healed according to the account in Acts 5:15-16, and the author distinguishes between those who were physically ill, and those who are afflicted with unclean spirits. Acts 13:11 uses the word "mist" (axlu)in describing what fell around Elymas the magician. Reese (p. 466) explains that "the word mist is a medical term used to describe a disease of the eye." In Acts 28:4 the word translated "snake" is tharion, which Reese (p. 923) says "is used by medical writers for venomous snakes."

 

‘Even when proper allowance is made for lay use of medical language, Harnack's explicit statement of the case still stands (in ‘Luke the Physician’). He sets out to prove that Luke was a physician not only by his vocabulary but also by a variety of traces throughout his writings, such as points of view, preference for the healing miracles, interests characteristic of physicians, and ways of reporting anecdotes. It is true that a few isolated instances prove little. But the overwhelming mass of data appears conclusive that the author was indeed a physician, presumably Luke, the only physician known to belong to Paul's missionary party’ (Dayton, p.1002). >>>>>

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your apologia is not something to which I subscribe or would subscribe. In my view, you get something closer to the Real Thing from the gospel of "Mark," which is the first written and probably was composed using the so-called Q source and maybe others. Then "Matthew" embroiders a little, using "Mark," who has already used somebody else, and "Luke" goes crazy with his embroidery, also using "Mark." Then later we get "John," which is over the top - with quotes that are very unlikely (in fact most scholars agree that there are at least 23 "direct quotes" of Jesus that are attributable only to the writer of this work.

 

Why go any further than these bedrock issues? Why go into Paul, who clearly had a private agenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for this fine essay, mwc. But as you know, for 1800 years everyone attested to the fact that Matthew was written by Matthew, Mark by Mark, Luke by Luke, and John by John. Then along came 19th-century German historical-critical method saying otherwise. These scholars may have been right, and tradition may have been wrong. But I don't image these things are as black and white as you make them out to be. There's lots of shifting sand here, lots of gray, lots of "don't know's."

 

If the 19th century was the first time anyone had questioned their authenticity I would likely agree with you on this. However, "everyone attested" is a bit to strong of a wording, In fact during the first 2 or 3 hundred years of the church many people DID question the authenticity of the gospels(if they hadn't then the gnostic gospels wouldn't have been kicked out) ...these names weren't even affixed to them until the mid to late 2nd century, which means anywhere from 50 to 100 years after they were written.

 

Now, no one much questioned their authenticity from 500 AD onward, but as you well know this was the beginning of a little era known as the dark ages. Due to the control of the church, and the break down of civilized governments almost no one could even read besides the church scholars...hardly the kind of people who were likely to question church.

 

Now, the only reason THESE four were chosen over the other gospels was because the proto-orthodox church won the political struggle for dominance over the Gnostics, Marcionites, Ebonites, and other early church movements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In three of the letters ascribed to Paul, he mentions a traveling companion named Luke (Colossians, II Timothy and Philemon). Luke is described as "the beloved physician" in Colossians and as a fellow-worker and partner in travel in II Timothy and Philemon.

 

If one could tie this Luke to the gospel of the same name and the early history of the church called Acts of the Apostles, one could support a conclusion that the Jesus of Luke and the Jesus of Paul are one and the same.

Well, I don't know if we could do that since neither of these two would have actually had met this Jesus but we may well be able to at least connect Paul and the author of Luke and Acts. We know that they are writing their stories for a reason, meaning they have an agenda, whether or not they share the same agenda is unknown.

 

Here is a excerpt from a much longer article that seeks to support the view that the traveling companion of Paul named Luke, the physician, was the author of Luke and Acts.

I'll start by saying I've not read the longer version of this. I've read similar things trying to connect these two guys in the past but I'm going to just hit a few highlights that show my personal take on these essays in general (so there's lots of snip-age here).

 

‘The early Egyptian physicians were primarily priests, and secondarily medical men. Sickness was considered due to the presence of evil spirits in the afflicted person, and these evil spirits had to be exorcised by incantations and magic known only to the priests’ (Pousma, p.788).

The funny thing is, no matter the root cause, the ultimate "cure" by jesus was magic. Isn't this sort of the pot calling the kettle black?

 

There are many terms in Luke-Acts which are used by Luke exclusively in the New Testament. These are either technical medical terms or statements that are made in the fashion of a medical writer.

 

In Luke 4:38 the author states that Simon's mother-in- law was suffering from a high (megalow) fever. The other Synoptics do not include this designation (Matt. 8:14; Mark 1:30). Vine (p. 91) states that "Luke, as a physician, uses the medical distinction by which the ancients classified fevers into great and little." Luke makes the distinction that a man was "full" of leprosy (5:12) while Matthew and Mark simply state that the man was a leper. Luke appears to be noticing details that would not be of concern to the layman. In the case of the man with the withered hand Luke points out that it was his "right"hand (6:6) (Editor - This may of course have been due to his source) while Matthew (12:10) and Mark (3:1) make no distinction. The dead man "sat up" (anekathisen) in Luke 7:15, which Robertson notes (p. 96) is the word "used by medical writers in the intransitive sense for sitting up in bed." In the narrative of the Gerasene demoniac, only Luke gives the detail that the man was wearing no clothes (Luke 8:27; Matt. 8:28; Mark 5:2).

So, while they start off with some interesting ideas, they hit the wall pretty quickly. Simon's mother had a "high" fever? According to? Which doctor did Dr. Luke speak with to get this information? The fishermen? That had a "miracle" healer stop by? The same with each and every point this article makes. Did a doctor stop by and verify each of the miracle healings of this jesus? He had a staff doctor? All healings were verified, if at all, by a local priest (the biblical stories will back me on this along with the Jewish Law). This is true especially in the cases where the person was "unclean" as in leprosy. And, since leprosy (what we call Hansen's Disease), to my knowledge has only been verified in one person of the 1st century AD, they were treating common skin diseases like psoriasis. However, from Wikipedia, being in contact with a "leper" (with HD) isn't that bad "The bacterium is ubiquitous in HD endemic areas and approximately 95% of people who are exposed to it do not develop Leprosy due to natural immunity."

 

So if our tax man Matthew was the only one of the three that was supposedly there during some of these stories how did Dr. Luke come by these additional details? The illiterate fishermen that filled out the bunch were probably not too helpful I would imagine. The people that were ill could have spoken with him but making a diagnosis so far after the fact would be guesswork at best (and Peter's mother would likely be either dead or guessing she had this certain type of fever). Sounds like someone may be familiar with these terms. May even be a doctor. Or, just like Star Trek, might be throwing around a little "technobabble" to impress the reader (whoever he's sending this off to?).

 

‘Even when proper allowance is made for lay use of medical language, Harnack's explicit statement of the case still stands (in ‘Luke the Physician’). He sets out to prove that Luke was a physician not only by his vocabulary but also by a variety of traces throughout his writings, such as points of view, preference for the healing miracles, interests characteristic of physicians, and ways of reporting anecdotes. It is true that a few isolated instances prove little. But the overwhelming mass of data appears conclusive that the author was indeed a physician, presumably Luke, the only physician known to belong to Paul's missionary party’ (Dayton, p.1002). >>>>>

Now, in Acts, it's a slightly different story. It reaches into the realms of plausible with the "we" passages. The problem is the two books are written anonymously as I said before. So the "I" in "we" could be "Fred the Barber."

 

How can I explain all the "fancy" talk? Fred cuts the hair of physicians. Also, if Dr. Luke truly followed the school of Hippocrates I really doubt he believed much in demons since they seemed to believe in natural causes and remedies. If anything a truly Greek doctor would be more convinced by Asclepius, and the many healings made via that deity, than some unknown Jewish prophet that was a cheap imitator at best.

 

Here's a bit about some of Asclepius' wonder healings (http://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/ja/womens.htm):

"The most famous temple of Asclepius was at Epidaurus. The sick and infirm would come there and, after a ritual sacrifice and a bath, would spend the night in the Abaton. If the supplicant were fortunate, he or she would receive a dream from the god and leave cured.34 As at other sites of healing cults, the cured left votive offerings.35 When Pausanias visited Epidaurus, he found six stelae standing, though there had been more.36 Four of them were discovered in the late nineteenth century, two in excellent shape, two fragmentary. Each of the surviving stelae contain twenty or more cures, dating to the late fourth century B.C.37 Women are well represented on the stelae, although most are there for problems relating to bearing children.

 

One of the few exceptions was Ambrosia of Athens, who was blind in one eye. She laughed at the various cures of the lame and blind, yet in her sleep the god came to her and cured her. However, he did direct her to dedicate a silver pig in the temple as a thank-offering and as a memorial of her ignorance. He then cut her eyeball and poured in a drug. In the morning Ambrosia could see.38

 

The fragmentary third stela contains the account of a speechless girl who took her seat in the Abaton so that she could see the snake return from its tree to the building. She woke up shouting and called for her mother and father and went away healthy.39

Sure, not quite as slick as old JC but it is about 400 years earlier too. God tech takes time to evolve just like our own. ;) The point is this guy is basically the god of healing for Greek doctors. In fact here's what our good doctor would have sworn:

 

I swear by Æsculapius, Hygeia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement, the following Oath.

...

Did he change his mind? Did he betray his gods? Maybe he is a polytheist and just added one more? Maybe he just thought JC was a prophet or just a good story? Perhaps he thought he was simply one of his existing gods via another name (it happened all the time Zeus to Jupiter for example)? Maybe it's all made up? If he'll swear allegiance to one fake god he'll swear allegiance to any fake god. One is as good as another.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your apologia is not something to which I subscribe or would subscribe. In my view, you get something closer to the Real Thing from the gospel of "Mark," which is the first written and probably was composed using the so-called Q source and maybe others. Then "Matthew" embroiders a little, using "Mark," who has already used somebody else, and "Luke" goes crazy with his embroidery, also using "Mark." Then later we get "John," which is over the top - with quotes that are very unlikely (in fact most scholars agree that there are at least 23 "direct quotes" of Jesus that are attributable only to the writer of this work.

 

Why go any further than these bedrock issues? Why go into Paul, who clearly had a private agenda?

 

The outline you suggest above is feasible, subscribed to by many, but just as feasible is the more ancient source theory for Luke-Acts. While we do have something called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the existence of Q is pure conjecture. It may have existed; it may be a figment of scholars' imagination. We have no way of knowing. The existence of Q, or lack therefore, however, offers no information concerning the acceptability of the canonical gospels as sources of accurate information about Jesus.

 

The original view concerning the authorship and dating of Luke's gospel is that it was written by the companion of Paul, as was Acts. Luke was written first. Acts, second. Acts ends prior to the death of Paul, in about 62 C.E., since Acts concludes with Paul living in Rome; therefore, Luke and Acts were possibly written prior to 62 C.E. I may be wrong, but I have found no convincing evidence to the contrary.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for this fine essay, mwc. But as you know, for 1800 years everyone attested to the fact that Matthew was written by Matthew, Mark by Mark, Luke by Luke, and John by John. Then along came 19th-century German historical-critical method saying otherwise. These scholars may have been right, and tradition may have been wrong. But I don't image these things are as black and white as you make them out to be. There's lots of shifting sand here, lots of gray, lots of "don't know's."

 

If the 19th century was the first time anyone had questioned their authenticity I would likely agree with you on this. However, "everyone attested" is a bit to strong of a wording, In fact during the first 2 or 3 hundred years of the church many people DID question the authenticity of the gospels(if they hadn't then the gnostic gospels wouldn't have been kicked out) ...these names weren't even affixed to them until the mid to late 2nd century, which means anywhere from 50 to 100 years after they were written.

 

Now, no one much questioned their authenticity from 500 AD onward, but as you well know this was the beginning of a little era known as the dark ages. Due to the control of the church, and the break down of civilized governments almost no one could even read besides the church scholars...hardly the kind of people who were likely to question church.

 

Now, the only reason THESE four were chosen over the other gospels was because the proto-orthodox church won the political struggle for dominance over the Gnostics, Marcionites, Ebonites, and other early church movements.

 

Indeed, there was a great struggle in the 2nd century regarding the definition of the Jesus experience, and there was little room for dissent once the Roman Empire metamorphasized into the Roman Catholic Church. While it may have been necessary in those early years to restrict the Jesus experience to an "orthodox" vision in order to preserve it, these early "heresies" now add great flavor and more lively context to the early history of the church. For the most part, I find the gnostic writings and the writings of other "heretics" (a word I would not use) to be valid dissent from the orthodoxy and not in any way detracting from the authenticity of the Jesus experience as defined by the canonical gospels.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In three of the letters ascribed to Paul, he mentions a traveling companion named Luke (Colossians, II Timothy and Philemon). Luke is described as "the beloved physician" in Colossians and as a fellow-worker and partner in travel in II Timothy and Philemon.

 

If one could tie this Luke to the gospel of the same name and the early history of the church called Acts of the Apostles, one could support a conclusion that the Jesus of Luke and the Jesus of Paul are one and the same.

 

Well, I don't know if we could do that since neither of these two would have actually had met this Jesus but we may well be able to at least connect Paul and the author of Luke and Acts. We know that they are writing their stories for a reason, meaning they have an agenda, whether or not they share the same agenda is unknown.

 

Existence of an agenda does not preclude reliability. Who doesn't have an agenda? I do, however, understand what you are saying in that excessive or fanatical devotion to an agenda can very much cloud one's judgment.

 

Tying this Luke of Paul's and the Luke of Luke-Acts would mean a great deal. While neither met Jesus personally, they walked among scores of those who did. Paul was well acquainted with Peter, for example, and James (Jesus' brother) and the other elders of the Jersusalem followers of The Way.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny thing is, no matter the root cause, the ultimate "cure" by jesus was magic. Isn't this sort of the pot calling the kettle black?

 

Perhaps. But if Jesus was the ambassador of another realm, he may have possessed the power to set things right, to make the sick well, to offer a foretaste of what will be when that realm is fully realized. This, of coruse, is very much a matter one cannot establish by means of the historical or scientific methods. This is a matter of what one believes by means of faith.

 

-CC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a bit about some of Asclepius' wonder healings (http://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/ja/womens.htm):

"The most famous temple of Asclepius was at Epidaurus. The sick and infirm would come there and, after a ritual sacrifice and a bath, would spend the night in the Abaton. If the supplicant were fortunate, he or she would receive a dream from the god and leave cured.34 As at other sites of healing cults, the cured left votive offerings.35 When Pausanias visited Epidaurus, he found six stelae standing, though there had been more.36 Four of them were discovered in the late nineteenth century, two in excellent shape, two fragmentary. Each of the surviving stelae contain twenty or more cures, dating to the late fourth century B.C.37 Women are well represented on the stelae, although most are there for problems relating to bearing children.

 

One of the few exceptions was Ambrosia of Athens, who was blind in one eye. She laughed at the various cures of the lame and blind, yet in her sleep the god came to her and cured her. However, he did direct her to dedicate a silver pig in the temple as a thank-offering and as a memorial of her ignorance. He then cut her eyeball and poured in a drug. In the morning Ambrosia could see.38

 

The fragmentary third stela contains the account of a speechless girl who took her seat in the Abaton so that she could see the snake return from its tree to the building. She woke up shouting and called for her mother and father and went away healthy.39

 

We have just scratched the surface of understanding of the brain and the the power contained within our own minds to bring about healing. These accounts you referenced very well may be true, products of the placebo effect, for example, as could some of the healings of Jesus likewise be placebo effect. I think Lourdes and Fatima are modern examples of the temple of Asclepius was at Epidaurus.

 

-CC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Existence of an agenda does not preclude reliability. Who doesn't have an agenda? I do, however, understand what you are saying in that excessive or fanatical devotion to an agenda can very much cloud one's judgment.

And these folks we're talking about would be? The original fanatics! :wicked:

 

Tying this Luke of Paul's and the Luke of Luke-Acts would mean a great deal. While neither met Jesus personally, they walked among scores of those who did. Paul was well acquainted with Peter, for example, and James (Jesus' brother) and the other elders of the Jersusalem followers of The Way.

However, you're missing some of my points by sort of getting ahead of me. :) You're tying Paul to stories that were written later but were set earlier. I can make all sort of connections to events by doing that as well. Paul mentions a connection to Peter. I now write a story about this relationship since I already know of it. I can write a story where I knew of 911 and tried to save everyone from the disaster but nobody would listen. I'm the frustrated almost hero. The problem is it never happen. We're close enough in the time line that it just might sound plausible though. Hell, look at the 911 theory sites for all the wonderful "could have beens" out there. Now what if you had to decipher this 2000 years after the fact? One of those would be heroes just might be "good enough" to consider. Maybe even me. :)

 

This goes to the heart of what you said and that is there isn't actually any reference to reliability. You simply hand waived that away as if it is reliable. My story above is to on the basis that I could name the names of the major players, dates, location and everything else based simply on the 911 Commission Report. Then I just insert myself and whatever else I want in the story (I heard that pretty much what ABC did in their TV version with a lot of spin). Luke admits, and I have pointed this out two times now, that he's making a version of this story for someone [friend. patron, master, imaginary friend, god, pet]. In fact, thinking about the Luke/doctor connection from earlier. If he did work among doctors perhaps he was writing this to tell people that were deathly ill that that they would be getting another shot at some point and here was there instructions to getting that chance. Do no harm. Perhaps this guy in the title is a patient or caregiver and this is part of the first round of hospital/deathbed conversions in history? A little afterlife pick-me-up so to speak for the terminally ill that got out of hand? "See, Mr. Johnson, you won't die before help from above comes. But even if you do he'll make you alive again and fix you up good as new. And it will happen real soon. Promise or my name isn't Dr. Luke."

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Existence of an agenda does not preclude reliability. Who doesn't have an agenda? I do, however, understand what you are saying in that excessive or fanatical devotion to an agenda can very much cloud one's judgment.

And these folks we're talking about would be? The original fanatics! :wicked:

 

Tying this Luke of Paul's and the Luke of Luke-Acts would mean a great deal. While neither met Jesus personally, they walked among scores of those who did. Paul was well acquainted with Peter, for example, and James (Jesus' brother) and the other elders of the Jersusalem followers of The Way.
However, you're missing some of my points by sort of getting ahead of me. :) You're tying Paul to stories that were written later but were set earlier. I can make all sort of connections to events by doing that as well. Paul mentions a connection to Peter. I now write a story about this relationship since I already know of it. I can write a story where I knew of 911 and tried to save everyone from the disaster but nobody would listen. I'm the frustrated almost hero. The problem is it never happen. We're close enough in the time line that it just might sound plausible though. Hell, look at the 911 theory sites for all the wonderful "could have beens" out there. Now what if you had to decipher this 2000 years after the fact? One of those would be heroes just might be "good enough" to consider. Maybe even me. :)

 

This goes to the heart of what you said and that is there isn't actually any reference to reliability. You simply hand waived that away as if it is reliable. My story above is to on the basis that I could name the names of the major players, dates, location and everything else based simply on the 911 Commission Report. Then I just insert myself and whatever else I want in the story (I heard that pretty much what ABC did in their TV version with a lot of spin). Luke admits, and I have pointed this out two times now, that he's making a version of this story for someone [friend. patron, master, imaginary friend, god, pet]. In fact, thinking about the Luke/doctor connection from earlier. If he did work among doctors perhaps he was writing this to tell people that were deathly ill that that they would be getting another shot at some point and here was there instructions to getting that chance. Do no harm. Perhaps this guy in the title is a patient or caregiver and this is part of the first round of hospital/deathbed conversions in history? A little afterlife pick-me-up so to speak for the terminally ill that got out of hand? "See, Mr. Johnson, you won't die before help from above comes. But even if you do he'll make you alive again and fix you up good as new. And it will happen real soon. Promise or my name isn't Dr. Luke."

 

mwc

 

Hello again, mwc. I enjoy these discussions very much!

 

You wrote: "You're tying Paul to stories that were written later but were set earlier."

 

Maybe. But maybe not. It could be that Luke's compilation of the Jesus stories was taking place while he traveled along with Paul. Perhaps he completed oral history interviews with the "eyewitnesses" he refers to in his introduction to the gospel we call by his name? He claims to have investigated "everything carefully from the very first." That's his claim. Am I to discount it? Why would I do so? If Luke was written prior to Acts and by the same author who also is the Luke of Paul's letters, then it is quite likely that Luke was written within the lifetime of Paul and most of the disciples of Jesus.

 

It does seem well established that Paul's letters are the earliest documents we have. But could it not be the case that various Jesus saying collections were in circulation even then and that a natural request to Paul (and his traveling companions) would be, "Tell me more about this Jesus you preach of." From these seekers of more knowledge about the flesh-and-blood Jesus could have come the idea that Luke compile a complete record. This is conjecture, but just as possibly true as any other conjecture.

 

-CC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may backtrack a little to Josephus. This morning, I stumbled on a very fine site regarding the "Testimony of Flavius Josephus" section, that looks at all sides, fairly and objectively. Here are some links:

 

The Mystery of Testimonium Flavianum

 

Answers to Scholar's Questions

 

John the Baptist and Josephus

 

-CC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, there was a great struggle in the 2nd century regarding the definition of the Jesus experience, and there was little room for dissent once the Roman Empire metamorphasized into the Roman Catholic Church. While it may have been necessary in those early years to restrict the Jesus experience to an "orthodox" vision in order to preserve it, these early "heresies" now add great flavor and more lively context to the early history of the church. For the most part, I find the gnostic writings and the writings of other "heretics" (a word I would not use) to be valid dissent from the orthodoxy and not in any way detracting from the authenticity of the Jesus experience as defined by the canonical gospels.

 

-CC in MA

 

Really? It was necessary for the proto-orthodox church to lie and even Murder (almost certainly what happened to Marcion) to protect their version of the gospel?

 

In any case, this is off point, as my main point was to show that 19th century biblical scholarship was not the first to question who the authors of the gospels were. On an interesting note, every single book in the bible that modern scholars contest the authorship of were the exact same books the early church fought over. 2nd Peter, 1st and 2nd Timothy, Hebrews, Revelation and more. The early church doubting the authorship of all of them

 

Also you mention Acts having been written before 62 C.E. but most arguments for this rest on the assumption that the writer would have written about Paul's death if it had already happened. In fact there are good reasons why the writer might have omitted that. Only conservative scholars try to date luke and acts in the 60's, All "real" scholars date it after 75 C.E. (sorry, I just don't have much respect for conservative biblical scholars)

 

There are good reasons for the later dates, for one thing, Acts is clearly written with the agenda of making the apostles appear to be far friendlier with each other than they are, when you read Paul's letters, it is clear that he and Peter did not get along very well, yet in Acts they appear to have much the same ideas theologically. In Paul's letters he makes it clear that he has made a complete break with Jewish law, he does not obey Kosher for instance, However, in Acts Paul comes across as a good Jew who still obeys Jewish law himself even if he doesn't ask his converts to.

 

In Paul's letters he tells the readers that after his conversion he did NOT go to Jerusalem to be sanctioned by the other apostles because he considered himself their equal, but in Acts he goes to Jerusalem right off to be sanctioned by the other apostles

 

Also considering that Acts chronology of Paul's Journey, as well as the writers poor understanding of Paul's theology makes it clear that the writer did not know Paul personally. In fact, several passages in Luke seem to reference things written in the Antiquities, which could even possibly place Luke after 93 C.E.

 

You say that you haven't seen any good evidence for a later date for Luke, but if that is the case I have to wonder what you have been reading...you are not a fundy, so why are you only reading fundy biblical scholarship? Pick up a book by Bart D. Ehrman sometime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, there was a great struggle in the 2nd century regarding the definition of the Jesus experience, and there was little room for dissent once the Roman Empire metamorphasized into the Roman Catholic Church. While it may have been necessary in those early years to restrict the Jesus experience to an "orthodox" vision in order to preserve it, these early "heresies" now add great flavor and more lively context to the early history of the church. For the most part, I find the gnostic writings and the writings of other "heretics" (a word I would not use) to be valid dissent from the orthodoxy and not in any way detracting from the authenticity of the Jesus experience as defined by the canonical gospels.

 

-CC in MA

 

Really? It was necessary for the proto-orthodox church to lie and even Murder (almost certainly what happened to Marcion) to protect their version of the gospel?

 

In any case, this is off point, as my main point was to show that 19th century biblical scholarship was not the first to question who the authors of the gospels were. On an interesting note, every single book in the bible that modern scholars contest the authorship of were the exact same books the early church fought over. 2nd Peter, 1st and 2nd Timothy, Hebrews, Revelation and more. The early church doubting the authorship of all of them

 

Also you mention Acts having been written before 62 C.E. but most arguments for this rest on the assumption that the writer would have written about Paul's death if it had already happened. In fact there are good reasons why the writer might have omitted that. Only conservative scholars try to date luke and acts in the 60's, All "real" scholars date it after 75 C.E. (sorry, I just don't have much respect for conservative biblical scholars)

 

There are good reasons for the later dates, for one thing, Acts is clearly written with the agenda of making the apostles appear to be far friendlier with each other than they are, when you read Paul's letters, it is clear that he and Peter did not get along very well, yet in Acts they appear to have much the same ideas theologically. In Paul's letters he makes it clear that he has made a complete break with Jewish law, he does not obey Kosher for instance, However, in Acts Paul comes across as a good Jew who still obeys Jewish law himself even if he doesn't ask his converts to.

 

In Paul's letters he tells the readers that after his conversion he did NOT go to Jerusalem to be sanctioned by the other apostles because he considered himself their equal, but in Acts he goes to Jerusalem right off to be sanctioned by the other apostles

 

Also considering that Acts chronology of Paul's Journey, as well as the writers poor understanding of Paul's theology makes it clear that the writer did not know Paul personally. In fact, several passages in Luke seem to reference things written in the Antiquities, which could even possibly place Luke after 93 C.E.

 

You say that you haven't seen any good evidence for a later date for Luke, but if that is the case I have to wonder what you have been reading...you are not a fundy, so why are you only reading fundy biblical scholarship? Pick up a book by Bart D. Ehrman sometime.

 

I have Ehrman's Lost Christianities and Lost Scriptures. I understand his view and that of others. I simply don't subscribe to all the tenets of these views, but I would not, as a result, discount his status as a "real" scholar. :shrug:

 

Paul's and Peter's disagreements always make me feel great! If these two can't agree on everything, why do we feel the need to do so? Why can't there be different "christianities" in the world and many different kinds of Christians. Seems very reasonable to me.

 

Speaking of Ehrman, here's a link to a debate between him and William Craig that took place at Holy Cross College in Worcester, Massachusetts, back in March. The question: "Is there Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?"

 

-CC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have Ehrman's Lost Christianities and Lost Scriptures. I understand his view and that of others. I simply don't subscribe to all the tenets of these views, but I would not, as a result, discount his status as a "real" scholar. :shrug:

 

Well the primary reason I don't respect conservative scholars is that they are disingenious, and ignore clear evidence, they lie to make their theology appear more believable, and don't, in the end, engage in "real" scholarship...they start out with the agenda of proving their beliefs, not discovering truth. I don't discount them simply because I disagree, but because they don't do their job properly.

 

Paul's and Peter's disagreements always make me feel great! If these two can't agree on everything, why do we feel the need to do so? Why can't there be different "christianities" in the world and many different kinds of Christians. Seems very reasonable to me.
Yes, but Peter and Paul certainly didn't think that way, in any case, if you realize that Acts was attempting to smooth over the theological differences between the two then how can you still opt for a date as early as 64? It just doesn't make sense to me?

Speaking of Ehrman, here's a link to a debate between him and William Craig that took place at Holy Cross College in Worcester, Massachusetts, back in March. The question: "Is there Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?"

 

-CC

 

thanks for the link, I'll check it out later

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello again, mwc. I enjoy these discussions very much!

Glad to hear it. :) It truly is difficult to get any sort of discussion going "across the aisle" so to speak so it is nice. Normally, by now, I would be yelling or just fed up. At least you seem to be interested in doing more than simply parroting a pamphlet you were handed at church (although, we are hitting a bit of, not entirely unexpected turbulence, with this NT stuff ;) ...a little "for instance" is you still haven't said how good old Dr. Luke got his hands on the extra information because, doctor or not, he simply wasn't there and a tax collector and some illiterate fishermen aren't going to be too helpful with those minute medical details months even years after the fact).

 

It does seem well established that Paul's letters are the earliest documents we have. But could it not be the case that various Jesus saying collections were in circulation even then and that a natural request to Paul (and his traveling companions) would be, "Tell me more about this Jesus you preach of." From these seekers of more knowledge about the flesh-and-blood Jesus could have come the idea that Luke compile a complete record. This is conjecture, but just as possibly true as any other conjecture.

Kuroikaze and you seemed to cover quite a bit and a lot better than what I said (I posted that after being up all night right before getting in bed and it was a little disjointed when I read it again just now). Kuroikaze also touched on problems in Acts that I backed away from the other day as well.

 

As for the sayings collections it is believed that maybe "Q" and possibly the G.Thomas were around prior to G.Mark. Many have said the passion play precedes them all but it is not the robust version that we know from G.Mark. We don't have "Q" or the original passion, if either of them truly exist, but we do have G.Thomas. It's hard to say what we should infer from this though other than sayings documents did exist.

 

Also, the hypothesis about people wanting to know more from Paul and pals is a fair one. However, Paul tells people to only believe the words he tells people and not any other version(s) of anything. Is this to stop people from teaching "fake" Jesus'? Or fake "Christs?" Is this to stop people like Peter and the Jerusalem church from stepping on his turf? As it has been said, Luke paints a rather "rosy" picture of their (Paul and the Jerusalem church's) relationship while Paul himself does not. They can't both be right and I would tend to accept the primary source's view (no matter how much he tends to stroke his own ego in the name of humility in his letters).

 

There is quite a bit of debate about Paul, "flesh and blood Jesus" and his take on all that. It seems he initially did not believe in an earthly version but have came to accept one or the whole thing took place in the lower heavens or he did accept an earthly version. I can see all sides to the argument (I think he initially didn't believe in an earthly version but altered his view over time but I also think Paul changed his views depending on his audience so it's hard to pin him down).

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To further support my hypothesis that there was no specific "Christ" I will quote from (Bishop) THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text...ilus-book1.html):

 

CHAP. XII.--MEANING OF THE NAME CHRISTIAN.

 

And about your laughing at me and calling me "Christian," you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first caulked [anointed]? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.

This letter is placed about 160AD. Plenty of time for all the letters, gospels and the entire oral tradition via the apostles and any subsequent disciples to be taught in Antioch. This is the same Antioch that is in Acts where the name "Christianity" is supposedly first coined and is therefore ground zero for discovering what that name should be.

 

So, here we have a Bishop of the Christian Church in Antioch of Syria where the name began, where Paul himself taught of Jesus Christ, telling us in no uncertain terms what that word means. I personally stand corrected. It is not one that follows a Christ figure but one that is anointed with the oil of God. Truly this is a mystery religion.

 

In fact, in his three books, this person only references a Jesus from the Old Testament. A more recent figure is never once cited. Neither is Paul or the other apostles.

 

Quick edit: Normally arguments from silence are a rather weak position to take. An example of this is when people state that Paul should have said this or that in his letters and the response is his followers already knew that information. Well, in this particular case this bishop is specifically addressing the reason why they were named Christians to a non-Christian and instead of stating that he was a follower of Jesus Christ he gave another reason entirely. So this is actually an argument from silence although it could be tried to be framed as one (which is why I'm adding this bit late).

 

These are the closest two (in my opinion) chapters that even touch on these two subjects (book 2):

CHAP. IX.--THE PROPHET'S INSPIRED BY THE HOLY GHOST.

 

But men of God carrying in them a holy spirit and becoming prophets, being inspired and made wise by God, became God-taught, and holy, and righteous. Wherefore they were also deemed worthy of receiving this reward, that they should become instruments of God, and contain the wisdom that is from Him, through which wisdom they uttered both what regarded the creation of the world and all other things. For they predicted also pestilences, and famines, and wars. And there was not one or two, but many, at various times and seasons among the Hebrews; and also among the Greeks there was the Sibyl; and they all have spoken things consistent and harmonious with each other, both what happened before them and what happened in their own time, and what things are now being fulfilled in our own day: wherefore we are persuaded also concerning the future things that they will fall out, as also the first have been accomplished.

Notice the first bold sentence? Where's Jesus? This is going back a long ways to prove your Christian point when you should just point to your earthly god from about 130 years ago. He's all the way back in the OT. He also says this god inspired the Sibyl. The Greek prophetesses. Oddly enough we believe them (rather xians believe) to be demonic in origin (or just plain BS) today. However, if you look up the Sibyl you will see the early church did not and in many church paintings you can see the saints along with the sibyls. This connection shows the whole connection wasn't simply in the OT but came forward far into the modern era.

 

We all know the beginning to John: "In the beginning was the Word..."

CHAP. X.--THE WORLD CREATED BY GOD THROUGH THE WORD.

 

And first, they taught us with one consent that

 

God made all things out of nothing; for nothing was coeval with God: but He being His own place, and wanting nothing, and existing before the ages, willed to make man by whom He might be known; for him, therefore, He prepared the world. For he that is created is also needy; but he that is uncreated stands in need of nothing. God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things. He is called "governing principle" [arkh], because He rules, and is Lord of all things fashioned by Him. He, then, being Spirit of God, and governing principle, and wisdom, and power of the highest, came down upon the prophets, and through them spoke of the creation of the world and of all other things. For the prophets were not when the world came into existence, but the wisdom of God which was in Him, and His holy Word which was always present with Him. Wherefore He speaks thus by the prophet Solomon: "When He prepared the heavens I was there, and when He appointed the foundations of the earth I was by Him as one brought up with Him." And Moses, who lived many years before Solomon, or, rather, the Word of God by him as by an instrument, says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." First he named the "beginning," and "creation," then he thus introduced God; for not lightly and on slight occasion is it right to name God. For the divine wisdom foreknew that some would trifle and name a multitude of gods that do not exist. In order, therefore, that the living God might be known by His works, and that [it might be known that] by His Word God created the heavens and the earth, and all that is therein, he said, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Then having spoken of their creation, he explains to us: "And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved upon the water." This, sacred Scripture teaches at the outset, to show that matter, from which God made and fashioned the world, was in some manner created, being produced by God.

So he name drops Solomon, Moses and the generic "prophets." All Old Testament it seems. He gives the "names" that the "Word" of this god is known by. This is crucial. I see "governing principle," "Spirit of God," "wisdom" and "power of the highest." Unless I'm missing any he did not mention "Jesus," "Christ" or any variation thereof. This is the place to make that connection in his explanation but he does not.

 

As a Bishop of the church in an extremely important city he fails even the most basic understandings of what we would call Christianity. He makes no mention to the central figure(s). The major tenets (birth, death, resurrection). It is faith in the Father god and not a son god that is important. The name Christian is from the anointing of the individual follower and not of the central figure known as "Christ."

 

I could overlook these issues if this person was a nobody in some out of the way place but this is someone that should know better. This is someone that is truly following in the foot steps of the "greats" according to the Acts (and maybe Paul's letters...I didn't check too closely if this is where Peter met up with Paul or not).

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the primary reason I don't respect conservative scholars is that they are disingenious, and ignore clear evidence, they lie to make their theology appear more believable, and don't, in the end, engage in "real" scholarship...they start out with the agenda of proving their beliefs, not discovering truth. I don't discount them simply because I disagree, but because they don't do their job properly.

 

Is it possible, in your view, for a scholar to be genuine, to be truthful, and to properly engage the evidence, and yet come to a conclusion that the gospels are reliable source documents for the life of Jesus? In other words, can a "real" scholar come to a conclusion that you do not embrace yourself, or by definition do all the "real" scholars come to the same conclusion the "liberal" ones do and the "false" scholars come to conclusions that "conservatives" do? Not trying at all to be accusatory or antagonistic, just wondering.

 

In my view a real, genuine, trustworthy, scholar's scholar can come to either conclusion and any conclusion between the two. Like the Bible, one can find every possible interpretation of the historical evidence. Seems to me.

 

-CC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but Peter and Paul certainly didn't think that way, in any case, if you realize that Acts was attempting to smooth over the theological differences between the two then how can you still opt for a date as early as 64? It just doesn't make sense to me?

 

Where is the evidence that Acts was attempting to smooth over the theological differences? If those who compiled the NT writings had wanted to "smooth over" these differences, they very easily could have done so. We know of these differences only because we have the NT. Paul and Peter argued. That's great! The Jewish Christians had prejudice against the Gentile Christians. That's good to know! The credibility of the NT is enhanced, for me, when I read of these varying interpretations and when I read of the varying circumstantial details in the gospels.

 

I'm not saying that Acts was written prior to 64. Perhaps it was. Perhaps it wasn't. But if the Luke of Luke-Acts is the Luke of Paul's epistles (all of which seems reasonable to me), then a date for the writing of Luke during the ministry of Paul is reasonable and a date for the writing of Acts near the end of Paul's life, but prior to its termination, is reasonable. To me.

 

-CC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.