Captain Cranks
Footballguy
Short answer regarding mainstream Christianity is no. Jesus Camp type groups, yes.Do you think mainstream Christianity is a cult?
Short answer regarding mainstream Christianity is no. Jesus Camp type groups, yes.Do you think mainstream Christianity is a cult?
The term “cult” is traditionally used to reference social groups defined by their extreme religious, philosophical or spiritual beliefs focused on a particular personality, object or goal. These groups often use devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents (i.e. high pressure recruiting tactics) and are often characterized by socially deviant practices or novel beliefs. There is no particular membership size for a cult. The groups can range in size from a few local members to international organizations with millions.
Cults and cult-like behavior are not acceptable at Bethune-Cookman University. Any individual and/or group believed to be exhibiting cult-like characteristics will be investigated, and pending the results of the investigation may be removed and/or banned from campus and all University associated activities.
RECOGNIZE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTS
If you believe that you or someone you know has been engaged in a cult or the target of cult-related activity on the campus of B-CU, please contact the Chaplaincy Department by calling (386) 481-2443, emailing Chaplaincy@cookman.edu or visiting the office located at 332 Model Street, Daytona Beach, FL 32114.
- Isolating members and penalizing them for leaving
- Seeking inappropriate loyalty to their leaders
- Dishonoring the family unit
- Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
- No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
- No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
- Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies, and persecutions.
- There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
- Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
- The group/leader is always right.
- The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.
I doYou can say that about any cultIMO, that's an extremely arrogant and narrow minded position.And this is where the intellectual honesty bares itself. If you ask an atheist/agnostic the same question, the answer would be EVIDENCE. It is clear that you are married to your belief regardless of what evidence to the contrary comes to light.
You could.
Do you think mainstream Christianity is a cult?
I doYou can say that about any cultIMO, that's an extremely arrogant and narrow minded position.And this is where the intellectual honesty bares itself. If you ask an atheist/agnostic the same question, the answer would be EVIDENCE. It is clear that you are married to your belief regardless of what evidence to the contrary comes to light.
You could.
Do you think mainstream Christianity is a cult?
While there is zero direct evidence that some guy named Jesus walked around the areas surrounding Nazareth for a few years with a small band of followers, went to Jerusaleum and was crucified as a trouble maker promoting rebellion (claiming to be son of God or king of the Jews qualifies here), there is nothing particular special about the claim to make it unlikely. There was very likely at least one Jesus where this fits. And since there was nothing special about this at the time, there wouldn't be expected to be any direct evidence surviving.1) The secular Writings prove that Jesus Christ is a Literal person in History.
2) The Secular Writings prove that Jesus Christ existed, died on the Cross and that His followers believed that He is God.
3) The Eyewitness Biblical Writings prove that Jesus Christ fulfilled over 100 prophecies written hundreds of years before His birth, including when He would be born, where He would be born, that He would be rejected by HIs own people. betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that He would die and that He would rise again.
4) The Eyewitness Biblical Writings affirm that He performed countless miracles, healed the sick, made the lame to walk, walked on water, turned water into wine, made the blind to see, predicted His own death and resurrection and then died and rose again.
5) Had Jesus Christ not really died and rose from the dead, then He would have been exposed as a fraud and Christianity would have died out right then and there, BUT what we actually see is that there was an explosion of Christianity right AFTER the resurrection.
6) Those who believed in Him were willing to die rather than deny His resurrection. Some might die for a lie, but no one will willingly die for what they know to be a lie, and if Jesus Christ didn't really rise again, then His followers would know that they were dying for what they knew to be a lie. That's why God allowed them to be Martyred I believe to prove it.
7) Yes Dr Nelson Price does list many of the Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ, but not all. The writings of Josephus also talk about Jesus Christ. There are also Early Church Writings that give some history. I am sure there are other writings as well other than those listed by Dr Nelson Price.
Jesus Christ is God.
Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ
Can you define the necessary characteristics of a cult in the context that you are using the word?I doYou can say that about any cultIMO, that's an extremely arrogant and narrow minded position.And this is where the intellectual honesty bares itself. If you ask an atheist/agnostic the same question, the answer would be EVIDENCE. It is clear that you are married to your belief regardless of what evidence to the contrary comes to light.
You could.
Do you think mainstream Christianity is a cult?
While there is zero direct evidence that some guy named Jesus walked around the areas surrounding Nazareth for a few years with a small band of followers, went to Jerusaleum and was crucified as a trouble maker promoting rebellion (claiming to be son of God or king of the Jews qualifies here), there is nothing particular special about the claim to make it unlikely. There was very likely at least one Jesus where this fits. And since there was nothing special about this at the time, there wouldn't be expected to be any direct evidence surviving.1) The secular Writings prove that Jesus Christ is a Literal person in History.
2) The Secular Writings prove that Jesus Christ existed, died on the Cross and that His followers believed that He is God.
3) The Eyewitness Biblical Writings prove that Jesus Christ fulfilled over 100 prophecies written hundreds of years before His birth, including when He would be born, where He would be born, that He would be rejected by HIs own people. betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that He would die and that He would rise again.
4) The Eyewitness Biblical Writings affirm that He performed countless miracles, healed the sick, made the lame to walk, walked on water, turned water into wine, made the blind to see, predicted His own death and resurrection and then died and rose again.
5) Had Jesus Christ not really died and rose from the dead, then He would have been exposed as a fraud and Christianity would have died out right then and there, BUT what we actually see is that there was an explosion of Christianity right AFTER the resurrection.
6) Those who believed in Him were willing to die rather than deny His resurrection. Some might die for a lie, but no one will willingly die for what they know to be a lie, and if Jesus Christ didn't really rise again, then His followers would know that they were dying for what they knew to be a lie. That's why God allowed them to be Martyred I believe to prove it.
7) Yes Dr Nelson Price does list many of the Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ, but not all. The writings of Josephus also talk about Jesus Christ. There are also Early Church Writings that give some history. I am sure there are other writings as well other than those listed by Dr Nelson Price.
Jesus Christ is God.
Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ
There is indirect evidence that these followers eventually regrouped and continued on the cause. In most everyway that I can think of this movement failed. It failed as the Jews of the time chose the message of the Phairisees and rejected the "Jesus movement". It failed despite efforts to show how prophecies to those that would have cared were fulfilled by the Jesus story. It failed because it promised a return of Jesus within that generation, before they died off. Possibly it continued in Ethiopia as some claim, but with the destruction of the Temple the followers that made up the Jerusaelum Church otherwise disappered from history. There is likely enough evidence, both secular and nonsecular to suggest that this movement existed at this time and place. The Gospels were written as a response to these "failures" and the politics of the time, late first century not Jesus' time are evident throughout.
The one exception as to how this movement didn't fail is that the movement was coopted by a non follower (at least during Jesus' lifetime) who leveraged the "Jesus movement" to create a new religion among the gentiles. That church of those that would have only in passing encountered Jesus and his followers grew and survived and eventually, because its members were literate so embedded itself into Roman government that it took over Rome. There are lots of writings connected to this movement and offer pretty solid evidence that this movement happened. And it happened largely because of the community it created.
But there is also solid evidence that these late first century into the early fourth century Jesus movements were anything but singular. What Jesus meant, who he was, etc. was debated throughout this time. For the longest time there was only indirect evidence that things like the Gospel of Judas and other "books left out of the bible" existed through mentions in writings that survived, most writing dismissing these books. But the twentieth century unearthed some of these to help provide evidence of the great variety of beliefs that Christians were dying for. However, I think that the evidence we have is that most of the Christian martyrs died because they refused to participate in the offerings to Roman gods.
Eventually the world (at least the part that is relevant to this narrative) plunges into the "Dark Ages" where there was economic, cultural, and intellectual decline. Now I suspect that for a layperson like me the scope of the decline and the degree that Chirstianity should be blamed is exaggerated, so I'll end now.
While I am sure that historians will find plenty to nit pick above, the one thing that I am guessing they will agree on is that even if all of this is painted in the most favorable Christian light it offers no proof of anything and scant evidence that the Jesus of the Gospels can be matched to any real life historical being. And that should be okay! Because none of this rejects any meaningful belief in Jesus that one might have. Belief in these nonsensical apologetics should not be confused with a belief in Jesus and by extension God.
Hopefully this helps-While there is zero direct evidence that some guy named Jesus walked around the areas surrounding Nazareth for a few years with a small band of followers, went to Jerusaleum and was crucified as a trouble maker promoting rebellion (claiming to be son of God or king of the Jews qualifies here), there is nothing particular special about the claim to make it unlikely. There was very likely at least one Jesus where this fits. And since there was nothing special about this at the time, there wouldn't be expected to be any direct evidence surviving.1) The secular Writings prove that Jesus Christ is a Literal person in History.
2) The Secular Writings prove that Jesus Christ existed, died on the Cross and that His followers believed that He is God.
3) The Eyewitness Biblical Writings prove that Jesus Christ fulfilled over 100 prophecies written hundreds of years before His birth, including when He would be born, where He would be born, that He would be rejected by HIs own people. betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that He would die and that He would rise again.
4) The Eyewitness Biblical Writings affirm that He performed countless miracles, healed the sick, made the lame to walk, walked on water, turned water into wine, made the blind to see, predicted His own death and resurrection and then died and rose again.
5) Had Jesus Christ not really died and rose from the dead, then He would have been exposed as a fraud and Christianity would have died out right then and there, BUT what we actually see is that there was an explosion of Christianity right AFTER the resurrection.
6) Those who believed in Him were willing to die rather than deny His resurrection. Some might die for a lie, but no one will willingly die for what they know to be a lie, and if Jesus Christ didn't really rise again, then His followers would know that they were dying for what they knew to be a lie. That's why God allowed them to be Martyred I believe to prove it.
7) Yes Dr Nelson Price does list many of the Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ, but not all. The writings of Josephus also talk about Jesus Christ. There are also Early Church Writings that give some history. I am sure there are other writings as well other than those listed by Dr Nelson Price.
Jesus Christ is God.
Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ
There is indirect evidence that these followers eventually regrouped and continued on the cause. In most everyway that I can think of this movement failed. It failed as the Jews of the time chose the message of the Phairisees and rejected the "Jesus movement". It failed despite efforts to show how prophecies to those that would have cared were fulfilled by the Jesus story. It failed because it promised a return of Jesus within that generation, before they died off. Possibly it continued in Ethiopia as some claim, but with the destruction of the Temple the followers that made up the Jerusaelum Church otherwise disappered from history. There is likely enough evidence, both secular and nonsecular to suggest that this movement existed at this time and place. The Gospels were written as a response to these "failures" and the politics of the time, late first century not Jesus' time are evident throughout.
The one exception as to how this movement didn't fail is that the movement was coopted by a non follower (at least during Jesus' lifetime) who leveraged the "Jesus movement" to create a new religion among the gentiles. That church of those that would have only in passing encountered Jesus and his followers grew and survived and eventually, because its members were literate so embedded itself into Roman government that it took over Rome. There are lots of writings connected to this movement and offer pretty solid evidence that this movement happened. And it happened largely because of the community it created.
But there is also solid evidence that these late first century into the early fourth century Jesus movements were anything but singular. What Jesus meant, who he was, etc. was debated throughout this time. For the longest time there was only indirect evidence that things like the Gospel of Judas and other "books left out of the bible" existed through mentions in writings that survived, most writing dismissing these books. But the twentieth century unearthed some of these to help provide evidence of the great variety of beliefs that Christians were dying for. However, I think that the evidence we have is that most of the Christian martyrs died because they refused to participate in the offerings to Roman gods.
Eventually the world (at least the part that is relevant to this narrative) plunges into the "Dark Ages" where there was economic, cultural, and intellectual decline. Now I suspect that for a layperson like me the scope of the decline and the degree that Chirstianity should be blamed is exaggerated, so I'll end now.
While I am sure that historians will find plenty to nit pick above, the one thing that I am guessing they will agree on is that even if all of this is painted in the most favorable Christian light it offers no proof of anything and scant evidence that the Jesus of the Gospels can be matched to any real life historical being. And that should be okay! Because none of this rejects any meaningful belief in Jesus that one might have. Belief in these nonsensical apologetics should not be confused with a belief in Jesus and by extension God.
Clarifying question so I understand: How exactly are you defining "direct evidence" and "indirect evidence"? Thanks.
He's presenting that his evidence is that he knows God and has a real relationship with God. What if we changed the question to: Is there anything in the universe that would make you consider admitting your wife and kids do not exist? Technically, yeah, I guess the answer should be "Yes, evidence would convince me of that." I suppose that's the answer to a question about the existence of just about anything. But, this hypothetical evidence that may be out there about my wife and kid not existing seems to be so silly and it is reasonable for me to just respond "No, I know too much to consider that they do not exist". If I know them and have a relationship with them, it seems weird to have a conversation about what would convince me that they don't exist.And this is where the intellectual honesty bares itself. If you ask an atheist/agnostic the same question, the answer would be EVIDENCE. It is clear that you are married to your belief regardless of what evidence to the contrary comes to light.No, because I KNOW God. I have a real relationship with God. I have seen true miracles in my family. God has spoken to me and directed me in very serious situations. I know about over 100 prophecies of Jesus written before His birth that came true in His actual life, including when He would be born, where He would be born, betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, ect. I know the Scientific evidence that proves that there is no way that matter and energy can exist on their own and that life can come from nothing. Darwinian Evolution is impossible. I know too much to consider that God does not exist. God is real whether you believe it or not.Is there anything in the universe that wouldmake you consider admitting god does not exist?Those Scientific realities ALONG WITH the Biblical and Historical evidence completes the understanding, but the Atheist refuses to even consider that they might be wrong. That is the issue.Or maybe more direct to the point. Let's say all the theories you present are accepted as 100% fact. NONE of them prove to us the Christian God exists. None of them prove ANY particular God exists. They just prove we have an incomplete understanding of the universe. Your BELIEF is the answer to those unexplained points is God.
Not sure if the religion hampers your ability to go this route, but I would focus on what it's done for you here on earth (e.g. makes you happier, less stressed, more patient, less alone). That real world utility might pique more interest than hope for an afterlife. When I was meditating regularly, I was excited to share my experience about Buddhism with others who seemed to struggle with happiness. I'd buy my friends a copy of my favorite Buddhist book if they showed any interest.So, again, thinking about this question and conversation has really sparked in my mind thoughts about how I go about introducing God to people. If I know him and I think it would be good for others to know him, how do I go about that?
very well written. cheers.Hopefully this helps-While there is zero direct evidence that some guy named Jesus walked around the areas surrounding Nazareth for a few years with a small band of followers, went to Jerusaleum and was crucified as a trouble maker promoting rebellion (claiming to be son of God or king of the Jews qualifies here), there is nothing particular special about the claim to make it unlikely. There was very likely at least one Jesus where this fits. And since there was nothing special about this at the time, there wouldn't be expected to be any direct evidence surviving.1) The secular Writings prove that Jesus Christ is a Literal person in History.
2) The Secular Writings prove that Jesus Christ existed, died on the Cross and that His followers believed that He is God.
3) The Eyewitness Biblical Writings prove that Jesus Christ fulfilled over 100 prophecies written hundreds of years before His birth, including when He would be born, where He would be born, that He would be rejected by HIs own people. betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that He would die and that He would rise again.
4) The Eyewitness Biblical Writings affirm that He performed countless miracles, healed the sick, made the lame to walk, walked on water, turned water into wine, made the blind to see, predicted His own death and resurrection and then died and rose again.
5) Had Jesus Christ not really died and rose from the dead, then He would have been exposed as a fraud and Christianity would have died out right then and there, BUT what we actually see is that there was an explosion of Christianity right AFTER the resurrection.
6) Those who believed in Him were willing to die rather than deny His resurrection. Some might die for a lie, but no one will willingly die for what they know to be a lie, and if Jesus Christ didn't really rise again, then His followers would know that they were dying for what they knew to be a lie. That's why God allowed them to be Martyred I believe to prove it.
7) Yes Dr Nelson Price does list many of the Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ, but not all. The writings of Josephus also talk about Jesus Christ. There are also Early Church Writings that give some history. I am sure there are other writings as well other than those listed by Dr Nelson Price.
Jesus Christ is God.
Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ
There is indirect evidence that these followers eventually regrouped and continued on the cause. In most everyway that I can think of this movement failed. It failed as the Jews of the time chose the message of the Phairisees and rejected the "Jesus movement". It failed despite efforts to show how prophecies to those that would have cared were fulfilled by the Jesus story. It failed because it promised a return of Jesus within that generation, before they died off. Possibly it continued in Ethiopia as some claim, but with the destruction of the Temple the followers that made up the Jerusaelum Church otherwise disappered from history. There is likely enough evidence, both secular and nonsecular to suggest that this movement existed at this time and place. The Gospels were written as a response to these "failures" and the politics of the time, late first century not Jesus' time are evident throughout.
The one exception as to how this movement didn't fail is that the movement was coopted by a non follower (at least during Jesus' lifetime) who leveraged the "Jesus movement" to create a new religion among the gentiles. That church of those that would have only in passing encountered Jesus and his followers grew and survived and eventually, because its members were literate so embedded itself into Roman government that it took over Rome. There are lots of writings connected to this movement and offer pretty solid evidence that this movement happened. And it happened largely because of the community it created.
But there is also solid evidence that these late first century into the early fourth century Jesus movements were anything but singular. What Jesus meant, who he was, etc. was debated throughout this time. For the longest time there was only indirect evidence that things like the Gospel of Judas and other "books left out of the bible" existed through mentions in writings that survived, most writing dismissing these books. But the twentieth century unearthed some of these to help provide evidence of the great variety of beliefs that Christians were dying for. However, I think that the evidence we have is that most of the Christian martyrs died because they refused to participate in the offerings to Roman gods.
Eventually the world (at least the part that is relevant to this narrative) plunges into the "Dark Ages" where there was economic, cultural, and intellectual decline. Now I suspect that for a layperson like me the scope of the decline and the degree that Chirstianity should be blamed is exaggerated, so I'll end now.
While I am sure that historians will find plenty to nit pick above, the one thing that I am guessing they will agree on is that even if all of this is painted in the most favorable Christian light it offers no proof of anything and scant evidence that the Jesus of the Gospels can be matched to any real life historical being. And that should be okay! Because none of this rejects any meaningful belief in Jesus that one might have. Belief in these nonsensical apologetics should not be confused with a belief in Jesus and by extension God.
Clarifying question so I understand: How exactly are you defining "direct evidence" and "indirect evidence"? Thanks.
Mentions of Christians would be direct evidence of Christians, mentions of what they believed happened decades earlier would be indirect evidence. Court records, reporting at the time of Jesus' crucifixion would be direct, though as mentioned the absence of this should be expected. The Gospels we might debate over, both to the degree that they were "eyewitness" accounts and to the degree that were testimony like you would see in a court room as opposed to the testimony you see in church. I think they are indirect as their purpose is to promote a position rather than report on history. That doesn't meant they are dishonest or wrong, just that their purpose as history is secondary (at best) to promoting a more important perspective. The epistles would be indirect mentions of Jesus the historical figure (assuming he was one) because, for the most part the Gospel narratives (which don't yet exist in the forms we know) are at best indirect mentions. But they, as well as the Gnostic writings, the writings of Marcion which are lost other than in mentions are direct evidence of Christians, but at best indirect evidence of the Gospel narratives.
ETA (well after the fact): Mentions of a "Gospel of Judas" was direct evidence that such a thing was believed to once exist, indirect evidence of the beliefs expressed, and thus indirect evidence that there was a movement around those ideas. Digging one up was rather direct that it and the movement existed, but not sure that anyone would suggest that it is good evidence of the perspective it offers. (I forget. Is this where Judas is the hero of the story because he alone among the disciples understood what needed to happen next, and at great cost followed through on his beliefs? Or is this where Judas' role was to hasten the armed rebellion that would happen when Jesus stepped down off the cross? Either way, I don't think too many mainstream sermons are running with either - though to be honest I like them both better than selling out for some gold.)
Not sure if the religion hampers your ability to go this route, but I would focus on what it's done for you here on earth (e.g. makes you happier, less stressed, more patient, less alone). That real world utility might pique more interest than hope for an afterlife. When I was meditating regularly, I was excited to share my experience about Buddhism with others who seemed to struggle with happiness. I'd buy my friends a copy of my favorite Buddhist book if they showed any interest.So, again, thinking about this question and conversation has really sparked in my mind thoughts about how I go about introducing God to people. If I know him and I think it would be good for others to know him, how do I go about that?
Yeah, that makes sense. I have struggled with that, though, because I see myself as having a mostly uneventful Christian life. I don't have an amazing conversion story. I'm not sure I can say that it makes me less stressed or happier or more patient or whatever. In other words, I struggle to find the words to describe how it has impacted my life. But, maybe a boring, uneventful life would be meaningful to someone. I certainly think I should share whatever my story is.Not sure if the religion hampers your ability to go this route, but I would focus on what it's done for you here on earth (e.g. makes you happier, less stressed, more patient, less alone). That real world utility might pique more interest than hope for an afterlife. When I was meditating regularly, I was excited to share my experience about Buddhism with others who seemed to struggle with happiness. I'd buy my friends a copy of my favorite Buddhist book if they showed any interest.So, again, thinking about this question and conversation has really sparked in my mind thoughts about how I go about introducing God to people. If I know him and I think it would be good for others to know him, how do I go about that?
I think that's exactly right @Captain Cranks I think one of the most effective ways to introduce someone to something you hope they'll join you with is simply talk about how it's affected you and the benefits you've seen from it.
It's funny in we call that a Testimonial for products and Christians talk of a "Testimonial" as being a description of their faith journey. Yet it seems we often don't do a great job with those.
I think Christians would be more effective, especially myself, if we put less focus on trying to win a debate and more on talking about the positive effects it has on my life.
I'll tell you that your behavior on this board goes a long way towards that end. I've even had the thought, "I wished I asked more questions of others like dgreen" in this thread. Joe lets the walking do the talking too.Yeah, that makes sense. I have struggled with that, though, because I see myself as having a mostly uneventful Christian life. I don't have an amazing conversion story. I'm not sure I can say that it makes me less stressed or happier or more patient or whatever. In other words, I struggle to find the words to describe how it has impacted my life. But, maybe a boring, uneventful life would be meaningful to someone. I certainly think I should share whatever my story is.Not sure if the religion hampers your ability to go this route, but I would focus on what it's done for you here on earth (e.g. makes you happier, less stressed, more patient, less alone). That real world utility might pique more interest than hope for an afterlife. When I was meditating regularly, I was excited to share my experience about Buddhism with others who seemed to struggle with happiness. I'd buy my friends a copy of my favorite Buddhist book if they showed any interest.So, again, thinking about this question and conversation has really sparked in my mind thoughts about how I go about introducing God to people. If I know him and I think it would be good for others to know him, how do I go about that?
I think that's exactly right @Captain Cranks I think one of the most effective ways to introduce someone to something you hope they'll join you with is simply talk about how it's affected you and the benefits you've seen from it.
It's funny in we call that a Testimonial for products and Christians talk of a "Testimonial" as being a description of their faith journey. Yet it seems we often don't do a great job with those.
I think Christians would be more effective, especially myself, if we put less focus on trying to win a debate and more on talking about the positive effects it has on my life.
On top of that, I really think the best way to introduce people to God is for me to do the things God wants me to do. I think when people see me volunteer, give, love others, not lash out at a waiter, that's a way to do that. And then maybe from those things, I can develop that story that I find so hard to tell.
On top of that, I really think the best way to introduce people to God is for me to do the things God wants me to do. I think when people see me volunteer, give, love others, not lash out at a waiter, that's a way to do that. And then maybe from those things, I can develop that story that I find so hard to tell.
Side note, you do realize that the Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Thomas & The other Non Canonical writings were NOT written by those with whom bear that name right? They weren't written until 200+ AD, long after the actual people, died. They are either fictional writings or forgeries, however you want to take it. Not sure which, probably works of fiction for most. Therefore, you cannot rely on any of them as reliable sources, which is why they were rejected from the Biblical Canon in the first place. The early Church Fathers knew what they were doing in regards to confirming which books were inspired.Hopefully this helps-While there is zero direct evidence that some guy named Jesus walked around the areas surrounding Nazareth for a few years with a small band of followers, went to Jerusaleum and was crucified as a trouble maker promoting rebellion (claiming to be son of God or king of the Jews qualifies here), there is nothing particular special about the claim to make it unlikely. There was very likely at least one Jesus where this fits. And since there was nothing special about this at the time, there wouldn't be expected to be any direct evidence surviving.1) The secular Writings prove that Jesus Christ is a Literal person in History.
2) The Secular Writings prove that Jesus Christ existed, died on the Cross and that His followers believed that He is God.
3) The Eyewitness Biblical Writings prove that Jesus Christ fulfilled over 100 prophecies written hundreds of years before His birth, including when He would be born, where He would be born, that He would be rejected by HIs own people. betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that He would die and that He would rise again.
4) The Eyewitness Biblical Writings affirm that He performed countless miracles, healed the sick, made the lame to walk, walked on water, turned water into wine, made the blind to see, predicted His own death and resurrection and then died and rose again.
5) Had Jesus Christ not really died and rose from the dead, then He would have been exposed as a fraud and Christianity would have died out right then and there, BUT what we actually see is that there was an explosion of Christianity right AFTER the resurrection.
6) Those who believed in Him were willing to die rather than deny His resurrection. Some might die for a lie, but no one will willingly die for what they know to be a lie, and if Jesus Christ didn't really rise again, then His followers would know that they were dying for what they knew to be a lie. That's why God allowed them to be Martyred I believe to prove it.
7) Yes Dr Nelson Price does list many of the Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ, but not all. The writings of Josephus also talk about Jesus Christ. There are also Early Church Writings that give some history. I am sure there are other writings as well other than those listed by Dr Nelson Price.
Jesus Christ is God.
Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ
There is indirect evidence that these followers eventually regrouped and continued on the cause. In most everyway that I can think of this movement failed. It failed as the Jews of the time chose the message of the Phairisees and rejected the "Jesus movement". It failed despite efforts to show how prophecies to those that would have cared were fulfilled by the Jesus story. It failed because it promised a return of Jesus within that generation, before they died off. Possibly it continued in Ethiopia as some claim, but with the destruction of the Temple the followers that made up the Jerusaelum Church otherwise disappered from history. There is likely enough evidence, both secular and nonsecular to suggest that this movement existed at this time and place. The Gospels were written as a response to these "failures" and the politics of the time, late first century not Jesus' time are evident throughout.
The one exception as to how this movement didn't fail is that the movement was coopted by a non follower (at least during Jesus' lifetime) who leveraged the "Jesus movement" to create a new religion among the gentiles. That church of those that would have only in passing encountered Jesus and his followers grew and survived and eventually, because its members were literate so embedded itself into Roman government that it took over Rome. There are lots of writings connected to this movement and offer pretty solid evidence that this movement happened. And it happened largely because of the community it created.
But there is also solid evidence that these late first century into the early fourth century Jesus movements were anything but singular. What Jesus meant, who he was, etc. was debated throughout this time. For the longest time there was only indirect evidence that things like the Gospel of Judas and other "books left out of the bible" existed through mentions in writings that survived, most writing dismissing these books. But the twentieth century unearthed some of these to help provide evidence of the great variety of beliefs that Christians were dying for. However, I think that the evidence we have is that most of the Christian martyrs died because they refused to participate in the offerings to Roman gods.
Eventually the world (at least the part that is relevant to this narrative) plunges into the "Dark Ages" where there was economic, cultural, and intellectual decline. Now I suspect that for a layperson like me the scope of the decline and the degree that Chirstianity should be blamed is exaggerated, so I'll end now.
While I am sure that historians will find plenty to nit pick above, the one thing that I am guessing they will agree on is that even if all of this is painted in the most favorable Christian light it offers no proof of anything and scant evidence that the Jesus of the Gospels can be matched to any real life historical being. And that should be okay! Because none of this rejects any meaningful belief in Jesus that one might have. Belief in these nonsensical apologetics should not be confused with a belief in Jesus and by extension God.
Clarifying question so I understand: How exactly are you defining "direct evidence" and "indirect evidence"? Thanks.
Mentions of Christians would be direct evidence of Christians, mentions of what they believed happened decades earlier would be indirect evidence. Court records, reporting at the time of Jesus' crucifixion would be direct, though as mentioned the absence of this should be expected. The Gospels we might debate over, both to the degree that they were "eyewitness" accounts and to the degree that were testimony like you would see in a court room as opposed to the testimony you see in church. I think they are indirect as their purpose is to promote a position rather than report on history. That doesn't meant they are dishonest or wrong, just that their purpose as history is secondary (at best) to promoting a more important perspective. The epistles would be indirect mentions of Jesus the historical figure (assuming he was one) because, for the most part the Gospel narratives (which don't yet exist in the forms we know) are at best indirect mentions. But they, as well as the Gnostic writings, the writings of Marcion which are lost other than in mentions are direct evidence of Christians, but at best indirect evidence of the Gospel narratives.
ETA (well after the fact): Mentions of a "Gospel of Judas" was direct evidence that such a thing was believed to once exist, indirect evidence of the beliefs expressed, and thus indirect evidence that there was a movement around those ideas. Digging one up was rather direct that it and the movement existed, but not sure that anyone would suggest that it is good evidence of the perspective it offers. (I forget. Is this where Judas is the hero of the story because he alone among the disciples understood what needed to happen next, and at great cost followed through on his beliefs? Or is this where Judas' role was to hasten the armed rebellion that would happen when Jesus stepped down off the cross? Either way, I don't think too many mainstream sermons are running with either - though to be honest I like them both better than selling out for some gold.)
Do you think the canonical gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?Side note, you do realize that the Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Thomas & The other Non Canonical writings were NOT written by those with whom bear that name right? They weren't written until 200+ AD, long after the actual people, died. They are either fictional writings or forgeries, however you want to take it. Not sure which, probably works of fiction for most. Therefore, you cannot rely on any of them as reliable sources, which is why they were rejected from the Biblical Canon in the first place. The early Church Fathers knew what they were doing in regards to confirming which books were inspired.
You do realize that the Gospel of John is pretty much a direct, pretty much line by line rebuttal, or more accurate a mockery of Thomas and the Gospel of Thomas? In Thomas we all have an "inner light", but for John only Jesus has the light. Thomas isn't much about what Jesus did, but how he pointed to this inner light. Then of course there is the "doubting Thomas" passage which all of the other Gospel writers seemed to not care about. While John was very likely written much later than you believe, it wasn't 200+. Of course, you don't know this because this "obvious" connection was not known until Nag Hammadi gave the world a complete copy of the Gospel of Thomas. Way too late for those still on KJV.Side note, you do realize that the Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Thomas & The other Non Canonical writings were NOT written by those with whom bear that name right? They weren't written until 200+ AD, long after the actual people, died. They are either fictional writings or forgeries, however you want to take it. Not sure which, probably works of fiction for most. Therefore, you cannot rely on any of them as reliable sources, which is why they were rejected from the Biblical Canon in the first place. The early Church Fathers knew what they were doing in regards to confirming which books were inspired.
What do you mean that scholars think that's not an accurate quote? Does that mean they don't think that accurately represents what St. Francis said? If so, what do they think his intended meaning was?On top of that, I really think the best way to introduce people to God is for me to do the things God wants me to do. I think when people see me volunteer, give, love others, not lash out at a waiter, that's a way to do that. And then maybe from those things, I can develop that story that I find so hard to tell.
Agreed. And you sound like me.
This could be a super interesting tangent.
I find myself often defaulting to the "I'll just let my actions speak".
The go to smug feel good about yourself quote for people like me is, "Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary" by St. Francis Assisi.
Two things though.
1. Most scholars think that's not an accurate quote.
2. It's often, at least in my case, a cop-out.
Tim Keller spoke at our church a few years back and he talked about that a bit.
He said something like, "If we call the Gospel that God created people and people sinned and that sin created a gulf between God and people and God sent his son as a sacrifice to bridge the gulf so whoever followed his son could reconcile with God ...
"Actions are great, but that kind of takes words."
The upside of course is nobody posts snarky condescending comments for anyone being kind.
And it's pretty clear in scripture that it's more than just being a nice guy.
It's a challenge.
What do you mean that scholars think that's not an accurate quote?
Those who place their faith in these false writings are in grave danger. They are fakes, not written by the authors for which they bare their name. They are fakes and led people astray. They weren't around at the same time as the Eyewitnesses. They came along over 1-200 years later and contradict the Eyewitness writings of Scripture. No reason to consider them authentic. They do add evidence for the Historical Jesus, but it's twisted history and contradicts the Eyewitnesses.You do realize that the Gospel of John is pretty much a direct, pretty much line by line rebuttal, or more accurate a mockery of Thomas and the Gospel of Thomas? In Thomas we all have an "inner light", but for John only Jesus has the light. Thomas isn't much about what Jesus did, but how he pointed to this inner light. Then of course there is the "doubting Thomas" passage which all of the other Gospel writers seemed to not care about. While John was very likely written much later than you believe, it wasn't 200+. Of course, you don't know this because this "obvious" connection was not known until Nag Hammadi gave the world a complete copy of the Gospel of Thomas. Way too late for those still on KJV.Side note, you do realize that the Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Thomas & The other Non Canonical writings were NOT written by those with whom bear that name right? They weren't written until 200+ AD, long after the actual people, died. They are either fictional writings or forgeries, however you want to take it. Not sure which, probably works of fiction for most. Therefore, you cannot rely on any of them as reliable sources, which is why they were rejected from the Biblical Canon in the first place. The early Church Fathers knew what they were doing in regards to confirming which books were inspired.
Now of course, whether that is really "obvious" or not is not the point. The point is that there were Jesus believers that organized around beliefs that at one point or another is written down in the Gospel of Thomas. There were believers that organized around Mary, and organized around Judas. Probably others. And the fact that shots were taken at each of these figures in the various Gospels is evidence, weak evidence but still evidence that these communities of believers existed early enough for these attacks in the Gospels. Lots of politics in the Gospels, especially church politics! When these communities started writing stuff is ultimately irrelevant. Even when they formed is irrelevant. Whether or not their beliefs were more or less fiction than the beliefs that won out is irrelevant to whether or not these belief systems existed. No one is arguing that they are reliable sources for orthodox Chirstian beliefs. As a believer it makes sense that better beliefs would survive. The claim is that they are evidence that unorthodox beliefs were existing side by side at the time. Groups that were eradicated for the "lies" they believed.
Of course, the more dismissive you are of these texts, the less strength they offer as evidence for a historical Jesus. Though some arguably already speak against that.
So, someone honestly seeking a relationship with God via Jesus goes down of the path of one of these "fakes", or maybe Book of Mormons, or maybe some of those extra Catholic texts, or the New Testament texts that Luther wimped out removing, or whatever because something clicks with them is doomed to eternal torment for getting this wrong? That is the Good News?Those who place their faith in these false writings are in grave danger. They are fakes, not written by the authors for which they bare their name. They are fakes and led people astray. They weren't around at the same time as the Eyewitnesses. They came along over 1-200 years later and contradict the Eyewitness writings of Scripture. No reason to consider them authentic. They do add evidence for the Historical Jesus, but it's twisted history and contradicts the Eyewitnesses.
Those who place their faith in these false writings are in grave danger. They are fakes, not written by the authors for which they bare their name. They are fakes and led people astray. They weren't around at the same time as the Eyewitnesses. They came along over 1-200 years later and contradict the Eyewitness writings of Scripture. No reason to consider them authentic. They do add evidence for the Historical Jesus, but it's twisted history and contradicts the Eyewitnesses.You do realize that the Gospel of John is pretty much a direct, pretty much line by line rebuttal, or more accurate a mockery of Thomas and the Gospel of Thomas? In Thomas we all have an "inner light", but for John only Jesus has the light. Thomas isn't much about what Jesus did, but how he pointed to this inner light. Then of course there is the "doubting Thomas" passage which all of the other Gospel writers seemed to not care about. While John was very likely written much later than you believe, it wasn't 200+. Of course, you don't know this because this "obvious" connection was not known until Nag Hammadi gave the world a complete copy of the Gospel of Thomas. Way too late for those still on KJV.Side note, you do realize that the Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Thomas & The other Non Canonical writings were NOT written by those with whom bear that name right? They weren't written until 200+ AD, long after the actual people, died. They are either fictional writings or forgeries, however you want to take it. Not sure which, probably works of fiction for most. Therefore, you cannot rely on any of them as reliable sources, which is why they were rejected from the Biblical Canon in the first place. The early Church Fathers knew what they were doing in regards to confirming which books were inspired.
Now of course, whether that is really "obvious" or not is not the point. The point is that there were Jesus believers that organized around beliefs that at one point or another is written down in the Gospel of Thomas. There were believers that organized around Mary, and organized around Judas. Probably others. And the fact that shots were taken at each of these figures in the various Gospels is evidence, weak evidence but still evidence that these communities of believers existed early enough for these attacks in the Gospels. Lots of politics in the Gospels, especially church politics! When these communities started writing stuff is ultimately irrelevant. Even when they formed is irrelevant. Whether or not their beliefs were more or less fiction than the beliefs that won out is irrelevant to whether or not these belief systems existed. No one is arguing that they are reliable sources for orthodox Chirstian beliefs. As a believer it makes sense that better beliefs would survive. The claim is that they are evidence that unorthodox beliefs were existing side by side at the time. Groups that were eradicated for the "lies" they believed.
Of course, the more dismissive you are of these texts, the less strength they offer as evidence for a historical Jesus. Though some arguably already speak against that.
Based on these requirements you outline here, you aren't a fan of Mark and/or Luke either? Is that a correct assumption?Those who place their faith in these false writings are in grave danger. They are fakes, not written by the authors for which they bare their name. They are fakes and led people astray. They weren't around at the same time as the Eyewitnesses. They came along over 1-200 years later and contradict the Eyewitness writings of Scripture. No reason to consider them authentic. They do add evidence for the Historical Jesus, but it's twisted history and contradicts the Eyewitnesses.You do realize that the Gospel of John is pretty much a direct, pretty much line by line rebuttal, or more accurate a mockery of Thomas and the Gospel of Thomas? In Thomas we all have an "inner light", but for John only Jesus has the light. Thomas isn't much about what Jesus did, but how he pointed to this inner light. Then of course there is the "doubting Thomas" passage which all of the other Gospel writers seemed to not care about. While John was very likely written much later than you believe, it wasn't 200+. Of course, you don't know this because this "obvious" connection was not known until Nag Hammadi gave the world a complete copy of the Gospel of Thomas. Way too late for those still on KJV.Side note, you do realize that the Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Thomas & The other Non Canonical writings were NOT written by those with whom bear that name right? They weren't written until 200+ AD, long after the actual people, died. They are either fictional writings or forgeries, however you want to take it. Not sure which, probably works of fiction for most. Therefore, you cannot rely on any of them as reliable sources, which is why they were rejected from the Biblical Canon in the first place. The early Church Fathers knew what they were doing in regards to confirming which books were inspired.
Now of course, whether that is really "obvious" or not is not the point. The point is that there were Jesus believers that organized around beliefs that at one point or another is written down in the Gospel of Thomas. There were believers that organized around Mary, and organized around Judas. Probably others. And the fact that shots were taken at each of these figures in the various Gospels is evidence, weak evidence but still evidence that these communities of believers existed early enough for these attacks in the Gospels. Lots of politics in the Gospels, especially church politics! When these communities started writing stuff is ultimately irrelevant. Even when they formed is irrelevant. Whether or not their beliefs were more or less fiction than the beliefs that won out is irrelevant to whether or not these belief systems existed. No one is arguing that they are reliable sources for orthodox Chirstian beliefs. As a believer it makes sense that better beliefs would survive. The claim is that they are evidence that unorthodox beliefs were existing side by side at the time. Groups that were eradicated for the "lies" they believed.
Of course, the more dismissive you are of these texts, the less strength they offer as evidence for a historical Jesus. Though some arguably already speak against that.
What made you specify Mark and Luke?Based on these requirements you outline here, you aren't a fan of Mark and/or Luke either? Is that a correct assumption?
It's generally accepted that Matthew and John were likely written by the actual persons. Mark and Luke there are questions about whether the actual man (or an assistant of sorts) wrote them.What made you specify Mark and Luke?Based on these requirements you outline here, you aren't a fan of Mark and/or Luke either? Is that a correct assumption?
I don't think that's true. Most modern scholars believe they were all written anonymously and not by the names they're attributed to. Also, Mark is accepted by most to be the earliest gospel and is argued to be used by the authors of Matthew and Luke.It's generally accepted that Matthew and John were likely written by the actual persons. Mark and Luke there are questions about whether the actual man (or an assistant of sorts) wrote them.
There are battles going on for sure. I was speaking from inside the circled wagons. I know there are questions from those outside the circled wagons a plenty. But Mark and Luke are even being questioned by those on the "inside" too. If that make sense? Or maybe I am babbling?I don't think that's true. Most modern scholars believe they were all written anonymously and not by the names they're attributed to. Also, Mark is accepted by most to be the earliest gospel and is argued to be used by the authors of Matthew and Luke.It's generally accepted that Matthew and John were likely written by the actual persons. Mark and Luke there are questions about whether the actual man (or an assistant of sorts) wrote them.
Here are some examples where the order and wording are too similar to have been written independently.
Gotcha. It's interesting to hear there is disagreement from inside. Do you have an example of such a debate? I'm used to running headlong into apologetics that rarely pass muster for me.There are battles going on for sure. I was speaking from inside the circled wagons. I know there are questions from those outside the circled wagons a plenty. But Mark and Luke are even being questioned by those on the "inside" too. If that make sense? Or maybe I am babbling?
I think there's typically an assumption that all insiders agree and all outsiders agree on many things. I appreciate when I hear an insider go against what's considered the standard position of believing scholars, like the Brent Nongbri example I posted earlier. I also appreciate when I hear an outsider go against what's considered the standard position of non-believers, like how Bart Ehrman says people claiming Jesus wasn't an historical figure just look stupid.Gotcha. It's interesting to hear there is disagreement from inside. Do you have an example of such a debate? I'm used to running headlong into apologetics that rarely pass muster for me.There are battles going on for sure. I was speaking from inside the circled wagons. I know there are questions from those outside the circled wagons a plenty. But Mark and Luke are even being questioned by those on the "inside" too. If that make sense? Or maybe I am babbling?
I don't have debates I can show. There are plenty of sources that question it though. There are even sects of Catholicism that question or at minimum acknowledge they are in question. Just one example:Gotcha. It's interesting to hear there is disagreement from inside. Do you have an example of such a debate? I'm used to running headlong into apologetics that rarely pass muster for me.There are battles going on for sure. I was speaking from inside the circled wagons. I know there are questions from those outside the circled wagons a plenty. But Mark and Luke are even being questioned by those on the "inside" too. If that make sense? Or maybe I am babbling?
Yes, except one of them, can't remember which, I think it was Mark, is actually attributed to Peter, but he used Mark to pen it down.Do you think the canonical gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?Side note, you do realize that the Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Thomas & The other Non Canonical writings were NOT written by those with whom bear that name right? They weren't written until 200+ AD, long after the actual people, died. They are either fictional writings or forgeries, however you want to take it. Not sure which, probably works of fiction for most. Therefore, you cannot rely on any of them as reliable sources, which is why they were rejected from the Biblical Canon in the first place. The early Church Fathers knew what they were doing in regards to confirming which books were inspired.
How long did John live? When did the fisherman learn to write in Greek? Early church tradition had John the Apostle the author of John, but that is no longer the current consensus. Maybe in conservative churches.It's generally accepted that Matthew and John were likely written by the actual persons.
Mark is supposedly a follower of Peter so thus influenced by Peter and maybe had notes from Peter, but Mark is written as a response to Rome cracking down and Peter, at least according to Christian beliefs is gone by then.Yes, except one of them, can't remember which, I think it was Mark, is actually attributed to Peter, but he used Mark to pen it down.
This is not accurate. There is an overwhelming scholarly consensus that all four gospels were written anonymously. The writer of the Gospel “according to” Matthew clearly had Mark’s gospel in front of him when writing it. Same goes for Luke.It's generally accepted that Matthew and John were likely written by the actual persons. Mark and Luke there are questions about whether the actual man (or an assistant of sorts) wrote them.What made you specify Mark and Luke?Based on these requirements you outline here, you aren't a fan of Mark and/or Luke either? Is that a correct assumption?
When I studied with the Benedictine priests who wrote/translated the recent St. John's Bible, the general (Catholic) consensus as I recall it (it's been 20 years now) seemed to be that Mark may have been the only writer who wrote his account with firsthand knowledge of the alleged events and was the actual author. Catholics believed Mark was the faster runner who ran to Jesus's empty tomb.This is not accurate. There is an overwhelming scholarly consensus that all four gospels were written anonymously. The writer of the Gospel “according to” Matthew clearly had Mark’s gospel in front of him when writing it. Same goes for Luke.It's generally accepted that Matthew and John were likely written by the actual persons. Mark and Luke there are questions about whether the actual man (or an assistant of sorts) wrote them.What made you specify Mark and Luke?Based on these requirements you outline here, you aren't a fan of Mark and/or Luke either? Is that a correct assumption?
How does the anonymity and reliance on Mark support the idea that it wasn't Matthew?This is not accurate. There is an overwhelming scholarly consensus that all four gospels were written anonymously. The writer of the Gospel “according to” Matthew clearly had Mark’s gospel in front of him when writing it. Same goes for Luke.It's generally accepted that Matthew and John were likely written by the actual persons. Mark and Luke there are questions about whether the actual man (or an assistant of sorts) wrote them.What made you specify Mark and Luke?Based on these requirements you outline here, you aren't a fan of Mark and/or Luke either? Is that a correct assumption?
Maybe Catholics see it differently, but I think some assume the faster runner was John since that appears in John. And, Mark is potentially the naked man in Gethsemane in Mark 14. I've heard it was fairly common in ancient writings for the author to put themselves into the story as an unnamed character so that's where those assumptions come from.When I studied with the Benedictine priests who wrote/translated the recent St. John's Bible, the general (Catholic) consensus as I recall it (it's been 20 years now) seemed to be that Mark may have been the only writer who wrote his account with firsthand knowledge of the alleged events and was the actual author. Catholics believed Mark was the faster runner who ran to Jesus's empty tomb.This is not accurate. There is an overwhelming scholarly consensus that all four gospels were written anonymously. The writer of the Gospel “according to” Matthew clearly had Mark’s gospel in front of him when writing it. Same goes for Luke.It's generally accepted that Matthew and John were likely written by the actual persons. Mark and Luke there are questions about whether the actual man (or an assistant of sorts) wrote them.What made you specify Mark and Luke?Based on these requirements you outline here, you aren't a fan of Mark and/or Luke either? Is that a correct assumption?
Hmmm I could be confusing Mark and John - though I thought the Gospel of John wasn't written until nearly the end of the century (where it would have been incredibly unlikely that he lived that long).Maybe Catholics see it differently, but I think some assume the faster runner was John since that appears in John. And, Mark is potentially the naked man in Gethsemane in Mark 14. I've heard it was fairly common in ancient writings for the author to put themselves into the story as an unnamed character so that's where those assumptions come from.When I studied with the Benedictine priests who wrote/translated the recent St. John's Bible, the general (Catholic) consensus as I recall it (it's been 20 years now) seemed to be that Mark may have been the only writer who wrote his account with firsthand knowledge of the alleged events and was the actual author. Catholics believed Mark was the faster runner who ran to Jesus's empty tomb.This is not accurate. There is an overwhelming scholarly consensus that all four gospels were written anonymously. The writer of the Gospel “according to” Matthew clearly had Mark’s gospel in front of him when writing it. Same goes for Luke.It's generally accepted that Matthew and John were likely written by the actual persons. Mark and Luke there are questions about whether the actual man (or an assistant of sorts) wrote them.What made you specify Mark and Luke?Based on these requirements you outline here, you aren't a fan of Mark and/or Luke either? Is that a correct assumption?
Matthew may very well have had Mark in front of him when writing. That's a different tangent than what you responded to.This is not accurate. There is an overwhelming scholarly consensus that all four gospels were written anonymously. The writer of the Gospel “according to” Matthew clearly had Mark’s gospel in front of him when writing it. Same goes for Luke.It's generally accepted that Matthew and John were likely written by the actual persons. Mark and Luke there are questions about whether the actual man (or an assistant of sorts) wrote them.What made you specify Mark and Luke?Based on these requirements you outline here, you aren't a fan of Mark and/or Luke either? Is that a correct assumption?
Well, I think everyone assumes "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is John and that appears in John, so I'm not sure how the faster runner would be any different and need to be someone other than John.Hmmm I could be confusing Mark and John - though I thought the Gospel of John wasn't written until nearly the end of the century (where it would have been incredibly unlikely that he lived that long).Maybe Catholics see it differently, but I think some assume the faster runner was John since that appears in John. And, Mark is potentially the naked man in Gethsemane in Mark 14. I've heard it was fairly common in ancient writings for the author to put themselves into the story as an unnamed character so that's where those assumptions come from.When I studied with the Benedictine priests who wrote/translated the recent St. John's Bible, the general (Catholic) consensus as I recall it (it's been 20 years now) seemed to be that Mark may have been the only writer who wrote his account with firsthand knowledge of the alleged events and was the actual author. Catholics believed Mark was the faster runner who ran to Jesus's empty tomb.This is not accurate. There is an overwhelming scholarly consensus that all four gospels were written anonymously. The writer of the Gospel “according to” Matthew clearly had Mark’s gospel in front of him when writing it. Same goes for Luke.It's generally accepted that Matthew and John were likely written by the actual persons. Mark and Luke there are questions about whether the actual man (or an assistant of sorts) wrote them.What made you specify Mark and Luke?Based on these requirements you outline here, you aren't a fan of Mark and/or Luke either? Is that a correct assumption?
Because two eyewitnesses would never tell the exact same story word for word. And there are many examples of editorial fatigue in both Matthew and Luke. It is actually a fascinating topic to research.How does the anonymity and reliance on Mark support the idea that it wasn't Matthew?This is not accurate. There is an overwhelming scholarly consensus that all four gospels were written anonymously. The writer of the Gospel “according to” Matthew clearly had Mark’s gospel in front of him when writing it. Same goes for Luke.It's generally accepted that Matthew and John were likely written by the actual persons. Mark and Luke there are questions about whether the actual man (or an assistant of sorts) wrote them.What made you specify Mark and Luke?Based on these requirements you outline here, you aren't a fan of Mark and/or Luke either? Is that a correct assumption?
Thanks. I hadn't heard the phrase "editorial fatigue". I just did a quick search on it. I'll have to look into that more.Because two eyewitnesses would never tell the exact same story word for word. And there are many examples of editorial fatigue in both Matthew and Luke. It is actually a fascinating topic to research.How does the anonymity and reliance on Mark support the idea that it wasn't Matthew?This is not accurate. There is an overwhelming scholarly consensus that all four gospels were written anonymously. The writer of the Gospel “according to” Matthew clearly had Mark’s gospel in front of him when writing it. Same goes for Luke.It's generally accepted that Matthew and John were likely written by the actual persons. Mark and Luke there are questions about whether the actual man (or an assistant of sorts) wrote them.What made you specify Mark and Luke?Based on these requirements you outline here, you aren't a fan of Mark and/or Luke either? Is that a correct assumption?
I wonder here if the part about "It was not, however, in exact order" is an early attempt to resolve the synoptic Gospels to John, which I think it is safe to say was always the Church's favorite, at least those where the trinity is a thing (I'm talking early Church when things like the trinity were still debated).Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements
Yeah, I've heard the theory that Matthew was originally in Hebrew and potentially first, but never really looked into where that idea comes from. I know it's not popular. I heard it first from someone who heard it from someone who traces back to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and David Flusser. Flusser was a non-Jesus-following Jew who spent his academic career studying the Gospels from a Jewish perspective. There is a group called the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research that I think is somehow related to all of this, although I think they propose the possibility of Luke being first.What I find fascinating about Matthew is that the earliest comments on the Gospels all had Matthew coming first. More than that they have Matthew being written in Hebrew. It has been proposed that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and then later translated to Greek. Along the way only the Greek survived, but this experts (not me) suggest that there are no telltale signs of translation. It flows in Greek as one would suspect if written in Greek. So were these early writers wrong? Some argue that it was always written in Greek as language, but it was written with a Hebrew mind set. Others speculate that Matthew wrote two Gospels. One in Hebrew and one in Greek. Again only the Greek surviving. A variation of this is that the Hebrew Matthew was more a list of sayings (like Thomas in that respect) and not a narrative. That the Hebrew Matthew was the "Q" common source of sayings used by the synoptic Gospel authors. But this is problematic in that it isn't likely that the authors of the Gospels would translate Hebrew to Greek all in the same way, and they are pretty much always word for word. For me it is simply "fun" to speculate what these early writers were talking about since we have no other good evidence of an early Matthew Hebrew Gospel.
As for Mark, being an eyewitness, or being authored by Peter see this stumbled upon Wikipedia quote from looking for a link to support some of the above (this is to scholarly for that). I had heard most of this indirectly at one point or another, but seeing it written down around 120AD-
I wonder here if the part about "It was not, however, in exact order" is an early attempt to resolve the synoptic Gospels to John, which I think it is safe to say was always the Church's favorite, at least those where the trinity is a thing (I'm talking early Church when things like the trinity were still debated).Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements
This isn't in response to any particular post, just my ramblings on something I enjoy thinking about.
Don’t disagree with any of this. But the authors are clearly not first hand account witnesses.Thanks. I hadn't heard the phrase "editorial fatigue". I just did a quick search on it. I'll have to look into that more.Because two eyewitnesses would never tell the exact same story word for word. And there are many examples of editorial fatigue in both Matthew and Luke. It is actually a fascinating topic to research.How does the anonymity and reliance on Mark support the idea that it wasn't Matthew?This is not accurate. There is an overwhelming scholarly consensus that all four gospels were written anonymously. The writer of the Gospel “according to” Matthew clearly had Mark’s gospel in front of him when writing it. Same goes for Luke.It's generally accepted that Matthew and John were likely written by the actual persons. Mark and Luke there are questions about whether the actual man (or an assistant of sorts) wrote them.What made you specify Mark and Luke?Based on these requirements you outline here, you aren't a fan of Mark and/or Luke either? Is that a correct assumption?
However, I'm still not sure how any of this points towards Matthew not being the author. If anonymity and reliance on Mark is an argument against Matthew, it seems like it would be an argument against any particular person, yet I'm confident someone was the author (or compiler or largely responsible for the document that eventually bears the name "The Gospel According to Matthew"). Texts that are anonymous still have authors. Texts that clearly rely on other texts for portions of their material still have authors.
Interesting site.
Hope you feel better, Paddington.Sorry, I haven't been around. Been extremely sick all week.