Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

What it comes down to is this:

Are you trying to get at the truth, or are you trying to make the truth look different than what it is?

The Gospels were written and disseminated in the 1st century, and there is a whole pile of empirical evidence that proves it.

[ideal]

JDHURF's argument states that the gospels were written prior to Marcion by forty five years or more. You seem to be getting some confusion from his posts.

[cap'n queasy]

ideal wrote: JDHURF's argument states that the gospels were written prior to Marcion by forty five years or more. You seem to be getting some confusion from his posts.

45 years before Marcion is the first century, His claim, or rather the claim he is using for his point, is that the Gospels were written much later than the first century. The second or third century.

[JDHURF]

cap'n queasy wrote: How did Marcion launch an attack on the validity of the Gospels, claiming they had been corrupted, in 145 AD when they were not written (so you say) until much later?
Does that make it simple enough for you?
This is a well known and documented part of history. If you were familar with the subject you would know all about it. This is the last time I am going to explain this to you, I will even include a timeline. Marcion “attacking” the validity of the Gospels in 145 CE would have occurred four to seven decades after the time I claim the gospels were written. It is my claim that the gospels were written in a time frame from 65 CE to 100 CE, this is long before Marcion and his criticism of the gospels.

The time line runs as follows 1 CE, running up in chronological order, to 100 CE – that is the first century. In this first century the gospels were written, in a time frame of 65-100, after this happened Marcion critiqued the gospels in 145 CE, this would have happened at least forty five years after the gospels had been written within my contention.
What you are doing is absolutely obfuscating the timeline I have set forth and arguing against something that doesn’t exist. I claim that the gospels were written in the first century and well before Marcion critiqued the gospels. How do you not understand that? How are you unable to understand that 100 CE is four decades earlier than 145 CE? You have absolutely no idea what you are arguing about.

[JDHURF]

cap'n queasy wrote: ideal wrote: JDHURF's argument states that the gospels were written prior to Marcion by forty five years or more. You seem to be getting some confusion from his posts.

45 years before Marcion is the first century, His claim, or rather the claim he is using for his point, is that the Gospels were written much later than the first century. The second or third century. This is absolutely false. I claim the gospels were written in the first century, my opening post mentions 70 CE – which is the first century – and I later go on to claim that the gospels were written in a time frame anywhere from 65 CE – 100 CE a time frame well within the later part of the first century. In not one of my posts did I claim that the gospels were written in the second or third century, you have conjured that up out of thin air.

[thefranzkafkafront]

JDHURF wrote:
The folklore inherent in Christianity was nothing new or original. Jesus shared some twenty odd characteristics with other mythical heroes, heroes such as Oedipus, Theseus, Romulus, Hercules, Perseus, Zeus, Zoroaster, Thor, Tammuz, Orpheus, Mithras, Krishna, Horus, Hermes, Dionysis, Baal, Attis, Adonis, etc. the shared characteristics being: the heroes mother is a royal virgin, stars appear at his birth, visited by Magi from the east, his father is a king, the circumstances of his conception are unusual, is reputed to be the son of a god, at birth there is an attempt by his father to kill him, but he is hidden away, is raised by foster parents in a foreign country, we are told nothing of his childhood, on reaching manhood he returns and goes to his future kingdom, after a victory over a king, a giant or a dragon, marries a princess, turns water into wine, heals the sick, performs miracles, becomes king, reigns uneventfully, proscribes laws, later losses favor with subjects, is driven from the throne of the city, meets with a mysterious death, death is often at the top of a hill, killed on a cross or a tree, his children if any do not succeed him, his body not buried, etc.
It is a staggering fact to note that Jesus shares the majority of these common hero characteristics with other heroic figures such as Oedipus, Theseus, Romulus, etc. There are other similar savior figures during the same time period such as Apollonius Christ and Osiris, however, nobody takes these stories as anything other than mythical despite the congruent similarity. I find it further revealing that those whose job it was to spread Christianity used the similarity it shared with all other mythology as an advantage:


This is a very long post to debate the scriptural bits i'd have to dig out my notes which i may do but not right now.

However this bit is what intrests me most.

You seem to have spotted the biographical similarities allthough i'd note that theres a huge diffrence as jesus never actually did any of these things supposedly he mearly taught about them.

However this is the 64,000 dollar question.

What were the theological similaries?

[JDHURF]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: You seem to have spotted the biographical similarities allthough i'd note that theres a huge diffrence as jesus never actually did any of these things supposedly he mearly taught about them.
That is an interesting theory; that Jesus went around teaching people that he had done things which he had, in fact, not done. Is that what you meant, or did I interpret incorrectly?
thefranzkafkafront wrote: What were the theological similaries?
I’m not entirely sure of the distinction which you are trying to make, but, I shall try to provide what I assume to be the answers which you are looking for.
Let us first take Apollonius Christ, the theological similarity is virtually identical. He preached “we cannot hate our fellow man” he created miracles, healed the sick, was accused of sedition in Rome and his followers, after his death, claimed that he had ascended to heaven and came to them in spiritual form afterwards. In fact the theology of Apollonius was so similar to that of Christianity there are records of early Church fathers mentioning and arguing against Apollonius’ divinity, again, using the argument that Satan used Apollonius as a way to deceive:

"How is it that the talismans of Apollonius have power over certain members of creation, for they prevent, as we see, the fury of the waves, the violence of the winds, and the attacks of wild beasts. And whilst Our Lord's miracles are preserved by tradition alone, those of Apollonius are most numerous, and actually manifested in present facts, so as to lead astray all beholders?" – Justin Martyr, early Church father

Apollonians, those who were followers of Apollonius, believed in the immortality of the soul and that upon death they would ascend to heaven. In fact, there is debate on whether or not Jesus had been conflated with Apollonius due to the similarities.

There are also striking similarities between Christianity and Zoroastrianism, the later predating the former. Many scholars credit Zoroastrianism with influencing the eschatology, angelology and demonology of Judaism. Judaism, of course, then influencing Christianity and Islam:

“it was from this very creed of Zoroaster that the Jews derived all the angelology of their religion... the belief in a future state; of rewards and punishments, ... the soul's immortality, and the Last Judgment - all of them essential parts of the Zoroastrian scheme.” – from The Gnostics and Their Remains (King and Moore, 1887).

Zoroastrianism had abstract concepts of heaven and of hell, personal and final judgment and even contains the concept of a coming messiah-like figure referred to as the “Peshotan.”

The theological similarities exist in abundance.

Thank you for joining the discussion by the way.

[cap'n queasy]

JDHURF wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: ideal wrote: JDHURF's argument states that the gospels were written prior to Marcion by forty five years or more. You seem to be getting some confusion from his posts.

45 years before Marcion is the first century, His claim, or rather the claim he is using for his point, is that the Gospels were written much later than the first century. The second or third century. This is absolutely false. I claim the gospels were written in the first century, my opening post mentions 70 CE – which is the first century – and I later go on to claim that the gospels were written in a time frame anywhere from 65 CE – 100 CE a time frame well within the later part of the first century. In not one of my posts did I claim that the gospels were written in the second or third century, you have conjured that up out of thin air.

I'm going to concede that point. I made a mistake about your proposed timeline. I admit I made an assumption without reading carefully, because the argument you make and the timeline I mentioned are closely related and are usually used together. I must apologize for that.

And I am not going to argue your main point, because there, in fact, a large section of Christianity which has indeed adopted practices that are derived from pagan sources. The Madonna and Child cult is directly drawn from the ancient Mesopotamian Tammuz cult, and Easter is in in fact a holy day of the goddess Ishtar, which is why it incorporates fertility symbology. The word easter derives from the same word estrus comes from. Additionally the holidays of Christmas and New Year's were at one time combined as a celebration known as Saturnalia. The debauchery part of the celebration was separated by the part that was taken to celebrate the birth of Christ, which couldn't have possibly been on December 25.

However, these doctrines are not scripturally based. And many Christians do not accept them.

[JDHURF]

cap'n queasy wrote: I'm going to concede that point. I made a mistake about your proposed timeline. I admit I made an assumption without reading carefully, because the argument you make and the timeline I mentioned are closely related and are usually used together. I must apologize for that.
There is no need to apologize, mistakes happen, thank you for that though.
cap'n queasy wrote: And I am not going to argue your main point, because there, in fact, a large section of Christianity which has indeed adopted practices that are derived from pagan sources. The Madonna and Child cult is directly drawn from the ancient Mesopotamian Tammuz cult, and Easter is in in fact a holy day of the goddess Ishtar, which is why it incorporates fertility symbology. The word easter derives from the same word estrus comes from. Additionally the holidays of Christmas and New Year's were at one time combined as a celebration known as Saturnalia. The debauchery part of the celebration was separated by the part that was taken to celebrate the birth of Christ, which couldn't have possibly been on December 25. However, these doctrines are not scripturally based. And many Christians do not accept them.
We certainly agree here, you seem to have a good bearing with regards to the symbology and influences thereof. The Tammuz and the “Madonna and child” cults also share their relations with Isis and Horus. You are absolutely correct regarding easter and its connection with the Tammuz (whom I mentioned in my opening post) and Ishtar (Ishtar is actually pronounced “easter”). You are also right about saturnalia – a dedication to Saturn’s temple – and that fact that Jesus wasn’t even believed to have been born on December 25, but, rather, sometime in September. Pagans also celebrated the winter solstice, known as Yule, which was symbolic of the pagan sun god Mithras (whom I mentioned in my opening post). It was Pope Julius I who declared that the birth of Christ would be celebrated on December 25 and it is widely believed this date was chosen because of the large number of pagan Romans, in hopes that they could be converted.

[cap'n queasy]

JDHURF wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: I'm going to concede that point. I made a mistake about your proposed timeline. I admit I made an assumption without reading carefully, because the argument you make and the timeline I mentioned are closely related and are usually used together. I must apologize for that.
There is no need to apologize, mistakes happen, thank you for that though.
cap'n queasy wrote: And I am not going to argue your main point, because there, in fact, a large section of Christianity which has indeed adopted practices that are derived from pagan sources. The Madonna and Child cult is directly drawn from the ancient Mesopotamian Tammuz cult, and Easter is in in fact a holy day of the goddess Ishtar, which is why it incorporates fertility symbology. The word easter derives from the same word estrus comes from. Additionally the holidays of Christmas and New Year's were at one time combined as a celebration known as Saturnalia. The debauchery part of the celebration was separated by the part that was taken to celebrate the birth of Christ, which couldn't have possibly been on December 25. However, these doctrines are not scripturally based. And many Christians do not accept them.
We certainly agree here, you seem to have a good bearing with regards to the symbology and influences thereof. The Tammuz and the “Madonna and child” cults also share their relations with Isis and Horus. You are absolutely correct regarding easter and its connection with the Tammuz (whom I mentioned in my opening post) and Ishtar (Ishtar is actually pronounced “easter”). You are also right about saturnalia – a dedication to Saturn’s temple – and that fact that Jesus wasn’t even believed to have been born on December 25, but, rather, sometime in September. Pagans also celebrated the winter solstice, known as Yule, which was symbolic of the pagan sun god Mithras (whom I mentioned in my opening post). It was Pope Julius I who declared that the birth of Christ would be celebrated on December 25 and it is widely believed this date was chosen because of the large number of pagan Romans, in hopes that they could be converted.

Interestingly enough, the word yule has ancient origins. In the Babylonian language it mean "infant".

The method to worship Tammuz was the sacrifice of every first born infant, who was throw into a fire, and also involved a decorated tree called an asherah which replaced the infant in the family, the Yule tradition of of burning a Yule log and replacing it with a decorated Christmas tree is directly derived from this practice. It was introduced to the Germanic peoples by Cimmerian (not the Robert Howard Cimmerians) migrants from the Middle East.

[John]

The so-called "search for the historic Jesus" is over one hundred years old. Virtually nothing discovered during that time undermines the Gospel accounts. There is no "new evidence" supporting the idea that the miracle-working Son of God was the result of an evolution of myth over a long period of time. To the contrary, recent discoveries have given more credibility to the content of the Gospels themselves.

For example, we know the Apostle Paul died during the Neronian persecution of A.D. 64. Paul was still alive at the close of Acts, so that writing came some time before A.D. 64. Acts was a continuation of Luke's Gospel, which must have been written earlier still. The book of Mark predates Luke, even by the Jesus Seminar's reckoning. This pushes Mark's Gospel into the 50s, just over twenty years after the crucifixion.

It is undisputed that Paul wrote Romans in the mid-50s, yet he proclaims Jesus as the resurrected Son of God in the opening lines of that epistle. Galatians, another uncontested Pauline epistle of the mid-50s, records Paul's interaction with the principle disciples (Peter and James) at least 14 years earlier (Gal 1:18, cf. 2:1).

The Jesus Seminar claims that the humble sage of Nazareth was transformed into a wonder-working Son of God in the late first and early second century. The epistles, though, record a high Christology within 10 to 20 years of the crucifixion. That simply is not enough time for myth and legend to take hold, especially when so many were still alive to contradict the alleged errors of the events they personally witnessed.

There is no good reason to assume the Gospels were fabricated or seriously distorted in the retelling. Time and again the New Testament writers claim to be eyewitnesses to the facts. And their accounts were written early on while they’re memories were clear and other witnesses could vouch for their accounts. The Gospels are early accounts of Jesus’ life and deeds.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6760

[John]

What was Jesus talking about; when He said this?



John 14
26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

[JDHURF]

John wrote: The so-called "search for the historic Jesus" is over one hundred years old. Virtually nothing discovered during that time undermines the Gospel accounts. There is no "new evidence" supporting the idea that the miracle-working Son of God was the result of an evolution of myth over a long period of time. To the contrary, recent discoveries have given more credibility to the content of the Gospels themselves.
That is inaccurate. The gospels were at best second hand accounts based on oral tradition, and we all know how reliable oral tradition is (the children’s game “telephones” testifies to this) and even still there is a legitimate debate on whether or not Mark even based his gospel on anything other than the oral tradition itself, not very reliable. Then we have the other authors basing their writings off of Marks and possibly a lost document known as Quelle – cap’n discounts this possibility – in any case the best we are working with is a second hand account influenced by oral tradition and later accounts which are twice removed from having anything to do with Jesus.
John wrote: For example, we know the Apostle Paul died during the Neronian persecution of A.D. 64. Paul was still alive at the close of Acts, so that writing came some time before A.D. 64. Acts was a continuation of Luke's Gospel, which must have been written earlier still. The book of Mark predates Luke, even by the Jesus Seminar's reckoning. This pushes Mark's Gospel into the 50s, just over twenty years after the crucifixion.
I agree with your claim that Paul died in 64 CE, however claiming that the Jesus seminar “reckons” that Mark was written before 60 CE is false. The earliest Mark can be dated is 60 CE but no earlier. I actually have an acquaintance who is involved with the Jesus seminars and this is what he had to say:
seeker wrote: I seen Mark dated to as early as 60CE but no earlier. As I know it the earliest copies of the gospels date from something like 200CE. Here are a few references to this effect

Quote: "Today we know of just over thirty papyrus manuscripts of New Testament books which can be dated before the fourth century. That number is small in comparison with the scores of copies of Homer and the dozens of copies of other famous Greek authors."
"Each copy [of the New Testament texts] has its own oddities and mistakes: no two are completely identical, or the same as the Codex Sinaiticus [ca. 350 C.E.] or other later manuscripts....In the Gospels there are about seventy places altogether where scholars are doubtful about the original reading - that is to say are unsure whether one group of manuscripts or another has the correct words. Few of these places impinge on any major Christian doctrine, and in no case does any uncertainty affect the Christian faith."
- Alan Millard, Discoveries From the Time of Jesus

"The Four Gospels are indeed difficult sources; their initial selection from the dragnet does not mean that they are guaranteed to represent the historical words and deeds of Jesus. Shot through and through with the Easter faith of the early Church, highly selective, and ordered according to various theological programs, the canonical Gospels demand careful, critical sifting if they are to yield reliable information for the quest."
- John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew - Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1.

"The problems for the reconstruction of the best archetype for the manuscript tradition is more or less identical with the assumed autograph is precarious. The oldest known archetypes are separated from the autographs by more than a century. Textual critics of classical texts know that the first century of their transmission is the period in which the most serious corruptions occur."
- Helmut Koester, "The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century", in Colloquy on New Testament Studies: A Time for Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches 81 (1989)

"We must learn to consider the gospels of the New Testament canon, in the form in which they existed before 180 C.E., in the same light in which we consider the apocrypha. At this earlier time the gospels were what the apocrypha never ceased to be. Like the apocrypha, the gospels of the New Testament were not yet canonical; they did not circulate together [for example, only Luke and John are present in Papyrus 45], and when they did, they did not always appear in the same sequence [for example, the order Matthew, John, Luke, Mark in Codex Bezae]."
- François Bovon, "The Synoptic Gospels and the Noncanonical Acts of the Apostles", Harvard Theological Review 81 (1988) Typically the gospels are datd from when references to them or quotes from the show up.

One of the big reasons the gospels tend to be dated later is because of Paul. Paul seems to refer to the gospels but many of the so-called sayings of Jesus are well known to havwe been around and in common usage well before Jesus, it was that fact which lead the Jesus Seminar to conclude that Quote: The Gospel of Mark, regarded by most scholars as the earliest and most reliable of the Synoptic Gospels, is reduced to one (1) phrase (“Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar’s and to God those things that are God’s”). James R. Edwards, “New Quest, Old Errors”, Touchstone, Vol. 9, No. 1 (March 1996) at. 17-18. Because of this the Gospels are considered to have been written after Paul died.

Quote: "...There is nothing in Paul's letters that either hints at the existence of the Gospels or that even talks of a need for such biographical memoirs of Jesus Christ. Paul, the New Testament says, never saw the earthly Jesus but was totally convinced of his divinity. He was, he says, 'an apostle, not by human appointment or human commission, but by commission from Jesus Christ and from God the Father." [Galatians 1:1 NEB]
- John Romer, Testament- The Bible and History

"...It is noteworthy that, except for the words of the institution of the Lord's Supper themselves, Paul does not in any of his epistles quote the exact words of any of the saying so Jesus as we now have them in the Gospels. Nor does he mention a single event in the life of Jesus - again except for the institution of the Lord's Supper - between his birth and his death on the cross. From the writings of Paul we would not be able to know that Jesus ever taught in parables and proverbs or that he performed miracles or that he was born of a virgin. For that information we are dependent on the oral tradition of the early Christian communities as this was eventually deposited in the Gospels, all of which, in their present form at any rate, probably appeared later than most or all of the epistles of Paul."
- Jaroslav Pelikan, Jesus Through the Centuries

"There is not a single mention or even a hint of Paul's letters in the Gospels. Their vision seems far removed from the practicalities that are spelled out in Paul's letters. His main theme is Jesus' message of God's love for the world and also Christ's assertion that the ending of the world is imminent; his historical view is sharp and certain. In comparison, the Gospels often seem uncertain of their central message and of their central character; Jesus' purposes on earth seem curiously elusive....The Gospels' portrait of Jesus seems to be separated from real time. The central character is set in a rambling series of incidents and sermons, engaged in a mysterious progress revolving around an unstated drama that finally ensures his capture and death."
- John Romer, Testament - The Bible and History

The meat of all of this is that the best we can do is narrow it down. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, (c. 60-130) wrote around the year 120:

Quote: “Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered of what was said or done by the Lord, however not in order Which gives us an upper boundry of 120CE.

Mark 13:1-2 is generally seen as referring to the Jewish revolt of 66-70CE so you either believe Jesus is a prophet or that it was written after those events. That is what a majority of scholars would say was a likely date 66 - 70CE. Christians generally argue for 40CE which is around the time Paulsa letters start showing up but the descrition but Paul is actually supposed to have died around 60CE and Mark isn't supposed to be written till after Peter dies(This is the tradition of the Catholic Church) so we are back to 65CE or so.
John wrote: It is undisputed that Paul wrote Romans in the mid-50s, yet he proclaims Jesus as the resurrected Son of God in the opening lines of that epistle. Galatians, another uncontested Pauline epistle of the mid-50s, records Paul's interaction with the principle disciples (Peter and James) at least 14 years earlier (Gal 1:18, cf. 2:1).
I do not argue that Paul didn’t write his Epistles in a time frame of 40 CE – 62 CE, that is actually my claim as well. I also do not dispute that Paul speaks of Jesus as the resurrected son of god, clearly he does and that is also part and parcel of my conention.
John wrote: The Jesus Seminar claims that the humble sage of Nazareth was transformed into a wonder-working Son of God in the late first and early second century. The epistles, though, record a high Christology within 10 to 20 years of the crucifixion. That simply is not enough time for myth and legend to take hold, especially when so many were still alive to contradict the alleged errors of the events they personally witnessed.
I agree that Paul began writing his epistles within ten to twenty years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, but, it is also not without significance to point out that Paul did not write of what we would consider the common story of Jesus, he does not cite or mention, the virgin birth, John the Baptist, any of the miracles of Jesus, he doesn’t mention the ministry of Jesus, Pontius Pilot is never mentioned, neither is any Jewish mob or any trial. This is striking evidence that Paul may very well have been absolutely unaware of such mythic stories which later found their home in the gospels. I concede that I was overwrought in my analysis of Paul’s writings, it may be inaccurate the Paul placed the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus within a mythical realm. However to claim that the epistles of Paul vindicate the later stories found in the gospels is fallacious.
John wrote: There is no good reason to assume the Gospels were fabricated or seriously distorted in the retelling. Time and again the New Testament writers claim to be eyewitnesses to the facts. And their accounts were written early on while they’re memories were clear and other witnesses could vouch for their accounts. The Gospels are early accounts of Jesus’ life and deeds.
This is simply inaccurate, I have no idea where you are getting these ideas.

[wormwood]

Interesting debate, though I must say the first page is a bit frustrating. So JD thinks the gospels were written in the 2nd or 3rd century right? :lol:

Would it matter? The assertion in the OP was that Jesus was a myth due to similarity to other mythical people, and the fact that the stories were written down decades after his death. The historical validity of any document as a historical marker is suspect, because we are assuming that the fist copy ever written has survived until today. But for the sake of conversation, let's supposed that the oldest copies discovered, are the oldest copies. Even if written much later, the gospels all agree on one important point. The 12 disciples, had practically no faith in Jesus when he was among them performing miracles. They disappointed JC time and again. Yet when he died, all of the apostles gained courage enough to die for their beliefs. This is circumstantial definitely, but it is still a factor to be considered. I think this:
Quote: That is inaccurate. The gospels were at best second hand accounts based on oral tradition, and we all know how reliable oral tradition is (the children’s game “telephones" testifies to this) is an unfair assessment. First one is a game played by Children, the other, was a tradition that could cost you your life. Early Christians were mostly Jewish. The Jews had a very extensive oral tradition that accompanied the Torah. It was called the spoken Torah, or oral tradition and it remained in tact across the world over many centuries before the Talmud was written. I think they could keep a story in tact just a little over 30 years.

Quote: I agree that Paul began writing his epistles within ten to twenty years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, but, it is also not without significance to point out that Paul did not write of what we would consider the common story of Jesus, he does not cite or mention, the virgin birth, John the Baptist, any of the miracles of Jesus, he doesn’t mention the ministry of Jesus, Pontius Pilot is never mentioned, neither is any Jewish mob or any trial. This is striking evidence that Paul may very well have been absolutely unaware of such mythic stories which later found their home in the gospels. JD...you finally came up with a logically sound argument :lol: . Although, it doesn't really hurt Christianity. Some people will always scrutinize every phrase for every possible meaning, but if you do believe the text, it basically tells you that you can't understand the little details on purpose. If you don't believe the mythological stuff, then you are pretty much where the apostles were. It wasn't the mythological events which garnered true faith. Even the apostles doubted Jesus after seeing these things...so obviously true or not, the mythological stuff isn't supposed to be the proof you are looking for. Let's say Paul is the only valid biblical authority. He still writes about the death and resurrection which is really the central theme of Christianity. IF you believe in that, and being good to your neighbor, and believe in a day of judgment, then you are a christian even if the the mythological things were true.

As for the OP as a whole, I have posted many of these same ideas here on PFC, though my list of demigods was not as extensive. The concept of the demigod and the eternal rewards originate in Sumeria and there have been numerous cultural derivations. Also, the concept of heaven and hell is older than Zoroastrianism, the oldest reference I can think of off hand would be the Egyptians. There are many many elements which seem to be almost universal to religion itself. Excluding most Asian religions, many central themes are derived from the first known religion in Sumeria. One could therefore conclude, that either history basically revolves around a series of lies and embellishments of lies, or that there is some core truth to many religions, even ones many people consider false or outdated. Either way, it looks bad for most contemporary religions who all swear they are the only true way and that ancient religions are pagan nonsense.
If you keep going in the direction you are going with your religious research, eventually you will see a pattern emerge. You can link almost every religion in the world, with the religion of ancient Sumeria (including ancient religions in South and Central America). This will most likely make you want to really study, not just familiarize yourself with, the Sumerian religion. I suggest finding something written by a German around the late 1800's - early 1900's, and translated into English. This has proven the most useful in unbiased translations of direct terms even when they don't make sense. It seems English and American writers try to make the sentence make sense to themselves, instead of directly translating. For the basic stories online resources work fine. If you go to the source, many of the stories make more sense, especially given modern insight. I know that seems like a contradiction, but it isn't.

[eynon]

Random Evil Guy wrote: the gospel of mark is considered to be the oldest of the gospels and it is usually dated between 65-80 ad. the other three are:
gospel of matthew 80-100
gospel of luke 80-130
gospel of john 90-120



http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

hmm.............read that links article about the book of James, it's pretty weak. ignores the parallels in James to the sermon on the mount from Mathew, the prevalence of nature metaphors common throughout both the Gospels and older Jewish literature and it's common structure with OT books of wisdom......sorry to go off topic, just like to point that out :)

[Gilbert1908]

JDHURF wrote: CCD wrote: There is much in the way of resources that I could point you to that explain the history of the writing of the Gospels and the early Church writings. But, again, it would be me using other people's words to refute your charges, so I won't bother. There is information out there to counter your arguments if you want to find it. I suggest the online magazine This Rock as an excellent source to find Catholic apologetics material. Go ahead and provide the alleged evidence that would refute my argument about the gospels. Furthermore note that my argument was not only based upon the gospels but upon the four decade period after Jesus allegedly died and the gospels were written in which the only recorded information we have of Christianity is through Paul, an individual who was absolutely unaware of any of the events that are claimed to have happened within the gospel stories but for the fact that Jesus died, was resurrected and ascended, however, his contention was that these events all happened in a mythical realm and that Jesus was never a human being walking the earth.

I have several questions so lets go after them one at a time. First your "gap".

You are aware that both Luke and John Mark (Mark) are contemporaries and proteges of Peter and Paul?

If they are proteges living and preaching and listening to these men as well as others, then where exactly is the "gap" you are talking about?

It seems to me that the "gap" is not in the linear passing of the oral or perhaps even the written content between Peter (there is a school of thought that contends Mark's Gospel is little more than a translation of Peter's account) and the other eyewitnesses as related to Paul, Mark, Luke etc. but in our present day ability to determine when a copy of a document written nearly 2000 years ago was started and then completed.

I am always interested to see that while the EXACTNESS of nothing else can be established by nonbelievers, most especially the contents of the Gospels, allegorical I believe you described them, it is by the interpretation of these very same contents, which are otherwise untrustworthy, which the dating of the text can apparently be determined without a shadow of a doubt.

Since Luke and Mark are contemporary and indeed proteges to Paul, Peter and the other Apostles of that time, and we have no way to know if they kept notes or had previous drafts of each of their Gospels what is the meaning and relevance of the "gap" you feel is so important? There is no gap in the lives and associations they have with each other just in our ability to date the documents which they authored.

[Carlin]

[quote="JDHURF"] John wrote: The so-called " The gospels were at best second hand accounts based on oral tradition, and we all know how reliable oral tradition is (the children’s game “telephones” testifies to this)

That's great. I've always said that the children's game "Telephone" systematically proves there is no God (or at least that religion cannot be real).

Great posts, you guys. JDHURF must be like the Michael Jordan of the religion forum; elevating the skills of everyone around him. Even for some who are usually the Terrel Ownens.

[Gilbert1908]

[quote="Carlin"] JDHURF wrote: John wrote: The so-called " The gospels were at best second hand accounts based on oral tradition, and we all know how reliable oral tradition is (the children’s game “telephones” testifies to this)

That's great. I've always said that the children's game "Telephone" systematically proves there is no God (or at least that religion cannot be real).

Great posts, you guys. JDHURF must be like the Michael Jordan of the religion forum; elevating the skills of everyone around him. Even for some who are usually the Terrel Ownens.

If oral history has no place in the history of ANYTHING, then you can kiss good bye to most of HISTORY.

[Carlin]

[quote="Gilbert1908"] Carlin wrote: JDHURF wrote: John wrote: The so-called " The gospels were at best second hand accounts based on oral tradition, and we all know how reliable oral tradition is (the children’s game “telephones” testifies to this)

That's great. I've always said that the children's game "Telephone" systematically proves there is no God (or at least that religion cannot be real).

Great posts, you guys. JDHURF must be like the Michael Jordan of the religion forum; elevating the skills of everyone around him. Even for some who are usually the Terrel Ownens.

If oral history has no place in the history of ANYTHING, then you can kiss good bye to most of HISTORY.

I don't think oral history is the most accurate, no. However, a lot of our history is well documented. You should ask yourself why nothing so astonishing like angels appearing or God speaking from a burning bush have not been accounted for since we've been able to document them?

[John]

Quote: That is inaccurate. The gospels were at best second hand accounts based on oral tradition, and we all know how reliable oral tradition is (the children’s game “telephones” testifies to this) and even still there is a legitimate debate on whether or not Mark even based his gospel on anything other than the oral tradition itself, not very reliable.

Actually...memorization was highly stressed in the culture of this time. People could memorize huge texts without any error. Your comparison to a children's game played by child with a different culture is a bad one. The game of “telephones” wouldn't have had the same effect on people who lived in 40 AD. This is common knowledge to anyone who studies history of that time.

But that is besides the point of what the Gospels are supposed to be.

The Gospels are supposed to be a little more than just a retelling of what happened (although that is also what they are). They are supposed to be God inspired...which means that God purposed to inspire exactly what He wanted us to have. The amount of skill or talent that the people who wrote it had is besides the point...because if it isn't inspired...it really doesn't matter either way.

Anyways…believe what you wanna believe Tupac. That’s on you.

All I can say is that the Gospels have personally had an effect on me and my life.