Atheos
Veteran Member
Canon we ever get back on course with this thread?
-
Features
120 Reasons to Reject Christianity
- Thread starter kyroot
- Start date
DrZoidberg
Contributor
There were so many prophets in Judea they even had a prophets guild. To practice messianic activities you needed a permit from them.
They did have the same word for Messiahs, fortune tellers, life coaches and stage magicians. They could all perform miracles. This has not translated well into the Bible. But if you know the context it all makes perfect sense.
BTW, turning water into wine was such a common miracle that the Greeks wrote it down how the trick was performed. And the manuscripts have survived.
The line between stage magician and prophet was as blurred as it can get. These guys were everywhere around the ancient world.
The fact that Jesus has attributed to him the full list of attributes we'd expect from a run-of-the-mill conjurer is suspicious. His background is too perfect. This to was common practice back then. It was hard to verify facts so people habitually added colourful attributes. Both while alive and then after death.
Jesus might have really lived but in no way resemble the character from the Bible
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
We can explain how miracle myths evolved over time, but not how the Jesus miracles evolved if they are fiction.
No, they made up stories about all the above. But 99.9% of it was forgotten because it never got written down, or what little was written was not copied or preserved because it was not credible and/or not important. They did not write down everything like we do today with our technology.
There were plenty of stories made up from 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 or 70 years earlier. 99.9% of it forgotten, never written down, or not copied, because hardly anyone believed it or took it seriously. Same as us today (except that it's so much easier to record anything today) -- i.e., they were not the stupid brain-dead idiots that you pretend when you keep explaining it all by saying they "made up shit" -- they did not! anymore than you do. They repeated reports, wrote them down, or copied them, only when it was something important and credible.
If it was important and/or credible enough to be remembered, it was passed on in oral reports, and these eventually were written down, probably many years later.
And there is virtually no history record from "within hours or days of the alleged events," including the real events. To ask for such a thing is asinine. There was virtually no such written record of anything. Virtually nothing even within 5-10 years. As long as you keep posing such hypothetical examples, you're just being silly and cannot be taken seriously. There are virtually no documents written so soon after the events.
Your "30 to 70 years" is gibberish.
Virtually ALL tales made up were forgotten, not written down at all. Even true stories were forgotten, not written down at all, or the few written down were not copied and so perished. Do you understand? 99.99% of all the events and all the stories were never written down or copied.
The miracle tales were not believed or taken seriously enough to be remembered and passed on in oral reports, or passed on by enough believers for them to be taken seriously. Those who wrote down such things had to take them seriously enough to go to this trouble. They needed extra reports of any such claims instead of only one or two, or they needed reports from someone they trusted.
Were there miracle tales people believed? Yes, but only ones passed on over many generations or centuries, not in less than 50 years. There were no instant miracle tales. You can't name an example. All the miracle tales you know of are ones for which there is no historical record until 100 years or longer after the alleged event. Usually centuries after.
The perception that people just believed anything and wrote down anything someone "made up" is more than a falsehood -- it is a lie that myth-debunkers make up in order to promulgate their theories about how superior they are to the 1st-century Greeks/Romans who were stupid.
The facts we know disprove this perception. Why are there no examples of miracle stories reported in accounts that are dated only 10 or 20 years after the alleged event? Why are virtually all of them more than 100 years later?
Charlatans were sometimes successful, but writers/historians were not misled in their written accounts of it. The Athenian demagogue Peisistratus got the population to believe a hoax he played on them, i.e., to believe a tall girl with him was the goddess Athena. This is reported to us as a hoax, in the written accounts, not as a fact believed by the writers. The original witnesses believed it and reported it, but it was not taken seriously enough by educated persons that they would report it as true. If anyone did write it down as factual, this was not taken seriously enough to be copied and passed on for history.
This example illustrates that fictions or hoaxes were generally NOT believed or taken seriously, even if there was a limited belief in it locally. The record we have does screen out the less credible stuff. Those writers were NOT the brain-dead idiots today's mythicists want us to believe.
When the miracle is reported by the writers as a (recent) factual event, then it is a more serious claim than something reported as a hoax. We believe the writer's claim that it was a hoax, but when he says such an event really happened, then it's more serious. There's a possibility that it might be true, or that something real did happen, and this writer believes the claim, even if there is doubt. That the writer believes the claim makes it less likely that it was a hoax, IF this writer is reporting a RECENT alleged event.
Get serious. No one copied down something for future readers that was an obvious hoax, except to report it as a hoax. But if the reports were numerous enough that there was credibility, then it got recorded, or written down more, and finally some versions of it were copied and got preserved. You can't see how this means the credible stories appear in the record decades later? 20 years? 50 years? (While the NON-credible stories either perished entirely, or show up only centuries later.)
Almost certainly there were many earlier written reports -- it's just that 99% of them were never copied. Virtually all written accounts were not copied, or not copied enough times for them to survive permanently. Usually the copies also perished, as well as the originals.
Yes they will and they did. But if it was not credible, or if it was silly or unimportant, it didn't get recorded as much and was not copied, or not recopied. It perished, regardless whether it was 30 or 40 or 50 etc. years after the alleged events.
You can't figure out the simple point that they only wrote down something important? If the guy stubbed his toe, that didn't get written down for future generations.
They wrote down something they believed really happened and was important, no matter how long ago it happened, even 24 hours or a few days or weeks earlier. But virtually no history we have is from documents written that soon after the event. There are no examples of it. Not even 5 or 10 years generally. This doesn't mean it wasn't written. What it means is that most documents did not survive, partly because they were never copied, and the few documents written very close to the event almost never survived.
What makes a report believable is that there are multiple sources for it, mostly oral, but also some written reports which were never copied, or not copied enough times. So we don't have the early reports, from 5 or 10 or even 20 years later. But the accumulation of these earlier reports (at that time), oral and written, led to still further reports, more seriously undertaken and finally copied into a form that actually got preserved. Writing it and then copying it to be preserved for the future was a very serious act, not something done casually like we can do so easily today.
Silly stuff that wasn't important did not get repeatedly reported or written down. But the stuff that was taken more seriously did get written down more and was copied and finally put into a more permanent form, by being copied and recopied. So after several decades the permanent reports emerged which have survived down to us. This may apply not only to normal events that were important, but also to something unusual or fantastic, and including miracle reports that were thought credible (which was the exception -- most miracle claims were dismissed as silly, just as they are today).
And meanwhile, over longer periods, beyond 100 or 200 years, some fictions emerged as legends or myths if they had enough appeal to become popularized and then repeated. But that did not happen in only 10 or 20 or 30 years. Even most normal events did not circulate enough to be recorded in permanent form until several decades later, and these had to be important events. Even if a story circulated around orally for a few years, it wasn't written down and copied and recopied unless it stood out as something to be taken seriously.
Even though there are some mundane events reported, or personal-experience accounts from individuals like Pliny and Cicero, these are a tiny tiny tiny minute fraction of the written accounts, and come only from the elite rich and famous and powerful persons, not from anyone ordinary. Unusual events witnessed only by ordinary people, the bottom 99%, generally went unrecorded and are totally lost, i.e., the vast vast vast majority of the witnessed events.
If they believed it and it was important. But it took more than just this one believer writing it down for it to finally appear in multiple copies and permanently preserved and appearing 50 or 100 years later. And if it was obviously a hoax then no, the writer probably did NOT write it down, even if from a direct witness.
Being copied and recopied was part of the process for it to become permanent in the record. This recopying itself required many years, decades, not just 2 or 3 years.
That's true for virtually all the recorded ancient history. The authors very seldom tell us who told them or how they knew it wasn't made up, not just for unusual events, but for virtually all the normal events we're familiar with.
The Paul accounts are definitely within 30 years from the time of the reported resurrection event. The latest gospel account is probably John at about 100 AD, so 70 years later. This is not normal for made-up stories. We can't explain why these accounts or reports were taken seriously enough to be written down and then copied and recopied if the reported miracle events were only fictional.
We know miracle myths could emerge over centuries of storytelling (but not in only 50 years), or possibly over 2 or 3 generations in the case of a famous celebrity hero. But it cannot be explained how the Jesus miracle stories emerged in such a short period, as there are no other such stories appearing in such a short time span. The only one close is Vespasian who was a famous celebrity, to whom a miracle is attributed.
And if you want you can add some temple inscriptions to a god like Asclepius, where someone recovers from an illness after praying to the statue. But these were all worshipers of the famous celebrity healing god, so the inscription may be close in time to the actual event, but the hero being worshiped was an ancient god having a 1000-year-old reputation (or longer).
No, the ones in the accounts who went out and reported the events were "interested" (not UNinterested) observers who were from outside his group of disciples. They became interested believers quickly, but were not originally his disciples before the event they witnessed. In some cases the one who was healed went out and told others. Obviously this was not an "uninterested" person, and was someone other than a disciple of his.
If I said earlier that they were "uninterested" observers, then I was lying and should be taken out and shot.
No, they made up stories about all the above. But 99.9% of it was forgotten because it never got written down, or what little was written was not copied or preserved because it was not credible and/or not important. They did not write down everything like we do today with our technology.
There were plenty of stories made up from 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 or 70 years earlier. 99.9% of it forgotten, never written down, or not copied, because hardly anyone believed it or took it seriously. Same as us today (except that it's so much easier to record anything today) -- i.e., they were not the stupid brain-dead idiots that you pretend when you keep explaining it all by saying they "made up shit" -- they did not! anymore than you do. They repeated reports, wrote them down, or copied them, only when it was something important and credible.
If it was important and/or credible enough to be remembered, it was passed on in oral reports, and these eventually were written down, probably many years later.
And there is virtually no history record from "within hours or days of the alleged events," including the real events. To ask for such a thing is asinine. There was virtually no such written record of anything. Virtually nothing even within 5-10 years. As long as you keep posing such hypothetical examples, you're just being silly and cannot be taken seriously. There are virtually no documents written so soon after the events.
Your "30 to 70 years" is gibberish.
Virtually ALL tales made up were forgotten, not written down at all. Even true stories were forgotten, not written down at all, or the few written down were not copied and so perished. Do you understand? 99.99% of all the events and all the stories were never written down or copied.
The miracle tales were not believed or taken seriously enough to be remembered and passed on in oral reports, or passed on by enough believers for them to be taken seriously. Those who wrote down such things had to take them seriously enough to go to this trouble. They needed extra reports of any such claims instead of only one or two, or they needed reports from someone they trusted.
Were there miracle tales people believed? Yes, but only ones passed on over many generations or centuries, not in less than 50 years. There were no instant miracle tales. You can't name an example. All the miracle tales you know of are ones for which there is no historical record until 100 years or longer after the alleged event. Usually centuries after.
The perception that people just believed anything and wrote down anything someone "made up" is more than a falsehood -- it is a lie that myth-debunkers make up in order to promulgate their theories about how superior they are to the 1st-century Greeks/Romans who were stupid.
The facts we know disprove this perception. Why are there no examples of miracle stories reported in accounts that are dated only 10 or 20 years after the alleged event? Why are virtually all of them more than 100 years later?
Charlatans were sometimes successful, but writers/historians were not misled in their written accounts of it. The Athenian demagogue Peisistratus got the population to believe a hoax he played on them, i.e., to believe a tall girl with him was the goddess Athena. This is reported to us as a hoax, in the written accounts, not as a fact believed by the writers. The original witnesses believed it and reported it, but it was not taken seriously enough by educated persons that they would report it as true. If anyone did write it down as factual, this was not taken seriously enough to be copied and passed on for history.
This example illustrates that fictions or hoaxes were generally NOT believed or taken seriously, even if there was a limited belief in it locally. The record we have does screen out the less credible stuff. Those writers were NOT the brain-dead idiots today's mythicists want us to believe.
When the miracle is reported by the writers as a (recent) factual event, then it is a more serious claim than something reported as a hoax. We believe the writer's claim that it was a hoax, but when he says such an event really happened, then it's more serious. There's a possibility that it might be true, or that something real did happen, and this writer believes the claim, even if there is doubt. That the writer believes the claim makes it less likely that it was a hoax, IF this writer is reporting a RECENT alleged event.
Get serious. No one copied down something for future readers that was an obvious hoax, except to report it as a hoax. But if the reports were numerous enough that there was credibility, then it got recorded, or written down more, and finally some versions of it were copied and got preserved. You can't see how this means the credible stories appear in the record decades later? 20 years? 50 years? (While the NON-credible stories either perished entirely, or show up only centuries later.)
Almost certainly there were many earlier written reports -- it's just that 99% of them were never copied. Virtually all written accounts were not copied, or not copied enough times for them to survive permanently. Usually the copies also perished, as well as the originals.
Yes they will and they did. But if it was not credible, or if it was silly or unimportant, it didn't get recorded as much and was not copied, or not recopied. It perished, regardless whether it was 30 or 40 or 50 etc. years after the alleged events.
You can't figure out the simple point that they only wrote down something important? If the guy stubbed his toe, that didn't get written down for future generations.
They wrote down something they believed really happened and was important, no matter how long ago it happened, even 24 hours or a few days or weeks earlier. But virtually no history we have is from documents written that soon after the event. There are no examples of it. Not even 5 or 10 years generally. This doesn't mean it wasn't written. What it means is that most documents did not survive, partly because they were never copied, and the few documents written very close to the event almost never survived.
What makes a report believable is that there are multiple sources for it, mostly oral, but also some written reports which were never copied, or not copied enough times. So we don't have the early reports, from 5 or 10 or even 20 years later. But the accumulation of these earlier reports (at that time), oral and written, led to still further reports, more seriously undertaken and finally copied into a form that actually got preserved. Writing it and then copying it to be preserved for the future was a very serious act, not something done casually like we can do so easily today.
Silly stuff that wasn't important did not get repeatedly reported or written down. But the stuff that was taken more seriously did get written down more and was copied and finally put into a more permanent form, by being copied and recopied. So after several decades the permanent reports emerged which have survived down to us. This may apply not only to normal events that were important, but also to something unusual or fantastic, and including miracle reports that were thought credible (which was the exception -- most miracle claims were dismissed as silly, just as they are today).
And meanwhile, over longer periods, beyond 100 or 200 years, some fictions emerged as legends or myths if they had enough appeal to become popularized and then repeated. But that did not happen in only 10 or 20 or 30 years. Even most normal events did not circulate enough to be recorded in permanent form until several decades later, and these had to be important events. Even if a story circulated around orally for a few years, it wasn't written down and copied and recopied unless it stood out as something to be taken seriously.
Even though there are some mundane events reported, or personal-experience accounts from individuals like Pliny and Cicero, these are a tiny tiny tiny minute fraction of the written accounts, and come only from the elite rich and famous and powerful persons, not from anyone ordinary. Unusual events witnessed only by ordinary people, the bottom 99%, generally went unrecorded and are totally lost, i.e., the vast vast vast majority of the witnessed events.
If they believed it and it was important. But it took more than just this one believer writing it down for it to finally appear in multiple copies and permanently preserved and appearing 50 or 100 years later. And if it was obviously a hoax then no, the writer probably did NOT write it down, even if from a direct witness.
Being copied and recopied was part of the process for it to become permanent in the record. This recopying itself required many years, decades, not just 2 or 3 years.
That's true for virtually all the recorded ancient history. The authors very seldom tell us who told them or how they knew it wasn't made up, not just for unusual events, but for virtually all the normal events we're familiar with.
The Paul accounts are definitely within 30 years from the time of the reported resurrection event. The latest gospel account is probably John at about 100 AD, so 70 years later. This is not normal for made-up stories. We can't explain why these accounts or reports were taken seriously enough to be written down and then copied and recopied if the reported miracle events were only fictional.
We know miracle myths could emerge over centuries of storytelling (but not in only 50 years), or possibly over 2 or 3 generations in the case of a famous celebrity hero. But it cannot be explained how the Jesus miracle stories emerged in such a short period, as there are no other such stories appearing in such a short time span. The only one close is Vespasian who was a famous celebrity, to whom a miracle is attributed.
And if you want you can add some temple inscriptions to a god like Asclepius, where someone recovers from an illness after praying to the statue. But these were all worshipers of the famous celebrity healing god, so the inscription may be close in time to the actual event, but the hero being worshiped was an ancient god having a 1000-year-old reputation (or longer).
No, the ones in the accounts who went out and reported the events were "interested" (not UNinterested) observers who were from outside his group of disciples. They became interested believers quickly, but were not originally his disciples before the event they witnessed. In some cases the one who was healed went out and told others. Obviously this was not an "uninterested" person, and was someone other than a disciple of his.
If I said earlier that they were "uninterested" observers, then I was lying and should be taken out and shot.
Last edited:
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Were there several other "Messiah" figures running around, competing with Jesus? Why would he be the only one?
No, there was no such problem facing Constantine. You're imagining the John the Baptist controversy.
This was no concern. The controversy was to identify the nature of Christ. I.e., whether he was totally equal to God, or if he was a little lower.
Your dilemma is to explain why ALL the doctrinal conflict centers only on Jesus Christ and on no other figure, if Jesus was just one of many "messiah" figures or many savior heroes running around, reportedly doing similar miracles.
If there were other "messiah" candidates being promoted, then we should see some indication of it, some documents telling about these other messiahs and telling about their deeds.
But there's no indication of any such "messiah" heroes. They are non-existent.
So, what did Jesus do which caused him to be singled out like this and get promoted to "messiah" status, while no one else received any such distinction?
The best explanation is that he performed the miracle acts reported in the gospel accounts, and no one else did. There was a need to explain how he was able to do this. And in one way or another he got mythologized into a god or superhuman figure, to account for this power he demonstrated.
That he stands out like this, and cannot be explained, is indicated by your frantic unsuccessful search for alternate "messiah" figures, which you could claim are equal to him, and your delusion that John the Baptist must be one, and your obsession to dig them out somewhere, somehow, whatever it takes.
No, there was no such problem facing Constantine. You're imagining the John the Baptist controversy.
This was no concern. The controversy was to identify the nature of Christ. I.e., whether he was totally equal to God, or if he was a little lower.
Your dilemma is to explain why ALL the doctrinal conflict centers only on Jesus Christ and on no other figure, if Jesus was just one of many "messiah" figures or many savior heroes running around, reportedly doing similar miracles.
If there were other "messiah" candidates being promoted, then we should see some indication of it, some documents telling about these other messiahs and telling about their deeds.
But there's no indication of any such "messiah" heroes. They are non-existent.
So, what did Jesus do which caused him to be singled out like this and get promoted to "messiah" status, while no one else received any such distinction?
The best explanation is that he performed the miracle acts reported in the gospel accounts, and no one else did. There was a need to explain how he was able to do this. And in one way or another he got mythologized into a god or superhuman figure, to account for this power he demonstrated.
That he stands out like this, and cannot be explained, is indicated by your frantic unsuccessful search for alternate "messiah" figures, which you could claim are equal to him, and your delusion that John the Baptist must be one, and your obsession to dig them out somewhere, somehow, whatever it takes.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Well, then, i guess you're the expert on this.
Just like everything else you don't want to be true so you just dispense with it.
Good scholarship, there, Lumpy.
So Mandæan is just a word I must have made up. 'Kay.
funinspace
Don't Panic
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2004
- Messages
- 4,204
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Alien
- Basic Beliefs
- functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
You are getting pretty good at splitting the finest of hairs...
This is you earlier:
So I will adjust the question to satisfy your childish retort:
I'm still waiting for Lumpy to provide a reference to a mainstream Christian theologian who provides an argument that the GMark Jesus miracle stories "clearly" originate mostly from "onlookers who were not his direct disciples"
skepticalbip
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 7,304
- Basic Beliefs
- Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Yes.
Since the answer to the first question was yes, this question is nonsense.
He is the one now accepted by Christians because he had a better PR team. It is the same reason that the US is established as a democratic republic - when the founders were deciding on a governmental system to adopt, those advocating this form won while those wanting to establish a monarchy lost.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
It was the established Christ belief that defined the Church Councils, not the Councils that defined the Christ belief.
What's important is what happened at about 30 AD, not what some popes were squabbling over 3 or 4 or 10 centuries later.
No, not after the Council of Nicea. Any editing was long before that point.
The text of the gospels and Paul epistles was fixed long before the first Council. There are manuscripts from later, but all these are checked against earlier manuscripts, before 300 AD. There are now thousands of manuscripts, many never seen by those Councils, which had very few manuscripts by comparison. All the manuscripts agree substantially where there is overlap.
All the manuscripts have been analyzed and discrepancies studied. There have been no major changes or texts "edited" to change the general accounts to fit anyone's particular theological interpretation.
You can't name any particular text which was altered in order to promote a different reading that would serve one interest group over against another.
Not only is there no example you can name of anyone "getting their story straight" by changing the text, but also you cannot even offer a hypothetical example of such a change in the text which would serve the interest of one group against another.
Some "changes" or discrepancies are found, but nothing that could be a result of one faction opposing another and promoting its interest. You can't even offer a hypothetical example of such a thing. Most of the changes are spelling discrepancies, in some cases a word change, one word substituted for another, or a word omitted, and proper noun confusions.
There is nothing in any N.T. text that remotely resembles anything you're saying. The Arian vs. Athanasian controversy was the main issue in contention, and there are many N.T. texts that support either side of this dispute. If the "winners" (Athanasians) changed the text as you're suggesting, there are many verses they should have changed but did not.
Is there any Bible edition at all, early or recent, which contains a major change in the text? You probably don't know of one example. Any edition or translation you can find is substantially in agreement with all the others. Of course there are thousands of discrepancies, but none of any consequence, none that matter for any major doctrinal disagreement.
Christ belief is not based on anything handed down by "the Councils." It is based on documents which were established long before any Councils. Rather than the belief being based on the Councils, it is the earlier documents which are the foundation upon which the later church Councils were based.
The Councils can be partly right and partly wrong in what they put forth in their creeds. Christ belief is not based on these creeds, but on the earlier documents, i.e., the events reported in them, which also the Councils are mostly based on.
The real basis for Christ belief is not a collection of writings per se, like the New Testament, but the events of about 30 AD which those writings are about. It's really the total record of the Christ event in whatever documents tell us what happened in Judea/Galilee in the early 1st century. Or, more broadly, ALL documents offering evidence of a divine intervention into history. The Jesus case stands out from among ALL the record of the past telling of any superhuman intervention into history, and thus the new religion or "Church" became based on this event in history.
Or, based on the documents that relate this event. I.e., these "canonized" writings were selected because they tell of this event.
There is nothing about this event in history which is based on a selection of only certain prescribed source documents to the exclusion of others. Rather, that selection of documents is based on a consideration of ALL the sources for any history, and a recognition that the Jesus Christ event stands out as special, and that therefore the sources for this need to be given a special status.
It was because these documents, mainly the gospel accounts and Paul epistles, tell of this special event that they were selected, being the closest to it. The main criterion is their closeness to the Christ event. There were probably some mistakes in getting the exact closest documents, but the N.T. documents generally were chosen for their closeness to this event, i.e., the belief that they tell us most accurately about this event because of their closeness to it.
What's important is what happened at about 30 AD, not what some popes were squabbling over 3 or 4 or 10 centuries later.
No, not after the Council of Nicea. Any editing was long before that point.
The text of the gospels and Paul epistles was fixed long before the first Council. There are manuscripts from later, but all these are checked against earlier manuscripts, before 300 AD. There are now thousands of manuscripts, many never seen by those Councils, which had very few manuscripts by comparison. All the manuscripts agree substantially where there is overlap.
All the manuscripts have been analyzed and discrepancies studied. There have been no major changes or texts "edited" to change the general accounts to fit anyone's particular theological interpretation.
You can't name any particular text which was altered in order to promote a different reading that would serve one interest group over against another.
Not only is there no example you can name of anyone "getting their story straight" by changing the text, but also you cannot even offer a hypothetical example of such a change in the text which would serve the interest of one group against another.
Some "changes" or discrepancies are found, but nothing that could be a result of one faction opposing another and promoting its interest. You can't even offer a hypothetical example of such a thing. Most of the changes are spelling discrepancies, in some cases a word change, one word substituted for another, or a word omitted, and proper noun confusions.
There is nothing in any N.T. text that remotely resembles anything you're saying. The Arian vs. Athanasian controversy was the main issue in contention, and there are many N.T. texts that support either side of this dispute. If the "winners" (Athanasians) changed the text as you're suggesting, there are many verses they should have changed but did not.
Is there any Bible edition at all, early or recent, which contains a major change in the text? You probably don't know of one example. Any edition or translation you can find is substantially in agreement with all the others. Of course there are thousands of discrepancies, but none of any consequence, none that matter for any major doctrinal disagreement.
Christ belief is not based on anything handed down by "the Councils." It is based on documents which were established long before any Councils. Rather than the belief being based on the Councils, it is the earlier documents which are the foundation upon which the later church Councils were based.
The Councils can be partly right and partly wrong in what they put forth in their creeds. Christ belief is not based on these creeds, but on the earlier documents, i.e., the events reported in them, which also the Councils are mostly based on.
The real basis for Christ belief is not a collection of writings per se, like the New Testament, but the events of about 30 AD which those writings are about. It's really the total record of the Christ event in whatever documents tell us what happened in Judea/Galilee in the early 1st century. Or, more broadly, ALL documents offering evidence of a divine intervention into history. The Jesus case stands out from among ALL the record of the past telling of any superhuman intervention into history, and thus the new religion or "Church" became based on this event in history.
Or, based on the documents that relate this event. I.e., these "canonized" writings were selected because they tell of this event.
There is nothing about this event in history which is based on a selection of only certain prescribed source documents to the exclusion of others. Rather, that selection of documents is based on a consideration of ALL the sources for any history, and a recognition that the Jesus Christ event stands out as special, and that therefore the sources for this need to be given a special status.
It was because these documents, mainly the gospel accounts and Paul epistles, tell of this special event that they were selected, being the closest to it. The main criterion is their closeness to the Christ event. There were probably some mistakes in getting the exact closest documents, but the N.T. documents generally were chosen for their closeness to this event, i.e., the belief that they tell us most accurately about this event because of their closeness to it.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
No.
That's wrong.
When Constantine wanted to make Christainity the mascot religion of his empire, he found that the beliefs of people calling themselves Christain were all over the map.
The Councils were an effort to figure out just what it meant to be a Christain.
You are very insistent and very sincere and very, very much in the wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about.
C_Mucius_Scaevola
Veteran Member
I would encourage you to read the works of eminent NT scholar Prof. Bart D. Ehrman on the subject of alterations to the text of the gospels, or watch some of his lectures on youtube. They might change your mind, if you're open to having it changed.
Atheos
Veteran Member
The doctrines of the baptism and blood sacrifice were endorsed by the "Great Interpolation" of I John 5:8. The doctrine of baptism as a requirement for salvation was endorsed by the long ending of Mark. That's two. And you said I couldn't name one. Pshaw. Evidence refutes Lumpenproletariat. Every time.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
No, there were no "reputed miracle-workers running around" other than Jesus Christ. You still can't name one example.
Both a) and b) are not so. If I claimed such a thing I should be taken out and shot.
There may have been stories of Abraham Lincoln cutting off the heads of Democrats, or of Jack the Ripper conducting the London Symphony Orchestra.
You're right -- we can't claim for sure that such things did not happen. The stories of these events might be lost. Or there may be accounts of these events that we don't know about.
We draw conclusions from what we do know. But there's always more which we don't know and might contradict what we "know." So, maybe Queen Victoria was a burlesque show dancer, and the accounts of this were suppressed in order to protect her reputation.
Who were the other "reputed miracle-workers running around"? Shouldn't there be an indication of them from the historical record? Being "reputed" means there was some record of them. It means there were more than just 1 or 2 dozen people who knew about them. Enough that there was something written down, some attention given to it near to the time of the events.
The best possible examples we know of were Simon Magus and Apollonius of Tyana. In both cases there is no record of any miracle acts they allegedly did until 100-150 years later.
2 other possible examples:
-- The emperor Vespasian is said to have done 2 miracle cures, reported about 50 years after the alleged event. Perhaps this was an early story about him, which can easily be explained as a case of mythologizing, based on his very high celebrity status, arguably the most famous and powerful figure of his time, which can easily lead to gossip and storytelling.
-- Some apostles of Jesus, said to have performed miracles (Book of Acts), written 60-70 years after the alleged events, and which can easily be explained as copy-cat stories based on the miracle stories of Jesus in the gospel accounts.
He was not a reputed miracle-worker until at least 700 years after he lived. No one knew he slew any dragons until after 1000 AD, when the stories began to emerge, even though he lived around 300 AD during the reign of Diocletian.
The term "reputed miracle-workers" means reputed close to the time when the miracle-worker lived, not reputed centuries later.
But thank you for giving this example, which demonstrates once again the point that virtually all the reputed miracle-workers were legendary figures who became mythologized into miracle-workers centuries after they actually existed. Jesus Christ is virtually the only exception to this rule.
The other plausible exceptions -- figures who were reputed while still alive to have done miracles -- were all celebrity figures of very high status and recognition and with long distinguished careers.
Again, in all cases they are persons of high status, long careers, wide reputation.
As we go later in time, beyond the invention of printing and widespread publishing, the situation changes as to the reputation and spread of their fame, which happens much sooner.
But there is the additional factor that many of the later miracle stories are really copy-cat stories based on the Jesus healing miracle tradition, which provides the context within which a miracle-worker's recognition and credibility is greatly increased, i.e., so the devotees are much more willing to believe the miracle claims.
Likewise the earlier Asclepius miracle tradition provided the basis for the faith of worshipers at his temples, where they prayed at statues of this ancient god and reported some healings. This required a background of many centuries of mythologizing on this famous healing god, who might have been a real person 1000+ years earlier and might have gained a normal reputation as a healing practitioner, like the original St. Nicholas had a reputation for being generous.
There are "numerous claims" from all periods. What we don't have are claims in written documents near to the date of the alleged miracle events. I.e., the written reports tend to come centuries later. And the cases where they are close to the event, like the Vespasian story, are always about a famous celebrity who had a long distinguished career.
Jesus Christ is the only case which does not fit this pattern.
The significance of this is not whether it really happened -- maybe it did not (one source only, Mt. 27:51-53) -- but that it's one more reputed miracle connected to Jesus, about 50-60 years later, and there is no other figure about whom we have so many miracle claims reported so soon after his life. So it adds to the total record of so many miracle acts or events attributed to this one historical figure.
Some of these reported miracles could be due to later myth-making after his original reputation as a miracle-worker had become established. What is so difficult to explain is how this miracle tradition got started in the first place if he did no such acts at all. Because there is nothing else that distinguishes him such that he should have such fictional stories becoming attached to him in such a short time span.
Even for a well-known celebrity figure it usually required centuries for the miracle myths to evolve. But for an unknown, a person of no recognized status, like Jesus in 30 AD, it's impossible to explain -- there are no other such "reputed miracle-workers running around" that can be offered for comparison.
But you never know -- maybe Queen Victoria led a secret life as a burlesque show dancer.
Both a) and b) are not so. If I claimed such a thing I should be taken out and shot.
There may have been stories of Abraham Lincoln cutting off the heads of Democrats, or of Jack the Ripper conducting the London Symphony Orchestra.
You're right -- we can't claim for sure that such things did not happen. The stories of these events might be lost. Or there may be accounts of these events that we don't know about.
We draw conclusions from what we do know. But there's always more which we don't know and might contradict what we "know." So, maybe Queen Victoria was a burlesque show dancer, and the accounts of this were suppressed in order to protect her reputation.
Who were the other "reputed miracle-workers running around"? Shouldn't there be an indication of them from the historical record? Being "reputed" means there was some record of them. It means there were more than just 1 or 2 dozen people who knew about them. Enough that there was something written down, some attention given to it near to the time of the events.
The best possible examples we know of were Simon Magus and Apollonius of Tyana. In both cases there is no record of any miracle acts they allegedly did until 100-150 years later.
2 other possible examples:
-- The emperor Vespasian is said to have done 2 miracle cures, reported about 50 years after the alleged event. Perhaps this was an early story about him, which can easily be explained as a case of mythologizing, based on his very high celebrity status, arguably the most famous and powerful figure of his time, which can easily lead to gossip and storytelling.
-- Some apostles of Jesus, said to have performed miracles (Book of Acts), written 60-70 years after the alleged events, and which can easily be explained as copy-cat stories based on the miracle stories of Jesus in the gospel accounts.
He was not a reputed miracle-worker until at least 700 years after he lived. No one knew he slew any dragons until after 1000 AD, when the stories began to emerge, even though he lived around 300 AD during the reign of Diocletian.
The term "reputed miracle-workers" means reputed close to the time when the miracle-worker lived, not reputed centuries later.
But thank you for giving this example, which demonstrates once again the point that virtually all the reputed miracle-workers were legendary figures who became mythologized into miracle-workers centuries after they actually existed. Jesus Christ is virtually the only exception to this rule.
The other plausible exceptions -- figures who were reputed while still alive to have done miracles -- were all celebrity figures of very high status and recognition and with long distinguished careers.
Again, in all cases they are persons of high status, long careers, wide reputation.
As we go later in time, beyond the invention of printing and widespread publishing, the situation changes as to the reputation and spread of their fame, which happens much sooner.
But there is the additional factor that many of the later miracle stories are really copy-cat stories based on the Jesus healing miracle tradition, which provides the context within which a miracle-worker's recognition and credibility is greatly increased, i.e., so the devotees are much more willing to believe the miracle claims.
Likewise the earlier Asclepius miracle tradition provided the basis for the faith of worshipers at his temples, where they prayed at statues of this ancient god and reported some healings. This required a background of many centuries of mythologizing on this famous healing god, who might have been a real person 1000+ years earlier and might have gained a normal reputation as a healing practitioner, like the original St. Nicholas had a reputation for being generous.
There are "numerous claims" from all periods. What we don't have are claims in written documents near to the date of the alleged miracle events. I.e., the written reports tend to come centuries later. And the cases where they are close to the event, like the Vespasian story, are always about a famous celebrity who had a long distinguished career.
Jesus Christ is the only case which does not fit this pattern.
The significance of this is not whether it really happened -- maybe it did not (one source only, Mt. 27:51-53) -- but that it's one more reputed miracle connected to Jesus, about 50-60 years later, and there is no other figure about whom we have so many miracle claims reported so soon after his life. So it adds to the total record of so many miracle acts or events attributed to this one historical figure.
Some of these reported miracles could be due to later myth-making after his original reputation as a miracle-worker had become established. What is so difficult to explain is how this miracle tradition got started in the first place if he did no such acts at all. Because there is nothing else that distinguishes him such that he should have such fictional stories becoming attached to him in such a short time span.
Even for a well-known celebrity figure it usually required centuries for the miracle myths to evolve. But for an unknown, a person of no recognized status, like Jesus in 30 AD, it's impossible to explain -- there are no other such "reputed miracle-workers running around" that can be offered for comparison.
But you never know -- maybe Queen Victoria led a secret life as a burlesque show dancer.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Constantine and the Councils did not change anything in the gospel accounts or other NT writings.
Sort of. But all he was worried about was the conflict of Arian vs. Athanasius. This was the only controversy which divided the Christians in a major way at that time. The other issues were not being fought over. There were serious advocates on both sides of this Arian debate, and Constantine really didn't care which side won, but only wanted them to settle it one way or the other.
And both of these 2 major schools agreed on the basic facts of about Jesus and his miracles, especially the resurrection, and also the "blood atonement" concept etc.
So it was only a theological dispute about the "Son" and "Father" terminology that divided the Christians on a major point of theology and which had to be resolved.
OK, but only on that one theological point, on the Father vs. Son terminology. Not on who was the "Messiah" and so on. There was no John the Baptist faction claiming JB as the Messiah. And no other issue relating to the content of the gospel accounts. The gospel accounts were already fixed and settled, with no proposal to make any changes in those accounts. Nor any notion of adding any additional "gospels" other than the 4. Or of editing anything in the 4 gospels, or any other NT writings.
And some Councils later than Nicea went beyond the Arian controversy, to some other heresies, but still nothing whatever to do with changing anything in the Gospel accounts, and no real fights over the canon, which was all but officially fixed.
But I'm so fortunate to have you to enlighten me.
Sort of. But all he was worried about was the conflict of Arian vs. Athanasius. This was the only controversy which divided the Christians in a major way at that time. The other issues were not being fought over. There were serious advocates on both sides of this Arian debate, and Constantine really didn't care which side won, but only wanted them to settle it one way or the other.
And both of these 2 major schools agreed on the basic facts of about Jesus and his miracles, especially the resurrection, and also the "blood atonement" concept etc.
So it was only a theological dispute about the "Son" and "Father" terminology that divided the Christians on a major point of theology and which had to be resolved.
OK, but only on that one theological point, on the Father vs. Son terminology. Not on who was the "Messiah" and so on. There was no John the Baptist faction claiming JB as the Messiah. And no other issue relating to the content of the gospel accounts. The gospel accounts were already fixed and settled, with no proposal to make any changes in those accounts. Nor any notion of adding any additional "gospels" other than the 4. Or of editing anything in the 4 gospels, or any other NT writings.
And some Councils later than Nicea went beyond the Arian controversy, to some other heresies, but still nothing whatever to do with changing anything in the Gospel accounts, and no real fights over the canon, which was all but officially fixed.
But I'm so fortunate to have you to enlighten me.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
There are thousands of minor variants/discrepancies in the New Testament manuscript texts. All minor, nothing of substance.
He says that there is no change in the text which alters any points of doctrine.
You can't give an example from him of a major change in doctrine or teaching which is a result of any discrepancy in the variant texts.
All the "alterations" are only spelling discrepancies and other minor points.
Can you give an example of an "alteration" in the text which you think is important? from any two different versions? just any two modern translations, e.g.? or any two manuscripts? anything?
He says that there is no change in the text which alters any points of doctrine.
You can't give an example from him of a major change in doctrine or teaching which is a result of any discrepancy in the variant texts.
All the "alterations" are only spelling discrepancies and other minor points.
Can you give an example of an "alteration" in the text which you think is important? from any two different versions? just any two modern translations, e.g.? or any two manuscripts? anything?
Barbarian
Member
Géza Vermes in his "Christian Beginnngs: from Nazareth to Nicea" has an entire section devoted to them ("Charismatic Judaism"). I have the Hungarian edition, so I won't bother re-translating relevant sections back to English, especially as I fully expect you to ignore it anyway, but you should be able to lay your hands on the book and read it for yourself. It seems that the wandering Jewish sage who could heal people by prayer and laying of hands, could make rain etc. was a stereotypically common phenomenon in the Jewish culture of those ages. Honi-Onias "the circle-drawer" who made God produce rain; Eleazar in the time of Vespasianus who could extract demons from people; Hanina ben Dosa, who miraculously healed the son of reb Gamaliel (reputed to have been the tutor of the apostle Paul), made his wife capable to bake bread without flour and miraculously changed vinegar into oil; Abba Hilkiya and Haman, sons of Honi-Onias, rainmaking specialists; and yes, Simon Magus and Apollonius, too, no matter that you want them excluded for no other reason that they are obvious counterarguments to your position: how is it you don't you hear yourself when you essentially say "If I exclude all the known cases, then there remain no acceptable known cases"?
All the above are documented in the two Talmuds, btw. I have to partly trust Vermes on this, because I have no access to Talmud Yeroshalmi. I checked what I could in Talmud Bavli.
Barbarian
Member
Except for the addition of Trinity to GJohn. And the replacement of 'his father' with 'Joseph' in GLuke. And the addition of the ending of GMark, supplying the resurrection narrative itself. Ehrman does acknowledge all these, and these are the basis of the difference between proto-orthodox Christianity and an unitarian+adoptionist heresy.
C_Mucius_Scaevola
Veteran Member
No, he doesn't. He says the vast majority of changes are minor and don't affect doctrine. But he also says there are changes which did. But more important than textual variants, is the development of the story, and the characteristics of Jesus, as the story develops from gospel to gospel. One example is the question of Jesus' divinity - I cite from Dr. Ehrman's blog:
I'd say that was a pretty major doctrinal point, and we can follow its evolution through the gospels. It's not necessarily the alterations to the texts that are so important, but the development from text to text of the Christology. And, while Nicaea was mostly a straight one-on-one between Arians and Athanasians, other Christologies still survived by that time, but were mostly either fringe groups or outside the Roman Empire, so didn't have a say in the debates between the larger groups.http://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-as-god-in-the-synoptics-for-members/ said:
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Yeah, exactly. Creating Christianity was very much a bottom up process. The point of the councils was to glean which was the majority beliefs and force them upon the minority. There's no reason to believe that Constantine forced much upon anybody. For example, the biblical canon was accepted by the council of Nicea. But the canon had been assembled by the Bishop of Alexandria for purely practical reasons, a hundred years earlier. He just made the canon of the most popular books, already purchased by the Egyptian churches. The goal was to help them save money by only prioritising the most important ones. And importance was based on popularity. We know how it happened and it's clearly not by imperial decree since the emperor at this time couldn't care less about Christianity.
Atheos
Veteran Member
I think it's easy for modern Christians to labor under this false impression that during the early days of Christianity there was some cohesive single train of thought and doctrine. After all, if Jeezus was keeping them all whipped into shape by sending the Sanctified Spook to "Guide them into all the truth," surely Casper could keep all the minions in line.
This illusion is partly due to an inability to read earlier texts without interpreting them in ways that agree with later ones about which the reader already knows. But if one simply took GMark one would, indeed, come away with the story of a Jesus who was adopted by God to be his special son, and who was eventually killed by jealous leaders. There is no post-resurrection appearance, no great commission, no post-resurrection story at all. It is a story that blends Jewish prophet mythos with elements of a Greek tragedy.
Similarly, when reading the early epistles of Paul it is sorely tempting for the average christian to interpret what Paul writes in terms of what he already knows about Jesus from books that wouldn't be written for another several decades. Letting Paul speak from this primitive christianity paints a very different picture. Not the one they want to see, but that's the ornery thing about responsible historical analysis: It rarely produces the results the researcher wants.
But I digress. We do know that there were many major doctrinal differences between various christian elements during the early 2nd century, something impossible to deny when one reads the writings of early church fathers as responses to what they deemed to be heresies. Honestly it's perplexing why we'd even be arguing this point.
While the council of Nicea may have succeeded briefly in establishing a core doctrine and summarily deciding which variants of christianity were heretical, their success was only measured in terms of how long they could enforce these edicts at the tip of a sword and by killing off dissenters. Same with other attempts made to force everyone back under the thumb of some pope or other. Today what passes for "Christianity" forms such a nebulous boundary as to be impossible to pin down. "No True Christian" fallacies abound, but in the real world there are thousands of different denominations, many of which offer completely incompatible answers to the most key questions they purport to answer. Questions like "Is there a hell?" and "What must I do to be saved?" That is not unity in any sense of the word. Wasn't unified then, ain't unified now.
This illusion is partly due to an inability to read earlier texts without interpreting them in ways that agree with later ones about which the reader already knows. But if one simply took GMark one would, indeed, come away with the story of a Jesus who was adopted by God to be his special son, and who was eventually killed by jealous leaders. There is no post-resurrection appearance, no great commission, no post-resurrection story at all. It is a story that blends Jewish prophet mythos with elements of a Greek tragedy.
Similarly, when reading the early epistles of Paul it is sorely tempting for the average christian to interpret what Paul writes in terms of what he already knows about Jesus from books that wouldn't be written for another several decades. Letting Paul speak from this primitive christianity paints a very different picture. Not the one they want to see, but that's the ornery thing about responsible historical analysis: It rarely produces the results the researcher wants.
But I digress. We do know that there were many major doctrinal differences between various christian elements during the early 2nd century, something impossible to deny when one reads the writings of early church fathers as responses to what they deemed to be heresies. Honestly it's perplexing why we'd even be arguing this point.
While the council of Nicea may have succeeded briefly in establishing a core doctrine and summarily deciding which variants of christianity were heretical, their success was only measured in terms of how long they could enforce these edicts at the tip of a sword and by killing off dissenters. Same with other attempts made to force everyone back under the thumb of some pope or other. Today what passes for "Christianity" forms such a nebulous boundary as to be impossible to pin down. "No True Christian" fallacies abound, but in the real world there are thousands of different denominations, many of which offer completely incompatible answers to the most key questions they purport to answer. Questions like "Is there a hell?" and "What must I do to be saved?" That is not unity in any sense of the word. Wasn't unified then, ain't unified now.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Not just killing.
The board game, Dogma, plays kind of like monopoly. One hopes to insert their particular dogmatically held positions into the final copy of the Creed.
When a player controls the Pope (or one of the other popes) they have the chance to exile influential people in another player's deck, which makes it easier to seduce a few thousand of his or her congregation into your religion.