vincentML
Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rockspider
Well first of all I will thank all off you for the posts written here. Many contains different angles on the story and most certainly well thought over and each relevant in their own way. However nobody seems to realy try and separate what we see as scientific facts and what is realy hearsay so that is where I will try and put my two bits in.
The bible is made up off 4 gospels by the church several hundred years after the occurrence. In reality there are 30 of these gospels known to science today some in better condition than others. None of these documents is actually written or endorsed by neither Jesus or his disciple as dating them puts all of them as written many years after the actual event taking place. In other they were handed down on the mouth to mouth method literally for centuries before an actual scholar did pen them down. It is no secret that stories handed down like this tend to magnify greatly from telling to telling which I feel can explain many of the supernatural powers ascribed to the man. Like virgin births for one.
I pretty much understand what your point is here, rock, and I agree with the spirit of your comments. But I must disagree on some details as i am learning them. The Pauline Epistles were written in Greek beginning about 20 years after the crucifixion, and Paul had face to face contact with Peter and maybe some of the other disciples. There is a 200 year history of literary critical analysis in Germany and the United States that has examined when the documents were written, when they were recopied, by whom, and with what possible distorting agenda. They were not handed down as oral tradition for centuries as you imagine. However, our disagreement on the mechanics does not mean i disagree with your conclusions.
quote:
So did he exist? Well the evidence I think is overwhelming, even that scientifically there is not one single proof for that. That really brings the next question up. Who was he? If you accept the fact he did exist you can only thereby accept the fact that he is the most influential person ever to have walked on this earth. A person totally dedicated for his mission, which he calls god, but reading the bible can really best be described as a metaphor for being good. To teach people to be humble and love each other.
As a non-believer i was skeptical that the man actually existed until i began to read other non-believer sources. The more i read the more easily i accept the existence of Jesus as an historical person. But nothing more than an apocalyptic Jewish preacher, one of many who were proclaiming the end of history within his own generation. Is that the message that bolsters his influence? Nah. I don't think so. As i have said elsewhere, reminds me of the Manson Family. The Jesus influence comes not from his preaching but from his empty tomb. In fact, he taught people to leave their families and livelihoods because the end was near. The new Kingdom of God was due any day - well, before his generation passed anyway.
quote:
Do not forget that even after all this hand down of the words. The gospels is written in languages which is today dead or only spoken by a tiny minority of people.
A little research will show you are mistaken in this, i think. True, not modern Greek but a classic form that is much studied and understood.
quote:
The very first translation of those scriptures was done about 1500 years ago and in to Latin by people who never had the facilities we have today where scholars fight tooth and nail over the interpretation over the originals, which incidentally is not taken in to account for what is considered cannon. All our bibles today stems from this and have been edited and reedited many times since. <BIG SNIP HERE>
The real problem with that book is that it has been quoted, misquoted, used, misused and abused by countless people in history, who needed something for their own selfish means and thereby caused more wars, more misery and hardship than any other piece of literature.
I disagree with the 1500 years and the Latin but your point is well taken that we are dealing with copies of copies of copies that have been altered to suit particular agenda. But it is the role of literary analysis to root all that out.
In my thinking, only a literalist (fundamentalist) insistence on the inerrancy of the Biblical Text runs afoul of realism. And that leaves plenty for the rest of us to debate about.
quote:
No wonder that in it Jesus says “Beware of the false prophets”.
Again, so there is no misunderstanding, we agree in spirit about the documents being miscopied, etc. But, hey you can't say all that and then quote Jesus at the end. ~smiling~ I hope you will see the contradiction there.
Please take my criticism of your comments in the kindest spirit it was intended. The more we interact here the more i learn. That's what i am about.
< Message edited by vincentML -- 11/15/2009 3:30:28 PM >
_____________________________
vML
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.
|
RE: Did Jesus alter anything and who else did? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread