|
StrangerThan -> RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (10/3/2011 7:18:27 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
(...)
AFAIK, there is much debate among scholars about the accuracy of the texts, and whether certain sections were added at much later dates. Without knowing much about it, I'm aware that there are debates about the selection of the 4 standard Gospels and the exclusion of certain other contemporaneous texts. So it seems there are some grounds for doubt that the absolute accuracy of the Biblical texts can be taken for granted.
Absolutely.
Of course I understand you refer to the "new testament", as the extender tora (old testament) was indeed finished before Jesus... the better date could be the moment the "septuaginta" was finished.
But the quarrels about which books to take to any compilation of Christian texts, and even the necessity of such a compilation, were very, VERY long. In the process whole branches of Christianity were (sometimes completely) ignored: marcionites, ebonites and gnostics only to mention the most important ones. The new testament was not "finished" (had not its current form) until the Counsil of Cartago, 397 if I remember well. Not even in the famous Counsil of Nicea!
Of course, nobody but Christians *can* consider the Biblie completely accurate. If you do this, you are already accepting Christianity. And most archeologist, historicians, etc are no Christians (even if many are, no doubt about that).
If you want, I have one or two books I can recommend about this. Thank you for your interest, anyway.
PS: I know no Christian scientist (and I know some, my father for example) who considers that the Biblie is completely, 100% accurate. They are more realistic and reasonable than that, not even the Pope defends this.
I can't reply to both of you at once, so I'll just do it here. There is no absolutely. What is, are groups of scholars trying to figure out who did what, when just about any source will tell you that the composition of those gospels occurred in a relatively short time frame after the death of Christ, and are comprised potentially of a variety of sources, including written texts. In fact, the source you quoted tweak, ascribes written texts as a potential source of all the gospel of Mark.
So, let's see what you want me to believe, that Item A, being the author of.. let's choose Mark, having Mark's writings, the writings of the witnesses, the oral testimony of the witnesses, knew less about the story than someone a couple of thousand years later.
I think I'll just let you all keep wandering along the path of damnit-damnit-damnit, Q must be here somewhere.
|
|
|
|
