A Simple Question

[Token Atheist]

so what is antimatter ?

Antimatter is merely a type of matter that is in the minority in the universe.

Most matter can have two configurations, which are the opposites of each other. The most common configuration we simply call "matter". The uncommon configuration we call "anti-matter" to distinguish it from the more common types matter. However, when it comes down to it, it is still a type of matter.

[fenwar]

Hmmm...

Hello Token Atheist, you make some interesting points but reach some conclusions I'm not sure about. Hope you don't mind if I probe:

Token Atheist: An unknown author wrote the "Mark", which was first version, which set Paul's divine Christ in an earthly setting and attributed to it/him some of the wisdom sayings from the Cynic school of philosophy that formed part of his religious group's teachings. He combining Paul's mystic religion and his group's Cynic-philosophy based religion in a similar way to the way that modern day New Agers combine Native American Shamanism with Celtic traditions.

This view didn't have things like the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection. Those elements were added later.

The internal evidence (as well as external data) suggests that Mark is primarily influenced by Peter's eyewitness accounts, rather than anyone's theology.

I have not heard this view before although I'd be interested to see sources/dates for the Cynic sayings/views you suggest were attributed to Jesus.

In particular, the author of the "Gospel of Matthew" was keen to make his version of the Jesus story appeal to Jews, so he made it as a Midrash - with most of the story taken from Old Testament stories and stitched together to make Jesus appear to be the Jewish Messiah.

Almost... although the bulk of the narrative is taken from Mark. The Jewish appeal is more from the Torah-like fivefold structure but I agree that elements like the "Sermon on the Mount" have been used to create echoes of Moses, in order to portray Jesus as the new Lawgiver.

The "Gospel of John" was a much later addition, after Christianity had gone through many theological changes. That is why it is so different from the other three "Synoptic" gospels.

Or it could be that it was written for an entirely different purpose. I certainly agree that the chronology has been freely re-organised by John. What I think he's doing, though, is appealing to the more mystical elements of Judaism by linking themes in Jesus' teaching and miracles to Jewish festivals and feasts. (I also have time for the view that John "puts words into Jesus' mouth" to the extent that he was not inventing new theology but explaining Jesus' significance to a group that Jesus himself did not have the opportunity to address. Does that make sense? In short, it's "what he would have said".)

The authors of "Matthew" and "Luke" read this. That is why they set the birth story there. They wanted people to make the connection.

One could actually say that Jesus himself did certain things deliberately to spell out the connection. He did not need to ride into Jerusalem on a donkey - he could have walked in just like anyone else; the point of the prophecy being that the Messiah was not actually coming to make war with men, but was coming in humility to serve. Jesus is drawing attention to this text, which many people (including his own disciples) seemed to have overlooked in forming their mental conception of the Messiah (Jesus did not want to stir up a revolt!).

You seem to have picked up on the key differences between the gospels but gone down a very different route with the evidence than I have seen anyone else go down...

A few other points from the thread:

And why do you think that this bunch of people would be under a death sentence - there were lots of messianic and mystic cults around at the time.

But this was the first one that had really been perceived as a threat by the religious leaders - who preferred peaceful subjugation to Messianic uprising any day of the week. It was the religious leaders who handed Jesus over to be crucified, and the religious leaders (Saul included) who persecuted and executed the first Christians. Not the Romans. (At least, until Christianity actually reached Rome.)

IanC: The burden of proof lies on those who say he existed, and he was who some say he was.

Just taking the first part of that sentence though... if I deny that Julius Caesar existed, is the burden of proof on you to show that he did? What if I suggested he nothing but a myth created by a power-hungry Roman politician, whose cronies would write legends, carve statues, and forge coins, in order to create the illusion of a "line" of Caesars, and thus allow this conspirator to claim absolute power for himself?

As history goes on and people, events and places become part of the more distant past, it becomes easier to question them and dispute their factuality.

What is not taken into account in the demand for proof is human tradition. 10 years after Jesus, no-one questioned his existence. As far as I am aware none of the ancient documents written against Christianity (e.g. Celsus) actually question the existence of Jesus. It just wasn't an issue. Human tradition preserved the memory of this man. Perhaps it embellished it, but even Santa Claus is based on a real, historical person. The modernist approach which starts from scratch has achieved much, but I think it goes too far when it suggests that human tradition cannot be considered evidence.

Token Atheist: All of the various historians and writers that should have mentioned him fail to do so.

Which ones? How many histories of 1st Century Judaea are there?

I am satisfied by the documentary evidence and the continued existence of the Christian church. This doesn't necessarily prove that Jesus was who the church say he was - the alternative is that the disciples were misguided or deceptive - but I don't see how the writers of the gospels and Acts could have pulled off such a huge deception without there being some kind of historical figure to underpin it. Maybe 300 years later, yes. But 30? That's a tall order. There would be enough people around who would know that they had made the whole thing up.

These documents simply wouldn't have been preserved. They'd have failed like all the other messianic and mystic cults around at the time.

Token Atheist: The interesting thing here, is that the earliest Christian writings didn't base their stories around a man at all.

Take Paul, for example. In the letters of Paul (the actual letters of Paul, not the pseudographia that were written later and had his name applied to them), Jesus the person is never talked about.

I really don't see where you've got this view from.

Which epistles do you think Paul actually wrote? Paul's "undisputed" letters include 1 Thessalonians ("...his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead - Jesus..." or "you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out...") and 1 Corinthians ("For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve...").

I can't see how you can conclude that Paul is referring to Jesus as anything other than a real person here. Do you agree with the "undisputed" letters?

He makes no mention of where or when Jesus lived, or any biographical details of his life - as if he does not have any records of this, either.

Does he need to, though?

Most of the time Paul is writing to churches or to leaders of churches. He is not laying out the basics of his theology or explaining the gospel for the first time to these people, but (in most cases) filling in gaps in their belief that have led to their practice going astray. Compare the teaching of the epistles with Paul's sermons in Acts - in which he directly preaches that Jesus is the Messiah. Yes, I know Acts was written later, but it is describing events that took place before Paul wrote. The point is that Paul had already been to the places to whom he is writing (you don't even need Acts to establish this in the cases I've quoted above).

The original text of Mark simply leaves us with an "empty tomb" mystery implying that Jesus has been taken up to Heaven

Ummm.... not sure where you're getting this from. First of all the authenticity of Mark 16.9-20 is uncertain, but far from disproven. Secondly, even if the abrupt ending is original, we still have the angels telling Mary that Jesus has been raised from the dead and that the disciples will see him in Galilee.

FogLight: We also know that the "Bible" saw quite a few incarnations (edits) which we can assume were an attempt to "fix" contradictions and continuity and that the church made a concerted effort to get rif of the evidence of these edits. Unfortunately (for Christianity) some versions or peices survived. Christianity today merely tries to dismiss these as rogue works...

Can you cite a specific instance of this?

I can certainly think of a few textual variations where it looks like the scribe has added a clarification or corrected what they thought was a mistake (e.g. John 5.4). The thing is, I know about these variations because Biblical scholars know about them. The alternate readings are found in the footnotes. They are not hidden away or kept secret.

Fenwar

Feel Free To Disagree

Edited September 14, 2005 by fenwar

[RGR]

so what is antimatter ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Something that only Scotty dared fool with on Star Trek, lol!

[Token Atheist]

The internal evidence (as well as external data) suggests that Mark is primarily influenced by Peter's eyewitness accounts, rather than anyone's theology.

What internal evidence? What external data?

Come to think of it - what eyewitness accounts of Peter? I hope you are not referring to the 2nd century Pseudographia that bear his name - you will be hard pushed to find a scholar who dates them before the Gospel of "Mark".

I have not heard this view before although I'd be interested to see sources/dates for the Cynic sayings/views you suggest were attributed to Jesus.

Well, as a quick example, the story about the miraculous catch of the 153 fishes was originally told about Pythagoras (he's mainly remembered for his contributions to mathematics, but he was a philosopher and theologian too who had quite a following and many stories about the miracles he performed). The number 153, of course, had significance in the original Pythagorian miracle story - since it is a triangular number. By the time the story had been retold with Jesus as the main character rather than Pythagoras, the number 153 no longer makes sense.

In general, a good majority of the words attributed to Jesus in the synoptic Gospels are taken from the philosophy of the Cynics.

(I also have time for the view that John "puts words into Jesus' mouth" to the extent that he was not inventing new theology but explaining Jesus' significance to a group that Jesus himself did not have the opportunity to address. Does that make sense? In short, it's "what he would have said".)

I would argue that all the spoken text attributed to Jesus in any of the Gospels falls into that category.

One could actually say that Jesus himself did certain things deliberately to spell out the connection. He did not need to ride into Jerusalem on a donkey - he could have walked in just like anyone else;

Don't forget - the author of "Matthew" has him ride into Jerusalem on both a donkey and a colt at the same time. The author has misunderstood Zechariah 9:9, which uses a standard Hebrew form of repetition for emphasis, and has instead made Jesus ride two animals. This is a clear indication that the story was written specifically to make it look as if "prophecy" was being fulfilled, rather than the recording of historical events.

It is not the only time that "Matthew" gets his Hebrew Scripture wrong, leading to Jesus doing or saying embarrasing things in order to "fulfil" it...

I'm out of time here - sorry but I'll have to come back and answer the rest later...

[Skeptic]

I guarantee you that most people who go into the ministry -- they are not doing it for the money!!!

Thats a pretty big guarantee. All you need is a church of 100 people and you will be sitting pretty. Just on tithes alone your making a killing. But then you have church 3 nights a week taking up offerings each night. Sure your not held at gun point but I never heard it called donations. Donations for what?? The pasters new house??.

Believe me I have thought many times of becoming a preacher just for this reason but cant bring myself to be the hypocrite I would have to be to do this. I'm sure there are way more phonies out there than you will allow yourself to believe. I am willing to bet that most preachers don't believe themselves what they preach.

[Gerioke]

I guarantee you that most people who go into the ministry -- they are not doing it for the money!!!

Thats a pretty big guarantee. All you need is a church of 100 people and you will be sitting pretty. Just on tithes alone your making a killing. But then you have church 3 nights a week taking up offerings each night. Sure your not held at gun point but I never heard it called donations. Donations for what?? The pasters new house??.

Believe me I have thought many times of becoming a preacher just for this reason but cant bring myself to be the hypocrite I would have to be to do this. I'm sure there are way more phonies out there than you will allow yourself to believe. I am willing to bet that most preachers don't believe themselves what they preach.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You certainly live by your name

[fenwar]

Hi Token Atheist, thanks for your replies,

What internal evidence? What external data?

Come to think of it - what eyewitness accounts of Peter? I hope you are not referring to the 2nd century Pseudographia that bear his name - you will be hard pushed to find a scholar who dates them before the Gospel of "Mark".

By "eyewitness accounts" I mean Peter actually telling Mark what he had seen. (I would subscribe to the view that Mark wrote either just before or soon after Peter's death - that his primary intention was to preserve Peter's testimony for the benefit of the church.)

I think muddled things slightly as it's the external evidence that is most significant - such as the fact that John Mark was close to Peter (Acts) and the writings of the church fathers (Eusebius and Irenaeus referring to Papias, and Justin Martyr's reference to the memoirs of Peter - unless those are the pseudepigraphia you are referring to?) The internal evidence is a little less conclusive, my own teacher referred to little details such as the healing of Peter's mother in law and the "rough-and-ready" style of the gospel suiting Peter's character, which are rather thin I must admit.

Well, as a quick example, the story about the miraculous catch of the 153 fishes was originally told about Pythagoras (he's mainly remembered for his contributions to mathematics, but he was a philosopher and theologian too who had quite a following and many stories about the miracles he performed). The number 153, of course, had significance in the original Pythagorian miracle story - since it is a triangular number. By the time the story had been retold with Jesus as the main character rather than Pythagoras, the number 153 no longer makes sense.

Now that's interesting...

I did a quick Google on this and (on my cursory viewing of the first few sites) couldn't find any dates relating to the Pythagorean version of the story, do you have anything to hand?

Even assuming that John was aware of the story, it seems rather too deliberate to be a simple "fabrication" and is more likely a reference. If you know of an actual copy of the text then maybe it would be interesting to compare the variations between the two. This Wikipedia article suggests that the author of John could have been making a deliberate reference by using the number 153 but makes no mention of the version of the story involving Pythagoras himself.

In general, a good majority of the words attributed to Jesus in the synoptic Gospels are taken from the philosophy of the Cynics.

Which words? All I can find are general parallels in terms of ascetisism and egalitarianism. You could certainly say that Jesus' teaching bore many similarities to Cynicism but I don't think it justifies the conclusion that it was derived from Cynicism. If you know of any actual textual similarities then they would certainly be worth considering though.

Don't forget - the author of "Matthew" has him ride into Jerusalem on both a donkey and a colt at the same time. The author has misunderstood Zechariah 9:9, which uses a standard Hebrew form of repetition for emphasis, and has instead made Jesus ride two animals. This is a clear indication that the story was written specifically to make it look as if "prophecy" was being fulfilled, rather than the recording of historical events.

It is not the only time that "Matthew" gets his Hebrew Scripture wrong, leading to Jesus doing or saying embarrasing things in order to "fulfil" it...

I don't see how it's quite so embarrassing, except perhaps the clumsiness of the sentence. I don't think Matthew is intending to create an image of Jesus straddling both animals.

What sticks out for me is that Matthew doubles up other things without being "confused" by Hebrew parallelism, such as having two demon-possessed men in Gadarenes. This suggests to me that it is an intentional device on his part.

Either that or he had very bad eyesight.

Fenwar

[Elisabeth]

Sure your not held at gun point but I never heard it called donations.

Well friend, I guess you don't know as much as you thought.

You should try visiting a church that shows the real love of God. You'd find out that it's never about the money. It's all about the fact that God loves you, right now, exactly as you are. Period.

[Guest jlo23_1214]

If we know the Bible was written many years ago...which has been proven in the study of history....and we see the prophecy therein fulfilled...not just one or two things (which if so, one might deem coincidental), how could this not be evidence? Futhermore, I would like to define FAITH....it is "seeing without believing" loosely defined....a more precise definition is a "belief without material evidence". Christians have faith. We do not need physical, scientifical, material, undeniable evidence to believe. Why do we not need this to believe? Because God is evident everywhere we go. When we accepted Jesus as our Savior and invited him into our lives, this was enough. We are happy....at peace. When we study God the father's Word and we submit to His will for our lives, his blessings abound. It is a difficult thing to explain in common terms. Do you ever wonder why most Christians are so happy? I say most, because there are those who proclaim to be Christians, but are not following God's will. A Christian, living the Word of God, constantly seeking Him, is a happy person...no matter what circumstances he or she may be in. Are we perfect? Absolutely not! Even a Christian exercising the faith will still fail in his or her walk with Christ....but this is one of the many, many wonderful things about our heavenly Father; he forgives us when we fail him. He doesn't hold a grudge. He's not impatient with us. He loves us unconditionally. This feeling of total satisfaction, only felt by accepting him in your life, is the only evidence you need. So, if you don't accept Him, you'll never have that evidence that you are obviously seeking.

[HisWordIsSufficient]

How do i know Jesus is exists?

The healings, the blessings, the prosperity, the Joy, the love, the kindness, the transformations for the better, the prophecy, the tongues, the difference in life, everything that has happened since i chose life. Since i chose faith.

I know he is real because the bible says so, i know hes real because of my faith, i know hes real because of his miracles.

But most of all i know he's real because i know him. How can you not believe in someone you speak with?

The Holy Spirit is so wonderful isn't he?