“ … you’d have to prove both Jesus as being the son of God and that he existed. Even if you think he existed (which I do) that is not proof that he was the son of God. He was probably a preacher who was voted to be the son of God by a power hungry Emperor. His message was then twisted into what Christians believe today. If you read the Gnostic scriptures, you will see Jesus portrayed as something very different than the NT, heavily edited and mistranslated version that Christians follow today.”
I’ve heard these assertions before, a few of them many years ago, although some have turned up more recently, like the ones about an emperor being in some way responsible for the view of Jesus held by Christians today. These claims have been developed over the last few decades by a number of scholars, but probably received their greatest popularity through the recent novel and movie, The Da Vinci Code.
So, It would appear that my friend is disparaging my reliance on one Book, based on his reliance on another book (or books). Interesting. Is this a faith issue?
It would seem to me that one who denies the existence of God based on the lack of empirical data, would not be so hasty to rely on truth claims that have little, if any, empirical data to back them up.
So, if I may, I’d like to address some of the claims made above.
· The claim that Christians today follow a “heavily edited mistranslated version of the New Testament.” There is no evidence whatsoever for this assertion. We have manuscripts of large portions of the New Testament that date back to the middle of the third century, within 160/175 years of the latest estimated dates for its composition. Though there are textual variations, they differ very little from our present day printed Greek texts. As a matter of fact, our modern critical Greek texts use those early manuscripts.
Although there are many modern translations, some more accurate than others, our modern English translations are quite reliable. The “heavily edited and mistranslated version” is a myth. Such an assertion would (or should) be denied by even the most skeptical scholars.
· “If you read the Gnostic scriptures, you will see Jesus portrayed as something very different than the New Testament …” I have read a few of them, including the Gospel of Thomas and I can say amen to this assertion. But I fail to see how this detracts from the truth claims of the New Testament.
Our New Testament was composed within the first century, even the latest book within 60 years of Jesus. Though there is much dispute as to precise dating, much of the material in our Gospels came from eyewitnesses.
The Gnostic scriptures were composed later, probably in the second or third centuries. The Gospel of Thomas is supposed by some to have been written around 200 which would put it more than a century later than any New Testament writings, even though some believe it may possibly contain some authentic says of Jesus.
The Gnostic scriptures were the product of a broad school of thinking which combined elements of Christianity, Judaism, Neo-Platonism and other beliefs. They are inconsistent, not only with the New Testament, but also with each other and present no historical or theological unity such as is found in the New Testament. They are also merely one segment of a great number of similar writings. I fail to see how their disagreement with the New Testament is relevant at all to the argument.
· “He (Jesus) was probably a preacher who was voted to be the son of God by a power hungry Emperor. His message was then twisted into what Christians believe today.” I’m assuming that the reference is to the Roman emperor Constantine “the Great,” who reigned from 306-337. Constantine did establish the toleration of Christianity with the Edict of Milan in 313 and called the Council of Nicaea in 325, which clarified some of the major doctrines of Christianity.
However, by this time the New Testament writings had been in circulation for over 250 years. Christianity had already spread throughout the Roman Empire and well beyond. Beliefs about the Person and Message of Jesus were recorded in the New Testament and in the minds of many, long before the time of Constantine. There were no changes in the message.
· I’m glad we both agree that Jesus existed. I guess that means we have some agreement in our beliefs. If we can’t accept the massive evidence of the New Testament and other writings on this matter, I don’t see how we can accept any historical evidence for the existence of any individual of ancient history.
The New Testament documents make up the earliest and largest body of evidence we have, not only for the existence of Jesus, but also for His life, teachings and work. They also are our most accurate evidence for the early church and for how His life, teachings and work were understood. We don’t need to seek later claims nor the pronouncements of emperors.
And, if this is so, then perhaps we need to examine the claims that Jesus made, as recorded in the New Testament, especially the Gospels. If we do, we will find that He was more than simply “a preacher.” He claimed to be one with God the Father and to have existed before His birth. He claimed to be the Messiah and the only way to God.
Of course, we can deny that He made these claims, even though the evidence says that He did. Or we can say He was delusional.
Or perhaps we can simply accept His claims as true. I do.
6 comments:
Nice post Bill!
You said: Our New Testament was composed within the first century, even the latest book within 60 years of Jesus. Though there is much dispute as to precise dating, much of the material in our Gospels came from eyewitnesses.
So they were not written by Jesus but by many different people, some of who had never met Jesus or could have met him. Even the book that is said to be written 60 years after Jesus' death is a stretch, since the life span of people back then was about 35 years and they weren't infants when they supposedly met Jesus. Therefore, the conclusion would be using your own facts, that none met Jesus, Jesus did not write any of the Bible and at best they are second or third hand accounts by people who were probably motivated by making their own church. Reliable?
Hardly.
You said: However, by this time the New Testament writings had been in circulation for over 250 years. Christianity had already spread throughout the Roman Empire and well beyond. Beliefs about the Person and Message of Jesus were recorded in the New Testament and in the minds of many, long before the time of Constantine. There were no changes in the message.
This isn't really true. Christianity was a small cult at that time. They didn't come into their own until Constantine made it his religion. He and subsequent Emperors then went on a rampage of killing Pagans and replacing their religion with his own. Rome was full of small cults at the time as well.
It's curious that a man who could raise the dead and walk on water isn't mentioned in Roman books in numerous places. You'd think such a person would leave a paper trail behind since the Romans were good at keeping records.
Part 2 because of word limit.
You said: I’m glad we both agree that Jesus existed. I guess that means we have some agreement in our beliefs. If we can’t accept the massive evidence of the New Testament and other writings on this matter, I don’t see how we can accept any historical evidence for the existence of any individual of ancient history.
Yes, I'd say either he existed or that he was based on someone else. It's just a guess though. It's like the Cargo Cults that believe John Frum is going to arrive again and give them magical cargo. There was probably a John Frum but he's probably not like his followers say he is or was.
You said: The New Testament documents make up the earliest and largest body of evidence we have, not only for the existence of Jesus, but also for His life, teachings and work. They also are our most accurate evidence for the early church and for how His life, teachings and work were understood. We don’t need to seek later claims nor the pronouncements of emperors.
And yet, for an omnipotent God, it is not enough. There are thousands of Christian denominations. They can't even agree on their own dogma or what it means. Either God is a horrible communicator or he did a poor job.
You said: Of course, we can deny that He made these claims, even though the evidence says that He did. Or we can say He was delusional.
Or that he was a man who has been used for 2 thousand years to suit the whims of man while his teachings have been mostly lost to time and ignorance.
You said: I’ve heard these assertions before, a few of them many years ago, although some have turned up more recently, like the ones about an emperor being in some way responsible for the view of Jesus held by Christians today.
It's a well known fact that Jesus' divinity was voted on at the council of Nicea.
Look up 'Biblical inerrancy' and you will find that your assertions about there being no mistranslations are not true. Even the meanings of words are argued, such as the word 'sin'. Some say 'sin' means missed which is not how modern day Christians use that word. The Bible has been cobbled together using different books from different time periods and other books have been left out. Many of the dogmatic assertions found in the Bible are also scientifically unsound, such as Adam and Eve and the great flood.
CA: I did not say that the entire NT was composed 60 years after Jesus. Some of it was written within 15 years and some portions may have been even earlier. And an estimaated average life span of 35 years does not mean people automatically died at that age. By that reasoning Betty White is dead. :^)
You're still putting your faith in that Constantine myth. For this you have to ignore 3 centuries of Christian history and writings as well as the NT itself. Even though you don't agree with it, its claims are still there. Asserting that something is "a well known fact" in the face of contrary evidence sure sounds like dogma to me.
I suspect that your arguments regarding "mistranslation" do not come from your own research or understanding, but are from "second or third hand accounts" (your words).
As I asked previously "Is this a faith issue?" I'll have to answer yes. You rely on certain writings while ignoring others. You dogmatize where your argument is weak. You refuse to recognize that those you disagree with may actually know what we're talking about.
But I still have hopes that we can caarry on a meaningful dialog. :^)
Your Friend
PS: I've been unable to post comments on your blog. When I hit "publish" they disappear.
Well, Betty White (great actress) lives in a modern era with current medical technology. The average lifespan here is 80+. The NT's earliest book was written 60 years or so AFTER Jesus' death. That means the author was probably around 80 if he'd actually seen Jesus, which is highly unlikely. The rest were written about 100+ years after his death, meaning they'd never met the man or couldn't have. Ever play telephone?
As for the Constantine myth - that's not dogma, my friend. That's a bunch of scholars agreeing on it. Why would I trust Christian scholars when they have an interest in the whole affair? That's like trusting an anti-abortion group when they tell me fabricated abortion statistics or any other biased group for that matter.
And no, the mistranslations are from reading about it. The sin example I gave is a good one. I also have a Jewish Chaplain friend who writes and discusses this stuff with me. He speaks the language.
As for the faith issue, I don't see it that way. Like I said before, I had faith. I lost it because the evidence doesn't point in the direction Christians say it does. I don't have faith that God doesn't exist, I just see no evidence. If there were evidence, I would be sitting in a pew next to you. LOL.
And also, while you and I disagree, that's never stopped me from respecting someone else's view. I do listen to what you have to say and realize that you're a very intelligent man. I'm honored to be friends with you.
As for the blog comments, that's strange. I'll check the settings again but I have had others leave comments. I was working on the design (I'm still new to this whole blog thing) so that might have something to do with it. I hope you'll try again later.
I'll have to admit that I and other Christian scholars are probably biased. But I see bias on your side as well, especially if you only trust those scholars who agree with you. I'd like to challenge you to resd the NT with an open mind and to read Christian and other scholars who hold to early dating for the NT.
And by the way, I read the Bible regularly in both Greek and Hebrew. (I'm not too good at Hebrew. I srtuggle.)
Your Friend
Hello bill, there seem to be several important points of discussion. first, for me the fact that the scripture has many authors was a cause for me to believe. if you ask a group of people today about who God is or isn’t, there is no agreement. yet over a period of over 1000 years and numerous authors backgrounds there is a consensus of the true creator. The fact that history of man wants to eliminate God is of no surprise to me. Just think about our nature, we instinctively try to eliminate anything which threatens us whether it be disease or creatures or death. The c.a. makes a good point which I entirely agree with. Before I gave one penny to support any religion much less follow whole heartedly the leader of it I had to be convinced beyond a doubt of the leader’s ability to deliver on his promises. Jesus himself cautions people from following religious people without intensive examination for truth.
Post a Comment