h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hello Matholwch

<>

Confucius say: "To learn without thinking is labour in vain, to think without learning is desolation. --Confucius (551-479 BC)". Yes its interesting to read some of these dusty books from my shelf...I always found them a bit boring before!

I find the rest of your posting very challenging, specifically regarding my duty as a christian to act in response to Jesus' command.

The question is though, 'How should I act?' You see, I agree with you that the message of the bible cannot be proved beyond all doubt. And even if I had all the proof in the world, that in itself would not be enough to convert someone. This is because intellectual assent to the veracity of the documents is only the first step to an individual becoming a follower of Christ. They must then be willing to humble themselves enough to get down on their knees and ask Jesus for the gift of forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

So should I be spending all my waking moments trying to find that last fragment of totally infallible evidence? I don't think so. Do I need to rethink how I live my life in the light of your recent posting? Yes! Its all too easy to be merely religious and completely miss out on the life that Jesus came to impart to us.

Peace be with you

mich2ael

I agree. I believe in God to an extent, that is to say, I cant think of a better explanation for we monkeys on this floating rock. But its true that the fine details and laws regarding the supreme being handed out by the church are difficult to stomach. My consept of God is amorphous and fuzzy but thats good enough for me, as science more or less covers the rest.

It could be said that I'm lazy and somnolent when it comes to God, but I'm really only bothered by the big ol' question every once in a while. I'm comfortable with this life and its boundaries, little can be gained by smashing our heads against them.

Hi Andrew S

To tell you the truth Andy, I had forgotten entirely about our earlier conversation. That is no reflection upon you only that I have been through it a fair number of times before in the 26,000 postings on this subject

As usual you have gone off on a tangent from the main point - this being that if The Church, or indeed any Church, had any real evidence of the historicity of Jesus they would have published it by now. Yet they haven't.

QED there is none... unless you know better that is?

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hi mich2ael

"I find the rest of your posting very challenging, specifically regarding my duty as a christian to act in response to Jesus' command."

Challenging is good, no?

"You see, I agree with you that the message of the bible cannot be proved beyond all doubt. And even if I had all the proof in the world, that in itself would not be enough to convert someone."

Not what I am asking really is it? What I am asking is any reasonably verifiable evidence for the historicity of the man Jesus beyond those documents written by christians for christians. If the Church had any it would surely have published this by now...?

"They must then be willing to humble themselves enough to get down on their knees and ask Jesus for the gift of forgiveness of sins and eternal life."

Why? What if my only sin is to deny Christ? Is that worth an eternity in the lake of fire?

Sin is the invention of your God, not mine. A way to force people to worship Him in the hope of being absolved and given eternal life. If your God was worth worshipping He wouldn't need this stick to beat people through His door.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hi Matholwch

<>

Yes, challenging is good!

<>

I'm sure we must have covered this...we have come to very different conclusions.

<>

Well when you put it like that, Math, yes it all sounds very unreasonable.
And when you put it my way, it still sounds unreasonable: Christ came to seek and to save lost sinners, not good people...that seems unfair from a human point of view...the ones who don't deserve God's grace are first in the queue!

But the sinner who's discovered God's mercy is the most grateful person in the world.

Good wishes from

mich2ael

Matholwch

Consider this...

If one thinks of the various elements of christian doctrine as pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, one can arrive at this analogy:

I've been putting the jigsaw pieces together, and I can gradually discern what I think is a message from God. It says: "I love you"!
This might explain why I'm defending my jigsaw so vigorously!

You seem to have been putting together the same jigsaw and are discerning something entirely different. I'm not sure what yours is saying but you're obviously not pleased with it.

Who is to say which one of us is putting the puzzle together correctly? I don't want to come across as saying: "I'm right and you're wrong", but I've reached a conclusion and made my decision regarding the message I've heard.

Matthew 13:45,46 '"The kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it."'

I'm away for a couple of days now, so be good!

mich2ael

<> Math

<> Mich2ael

Well, not really. You simply failed to provide the said evidence. The passage from Josephus is generally believed to be a late interpolation, and he wasn't a contemporary anyway.

Although its "governing body" was in Jerusalem, early Christianity seems to have flourished primarily in the Jewish diaspora in the Greek cities of Asia Minor and Greece proper, brought there by Paul, who was definitely not an eyewitness and relied on his own personal gnosis. After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 this church was cut off from its Jewish roots, and the Gospels emerged in this Greek milieu as it sought its own identity.

Noggin

I thought Mich2ael got it right.

The Josephus quotation you mentioned, the so-called Testimonium, is generally believed to have been edited with the addition of two part-sentences, but not completely invented.

There is also another reference to Jesus within Josephus, in Annals 20:9:1, which is cited by Origen.

Hi Noggin

<>

Read posting 26496. It addresses these very issues.

To quote Frederic Kenyon in "The Bible and Archeology" (New York: Harper, 1940), 'The last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.'

<>

Not really. 'These things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.' John 20:31. i.e. they were written by ordinary people for ordinary people like you and me!


<>

You appear to be quoting from some source...what point are you making?

regards,

mich2ael

Hi Andrew

"There is also another reference to Jesus within Josephus, in Annals 20:9:1, which is cited by Origen."

Apologists, such as yourself and mich2ael, as you grasp for ever more slender straws with which to support your historical Jesus, point out that the passage quoted above is not the only mention of Jesus made by Josephus. In Bk.20, Ch.9, §1 of 'Antiquities of the Jews' one also finds the following statement in surviving manuscripts:

"Ananus convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned."

I admit that this passage does not intrude into the text as does the one previously quoted. In fact, it is very well integrated into Josephus' story. That it has been modified from whatever Josephus' source may have said (remember, Josephus could not have been an eye-witness) is nevertheless extremely probable. The crucial word in this passage is the name 'James' ('Jacob' in Greek and Hebrew). It is very possible that this very common name was in Josephus' source material.

It might even have been a reference to James the Just, a first-century character I have good reason to believe indeed existed. Because he appears to have born the title "Brother of the Lord", it would have been natural to relate him to the Jesus character. It is quite possible that Josephus actually referred to a James "the Brother of the Lord," and this was changed by Christian copyists (remember that although Josephus was a Jew, his text was preserved only by Christians! There are no Hebrew versions) to "Brother of Jesus" - adding then for good measure "who was called Christ."

According to Smith's skeptical classic 'Ecce Deus', there are still some manuscripts of Josephus which contain the quoted passages, but the passages are absent in other manuscripts - showing that such interpolation had already been taking place before the time of Origen but did not ever succeed in supplanting the original text universally.


Blessings,
Matholwch the Pedant .

Hi Mich2ael

I wasn't quoting from any particular source, just summarising. Do you consider any of the facts to be contentious?

The point was just to show that by the time the gospels were written Christianity had already crossed something of a cultural divide, and was trying to make sense of itself in a new context. Without definitive sources closer to the origin it is impossible to say how big a change in the message resulted.

<>

This seems unduly optimistic to say the least. It also means something quite different to "The scriptures as written are actually true." What's covered by the term "scriptures" (the archaeology reference would suggest inclusion of the OT)? What caused him to say it. Was he a sceptic before that?

Noggin

Math, the book to which you refer, Smith’s Ecce Deus (1913), is not referring to the quotation mentioned above. It refers to yet another one which appears in Origen. Here is p.236, beginning with the quote from Origen:

’”Titus demolished Jerusalem, as Josephus writes, on account of James the Just, the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ." Contra C[elsus]., II, 13 fin. The passage is still found in some Josephus manuscripts; but as it is wanting in others it is, and must be, regarded as a Christian interpolation older than Origen (against Hilgenfeld, Einleitung, p. 526, who thinks the passage has been expunged from Christian manuscripts of Josephus!). Now, since this phrase is certainly interpolated in the one place, the only reasonable conclusion is that it is interpolated in the other.’ [i.e. the one in Arch., XX, ix, i]

But it doesn’t follow. And anyway, this passage does not appear verbatim in any Josephus manuscript that I know of (I am happy to be corrected). I thought it was a case of the relevant Josephus text no longer being extant. It has no bearing on either interpolation or on the other quotation. Smith’s argument is a crock. A sceptical classic, as you say.

The argument above - faulty in my view - is the second argument Smith gives for the interpolation theory. The first one is on p.235. Here is the quotation – the real one – and the argument, according to Smith:

‘"Ananus, then, being such (as I have said), fancying he had now a fitting opportunity, since Festus was dead and Albinus was still on the road, assembles a Sanhedrin of judges, and having brought thither the brother of Jesus, him called Christ (James was his name), and some certain others, and having made accusations (against them as) lawbreakers, he delivered them to be stoned." [Arch., XX, ix, i]

Neander and others defend them [these words], and McGiffert says (The Church History of Eus., p.127, n.39): “It is very difficult to suppose that a Christian, in interpolating the passage, would have referred to James as the brother of the 'so-called Christ.” Indeed! On the contrary, it is just because this phrase is the most approved Christian, evangelic, and canonic that we suspect it in Josephus. It meets us in Matthew i, 16 ; xxvii, 17, 22; John iv, 25. The depreciatory "so" is not in the Greek... It seems incredible that Josephus should throw in such an observation at this stage without any preparation or explanation or occasion.’

He means here, I think, that the phrase “the so called Christ” is merely an English rendering of “him who was called Christ” in Greek, so it isn’t a sceptical phrase, thus torpedoing McGiffert’s defense that a Christian wouldn't have used it.

Be that as it may, I get the impression that Smith’s own “It seems incredible” line is a refusal rather than an argument: Smith isn’t really examining Josephus for the evidence, he is pretending to do so, because no evidence will satisfy him.

Hi Noggin

(Reply to 26511)

<>

Sorry, I thought from posting 26407 that your knowledge of early church history was more patchy!

<>

Not contentious, but definitely written from a skeptic's angle!!

<>

I refer you back again to posting 26496, and add to it this further quote from F.F.Bruce: '...the amount of evidence in our day is so great and conclusive that a first-century date for most of the New Testament writings cannot be denied, no matter what our philosophical presuppositions may be.'

I think I discern your 'philosophical presuppositions' as follows: 'These documents record events that are outside rational thought and therefore I conclude that they must have been corrupted before being recorded.'
If this does correctly sum up your thinking then I must repeat that the documents are as historically reliable (and more so) as historical documents can possibly be.


<<'The last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.'>>

I quoted this purely to make the 'historical authenticity' point that I've expanded upon above.

To repeat myself again, it is, of course, impossible to prove beyond all shadow of a doubt the events that were recorded in Palestine 2000 years ago; all I can do here is try to show that the documents are authentic.

I encourage you, therefore, to look into these matters with an open mind. Being a rational thinker as you are though, I suspect that nothing short of a personal encounter with God's supernatural power will be necessary. This is not beyond the realms of possibility you know!!

Best wishes from

mi2ke

<<"I refer you back again to posting 26496, and add to it this further quote from F.F.Bruce: '...the amount of evidence in our day is so great and conclusive that a first-century date for most of the New Testament writings cannot be denied, no matter what our philosophical presuppositions may be.' ">>

Not a very useful quote. This particular expert holds this opinion on a contentious topic. What we want to know is why he holds this opinion - what he has to back it up.

Because there are lots of books written in a very convincing, authoritative tone, by people with impressive credentials, which plainly state that the overwhelming evidence is in favour of something which simply isn't true. Particularly when it comes to matters of religion. Anything a Christian author writes about Jesus, for example, will almost certainly be contradicted by what Muslims (who have their own place for him as a prophet) write.

So we don't want experts' opinions, we want to see the evidence that they looked at and the arguments they built upon it.

Anyway, back to your arguments everyone.

Hi mich2ael & Andrew

But which books are authentic?

mich2ael (I shall assume that you are protestant from the tone of your writings). You probably follow a version of the King James Bible yes? If so how many books are there in it? You may immediately say 66, but were you aware the original KJV had 80 (or perhaps 81)? The Apocrypha being removed in the 19th century I believe (I am open to correction as I am quoting off the top of my head).

Whereas my good Catholic friend Andrew has 74 books in his bible.

Eusebius (Constantine's biblical editor) had about 600 to choose from I believe when he first sat down. All of these were written in the first three centuries of the christian epoch, so how did he assess their value?

How does one determine that one account is inspired by God and another isn't?

Methinks that, and the evidence would point to the fact that, Eusebius was a pragmatist with clear political instructions from his master. He chose books that didn't totally contradict one another and served the needs of a unified church. Gnosticism, Arrianism, Pelagianism and all other -isms were dropped. Such works as almost fit and usefully added to the story were adapted.

Later translators and copyists added new layers of editing to support their own prejudices and give meaning in their own times right up to the present day. And they didn't just edit the bible, they also hacked away at and ammended every contemporary account to fit their beliefs.

This wasn't a worldwide conspiracy by the Catholic or Orthodox Churches (whatever Dan Brown might imagine). It would be far more convincing if it was. It was a patchwork of little changes over millenia by individuals that led to the mess the present books are in. One of the reasons King James got involved was his frustration with this mess.

The lack of a convincing non-Christian work that supports the existence of a historical Jesus, and also the lack of a definitive christian work that isn't undermined or contradicted by several others, despite the editing out of 90% of the works available, certainly doesn't help your case.

Personally I believe that a man, who we now call Jesus, probably did exist. But he was not the man we now imagine. His followers formed a small mystery cult after his death that they kept going through the diaspora. Certain very bright members of that cult - probably Saul/Paul made the first attempt to deify a man he had never met and wove in the mystical elements of the religion of his home town of Tarsus (mithraism).

Through accidents and the sacrifice of the members of this little cult it grew significantly over the next two hundred years, as did the documentation that surrounded it. It had numerous schisms and setbacks but it was sufficiently persuasive to influence a few amongst the powerful, most importantly the wife of the emperor Constantine. Once he seized upon it its future was assured.

If Jesus had not been killed, or if the Romans had done their job properly and had slaughtered his disciples as well, there may well have been no christianity today.

What is certain is that every European ruler after Constantine saw how important it was to control the central doctrine of the state sponsored religion. So important that they would prosecute long and bloody wars to ensure that their interpretation was adhered to. Rememeber more christians were killed by Crusaders in the middle ages than heathens.

When various rulers in Northern Europe could no longer control the central doctrine they split from the Church and formed their own, and after that it was a free-for-all. Several increasingly bloody wars were fought to secure these new doctrines.

None of this had to do with the simple faith of the layman in his God. Christianity was seen as a state resource, the same as steel and wood.

As a result the original works of the bible have been amended and overwritten for centuries and rarely for theological reasons. They have been the pawns of kings and politicians on the chessboard of Europe.

Only now, as the need for religion as a social control mechanism has withered, are we beginning to see 'free' theological discussions between the various theological 'authorities'. I suspect that it is far too late however, and the true words and intentions man Jesus are long lost.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hello bbitm

<>

The facts are there in posting 26496, and are really too simple, straightforward and transparent to be considered contentious. The point I made is this:

As historical documents, the New Testament documents are very, very reliable indeed.

mich2ael

Matholwch,

Wow, what a posting! Its all guns blazing, alternating between documentary, theological, political and historical disputes! I shall do my best!

First, I tend to use a few different versions of the Bible, none of which owe a lot to the King James version! Modern biblical scholars and translators do painstaking and laborious work to ensure that modern bibles are accurate translations of original manuscripts.

Eusebius had a lot less to do with finalizing the canon of scripture than you give him credit for!

You seem to imply that a devious 'editing out of 90% of the works' was involved...not so...all the New Testament books were in use amongst many others which were held in high regard such as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Memoirs of the Apostles (and the Apocrypha). What Athanasius and the councils at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397 did was to verify what was already the general practice of the various christian communities.
It is the historic christian view that the Holy Spirit guided the early church in choosing which of their many manuscripts were worthy to be considered sufficiently inspired by God to be included alongside Old Testament scripture.

<>

Do you really believe this? On what documentary evidence do you take this stance of faith? The best historical documentation we have says otherwise.

<>

I presume your source here is not the book of Acts, which paints a very different picture!

<>

I am not well enough informed about these bloody wars you refer to nor centuries of megalomaniac European rulers. I certainly can't defend everything that has been done in the name of christianity. Perhaps someone else can converse with you on this subject. Sorry.

History, though, does not record the real action of the kingdom of God...the countless encounters between Heaven and earth, God and repentant sinners. Lives of love and faith lived out in obscurity. On the news today you only see the big political stories or the bad news but I can guarantee there are thousands of newsworthy heroic stories which go unnoticed on earth, which is where the real history is taking place. God is at work on the worldwide political sphere without a doubt. But be careful how you interpret the mysterious workings of the Almighty; our interpretations can be so easily coloured by other factors.

<>

The story is not over! Watch this space!

kind regards from

mik2ey, the little lamb in the bear pit.

<>

More or less right. The gospels include events - miracles and resurrection - that are taken to be impossible. In order to believe them I would require much better evidence than a book written fifty years later by people who weren't even there, in a cultural milieu that was inclined to accept such reports without questioning them. This, I think, is perfectly reasonable.

For the rest, normal historiography applies. Assessment of the likely authenticity/accuracy of historical texts is complicated, rarely free of subjective elements (alongside objective ones), and conclusions can be overturned by new discoveries.

These documents are by no means as reliable as they could possibly be. We have reason to suppose that the writers were prejudiced, that the documents have been tampered with, and so on. In such a situation in depth corroboration from alternative sources is essential.

And the day I rely on "supernatural intervention" to back up my arguments...

Noggin

Mich2ael

Little lamb in a bear pit?

No, I am sorry, that's not particularly accurate.

More like a defender of the Burning Times at an academic pagan conference...

--

Jez