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

Oh, crikey. I thought we'd sort of agreed to stop the historicity one since you said you were only playing Devil's Advocate. Here we go again. The Talmud: compiled then, yes. Individual bits written then, no. Written 1st century. Your book should say this. Yes? Pilate: I don't actually have a copy but don't feel threatened if it is fake. Josephus: This is conjecture - can we please stick to stuff we can reasonably back up because I don't want to get bogged down in the slightest conspiracy thing. I believe I mentioned more sources than these, but I really don't see the point of continuing this thread just for the sake of having a debate. Unless you now believe Jesus didn't even exist?

Back to John. Mark 6:30. Your header 'return of the disciples' is not part of the Bible. It has been put in by whoever published your copy. Therefore no need to cry 'a-ha' over the use of 'apostles' in the following sentence.

If you read the previous section (6:29) you will find references to John the Baptist's 'disciples'. So this shows that 'disciples' can refer to people other than Jesus' followers. That's point 1. Point 2: this line regarding John the Baptist's followers has the word 'disciples', the following has 'apostles', regarding Jesus' followers. Had 'disciples' been used in both sentences, you'd have thought they were the same people. 'Apostles' makes the distinction. Only Jesus' followers are called 'apostles', and only 12 of them. No one other than the 12 mentioned in Mark 3:13 is ever called an 'apostle'. Point 3: 'disciple' is the translation of a greek word meaning 'pupil'. A very common word. Non-religious. 'Apostle' is a different greek word, used only in the sense 'follower' in the Bible. Elsewhere it means 'messenger' or 'ambassador'. The word is chosen because these 12 were the ones who, as you said a few posts ago, went out to preach the word of Jesus. His ambassadors. His messengers, the message being his word. His apostles. The 12 apostles.

You'll have noticed by now perhaps that I slightly misread your bit re. the header on Mark 6:30. Sorry! But the bit I wrote after that deals with the disciples/apostles meaning anyway.
KC

I'm sorry, but your argument holds no water. The disciples mentioned above are John's, not Jesus'. The apostles then mentioned are Jesus'. So it looks like two different groups because they are two different groups. Try again.

Disciple means pupil. Apostle, as used in the Bible, means follower. I think you've proven my point that they are synonymous.

"Give a believer enough rope, he'll eventually hang himself." - Dan Barker

Talmud written in the first century: prove it. I want quoted sources, preferably online, so I can check them myself.

The contents of the Palestinian Talmud were written by Palestinian scholars between the 3rd century AD and the beginning of the 5th century; those of the Babylonian Talmud, by scholars who wrote between the 3rd century and the beginning of the 6th century.



"Talmud," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 97 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1996 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

well - putting it the other way, KC, do you believe that the words of Josephus, where he says "He was the christ", are genuine?

I think that they were almost definately faked, a fact which puts the entire of the new testament onto very shaky ground. So no, I don't believe its a pointless discussion.

MyRedDice - look a few posts back and you will see that I said that I personally don't give that Josephus bit much credence. Which is to say I don't really think it's likely it's genuine. But I can't prove it. Just as you can't. Just as the good Colonel can't. That's my point. It's just personal conjecture.

Colonel S - thanks for the petty quote. Shall we keep this civilized? Suggest you reread my previous post, but here we go once more. The word 'disciple' meant 'follower' before the Bible. The word 'apostle' did not. Why the sudden and quite major change? 'Hey guys, let's change the meaning of this word'. No, because there is already a word you can use and indeed it is used at times - 'mathatas', translated as 'disciple'. So the only logical reason for using another word is if you want it to mean something separate. That's what all languages do - use words to mean different things. The word means 'messenger' or 'ambassador'. As such it applies to the 12. Not to just anyone who followed Jesus. Acts 6:2. 'So the Twelve called a full meeting of the disciples'. This shows that the 12 are a distinct group, and that not all the disciples are in the 12.

And reread my last post again, because you'll notice I'm saying IF the word disciples had been used instead of apostles at Mark 6:30 then it would have seemed they were the same people.

If you still can't see that they're separate, I'm not sure what more obvious an argument I can give you than that they meant totally different things before the Bible and that 'apostle' is only used in reference to a group of 12 people in the Bible, 12 chosen by Jesus to spread the Word as ambassadors, messengers...apostles.

But we have managed to sidetrack once more. Back to the actual point: If, as you say, and I agree, the editor of John is claiming apostolic authorship for his gospel, did you mean authorship by someone there at the time or did you mean specifically an apostle (because you now don't seem to know what an apostle is) or did you mean specifically one of the 12?

Re. the Talmud. I will at some point do some researching. But it's not a priority, since you've admitted you were only disagreeing for the sake of it. I would prefer if we don't diverge too much (though of course we must to some degree) because I didn't enter this forum in the first place to do a complete critique of every single anti-Xian theory under the sun.

I was not disagreeing "just for the sake of it." I was disagreeing because, as I said, the Jesus as a myth camp has a valid point. I find it more effective for my research to play along and assume he was a real person, but you have to admit that there is no reason to believe this, and it is a vital point.

I can prove the Josephus bit was forged. Joesphus is a messianic Jew, not a christian. There is no indication in all his work that he ever accepts Jesus as that messiah. The quote reads thusly:

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, *if it be lawful to call him a man*, for he was a doer of wonderful works,- a teacher of such men as receive *the truth* with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and ^many of the Gentiles.^ *He was the Christ*, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men amongst us,had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for *he appeared to them alive again on the third day*, as the *divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him*; and the ^tribe of Christians^, so named from him, are ^not extinct at this day.^"

You can read for yourself, but I have highlighted the important parts. Anything surrounded by asterixes denotes a line that could have been written by none other than a believer, and the carats denote lines that clearly show that this was an addition that came about long after Josephus. This entire paragraph also upsets the flow of Antiquities. The very next paragraph begins: "And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews..." Nice transition, but now we are left to wonder, was Jesus a terrible misfortune that confounded the Jews? No. The terrible misfortune is named in the paragraph before the Jesus one. The paragraph does not belong there. Also important is the fact that this most important line is not in any early manuscripts of Antiquities, and no biblical scholars ever quoted it until Eusebius did in the 4th century. Probably, he was quoting his own handiwork. At any rate, this bit is proven a fake. There is no room to doubt.

Back to the dsciple/apostle quandary: An appeal to Acts is a post-hoc fallacy. We are talking about the gospels and who the gospel writers believed "disciples" and "apostles" might be. In Acts, they could very well be talking about "disciples" as the disciples of the apostles, and not of Jesus. The "disciples" in the gospels would still be those of Jesus, the twelve apostles.

If a student isn't a follower, how does he learn? You say I have assigned two different meanings, but I have not. Jesus was a teacher, and his followers were his students. Therefore, his disciples were his apostles.

NO FRESH POINTS MADE - THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO CLARIFY!!

Colonel, I think you keep missing what I'm saying. I don't personally believe that Josephus wrote that bit! Is that clear enough? But your italics/asterices don't prove it. Back to the definition of 'proof' again. The bits you highlight are the bits I TOO would personally use as evidence for it being faked, but as I keep saying, you can't actually prove it unless you can find someone else writing it or something like that. Can we stop going on about this? All we're disagreeing about is whether it's proof or not - neither of us consider it real!

Do you mind if I ask you whether you believe he existed or not? Just because it's rather important to the validity of several of the arguments in your article. For example, if you think he didn't, then cut out all the Mary Magdelene stuff because there's obviously no point saying 'ah, he did this' when you don't think there was anyone there who did anything! Do you see what I mean? Anyone reading your article would come to the conclusion you think he did exist and did various things that the Church has tried to hide.

Sorry, but appealing to Acts is as valid as appealing to Luke's gospel, since they're written by the same guy. Now I'm sure you must be aware of this, so I await your evidence for them being written by separate authors. Yes?

Re. your final paragraph - I think you've misunderstood...I'm not saying YOU'VE assigned two different meanings to the words - I understood your argument was they mean the same thing. But you still don't seem to be reading what I write - your 'therefore his disciples were his apostles' doesn't make sense.

Let me try and be clear. The original word for 'disciple' means follower, pupil, student. So a student of Jesus is a follower, etc. The original word for 'apostle' does not mean this. It means 'ambassador' or 'messenger' - quite a different meaning. Now the word 'apostle' has, in the years since the Bible, come to mean 'follower' by mistake - in the Bible it is only used in reference to those Twelve people Jesus wanted to be his messengers. We have both noted instances where there are people referred to as 'disciples' but who are not in Mark's list of 'the 12'. But after Jesus sets aside 12 of them specifically (it's in one of the gospels...one of the synoptics...), these ones, although they are still called disciples, because they are still his followers after all and that's what 'disciple' means, are sometimes called 'apostles'. *No one else is*.

So to sum up: disciple means follower. Apostle means messenger. Different meanings. Not assigned by me. Nor you. Nor the Christians. There hundreds of years before Jesus. Apostles used specifically to denote one of the 12 chosen to be messengers, to carry the message of Jesus' Word.

Surely, surely, this is clear enough? I'd settle for you finding a flaw in this, but if this is to go anywhere, it's rather important that you at least understand what I'm saying!

"We have both noted instances where there are people referred to as 'disciples' but who are not in Mark's list of 'the 12'" - We have? Where was this? I recall seeing a verse where John's disciples were not of the twelve, but I recall no such instance referring to one of Jesus' disciples. And anyway, you're contradicting yourself:

"'Apostle' is a different greek word, used only in the sense 'follower' in the Bible."
"The original word for 'disciple' means follower, pupil, student. So a student of Jesus is a follower, etc."

The gospels are all written anonymously. I've already been able to show you why John's gospel is probably not written by who you thought. I'll have to research the Acts-Luke connection a bit, but have no worries. The fact that the authorship of Luke cannot be determined with any accuracy doesn't bode well for your side, though... if we can't know who wrote one, how can we know he wrote both? Still, I will approach this issue, as with all others with an open mind.

As for my personal beliefs, I would say that the only reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence is that Jesus did not exist. But I have said that I find it more useful to my research to assume that he did exist, in order to find out what sort of person he might have been. If you quote Josephus to most people, they will say that you are making fabrications, because they lack the facilities and initiative to read him themselves. However, if you quote Jesus at them, they know they can look it up and see that he said exactly what I say he said. They can read the full context in which the episode occurs. I can thus establish myself as a credible reporter. No single point I make in this article has drawn so much criticism as the mention of the letter from Clement of Alexandria, because it is easy to criticize... anyone can say whatever they want about it through ignorance. But if I had provided the entire text of it, it would have doubled the length of the article, and it is already so long that my browser cannot support any additions to it.

Right, apostles, etc. Let me clarify...again. Again. There is a simple way to determine this bit: get a greek to english dictionary, and look up the words 'mathatas' and 'apostolos'. The former will be spelled (in greek) mu, alpha, theta, eta, tau, eta, sigma. The latter: alpha, pi, omicron, sigma, tau, omicron, lambda, omicron, sigma. Don't trust me, I'm not the greatest at making myself clear. But the dictionary will tell you that the former (translated into english as 'disciple') means 'follower' or 'pupil', and the latter (translated as 'apostle') means 'ambassador' or 'messenger'. Whether I have contradicted myself or not, this is what they mean. Don't believe me. Believe the dictionary. It doesn't know either of us and isn't about to take sides.

When I said 'apostle is used to mean follower', I meant: used to refer to followers. But it doesn't matter: what the word means is different to what 'disciple' means. And you can't get away from the fact that 'disciple' is used for a whole load of people, but 'apostle' only with 12. A few posts ago you named 15 people - only 12 apostles, so 3 of these are not in the 12. Remember now? People like Joseph of Arimathaea - named as a disciple but, in John, 'a secret one for fear of the Jews'. Nor is he one of the 12 in Mark. So could he be one of the 12 if he's a secret one? A special dispensation from Jesus? No. So here is a disciple who is not one of the 12. Using 'disciple' as it means follower, I also count Mary Magdalene as a disciple but not an apostle.

Yeah, Luke...you see, Luke's gospel and Acts are addressed to the same person. And are written in the same style of greek. Since you now seem to have been unaware that they are accepted to have the same author, I doubt you'll find an argument against. John's is the only one whose authorship is in doubt. And even if no one can pin this 'Luke' down (though he seems to have been a companion of Paul to some extent), it is accepted he wrote the gospel and Acts. The Church split his works into two early on, to distinguish between the time Jesus was around and the time after.

Er - problem with your 'if you quote Jesus at them' bit is that you often quote bits not from the Bible, but from the Apocrypha. Which are surely just as hard to locate or understand as Josephus.

I tell you what - you say your browser won't support additions, but seriously this would help if at all possible - you should name your sources. I mean the books you've got a lot of this from. You could cut some now defunct bits out like the bit where you say Herod sent gifts to Jesus (whether you believe astrologers are wrong, nicked from Mithras, or whatever, the Bible doesn't say the gifts were from Herod, but from the wise men - you're just weakening your position unnecessarily with this one).

I have never made a concerted effort at studying Acts, so thus my mistake. You are correct, all the evidence suggests that Luke's gospel and Acts are written by the same hand. This does not, however, change the fact that an appeal to Acts on the disciples/apostles situation is an ad hoc fallacy. The story has moved on, the context has changed, and "disciples" could (and likely does) refer to followers the original twelve have recruited.

I have, however, made quite a study of the gospels, and I assure you that all four are in doubt as to their authorship. Matthew's for instance, is attributed to the apostle Matthew, despite the fact that he is referred to in the third person in the text. Mark is attributed to a man named Mark who seerved Peter as an interpreter, but this claim is made by Papias in 135 ad, which is a lifetime after the earliest date given to it. Luke's credits come from tradition, not hard evidence. All four (and Acts) are written anonymously.

Throwing out John as a useless reporter, you still end up with 13 apostles. Mark and Matt agree with each other (and why not? Matt republished nearly all of Mark's gospel), but Luke names Judas, son of James, where the other two name James, son of Alphaeus. And it is clear that Luke had access to Mark's gospel when he wrote, but his plagiarism isn't as blatant as Matt's. When he disagrees with Mark, he knows he is doing it.

John can solve the entire argument. Never in all his pages does the word "apostle" appear in my translation, and it is one of the more reliable ones (if you have an NIV or King James, I suggest you throw it out), but Andrew is specifically named a disciple in 6:8, and is named an apostle by the synoptics. 13:5 depicts Jesus washing the feet of his disciples, but tradition holds that the only ones present at the Last Supper were Jesus and the Twelve. Specifically named among those "disciples" is Simon Peter, and an allusion is made that he has also washed the feet of Judas Iscariot. The "disciple whom he loved" has been determined by tradition to be John, son of Zebedee, one of the apostles again. When Simon Peter denies Jesus, he is asked: "Are yoou not a disciple of his?" This episode is lost if he is not a disciple. Mary reports the open tomb to "Peter and the other disciple." I could go on and on, but the facts are clear... if you are to give any credence to John's words, then "apostle" and "disciple" mean the same thing. There is an inner circle of disciples that John calls the Twelve who are known to us as the apostles, but they are also disciples. Apostle is simply a way of seperating the inner circle from the other disciples, but the apostles are simply glorified disciples.

Ugh, I posted here once or twice back in January and the damn thing won't die. This site needs a 'forget' button. It's driving me up the wall to see this thread pop to the top of my page every day. Any chance you guys could move it to a new forum?

Btw, the gospel of John was written by a small splinter-faction of Christians somewhere close to 100 AD and was for the most part political in intent. Most critical scholars of the gospel literature are wont to discount John altogether in terms of its histoerical veracity. I have to wonder, KC, why it would matter that Sellers was confusing the apocrypha with the protestant bible; you seem appalled, or at least mildly indignant. Is one inherently better than the other, or more useful? Is it your intent to defend protestantism as opposed to catholicism, or is it your intent to deflect the assertions of atheism? At any rate, your prior commitments to fideist notions of cosmology would seem to be a serious stumbling block to the development of a rational counterpoint here.

I have to admitt this is getting a little tedious. It would seem that the majority of people discussing this particular issue are becoming more and more distant from the original question. Maybe some of you have made this conversation your own personal religion. Maybe this is more important to you than the real world in which what we say will actually make a difference. The problem seems to be that this isn't actually an arguement. In an arguement people listen to the point of view of others and come to an agreement. ( maybe we can all just agree to disagree and stop wasting so much time eh??)

Just think if you put as much time and energy into something worthwhile like raising money for starving children or swatting TB infested mosquitos or making sure George Bush doesn't get elected for example you may actually feal as though your time is spent doing something remotely usefull.

At the end of the day it would seem that most people using this forum are so narrow minded that no amount of discusion will conclude this debate and as usual people are resorting to the name calling and irritation that usually follows a pointless arguement.

Let me tell you one thing that no one will be able to tell me is incorrect. (bold statement but none the less I'll give it a go)

The theological world can not prove that there is a God. The Scientific world can not prove that there is not a God. The only credible statements regarding God must either start or end with a "Maybe"!!!

Monkey Boy - cannot disagree with your final para, of course!

Personally I am satisfied with my side of the argument, as I am sure Colonel Sellers is with his! I'm still here to try and clear up some minor points I raised a while back - points neither enormously for or against the article...I think...it's been so long now...to argue against the article to any extent would take forever!

Colonel S:

Think your argument re. Acts is a little weak, but never mind - have you looked up the dictionary meanings of the words yet? Surely that must answer the question. Since 'disciple' means 'follower', anyone who believed in Jesus when he was alive can be called one, and so there's no harm in Andrew being called a disciple in John and an apostle in Mark. He is both. So are all the 12. But only they. Please look up the words! This is a trivial point! Let's lose it!

You didn't reply to my earlier question, so I'll repeat it: If, as you say, and I agree, the editor of John is claiming apostolic authorship for his gospel, did you mean authorship by someone there at the time or did you mean specifically an apostle (because you now don't seem to know what an apostle is) or did you mean specifically one of the 12?

One more thing - slightly concerned about your 'conclusion that Jesus didn't exist' bit a couple of posts ago. So are you saying you believe he didn't exist, or that you can't say for sure he did? Because if the former is true, you're asking people to disbelieve Christianity and believe instead arguments based on things you don't believe to be true...how can you say Jesus had an affair with Mary M. if you believe Jesus didn't exist?

I use the New Jerusalem (are you using the Jerome?) when reading it in English...

As an atheist, Monkey Boy, I can tell you that you are incorrect. When one makes fantastic claims that defy reason, one has an obligation to provide evidence to back oneself up. In a total vacuum of evidence, the only reasonable conclusion is that the claimant is wrong. To prove the non-existence of a deity is a foolish pursuit, and one not worth undertaking. If the believer cannot provide even reasonable evidence, there is absolutely no reason to believe. "Maybe" is not an answer at all. Otherwise, you can say that we cannot know if the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Boogie Man, etc. exist or not. I prefer to live in a world unpopulated by ghosts and psychic powers, since it is the only world that can be proven to exist.

One wonders why one has argued so fervently over such a trivial point...

I am saying that the evidence suggest that Jesus never existed, and never did the things credited to him in the Bible. The absolute silence of respectable sources who cannot have failed to notice him personally, to say nothing of the darkening of the sky, the earthquakes, etc., suggest that he is a myth and a fabrication who was placed into a specific historical context. This context isn't helped, however, when the two tales of his birth cannot be placed closer than ten years apart.

However, if Jesus *did* exist, then the testimonies about him paint a picture so radically different from the traditional view that it must be disseminated. If Jesus existed, then he had an affair with one Mary Magdalene. If he had an affair with Mary Magdalene, the preachers are lying. If he existed, he was a rabbi, and not a carpenter. If he existed, he was a radical zealot, and not the peacemaker of tradition. If he existed, there is still no reason to believe he rose from the dead. If he existed...

You see... all the most damning arguments can be made without involving Josephus.

Actually, CS, even the non-fantastic universe of pure reason cannot be said to exist either, it can only be said that it tends to exist. This is due to a little conundrum with quantum theory, which demonstrates rather dramatically that reality is shaped by interaction with an observer (although what constitutes an observer remains somewhat fuzzy). Not that it matters at all, I just thought your blanket dismissal of 'ghosts and psychic powers' looped into a discussion of whether Christian orthodox theory was plausible seemed a bit sloppy, indicating a fideist determination to reject any sort of notion that does not integrate with what you know to be possible. Not that I am concerned with the notion of proving that ghosts are real or anything, but unless you have grappled with string theory, relativity, quantum uncertainty, chaos theory, and a host of other mind bending ontological puzzles, (and many smart people have done so, and failed) then I would point out that you really haven't the slightest damn clue what might be possible or not. Reject Christianity because of its stupidity, contradictions, and inherent uselessness, not because you know better than anyone else what's 'real' or 'not real'... because otherwise you are overstepping yourself. Oh look, I guess I'm playing Devil's advocate now.

What kind of crap is that? How can I be incorrect? The only statement I made is completely and utterly correct!!!!.
I have little understanding of why you spend so much time arguing about a God that you don't believe exists.

PS. Nice to tussle with you again GB.

I'm probably gonna regret making a comment here, but here goes...

... it seems to me that the compilation of the old and new testaments was such that it is impossible to reach any reliable conclusion about whether Jesus existed.

Perhaps you can say it is astonishing that people try to form a reliable basis for their beliefs on a scripture which, at the very least, has been so contaminated by human hands there's no way to discern which bits, if any, you could rely on.

The truth is out there somewhere, I guess.