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

<>

"The bible", eh? "Put together"? What a vague statement.

You see, a lot of the bible - the OT - was definitely written long before Jesus was born. The NT was certainly written a few decades after Jesus' death and resurrection (or the disciples' cognitive dissonance).

There's not really any good reason to suspect that Jesus didn't exist. It's just a notion plucked out of the air, and doesn't help us get at the truth.

"He's saying they met him but were deluded that he rose from the dead, which is harder to counter."

Is that why, despite blathering on at length, you haven't actually bothered to try to counter?

SoRB

I don't think I've been blathering on. I'm still having to deal with people coming out with stuff such as "there's reason to suspect Jesus was a composite" when there's not the least reason to.

However I do appreciate that you, Sorb, are not doing this.

I've stated that I don't think the disciples were insincere, or deliberately lying. This clearly won't wash. Your cognitive dissonance idea is a better suggestion. I'll need to think about how to answer it rather than just shooting back any old answer.

"I'll need to think about how to answer it rather than just shooting back any old answer."

Fair enough.

I have to say I'm surprised that apparently
(a) you've never considered the possibility before and
(b) presumably nobody else has suggested it to you before.

To me, it seems obvious.

SoRB

I suppose the thing is I don't usually go around talking about stuff like this, funnily enough. People tend to talk more about the weather, football, what's on TV, the price of fish. Most people usually avoid heavy conversations, actually!

When you do talk about Jesus people say stuff like "Oh, he probably never lived."

It's refreshing to get past the usual objections and reach a proper one!

Mia, I think you'd enjoy reading a very strange book I recently found on our shelves: http://books-by-isbn.com/1-85274-028-0.

TRiG.

Can I just butt in and give my opinion, as I don't have time to read the whole thread.
To me, who's been raised a secular jew, there's very little that's new in Jesus' teachings. And since he was a jew as well, it's hard for me to see how the resurrection from the dead could come upon him at all- jews believe the dead are dead are dead. There may be folk stories about angels and the likes, or a prophet or 2 performing miracles, but in general the whole fairytale stuff stops when you snuff it. According to the New Testament Jesus was handed over to the Romans for claiming to be the Son of God, a death-worthy offence in itself. Since God didn't do what he was supposed to and let him live, apparently, and the Romans weren't fond of him either, it was mutually benefitial to get rid of him, I suppose. But being a good jewish boy, as were the apostles, I assume, it's impossible for him to rise from the dead. End of. In Judaism- once you're gone, you're gone.

Here's something to contemplate...

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Mystery-Astonishing-Clues-Identities/dp/1599211483/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-3732850-3355126?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182763858&sr=8-1

>>>It's refreshing to get past the usual objections and reach a proper one!


And indeed, that's what I have been saying too.

I'm willing to accept that he may have lived. (Many people after all, have)
I'm willing to accept that he may have had a last supper before he died. (Many people, after all, eat with friends)
I'm willing to accept that he may have been crucified. (Many people at that time were - see the story of Spartacus for example)

It's the resurrection bit that I find unbelievable. For a rational person to believe it, a convincing argument should be necessary. None has ever been offered. We're simply told to accept it.

If somebody were to tell me that there was a golden unicorn flying my city around reciting verses of the Koran in Tagalog, and I was to ask him why should I believe it, and he then said back to me - I can't give you proof, you just must believe it, and if I accepted this, I can only think of one thing that I should be called - gullable.

Originally there was no concept of an afterlife or resurrection in Judaism. However, the Psalms prophecying about the Messiah state "You will not let your annointed one see decay" and the prophet Daniel also has a vision of the dead rising from the grave.

By the time of Jesus there is a dispute between the Pharisees (who believed in resurrection and an afterlife) and the Saducees (who rejected it).

Gif

Hi WG,

It seems this debate hinges to a large part on how much trust we can place in the NT documents, so let me be a little clearer on this whole Mark's Gospel thing.

The earliest complete manuscripts of Mark we have - the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus - stop with the finding of the empty tomb. Current versions contain all that *and also* describe a risen Jesus meeting and talking to his disciples. Therefore the current versions are plainly not 'faithful to the originals'. They have been altered. Worse, they have been altered at exactly the point where you say your reliance on them is most essential to your faith. And they have been altered in exactly the way you are describing as 'a bare-faced lie' - 'evidence' has been added claiming eyewitness accounts that never happened.

I'm not talking about fragments, or about a page being torn off from the end. Someone has added a resurection story to Mark's gospel after it was written.

In fact, they've written several, one of which has stuck.

Given the importance of this point, please don't take my word on it. Check it out for yourself. You can start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16 though on general principle I don't suggest you settle for a single source on anything.

If / when you agree this, we can look at how reliable the gospels are. A single error doesn't necessarily mean we must discard them entirely - but it does mean that we must be a little cautious in how much faith we put in their unsupported word. I am convinced that Mark's gospel is the earliest (with the possible exception of John), for reasons I will be happy to go into in detail once this point is established.

Gif

Indeed, I don't need to go to a website to confirm it. In my copy of the bible there is a note before verse 9 of the last chapter of Mark which states, "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20".

I would for now just point out that Mark's gospel nowhere purports to be an eye-witness account.

Hi WG

(First, sorry some of my posts have been a little abrupt - I'm trying to post during breaks from work, not trying to be rude!)

OK, so far so good. I assume that means you are prepared to accept that the gospels as we have them now do not, in fact, faithfully follow the gospels as originally written. (Let me know if that's not true.)

Would you also accept that 'Matthew' and 'Luke' copied sections of their gospels from 'Mark'? Again, I think the reasoning is pretty solid, so I'll go through it with you if you disagree.

Gif

Yes, that's true too.

There are two conclusions to Mark in the New World Translation. Both are inserted as notes, not in the main body of the text. The long conclusion (vss. 9-20) is given first, taken from the Codex Alexandrinus of the fifth cent., Vatican Manuscript 1209 of the fourth cent., and Codex Ephraemi rescriptus of the fifth cent. This is followed by the short conclusion (not divided into verses).

The long conclusion is found also in the Jerome's Vulgate, c. 400 C.E., the Curetonian Syriac of the fifth cent., and the Syriac Peshitta of the fifth cent.

A note is also given that Manuscript L 019 (Codex Regius of the eighth cent.) contains both long and short conclusions. It evidently does not recognise either conclusion as authoritative.

WE THEREBY DEDUCE:

These additions have never been fully accepted by the church. The manuscript was tampered with, but not to its detriment, as it was known to be an addition. (That having been said, the snake-handling sects take their motivation from Mark 16:18.)

***
It's an argument, but not a fully supported one. I don't know enough to fully support it. Take it as a suggestion, nothing more.
***

TRiG.

The main thing is, minor additions or alterations aside, the clear message which is not transmuted is that Jesus rose from the dead. Whether or not Mark is the young man who ran off in the night when Jesus was arrested I'm not sure about.

I gather the writer of Mark's gospel is John Mark, not one of the twleve disciples but an associate of Peter, and who accompanied Paul on his first missionary journey.

As for Luke who wrote the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts between A.D.60 and A.D.70, he joins the action half-way through the book of Acts where he goes from describing what Paul ('he') and the apostles ('they') did to including himself in the narrative('we').

Eg. "From Troas we put out to sea and sailed straight for Samothrace, and the next day on to Neapolis. From there we travelled to Pholoppi, a Roman colony and the leading city of that district of Macedonia. ANd we stayed there several days." Acts 16

It is clear what Luke's own view of the resurrection was from what he writes:

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands ... ... he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." When they heard abut the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject." Acts 17

So you can't get away with saying someone else changed Luke's words. And Luke, while not directly an eye-witness to the resurrection, was acquainted with those that were eye-witnesses, such as Jesus's brother James:

"When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present."