rosborne979 wrote:Wolf_ODonnell wrote:rosborne979 wrote:neologist wrote:So would you settle for a definition of the bible canon as the generally accepted list of authorized books?
That works for me. Who "authorizes" the books? Is that the Pope? Or scholars in general?
No idea, but according to a Focus UK Magazine article on "the Da Vinci Code", the selection process for the Gospels began well before Constantine (the claim in Da Vinci Code being that it began with Constantine).
In 150AD, what is now Modern Turkey, Marcion of Sinope had proposed a single, definitive 'canon' of scriptures. Around 180AD, Irenaeus of Lyon insisted on the centrality of the four Gospels.
During the 4th Century, bitter arguments raged over the nature of Christ's divinity: was he the divine Son of God who became human, or was he simultaneously divine and human?
The latter was decreed in 367AD to be the case by Bishop Ahtanasius of Alexandria and all but the 27 books of the present NT were labelled heretical.
Sounds like total chaos to me.
Old men from hundreds of years ago, arguing over tattered tablets from thousands of years ago, interpreting different languages and saying only what the power elite of the time approve of saying. All with narry a shred of physical evidence against which to validate anything.
A giant multi-generational cluster f**k.
Lots of assumptions from you:
the men were old (how old is old, anyway?)
they used 'tablets' (they were most likely working from scrolls)
the 'tablets' (texts) were tattered
the 'tablets' (texts) were thousands of years old
they needed to interpret a different (unfamiliar?) language
they were not free to say what they thought
they had no physical evidence (of what? are the texts not physical evidence? isn't that what they are trying to determine --what the texts say?)
Yep, lots of assumptions from you. Any physical evidence to back up any of your assumptions?
real life wrote:
Lots of assumptions from you:
the men were old (how old is old, anyway?)
they used 'tablets' (they were most likely working from scrolls)
the 'tablets' (texts) were tattered
the 'tablets' (texts) were thousands of years old
they needed to interpret a different (unfamiliar?) language
they were not free to say what they thought
they had no physical evidence (of what? are the texts not physical evidence? isn't that what they are trying to determine --what the texts say?)
Yep, lots of assumptions from you. Any physical evidence to back up any of your assumptions?
Any physical evidence to refute them? Any evidence
at all to refute them?
You don't think that some of the texts came from tablets? You don't think that some of the tablets were less than complete (tattered)? You don't think that some errors were made in the translations over the years? You don't think that anyone bowed to political pressure in assigning meaning to things?
Is pedantic simplicity all you're going to stand on to make your arguments?
Some of the history is true, some of it is false, with no real way to validate which is which. All we have is a preponderance of scholars connecting the dots between scraps of historical record. Just how much of theological history is agreed upon by those who claim to be experts?
material girl wrote:Jesus dies VERY young seeing as people from those days lived for hundreds of year!!
Nobody lives for hundreds of years. And if a document says someone lived for hundreds of years, then we know the document is wrong. Because we already know that people don't live for hundreds of years.
CoastalRat wrote:Thanks TSA.
As to why they may have used Aloes, the sap from the plants is bitter tasting and tends to keep animals and insects from eating the plant. So it would make sense for people back then to use aloe in the burial process for preservation of the body.
The problem is that nobody used aloes in that time. Even the disciples were not buried with aloes.
Also, if Jesus really was as tired as you said he was, he shouldn't have survived that long. What was it? Three hours? Six hours?
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:CoastalRat wrote:Thanks TSA.
As to why they may have used Aloes, the sap from the plants is bitter tasting and tends to keep animals and insects from eating the plant. So it would make sense for people back then to use aloe in the burial process for preservation of the body.
The problem is that nobody used aloes in that time. Even the disciples were not buried with aloes.
Also, if Jesus really was as tired as you said he was, he shouldn't have survived that long. What was it? Three hours? Six hours?
Wolf, what source do you use to back up the assertion that aloes were never used? I'd be very interested in checking it out.
As far as how long Jesus survived, who are either you or I to determine how long a person can survive a particular ordeal? The question was asked as to why Jesus died so quickly. I have simply provided a reasonable thought as to why. Now you think he shouldn't have survived that long and quite frankly, that is impossible to answer. That is like asking why my frail, sickly, great-grandmother managed to survive into her 90th year when by all accounts she should have died years earlier. Medical people are really good at saying what killed someone, but don't ask them how people often have the fortitude to live longer than could be reasonably expected given one's medical condition.
Of course, I could give you the strict Christian explanation, but I know that will be shrugged off, thus I have tried to give an explanation to the asked question that would seem reasonable to a non-Christian, since that seems to be the position of the person who asked.
Have a good day.
The First Century was a pretty stressful period for the Jews, a people at the time both an ideologic geopolitical entity and a theologically defined faith-based community. Pressured from within by dissidents, reformers, traditionalists, progressives, liberals and conservatives, the Jewish faith was undergoing a period of theophilosophic turmoil, while pressured from without, by Roman occupation and administration, the Jewish state faced the specter of dissolution and actual destruction. For the Jews, the times indeed were apocalyptic, engendering, due to the teachings of the by-then essentially fully assembled, and deeply revered, canon of text foundational to the faith, increasingly desperate messianic hopes and expectations.
Divergent sects and cults were common, even rampant, some more influential than others, some involving no more than a few individuals endorsing one or another point of view espoused by some particular "prophet" or "Holy Man", others comprising major, well-organized theoplolitical movements; it is from this period we get our term "Zealots". Something to consider is that, in effect, Pontius Pilate's office amounted to heading the Jerusalem-based Roman peacekeeping force stationed in the region now known as "The Middle East". The sociopolitical climate was nothing short of open insurgency.
Among these divergent sects was one, or more likely some which coallesced into one, which became known as Christianity. While certainly extant, in one form or another, by the latter half of the 1st Century, Christianity had, apart from the then commonly accepted texts now known as The Old Testament, inherited from Christianity's progenitor, Judaism, nought but oral tradition, no organized, structural written canon of its own.
A convert to the Christian sect, Saul of Tarsus (a locale in what now is Turkey), a Hellenistic Jew and former Roman military officer originally tasked with putting down the rebels he for whatever reason joined, apparently quickly developed a leadership position within the sect he embraced. It is not at all surprising, in fact is to be expected - that an experienced military officer would endeavor to impose order, structure, and orthodoxy upon any enterprise in which he might engage. Precisely that is what Saul, adopting within the sect over which he in effect took command the name Paul, proceeded to do.
The first distinctly Christian writings to be found are those of Paul, in the form of letters comprising guidance, instructions, even directives to nascent subordinate organizational entities within the sect. Absent from the writings commonly accepted to be unambiguously attributed to Paul directly is any mention of, let alone appeal to the authority of, the writings of those works we now term "The Gospels"; the evidence permits us to conclude only that at the time Paul was writing, ca. 44-45 CE - 58-59 CE, those documents did not exist, or at the very least, and at best highly unlikely circumstance had they existed, were not broadly known to the then-small and tightly-knit Christian community.
It does appear those purported to be the Gospel writers themselves were known to Paul, and he to them, though that which is accepted to be the earliest of the Gospels, Mark, does not mention Paul. Interesting are the many disagreements of the writings of the Gospels with those of Paul, but that matter is something best for another discussion.
In any event, the preponderance of evidence leads to the commonly accepted conclusion that the earliest of the Gospels to be fully formed and codified is that of Mark. It further is commonly accepted that the Gospels of Matthew, then Luke, followed next in order, both heavily influenced by and clearly drawing from Mark's Gospel, with John's Gospel being the last to appear. The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke are known as the "Synoptic Gospels" - synoptic from the Greek, literally "of one eye" - for their remarkablycongruent point of view, structure, and style; Matthew and Luke generally are assumed to have drawn heavilly on Mark, and all 3 appear to have drawn to varying extent on yet another source or sources now lost to history. The most commonly postulated - actually, generally accepted as having existed - missing common source is referred to as "Q", from "quelle, "the German word for "source", with other potential candidates open to relativey broad, diverse, and sometimes contentious discussion.
All that said, indisputably it was Paul's effort and influence which brought about what today is Christianity. Whatever Christianity was prior to Paul, what it now is can be traced nowhere else than to Paul. While little or nothing can be said with certainty concerning the origins of the Gospels, it is evident they, most if not all of that attributed to Paul, and essentially the entirety of the remainder of what now is known as the New Testament was pretty much formed and widely accepted by the middle of the 2cd Century, though it was not untill the first half of the 4th Century that an accepted, authoritative canon was institutionalized, via Constantine's Nicean Councils. The resultant decisions and pronouncements cemented Christianity, irrevocably forming it to the Pauline vision, in which guise it has been conserved and passed down to our time over more than a millenium and a half.
CoastalRat wrote:Wolf, what source do you use to back up the assertion that aloes were never used? I'd be very interested in checking it out.
Heck, forget that assertion.
Burial
I've found that no one was meant to touch the body, let alone bring aloes to it. That kinda makes the account in the Bible, rather strange. However, I know very well what you think of that. There needs to be more proof and I shall go off to find some more.
CR, nothing was meant. I was just pointing out that the Gospel accounts contain some rather spurious accounts. If I offended you, I apologise sincerely.
I wonder if that is to be taken literally, not to physically touch the body but one is allowed to sprinkle those things mentioned in the bible on the body, or if it is to be meant that the body is not to have anything done to it.
It should also be noted that this page calls the tomb "open and airy" when in the biblical description of it, it seems to be sealed shut with a large stone so the body could not be stolen at night to claim Jesus had arisen.
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:CoastalRat wrote:Wolf, what source do you use to back up the assertion that aloes were never used? I'd be very interested in checking it out.
Heck, forget that assertion.
Burial
I've found that no one was meant to touch the body, let alone bring aloes to it. That kinda makes the account in the Bible, rather strange. However, I know very well what you think of that. There needs to be more proof and I shall go off to find some more.
CR, nothing was meant. I was just pointing out that the Gospel accounts contain some rather spurious accounts. If I offended you, I apologise sincerely.
No offense taken Wolf. Maybe I misread your intent, and if so, I too apologise. I seldom post to this forum simply because most discussions seem to turn into bashing of people of faith. Personally, I enjoy discussions where views can be exchanged free of the snide remarks and baiting that tends to go on here. Thus I am a bit, um, what's the word I'm looking for, leery maybe, when an additional questioner jumps in such as you did.
But I'm up for continuing the discussion and will look forward to your additional proof.
tin_sword_arthur wrote:I wonder if that is to be taken literally, not to physically touch the body but one is allowed to sprinkle those things mentioned in the bible on the body, or if it is to be meant that the body is not to have anything done to it.
It should also be noted that this page calls the tomb "open and airy" when in the biblical description of it, it seems to be sealed shut with a large stone so the body could not be stolen at night to claim Jesus had arisen.
I haven't looked at the site, but quite frankly, any site describing a tomb as "open and airy" I would have to take with a grain of salt. Tombs were not "open and airy" for obvious reasons (wild animals, odor, etc).
Here is an article that does a good job of discussing some issues of the burial of Jesus. You may find it interesting. I know I did.
http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=125
real life wrote:
Now the date for Mark, which you referenced (the earliest gospel) doesn't seem to be 50 years after the crucifixion[/b] of Christ (as you had stated), but rather 50 years after His birth[/b] and easily still within the SAME generation which witnessed His death.
How does putting the author of Mark into the same generation which witnessed his death prove that the canonical gospels are first hand accounts?
J_B wrote:real life wrote:
Now the date for Mark, which you referenced (the earliest gospel) doesn't seem to be 50 years after the crucifixion[/b] of Christ (as you had stated), but rather 50 years after His birth[/b] and easily still within the SAME generation which witnessed His death.
How does putting the author of Mark into the same generation which witnessed his death prove that the canonical gospels are first hand accounts?
J_B, it does not prove that they are first hand accounts, only that you cannot rule out them being first hand accounts. I think that is Real Life's point.
CR wrote: I seldom post to this forum simply because most discussions seem to turn into bashing of people of faith.
While, IMO, "bashing", in the sense of "flaming", individual members is unacceptable - it happens, of course, but its unacceptable, and not infrequently culminates in a sort of self-engineered remedy - tearing into a member's posts is another matter entirely, and pretty much the entire point of the excersize - again, just IMO.
Anyone unable to separate oneself from one's own postings, likewise anyone unable to separate a posting from the person of the member responsible for that posting, operates at severe enough a disadvantage as to be considered functionally unqualified to participate in debate. Some folks demonstrate no ability to distinguish criticism of message from personal attack. It is one thing to say "that is a stupid thing to say", then proceed to develop and demonstrate a basis for such assessment, and entirely another to say "You're stupid" and proceed to wallow in vituperation, personal invective, and related concommitant stupidity.
To put it Biblically,
Mathew 7:20.
CoastalRat wrote:tin_sword_arthur wrote:I wonder if that is to be taken literally, not to physically touch the body but one is allowed to sprinkle those things mentioned in the bible on the body, or if it is to be meant that the body is not to have anything done to it.
It should also be noted that this page calls the tomb "open and airy" when in the biblical description of it, it seems to be sealed shut with a large stone so the body could not be stolen at night to claim Jesus had arisen.
I haven't looked at the site, but quite frankly, any site describing a tomb as "open and airy" I would have to take with a grain of salt. Tombs were not "open and airy" for obvious reasons (wild animals, odor, etc).
Here is an article that does a good job of discussing some issues of the burial of Jesus. You may find it interesting. I know I did.
http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=125
That
is a very interesting site, CR. Thanks for sharing that. I'll have to read it thoroughly later after work, when I have more time.
As far as the "open and airy" tomb comment on the other site, I'm skeptical myself, but I have not, as yet, had time to explore the rest of the site to see how credible they appear to be. From what I remember being taught as a child, this is a totally inaccurate statement, since, as I said, this would leave the tomb open for the body to be removed to give the appearence of a miraculous comeback from death. And by the accounts given in the bible, it was totally sealed, with guards posted and a stone so large it took many men to move blocking the door. I believe it was even sealed with wax and stamped with an official seal of some sort, if memory serves. It has been a while, though, so I may be wrong.
I agree Timber, to some extent at least. But quite frankly, I don't hold the beliefs or opinions or whatever you want to call it of others as being stupid. And once members begin saying things such as "that's a stupid thing to say", it is simply belittling and has no place in any intelligent discussion. I would rather use proof to show what is said is stupid without coming out and voicing it.
Now mind you, it doesn't really bother me on a personal level (I'm much too old for that), but it takes away from the experience of being able to discuss things in an intelligent manner with those who hold differing opinions.
Thus I choose to stay away from religious discussions for the most part.
tin_sword_arthur wrote:
That is a very interesting site, CR. Thanks for sharing that. I'll have to read it thoroughly later after work, when I have more time.
As far as the "open and airy" tomb comment on the other site, I'm skeptical myself, but I have not, as yet, had time to explore the rest of the site to see how credible they appear to be. From what I remember being taught as a child, this is a totally inaccurate statement, since, as I said, this would leave the tomb open for the body to be removed to give the appearence of a miraculous comeback from death. And by the accounts given in the bible, it was totally sealed, with guards posted and a stone so large it took many men to move blocking the door. I believe it was even sealed with wax and stamped with an official seal of some sort, if memory serves. It has been a while, though, so I may be wrong.
I recently came across that, and although it is written with the ultimate purpose of trying to discredit the resurrection of Jesus, I still found it an interesting read and some good info regarding Jewish burial info during the 1st century.
CoastalRat wrote:tin_sword_arthur wrote:
That is a very interesting site, CR. Thanks for sharing that. I'll have to read it thoroughly later after work, when I have more time.
As far as the "open and airy" tomb comment on the other site, I'm skeptical myself, but I have not, as yet, had time to explore the rest of the site to see how credible they appear to be. From what I remember being taught as a child, this is a totally inaccurate statement, since, as I said, this would leave the tomb open for the body to be removed to give the appearence of a miraculous comeback from death. And by the accounts given in the bible, it was totally sealed, with guards posted and a stone so large it took many men to move blocking the door. I believe it was even sealed with wax and stamped with an official seal of some sort, if memory serves. It has been a while, though, so I may be wrong.
I recently came across that, and although it is written with the ultimate purpose of trying to discredit the resurrection of Jesus, I still found it an interesting read and some good info regarding Jewish burial info during the 1st century.
I guess you are a religious man by your posts (I know, dizzying leap of logic there). Although I am not a believer myself, I am interested in the history behind Christianity and it's lore and every little bit helps. I don't believe, but I do like to understand. Thanks again.
tin_sword_arthur wrote:I guess you are a religious man by your posts (I know, dizzying leap of logic there). Although I am not a believer myself, I am interested in the history behind Christianity and it's lore and every little bit helps. I don't believe, but I do like to understand. Thanks again.
I am. And I had surmised that you were not a believer (and yet we still managed somehow to avoid denigrating one another....amazing!)
Knowledge is always a good thing. No matter which side of the fence your opinions or beliefs happen to reside. :wink:
rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:
Lots of assumptions from you:
the men were old (how old is old, anyway?)
they used 'tablets' (they were most likely working from scrolls)
the 'tablets' (texts) were tattered
the 'tablets' (texts) were thousands of years old
they needed to interpret a different (unfamiliar?) language
they were not free to say what they thought
they had no physical evidence (of what? are the texts not physical evidence? isn't that what they are trying to determine --what the texts say?)
Yep, lots of assumptions from you. Any physical evidence to back up any of your assumptions?
Any physical evidence to refute them? Any evidence
at all to refute them?
You don't think that some of the texts came from tablets? You don't think that some of the tablets were less than complete (tattered)? You don't think that some errors were made in the translations over the years? You don't think that anyone bowed to political pressure in assigning meaning to things?
Is pedantic simplicity all you're going to stand on to make your arguments?
Some of the history is true, some of it is false, with no real way to validate which is which. All we have is a preponderance of scholars connecting the dots between scraps of historical record. Just how much of theological history is agreed upon by those who claim to be experts?
We're talking about the assembling of the New Testament, right?
No, I don't think any of it was written on tablets. Scrolls of various kinds were what was used. (even the Old Testament which had been completed many years prior would not have typically been read from tablets by this date)
No, I don't think tattered, incomplete scrolls were used either. The NT documents had been copied and disseminated throughout much of Europe, northern Africa and western Asia and there were many copies to choose from. They were not limited to a few remaining scraps.
By and large, nearly all of the surviving manuscripts of the NT texts (and there are thousands. You asked about physical evidence.) that we have today agree when you examine the text. Yes, occasionally this copy or that (of the thousands of ancient copies, some are complete NTs, some comprising several books, some having just parts of some books, some very small portions) does contain a spelling error, an omitted or added word or phrase, but the overwhelming majority agree and thus provide a safeguard against copyist error.
Ecclesiastical politics were probably prevalent years ago as they are now. It is one of the chief reasons why textual work by one, or a small group of scholars is not considered as safe as that undertaken by a larger group. Even today, newer versions or 'translations' produced by a small group or by a sect are almost invariably unreliable. The 'chaos' that you refer to is really one of several safeguards against political pressure.
But the assembling of the NT canon was not 'thousands' of years after the production of the books. It was actually a much shorter period.
The canon is less a pronouncement by 'powers that be' that it was a recognition of the acceptance that some books received (and others did not) by the church at large. Books that individuals and congregations used and considered genuine due to their historical attestation by succeeding generations of believers who used the text and in many cases suffered for their faith, knowing the origin of the book, were given a positive attestation by the bishops who oversaw local congregations.
The position of the bishop then was much different from the position as it is generally known today. Bishops were often men who had personally suffered and endured for the faith, or were trained by those who had, and they were representatives of the congregations. This also was another safeguard against ecclesiastical politics triumphing over spiritual considerations.
A bishop who had looked persecution or death in the face for the sake of his faith wasn't likely to waffle in a popularity contest by compromising the scripture he had upheld.
This seem's more than a tad disingenuous. The first printed bibles (thus widely available) did not exist until 1516. Are you suggesting that there were an abundance of hand-written copies in the time of nicea 1?
There is one copy from that time, the Codex Sinaiticus...
Oddly enough it contains an epistle later omitted. (attributed to the apostle barnabas)
This is also the oldest known copy of the 4 gospels. Mid 4th century.
