You were arguing that since the earliest manuscripts that describe the historical figure of Jesus are not coeval, that brings doubt into their reliability. Is that correct?
Without a doubt, I do think that the Gospel of John and Revelations takes a huge hit in reliability. And if Luke and Matthew just copied from Mark, why even bother reading their works? And if Mark and the rest of the authors got all their quotes of Jesus from the ‘Q’… why don’t Catholics study that? I’d be extremely surprised if 10% of Catholics knew that the authors of the gospels more than likely never even met Jesus… and these authors got all their quotes of Jesus from the ‘Q’. Wish I could see a copy of that!
However, as I’ve pointed out that most ancient historical figures have very little (usually zilch, actually!!) coeval writings. If you doubt the reliability of Scripture, then you also must doubt the reliability of the writings about Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, King Nebuchadnezzar, etc etc etc
The thing is… it’s just common sense that writings closer to the source will be more accurate. If Paul and the ‘Q’ are the closest thing we have to the REAL Jesus… then why not put more emphasis on those works than John & Revelations?? Just because the CC said so?!? Get real.
[SIGN]In fact, the Bible is the most reliable of historical texts that we have. [/SIGN]
Perhaps you’ve got a point there. I’ve been meaning to read the Bible from front to back as a story, to gain a little historical knowledge and perhaps some nuggets pertaining to morals.
Now, to the divinity of Christ:
Not at all. What you are saying is very Catholic! There
is no one that is good except God alone. And, indeed, ALL men are divine–we are by grace what he is by nature.
Right… so what makes Jesus so different from each and every other child of God??
You were arguing that since the earliest manuscripts that describe the historical figure of Jesus are not coeval, that brings doubt into their reliability. Is that correct?
Without a doubt, I do think that the Gospel of John and Revelations takes a huge hit in reliability. And if Luke and Matthew just copied from Mark, why even bother reading their works? And if Mark and the rest of the authors got all their quotes of Jesus from the ‘Q’… why don’t Catholics study that? I’d be extremely surprised if 10% of Catholics knew that the authors of the gospels more than likely never even met Jesus… and these authors got all their quotes of Jesus from the ‘Q’. Wish I could see a copy of that!
As I asked on the other thread: why in the world would these authors have lied about Jesus? What benefit did it provide to them to lie? What they received was torture, horrible death and martyrdom, yet they went to these horrific deaths with smiles on their faces, singing the psalms and praising God.
Why in the world would anyone endure a horrifying persecution for a LIE? :whacky:
Nobody’s saying they lied. But I am saying that they just didn’t know. They didn’t know Jesus personally. It’d be very similar to listening to one of my Grandfather’s stories… they change all the time, and he’s one person. He’s not lying, but his memory gets hazy and some parts of the story change. Imagine my grandfather telling a story to two other grandfathers… and then those grandfathers each tell three other grandfathers… do you know how many different versions of the story there would be?? There was a lot, apparently… didn’t somebody say there were HUNDREDS of biblical narratives? Versus, what? … like 4 secular works? … of which the only one mentioning Christ (“the annointed one”) by name has long believed to have been forged??
Again, Aquinas argues that if this “myth” of Jesus being God did not really happen, then the greater miracle is this: [SIGN]there could not be a greater miracle than that the whole world should have been converted without miracles! [/SIGN]
Perhaps… but the whole world has not converted, nor will the whole world EVER convert.
***You know this based on what writings about God? ***
It’s deep inside me. I just know it. Don’t need to read that.
They seem confusing
I think you are resurrecting Arianism? Why not read about Arianism or the council of Nicaea (325) ?
Interesting concept this Arianism. There is a lot about the foundation of the Catholic Church that I do not know about but would like to. Knowing that the authors of the gospels were not actually the Apostles that followed Jesus is very interesting. Knowing that these others got their information from the ‘Q’ is also interesting.
Now I need to research more about the Council of Nicaea, but at quick glance… it is interesting that the focus of the Council of Nicea was the divinity of Jesus. And not every bishop back then believed Jesus to be anymore the son of God than the rest of God’s children… Who called that meeting together? Emperor Constantine. Who condemned Arius’ doctrine? Constantine, again! Who exiled those who refused to accept the Nicene Creed, or even condemn those who did not accept the Nicene Creed? You got it – Constantine!! Who ordered the
Thalia, the book in which Arius had expressed his teachings, to be burned? You’re on a roll – Constantine!!
And after all that… what does his son turn out to be? An Arian. Go figure.
But I feel like if people only three centuries away from Jesus were arguing over his divinity… then surely God could not expect people TWENTY centuries away from Jesus to have faith in his divinity??
I was just hoping anybody else could give me a history lesson on Paul, for starters… and what he wrote about.
I’d never heard that before, but it makes sense if he was turning water into wine when only a child.