The Gospels are Myths (and other obvious observations)

[twb1621]

I hear nothing

By the way, there is no scriptural support for the reformation or for the establishment of any Church by any man or women inependant of the Universal Catholic Church.

In fact, scripture warns of these things;

Luke CH22; 31 “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you all as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”

Matthew CH24; 4 “And Jesus answering, said to them: Take heed that no man seduce you: 5 For many will come in my name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many. 6 And you shall hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that ye be not troubled. For these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be pestilences, and famines, and earthquakes in places: 8 Now all these are the beginnings of sorrows. 9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall put you to death: and you shall be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. 10 And then shall many be scandalized: and shall betray one another: and shall hate one another. 11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many. 12 And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. 13 But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.”

Acts Ch20; 28 “Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”

Ephesians CH4; 1 “I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, 2 With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. 3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 One body (the Church) and one Spirit (Holy Spirit); as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

1 Corinthians CH1; 6 As the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you, 7 So that nothing is wanting to you in any grace, waiting for the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 8 Who also will confirm you unto the end without crime, in the day of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful: by whom you are called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.

What was it you claimed your faith as… Liberal Protestantism? Were is that supported in Scripture?

I pray that you may get beyond your hopeless search to invalidate Jesus in your attempt to justify your disbelief.

 

[humble_catholic]

Awesome find Twb. It goes to show that Olli’s blanket answers really do not hold up to scrutiny .

grantjeffrey.com/article/article1.htm

The fragments appeared to O’Callaghan to be portions of the following verses from the Gospels and Paul’s Epistles:
“For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself. . .” (Mark 4:28).
“And he saw them toiling in rowing; . . .” (Mark 6:48).
“And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar. . .” (Mark 12:17)
“And when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship. . .” (Acts 27:38).
“And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ. . .” (Romans 5:11-12).
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness. . .” (1 Timothy 3:16).
“For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer. . .” (James 1:23-24).

It appears even the dead sea scrolls contradict Ollie’s view of Jesus. Clearly the people who wrote the dead sea scrolls were referring to Jesus Christ as God and their Lord, and the dead sea scrolls are even older then the gospels.
I would suggest that he has alot more studying to do about his beliefs , but its understandable that he is a little fearfull of the truth at the beginning, but one day I think he will come back to this thread and examine the evidence with a more unbiased mind and heart as I think that many who were on the sideline about this are probably doing right now, and for that we have Ollie to thank for.

Its also teaching me to study both sides which is actually strengthening my Faith in God to
God Bless

So why do most Bible translations add the “Son of God” phrase to Mark 1:1? Why do they go with Vaticanus (along with Christian tradition) rather than Sinaiticus? Your explanation is that this is part of a Christian conspiracy to divinize someone who was only an apocalyptic preacher. But the real reason is because BOTH Sinaiticus AND Vaticanus contain the verse found in Mark 15:39, the climactic moment when the centurion says, “Truly this man was the Son of God!” And because Mark customarily uses foreshadowing and the interconnected themes throughout his gospel, scholars feel that the “Son of God” term probably belongs in 1:1, even if Sinaiticus specifically does not have it.

 

[EricFilmer]

Some Information for All Engaged in the Current Discussion

Ollimac has identified his source as Dr. Bart Ehrman. As I suspected, Ollimac has been influenced by writings stemming from the “Historical Jesus” movement. This movement among Scripture academia gained a measure of popularity in the 20th Century, and elements of it are still around.

The “Jesus of History” vs. the "Christ of Faith"
For the sake of the subject at hand, let me elaborate further for the benefit of all the readers of this thread. The idea of the Historical Jesus movement is that there is a lot of difference between the actual historical person named Jesus and the “Christ of Faith” taught in Christian doctrine. Certain scholars from both Protestant and (to a lesser degree) Catholic backgrounds jumped on board with this. Usually what you hear from these guys is that Jesus never actually claimed divinity, he never did any miracles, and gospel accounts saying otherwords were later fabrications made by Christians.

Problems with the Credibility of the Historical Jesus Movement
The problem with this approach is that there is an enormous lack of historical evidence, and conclusions are drawn from personal opinions. The proof of my statement lies in the fact that if you ask each of these scholars, “Who was Jesus?” you’ll get a wide range of different responses. Delve into the works of these people and you will see what I mean. As a matter of fact, this website has already done the work for us, listing how a bunch of these scholars specifically answer that question:
religionfacts.com/jesus/historical_jesus.htm

Exactly Who is/was Jesus? Depends on Who You Ask
In case someone doesn’t want to scan through the link, I’ll list a few of the responses here so that people can appreciate the wide degree of discrepancy between their scholarly conclusions:

Bart Ehrman: Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who expected the imminent end of the world.
(Take note of that Ollimac, Erhman called him a “prophet”, so your earlier statement that Jesus “was not a prophet” contradicts your own source material. I’m sure that when Erhman uses the term, he is not seeing Jesus as having supernatural powers, but it seems he acknowledges that the Jews considered Jesus a prophet)

Earl Doherty: Jesus was a myth. There was no historical Jesus.

(Ok, so Erhman says he existed but Doherty says he did not)

Paula Fredriksen: Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who did not present himself as the Messiah.

(Ok, so he did exist, but he did not say he was the Messiah)

Hyam Maccoby: Jesus was a Jewish messiah-figure who had no intention of starting a new religion.

(Now wait a minute, Maccoby! Fredriksen said he didn’t claim to be the Messiah, so which is it?)

Robert Funk (the founder of the Jesus Seminar): Jesus was an itinerant sage who was not apocalyptic, but taught the arrival of the Kingdom of God as both present and future.

(“Not apocalyptic?” But Erhman said he was!)

Burton Mack: Jesus was a Cynic-like Jewish teacher.

(So he’s a teacher, and not a prophet or a Messiah figure. And Jesus was cynical? Boy, that’s disheartening!)

Robert H. Stein: Jesus was the same as the “Christ of faith” - a sinless, supernatural Savior and Messiah.

(Hey Robert, did your fellow Historical Jesus proponents ostracize you for coming to this conclusion?)

Geza Vermes: Jesus was a Hasid, a Jewish holy man. He was a charismatic teacher, healer, and exorcist who believed in the soon-to-be-realized Kingdom of God.

(Ok, so now he was a Hasid)

(Source of above material in purple text: www.religionfacts.com)

If there was some sufficient historical evidence for them to work with, there would not be such a wide degree of discrepancy between their conclusions. It’s when a subject enters the realm of opinion that such diversity inevitably arises.

 

[humble_catholic]

Some Information for All Engaged in the Current Discussion

Ollimac has identified his source as Dr. Bart Ehrman. As I suspected, Ollimac has been influenced by writings stemming from the “Historical Jesus” movement. This movement among Scripture academia gained a measure of popularity in the 20th Century, and elements of it are still around.

The “Jesus of History” vs. the "Christ of Faith"
For the sake of the subject at hand, let me elaborate further for the benefit of all the readers of this thread. The idea of the Historical Jesus movement is that there is a lot of difference between the actual historical person named Jesus and the “Christ of Faith” taught in Christian doctrine. Certain scholars from both Protestant and (to a lesser degree) Catholic backgrounds jumped on board with this. Usually what you hear from these guys is that Jesus never actually claimed divinity, he never did any miracles, and gospel accounts saying otherwords were later fabrications made by Christians.

Problems with the Credibility of the Historical Jesus Movement
The problem with this approach is that there is an enormous lack of historical evidence, and conclusions are drawn from personal opinions. The proof of my statement lies in the fact that if you ask each of these scholars, “Who was Jesus?” you’ll get a wide range of different responses. Delve into the works of these people and you will see what I mean. As a matter of fact, this website has already done the work for us, listing how a bunch of these scholars specifically answer that question:
religionfacts.com/jesus/historical_jesus.htm

Exactly Who is/was Jesus? Depends on Who You Ask
In case someone doesn’t want to scan through the link, I’ll list a few of the responses here so that people can appreciate the wide degree of discrepancy between their scholarly conclusions:

Bart Ehrman: Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who expected the imminent end of the world.
(Take note of that Ollimac, Erhman called him a “prophet”, so your earlier statement that Jesus “was not a prophet” contradicts your own source material. I’m sure that when Erhman uses the term, he is not seeing Jesus as having supernatural powers, but it seems he acknowledges that the Jews considered Jesus a prophet)

Earl Doherty: Jesus was a myth. There was no historical Jesus.

(Ok, so Erhman says he existed but Doherty says he did not)

Paula Fredriksen: Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who did not present himself as the Messiah.

(Ok, so he did exist, but he did not say he was the Messiah)

Hyam Maccoby: Jesus was a Jewish messiah-figure who had no intention of starting a new religion.

(Now wait a minute, Maccoby! Fredriksen said he didn’t claim to be the Messiah, so which is it?)

Robert Funk (the founder of the Jesus Seminar): Jesus was an itinerant sage who was not apocalyptic, but taught the arrival of the Kingdom of God as both present and future.

(“Not apocalyptic?” But Erhman said he was!)

Burton Mack: Jesus was a Cynic-like Jewish teacher.

(So he’s a teacher, and not a prophet or a Messiah figure. And he was cynical? Boy, that’s disheartening!)

Robert H. Stein: Jesus was the same as the “Christ of faith” - a sinless, supernatural Savior and Messiah.

(Hey Robert, did your fellow Historical Jesus proponents ostracize you for coming to this conclusion?)

Geza Vermes: Jesus was a Hasid, a Jewish holy man. He was a charismatic teacher, healer, and exorcist who believed in the soon-to-be-realized Kingdom of God.

(Ok, so now he was a Hasid)

(Source of above material in purple text: www.religionfacts.com)

If there was some sufficient historical evidence for them to work with, there would not be such a wide degree of discrepancy between their conclusions. It’s when a subject enters the realm of opinion that such diversity inevitably arises.

Now wonder why mainstream historians dont take these guys seriously, Just reading about how they contradict each other is enough to give me a headache:shrug:

 

[Donald_W]

The only problem( and it is a biggie) with your argument is that the real evidence is invisible to you.
How do I explain facts like my Visions and Experiences(rather that be seeing Jesus person to person or talking to Saint Mary or Saint Joan of Arc or which ever one I decided to share) to someone who thinks that it is all myths? What is your reply? Is it like some I have heard before: “What else did those space men say to you while you were up there” or some other blasphemous comment. I can only say to you like I told one such young fellow when he said, “it seem like you can read my mind”. I just simply threw him off and said that the bible says that no man can read minds, not bothering with him in saying that it is the Holy Spirit which reveals and not mind reading. I just simply let him go about his ways with Satan because it is like this: God does not have to prove anything to you or anyone else. Christianity requires FAITH and then maybe God will let you have some of these experiences that I am alluring to or an understanding of the Bible. And when the Holy Spirit reveals something it is as the prophets say–Wisdom you are most beautiful.
No, I do not have any formulas or theories, but you O-man, you stay in utter darkness and let the demons be your comfort.

 

[Tuno]

@Twb1621

Howdy, Stranger!

First, allow me to say that my position, though it is often mistaken as atheist, is distinctly not that. Most individuals on here appear to operate at the either/or level of analysis, so when my views don’t line up with standard religions, there seems to be room for error of interpretation. Imagine that!

Second, it is likely that we will disagree from the start, as I have no need or desire to use scripture as “proof” for my position and relegate it to a minor supportive role. Scripture is wonderful and as you know can find a lifetime inadequate for investigating its intricacies. And there are at least two largely distinguishable ways of approaching such a study: from within as one having faith and from without as a phenomenon. Both are useful , but in this case the latter is more so.

Third, I do not believe that the Gospels, despite parallels in other teachings are out-of-hand plagiarisms, even if some can make a case for that, generating furor among those who have an investment in those books being essentially historical and necessary as proof for their structure of belief. But that gets us to our question: are the Gospels mythical in nature?

To make a long story short, a series of facts and experiences left me in a state of needing more explanation as to the nature of my being than the Church could afford, despite very due diligence on my part. Sadly, I had to go outside my birth religion to discover what I needed to know–not believe in–but know. Over years of discovery, that knowledge eventually came to me in the form of a Teacher, Guide, and Friend. He was one to whom people of our own Church, some of whom you might immediately recognize, and one for certain, came for advice with impasses in faith and theology. But they were not alone. People of many faiths, from East and West visited him, and were all amazed at his ability to cut through to a core Meaning. Some were not prepared for this because they came with agendas and preconceptions and were unwilling to admit of a new perspective.* Due, I am sure, to my interior experiences, I was.

This was a man who read to us often from the Gospels and even the works of Saints. But he exposed us to much else as well, and often clarified that we were not to take him at face value, but to test his words in action and see if they fit actuality. So for over thirty years I did this and never found his way wanting. He is to this point in my life the only man I’ve ever met who completely and totally walked his talk. I would say that was because his talk was simply a description and reportage of his walk.

But all that is to say that from him I discovered that Myth, in it’s actual sense is far from being mere fabrication or fairy tale. We had some fascinating talks about this, as Mr. Joseph Campbell and such were often his guests. Myth is a tool for the exigencies and parameters of the inner journey of Self discovery. For ages, the ways and means of “know thyself” have been clothed in multi-leveled maps of experiential travel “within.” And this is where the Church falls down, and where the purpose and point of Myth has been subverted.

While the Church as we see it today is a useful example of what might be called an ascending/exoteric form of stability and change, it neglects that aspect of man that is descending/esoteric. It has accomplished this division by historicizing the significance of someone who may very well have existed, but whose intent was clothed in the protective coloration of parables. Those parables in their nature and virtue of having numerous levels of interpretation both protected the innocent and goaded the questing. We need only go to Mark 4:33;34 to see that this is an operating dynamic.

But here’s the thing. The basis of those parables was/is the ages old experiential knowledge that Man as an Idea is the image and likeness of G-d, but people in general live in practical ignorance of that. And faith in the actuality of that fact does not constitute experiential knowledge of or as that. Few knew/know the way back and forth to that other state which is the experiential proof of the Reality of Soul. And the experiential knowledge of the fact of being the image and likeness of God has been called Sonship, or being the “Son of God.” It is a state of accomplished Conscious Awareness, NOT solely/soul-ly an historic person .

The necessary leap here, which is likely incapable of being made save by someone with a particular ilk of experiential mystic insight, is to perceive that the parables of Jesus were within the parable of His very life. If myths are comparable to the Gospels, it is not because of literary shenanigans primarily, and neither is the life of Jesus purely the history of a person who we rightly regard as the Son of God. But the Son of God, as I said, is a state, not a person. And the whole point of the Mythos of the Christ and of similar heros is that there is and has been for many cultures an exemplar who can encourage us by stating “I have overcome the world!” That holds for Jesus or another Exemplar in another time and place.

This is pretty heady stuff for many and I am positive it will be dismissed out of hand by most. But if you survey the nature and sources of religions dispassionately (hah ) and factor in the great Saints and Sages of the Ages, perhaps it will be possible for a few to see through the crack in the world that there is a greater Light than is ordinarily offered in the halls of faith and dogma.

• Consciousness is Fundamental. What you are conscious of in awareness constitutes your experience. Consciousness is the Light to the awareness of ideas and thoughts. Thus, we are Conscious awareness primarily, and secondarily a person of a family, religion, nation, or world.

 

[humble_catholic]

This link best explains Bart Ehrman and it shows how he deliberatly misleads readers on a few mains issues. I studied this guy a while back, and these are good reasons why he is considered to be on the far edges of new testament academia.

This is a pretty good website from a former atheist Richard Deem who came to christianity , plus his wife is a messianic Jew.

godandscience.org/apologetics/new_testament_corruption.html

“Dr. Erhman’s bleak outlook of the text is not shared by the majority of textual critics. Daniel Wallace PhD, a fellow textual critic, is quick to point out, that, “Here (chapter 2) Erhman mixes standard text-critical information with his own interpretation, an interpretation that is by no means shared by all textual critics, nor even most of them.”18 In Misquoting Jesus and on primetime television, Dr. Erhman deceptively leads the audience to believe his questionable interpretation is how all or the great majority textual critics view the scribal process. In The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Dr. Blomberg counters that, “one of the better kept secrets”19 is “how reliable the New Testament documents are.”20 In Misquoting Jesus, Dr. Erhman never references conservative counterpoints, like Drs. Wallace or Blomberg, to his assertions, though he does consistently bring up more liberal counterpoints to make himself look more moderate.”

“Due to all of these various changes to the text, Erhman claims that there are more variants in the New Testament text than there are words in the text. Erhman has loudly proclaimed in several appearances on the television show Primetime that since there are an enormous amount of variants in the New Testament, we cannot know what the original authors meant. Daniel Wallace agrees with Erhman that there are about 400,000 variants; he goes on to say “but by itself is misleading.** Anyone who teaches NT textual criticism knows that this fact is only part of the picture and that, if left dangling in front of the reader without explanation is a distorted view. Once it is revealed that the great majority of these variants are inconsequential—involving spelling differences that cannot even be translated, articles with proper nouns, word order changes, and the like—and that only a very small minority of the variants alter the meaning of the text, the whole picture begins to come into focus. Indeed, only about 1% of the textual variants are both meaningful and viable.”23”**

This guys books are obviously for the layman , because his stuff wouldnt pass mustard with someone that has truely studied this field, and the worst part is that he knows this and deliberately tries to fool the layman. This guy has been exposed many times for this by many scholors.

 

[twb1621]

Tuno;7024462Howdy, Stranger!.

Howdy, and I trusted in your return…
Of course I can not speak as to your “facts or experiences” as you have not revealed them. Even if you did there is no certainty I could speak to them, yet no certainty I could not. Also, as I am a researcher you must be aware that as long as you withhold the identity of this person you have confidence in and speak of, an utter vagueness remains and you give no means to validate who this person is, your claims of him or his position or even its reasoning. Respectfully, That leaves the validity of your claims generally in question as well. But if you continue with any true belief in God, you would want to clarify your position at least for the purpose to share what you claim as the means to a direct experience spiritually speaking, with God, which would be God’s will. I must make a point of the fact you relate your acceptance of your mentor for lack of a better reference, to your physically meeting and interacting with him and not to writings of him alone.

I do find it interesting that you claim this is a failed area on the part of the Church when it is clear there are many recognized and unrecognized “saints” who have (without blame or abandonment of the Church or their faith in Scripture) most certainly received experiential knowledge through their own intimate relationship with God.

“descending/esoteric” reasoning as a foundation of the philosophy of some (not all) related to today’s society I find, has been strongly influenced from man’s abandonment of faith and the desire to displace any entity or position including an acknowledgement of God that might interfere with self indulgences and gratifications during this mortal life. Without this inflated disposition, there would not be the numerous diverse philosophies supported only by ideological assumptions among those weak of or totally without faith. Oh, the seeds have been there but they have been well fertilized over recent times. A massive separation between many Christians and the Church generated and developed over the last 50 years alone (this impacts both your and my lifetime) greatly influenced initially by the then rising generation in their societal pursuit of self justification and gratification substantially through sexual freedom and the rejection of moral restraints, a distorted view of what love and happiness refer to and requires, and the use of various mind altering substances by many that gave some perception of pleasure or escape to those who sought alternative solutions toward obtaining fulfillment through self sufficiency.

With the progression of time, this separation cultivated ignorance in the knowledge of God, morality and self respect as well as the significance of faith itself. With this deterioration of faith, and this is notable, we have well developed into a culture of immorality, all but totally abandoning the institutions of marriage and family values, principles of life in procreation along with the general acceptance of abortion and contraception, unwavering acceptance of divorce, social and legal acceptance of homosexuality, newly established fellowships in paganism, genocide against the unborn more commonly out of convenience preceded by promiscuity and negligence, a consistent growth in the rate of multiple murders within families and outside the family unit, and murder/suicides, all categories committed not only by adults, but children upon children. In the meantime we “legally” pursue the devaluation of life of the senior citizens within our society reducing their access to medical procedures based on age and estimated longevity or “human worth”, growing ever closer toward euthanasia.

The above underlined, my friend, is a description of our society today… The underlined is also a historical description of the Roman Empire following the Crucifixion of Christ from the rule of Caligula and for many years to follow. We therefore can relate our social conscience to that of a “Caligula Society”. Yet in spite of the mind frame of the society of Caligula, Christianity proceeded to consistently flourish as a result of the many who through first hand knowledge living in witness to the teachings and “miracles” of Christ were willing to die for the Truth they experienced and the salvation they were gifted. It took faith to accept death for eternal life, but they witnessed that life from death in Christ, otherwise they would never have left the safety of their assumed concealment to publicly preach that which they knew would lead to certain death. This growth overcame a general philosophy to fulfill human desire through self indulgences at a time when people would be horrifically martyred first for teaching, then later for believing in Christ. These men and women witnessed and accepted Jesus just as you witnessed and accepted your reference source.

continued…

 

[twb1621]

continued from previous post;

Simply related to, experiential knowledge is the root of all human knowledge regardless of the presenting source. Whether the knowledge be through first hand experience or learned from one with first hand experience successively passed on, it all originated from experiential knowledge. But it is limited to human sensory perceptions and conceptions. Man can not know what man has no knowledge of. Even when we believe we are missing something, that recognition has already been instilled in us. All knowledge over time derived from experiences.

That is not to say experiential knowledge is not possible to attain in relation to God, it most certainly is and has been since man’s beginning, hence the experiences of many of the saints for instance. But it is God who allows those experiences, not man. The Church does not hide this fact but promotes the saintly life and it is that life that brought about their “experiential knowledge” as it were. But man, generally speaking, has become to far separated from consciousness of God’s existence to allow for it’s recognition. As is said, the less cluttered mind conceives more what is beyond natural. Our modern minds are consumed with clutter. Faith, is the love and trust in God necessary for all human beings regardless of the depth of their sensory or conceptual experiences, to retain some relationship with God and accept the gift of salvation He desires for us. The parables of Jesus reflected analogies most frequently related to the environment and conditions of life at that time but were intended to relate to masses, not just individuals, and most importantly, intended to retain meaning throughout time itself. Parables were at times realized by only some while others could only be realized through personal experience. Parables were methods of teaching principles and guidelines for morality according to life as God intended for us but was spoiled by man’s discontent. Without recognition and acceptance of who Christ was/is, comprehending the message would often be lost.

Many have experienced this knowledge but none of those who retained their belief in the Inspired Word of God ever assumed to be in the category of the Son of God. In fact, they are more humbled in their nature. Understanding scripture along with the characteristics of the time AND human nature provide more evidence than philosophical assumptions. It was once believed the city of David was a myth. This is a fogged version of a preferential conception.

Do you think you would accept what you red or heard about your source of inspiration any differently than you do Jesus and scripture if this man existed 2000 years ago and your only references were relative to those of Christ? Jesus according to scripture walked the talk. The life and death of Christ has been well supported by non-Christian historians, artifacts and inscriptions found in archeological discoveries for 2000 years both in Christian and Roman scripts and inscriptions? What you found in you was in you during the time you were of the Body of Christ, but you had to go outside that body to see it. You held the Church responsible to provide what you were missing when it was always your own responsibility. Perhaps, stepping out of the box as it were? I also had to step outside the box to get where I am today but I didn’t step out for the purpose of seeking, rather to separate. But my experiential knowledge did not come from any human being’s direction, it was my personal experience on a dirt road in the mountains of West Virginia on a Sunny day in March seven years ago. And it in fact, inspired me against bias, to learn the truth. That is discovery not with dispassion, but rather divergent passion.

 

[Tuno]

Hi Twb1621,

Rather than draw things out, I’m going to use the small bit of time I have a the moment to start with an answer, trusting that intermediate answers don’t take us too far off your current letter. That is usually not possible with bright minds, but why not try.

I don’t mind whether you can speak to my “facts or experiences” or not. For me my statements are explanatory, not argumentative, with all due respect to your prodigious research capability and track record. And neither do I mind being vague about my Mentor, as he has sufficient accolades from within and without the Church, including appearing on Vatican radio, that I am quite convinced of his ability. I would be quite convinced even without such accolades by pure dint of personal experience. He has passed in any case, and I have no desire to have someone argue his perspective when actually they are dealing with mine. That said, yes, I was associated with him for nearly three decades and was present for much of the 35,000 hours of lectures and concerts he gave, transcriptions of those being the substance of his writings.

Further, I have no “true belief in God” and so do not “continue” in whatever that might be. God is a matter of belief for believers. There is a way from belief, or I would not be saying any of what I am saying. That might be the direct experience you are speaking of. Such comes by grace or by effort, the effort in the end being useless from the perspective of once having experienced. Utter frustration and giving up counts here as much as devoted faithful prayer and contemplation. That is why I say to leave believing to believers. Faith is a scaffolding until one sees. Then there is no longer need for faith; there is Knowledge. Many traditions explicate “ways” to this Knowledge. Primarily they involve exhausting the mind until the subject/object mode of ordinary awareness is stilled in its activity or becomes completely dormant. The latter is preferable. Then over time with practice there is the possibility of developing a state where one is awake in both modes simultaneously. That State is exceptionally rare. And I do not presume to “know God’s will” as our human understanding of what that is cannot apply to God.

I can only say in regards to the Church’s “failure” that it failed for me in the final stages of my inquiry. I was very active in the parish and my school, and received a wonderful, albeit religiously oriented, education. In matters of morals I find the Church to be mostly excellent, and in matters of faith to be, from this perspective, cryptic while appearing to be explicit. I say that because it is clear to me now, as far as my experience of them, that few clergy have a clue as to much of what scripture is about or what its purpose might be. Scripture is coincidentally the history many purport it to be; it has other priorities, and those are not necessarily congruent with Church teaching, either. That can be arrived at, I suppose, as some have done, but it is more directly obvious by a shift in perspective. Perhaps you have seen what are called “magic pictures?” It is kind of like that: if you change your focus to look “through” the picture, it changes from optic noise or 2D representation to a vibrant 3D image. It’s kind of like that. Except Real.

And yes, of course Saints have without blame or abandonment of their Church attained experiential knowledge. If they stayed, great. My Mentor even encouraged us to remain in the churches we came from, if we wished. I did not. And I am not in the shoes of those Saint whom I have utmost respect for. I’ve of late been reading the poetry of six of them. The beauty and insight of those transport me and I often find myself in tears or laughing uncontrollably. They are that powerful. But they are so because I can relate, not because I have faith. And as I have often said, I have nothing against faith. We all utilize it. the problem comes when we mistake it for Knowledge when we only have knowledge based on belief. But what is the underlying Reality that precedes religion of any form?

My Mentor loved St Francis of Assisi and claimed to have had several vision of him. When he visited Assisi the Brother in charge there recognized such devotion and knowledge in my Mentor that he was shown behind the scenes things that very few see. He said that the Brother never let go of his hand for the hours he was there, and it hurt when he let go his powerful grip. He read to us often from the Gospels and from the Saints. He was a man in/of Love, and it showed in his actions and then his words. So I am familiar with the Saints in the aspect of which you speak.

As to your assessment of “descending/esoteric,” much of which I agree with, why do you distribute that over me? I’ve encountered much of that, and see it around me, but that is not my story. And I am somewhat a student of the Romanesque nature of our society, which is why I am politically and socially active in my community. My two current readings on the matter are Jane Jacob’s *Dark Age Coming *and Ken Wilbur’s A Brief History of Everything. So far, I haven’t been faced with martyrdom for my way, but I do put up with a lot of abuse. C"est la vie, c’est la gere. And those people who died? I suspect, actually I’m quite sure, that many died for more than simple faith. But that is a huge topic. Here, I’m only saying about my own experience and can’t pretend to speak for, or very competently, about others.

More later; at least I got to the end of your first page. Thanks for your time in writing that. I will try to get to the next page soon.

 

[Tuno]

Your statement that “Man can not know what man has no knowledge of” has inherent in it the mode of one side of human awareness, namely the subject/object mode which is the ordinary mode of daily navigation and includes relative experience and sleeping and waking. Yet it is, itself, a form of “sleep” relative to the mode of awareness called “Recognition” or “Awakening.” This State can be fleeting or become established with practice as part of both the “normal” awake and sleep states. The nature of awareness then transmutes to what might be called “Presence.” This is possible because innately it is known that “I m more than this.” That “more than this” stems from what in Catholicism is called being “made in the Image and Likeness of God.”

And of course it is by definition God who allows this experience since the essence of Man is that Sonship described as being His Image and Likeness. And while the Church does promote the saintly life, it does so from the standpoint of an object to be attained as distinct from the discovery of an underlying Reality. But however it does it, it is not the work of the Church on someone that does the transformation, and neither is it necessarily a “holy” life that brings about recognition. It is the exhaustion of possibility in the realm of the subject/object awareness that short circuits it long enough to enable Recognition of the underlying Reality of awareness as rooted in BEing.That short-circuiting is the “less” or uncluttered mind you refer to. I give you Saul of Tarsus as an example.

So when you say that “man, generally speaking, has become to far separated from consciousness of God’s existence to allow for it’s recognition,” if you substitute “BEing” for “existence,” you have said a very accurate thing. But it is the very nature of Man’s awareness, equatable to the alleged “Fall” that is the source of this separation. What the "Fall is about might be better understood in this way.

The “love and trust in God of the faithful” is useful as a behavioral norm common with the needs of survival. Transformation, as seen in many areas of breakthrough inspiration, is a result of hard work aimed at an idea until all resources are exhausted. It is then that intuition and insight can operate on a grand scale. The parables, indeed all Myths, where “myth” is understood in its proper sense of being a psychological map of transformation, are certainly helpful analogies. And here is where the unfortunate meshugena of theories
about Christianity being a plagiarism of other myths comes from. ALL myths, parables, and allegories from the mystery traditions stem from the aforementioned underlying and common state called the Image and Likeness of God.

So it is not that Catholicism was necessarily derived from myths, it is that myths, parables and analogies are the route through the “hard wired” ways of awareness to the perception of BEing experiencible as Conscious awareness. The mystery schools did a great job of covering the higher levels of the parables, as Nicoll* delineated, and the esoteric aspect of Catholicism became necessarily hidden** as well, whether or not Jesus existed. He is no less, therefore, an Exemplar one way or another. God and the underlying Reality of the Nature of Man is not only untouched in any case, but is available to any throughout time irrespective of conditions. Is this not more commensurate with an actual God of Love?

 

[Tuno]

So saying “Without recognition and acceptance of who Christ was/is, comprehending the message would often be lost.” is a vast understatement. We are experiencing the occlusion of that Knowledge as the Faith itself. The scaffolding is being mistaken for the structure. And in the great majority of cases, that is just fine, and is likely a good thing. You can figure out why, if you are not now in a state of great reactivity. But you asked, and it is about the nature of Myth relative to the Church that this thread is about.

And that is why those who “have experienced this knowledge” and “retained their belief in the Inspired Word of God ever assumed to be in the category of the Son of God.” That would be astonishing presumption, because the title is impersonal and relative to the State, not the individual. And “they are more humbled in their nature.” Profoundly so. That is because the person is put into its rightful perspective as an instrument in a vastly more profound way than allowed for by simple faith and reason. The comprehension of the difference becomes informed by experience. The actual dynamic of existence is clarified by experiential insight and depends no longer on any faith or any assumptions, philosophical or scientific, while those can now serve as lit from within instead of being relied upon for Light. As faith and assumptions serve very well as scaffolding and perhaps a goad, the primary impetus comes from within as either great devotion or great frustration, whatever the actuality of the city of David.

I don’t know if off the top if I would accept my Mentor’s words if I found them solely in an ancient book. There is much to be said about a live Teacher, Guide and Friend. As he said, “Never accept a canned performance when you can be at one that is live!” I agree with that, as it is true that we are better informed of God through our ecstasies than through faith, dogma, and morals, and better as well by living with Saints.I was either lucky or greatly blessed by Grace in this matter. I think the latter. There is also a phenomenon I call “borrowed awareness,” and the plays large in transmission. So my references relative to Christ that I was very intimate with in my younger days were vastly expanded upon by one far more realized than I in the meaning of such Gospels. And I suppose that that is why so many from so many faiths and traditions came to him for clarification and received it.

As to the actuality of the walking and talking of Jesus, He is a profound exemplar whether He personally existed or not. It is the pattern, not the person, that is the inspiration and motivation if understood correctly. Historians and artifacts are irrelevant to this Understanding, as it doesn’t come from exterior proofs or logics, or even faith. And no one is separate from God or the Son, except that by thinking they make it appear so. What you are conscious of constitutes your experience. As for holding the Church responsible? That is impossible. I am responsible for myself and own my actions. It was simply a matter of the Church not offering information either in the form of clerics or literature that was useful guidance relevant to my experience. So I understand your discovery with passion, as mine was so as well. I never had a doubt about it; I just needed to discover a cognitive line that fit. It is in the Church, but occluded. Why would I support that occlusion? Such parts of it as are clear, as in the writings of the Saints, I revel in. Such meaning as the Gospels afford, I see and utilize. And no man can say what the Christ IS, but only point. I am only saying what pointers worked for me, and cannot presume what works for you.

*Maurice Nicoll~ The New Man: an interpretation of some of the miracles and parables of Christ.

** Harry Benjamin~Basic Self Knowledge

 

[mangy_dog]

I’m going to write a post about this article on this very site: catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0803fea1.asp I was directed to this article by LukeK, and I’d like to spend a little time explaining how it actually supports – rather than refutes – the argument that the Gospels are myths.

First, a caveat: a prerequisite to participating in this thread is that you do not advance what I call “The Matrix argument,” which I have thoroughly debunked here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=485473

If you intend to respond to this thread with something like, “Bah, evidence! You don’t even have evidence that there’s a world outside of your mind!” then I encourage you to read my other thread and respond there. Those of you who are sane – and not first-year college students in love with the premise to a so-so Keanu Reeves movie – are invited to read on.

The overview: My claim is that there is insufficient evidence to accept that the magical parts of the Jesus stories are true.

It is possible (actually, quite probable) that there was a person upon whom the Jesus stories were based, a person who was a charismatic moral teacher and who was executed for being a political rabble-rouser. Thus, I am saying that there is a good chance that Jesus “existed” in the same sense that King Arthur “existed” – that is, there probably was an historical individual who served as the basis of fantastic stories of magic. The historical figure probably existed, but there is insufficient evidence to say that any of the magical elements of the story ever happened.

But, but, I hear you all saying out there…don’t we have the Gospels??

The Gospels, you see, are documents written by anonymous non-eyewitnesses decades (at the earliest) after the supposed events occurred. There’s not a single contemporary eyewitness account of Jesus, nor a single piece of evidence that confirms any of the magical parts of the story.

On top of this, there is the additional fact that we know that eyewitness testimony is insufficient to establish claims of the supernatural: all of us reject certain supernatural claims supported only by eyewitness testimony. There are, for example, countless cases of people – people who are alive today – who claim to have been abducted by aliens or who claim to have experienced psychic phenomena. In many cases, there are mutliple people who claim to have experienced one particular abduction or psychic phenomenon.

The eyewitness testimony of these people is insufficient to accept these claims – so, obviously, anonymous non-eyewitness testimony written decades after a supposed supernatural event is insufficient to accept that the supernatural event took place.

Let’s see what the article on your website has to say about all of this. The argument really begins about halfway into the article: the article states that since the text of one of the Gospels claims that the author is reporting historical fact, “[The Gospel’s] historical content should be judged not against tales of unicorns and Easter bunnies, but against other first-century works of history and historical narrative.”

And this is fair enough – but before moving on, let’s note that the article consistently uses the term “the author” when describing whoever wrote the Gospel in question. While the article never explicitly admits that the Gospels are anonymous, its tendency to refer to the author of a particular Gospel as “the author” combined with its open admission that scholars date the Gospels from various times within the first century (and decades, at the earliest, after the supposed events) confirms that the author of this article, Carl Olson, knows and implicitly agrees with the scholarly consensus that we don’t know who wrote the Gospels.

Ancient Histories and Magic

The article says: The article then goes on to make the astonishing following claim: In the first place, no one questions that Caesar crossed the Rubicon because of the strength of the evidence we have for it, including documents written personally by the people involved (Caesar among them!) and the subsequent history of Rome, which reflects the outcome of the event.

But in the second place – and this is the truly baffling part – Olson admits that ancient histories sometimes contain magical elements (such as an apparition appearing to Caesar)…and he admits (implicitly) that no one takes the magical parts seriously…yet he still appears to be saying that we should accept the magical parts of the Jesus stories.

Yes, the fact of the matter is that ancient histories describe magical and supernatural happenings that we, today, do not accept. Read histories of other Roman emperors, Roman generals, and other charismatic leaders…you might be surprised at how much magic is ascribed to them.

These ancient cultures were steeped in superstition, and it’s not at all surprising that accounts of a great, charismatic teacher would have supernatural elements attributed to them. The article is proving my point for me here.

My dear friend,

Your thread is full of flaws - modernistic, secular, new age etc. For starters - there is no [magic] concerning Jesus the Man-God…He is divine in nature and also human. It’s called the hypostatic union. One in being with the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit.

If the exclusivity of your thread doesn’t proceed from this most basic of dogmas…then your thread might as well be in facebook.

 

[MarkInOregon]

With all due respect to faith and its exigencies, and as a former well catechized RC, it would appear that the posters on here claiming increasing evidence for the substantiality of Biblical events have created a world quite different than the one most of us, including Biblical scholars, live in. The majority of these, not having a stake in a purely Roman Catholic outcome, would appear to agree with Northrop Frye that Biblical coincidences with history are just that: coincidental. Further, that the authors of the Gospels had no intention of historicity, only of such mythology as might be useful in the transmogrification of ordinary human awareness into a state susceptible of Divinity. And that though there were individuals of accomplishment like a Jesus, He or those were not historic figures as mistakenly understood to by Christendom today in its hundreds of facets. He and they are much more likely exemplars of an ages old model of transformation polished at last by Greek influence into an alleged historic person whose popularized and therefore disempowered “teaching” in later times was politically and forcefully imposed on the Western world.

And once again, it is critical to note that in this society we equate the word “myth” with “fairy tale.” In the original sense it was no such thing. Myth/Mythos is the stuff of such psycho-spiritual maps as in the right hands can guide one to spiritual accomplishment. If the Gospels as such, and those teachings as presented by the Church “worked” for various Saints after great exhaustive diligence, it is because inherent in them is the pattern of transformation, NOT because a particular person allegedly originated them. The same goes for scholars who might have gotten “faith” as a result of studying Luke or whatever. Yeheshua at best, and gloriously!, properly utilized those parables and succeeded, and is therefor a transcendent exemplar of such teachings.

He was later saddled with singularity by decree of the Church, and thus we are robbed of the kinds of possibilities inherent in the very parables ascribed to Him as they were originally intended. So a reversion of the Church to is actual origins would be in fact of inestimable benefit to its members though there might be a temporary loss of face. But which of us has no closeted skeletons? Y’all on here have all read history. Please don’t tell me that all the Biblical themes and the sayings of Jesus didn’t pre-date Him by even thousands of years, even his very name as Iosos, and everything from a virgin birth in a manger to a resurrection.

I think you are guilty of eisegesis rather than exegesis. It would appear you are reading a particular modern worldview–a denial of the miraculous and supernatural–into scripture texts and judging the texts based on that worldview. It would appear you have attributed intent-based on your worldview–to the authors of the Gospels–that is not evident in the text. It would appear to be a worldview that says miracles such as the resurrection do not happen so the Gospels are myth --but it is circular reasoning to say that miracles or the resurrection are myth because the Gospels or the Bible are myth, and the Gospels or the Bible are myth because they contain miracle stories such as the resurrection.
The most important thing in interpreting a text is to read the text in or with the same mind or spirit as the author. You can’t try to understand the author through the eyes of your own worldview–your assumptions, beleifs, ideolgies and predudices–rather the opposite should be done–you need to look at the text and your views through the authors eyes. The author is trying to communicate something to you and your job is to receive it intact as fairly and objectively as possible–only then can you properly evaluate and respond to the text.

You call the Gospels myths. I would refer you to Kreeft and Tecelli’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics. See Chapter 8 regarding the Refutation of the Myth Theory; 6 Arguments. You will find additional sources cited there. Breifly among the arguments presented are: “1. The style of the Gospels is radically and clearly different from the style of all myths.” This is discussed and comparison is made between known mythic writing from around the time of the Gospels. “2. A second problem is that there is not enough time for myth to develop. The original demythologizers pinned their case onto a late second-century date for the writing of the Gospels; several generations have to pass before the added mythological elements can be mistakenly believed to be facts. Eyewitnesses would be around before that to discredit the new, mythic versions. We know of cases where myths and legends of miracles developed around a religious founder–for example Buddha, Lao-tzu and Muhammad. In each case, many generations passed before the myth surfaced. The dates for the writing of the Gospels have been pushed back by every empirical manuscript discovery; only abstract hypothesizing pushes the date forward…”

There is more and the text is worth reading. It would be interesting to see your refutation of their arguments.

Oh–and as you suggested to us–you also might spend a little more time studying history. We can all always benefit from that.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Tuno]

Hi MIO,

It doesn’t interest me in the least bit, except as perhaps an exercise in harmony, whether you agree with my statements or not. I have no agenda of wishing to make anyone see my way or argue them into it. That would be antithetical. But it would be good to have some clarity as to what I’m actually saying, as I have had clarity in understanding your view in that I was a diligently devoted and proselytizing Catholic at one time. The cause for my diversion from that Faith came unbidden and unceremoniously. I only did what I had to to maintain my integrity concerning it.

For example, you say that my view is an eisegetical reading through a modern worldview that denies the miraculous and supernatural. Please indicate what passages in my posts you read that would lead you to this conclusion? I’m asking because, first of all, my “worldview” is not due to an interpretation as such of Scripture nor it it attributable to an intellectual assertion. It is an exegesis of my own experience and there are elements of the Bible and other scriptures which fit, based on the standpoint of that experience. I would only note those as points of interest, not necessarily as proof. I read because of what I see, not see because of what I read. IOW, I reached my conclusion and only some time later was it brought to my attention by someone else that Scripture could be seen from a perspective congruent with what I already knew. I was recognizing a match, not extracting meaning in any assertive fashion from the text, which text has some questions surrounding it to begin with.

Second, my “worldview” is far from modern. It is notable that it has sprung up continually and spontaneously since the dawn of history and probably therefore from before. It has sprung thus independently an consistently regardless of time, place, culture, religion or lack thereof, gender, economic condition, or any other factor. This is because it is not based on faith or indoctrination, but on the spontaneous recognition that the Nature of Man is that he/she is made in the Image and Likenesss of God. So I would like to know what you read in any of my posts that indicate a modernist view.

Third, since I went on my quest for a cognitive line that fit my experience in an integral way, and my experience is informed by a series of mystical experiences and fortified by witnessing not only Life itself as a miracle, but several incidents that individually fit that category, I would like to know what you read in my posts that indicate disbelief in or denial of the miraculous.

Fourth, since much of what I treat of has to do with the Nature of God and of Soul, I would like to know what you read in my posts that indicate a lack of belief or denial of the spiritual.

As for what is evident in the texts, let us remember that most of anything we look at reflects our point of view rather than informing it. Are you, as I am, a “cradle Catholic?” If yes, perhaps you might notice that you are continuing in a way that was taught to you by your parents and Church culture. So you are viewing, if this is the case, the virtue and merit of any argument about the nature of scripture through the lens and force of habit of your particular upbringing. The exigencies of that can be dealt with, and are, on another thread.

And if you are not a “cC,” and are not one of the rarities that converted from a non Abrahamic faith, you are still within a very congruent set of beliefs. And I would wonder as well if you are simply someone who studies their faith from within, as a believer, or someone without, as a scholar. In other words, do you have a perceived spiritual stake in the outcome of an interpretation of a scripture? Perhaps you do. I did as well, to the extent that I learned Catholic theology through the Catholic school system well enough to stump priests. I am no tyro in this matter.

After my particular experience, I also applied such disciplines, in an amateur way, as comparative religious studies, phenomenology, linguistics, the nature of meaning, communications, witnessing, translation, general semantics, collections, history, the nature of schism, Middle and Far Eastern religions and philosophies, etc, etc. You may accuse me of knowing little and assuming much, but my sense is that I have done over the last 50 years some due diligence in self inquiry relative to my views and understanding.

All that is to say that I do not consider the scriptures as myth in the sense that you think I do, and I certainly am not reading the Gospels as exercises in circular reasoning. And if I am, would you please indicate where in my posts you gather that I do that?

Thus far the words of your first paragraph.

 

[Tuno]

To continue, why would you think that I would interpret text without considering the standpoint of the author? I wonder; have you ever read Mortimer J. Adler’s How to Read a Book? Or have you ever been thoroughly taught by someone who has his and other principles of critical analysis firmly in hand? Perhaps you have, and do not wish to give credit that someone of a differing perspective that yours might have done the same. Or do you think I am just playing a game of “telephone” here?

You say I am calling the Gospels “myths.” What do you think a “myth” is? Most people today take the word “myth” to be synonymous with “fairy tale” or “fantasy.” I take it to mean no such thing. My understanding of myth is more synonymous with parable. A myth, then, is a teaching tale designed to provide protection for the innocent from ideas beyond their ken, and to protect pearls from swine. To the persistent and the diligent who have eyes and ears capable of comprehension, the teaching myths and stories have the potential of psycho-spiritual maps leading to interior accomplishment in spiritual and miraculous endeavors.

As for the HCA? It is wonderful for keeping believers believers. Go for it.

From my perspective:

“1. The style of the Gospels is radically and clearly different from the style of all myths.” This is discussed and comparison is made between known mythic writing from around the time of the Gospels.

This statement violates the “non allness” idea of General Semantics. “All” myths? Then there needs as well to be an explanation of why so many stories from flood to virgin birth to resurrection and in between have analogs in other pre NT cultures on at least three continents.

“2. A second problem is that there is not enough time for myth to develop. The original demythologizers pinned their case onto a late second-century date for the writing of the Gospels; several generations have to pass before the added mythological elements can be mistakenly believed to be facts. Eyewitnesses would be around before that to discredit the new, mythic versions. We know of cases where myths and legends of miracles developed around a religious founder–for example Buddha, Lao-tzu and Muhammad. In each case, many generations passed before the myth surfaced. The dates for the writing of the Gospels have been pushed back by every empirical manuscript discovery; only abstract hypothesizing pushes the date forward…”

As noted above, the particular elements of the Jesus legend, whether He existed or not, were in place before that time and came to some extent or other by the same route as did the Jews and as did Jesus himself by the words of the Bible. You might also read the authorized and autobiographical materials fro TE Lawrence to give some fascinating perspective on this matter.

Anyway, that’s a tiny start. Thanks for your note and your interest.

 

[Marnica01]

Biblical scholars Marcus Borg, N. T. Wright, and John P. Meier have more than adequately addressed these questions about the New Testament, the Gospels, Jesus, and so on…all from a historical perspective based on massive amounts of evidence. Borg and Wright are both Protestants (Anglicans), one liberal and the other conservative. Meier is a Catholic. They each come to rather different conclusions, which is to be expected, and have even engaged each other in very interesting (and friendly) dialogs, especially Borg and Wright.

Anyone who wants to know about the historicity of Jesus and the Gospels should read and understand at least these three scholars first – they provide the basic data and rationale needed in order to begin forming your own reasoned conclusions.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Biblical scholars Marcus Borg, N. T. Wright, and John P. Meier have more than adequately addressed these questions about the New Testament, the Gospels, Jesus, and so on…all from a historical perspective based on massive amounts of evidence. Borg and Wright are both Protestants (Anglicans), one liberal and the other conservative. Meier is a Catholic. They each come to rather different conclusions, which is to be expected, and have even engaged each other in very interesting (and friendly) dialogs, especially Borg and Wright.

Anyone who wants to know about the historicity of Jesus and the Gospels should read and understand at least these three scholars first – they provide the basic data and rationale needed in order to begin forming your own reasoned conclusions.

Is there a reason I must read two Anglicans and one Catholic’s POV on this if the Holy Catholic Church has every truth in it herself?

 

[Tuno]

Now isn’t THAT an interesting question! So, what do you feel the implications are if “despite” the Church’s claim to "having " all “truth,” you are still sent to other sources?

 

[Windfish]

Is there a reason I must read two Anglicans and one Catholic’s POV on this if the Holy Catholic Church has every truth in it herself?

Well, if you happen to be an atheist or agnostic, as you seem to be, it may help you to see that the Catholic Church’s claim to authority is not unfounded.