The Gnostic Texts

[KennyJC]

I wanted to come back and give a more thorough response to this thread.

Well I had been hoping you would respond to my last post, but never mind.

The first accounts of the empty tomb and the eyewitnesses are not found in the gospels, you're right - but they are found in Paul's letters, which every historian agrees were written just 15-20 years after the death of Jesus.

Just 15-20 years? A lot of chinese whispers can happen in 15-20 years, especially in ancient times with no reliable historical record. Oh, and the claims were of a religious nature - we know how much we should not trust religious literature as a source of history (see mormonism and scientology). And those writings of Paul are really sparse when it comes to Jesus. If Jesus really did do all those things we read about in the later gospels, then why did Paul not think to write about that instead of being so vague? Strong evidence that the finer details of the story of Jesus merely assembled themselves throughout years of preaching. Nothing to do with eye witnesses. If however, eye witness statements were used, then claims of flying zombies should be dismissed out of hand.

Paul indicates that Jesus appeared to 500 people at once, most of whom were still alive and could be consulted for corroboration. Paul's letter was to a church, and therefore it was a public document, written to be read aloud. He was inviting anyone who doubted to talk to the eyewitnesses if they wished, which was a bold challenge since during the pax Romana , travel around the Mediterranean was safe and easy. Paul simply would not have made that challenge if those eyewitnesses did not exist.

Or else they were simply people who had known Paul and to some extent were influenced by his message: "Ah yes, the flying zombie went that-a-way".

• Why did Christianity emerge so rapidly, and with such power?

They did a lot of traveling and preaching and came up with a new twist on old ideas as well as borrowing from tried and tested myths of other religions.

• No other band of messianic followers in that era concluded their leader was raised from the dead - why did this group do so?

Because they may have been the first to see a niche in the idea? If not for the zombie aspect to christianity, it would have probably not been successful.

• No group of Jews ever worshipped a human being as God. What led them to do it? Jews did not believe in divine men or individual resurrections. What changed their worldview overnight?

Well who knows if it was overnight or not. And if it's true that no jew believed in the divinity of men, then perhaps the new promise of accepting a zombie as their salvation proved too tempting? The people who converted much later to christianity would not have witnessed any resurrection or even had a clue who the historical Jesus was. All they knew about from Jesus was what they heard from preachers. And we all know that preachers should not be trusted.

• And how do you account for the hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrection who lived on for decades and publicly maintained their testimony, eventually giving their lives for their beliefs?

Firstly, you have no proof that people actually saw a flying zombie just as we have no proof that the many residents of Mobile, Alabama saw a leprechaun.

 

[ggazoo]

why do you choose to believe all of the above are factual and reliable eye witness testimony rather than a story that was cleverly evolved by preachers?

Well I had been hoping you would respond to my last post, but never mind.

I didn't respond because I though I had covered it. I understand the Christian faith requires belief in the Bible. This is a big stumbling block for many. There are several reasons why the Bible is factual, however. The timing is far too early for the gospels to be legends for one. As well, the content is far too counterproductive. And, the literary form of the gospels is too detailed to be legend, just to name a few.

 

[joepistole]

ggazoo there were a lot of different versions of Christianity in the first century. And there a lots of works fiction with detail. So detail is not proof of legitimacy.

 

[SnakeLord]

• No other band of messianic followers in that era concluded their leader was raised from the dead

You're forgetting mithraism.

 

[ggazoo]

And there a lots of works fiction with detail. So detail is not proof of legitimacy.

As I already said:

It's literary history in how fiction writers of the first century wrote their stories. Details of what each character did were left out unless they promoted character development or drove the plot. That's why if you read Beowulf or The Illiad, you don't see the characters noticing the rain, falling asleep with a sigh... early fiction writers simply did not include that in their narratives.

 

[Syzygys]

Is there an accepted, gold standard translation of the Gnostic texts? :shrug:

Yes, I specially like the Albanian version...

 

[KennyJC]

I didn't respond because I though I had covered it. I understand the Christian faith requires belief in the Bible. This is a big stumbling block for many. There are several reasons why the Bible is factual, however. The timing is far too early for the gospels to be legends for one. As well, the content is far too counterproductive. And, the literary form of the gospels is too detailed to be legend, just to name a few.

This weak reasoning leads you to a belief in flying zombies?

 

[ggazoo]

How did you know that blue was my favourite colour?

As for my "weak reasoning", allow me to elaborate (which I probably should have done with my last post).

The timing is far too early for the gospels to be legends for one.

In Jesus and the Eyewitness, Richard Baukham marshals much historical evidence to demonstrate that at the time of the gospels were written, many well-known eyewitness who could attest to Jesus' teaching and life events. For a highly altered, fictionalized account of an event to take place, all the eyewitness had to be long dead. The gospels were written far too soon for this to occur, making it impossible for the faith to spread as rapidly as it did. The people of Jerusalm had been there. The NT documents could not say Jesus was crucified when thousands of people were still alive who knew whether he was or not. If he had not made these claims, and these public documents claimed they happened, Christianty would have never gotten off the ground. The hearers simply would have laughed at the accounts.

As well, the content is far too counterproductive.

Many people today think that the gospels were written by leaders of the early church to promote their polices, consolidate their power, and build their movement. If that's true, then Jesus would have taken sides in early church debates. This did not happen.

And why would the leaders of the early Christian movement have mad up the story of the crucifixion if it didn't happen? Anyone who was crucified was labeled a criminal, whatever the speaker said to the contrary. Why would any Christian make up the account of Jesus asking God in the garden of Gethsemane to get out of his mission? Or why ever make up the part on the cross when Jesus cries out that God abandoned him? These things would have only offended or deeply confused fist century prospective converts. They would have concluded that Jesus was weak, and failing his god.

And again, why were women the first witnesses to the resurrection? Back then they had no social status. It would have made more sense if the first witnesses were men. Still, the word spread.

And finally, why constantly depict the apostles - the eventual leaders of the early church - as petty and jealous (ie Peter)?

And, the literary form of the gospels is too detailed to be legend, just to name a few.

I already addressed this.

 

[KennyJC]

How did you know that blue was my favourite colour?

As for my "weak reasoning", allow me to elaborate (which I probably should have done with my last post).



In Jesus and the Eyewitness, Richard Baukham marshals much historical evidence to demonstrate that at the time of the gospels were written, many well-known eyewitness who could attest to Jesus' teaching and life events. For a highly altered, fictionalized account of an event to take place, all the eyewitness had to be long dead. The gospels were written far too soon for this to occur, making it impossible for the faith to spread as rapidly as it did. The people of Jerusalm had been there. The NT documents could not say Jesus was crucified when thousands of people were still alive who knew whether he was or not. If he had not made these claims, and these public documents claimed they happened, Christianty would have never gotten off the ground. The hearers simply would have laughed at the accounts.

Well to this I'm just going to repeat what I said in a previously ignored post:

Firstly, you have no proof that people actually saw a flying zombie just as we have no proof that the many residents of Mobile, Alabama saw a leprechaun.

And why would the leaders of the early Christian movement have mad up the story of the crucifixion if it didn't happen?

I remember a BBC documentary that had an indian teenager who meditated under a tree and did not move or eat or drink for days. Anyway, at some point during the meditation, the cameras went away for a few hours. When the cameras returned, the onlookers said they saw the boy become immolated in flame. Conveniently, these miracles were always anecdotal and cameras were never there to record any of them.

Simply put... people lie. People exaggerate when they know an audience is listening. What do you think Paul was doing when he was going around preaching? You don't think he had to exaggerate even just a little?

Anyone who was crucified was labeled a criminal, whatever the speaker said to the contrary.

In the same way a suicide bomber is not committing suicide, he is becoming a martyr. As was Jesus becoming a martyr by being crucified. He was not a criminal as the christian doctrine eagerly tries to get across.

Why would any Christian make up the account of Jesus asking God in the garden of Gethsemane to get out of his mission? Or why ever make up the part on the cross when Jesus cries out that God abandoned him?

Theists get off on the fact they have a crisis of faith. They think it only makes their faith stronger when they get over this 'crisis'. Jesus having doubts only conveys the difficulty he had to endure to show that he could understand and empathize with the difficulties everyone goes through with faith. Just as he is shown in the bible to lose his tempter - it is an important part of the story that Jesus is somewhat like us.

And again, why were women the first witnesses to the resurrection? Back then they had no social status. It would have made more sense if the first witnesses were men. Still, the word spread.

I could make the same point about my video in Mobile, Alabama. Why are the witnesses to the leprechaun mostly black people in ghettos? It would have made more sense if they had been upper class white men, yet the word spread.

And finally, why constantly depict the apostles - the eventual leaders of the early church - as petty and jealous (ie Peter)?

Same thing. Every story must have morals, right? The bible gives moral lessons behind what happened with the likes of Judas and Peter.

 

[ggazoo]

You're forgetting mithraism.

Is this the same "mithraism" where some believe it was combined with Judaism to "create" Christianity?