Jesus Christ = Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?
-
Culfy — 9 years ago(December 28, 2016 11:31 AM)
See The Gospel of John in which Jesus says 'I and the father am one". It's certainly possible the gospel writer made this upbut then since the gospel writers are our only real source of what Jesus actually said or did then you can't really argue anything factual about him if you start arbitrarily rejecting bits.
1 mark deducted for not being Curse of Fenric. Insert 'The' into previous if you are Ant-Mac -
vernuf — 9 years ago(December 28, 2016 12:05 PM)
It's certainly possible the gospel writer made this upbut then since the gospel writers are our only real source of what Jesus actually said or did then you can't really argue anything factual about him if you start arbitrarily rejecting bits.
The problem is that with that as the only source, it's not arbitrarily rejecting bits. There's simply no reason to believe the writer actually was being accurate. For example, the Gospel of John is usually dated to 90-110 BC. That's sixty to eighty years after Jesus supposedly died. -
CODY_Jarrett_jr — 9 years ago(December 28, 2016 04:07 PM)
For example, the Gospel of John is usually dated to 90-110 BC. That's sixty to eighty years after Jesus supposedly died
There is evidence that the Gospel of John was likely written way before that. Most notably the lack of mention of the fulfilment of prophecy of destruction of the Jewish temple which occurred A.D. 70. -
PoisonedDragon — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 07:11 AM)
There is evidence that the Gospel of John was likely written way before that. Most notably the lack of mention of the fulfilment of prophecy of destruction of the Jewish temple which occurred A.D. 70.
Or it could be a tacit recognition on the part of the authors of GoJ that specifically mentioning such an event, even if framed as a supposed prophecy, is a dead givewaway that the text was written after the event in question.
But the Gospel of John is the last in a succession of canonical gospels, the first of which was written after 135 CE and the Bar Kochba Revolt. It follows the general narrative structure set down by the Synoptics, and its novelties were intended to comment upon them. First Mark, then Matthew, then Luke, and lastly John. Further redaction and editing of John wasn't finished until the 4th century. Sufficiently far past the destruction of Jerusalem, it would no longer be worth citing as relevant to the sectarian Johannine readership.
§«
Ȥ -
PoisonedDragon — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 07:41 AM)
PD, I'm sure you've probably provided me with something similar before, but do you have a good link about dating the gospels?
I don't have anything that will give you an overall view available as one source, no. I can link you to many different sources that discuss various pertinent issues, such as Markan priority (that Mark was first, and the other gospels copied/embellished/corrected it), or arguments that establish 135 CE as the
terminus a quo
for Mark (per Hermann Detering on the Markan SynApoc, particularly Mk.13:14). The view I expressed above relies on lots of different pieces of critical reasoning.
I'm unsure where to start.
Why I like to be late when dating the gospels (and acts)
Ȥ -
CODY_Jarrett_jr — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 07:41 AM)
Or it could be a tacit recognition on the part of the authors of GoJ that specifically mentioning such an event, even if framed as a supposed prophecy, is a dead givewaway that the text was written after the event in question
So the gospel writers, who were never shy to make a note of fullfiled prophecies right throughout their accounts just all coincidently decided to skip the rather significant destruction of the temple in order to prevent raising suspicion?.riiiiight! -
PoisonedDragon — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 07:50 AM)
So the gospel writers, who would go out of there way to make note of fullfiled prophecies right throughout their accounts just all coincidently decided to skip the rather significant destruction of the temple in order to prevent raising suspicion?.riiiiight!
We're not talking about gospel writer
s
, plural gospels; we're talking about the authors of
John
. The Johannine gospel isn't big on citing Jewish scripture in terms of prophecies Jesus supposedly fulfilled. (Of all the gospels, the Johannine has the most generalized contempt/disregard for Judaism, as well as specific Synoptic traditions, which it often flatly contradicts.) So no, talking about a prophecy regarding the Temple would not be anywhere on the list of Johannine priorities.
§«
Ȥ -
-
PoisonedDragon — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 08:05 AM)
None of the four gospels mention the fulfilment of the temple destruction. That was my point.
The Synoptics all mention it by depicting Jesus as predicting it, with variants of "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left here upon a stone, which shall not be thrown down" (Mark 13:2; Matthew 24:2; Luke 21:5,6). These are specific mentions of it, examples of postdiction or
vaticinium ex eventu
, where the authors describe an event in hindsight under the pretense of "prophecy," in order to awe readers about its accuracy.
Ȥ -
LostKiera — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 08:38 AM)
These are specific mentions of it, examples of postdiction or vaticinium ex eventu, where the authors describe an event in hindsight under the pretense of "prophecy," in order to awe readers about its accuracy.
I suppose an issue with that is Christians can argue it was genuine prophecy. It's only an obvious postdiction if we presume Jesus was not capable of prophecy. -
PoisonedDragon — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 09:13 AM)
I suppose an issue with that is Christians can argue it was genuine prophecy. It's only an obvious postdiction if we presume Jesus was not capable of prophecy.
Postdiction is a common literary trope throughout the bible.
§«
Ȥ -
Culfy — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 04:13 AM)
Which is my point exactly. The trilema was designed not as a proof of Jesus's divinity but as a way of debunking those who say 'I believe in Jesus as a great moral teacher'
If you want to start saying all the 'God' bits in the New Testament were just made up and the real Jesus was totally different then I'd like to see what your evidence is.
1 mark deducted for not being Curse of Fenric. Insert 'The' into previous if you are Ant-Mac -
vernuf — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 07:12 AM)
If you want to start saying all the 'God' bits in the New Testament were just made up and the real Jesus was totally different then I'd like to see what your evidence is.
Yeah, no. If you're going to say the Bible is true, it's up to
you
, not me to provide evidence. -