Cycling UK Forum

mercalia wrote:

drossall wrote:

mercalia wrote:I think there were many times that things were fixed. Its an evolutionary process. As I understand it around AD200 the gospels were attributed to various people for the first time ( and therefore stamping them as the true ones among a whole sea of strange "gospels"), where as before apparently they had all circulated anonymously; and the extra physical resurrection verses at the end of Mark added and the idea of a a new Testament formulated ( this idea had at first been received as a heresy )...

I think the idea of a sea of gospels misses the point that there were a core of books widely accepted in the church, some widely rejected, and a few under debate. The process of "canonisation" largely formalised what was already widely agreed, and resolved some issues. The impression that a few books were chosen from a wide set of possibles to fit an agenda is, I think, a little misleading to say the least. Some of the rejected candidates we still have clearly advance, for example, a Gnostic agenda that is anachronistic for the time of Jesus's life on earth.

Even if the verses at the end of Mark were added after the book was first completed, they are hardly radical. The other three gospels have the women clasping Jesus's feet, and Jesus eating fish, among other signs of a real body.

Anyway, the gospels (and Acts) were written broadly when the church came to recognise that the eye-witnesses were dying out, and a written record was needed. The letters, whilst referring to times that happened a couple of decades after the events of the gospels, were written before them (because they really are letters written at the time).

So, the earliest references are in the letters. Paul in 1 Corinthians states bluntly that the resurrection is "of first importance", and develops the theme later.

Regarding authorship, which is probably not so important, it depends whether you pay attention to what the early church leaders wrote. For example, Eusebius quotes Papias, writing about AD110-120, who mentions Matthew's gospel. That certainly suggests that the attributions were long-standing, rather than an invention of AD200, so I'm not convinced by what you've been told.

presumably Mark didnt think his gospel was deficient and was written in the same generation as the disciples where as the others were a generation after - primacy should be given to Marks and not the others . You keep on using the word resurrection where you mean physiscal resurrection, animated flesh? Paul never saw Jesus other than in a vision but believe he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven ie was resurrected ( that of its self dont imply he walked around and ate and drank and let thomas feel the wounds ), and as I said there is no question that the early christians believed he rose from the dead just how and how they knew he did is in question due to Marks ending at the empty tomb - wouldnt Mark have mentioned all the zombie action had it happened? What type of resurection did Paul believe happened, for him his vistion was pivotal and enough? ( your refs dont says yep he walked around and talked ate & drank) You cant quote the other gospels against Mark as there is doubt as to why they did mention the zombie action given Mark didnt and some bright spark decided to fraudently add to it? The Authorship is VERY important since it is part of building the authority of the in-group. Of course it was only by AD 200 that the naming was finally agreed upon , presumably some one didnt just snap their fingers, there were traditions that were considered. I suggest you read that article I mentioned by the professor who must have considered what you are saying and still follow the line I was just reporting: I heard him talk at length on the TV programme and he came across as a sane man not a Van Daniken ( he even considered there that J was in fact resusitated which in their time would have looked like being raised from the dead - I am inclined to think this - he never died as it was all to quick, his wealthy friends pulled some strings)

I think there is a distinction that needs to be made re resurrection
a) the conventional view since mathew luke and john that first J stopped being dead his body was reanimated and the walked around ate drank chatted and was seen just as every one else sees any one, then, he was beamed up to heaven. ie resurection and ascension are 2 distinct events. If J did in fact die we know not to trust those 3 gospels and must ask why they were chosen and be very suspicious - people just dont die ( brain dead ) then come back to life, fact?

b) the view that Mark is hinting that one moment he was dead next he was not having ascended to heaven - just one step not two -resurection and ascension is one event. Even if Jesus did die, it doesnt invalidate Marks gospel as the epiphany that the disciples had in Galilee was probably like Pauls.

Mark is the mother lode, the others are fake gold in this respect, by offering lots of detail they falsify themselves ( if he really died we know its a pack of lies or atleast not facts?) - you then need to ask why and how it came about ( I have reported one such suggestion - one Irish theologian on the TV programme went even further and compared it to joining the army where they cut your hair down to remove your identity to control you, so here they get you to believe ridiculous things and "they have got you you have left your brains in the car park") The way of all cults?

I think you may have rose tinted spectacles about the early church in the first few centuries? I do know that the Church in the middle ages was anything but holy willing to gouge out the eyes or torture and burn at the stake anyone who dared to disagree viz the Inquisition who eg completely annihalated the Cathars in the south of France. Not nice people with twisted minds, by our standards atleast

kwackers wrote:Intelligence is itself a form of cognitive bias.

reohn2 wrote:

Abradable Chin wrote:‘there is a coherent plan for the universe, although I admit I have no idea what it is, said the astronomer Fred Hoyle.
letting his view be known cost him a Nobel prize.

Rupert Sheldrake is suffering from the same intolerance for challenging some of the established axioms of physics. Careers stall; funding withdrawn; invitations rescinded.
Physicist Brian Josephson at least obtained his Nobel prize before stating his belief in the existence of a Creator, so he was harder to de-fund, and "no platform".

Does that mean that because cleverer people than I believe in a Creator and find that,that belief hampers their career prospects that it follows that that is proof of a Creator?
Ultimately belief of a Creator God is taken on faith,the hard evidence IMO is scant.
There are many phyisists who don't believe in a Creator God I'm sure,which in itself doesn't disprove It's existence.

Abradable Chin wrote:

kwackers wrote:Intelligence is itself a form of cognitive bias.

You've written an interesting statement. It is reiterating the "Emperor's new clothes".

reohn2 wrote:I was a believer at the time,however my belief diminisioned to the point of non belief,I changed my mind about the exsistence of God.

drossall wrote:This is more about interpretation than fact, isn't it?

First of all, it's well known that Mark ends at 16:8, that all the earliest manuscripts have that version, and that there are at least two (later) alternative endings in wide circulation. It's clearly stated in most of the modern translations that I have just checked, in spite of what James Tabor says. And adding to something is not necessarily the same as falsifying; what's added is consistent with the other gospels, and it's perfectly reasonable to think of someone adding a quick appendix for much the same reasons (see below) as the other gospel writers had for including such information in the first place.

There does seem to be an element of catch 22 here, mind; Mark is evidence against physical resurrection because he doesn't explicitly mention it, and the other gospel writers are evidence against ("falsify themselves", in your words), because they do. I'm not quite sure what they could have written that would be positive evidence?

Regardless, why would Mark leave out the stories from after the resurrection? Well, since we're agreeing that Mark was in circulation in the early church, presumably it makes sense that so was Paul's teaching as expressed in the letters. I've already mentioned that Paul held that the final events of Christ's life were of first importance; so no doubt would most other church leaders, then and now. And that the gospels were probably written to preserve memories of those who were now reaching old age and dying. So, it makes sense to think of Mark's priority as to record the things that did not seem to be universally known, rather than to write down what was spoken and talked about at every meeting. Whereas the later gospel writers went for a more complete picture.

Of course, the answer to your question about whether people die and come back to life is, "Not unless God intervenes." And if you're not prepared to allow for that possibility, then you're making the statement up front that you don't believe any of it. And if that's true, then much of your detailed argument doesn't make sense; you're debating whether a resurrection is physical or not when you've already asserted that a resurrection in any form is impossible.

It's quite hard to tell what James Tabor is saying. He discounts stories of a bodily resurrection, and prefers to assume that Mark is referring to something less physical, although Tabor doesn't say what he means by that. Mark 14:28 of course simply doesn't say in what form Jesus will be resurrected, so it's possible to use that alone to argue either way (not that that stops Tabor!) He cites Paul, not mentioning that Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:35ff assumes that there will be some form of bodily resurrection, because he is attempting to answer questions about exactly what that might mean. (Both he and his readers knew that Jesus's resurrection body had been rather radically different from a re-animated corpse, not least because, consumption of fish notwithstanding, he walked through walls and appeared and disappeared all over the place, so the questions were perhaps not that surprising...)

I don't know about my rose-tinted spectacles. Don't forget, however, that the church did not become established (i.e. confused with organs of government) until AD380. Christianity wasn't even officially permitted until Constantine in AD313. So, I'm not clear whether it was the government or the church that committed the atrocities among the Cathars, and it may not even make sense to ask which, but the church was in a very different position in AD200, so I'm not sure that the colour of my spectacles would make much difference.

You're right though. James Tabor sounds perfectly sane. Most people who engage in these debates, on both sides, sound very reasonable. I'm not sure I can believe everyone who sounds reasonable, all at the same time, though

Abradable Chin wrote:

reohn2 wrote:I was a believer at the time,however my belief diminisioned to the point of non belief,I changed my mind about the exsistence of God.

From my understanding of the Christian worldview, you never were truly persuaded, and so you never truly believed. You were one of the wolves amongst the sheep. Many of the other attendees were of a similar mind to yours. The person waffling from the front in robes probably similarly didn't really believe in a supreme creator or that God had visited earth and ended up being ritually sacrificed. This is why people write of the visible and invisible church. Many congregate because they find the other attendees amiable, or for increased social standing, or worse. This was one of the things J.C. warned about; in fact, he specifically said that God wasn't to be found in a church building. Is it surprising that there was conflict and lies; splits and divides; ructions and ruptures?

Abradable Chin wrote:‘there is a coherent plan for the universe, although I admit I have no idea what it is, said the astronomer Fred Hoyle.
letting his view be known cost him a Nobel prize.

Rupert Sheldrake is suffering from the same intolerance for challenging some of the established axioms of physics. Careers stall; funding withdrawn; invitations rescinded.
Physicist Brian Josephson at least obtained his Nobel prize before stating his belief in the existence of a Creator, so he was harder to de-fund, and "no platform".

mercalia wrote:...If you feel that way, what about The Egyptain and Ancient Greek theologies? Maybe you need to consider that the sun god Ra when the sun set each day went to Mt Olympus and had a cuppa with Zeus, and Jesus popped in after work attending to the prayers of his followers?...

drossall wrote:

mercalia wrote:...If you feel that way, what about The Egyptain and Ancient Greek theologies? Maybe you need to consider that the sun god Ra when the sun set each day went to Mt Olympus and had a cuppa with Zeus, and Jesus popped in after work attending to the prayers of his followers?...

If you're arguing, as I think you are, that the existence of alternative ideas proves that no one of them can be true, then that's first of all an obvious fallacy, and second a bit of a poser for science, which does tend to produce alternative theories from time to time.

Of course, the late 19C collapse of many well-established principles did cause a loss of confidence, but that's long-forgotten now by all except philosophers of science, it seems.

Cyril Haearn wrote:Might be worth looking at the origins and development of religions

The people who built Stonehenge had some beliefs, maybe to do with stars and equinoxae

I was at a lecture about Persia where apparently the first monotheistic religions arose, the Zoroaster (?)

What was there before organised religion and books or scrolls? What did the people who worked the stone axe factory at Penmaenmawr believe? From when did people have languages to communicate and argue?

reohn2 wrote:The prehistoric religions are lost to us other than what's left in the form of monliths and buildings,etc.But its a good bet religion was used as it still is today,as a way of controlling the masses,and especially women.

Cyril Haearn wrote:
The people who built Stonehenge had some beliefs, maybe to do with stars and equinoxae