Jesus' Purpose

ASIDE: He used parables and hyperbole because they both illustrate truths more completely than a lengthy (and complicated) discourse on metaphysics. They communicate truth while remaining simple. They also keep an audience's attention.

Regarding "coming on clouds": That is Old Testament judgement language. It implies vindication and exaltation. Christ referred to Himself as the Son of Man. So, when they asked, "Are you saying you are God?" His response was "You will see me vindicated and exalted." In short, "Yes". That is why the high priest immediates rent his clothes (which was not proper, BTW) and said that Christ was a blasphemer. They knew what He said because they were well-versed in the Old Testament.

And how would we know? With historical (meaning set in a history with verifiable claims and facts) eyewitness testimony. Outside of art and photography, there is nothing in history we have left to go on. Ceasar conquered Gaul. How do we know? Historic eyewitness accounts. That is what the Gospels of the New Testament are. Historically verifiable eyewitness accounts. Not only that, no other ancient document has even a fraction of the textual evidence of the four gospels. You seem to be doubting in a circle. You doubt the text because you cannot be certain of what actually happened, but you can only know what happened by trusting some type of text.

 

This is exactly the point made in the link I referred Bill to earlier, when he made the ludicrous suggestion that the Gnostic "Gospels" were somehow more trustworthy. Of course, just like Amanda N on another thread, he hasn't actually dealt with the evidence.

 

be that as it may, jesus' role here was not that of a god, but as a human. he prayed to his father in heaven, not to himself. in the lord's prayer he taught us to pray to god, not to him. and, like i said, if it's good enough for jesus, it's good enough for me.

 

There are also the gnostic gospels which were supressed by the church and re-discovered in the 20th c. These paint a rather different picture, and portray Jesus as saying very different things.
The choice of the four canonical gospels was probably politically motivated by the churchmen who complied the modern Bible.

So, there are conflicting accounts. None of them are verifiable in any way so far as I can see.

 

I don't see how you can claim that the 4 canonical gospels are somehow more authoritative, In all likelyhood, they have been subject to an extensive editing process by early churchmen.

 

???

 

And your proof? Where is the hard evidence? Where are the writings or the commentaries from concurrent authors that Nicea had ulterior motives? Where are the original texts? If they have been destroyed, where is your proof that they have been destroyed? The thought that the choice of the gospels was politically motivated is pure conspiracy theory. What we do have recorded in historica documents is the idea that from day one, the four Gospels were considered authoritative scripture. While some argued about Revelation, Jude, and a few others, the four Gospels and the Pauline letters recieved UNIVERSAL approval from ALL church fathers within the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century church. For the 200 years, nobody on record ever doubted the authoritative status of the scripture.
Also, the textual evidence for the "gnostic gospels" is severely lacking. We have a few copies, but we cannot even verify what we have is an accurate presentation of what was originally written. The earliest extant manuscripts are from the 200-300s (roughly 100 to 250 years after they would have to have been written) and there are VERY few of them. The Gospels, however, have extant manuscripts dating to within 70 years of the original autograph. On top of that, we have thousands of copies against which we can cross check for accuracy.
Also, regarding the early church fathers, keep this in mind, before roughly 200, no one wrote about the gnostic gospels. That means that the texts either did NOT exist at the time or they were kept hidden. If the fathers had refuted them as heresy, then we would have at least known that they existed or if they had reaffirmed them as scripture or at least worthy of study, they would have a lot more weight. But the gnostic gospels are neither quoted nor are they addressed at all. It is important to note that we can reconstruct almost the entire new testament from the quotes of the early church fathers. The weight of the evidence seems to stack towards a late writing of the "gnostic gospels." Unfortunately, the implication of the Gospel of Thomas is that Thomas wrote it. Given such a late writing date, this would be impossible and thus adds support to the idea that such "gospels" are simply forgeries with no authoritative qualifications at all.

It looks like you are still in a circle. The only way to verify the events is with written testimony, but you doubt the testimony because you cannot verify the events. I would recommend reading up on hermeneutics.

Again, that is a conspiracy theory that simply does not fit the facts. There is more textual evidence for the reliable transmission of the gospels than any other ancient document (including the "gnostic gospels"). If you think that it is possible that the gospels have been edited over time, then it is a proof-positive certainty that the "gnostic gospels" have. And so has Homer, Tacitus, Josephus, and every other ancient document. You seem to miss that we have so few of these ancient historical documents that only Homer can reasonably be cross-checked for accuracy. All the others we accept as true because there are no conflicting documents in existence and they contain little to no error from a geographical or archaeological standpoint.
Also, consider this, if two ancient documents are in dispute, guess which one is generally considered to be more accurate/correct? The one with the most support historically and textually. If the "gnostic gospels" are in conflict with the New Testament gospels, then the "gnostic gospels" are to be considered more likely to be incorrect due to the lack of evidence for them. They have to be proven accurate and so far, there just isn't enough evidence to make that claim.

 

Let me clarify: They are historically verifiable, eyewitness accounts. Both Matthew and John are direct eyewitness accounts. Mark and Luke are both written from the viewpoint of those who were there. Luke and Acts are compilations of eyewitness accounts submitted as a report to Theophilus. They are all historically verifiable because they take place in history. They mention actual towns, cities, rivers, political figures, religious figures, etc. These can all be checked for accuracy. That makes them verifiable as historical documents.

So, we have historically verifiable documents which are eyewitness accounts.

 

That doesn't mean they are "eyewitness" accounts, and certainly not accurate given the amount of time that has transpired from the account itself. Once an "eyewitness" who has viewed events with their eyes, relates what is is they have seen (or heard), and what they have said is repeated, either word of mouth or written, then what they have said becomes hearsay. Unless the "eyewitness" him/herself is alive today to relay those accounts accurately, then all they will ever be is hearsay.

hear·say, n., Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.

 

And it looks like you are in a considerably narrower circle.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say in all this, but there is no reason to suppose that the cannonical gospels represent an accurate account of the life or teaching of Jesus, For one thing, they vary in the telling. That in itself clearly shows they can't be 100% accurate.

Your claim that they can be verified is very doubtful. There is no independent reliable evidence, and thus, no verification. Nobody can prove that these stories are true.

 

That is simply inaccurate. An eyewitness does not need to be alive in order to be an eyewitness. If the eyewitness himself writes down his own testimony, then, living or dead, we have an eyewitness account. And that is what I am trying to say. John and Matthew WERE eyewitnesses who wrote down what they saw and experienced. This makes them eyewitness accounts. There is less than 70 years between the time of the original writing and the existing manuscripts of John that we have. From a historian's perspective, that is simply unprecedented. We have more evidence for the reliable transmission of the gospels from the original authors than for any other ancient document in existence. You seem to think that the Jews of the first century relied on oral tradition. They didn't. The wrote things down.

And if they were 100% identical, then skeptics would scream "collusion"! The variations are not contradictory. Usually, it is simply one author providing more information than another. What I am saying is that if you assume that the gospels do NOT represent an accurate picture of Christ, then 1) you cannot say we know ANYTHING about Christ at all because if the canonical gospels are not accurate, then the gnostic gospels CLEARLY are not (because there is less evidence for them than for the cannonical gospels) and 2) we cannot trust any ancient document at all (including Josephus, Tacitus, etc.)

They can be verified historically. Here's an example: Christ was tried under Pontious Pilate and accused of blasphemy by Caiaphas, the High Priest. Well, those two individuals existed in history. If we can show that there was no Pilate or Caiaphas or that Pilate was never in Judea or that Caiaphas was never High Priest or that Caiaphas was never Hihgh Priest while Pilate was governor, then we have effectively undermined the gospels. Details like that can be checked for accuracy. The ability to check for accuracy in historical details is what makes them historically verifiable. If those details are mistaken then we have a reason to distrust the less verifiable statement. If those details are correct, then it lends credence to the less verifiable statements.

And when you say "independent, reliable evidence" I have to ask a few questions:
1) What would make the evidence independent? There is no evidence that the gospel writers all got together and worked in collusion. They have differing accounts, as you mentioned. So, you have four different accounts that were not the result of collusion. Sounds like you have four independent accounts. What else would it take?

2) What determines reliability? What doubts do you have about the current text that could not be raised against any supporting documents? What leads you to believe that the current gospels are NOT reliable?

3) What would consitute evidence?

 

[/QUOTE]
The fact that Pilate and Caiphas both existed proves nothing at all with regard to the accuracy of stories about Jesus.
There are many novels about world war II and they mention Hitler and Churchill, both of whom existed, but that doesn't prove at all that the other characters mentioned existed too.

You ask what would be independent evidence - to take point 1) first: If the ploice go to court and all the officers concerned in a particular prosecution told slightly different versions of events, the evidence would most likely be thrown out. The same principle applies here.

2-3) There is no evidence external to the gospels that can actually prove anything about Jesus life. There are no documents from other sources that tell us anything. If, for example, Roman, Greek or other historians of the day had written contemporary accounts from a disinterested point of view, we might have more to go on.

But I have to say that I consider all this business of seeking proof for this or that text a bit off to one side of the main thing, which is spirituality. Usually, this is based on faith and/or spiritual experience. Texts, teachings, intellectual formulations etc. are actually marginal to this.
In fact, if one becomes too focused on these areas, ie seeking to establish through rationalistic or historical methods the truth of a given spiritual path it can actually become a major diversion.
'The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life'. That is easy enough to understand without the need of any complex exergesis. It speaks. or attempts to speak, directly to the soul, not to the intellect, or even the emotions.

 

That is true. But, if the same book about WWII claimed to be a record of the events of the war, mentioning Hitler and Churchill would be expected. NOT having them would reduce the credibility of the book. The gospels do not have the literary form of fiction (neither modern fiction, nor fiction of the time in which they were written). Their style is pure historical narrative. That they mention historical figures doesn't absolutely prove the text about Christ, but it adds to and supports the credibility of the author. If the book is accurate in the non-miraculous, historically verifiable details, then the author has gained credibility.

If the testimonies were CONTRADICTORY, yes. But all testimonies will vary. Variation is not enough to get testimony thrown out. In fact, variation gives us a more accurate detail. Let me give you an example:

Contradictory variation:
Lawyer: What did you see?
Officer 1: A man with a rifle.
Officer 2: A woman with a rifle.
Officer 3: A man with a handgun.
Officer 4: A woman with a handgun.

You have four contradictory and unreconcilable accounts. The case would probably get thrown out. If the gospels had contradictions like this, they would (and should) be thrown out. Now, consider this:

Lawyer: What did you see?
Officer 1: A person with a gun in his left hand.
Officer 2: A male with a handgun.
Officer 3: A blonde person with a handgun.
Officer 4: A person with a .45 semi-automatic.

Do these accounts vary? Definitely. Are they contradictory? Definitely not. In fact, taken together, they paint an accurate picture of what actually occurred (there was a blonde male with a .45 semi-auto in his left hand). This is what we have with the canonical gospels.

Keep in mind that Christ's ministry was only 3 years long. That is a VERY short time to for a concurrent writer to write in, especially when dealing with documents roughly 2000 years old. Your argument seems to be that there is no evidence so we cannot know anything for certain. But there IS evidence (the gospels) that is very well attested to and, as a historical document verifiable enough that most scholars (religious and secular) are willing to admit that Christ existed historically. Where do they draw this? From the very texts that spell out and capture His teachings. If you accept that Christ existed, you must allow for the teachings recorded within the gospels to be accurate or you risk being inconsistent.

More important that spirituality is truth. Spirituality is good. Humans are spiritual creatures. When that spirituality is misguided or when it leads us away from truth, then we must abandon spirituality for truth. How do we know if a path is true? Well, if it makes verifiable claims, then we check those claims. If there are contradictions, then we have a very good reason to doubt if not completely toss out the path as untrue. If it makes no verifiable claims, then you are expected to judge it at face value. Hmm... you doubt the sayings of Christ because they cannot be verified. Do you do the same for the claims of the other spiritual paths? If so, good. If not, then wouldn't that be inconsistent?

 

Bill (and most skeptics) apply a blatant double standard to evaluating the New Testament as a historical document. Given the voluminous early manuscript evidence of its reliability, it is by far the most trustworthy ancient document in existence. If it is discarded, then all documents of antiquity must be dismissed as well. The reason for this glaring inconsistency is that any Christian source material is automatically treated as inherently suspect. It is often forgotten that Christianity originated in the midst of very intense opposition. If the Gospel accounts were fraudulent, they would've been readily refuted by any number of critics. The dearth of contemporary contrary accounts of Jesus' life tells me that the central historical claims of the Gospels were not in dispute at the time, except for his resurrection from the dead. Here we have to wonder why every single one of the apostles would steadfastly endure such violent persecution for something they knew to be false. If they were lying, we would expect at least one of them to recant.

 

How on earth can one abandon spirituality and still pursue truth? This is seriously mis-guided.

The grounds upon which I would accept or reject a given idea are many, but I don't actually think any ancient text of any religion is wholly what is claimed.
That doesn't at all mean that I reject such texts as useful, but really, their 'historicity' seems a side issue to me.

Also, your assertion that I doubt the sayings of Christ because they can't be 'verified' by intellectual methods is very wide of the mark. To me, it doesn't matter at all if these stories are 'verifiable' or not. It is, as I've said a matter of faith and inner experience that would lead one to accept the message of Jesus or any other great spiritual figure. And very likely, that is the way it's meant to be. No amount of scholarship or 'historical research' is of much use if it simply diverts people from the living experience of the Truth. That is what matters, not pouring over ancient texts to try to establish by proof their authenticity.

 

I think He came here to be obedient. However we take Him/His mission is up to us. He came to be obedient, and to be the perfect sacrifice, the unblemished Lamb of God. (Whyever is another question.)

He came to serve us and make us free.

Tho He was in the form of God
He did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped
But rather emptied himself
Taking the form of a servant

Nice old tune from I think Philipians.

 

He was an awful teacher! And what's worse, didn't even understand his students! Wasn't it directly after the Resurrection that one of them asked, "Lord will you now restore the reign of Israel?" And Jesus had to be like, "Have I been with you this long and you still don't understand me?"

Just like God to blame the victims.

 

So as long as something "feels" right to someone, it is? The nature and character of God, how we relate to him, and how he wants us to live are entirely irrelevant to spirituality?

 

Actually, your view or anyone's view of all this is subjective. The plain fact is that no-one can come up with any external proof of the Bible stories.

I didn't say that I would accept or reject a given idea on the basis of feeling. I said the grounds were many. But really, I'm not interested in these endless arguments over old texts. It convinces no-one either way. If a religion has to rely on dry intellectual arguments alone, it is in deep trouble.

A person who truly knew the spirit would not require a book as intermediary to know what God wanted of them.

 

And I understand and respect that you are not interested in arguments over old texts. However, these old texts claim to be the written word of God. Now, if they are correct, then they, over any feeling, logic, or spiritual "insight" are authoritative in regards to God, morality, the afterlife, etc. You might not like what the texts claim, but their claims MUST be investigated.

That is possibly true. However, if you have two people who both say they truly know the spirit and yet act in contradictory ways, then one or both of them is lying. How do you judge? You must have an external, unchanging standard against which you can compare differing views. That is what we have in scripture. Do you need scripture to know the spirit? Not necessarily. Do you need the scripture to discern who has the spirit and who doesn't? Absolutely.