₦airaland Forum

u re wrong 2 say the gospel of John was written in 140CE ,d gospel was actually written in 98 CE.

You could well be right, it is a matter of conjecture depending on your source. What we do know is that none of the evangelists was a contemporary of Jesus and no contemporary wrote an eyewitness account. Little of significance was written down about Jesus and his followers until after the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 and if the year 30 is accepted for the death of the son of God, then Mark, the first author of the Gospels wrote his book at a minimum of 40 years after the crucifixion of Christ, likely later. Ireneaus (c115-202) wrote that he obtained information from people who knew John, indicating he would have been a contemporary of the writer.

.The final books of the bible was finally decided by the synod of Hippo in 393 CE and further ratified by the council of carthage in 397CE

The final book being the Book of Revelations, a cornucopia of prose, verse and imagery, on a purely literary basis probably the most beautifully written book of the scriptures. It was considered so outlandish it only just made it by the skin of its teeth !

@ansel
You are very knowledgeable and very articulate in your presentation. Please try to publish a book on this subject. Our people have nothing to elevate their minds.

Many thanks

^^^

<sigh> And there i was thinking that mongols had a complete monopoly over idiocy.

Joagbaje:
John ,unlike other disciples didn't focus on the glamour and story and deed of Jesus . His focus was on the revelations of truth that Jesus taught . He knew the doctrine of Jesus .no wonder he was jesus's best friend .

I am not at all sure the writer of John's Gospel was Jesus' best friend athough he uses the word ''beloved'' several times. In the first instance the book is dated to around 140AD which timeframe takes him out of the lifetime of Christ. The clues are in the actual Greek texts he wrote, he knows very little about semitic culture and values and his use of Greek colloqualisms indicate the writer was Greek. What we do know is that he had access to Paul's letters. You are right though, he focused mainly on the message of Christ, his Gospel is a leaner and meaner version of the synoptics (keeping his audience in mind) Theologically, along with Paul's letters it forms the basis for the worship of Christ as practised today.

whats all this gibberish about !!!!

Gibberish indeed, Clearly its over your head, just move on i'd like to keep this thread a muppet free zone !

[size=8pt][/size]In the Gospel of John in the Bible, we see a departure from the traditional norms of the synoptics, in fact we see a transformation of Christ.  This transformation takes us from the Judaic idea of a chosen people's messiah, to a Wisdom, that pervades all things and all people.  Like other Greek philosophical constructs: beauty, wisdom, and truth, Christ, as the Logos, becomes God.

By the early second century it became clear that for Christianity to expand and gain acceptance, it needed to appeal to the Greek speaking world. To meet the needs of the Greek public some adjustment had to be made. Christianity was addressing itself in Jewish terms. A Greek who felt like becoming a Christian was called upon to accept Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah. He would naturally ask what this meant and would have to be given a short course in Jewish apocalyptic messianic thought. Was there no way in which he might be introduced directly to the values of the Christian salvation without being forever routed through Judaism? Must Christianity always speak in a Jewish vocabulary? What then was to be the approach?

We see in John a desire to use Greek pagan concepts and philosophies as a tool for communicating to a Christianized Gentile audience. The Gospel of John would not be understood by Jews and his book would only be familiar to someone familiar with the pagan cults that flourished in the Hellenistic world. Heraclitus of Ephesus used the word Logos around 500 BCE to describe his concept of the regularity with which the universe seemed to operate. The universe was a divine machine and Heraclitus credited the Logos (literally the reason) as the ultimate rationale which secretly operated the universe and the heavens above.
The writer of John (who was almost certainly Greek and clearly despised the Jews) needed a ‘’big bang’’ therefore we see the introduction of the philosophy of the Logos in the prologue of the Gospel of John which begins by proclaiming Philo's triumphant ditty:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ,  The same was in the beginning with God ,  and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father [God]." (John 1:1-14)

The Jews would not have had a clue what he meant but his Greek audience understood him perfectly.

Throughout the Gospel we see the author’s use of imaginary conversations to appeal directly to his audience, for instance, Nicodemus misunderstands the teaching of Christ that one must be "born from above" or again to enter the kingdom of God. Taking Jesus quite literally, Nicodemus asks, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (3:4). As with the conversation with the woman of Samaria by Jacob’s well,  the allegorist-minded reader can smile along with the author of John and rest assured that as one "chosen" they can understand the message of Jesus although Nicodemus does not. These concepts, deeply rooted in Greek Philosophical thoughts and pagan religion were crystal clear to the Greek audience.

John was written for the Greek Christian of the beginning of the second century. Those recent converts were more educated, wealthy, and despised the Diaspora Jews who resided in their cities. John removes the offensive references to Jesus as a Jewish Messiah that are particular to the earlier gospels in order to present the Logos in more palatable form. In so doing, John creates a simulacrum that is barely human. The earlier Synoptic traditions are emphatic in presenting Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, descendent of David, and eschatological messenger of the end of the world where God collects his Chosen People. John removes the unpleasantness of Jewish geneaology as well as all references to Palestinian and Davidic descent.
As for Heraclitus, who propounded the thoughts of ‘’Panta rei,’’ ’’ everything flows’’, and the’’ Logos’’, once the Church had succeeded in adapting the concept of the ‘’Logos’’ or ‘’Word’’ to mean Christ, he was promptly declared a heretic….for his troubles.

To be sincere, if there was a History ar Archaelogy section on this forum, would you have rather raised this topic in those sections? I think not. And the reason no doubt is that you regard these factual inconsistencies to perhaps be fatal to a faith or belief system? I may be wrong in reaching that assumption, but if that is indeed your view, then all i seek to state is that factual inconsistencies of that nature are not necessaily sufficient to diminish a faith or belief system. Hence my example of a question regarding the Buddha.

If there was a biblical history or archaeology section on this forum of course i would have raised my topic there, why would you think otherwise ?

Indeed, and I have not called you an atheist, have I? I have simply asked if you think that these innacuracies serve to discredit a faith, and in some measure you responded in both the negative and the positive.

I believe Globexl in his most recent posting has dealt rather more eloquently with the answer to this question.

but what I seek to convey to you is for example as follows. . . Hinduism has hundreds of gods and goddesses. . . prove to a hindi man that many of them do not exist, and that may still take nothing away from the overall - superstructure of his faith

Precisely, the Hindi can afford to lose a few gods along the way, he has hundreds more to replace them. Christianity cannot.

@Deep Sight. On a previous thread i raised the question of the possibility that biblical Kings David and Solomon may not have existed as portrayed in the scriptures. I have enumerated the reasons why i made those assertions, I had fully expected to be innundated with reasoned thoughts as to why i was wrong, facts, figures and opinions, rather, as with the subject of that thread the silence is deafening.

I find it rather curious that rather than address the subject matter you are more interested in examining my motives and have simply concluded that it is my intention to discredit a faith belief system. Far better biblical scholars than I are posing far more harder questions about Christianity than i am without accusations of their being atheists, you have no right to make such an assupmtion how you have established that correlation is beyond me. In any event Christianity does not need my assistance to discredit it, i believe you will agree with me that a myriad of snazzilly dressed silver tongued pastors do that happily week in -week out.

I have stated that my intention is not to discredit any religion, in my opinion there are glaring inconsistencies within the Hebrew scriptures, historically and theologically that have come to light as we learn more and more. It is my opinion that Christianity as a religion would benefit greatly by addressing them in a forthright manner as opposed to trying to convince a skeptical audience that they don't exist, and anyone who questions the[i] schema[/i] is a heretic.

Deep Sight:
Excellent surmise, and incisive too.

I certainly hope that time will permit me as the thread progresses to elucidate further on this point to my dears Ancel1 and PA1982.

Iverily believe that your reference to "anyone but the strict literalist" should be most instructive and thought provoking to our friends.

Yes, looking forward to further elucidation from you, i'm sure.

KAG:
Only if the adherent of the religion declares that the holy book(s) containing the individual(s) is entirely factual, and a single error is an indication that the deity of the religion doesn't exist. Otherwise, no, it shouldn't matter. I personally believe David, Solomon and the Buddha existed as historical figures, but their non-existence shouldn't matter to anyone but the strict literalist.

I do not agree. How do you argue a priori it shouldn't matter ? where do you draw the line ? David, Solomon, Moses, Abraham, perhaps Christ ? In the case of Buddhism who will shed any tears if it turns out Buddha was a figment of collective imagination ? Buddhism is presented as the Teachings of an enlightened character, not so Christianity of which we are told the writings are the ''word of God''. If for instance David and Solomon did not exist what then do we make of the supposed royal bloodline of Christ, attendant with lineaology ? One does not ask that scriptures are entirely factual accounts of history, we know they are not but surely it is not over-reaching to establish facts or debunk myths in the light of modern day information.

globexl:
It is my belief the philosophical underpinings of most religions are much more valuable , sturdy and durable than the actual beliefs associated with such religions.
I have strong doubts about the existence of jesus and the most of the stories associated with him, but I do find myself, many times, quoting from the teachings attributed to Jesus.Whether they came from actual an Jesus or not, to love thy neighbor as yourself,and others are universal ethos.
However, as Ansel tried to pointed out, Christianity is unique in that it is a religion whose enormous edifice , power and wealth over past two millenia have been built on the strenght of fantastic claims. Claims, that today, appear to  many as fairy tales due to the glaring absence of historical and acheaological foothprints.
Speaking for myself, as early as 14yrs of age, I began to view the judeo-christian narrative with great suspicion and by 18yrs of age, I came to the conclusion that Christianity was a contrived religion. By the time I entered University to study, Chemistry, Biology and Physics at  higher levels, it became very easy for me to jetisoned all prior beliefs I held regarding creation,heaven and hell ,and eventually the existence of god alltogether.

So, to answer your question , Yes, lack of accuracy(or the presence of deliberate inaccuracy)formed the valid basis for suspicion and eventual rejection of the tenets of my former religion and adopting an athiestic worldview.

Points made. For me however the issue of whether Christ existed or not not is largely irrelevant at this stage. Christianity itself as a religion is fundamentally and deeply flawed, I will explain why i say so. Isaiah 44:6 gives us the first clear advent of Monotheism in Hebrew scriptures ''I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no God'. Everything goes swimmingly well, that is untill we hit Daniel 7, we all know the scenario but its doubtful if the context is clear. A key verse (13) , One like a son of man came with the clouds of heaven Christians have been very quick to lay claim that this is Christ since '' son of man was indeed Christ's favourite title for himself whilst he lived, we are told. But therein lies the problem. The parallel between Daniel 7 and the Ugarit/Baal cycle is uncanny as to leave no doubt whatsoever, i.e the description of the Ugarit ''Aged God'' described as the ''ancient of Days'' in the scriptures bestowing kingship on the god Baal, rider of the clouds, contrast with YHWH bestowing Kingship ''upon the son of man who rides the clouds, '' and the implications are clear to all but the most blinkered. The Baal Cycle then goes on ''Baal is king of the gods and El's vizier, his rule is everlasting'' Daniel 7 states '' The son of Man is given everlasting dominion over nations. He rules at the right hand of God''

We know that Christ was fulfilling the scriptures, the question is , who's scriptures' ?

Deep Sight:
And just by the way, Ansel1, the Buddha did not actually write any of the things you claimed. Those were attributed to him and passed down by oral tradition and[b] only committed to writing more than 4 centuries later. [/b]

See excerpts -



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha

Surely you dissemble, Historians date his lifetime somewhere between 563 - 483BCE, the Tripitaka having been handed down orally was written down in the 3rd century (not 400 years later) The contents were determined by the Buddhist council shortly after his death which comprised of 500 of his disciples who, led by Buddha's successor recited his entire teachings. Yes i concede Buddha did not write them down. As far as ''the Four noble truths' go, saying it is ''attributable' to Buddha  is akin to saying the koran is attributable to Muhammad. The Four noble truths are the very core essence of Buddhism, everything in Buddhism springs from these precepts.

Deep Sight:
It seems to me that you have missed the point or trajectory of my question. Judaism does exist. Christianity does exist. And yet there is at least some debate that some of the key characters supposedly involved in setting up those systems never actually existed. If such suppositions were true, it would simply mean that the lore on which those systems are based, was developed by other people.

As such, if the Buddha never existed, then it would simply mean that the Four noble truths were utterred or created by someone else. By the way, I do not set out to dispute the existence of Sidharta Gautama. What I proffer, is a suppositive question. An "IF" question.

Irrespective, these religions exist today. Regardless of whether they were set up by the names so claimed, or other persons.

Thus the question I ask you is this - Let's assume that the original names claimed never existed: and that other persons wrote and created the lore. Would the truth of those faith based systems fade away on that account? That is the pith of my question.

Now it bothers me that you answer my question with a statement that the Buddha actually existed. That is a most tiresome response, if you would forgive my statement sir. It is most tiresome when "IF" questions are answered in that way. "IF" questions are directed at an assumption - namely - "IF" x or y was the case, then what? It does not help to simply answer by saying - "well, x or y is not the case". That misses the discussion because the question ab initio was seeking an answer to an assumed situation.

To be concise, I might put it thus -

"Would the Four Noble Truths be any less true if the Buddha never existed? Would they be rendered false only on account that they were written by some else in reality?"

"Would the ten commandments lose their value if it is found that Moses never existed?"

Would the Beatitudes become worthless even as advise, if it is found that Jesus of Nazareth never existed?"

Would all of these pieces of spiritual injunction be vitiated in terms of truth simply if we find that they were originated by someone else than that claimed?

Sir: I say to you - behold the message, and not the messenger.

Clearly a truth remains a truth irrespective of the progenitor, whether it be the Ten Commandments which likely drew its inspiration from the Hammurabi Codes or the Beatitudes for which comparable teachings abound in sanskrit texts. Therefore to answer your question '' would the belief system fade away on account that other persons wrote and created bible lore ? ''My answer is the belief system will have to evolve (as i believe it will ) in the light of new information or simply become redundant, the only constants being universal truths. The Bible is almost alone in having to justify its historicity, due mostly to the fact that it has attributed to itself the status of works inviolate where clearly it is not. Already we see Rabbinical Jews in the US amending the Torah stating explicitly that various aspects of the Old Testament may be inaccurate, for instance there being no evidence whatsoever of the Israelites sojourn in Egypt or of their travails in the desert e.t.c, we know now that Deutero-Isaiah are not the works of the prophet Isaiah himself, amongst others, my position is that positive historical amendments to the bible for instance does not detract from the religion but rather enriches it.

I hope you don't mind if i wade into the discussion seeing as its a derivation of a previous thread of mine. In my view faith is not generic, it is deeply seated and rooted into the tenets of a belief system. In the case of Buddha we know for a fact he existed, we know that as Gautama he was born a prince and into a life of privilege which he renounced and then began to wander the desert where it is alleged he lived on a grain of rice a day, attained a state of Niravna and transmuted into the holy Buddha. More to the point, we have his writings, foremost amongst them all which is ''Four noble truths''. If there was no historical evidence that he existed then Bhuddism simply would not exist.

Without trying to discredit anyone's belief's or religion, the simple fact remains that the central characters in the bible appear to have been ''tweaked'', from an academics point of view aside from the issues of David and Solomon per my previous thread, we see that Christ himself did not leave behind a single written word, nothing, nada, not a bean. 100% of everything we know about Christ today in the bible has come from third parties, and of these third parties roughly 95% of all the information has come from one source, Saul of Tarsus, either written by him, attributable to him or written about him. Even the gospel writers do not agree on Christ he was born, we are also told Joseph and Mary had to travel with the baby Christ due to a Roman census, but we know historically the Romans required citizens to remain where they were to be numerated. Contemporary Historical evidence is even less, we have the writings of Josephus who makes a passing reference, which in itself has been heavily compromised (probably by the church Father Eusebius dubbed the father of lies) and various other snippets of references to a ''Christ' by other historians.

Contract this to the likes of Prophet Muhammad, or even Buddha, my point being, it matters not whether the lore of the great flood of Noah's Ark or even that of Jonah and the fish are accurate per se and i do not advocate discrediting a religion on such a basis, however, the central characters of any religion must hold true.

It surprises me no end that in churches everywhere up and down the land, the name ''Jesus'' is on the lips of adherents. Throughout his entire lifetime Christ was never once referred to as ''Jesus'' his name was, is and remains Yeshua. The letter ''J'' did not exist in the Hebrew alphabet and only made an appearance here in the west in the middle-ages. Therefore names like Jacob would have been Yacob or more likely Yakov, Joseph , Yoseph, and Joshua, yes,  you guessed it Yeshua.

Clearly the name ''Jesus'' is ''roman-anglicized'' to suit the light-tongued Romans/Greeks. It seems to me that if you proclaim Christ as your lord and saviour then at the very least if behoves one to get the name right.

Its not surprising that various Christian scholars have tried to interprete the  ''BYTDWD'' inscriptions as referring to a dynasty since the alternative is to accept the blindingly obvious that it was an instrument of worship to a deity, understandably there is a certain coyness. However the scriptures themselves are the best proof that deity worship was prevalent amongst the Hebrews, for instance;

We see biblical criticisms of the worship of other deities, such as the goddess Asherah in 2 Kings 21 and 23, as well as apparent references to this goddess or at least her symbol in the inscriptions from Kuntillet 'Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom in the eighth century. In the Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscriptions, the symbol is treated respectfully as part of the worship of Yahweh, so there is ambivalence. The gods Resheph and Deber appear in Habakkuk 3: as part of the military retinue of Yahweh. Other deities who gain some mention in the Bible include the "hosts of heaven" criticized in 2 Kings 21:5, but mentioned without such criticism in 1 Kings 22:19, in Zephaniah 1:5 its all hell broken loose. You may also note that the god El is identified with Yahweh in the Bible, again with no criticism. Psalm 82 is a kicker in that it is explicit in presenting the god El presiding in a divine assembly at which Yahweh stands up and makes his accusation against the other gods. The fact is that the worship of other deities in Israel persisted till at least the period of the exile circa 586.

PA1982, Quite right biblical archaeology is a bit of a minefield particularly when increasingly archaeologists and scholars are split into camps. People are rarely if ever objective where religion is concerned. ''Bethel'' in my view is a dwelling place, I am not aware it has been used to signify a dynasty. The Ugaritic texts refer to Bethel as meaning ''House of El'' or House of God, Wiki

@PA1982 Many thanks for the sources provided, I am familiar with them. As you have pointed out nothing really is conclusive, the so-called ''David Palace'' is more likely a ''Jebusite'' structure in my estimation and of course the seal is dated post exilic, we still await final and conclusive reports and peer reviews.

@Frosbel, the less said about that site, the better.

In all probability a King David might have existed as a minor ruler of a hilltop kingdom but certainly not on the scale as represented in the scriptures, more likely the stele and inscriptions are supplication artifacts to the deity Da'ud, just a thought.

@ PA1982 Here is a link for a source i have used

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/29/arts/bible-history-flunks-new-archaeological-tests-hotly-debated-studies-cast-doubt.html?scp=1&sq=july%2029%202000&st=cse

On the contrary, the article is generated out of a lot of research, amongst others, no less a person than the director of The institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, commenting after a recent excavation stated '' the way i understand the finds there is no evidence whatsoever of a great united monarchy which ruled Jerusalem over large territories He reported further from the dig at Megiddo that a number of structures previously attributed to Solomon had indeed been built long after his purported reign.

Other digs have thrown up information supplementing the scriptures, for instance we now have a better understanding of what happened to Jerusalem after it was captured by the Babylonians almost 3000 years ago. I'd be most interested to know which precise Archaeologists and historians have confirmed the existence of these great kings and more importantly, the evidence.

I agree with you in many respects that Israelite scribes drew heavily on other sources. None more so apparent than in the Psalms which we now know to be almost word for word copies of the Ugaritic texts, of particular interest is 1 Kings 22 :19-20 where we read of YHWH meeting his heavenly council, the very description of heaven described in the Ugaritic texts where the sons of God are the sons of 'El'. In addition, we now know that various deities worshipped in Ugarit i.e El Shaddai, El Elyon e.t.c were all names applied to YHWH, in other words Hebrew theologians simply adopted the titles of Canaanite gods and applied them to YHWH in order to eliminate them.

Back to David though, we find there is a singular lack of evidence, archaeological and historical for David, Solomon or the United Kingdom for that matter. A lack that is highlighted by the myriad of evidence available for kings and nations that were supposedly less famous and the myriad of evidence for the individuals of the “king lists” of Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Persia, Tyre, etc and for the very nations and city states that they ruled. As with nations today, these various states of the ancient world maintained a diplomatic service that communicated with their counterparts of other nations. The dry climate of Egypt preserved the archives of the Egyptian diplomatic corps and the use of clay as a medium for inscription (baked afterwards into stone-like consistency) preserved the archives of the other ancient nations. In none of the archives excavated in all of the ancient sites, not one missive to or from David or Solomon, men that supposedly controlled an empire to rival that of their western, southern, and eastern neighbors, nor was there any addressed to (nor from) any ruler of Israel until the 9th century BCE, now why is this ?

In Jewish Sacred Literature that was later included in the Old Testament of the Christians, we are introduced to King David of the United Kingdoms of Israel and Judah and his successor and son, King Solomon. For millennia these individuals have been accepted as historical figures of great import, yet more and more their actual existence (at least as portrayed) is being questioned. We can name all of the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt, we have monuments that they had created, documents of their actions, treaties they signed, mention of them by other nations and their tombs (sometimes their corpses too). We know the names of the Kings of Persia (the King of Kings), as with the Egyptians we have the monuments, documents, etc. We can repeat this with every ancient state in that area, even small city states such as Ugarit and Tyre, but when it comes to the illustrious King David and his even more venerated son Solomon, not a single shred of evidence. Not one monument, not one egotistical carving declaring that either King defeated an enemy or dedicated something to YHWH, not one document (Israelite, Babylonian, Egyptian, Assyrian, Hittite or other nation) mentions either King. Even Hiram of Tyre, supposedly a good buddy of Solomon, never mentions ol’ Solly at all. When it comes to evidence of either King, as the saying goes, the silence is deafening! It’s almost as if they never existed!
A lot of Christians scurry around attempting to prove the existence of these individuals with such things as the Bytdwd inscription and the Dawat inscription of Egypt. There are problems with the authenticity of the Bytdwd inscription, that not to be addressed here, that tend to be epigraphist and translation problems and then there is the problem that the last letter before a break is continued down the side of the break, indicative of a forgery. The last I heard on that was that it was being investigated. The problem with the Dawat inscription is that even creative translation can not make the inscription h(y)dbtdwt read as the heights of David as the Christians would want it to. Christians constantly state that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, a rather ridiculous saying at best. Actually lack of evidence is nearly always lack of existence, especially after an exhaustive search for evidence of existence. We know from the Ebla clay tablets find that various Ugarite and Canaanite deities bore the names of Da'ud (David), Sau'lus (Saul) amongst others, since these tablets predate even Abraham what chances King David as described by the bible authors actually existed ?