Christianity basically is not about good vs evil but about living forever and p

[Alien]

So you don't understand the difference between "apparently" and "actual", between "as far as one knows or can see" and "is the reality"?

In the context of 'Jesus changed water into wine' no I can't see a difference, magic is a valid term using the definitions you have given.

I wouldn't brag about that if I were you.

Evasion noted.

You didn't actually ask a question so I wasn't evading a question.

[jakswan]

So you don't understand the difference between "apparently" and "actual", between "as far as one knows or can see" and "is the reality"?

In the context of 'Jesus changed water into wine' no I can't see a difference, magic is a valid term using the definitions you have given.

I wouldn't brag about that if I were you.

Evasion noted.

You didn't actually ask a question so I wasn't evading a question.

I never said you were evading a question I suggested you were evading the point.

[Hope]

Actually that was a topic of recent Bart Ehrman debate.
http://www.religiousdebate.co.uk/

The problem with that source is that BE has written several books which seem to rely on material that post-dates Jesus' lifetime by a century or more, as well as having dates that post-date the traditionally accepted NT documents.

[Hope]

While "mainstream Christianity" continues to fuss and judge about theologies and be exclusive and make divisions in its judgements about who can and who can't have a relationship with the creator, it will always be about theologies.

In fact mainstream Christianity teaches that everyone can have a relationship with the creator.  What I assume you mean by your comment is what mainstream Christianity understands by what might be a barrier to someone having that relationship.

[ProfessorDavey]

Actually that was a topic of recent Bart Ehrman debate.
http://www.religiousdebate.co.uk/

The problem with that source is that BE has written several books which seem to rely on material that post-dates Jesus' lifetime by a century or more, as well as having dates that post-date the traditionally accepted NT documents.

So what is the 'cut-off' for time elapsed to make material valid. Noting of course that the gospels may have been written decades (even perhaps nearly one hundred years) after Jesus lifetime.

Is a document written 70 years after Jesus' death necessarily more valid than one written 100 years after. I don't think it is that clear cut.

[Hope]

So what is the 'cut-off' for time elapsed to make material valid. Noting of course that the gospels may have been written decades (even perhaps nearly one hundred years) after Jesus lifetime.

Sorry, PD, but the most widely accepted dating is that Mark was written sometime between 60 and 70AD, Luke between 60 and 90, John between 80 and 95 and Matthew between 70 and 110.  Perhaps more importantly is the dating of the Pauline material. (note I have included the debated material for completeness).  As I said in my original post, none of the stuff quoted by Ehrman pre-dates any of the canonical NT documents.

Seven letters (with consensus dates) considered genuine by most scholars:

    First Thessalonians (ca. 50 AD)
    Galatians (ca. 53 AD)
    First Corinthians (ca. 53–54 AD)     
    Philippians (ca. 55 AD)
    Philemon (ca. 55 AD)
    Second Corinthians (ca. 55–56 AD)
    Romans (ca. 57 AD)
             
The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by about 80% of scholars:

    First Timothy
    Second Timothy
    Titus
    Ephesians

The letters on which scholars are about evenly divided:

    Colossians
    Second Thessalonians

Is a document written 70 years after Jesus' death necessarily more valid than one written 100 years after. I don't think it is that clear cut.

The thing is that very few NT documents were written 70+ years after Jesus' death.  The majority of them were written within 40 years, and a majority of those were written within 20 years of that death and resurrection.  I think that time difference does make a difference, especially when Ehrman's documents tend to restate ideas that had been refuted in the earlier documents.

[ProfessorDavey]

So what is the 'cut-off' for time elapsed to make material valid. Noting of course that the gospels may have been written decades (even perhaps nearly one hundred years) after Jesus lifetime.

Sorry, PD, but the most widely accepted dating is that Mark was written sometime between 60 and 70AD, Luke between 60 and 90, John between 80 and 95 and Matthew between 70 and 110.  Perhaps more importantly is the dating of the Pauline material. (note I have included the debated material for completeness).  As I said in my original post, none of the stuff quoted by Ehrman pre-dates any of the canonical NT documents.

Seven letters (with consensus dates) considered genuine by most scholars:

    First Thessalonians (ca. 50 AD)
    Galatians (ca. 53 AD)
    First Corinthians (ca. 53–54 AD)     
    Philippians (ca. 55 AD)
    Philemon (ca. 55 AD)
    Second Corinthians (ca. 55–56 AD)
    Romans (ca. 57 AD)
             
The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by about 80% of scholars:

    First Timothy
    Second Timothy
    Titus
    Ephesians

The letters on which scholars are about evenly divided:

    Colossians
    Second Thessalonians

Is a document written 70 years after Jesus' death necessarily more valid than one written 100 years after. I don't think it is that clear cut.

The thing is that very few NT documents were written 70+ years after Jesus' death.  The majority of them were written within 40 years, and a majority of those were written within 20 years of that death and resurrection.  I think that time difference does make a difference, especially when Ehrman's documents tend to restate ideas that had been refuted in the earlier documents.

I ask again (and happy to use your dates for gospels).

Why is a document written 30-80 years after an event necessarily more valid than one written 100 years after. I don't think it is that clear cut.

WWI took place 100 years ago. Are you saying that documents written about WWI in the 1940 through to the 1990s have to be more accurate and valid than those written now by virtue of them being nearer the actual event. If so I disagree.

[trippymonkey]

Going on about years between docs etc?!!?
Have NONE of you seen the effects of Chinese Whispers in just a few mins ?!!?!?!?

Nick

[jeremyp]

The problem with that source is that BE has written several books which seem to rely on material that post-dates Jesus' lifetime by a century or more, as well as having dates that post-date the traditionally accepted NT documents.

Have you read any of Bart Ehrman's books? Misquoting Jesus is a particularly interesting one. Also "Forged".

[ProfessorDavey]

Going on about years between docs etc?!!?
Have NONE of you seen the effects of Chinese Whispers in just a few mins ?!!?!?!?

Nick

Exactly - once you have got beyond a couple of days whether a document is written 20 years, 40 years or 100 years after an event is irrelevant in terms of validity and accuracy.

Much more important is who wrote the document, what sources they used and, critically, why they wrote it. And that last point is so important. If the author is partial rather than impartial it is unlikely that the result will show anything other than bias.

So to go back to my WWI example. I think you are much more likely to gain an impartial and balanced assessment of WWI from documents written now than you would have done from documents written in either the UK or Germany in the late 1930s and early 1940s, when the fact that we were about to (or already at war with) Germany would have massively biased the ability of writers to be completely impartial when looking back at WWI.

[Hope]

Going on about years between docs etc?!!?
Have NONE of you seen the effects of Chinese Whispers in just a few mins ?!!?!?!?

Nick

Exactly - once you have got beyond a couple of days whether a document is written 20 years, 40 years or 100 years after an event is irrelevant in terms of validity and accuracy.

Chinese Whispers in a literate society or Chinese Whispers in an oral society?

Much more important is who wrote the document, what sources they used and, critically, why they wrote it. And that last point is so important. If the author is partial rather than impartial it is unlikely that the result will show anything other than bias.

And, of course, both partiality and impartiality can cut both ways.

So to go back to my WWI example. I think you are much more likely to gain an impartial and balanced assessment of WWI from documents written now than you would have done from documents written in either the UK or Germany in the late 1930s and early 1940s, when the fact that we were about to (or already at war with) Germany would have massively biased the ability of writers to be completely impartial when looking back at WWI.

And 'balance', in itself, is a form of partiality.  Could that be why the historians of the nation have been so keen to get the personal recollections of WW1 and WW2 veterans before they die?

[Hope]

The problem with that source is that BE has written several books which seem to rely on material that post-dates Jesus' lifetime by a century or more, as well as having dates that post-date the traditionally accepted NT documents.

Have you read any of Bart Ehrman's books? Misquoting Jesus is a particularly interesting one. Also "Forged".

Yes, I've read 'Lost Christianities' from start to finish, I've heard him speak in a number of lectures (3 or 4 probably), and I've read various chapters from 'Jesus Interrupted'.

[ProfessorDavey]

Chinese Whispers in a literate society or Chinese Whispers in an oral society?

Given the huge amount of evidence that suggests that memory recall is often deeply flawed even directly after an event (e.g. experiments where a number of people see the same event and recall it differently even straight after) where is your evidence that the instantaneous recall was any better then. The ability to pass on flawed recall might have been better in an oral tradition, but not the instantaneous recall itself.

[Hope]

Chinese Whispers in a literate society or Chinese Whispers in an oral society?

Given the huge amount of evidence that suggests that memory recall is often deeply flawed even directly after an event (e.g. experiments where a number of people see the same event and recall it differently even straight after) ...

experiments carried out in what context - that of a literate society?

[ProfessorDavey]

Chinese Whispers in a literate society or Chinese Whispers in an oral society?

Given the huge amount of evidence that suggests that memory recall is often deeply flawed even directly after an event (e.g. experiments where a number of people see the same event and recall it differently even straight after) ...

experiments carried out in what context - that of a literate society?

It doesn't matter because you aren't considering how individuals pass on knowledge and how accurate that propagation is, merely what they believe they saw. And note of course that what someone sees is neither oral nor literary but visual.

[Hope]

... merely what they believe they saw. And note of course that what someone sees is neither oral nor literary but visual.

So you are taking the discussion onto eye-witness accounts, eh?

[ProfessorDavey]

... merely what they believe they saw. And note of course that what someone sees is neither oral nor literary but visual.

So you are taking the discussion onto eye-witness accounts, eh?

In part. But of course this is critical, as even if the propagation of information from one person to another is faultless (which I would contest whether we are dealing with oral or literary traditions) the quality of the original information remains key.

If someone misremembers that the car that passed them was blue, perfect propagation merely perpetuates that misremembering.

And even within an oral tradition you need to understand what is being propagated - it is knowledge or beliefs/stories. The two aren't the same, although may be related (or not). And there is a well accepted difference between oral histories and oral traditions - the former being factual recall (whether correctly or misremembered) passed on to another person as being a factual record. The second being based on telling of traditional stories etc that may or may not have a factual element to them. Clearly the propagation of belief falls into the latter category, so even within an oral tradition the stories relating to Jesus passed on for decades and eventually written down may never have been intended to reflect factual historical accuracy, rather passed on as statements of belief through oral tradition.

[jeremyp]

Chinese Whispers in a literate society or Chinese Whispers in an oral society?

Given the huge amount of evidence that suggests that memory recall is often deeply flawed even directly after an event (e.g. experiments where a number of people see the same event and recall it differently even straight after) ...

experiments carried out in what context - that of a literate society?

Which, of course, the first century Roman Empire was, relatively.

[ProfessorDavey]

Chinese Whispers in a literate society or Chinese Whispers in an oral society?

Given the huge amount of evidence that suggests that memory recall is often deeply flawed even directly after an event (e.g. experiments where a number of people see the same event and recall it differently even straight after) ...

experiments carried out in what context - that of a literate society?

Which, of course, the first century Roman Empire was, relatively.

Likewise 1stC Jewish culture.

[Hope]

Which, of course, the first century Roman Empire was, relatively.

Not sure what the percentage of the population were educated, let alone literate, but this wikipedia entry suggests a mixed answer to that question.

Literacy and education in the Roman Empire contributed to the social mobility that characterized the earlier period of Imperial history known as the Principate. Estimates of the average literacy rate in the Empire range from 5 to 30 percent or higher, depending in part on the definition of "literacy". Full literacy was uncommon, but written documents were ubiquitous, and they were used by a wider range of people in the Roman Imperial world than was typical of most ancient societies. Numeracy was necessary to participate in commerce, and papyri preserve complex accounting methods. Despite the high value Romans placed on writing, education was available only for those who could pay for it, since there was no state-supported system of schools with public funding.

A higher rate of literacy is indicated among military personnel than within the general population. Educated women were not unusual, and there was an expectation that upper-class girls would at least attend primary school, probably in the same classes as boys. Only an elite few, regardless of gender, went on to receive a secondary education.

A significant if modest number of slaves were educated, and slaves played a key role in promoting education and the culture of literacy. Teachers, scribes, and secretaries were likely to be slaves. The education of slaves was not discouraged, and slave-children might attend classes with the children of their masters. Educated slaves seem to have been more likely to be manumitted, and to achieve material prosperity as freedmen. The Classical poet Horace, whose work the emperor Augustus brought to prominence, was the son of a freedman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cynwolfe/literacy_and_education_in_the_Roman_Empire

[Hope]

Likewise 1stC Jewish culture.

Evidence?

[jeremyp]

... merely what they believe they saw. And note of course that what someone sees is neither oral nor literary but visual.

So you are taking the discussion onto eye-witness accounts, eh?

In part. But of course this is critical, as even if the propagation of information from one person to another is faultless (which I would contest whether we are dealing with oral or literary traditions) the quality of the original information remains key.

If someone misremembers that the car that passed them was blue, perfect propagation merely perpetuates that misremembering.

And even within an oral tradition you need to understand what is being propagated - it is knowledge or beliefs/stories. The two aren't the same, although may be related (or not). And there is a well accepted difference between oral histories and oral traditions - the former being factual recall (whether correctly or misremembered) passed on to another person as being a factual record. The second being based on telling of traditional stories etc that may or may not have a factual element to them. Clearly the propagation of belief falls into the latter category, so even within an oral tradition the stories relating to Jesus passed on for decades and eventually written down may never have been intended to reflect factual historical accuracy, rather passed on as statements of belief through oral tradition.

Unfortunately, much of this is irrelevant. Hope (and you to an extent) makes the mistake of assuming that the early Christians were keen to keep the historical story accurate, but what evidence we have shows this is not the case. Paul is the only early Christian writer we have left and he insists that his gospel comes from revelation, not oral transmission. Paul met Peter and James but never once does he back up any of his own teachings by claiming they were passed on to him by Peter or James.

Paul's writing shows that he sets no store by the historical accounts that might have existed as opposed to his revelation and by extension neither  does his audience — the early church.

[ProfessorDavey]

Likewise 1stC Jewish culture.

Evidence?

The Torah - the which contains the key information that defines Jewish culture is a written document, and was through the 1stC and well before. Indeed the notion of reading from the Torah is a key component of the Jewish religion. That is a characteristic of a library tradition.

In oral traditions key stories etc are not written but are propagated only from memory and orally. That isn't the case in 1stC Jewish culture, nor as Jeremy points out Roman culture of the time.

[ad_orientem]

No it doesn't Hope.

 It teaches "everyone" can have a relationship with the creator if they buy into their particular brand of theology.

That's not just true for mainstream Christianity, but also Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons as well.

The thing that qualifies you for that relationship, isn't Jesus, but believing in the theology of the group.

" mainstream Christianity" defines part of the theology that you have to believe in, as an example is the trinity.

If Sassy believed in the trinity, she wouldn't get called a heretic by other Christians.

That's because belief in theology is taken more seriously than believing in Jesus.

Wrong. You can't have a relationship with someone if you don't know who they are. Thus if one doesn't believe that Christ is God or in the Trinity then one believe in another Christ, another God, that is, a false Christ and a false God. That means there is no relationship.

[torridon]

Wrong. You can't have a relationship with someone if you don't know who they are. Thus if one doesn't believe that Christ is God or in the Trinity then one believe in another Christ, another God, that is, a false Christ and a false God. That means there is no relationship.

The 'relationship' is in the mind of the believer surely ? Putting a human face on God, as in the incarnation of Jesus, makes the notion of relationship easier, in a way, I get that, but ultimately all such faiths are about Man's relationship with God in one form or another.