Christians don't believe in God!?

[Guest]

Actually, It is not as incorrect as I initially thought. Sorry Asimov.

Nero's persecution was not an official policy, nor was it as aggressive as later persecutions. So although it was quite intense, it was also short and generally limited to Rome.

But Christian persecution rose under subsequent emperors; Domitian, Trajan and Marcus Aurelius all persecuted the Christian community in every part of the empire, with varying degrees of intensity. In Domitian's own words: "No Christian, once brought before the tribunal, should be exempt from punishment."


Domitian's persecution was more violent than that of Trajan, but not as bad as that of Marcus Aurelius. These three emperors lived between the period AD 90 - AD 177, and Christian persecution was widespread under all of them. However, their persecutions were not equal in measure, and none of them appear to have had an official policy of eliminating the Christian religion.

Major persecution began under the emperor Diocletian in AD 303. This was the first comprehensive attempt to destroy the Christian community, and it lasted for eight years. It was incredibly savage; those Christians who were permitted to live, were forced from their homes and property. On his deathbed, however, Diocletian relented and ordered an end to his policy. He also begged the Christians to pray for him.

To cut a long story short: widespread Christian persecution certainly existed long before AD 300. However, the persecutions before that time were of lesser extent, and did not always amount to an official policy against the Christian community itself; there were other groups (such as the Jews) who also suffered under the general tyranny of the Roman emperors.

Nero, Marcus Aurelius, Diocletian and Trajan targeted the Christians specifically, but only one of these (Diocletian) had the aim of destroying the entire Christian community.

That's pretty much close to what I was aware of, and I wasn't claiming that there was no persecution prior to 300AD.

Anyways, that's cleared up.

[Guest]

Asimov

People even retelling events that they've seen themselves recollect events differently, or have a bias, or due to faulty observation tend to tell events differently from how they occured.

Me

People of what century

Asimov

Of any century...we haven't exactly changed in behaviour that much SoaringEagle. We still have the same brain capacity as before, the same reasoning abilities. Unless you're claiming that people of 2000 years ago were smarter than we are now.

Ah, but I think our habits, behavior has changed tremendously. True, we do still have the brain capacity today as we did then along with the same reasoning abilities. Now I am not sure it can be said that people of 2000 years ago were smarter than we are now, but I will say this. Back then, they didn't have easy access with paper, pens etc. They had no access to tape recorders, computers/typewriters and printing press. So in order to preserve information, they would train their mind for memorizations. In fact, they exersized their minds and were accustomed to do so so much, that it was preferred instead of writing. We all have the same potential for mental capacity today as they did, but, we don't exercize and use our potential today like they did. Therefore, one makes a categorical error to compare the people then and put them in the same category as people today. Today, we can make us of our state of the art technology and use it, intead of training our minds and enhaning our memory. I mean, it's less work, and we can be some lazy people nowadays. They didn't have such tools, so they used their minds to memorize things like all five books of the torah for example.

[Guest]

Hi, Troy,

Interesting to note, though, that these people with their tape-recorder memories didn't generate identical accounts. Comparison of parallel accounts in the gospels shows that there is more to the equation than simple transcription.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Emmet, the gospel writers didn't generate identical accounts but one shouldn't expect them to if they were reporting truthfully. Only collusion would produce identical accounts. It's Christians who hold a magical view of the scriptures that have trouble with this. I take a more casual/historical approach to the issue.

If there are two witnesses to a bank robbery, one witness might report that the man's first words were, "Everyone get down!" The other witness might report the man's first words were, "I have a gun!" While it's true that there is a discrepancy with regard to the first thing the robber said, there is no doubt that a robbery took place. It might also be true that the robber's first words were, "Everyone get down because I have a gun!" Now we have corroberating testimony, but the pieces have to be put together. History is all about putting pieces together to gain a full picture of certain events.

My personal opinion is that God inspired the writers to record different (though complimentary) details of certain events in order to prove that collusion didn't occur. God certainly has the forethought to accomplish such a thing. I find it interesting that bible critics claim the gospels were recorded using a single source text to account for similarities, yet they cite massive differences in the accounts. Hmm.

[Guest]

Hi, Troy,

Interesting to note, though, that these people with their tape-recorder memories didn't generate identical accounts. Comparison of parallel accounts in the gospels shows that there is more to the equation than simple transcription.

Shalom,
Emmet

Hi Emmet,

Would you be convinced if the four gospels matched events perfectly? Keeping in mind that they were written at least three to four decades after the death of Christ.

I believe that if the events in the four Gospels matched perfectly, the Gospel writers would be accused of conspiring to come up with stories that did not conflict with each other.

I will try and make my point by giving you and example from my life. Recently I had a disagreement with my wife. We were discussing the events of our early life together and when we first decided to get married. At the time my parents were getting ready to move into a new house. I specifically remember sitting on their back porch of the town house they were living in and talking with my parents and telling them that my wife and I are going to move in together and get married in a year or so. My father objected and told us to get married before living together. Well to make a long story short we agreed and were married five months later. The disagreement had to do with where this conversation took place. My wife and father both believe it was at the new house just after they moved in and my mother and I remember it being at the town house. Now, that doesn't change the fact that the conversation took place, and that we married shortly after.

The way I see it, the Gospel writers appear to be telling the Gospel story as they understand it or as remembered by them. Therefore I believe we have four accurate accounts of Christ’s life death and resurrection told in four different ways.


Robin

[Guest]

Hi, JC,

Thanks for your response.

I am aware of various options for harmonization. I myself attempted to get traction out of them in the past. But at a certain point, the amount of maneuvering that becomes necessary to accomodate all the variation simply becomes incredible - so many parts and details omitted in one account, yet injected in another account, phrased in one way here and another way there. Before someone speaks cavalierly about the harmony of the gospels, I welcome them to attempt the labor of actually composing one. The exercise should prove illuminating.

The simple and more credible answer is that there has been some manner of degradation in the course of transmission, willful and/or unintentional. History is all about recognizing that this is a normal pattern of human communication, especially in ancient documents.

Your remark concerning biblical criticism is superficial. Bible critics often posit common source texts to account for instances of highly close correspondence, but they do not posit that the gospel writers were slavishly wedded to their source texts; they do not suggest that the gospel writers used only these source texts, and they do not suggest that these source texts were reproduced without editorial adjustment. The conventional thought may or may not be accurate (seeing as oral tradition might be an adequate analogue for the hypothesized source texts), but it is not internally contradictory. It adequately engages the paradox that the gospel accounts will have some elements that are remarkably similar, yet others that are remarkably disparate.

The problem when it comes to differences between the gospels is not so mundane as one gospel recording an episode or an apothegm that another omits; rather, the important differences reside in theological distinctives that appear to have colored the various writers' accounts. Compensation for personal bias is a completely natural and necessary part of analyzing evidence from witnesses, and there is no justifiable reason why the gospel writers should not be submitted to the same dispassionate appraisal that all sources, ancient and modern, ought to receive.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hi, Robin,

Thanks for your response.

It is not surprising that the gospel accounts do not match perfectly. What would be surprising would be if the word of God were inaccurate.

The common points in you and your families' memories do not negate the near-certainty that one or the other of you has a partially inaccurate recollection of events (assuming you did not have the same conversation twice, at both locations).

It is possible that the four different writers were telling the gospel story as they understood it. This is only a guarantee of sincerity, however - not of accuracy. One may be sincerely erroneous.

As a matter of discussion, Robin, what evidence would you consider to be sufficient to indicate that one or another of the gospel writers had given an erroneous or irrepresentative account?

Shalom,
Emmet

P.S.: edited once for grammar...

[Guest]

As a matter of discussion, Robin, what evidence would you consider to be sufficient to indicate that one or another of the gospel writers had given an erroneous or irrepresentative account?

There were many gospels written that were rejected because of their erroneous and irrepresentative accounts. Gospels such as the gospel of Mary, Philip, Judas. I would find reason to doubt the accounts of the 4 gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) If there was evidence that their accounts were anything less that what the claim to be, which are eye wittness accounts from an individual's (Matthew and John) perspective, and the research work and second-hand knowledge of Luke and mark.

I hate to cut this short but I must take off.

Robin

[Guest]

if my understanding is correct, Mark's gospel is actually a writing down of peter's gospel; i.e. mark's source was Peter.

Emmett--

do any of the errors (as you see them) in the gospels have any major theological significance, or rather simply matters of detail? if the former, can you give me a couple of examples?

thx, TK

[Guest]

Hi, Troy,

Interesting to note, though, that these people with their tape-recorder memories didn't generate identical accounts. Comparison of parallel accounts in the gospels shows that there is more to the equation than simple transcription

Shalom,

Emmet,

It's pretty interesting that you say this because I am currently reading more on oral tradition and things closely tied in to it.

Let me quote Mark Roberts as the following touches on just what you have responded to me with.

Scholars who have studied oral cultures have found that there is a certain amount of variance in the way stories and sayings are repeated in such cultures. But, contrary to what one might think, this variance happens within fairly conservative limits. So, though the early Christian community would allow for limited freedom in the telling and retelling of Jesus traditions, the essential content and even the essential language of the tradition was accurately preserved.

Shalom!