World Affairs Board - View Single Post

Triple C · 09-27-2007, 03:49 AM

As an athiest I find the idea that Jesus did not die on the cross a tad far-fetched, since it is very un-Roman to let a percieved trouble maker sentenced to cruicifixion to live; the procedure is almost always deadly even if the victim was rescued. Besides that contemporaries of Jesus such as Peter were adamant that Jesus died and was reserected. As a rationalist I strongly doubted the later, but it is unlikely that the event of the Passion and the Death of Jesus Christ, so central to Christian theology from its infancy, is a conspiracy to cover up the survival of its leader. After all the apocraphal Book of Judas went so far as to say that Jesus not only anticipated his death by the Romans but indeed caused it to happen by ordering Judas to give him up. Not that I believe in this theory, but in terms of the death of Jesus there seems to be very compelling evidence in and out of the Bible to support the truthfulness of that claim.

True, little sects that differed from the orthodoxy existed, but sayings of of apostles, and those who were instructed by the apostals, should have greater evidentiary weight than those who were not. It is not very likely that such a consiprasy could be so successful, and it is unlikely that Apostals like Peter, a simple honest fisherman, would be so deceptive as to spend the rest of his life preaching what he knows to be a lie. This presumes a level of malignace and dishonesty that is not plausible for someone who clearly enjoyed moral authority within his congregation and wrote so movingly of his spiritual journenies. As a matter heuristics and historical method, the account of those who has witnessed an event should enjoy our confidence to a greater extend, unless it can be conclusively proven otherwise.

If we disbelieve the authenticity of primary documents, history in its most basic form, record-keeping, is impossible; such comprehensive skepticism would render all knowledge vain. Compounding that, the early Church leaders, such as Peter and Paul, would be by any standards applied some of the most spiritual and philosophical people of the age, and that they seem to enjoy what seems to be justly learned moral authority.

Nor do I, mind you, consider the Bible to be absolutely right, eternal, divinely incorruptable. The Bible as we know it is a collection of secondary texts that was not codified in its form and content until 125 AD, and went through a process of translations between three languages (aramaic, greek, latin) endured 2 millenia of corruption. Erasmus had found the Greek bible to differ from the Vulgate in significant ways and went so far as to suggest the Jerome might have erred in his Greek translation due to an unfamiliarity with the lange. He also found several passages essential to the doctrine of intercession and good works to be either wholey absent in the Greek version, or is based on an incorrect translation of key words.Martin Luther struck down James as non-canon apocraphal on philological issues of dating and usage of phrases, and many theologica points advnaced by James contradicted to the "main-stream" apostles such as Paul and Peter's in the same era. Clearly as a text the Bible must have went through a lot of changes through time, and any appeal to the 'right' and 'pure' kind of scripture is going to be contentious issues.

09-27-2007, 03:49 AM	#188 (permalink)
Triple C *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 04-10-06 Posts: 953	As an athiest I find the idea that Jesus did not die on the cross a tad far-fetched, since it is very un-Roman to let a percieved trouble maker sentenced to cruicifixion to live; the procedure is almost always deadly even if the victim was rescued. Besides that contemporaries of Jesus such as Peter were adamant that Jesus died and was reserected. As a rationalist I strongly doubted the later, but it is unlikely that the event of the Passion and the Death of Jesus Christ, so central to Christian theology from its infancy, is a conspiracy to cover up the survival of its leader. After all the apocraphal Book of Judas went so far as to say that Jesus not only anticipated his death by the Romans but indeed caused it to happen by ordering Judas to give him up. Not that I believe in this theory, but in terms of the death of Jesus there seems to be very compelling evidence in and out of the Bible to support the truthfulness of that claim. True, little sects that differed from the orthodoxy existed, but sayings of of apostles, and those who were instructed by the apostals, should have greater evidentiary weight than those who were not. It is not very likely that such a consiprasy could be so successful, and it is unlikely that Apostals like Peter, a simple honest fisherman, would be so deceptive as to spend the rest of his life preaching what he knows to be a lie. This presumes a level of malignace and dishonesty that is not plausible for someone who clearly enjoyed moral authority within his congregation and wrote so movingly of his spiritual journenies. As a matter heuristics and historical method, the account of those who has witnessed an event should enjoy our confidence to a greater extend, unless it can be conclusively proven otherwise. If we disbelieve the authenticity of primary documents, history in its most basic form, record-keeping, is impossible; such comprehensive skepticism would render all knowledge vain. Compounding that, the early Church leaders, such as Peter and Paul, would be by any standards applied some of the most spiritual and philosophical people of the age, and that they seem to enjoy what seems to be justly learned moral authority. Nor do I, mind you, consider the Bible to be absolutely right, eternal, divinely incorruptable. The Bible as we know it is a collection of secondary texts that was not codified in its form and content until 125 AD, and went through a process of translations between three languages (aramaic, greek, latin) endured 2 millenia of corruption. Erasmus had found the Greek bible to differ from the Vulgate in significant ways and went so far as to suggest the Jerome might have erred in his Greek translation due to an unfamiliarity with the lange. He also found several passages essential to the doctrine of intercession and good works to be either wholey absent in the Greek version, or is based on an incorrect translation of key words.Martin Luther struck down James as non-canon apocraphal on philological issues of dating and usage of phrases, and many theologica points advnaced by James contradicted to the "main-stream" apostles such as Paul and Peter's in the same era. Clearly as a text the Bible must have went through a lot of changes through time, and any appeal to the 'right' and 'pure' kind of scripture is going to be contentious issues. __________________ ORBIS NON SUFFICIT. Last edited by Triple C : 09-27-2007 at 04:25 AM.