Jason Bourne: Ask away

[_keene]

Since the earilest book in the New Testament was written some 60 years after the death of Christ, during a day and age where the life expectancy was around 40, I hardly think "eyewitness" was EVER what the gospels were about.

Jersey Girl: That's not true, keene. The only truth is that we don't know when the New Testament was written. We can assume that those books attributed to Paul were written prior to his death on or around 60-68 AD, but there is no possible way to date the remaining books.

I must admit, my trivia knowledge on the Bible isn't perfect. My own version of the NIV attributed Mark as being the earliest gospel at 60-90 AD, and Matthew and Luke being based on Mark written 20-30 years later. I never felt the need to dig much deeper (except for the documentary I posted), as I wasn't reading it for historical value. I never got very far into the epistles, but I found that on a spiritual level they didn't ring true. Or rather, digging through the obvious politics to find the nuggets of spiritual advice was much more difficult than in the gospels.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jersey Girl: What proof do you have to offer to support your claim that the Gospel of Mark was written about 20-30 years after Jesus death? I see no possible way for that claim to stand.

This I believe it the consensus of textual criticism on the New Testament. It comes from various books and articles I have read.

Jersey Girl: Why do you think they likely weren't written by Matthew or John the Apostles?

Again, this seems to be the conclusion of various scholars on the subject. Start with Bart Ehrman.

by the way, I apologize for calling you difficult. I was rather grumpy that last few days. I see you were looking for clarification.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason

The problem is I was not defending anything. I was making sure the attacker was not the typical disingenuous Christian who attacks the LDS faith with one set of standards but refuses to apply them to their own faith. I readily agree that an attack and critique of Christianity will not help the Mormon position. On the other hand I have no use for Christians that attack LDSers but refuse to consider that their own faith it fraught with problems.

If you cannot see the difference, or refuse to, I cannot help you.

Okay, let's try this one again. You will have to decide for yourself, Jason, whether or not I employ double standards or have considered that Christianity is fraught with problems. I can't do more than answer your questions.

Yes. That is what I am attempting to do. We may see that you actually do analyze your own faith with a critical eye and still believe. I do not know for sure yet. I am not sure what leg work you have done. Maybe rather then make the thread about specific questions and answers would you be willing to share just what things you have read, pursued, studied, asked about pondered, etc. about Christianity that argue that it is not divine, that it may have been invented, that Jesus may never have claimed to be or acted like the Bible portrays him, that challenges the Bible text as being what conservative Christians believe it is, and so on.

You see I have done this exhuiastively for the LDS Church. I remain LDS but I have certainly had to modify my views of what it is to remain such. Others have done the same and rejected it all. Others have done the same and stay TBM as ever. Most LDS have not done this active TBM or Jack Mormon.

So, now I am and have been doing the same for Christianity. The LDS Church is based in Christianity after all. If the Bible is not truth, if Jesus is not what the Bible claims the LDS Church certainly cannot be what it claims for, whether one believes it is a Christian organization or not, is based in Christianity.

So, when I see another Christian critical of the LDS Church unless I know they have rigorously examined their own faith with the same methods they do mine there arguments ring hollow to me.

So what have you done to examine and critique Christianity. You seem fairly conservative but my guess is you are not a fundie type. I would guess you do not accept biblical inerrency in the conservative way and that some of the Bible you may view as mythical.

Feel free to correct me.

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl: What proof do you have to offer to support your claim that the Gospel of Mark was written about 20-30 years after Jesus death? I see no possible way for that claim to stand.

This I believe it the consensus of textual criticism on the New Testament. It comes from various books and articles I have read.

Jersey Girl: Why do you think they likely weren't written by Matthew or John the Apostles?

Again, this seems to be the conclusion of various scholars on the subject. Start with Bart Ehrman.

by the way, I apologize for calling you difficult. I was rather grumpy that last few days. I see you were looking for clarification.

I think that the conclusions drawn by scholars varies to a great degree depending on the scholar and their (sometimes) intended goal. You are thinking, no doubt, about those who place Mark as coming before Matthew/Luke/John because of the absence of certain internal details contained in Mark. That is to say, Matthew/Luke (especially, because John is quite different in content) took what was produced by Mark and built on that possibly sharing information with eachother in order to create their own Gospels. Add to that the alleged writings of "Q" for which there is no proof (only speculation) and you've got a whole lot of scholars speculating about what took place thousands of years ago.

In your posts you claim that the writers were either forgers (I think that's the wrong word) posing (I think that's a better word for what you meant) as the apostles. In that case, I say that the assumption that the gospels were written by apostles belongs to us believers who think that John must be John the Beloved when the author never claims that at all.

Similarly, we believe that the Pentateuch was written by Moses when infact it couldn't have been entirely written by Moses unless he had the capacity to rise up out of his own grave and report the events of his own death! So you see, there is clear undeniable evidence that more than one person contributed to the writings that are attributed to Moses.

No apology needed. I can be difficult to deal with but I assure you that in this case, I'm trying to be crystal clear on what you're asking me. I appreciate your engaging me on this thread, Jason. Inspite of appearances (nonsense and flame posts) this is what I would like to be doing on this board more than anything else. There doesn't appear to be much call for it though.

[_Jersey Girl]

Jason

Yes. That is what I am attempting to do. We may see that you actually do analyze your own faith with a critical eye and still believe. I do not know for sure yet. I am not sure what leg work you have done. Maybe rather then make the thread about specific questions and answers would you be willing to share just what things you have read, pursued, studied, asked about pondered, etc. about Christianity that argue that it is not divine, that it may have been invented, that Jesus may never have claimed to be or acted like the Bible portrays him, that challenges the Bible text as being what conservative Christians believe it is, and so on.

You see I have done this exhuiastively for the LDS Church. I remain LDS but I have certainly had to modify my views of what it is to remain such. Others have done the same and rejected it all. Others have done the same and stay TBM as ever. Most LDS have not done this active TBM or Jack Mormon.

So, now I am and have been doing the same for Christianity. The LDS Church is based in Christianity after all. If the Bible is not truth, if Jesus is not what the Bible claims the LDS Church certainly cannot be what it claims for, whether one believes it is a Christian organization or not, is based in Christianity.

So, when I see another Christian critical of the LDS Church unless I know they have rigorously examined their own faith with the same methods they do mine there arguments ring hollow to me.

So what have you done to examine and critique Christianity. You seem fairly conservative but my guess is you are not a fundie type. I would guess you do not accept biblical inerrency in the conservative way and that some of the Bible you may view as mythical.

Feel free to correct me.

You ask what I've done. Whew! I've spent the last 8 years allowing myself to be engaged by intellectual heavy hitters with backgrounds in debate, logic, philosophy, science, theology and related domains/disciplines. A brief list of topics just off the top of my head, in no particular order, might be as follows: Mormonism, Christianity, Atheism, Agnosticism, Historical Jesus, writings of Paul, Old Testament/New Testament issues, Q Gospel, Dead Sea Scrolls, Creation, Tower of Babel, Noah's Ark, 10 Commandments, Old Testament allusions to the birth of Christ, events related to the birth of Christ and their lack of historical evidence, early religious writers/historians (Iraeneus, Tertullian, etc.), Platonion influences, Mithraism, Judaism, Baalism, Preterism-Partial Preterism-Futurism, every collection of scripture (Codex, Latin Vulgate, etc.) and translation known to mankind (well it seemed like it!), Council of Nicea, Bible fragments, Bible contradictions/errors, Mark-Homer, Homosexuality and the Bible (many sub topics regarding that which led to learning about Greco-Roman cultural traditions and sexual practices), existence of God...good grief, I've been everywhere man! If you can think of it, I've probably tripped over it and discussed/debated/read about it in the last 8 years.

What resources...the hardcore skeptics/heavy hitters that I mentioned, online material pro/con, some great websites and the Bible. :-) Though I claim no expertise at all, I can discuss a ton of topics and pretty much hold my own depending on what position I choose to take. Sometimes I get blown out of the water which doesn't matter to me one way or the other so long as I learn something from it.

Sick, no?
;-)

My head isn't in the sand, Jason. When you see me post critically of Mormon related topics it's only because this is a Mormon related discussion board.

[_Jersey Girl]

Jason,

Since you say that you are investigating Christianity, I'd like to offer the following resources:

religious tolerance.org
Catholic Encyclopedia online
Jewish Encyclopedia online

If there is any specific topic that you're looking at right now, I bet I could give you links from my computer. I have many!

Have you found the essays regarding the internal dating of the writings by Luke? Very interesting!

[_Jason Bourne]

You ask what I've done. Whew! I've spent the last 8 years allowing myself to be engaged by intellectual heavy hitters with backgrounds in debate, logic, philosophy, science, theology and related domains/disciplines. A brief list of topics just off the top of my head, in no particular order, might be as follows: Mormonism, Christianity, Atheism, Agnosticism, Historical Jesus, writings of Paul, Old Testament/New Testament issues, Q Gospel, Dead Sea Scrolls, Creation, Tower of Babel, Noah's Ark, 10 Commandments, Old Testament allusions to the birth of Christ, events related to the birth of Christ and their lack of historical evidence, early religious writers/historians (Iraeneus, Tertullian, etc.), Platonion influences, Mithraism, Judaism, Baalism, Preterism-Partial Preterism-Futurism, every collection of scripture (Codex, Latin Vulgate, etc.) and translation known to mankind (well it seemed like it!), Council of Nicea, Bible fragments, Bible contradictions/errors, Mark-Homer, Homosexuality and the Bible (many sub topics regarding that which led to learning about Greco-Roman cultural traditions and sexual practices), existence of God...good grief, I've been everywhere man! If you can think of it, I've probably tripped over it and discussed/debated/read about it in the last 8 years.

Thank you for the summary. I see you have been busy. Did any of the research and searching cause you to modify your view of Christianity and or religion in general? I know my research has modified my views SUBSTANTIALLY.

What resources...the hardcore skeptics/heavy hitters that I mentioned, online material pro/con, some great websites and the Bible. :-) Though I claim no expertise at all, I can discuss a ton of topics and pretty much hold my own depending on what position I choose to take. Sometimes I get blown out of the water which doesn't matter to me one way or the other so long as I learn something from it.

Sick, no?
;-)

Well I think we may be similar in this. But personally I am fascinated by religion and maybe some day I will get a degree in religious studies. It is something I think about doing quite a bit.

My head isn't in the sand, Jason. When you see me post critically of Mormon related topics it's only because this is a Mormon related discussion board.

Fair enough. I do not have problems with people having criticisms at all. But before I tend to not listen much when they criticize Mormonism if they are religious but not willing to examine their own faith. I am more sympathetic to the criticisms of those who have done so and to disaffected LDS and ex LDS who have done their leg work and decided to leave the Church or modified their views, or even stayed.

[_Jersey Girl]

Jason

Thank you for the summary. I see you have been busy. Did any of the research and searching cause you to modify your view of Christianity and or religion in general? I know my research has modified my views SUBSTANTIALLY.

I apologize for not replying here sooner, Jason. Yes, I've been busy that's for sure. I remember when I first started posting online how I attacked Mormonism. And then, the hard core heavy hitters started challenging me. So no, I don't come to the topic of Mormonism without having investigated my own religious roots.

Modify my view of Christianity. I left my SB church about 4 years ago. Not only because I couldn't agree with the fundamentalism involved, but that was a large part of it. I think that religion itself is a man made invention. Some say God is too. I am not sure about that and I don't expect to ever be sure about that. I think that today's Evangelical Christians don't fully realize the impact and influence of folks like Calvin to their doctrine or even Baalism or Judiasm. I think they (my gosh I said "they"!) largely ignore the Old Testament, don't know much of anything about Judaism (shouldn't we???) and are too lazy to investigate. I think they take what they are told and taught at face value (I'm thinking of some of the topics I listed in another post) and don't bother to read the rich cultural/religious/historical/political history that produced the belief they have today. I think that when someone asks us about our belief and faith, we ought to be able to give answers and not just quote scripture. And I think it's okay to say we don't know.

I remember when an atheist asked me which set of 10 commandments I subscribed to. I thought he was nuts. But, I looked in my Bible and he was exactly right that there were 2 sets. How old am I and I never knew that?

I think that religion would be okay if it weren't for the humans involved! By that I mean that our human ego's get in the way of our faith. Our need for recognition, status and even money get in the way of true faith and Christian living.

Now, if you ask me if I believe that the teachings of Christ as presented in the Bible are wise and pure in heart/truth?

Yes sir, I believe that they are.

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

Jason,

Here is one last thought for you. I think that the Book of Mormon was a gigantic hoax. It was published in the 1800's and people back then and even today are all over it. I mean ALL OVER IT. Digging up witnesses statements and other types of evidences both pro and con.

Where are the contrary witnesses to the New Testament? If the New Testament is a contrivance as some think it is and Jesus never even existed...where are the writings of his critics?

When you find that out, will you please let me know.

Jersey Girl