Lord,Liar or Lunatic

[sin_is_fun]

This is one question often asked by believers. "Either Jesus is lord,or liar or lunatic.Which view do you support?"

This question appears downright straight forward.It gives only 3 options.But the question is actually not straight forward and innocent as it appears.

The common man will hesitate a lot to say Jesus was a liar or lunatic..So then only the third alternative remains.

But I consider this question to be wrong.Why?

1.It doesnt include the other options.That is "Jesus never said those words"/"jesus never existed"/"He was misquoted"

Now these option changes the question to "Were the gospel writers liars,lunatics or true historians"?

There is no justification in asking the lord liar or lunatic question about jesus.Had he written a book we can ask that question.But he never wrote any book.What we have is "Reports on his words".So we have to question the genuineess of that report first before questioning the truthfulness of the speaker's words.

So the question should be "Were Matthew,mark,luke and john liars,true historians or lunatics?"

On further inspection we should still refine this question.Because this question implies that

1.Matthew,mark,luke and John existed
2.They wrote the supposed portions of Bible.
3.we have them exactly as they reported.

Bible passed on as oral traditions for some time.45- 95 A.D. The New Testament was written in Greek. The Pauline Epistles, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the book of Acts are all dated from 45-63 A.D. The Gospel of John and the Revelation may have been written as late as 95 A.D.

So now the question becomes

1.The people who heard bible,memorized it and passed it to others did so without any change in its text for many years.Yes or no?

The theory of chinese whispers comes to my mind.When 20 people are in a room and we say a sentence to one person and if he passes it to others secretly, the statement that emerges from the last person will be totally different from the initial statement.They will be totally different.

when one sentence changes like this what about a whole book?

So the "Liar,lord or lunatic" is a wrong question according to me.

What do you all think?

[trencacloscas]

We know from non-Biblical sources that Christianity was persecuted from an early stage

Would you please be more speciphic?

[sin_is_fun]

But that is not what he said, as reported. He called himself 'the Son of Man' very many times. And he was reckoned to fulfil prophecy rather than make it.

It is what he said but "reported to have said".We question the authenticity of the report first and then only go to his words next.

Are exaggerations likely, though? Who was selling newspapers?

In those days to exaggerate and to spread legends they dint need newspapers.People saw angels and demons everywhere.Witches floated in air.They had a different world view then.

They did not, because they could not. They would have dearly loved to deny the resurrection, but they set a guard on the tomb, almost as though Jesus had made them do it.

Again they might have never done something like that.It is what they are alleged to have done,we only have folklore written down as proof.

You presumably mean original accounts. Most of the New Testament was written by c. 65 AD, imv, when there were still very many alive who remembered Jesus in the flesh.

New testament was not written down at 65 AD.Many gospels were in circulation which were mutually contradictory.Gospels were finally compiled during regime of constantine into new testament.By then none who knew jesus were alive.Also when so many contradictory gospels were being circulated people might not have bothered to refute everything.Also war broke out in AD 70 and jews were killed by Romans.They did not have time.They were running for their lives.

That is misleading. There were many fresh memories, not ancient tales without known origin. In any case, oral tradition can be very accurate, being much less susceptible to the tampering of written deposits having few or no copies.

Memories are not fresh after a year.To expect them to be fresh after 32 years is too much.Oral tradition is hardly history for the same reason.Now do you honestly think that for 33 years (32 AD to 65AD) people passed on gospels orally without changing a single word?When it is passed on for 65 years the final output will be totally unrelated to initial input.

People do not generally whisper; and in this case, there were many more sources than one. There were twelve eye-witnesses of the whole of Jesus' ministry set apart to act as a reservoir of dependable fact about Jesus, as well as the thousands of partial witnesses, and Chinese whispering was nothing to do with this. The suggestion could hardly be more inappropriate.

Again we dont know 12 witnesses were there or not.It is claimed.When we question the authenticity of a book,verses in the book cannot become a proof.can they?

Perhaps; but a multiplicity of hearers is unlikely to be wrong; and the version of this saying that is actually in the Bible makes very good sense with the rest of the Bible; the Bible so very often confirms itself, and often in a fascinating and compelling way. That is one reason for scholars giving the Bible so much attention.

We never knew whether there were multiple hearers.We only know there were multiple contradictory versions and also they passed on orally among hundreds of people.

The messiah had to be God, if Old Testament prophecy was correct.

The prophecy might have been wrong too.

Jesus would still be Messiah, though.

Belief doesnt make somebody messiah.Many eye witnesses existed for prophethood of mohammed and his splitting of moon into two.Those martyrs died for him too.Is it acceptable proof or not?

[perplexed101]

you can find all you need to know about when the gospels were written from here:

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/Web ... icEra.html

here is a shortcut:

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/Web ... ls.CP.html

[Tilia]

The prophecy might have been wrong too.

Yes, the whole thing might be nonsense. What of it?

[Tilia]

We know from non-Biblical sources that Christianity was persecuted from an early stage

Would you please be more speciphic?

http://www.tyrannus.com/pliny_let.html

[trencacloscas]

Tilia, still don't see what the text stands for.

Trajan famously told Pliny "not to seek out" Christians nor to act on anonymous charges. Pliny's ignorance of the Christians other than awareness of their name is certain evidence that there were no laws directed at the sect.

Most of the martyrdom stories are pure fabrication.

As Pliny states: "Nothing more did I find than a disgusting, fanatical superstition".

[perplexed101]

Tilia, still don't see what the text stands for.

Trajan famously told Pliny "not to seek out" Christians nor to act on anonymous charges. Pliny's ignorance of the Christians other than awareness of their name is certain evidence that there were no laws directed at the sect.

Most of the martyrdom stories are pure fabrication.

As Pliny states: "Nothing more did I find than a disgusting, fanatical superstition".

Pliny also claimed elephants can climb ropes, concluding it is "especially surprising when they climb back down."

surprising when they climb back down... isnt that right pliny?

[Tilia]

Somebody's

Trajan famously told Pliny "not to seek out" Christians nor to act on anonymous charges.

Exactly. No more need be said.

[Lotan]

How much of the synoptics is verbatim?

Hi Tilia

From The Synoptic Problem FAQ...

"Verbatim agreement. It is rare for two independent reporters of the same event to share more than a few words in common, but the synoptic gospels often feature a substantial number of agreements in their exact words. For example, in one passage about John the Baptist, Matthew and Luke agree for 61 out of 63 Greek words of a presumably Aramaic speech. Generally, the verbatim agreement between Matthew, Mark, and Luke runs about 50% of the words, but, by contrast, their agreement with John in parallel episodes falls to about 10%."

[Tilia]

How much of the synoptics is verbatim?

Generally, the verbatim agreement between Matthew, Mark, and Luke runs about 50% of the words,

Thanks, Lotan.

How is it that the correspondence is only 50%? Why not 100%, less a little for copying error?