Zobel said:
Quote:
What we do know is the true authors of the gospels is unknown. They were all written something like 60-600 years after the death of Jesus. So we don't have a single first hand accounting of Jesus. I'm not aware of one anyway.
Your facts are really confused.
Who wrote Histories? Who wrote The Odyssey? Who wrote The Republic? If you say "Herodotus" or "Homer" or "Plato" you believe something much less historically reliable than knowing that the answer to "Who wrote the Gospel according to Luke?" is "Luke".
We have multiple first hand accounts of Jesus. The primary one is the Gospel of St John. St Paul's epistles claim first hand experience. St James epistle is that of an eyewitness, and St Luke says that he sourced his from eyewitnesses.
Quote:
Well whether or not dozens of men got together and created Jesus we do know dozens of men got together and picked which gospels and which texts to adopt into the final cannon. A lot was left out and I'm sorry but if you think that was 100% inspired by God and had no political or self interested motivations then idk what to say. It's niave.
Again.. you're just confused here. No dozens of men ever did what you're describing. It never happened. The formation of the canon was not one of declaration by a council. It was an organic coalescence that happened over centuries as groups who recognized each other as Christians shared writings they held to be scripture with each other. You're calling others naive, but you're displaying an ignorance on this topic.
Quote:
For me the entirety of the Bible has so much deep truth and wisdom that is immediately applicable in everyday life. But that wisdom and for me the utility is lost with the dogma.
I don't understand the dichotomy you're invoking between "the bible" and "dogma". What are these things in your mind and how are they distinct?
And how can you say that the bible has so much deep truth on the one hand, and then turn around and cast aspersions on it as an arbitrary collection with "so much" left out? You have a lot to work out here. Confused.
Did I strike a nerve or something? Look, I'm not trying to offend anyone here or insult anyone. I wasn't calling anyone niave directly. I do stand by my statement that the belief that the King James Bible as we know it today was inspired by God himself and had no political or "worldly" motivation is naive. It doesn't add up to me. Sorry.
"No dozens of men ever did what you're describing. It never happened. The formation of the canon was not one of declaration by a council. It was an organic coalescence that happened over centuries as groups who recognized each other as Christians shared writings they held to be scripture with each other. "
Obviously I didn't mean that literally 12 men sat down one day and declared which texts were to be the official canon. But like you say, they are a collection over time. And these texts were probably passed down orally for many generations before they were ever written down. This is probably why we don't have any " first hand eye witness accounting".
"We have multiple first hand accounts of Jesus. The primary one is the Gospel of St John."
Nothing in the Gospel of John identified the author. It's believed to be the apostle John because it makes referenced to the "loved discipline",or something along those lines. Tbh it's been about 10 yrs or so since I've really dove deep into this topic so I'm entirely open to being wrong here, but that's the way I understand it. If I'm not mistaken John was also written something like 80-100 years after the death of Christ.
As for Luke, I couldn't recall so I did a quick search and found this quote.
"Internal Evidence: Internally, a few distinctive markers are found. First and most noticeably, the author of the Third Gospel writes to one "Theophilus" (Acts 1:3)[1] and seeks to provide an "orderly sequence" (Acts 1:3) of the life of Jesus, after having had "carefully investigated everything from the very first" (1:3) according to what the "original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed down" (Acts 1:2). From this information, one can gather that the author was not an eyewitness of the events of Jesus's life. But, the author had access to those who had."
https://crossexamined.org/wrote-gospel-luke-acts/ So no, I don't believe Luke was the author of the Gospel of Luke either.
"I don't understand the dichotomy you're invoking between "the bible" and "dogma". What are these things in your mind and how are they distinct?"
Whether or not the Gospels we're written by the disciples of any first hand witness doesn't mean there aren't lessons there to be learned. Same for the old testament. I read a chapter of Proverbs every day growing up. Every month I'd have completed the entire book. My only point here is that taking the text literally (dogmatically... As in incontrovertibly true) forces one to deny what their own senses tell them. I'm to believe a snake talked to Adam and Eve? That the Red Sea literally parted or that God spoke to Moses in the burning bush? Isn't it more reasonable to assume these are a collection of metaphors intended to impart some deeper truths and wisdoms?
"And how can you say that the bible has so much deep truth on the one hand, and then turn around and cast aspersions on it as an arbitrary collection with "so much" left out? You have a lot to work out here. Confused."
Because I'm not consumed by dogma. That's why. I can read it and interpret it as a metaphor and find the lessons. The Gnostic gospels (that were left out) also have parts that impart great wisdom. So does Buddhism and Taoism. It is the very definition of dogmatic to assume only one book is true and that book was absolutely inspired by God himself and No wisdom can be found anywhere else.... That's just nonsense imo. We can read many books, learn from many faiths and religious and worldviews and I bet there's a grain of truth in all of them.