Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[kmortis]

Where would a Nazareth change the main theme, someone being a son of a deity.

Paul

No where. That's why I don't really understand why you're so hard over on there not being one. Does it really matter? If there was one or not at the time, it doesn't change Jesus' non-divinity.

Right, I have been uncharacteristically quiet while I plough through the literature on Second Temple era synagogues. They were common in the diaspora, and a few examples of pre-70CE ones are known in Palestine, but they were uncommon as specialist buildings. Two things come to light - they served as a place for Sabbath readings, and they also acted as places where hospitality was offered to travellers. The latter I found particularly interesting: it could be the Jesus movement actually stayed in synagogues as they moved around the countryside.

However the crucial point seems to be that a synagogue may have just been a private house - some were it seem privately built - as we see here



This seems to be confirmed by the Theodotus inscription - anyone could set up a synagogue, even a Roman. SO the term may simply be for "the place where the Sabbath readings were held", and used by the possibly diaspora authors to indicte that practice.

However synangogues were not actually anachronistic as i had thought possible - they have existed for three centuries by tthe time in question. Their role may have only been of importance ot one of the many setarian groups, or varied by local custom however. They were NOT associated with teh Pharisees however as one often sees suggested.

So yeah, Nazareth may well have had a synagogue - just not hta we imagine as such. Hope of interest

cj x


cj x

So, it's like some churches today that meet primarily in the homes of its members?

Why would synagogues by anachronistic at all? I'm not really all that familiar with the evolution of Jewish worship other than in broad strokes (Cain....Abraham & Issac...scapegoats...that whole Golden Calf debacle...the Temple...the wrecking of the Temple...the second Temple....the wrecking of THAT Temple....murder, mayhem, repeat)

 

[cj.23]

Why would synagogues by anachronistic at all? I'm not really all that familiar with the evolution of Jewish worship other than in broad strokes (Cain....Abraham & Issac...scapegoats...that whole Golden Calf debacle...the Temple...the wrecking of the Temple...the second Temple....the wrecking of THAT Temple....murder, mayhem, repeat)

Good question - because Second Temple Judaism, which ends with the wrecking of the temples as you say in 70CE, is really TEMPLE focussed. The TEMPLE is everything; back in the days of the first Temple, Hezekiah (I Think) had every shrines in the nation apart from the temple destroyed. If you are a Samaritan you have your temple at Gezirim; if you are a Jew at Jerusalem, but worship is exclusively focussed towards the Temple, which every Jew is expected to visit three times a year. Synagogues fly very much on the face of this temple only attitude, though from the third century BCE they have developed in the diaspora as meeting places for the community prayers and Sabbath readings.

After the destruction of the Temple in 70CE the synagogues becomes a 'temporary' replacement till the Third Temple is built, and animal sacrifices end.

cj x

 

[Akhenaten]

Where did you get an æ from?

Out of the æther.




Hold down the ALT key and type 0230 on the numeric keypad (not the number keys on the top row).

 

[Lothian]

Where did you get an æ from?

If you think that is nice here is acuter version ǽ.







I just copy and paste from the character map in windows.

 

[Akhenaten]

All of you have raised very valid points, which is great.

And they said it couldn't be done!

But in my opinion, the Bible should not be taken too literally. I'm not here to disprove the text, only to say that it should often be seen as a series of symbolic stories instead.

That's pretty much why the thread is in History, Literature and the Arts, rather than Religion and Philosophy. The premise of the OP was that the New Testament is a factual record of people, events and places and it's the contention of almost all of the rest of us that this is most definitely not the case.

None of us would, I think, argue that there is no evidence for why we know the NT writers were pretty good at allegory, nor dispute that if one wants to take the contents of the NT on faith alone then that's a matter for personal choice.

All that is really at issue is whether the NT represents a historically accurate collection of documents covering the life and times of Jeebus and Co.

If the authors had had the sense to set it all in stone like the much cleverer ancient Egyptians we wouldn't be having all this trouble, now would we?

 

[Akhenaten]

If you think that is nice here is acuter version ǽ.

άωεşœmε.

 

[Toke]

Out of the æther.

Hold down the ALT key and type 0230 on the numeric keypad (not the number keys on the top row).

I have them* on my keyboard, but were surprised to see a foreigner use one.


* Æ æ, Ø ø, and Å å.

 

[secrets]

And they said it couldn't be done!







That's pretty much why the thread is in History, Literature and the Arts, rather than Religion and Philosophy. The premise of the OP was that the New Testament is a factual record of people, events and places and it's the contention of almost all of the rest of us that this is most definitely not the case.

None of us would, I think, argue that there is no evidence for why we know the NT writers were pretty good at allegory, nor dispute that if one wants to take the contents of the NT on faith alone then that's a matter for personal choice.

All that is really at issue is whether the NT represents a historically accurate collection of documents covering the life and times of Jeebus and Co.

If the authors had had the sense to set it all in stone like the much cleverer ancient Egyptians we wouldn't be having all this trouble, now would we?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/209954b7bb91e6c88e.gif[/qimg]

Again my point: should not be taken literally. The address was to the OP

 

[Akhenaten]

I have them* on my keyboard, but were surprised to see a foreigner use one.


* Æ æ, Ø ø, and Å å.

Foreigner???

Exodus 23:9 (NIV)

"You must not oppress foreigners. You know what it's like to be a foreigner, for you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt."​

At least there's evidence that the Old Testament writers told the truth.




Be well, my friend

 

[Akhenaten]

Again my point: should not be taken literally. The address was to the OP

Good-oh. I'z just filling in for a bit.

 

[Akhenaten]

However the crucial point seems to be that a synagogue may have just been a private house - some were it seem privately built - as we see here

<polite snip>

This seems to be confirmed by the Theodotus inscription - anyone could set up a synagogue, even a Roman. SO the term may simply be for "the place where the Sabbath readings were held", and used by the possibly diaspora authors to indicte that practice.

<again>

So yeah, Nazareth may well have had a synagogue - just not what we imagine as such. Hope of interest

cj x

Of great interest, as are all of your posts.

Thank you, cj.

 

[zooterkin]

Again my point: should not be taken literally. The address was to the OP

You've got a bit of catching up to do, then.

ETA: And welcome!

(Aren't we close to our quota for Aussies? There seem to be a lot of them about... )

 

[amb]

All of you have raised very valid points, which is great.
But in my opinion, the Bible should not be taken too literally. I'm not here to disprove the text, only to say that it should often be seen as a series of symbolic stories instead.

I think you'll find that even cj 23 who is a christian do not read the bible literally, let alone anyone else.

 

[secrets]

I think you'll find that even cj 23 who is a christian do not read the bible literally, let alone anyone else.

I bloody hope so haha.

 

[kmortis]

Good question - because Second Temple Judaism, which ends with the wrecking of the temples as you say in 70CE, is really TEMPLE focussed. The TEMPLE is everything; back in the days of the first Temple, Hezekiah (I Think) had every shrines in the nation apart from the temple destroyed. If you are a Samaritan you have your temple at Gezirim; if you are a Jew at Jerusalem, but worship is exclusively focussed towards the Temple, which every Jew is expected to visit three times a year. Synagogues fly very much on the face of this temple only attitude, though from the third century BCE they have developed in the diaspora as meeting places for the community prayers and Sabbath readings.

After the destruction of the Temple in 70CE the synagogues becomes a 'temporary' replacement till the Third Temple is built, and animal sacrifices end.

cj x

So, when did Chinese food become a Jewish sacrament?

So the synagogues were local worship/gathering places to serve as auxillary Temple? That jibes with the understanding I have gotten from my Jewish friends on how Judiasm is practiced today. We're seeing the formation of modern Judiasm along side the formation of Christianity.

Even if the gospel writers fabricated Jesus out of whole cloth, we can still glean real history from the background they decided to use.

 

[amb]

Not one author of any material found in the N/T is an eyewitness to the events. The Q document, and Paul,s epistles were not written until at the earliest, 20 years after this Yeshua's supposed death. All that time it was told and re-told as oral tradition.
From that, it's impossible to presume that the gospellers wrote the truth when the first gospel, that of Mark was probably written in 65-70 CE.

 

[X]

I wonder if DOC is aware of why cj.23's posts are well received and discussed, while his own are mocked?

If you're lurking during your 'holiday', DOC, I suggest you read the last few pages, to see the difference between evidence and nonsense.

 

[pizzadeliveryninja]

I'd just like to add my voice to the praise of cj.23 - thanks for your interesting and informative posts.

 

[Paulhoff]

No where. That's why I don't really understand why you're so hard over on there not being one. Does it really matter? If there was one or not at the time, it doesn't change Jesus' non-divinity.

What is the NT of the bible for? If not making a point for his followers that Jesus was a son of some deity. If it is not correct on all account then how is it correct about that, seeing how important that is.

Paul

 

[kmortis]

What is the NT of the bible for? If not making a point for his followers that Jesus was a son of some deity. If it is not correct on all account then how is it correct about that, seeing how important that is.

Paul

Personally, I see the NT (and the bible as a whole) as a work of religious literature. It is a story of what people from that time wanted to write about. Sometimes the story was better than others, but there is some fact mixed in with all the fiction. Actually, only the gospels make a case for Jesus being the son of god, the rest of the NT just assumes that to be true an no further discussion is involved. I'm not really interested in any of that, I'm more interested in how a small band of believers saw the world at that time.