|  New Posts
 
 
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
alloneword
Reply with quote  #1 
Christians routinely dismiss many stories in the Book of Mormon and the Koran as being obviously stolen from previous stories.

They are right to do so, but this article discusses whether the same rules apply to the miracles of Jesus. Were these stories also stolen from previous stories? I set out to show that Christians must concede that the evidence that the miracle stories of Jesus were taken from the Old Testament is just as convincing as the evidence that stories in the Book of Mormon and the Qur'an were simply lifted from the Old Testament.


Ruth Tucker is an evangelical Christian. In her excellent book, 'Another Gospel', (Zondervan,1989), she examines the beliefs of Mormons, Moonies, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. Here is what she says about the Book of Mormon.

"Many of the stories in the Book of Mormon were, as Fawn Brodie and many others have shown, borrowed from the Bible. The daughter of Jared, like Salome, danced before a king and decapitation followed. Aminadi, like Daniel, deciphered handwriting on a wall, and Alma was converted after the exact fashion of St. Paul. The daughters of the Lamanites were abducted like the dancing daughters of Shiloh; and Ammon, the American counterpart of David, for want of a Goliath slew six sheep-rustlers with his sling".

What could be more obvious and clear-cut?

Or take Chapter 2 Verse 249 of the Koran, which is about the first king of Israel, called Talut in the Koran.

So when Talut departed with the forces, he said: Surely Allah will try you with a river; whoever then drinks from it, he is not of me, and whoever does not taste of it, he is surely of me, except he who takes with his hand as much of it as fills the hand; but with the exception of a few of them they drank from it. So when he had crossed it, he and those who believed with him, they said: We have today no power against Jalut and his forces.

Christians will at once recognise this strange story about how God tested the army of the Israelites by making them drink from a river. It is found in Judges 7:4-7. Perhaps the details of other Biblical stories were also weaved together into this one story.

4. And the LORD said unto Gideon, The people are yet too many; bring them down unto the water, and I will try them for thee there: and it shall be, that of whom I say unto thee, This shall go with thee, the same shall go with thee; and of whomsoever I say unto thee, This shall not go with thee, the same shall not go.

5. So he brought down the people unto the water: and the LORD said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink.

6. And the number of them that lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, were three hundred men: but all the rest of the people bowed down upon their knees to drink water.

7. And the LORD said unto Gideon, By the three hundred men that lapped will I save you, and deliver the Midianites into thine hand: and let all the other people go every man unto his place.

It is very easy to spot when old religious stories have been recycled to produce new religious stories about other people.


There is a Christian web site which sets out to answer Islam and they also think it obvious that this story comes from Judges 7. Their web page can be found at Answering Islam There, they write ' Instead this story is found in Judges 7, where Gideon lead the Israelites into battle. This is again a historical compression where the author of the Qur'an confuses details of separate stories and weaves them into one.

As I said, it is very easy to spot when old religious stories have been recycled to produce new religious stories about other people.

And the relevance to the Bible is?

Take the feeding of the 5,000.

In 2 Kings 4:42-44, Elisha has a great many people to feed with only a few loaves of bread and a little other food. He delegates the task of feeding. There is a complaint that the quantity is too small. The feeding continues and everyone is fed. There is surplus bread left over. This older story from Kings has exactly the same plot as the feeding of the 5,000 - only the numbers are different.

The feeding of the 5,000 is such an obvious rewrite of the story from Kings that if I remind you that Jesus used barley bread, you can guess what type of bread Elisha used.

On page 176 of the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, written by a raft of Catholic scholars, it says that 2 Kings 4:42-44 is 'obviously the inspiration for the NT multiplication miracles'. I like the word 'obviously'.


But one story is just a coincidence??

Here are some more examples of Old Testament stories which have been rewritten to become stories about Jesus.

Below, LXX stands for the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. This translation was done at least before 200 BC. The New Testament was written in Greek, and the writers used very often the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint), rather than the Hebrew originals. Nowadays, Christians tend to reject the Septuagint, but the Gospel writers were heavily influenced by it, as we shall see below, and used many phrases from it , just as Joseph Smith was heavily influenced by the King James Version and used many phrases from it when writing the Book of Mormon.

In 2 Kings 4:27-37 a distraught parent of an only child comes to Elisha just as in Mark 5:22-24 (which continues in verses 35-43) a distraught parent of an only child comes to Jesus,pleading for help.

In both stories someone tries to discourage the parent from bothering Elisha and Jesus.

In both stories it is unclear to some people in the story whether the child is dead ,dying or asleep.

In both stories the child is in a house some distance away.

In both stories a second source comes from the house and confirms that the child is dead.

In both stories Jesus and Elisha continue anyway to the house.

In both stories the parent precedes Elisha or Jesus

In both stories Elisha and Jesus seek a high degree of privacy by turning people out of the house before their miracle .

The story in Mark is such an obvious rewrite of the story in Kings that if I remind you that Jairus in Mark 5 falls at Jesus's feet, you can guess what the parent in 2 Kings 4 did.

The name Jairus has 2 meanings. 1 is 'he enlightens'. The other is 'he awakens'. Is not 'he awakens' a remarkably apt name for someone in a resurrection story, where Jesus says that the child is not dead but sleeping?

As confirmation that Mark used 2 Kings 4 for his stories of the feeding of a crowd, and the raising of a dead child, Mark 5:42 says that after the miracle, the parents were 'amazed with great amazement' (exestesan ekstasei megale), while 2 Kings 4:13 we have 'amazed with all amazement' (exestesas... pasan ten ekstasin tauten)


What more clear cut evidence is needed that stories from 2 Kings 4 became stories about Jesus? We shall see later that in the miracle of the calming of the sea, the disciples remembered to be afraid with great fear, because in Jonah people were afraid with great fear , while in Mark 5, the parents remembered to be amazed with great amazement, because in 2 Kings 4 people were amazed with all amazement. Possibly the witnesses of Jesus's miracles rushed to the nearest synagogue to look up in the Old Testament how they should react after each miracle.

Perhaps Mark was the first person to apply the Elisha story to Jesus. I very much doubt he was the first, but somebody at sometime thought that Jesus must have been able to do whatever Elisha, Elijah from the Old Testament could have done. This is how legends start. Perhaps the Gospel writers task was limited to taking the stories and bringing out and enhancing the similarities.

Who can In Jonah the sailors and Jonah are in a boat during a dreadful storm just as in Mark 4 the disciples and Jesus are on a boat. The sailors look for Jonah and find him asleep. The disciples look for Jesus and find him asleep. This could be a coincidence except that this story is the one and only time Jesus is ever shown sleeping in the entire New Testament. Sleeping in a tiny boat on the point of sinking, during a storm of such severity that experienced sailors were unable to cope, is quite a feat.

The best selling commentary on Matthew in the UK is by J.C.Fenton, who was Principal of Lichfield Theological College. He says about Matthew 8:24 'but he was asleep recalls Jonah 1:5, Jonah ...was fast asleep.'

He says about Matthew 8:25:- 'they went and woke him, saying, Save (soson), Lord (kyrie), we are perishing. (apollymetha) Cf Jonah 1:6, So the captain came and said to him, What do you mean, you sleeper? Arise, call upon your God (Kyrie)! Perhaps your God will give a thought to us. (Greek 'save us' diasose), that we do not perish (apollometha). He says about Matthew 8:27 'And the men (hoi de anthropoi)... Are they an echo of Jonah 1:16 -Then the men (hoi andres) feared the Lord exceedingly.?' When else does Matthew call the disciples 'the men'?

Mark also is quite aware that the story comes from Jonah, as he also draws heavily upon it.

In both Mark 4 and Jonah the witnesses after the sea-calming miracle are portrayed as afraid and awe-struck. In Mark 4 'feared with great fear (ephobethesan phobon megan)'. In Jonah (LXX) 'feared the men with great fear' (ephobethesan hoi andres phobon megan)say for certain, but we can say that the similarities between the stories are just as close as the similarities between the stories in the Book of Mormon and the Biblical stories that Christians insist Joseph Smith used.

Jesus in Luke 7 raises the son of a widow from the dead. In 1 Kings 17, Elijah raises the son of a widow from the dead. Both stories employ exactly the same words - and he gave him to his mother.The Greek is 'kai edoken auton te metri autou', copied word for word from the Septuagint version of 1 Kings 17.

An Illustrations page is available for readers to double check my claims

Did Luke use 1 Kings 17 as a basis for his story? Jesus met the widow at the gate of a city. Elijah met his widow in 1 Kings 17:10. It should come as no surprise that it was at the gate of a city. Luke 7 also copies other phrases from the Septuagint version of 1 Kings 17.

Luke copies 'kai egeneto' (and it came to pass). 'Kai egeneto' is used many, many times in the Greek Old Testament and Luke used this phrase from the Septuagint so much that it has become a cliche. When writing the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith also used 'and it came to pass' a lot. Here he was copying from the King James Bible , but we can see that the writer of Luke's Gospel copied in a very similar manner to Joseph Smith.

Luke writes 'tay pulay tays poleos kai idoo' (to the gate of a city and behold), which is almost identical to the Old Testament Greek of 'tou pulona tays poleos kai idoo'.

Luke often used the Greek Old Testament for his stories. In Acts 10, Peter is told in a dream to eat unclean animals. In the Old Testament, Ezekiel 4 also has a story of somebody who is asked to eat unpalatable food.

According to Acts , Peter, an Aramaic-speaking Jew managed, in a moment of terror, to remember the exact phrase from the Greek translation of Ezekiel 4:14! Was it realistic for somebody described in Acts itself as ignorant (idiotes) and illiterate to bring to mind a Greek translation that he would not have known? I think not. I suspect Luke 'borrowed' words from the Greek translation of Ezekiel 4:14 to put into the mouth of Peter. It is not as though it is a common phrase which Peter might have hit on himself. 'Medamos, Kyrie' (By no means,Lord) is used only here and in Acts 11:8.

It is even more remarkable that Peter managed to reproduce the words of horror that Ezekiel said when he was also told to eat unclean foods, as Peter was supposed to have been present when Jesus declared all foods clean in Mark 7, long before Acts 10 ever took place.

Curiously, John 4 uses the elements of 1 Kings 17 that Luke does not. In John 4, Jesus, while in a foreign land, meets a woman who no longer has a husband, just as Elijah does. Both Elijah and Jesus are thirsty and have to ask the woman for a drink. In both stories, though, it is the woman and not the prophet who is in true need.

Both Elijah and Jesus promise her a never ending source. Both 1 Kings 17:24 and John 4:19 make the women certify the miracle worker as a true prophet. The miracle of Jesus knowing the details of the women's life without being told can also be traced to an Old Testament story.

Again, we can be certain that the author of John uses 1 Kings 17 when writing the miracle stories in his Gospel. In the miracle of turning water into wine, the words of the woman (Ti, emoi kai soi) from 1 Kings 17:18 reappear exactly as words of Jesus. Now we know why Jesus was brusque to his mother during the miracle - he felt the need to repeat the Greek words of a woman from an Old Testament miracle story.

Just as Joseph Smith did in the Book of Mormon, the early Christians drew upon the one source that they held to be infallible - the Old Testament. They felt quite justified in taking stories from the Old Testament and applying them to Jesus. After all, they knew that the Old Testament was full of coded 'prophecies' and that they could, if they examined them cleverly enough, work out what Jesus must have done.

They certainly never needed to ask eyewitnesses what happened. Why should they, when they had a written record, in the Old Testament, of Jesus's life? All they had to do was tidy up a few of the miracle stories, exaggerate the numbers and they had ready-made miracles for Jesus to have done.

Rewriting old books to create new books is a well-known Biblical technique. The books of Chronicles were pieced together from the books of Kings. It is no surprise that this process continued into New Testament times.

It wasn't just Old Testament stories that were reworked. Of the 661 verses in Mark's Gospel, Matthew used 607 of them. It is interesting to look at the stories he dropped.

In Mark 8:23-25, Jesus cures blindness by spitting on eyes, although the cure does not work first time. Matthew and Luke drop this miracle ,as it was embarrasing. Matthew also drops the other account of Jesus spitting, in Mark 7:33-35. Matthew also drops a healing of a demoniac in Mark 1:25-27.

This left a problem for Matthew in that he was short of people healed as compared to Mark. So he simply doubled up the number of people healed in the healings he did take over from Mark. In Matthew 20:29-34 , he doubles the number of blind people healed, compared to Mark 10:46-52. This was almost certainly to make up for dropping Mark 8:23-25, as the word for eyes that Matthew uses in 20:34 (ommata) is only used here and in Mark 8:23, so this is Matthew's way of getting 'ommata' healed without having to say that Jesus spat on someone's face.

Because Matthew has left out one healing of a demoniac from Mark's Gospel, (Mark 1:24-29) , he doubles the numbers healed in Matthew 8:28-34 as compared with Mark 5:1-20 and imports the question from Mark 1:24 into Matthew 8:29, as he did not want to drop the story entirely.

It seems that the Gospellers believed that the miracle stories were malleable and could be edited and changed to suit their purposes. If they could do so, what credence can we put on their accounts?

Eric
Reply with quote  #2 
Alloneword,

It's hypocritical for you to endorse an appearance of similarities as "evidence" against Christianity, when you and other atheists consistently and steadfastly reject evidences from appearance when they are brought to the table by the Christian side of the debate.  You ought to conduct your own debate by the same standard you demand of us!   
alloneword
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric
Alloneword, It's hypocritical for you to endorse an appearance of similarities as "evidence" against Christianity, when you and other atheists consistently and steadfastly reject evidences from appearance when they are brought to the table by the Christian side of the debate.  You ought to conduct your own debate by the same standard you demand of us!   


It is atheists who claim that our eyes do not appear to be designed.

I often get people who have to put on their reading-glasses before they can read to me from a book , explaining why eyes were designed by God.

It is Chrisians who claim that God did not design rabies, cholera, smallpox and HIV.

It is Christians who claim that stories in the Book of Mormon and the Koran were derived from the Bible.

It is Christians who claimed Muhammad used the legend of the seven sleepers, while Paul's use of Jannes and Jambres did not come from legends.
harvey1
Reply with quote  #4 
Thanks AOW for your opening post to this thread. I thought it was well constructed. Some of the details, however, are not convincing to me. Such as, comparing I Kings 17 with John 4 in what Elijah says to the woman and what Jesus says seems to me a stretch since in Jesus' time the use of phrases from Hebrew text were probably very popular, and it doesn't at all mean that the Gospel writer constructed his story to match those particular statements. However, I think there is obviously a number of parallels to Jesus' life and miracles that were adopted from the Hebrew scriptures by the Gospel writers as you suggest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alloneword
They are right to do so, but this article discusses whether the same rules apply to the miracles of Jesus. Were these stories also stolen from previous stories? I set out to show that Christians must concede that the evidence that the miracle stories of Jesus were taken from the Old Testament is just as convincing as the evidence that stories in the Book of Mormon and the Qur'an were simply lifted from the Old Testament.


It seems to me that some critical scholars accept that Jesus was primarily a healer and was involved in demon exorcisms (e.g., Stevan Davies: you can read his own summary here). This seems right to me given Jesus' popularity and reasons for his execution (and not his disciples). If Jesus were seen as subversive to Rome, then a number of disciples would have been executed. That doesn't seem to be the case. This would, I think, suggest that the Jesus movement was not seen as a threat. Rather, Jesus was seen as a threat because of his popularity, and if that popularity was from his teachings, that would have involved the whole Jesus movement. If, on the other hand, if his popularity came from being a healer and exorcist, then it would make sense why you would execute him since it wasn't a political or religious movement Pilate wished to end--but rather the life of a man whose following became unsettling.

Another important argument for this view is that a number of early movements extend from Jesus, and that wouldn't be the case if Jesus were quite vocal on religious views. Rather, as a healer and exorcist, Jesus taught a very general Gospel about the kingdom of God coming through the spirit. This Gospel message offered a little to everyone, and therefore you could have Jesus communities that were soon at odds on how to interpret who Jesus was.

I think what you constructed is a portrayal of a trend that developed some time after Jesus lived. Christians experienced the resurrection of Jesus, and understood the miracle of the Incarnation through him.  The real miracles of Jesus were not as well known as the impression of "Jesus as healer" left upon them, and as you pointed out, as stories of Jesus' past became known, they were seen as embarrassing because the miracles were not as supernatural per se as people of that time required of their legends.

So, your argument is right according to the letter, many of the Gospel miracles of Jesus are derivatives of earlier accounts, but wrong according to the spirit since Jesus was actually a healer and his immense popularity comes from his healing ministry.

Now, in terms of comparing early Christianity to Mormonism or Islam, I think the arguments for or against Christianity should not be gauged by how the Gospels were constructed. The Gospels were written to communicate the meaning of Jesus as Savior, King, and Lord. If someone is so locked into literalism that they cannot see this meaning as the Gospel message, then of course the Gospels will appeal to be a newspaper that has the facts entirely wrong. But, the Gospels are not newspapers and were not written with this in mind. The Gospel writers added, deleted, and modified stories about Jesus to match their particular message about Jesus. They felt they could do this because they felt that God had revealed Jesus to Christians, and they wanted to pass on what they had learned. They used these stories to do so because they were the most effective means by which to know Jesus as they had known him in their lives.

It's unfortunate, I think, that so many feel forced between full literalism of the Gospels or complete rejection of the Gospels. But, I guess that's the CNN culture in which we live.
alloneword
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey1
Thanks AOW for your opening post to this thread. I thought it was well constructed. Some of the details, however, are not convincing to me. Such as, comparing I Kings 17 with John 4 in what Elijah says to the woman and what Jesus says seems to me a stretch since in Jesus' time the use of phrases from Hebrew text were probably very popular, and it doesn't at all mean that the Gospel writer constructed his story to match those particular statements.



Both are in Greek, not Hebrew. Why did the Gospel writer 'translate' Jesus words to be the same as from the LXX?

Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey1

Scholars accept that Jesus was primarily a healer and was involved in demon exorcisms



But they only give evidence that it was claimed that Jesus primarily a healer and involved in demon exorcisms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey1



The Gospel writers added, deleted, and modified stories about Jesus to match their particular message about Jesus. They felt they could do this because they felt that God had revealed Jesus to Christians, and they wanted to pass on what they had learned.



Or what they had made up.

Just as people made up stories about George Washington chopping down a cherry tree.

Or as people made up stories about the infant Jesus bringing people back to life.

harvey1
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alloneword
Both are in Greek, not Hebrew. Why did the Gospel writer 'translate' Jesus words to be the same as from the LXX?


Do you have any scholarly sources to support this argument? It seems a little far stretched since nothing else in the accounts match each other. It's possible, of course, but usually borrowing from other sources includes more details of the account. I'm sure if historians browsed over your text in 2,000 years, they might think you borrowed from a text written by Pierre LaPlace (250 years ago), etc.. Of course, you might not have read LaPlace, so it would be completely erroneous if a future historian made that comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOW
But they only give evidence that it was claimed that Jesus primarily a healer and involved in demon exorcisms.


But, if the biblical tradition points to this being the cause of Jesus' immense popularity and subsequent execution, then this is pretty good evidence that Jesus was a healer and exorcised demons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOW
Or what they had made up. Just as people made up stories about George Washington chopping down a cherry tree. Or as people made up stories about the infant Jesus bringing people back to life.


I think we have to consider the motivation of the writers. Their intent was not to invent Jesus since he was already real for them, rather they sought to reveal Jesus as they knew him from what they saw revealed by the spirit of God. This meant combing the scriptures and finding parallels with his life that was well-known, and combining those sketchy accounts of his life with the accounts that were parallel to scripture. So, in the case of Jonah for example, after Jesus' death and resurrection, he probably became seen as a type of Jonah.  It's quite natural then for the early Christians to begin associating the symbol of fish (e.g., Ichthys) to him. Basically, this process becomes part of the revelation. In the case of the Ichthys,  each letter became part of an backronym for Jesus Christ, Son of God [IXÈYÓ].
Steven Shea
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey1

I think we have to consider the motivation of the writers. Their intent was not to invent Jesus since he was already real for them, rather they sought to reveal Jesus as they knew him from what they saw revealed by the spirit of God. This meant combing the scriptures and finding parallels with his life that was well-known, and combining those sketchy accounts of his life with the accounts that were parallel to scripture. So, in the case of Jonah for example, after Jesus' death and resurrection, he probably became seen as a type of Jonah.  It's quite natural then for the early Christians to begin associating the symbol of fish (e.g., Ichthys) to him. Basically, this process becomes part of the revelation. In the case of the Ichthys,  each letter became part of an backronym for Jesus Christ, Son of God [IXÈYÓ].


One of the things that differentiates Christianity from other religions in the following:

  1. Jesus was historical - he really lived.
  2. Jesus was killed on a cross.
  3. The apostles were mostly crucified or killed in a violent way because of their faith.
  4. Other first-century Christians were killed in violent ways because of their faith.

This means that these Christians did believe these things. It is highly unlikely that a person would makeup a story like Jesus feeding the 5000 and then face crucifixion because of it and then not deny it when facing crucifixion.

It also makes sense that Jesus would do things out of the OT because His desire is to show himself to the Jewish people as being their God. What better way to do this than to do the things that were miracles in the OT?

Steve
Steven Shea
Reply with quote  #8 
harvey1,

I ment to add to my last post that I agree with you. Although I proably take the accounts as more historical than you do...

Steve

alloneword
Reply with quote  #9 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Shea

The apostles were mostly crucified or killed in a violent way because of their faith.


More myths....

It is all a question of what people prefer - document evidence , as in my article, or myths and legends about 'martyrdoms.'

Fact. We do not have the name of one Christian who was killed at the Colosseum.

Fact. Not one Christian was ever recorded in Roman history as being charged with preaching a resurrection.
Craig
Reply with quote  #10 

Quote:
  

Fact. Not one Christian was ever recorded in Roman history as being charged with preaching a resurrection



umm Paul declared Christ's ressurection in Rome...hence the book of Romans which was dated way ealier than the Gospels...also he was beheaded for it.

and vice versa...you have no proof that what you believe is true...what do you think about all the miracles that happen today? You believe people just lie about it when they say that Jesus healed them of cancer that was there for 10 years and just now all of a sudden disappears after prayer??? What do you say about demonic possession that at the name of Jesus..the person drops down on the floor like a snake and runs while having saliva all over their mouth...this happened only when Jesus' name was mentioned...not any other time did this person do this...also what do you have to say about our personal experiences..? Also how could a non-intelligent primordial soup form a cell...much less a intellectual human being like Dr.Craig or disciples that were soo clever and making a so called "myth" that has changed peoples lies and cause people to do some pretty crazy (supernatural) things?????

until you can give me a better answer other than billions of years of natural selection and what not...i will not sit here and listen to your itellectual fallaced jargon any more...
harvey1
Reply with quote  #11 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Shea
This means that these Christians did believe these things. It is highly unlikely that a person would makeup a story like Jesus feeding the 5000 and then face crucifixion because of it and then not deny it when facing crucifixion.

We have a different perspective here, Steve. In my view there wasn't a clear separation by the Gospel writers between the person of history and the person of faith that we have today. If the Gospel writers were interested in writing a bibliography of Jesus, then they would have told us about Jesus with many more details of his life (e.g., could he read and write, what happened to Joseph after the age of 12, what did he do before he began his ministry, etc.). Rather, the Gospel writers developed their own themes and motifs of Jesus that they continued to develop throughout their Gospel.  For example, Markian motifs focused on many of these motifs:

1) Humanity of Jesus
2) The Cross
3) Messianic secret/blindness of the disciples and witnesses
4) Mystery of Jesus
5) Healing powers: physical and spiritual
6) Jesus as a breaker of rules and overturner of tradition
7) Jesus as a bridegroom
8) Development of the disciples
9) Demons recognize Jesus but cannot say who he is
10) Jesus' great popularity

(see, for example, ed: Leland Ryken, "New Testament in Literary Criticism", (1984))

Each Gospel writer brings out a different set of themes and motifs, and they develop those motifs. They change common sources that they shared with other Gospel writers when those sources were in conflict with their themes/motifs. For example, here's text unique to Mark that demonstrates (10) above that Mark added text to the common source that he shared with Matthew and Luke. This shows Mark's fixation on Jesus popularity that the other Gospel writers did not share:

Quote:

MarK 1:33 "And the whole city was gathered at the door"
(missing in Matt. 8:16 and Luke 4:40)
Mark 1:45 "A healed man 'began to proclaim.. so that [Jesus] could no longer enter a city openly."
(missing in Matt. 9:31 and Luke 5:15)
Mark 2:1-2 "it was heard that he was at home. And so many were gathered that there was no longer room even at the door."
(missing in Matt. 9:10 and Luke 5:17)
Mark 6:31 "And he said to them, 'Come by yourselves to a deserted spot and rest a while.' For many were coming and going, and they did not even have time to eat."
(missing in Matt. 14:12-13 and Luke 9:10)
Mark 7:24 "Going into a house he did not want anyone to know, but he could not hide."
(missing in Matt. 15:21)
Mark 9:30-31a "they were going through Galilee and he did not want anyone to know. For he was teaching his disciples."
(missing in Matt. 17:22 and Luke 9:43) (See Delbert Burkett, "Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark", T&T Clark International, p.27


Of course, this is a half page from this one interesting book. There's many pages in this book that show how the Gospel writers redacted the common sources to match their themes and motifs.

I believed many years in the miracles mentioned in the scriptures as "the" miracles of Christ. Even today, I'm not actually denying those miracles happened, just that they need not be the real miracles of Jesus. Of course, I'm committed to Jesus being a miracle worker, but I'm not committed to the literary nature of the Gospel miracles. In my opinion, those miracles probably do not reflect the true miraculous wonder that those around Jesus experienced by his miraculous deeds. Had we lived at the time, we would feel pity for us today that all we have is these symbolic miracles. The Gospel accounts help to visualize the impact of the real Jesus, and in that sense they connect us very directly with the historical Jesus.  The Gospel writers did the best they could to describe Jesus as God revealed him to them, and by using themes and motifs and their own language they were able to communicate to us the name by which every knee shall bow.

The unfortunate thing for biblical inerrantists is that you guys strain at the gnatt when reading scriptures of God's actions of genocide and other deplorable acts in the Old Testament. By seeing the world as the Gospel writers saw Jesus and the scriptures, there's much more to learn about Jesus, The Gospels give us great insight when we compare how the Gospel writers changed their sources. I personally don't think one has really studied the scriptures the way God has meant that they be studied until one has studied the scriptures from this critical perspective. (Unfortunately, unbelievers have hijacked biblical criticism, so many of the true gems of scripture are lost to those who would treasure them the most.)
Wes
Reply with quote  #12 

First before, I start on an extensive Refutation of mr alloneword, I just have one question.

That is simply, Why do you care? What makes you care SO… Much, that you literally spend half your days dealing with I, rather then living a good life. Because if I was an atheist, I would be out enjoying every last moment, because this is the only life we have, and I most certainly would not spend hours upon hours playing with Christians who I don’t even believe in? I just don’t get you.

 

Alrite, now onto this lovely garbage, that I feel needs some attention.

 

In 2 Kings 4:42-44 and the feeding of the Five thousand.

Key differences that alloneword conveniently leaves out:

 

1.)    In Kings there is a Famine taking place in Gilgal, in the Gospels, The people want to stay and here his teaching, but are getting hungry, and Jesus has compassion on them.

2.)    In Kings there is 100 men, in the Gospels theres 5,000

3.)    In Kings there are 20 loves of Barley Bread, In the Gospels there is  5 loaves and 2 fish.

4.)    In Kings someone randomly brings Elisha 20 loaves of bread for no particular reason, and Elisha tells them to give it to the people to eat, In the Gospels Jesus tells the disciples to give the people something to eat, so they find one young boy to draw food from.

5.)    In Kings the the lord tells the people to simply eat, and some may be left over, In the Gospels, Jesus looks up to heaven and blesses the food, and suddenly there’s 12 basketfulls.

6.)    In Kings the 20 loaves could easily have fed 100 men, in the Gospels, there had to have been a divine miracle to feed 5,000.

7.)    If this had been a rewrite, then why would Matthew report that there were 7 loaves, and possibly a few fish, whereas Mark reports 5 and 2? Wouldn’t Matthew simply follow the plan? Maybe Matthew had an eyewitness account that differed, or maybe he could not remember exactly when he wrote his gospel?

8.)    Finally this is highly improbable, because ALL 4 gospels report this event. We have 4 independent sources claiming this happened. Mark’s gospel was around when people at this event were still around, if it had been made up, someone would have made a fit about it. Especially since its so detailed with were Jesus was at, and was going.

 

Next he says:

In 2 Kings 4:27-37 a distraught parent of an only child comes to Elisha just as in Mark 5:22-24 (which continues in verses 35-43) a distraught parent of

       

1.)    In Kings the young son dies in the woman’s arms, in the Gospel’s the child is in critical condition, while Jarius is hunting Jesus down.

2.)    In Kings the mother goes to plead with Elisha, about a girl already dead, while in Mark, Jarius the father goes to plead with Jesus about a girl who is still alive.

3.)    In Kings it’s a son, while in Mark it’s a daughter.

4.)    In Kings it’s the mother going to Elisha, who is a close friend, while in Mark, it’s the father, who doesn’t even no Jesus.

5.)    In Kings Elisha rides back on a donkey, in Mark, Jesus walks to Jarius’s home with hundreds following him.

6.)     In Mark, On the way to Jarius home a woman is healed by touching Jesus cloke, within the context of the passage regarding the healing of Jarius daughter, nothing like this at all is found in Kings.

7.)    In Kings Elisha send his servant to go lay his staff on the boy’s head, and rides there behind on a donkey.

8.)    In Kings Elisha does not doubt that the young son is dead, while in Mark Jesus tells Jarius and the followers that the girl is only sleeping.

9.)    In Kings Elisha puts everyone out of the room just him and the boy, while in Mark, Jesus bring with him Jarius, the girls mother, and all the disciples who were with him.

10.)  In Kings Elisha lays on the boy, face to face, hand to hand, foot to foot, and spreads eagle on him, until the boy’s body grows warm, Elisha does this 2 times while walking around the room. Finally the boy sneezes. Whereas in Mark, Jesus walks in with his crew, and yells at the girl, “Talitha koum”! which means little girl, I say get up! Immiediatley the girl stands up. Completley different then in Elisha’s case.

11.)  In Kings Elisha propheies that this same woman will have the son she does, while in Mark there is no relation to Jarius and Jesus whatsoever.

12.)  Mark is our earliest gospel, and none of the other gospels report this story, I guess they weren’t on the bandwagon for making it up? Or maybe they just reported other events since this one already had been.

 

 

Next up : Jonah Vs Jesus.

 

1.)    In Jonah, Jonah is running away from God, while in the Gospels, Jesus is simply on a boatride.

2.)    In Jonah, the Lord sends the storm, In the Gospels Jesus calms the storm.

3.)    In Jonah the men throw the cargo overboard, trying to lighten the ship.

4.)    In Jonah the Men cast lots to see who is responsible for the storm, in the Gospels, simply nothing like this happens at all.

5.)    In Jonah the men blame Jonah for the storm, in the Gospels, they ask Jesus for help.

6.)    In Jonah, they throw Jonah into the sea hoping to calm the storm. In the Gospels, Jesus arises and simpy rebukes the waves.

7.)    In Jonah the storm dies down gradually, in the Gospels the wind and waves immiediatley die down.

8.)    Jesus speaks of Jonah in Matthew 12:38 on., Why would Jesus refer to a fictional event?

 

Next up : Luke 7 Vs 1 Kings 17

 

1.)    1st off the phrase town gate is probably mentioned about a thousand times in the Bible, this is not at all signifigant. Whenever one would approach a city or town, they reffered to the entrance as the town gate.

2.)    In Kings the boy simply dies in the house that Elijah is staying in. While in Luke Jesus comes upon a town entrance, and sees a casket being delivered to be buried, with a very grieving mother following. It says the Lord’s heart went out to her.

3.)    In Kings the death is blamed on Elijah, while in Luke the death is blamed on no one.

4.)    In Kings again we see a relationship between Elijah, and the mother, while in Luke, Jesus does not even know the woman.

5.)    The healing does not take place at the town gate in Kings, like alloneword suggests. In Kings the healing takes place in a house, while in Luke it takes place outside the city.

6.)    In Kings Elijah lays on the boy and heals him, while in Luke, Jesus uses his usual approach, and speaks to the boy to get up.

7.)    In Kings the healing takes place in private, while in Luke, it is in Public.

8.)    Widow’s were not rare as alloneword also suggests, men in these days went off to wars constantly and died. Many many woman became widows with children to raise.

 

Next up: 1 Kings 17 Vs John 4.

 

1.)    Finding women at a well, wow, imagine that. Alloneword acts again like this is amazing. People did not have running water, they had to continually go to get it at wells. I imagine if you sat at one in those days you would probably meet 10-20 widows in under a day’s time. Not to mention the fact that Elijah did not even meet anyone at a well.

2.)    In Kings the brook that Elijah had been drinking from dried up because no rain was in the land, so the Lord commands Elijah to goto Zarepath, because a widow will give you shelter. While in John, Jesus is just passing threw the town on a journey, and is tired. His disciples go into town to buy food, so he sits and rests at the well. The implications are that Jesus did drink water, before meeting the samaritian woman. So Jesus was not really thirsty.

3.)    In Kings Elijah approaches the town and sees a woman gathering sticks, (Not at a well), and asks if he can have some food and water (not just water, as in Jesus case). But the woman responds that she has no food. So then Elijah tells her to bake a cake for him, and he promises that god will supply the food.

4.)    In Kings Elijah is actually thirsty, and hungry, in John, Jesus is neither thirsty, nor hungry.

5.)    In Kings Elijah meets the woman approaching the town, while Jesus meets the Samaritan woman after he has sat at the well for a while.

6.)    In Kings Elijah is offering to help the woman’s physical needs, while in John Jesus is trying to help the woman’s spiritual and eternal needs.

7.)    In Kings the woman does not argue with Elijah, but in John the woman argues extensively with Jesus about him being a Jew, and the woman being a Samaritan.

8.)    In Kings the woman is simply a widow, that’s all we know. In John the woman has had 5 husbands, and now is living with one who is not her husband.

9.)    In Kings the woman is not living with any man at all.

10.)   It’s not hard to understand that both women acknowledge that Jesus and Elijah are acting within a divine state, as Elijah raises a boy back to life, and Jesus tells the woman of her past, and present, what else would be said? Of course this would be obvious to the women.

11.)   The Lord answers Elijah’s needs as well as the woman’s needs, while Jesus simply answers the woman’s needs.

12.)   Finally, this is just simply not the same story at all. Just because  Jesus meets a widow, and Elijah meets a widow, implies nothing. Because that’s really the only major similarities within this story.  Which is not at all significant.

 

 

Then alloneword moves onto Peter’s vision compared to Ezekial 4, which is simply not even close to the same story, I’ll let you all do the reading there.

 

So , there it is. While there may indeed be some similarities, there is still some major differences. There is just no proof for his claims whatsoever, and I reject the idea from Harvey that there’s just a bunch of symbolic work in the Gospels.

 

Keep it up alloneword, you doing great on question dodging and Fact distortion!

 

 

Wes

 

 

 

 

 

 

alloneword
Reply with quote  #13 
Wes omits the fact that there are also differences between the Book of Mormon's stories and the Biblical stories that Joseph Smith copied from.

Despite the differences, it is obvious that one set of stories was copied from the other. It is a no-brainer.

And exactly the same applies to the New Testament where whole sentences were copied and then written down to be stories about Jesus.
Wes
Reply with quote  #14 
No, your wrong.

This would be completley dumb for one, for the early church. Why well heres why -

1.) The stories you included are just basic healings. Nothing special or really specific about any of them.
2.) The gospels include names, and places, such as Jarius, Gadarenes, "Ruler", the town of Nain, the public event of a dead person being carried out of Nain, The town of Samaria, John records that the woman went into Samaria and gathered the entire town to come see Jesus because she believed he was the Christ, (wow record an event that a whole town knows about thats false! good plan), Then Jesus heads for Galilee. Using specific names and places is a bad idea when making up a story, not to mention entire towns.

3.) The stories in regard to the Koran and book of Mormon are way different heres why-
1.) They record specific rare events such as "the writing on the wall", a very rare event nothing like it happens ever again in the bible. Then the event referring to Gideon and choosing the Men. Another very specific event, and both being under the context of war.  Events such as these are ovious copycates, not basic miracles in different naratives.
2.)Miracles such as the laying of hands, and praying, and peoples eyes being opened, happen all over the course of the Bible. People die, and a prophet prays for them and there healed. Big deal.
3.) If Alloneword could show an event like the parting of the red sea in the new testament, then I would concede that to be a rewrite, but that's just simply no where in the new testament.
4.) Using names, and places and specific events is a recipe for disaster in Story-Making if your going to try to present it as fact.

5.) Heres a big one, in relation to John 4 and Jesus in Samaria, well considering in ACTS 8:5-25 Phillip, peter and John are PREACHING in Samaria and declaring Jesus is the Christ, and then later a Church is established in Samaria. Wow, can you believe that, they make up a story and then go back to the town that the made up story happened in and tell them about it! Then write the gospels with this narritive while Samaria is still around and no one raises any objections? Wow.

6.) The events take place in completley different contexts as those in The book or Mormon, and the Koran which are in the same context. Look above for details.

7.) There are plenty of Miracles in the New Testament,  literally at some points one after the next. Healing people was Jesus specialty, and running into a widow proves absolutley nothing. As I already stated there were hundreds of widows in Jesus day from continuing wars.

8.) Events like a storm raging is not at all rare, In Acts 27 Paul endures a storm in his missionary voyage and helps the people get threw it while there throwing cargo overboard like in Jonah, is he a copycat of Jesus Christ? Peter heals a parylitic, and performs excorcisms, is he a rewrite of Jesus Christ, or maybe even Elisha again? In Matthew 14 Jesus walks on water during another storm, maybe thats a rewrite also, but exactly who would believe any of this crazy stuff unless, well unless, unless maybe he Jesus Christ Rose from the dead? hmm just maybe.

9.) Jesus and Paul both almost get stoned to death, maybe thats a rewrite. Stephen is put on trial and lied about, and then killed, kinda sounds like Jesus, maybe thats a rewrite. What about Peter, he was crucified, that sounds like a rewrite also!

10.) Finally people, these events were just basic general events. A storm, wow imagine that, Back in those days even a small rainstorm would probably crash there boats. Deep sea Fishing is still one of the top 5 most dangerous jobs you can have, can you imagine having that job  back then? Long voyages were considered very dangerous, and many died. Storms happened frequently, and its not at all signifigant that we see two of them. As I have already said widows, and basic miracles are all over the Bible. But no rare or specific events from the OT are in the NT at all.

These were not re-writes, and alloneword again has no proof, no evidence, and no ground to stand.

Wes

Eric
Reply with quote  #15 

Alloneword has no proof?  No evidence?  Does that mean he self-destructs like the robot 'Nomad' in that old star trek episode? 

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:



Important: The Reasonable Faith forums have moved to: www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/






Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.