Can one believe the Gospels are "mythology" and still be a Christian?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by All-American

In 3rd Nephi, we have an account that we can more or less accept as authoritative, correct? It is a second hand account, it is true, but a second hand account written by a prophet; and the first hand account it copies was also written by a prophet. As a History major, many of my college professors spend inordinate amounts of time emphasizing source material, and based on what I've learned from them, the entire book of Mormon is fairly reliable as far as sources go.

Given the above information, how well does it correspond with what we find in the gospels? We find entire segments of texts that are quoted nearly verbatim; and although Mormon scholars often point out that this does not necessarily mean the biblical translation was completely correct, it does show it to be close enough for use. Neither do we find anything inherently contradictory in 3rd Nephi or the gospels.

What I am basically saying is that the scholarship that declares the kinds of things you quoted to us is questionable at best. What they've basically done is try to tell us what kind of a person wrote the texts based solely off of the texts themselves. We have at least one very strong verifier of what we read in the gospels: the Book of Mormon.

As for the individual points:

a. Mark was not intimately associated with Jesus, true. He was, however, Peter's secretary, and is thus able to produce a fairly reliable second hand account.

b. Matthew copied much of Mark, true. He also was one of the original twelve, making his account a primary source. He was also the first to add portions such as the sermon on the mount, which is verified by the Book of Mormon as being nearly without error, which is in and of itself fairly miraculous, as far as transmission of ancient texts go. The fact that he included these portions suggest that the details from Mark were in no need of correction.

c. "A woman, or a feminist," or one writing to an audience that was more sympathetic towards women, such as the ancient Greeks. Greeks also paid much more attention to such humanistic features such as suffering, which shows prominently in their derivitives, the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. Luke is the only one who shows that Jesus suffered in the Garden of Gethsemene.

d. Gnostic is a loaded word. It derives from the greek "gnosis," or knowledge, and originally designated a person who claimed there was special knowledge communicated from Jesus to that person. A popular claim was that such communication took place especially during the 40 day ministry after the resurrection. From there, however, groups that claimed to have the authority of the original church had to claim to likewise have the gnosis, a bluff which lasted until the triumph of the Catholic church. From then on, "gnostic" meant "apostate" for all intents and purposes. This seems to be the indication in your analysis.

Yes, John's gospel has many features which appealed to later gnostic groups. That doesn't mean it was written by gnostics. This argument led to the throwing aside of many valuable works-- "if it sounds like something group x or y would say, it is almost assuredly a forgery, and thus must be discarded."

Your dismissal of textual historiography is cavalier, to say the least. Your assertion that "What they've basically done is try to tell us what kind of a person wrote the texts based solely off of the texts themselves" is a colossal oversimplification. Fus' position on this is very strong and carries plenty of weight with scholars (believing and unbelieving). Bart Ehrman, Chair of Religious Studies at UNC Chapel Hill, argues comprehensively for a position consistent with Fus'. So do Brown, Hooker, Helms, and numerous other respected bible scholars.

There is a substantial stack of factual information in favor of what you're dismissing. I don't expect you to take my word for it. I do encourage you to check it out for yourself. Ehrman's book "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction" is a great start.

[stonewallperry]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Your dismissal of textual historiography is cavalier, to say the least. Your assertion that "What they've basically done is try to tell us what kind of a person wrote the texts based solely off of the texts themselves" is a colossal oversimplification. Fus' position on this is very strong and carries plenty of weight with scholars (believing and unbelieving). Bart Ehrman, Chair of Religious Studies at UNC Chapel Hill, argues comprehensively for a position consistent with Fus'. So do Brown, Hooker, Helms, and numerous other respected bible scholars.

There is a substantial stack of factual information in favor of what you're dismissing. I don't expect you to take my word for it. I do encourage you to check it out for yourself. Ehrman's book "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction" is a great start.

As a history major, I would suspect that he's probably somewhat educated on how texts are judged...probably in a better position than you, Fus, or myself, to make judgements.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Is it not coincidental that Isaiah and Matthew are both quoted extensively and almost verbatim in the Bible from texts that already existed? We know Joseph didn't translate the Book of Mormon as much as he revealed it, I think Joseph was inspired to 'copy' certain parts of the Bible as to not cause further confusion. (the arguement that the transmission is pure is highly illogical based on the various Bibles, editions, translations, etc)

Like I said-- not to argue that it was entirely correct; just good enough to use.

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Luke borrowed around 150 verses from Matthew in her/his version. There is a distinct equalness found in Luke that is found no where else in the Bible. Like I said I believe it was either written by a woman or by a feminist. Are you saying that Luke was written possibly by a Greek?

I am saying that Luke was written by one writing to Greeks. If I speak to a three year old using words, terms, and ideas that a three year old will understand, that doesn't make me a three year old.

Originally Posted by fusnik11

I am not saying discard the gospel of John, but the gnostic undertones are enlightening and revealing. It shows that multiple people valued, theorized, and wrote about Jesus. John focuses on the spirit and the value of spiritual rebirth. The original book of John shows that the shedding of the physical was the real value in Jesus' teachings, life and mission. Somebody, some people came along afterwards, changed certain parts of John, added a few chapters, and tried to change the meaning of John, thus the multiple contradictions in John regarding spiritual salvation.

Anyways, an interesting study and scholarship, all people interpret it differently.

It'd be interesting to know exactly what the original manuscript looked like. I'll let you guys know as soon as I get my hands on it.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

As a history major, I would suspect that he's probably somewhat educated on how texts are judged...probably in a better position than you, Fus, or myself, to make judgements.

You haven't read much about the origins of the Bible have you?

Sleeping in EQ is the most educated around these parts on Bible scholarship and study.

[stonewallperry]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

You haven't read much about the origins of the Bible have you?

Sleeping in EQ is the most educated around these parts on Bible scholarship and study.

No I haven't; however, even if I had it wouldn't mean I know that Sleeping in EQ is well read on Bible scholarship.

You'll also noticed that I haven't (on purpose) haven't addressed many of the topics on this thread concerning who wrote what because I believe it's more important for me to learn what's written in the Bible than who copied who, or if it was a female, a Greek, or ET that wrote part of it.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Your dismissal of textual historiography is cavalier, to say the least. Your assertion that "What they've basically done is try to tell us what kind of a person wrote the texts based solely off of the texts themselves" is a colossal oversimplification. Fus' position on this is very strong and carries plenty of weight with scholars (believing and unbelieving). Bart Ehrman, Chair of Religious Studies at UNC Chapel Hill, argues comprehensively for a position consistent with Fus'. So do Brown, Hooker, Helms, and numerous other respected bible scholars.

There is a substantial stack of factual information in favor of what you're dismissing. I don't expect you to take my word for it. I do encourage you to check it out for yourself. Ehrman's book "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction" is a great start.

I haven't read that exact book, but I've read a lot on the topic. I've not seen enough to make me think that they're correct. The whole thing smells like a group of professors with high amounts of interest and low amounts of information projecting theories to fill in the rather large blanks-- sort of like the Mormon "scholars" trying to prove the book of mormon true.

I'm not unaware of the evidence, but I'm not convinced by it either.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

As a history major, I would suspect that he's probably somewhat educated on how texts are judged...probably in a better position than you, Fus, or myself, to make judgements.

I'll be the first to disagree with that. Being a college undergrad majoring in history is hardly deserving of any sort of authority on the matter.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

...given that in ancient tribal communities men were mostly preoccupied with hunting, getting drunk, going to war, and copulating.

Sounds like a Friday night in West Virginia.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

As a history major, I would suspect that he's probably somewhat educated on how texts are judged...probably in a better position than you, Fus, or myself, to make judgements.

I know of what I speak. I'm not trying to come down on All-American or anything, but Fus' poistion is a well-respected one. I'll spare you my list of qualifications, but it's substantial. In brief, I do teach at a university, and have taught courses in textual analysis.