@francidewall

1 month ago

You're right! And here are some points about it.

The New Testament is based on the Codex Sinaticus and Vaticanus, Greek manuscripts written in the 4th century AD, much closer to the period in which the narrated events take place than the Old Testament, even if unfortunately the archaeological finds of previous manuscripts are terribly scarce, the only noteworthy one (before the recent discoveries) is in fact the fragment P52 dating back to the 2nd century AD, also in Greek, which reports some letters from verses of chapter 18 of the Gospel according to John. Despite this, experts in philology and history generally agree in dating the writing of the synoptic gospels from 60 to 70 AD and around 90 for John in apostolic communities formed around the oral preaching of the latter as the conclusion of the Gospel of John suggests; English: This not only leaves almost no room for the corruptibility of the text since it was written almost immediately after the events narrated and therefore most likely based on information from eyewitnesses, but it also suggests that the first draft of the manuscripts occurred no more than 50 years after that of the originals (if we take fragment P52 as valid, but there could still be earlier ones), the shortest period of time between the original draft and the first manuscript in the entire history of ancient documents! Much less than Plato's Tetralogies or Caesar's De Bello Gallico, just to give you an idea. There are further arguments in favor of this hypothesis: The first is based on linguistic reasons, it has been discovered that by back-translating all the gospels from Greek to Hebrew, a series of sentences, sayings and idioms can be identified that make sense only in the Semitic language, in addition to the fact that all the poetic parts contained in them are constructed following the laws of Hebrew and not Greek poetry, suggesting that the language of the original drafting is not Greek (contrary to what was thought) but Hebrew! Consequently, the date of writing should be back at least to before 70 AD (complete fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans) since it would not have made sense, after this fact, to document the life of Jesus in a language that almost no one spoke anymore only to then subsequently make a translation into Greek to ensure their diffusion and understanding by all peoples (Greek being the most widespread language in that period, like English today). It is much more likely that the first main recipients were precisely the Jewish religious authorities who would have had to welcome the changes in civil, ceremonial and moral law that the new pact and everything related to it implemented witnessed by Jesus himself for them so that they could act accordingly by implementing the bureaucratic changes necessary to orient the socio-political system of Israel in that direction and then subsequently expand the good news also to the Gentiles with the necessary translations. The second argument is purely archaeological, in fact, analyzing the Qumran manuscripts a fragment called 7Q5 was discovered that could correspond to the Gospel of Mark, dated around 68 AD, although there are different theories about it. In conclusion, it is important to mention that the epistles of Paul, which provide a clear point of view regarding the early Christian doctrine that was built solely on oral tradition, were written even before the Gospels. This not only further narrows the margin of corruptibility of the message but also further confirms the content of the Gospels themselves given that the documented facts and what they proposed were already commonly accepted belief in the very first decades after the ministry of Jesus from eyewitnesses themselves and people close to them.

 

Bibliography: "Hypothesis on Jesus" by Vittorio Messori; "Birth of the Synoptic Gospels" by Jean Carmignac who conducted the back-translation study; "Jesus Zero. To Quench the Intelligence" by Paolo Curtaz; "On the Trail of the Nazarene: Introduction to the Historical Jesus" by Adriano Virgili and "Reading Guide to the New Testament" by Pierre Debergè and Jacques Nieuviarts.

Moving away from the texts themselves, we also find reasons by looking at the historical, cultural and social context of the time in which Christianity originated and spread. We all agree that Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish preacher of the Second Temple period, was a man who really existed. Now the dilemma lies in confirming the divine and supernatural figure in which Christianity paints him starting from the preaching of the first eyewitnesses who lived with him up to the present day. Considering that the apostles were also of Jewish religion and therefore strongly supported the oneness of God, condemning the veneration of idols, it is logically quite unlikely that this group of men voluntarily embarked on a mission of mass evangelization, dedicating the rest of their lives to it, since they abandoned everything else, which constituted a very serious violation of the law to which they belonged, aware of the fate they would face, which was one of heavy torture, persecution and death in the most shameful way for the time. If the ideology they carried forward was really a lie, was it really worth putting aside their home, family, possessions and wealth to commit a very serious crime that, among other things, would not have brought them any personal gain other than a miserable and suffering end? Not to mention that such a big lie, given these premises, is very unlikely to have expanded in popularity so quickly and influentially as to endanger the Roman Empire, which was forced to suffocate the nascent cult with violent repression for fear that their military success could suffer (since the spread of a new religion in Rome would have meant the abandonment of the pagan deities who, according to tradition, gave success and glory to the empire if served and pleased as in Greek mythology)? Not to mention that just looking at the present day and noticing how the lives of all those who embrace faith in God according to the dynamics proposed by that Nazarene carpenter and his followers experience a radical change in their lives for the better, sometimes even with the manifestation of supernatural miracles, constitutes a significant enough factor to take into consideration.
Yeah but these values are only your values that could be different from someone else's that doesn't agree, so the world becomes a melting pot of individual moralities clashing with each other based on enviroment and cultural influence. In God's teachings we can have a clear objective moral system that is rooted in our humanity, we just don't acknowledge it much easily by ourselves and usually put it aside to satisfy our desires. For that values to be actually valid you need an authoritative law.

 

I therefore encourage y’all to undertake a path of research, comparison and study between various religions and the elements related to them to arrive at drawing your own conclusions regarding the reality of God that could possibly lead to adopting the criterion of judgment of faith. If this is the case, I emphasize that in addition to the process of information (because faith is not blind but has adequate reasons) humility and simplicity of heart are also necessary in welcoming this reality and starting to live life in this direction. Personally, I can only pray that as many people as possible arrive at my same conclusion by experiencing the beauty of the relationship with God in all his love, concrete closeness and guidance in every area of ​​life that gives peace and motivation beyond imagination. There is so much to talk about regarding this dynamic and therefore I am available to discuss every aspect in detail answering any possible question about it, also because in addition to the question of the concrete existence of God, various speculative and ideological questions often arise regarding his nature. This answer is not intended to be biased to indoctrinate anyone but simply to provide a point of view regarding the basis of a Christian's faith and to encourage research and serious critical judgment for each proposal that provides a particular vision of this dilemma that is God through different religions, I am carrying out this process and I find myself increasingly seeing the truth in the Christian proposal for several reasons that I will not explain in this post to avoid it becoming too long; but regardless of the final result I encourage you to undertake this process by seriously considering the question since it concerns and influences the basis of our existence, and all the human questions that follow that could possibly find an answer, in the most radical way possible.

|