So.... Jesus Is Getting His Own DC Comic

[kilderkin]

My understanding - rightly or wrongly is that in the case of mohammed there is no debate about his existence as there are enough external contemporary sources to confirm this. In the case of Jesus the first evidence is from generations later. Im happy to be proved wrong here tho.

Many academic studies consider marks gospel to have been written within a generation or so of the approximate time of crucifixion, if not closer, it's actually considered plausible that mark writes about his own witnessing of an event in the gospel first hand when a comment about a young man running away from the events is included without any other relevant need

Either way, it is considered by many ( of course not all) to be written very close to the events it details, of course this is not a comment on accuracy

It's partly detailed in the Marcan hierarchy amongst other places

[ArsonoptiX]

My understanding - rightly or wrongly is that in the case of mohammed there is no debate about his existence as there are enough external contemporary sources to confirm this. In the case of Jesus the first evidence is from generations later. Im happy to be proved wrong here tho.

There are also large sources of info the confirm the existence of Jesus and much of it is extrabiblical and it was written around/after Jesus' death. Jewish historian Josephus wrote extensively about the believers who were popping up in Rome. The Pilate stone proved the existence of Pontius Pilate (who was largely thought to have been a myth until that was found). Roman records account to the strange fact that the tomb was empty. Jesus died in a very embarrassing and public way in a very public place and people documented it.

The early church was very aware of evidence and didn't need to wait until centuries later to to gather evidence. It was right there from the beginning. The early church had 5 criteria for the New Testament canon, I'll share two: Books accepted in the NT had to be written by an Apostle or an associate of an Apostle (Luke and mark). The only books that where exempt where James and Jude because they were Jesus' brothers. The other criteria was that the books had to be written during what is called the "Apostolic age" (about 30/33 CE-100CE) so every NT book was written by an eye witness who was there and where "recent".

Evidence shows that Jesus existed

[ArsonoptiX]

Many academic studies consider marks gospel to have been written within a generation or so of the approximate time of crucifixion, if not closer, it's actually considered plausible that mark writes about his own witnessing of an event in the gospel first hand when a comment about a young man running away from the events is included without any other relevant need

Either way, it is considered by many ( of course not all) to be written very close to the events it details, of course this is not a comment on accuracy

It's partly detailed in the Marcan hierarchy amongst other places

Mark's gospel was written first (and as a close confidant of Peter probably got to hear some really cool things)....between 60-75 CE. Scholars believe that there is an unknown Gospel (called Q) that Matthew and Luke pulled from coupled with their own research (in Luke's case) and eye witness accounts (since Matthew was a disciple) and Mark's to write theirs. The entire NT was written before 100 CE

[iron chimp]

Many academic studies consider marks gospel to have been written within a generation or so of the approximate time of crucifixion, if not closer, it's actually considered plausible that mark writes about his own witnessing of an event in the gospel first hand when a comment about a young man running away from the events is included without any other relevant need

Either way, it is considered by many ( of course not all) to be written very close to the events it details, of course this is not a comment on accuracy

It's partly detailed in the Marcan hierarchy amongst other places

interesting - thank you.

So why were other gospels - Thomas etc - not included at the Synod at Hippo?

And thank you too Arsonoptix - your post appeared whilst i replied to kilderkin

[Tony]

This was a miscalculation I think.

Not a big fan of talking religion or politics on the internet, won't be joining petitions against the comic, not gonna post any more reply's to this thread. I will simply and quietly from here on out not try new DC books and spend far less on classic reprints movies and merchandise if this sees the light of day.

Smells like Dan Didio. So sad whenever he grabs the wheel.

[Captain Smith]

Both DC and Marvel have used actual pantheons as opposed to aliens.

Sometimes those pantheons are aliens in origin. Depends what you define as a god. The DC folks were sometimes from the New Gods. The Marvel folks are clearly just aliens in the movies and sometimes in the books.

[kilderkin]

interesting - thank you.

So why were other gospels - Thomas etc - not included at the Synod at Hippo?

And thank you too Arsonoptix - your post appeared whilst i replied to kilderkin

The reasons for non inclusion vary but generally relate to various views on their relevance or reliability, but it's a much debated point, Wikipedia has a nice summary on its page about the development of Christian biblical canon

[kilderkin]

Mark's gospel was written first (and as a close confidant of Peter probably got to hear some really cool things)....between 60-75 CE. Scholars believe that there is an unknown Gospel (called Q) that Matthew and Luke pulled from coupled with their own research (in Luke's case) and eye witness accounts (since Matthew was a disciple) and Mark's to write theirs. The entire NT was written before 100 CE

60_ 75 AD was my reference to within a generation or so given that a human generation is around 35 years depending on where you ask

Q is an interesting idea but perhaps a little far away from the threads intent for me to get caught on

Either way, I've found some of the posts on hear really thought provoking, and I feel it's been really civil too

[dancj]

I'm not even sure a vast majority of non-Christians believe Christianity is mythology. Wrong and/or not what they believe, sure, but mythology? The latter is not what I feel about non-Christian religions, at any rate.

Something that lots of people believe (or used to believe), but isn't actually true is pretty much the definition of "myth".

How can you think a religion is wrong, but not consider it to be a myth?

[The Darknight Detective]

How can you think a religion is wrong, but not consider it to be a myth?

I just don't. I doubt I'm in the minority regarding that viewpoint, either.

[ArsonoptiX]

interesting - thank you.

So why were other gospels - Thomas etc - not included at the Synod at Hippo?

And thank you too Arsonoptix - your post appeared whilst i replied to kilderkin

Things like the Gospel of Thomas (and many others) where considered fake because they didn't meet the other criteria the church fathers set (along with not being written in the Apostolic age and by a disciple/associate of a disciple):

They had to cohere with already accepted Scripture
They had to have been in constant use by the church
It had to have the power to change lives

Much of the other stuff was written under pseudonyms (which at the time was considered flattery) and not by the people they were attributed to and usually added in some really interesting stuff. There was one about Judas that portrayed him as a "hero" and that Christ personally called him to be the "Booster Gold" of the disciples and betray Jesus and be looked at horribly forever even though what he did was noble.

[ArsonoptiX]

60_ 75 AD was my reference to within a generation or so given that a human generation is around 35 years depending on where you ask

It's interesting because I've heard many people say/act/believe that the NT was written hundreds of years after the fact. Depending on when Jesus died and the date of Mark...we are looking at 30 years at the earliest that people started writing. That's not very long. The interesting thing is that it also gives the opportunity for people to correct stuff if someone said something wrong and people where still alive who could get asked. I like to think of any religion as a turtle. As long as it's right side up it's relatively safe. Every religion tries to stay right side up and not have the underside (theological holes) exposed. Christianity is different. Paul addressed the underside of the faith and exposed it (that believers are fools for believing in Christ if He didn't rise from the dead)...and then Paul challenged people to go check...because he knew there where people still alive who could verify what he was saying. That was something totally different and no other faith before or afterwards has done that.

Q is an interesting idea but perhaps a little far away from the threads intent for me to get caught on

I found it interesting. If you ever get a chance check it out.

Either way, I've found some of the posts on hear really thought provoking, and I feel it's been really civil too

I am grateful for it as well!! Glad such a deep convo (that could have turned REAL ugly) is constructive, insightful, and positive!!

[kilderkin]

It's interesting because I've heard many people say/act/believe that the NT was written hundreds of years after the fact. Depending on when Jesus died and the date of Mark...we are looking at 30 years at the earliest that people started writing. That's not very long. The interesting thing is that it also gives the opportunity for people to correct stuff if someone said something wrong and people where still alive who could get asked. I like to think of any religion as a turtle. As long as it's right side up it's relatively safe. Every religion tries to stay right side up and not have the underside (theological holes) exposed. Christianity is different. Paul addressed the underside of the faith and exposed it (that believers are fools for believing in Christ if He didn't rise from the dead)...and then Paul challenged people to go check...because he knew there where people still alive who could verify what he was saying. That was something totally different and no other faith before or afterwards has done that.



I found it interesting. If you ever get a chance check it out.



I am grateful for it as well!! Glad such a deep convo (that could have turned REAL ugly) is constructive, insightful, and positive!!

Agree about q, it is interesting

It's also a common misconception that all of the new testament is written ages after, sure versions commonly used were, as things got rewritten, but there's increasing view based on finds that that is simply not the case

Again that's not a comment on accuracy

[The Darknight Detective]

Agree about q, it is interesting

It's also a common misconception that all of the new testament is written ages after, sure versions commonly used were, as things got rewritten, but there's increasing view based on finds that that is simply not the case

That's what I was taught at the parochial schools I attended. The idea that Jesus Christ is a mythological creation is something I had never even heard of until fairly recently.

[manwhohaseverything]

If you are going look at it from a historical standpoint. what about moses? Are we seriously supposed to believe that mohammed road pegasus ripoff to heaven or Christ walked on water or buddha was born from a slit in mother's side. Why does the historicity even matter?
The other thing i don't understand as a hindu is the concept of a religion being wrong. What does that even mean? for us every religion is away for us to cope with the world and reduce unwanted suffering.so it shouldn't really matter if your prophet is mohammed, moses or jesus. Whoever works for you and anyone around you, should be embraced .
For us, some people like shiva so they go for it. Others like vishnu.. Etc. If they want written historical figures as their guide posts. We have shankarachaya, vivekanada and many sages of the past.
And myth/not myth business the way i see there might have been historical figures of jesus and mohammed. But i think they should be separated from the religious figures that are in their holy books because of unreliabilities and inaccuracies to say the least.And everything that is supernatural should be considered myths that includes the religious figures that walk on water, fly on horses, being born from mother's side.. Etc.