26 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Of course they change, that's my point...

Ok but you said

On 9/9/2025 at 1:25 PM, dimreepr said:

In an oral only tradition, the noise of those story teller's that don't understand, are drowned out by the number of teacher's that do understand

No reason why that that had to be the case and the differences in the Gospels tell us that was not the case w.r.t. the details.

You also said.

On 9/9/2025 at 1:25 PM, dimreepr said:

That, in a village wide collective, depends on the complexity of the message, usually human truths can be explained quite simply;

These were not human truths, they were often miraculous stories about the Messiah.

The constitution was mentioned. Say instead of being signed in 1790 the people just agreed on it verbally and spread the word.Eventually someone wrote it down forty years later, how would the 1830 written version compare to the verbal agreement of 1790?

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But those that do understand it's meaning are disconnected from the pupil's that need to understand (for their own good), an oral teacher can at least understand why the pupil doesn't understand and can plan a lesson to compensate.

Someone telling a story is not necessarily a teacher, much like a scribe or stenographer is not an author.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Someone telling a story is not necessarily a teacher, much like a scribe or stenographer is not an author.

Yes, these were normal people telling stories about Jesus, some of them would have been eyewitnesses but probably not many of those still around by the year 70 when Mark was penned. A lot less again with the other books, 80-95CE.

Edited September 10Sep 10 by pinball1970
Missed word

20 hours ago, swansont said:

Someone telling a story is not necessarily a teacher, much like a scribe or stenographer is not an author.

Indeed, but a teacher telling a story usually is, even if they're just a parent talking about santa.

47 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but a teacher telling a story usually is, even if they're just a parent talking about santa.

And Santa is a story that’s not uniform across cultures and the traditions around Santa gift-giving have evolved over time. So yet another example that points out the lack of fidelity of oral tradition

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

And Santa is a story that’s not uniform across cultures and the traditions around Santa gift-giving have evolved over time. So yet another example that points out the lack of fidelity of oral tradition

Yet a rabbit foot does seem to be ubiquitous across many culture's without a natural border.

Convergent evolution, perhaps...

47 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Yet a rabbit foot does seem to be ubiquitous across many culture's without a natural border.

Convergent evolution, perhaps...

Yeah, odd such a complex tale as “a rabbit’s foot is lucky” could remain intact.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Convergent evolution, perhaps...

You implied oral tradition is reliable, then said it isn't and now you are implying it is again.

Apparently oral tradition follows Schrödinger's reliability

18 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

You implied oral tradition is reliable, then said it isn't and now you are implying it is again.

I suggested it's more reliable at conveying the correct context, of the information, for understanding across the generation's.

The written word is an essential part of our society, despite its limitations in terms of context; so for me @iNow it's more of an Heisenberg type question. 🙂

On 9/12/2025 at 12:07 PM, dimreepr said:

I suggested it's more reliable at conveying the correct context, of the information, for understanding across the generation's.

Would we not have just one view of Jesus then if that was the case?

All that is conveyed is words, the context is never conveyed, the context is the people, the house, the market place, the conversation over the bushes.

On 9/12/2025 at 7:07 AM, dimreepr said:

I suggested it's more reliable at conveying the correct context, of the information, for understanding across the generation's.

And yet every example that’s come up contradicts this. The information is degraded as details change.

On 9/13/2025 at 3:45 PM, swansont said:

And yet every example that’s come up contradicts this. The information is degraded as details change.

I sugest the opposite might be true, in the written word, the information remains whilst the context is degraded as the generations change; data without context is useless.

On 9/13/2025 at 2:01 PM, pinball1970 said:

Would we not have just one view of Jesus then if that was the case?

All that is conveyed is words, the context is never conveyed, the context is the people, the house, the market place, the conversation over the bushes.

The many cultures that relied on the oral tradition, Aborigines for instance, understood why the changing language and other details, doesn't change the fundamental message of how to live meaningfully with in that culture; Camus' observations on the myth of Sisyphus is kinda relevant here.

Edit. this reply was merged. edit edit. that edit seems unnecessary, oops forgot to turn of my internal monologue. 😒

Isn't that why we never seem to learn from history?

Edited September 15Sep 15 by dimreepr

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The many cultures that relied on the oral tradition, Aborigines for instance, understood why the changing language and other details, doesn't change the fundamental message of

That is not what happened with Jesus of Nazareth. His story completely changed from the first century during his ministry, to the Gospels, to the first Christian groups which all had different views, to the early church fathers all the way up to 325 to the council of Nicaea.

1 hour ago, pinball1970 said:

That is not what happened with Jesus of Nazareth. His story completely changed from the first century during his ministry, to the Gospels, to the first Christian groups which all had different views, to the early church fathers all the way up to 325 to the council of Nicaea.

Yep. I think Bart Ehrman was already mentioned in this thread. Eg. How Jesus Became God:

In a book that took eight years to research and write, leading Bible scholar Bart D. Ehrman explores how an apocalyptic prophet from the backwaters of rural Galilee crucified for crimes against the state came to be thought of as equal with the one God Almighty Creator of all things.

Ehrman sketches Jesus's transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God, exalted to divine status at his resurrection. Only when some of Jesus's followers had visions of him after his death—alive again—did anyone come to think that he, the prophet from Galilee, had become God. And what they meant by that was not at all what people mean today.

As a historian—not a believer—Ehrman answers the questions: How did this transformation of Jesus occur? How did he move from being a Jewish prophet to being God? The dramatic shifts throughout history reveal not only why Jesus's followers began to claim he was God, but also how they came to understand this claim in so many different ways.

Written for secular historians of religion and believers alike, How Jesus Became God will engage anyone interested in the historical developments that led to the affirmation at the heart of Christianity: Jesus was, and is, God.

5 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

That is not what happened with Jesus of Nazareth. His story completely changed from the first century during his ministry, to the Gospels, to the first Christian groups which all had different views, to the early church fathers all the way up to 325 to the council of Nicaea.

Perhaps, but like Socrates maybe his students, ignored his thought's on the limitations of writing down our cultural wisdom.

Besides, how does this argue my point? If anything it confirms the degradation of meaning through time, of a fixed position.

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

degradation of meaning through time,

So not reliable? Good we finally agree.

4 hours ago, Eise said:

Yep. I think Bart Ehrman was already mentioned in this thread. Eg. How Jesus Became God:

I have mentioned him as he is a good reference point w.r.t. oral tradition and the early Christianity.

I thought of King Kong in terms of storytelling. Three films from the 1930s, 1970s and 2000s.

In the first he is a wild beast, angry even evil and Faye Ray screams for half the film.

1976 He is more of a victim of man's greed, the relationship between beauty and the beast is more like a pet and even sexual at times.

2000s the beast is "beautiful" to beauty almost human.

Same story told very differently within 100 years. People want to convey a message, a different emphasis, a political point, an Environmental or ideological point.

Depends on the time place and speaker.

Who knows what the sermon on the mount actually was? Was it call to arms? War? Love and peace? Forget this world it's coming to an end?

We have a written account based on stories that were circulating for 50 years.

16 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

So not reliable? Good we finally agree.

When did I suggest otherwise?

20 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

So not reliable? Good we finally agree.

It's interesting that you choose to respond to a redacted version of my post, rather than argue my point.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

When did I suggest otherwise?

In your posts.

1 hour ago, pinball1970 said:

In your posts.

Please, be specific...

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Please, be specific...

Well you are not so that is tricky. I have already quoted you when seen to favour oral tradition preserving a story and when not.

You know what you posted have you got forgotten? It is documented.

15 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

Well you are not so that is tricky. I have already quoted you when seen to favour oral tradition preserving a story and when not.

You know what you posted have you got forgotten? It is documented.

I'm not trying to be tricky, I'm just asking you to debate/discuss honestly.

On 9/16/2025 at 7:43 AM, pinball1970 said:

That is not what happened with Jesus of Nazareth. His story completely changed from the first century during his ministry, to the Gospels, to the first Christian groups which all had different views, to the early church fathers all the way up to 325 to the council of Nicaea.

If my hypothesis is correct, then this is the pattern we'd expect to see:

His teaching was passed through the filter of many generations and different cultures before it was committed to paper, so yes the details are slightly different for each writer, but at the time of writing, the meaning was understood; but 3 centuries later, the politicos decide what's relevant despite the lack of understanding/context of the original meaning...

26 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

, I'm just asking you to debate/discuss honestly

Good, we are on the same page then.

28 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If my hypothesis is correct, then this is the pattern we'd expect to see

Modern scholarship has more or less the same view.

30 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

His teaching was passed through the filter of many generations and different cultures before it was committed to paper,

Agree, by "committed to paper" these were not the Gospels, the first writings.

Paul's letters came first and these contained literary traditions, written references, stories or poems about Jesus of Nazareth.

Then there were the sources that Mark, Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source plus their own sources L and M plus a text citing sayings of Jesus Q. All these were different and by the time we get to John Jesus is not a prophet or Messiah, he is a god on par with Yhwh himself.

Prior to that Jesus was the Messiah who had to suffer, a very Jewish Messiah, a Messiah that did not suffer so much or stone, Messiah that was rejected by the Jews, then god.

All that by 95CE.

34 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Good, we are on the same page then.

Modern scholarship has more or less the same view.

Agree, by "committed to paper" these were not the Gospels, the first writings.

Paul's letters came first and these contained literary traditions, written references, stories or poems about Jesus of Nazareth.

Then there were the sources that Mark, Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source plus their own sources L and M plus a text citing sayings of Jesus Q. All these were different and by the time we get to John Jesus is not a prophet or Messiah, he is a god on par with Yhwh himself.

Prior to that Jesus was the Messiah who had to suffer, a very Jewish Messiah, a Messiah that did not suffer so much or stone, Messiah that was rejected by the Jews, then god.

All that by 95CE.

Then Nietzsche piped up and suggested that Hitler could be the one, if he wished hard enough...

On 8/11/2025 at 6:30 PM, HawkII said:

If Humans forgot about all Religion, what could the Gods theoretically do about that?

Taunt them a second time?

On 8/11/2025 at 6:30 PM, HawkII said:

I remember once a fascinating moment I read in the Jewish/Christian Bible where someone asked God "What do people do, who don't know you exist?" God replied "I made the Moon for people to Worship"

God made a failsafe in case people didn't know him.

Just curious. Do you have a scriptural reference for that?