FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-24-2001, 08:41 PM   #41
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:
[b]
Meta: ...The Evangelical camp is convenced, as Chruch history records, that the Gospels were either written by eye witnesses (Matt. John) or by those who knew eye witnesses (Luke, Mark). Mark is suppossedly the testimony of Peter distilled to Mark, his interpriter.

Be that as it may, what is certrain is that oral tradition is not heresay! It is merely an oral record. This in no way means that they were just spreading rumors.


"Hearsay" and "oral tradition" are identical. If one person tells another person something about a third party, that is hearsay. It is also information orally transmitted. This applies to stories, rumors, myths, etc.</font>

MEta =&gt; No they are not identical. It is not merely one person telling another. You imagine two Monty Phython women doing laundry at the back clothes line "Did you hear about that Christ fellow Mrs. Holiness?" "O yes I did Mrs. Fundamentaliststupidity, he must be the son of God." But that's not how it was. Oral "traditions" is so called becasue it is a Tradition! They all gather in a room. Mary Magdelon get's up and says "I was there, this is what I saw..."The others memeorize her words word for word, and they do that every night for years. That may not be exactly the way they did it, but that is closer to how it was done, to what oral tradition means than just rumors circulating at random.


The Gospels were produced by communities, people living togther or near each other and working together and sharing their faith.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
True enough. That does not mean that the stories they shared were necessarily historical nor were they necessarily meant to be taken as such. They could have been totally theological.</font>

METa =&gt; It's far more likely than anything else. Consider that Paul met the Apostles, and clemnt knew Peter. That means we have a link to them. They were real people, they lived in a preached in the Jerusalem community. They were known to be the 12 who Jesus trained. Did the community just ignore them and go listen to some bum who came drifting in? Not very likely. The whole community in the area took part in the asscention, they were probably the 500 who saw the risen crhrist. They probably took part in Penticost. They didn't just disperse and go away. They remeinded in the community and developed the early tradition. So eye witnesses were abundant and would have been at a premimum.

This means that these stories were subjected to the community all the time, perhaps in group seesions. It is highly likely that each community has living in it many eye witnesses. So the record, though oral, was still subjected to the criticism of those who were there. The community was the author and the community witnessed the events.
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
You presume the events must have been taken to be historical when it is evident that much of the NT is theological in intent. You don't need eyewitnesses to confirm or spread theology. Who would question something meant to be theologically edifying?</font>

Meta =&gt; I think you are making a host of assumptions about that that means, that the Gospels were theological. It doesn't just mean they were lying or making things up to sound good. There is no reason at all to take it that way. It is far more likely they were interpriting events which they all knew were basically histoircal but needed explianing. That is way no other versins of the basic story ever circulated until near the middle ages. Becasue they all knew the basic facts to be the facts.


 
Old 03-24-2001, 08:48 PM   #42
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by irenaeus:
Meta: rodahi is correct on this one. Jesus gathered to himself disciples for the express purpose that they would be eyewitnesses to what he did and said. The apostles themselves grounded their message in history- they actually saw these things and delivered that eyewitness testimony to the bishops in the churches they established. If this is not the case, WHICH IT IS, then the scriptures fall as falsehoods unworthy of our hearing. But as it is, the case can be made that the eyewitnesses themselves (John, Matthew, Peter) wrote down for us what they saw and heard and touched AND this message conforms to the oral message they delivered to the churches.</font>

I am not denying that Jesus gathered the 12,, nor that their testimony stands behind the Gospels. Either as authors of the "pre-Markon" tradition, or as the forces behind the community tradition, the Apostles clearly have something to do with it.

There is good evidence that the pre-marcan material is the actual work by Mark in which he wrote down the reflections of Peter, and that what we know as "The Gospel of Mark" was a redaction of that. That would explian the name.

Moreover, there is similarly good evidence that Matthew wrote the Q source. That Puts Matt at the root of the Synoptics. I also do not question the Authorship of Luke. And there is no reason why another "Elder John" could not be an authority as the BD.
 
Old 03-24-2001, 09:07 PM   #43
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:
Metacrock:
Why shoiuld we have to prove the authorship? The early church fathers attested to the authorship, lets e you disprove that?



Quote:
First of all, who is "we?" Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Please don't say that you speak for all Christians because you obviously do not. Second, those who say they KNOW who wrote the anonymous NT narratives are the ones who must "prove" authorship. Third, the "early church fathers" did not attest to authorship, unless by the word "early" you mean those who conjectured after 150 CE.</font>

Meta =&gt; 1) I don't have to speak for all Christians to be one of them.

2) The Gospels are not anaynomous they [i]may be
pesudepigraphal. There is no reason why the authors have to be Matt, Mark, Luke and John in order for the the sources to be historically accurate and divinely inspired.

3) Papias does attest to them before that date. And I'm not sure but Iraneaus may have written before than, but so what? Do the Math. There's no reaon why he could not have known them. There is a reason why peple weren't talking about those atuhors of those Gospels before that period and it's real obvious. They didn't have the press, didn't have tv, didn't have a vast publising industry. The authority was the Biship not the Gospels or the canon (which was only begining its long development of formation). So there is no reason why they should be talking about those particiuar authors as though they had to resolve authorship problems.

I don't defend the authorship of Matt, Mark and John, but what about Luke? Give me a good reason to assume that Luke didn't write Luke?

Apparently, there are scholars who have good reason to think the writer of Luke/Acts was not "Luke."

"Somewhere in the Aegean, around 120 C.E., a great two-volume work appeared that expanded upon the gospel story of Jesus by adding a sequel called Acts of the Apostles. As with the other narrative gospels, we do not know anything about the author except what can be inferred from the writing itself. Later in the second century, the work was attributed to Luke, the co-worker of Paul (mentioned in Philemon 24; Col. 4:14; and 2 Tim. 4:11), just as other anonymous literature from earlier times was attributed to either the apostles or their companions in order to validate their truth." Burton Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament, P. 167


MEta =&gt;That isn't really much of an argument. All is says is that Luke didn't sign his name. What is the reason to assume that the chruch fathers were wrong? There are good reasons to assume it was Luke.The Emphasis upon Women and Women's medical issues in his Gospel indicates a Physician.

Luke


"Nothing is said about the Gospel of Luke in the fragments of Papias of Hierapolis which are preserved in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. But it is widely attested that just before the middle of the 2d century Marcion used this Gospel as the basis for his edition of Christian Scripures. The report about Marcion's use of Luke appears for the first time in Irenaeus (ca. 180 CE)...Thus the Gospel of Luke, perhaps written as late as the first decades of the 2d century, became the first Gospel ever to be elevated to something that could be called 'canonical status,' albeit in its revised Marcionite edition. Apart from the use of Luke by Marcion, there is no certain evidence for its usage before the middle of the 2d century." Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, P. 334


Meta =&gt;even if that Luke isn't the author my original argumen need only be extended. But I dont' think that establishes the anti-Luke position, read the link. I also will consult my own sources but that will take some time.

"I find myself forced to feel that the lack of exact knowledge of the details of Paul's career even in the period during which the author of the 'We passages' was with him and the evident readiness to transform and rewrite his sources of information in the light of his philosophy of history exclude the author from having been a companion of Paul, who penned the diary notes. Rather the author used various sources from which he produced his writing [Luke/Acts]. One of them was a series of entries, quite fragmentary in extent, from a diary of an erstwhile travel companion, which he skilfully utilizes, choosing, for reasons about which we can raise guesses but can never know, to preserve the personal 'we' touch." Morton Enslin, Christian Beginnings, P. 419

"Were the books [Luke/Acts] written by one of Paul's companions, even if we don't know the name of this person? The most important thing to say is that even if they were, this would provide no guarantee of their historical accuracy. We have no way of knowing how long this alleged companion of Paul was with him, whether he knew him well, or, if he did know him well, whether he presented him accurately and fairly. Actually, this final statement is not altogether true--for there is one way of determining whether the portrayal of Paul in Acts is accurate and fair; we can compare what Acts says about Paul with what Paul says about Paul. Unfortunately, when we do so, a number of discrepancies of detail, such as where Paul was at certain times and with whom, and broader discrepancies in the actual teachings of Paul." Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament, P. 130

"Since it is simply unthinkable to regard the character of the Gospel of Luke as standing close to the theology of Paul, from here on the tradition of Luke as the author of the third Gospel can only be questioned." Werner Georg Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, P. 104

MEta =&gt;That is merely Doxa, what is the reason?

Actually there is good reason to assume that all the Snyoptics have the authority of their namesakes. I thnk it is more probable that they weren't writeen by the namesakes, except for Luke becasue I have no good reason to assume otherwise. But he wasn't an eye witness anyway, and there is tons of good evidence that whoever wrote it did consult with witnesses. So what is the reaon for doubting the veraicty of the texts?

There is good reason to doubt the veracity of the narratives because the writers wrote theology, not history.

Meta =&gt;That is not a good reason. Becasue it doens't negate the archaeologial findings that confrim much of the narrative, and it also ignores the nature of historiography in the ancient world, much of which was theology or polemic.

"[Luke] raises problems for the modern man in search of 'historicity' by adopting the first-century custom of inventing speeches or modifying the accounts of events." Howard Clark Kee, Understanding the New Testament, P. 297

Meta =&gt;That in no way impunes the historical accuracy of his information. No one in that age was an actual historian, the disicipline of history as an academic subject didnt' exist. All Historians were writters of leters, that is history was part of "letters."

"Luke is a delightful story-teller, and is quite wasted on the dull people who mistake him for a grave, accurate, and diligent historian." Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, The Origins of Christianity, P. 98

Meta =&gt;When did He write? And does that quote actually say that he wasn't a good historian? IT says he's a good writter and a good historian it doens't say that he's making things up. PRobably refurrs tot he ship wrekc. Now conybear was an Evangleical I dont' think he doubted Lukan authroship.
 
Old 03-24-2001, 09:24 PM   #44
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rodahi:
[b][Metacrock:]
Jesus was not unloving to the fig tree. What difference does that make? One does not love temproal things.


Jesus magically cursed and killed a fig tree. See Mk. 11:12-14; 11:20-21. Do loving men use their magic to kill plants?


Mta =-&gt;Yes, my father was themost loving man I ever knew and he weeded our garden all the time. Maybe I just have it in for figs but that just doens't seem like a big deal to me.


[Metacrock:]
It is not unloving to prune a fig tree.
[LP:]
Which is not the same as saying "Nobody will ever eat figs from you again!!!" when discovering an absence of figs, and supposedly killing that tree as a result.


METa: That's not unloving either. Have you ever seen the flowers in front of a sky scrapper? Do you know that most gardening services rip those up and instal new ones every month, dependeing on wheather they want to change the "corlor bed." Why don't you protest that? start a group for the rights of plants?


You missed the point! Jesus magically cursed and killed a defenseless fig tree simply because it had no figs. BTW, he also magically killed a couple of thousand defensless pigs.


Meta =&gt;Well, sorry man, that's just a big whooopie do do! I dont' really care. That is not indicative of cruelty or lack of love. The little mage of the whipy hollywood Jesus who walks about like he just got his nails done is not the only form of love that one can find loving. He is attested to around the world among all religions as one of the greatest ethical philsophers. Even many Rabbis say he was a good Jew. So big deal. I east ham every Christmas.


[Metacrock:]
God is not unloving to people in hell Jesus even went there to preach to them so they would have a changce (another detail found in two non-canonical Gospels and mentioned in Peter).
[LP:]
Not the impression that one would get from the Gospels, where JC seems to enjoy the thought of people suffering in Hell.


Meta: That's your own subjective imagination. I've never gotten that sense. what passage?


Then you haven't been paying attention, Meta.


"Then he began to insult the towns where he had performed most of his miracles, because they had not changed their ways: 'Damn you, Chorazin! Damn you, Bethsaida! If the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have (sat) in sackcloth and ashes and changed their ways long ago. So I tell you, Tyre and Sidon will be better off on judgement day than you. And you, Capernaum, you don't think you'll be exalted to heaven, do you? No, you'll go to Hell. Because if the miracles done among you had been done in Sodom, Sodom would still be around. So I tell you, the land of Sodom will be better on judgement day than you.'" (Mt. 11:2-24)


Meta =&gt;Hmmmm, that's really a lame argument. Sorry man. You are a bright guy and I'm not putting you down, but that just strike me as the same old sceptical inability to appreicate any text but a science text that I find all over the net. So he's cursing a town. I've cursed Dallas plenty of times does that mean I hate all the individual neighbors I have here? no! IT's more like a commentary on the system. Or something. but it is just not indicative of hatred for for individuals.

[Metacrock:]
Jesus wasn't unloving to anyone. The examples of righteious anger you mention were just!


The term "righteous anger" is an oxymoron.

Meta =&gt; O right, victims must never be angry at injsutice that's unspiritual. What is your attitude toward revolutions?


Jesus expressed anger at his family, fellow Judeans, and, at times, his disciples, e.g., "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters...he cannot be a disciple of mine." (Lk. 14:26); "And he replied, 'Who are my mother and my brothers?'" (Mk. 3:33); "Don't get the idea that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. After all, I have come to pit a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Your enemies live under your own roof." (Mt. 10:34-36); "And looking right at them with anger, exasperated at their obstancy, he says to the fellow, 'Hold out your hand!' (Mk. 3:5); "Although Jesus was indignant, he stretched out his hand, touched hime, and says to him, 'Okay--your clean!'...And Jesus [again] snapped at him, and dismissed him curtly..." (Mk. 1:41-43).


Meta =&gt;ahahahaahahahahaahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahah, this Shakespire fellow, what's the big deal with him, he just writes in Cleches! Much adue about nothing I've heard that a million times! Com on! None of that is indicative of anger! None of it is indicative of eing unloving. Your reading it in becasue you want to see it there, and the obvious examples of great love and compasion that are all over it you ignore completely. When I was an atheist one of the major things that converted me was reading the Gospels and deciding not to work at finding problems but just to actually see what is really there. And what i saw is the greatest man who ever lived. Someone totoally worth following and giving your life to and dying for. There are clear and obvious answers. "Woman" was not a term of dierision in that context. He was not puttng down his family, but making a statement of compariative worth for the purposes of juxtoppossing the imprortance of following God.

He was extremely difficult to get along with-- probably because he thought too highly of himself, e.g., "In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." "If you ask anything in my name, I will do it." "The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me." These sound like the words of a megalomaniac.

Meta =&gt;ahahahahaahahahah
thought too highly of himself, yea! He thought he was God! If he was wrong he was a total bastard. So how did a total bastoard invent the greatest ethical system?


[
 
Old 03-25-2001, 03:34 AM   #45
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:

[b]Meta: ...The Evangelical camp is convenced, as Chruch history records, that the Gospels were either written by eye witnesses (Matt. John) or by those who knew eye witnesses (Luke, Mark). Mark is suppossedly the testimony of Peter distilled to Mark, his interpriter.
Be that as it may, what is certrain is that oral tradition is not heresay! It is merely an oral record. This in no way means that they were just spreading rumors.

"Hearsay" and "oral tradition" are identical. If one person tells another person something about a third party, that is hearsay. It is also information orally transmitted. This applies to stories, rumors, myths, etc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


MEta =&gt; No they are not identical. It is not merely one person telling another. You imagine two Monty Phython women doing laundry at the back clothes line "Did you hear about that Christ fellow Mrs. Holiness?" "O yes I did Mrs. Fundamentaliststupidity, he must be the son of God." But that's not how it was. Oral "traditions" is so called becasue it is a Tradition! They all gather in a room. Mary Magdelon get's up and says "I was there, this is what I saw..."The others memeorize her words word for word, and they do that every night for years. That may not be exactly the way they did it, but that is closer to how it was done, to what oral tradition means than just rumors circulating at random.

You seem to be confusing what you believe with what you think you know. Please present evidence to support your claim with respect to how "oral tradition" began. Use the "virgin birth" myth as an example.

rodahi

 
Old 03-25-2001, 04:40 AM   #46
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Meta: The Gospels were produced by communities, people living togther or near each other and working together and sharing their faith.

rodahi: True enough. That does not mean that the stories they shared were necessarily historical nor were they necessarily meant to be taken as such. They could have been totally theological.

METa =&gt; It's far more likely than anything else. Consider that Paul met the Apostles, and clemnt knew Peter.

I don't know this to be fact and neither do you. What we do know are claims made by very religious/superstitious people. There may be SOME history in the claims, but no one KNOWS how much.

BTW, based on what he wrote, Paul taught a different Jesus from everyone else, so why should anyone believe him? He never claims to have even MET Jesus! Please read:

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel--not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ." (Gal. 1:6-7)

"For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough. I think that I am not the least inferior to these super apostles." (2 Cor. 11:4-5)

Who ACTUALLY preached the REAL Jesus? Would it have been those who KNEW him, or Paul? All Paul had were subjective "visions" of Jesus. Others may have actually known Jesus in the flesh.

Meta: That means we have a link to them. They were real people, they lived in a preached in the Jerusalem community. They were known to be the 12 who Jesus trained.

Jesus chose several disciples from the illiterate and lowest class of people in Galilee. Based on the narratives, the disciples were repeatedly at a loss to explain what the devil Jesus meant in his parables and many of his actions. (Even today, thousands of highly trained and intelligent scholars are trying to figure out what Jesus really meant in all his utterances. There is no consensus.) One thing is certain, though, Jesus believed the End was imminent.

Meta: Did the community just ignore them and go listen to some bum who came drifting in? Not very likely.

As did John the Baptist, Jesus announced the imminent Day of Yahweh. He chose several ignorant, superstitious disciples to help him.

Meta: The whole community in the area took part in the asscention, they were probably the 500 who saw the risen crhrist.

This is subjective conjecture. The ONLY person who claimed that 500 men saw Jesus after his execution was Paul. Why should anyone take his word for anything? He admitted being a liar, when the need arose: "But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" (Rom. 3:7) His listeners thought he lied: "But granting that I myself did not burden you, I was crafty, you say, and got the better of you by guile." (2 Cor. 12:16) Paul even admitted he stole from others: "I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you." (2 Cor. 11:8)

I ask you again, Meta, why should anyone believe anything Paul said?

Meta: They probably took part in Penticost. They didn't just disperse and go away. They remeinded in the community and developed the early tradition. So eye witnesses were abundant and would have been at a premimum.

Since there is no evidence for this, why do you believe it?

Meta: This means that these stories were subjected to the community all the time, perhaps in group seesions.

This is subjective conjecture.

Meta: It is highly likely that each community has living in it many eye witnesses. So the record, though oral, was still subjected to the criticism of those who were there.

Where is your evidence?

Meta: The community was the author and the community witnessed the events.

Individuals wrote the narratives based on what they had heard and read from older sources. Each felt free to modify stories for theological purposes. None felt the need to produce history.

rodahi: You presume the events must have been taken to be historical when it is evident that much of the NT is theological in intent. You don't need eyewitnesses to confirm or spread theology. Who would question something meant to be theologically edifying?

Meta: I think you are making a host of assumptions about that that means, that the Gospels were theological.

I know of no one who thinks the narratives are not of a theological character.

Meta: It doesn't just mean they were lying or making things up to sound good. There is no reason at all to take it that way.

I don't think the writers considered themselves "liars." Nor did their contemporary audience.

Meta: It is far more likely they were interpriting events which they all knew were basically histoircal but needed explianing.

Incorrect. Each writer produced what he considered to be the most persuasive piece of literature possible to make people think Jesus was the son of Yahweh and the Messiah. Actual history had little to do with it.

Meta: That is way no other versins of the basic story ever circulated until near the middle ages. Becasue they all knew the basic facts to be the facts.

This is what you would like to believe, but it is simply not the case. From the time Jesus was executed to the end of the third century, scores of "gospels" circulated. NO ONE KNOWS definitively what the "facts" about Jesus were.

rodahi

 
Old 03-25-2001, 06:15 AM   #47
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Metacrock:
Why shoiuld we have to prove the authorship? The early church fathers attested to the authorship, lets e you disprove that?



rodahi: First of all, who is "we?" Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Please don't say that you speak for all Christians because you obviously do not. Second, those who say they KNOW who wrote the anonymous NT narratives are the ones who must "prove" authorship. Third, the "early church fathers" did not attest to authorship, unless by the word "early" you mean those who conjectured after 150 CE.


Meta: 1) I don't have to speak for all Christians to be one of them.

Why not speak for yourself and let others speak for themselves? The pronoun "we" carries no weight.

Meta: 2) The Gospels are not anaynomous they may be pesudepigraphal. There is no reason why the authors have to be Matt, Mark, Luke and John in order for the the sources to be historically accurate and divinely inspired.

The narratives ARE anonymous. NO ONE KNOW who wrote them. They are neither "historically accurate" nor "divinely inspired." They may contain some bits and pieces of actual events.

Meta: 3) Papias does attest to them before that date.

You do not KNOW this. You are taking the word of a Christian propagandist, Irenaeus, who alludes to what Papias supposedly wrote. Furthermore, it is not clear that the books described by Papias through Irenaeus are identical to the narratives of the NT.

Meta: And I'm not sure but Iraneaus may have written before than, but so what?

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Meta: Do the Math.

This is not mathematics, Meta. It is Christian propaganda.

Meta: There's no reaon why he could not have known them. There is a reason why peple weren't talking about those atuhors of those Gospels before that period and it's real obvious. They didn't have the press, didn't have tv, didn't have a vast publising industry.

We DO NOT KNOW what people were talking about.

Meta: The authority was the Biship not the Gospels or the canon (which was only begining its long development of formation).

We DO NOT KNOW what the "Bishops" said or did.

Meta: So there is no reason why they should be talking about those particiuar authors as though they had to resolve authorship problems.

The narratives are anonymous. That is my point. It is nothing more than subjective conjecture to name the writers.

Meta: I don't defend the authorship of Matt, Mark and John, but what about Luke? Give me a good reason to assume that Luke didn't write Luke?

rodahi: Apparently, there are scholars who have good reason to think the writer of Luke/Acts was not "Luke."

"Somewhere in the Aegean, around 120 C.E., a great two-volume work appeared that expanded upon the gospel story of Jesus by adding a sequel called Acts of the Apostles. As with the other narrative gospels, we do not know anything about the author except what can be inferred from the writing itself. Later in the second century, the work was attributed to Luke, the co-worker of Paul (mentioned in Philemon 24; Col. 4:14; and 2 Tim. 4:11), just as other anonymous literature from earlier times was attributed to either the apostles or their companions in order to validate their truth." Burton Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament, P. 167


MEta: That isn't really much of an argument. All is says is that Luke didn't sign his name. What is the reason to assume that the chruch fathers were wrong? There are good reasons to assume it was Luke.

You think Luke was writing in 120 CE? There is a good reason to question the comments of the so-called church fathers. They were apologists, not historians.

Meta: The Emphasis upon Women and Women's medical issues in his Gospel indicates a Physician.

Baloney! The idea that the narrative attributed to Luke was written by someone who was familiar with "medical issues" has been soundly refuted. See the works of ANY modern critical scholar.


rodahi: "Nothing is said about the Gospel of Luke in the fragments of Papias of Hierapolis which are preserved in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. But it is widely attested that just before the middle of the 2d century Marcion used this Gospel as the basis for his edition of Christian Scripures. The report about Marcion's use of Luke appears for the first time in Irenaeus (ca. 180 CE)...Thus the Gospel of Luke, perhaps written as late as the first decades of the 2d century, became the first Gospel ever to be elevated to something that could be called 'canonical status,' albeit in its revised Marcionite edition. Apart from the use of Luke by Marcion, there is no certain evidence for its usage before the middle of the 2d century." Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, P. 334


Meta: even if that Luke isn't the author my original argumen need only be extended. But I dont' think that establishes the anti-Luke position, read the link. I also will consult my own sources but that will take some time.

I generally do not got to "links." I presented documentation to back up my views. You should do the same.

rodahi: "I find myself forced to feel that the lack of exact knowledge of the details of Paul's career even in the period during which the author of the 'We passages' was with him and the evident readiness to transform and rewrite his sources of information in the light of his philosophy of history exclude the author from having been a companion of Paul, who penned the diary notes. Rather the author used various sources from which he produced his writing [Luke/Acts]. One of them was a series of entries, quite fragmentary in extent, from a diary of an erstwhile travel companion, which he skilfully utilizes, choosing, for reasons about which we can raise guesses but can never know, to preserve the personal 'we' touch." Morton Enslin, Christian Beginnings, P. 419

"Were the books [Luke/Acts] written by one of Paul's companions, even if we don't know the name of this person? The most important thing to say is that even if they were, this would provide no guarantee of their historical accuracy. We have no way of knowing how long this alleged companion of Paul was with him, whether he knew him well, or, if he did know him well, whether he presented him accurately and fairly. Actually, this final statement is not altogether true--for there is one way of determining whether the portrayal of Paul in Acts is accurate and fair; we can compare what Acts says about Paul with what Paul says about Paul. Unfortunately, when we do so, a number of discrepancies of detail, such as where Paul was at certain times and with whom, and broader discrepancies in the actual teachings of Paul." Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament, P. 130

"Since it is simply unthinkable to regard the character of the Gospel of Luke as standing close to the theology of Paul, from here on the tradition of Luke as the author of the third Gospel can only be questioned." Werner Georg Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, P. 104

MEta: That is merely Doxa, what is the reason?

I am merely presenting scholarly opinion on this issue. You have presented nothing.

Meta: Actually there is good reason to assume that all the Snyoptics have the authority of their namesakes. I thnk it is more probable that they weren't writeen by the namesakes, except for Luke becasue I have no good reason to assume otherwise. But he wasn't an eye witness anyway, and there is tons of good evidence that whoever wrote it did consult with witnesses. So what is the reaon for doubting the veraicty of the texts?

rodahi: There is good reason to doubt the veracity of the narratives because the writers wrote theology, not history.

Meta: That is not a good reason. Becasue it doens't negate the archaeologial findings that confrim much of the narrative, and it also ignores the nature of historiography in the ancient world, much of which was theology or polemic.

All you do is talk, Meta. Present some evidence to support your claims.

"[Luke] raises problems for the modern man in search of 'historicity' by adopting the first-century custom of inventing speeches or modifying the accounts of events." Howard Clark Kee, Understanding the New Testament, P. 297

Meta: That in no way impunes the historical accuracy of his information. No one in that age was an actual historian, the disicipline of history as an academic subject didnt' exist. All Historians were writters of leters, that is history was part of "letters."

Ancient historians DID NOT attempt to write "what actually happened." Modern historians attempt to do just that.

rodahi: "Luke is a delightful story-teller, and is quite wasted on the dull people who mistake him for a grave, accurate, and diligent historian." Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, The Origins of Christianity, P. 98

Meta: When did He write? And does that quote actually say that he wasn't a good historian? IT says he's a good writter and a good historian it doens't say that he's making things up. PRobably refurrs tot he ship wrekc.

Read the quote again.

Meta: Now conybear was an Evangleical I dont' think he doubted Lukan authroship.

Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare was a Fellow of the British Academy and history professor in Oxford, England. He had mixed opinions about who the writer of "Luke" was. He states, "I am inclined to think that Luke, the companion of Paul, really wrote the Third Gospel and the Acts, though there is, of course, much to recommend the counterhypothesis."

FYI, Conybeare also said, "It will certainly be also argued that the evidence of the saints of the early Church ought to be accepted by us, because they derived their faith direct, or almost direct, from Jesus Christ. I should reply that, morally gifted as Jesus was above his contemporaries, he nevertheless shared with them the chief superstitions of his age. And I will add...that the Christians of the first three or four centuries, though they renounced the religious uses and rites of the pagan societies among whom they recruited, were far from renouncing pagan beliefs." The Origins of Christianity, P. XXV

rodahi




[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited March 25, 2001).]
 
Old 03-25-2001, 07:44 AM   #48
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[Metacrock:]
Jesus was not unloving to the fig tree. What difference does that make? One does not love temproal things.


rodahi: Jesus magically cursed and killed a fig tree. See Mk. 11:12-14; 11:20-21. Do loving men use their magic to kill plants?

Meta: Yes, my father was themost loving man I ever knew and he weeded our garden all the time. Maybe I just have it in for figs but that just doens't seem like a big deal to me.

I don't know how loving your father was, but I certainly don't think he ever called himself a god or that he magically cursed any plant. You still don't get it, do you?


[Metacrock:]
It is not unloving to prune a fig tree.
[LP:]
Which is not the same as saying "Nobody will ever eat figs from you again!!!" when discovering an absence of figs, and supposedly killing that tree as a result.


METa: That's not unloving either. Have you ever seen the flowers in front of a sky scrapper? Do you know that most gardening services rip those up and instal new ones every month, dependeing on wheather they want to change the "corlor bed." Why don't you protest that? start a group for the rights of plants?

rodahi: You missed the point! Jesus magically cursed and killed a defenseless fig tree simply because it had no figs. BTW, he also magically killed a couple of thousand defensless pigs.


Meta: Well, sorry man, that's just a big whooopie do do! I dont' really care. That is not indicative of cruelty or lack of love.

It doesn't matter whether or not you care. The FACT is Jesus cursed and KILLED a plant and animals. Killing for no reason is insane and cruel.

Meta: The little mage of the whipy hollywood Jesus who walks about like he just got his nails done is not the only form of love that one can find loving.

Where did this come from? I have quoted from your bible. So far, you have done nothing but talk. Where is some evidence?

Meta: He is attested to around the world among all religions as one of the greatest ethical philsophers. Even many Rabbis say he was a good Jew. So big deal. I east ham every Christmas.

So what! He still displayed anger and cruelty.


[Metacrock:]
God is not unloving to people in hell Jesus even went there to preach to them so they would have a changce (another detail found in two non-canonical Gospels and mentioned in Peter).
[LP:]
Not the impression that one would get from the Gospels, where JC seems to enjoy the thought of people suffering in Hell.


Meta: That's your own subjective imagination. I've never gotten that sense. what passage?

rodahi: Then you haven't been paying attention, Meta.


"Then he began to insult the towns where he had performed most of his miracles, because they had not changed their ways: 'Damn you, Chorazin! Damn you, Bethsaida! If the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have (sat) in sackcloth and ashes and changed their ways long ago. So I tell you, Tyre and Sidon will be better off on judgement day than you. And you, Capernaum, you don't think you'll be exalted to heaven, do you? No, you'll go to Hell. Because if the miracles done among you had been done in Sodom, Sodom would still be around. So I tell you, the land of Sodom will be better on judgement day than you.'" (Mt. 11:2-24)


Meta =&gt;Hmmmm, that's really a lame argument. Sorry man.

I have presented textual evidence demonstrating Jesus' actions and words. He cursed several towns to hell. THAT is not a "good deed." What do you have to counter my argument?

Meta: You are a bright guy and I'm not putting you down, but that just strike me as the same old sceptical inability to appreicate any text but a science text that I find all over the net.

A person of average intellectual ability can read the NT and SEE what it SAYS. Either Jesus said and did what the NT says or he did not. If he did, then he, among other things, cursed and killed. If he did not, then the NT narratives are fiction.

Meta: So he's cursing a town.

Yes! And that IS NOT a "good deed." It is magic and cruelty.

Meta: I've cursed Dallas plenty of times does that mean I hate all the individual neighbors I have here? no!

Are you claiming to be on par with the god you worship? By the way, do you understand the meaning of "curse?"

Meta: IT's more like a commentary on the system. Or something. but it is just not indicative of hatred for for individuals.

It IS a cruel act to curse people to hell. Jesus did just that.

[Metacrock:]
Jesus wasn't unloving to anyone. The examples of righteious anger you mention were just!


rodahi: The term "righteous anger" is an oxymoron.

Meta: O right, victims must never be angry at injsutice that's unspiritual. What is your attitude toward revolutions?

Jesus displayed anger at many people for many different reasons. Of course, self-righteous people can be angry and rationalize it all away.

rodahi: Jesus expressed anger at his family, fellow Judeans, and, at times, his disciples, e.g., "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters...he cannot be a disciple of mine." (Lk. 14:26); "And he replied, 'Who are my mother and my brothers?'" (Mk. 3:33); "Don't get the idea that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. After all, I have come to pit a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Your enemies live under your own roof." (Mt. 10:34-36); "And looking right at them with anger, exasperated at their obstancy, he says to the fellow, 'Hold out your hand!' (Mk. 3:5); "Although Jesus was indignant, he stretched out his hand, touched hime, and says to him, 'Okay--your clean!'...And Jesus [again] snapped at him, and dismissed him curtly..." (Mk. 1:41-43).


Meta: ahahahaahahahahaahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahah,

Is this supposed to be substantive commentary or evidence to support your many assertions? Meta, it is neither, and quite honestly, it makes you look foolish.

Meta: this Shakespire fellow, what's the big deal with him, he just writes in Cleches! Much adue about nothing I've heard that a million times! Com on! None of that is indicative of anger! None of it is indicative of eing unloving.

Apparently, Meta, you need glasses. EVERY sentence I quoted SUPPORTS my contention that Jesus expressed anger.

Meta: Your reading it in becasue you want to see it there, and the obvious examples of great love and compasion that are all over it you ignore completely.

I have presented textual evidence supporting my argument that Jesus expressed anger. So far, you have presented NOTHING but your opinions. IF you have SOMETHING, present it. For example, point out where Jesus shows love and compassion for his family. Point out where Jesus shows love and compassion for his fellow Judeans. All you have to do is MATCH what I have presented.

Meta: When I was an atheist one of the major things that converted me was reading the Gospels and deciding not to work at finding problems but just to actually see what is really there. And what i saw is the greatest man who ever lived.

When I was a Christian, I believed what I had been told. Then I READ the NT. THERE IS NO "greatest man who ever lived" in the NT. He lives in your imagination.

Meta: Someone totoally worth following and giving your life to and dying for. There are clear and obvious answers. "Woman" was not a term of dierision in that context. He was not puttng down his family, but making a statement of compariative worth for the purposes of juxtoppossing the imprortance of following God.

Where did you get the word "Woman?" In what context? Meta, did you read anything I quoted? By the way, Jesus indicated he had no family except those who followed him. That is an INSULT to his family.

rodahi: He was extremely difficult to get along with-- probably because he thought too highly of himself, e.g., "In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." "If you ask anything in my name, I will do it." "The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me." These sound like the words of a megalomaniac.

Meta =&gt;ahahahahaahahahah
thought too highly of himself, yea! He thought he was God!


If he thought himself to be a god, then he was mistaken.

If he was wrong he was a total bastard.

Actually, he probably was illegitimate. The evidence is in the narrative attributed to Matthew: "When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child..." (1:18)

So how did a total bastoard invent the greatest ethical system?

Jesus didn't really "invent" anything. He merely wished to proclaim the imminent Day of Yahweh, much like John the Baptist and the prophets of old. Before he was executed for being a trouble-maker, he gathered a handful of ignorant, superstitious followers, practiced magic, and said a few enigmatic things. He did not create "the greatest ethical system." Ethics were already established thousands of years before Jesus "got religion" and started preaching about The End of times.

BTW, Paul created "Christianity." Not Jesus.

rodahi




 
Old 03-26-2001, 07:17 PM   #49
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:
No, it is well documented that when one says "oral tradition" the "tradition" partr means more than just people telling rumers. there are tons of references among schoalrs to the notion of an organied eye-witness telling. No one really can be sure to what extent,but it is highly likely.

First, there are good studies on the theory of the school. The early Christian communities which produced the documents were not just a bunch of people living near each other and loosley associating. They actually had schools and communines. See a Doctoral dissertation done at Univ. Dallas Called The Matthewian School. So, they were in a communal setting, living together to learn the teahings of Jesus and the Apostels. It only makes sense they would have some symblence of an organized fashion.

References to some sort of organized memory of the community are found in Acts, the daughters of Philip, Papias said took it upon themselves to keep the history stairght. Than F.F. Bruch in The New Testament Documentsand Luke Timothy Johnson, I believe makes reference to it as well in The New Testament Writings.]
</font>
 
Old 03-26-2001, 08:16 PM   #50
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:
Meta: The Gospels were produced by communities, people living togther or near each other and working together and sharing their faith.</font>
rodahi: True enough. That does not mean that the stories they shared were necessarily historical nor were they necessarily meant to be taken as such. They could have been totally theological.

Meta =&gt;They were written for their sermonic value for the community. That in no way means that they neither had historical validity, nor were not told with that in mind. Just because the purpose of writing wasn't to make an historical chronical does not mean that the authors were not mindful of the facts. In fact we know they prized eye witness accounts and they were mindful of the history. We know this form the things they say, Papias and Clement, and the others.


METa =&gt; It's far more likely than anything else. Consider that Paul met the Apostles, and clemnt knew Peter.

I don't know this to be fact and neither do you. What we do know are claims made by very religious/superstitious people. There may be SOME history in the claims, but no one KNOWS how much.

Meta =&gt;We don't know any history to be a fact. All historical accounts are to some degree probability. And all acnient world history is problematic and reflects pretty much the same problem, polemical accounts by religious people. But historians do not automatically doubt it for those reasons. We know as certianly as we know anything the ancient world and historians do not automatically discount it, that Clement calims that there were those still among them who knew Peter an he implies that he was one of them. And Papias cliams to have known deciples and Apostles. Both men also indicate a value on the eye witness, on those who were there. There is no reaon to think they woudl have been ignroned in the community.

and you keep ignoring the argument that with no variations on the basic facts and no differing versions of Jesus' life and death, the odds are that everyoen knew the basic baisc facts and it was all common knowledge.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
a different Jesus from everyone else, so why should anyone believe him? He never claims to have even MET Jesus! Please read:

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel--not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ." (Gal. 1:6-7)

"For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough. I think that I am not the least inferior to these super apostles." (2 Cor. 11:4-5)

Who ACTUALLY preached the REAL Jesus? Would it have been those who KNEW him, or Paul? All Paul had were subjective "visions" of Jesus. Others may have actually known Jesus in the flesh.</font>

Meta =&gt;Holy twisted context, Batman, that is really an amazing feat, to so utterly misunderstand the context as to decide that he's talking about different versions of the Christ story! Obviously, form the things in the context, he's talking about doctrinal developments, not differing facts about the life or death or resurrection of Christ. We know Paul didn't meet Jesus, so what? He met those who did, tougted their doctrines, and they accepted his verion. Hemut Koester argues, in Ancient Christian Gospels, that Paul gives every indication having met and recieved the Gosopel from those who followed Jesus, and the James Chruch gives no indication of it being Paul's understanding of the Christ story that prestens a problem for them!

Meta: That means we have a link to them. They were real people, they lived in a preached in the Jerusalem community. They were known to be the 12 who Jesus trained.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Jesus chose several disciples from the illiterate and lowest class of people in Galilee. Based on the narratives, the disciples were repeatedly at a loss to explain what the devil Jesus meant in his parables and many of his actions. (Even today, thousands of highly trained and intelligent scholars are trying to figure out what Jesus really meant in all his utterances. There is no consensus.) One thing is certain, though, Jesus believed the End was imminent.</font>

[b]Meta =&gt;[b]I really wish you could take a couple of classes at a decent seminary. Your infrences are just untennable. These things are no problem for the vast majority of scholars and they are based almost totally on building a case form what is ambiuous in the text. Fist of all, these doctrinal difference that already had their analogues in Judasim. That is not the least indicative of any real gap in understaning what Jesus, siad, did, or what happened to him. Secondly so what if he thought the end was near? What does that mean?

Meta: Did the community just ignore them and go listen to some bum who came drifting in? Not very likely.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
As did John the Baptist, Jesus announced the imminent Day of Yahweh. He chose several ignorant, superstitious disciples to help him.</font>

Meta =&gt;Um, is that suppossed to prove something? Are you trying to say that ancient people are stupid so the Apostles had to have gotten it wrong? I don't quite see the point.


Meta: The whole community in the area took part in the asscention, they were probably the 500 who saw the risen crhrist.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
This is subjective conjecture. The ONLY person who claimed that 500 men saw Jesus after his execution was Paul.</font>

Meta =&gt;It's conjecture, no more so thany your next argument which requires screwing with the context of the quote, but it's not without gounds. At the end of Luke where are they? Do they just magically appear at the site for the ascention? No they are walking thorugh the streets of a coummunity where people lived. What do you supposse the people were doing as they walked?


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Why should anyone take his word for anything? He admitted being a liar, when the need arose: "But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" (Rom. 3:7) His listeners thought he lied: "But granting that I myself did not burden you, I was crafty, you say, and got the better of you by guile." (2 Cor. 12:16) Paul even admitted he stole from others: "I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you." (2 Cor. 11:8)
</font>
Meta =&gt;hahahaahahahahaahahhaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah ahahahahhahhahahahaahahahahah!!!! The old atheist inability to read a text! So funny how you guys just stead fastly refuse to read anything with any kind of literary acumen. obviously he's responding to charges agaisnt him! Is he really going to brag to his flock that he's good at lying? that makes no sense at all. But clearly he's speaking sarcastically. The things he says assume the charges for the purposes of mocking them! This is the natural common sense reading anyone would give it long before deciding that he's bragging to people if your theory was right, he should be trying to fool rather than impress with his abilities as a con man!!

I ask you again, Meta, why should anyone believe anything Paul said?


Meta =&gt;Because he offers dman good evidence. The earliest actual body of work we have from someone who knew Apostles and who was somewhat close to the historical events. Do real scholars think that Paul was a liar? No! none of them do.You only resort to that amuzing tactic of clutching at straws because you have nothihng better to say against a body of works which otherwise links historically Jesus and the Apostles with the whole first eschellon of the early chruch. Like most of these skeptics on the net you have invented your own principles of exigesis, they basically go something like this; if there is a gap in our knowledge I can fill it with my pet theory and that is truth. If there is a good bit of evidence that seems to back my oppents view, the source is a liar and must be untrustworthy, if there is a bit of speculation involved the gap must always go in my favor. There is esentually no reason to distrust Paul, except that you don't like him, so you distrust him, but real shcolars dont' do it that way.

Meta: They probably took part in Penticost. They didn't just disperse and go away. They remeinded in the community and developed the early tradition. So eye witnesses were abundant and would have been at a premimum.

Since there is no evidence for this, why do you believe it?

Meta =&gt;Because it makes sense and there is evidence for it. Who did take part in it then? Why wouldn't it be those who were at the tomb, at the cross, at the asscention who saw what happened?

Meta: This means that these stories were subjected to the community all the time, perhaps in group seesions.

This is subjective conjecture.

[b]Meta=&gt;[b]As oppossed to the objective kind of conjecutre right? It is conjecture, sure,but i dont' think it's unreasonable or unlikely. And my argument doesn't depend on that part of detail, I'm just trying to flesh out examples of the kind of thing i'm talking about.

Meta: It is highly likely that each community has living in it many eye witnesses. So the record, though oral, was still subjected to the criticism of those who were there.

Where is your evidence?


Meta =&gt;Helmutt Koester, Early Christian Gospels. The Source for the Passion narrative came from a singel source which dates AD 50 (Crosson, the darling of the Atheists and apparently the only true scholar agrees with this by the way) and the Epiphanies came from various other souces. It seems likely those would be the members of the community, the eye witnesses, each community had a different set and they tell them from their own point of view. That would explain the strageness of the four Gosples telling almost the same sotry but being so diffent in fine details. But where would the witnesse go? Why wouldn't they go into the community? It all started there in jerusalem. Since we know they lived communally and had a shcool, why not? That's a likely picture of what happened.

Meta: The community was the author and the community witnessed the events.
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Individuals wrote the narratives based on what they had heard and read from older sources. Each felt free to modify stories for theological purposes. None felt the need to produce history.
</font>
Meta =&gt;That doesn't mean they had no mind for history, nor does it invlaidate the witnesses we do have. Moreover, individuals physically wrote them,that's not what scholars mean when they use that phrase, but the communities produced them out of their kyregma. He had a kyregma, not just a bunch of rumors.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
rodahi: You presume the events must have been taken to be historical when it is evident that much of the NT is theological in intent. You don't need eyewitnesses to confirm or spread theology. Who would question something meant to be theologically edifying?</font>
Meta =&gt;I think you are confussed about what that phrase means. When schoalrs say that they do not mean that it wasnt' historical, or that no witnesses were around, or that people had no concern for the facts. If those things were true we should see tons of different versions poping up all over the place. Some classicists are amazed at the lack of such proliferation which found elsewhere all over the place.

Meta: I think you are making a host of assumptions about that that means, that the Gospels were theological.

I know of no one who thinks the narratives are not of a theological character.

[b]Meta =&gt;That's not the issue. I agree with that much.The issue is, you seem to think that "Teholgical purpsoes" means lies and no respect for the history. That is not true. There is no reason to assume that and we know that's not true because when we look at the works of those who knew Apostels and those of the earliest level of chruch history we see a passionate interest in what really happened and a desire to find those who talked with witnesses.What we don't find is tons of different versions of what happened, and that must be beause everyone knew the facts!

Meta: It doesn't just mean they were lying or making things up to sound good. There is no reason at all to take it that way.

I don't think the writers considered themselves "liars." Nor did their contemporary audience.

Meta =&gt;Nor does it mean they had no concept of what it meant that these things happened nor does it mean they had no desire to reflect the events as truthfully as they knew them.

Meta: It is far more likely they were interpriting events which they all knew were basically histoircal but needed explianing.
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Incorrect. Each writer produced what he considered to be the most persuasive piece of literature possible to make people think Jesus was the son of Yahweh and the Messiah. Actual history had little to do with it.</font>
Meta =&gt;How do you know that? What is your evidence for that?That is a pretense that you know their attitudes. You could not possibly know that, so that is conjecture, and it is more than conjecture because it's not based upon likleyhood or logical inference but upon wishful thinking and what you want to see there.

Meta: That is way no other versins of the basic story ever circulated until near the middle ages. Becasue they all knew the basic facts to be the facts.

This is what you would like to believe, but it is simply not the case. From the time Jesus was executed to the end of the third century, scores of "gospels" circulated. NO ONE KNOWS definitively what the "facts" about Jesus were.

Meta =&gt; You don't know that!You have no proof of that. You are being every bit as much conjectural as I am, but I have at least a reasonable infernece as to the conjecture I'm making you are pretending to understand their attitudes, which no one can understand. You have no basis for that claim. We know they did have some concern for the facts. if nothing else becasue there aren't any other versions of the story. But we do not know they didn't care about the facts, and that is just what you want to beleive.
[/QUOTE]

 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:44 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.