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 05-25-2001, 09:17 AM   #31
Iconoclast
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,588
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">We appear to be talking about two different things. I am not talking about the Jesus found in the Gospels, but merely the one found in the historical record. There is only one record on His life and death, and there is no evidence that any other story about Him exists.

On that basis, why do you reject the story (again, assuming that you do reject it) that He lived and at the same time of John the Baptist and died under Pontius Pilate?</font>
Sorry, I guess we were talking about twodifferent things. I was talking about the whole story. I don't reject the possibility of a actual person having existed upon whom the later myth was based.
Iconoclast is offline  
Old 05-25-2001, 06:47 PM   #32
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Iconoclast:
Assuming for a moment that there are none, your conclusion could be correct, or it could be that nobody else cared enough to write another, they were lost or destroyed by the church, differnt stories were melded to create a single new one, etc.

There are many possibilites. To conclude that a story is true because there is only one version of it is not rational.
</font>
Meta -&gt;No body else cared enough? Do you see that list above? WEll over 50 versions of Gospels and acts, how could we conclude that no one cared enough? They cared enough to produce their own verisons of the works, but they still stuck to the story, always, why is that? Other myth spreaders didn't do it that way.

Now granted that alone doesn't really prove much, but when you take into account that we have writings form those who knew the eye witnesses, that all the principle people were actaully real people, that Josephus, Phlegan, the Mishna and Celsus all mention Jesus and that is just the first century sources, what is the concieveable reason for doubting that Jesus existed?
 
Old 05-25-2001, 06:49 PM   #33
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Iconoclast:
Sorry, I guess we were talking about twodifferent things. I was talking about the whole story. I don't reject the possibility of a actual person having existed upon whom the later myth was based.</font>
Why do you think I compared it to myth in the opening line?
 
Old 05-26-2001, 05:22 AM   #34
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

MC, can you fix the URLS so this aligns properly?

Michael
 
Old 05-26-2001, 10:15 PM   #35
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by turtonm:
MC, can you fix the URLS so this aligns properly?

Michael
</font>
Um...I don't really know how to do that.
 
Old 05-27-2001, 06:49 AM   #36
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Metacrock:
Um...I don't really know how to do that.</font>
Maybe you better just delete that URL.

Michael
 
Old 05-27-2001, 08:30 PM   #37
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Brian and Iconoclast,

Now I'm confused!

You're both proceeding from the (possible) conclusion/assumption that there is a human being lurking behind the Gospel stories. Isn't that like accepting Earth, Air, Fire and Water as the constituents of the universe?

In asking and conjecturing who Jesus may have been, you have bypassed a point of intellectual honesty, namely, the origins of the synoptic gospels.

Have either of you read Liberating the Gospels? Do you have an opinion on Spong's argument here?

joe
 
Old 05-28-2001, 06:33 AM   #38
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Well, let's see....

Gospel of Thomas -- the whole crucifixion story not present

Q Gospel -- No crucifixion story, no idea of passion (reading of "Son of Adam" as passion reference is post hoc by Christians)

Gospel of Philip -- reference to cross only, no passion story
Gospel of Mary -- allusion to death only, no crucifixion story, resurrection strictly a vision, no body

Apocryphon of James -- no crucifixion story, bare fact of "cross" only

Dialogue of the Savior -- no crucifixion story

Book of Thomas the Contender -- no crucifixion story

The two Infancy Gospels -- no crucifixion story

Of the fragments of other gospels -- which are all too short to be conclusive, so far I have only found to Fayyum have a reference to the crucifixion story (the denial of Peter)

The lost gospels, recognized from quotes in the church fathers, are also too fragmentary to make sure.

I won't count Secret Mark, which I believe is a forgery, and any case is too short.


Michael

[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited May 28, 2001).]
 
Old 05-28-2001, 07:48 AM   #39
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by joedad:

You're both proceeding from the (possible) conclusion/assumption that there is a human being lurking behind the Gospel stories. Isn't that like accepting Earth, Air, Fire and Water as the constituents of the universe?</font>
I will not speak for Iconoclast, but from my point of view, what are you talking about joe? What is your question, and what does your analogy have to do with it?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">In asking and conjecturing who Jesus may have been, you have bypassed a point of intellectual honesty, namely, the origins of the synoptic gospels.</font>
I have dealt extensively with the origins of the Synoptic Gospels. What is your point here?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Have either of you read Liberating the Gospels? Do you have an opinion on Spong's argument here?</font>
Which argument are you referring to? Please try to be specific.

Thanks,

Nomad

 
Old 05-28-2001, 07:57 AM   #40
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I would like to understand your argument better Michael. Are you saying that an absense of the crucifixion story means that there is a legitimate alternative story available to us about the death of Jesus?

As for your examples, why are you so selective in your choices, and why are many of them so late?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by turtonm:

Gospel of Thomas -- the whole crucifixion story not present</font>
A sayings Gospel. A book on the speeches of Caesar/Abe Lincoln/John Kennedy/whoever will not reference his assassination. Was he assassinated?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Q Gospel -- No crucifixion story, no idea of passion (reading of "Son of Adam" as passion reference is post hoc by Christians)</font>
"Q" Is defined as those sayings found in Matt and Luke, but not in Mark, and by definition does not include narrative. Why did you select this hypothetical source, and what point are you trying to make with it?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Gospel of Philip -- reference to cross only, no passion story
Gospel of Mary -- allusion to death only, no crucifixion story, resurrection strictly a vision, no body</font>
4th Century stuff, so this comes after Constantine. Why are they relevant?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Apocryphon of James -- no crucifixion story, bare fact of "cross" only</font>
Umm... so?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Dialogue of the Savior -- no crucifixion story</font>
How late is this again?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Book of Thomas the Contender -- no crucifixion story</font>
LOL

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The two Infancy Gospels -- no crucifixion story </font>
LOL! This one is even better. Infancy Gospels that do NOT talk about the death of the man.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Of the fragments of other gospels -- which are all too short to be conclusive, so far I have only found to Fayyum have a reference to the crucifixion story (the denial of Peter)</font>
The Gospel of Peter is too short? Why? And you did know that it is 2nd Century right? Why did you not even mention it when you are happy to talk about far more obscure documents that date far later than does GPeter?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The lost gospels, recognized from quotes in the church fathers, are also too fragmentary to make sure.</font>
Hmm... still hoping to prove something from a silence Michael?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I won't count Secret Mark, which I believe is a forgery, and any case is too short.</font>
Alright.

So, selective use of evidence, silences in some documents (many of which have no reason to mention the crucifixion), and a refusal to mention the most famour source outside of the Canons that definitely refers to the crucifixion of Jesus. What was it you were trying to prove here Michael? Is there an alternative story to the death of Jesus?

Nomad



[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited May 28, 2001).]
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:20 PM.

Top

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