Adam

In our recent chit-chat we’ve diverted from the task at hand to identify other eyewitness sources that fit into the proposed “Gospel According to the Atheists”. Over in Gospel Eyewitnesses in my Post #568 I came across the text of L as derived by Kim Paffenroth. His text here is mostly free of supernaturalism. Paffenroth’s L contains:
Luke (3:10-14(no Semitisms)), 4:25-27, 7:11-15, 36-47, 10:10-17, 39-42, 11:5-8, 12:16-20, 35-38, 13:1-17, 31-32, (14:2-4, 8-10(no Semitisms)), 12-14, 28-32, (15:4-6, 8-9(no Semitisms)), 15:11-32, 16:1-8, 19-31,( 17:7-10(no Semitisms)), 17:12-18, 18:2-8, 10-14, 19:2-10,

These passages according to my theory would be from the eyewitness Simon, son of Cleopas. He was working with the text of Q from the Apostle Matthew, especially from Luke 9:57 to 18:14 in which whatever is not listed above as from L is from Q. All the central section of Luke is from my third and fourth suggested eyewitnesses that are reconcilable with a Gospel According to the Atheists.
Shesh would like to see me transcribe verse-by-verse what would be in the “Gospel According to Adam.” I have never talked about such a text, as my proposed Gospel According to the Atheists is simply a response to the presuppositions at work here in this discussion board. New ways of presenting my theories excites me, but I have yet to see favorable response here from anyone. Why should I transcribe my four eyewitnesses in accordance with your preconceptions? It’s only exciting if there is a response, so I’m getting bored with the project. If I’m going to present a Gospel According to Adam, it might as well be on my terms, without the need to exclude events that I honestly think happened, all seven eyewitnesses included.

Sheshbazzar

Preconceptions? Who arrived here with a HUGE pile of preconceptions and immediately began with posting walls of dense prose filled with hundreds of unproven assertions?

I have not once asked you to transcribe your 'four eyewitnesses in accordance with our preconceptions'.
I have asked you to 'compose' or transcribe it only in accord with whatever YOU think it ought to contain. If YOU write it it will only conform to YOUR preconceptions.

You have previously stated your Gospel contains John 2 (in the main...)
We can hardly be expected to know what it is that is NOT "in the main" unless you write some actual text that will indicae exactly what words you wish to leave out.
Same with all of your "most of.." , "most of..", "most of.." qualifications.
We have no f'n way of determining what you think ought to be ommitted without you providing your version of these texts.

It is YOUR preconceptions that you are being asked to produce, not ours.

Adam

That's not what you said back in your #54 here.
Nor in #50, 39, 31, or 27. You variously ask for my historical or non-supernatural gospel, transcribed.

Sheshbazzar

And anyone can look and see that the -context- of this question was your preceding statement; Thus I naturally asked you;
These were logical questions given you previous suggestion of John 11:54 as an introduction.

And it is in line with the same thing you have been requested to supply repeatedly; "Where does your version of the Gospel story begin?"

When in POST #4 of this thread, I suggested you begin with the first 25 verses of Matthew you practically had a cow.(Post #16)
Then started going on and on about John and the Passion story, so I questioned you about John and you come back with;
Now just what in the hell is that "(in the main)" supposed to mean?
By any normal usage of the English language it would indicate that there is something that is NOT "(in the main)" that you intend to leave out.

"MOST OF" ??? What is that supposed to mean?
One would think it means 'not all of'. Thus the question; WHAT ARE YOU INTENDING ON LEAVING OUT THAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THESE VERSES ???
We don't know, and we can not know, unless you write them out in full, so that we can read your version of these verses.

"MOST OF" ??? What is that supposed to mean?
One would think it means 'not all of'. Thus the question; WHAT ARE YOU INTENDING ON LEAVING OUT THAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THESE VERSES ???
We don't know, and we can not know, unless you write them out in full, so that we can read your version of these verses.

But of course anyone that has followed this ridiculous thread knows that we have arrived at this point as a follow up to your reply to Steve Weiss in POST #3
The suggestion being by you, that there could be a recoverable underlying "non-ludicrous" Gospel that did not need, or perhaps did not even originally include any miracles.
Thus I offered you this CHALLENGE
I was, and I am saying that you cannot do so, and still arrive at any finished text that will not contain HUGE gaps, and be rendered senseless.

As I pointed out earlier, If you attempt to begin your Gospel story with John 2 or 3, and the Passion week, you would need to provide flashbacks for anyone who was unfamiliar with the Gospels as already written, else the beginning of your story would make no sense.
'Why did this happen?' Would certainly be the first question of any first time hearer that only had a Gospel that began at John 2 or 3.
It is the progressive and chronological order and the building succession of ever greater miracles, and the resulting conflicts, that is present within each of the Gospels that make them the readable and fascinating literary productions that they are.
(and damn near believable,... if they weren't so utterly full of crap)

Starting at the ass end, and taking out everything of any interest that builds up to that climax, is not going to make for a better or any more believable story. There will be serious problems with the Gospel tale wherever you choose to begin it, and leaving selected parts out will only amplify those problems.

You can obfuscate until zombie Jeebus returns or hell freezes over, but it is already evident that you cannot back up any claim that there ever existed a original Gospel that did not both include and depend upon the miracles and mythical elements. You cannot recover any such Gospel from the existing texts, and you cannot produce such by means of anything that you yourself can compose.

You can type out strings and sequences of verse numbers, but you cannot fasten them together into any cohesive and coherent text.

In the end you only degrade those texts that hundreds of millions have believed, and produce nothing of any value.

Congratulations on a job poorly done.

Adam

So now you're asking for a cohesive, complete text? That was already provided December 21, 2011 in my Post #555 in Gospel Eyewitnesses. Yes, I do make revisions that may be what's confusing you, but with bolded revisions here's what you already had available to read but apparently did not bother to do:

Sheshbazzar

And all you have provided again is a senseless list of your personal pick and choose disconnected verse numbers.
You are only making it obvious, that as I have stated, You cannot even write them out so that they'll make any sense.

And you still are not dealing with the questions regarding

"Where does your version of the Gospel story begin?"

When in POST #4 of this thread, I suggested you begin with the first 25 verses of Matthew you practically had a cow.(Post #16)

Then you started going on and on about John and the Passion story, so I questioned you about John and you came back with;
Now just what in the hell is that "(IN THE MAIN)" supposed to mean?
By any normal usage of the English language it would indicate that there is something that is NOT "(IN THE MAIN)" that you intend to leave out.

"MOST OF"... ??? What in the hell is that supposed to mean? One would think that it means 'not all of'.
Thus the question; WHAT ARE YOU INTENDING ON LEAVING OUT THAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THESE VERSES ???

We don't know, and we can not know, unless you write them out in full, so that we can read your version of these verses.

"MOST OF"... ??? What in the hell is that supposed to mean? One would think that it means 'not all of'.
Thus the question; WHAT ARE YOU INTENDING ON LEAVING OUT THAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THESE VERSES ???

We don't know, and we can not know, unless you write them out in full, so that we can read your version of these verses."

You've still got some explaining to do about what you meant by; "John 3 (IN THE MAIN;) 4:20-24" ???

And what you meant by; "MOST OF" 5:17-47; 6:26-51, 58-65" ???

And what you meant by; "MOST OF" 7:5-52; 8:12-57;" ???

The question marks ? are in bold and are clear to anyone reading this thread.
Either answer these questions, and indicate what portions of these texts you are intending to omit, by providing us with YOUR version of these verses,
OR admit that you have erred in qualifying your submittal of those particular texts with the words; "IN THE MAIN" , and "MOST OF".

Remember this is your baby, and you are the only one that can defend your own statements, or deliver any such proposed 'Gospel', -whatever- you may choose to call the results of your chopped up selections of texts.

You can obfuscate until zombie Jeebus returns or hell freezes over, but it is already evident that you cannot back up any claim that there ever existed an original Gospel text that did not both include and depend upon the miracles and mythical elements.
You cannot recover any such Gospel from the existing texts, and you cannot produce such a text by means of anything that you yourself can compose.
Certainly you can type out strings and sequences of extracted verse numbers, but you simply cannot fasten these selected texts back together into forming any sensible, cohesive, and coherent text.

In the end you only degrade those texts that hundreds of millions have believed, and produce nothing of any value.

Congratulations again on the mutiple faulty arguments, obfuscations, and on a job being so poorly done.



ששבצר העברי



.

Adam

In my #65 I answered your #64, but still you go back to what you have required three times before. Why should I bother with your demands? You'll just command me to produce something else, without dealing with what I have presented.

If there is anyone who does not have us both on ignore, can s/he get around to making some progress on this thread? I still say that I have disproven MJ, Ignoring me does not make this fact go away. It just proves that you cannot deal with it.

Sheshbazzar

You can expect that I will continue asking you these questions until you provide some cogent answers to the specific questions being asked.

IF you get past these three questions, I'll address the specific verses you have listed.

Hell, seeing as you cannot or will not write them out, I'll have to do it for you, and demonstrate exactly what a chopped up piece of crap it is that you are postulating as a "Gospel".

You got 2 choices coming up here Adam.
1. You will either finally get your ass in gear and write these verses out exactly as you want your version of a "Gospel" to read.

2. Or I will take the list of verse numbers which you have provided and will do that job for you.

I think that we both already know that the finished product will not be satisfactory as "Gospel".

You can choose either to embarass yourself. Or I will do it for you.



.

Adam

Following up on my #28, I'll give you an example from my second of my four Post #65 "most of" Nicodemus chapters. John 5:17-47 is a "discourse" that could be regarded as all of one piece. However, Teeple analyzes (and I agree) that verses 18, 34, and 36 are from the last Redactor. However, Teeple similarly argues that 19c, 25, 33, 35, and 38b to 47 are from the (second-to-last) Editor. I suspect that is hyper-criticism and would leave these verses all as still from Nicodemus. That's three quite different ways (out of many other possibilities) of cutting it, and I don't want to claim I know for sure who's right.

Adam

My quote above was not provocative enough to get a response in five days?
So my "Gospel According to the Atheists" goes uncontested?

And let's up the ante. We've had the thread about Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Another Take on the Historical Jesus (as a Jew, Pharisee even) relying upon Hyam Maccoby's use of the Gospel of Matthew. Any attempt to find a Jewish Jesus would do better to point out Proto-Luke (the earliest gospel) as I did in my Post #65. We would omit, of course, any use of Nicodemus's Johannine discourses. For that matter, disregard also the other main bolded section, because those Q2 passages are likely early as well, from the "Qumraner" I suggested was an eighth eyewitness, but who was not so closely involved with Jesus. So simply take the "Church without Walls" passages of Proto-Luke as modified to substitute the Passion Narrative from the Gospel of John. That would than serve as a "Gospel According to the Jews" (of a more liberal bent than given by Boteach and Maccoby).