Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hjalti · 10-25-2010, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Allison states on page 418 that the urgency of Paul's word for `cry' well suits the description of Jesus in the garden who is `distressed' and `agitated.'

Surely, Allison must give some arguments (not that I can think of any) for this conclusion.

Toto · 10-25-2010, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Allison states on page 418 that the urgency of Paul's word for `cry' well suits the description of Jesus in the garden who is `distressed' and `agitated.'

Surely, Allison must give some arguments (not that I can think of any) for this conclusion.

Realizing that Steven Carr is being sarcastic here. But you may be able to read that page on the Amazon preview. Allison points out a number of Greek words and the use of the the Aramaic abba to suggest (rather than argue) that Paul knew the story of Gesthemene.

Of course, it might also suggest that Mark had read Paul and turned his themes into a narrative.

aa5874 · 10-25-2010, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Surely, Allison must give some arguments (not that I can think of any) for this conclusion.

Realizing that Steven Carr is being sarcastic here. But you may be able to read that page on the Amazon preview. Allison points out a number of Greek words and the use of the the Aramaic abba to suggest (rather than argue) that Paul knew the story of Gesthemene.

Of course, it might also suggest that Mark had read Paul and turned his themes into a narrative.

The author of gMark shows NO signs of using the Pauline writings and it is almost certain that the Pauline writers could not have gotten the information about the BETRAYAL of Jesus from a resurrected dead.

1Co 11:23 -

Quote:

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread

24.And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in F38 remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.....

It is NOT practicably possibly that a resurrected dead gave a Pauline writer such details.

Once it has been deduced that Pauline writings have been forged or the work of more than one writer then it cannot be assumed that any part of any letter is early.

And, further, the Church historian claimed the Pauline writers were aware of gLuke.

"Church History" 3.4.8

Quote:

8. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, "according to my Gospel."

There is no external evidence to SUGGEST the Pauline writings were early or that the author of gMark ever used the Pauline writings.

Sheshbazzar · 10-25-2010, 08:59 AM

And of course 'Paul' assures us that 'he' did not receive 'his gospel' from men, but rather -only- personally and directly in a vision, from the resurrected heavenly Jebus.
Thus by 'Paul's own testimony 'he' could not have received 'his' Gospel from the man the apostle Luke, or from any other human source.

squiz · 10-25-2010, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

This is ground breaking work which will revolutionise how historians do history.

Dale Allison's masterful demonstration ....

Methinks you are taking the piss.

squiz · 10-25-2010, 10:25 AM

Hehe, I just saw your review up on Amazon. I wonder how many will take it seriously there too.

spamandham · 10-25-2010, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Dale Allison's masterful demonstration on pages 417-418 that Romans 8:15 has an echo of Jesus being distressed in Gethsemane made a powerful impression on me, and made me reconsider how history should be done.

Allison states on page 418 that the urgency of Paul's word for `cry' well suits the description of Jesus in the garden who is `distressed' and `agitated.'

This demonstration of the historicity of the distress of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane is a striking example of how historians should approach texts, and one that historians outside the field of New Testament studies should learn from.

Dale Allison also points out on page 419 the astonishing similarity in language between Colossians 4:2 `Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful.' and the language in Mark 14:38, providing another striking example of how the distress of Jesus in the garden must be historical.

The alternative view is that both Romans and Colossians were written later than Mark.

edit: failed to see the sarcasm at first. doh!

aa5874 · 10-25-2010, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Dale Allison is on the faculty of Pittsburg Theological Seminary.

James McGrath says:

On page 240, Dale Allison points out that the story of Barabbas being released is likely not historical because there is no 'certain evidence' of such a custom.

It is evident from the Gospels and the Pauline writings that the historical Jesus is IRRELEVANT.

The historical Jesus

1. was NOT the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

2. was NOT baptized by John when the Holy Spirit entered into him like a DOVE.

3. was NOT tempted by the devil on the pinnacle of the Temple.

4. did NOT heal incurable diseases.

5. did NOT curse trees so that they died.

6. Did NOT talk to storms so that there would be calm.

7. did NOT walk on water.

8. did NOT raise Lazarus from the dead.

9. did NOT turn water into wine.

10. did NOT transfigure.

11. did NOT resurrect.

12. did NOT ascend through the clouds.

13. was NOT the the Creator of heaven and earth.

14. had NO ability to REMIT sins.

Even if Jesus did exist as a man, virtually every event in the Gospels and the Pauline writings about him would still have to be INVENTED.

It is CLEAR that an historical Jesus is NOT needed or was completely IRRELEVANT to the early Jesus story writers. These early Jesus story writers did NOT give a HOOT about the biography of a mere Jewish man.

They just needed a common Jewish name and a common method of execution of Jews.

There were probably hundreds of people called Jesus and thousands of Jews who were crucified so how in the world can any one reconstruct an historical Jesus of Nazareth?

Jesus was just a fable that was believed to be true.

The early story writers only wanted a Jewish name.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-25-2010, 08:59 AM	#14
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	And of course 'Paul' assures us that 'he' did not receive 'his gospel' from men, but rather -only- personally and directly in a vision, from the resurrected heavenly Jebus. Thus by 'Paul's own testimony 'he' could not have received 'his' Gospel from the man the apostle Luke, or from any other human source.

10-25-2010, 10:25 AM	#16
squiz Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Munich Germany Posts: 434	Hehe, I just saw your review up on Amazon. I wonder how many will take it seriously there too.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.