FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-22-2007, 08:10 PM   #111
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post

Cause of death
JW:

Quote:
1) Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

2) he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures;

3) he appeared to Cephas
Let's consider the potential Sources for "Cause of death":

1) We have Nothing by anyone claiming to have known Jesus that says the cause of death was Crucifixion.

2) We have Nothing by anyone claiming to have known someone who knew Jesus that says those who knew Jesus said the cause of death was Crucifixion.

I'll assume Doug that you think there is an Implication from Paul for 2). How good is that Implication? Seems to me that there in 1 Corinthians would have been the place for Paul to say it. Why didn't Paul say it there? Is it possible that Paul didn't say it because those who knew Jesus didn't say it (rhetorical)? Could this explain why we have no Narrative preserved by anyone who knew Jesus (because they didn't say it - rhetorical)?

That Jesus was Crucifed is something more than the most important Natural Assertian by Orthodox Christianity. Therefore, wouldn't Orthodox Christianity insist on this Assertian in order to preserve witness thereby casting doubt on the historical value of such testimony (you can answer this one)? The related problem is that "Mark" appears to have taken Paul's bare Assertian that Jesus was crucified and created a Crucifixion account out of it which, as these Holy Boards have demonstrated, is totally Implausible.

If Jesus being Crucified is the only minimum information regarding Jesus that can be historically supported than HJ has serious problems.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page
If an HJ is assumed, then the crucifixion is not the end of his life. It must be taken into consideration that this Jesus of the NT survived the crucifixion. This may indicate that Jesus was not crucified but escaped and went into hiding, or he was crucified, removed before death and recovered in a medical facilty, similar to one of the three acquaintances of Josephus who was crucified and taken down before death and managed to survive after medical assistance, or even that the crucifixion was a fictitious event.

Again, if an HJ is considered, then this Jesus of the NT merely vanished without a trace after his crucifixion since there are no accounts of his natural death after his recovery from the cross. According to gJohn, Jesus gave his disciples fishing lessons and used to eat fish with them after he was crucified.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 12-19-2007, 07:14 AM   #112
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default Bend It Like Bauckham

JW:
I just Received Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (or via: amazon.co.uk) and fully intended to Bury it rather than Praise it. But than I had a Revelation that instead of acting like a Fundamentalist and starting with the Conclusion that the book is Theology and not Science and than constructing an Argument to support this Conclusion, I would instead Act The Way I think my Enemies should act, with Logic, Reason and a purely Scientific approach.

Along those lines I've decided to first state a Hypothesis and than gather, test and evaluate the evidence in order to consider the validity of my Hypothesis. First, my Hypothesis:

Richard Bauckham is a Theologian masquerading as a Bible scholar and his book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, is twice as Biased as Jeffrey Gibson thinks Mr. Doherty is and deserves three times as much Contempt as Chris Weimer thinks the average poster at II deserves.

Now, to test this Hypothesis.

P. 2

Quote:
However, the full reality of Jesus as he historically was is not, of course, accessible to us. The world itself could not contain the books that would be needed to record even all that was empirically observable about Jesus, as the closing verse of the Gospel of John puts it.
JW:
I note that Bauckham does not even identify the Impossible/Possible issue for a Historian in his opening chapter


p. 4

Quote:
That Jesus was crucified may be indubitable
JW:
A strange combination of words. Still waiting for those with contempt for MJ to demonstrate it Likely that Jesus was crucified.


p. 4

Quote:
We should be under no illusions that, however minimal a Jesus results from the quest, such a historical Jesus is no less a construction than the Jesus of each of the Gospels.
JW:
Nice shifting of the burden of Proof from the Gospel Jesus to HJ.


p. 4

Quote:
From the perspective of Christian faith and theology we must ask whether the enterprise of reconstructing a historical Jesus behind the Gospels, as it has been pursued through all phases of the quest, can ever substitute for the Gospels themselves as a way of access to the reality of Jesus the man who lived in first-century Palestine.
JW:
So is Bauckham an Advocate or Judge of Gospel Jesus?


p. 5

Quote:
Gospels understood as testimony are the entirely appropriate means of access to the historical reality of Jesus.
JW:
Now he has to reach up to touch False Diechotomy


p. 7

Quote:
Mark's Gospel was written well within the lifetime of many of the eyewitnesses, while the other three canonical Gospels were written in the period when living witnesses were becoming scarce, exactly at the point in time when their testimony would perish with them were it not put in writing. This is a highly significant fact, entailed not by unusually early datings of the Gospels but by the generally accepted ones.
JW:
Except for Peter, per Christian sources, and the others look to be Edited/Reactions to "Mark". The other problems being lack of extant Manuscripts, Early Church knowledge, familiarity with Josephus, anachronisms, familiarity with Greek translations of Jewish Bible.


p. 10

Quote:
Oral testimony was preferable to written sources
JW:
A real Historian like Josephus would beg to differ but in any case the question should be why did Christians prefer the oral to the written?



Joseph

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page
JoeWallack is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:43 PM.

Top

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