Brian,

I took this question (directed to Toto) from another thread: and from me you asked previously: Unless you're being coy or have not read Spong, I am referring to his assertion that the origin of the gospels is the real question, not the origin of the jesus of the gospels, or the question of jesus' historicity.

As you have elsewhere stated that you believe the earliest Christians were Jewish, which agrees with Spong, and I see that you date the gospels 55-70, I get the impression you may have read Spong's Liberating the Gospels, and are familiar with his assertions. Have you?

joe

Meta =>That's becasue it's a sayings list and not a narative. It's also been re-worked by Gnsotics in the 4th century and I said up to the 4th century. But it doesn't offer an alternate version and that's the point.
________________

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


Meta =>Ibid. See above.
_________________

Gospel of Philip -- reference to cross only, no passion story


Meta =>ahahahaa, why would they have a cross without a passion? Because obviously the passion is implied, except that Philip is heavily Gnostic and very late, so they didn't believe his death was real. But he doesn't deny that he was seemingly curcified. He doesn't offer a differnent verison. He doesn't say he was stroned or hung. Why can't you understand that distinction?
______________________

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

Meta =>Again, that is unimportant. Those are mere details, and res. does agree with the main story. The point is, no altenrative account is offered. Doesn't say he was stroned, shot with arrow, hung, ran thorugh with spear, wacked with sword, or whathave you.
___________________________

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

Meta -> If cross doesn't imply crucifiction what's it doing there? That's still allusion to the main story line.
_________________

Dialogue of the Savior -- no crucifixion story

Meta =>Also no narrative,and no disagreement either. But it does say he he gave up his life on the cross.
_________________

Book of Thomas the Contender -- no crucifixion story
_____________________

Meta =>No alternate version! are you just dense. Can you not get it through your head what the argument is?
____________

The two Infancy Gospels -- no crucifixion story

Meta =>cause it's about his infancy!
______________

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)

Meta =>That's becasue you are blind. when it speaks of the cross and of giving up his life and does not offer any alternate story of his death it is agreeing with the main story.
_________________

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

Meta =>IF they had an alternate story something somewhere would have survived of it.
_____________________

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


Meta =>That still leaves a couple of hundred others. And Peter, Nichedemius and several others do have both cross, and passion and death and resurrectoin. And you still have failed to show a single alternative account. None of those disagree with the 11 points I spoke of.

No alternate version! are you just dense. Can you not get it through your head what the argument is?

Some gospels have a passion narrative. Some don't. Some gospels which have a narrative and are faithful to a certain version of events. Others don't even mention it, or only vaguely allude. Your "widespread agreement" turns out to mean "if it mentions the passion, it mentions the passion."

BTW, you were the one who admonished me to "let the text speak for itself." The mere mention of a cross does not necessarily imply the whole passion scheme invented or copied by Mark.

In the Second Treatise of the Great Seth, Jesus says someone else died on the cross. And remember the one that says he was buried in the sand? There are differences even within the story.

Like I said before, what do you think would have happened to this set of myths if a Church had not arisen to defend it, define, conserve it and rule out other versions?

Michael

Could you give us some details on this source please? How old is it, and why do you consider it to be reliable?

Could you just offer us evidence of a differing version of the death of Jesus that at least comes close to the 1st Century AD, and therefore could be traced back to some early Christians?

Also, why did you ignore the Gospel of Peter in your list of examples, calling it, instead, too short to be reliable?

Thanks,

Nomad

Could you give us some details on this source please? How old is it, and why do you consider it to be reliable?

A typical Nomad non-point. The statement was made on another thread that "all sources agree." No mention was made of relative or absolute reliability, just the blanket statement. Obviously, all sources do not agree, some sources don't mention the story, others give differing details, etc. As Metacrock rightly points out, those sources that mention the passion story seem to stick to the same general story, with a few exceptions. However, not all mention it, and that was my point. Originally.

I don't consider any "reliable" in the sense that they reflect actual events.

In any case, widespread agreement among sources means nothing. In China the invention of paper is attributed to an historical figure, Cai Lun, immortalized as the God of Paper. All sources agree he invented it, including court histories of his time. His biography in the standard history of the Han goes into some detail about it, as well as in a work written by contemporary historians over the period from +25 to +189, Cai died in 121. All provide information on the kinds of raw materials and processes he used. It's quite detailed.

However, we know from both archaeology and documentary evidence that paper predates him by at least 250 years!

Michael

Meta =>No, look: Not a sinlge one of them contradicts the association between cross and Jesus!Yes, Gnostic Gospels deny that Jesus himself really did die on the cross, but they still have the cross in the story. None of them assume it was a sword, or stoning, or hanging, or spearing they are all talking about crosses! That's becase he died on the corss and they cannot dney the association. And moreover Gnostic Gospels are very late. I put a cut off date of 4th century. So you must show that those are early, and you can't. Becasue most of them are form Nag Hammadi and that means they are 4th century.


Meta =>I said I'm not concerned with detals. In the Hercules story he is poinsoned with a poinson robe and in another one shot by a centar with an arrow. But there are no versions of the Jesus' story in which he is stbbed, hanged, sotned or killed in any other way or in which his death is assoicaited with any other kind of killing. So that is silly point. You are not getting the drift.

In the Second Treatise of the Great Seth, Jesus says someone else died on the cross. And remember the one that says he was buried in the sand? There are differences even within the story.


Meta =>That's still an associatation with the cross. What one about sand? That's probably very late, quote it, tell me what text it is?


MEta =>If it was really mythology pure and simple with no core of historical fact, there should be several different versions that depart significantly form those 11 points. Why do they all keep them in the story? You think it's just because a chruch defended them, why was it important to keep those 11 points the same if they had no basis in truth to begin with? If that was the case we should see a multiplicity of versons cropping up early.

We see some drift away from it with the Gnostics, but it's very late, 4th century and even then most of the still associate the cross with Jesus.

Meta => A typical Turtonm distorition of the facts. I did not say "all sources agree!" Read it again, this time , look at the words. I said that none of the m contradict those 11 point or offer alternate verisons which do not include those points. That is not the same as saying that they agree perfectly on every detail. I didn't say that. But you are doging the issue. If it was total myth with no core of history than there should be tones of different versions cropping up at an early point.you are alos doging the demand for documentation. I docutmented my point extensively and quoted extensively form many of the sources. NOw you wont even say the name of text that you think differs. I have disproved what you said about 2 of them, I'll wager your wrong about the others.


Meta =>They don't have to be. That's not the point. The point is not the detials the point is the basic story outline.


Meta =>The workers should own the means of production. Why do you keep bringing this irrelivant eastern crap into it? Because you want to show that you have this vast hoard of knowledge. I am not impressed, and I don't care. Your point is irrelivant. Ancient china proves nothing about the ancient near east.

The point is not agreement, try putting on the thinking cap and ponder the issue. The piont is that there are no alternate versions. I bet you can't say that about Chinese mythology. All myths around the world have some alternate versions.


You also never dealt with the issue of the nature of mythology in the first place.



Meta => I can spout rhemes more about Marx. I know tons about Marxism. I know the names of obscure communist maryters who died in the 1905 dress rehersal. I know the names of brigade commanders in the spanish civil war.

Ok guys you are going to tell your little lies again and say I ran away. But where are you? You aren't answering. Should I assume you give up on this one?

Valmorian

*laugh* I was responding to Layman. I have no interest as to whether there was such a person at that time.

Need you ask me such a question? Single me out when I've never once denied there was a real person named Jesus Christ? Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. I just don't find it that important.

Metacrock

Sorry, guess I misunderstood (grumble grumble).