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.

Meta ->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?

Why do you think I compared it to myth in the opening line?

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

Michael

Um...I don't really know how to do that.

Maybe you better just delete that URL.

Michael

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

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).]

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?

I have dealt extensively with the origins of the Synoptic Gospels. What is your point here?

Which argument are you referring to? Please try to be specific.

Thanks,

Nomad

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?

A sayings Gospel. A book on the speeches of Caesar/Abe Lincoln/John Kennedy/whoever will not reference his assassination. Was he assassinated?

"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?

4th Century stuff, so this comes after Constantine. Why are they relevant?

Umm... so?

How late is this again?

LOL

LOL! This one is even better. Infancy Gospels that do NOT talk about the death of the man.

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?

Hmm... still hoping to prove something from a silence Michael?

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).]