Amos

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CowboyX:

Mythmakers are sure interesting folks aren't they? To send the world on a wild goose chase for thousands of years into the future without leaving sufficient evidence to figure it all out.

May I suggest that they held a gospel writing competition from four different perspectives from which they chose the best ones in each category.

My point is that we should never forget that it is myth and only true because it is myth. If this is not true religion could have no purpose other than filling a place in history.

Amos

NOGO

As I see it Luke 21 and Matthew 24 both speak of the Jewish/Roman war.
Luke 21:20 "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.
Luke 21:24 Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles...
There is here a prophecy of the destruction of the temple however I believe that it was written after the fact.
One indication that it was written after the fact is in Mt 24
Matthew 24:21
For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.

Note the word "now"
If Jesus had said this He would have said "until then". This is a case of author's perspective.
The author was experiencing the tribulation in question when he wrote this.

Needless to say that the prophecy of the end of the world immediately following the destruction of the temple never materialized.

Amos

The temple was the "Jewish Spire" of the upright Jew by the name of Joseph that was built upon the egoistic pride of the wily carpenter recently reborn and become known as Jesus-the Jew.

This means that Jesus was talking about the end of his own world and indeed he did rebuilt the temple in three days out of the ruins of his won netherworld.

Amos

offa

Offa, snipping and adding boldface and italics;

[i]NOGO;

As I see it Luke 21 and Matthew 24 both speak of the Jewish/
Roman war.

Luke 21:20 "When you see Jerusalem being
surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is
near.

Luke 21:24 Jerusalem will be trampled on by the
Gentiles...

Offa;
Your point is quite valid, however, I am thoroughly convinced
that Jesus was quite human (unable to prophesy and that he did
survive the crucifixion, a stance I will take until someone
proves to me that his feet were pierced). Also, Josephus taught
me that the Jews used pseudo-names for locations, in other words
the Jerusalem spoken about in Luke 21:20 was actually
Qumran. I went to The Catholic Bible to check the above
verses and the footnote on those verses concurred with what
you wrote and mentioned the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

I would like to bring to your attention a footnote below
Acts 12:25, They returned to Jerusalem; many manuscripts
read "from Jerusalem" since 11,30 implies that Paul and
Barnabas are already in Jerusalem.

The above is to reinforce my opinion that there were at least
"two Jerusalem's". The person speaking in Luke 21:20/24
was, in fact, Jesus and this was before the crucifixion. There
is a mention of a "pregnant woman" in both your examples
(Luke and Matthew) and Mary Magdalene was about to deliver. Also,
when Pontius Pilate came to the other Jerusalem, in effect,
Jerusalem was trampled on and surrounded.

Thanks,
Offa

CX

I'm confused. What are you sayng here? It seems clear to me that the Jewish Revolt of 66-70 is mentioned in all 3 synoptics as a prophecy of Jesus. Unless one can prove that Jesus was able to tell the future which is another discussion entirely and has nothing to do with historico-critical examination of the texts.

And what is this reference to virgins and pierced feet? Are you referring in some way to the doctrine of Jesus' virgin birth? What has this to do with anything?

offa

Offa;

My stance is that Jesus was born in 7 b.c.e. and that his mother was a Virgin because all the wives of Hebrews were virgins, for life.
My stance on Jesus' feet not being pierced is because he was able to walk shortly after the crucifixion (if his feet were nailed he would not be able to walk).
John was the first gospel written and the last one edited (the last chapter was added after the other three gospels were completed).
There were more than one Jerusalem's (Galilee's and Bethlehem's). Josephus tells you that they were more than one locations with the same name.
Now, if John was not the first gospel written then Jesus' did not exist. The only problem is, John was written first.
I would like for you (or any body else) cite me a reference to the Jewish War of A.D. 70 in the gospels. And, find me a virgin that was not an Hebrew, or find me where it says that Jesus' feet were pierced. In previous posts I have given my references.

Thanks,
Offa

P.S. I believe every word written in the gospels is the "gospel truth", yet, I remain an atheist.

CX

Okay. I'm not much better oof understanding you than before this post, but I have a few comments.

>>My stance is that Jesus was born in
>>7 b.c.e.

fair enough. The date of Jesus' birth is not that well established and the traditional date on which the gregorian calendar is based is thought to be off by 3-5 years because of an error in calculation.

>>and that his mother was a Virgin
>>because all the wives of Hebrews
>>were virgins, for life.

I'm not sure what this means, but some citations would be nice. I know very little about Judaica so I have no basis for an opinion except that Mary was clearly not a virgin after Jesus' was born. I suspect the virgin birth is simply an attempt to fit the prophecy in Isaiah that AMt seemed to think was so important (which incidentally has nothing to do with Jesus as far as I can tell and seems like very strained apologetic on AMt's part).

>>My stance on Jesus' feet not being
>>pierced is because he was able to
>>walk shortly after the crucifixion
>>(if his feet were nailed he would
>>not be able to walk).

Evidence, please? Jesus could not walk after the crucifixion because he was dead.

>>John was the first gospel written
>>and the last one edited (the last
>>chapter was added after the other
>>three gospels were completed).

Again evidence, please? This contradicts nearly all biblical criticism to date. In order to overturn a prevailing theory, the competing theory must not only explain difficulties with the prevailing theory, but also all the things the prevailing theory addresses adequately.

>>There were more than one Jerusalem's
>>(Galilee's and Bethlehem's). Josephus
>>tells you that they were more than one
>>locations with the same name.

Maybe so. SO what? It is clear that the gospel authors are referring to the Judean capital not a town in the region of Galilee. Incidentally Bethelehem was town not a region like galilee. The infancy narratives are set there to shore up future messianic claims in the text.

>>Now, if John was not the first gospel
>>written then Jesus' did not exist.

A strong assertion, but perhaps you could provide something resembling an argument for this claim.

>>The only problem is, John was written first.

Evidence? (do I sound like a broken record?
)

>>I would like for you (or any body else)
>>cite me a reference to the Jewish War
>>of A.D. 70 in the gospels.

Why is the "mini-apocalypse" not a reference to the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E.?

>>And, find me a virgin that was not
>>an Hebrew

Are you setting up some kind of rhetorical trick here? Everyone ever born was and is a virgin until the first time she has intercourse. What am I missing?

>>or find me where it says that Jesus'
>>feet were pierced.

Isn't that implicit in the fact that he was crucified?

>>P.S. I believe every word written
>>in the gospels is the "gospel truth",
>>yet, I remain an atheist.

Could you elaborate? True in what sense?

offa

Offa; Snipping in order to simplify a way too long post.
-----------------------------------------------------------
CowboyX;
Okay. I'm not much better of understanding you than before
this post, but I have a few comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Offa;
My stance is that Jesus was born in
7 b.c.e.

CowboyX;
fair enough. The date of Jesus' birth is not that well
established and the traditional date on which the gregorian
calendar is based is thought to be off by 3-5 years because
of an error in calculation.

Offa;
The Gregorian Calendar was introduced by Pope Gregory in
1582. The error of ~1 day every 400 years had been
discovered by the Venerable Bede in 700 A.D. However, that
information is irrelevant as far as calculating Jesus'
birth. My source, the Encyclopedia Britannica, gives 31 b.c.
e. as the date of the Battle of Actium. Josephus records
that in the 37th year after this battle Augustus Caesar
held a census. That year would be A.D. 6. If Jesus is 12
years old at this time then he would have been born in 7 b.
c.e. BTW, King Herod the Great died in 4 b.c.e. and Jesus
was alive then and was supposed to be at least two years old.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Offa;
and that his mother was a Virgin
because all the wives of Hebrews
were virgins, for life.

CowboyX;
I'm not sure what this means, but some citations would be
nice. I know very little about Judaica so I have no basis
for an opinion except that Mary was clearly not a virgin
after Jesus' was born. I suspect the virgin birth is simply
an attempt to fit the prophecy in Isaiah that AMt seemed to
think was so important (which incidentally has nothing to
do with Jesus as far as I can tell and seems like very
strained apologetic on AMt's part).

Offa; It is much simpler than that. If you are not a Hebrew
then you can never qualify as a virgin (pure).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Offa;
My stance on Jesus' feet not being
pierced is because he was able to
walk shortly after the crucifixion
(if his feet were nailed he would
not be able to walk).

CowboyX;
Evidence, please? Jesus could not walk after the
crucifixion because he was dead.

Offa;
My evidence is that Jesus walked to Jerusalem after the crucifixion.
If his feet were pierced then he could not walk. I stated explicitly
that I am convinced that Jesus survived the crucifixion so your
remark that "he was dead" falls on deaf ears.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Offa;
John was the first gospel written
and the last one edited (the last
chapter was added after the other
three gospels were completed).

CowboyX;
Again evidence, please? This contradicts nearly all
biblical criticism to date. In order to overturn a
prevailing theory, the competing theory must not only
explain difficulties with the prevailing theory, but also
all the things the prevailing theory addresses adequately.

Offa;
My primary source of evidence is that Simon Magus and
Lazarus were the same person. Simon Magus was anti-Pauline
and he had to be removed from the record, therefore, the
story about the "Raising of Lazarus" only appears in the
first gospel written, that is, the "Gospel of John". As far
as the "prevailing theory", a theory is a theory.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Offa;
There were more than one Jerusalem's
(Galilee's and Bethlehem's). Josephus
tells you that they were more than one
locations with the same name.

CowboyX;
Maybe so. SO what? It is clear that the gospel authors are
referring to the Judaean capital not a town in the region
of Galilee. Incidentally Bethlehem was town not a region
like galilee. The infancy narratives are set there to shore
up future messianic claims in the text.

Offa;
The Bethlehem, the one about 12 miles south west of
Jerusalem, was not the birthplace of Jesus (and David).
This Bethlehem, their birthplace, was actually near Qumran
(the other Jerusalem). The Messianic claims and prophecies
are always vague and refer to pseudo-locations.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Offa;
Now, if John was not the first gospel
written then Jesus' did not exist.

Cowboyx;
A strong assertion, but perhaps you could provide something
resembling an argument for this claim.

Offa;
This is my rebuttal against "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty. His
book falls apart if "Mark" is not written first. All these bible
experts are theists and they set up their own rules about religious
history. Many of them claim they are agnostic or atheist but they
have their own hidden agendas. I have a biblical expert on my side and
her name is Dr. Barbara Thiering (even though I disagree with her about
several issues). BTW, she is a theist.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Offa;
The only problem is, John was written first.

Cowboyx;
Evidence? (do I sound like a broken record?)

Offa;
Yes, you do sound like a broken record and also someone
with a hidden agenda. Are you an atheist. I am.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Offa;
I would like for you (or any body else)
cite me a reference to the Jewish War
of A.D. 70 in the gospels.

Cowboyx;
Why is the "mini-apocalypse" not a reference to the destruction of the
temple in 70 C.E.?

Offa;
Now, I am the broken record. I want a citation regarding
what you wrote, you wrote that that the Jewish War was
cited in "all three synoptics". I would like something more
specific. I am not familiar with the "mini-apocalypse".
Is it a part of the synoptics?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Offa;
And, find me a virgin that was not
an Hebrew

Cowboyx;
Are you setting up some kind of rhetorical trick here?
Everyone ever born was and is a virgin until the first time
she has intercourse. What am I missing?

Offa;
In Scripture if you are not an Hebrew you are not a
virgin ... ever.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Offa;
or find me where it says that Jesus'
feet were pierced.

Cowboyx;
Isn't that implicit in the fact that he was crucified?

Offa;
No, it is not. We are to assume, then conclude, that his
feet were pierced. Why does the gospels mention holes in
the hands and a hole in the side, but not holes in the
feet? Why does the "Gospel of Peter" explicitly mention
that nails were pulled out of his hands (but not his feet)?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Offa;
P.S. I believe every word written
in the gospels is the "gospel truth",
yet, I remain an atheist.

Cowboyx;
Could you elaborate? True in what sense?

Offa;
Whatever is written in the gospels is true in the gospel
sense. For instance, in the gospel sense, Mary was a
perpetual virgin. If it does not say Jesus feet were
pierced then, if you assume they were, then the gospels do
not lie if they were not pierced. The gospels say that he "
gave up the ghost", what does that mean? If Jesus says "Oh
Father, why have you forsaken me?" and the reigning priest
at Qumran is Jonathan Annas (father, like in, Our father
who art in Heaven) and Jonathan Annas could have offered
Pilate a bribe to avoid the crucifixion, then, it is the
truth. BTW, Heaven is the monastery at Qumran (the other
Jerusalem) and the chief priest (not high priest) resides
in Heaven. Jesus ascended to Heaven in Qumran while
Caiaphas was celebrating the Sabbath about twelve miles
away in Jerusalem. (Jesus was taken to the monastery where
his trial was held) The sense of urgency of Caiaphas having
to leave is because Jesus was crucified on the Friday prior
to the Sabbath. Pilate and Caiaphas had to beat feet back
to Jerusalem (to collect tithes and taxes the following morning).
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks,
Offa

CX

You have a fascinating perspective. Perhaps I will pick up Theiring's book and give it a read and maybe ask some of the scholars I know if they've heard of it and what their opinions are. Anyway I'll try to condense this:

>>The Gregorian Calendar was introduced
>>by Pope Gregory in 1582. The error of
>>~1 day every 400 years had been discovered

Quite right. My mistake.

[snip argument for 7 b.c.e birth day for Jesus]

Your argument presumes that the Matthean and Lukan accounts of Jesus' birth are historical rather than theological tractate. You are making assertions without providing an argument or more to the point you are not establishing your assumptions first upon which the entire edifice of your argument rests.

>>If you are not a Hebrew then you
>>can never qualify as a virgin (pure).

This is a word game. The english word virgin does not have the same meaning as the Hebrew word. So what? I fail to see why this matters. Xians claim Mary concieved without having intercourse. The virgin birth is a rhetorical device to connect Jesus to the prophecy in Isaiah. What am I missing here?

>>My evidence is that Jesus walked
>>to Jerusalem after the crucifixion.
>>If his feet were pierced then he
>>could not walk. I stated explicitly
>>that I am convinced that Jesus survived
>>the crucifixion so your remark that
>>"he was dead" falls on deaf ears.

But you are not providing any evidence aside from you saying it's so. On what basis do you conclude that Jesus walked to Jerusalem after the crucifixion? Please provide your own argument and not a reference to book haven't read.

>>My primary source of evidence
>>is that Simon Magus and Lazarus
>>were the same person.

Assertion with no evidence please elaborate.

>>the story about the "Raising of
>>Lazarus" only appears in the first
>>gospel written, that is, the
>>"Gospel of John".

Non-sequitur. Please establish the connection between the story of Lazarus being raised in the claim the GJn is first.

>>As far as the "prevailing theory",
>>a theory is a theory.

You say that as if a theory is something its not. A theory is that which in any scientific discipline including history, hypotheses yearn to be and for which facts and evidence are used to support it. Saying "a theory is a theory" is pretty much the argument creationists use to argue against evolution

>>The Bethlehem, the one about
>>12 miles south west of
>>Jerusalem, was not the birthplace
>>of Jesus (and David).

Agreed. The bethlehem birth including the narrative framework erected to support is a rhetorical invention aimed at establishing the basis for future messianic claims. Unless we accept the infancy narratives as historical (which I do not) we cannot derive any conclusions from them about the birth place of Jesus. The evidence seems to indicate he was from Nazareth or at the very least somewhere in Galilee.

>>This Bethlehem, their birthplace,
>>was actually near Qumran

On what basis do you draw this conclusion?

[snip statements about priority of GJn]
>>This is my rebuttal against "The
>>Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty. His
>>book falls apart if "Mark" is not
>>written first.

Firstly this isn't a rebuttal of anything, it is an unsupported assertion. Secondly, Doherty is a kook, pardon the ad hominem, but Marcan priority is well establish in the field of synoptic study. I'd be happy to provide the argument for it if you like.

>>All these bible experts are
>>theists and they set up their
>>own rules about religious
>>history. Many of them claim
>>they are agnostic or atheist
>>but they have their own hidden
>>agendas.

A)This simply isn't true. Michael D. Goulder is a preeminent scholar in biblical study and is a self-avowed atheist. I have seen nothing in his work aside from accepted historical methods.

B)Agendas are irrelevant anyway. An argument stands or fails on its own merit regardless of the agenda of the author.

>>I have a biblical expert on my
>>side and her name is Dr. Barbara
>>Thiering (even though I disagree
>>with her about several issues).

Big deal. This is an argument from authority. Please provide corroborating evidence. If we can resort to this form of argumentation then I have more authorities than you do. Namely, Burton Mack, John Dominic Crossan, Mark Goodacre, Michael Goulder, Udo Schnelle, Raymond Brown, Mahlon Smith, A.J. Farrer, and pretty much everyone besides this Thiering woman.

>>BTW, she is a theist.

irrelevant.

>>you do sound like a broken record
>>and also someone with a hidden
>>agenda. Are you an atheist. I am.

I'm so happy for you. What exactly might my agenda be. Or is it too hidden to discern? I base my argument on accepted biblical scholarship. I am willing to be disproven, but so far you just make bald assertions and vague appeals to Dr. Thiering. Incidentally I am also an atheist, but that point is irrelevant to our discussion.

>>>>I would like for you (or any body else)
>>>>cite me a reference to the Jewish War
>>>>of A.D. 70 in the gospels.

>>>Cowboyx;
>>>Why is the "mini-apocalypse" not
>>>a reference to the destruction of
>>>the temple in 70 C.E.?

>>Now, I am the broken record. I
>>want a citation regarding
>>what you wrote, you wrote that
>>that the Jewish War was
>>cited in "all three synoptics".
>>I would like something more
>>specific. I am not familiar with
>>the "mini-apocalypse". Is it a part
>>of the synoptics?

In that case I strongly recommend a more careful study of the synoptic gospels since the "mini-apocalypse" and the "messianic secret" are two of the most important features of GMk. The chapter referred to by scholars of the synoptics as the "mini-apocalyspe" is GMk 13. It seems clear that AMk is looking back on the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 C.E. and placing a prophecy of it in Jesus' mouth. The only other alternative hypothesis I can think of (and there may be others) is that Jesus' actually said this and was ergo capable of prophecy an hypothesis which raises far more difficult questions than it solves. Not only that but the parenthetical remark GMk 13:14 "...let the reader understand..." which is parallelled verbatim in GMt 24:15 is probably the strongest evidence for the literary relationship between those two synoptic gospels.

>>We are to assume, then conclude,
>>that his feet were pierced.

This is based on what we know of the Roman practice of crucifixion. Without nailing the feet to the tree death would be rather quick. Crucifixion suffocates the victim when he can no longer hold himself up. It was reserved for radical dissidents and enemies of the state. It was purposely long and painful.

>>Why does the gospels mention holes
>>in the hands and a hole in the side,
>>but not holes in the feet? Why does
>>the "Gospel of Peter" explicitly
>>mention that nails were pulled out
>>of his hands (but not his feet)?

This is an argument from silence. The fact that no gospel mentions that Jesus' feet were nailed to the tree he was crucified on does not thereby prove it was not done. Given the gospel silence on this point the external evidence regarding the Roman practice of crucifixion takes precedence.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Offa;
P.S. I believe every word written
in the gospels is the "gospel truth",
yet, I remain an atheist.
[b]
Cowboyx;
Could you elaborate? True in what sense?

>>The gospels say that he "gave up
>>the ghost", what does that mean?

Well, NIV says, "When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."

The Westcott-Hort Greek NT with NA26/27 variants reads:

PAREDWKEN TO PNEUMA
PAREDWKEN from the Greek PARADIDOMI "To give into the hands (of another)" and PNEUMA "the spirit" from the Greek PNEW "to breathe".

This is an obvious nod to the gnostic influence of GJn as a whole and possibly some ebionite influence. It seems apparent from early Church Fathers writings against the heresy of Gnosticism that there were a significant number of Xians who viewed jesus as a god-possessed man (this was especially the Ebionite view) rather than god incarnate. This belief seems to have prevailed to some extent until the 4th century since the Council of Nicaea was largely preoccupied with establishing the divinity of Christ and the triune nature of god. That this ending is not present in the passion accounts of the synoptics is not surprising if we accept a literary interdependence and realize the different theological aims of each of the synoptists.

>>If Jesus says "Oh Father, why
>>have you forsaken me?" and the
>>reigning priest at Qumran is
>>Jonathan Annas (father, like
>>in, Our father who art in Heaven)
>>and Jonathan Annas could have
>>offered Pilate a bribe to avoid
>>the crucifixion, then, it is the
>>truth.

And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped. First you need to provide support for this claim and second you need to demonstrate that the gospel passion accounts are historical. Dom Crossan concluded in "Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography" which is an abridgement of his book "The Historical Jesus : The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant" for a lay audience, that the passion accounts are largely fictional, that the empty tomb is completely fictional and that the post-resurrection sightings are not literal. In addition a large body of scholars conclude that the whole trial before the Sanhedrin and Pilate are rhetorical invention.

>>BTW, Heaven is the monastery at Qumran
>>[snip remainder of argument]

This seems to me like you are regurgitating someone else's conclusions from an argument you don't present here. If you aren't going to offer actual arguments I guess we are at an impasse.