Amaleq13

Paul wrote his letters within 20 years of the alleged events but he fails to mention your "eleven points". Even if we assume the existence of Q, your "eleven points" are not supported.

The "eleven points" don't appear to exist until the first story was written at least 40 years after the alleged events.

Metacrock

Yea but why should he?


(1) He alludes to them. Ok so he can't allude to mary being named mary wihtout saying it, but to the res. and to the crcucifiction he's all over the crucifiction.

(2) The says Jesus was a flesh and blood guy.

(3) He's talking to pople who know the story about adminstriative matters in their chruches. There is no need for him to go over again.

(4) he also doesn't tell the story of the flood, or the Genesis creation myth, should we assume he didn't believe in them?

Metacrock

Well I didnt' make the orignal statment to be snide. I really do think of them as an offshoot. I wrote a paper on the Mandeans, of all things, for a class on Samuel Beckett (I was the Drama Turge for a campus production of "All That Fall."). so I think of them as an offshoot, they weren't Gnsotics per se but Mandeans.

Previous Metarock:



show me the docs where you fit within the 400 years?


I think I see the problem every time, from arguing with Peter I probably sould do the lucy thing and move the football. But I think that would be reasonabale since it's only within the first century that it would really matter.

but I'll change the argument on my site before I argue it that way on a board.

Diogenes the Cynic

The eleven points aren't even consistent in the Canonicals and virtually none of them are found in Paul.
Paul isn't really clear on whether Jesus was a "man who lived on Earth." None of the Gospels state that he was born in the 1st century or that he died in 33 CE and point of fact, he couldn't have if he was a.) born during the reign of Herod the Great and b) was 33 years old when he died. Herod died in 4 BCE so that screws the first point. And if he died when he was 33 he would have had to die no later than 29 CE.

Even the traditional of 33 is nowhere explicitly stated in the Gospels. Luke says that Jesus was "about 30" when he started his ministry and John seems to imply that Jesus celebrated four Passovers, the first one starting six months after his ministry, so the age is derived from conflating those two details from John and Luke. It hardly amounts to a multiplicity of attestations as to either the dates of Jesus' birth and death or his age at death.
This is attested only by Matthew and Luke. Paul doesn't know about it. Neither do Mark or John.
Where are these things found in Paul?
Depends on which Gospel you read. Also, not in Paul.
Not in Paul. Not in Q. Not in Thomas. The first part is not in Mark.
Conflicts with Paul's statement that Cephas was the first to see Jesus.
Which part was in Jerusalem? Are you talking about the appearances? Are you sure?

Where does Luke say the first apostles saw Jesus? How does that square with Mark or Paul or Matthew or John?

Amaleq13

What other evidence of the "Jesus story" do you have besides Paul that dates to within 20 years of the alleged events?

I agree that Paul repeatedly declares that Jesus was crucified but your "point" is restricted to that claim, alone. My understanding was that you claimed all the points as you wrote them were consistently reported. Perhaps you want to modify your points?

Paul asserts that Jesus was crucified but he doesn't say where or when. The reference to Pilate is thought to be an interpolation by many scholars so, at the very least, it doesn't qualify as "reliable".

This is not one of the "eleven points" as you stated them.

This assumes what you are trying to prove. There is no reason to assume either he or they are familiar with the "eleven points" as you stated them.

This is irrelevant to your assertion about the "eleven points" existing within 20 years of the alleged events.

Metacrock

Originally Posted by Metacrock
Yea but why should he?




A lot. The Koester stuff on the Diatesseron, pre Markan redaction


Quote:
(1) He alludes to them. Ok so he can't allude to mary being named mary wihtout saying it, but to the res. and to the crcucifiction he's all over the crucifiction.





No I didn't say that.Paul doesnt' contradict the Gosples, he doesn't tell another version of the story.







I'd have to see some textual evidence ont that. So conveient.


Quote:
(2) The says Jesus was a flesh and blood guy.






Hmmm, maybe I'll make a 12th point.


Quote:
(3) He's talking to pople who know the story about adminstriative matters in their chruches. There is no need for him to go over again.





Yes! Come on, can't you see that? Ok OK for the sake of argument argumebnt argument for the sake arguent, ok do i have to be obviuos about everything.

So we assume they knew the stroy like I do, what'w the point of teling it again when the topics invovle other things?

It's like all arguments from silence, it assumes there's thsi golden point that his silence highlights but all other silences and their meanings it just ignores.




No! it is not irrelivant, it shows how foolish the argument from silence is. He has a thausand silences. why should we not expect to speak on everything. Why is this one thing the one thing that must be spoken of, so that his failure to speak really proves something, but all the other silences are just coincidence?

Metacrock

The eleven points aren't even consistent in the Canonicals and virtually none of them are found in Paul.



Certinly are: that he was crucified, that rose, those are there.

Quote:
[1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.





Yea, Paul is clear that he was a man with a flesh blood life. Romas 1;3 speaks of his linage, Doherty's greek is so bad he doesnt' know what it says. But he's totally wrong. From my own Greek studies and a friend who teaches Gerek at Cambridge who helped me work out the passage, Doherty is totally wrong. Also the Pauline insider who wrote Hebrews says "in his life on earth>'








So what? But you are reading that in John say nothing of the kind.




Quote:
2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary."





Paul doesnt' have to. We were talking about the oldest Gospels. Remember?







they are not improtant because it was the issue. Paul says nothing that contradicts and he doesn't give an alternate story. CAn't you people understand the important issue is NO ALTERNATE VERSIONS! Taht's the important point!!
Quote:
8) At noon.





So fucking what? why do you keep saying that? It's not contradicted by Paul.

Quote:


Yea it is in Paul. The bit about rose first to the 12 and then the 500 and then me, that's allusion to resurrection. It's in Mark, the resurrection is in Mark. The angles say "he has risen." The lost ending takes up after that point.




Quote:



That's really persenting an alternate story. And Paul doesn't actaully rule out the women, he quotes a baptismal formula that leaves them out, but that's not the same as rulilng them out.



Quote:
11) This was in Jerusalem.


Crucifiction



see my website Doxa for my resurrection harmony.

Diogenes the Cynic

I've studied Greek as well. I don't want to hijack this into another kata sarka debate, and I'm not necessarily convinced that Doherty is correct in his conclusion but he's also not demonstrably incorrect and I do think that en sarka would be preferable to denote flesh and blood and that kata sarka is subtly yet distinctively less direct. My own sense of kata from my own Greek study is that it implies a sense of being "around" or "in the area of" rather than "inside" or "within."

This gives Paul's words a little more ambiguity and uncertainty than if he had said en karta but it's admittedly not clear what he did mean. If I had to guess, I would guess that he meant something like "among the living" (or "among the flesh") but that leaves a tiny bit of uncertainty as to whether Paul perceived Jesus himself as being human or spiritual. I am not trying to argue for the latter necessarily. I admit that I just don't know. However I would submit that a spiritual connotation is not dispostively incompatible with the language.
The oldest Gospels are Q, Thomas and Mark. None of them mention a Virgin Birth. I don't even think they say that Jesus' mother was named Mary.
This is an argument from silence at best, but the fact that Paul doen't mention such keystone details in Jesus' life is so silent that it's deafening.
See above.
[quote]Yea it is in Paul. The bit about rose first to the 12 and then the 500 and then me, that's allusion to resurrection. It's in Mark, the resurrection is in Mark. The angles say "he has risen." The lost ending takes up after that point.
The question is what does Paul (or Mark, for that matter) mean by "risen?"

It is not a lead cinch that either of them was referring to the physical resuscitation of a dead body. I'm not making a positive declaration that they didn't mean that but I do think the matter is debatable and unsettled.
It's a prima facie disagreement. The first empty tomb narrative does not even mention Cephas. If you think that Paul knew about the women and was excluding them for some reason, I think you have to provide some sort of argument as to why.
OK. I agree that the crucifixion is unanimously attested as having occurred in Jerusalem.

Arouet

One plausible explanation for JC's followers goes like this:

The Romans were aware of Jewish messianic tradition. So they removed the body and disposed of it during the Sabbath (sneaky, huh?!)

So the two Marys go to the tomb to annoint the body as soon as allowable. So they enter the tomb and see the stone rolled from its place and the burial clothes laying about (the Romans must of been in a hurry).

Unable to accept the reality of the missing body and reacting to the messianic concept, they believed that JC arose. Then they run back to the male followers with their claims which are accepted by them in their shock over the crucifiction.

Then Paul runs away with the story so he can convert the Helenistic Jews and pagans.

Does that sound plausible to you?

Vivisector

Assuming the Romans were aware of and took seriously any messianic tradition, what would this tradition have consisted of? For example, would the Romans have been aware of the idea that the Messiah would be crucified and resurrected after three days? And how would stealing the body have advanced Roman objectives?

This seems to rely very heavily on Gospel accounts. Why wouldn't the Romans have simply left him on the cross as carrion or tossed him in a common grave with perhaps a sprinkling of quicklime? And the burial clothes - I gotta tell ya, if I were going to be wagging someone around who'd been through what Jesus experienced, I'd want that guy covered up!

Again, depends very heavily on their characterization of the Messiah at that time.

Sorry, but not very. I doubt the historical basis of any kind of entombment (why would Jesus have been treated any differently than most others who suffered crucifixion?). Additionally, I've never seen it firmly established that, prior to Jesus, there was any expectation that the Messiah would be crucified and resurrected. The author of Mark, for example, seems to go to great pains to point out that the disciples were dolts who never really understood the true meaning of "Messiah."

Cheers,

V.