aa5874

If History is rarely about facts alone why are you claiming something happened in the first century??

You have NO facts about the 1st century yet you want to DICTATE to others that some thing happened.

Nothing happened in the 1st century with Jesus..

Now, look at the FACTS. No New Testament manuscript has been dated to the first century by Paleography or CI4.

The re-construction of the Past at any level is based on FACTS and Credible sources.

For the Last 250 years, the sources which mentioned Jesus have been examined by hundreds of Scholars, Experts, Historians and it has been found that the NT is NOT a credible source and that sources that mention Jesus are filled with Fiction, forgeries, manipulations, implausibilities, unknown authorship, False attribution, and unknown date of writing.

In effect an historical Jesus CANNOT ever be recovered based on the Available evidence.

We simply cannot know when Jesus was born, when he lived, what he did, what he said and how he died.

An HJ is LOST to history. Lost to the Facts--Lost to Credible sources.

No HJ argument can be pursued--HJers can FILE for a NO-CASE Submission due to lack of FACTS and credible sources.

Sheshbazzar

Tisk tisk...Teeple again Adam? You should be aware by now that I am NOT in the least impressed by these continued references to Teeple.
I do not accept Teeple's musings, conjectures, or theories as being either athorative or correct, so in your communications with me, you do not recieve any 'Brownie Points' for this needless name dropping.
True, you -really- shouldn't have.

Adam, this sentence is an assertion. Do you understand what the word 'assertion' means?
You have presented your proposed view or -speculation- as an unqualified declarative statement, as a proven or provable fact.

Given that this view and premise is highly debatable and indeed pertains directly to the subject being debatated, you ought to have properly (and politely) qualified this statement as;

'It seems to me as originally written John 11:54 would not have looked much like it now does,..'

Or

'I believe that as originally written John 11:54 would not have looked much like it now does,..'

Or

'I am absolutely convinced, as originally written John 11:54 would not have looked much like it now does,..'

Or some such qualifier.
This is usually learned in 7th grade English Composistion,
_or most practically when a young person begins to compose persuasive and polite notes and letters to their (hoped for) sweethearts and friends.

Certainly you wish to convey your views and opinions to persuade others, but tactfulness and politeness is a fundamental requirement.
And on a scholarly level, particularly when you know that most others already hold competing or contrary views, it should be apparent, that unless you can provide rock-solid, unambigious, and unassailable evidence for your statements, it is imperative that you qualify such controversial statements as being your own beliefs, opinions, or convictions.

Two simple words by you could have avoided all of this; 'I believe..'

When you can produce an actual early Gospel with this reading in it, then we can discuss it, and the context that it actually occurs in, whether John 12:2 or some other.
But as it does not in any known exemplar preceed John 12:2, your statement is specualative and really not worthy of much discussion.
Moreover from the existing exemplars of 'The Gospel which is According to John' the present text is pretty 'cut and dried' and well established among textual scholars who have dilligently compared the many surviving actual early exemplars.
Without you producing or providing an actual early exemplar with the reading you propose, there is little reason to accept that any such a reading ever existed until you invented it.

You've got problems.

It is perfectly fine if you wish to discuss the (actual) content of 'The Gospel which is According to Luke' or 'The Gospel which is According to John'.
But this is not what you have been endevoring to do in these threads.
You have asserted that there is a recoverable 'Passion Narrative' and that you have recovered it, and can produce it.
And that you have also been able to recover, and can produce a 'Gospel which is According to the Atheists'.

We and the rest of the world have not made such claims, and do not have these imagined texts of yours at at hand to examine to determine what all they may, or may not contain.
It is perfectly reasonable for us to request that you provide your finished texts of your alleged 'Passion Narrative' and your alleged "Gospel which is According to The Atheists'.
You have indicated repeatedly that your verse choices do not conform to nor exactly follow Teeple's, so his work is of no value here in any case.

WRONG my friend. That is exactly what you need to do, to make these hundreds of posts of yours of any value.
You have discarded huge swaths of the known and recieved Gospel texts, often with no explanation at all as to why you choosen to omit entire chapters.
You propose new Gospel's (at least two) with verse rearrangements and omissions and additions that do not exist within any known text, and containing additional proposed verses that do not exist within any known text.
So what you are proposing is NOT those 'Gospel''s with which we are all familiar and which any one may examine by picking up any of a hundred versions of The Bible, But an eclectic version containing only what you will allow, or what you choose to substitute or to add according to your own will and predilictions.

We don't have any such texts, and cannot examiine nor discuss their actual content until you produce them.

'Probably'?..'may have'... 'whatever'?
I probably shouldn't even bother addressing such empty musings.
It's up to you. Produce whatever you think you ought to produce.....or not. Or as the old saying goes 'Shit, or git off the pot'.

Your worried about being presumptuous now? :hysterical:

Yeah, you probably shouldn't.

Yeah. We have been trying to get these verses out of you for months now, but you simply haven't been able to make up your mind just which ones they are, Where they begin, where they occur, how they are arranged, or where they end.
And of course you do not explain why you think you are qualified to 'censor out entire chapters, or even why there is any need to 'censor' out entire chapters, and leave only your choices of hacked up and rearranged 'chicken pieces'.

Still dosen't leave you much. As all of the the NT's mythical situations came about, and are dependent upon the occurance of the supernatural events that created the situations in the first place.
His 'birth', his 'naming', his 'works', his 'words', all alike depend upon the existence and acceptance of the supernatural.
Take away all of these these supernatural elements and explanations, and you are left with a nobody with no name, that no one knows where, when, or how he was born, and that essentially did nothing unusual or remarkable to be remembered by. His words thus neutered by being severed from his alleged acts and power.
You only end up with a extremely vague account of an apparently obscure and insane nobody which you would like everybody to accept as the 'historical' Jeebus. Some few might be foolish enough to somewhat 'buy' it.
I prefer the original story, it reads so much better, and at least makes sense, before people like you fuck with it.
Hell. I'm much more inclined to accept that the supernatural did happen, and that Zombie Jeebus did die for my sins, and is up there writing all of this down, than that fucked over and worthless per-version you are trying to peddle here.
You do that.

I look forward to the day.

Sheshbazzar The Hebrew

Adam

Still struggling to get past the first dozen verses?
But you do seem willing to read a text from me of the Passion Narrative, I'll start with my recent list, though the text will introduce some changes.

Passion Narrative Source (John) 11:54, 12:2-8, 12-14a, 13:18 or 21, and 13:38.
John 18:1b, 1d, 3, 10b, 12, 13b, 15-19, 22, 25b, 27-31, 33-35, (36-40); 19:1-5a, 9-19, 21-23, 28-30, 38b, 40-42.
[Brackets] indicate my interpolations, {ellipse} represent Synoptic substitutions for the Johannine words, and !exclamation points! indicate presence in John, but regarded by Teeple as interpolations by the Editor or Redactor. The dots merely indicate omission of interpolated words or verses. Teeple's translation purposely preserving ambiguity and roughness of style.

11:54 Then Jesus no longer walked openly among the Jews, but he went away from there to the region near the wilderness.
12:1 Then Jesus six days before the Passover came into Bethany….
12:2 Then [we] made a supper for him there….
12:3 Then Mary, having taken a litra of pure, costly nard ointment, anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the aroma of the ointment. 4 And says one of his disciples….
12:5 “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?”….
12:7 Then Jesus said, “Permit her, in order that she may keep it for the day of my burial. 8 For the poor you always have with you, but me you do not always have.” 9 Then a large crowd of the Jews…were going and were believing on Jesus. 12 On the morrow a great crowd…having heard that Jesus is coming into Jerusalem, 13 took branches of palms and went out to meet him, and cried out, “Hosanna. Blessed be the one coming in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel.” 14 And Jesus, having found a little donkey, sat upon it.

13:1 !And before the feast of the Passover! Jesus, seeing that his hour had come that he should pass from this world says
13:18 {But look, here with me on the table is the hand of the man who is betraying me.} (Luke 22:21)}
13:21 !”Truly, truly, I say to you that one of you will betray me.”!
13:37 !Peter says to him…I will lay down my life for you.” 38 Jesus answers, ”Will you lay down your life for me? ...the cock will not crow until you deny me thrice.”!

18:1 !Having said these things, Jesus! went where there was a garden, into which he himself entered and his disciples.
18:3 Then Judas, taking a cohort and servants from the chief priests and Pharisees, comes there with lanterns, torches, and weapons.
18:10 {One disciple} having a sword, drew it and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear.
18:12 Then the cohort and the tribune….seized Jesus and bound him. 13 And they led him to Caiaphas, who was the high priest of that year.
18:15 And following Jesus was another disciple and that disciple was known to the high priest, and he entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest, 16 but Peter stood outside at the door. Then went out the other disciple… and he talked to the doorkeeper, and she led in Peter. 17 Then the maid, the doorkeeper, says to Peter, “Are you not also of the disciples of this man?” That one says, “I am not.” 18 And the slaves and the servants had stood, having made a charcoal fire because it was cold, and were warming themselves. And Peter was also with them standing and warming himself. 19 Then the high priest asked Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching.
{If I tell you, you will not believe, and if I question you, you will not answer. But from now on, the Son of man will be seated at the right hand of the Power of God.” They all said, “So you are the Son of God then? He answered, “ It is you who say I am.” Then they said, “Why do we need any evidence? We have heard it for ourselves from his own lips.”} (Luke22:68-71)
18:22 And when he said these things, one of the servants standing by gave a slap to Jesus, saying, “Thus do you answer the high priest?”

18:25b Then they said to him, “Are you not also of his disciples?” That one denied and said, “I am not.” 26 Says one of the slaves of the high priest… ”Did I not see you in the garden with him?” 27 Then again Peter denied, and immediately a cock crowed. 28 Then they lead Jesus from Caiaphas into the praetorium. And it was early. And they themselves did not enter into the praetorium, in order that they might not be defiled but might eat the Passover. 29 Then Pilate went outside to them and says, “What accusation do you bear against this man?” {They began their accusation by saying, “We found this man inciting our people to revolt, opposing payment of the tribute to Caesar, and claiming to be Christ, a king.”} (Luke 23:1) 31 Then Pilate said to them, “You take him and according to your law judge him.” The Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to kill anyone.”
18:33 Then Pilate entered again into the praetorium and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” 34 Jesus answered, “Do you say this from yourself, or did others tell you about me?” 35 Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your nation and the chief priests delivered you to me. What did you do?”

19:1 Then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him. 2 And the soldiers having woven a crown of thorns, placed it on his head, and put on him a purple robe. 3 And they were coming to him and were saying, “Hail, king of the Jews,” and they gave to him blows. 4 Pilate says to them, “You take him and crucify him, for I do not find guilt in him.” 5a Then Jesus came outside, wearing the thorny crown and the purple robe.

19:9 And he entered into the praetorium and says to Jesus, “Whence are you?” But Jesus gave no answer to him. 10 Pilate says to him, “You are not speaking to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?” 11 Answered him Jesus, “You would not have any authority over me unless it had been given to you from above…. 12 Upon this Pilate was seeking to release him. But the Jews cried out, saying, “If you release this, you are not a friend of Caesar. Everyone making himself a king opposes Caesar.” Then Pilate, having heard these words, led Jesus outside and sat on the judgment seat in the place called “Stone Pavement.”…14…the hour was about the sixth. And he says to the Jews, "Behold your king.” 15 Then those cried out, “Take him away. Take him away. Crucify him.” Pilate says to them, “Shall I crucify your king?” The chief priests answered, “We do not have a king except Caesar.” 16 Then he delivered him to them in order that he might be crucified. 17 Then they took Jesus, and bearing his own cross, he went out into the place called, “skull.”,.. 18 where they crucified him, and with him two others, one on each side, and Jesus in the middle. 19 And Pilate wrote also a title and put it on the cross. And it was having been written, “Jesus the Nazoraean, the king of the Jews.”
19:21 Then the chief priests of the Jews were saying to Pilate, “Write not ‘the king of the Jews,’ but that one said, I am king of the Jews.’ “ 22 Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written. 23 Then the soldiers, when they crucified Jesus, took his garments and made four parts, part for each soldier, and they took his tunic. But the tunic was seamless, woven from the top through the whole tunic.

19:28 After this Jesus, knowing that already all things had been completed…says “I thirst.” A vessel full of vinegar was sitting there; then having put on hyssop a sponge full of vinegar, they had it to his mouth, 30 Then when he was receiving the vinegar, he said, “It is completed”; and having bowed his head, he gave up his spirit.
John 19:38 …Joseph of Arimathea ….asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus. Then he came and took away his body.
19:40 Then they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with spices, even as it is the custom with Jews to bury. 41and in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb….
19:42 Then there… because the tomb was near, they laid Jesus.

steve_bnk

We do not accept any of the gospels as factual.

Posting vereses realy is a waste of time. If you are resorting to preaching, i believe that is now against the TOU.

Sheshbazzar

What happened to the other 90%?
Plucked and chopped up chicken pieces do not a Narrative make.

Adam

As stated, Shesh,
My Post #243 is my work-up of the eyewitness version of the Passion Narrative. Later accretions, many of them supernatural, do not appear in it.

But that's not what you meant by the other 90%. I explained that Proto-Luke (Q + L) outside the Passion Narrative is fairly simply listed Luke 3:1-4:30; 5:1-11; 6:20-8:3; 9:51-18:14; 19:1-28, 37-44, 47-48; 22:1-38. Then read the above Passion Narrative
mostly from John (the verses before John 18 are already duplicated in comparable Synoptic passages). (Thus far "The Gospel According to the Jews.) Then add in the Johannine discourses and you have the complete "Gospel According to the Atheists":
The raw text from Nicodemus, my modification of Teeple’s G, runs as follows:
John 3 (in the main); 4:20-24; most of 5:17-47; 6:26-51, 58-65; most of 7:5-52; 8:12-57; most of 9 & 10, but not 9:1-2, 6-7, 13-17, 24-28; 11:1, 9-10, 16; 12:23-59; 13:16-17, 21-22; Ch. 14-17.
(Referring respectively to Gospel Eyewitnesses #534&561 and #38 http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=306983&page=2 )

Sheshbazzar

I don't find your claims to be persuasive, or presently, as presented, to be of any further interest to me.
I'll check back from time to time to see if your argument or techniques improve.

Sheshbazzar

anethema

I would disagree. TJ was a deist not a theist. Big difference, he was a product of 18th century rationalism that looked for natural explanations for all the miracles. His position is imo close to mine, that the existence or non thereof is moot. I would like to know, but im not losing any sleep. My interest is strictly historical.

Adam

Politely expressed, thank you. I've never found myself to be a good persuader, either. It seems to be my curse.

But that still leaves you looking like you can't get beyond the 12-verse-barrier. So why did you ask for "the other 90%" (your Post #245) when there is already too much for you here?

spin

Does a leper change its spots?