FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-18-2004, 11:25 AM   #71
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Default

Quote:
Your and other Xtians use of the terms 'Jesus' and 'Christ' interchangeably only serves to muddle the issue. Therefore the presumption must be that whenever a Xtian uses either term, "christ" is implicit, and responses are couched in that understanding.
That is blatantly false. You are confusing contexts. When going to church, or when discussing on rapture ready MB or somewhere else this holds sway, but the majority of critical scholars recognize that the Gospels have "some" historical information in them, but they do not accept them as historically relaible. This is virtually settled in critical scholars.

Thus, when we have a critical debate here about Jesus your presumption is entirely unfounded. I start in the critical world and use terms and words from there. For example, I fully understood Ted Weeden when he said "multiple attestation" as did, I am sure ll the scholars on X-talk.

Some pew warmers on Christian forums might think the triple tradition constitutes three separate witnesses but thats all a red herring. This forum is for critical discussion. Either that context should be assumed or none at all.

If anyone muddled the issue it is you by not realizing your context. You made the unfounded assumptions and muddied the issue in your own mind.

And I barely resemble anything you would define as "Christian".

Vinnie
Vinnie is offline  
Old 03-18-2004, 11:35 AM   #72
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: where no one has gone before
Posts: 735
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Vinnie
Again you guys show your amatuer skills. Chronologically earlier is only valid if we assume straight line development. SLD is very problematic in ECW research.

And Mark wrote just a few years after Paul. He had a need to incorporate the Pauline kerygma? Since you think he did, prove it. Wait, you can't. Woops. Mark also has a bunch of details not found in Paul. For instance, why the added detail of Jesus being crucified next to criminals, why the followers abandoing him? Peter's denials, Judas' betrayal, etc.
There are a ton of questions to be answered here, but for now I only have time to respond to the issue of GMark. First, it is far from generally agreed that Mark wrote "soon" after Paul, nor does it mean that the canonical GMark has not been seriously embellished from the first version. I do think that either Mark was a Xtian himself (and thereby accepted the crucifixion as an article of faith), or his original work was redacted by editors who were, or both.

Quote:
And Paul's "established tradition" speaks of a crucifed man anyways. Its also inherited tradition. Paul is not the inventor of Christianity nor of Christ crucified. He may have championed the latter but thats the extent of it.
Those contentions will require much more convincing evidence that you have thus far furnished. Frankly, I doubt that there is any such evidence for a "Christ crucified" tradition before Paul. So...show me the money!
capnkirk is offline  
Old 03-18-2004, 11:52 AM   #73
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by capnkirk
There are a ton of questions to be answered here, but for now I only have time to respond to the issue of GMark. First, it is far from generally agreed that Mark wrote "soon" after Paul, nor does it mean that the canonical GMark has not been seriously embellished from the first version. I do think that either Mark was a Xtian himself (and thereby accepted the crucifixion as an article of faith), or his original work was redacted by editors who were, or both.

Those contentions will require much more convincing evidence that you have thus far furnished. Frankly, I doubt that there is any such evidence for a "Christ crucified" tradition before Paul. So...show me the money! [/B]
Two ways:

Corinthians 15 contains a -Pre-Pauline Creed. Some here think thats an interpolation. I don't.

Show another Independent Source from Paul which mentions it (e.g. Mark).

Vinnie
Vinnie is offline  
Old 03-18-2004, 12:10 PM   #74
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Fort Lauderale, FL
Posts: 5,390
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Vinnie
Again you guys show your amatuer skills.
Again you show arrogance....so what?

Quote:
Chronologically earlier is only valid if we assume straight line development. SLD is very problematic in ECW research,
LOL this is just silly too. In order to get to your "totally independent" idea, Paul and "Mark" would have to have been involved with movements that were entirely unrelated to eachother..... try to demonstrate that!!!

Quote:
Mark wrote just a few years after Paul.
Prove it....wait you can't whooops.
Quote:
He had a need to incorporate the Pauline kerygma?
If Pauline kerygma accurately described the Christian movement ..... well.... YES
Quote:
Since you think he did, prove it. Wait, you can't. Woops.
I can prove anything on the MJ side as well as you can prove anything on the HJ side.... sheeeesh the arrogance is amazing!

Quote:
Mark also has a bunch of details not found in Paul.
No shit, like Jesus' ENTIRE ministry for instance

Quote:
For instance, why the added detail of Jesus being crucified next to criminals,
Where else WOULD he be crucified???? jeeezz
Quote:
why the followers abandoing him? Peter's denials, Judas' betrayal, etc.
These are explained quite well by Doherty AND Atwill....
Quote:
And Paul's "established tradition" speaks of a crucifed man anyways.
ummm That's what I said!
Quote:
Its also inherited tradition. Paul is not the inventor of Christianity nor of Christ crucified. He may have championed the latter but thats the extent of it.

Vinnie
PROVE IT!!! wow you are good at assertions.... the ipse dixit king around here.
Llyricist is offline  
Old 03-18-2004, 12:29 PM   #75
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Default

"""""""""LOL this is just silly too. In order to get to your "totally independent" idea, Paul and "Mark" would have to have been involved with movements that were entirely unrelated to eachother..... try to demonstrate that!!!"""""""""

No I wouldn't. It simply is two indepdnent vectors coming from the same core. Thomas and Q overlapps present another example of this which you presumably know nothing about.

""""""""""If Pauline kerygma accurately described the Christian movement ..... well.... YES"""""""""

Paul was one pea in the Christian pod. Other trajectories like THomas and Q developed as well.


"""Prove it....wait you can't whooops.""""

Everyone knows Mark dates to ca 70 c.e. Well except for a couple of revisionists no one takes seriously. The reasons are also commonly known.

""""""I can prove anything on the MJ side as well as you can prove anything on the HJ side.... sheeeesh the arrogance is amazing!""""""""

Well I am debating like 6 on 1 in here. I think I'm doing well!

And I tend to doubt this. I can use GMark, Paul and Thomas to show a good amount stuff. You have arguments from silence and bad exegesis and constant interpolations. Not to mention very little knowledge of NT studies in general. So when I'm done with RobetLW ....

"""""""No shit, like Jesus' ENTIRE ministry for instance """""""

Paul knows of Jesus ministry. For example, teaching on divorce. Jesus going to the Jews, not Gentiles, and a bunch of other stuff. Wiggle and squirm.


""""""""Where else WOULD he be crucified???? jeeezz""""""""""

You are the mythicist. Some invisible fantasy realm filled with pink elephants I suppose. Not by Pontius Pialte of course. That is preposterous.


V Its also inherited tradition. Paul is not the inventor of Christianity nor of Christ crucified. He may have championed the latter but thats the extent of it.

Ly PROVE IT!!! wow you are good at assertions.... the ipse dixit king around here.

Comments like these show you aren't worth anymore effort from me. Paul persecuted the Christian movement. It predated his """"conversion"""""". You win this thread's the golden duh award. Congratulations.

Vinnie
Vinnie is offline  
Old 03-18-2004, 12:39 PM   #76
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Vinnie
Paul made it foundation. That is ALL you have.
It is all I NEED to refute your claim:

Quote:
The cross was initially embarrassing...
Paul was clearly not embarrassed by the fact that he believed Christ to have been crucified and he is our initial evidence of this belief.

You are wrong.
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 03-18-2004, 12:43 PM   #77
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Amaleq13
It is all I NEED to refute your claim:

Paul was clearly not embarrassed by the fact that he believed Christ to have been crucified and he is our initial evidence of this belief.

You are wrong.
And those Paul preached to (both Jew and Gentile) were. Motive. Plus given its nature at the time, there is no motive for creativity. In fact we have motive for no creativity.

And i addressed Paul's thoughts. His belief in the resurrection of Jesus and the inauguaration of a new movement alleviated this. Remember that Paul initially persecuted this cult before his vision with Jesus. I wonder if he initially found a crucified Jesus absurd himself?

Vinnie
Vinnie is offline  
Old 03-18-2004, 12:48 PM   #78
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Vinnie
Pau lsays its a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. This obvious invokes the embarrassment criteria.

This is only "obvious" to someone who has devoted an entire website to that assumption.

Paul is clearly proud of his crucified Christ and those outside his beliefs would have consider them foolish whether or not they were based on historical events. Your "criteria" is obviously meaningless regardless of the number of scholars who embrace it.
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 03-18-2004, 01:07 PM   #79
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Fort Lauderale, FL
Posts: 5,390
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Vinnie
Thomas and Q overlapps present another example of this which you presumably know nothing about.........

...Paul was one pea in the Christian pod. Other trajectories like THomas and Q developed as well.
Thomas isn't dated..... and Q is a hypothetical document, which you treat as hard fact.... I DO know something about it thank you.
Quote:
Everyone knows Mark dates to ca 70 c.e.
Actually everyone knows that Mark is dated no EARLIER than 70 CE.... there is a difference in concept that I think you aren't getting.
Quote:
Well except for a couple of revisionists no one takes seriously. The reasons are also commonly known.
And with a wave of the hand.....abra cadabra! All his opposition disappears!

Quote:
Well I am debating like 6 on 1 in here. I think I'm doing well!
well of course that's debateable

Quote:
Paul knows of Jesus ministry. For example, teaching on divorce. Jesus going to the Jews, not Gentiles, and a bunch of other stuff. Wiggle and squirm.
Keep grasping at those straws.... the fact that Paul never actually attributes any of those teachings to a living person means nothing I presume.

Quote:
You are the mythicist. Some invisible fantasy realm filled with pink elephants I suppose. Not by Pontius Pialte of course. That is preposterous.
Now you are counting on ignorance of the theory (i'm quite sure it's willful in this case...you know better)

Paul has some mythical being crucified in the sub-lunar realm....

The gospel writers in placing this mythical being into earthly history, find an earthly place and manner in which to crucify him....this ain't rocket science, I can only assume you are being obtuse.
Quote:
Comments like these show you aren't worth anymore effort from me. Paul persecuted the Christian movement. It predated his """"conversion"""""". You win this thread's the golden duh award. Congratulations.

Vinnie
And you win this thread's unsupported assertion, retrojection and arrogance award.
Llyricist is offline  
Old 03-18-2004, 01:09 PM   #80
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 3,794
Default

{Post deleted}
Doctor X is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:56 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.