Vinnie

Can't concede when shown wrong? Even if some (a lot) or 51 % of schoalrs date Mark just after 70 C.E. you and lyrcist are wrong as not EVERYONE knows Mark dates later than 70. You did not state it initially but you decided to hopelessly defend this statement I proved false.

THis is but one of example of about 4 in this thread where mythicists show thety understand very little about what scholars actually believe yet they feel its okay to be extra critical and dhand wave dismiss their scholarship as confessions of faith.

Both of you uncritically threw out the temple claim as if it required supernatural knowledge which was completely shattered in this thread. I recommend being a little more critical and attentive to detail. Did you or did you not assert that only theological motivations result in dating Mark earlier than 70? Do you now admit your were wrong?

And everything I stated on crucifixion stands. A vision of the risen Jesus is what compelled Paul to accept the cross. Other Christians also thought Jesus rose. This is extremely well documented by the Gospels and Paul. Thats the driving force. Resurrection.

The Christians who didn't think Jesus rose are probably the ones you find behind Thomas, Q etc. Different trajectories

You have not touched my arguments. You have not even begun to put forth a theory which explains why anyone would invent a crucified messiah or documented any driving force behind this for first century Jews in Palestine. At least rlogan tried to do this, though unsucessfully with the servant song reference.

Using extrabibilical references its easy to see why a crucified messiah is not something you create in first century Palestine. But an individual claiming to be God's agent who you give up everything to follow who gets crucified and you think he rose from the dead (mistakenly of course)? Such is the Jesus behind the initial followers. THe rez was also behind the later Jews and Gentiles who accepted this stumbling block. Gentiles were probably attracted to Paul's pitch of "freedom in Christ" as well.

You have no reasons why anyone would create the skandalon of a crucified would be messiah. The much simpler and less contorted tradition history is that J was crucified and the legends followed from there.

Vinnie

Vinnie

I won't grant the exact year on all of those but most of them are ballpark as far as I can tell on a surface reading.

Notice the "C"s. Those mean Circa = about this time.

I accept 30 for the crucifixion but there is some dispute over this and other dates. We know its 26-36 if you accept Pilate's Role as those dates are a lock.

One issue that concerns me is Jesus' minsitry.

Did Jesus' own mission start before of after he met the Baptist and was baptized. This one is probably the most questionable one I see. 24-26? I'd need to see documentation for this.

Some other dates can go plus or minus a couple of years either way but they all look good.

And notice GMark is dated to 70 C.E.

Vinnie

Llyricist

I said no earlier than....not the same as later than, if you can't be trusted to quote US properly, how can we trust you to quote anyone else properly?
Big bad Vinnie proved hyperbole false!!! how impressive.. Really Vinnie can a statement that starts "everybody knows..." be anything BUT hyperbole or exageration?
what are the other 3?
a little hyperbole of your own?? Actually I have seen it well argued that the language used in the prophecy places it later than Josephus' Wars...
I don't think he did... I KNOW I did!
No, the argument that it "could be seen coming" only gives the apologist wiggle room to date it earlier...not a REASON to date it earlier
On shattered tibias
well sure if you take his testimony at face value....
yeah, as that's one of the major parts of Paul's Kerygma (man, I hate those Jargon words, from now on I'll stick to teachings, I hate coming off as some snooty arrogant ass)
now you are starting the language tricks.... It's extremely well documented in Paul, the gospels don't need to enter into it.
Errr no, the driving force was the salvific sacrafice Mr retrojection.
Holy schitt, Vinnie used the word "probably". What's the temperature in Hell today?
That's because Doherty did.... do you have ADD by any chance?
btw you haven't explained how the embarrassment criteria applies against and ACTUAL MJ theory. Are you perhaps projecting?
how exactly was he unsuccessful?
Actually the tradition DOES go through logical contortions, you just don't notice them because you grew up with the tradition....and all those vaunted scholars reinforce them.

So tell me again how the embarrasment criteria actually applies against an ACTUAL MJ theory?

maybe the 4th (or is it the 5th) time I ask this question might be addressed.... Vinnie keep dancing about irelevencies, and never addressing the hard questions.

Clutch

Vinnie, I don't understand this. You're not denying, are you, that the sacrifice/redemption/resurrection amalgam of Christian theology has been rather appealing to many people?

Even granting the roles of state religionhood, conquest, and suppression of competitors in securing its spread, to say that there are conceptual properties of the received mainstream Christian story that attract and inspire people is fairly safe, isn't it?

Suppose you answer Yes to these questions.

Well, then, the Embarrassment argument crucially requires that the Gospel writers/redactors simply could not have perceived, anticipated, understood or otherwise recognized this appeal. For if they could recognize it, then there would be nothing embarrassing about the crucifixion, or more accurately, any element of embarrassment would be outweighed by the worth of the appeal.

Now, on what does this strikingly strong claim rest? Given that in fact the crucifixion has not embarrassed Christianity, on what grounds can we conclude that this fact would not even be roughly guessable by the gospellers?

Thanks for your time; I see that you're wrassling a sackful of bobcats here as it is.

BTW, can I assume from the silence (given the popularity of Arguments from Silence) that everyone, on all sides of this question, agrees that they require more empirical information about how narratives are transmitted, before weighing in with assertions about the gospels could have been or must have been disseminated?

Vinnie

All that was there but we have to be careful of anachronism. First century Jews didn't wear crucifixes as Jewelery.

Vinnie

Clutch

Thanks. Agreed, of course. But I don't see how that answers the question. (Indeed, it's as suggestive of the prospect that there were Jesus stories before or contemporaneous with Crucified Jesus stories, as it is of any embarrassment.)

Anyhow, my point was certainly not that the gospel writers knew with any great certainty that the crucifixion story would pay off (assuming arguendo that they were gradually confabulating it or even making it up holus-bolus). The point, rather, was that the Embarrassment argument requires that they could have had no means of even suspecting that it would pay off.

And the question is, why should we believe this?

Amaleq13

I disregard the notion of accurate prophecy, yes. The historical allusions scholars identify suggest specific knowledge of the actual events. While it is entirely possible that someone prior to the destruction could have anticipated "destruction" in a general sense, the apparently historical allusions suggest otherwise.

Nope. I offered my opinion on the views expressed by "some" scholars trying to push the date earlier. Those scholars are clearly in the minority and, thus, irrelevant to questions of consensus. Perhaps you should take your own advice about reading more carefully.

Your assertion about the embarrassment of early Christians "stands" unsubstantiated.

No, Paul's alleged conversion experience inspired him to believe in a Risen Christ. Whether this Christ was already believed to be crucified or this was something Paul added to an existing belief system has yet to be determined.

Unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute arguments. That there is no trace of embarrassment about the crucifixion in Paul's letters but, instead, a very clear sense of pride clearly calls into question the truth of your unsupported assertion to the contrary.

Again, you really should take your own advice about reading carefully:

"For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies. Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience. Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected. Such things they did imagine, and were deceived: for their own wickedness hath blinded them." (Wisdom of Solomon, 2:18-21)

rlogan

Regarding Isaiah 53 and the pseudo-criteria of embarrassment.

Let's say for purpose of argument that Isaiah does not speak to the suffering HJ messiah - at least in the view of mainstream Judaic thought.

There isn't any question that Christians later used these and other passages to validate their messiah model.

Let's make no presuppositions about Paul. The early Pauline corpus makes no "fulfillment of prophesy" assertions about Jesus and crucifixion. Nor does he make any statements about coming out of Egypt, born in Bethlehem, etc.

We just have this "Christ Crucified" concept. Amaleq13 points out we don't really have much but ambiguity. It is not specific like Christ crucified by pilate on calvary. It's the Doherty formula.

I cannot see that Paul is speaking apologetically about it. For example, 1 Corinthians 1:23 we preach Christ Crucified. (In contrast to Jews wanting a sign and Greeks wanting wisdom).

So the concept of crucifixion is the (boastful) central salvation message by the time of the epistles. I don't think Paul could have made that the primary "scripture fulfilled" proof of deity because it would not have worked. The Jews were not preaching to rummage through the pile of dead bodies to find the messiah.

By the time of the Gospels we have a physical Jesus with all of the HB prophesy "validations" worked out - from birth to death. We cannot ignore Amaleq13 that the Jewish wisdom literature gives us a model predating the supposed HJ.

Clutch is diplomatically saying the martyr model is inspirational, and is equally if not more compelling an argument than "embarrassment". I tried to point out earlier that martyrdom is the only compelling option for the myth model since wiping the Romans out is impossible.

In conclusion, the only "evidence" we really have is the pre-existence of messiah model material, Paul's introduction of an ambiguous crucified Christ, and the full historical Jesus (fully credentialed with prophesy) by the gospel period.

Embarrassment theory competes with martyrdom, and I think the way Paul features it instead of excusing it speaks to martyrdom. Moreover, the alleged martyrdom of the apostles themselves re-affirms this as a motivational tool.

Clutch

Just a little bump, here, Vinnie.

The Embarrassment argument requires that the gospel authors/redactors could have had no way of anticipating the actual psychological appeal of crucifixion theology. Why think this?

Vinnie

posted this in wrong thread....sorry....


At any rate, while I am here, I am writing a lengthy paper on the Gospel of Mark right now. So it will keep me busy for a few days...

In the long term (when it is one) it will probably help us actually get somewhere in these debates which jsut go round and round.

Vinnie