Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 10-24-2008, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Joshua was not crucified and not associated with any crucifixions;

Dear Toto, the text states the cr{....} . Where did you get crucifixion from?

Quote:

he did not have a follower named Joseph of Arimathea who was afraid of the Jews;

How can you be sure Moses Deputy did not himself have deputies and followers, in fact, if you really take the time to think about it, such important people would have many followers by the time they are 100 years old.

Is this an artistic impression of Jesus and the Israeli people, or is it an artistic impression of Joshua and the Jewish Israeli , by Karolingischer Buchmaler, c.840 CE?

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Joshua in the Bible

According to the Bible, Joshua was the son of Nun, of the tribe of Ephraim, which would become known as the most militaristic of the tribes of Israel, largely through Joshua's campaigns. He was born in Egypt during the Israelite enslavement, and was probably the same age as Caleb, with whom he is generally associated.

Joshua shared in all the events of the Exodus. He was Moses' apprentice, and accompanied him part of the way when he ascended Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments (Exd. 32:17). He was also one of the twelve spies who were sent on by Moses to explore the land of Canaan (Num. 13:16, 17), and only he and Caleb gave an encouraging report. He was commander at their first battle after exiting Egypt, against the Amalekites in Rephidim (Ex. 17:8-16), in which they were victorious.

Judges in the Bible
In the Book of Joshua
Joshua
In the Book of Judges
Othniel
Ehud
Shamgar
Deborah and Barak
Gideon
Abimelech
Tola
Jair
Jephthah
Ibzan
Elon
Abdon
Samson
In the Book of Samuel
Samuel

Joshua was appointed by Moses to succeed him as leader of the Israelites upon Moses' death. The first major part of his book is when he commanded the subsequent conquest of Canaan. As the Israelites came to the Jordan River, the waters parted, as they did for Moses at the Red Sea. The first major battle was in Jericho, a heavily fortified city just five miles west of the Jordan River, northwest of the Dead Sea which he took by following God's instruction, ordering his host to march around the city for seven days, whereupon the city walls fell, just as God said they would. The Israelites then slaughtered "every living thing" inside Jericho and completely destroyed the city except for Rahab and her family, who had aided the two spies sent by Joshua to check out the city. Although they had been forbidden by God to take any of the spoils, Achan disobeyed and took some garments and silver, hiding them in his tent. When Israel tried to conquer Ai, a small neighboring city just West of Jericho, they were defeated and 36 Israelite warriors were killed. Achan's sin was exposed, he and his family and his animals were stoned to death, and the favor of God was again restored towards His people. Next, through clever ambush tactics, Joshua defeated Ai. The Israelites faced a Southern alliance of the Amorite kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon. At Gibeon Joshua defeated them by causing the Sun to stand still at Gibeon, and the moon in the valley of Ajalon, so that he could finish the battle in daylight. Then Joshua faced a northern Canaanite king, Jabin of Hazor, whom he defeated at the Waters of Mermon, possibly referring to Lake Huleh.

In the second main part of his book, Joshua divided the conquered land among the tribes of Israel as God had told him to. The framing narrative, describing the process by which the land was divided (12:1-6, 13:1-14, 13:21b-22, 13:32-14:3, 15:63, 16:10-17:6, 17:12-18:10, 19:51, and 22:1-9). First a description is given of the domains east of the Jordan which were conquered and given to Reuben, Gad, and Machir (half of Manasseh). After God gave Joshua a gloss concerning the unconquered region, he reminded him about Reuben, Gad, and Machir (half of Manasseh), already having been allocated land by Moses, and about the Levites not being given territory, only cities. The territory was handed out by lot, Judah gaining the first lot, although they failed to drive out the Canaanites living in Jerusalem. Then the house of Joseph got its territory, Ephraim failing to drive out the Canaanites of Gezer, and it is pointed out that the daughters of Zelophehad, part of the tribe of Manasseh, were also given territory of their own. The house of Joseph was given the mountain region, including the forest, and they are told that they will be able to drive out the Canaanites living there despite the presence of iron chariots. The Israelites then assembled at Shiloh, and Joshua sent out a survey team. When the survey was complete, the remaining land was divided amongst the lesser tribes. Finally, the tribes whose lands are east of the Jordan were allowed to go to their lands.

When he was "old and well advanced in years" [2] Joshua convened the elders and chiefs of the Israelites and exhorted them to have no fellowship with the native population because it could lead them to be unfaithful to God. [3] At a general assembly of the clans at Shechem he took leave of the people, admonishing them to be loyal to their God, who had been so mightily manifested in the midst of them. As a witness of their promise to serve God, Joshua set up a great stone under an oak by the sanctuary of God. Soon afterward he died, at the age of 110, and was buried at Timnath Serah.

In rabbinical literature

Joshua and the Israeli people, Karolingischer Buchmaler, c.840 In rabbinic Jewish literature Joshua is regarded as a faithful, humble, deserving, wise man. Biblical verses illustrative of these qualities and of their reward are applied to him. "He that waits on his master shall be honored" (Pro. xxvii. 18) is construed as a reference to Joshua (Midrash Numbers Rabbah xii.), as is also the first part of the same verse,

"Whoso keepes the fig-tree shall eat the fruit thereof"
(Midrash Yalk., Josh. 2; Numbers Rabbah xii. 21).

That "honor shall uphold the humble in spirit" (Pro. xxix. 23) is proved by Joshua's victory over Amalek (Midrash Numbers Rabbah xiii). Not the sons of Moses — as Moses himself had expected — but Joshua was appointed successor to the son of Amram (Midrash Numbers Rabbah xii). Moses was shown how Joshua reproved that Othniel (Yalḳ., Num. 776). Joshua's manliness recommended him for this high post. David referred to him in Psalms lxxxvii. 25, though without mentioning the name, lest dissensions should arise between his sons and those of his brothers (Yalḳ., quoting Sifre).

Joshua was a famous tradition in the Hebrew bible, since he carries on from Moses. Who do you think the greek speaking people of the early period have preserved? Joshua. Stories about Joshua. Who lived next door to Fred Flintstone, and shall not be conflated with Jesus, who lives next door to a fourth century superman.

Quote:

women did not visit his grave.

You are either trying to troll me, or you are scratching at utter straws Toto. Did women visit the grave of Moses? When Joshua, the descendant leader from Moses dies at the age of 110 years, can you please cite the Rabbinal Law effective at that epoch by which it was impossible that a woman shall visit his grave? Are you serious?

Is this a picture of Jesus praying to God to stop the Sun by Gustave Doré, or is it a picture of Joshua praying to God to stop the Sun by Gustave Doré. Where are the christian-supporting art critics? Obviously the artist Gustave Doré has made a terrible terrible mistake by painting the wrong person into his picture!. Dont worry readers, WE all know he actually had Jesus in mind.

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 10-24-2008, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Dear Spin,

You are assuming we have evidence that there were believers in the new testament canon before 312 CE. What evidence are you going to cite to support that assumption? One frescoe at Dura-Europa, now at Yale Divinity College, and one Diatesseron fragment also from Dura, on the Persian frontier? Do you play poker spin? This sounds like a bluff.

It sounds to me like the sort of fragmentary evidence that ancient historians often have to rely on.

It's still more evidence than you've got for your theory.

Dear J-D,

Thanks for reminding me that the pot was raised by the additonal citation of a genuine third century Dura-Europan christian house-church baptismal font, or common Roman house pool. Doesn't it make you wonder where the comparanda is? Where are the other similar citations to these genuine century Roman empire christian house-church baptismal font from say Rome, or Alexandria, or Caesarea, or Tasmania? We dont have any comparanda. It appears this thread highlights the utter fragility of the pre-nicene christian archaeological evidence, once again. Nadda. Not a skerrick.

Best wishes,

Pete

Sheshbazzar · 10-24-2008, 03:40 AM

But they got to get everyone to focus on these, when its all they got.

The Pre-Constantinian evidence for "traditional" christian history and archaeology is like standing in a huge and utterly vacant auditorium, that we are told that 100,000+ fans have just vacated, the evidence of the crowd having been there is the two popcorn kernels that were found in the far back corner of the snack stand.

So. just don't look at that utterly empty and spotless auditorium, but focus your attention on, and carefully scrutinize these two old popcorn kernels that prove our position and allegations that 100,000 believers were here.

yeah, riiiight.

J-D · 10-24-2008, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

As I now understand it, you disagree both with generally accepted views about the origins of Christianity and with Pete's views on that subject. You don't think that the Dura evidence (which you explain in terms of your theory) counts against Pete's theory. So what is your reason for rejecting Pete's theory?

To state my position yet another way, The Greco-Roman religion of the Gentiles, fabricated under the pseudonym of "Paul" and called "Christian" was NOT the same religion held by the Jerusalem Apostles.
No, I do not believe that the Dura evidence counts against Pete's theory, as a NAZARENE synagogue is aJEWISH synagogue.
Nazarenes were Jews, and JEWISH, not "Jewish-christians". a misnomer and anachronism.
Their religion, theology and practices remained distinctively Jewish, and they rejected the innovations of Pauline created "christianity".
Pete's theory is great for pointing out that Eusebian "christian History" is a total fraud, and that "christianity did not at all exist as it is described by the christian churches and uncritical secular history.
The weakness of Pete's theory is its total denial of the existence of pre-Constantine, pagan-Gentile "ChrEstians". and "christians", who did exist and practiced a different religion derived from the Jewish Nazarene religion.

Different in what ways?

And do you have any evidence to support your position?

J-D · 10-24-2008, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

To state my position yet another way, The Greco-Roman religion of the Gentiles, fabricated under the pseudonym of "Paul" and called "Christian" was NOT the same religion held by the Jerusalem Apostles.
No, I do not believe that the Dura evidence counts against Pete's theory, as a NAZARENE synagogue is aJEWISH synagogue.
Nazarenes were Jews, and JEWISH, not "Jewish-christians". a misnomer and anachronism.
Their religion, theology and practices remained distinctively Jewish, and they rejected the innovations of Pauline created "christianity".

Dear Sheshbazzar,

Thanks for the restatement of your position. I would just like to comment that IMO the Pauline Letters were all fourth century forgeries,

In what sense do you consider them to have been forgeries?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

so that when you speak of Pauline "innovations", I count that as happening at the time the rest of the new testament canon was fabricated. The letters of Paul, IMO, in principal were written in to the new testament canon because it was common knowledge that important philosophically and "religiously admired historical figures" who were renown authors of books and of letters to other well known philosophers, such as Apollonius of Tyana, had their letters collected after their death -- by Roman emperors.

I don't follow your train of thought. There seems to be a missing step in the logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

On this matter I would like to state that although the canonical new testament did not exist prior to the fourth century

You keep on stating that. But you never give any grounds to accept the statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I am therefore in no manner disputing the existence of pre-Constantine, pagan-Gentile "ChrEstians", who did exist and practiced a different religion derived from the Jewish Nazarene religion.

Different in what ways?

spin · 10-24-2008, 04:55 AM

To state a few facts, the archaeologists involved in the excavations at Dura Europos include Michael Rostovtzeff, the "Sterling Professor of Ancient History and Archaeology" at Yale University; Paul V.C. Baur, professor of classical archaeology at Yale University; Clark Hopkins was an archaeologist at Yale University. They were not from Yale Divinity. The excavations were under the auspices of Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters.

spin

Sheshbazzar · 10-24-2008, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

To state my position yet another way, The Greco-Roman religion of the Gentiles, fabricated under the pseudonym of "Paul" and called "Christian" was NOT the same religion held by the Jerusalem Apostles.
No, I do not believe that the Dura evidence counts against Pete's theory, as a NAZARENE synagogue is aJEWISH synagogue.
Nazarenes were Jews, and JEWISH, not "Jewish-christians". a misnomer and anachronism.
Their religion, theology and practices remained distinctively Jewish, and they rejected the innovations of Pauline created "christianity".
Pete's theory is great for pointing out that Eusebian "christian History" is a total fraud, and that "christianity did not at all exist as it is described by the christian churches and uncritical secular history.
The weakness of Pete's theory is its total denial of the existence of pre-Constantine, pagan-Gentile "ChrEstians". and "christians", who did exist and practiced a different religion derived from the Jewish Nazarene religion.

Different in what ways?

Quote:

Their religion, theology and practices remained distinctively Jewish, and they rejected the innovations of Pauline created "christianity".

Quote:

And do you have any evidence to support your position?

Yes, but my time is limited at the, and I cannot particiatehere for the next few days.
Really all you have to do is look up the references to the Jewish "sect of The Nazarenes", and eliminate the inposition of the word "Christian upon them.
They said they were not , and the early Christian commentators said they were not Christian.

spamandham · 10-24-2008, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Your up-the-garden-path avoidance of the evidence is mildly amusing.

spin

Glad to brighten your day, but I still don't get how I'm avoiding evidence by refusing to layer it with NT canonical assumptions. Assumptions and inferences are not evidence, they are conclusions.

Spin, you're begging the question. You've presupposed this fragment is Christian rather than Jewish, even though we know there was at least 1 Jewish version of the Gospel story (the Gospel of the Hebrews).

Just within this tiny fragment, the story is significantly different than the canonicals. This story has "him" (presumably Jesus) going to Galilee to view the crucified! That's a BIG difference from the canonicals, which have him going to Galilee to be crucified.

spin · 10-24-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Your up-the-garden-path avoidance of the evidence is mildly amusing.

Glad to brighten your day, but I still don't get how I'm avoiding evidence by refusing to layer it with NT canonical assumptions. Assumptions and inferences are not evidence, they are conclusions.

We are playing the mountainman game of ignoring all the other evidence, but clearly there were gospels before the time of Dura. The Oxyrhynchus fragments are datable by palaeography. Modern analysts may be biased in their analyses because of religious commitments, but the analytical process does supply clear dates of texts, though perhaps not as finely as the pundits would like.

You have happily ignored this data with mountainman, along with all the other evidence you have shut your eyes to. You refused to look at the literary evidence of christian traditions before the time of Eusebius.

One reason why the Dura fragment clearly contains christian gospel is because of the other texts available to us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Spin, you're begging the question. You've presupposed this fragment is Christian rather than Jewish, even though we know there was at least 1 Jewish version of the Gospel story (the Gospel of the Hebrews).

You're just making things worse for yourself. You have worse difficulties trying to date that text, and knowing what its contents were. Whatever means you have for dating it dates all the other texts better. Drop appeal to the GoH as silly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Just within this tiny fragment, the story is significantly different than the canonicals.

Rubbish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

This story has "him" (presumably Jesus)...

Who else could it be? After all the word "crucixion" is treated the same as a sacred name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

...going to Galilee to view the crucified!

This seems confused. The text doesn't talk about going to Galilee but from there. The text says: apo ths galilaias (same words in Matt 27:55 -- check it out).

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

That's a BIG difference from the canonicals, which have him going to Galilee to be crucified.

spin

spamandham · 10-24-2008, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

We are playing the mountainman game of ignoring all the other evidence, but clearly there were gospels before the time of Dura. The Oxyrhynchus fragments are datable by palaeography...

The OP was specifically in regard to the Dura finds. If your intention of this thread was an analysis of all available evidence and how it cummulatively discredits MM's hypothesis, you failed to communicate that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

One reason why the Dura fragment clearly contains christian gospel is because of the other texts available to us.

You are disallowing the unknown. Go right ahead, but I won't be joining you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Drop appeal to the GoH as silly.

You only find it silly because it allows an opening, not because it's an invalid argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This seems confused. The text doesn't talk about going to Galilee but from there. The text says: apo ths galilaias (same words in Matt 27:55 -- check it out).

meh, brain fart. "from", not "to"

View Poll Results: Has mountainman's theory been falsified by the Dura evidence?
Yes	34	57.63%
No	9	15.25%
Don't know/don't care/don't understand/want another option	16	27.12%
Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-24-2008, 03:40 AM	#253
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	But they got to get everyone to focus on these, when its all they got. The Pre-Constantinian evidence for "traditional" christian history and archaeology is like standing in a huge and utterly vacant auditorium, that we are told that 100,000+ fans have just vacated, the evidence of the crowd having been there is the two popcorn kernels that were found in the far back corner of the snack stand. So. just don't look at that utterly empty and spotless auditorium, but focus your attention on, and carefully scrutinize these two old popcorn kernels that prove our position and allegations that 100,000 believers were here. yeah, riiiight.

10-24-2008, 04:55 AM	#256
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	To state a few facts, the archaeologists involved in the excavations at Dura Europos include Michael Rostovtzeff, the "Sterling Professor of Ancient History and Archaeology" at Yale University; Paul V.C. Baur, professor of classical archaeology at Yale University; Clark Hopkins was an archaeologist at Yale University. They were not from Yale Divinity. The excavations were under the auspices of Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters. spin

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.