AtheistGamer

figurativley speaking. I was going to go into how the passage of time muffles the voices of history like six feet of earth muffles the cries of those who were entombed while alive, but I thought I'd spare you the analogy.



A pseudographical apologetic work written after the generation of Jesus' contemporaries had long passed away. Also you cannot use what one author says as context to determine what another author meant.

sotto voce

So the Sanhedrin were buried alive. I didn't know that. Shades of Korah, it seems. Well, maybe they should have seen it coming.

Woo hoo! Whatever the provenance, it's usage that makes the point.

That's not only unproved, it's completely irrelevant.

Everyone else does.

aa5874

Well, to maintain your position you are peddling the same ridiculous sources for the apostles and Jesus.

It is most illogical that the Mythicist position is unsupportable when in FACT it is ACKNOWLEDGED by HJers that the NT is about the JESUS of FAITH--the Non-Historical Jesus--MYTH Jesus.

It is a CONSENSUS among SCHOLARS whether HJ or MJ for OVER 250 years that NT Jesus is the Non-historical Jesus and a SEARCH is PRESENTLY on going for HJ during the LAST 250 years.

The Jesus of Faith--the non-historical Jesus has been admitted to be in the NT.

It is UNHEARD of that ADMITTED unreliable sources are solely RELIED on and WITHOUT corroboration to maintain your position on Jesus.

Once you admit the Gospels and Acts are historically unreliable then you are OBLIGATED, MANDATED, to FIRST find credible sources of antiquity or else you are NO different to those who wrote the "Ridiculous Nat.Geo article on the lives of the apostles.

There is ONLY ONE Jesus in the NT--the Jesus of Faith--the NON-Historical Jesus.

The Sources for the Jesus of Faith cannot be used for historical purposes or else you will end up looking just like those who used the NT for the lives of the apostles.

Iskander

Voltaire: I disapprove of what you write, but I will defend your right to write it.

AtheistGamer

Well at least you understand now.




Right. So even if it was written by someone living in oh say 80 C.E. who wrote it for the express purpose of making people think that nation can refer to the early christians, it is somehow relevant.

What's your point? Very little in history is proved. There's always going to be a 10% uncertainty when it comes to these things. The rational man goes with the 90% certainty that the evidence points to.

If everyone else jumped off a bridge...

But all of that is irrelevant anyway. Let's suppose that Peter actually wrote 1st Peter, and let's suppose that Peter was not writing an apology for the express purpose of reinterpreting what Jesus said in order to avoid the truth of Jesus' false prophecy.

So 1st Peter seems to be arguing that early Christians as a whole were a "nation", and that when Jesus said genea he really meant nation. So when Jesus said this genea shall not pass away until all these things take place he really meant Christians as a whole would not pass away until all these things take place. Do I have that right? Is that the argument that you are making?

sotto voce

I'm sure we're all grateful. But surely, you are not going to leave it at that? You really must tell us where the bigwigs are buried.

Quite right. Somehow.

AtheistGamer

If you don't understand why an argument from silence is a fallacy, and are simply going to keep playing dumb, and pretend that I meant that they were literally buried alive then I don't know what to say to you.


And how is that exactly?

You never answered my question so I'll ask again.

So 1st Peter seems to be arguing that early Christians as a whole were a "nation", and that when Jesus said genea he really meant nation. So when Jesus said this genea shall not pass away until all these things take place he really meant Christians as a whole would not pass away until all these things take place. Do I have that right? Is that the argument that you are making?

I've looked into the original greek of 1st Peter.

The word being translated here into nation can also mean race. So a proper translation would be "You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy race. So 1st Peter is not necessarily saying that the early christians are a nation. You do not necessarily have an example of somoneone using nation to refer to what you are attempting to make genea mean, in reference to the mini-apocalypses of GoM, GoL, & GoMk. Your argument fails. One of the premesis is not shown to be true.

Your argument fails for another reason as well. You are jumping back an forth between langauges in order to get a definition of genea that does not exist. I will illustrate this with an example.

Suppose two spanish speaking people were argueing what the english word awful meant. One of them says that awful means not good. The other one insists that awful can be a term that means cool. To settle the dispute they look at a spanish-english dictionary. The dictionary tells them that the english word awful is synonymous with the spanish word mal (which means bad in english). The person who thinks that awful can mean cool, then brings the following phrase as an example that awful can mean cool. The phrase is "That skateboard jump was bad! That was so cool!". Of course the two people are not reading this in english. They are reading it translated into spanish. And the translators have chosen to use the spanish word mal to replace the english word bad, in the translation. They both now conclude that the english word awful can mean cool.

The hypothetical spanish speakers came to this erronous conclusion because they didn't realize that you can only ask what the spanish word mal means in order to find out what the spanish-english dictionary says the meaning of the english word bad is.

With that said, and out of the way I will restate what I have said before, only this time I will be more specific in order to avoid confusion. Strong's gives us "a perverse nation" as a definition of genea. What does the english phrase "perverse nation" mean? Well it means a corrupt country, and not the definition that you are attempting to give to genea.

And please don't bring Greek sentences as an example that the english word nation can mean whatever it is that you want it to mean. You might as well bring the english sentences ""That skateboard jump was bad! That was so cool!" in order to show a spanish person that the english word awful can mean cool.

sotto voce

It isn't a fallacy. Ask any policeman. If George is accused of murder of his wife at 1500 hrs on 3:3:2012, and refrains from saying that he was 2000 miles from his wife at 1500 hrs on 3:3:2012, and has witnesses to that effect, one wonders why he does not.

AtheistGamer

Policemen are not logicians. George was 2000 miles away dealing weapons to african warlords. That is why not.

sotto voce

Not witnesses.