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: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-29-2006, 06:29 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
I'm using translations that include the mistranslations that were traditionally a part of the Bible:
You've done some interesting work here. Have you read Dr. Randall Helms' Gospel Fictions (or via: amazon.co.uk)? It's been awhile since I have, but there are simliarities between what you're doing and his book.

His ASU bio page says that he's currently working on a book on the
Quote:
agonistic and intertextual relationships among various biblical authors, a book to be entitled The Bible Against Itself.
douglas is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 06:57 AM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cognac View Post
The methodology seems weak to me. Why would the writers have chosen those particular passages and not some others? There's a lot of OT to work with. If the borrowed passages were messianic, then why weren't all messianic passages incorporated (such that later Xns had to invent the idea of second coming to cover all their bases)? Parallelisms don't make for causality.
True, but so many of the cases are clear, such as the use of Psalm 22 in the crucifixion scene, and so many of the others are specified by the author (all of the T1 references) that this definitely seems to be the modus operandi of the writers. Some correlations, for example the calming of storm scene, may not be a direct scriptural reference, but may reflect common ideas about God rooted in the religious tradition, and this scripture just also happens to reflect that tradition, and this may be the case in some other instances as well, but the point is that every idea and every event in the gospel of Mark and Matthew has a precedent in the Jewish mythos.

You don't need a "real person" to inspire the story of Jesus, the inspiration for the story was already there.
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 09:49 AM   #13
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
True, but so many of the cases are clear, such as the use of Psalm 22 in the crucifixion scene, and so many of the others are specified by the author (all of the T1 references) that this definitely seems to be the modus operandi of the writers. Some correlations, for example the calming of storm scene, may not be a direct scriptural reference, but may reflect common ideas about God rooted in the religious tradition, and this scripture just also happens to reflect that tradition, and this may be the case in some other instances as well, but the point is that every idea and every event in the gospel of Mark and Matthew has a precedent in the Jewish mythos.

You don't need a "real person" to inspire the story of Jesus, the inspiration for the story was already there.

If the gospel authors were trying to construct a story from Hebrew Scripture, they did a pretty bad job, as many Skeptics have noted in trying to debunk messianic passages.

I mean, the OT refers to a tree, not a cross, so if you're just making the story up, why not use a tree instead of a cross, instead of having to go through the rigmarole of claiming a cross is like a tree.

If you're starting from scratch, you could have Pilate run out of crosses and have Jesus crucified on a tree.

Most of the so-called messianic prophesies are like that. They fit, kind of, but are off. It looks like the Christian interpreters are "stretching" to make the prophesy fits the facts.

This shouldn't be under your thesis. The fit should be perfect.
Gamera is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 10:20 AM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera View Post
If the gospel authors were trying to construct a story from Hebrew Scripture, they did a pretty bad job, as many Skeptics have noted in trying to debunk messianic passages.

I mean, the OT refers to a tree, not a cross, so if you're just making the story up, why not use a tree instead of a cross, instead of having to go through the rigmarole of claiming a cross is like a tree.

If you're starting from scratch, you could have Pilate run out of crosses and have Jesus crucified on a tree.
Quite a simple explanation here if you actually read the gospel.

Jesus is crucified because he is a sacrifice FOR THE ROMANS, not the Jews, hence the reason that all the apostles don't get it, Pilate tries to save him, the Jews demand his death, and in the end it is a Roman Soldier that says "Surely this man was the Son of God".

I think that "Mark" was a diaspora Jew who viewed the triumph of the Romans over the Jews as evidence that the Romans had the favor of God.

Also, there was already a tradition that claimed Jesus Christ was crucified as part of the Christ mystery religion.
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 11:52 AM   #15
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
Quite a simple explanation here if you actually read the gospel.

Jesus is crucified because he is a sacrifice FOR THE ROMANS, not the Jews, hence the reason that all the apostles don't get it, Pilate tries to save him, the Jews demand his death, and in the end it is a Roman Soldier that says "Surely this man was the Son of God".

I think that "Mark" was a diaspora Jew who viewed the triumph of the Romans over the Jews as evidence that the Romans had the favor of God.

Also, there was already a tradition that claimed Jesus Christ was crucified as part of the Christ mystery religion.
Also, there were Christians who believed that Jesus Christ was an apparition and was not crucified.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 04:15 PM   #16
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
Quite a simple explanation here if you actually read the gospel.

Jesus is crucified because he is a sacrifice FOR THE ROMANS, not the Jews, hence the reason that all the apostles don't get it, Pilate tries to save him, the Jews demand his death, and in the end it is a Roman Soldier that says "Surely this man was the Son of God".

I think that "Mark" was a diaspora Jew who viewed the triumph of the Romans over the Jews as evidence that the Romans had the favor of God.

Also, there was already a tradition that claimed Jesus Christ was crucified as part of the Christ mystery religion.

That's not an explanation at all. The messianic prophesies in the OT don't mention a cross, they mention a tree. So if you're making the story up from scratch, you would want to use a tree to make the prophesy fit. You can do that simply by, e.g., having Pilate run out of crosses due to a bad market that year. Or a strike by the cross makers union. Or a hundred other explanations. As fiction the field is open.

But instead the author went with a cross and then had to "fit" the prophesy to a cross. But if he's making up the story, he'd "fit" the story to the prophesy, not the other way round.

So try again.
Gamera is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 04:17 PM   #17
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Also, there were Christians who believed that Jesus Christ was an apparition and was not crucified.
Well, the gospel writers sure didn't and that the narratives in question. Maliki is claiming they constructed a story around Hebrew messianic texts. But as it turned out, the story doesn't fit the prophesies -- which wouldn't happen if the narrative was constructed from them.
Gamera is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 04:45 PM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera View Post
That's not an explanation at all. The messianic prophesies in the OT don't mention a cross, they mention a tree. So if you're making the story up from scratch, you would want to use a tree to make the prophesy fit. You can do that simply by, e.g., having Pilate run out of crosses due to a bad market that year. Or a strike by the cross makers union. Or a hundred other explanations. As fiction the field is open.

But instead the author went with a cross and then had to "fit" the prophesy to a cross. But if he's making up the story, he'd "fit" the story to the prophesy, not the other way round.

So try again.
As far as I know there are not prophecies or otherwise about being "crucified" on a tree, just being hung from a tree.

Feel free to present your "tree hanging" references that you think would have been a better fit.

Paul was already talking about crucifixions, and whoever wrote Hebrews was taking about a lot of bloodshed, and you don't get bloodshed from hanging or stoning, so I suspect that that had something to do with it.

I'm not even sure what you are arguing here. you can't deny that the crucifixion scene copies from several texts, especially Psalm 22.
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 04:50 PM   #19
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
As far as I know there are not prophecies or otherwise about being "crucified" on a tree, just being hung from a tree.

Feel free to present your "tree hanging" references that you think would have been a better fit.

Paul was already talking about crucifixions, and whoever wrote Hebrews was taking about a lot of bloodshed, and you don't get bloodshed from hanging or stoning, so I suspect that that had something to do with it.

I'm not even sure what you are arguing here. you can't deny that the crucifixion scene copies from several texts, especially Psalm 22.
You're making my point not yours. The messianic prophesy allegedly involvied hanging from a tree. But Jesus gets crucified on a cross in the narrative. If the authors were starting from the prophesies, they would have had him hung from a tree, not crucified on a cross, avoiding the dubious "explanation" that a cross is like a tree and crucifixion is like hanging.

The prophesy doesn't fit and the narrative has to be "massaged" to make it fit. But you claim the narrative came from the prophesy. So your claim seems to have been rebutted.

And this is just one of dozens of examples where there's a bad "fit."
Gamera is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 06:52 PM   #20
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera View Post
Well, the gospel writers sure didn't and that the narratives in question. Maliki is claiming they constructed a story around Hebrew messianic texts. But as it turned out, the story doesn't fit the prophesies -- which wouldn't happen if the narrative was constructed from them.
It wouldn't have happened if it wasn't fiction. The stories of the people called Jesus are consistent with fiction. All the stories lack credibility in all key areas.

Irenaeus in 'Against Heresies' and Eusebius in 'The Proof' believed that the Christ was based on prophecies in the OT, and the Gospels, as represented in the NT of the Christian Bible, has not been verified as being the true version of Christianity.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:35 PM.

Top

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