Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 03-17-2011, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

The point is that earliest Christianity is wholly Jewish

That is not a fact. That is an inference from certain assumptions for which there is no compelling evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

The Gospels as we have them are based on oral antecedents which predate Paul's works.

The same.

Doug Shaver · 03-17-2011, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

For it must not be forgotten that the materials of the Synoptic Gospels were in existence before they assumed a written form. Literary analysis is apt to forget this obvious fact, and to proceed by literary comparison alone.--"The Synoptic Gospels". In International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

What I'm not forgetting is that almost everyone assumes this to be the case. It has never been proved.

No Robots · 03-17-2011, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

I regard the gospels as Greek literature, with an Hebreic theme, and a sprinkling of Aramaic words/names thrown in for good measure....

I'll take my stand with the great Jewish scholars I have already cited. And here's something from another:

Christianity without the trinity, without the divinity of Jesus, without the incarnation and vicarious atonement, Christianity stripped of all its distinctive characteristics, is nothing but the universal religion of Yahve, such as was conceived and proclaimed by the greatest prophets and wisest teachers of Israel, among whom I count and reverence the immortal prophet and teacher of Nazareth. Christianity without a Christian dogma is not the religion of the genuine historical Christian churches. It is the universal faith which is usually named Judaism. It is what I call Yahvism in order to dissociate it in consciousness from the element of the race. It is the universal religion of broad humanity, of justice, of love and holiness. It is the religion of Moses, of Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hillel, and Jesus. It is the ethical monotheism of Israel without the limitations and the trammels of race, without the yoke of ceremonial law. It is the religion which I and all enlightened rabbis profess and teach.--Yahvism: And Other Discourses / Adolph Moses

arnoldo · 03-17-2011, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

For it must not be forgotten that the materials of the Synoptic Gospels were in existence before they assumed a written form. Literary analysis is apt to forget this obvious fact, and to proceed by literary comparison alone.--"The Synoptic Gospels". In International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

What I'm not forgetting is that almost everyone assumes this to be the case. It has never been proved.

The point you made can perhaps be illustrated over the debate on the origin of the Egerton Gospel. Currently there is uncertainty whether this document can be dated from the mid first century or the end of the second century. One argument, among others, for a later date of this gospel is that is dependent on the canonical gospel whereas an argument for an earlier date is that is based more on an oral tradition. Bart, Ehram writes the following concerning this issue in his book entitled,Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make it into the New Testament. (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Quote:

Scholars continue to debate whether the author of this Gospel (a) used the four canonical Gospels as literary sources for his accounts, (b) quoted from memory stories that he knew from the canonical gospels (changing them in the process), or (c) acquired his stories not from the canonical Gospels, but from the oral traditions of Jesus in wide circulation in the first and second centuries.

spin · 03-17-2011, 10:43 AM

"Come back when you have some...", (the room hushes in anticipation)... "some evidence." And the reaches of the room echoed in ever diminishing sighs, "evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence."

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

I'll take my stand with the great Jewish scholars I have already cited. And here's something from another:

Christianity without the trinity, without the divinity of Jesus, without the incarnation and vicarious atonement, Christianity stripped of all its distinctive characteristics, is nothing but the universal religion of Yahve, such as was conceived and proclaimed by the greatest prophets and wisest teachers of Israel, among whom I count and reverence the immortal prophet and teacher of Nazareth. Christianity without a Christian dogma is not the religion of the genuine historical Christian churches. It is the universal faith which is usually named Judaism. It is what I call Yahvism in order to dissociate it in consciousness from the element of the race. It is the universal religion of broad humanity, of justice, of love and holiness. It is the religion of Moses, of Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hillel, and Jesus. It is the ethical monotheism of Israel without the limitations and the trammels of race, without the yoke of ceremonial law. It is the religion which I and all enlightened rabbis profess and teach.--Yahvism: And Other Discourses / Adolph Moses

And the smart-assed cricket asked, "is there anybody home?"

No Robots · 03-17-2011, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And the smart-assed cricket asked, "is there anybody home?"

And the ant answered, "Vous chantiez? j'en suis fort aise. Eh bien: dansez maintenant."

hjalti · 03-17-2011, 01:29 PM

No Robots, like spin is trying to explain to you: "Scholar X also just asserts/assumes Y" isn't a good argument and isn't likely to impress people around here.

Just give us the reasons for why you (or scholar X) believes Y.

No Robots · 03-17-2011, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Just give us the reasons for why you (or scholar X) believes Y.

Yes, the crickets would rather sing than work. They want someone to do the reading and then regurgitate it so they can lap it up.

spin · 03-17-2011, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Just give us the reasons for why you (or scholar X) believes Y.

Yes, the crickets would rather sing than work. They want someone to do the reading and then regurgitate it so they can lap it up.

Not so. Crickets don't want to hear you regurgitating opinions, be they those opinions of Adolph Moses, Birger Gerhardsson, Wikipedia, Hannah Arendt, Kaufman Kohler or any other opinion that you can proffer instead of the evidence needed to support your views.

angelo · 03-18-2011, 04:19 AM

Whatever. It must be admitted, they are very good fiction when one considers the era they were composed in.
The gospels and the rest of the N/T writings that is.

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

03-17-2011, 01:29 PM	#607
hjalti Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Iceland Posts: 761	No Robots, like spin is trying to explain to you: "Scholar X also just asserts/assumes Y" isn't a good argument and isn't likely to impress people around here. Just give us the reasons for why you (or scholar X) believes Y.

03-18-2011, 04:19 AM	#610
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	Whatever. It must be admitted, they are very good fiction when one considers the era they were composed in. The gospels and the rest of the N/T writings that is.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.