Dave Roberts

See if these help answer any questions



http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity...abbas.html#top
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity...ittal.html#top
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity...Trial.html#top

Amaleq13

We would still have no evidence that James was continuing any ministry by the living Jesus because we would still have no reason to suspect there ever was such a ministry.

That is the way I would write the story but we can only work with the evidence we have. If we are pretending that all we have is Paul, we would be left wondering if Jesus had a ministry.

It didn't seem to bother Paul that the sacrificed Jesus was devoid of power and reputation.

Yet Paul never feels compelled to justify the resurrection in such terms. Whether or not Jesus "stood for" something prior to being crucified seems to have been entirely irrlevant to both Paul and his audience.

Their portrayal of Pilate has no apparent connection to the Pilate of history so I see no reason to assume his inclusion in the story is historically reliable.

Were there any nice Roman rulers of Jerusalem shortly before the Church of God began preaching their gospel?

I'm not sure I understand the question. It seems pretty obvious why they would feel compelled to depict the Roman representative in the story as essentially without guilt but Pilate seems to be a good choice if one wants to include a well known figure in the story.

Mr. Aardvark

Forgive my inexpert intrusion, but I have some ideas to toss out.

My hunch is to disagree w/ you. On the assumption that there was an HJ, the crucifixion could only be considered a catastrophe for the movement since it had the potential of invalidating it, especially if the crucifixion resulted from an embarassing offense or one that would make the movement suspect through guilt by association. So it seems to me that (a) above would be more likely since the movement would require a revisionist account of Jesus; that is, if there was an intention to contiunue the movement and also provide cover for those who were part of it.

I thought that Pauls' writings were considered to be quite late, well after even a late dating of the gospels. Perhaps "Paul" is less exercized about the power and reputation of the deceased Jesus since the revisionist account had taken hold. He was writting to churches after all.

If the resurrection was needed in order to offset the apparent refutation it provided to the uniquness of Jesus, if not the scandal of the charge itself, then the resurrection need only vouchsafe the movement's origin, as stemming from the historical HJ, not Jesus' aims. Jesus was raised to justify the movement not to vindicate his original aims.

If I'm all wet, just tell me so.

Toto

Paul's letters are dated prior to the gospels by almost every scholar. The assumption is that Paul wrote between ~50 to 62 CE, while the earliest gospel was written around 60-70 CE - which is used to explain why Paul seems to know virtually nothing of the events in the gospels.

Mr. Aardvark

We he have known about Q (if someone could connect me to a good website about Q, I'd appreciate it)?

It's kind of odd, don't you think, that writings which seem to lack knowledge of the events of the gospels actually predate the writings that tell those events, the Gospels?

Toto

Odd? not if the gospels are literary fictions and Jesus never existed. Right?

There's no evidence that Paul knew Q, if Q existed.

Synoptic problem website

Here's the case against Q

Vorkosigan

It's a Markan hack on the disciples. Recall that James and John ask if they can sit at J's right and left hand when he is in his glory. J tells them that that is reserved for those for whom it has been prepared. Fast forward to J's Crucifixion. Who sits at J's right and left hand? Bandits! The disciples aren't even good enough to be bandits, or alternatively, the disciples ARE bandits, figuratively, depending on your reading of the hack.

Nothing to with that. The violence is in the source, which is 2 Sam 15-17. Luke reports the healing because he misunderstood the verse that Mark no longer has, where Jesus says something like "put it back" but J meant the sword, not the ear. John and Matt got this right, but Luke took that command to mean the sword.

Vorkosigan

Mr. Aardvark

I suppose you are right.

Thanks for the links.

Amaleq13

Given the assumption, I think you make a good point. We are told in Acts that the Disciples didn't start preaching the gospel for over a month after the event. What do you do for a month after the whole purpose of your life has been executed in one of the most shameful ways imaginable? If you are a particularly devout Jewish type fellow, you might spend that time in fasting and prayer. A skeptical sort might think this makes you prone to a hallucination that will resolve the enormous cognitive dissonance swirling in your brain while a faithful type would see this as a perfect setting for a resurrection visitation.

Sheshbazzar

"THEN the high priest tore his clothes,..." Though the conclusion may have already been reached, it was the statement immediately preceeding that provoked the high priest to commit this particular action at this point.
Do some here think that the high priest tearing his clothes was just a random gesture of frustration?
On what occasions are the practitioners of the Jewish religion wont to tear their clothing?
Sheshbazzar