Diogenes the Cynic

It's more like Paul just uses X and contradicts Y and shows no awareness at all of the rest.

It's not just a question of not including women in the appearance chronology, by a straight reading he contradicts all of the canonicals. Not including the tomb is one thing...I don't believe Paul knew about an empty tomb story but the exclusion of the tomb from his letters is not necessarily contradictory. The appearances are a different story. Those are the very crux of his religion and they contradict the canonicals. The first appearance story claims that Cephas was the first to see Jesus. That is Paul's claim at face value. Why should Paul not be taken at face value.

Also, who were the 12 if Judas was dead and who were the 500?

Metacrock

Look, the points in the canonicals are there, like them or not. They are prestened there. Whereever we see corrosponding points about them, they seem to be the case. It's true I can't prove that the chruch uniformly understood all 11 points before the publication of Mark. But there is no reaosn to assume they did not.

There is also Thomas, and GPete, 1 clement, most of the 11 points can be foudn in them as well. There's no reasont to assume that was not the case because there's no competing evdience. there's no counter evidence. We have good reason to think that was the case, because its always presented as the case and there's no counter to it.

Your only motive for thinking otherwise is that you assume the canoncials must always been wrong. The Bible bad, Biblem ust always be in error. You want to believe the Bible must be wrong, so you assume if we don't have something nailed down as rock solid fact, then we must assume the Bible is wrong on it.

There is no reaosn to assume such a thing without proof. There is no proof that anyone every thougth of Jesus mother as named anything but Mary.

the point is, myth proliforates, if those points never existed in the chruch before Mark then there would probably be other versions. The fac that there are no other viersions is an indication that everyone knew the facts, it was common knowledge what his mother was named.

Metacrock

1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.


Not the date, but the idea of living on earth as a man, in Rom1:3. So that's what? Half a point.



2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary"



3) Same principle players, Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdeline.


Peter obviously important, and James, mentions Philip and Andrew in Galations, and in Acts (which I see as Pauline circle).

4) That Jesus was knows as a miracles worker.

debatable

5) he claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.



clearly by implication



6) he was crucified under Pilate.


he's big on crucirfiction

7) Around the time of the Passover.

8) at noon.

9) rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.


at least that he rose.

10) several woman with MM discovered the empty tomb.

11) That this was in Jerusalem.









Your conjecture. NO reason to assume that based upon any text.








No, nononon, get this through your head. He does not say, He never appeared to women. He's quoting a chruch formula. He's quoting a baptism formula. it's not a historically factual statment but a liturgical statment.

[/QUOTE]Also, who were the 12 if Judas was dead and who were the 500?[/QUOTE]


Matthias took Juda's place. the 500 were probably the populace of Bentheny. Because they walk though the streets of the town at the end of Luke on their way to the point of asscention. so the people of the town saw him.

Amaleq13

Yes and I don't see where he indicates it is evidence of the same story existing within 20 years of the events.


Right and those existing texts were the Gospels and none of them is thought to have been written within 20 years of the alleged events. Hence, my question above. The Diatesseron is evidence with which one might argue a "latest date" for the Gospels.

I'm glad we agree.

Given that the conclusion is admittedly based on speculation, your certainty appears to be unwarranted.

In addition, you still haven't explained why, assuming the speculative dating of the non-extant source is correct, this creates such a "guarantee".

Given the evidence in Paul, we have no reason to assume the contents of this alleged source were being publicly proclaimed.

This is a reasonable speculation if we assume the truth of the conclusion but it isn't evidence suggesting the conclusion is actually true.

If the oral stories were not told outside the circle of believers, there would be no "scrutiny". The evidence from Paul suggests that folks were embracing faith in the risen Christ from nothing more than his version of the story supported by some miraculous healings. If the pre-Gospel story was only told to these converts after they converted, they don't strike me as likely to consider it critically.

It was shown that Koester concludes that the author of Acts included fabrications in his story.

It clearly denies your original claim regarding the 11 points. Diogenes is offering an argument against this revised version requiring a contradiction so you can take it up with him.

If we assume that Peter is also called Cephas, then Paul tells us he was the first to have the risen Christ appear to him. The guy who starts a new belief system is generally considered important by its members. If we don't assume that Peter is also called Cephas (Paul does not tell us this and he could very well be referring to two different men), then we have no idea why Peter is an "important guy" because Paul doesn't tell us. He also doesn't tell us he was an important follower of a living, preaching Jesus so we can't make that assumption, either.

Many scholars have noted that the depiction of Paul in Acts appears to conflict with Paul's letters so, no, I don't make that assumption. The author appears to be interested in denying any suggestion that there was disagreement between Paul and the Jerusalem group.

I assume you are familiar with the scholarly debate on the topic. If not, I think Peter Kirby's website has a pretty good summary. Actually, if you reread Koester's comment, I think he indicates that he considers Paul's letters a more reliable source for information about Paul than Acts. He doesn't directly discuss Acts in my book but, from what he does say about the authorship of Luke, he doesn't appear to accept the traditional attribution as historically reliable.

"However, the first part of the Prologue to Luke provides information that is not reflected elsewhere: that Luke was unmarried and had no children, and that he died in Boeotia. The historical value of this information, including the name of the author, is of dubious value. Ever since Marcion (who never mentions the name of an author for the gospel that he included in his canon), the desire to connect the author to Paul, as well as the evident information about Paul in the second half of the work, the Acts of the Apostles, would make Luke a natural choice because he was mentioned in Phlm 24, Col 4:14, and 2 Tim 4:11."(Ancient Christian Gospels, p.335-336)

If you have other information about Koester's opinion on the subject, I would be interested.

Not really. It just means you have no basis to assert that he thought the crucifiction took place in any specific location.

It may have been there but, as with any speculative effort, a firm conclusion is not possible. It just as well may not have been there.

Even if we assume it was, you haven't given a good reason to assume it was historically reliable. So far, you've only offered the speculation that the story would have been denied by critical eyewitnesses but the evidence from Paul doesn't support the use of this story in public where any such criticism might take place.

As an ultimately irrelevant aside, Crossan does not consider the empty tomb to be historical. He argues that Jesus' body was most likely thrown in the same pit as every other crucifixion victim.

If the actual texts cannot be observed, their existence is hypothetical no matter how compelling the theory arguing their existence might be.

There is no single way that myth proliferates but I believe that it is quite common for myths based on oral tradition to retain a consistent core story despite other variations.

I'm aware that these claims are believed to predate Paul but that doesn't actually change anything. The evidence of those words only supports greater consideration for Cephas because he was first.

We have plenty of reason from the letters of Paul. In those letters, Cephas is described as the first to have the risen Christ appear to him. Period. There is no indication whatsoever of the role in which Peter is depicted in the later Gospel stories. You are reading information from the Gospels backward into the letters of Paul to create the appearance of a single, stable story but that is an entirely illegitimate tactic.

That is simply not true. I am considering your claims seriously and noting the obvious problems with them. They are filled with unsubstantiated assumptions and circular reasoning.

If that means sticking to what the texts actually state and refraining from reading later information backwards into earlier, then I agree.

I certainly hope so. I have tried to be as clear as possible in my attempt to restrict myself only to claims that the texts support. I assume it is equally clear to anyone that you do not feel compelled to accept that same restriction.

It is your claim so you have the burden of supporting it.

You seem to have forgotten your own words:
"why do you guys (myhers, internet atheists, dinesins of the sec web) not understand that you have to prove the arguments you advance."

Metacrock

I'm sure you all wont accept all of these Pauline corpus books.I myself doubt the authorship of the Pastorals. But I made a list of all Pauline corpus allusions to the Jesus story.



He was flesh and blood (Phil 2:6, 1 Tim 3:16)
- Born from the lineage of David (Rom 1:3-4, 2 Tim 2:8)
- Jesus' baptism is implied (Rom 10:9) (Example of of a conclusion
that probably won't be accepted)
- Preached His message resuling in belief (1 Tim 3:16)
- The last supper (1 Cor 11:23ff)
- Confessed his Messiahship before Pilate (1 Tim 6:13)
- Died for peoples' sins (Rom 4:25, 1 Tim 2:6)
- He was killed (1 Cor 15:3, Phil 2:8)
- Buried (1 Cor 15:4)
- Empty tomb is implied (1 Cor 15:4)
- Jesus was raised from the dead (2 Tim 2:8)
- Resurrected Jesus appeared to people (1 Cor 15:4ff)
- James, a former skeptics, witnessed this (1 Cor 15:7) as did Paul
(1 Cor 15:8-9)
- This was reported at an early date (1 Cor 15:4-8)
- He asceded to heaven, glorified and exalted (1 Tim 3:16, Phil 2:6f)
- Disciples were transformed by this (1 Tim 3:16)
- Disciples made the Gospel center of preaching (1 Cor 15:1-4)
- Resurrection was chief validation of message (Rom 1:3-4, Rom 10:9-
10)
- Called Son of God (Rom 1:3-4)
- Called Lord (Rom 1:4, Rom 10:9, Phil 2:11)
- Called Christ or Messiah (Rom 1:4, Phil 2:11, 2 Tim 2:8)
- Called God (Phil 2:6)

Diogenes the Cynic

What makes you think we would accept anything in the Pauline corpus beyond the seven generally accepted letters?

I don't even accept Acts as part of the Pauline corpus. Citing Acts to support the synoptics is a little bit circular, don't you think? You're supporting Luke with Luke.

Metacrock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock
Weren't you the one saying you read Koester's book?





I've quoted that passage at length on my site in several places. It's in my refutation of Doherty and in my NT stuff. So I think it's p165, but dont' hole me to it. Look it up on Doxa.

actually more than one place, it's one of the major points of the book.


Quote:
...I suppossed you must know that people didn't just make up the readings from MS like the Diatesseron.They copied previopsuly existing texts.




That's where you are wrong.


this is from Doxa:



I. Gospel material pushed back to earlier date.

However the material upon which the Gospels are based dates back to an earlier period, and in a form which is essentially the same as that which is found in the Synopitics. This actually pushes the date of the Gospel story, including the death, burial and resurrection (including the empty tomb) to A.D. 50.

"Studies of the passion narrative have showen that the Gospel accounts are dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixtion, death and burial of Jesus. But this accounted ended with the discovery of the empty tomb." Hemut Koster Ancient Chrsitian Gospels p. 231


A. Diatessaron

The Diatessaron ..of Titian is the oldest known attempted harmony of the Gospels. It probably dates to about 172 AD and contains almost the entire text of the four canonicals plus other material, probably from other Gospels and perhaps oral traditions. It is attested to in many works and is probably the first presentation of the Gospel in syriac.

In an article published in the Back of Helmut Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels, William L. Petersen states:


"Sometimes we stumble across readings which are arguably earlier than the present canonical text. One is Matthew 8:4 (and Parallels) where the canonical text runs "go show yourself to the priests and offer the gift which Moses commanded as a testimony to them" No fewer than 6 Diatessaronic witnesses...give the following (with minor variants) "Go show yourself to the priests and fulfill the law." With eastern and western support and no other known sources from which these Diatessaranic witnesses might have acquired the reading we must conclude that it is the reading of Tatian...The Diatessaronic reading is certainly more congielian to Judaic Christianity than than to the group which latter came to dominate the church and which edited its texts, Gentile Christians. We must hold open the possible the possibility that the present canonical reading might be a revision of an earlier, stricter , more explicit and more Judeo-Christian text, here preserved only in the Diatessaron. [From "Titian's Diatessaron" by William L. Petersen, in Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990, p. 424]



While textual critics find it more significant that the early implications are for Jewish Christianity, I find it significant that the pre-Markan material in the Diatesseran includes a miracle story. Those miracles just never really fall out of the story. They are in there from the beginning. But for our purposes the most important point to make is that here we have traces of pre-Markan material. That is, Mark as we know Mark was not the earliest Christian Gospel written, it is merely the earliest of which we have a full copy. The date assigned to the composition of Mark is not the date assigned to the sources used to redact that composition. This pushes the written record of the Jesus story before A.D. 60 and makes it at least contemporaneous with Paul's writings. In other words it is clear that written Gospels with Jesus in an historical setting, and with Mary and Joseph the Cross and the empty tomb existed and circulated before the version of Mark that we know, and at the same time or before Paul was writing his first epistle (50'sAD).


B. Papyrus Egerton 2


The Unknown Gospel (Egerton 2) preserves a tradition of Jesus healing the leper in Mark 1:40-44. (Note: The independent tradition in the Diatessaran was also of the healing of the leper). There is also a version of the statement about rendering unto Caesar. Space does not permit a detailed examination of the passages to really prove Koster's point here. But just to get a taste of the differences we are talking about:

Koster says:

"There are two solutions that are equally improbable. It is unlikely that the pericope in Egerton 2 is an independent older tradition. It is equally hard to imagine that anyone would have deliberately composed this apophthegma by selecting sentences from three different Gospel writings. There are no analogies to this kind of Gospel composition because this pericope is neither a harmony of parallels from different Gospels, nor is it a florogelium. If one wants to uphold the hypothesis of dependence upon written Gospels one would have to assume that the pericope was written form memory....What is decisive is that there is nothing in the pericope that reveals redactional features of any of the Gospels that parallels appear. The author of Papyrus Egerton 2 uses independent building blocks of sayings for the composition of this dialogue none of the blocks have been formed by the literary activity of any previous Gospel writer. If Papyrus Egerton 2 is not dependent upon the Fourth Gospel it is an important witness to an earlier stage of development of the dialogues of the fourth Gospel....[Koester , 3.2 p.215]

Koseter shows that the Gospels are based upon pre-markan material which dates from A.D. 50 and ends witht he empty tomb, the resurrection appearnces of Jesus he believes were added from other sources. In this theory is partially in agreement with Crossen who also believes that the pre-Markan material can be traced to A.D. 50 and includes the empty tomb. Koester also uses the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Peter and several other works to demonstrate the same point.[please see Jesus Puzzell 2 for more on this point] This puts the actual writting of the Gospel tradition just 20 years after the original events. There still many eye-witnesses living, the communities which had witnessed the events of Jesus' ministry would have still basically been intact. The events would be somewhat fresh, and plenty of oportunity for witnesses to correct mistakes.

Thus the basic historical validity for the Gospels can be upheld, since they are based upon material which actually goes back to within a mere 20 years of the original events. This means that many of he eye witnesses would have been in the community and able to correct any mistakes or fabrications which were put into the text.





Again, Koester: (Ancient Christan Gosples

"Jurgen Denker argues that the Gospel of Peter shares this tradition of OT quotation with the Canonicals but is not dependent upon them. [In Koester p.218] Koester writes, "John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century!"


Quote:
Well, it's all sepeculation.





In a sense it is all speculation, but realtive to that, some speculations are better than others.



Quote:
It's age, appearing just 18 years after the events, basically guarontees a minimal chance of the events being manufactured..





That's a ridiculous way to argue! First of all it's crazy to say that if something is speculative it's not warrented. secondly why would your speculations be any more concrete? Thridly, my are backed by major scholars.








Sure I did, because we can tell by the nature of the readings that they are Pre Markan, that's mostly by their Jewishness.


Then Koester is using standard rules of thumb that textual critics use to date things: 10 years for publication and 10 years for circulation, before John winds up in Egypt, where Egerton2 was found.


Quote:
except 18 years is close enough in time that there would have been lots of eye witnesses still about.






That is nuts. that is just plain NUTie Loonie! You take your baised little insistance that everything in the Bible must be wrong, work in the good old argument form silence, and of all silences are a just liencese crak pots to do their things. and then assume it has to be solid because the Bible must be wrong, and voila! you get this twisted lunacy that nothing to do with what can really be understood from the text.

Besides since the premarkan redaction gives us reason to assume the story existed before Mark, that's just beging the question to try and Read Paul's negative (slilence) as possative affirmation of your jundices reading.


Quote:
All the verious commuities would have had them.





IN other words, we have to assum the Bible must be wrong, so the truth original situation couldn't possibly be as reported in the Gosples, given this excuse for a concrete fact we can doubt evrything but the crackpots.


Quote:
And since the tellings of the stories that made up the oral tradition were not random acts of gossip, but carefully controled communal events, this telling would have been the result of eye witness scretiny and would have continued to be so for two or three more decades.






NONONONN, that' is a Dohrteyism that's not any kind of Fact. Stop arguing Dohrty the man is an ignorant fool and menance to civilization!

You have no way of determining what Gospel story was being told just by trying to fill in the silences in Paul with your Doherty assumptions.


Quote:
You didn't prove Luke fabricated anything. You poved that you canjecture about it.





Koester didnt show that, he said it's his opinion. But of course for an atheist on the sec web someone saying something makes it a rock solid fact, if it's the right sort of something. Of course I should claim that Koester has preven taht the PMR existed in AD50, but you wont beileve that,even though its the same guy. and in fact he has more to base that on then he does his statment about Paul..


Quote:
I answered that argument directly by telling you that the only imiprotant coutner evidence can only be other versions of the story in which the 11 points are changed. Just presenting a story with some of the points and not others, may not argue for my theory, but it sure doesnt' argue against it.




Slough! Slough! Slough! you are sloughing the argument! It doesnt' deny anything because it's just pompus little "the bible must be wrong at all costs, so if the Bible says it's a proof its not true."


Quote:
then why would Peter be an important guy in Paul's mind, that he should confront him in Galations?






And of course probablity only exists when it favors your supposstions. So there's no probability at all that if Peter is Christ's sidekick in the canonicals (that's 4 accounts not one knows the conanicals) then also in GPete and in PMR in Egerton2 and in the unkonwn, Epitle of the Apostles, there's just chance that that's because he really was. It must because Mark just made it up and everyone liked it.

But you still have not come to terms with the fact of prolifortaion. Just mark said it would not be enough to canonize it. mark wasn't canonized in the frist century. So there must be some other reason why no ever made another version.

You canot claim Paul as another version because that is begging the qeustion. Paul doesnt' say either way and you can't can't fill that gap with your prejudices.


Quote:
Do you think that the presentatiopn in Acts has nothing to do with the Pauline circle?




why would he care if he wasnt' connected with the Pauline circle?

Again, the good old sec web Isogesis special. Some one said something I like so that proves it! What about all the houndreds of years when great scholars said the oppossite, but they just assume the Bible means something so they must be wrong. Only those scholars who say what I like matter That's called "scholarship" (over here it is).






Quote:
Why would you think that Acts has no connection with the Pauline cricle when most of it is about Paul?





He also doestn' say we have to atuomatically doubt anything in acts. Apparently you read him so selectively, you missed the bit where he takes the bit about the chruch council as historiacal, he says he accepts that the Jerusalem chruch was on speaking terms with the Pauline chruch based upon that part of Acts. He also accepts other parts. I think Paul gives us more reliable info to, that doestn' mean everything in Acts has to be just thrown out.

ce."

Metacrock

Ok Amaleque. I don't want you to think I'm putting you down. I actaully respect your attempted hit on my argument, because I think you did a better job than Kirby did! He tried to furnish other verions from the Post Canoncial end of things. But your strategy of trying to turn all silences into posative affirmations of other versions is actaully clever, except of course that it requires a lot of absurd assumptions that are totally unwarrented.



That doesnt' say what you think it does. It doesnt' say he doesn't accept info in Luke as historical. It's talking about the authorship issue,not everyint in Acts. I also point to Luke Timothy Johnson who does accept Lukan authorship as probable. (see Early Christian Writtings).




I've pointed in my previous post to aspects of Acts that he does accept as historical.


Quote:
so that must mean that he thought the crucifiction was elsewhere right? After all if he doesn't spell it out we can just assume anything we want?




Of course I do. Because there are no counter examples, why should we think he was any different? So standard for an argument from silence,so Mytherish of you, to assert that negative gaps are posative affirmations for your view!




Quote:
The Pre Markan redaction is taken back to AD 50 by both Koester and Crosson. Both include the empty Tomb at that time. So the 11 points were part of it. The whole thing, all that is known in Mark, Matt, Luke, Jonn and G pEte it was all there.




aahahahah what hypocracy! You should be saying that about the points you use Koseter for earlier. Instead you only say that when I make a point.





Yea it would have been. its' called Probablity,. doesn't that exist in the jesus myther world?





That's what everybody says, but it doesn't change the fact that he accepts the PMR at AD50 including the empty tomb.


Quote:
learn what textual criticisim is! Nothing hypothetical about it





No the readings there. they are not hypotetical, they are real readings and they were copied from real MS. The MS they were copied from were real and not hypthteical. The readings are real. that is not the same thing as postulating a Q document. If all Q was was a theory that non Markan material existed Q would be a fact. it's only because there's a possiblity that non Markan material might also have been in M and L and other sources that Q is hypothetical.


Quote:
Because of the way myth proliforates.






the fact that it does!




Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13
As far as we can tell from Paul, the risen Christ first appeared to Cephas then to others. There is no indication Cephas was a leader before the appearance. As far as we can tell from Paul, they became apostles after the risen Christ appeared to them just as it went with Paul. It is not the same story that we read in Mark's Gospel.




Quote:
First, those are not Paul's original words. He's quoting a baptismal formula. Almost everyone agrees on that. So he didn't make that up. That means the chruch already recognized Peter as a leader. So why would they just dogmatically choose him? It's celary realated.




what now? that's crazy. I can't believe the way you think about things.

NO counter examples. no reason to assume that the Gosples (canoncial) were not basically factual layouts of the story. It's only the perverse need to disagree wtih and defame and assault and pillage everything in the bible that it's even doubted at all.


Quote:
We can assume a stable outlook until we have some reason to assume other wise.



that's nuts. He's important, the's clearly in some major role in the Jerusalem chruch, all of that tallyes the Gospels. why whould Jesus appear to him frist? To affirm his leadership as the no2 guy whose now taking charge of the flock. you can't parele that into posative evidence for some other role.

We also have eye witensses out of the Bible who confrim the story such as Clement and Papias. But that's a whole other deal.

So the force of probablity:

(1) extra biblical witness
(2) PMR
(3) Canonical Gospels
(4) Some indications in Paul
(5) no counter examples

The probablity is vastly in favor of the Biblical view. But you try to translate any durth of information into posative evidence that your assumptions are facts.


Quote:
you are gearing everything to fucking up the ideas insteading of actually considering them.




Not how it appears to me. It seems you are gainsaying everything in the Bible just because it's in the Bible.


Quote:
You are trying to be as legalstic as possible.





But you are not. Because if you were would say your silences in Paul are netural instead of trying to turn them into anotehr version of the story, and one whomperjawed just to defeat my argument..


Quote:
Anyone can see what you are doing.





It is clear. It's celar what you are doing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13



Open your eyes and look cause I've said it every time.

Mythology changes. It proliforates. It has other verisions. If Jesus story was mythology we would have other veirsons because are always other versions. the only reason people would accept the basic story in Mark as true and concete is because it was public knoweldge that that was the story.





Quote:
Yes, we have no reason to think otherwise you until you give us some.



It is your claim so you have the burden of supporting it.



No! NoooOOOoo. It's your burden because you are the trying to overturn a hsitorical understanding of 2000 years. No major historian accepts any of the myther bull shit, nor any of the wavy gravy crap that's come out. They all accept a basic historicity of Jesus and then admit well know much about him but he must have been a real guy. That's pretty much where I am on it, but I think there's a bit more we can accept as assumapble through probablity because it seems from begining to be universaly acknowleged. But you want to trun every silence or every gap into posative proof to the contrary instead of saying "but there's a gap."








but that doesnt' mean there are no probable assumptions. I dont' have to prove every assumption I make, some are just probable and some are good rational assumptions on face value. I dont' prove them. The basic thing I've proven is that myth proliforates and that there are no counter versions of the story.

Now I tried to argue propositionally I would be guilty of post hoc ego proctor hoc. But I'm making a probabalitistic argument.

Metacrock

Most scholars have always believed that Luke and Acts were part of the same document. So Luke is supporting Luke in the sense that Acts should have any credibility that Luke as.

Now that point may be out of date. I was in seminary in late 80s and 90. So since I've been out of the field that may have changed. But up to that point it was rock hard assumption that Luke and Acts were the same.



http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu...lukenotes.html

Dr. James Tabor:


Oute:


"According to the standard Synoptic Gospel theory Luke was written in the 80s or even 90s C.E. and incorporated the narrative of Mark, the sayings of Jesus in Q, and a large quantity of his own material (L). Remember that Luke-Acts is a two volume (scroll) work, with a formal preface, written for a patron, and based upon claims of research. The two books should not really be separated as they are now in the N. T. It reminds us of other Greco-Roman biographies and histories of the time. This is in contrast to Mark (dramatic mystery), and Matthew (teaching book). "








No I expect you to reject anything in the Bible merely because it is in the Bible.

Amaleq13

Metacrock,


What it really boils down to is you take the speculations, possibilities, and arguable points suggested by Koester et al but treat them as though they are facts in reaching your conclusion. I'm sure you don't accept that sort of approach from your opponents. The fact remains that there is no evidence of this story in Paul's letters, or anywhere else, and that is a serious problem for anyone trying to assert these speculations, possibilities, and arguable points as fact.

Even if we assume this speculative early dating is reliable, the only reason you have offered to assume it also contained historically reliable information is the unsubstantiated assumption that the story would have been exposed to critical scrutiny by eyewitnesses.

What you describe is how Christians wish the evidence appeared but that doesn't make it so.

That is possible but it is disingenuous to suggest this has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

In terms of subjective judgment, yes. In terms of factual reliability, no.

That isn't what I said. I said the certainty of your conclusion is unwarranted given that it is based on speculation.

What speculations?

That doesn't change their ultimately speculative nature. Major scholars offer speculations that turn out to be incorrect all the time.

What is the factual basis for this "rule of thumb"?

Save the rhetoric and provide any evidence to the contrary. It is not difficult to recognize that you tend to get very emotional when you have nothing of substance to deny a particular observation of the evidence.

You aren't reading my statements carefully enough. I'm looking for evidence that the story was available for the critical public scrutiny you have suggested. Establishing the reliability of this assumption is crucial to your claim of historical reliability.

Do you ever read what you write? You are arguing that the core of the Gospel story is historically reliable and you want to accomplish this by assuming that the Gospel story is historically reliable.

I have no way of determining if any story was being told that approximated the later Gospel stories because there is no evidence of such story-telling. Do you know of any or is name-calling the best you can do?

I recognize that but, given your reliance on Koester, I assumed his opinion meant something to you. Apparently, you pick and choose which speculations on his part can be accepted as "fact". Hey, that sounds a lot like what you accused atheists of doing!

I didn't say there was no probability that Peter was a leading Disciple of a living, preaching Jesus. I simply observed that there doesn't appear to be anything in Paul's letters to support this.

It doesn't require canonization to be embraced. If a story is embraced, we would not expect believers in it to create a contradicting story. The only people from whom we might expect a contradicting story are the opponents of the believers. It seems, therefore, that your argument is one from silence but it doesn't appear to be a very strong one given how contrary claims were treated by Christians once they gained power.

He was a Christian who apparently wanted to depict the early history of his belief system as involving less conflict that Paul's letters suggest.

I've afraid you've misunderstood my "strategy". I haven't tried to assert any positive affirmations of other versions. I've simply observed that Paul does not confirm the eleven points as you wrote them. You have to select bits and pieces and ignore the rest.

Regarding the Koester quote on Luke's authorship, you wrote:
That isn't what I think and it isn't why I offered it. It was offered in response to your question about whether the author was part of the "pauline circle". The quote suggests that Koester does not think so but I'm asking if you have any additional information on his views. If you spent less time attributing strawman positions to me and more time responding to what I actually say, we might get somewhere.

I'm aware of Johnson's opinion but it seems to me to be more the product of his faith than the evidence. That doesn't make it flawed but I don't consider it a reliable basis for a conclusion.

I don't find your argument from silence very compelling. The fact remains that Paul does not locate the crucifixion in Jerusalem so you have no basis to claim that his letters include this "point".

What does it say about the historical reliability of the account, Metacrock?

I know. You seem to have great difficulty restricting your claims to what the texts actually state.

Prove it. My experience with myths suggests that certain core details from the original version tend to remain stable across variations.

It is disappointing that you do not feel obligated to support your original claim and the related assumptions. I can only assume this is because you cannot. Feel free to disabuse me of this assumption but, if you intend to continue to try to shift the burden to me, you can stop wasting your time.

It is your claim that is in question, not mine.