Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-29-2011, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It is reasonable to assume that Jesus chose 12 disciples as a way of representing the 12 tribes. However, if the gospels were allegories, why didn't the writer play that up? Why didn't any of them tell us that each person was from a different tribe? Why in fact would he have had brothers for disciples (James and John, Peter and Andrew), which we can assume were from the SAME tribe--which guaranteed that not all 12 tribes were really represented?

Is this an argument tipped in favor of history over allegory/fiction?

Your INITIAL PRESUMPTION that Jesus chose 12 disciples means that you have ASSUMED that Jesus was a figure of history.

You have FUNDAMENTALLY ERRED in your presumption.

The Sources which claimed Jesus chose 12 disciples ALSO claimed Jesus was the Child of a Ghost, the Creator, and the Word that was God. See Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35. and John 1.

Once you INTRODUCE the Gospels as evidence for the historicity of Jesus, then you are OBLIGATED and MANDATED to SHOW the description of Jesus in the SOURCES.

It is IRRELEVANT whether or not Jesus chose 12 disciples in the NT.

The Creator of heaven and earth chose 12 disciples in the NT!!! So what????

steve_bnk · 09-29-2011, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It is reasonable to assume that Jesus chose 12 disciples as a way of representing the 12 tribes. However, if the gospels were allegories, why didn't the writer play that up? Why didn't any of them tell us that each person was from a different tribe? Why in fact would he have had brothers for disciples (James and John, Peter and Andrew), which we can assume were from the SAME tribe--which guaranteed that not all 12 tribes were really represented?

Is this an argument tipped in favor of history over allegory/fiction?

Your INITIAL PRESUMPTION that Jesus chose 12 disciples means that you have ASSUMED that Jesus was a figure of history.

You have FUNDAMENTALLY ERRED in your presumption.

The Sources which claimed Jesus chose 12 disciples ALSO claimed Jesus was the Child of a Ghost, the Creator, and the Word that was God. See Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35. and John 1.

Once you INTRODUCE the Gospels as evidence for the historicity of Jesus, then you are OBLIGATED and MANDATED to SHOW the description of Jesus in the SOURCES.

It is IRRELEVANT whether or not Jesus chose 12 disciples in the NT.

The Creator of heaven and earth chose 12 disciples in the NT!!! So what????

Lighten Up IF there was no HISTORICAL JESUS then why get BENT OUT OF SHAPE?

+or-1 · 09-29-2011, 05:40 AM

Quote:

12 tribes, 12 disciples

...and 12 witches in a coven. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Seems quite clear to me that the whole business is made up with plenty of cross-sectarian plagiarism. It's interesting how much pagan mummery has been co-opted into the Christian mummery. The key word here is mummery. It's all nonsense.

aa5874 · 09-29-2011, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It is reasonable to assume that Jesus chose 12 disciples as a way of representing the 12 tribes. However, if the gospels were allegories, why didn't the writer play that up? Why didn't any of them tell us that each person was from a different tribe? Why in fact would he have had brothers for disciples (James and John, Peter and Andrew), which we can assume were from the SAME tribe--which guaranteed that not all 12 tribes were really represented?

Is this an argument tipped in favor of history over allegory/fiction?

Your INITIAL PRESUMPTION that Jesus chose 12 disciples means that you have ASSUMED that Jesus was a figure of history.

You have FUNDAMENTALLY ERRED in your presumption.

The Sources which claimed Jesus chose 12 disciples ALSO claimed Jesus was the Child of a Ghost, the Creator, and the Word that was God. See Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35. and John 1.

Once you INTRODUCE the Gospels as evidence for the historicity of Jesus, then you are OBLIGATED and MANDATED to SHOW the description of Jesus in the SOURCES.

It is IRRELEVANT whether or not Jesus chose 12 disciples in the NT.

The Creator of heaven and earth chose 12 disciples in the NT!!! So what????

Lighten Up IF there was no HISTORICAL JESUS then why get BENT OUT OF SHAPE?

The "historical Jesus" if he did live was irrelevant it is the LIES, the Embellishments, about him that developed Christianity as we know it today.

That an ordinary sinful man was born in Nazareth and was ordinarily baptized by John did NOT develop Christianity as we know it today.

It was the NON-HISTORICAL events and Fictional characteristics of the supposed HJ that DEVELOPED the Christian FAITH.

HJ is irrelevant, ONLY the LIES and the Fiction matter.

"Paul" claimed he was a WITNESS of the NON-HISTORICAL resurrection.

Only THE LIES COUNT.

Only NON-HISTORICAL EVENTS AND FICTIONAL ATTRIBUTES MATTER.

HJ is irrelevant.

semiopen · 09-29-2011, 05:57 AM

I always get confused by the twelve tribes and twelve sons of Jacob.

Jacob had 12 sons but the tribes include Joseph as two (Manasseh and Ephraim) so you wind up with 13. Maybe the idea being that if you surround the ark with three tribes on each side, 12 doesn't work (with Levi in the center).

Maybe Yoshke is similar to the ark or tribe of Levi. It seems that this still causes technical problems... probably nonsense as +or-1 suggests.

Solo · 09-29-2011, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

'I' was wondering, if 'putting' 'things' in 'inverted commas' could be 'used' as 'evidence' that the 'writer' was 'only' 'doing' 'gnostic ciphers'. 'Those' who 'used' the text 'not long after', did not 'seem' to 'think' he was.

A rabbit sits upon the green
believing it cannot be seen

A man though, with a telescope
and watching keenly on a slope

extending from a nearby knoll,
observes the little spoon-eared troll <- :wave:
.........

Christian Morgenstern 'Vice Versa'.
(tr. by Max Knight)

ph2ter · 09-29-2011, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

I always get confused by the twelve tribes and twelve sons of Jacob.

Jacob had 12 sons but the tribes include Joseph as two (Manasseh and Ephraim) so you wind up with 13. Maybe the idea being that if you surround the ark with three tribes on each side, 12 doesn't work (with Levi in the center).

Maybe Yoshke is similar to the ark or tribe of Levi. It seems that this still causes technical problems... probably nonsense as +or-1 suggests.

Ancient fixation was to divide a solar year (365.22 days) into lunar months (29.53 days). The result which you get is 12.37. It is neither 12 nor 13, but something in between. In the Jewish Scripture this decimal result was expressed by counting one tribe (Joseph) as two (Manashe and Ephraim). So you get neither 12 nor 13 tribes, but something in between.

Bingo the Clown-O · 09-29-2011, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

if the gospels were allegories, why didn't the writer play that up?

Gosh, I don’t know.

Maybe because the tradition of gospel writing involved making subtle allusions to earlier scripture. Not blatant ones.

Bingo the Clown-O · 09-29-2011, 08:32 AM

On the other hand, how blatant can you get?

Joshua 4:1-6
When the whole nation had finished crossing the Jordan, the LORD said to Jesus, "Choose twelve men from among the people, one from each tribe, and tell them to take up twelve stones from the middle of the Jordan from right where the priests stood and to carry them over with you and put them down at the place where you stay tonight."

archibald · 09-29-2011, 08:55 AM

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/gospel_mark.htm

I honestly think it is a matter of personal opinion as to how much of Mark is seen as allegory or fiction. For me, it is notable just how much, in fact, is not present in the OT, and how many of the connections are somewhat vague. I imagine there would be many cases where one could find many connections between things in the NT and the OT, and no need to think that Mark is necessarily quoting or using them at all. The two testaments have a lot of commonality. It's not as if one is about the Judaist religion and the other about needlework. Another consideration, not often aired, is that some of the actions and sayings might be in the Jesus tradition precisely because they come from a prophet who was himself fond of referencing the OT. IOW, if you were a Jewish prophet, and you were picking disciples, how many would you pick?

Also notable is how the connections are from all over the place, here and there. There is little doubt that Mark went in search of some of his pieces in the OT. There is not enough for me, yet, to change from thinking that he was embellishing an existing story.

Interestingly, Price, on many occasions, does not link to the OT, but to Paul.

09-29-2011, 08:32 AM	#19
Bingo the Clown-O Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: middle east Posts: 310	On the other hand, how blatant can you get? Joshua 4:1-6 When the whole nation had finished crossing the Jordan, the LORD said to Jesus, "Choose twelve men from among the people, one from each tribe, and tell them to take up twelve stones from the middle of the Jordan from right where the priests stood and to carry them over with you and put them down at the place where you stay tonight."

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

09-29-2011, 05:57 AM	#15
semiopen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Hillsborough, NJ Posts: 3,551	I always get confused by the twelve tribes and twelve sons of Jacob. Jacob had 12 sons but the tribes include Joseph as two (Manasseh and Ephraim) so you wind up with 13. Maybe the idea being that if you surround the ark with three tribes on each side, 12 doesn't work (with Levi in the center). Maybe Yoshke is similar to the ark or tribe of Levi. It seems that this still causes technical problems... probably nonsense as +or-1 suggests.

09-29-2011, 08:55 AM	#20
archibald Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Northern Ireland Posts: 1,305	http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/gospel_mark.htm I honestly think it is a matter of personal opinion as to how much of Mark is seen as allegory or fiction. For me, it is notable just how much, in fact, is not present in the OT, and how many of the connections are somewhat vague. I imagine there would be many cases where one could find many connections between things in the NT and the OT, and no need to think that Mark is necessarily quoting or using them at all. The two testaments have a lot of commonality. It's not as if one is about the Judaist religion and the other about needlework. Another consideration, not often aired, is that some of the actions and sayings might be in the Jesus tradition precisely because they come from a prophet who was himself fond of referencing the OT. IOW, if you were a Jewish prophet, and you were picking disciples, how many would you pick? Also notable is how the connections are from all over the place, here and there. There is little doubt that Mark went in search of some of his pieces in the OT. There is not enough for me, yet, to change from thinking that he was embellishing an existing story. Interestingly, Price, on many occasions, does not link to the OT, but to Paul.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.