Vinnie

Re the prophets. Paul in Rom 11:3 applies similar thinking to his contemporary Israelites.

I think Holding may in fact be correct on that. Initially I thougt it referred to some OT events myself but no longer do.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

Apparently, you will persist in identifying nonexistent double-standards regardless of how many times such claims are shown to be without merit. This time seems to be no exception.

This is not surprising to the mythicist because, in that context, there was no baptism of Jesus until Mark created the story. The "cause, archetype, or model" for Christian baptism appears to have been Jewish baptism. I've said this before but, apparently, it didn't make an impression on you because you didn't see fit to actually quote me but decided to paraphrase me. Actually, I'm not even sure this mangled effort qualifies as a paraphrase since it only remotely resembles my actual claims.

Vinnie wrote:
This is not a claim that has been made by me nor, to my knowledge, has it been made by Doherty. This is what is called a "straw man" argument where poor arguments are put in the mouth of one's opponents so that they might be easily torn down. Vinnie tried an earlier “straw man” when he kept arguing against the nonexistent claim that Mark was utterly free to make up any story he wanted.

Vinnie "paraphrases" me:
I have given my ACTUAL thoughts in response to your observation above and, as anyone can see, it does not resemble this inaccurate paraphrasing. Just to set the record straight, I took the time to track down the original statement AND CONTEXT:

In the baptism thread, Vinnie wrote:
I replied:
I never said he did but it seems ridiculous to suggest that his fellow Christians wouldn’t immediately make the connection, themselves, after reading the story. If Mark is a member of the same Christianity as Paul, we can assume that he and his entire audience had been baptized. It would certainly not be necessary for Mark to break out of his narrative to directly address his audience and remind them that they were baptized just like Jesus!

In addition to Paul, I’m also not connecting Christian baptism with Jesus’ baptism. I think Christian baptism is connected to the Jewish baptism John performed.

My comment about Christians making the connection was in reply to the question of why Mark didn't explicitly connect it. I stand by my response and it seems consistent with what I am currently saying. It still seems reasonable to me to suggest, regardless of how long it took to be written down by a Christian, that Mark's audience would have immediately connected the story of Jesus' baptism to their own experiences without anybody pointing it out.

Once again, Vinnie paraphrases rather than quoting my actual words:
What was the actual quote and context? I’ll tell you since Vinnie is apparently too busy. I was responding to a question from Toto about why I don’t consider 1 Thess 2:14-16 to be genuine.

I wrote:
I have only repeated the portion that seems relevant to Vinnie’s inaccurate paraphrase but I think that is sufficient. While I do tend to accept the view of those scholars who contend that the “rulers of the age” passage should not be interpreted literally, I clearly indicate that I believe a literal interpretation would require that we understand Paul to be referring to the Romans as the executioners. I’ll let everyone reading these posts decide for themselves if that is consistent with Vinnie’s “paraphrase”.

Vinnie responds to his misconception of my position:
I’m not sure why you think I oppose this claim. The only thing I would change is the word “involved” to “responsible”. In fact, my second reason for rejecting 1Thess2:14-16 clearly implies my agreement.

I wrote:
If Paul claimed Jesus was crucified, I think it could be argued that everybody in the civilized world would have assumed it was done by the Romans. That is why it makes no sense to suggest that Paul would claim that the Jews killed him.

Please stop trying to paraphrase me, Vinnie. Either directly quote me or don't bother. This was a tedious exercise trying to clean up the mess you made and I don't desire to repeat it.:banghead:

Amaleq13

I wrote:
There is apparently a passage in Josephus claiming that the torn curtain from the Temple was placed on display c.75CE. Eisler suggests that this is the likely origin of the "torn veil" detail in the Gospel story.

Vinnie replied:
According to Zindler, the Josephus reference can be found in Wars of the Jews, Book 5, chapter 5. The Eisler reference is in his work The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist, According to Flavius Josephus' Recently Rediscovered 'Capture of Jerusalem' and Other Jewish and Christian Sources, pg 146-147.

As far as I'm concerned, there should be a law against a title that long.

I've checked Kirby's website (anyone care to second my nomination of him for sainthood?) and I don't see the reference. I suppose it is possible that this is so widely recognized as an interpolation that it is not included but I would prefer to hear directly from him.

Bernard Muller

Interesting stuff on the torn veil here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/8210

Best regards, Bernard

Vinnie

Good Stuff! Thanks for the links (two since I checked Hindley's response)

Vinnie

Amaleq13, you wrote this:

That is why I chimed in with the double standard line.

To argue that the statement is inauthentic because its "factually inaccurate" is not only to fall victim to an absurd wooden literalism, but it presents us with a double based upon your own standards used in aanother thread on "audience backround knowledge" (e.g. making the baptism connection).

This non-argument deserves no further consideration and it will receive none by myself.

Vinnie

Bernard Muller

Amaleq13, you wrote this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I offered the following objection to the passage's authenticity:
It is factually inaccurate since the Jews, even if they had been allowed to execute Jesus, would not have used the Roman method of crucifixion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the record, I also think 1Th2:14-16 is a latter Christian interpolations. From one of my pages:

>> 1Th2:14-16 is an obvious post-70C.E., post-gospel and anti-Jewish addition, which Paul could not have written:
"... the Jews [of Jerusalem], who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets [as in Mt23:34,37, Lk11:49-50,13:34] and also drove us out .... They ... are hostile to all men. ... In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come
[notice the tense: it happened already!]
` upon them at last.
[reference to the events of 70C.E. (as in Mt21:40-41a) which occurred twenty years after the letter was written!]"
Needless to say, what is exposed in this passage (such as extreme anti-Semitism) does not appear in any other Paul's letters. <<

Best regards, Bernard

Amaleq13

Listing my reasons for considering 1Thess2:14-16 to be an interpolation, I wrote:
It is factually inaccurate since the Jews, even if they had been allowed to execute Jesus, would not have used the Roman method of crucifixion.

Vinnie replied:
And it has no more validity today than it did then.

There is no similarity between the two issues and you have yet to show otherwise. Assuming an historical context, it makes no sense for Paul to accuse the Jews of killing Jesus when it was clearly done by Roman hands. If the word "conspired" were added, this objection would disappear. Even within a mythical context, we would expect Paul to recognize the historical reality that the Jews didn't use the Roman method of execution and avoid making such an implausible accusation. This passage only makes sense as a later interpolation when blaming the Jews was popular and the historical realities not as well known.

"...for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us..."(KJV)

I was originally willing to accept your suggestion that we need not interpret this accusation literally but, upon further consideration, I don't think that it has any credibility. The blame for the murder of Jesus is given along with the blame for killing their own prophets and persecuting Christians. It does not seem legitimate to suggest that we selectively interpret the one portion of the reference as "spiritual" when the other two are clearly intended literally.

With regard to the baptism issue, you suggested that we, for some unexplained reason, should have expected Mark to make an explicit connection between the baptism of Jesus and that of his Christian audience. The absence of such a connection somehow, according to you, requires us to assume an historical Jesus. I responded, and still contend, that this is a ridiculous argument. We have no reason to expect Mark to make such a connection for his audience and the absence of such a connection appears to be entirely irrelevant to questions of historicity.

After rereading my post, I think I need to be more clear about my reference to Mark's audience. When I say that they would have made the connection, I am not suggesting they would assume that they were baptized because Jesus was baptized. I would expect that sort of claim to be a much later development in Christian thinking. I was saying that Mark's audience would connect their own experience of baptism with that of Jesus (i.e. rebirth as a new being).

That's fine with me. The other two objections are clearly sufficient all by themselves.

Vinnie

""""1Th2:14-16 is an obvious post-70C.E., post-gospel and anti-Jewish addition"""""

Bernard, you are more careful than that! "Obvious" is much too strong a word even if only for the fact that the majority of exegetes accept the passages authenticity and do not see at as post 70 C.E.

Its only "obvious" once the passage is seen as an interpolation. Thats begs the question of how one "obviously" determines its been interpolated.

Amaleq13, I actually just finished arguing for that passage's authenticity. My review of chapter one of Dhoerty's work is almost complete. My refutation of arguments for this passages inauthenticity are complete at this time. So those two reasons can't run for long

I need a few days to finalize my review of chapter one, then I need to email Kirby as its being hosted on two sites, my own and did jesus exist. Then it will be available--the first chapter anyways.

I was thinking of haing it reviewed by a few people before publication though so it may take a little longer.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Why didn't you say so then

I left Rick hanging in there...bout time I wandered back in....