FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-03-2003, 06:58 PM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Default

WinACE, Q is not found in the New Testament. Substantial Portions of this now lost sayings Gospel are now found embedded within the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

[/quote]Archaelogy subjects I've studied, and other historical documents from those periods do not support the bible in general, either Old or New Testaments. [/quote]

I'm not interested in the Old Testament and that is too vague for me to offer up a decent response.

Quote:
I do not consider anything in the bible having any value as accurate history, or being evidence for Jesus.
Why not?

Quote:
No non-Christian writer from the period even mentions Jesus, except for the faked passage from Josephus. If Jesus was that famous, known throughout the land, etc, why did noone other than Christian writers mention him?
Because Jesus wasn't as famous then as he is today. You have fallen victim to Anachronism.

There are no non-Christian writers who SHOULD have mentioned Jesus. He was just a rabble-rouser crucified in the backwaters of the Roman Empire. We've been though this several times. Iason's list is useless.

Quote:
The tales in the bible are myths, no different from Roman gods, Egyptian gods, Norse gods, Greek gods, or any other fables. They are fables, myth, not true, campfire stories.

Even if some of the characters in there existed, the stories around them are nothing but tales.
Easier said than demonstrated. There is of course lots of fiction and mythology in the Bible.

Vinnie
Vinnie is offline  
Old 11-03-2003, 08:20 PM   #22
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
Posts: 1,734
Thumbs up Interesting

Quote:
Originally posted by Vinnie
If you've read Paula Fredriksen you would know that the real question that needs answering is "Why was Jesus killed but not his followers?"That is the riddle wrapped in the enigma hidden behind the fridge

Vinnie

Meta: That is an interesting question Vinnie. What do you think?


Perhaps because they didn't want to provoke an uprising?
Metacrock is offline  
Old 11-03-2003, 08:22 PM   #23
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
Posts: 1,734
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Vinnie
WinACE, Q is not found in the New Testament. Substantial Portions of this now lost sayings Gospel are now found embedded within the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Archaelogy subjects I've studied, and other historical documents from those periods do not support the bible in general, either Old or New Testaments. [/quote]

I'm not interested in the Old Testament and that is too vague for me to offer up a decent response.



Why not?



Because Jesus wasn't as famous then as he is today. You have fallen victim to Anachronism.

There are no non-Christian writers who SHOULD have mentioned Jesus. He was just a rabble-rouser crucified in the backwaters of the Roman Empire. We've been though this several times. Iason's list is useless.



Easier said than demonstrated. There is of course lots of fiction and mythology in the Bible.

Vinnie
[/QUOTE]


Meta: Agree! and also, that's only if you ignore Jo. I know there is the never ending debate over the validity of the TF, but most scholars seem to feel the core mention is authentic. Moreover, there are two passages.


there are other first century mentions by non Christians but all are problematic:

(1) Mishna Based upon first century material, but not really written until 2-4th.

(2) Celsus: not surviving in first hand material, coming through 2nd or third hand references.

(3) Thallus: Pretty much same problem. I think he was first cent. I have to refresh my memeory.
Metacrock is offline  
Old 11-03-2003, 09:15 PM   #24
Beloved Deceased
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Carrboro, NC
Posts: 1,539
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Vinnie
WinACE, Q is not found in the New Testament. Substantial Portions of this now lost sayings Gospel are now found embedded within the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
But without knowing how the rest goes, or even if there were more portions than what AMt and ALk incorporated, how can you tell if it's found in the NT or not?

It is, of course, found at least partially...
WinAce is offline  
Old 11-03-2003, 09:32 PM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Smile

You know what, I am absolutely convinced that shorter refernece in Josephus is more important for the historicity of Jesus. Of course they are tied together but the shorter one has the crucial element of Jesus brother James which is found elsewhere in 3-5 independent references in the first century. In two the link is inferred so that aren't probative but it just shows how common this knowledge was. The other two include Paul (first stratum--interpolation special pleading by skeptics not withstanding) and Mark (second stratum--embarrassing details).

The larger refernce has two problems:

1) Any reconstructions are really just guessing (even if educated like Meier vocab stats) what Josephus said. Its not probative.

2) Mythicists can claim Jo was writing what he recently heard about a growing Christian sect which started (according to their version of the evidence) off in the forties as a cosmic Christ myth.

Besides, the shorter reference has presumption and I get to accuse would be denyers of special pleading or working from less clear data to clear data when the good historian would do the opposite

Vinnie
Vinnie is offline  
Old 11-03-2003, 09:39 PM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by WinAce
But without knowing how the rest goes, or even if there were more portions than what AMt and ALk incorporated, how can you tell if it's found in the NT or not?

It is, of course, found at least partially...
This is relatively easy. Without getting too complex:

In all probability Matthew and Luke used different versions of Q.
Q was very fluid.
Its extent can be inferred by how much Matthew and Luke repinted//respected portions of Marj and Q now extant.

See kloppenborg on the extent of Q in Formation, starting on p 80.

First off it seems probable that most of Q is reprinted but I stand by my statement. Q is not in the Bible.

Matthew and Luke edited its content and order at various points. There is no straightforward text of Q there. Substantial portions of Q are embedded in Matthew or Luke.

Vinnie
Vinnie is offline  
Old 11-04-2003, 06:57 AM   #27
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: the dark side of Mars
Posts: 1,309
Default

Quote:
[i]Easier said than demonstrated. There is of course lots of fiction and mythology in the Bible.

Vinnie [/B]
I disagree. I think it's easier demonstrated than said.
The bible is just a bunch of books voted on by the council of Nicea in 325. There is no support at all for anything in the bible outside the bible itself.
Archaeology and other historical documents from those time periods offer no support for the bible as an historical document, other than to study the customs of the people who wrote the books.
Radcliffe Emerson is offline  
Old 11-06-2003, 12:33 AM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Default

""""""Jesus never existed and was made up in the bible stories. """"""""

Here is the thread if you want to participate. I've proven the existence of an HJ in there

<------- =



http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...88#post1263888

Vinnie
Vinnie is offline  
Old 11-10-2003, 10:49 AM   #29
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Vinnie
You know what, I am absolutely convinced that shorter refernece in Josephus is more important for the historicity of Jesus. Of course they are tied together but the shorter one has the crucial element of Jesus brother James which is found elsewhere in 3-5 independent references in the first century.
I'm not sure about your number of "independent references" (I'm familiar with 2) but, to my knowledge, the earlier references to Josephus as containing such a phrase seem to place that phrase in a different portion of the text than it now stands. That doesn't really recommend accepting it as genuine.

Paul doesn't refer to James as "the brother of Jesus" but as "the brother of the Lord" so that doesn't really qualify as an independent reference.

Zindler (Jesus the Jews Never Knew)has a pretty good section calling the legitimacy of the short reference into question. He notes that Photius refers to Josephus but never thinks to mention any references to Jesus. Zindler also notes that Photius referred to James as "brother of the Lord".

The short reference ends up being no more credible than the Testimonium.
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 11-11-2003, 03:11 AM   #30
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 9,159
Default

In all of the gospels we have pilate asking the crowd what they want done with Jesus. It is the crowd that asks for crucifiction. If the Sanhedrin played a role in the gospels it was that they urged both the crowd and pilate to act.

It is indicated in all of the gospels that Pilate finds no fault with which to put him to death. It also seems the gospels either flatly state or strongly imply that the Jews do not have authority to sentence him to death.

In other words, it was a lynch mob Pilate "sanctioned" according to the only "evidence" we have. What he died for is unclear to me then. If he was so popular then what the hell are the people asking him to be crucified for?

I have two questions then. First, is there any evidence that Pilate had this custom of asking the crowd what he was supposed to do with an accused man - especially when he found insufficient fault?

Second, where is the speculation arising that something besides the gospel accounts happened?

(Well, besides the very reasonable supposition that he didn't exist in the first place)
rlogan is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:54 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.