spin

Is it just a strong implication that you exist?


spin

spin

I was interested in the irony.


spin

bacht

heh, usually lost on the diehards in my experience (that "thinking outside the box" thing)

you're one of the people I look forward to reading here spin, and the humor is part of that

spin

I assume you have a good crap filter.


spin

youngalexander

Good question, but let him speak;

The book I propose would take the approach of arguing first and foremost for a logical historical method that all reasonable people could agree on, which would allow any objective investigator to ascertain whether Jesus probably did or didn't exist, simply by plugging in the facts known to them. Then my book would survey what I find to be the most important facts, and apply the presented method to them to demonstrate what my view now is and why, and how it could be changed (since new facts, or legitimate corrections to the facts I use, could change my conclusion, and this may happen even in the course of my final research for the book, but in any case the result will be my honest and well-informed expert opinion).

from Richard Carrier has an offer

JoeWallack

JW:
Again, the context here is moving. Trying to expand the context to only different locations gives false analogies. The key to the moving context is SEQUENCE and not date. From A to B. Try the following example:

1) After C was born his family moved to Pittsburgh.

2) After C was born his family moved to Arkansas.

Is this a contradiction? I think it is. Each has an implication that there were no moves in between. Now try 1) and 2) within a narrative (like "Matthew" and "Luke"). Now the implication is even stronger that there were no moves in between.

So the only error is yours by trying to expand the context beyond the moving context given by "Matthew" and "Luke". My claimed error is not saying that "Matthew" and "Luke" show different moves at the same time in relation to when they say Jesus was born. That is your strawman. My claimed error is that after Jesus was born, "Matthew" and "Luke" show Jesus' family moving to different locations.

JW:
If you look at the underlying Greek (rarely done at Tweeb, I know) Herod orders the murder of the infants in a much larger area than just Bethlehem. So this supports that he is also expanding the age range.

JW:
You just can't decide if it's not a contradiction or it is but I have not properly explained it. I have edited my description from "go to" to "moved to" at ErrancyWiki Matthew 2:14 which does make the error clearer. Thanks for the feedback.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

JW:
JW:
For starters I think you are repeating Ehrman's error here, but it's not the one you claim above. On page 39 Ehrman writes:

The same as what you wrote. You follow Ehrman though with an implication that Jesus was baptized in "John". Reading just "John" though there is not much implication that Jesus was baptized. "John" gives us no reason to think that his Jesus needed to be baptized. The theological use of JtB has been transitioned from baptizing Jesus to create the setting for revelation of Jesus as God's son ("Mark") to direct witnessing of Jesus as God's son for historical witness ("John").

I think most Bible scholars think "John" has an implication that Jesus was baptized but I think he was not per "John" because:

1) "John" does not narrate it.

2) "John" has no theological reason to have Jesus baptized.

3) The bridge Gospel "Matthew" shows Jesus' baptism, in the words of the Catechism in the tall Hat, as "Awkwarrrd."

4) "John" is familiar with "Mark" and often makes a point of refusing to follow "Mark's" lead.

Welcome to another contradiction:

Was Jesus Baptized?



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

JW:
Despite your claim that Ehrman makes a "huge blunder" here, we would agree that the most important issue is whether there is a contradiction here in the Christian Bible:

Mark 1:9-12

JW:
As I mentioned previously, I don't think "John", in its current version, intended to show Jesus as baptized by JtB. So the comparison to "John" for possible contradiction here, as to chronology, should be what Jesus did after JtB saw him for the first time rather than what Jesus did after he was baptized. As to action, I've already indicated that I think "John" contradicts "Mark" as to whether Jesus was baptized:

John 1:19-36

JW:
The temporal reference is mixed as JtB appears to be addressing the characters (Text) and the Reader (Sub-text). This creates the chronological problem of when exactly is JtB referring to Jesus? My guess is that this chronological problem is caused by JtB as originally written here is cast as a historical witness but the audience is the Text, while edited JtB is cast as a historical witness to the Reader. This fully completes the cycle of "Mark's" JtB being a character for the purpose of Revelation to the Reader and "John" making the mazimum transition to JtB providing direct historical witness to the Reader.

Nothing is clear here but I think the meaning as written is that the witness to the characters initially stops at 27. Up to that time JtB provides no reason to think that he has met Jesus. He knows what he is but not who he is. 28 starts narrative without witnessing to a specific character. 29 is in the 3rd person and looks like it is narrative as to what JtB said than, but he was no longer reporting to the Pharisees. 29-31 indicate that this is the first time JtB saw Jesus. 32-34 do not have anything directly 2nd person and are again consistent as only narrative of what JtB said and not part of a report to the Pharisees. 35 and 36 clearly go into a 3rd person narrative which is explicitly the day after JtB first meets Jesus.

The initial context of the excerpt, a report to the Pharisees, makes it possible that the author intent is that the entire story here is a report to the Pharisees, but the consistent changes in JtB's audience here make it likely that the report to the Pharisees stops at 27 and the chronology is in (un)real time after that.

So we have likely contradiction that after JtB first sees Jesus, "Mark's" Jesus goes into the wilderness while "John's" Jesus returns to JtB to troll for disciples. We have similar support to the where did Jesus' family move to after he was born contradiction as per "John" Jesus would have no reason to go into the wilderness.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Sea

You do make a good point about the Gospel of John not mentioning Jesus being baptized, specifically. The "Spirit descending as a dove" is tied to the baptism accounts in the other Gospels and John 1:31 implies John's "baptizing" was somehow used to make Jesus "manifested to Israel", but since baptism itself isn't mentioned here I don't mind discussing whether the Gospels conflict on where Jesus went immediately after John the Baptist saw the "Spirit descending as a dove," accompanied by a baptism or not.

Agreed, so long as the "provides no reason to think" qualifier also applies to "[h]e knows [...] who he is." We can't draw a positive conclusion that John the Baptist was ignorant of Jesus' identity at that point, only that the identity is not mentioned.

He isn't witnessing to a specific character. However, he is witnessing to one or more people who knew what he said the previous day. If we consider it a historical event, he would have either been speaking to some of the "priests and Levites" or to his own followers who heard the exchange on the previous day.

I do understand how the Gospel of John could be read in such a way that verses 29-34 are addressed to the reader, since the reader "heard" the exchange on the previous day too. However, doing so would be begging the question of unhistoricity. Alleging Biblical contradictions requires assuming the historicity of all Biblical narratives, then showing an inconsistency which demonstrates not all of the narratives can be historical.

So you must assume -- at least for the sake of argument -- that John the Baptist was addressing hostile Jews, his own followers, or someone else present the prior day; not the readers of the Gospel of John.

Verses 29 through 31 are not necessarily a report to the same people who questioned him the previous day. But it is a report which refers to seeing Jesus at the present time (v 29 & 30 "Behold" and "this is"), speaking about Jesus in the past (v 30), not recognizing Jesus in the past (v 31), beginning his baptizing career in the past (v 31), and seeing the Spirit descending in the past (v 31).

It is at the very least plausible that John the Baptist failed to recognize Jesus then saw the Spirit descending on some earlier date, just as he started his baptizing career and spoke about Jesus on earlier dates.

You aren't justified in concluding, "29-31 indicate that this is the first time JtB saw Jesus." At most, they may allow your interpretation if the past tense non-recognition and Spirit witnessing were along the lines of "a few moments ago."

Of course the report stops at verse 27. Even if the Pharisees came back the next day and heard the second monologue, the first report would have stopped at verse 27. Or if the monologue the next day were historical and the audience was composed of John's followers who heard the report to the Pharisees, the first report would have stopped at verse 27.

There isn't a dichotomy here of either the Pharisees were the audience the second day or the second day report is "in (un)real time."

Except your conclusion that John 1:29-34 was the first time John the baptist saw Jesus is perhaps allowed by the text, but not close to being shown by the text. Verse 32 is not in present tense. Nor does the narrative action describe the Spirit descending on that day.

Essentially you're saying there is a contradiction here if you strain to interpret the text an odd way.

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing with the list of Contradictions per Ehrman's book I am now on the category of Discrepancies involving Paul:

1) Where did Paul go after his conversion?

Galatians 1.15-18 = Arabia

verses:

Acts 9.18-26 = Stayed in Damascus and than Jerusalem


Enjoy!



Joseph

ErrancyWiki