Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 09-27-2009, 12:58 AM

IBelieveInHymn doesn't seem particularly well adapted for dealing with the material in the o.p. Could we please stop responding to him here.

The discussion is about Goodman's response to the question "How do we even know that there WAS a Jesus who said anything?" and IBelieveInHymn isn't equipped to deal with that.

spin

Kapyong · 09-27-2009, 08:51 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

The authors of the N.T were well known, and well respected historians.

The authors of the Gospels were completely unknown.

The Jesus of Nazareth story springs from ONE source - G.Mark, written by an unknown person in Rome (probably) who never met Jesus.

Everyone else just copied or embellished that one story, which was itself crafted from elements of the OT, and Paul's writings, and a few classical allusions.

G.Mark was a masterpiece of religious literature.

Jesus is a myth.

K.

aa5874 · 09-27-2009, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

.......Everyone else just copied or embellished that one story, which was itself crafted from elements of the OT, and Paul's writings, and a few classical allusions.....

There is really no good evidence that anyone copied the writings of Paul. The information found about Jesus in the Pauline writings could have easily come from the Gospels, however the reverse is hardly likely. Almost all the information in the Gospels about Jesus did NOT come from the Pauline Epistles. The information is simply not there.

In the Pauline writings, Jesus was betrayed in the night, crucified, resurrected after the third day, ascended to heaven and is coming back a second time. That is basically all there is all about Jesus.

The details needed to fabricate the Jesus stories are completely missing in the Pauline writings and the so-called failed prophecy, the return of Jesus, is already resolved in the Pauline letters.

There are no sayings of Jesus in the Pauline letters, no geographical locations for the movements of Jesus, no miracles, no acquaintances of Jesus, nothing about Mary Magdalene and the other women who followed Jesus.

Mark's Jesus was in Capernaum, Galilee, Jerusalem, Gadarenes, Gennesaret, the borders of Tyre and Sidon, Decapolis, Dalmunatha, Bethsaida, Caesarea Philipi, and other parts of Judaea.

The Pauline writers did not even mention that Jesus was in Galilee.

Now, another indication that the Pauline writings were late is that the long-ending or the late ending of gMark is compatible with information found in the PAULINE LETTERS.

Look at Mark 16.17-18

Quote:

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Paul claimed he spoke in tongues and in Acts Saul/Paul was bitten by a snake but survived.

1Corinthians 14:18 -

Quote:

I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all...

Acts 28.3-5

Quote:

3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.

4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.

5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm

.

It would appear that it was the late ending of Mark that used the Pauline Epistles, the earlier gMark did not.

There is no good evidence that any Gospel writer used the Pauline Epistles for their Jesus stories since there are virtually ZERO biography, geography, history and theology of Jesus on earth.

spin · 09-27-2009, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

The authors of the N.T were well known, and well respected historians.

The authors of the Gospels were completely unknown.

The Jesus of Nazareth story springs from ONE source - G.Mark, written by an unknown person in Rome (probably) who never met Jesus.

Everyone else just copied or embellished that one story, which was itself crafted from elements of the OT, and Paul's writings, and a few classical allusions.

G.Mark was a masterpiece of religious literature.

Jesus is a myth.

K.

I asked people not to deal with IBelieveInHymn's musings. You can rattle IBelieveInHymn's cage elsewhere.

There is no real way to get from what you said earlier in this message to "Jesus is a myth", which merely appears to be one of your tenets. Putting up one's tenets as a means of dealing with someone else's views is not a functional way of making progress. And, in fact, it has little apparent connection with the O.P.

spin

No Robots · 09-28-2009, 07:56 AM

What's to stop this from turning into another squabble about Tacitus, Suetonius, Paul and the Talmud?

funinspace · 09-28-2009, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

The authors of the N.T were well known, and well respected historians. I don't see any reason why they would drift off into wonderland, and create this story about a Jewish Rabbi that performed miracles for sick and dying people.

IBIH, this really isn't that hard to figure out. You don't need to believe anyone here to figure it out. Just open up the introduction to any modern study Bible. It is quite clear that our (humanity's) knowledge regarding the Gospels collective authorship is weak at best. It's hardly even an atheist claim...

Here is just one source:
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/intro.htm

Quote:

The questions of authorship, sources, and the time of composition of this gospel have received many answers, none of which can claim more than a greater or lesser degree of probability. The one now favored by the majority of scholars is the following.
The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/intro.htm

Quote:

Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. John 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work. The prologue (John 1:1-18) apparently contains an independent hymn, subsequently adapted to serve as a preface to the gospel. Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies, e.g., there are two endings of Jesus' discourse in the upper room (John 14:31; 18:1). To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements that would produce a smoother order. However, most have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original.
Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style. For instance, some of the wondrous deeds of Jesus have been worked into highly effective dramatic scenes (John 9); there has been a careful attempt to have these followed by discourses that explain them (John 5; 6); and the sayings of Jesus have been woven into long discourses of a quasi-poetic form resembling the speeches of personified Wisdom in the Old Testament.
The gospel contains many details about Jesus not found in the synoptic gospels, e.g., that Jesus engaged in a baptizing ministry (John 3:22) before he changed to one of preaching and signs; that Jesus' public ministry lasted for several years (see the note on John 2:13); that he traveled to Jerusalem for various festivals and met serious opposition long before his death (John 2:14-25; 5; 7-8); and that he was put to death on the day before Passover (John l8:28). These events are not always in chronological order because of the development and editing that took place. However, the accuracy of much of the detail of the fourth gospel constitutes a strong argument that the Johannine tradition rests upon the testimony of an eyewitness. Although tradition identified this person as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this.

semiopen · 09-28-2009, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

The authors of the N.T were well known, and well respected historians. I don't see any reason why they would drift off into wonderland, and create this story about a Jewish Rabbi that performed miracles for sick and dying people.

I think it's sheer lunacy to discredit Jesus Christ as a historical figure.

Kind of weird that when people talk about "Rabbi" Jesus, they mean it as a complement.

Dark Virtue · 09-28-2009, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

The authors of the N.T were well known, and well respected historians. I don't see any reason why they would drift off into wonderland, and create this story about a Jewish Rabbi that performed miracles for sick and dying people.

I think it's sheer lunacy to discredit Jesus Christ as a historical figure.

If they were well known and well respected, please tell us who they were.

I think we're all ready for you to admit you were seriously wrong on this one.

WilliamFearless · 09-28-2009, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

I think it's sheer lunacy to discredit Jesus Christ as a historical figure.

I disagree. Why not try to calculate his Lord Raglan score some time?

Ok, here you go-

Lord Raglan hero score:

Oedipus scores 21
Theseus scores 20
Moses scores 20
Dionysus scores 19
Jesus scores 19
Romulus scores 18
Perseus scores 18
Hercules scores 17
Llew Llaw Gyffes scores 17
Bellerophon scores 16
Jason scores 15
Mwindo scores 14
Robin Hood scores 13
Pelops scores 13
Apollo scores 11
Sigurd scores 11

IBelieveInHymn · 09-29-2009, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Virtue

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

The authors of the N.T were well known, and well respected historians. I don't see any reason why they would drift off into wonderland, and create this story about a Jewish Rabbi that performed miracles for sick and dying people.

I think it's sheer lunacy to discredit Jesus Christ as a historical figure.

If they were well known and well respected, please tell us who they were.

I think we're all ready for you to admit you were seriously wrong on this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

09-27-2009, 12:58 AM	#11
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Can we stick to the topic? IBelieveInHymn doesn't seem particularly well adapted for dealing with the material in the o.p. Could we please stop responding to him here. The discussion is about Goodman's response to the question "How do we even know that there WAS a Jesus who said anything?" and IBelieveInHymn isn't equipped to deal with that. spin

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

09-28-2009, 07:56 AM	#15
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	What's to stop this from turning into another squabble about Tacitus, Suetonius, Paul and the Talmud?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.