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: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-29-2006, 08:24 AM   #181
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richbee
So, does "modern scholarship" have more ancient evidence to work from?
As I keep saying, I don't know anything about it. I am not a scholar in this area and know very little about it. My point is that your OP claimed to summarize the state of modern scholarship, and was completely inaccurate in doing so. Do you deny it? Do you still claim, for example, that the consensus of modern scholarship is that the gospels were written soon after Jesus' death by the apostles, who were eye-witnesses to his life and execution? Please note, I'm not asking what actually happened, but what the consensus of modern scholarship believes about what happened, because that is what your thread purports to be about.
TomboyMom is offline  
Old 03-29-2006, 08:56 AM   #182
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richbee
So, does "modern scholarship" have more ancient evidence to work from?
No, it has established methodologies that can be applied to all ancient texts without regard to personal preferences or religious faith.
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 03-29-2006, 09:47 AM   #183
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Houston Area
Posts: 3,813
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richbee
It reminds me that I can't take this topic too seriously, and especially myself.
I think this is an imporant point. You take the subject of jesus way too seriously, thinking it is the most important thing on earth and basing your whole life on it.

To us it's just an intellectual exercise and a matter of curiousity about how people can believe this stuff. If we ever see a reason to take it seriously, maybe we will.
jackrabbit is offline  
Old 03-29-2006, 01:40 PM   #184
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richbee
Thanks, I needed a good laugh! Personally, I think Jesus is big enough to laugh with us!
Jesus wept in the gospels. Did he ever laugh?

Quote:
It reminds me that I can't take this topic too seriously, and especially myself.
Excuse me - you are a committed Christian but you don't take Jesus or his resurrection seriously?

Quote:
I admit, that I can't convince skeptics by posting the evidence or the testimony of Evangelical scholars.
You have finally said something we can all agree on.

Quote:
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happinesss....." - Thomas Jefferson

Peace and Happy Easter!
Jefferson was, of course, a Deist and only a Christian if you stretch the word like silly putty. In particular, the idea that the pursuit of Happiness is a good thing is not in the Bible.

The gospel character of Jesus said he did not come to bring peace, and he was right. Why do some Christian celebrate Easter on April 16 of this year, and other Christians on April 23, when they should all be celebrating it on or around Passover, April 13?
Toto is offline  
Old 03-29-2006, 07:15 PM   #185
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 287
Default

Richbee, what happened to you over on the Tyre thread?
Did you forget about it?
Farrell and and I and others are all waiting for you to respond to our comments and questions.
noah is offline  
Old 03-29-2006, 08:45 PM   #186
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomboyMom
So Richbee, are you still asserting that the consensus of modern scholarship supports your ten facts? Do you have any support for that assertion, or are you ready to retract it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richbee
*crickets*
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomboyMom
Your OP made some claims about what the consensus of modern scholarship believes. They were false. CX's post correctly described what the consensus of modern scholarship does believe. Why is that funny? Are you disputing that CS's characterization is closer to what the consensus of modern scholarship believes than yours?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richbee
*crickets*
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomboyMom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richbee
An old canard:Gospel writers were not eyewitnesses to the evidence - blah - blah.
As I keep saying, this is the consensus of modern scholarship, which is what your thread is supposed to be about, and which you have not denied. (Whether it is true I don't know, as I am not a modern scholar myself.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richbee
*crickets*
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomboyMom
My point is that your OP claimed to summarize the state of modern scholarship, and was completely inaccurate in doing so. Do you deny it? Do you still claim, for example, that the consensus of modern scholarship is that the gospels were written soon after Jesus' death by the apostles, who were eye-witnesses to his life and execution? Please note, I'm not asking what actually happened, but what the consensus of modern scholarship believes about what happened, because that is what your thread purports to be about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richbee
*crickets*
At what point do you think it's proper to conclude from a failure to reply, an inability or unwillingness to reply, probably because to do so would reveal a weakness in the argument of the person who has not replied?
TomboyMom is offline  
Old 03-30-2006, 05:51 PM   #187
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomboyMom
At what point do you think it's proper to conclude from a failure to reply, an inability or unwillingness to reply, probably because to do so would reveal a weakness in the argument of the person who has not replied?
I'd say about now.
TomboyMom is offline  
Old 03-31-2006, 08:08 AM   #188
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: vienna/austria
Posts: 66
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13
No, it has established methodologies that can be applied to all ancient texts without regard to personal preferences or religious faith.
I may not have to remind you, perhaps, of the curious (and trivial) fact that in all times scholars, based on "established methodologies", did arrive at different conclusions about the same text.

Michael
michael wellenberg is offline  
Old 03-31-2006, 08:19 AM   #189
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michael wellenberg
I may not have to remind you, perhaps, of the curious (and trivial) fact that in all times scholars, based on "established methodologies", did arrive at different conclusions about the same text.
And I probably don't have to remind you that those different conclusions tend to have more to do with the absence of "without regard to personal preferences or religious faith" than anything else.
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 03-31-2006, 07:26 PM   #190
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 20
Default

Chili, I suppose I did miss it, however, your biblical source for this would be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chili
John was the reborn Joseph after Jesus was crucified.

When Joseph 'got' reborn he was called Jesus and had two identities. One was human as Jesus-the-Jew and the other was Christ the-son-man (or son of God whichever you prefer). The point is that with two identities he was no longer Joseph and was called Jesus who was later crucified on his own cross, which was the burden he carried for the sins he committed as Joseph the Jew. It is for these sins that he would now be condemned an dit is on these sins that he was crucified; ie. the were his burden and therefore his cross….etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson
According to John Chapman, "Papias on the Age of Our Lord," Journal of Theological Studies, old series, 9 (1907): 42-61, it was a blunder by Irenaeus who misunderstood Papias's term "perfect age" (cf. perfectae aetatis in Victorinus, De Fabrica Mundi 9) as nearing 50 instead of the mid-30s.
Let me be sure I understand your source and your source’s acquaintance correctly. Nothing is known of Papias’ life first of all, and the only references we have of him are from others such as Irenaeus and Eusebius. Papias, presumed to have lived sometime between 70 and 163AD, while, Irenaeus is assumed to have had his breath of life anywhere from 115 to 191AD, and we are to believe a 20th century apologist that he himself knew better what Papias tried to state versus what Irenaeus understood? Now I ask this of you, both men were declared saints, should lying or misinformed men be proclaimed saints? And, if a scant 40 years separated these two, would you please be so kind as to explain why they would vary so in interpretation of a very young doctrine/story? Follow that up with an explanation as to why it requires someone from 1800+ years hence to set the record straight?

My words of wisdom now—Since the very early church fathers were not in agreement with the historicity of Jesus as is accepted today, that should be a clue to all who would accept the current doctrine as absolute truth that the story has been vetted and politicized by those who always write history---the victorious.
MJ67 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:10 PM.

Top

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