Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 08-01-2008, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So you don't need any evidence for faith in God.

Correct.

Quote:

Some say the Universe is evidence for some kind of God.

I have considered that. But I am not certain enough to put it forward as such.

Quote:

Well, that is extremely odd since the NT only presents a Jesus who was both God and man. I wonder which credible book has information that Jesus was a just man?

How did Jesus being a just man come into this discussion?

Quote:

Evidence for the HJ? What, where, when and which book?

I repeat:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

...and no, I am not offering to debate that point here and now....

Ben.

aa5874 · 08-01-2008, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So you don't need any evidence for faith in God.

Correct.

How did Jesus being a just man come into this discussion?

It should have read "just a man"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

...and no, I am not offering to debate that point here and now....

You don't want to discuss the OP.

You have shattered the myth that Jesus was God and man. You have rejected and destroyed the God/man of the NT.

You should tell me how you did it, how you shattered the God/man, whatever his real name was and have produced just a man.

ChristMyth · 08-01-2008, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristMyth

The idea that this Jesus was "Christ" however is still something that needs to be shown to be valid. In my mind, it is his divinity that is in question.

Leaving aside the question of what your understanding of "divine" is, as well as whether it corresponds to what the ancients thought such an appellation connoted, can you please provide your evidence that any first century Jew, including members of the Jesus movement, ever thought that calling someone "the Christ/the Christ of God" (cf. Ps. Solomon 17) was tantamount to calling someone "god"? When Rabbi Akiva called Simen Bar Kokhba "Christ", was he asserting that Bar Kokhba was "god"? Did the Rabbis who reported the tradition of what Akiva said about Bar Kokhba think Akiva was acknowledging Bar Kokhba as "divine" or asserting his "divinity"?

Can you also tell me what, if anything, in the scholarly literature on the subject of the meaning of the title "christ" you have read? I'm trying to gain some idea of how informed you are on the matter of NT christology and Jewish Messianic expectation.

Jeffrey

Hello, Jeffery

I will admit my reading is more than woefully limited in the area. It something I hope to remedy sometime, but between 12 hours of college and 40 hours of work, my time is very limited at the moment.

What I wrote was strictly based upon my own opinon and nothing more. I am always open to having it changed if the proper argument is made in favor either way when it comes right down to it. My stance is sort of "fence sitting" when I really think about it, since I am not informed enough to make a judgement on wither Jesus was a real man or just plain myth. Really, as I stated, it makes no difference to me.

When I speak of "Christ" I am only refering to what is portrayed in the Gospel texts and is interperted by the what I have been taught those text to mean. It is the miracle working, walking on water, GJohn's divine Jesus who was from the very beginning "Christ" that I question and consider to be myth.

Of course, I could always be wrong.

Christmyth

Jeffrey Gibson · 08-01-2008, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristMyth

It is the miracle working, walking on water, GJohn's divine Jesus who was from the very beginning "Christ" that I question and consider to be myth.

But even in GJohn, there's no notion that (the) "Christ", let alone Jesus, was/is from the "(very?) beginning", let alone that the title "Christ" = God or that calling someone "christ" was the equivalent saying he was, as later credal statements put it, God of God, of one substance with the father, etc.

Besides that, all of the things that are said of the Logos in GJohn were also being said by those to whom John says the Logos "came" (i.e., "his own" =Jews) of the Torah, the embodiment of the "divine" Wisdom spoken of in Wisdom of Solomon, etc. So I think you need to rethink what it is that people were doing when they said that X was "with God", "pre-existent", etc., let alone what they were attributing to persons whom they called "the anointed (of the Lord).

You might also want to look at the discussion of the import of the contemporary "pagan" stories of the emperors and kings who proclaimed their ability to "walk on water" in Adella Collin's Hermeneia Commentary on Mark (or via: amazon.co.uk) to check to see if your understanding of what the evangelists are doing when they depict Jesus engaged in this activity is correct, or wthere you are reading into it an understanding of what is being declared there about Jesus that isn't there.

Jeffrey

Steven Carr · 08-02-2008, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

<skip>
You might also want to look at the discussion of the import of the contemporary "pagan" stories of the emperors and kings who proclaimed their ability to "walk on water" in Adella Collin's Hermeneia Commentary on Mark (or via: amazon.co.uk) to check to see if your understanding of what the evangelists are doing when they depict Jesus engaged in this activity is correct, or wthere you are reading into it an understanding of what is being declared there about Jesus that isn't there.

I thought Holding had smashed, obliterated and annihilated the idea that stories of Jesus are similar to pagan stories.

Perhaps the scholarship in Holding's book is not up to the normal scholarly standards of ex-prison librarians.

Jeffrey Gibson · 08-02-2008, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

<skip>
You might also want to look at the discussion of the import of the contemporary "pagan" stories of the emperors and kings who proclaimed their ability to "walk on water" in Adella Collin's Hermeneia Commentary on Mark (or via: amazon.co.uk) to check to see if your understanding of what the evangelists are doing when they depict Jesus engaged in this activity is correct, or wthere you are reading into it an understanding of what is being declared there about Jesus that isn't there.

I thought Holding had smashed, obliterated and annihilated the idea that stories of Jesus are similar to pagan stories.

Perhaps the scholarship in Holding's book is not up to the normal scholarly standards of ex-prison librarians.

And your scholarly qualifications are what?

Jeffrey

Steven Carr · 08-02-2008, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

I thought Holding had smashed, obliterated and annihilated the idea that stories of Jesus are similar to pagan stories.

Perhaps the scholarship in Holding's book is not up to the normal scholarly standards of ex-prison librarians.

And your scholarly qualifications are what?

Jeffrey

Another waste of space posting by Jeffrey.

Jeffrey Gibson · 08-02-2008, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

And your scholarly qualifications are what?

Jeffrey

Another waste of space posting by Jeffrey.

Tu sais rire de tout sauf de toi"

Jeffrey

JoeWallack · 08-03-2008, 07:11 PM

JW:
Jack-O wonders what the difference is between Eusebius quoting brief excerpts from Papias and having extant Papias:

http://www.textexcavation.com/papias.html#eusebius

Quote:

And the elder would say this: Mark, who had become the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, yet not in order, as many things as he remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings to the needs, but not making them as an ordering together of the lordly oracles, so that Mark did not sin having thus written certain things as he remembered them. For he made one provision, to leave out nothing of the things that he heard or falsify anything in them.

JW:
This seems clear that "interpreter" is being used as "translator" here. But consider:

http://www.textexcavation.com/papias.html#misc

Quote:

And is it possible that Clement of Alexandria preserves a gnostic version of this theme of a traditional agent being the interpreter of Peter? He writes in his Miscellanies 7.106.4 (chapter 17) that the heretics regard a certain Glaucias as both the teacher of Basilides and the interpreter of Peter (τον �*ετρου ερμηνεα). The entire passage runs as follows:

...

For the teaching of our Lord at his advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius Caesar, was finished in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero. And it was later, in the times of Hadrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder, like, for instance, Basilides, and he claims Glaucias as his teacher, as they themselves boast, the interpreter of Peter. Likewise they also allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul.

JW:
And so the orthodox confess that the Gnostics had their claimed link going back to Peter, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter. But here, does "interpreter" mean "interpreter"? Did Glaucias just "interpret" what Peter said or wrote just like, oh I don't know, like Paul interpreted earllier witness to Jesus? Is the orthodox claim that "Mark" was the "translator" of Peter actually a Reaction to a previous Gnostic claim which meant "Interpreter" or "Translator"? Why else would Eusebius' quote of Papias sound like an apology ("wrote accurately", "did not sin", "to leave out nothing of the things that he heard or falsify anything in them")? Regarding the discount this gives to the evidence here can JP get his head out of the Tacitus' Annals (comparison).

Also, we always seem to go back to Eusebius. He mentions the orthodox tradition of "Mark" as "translator" but not Glaucias as "interpreter" which he probably knew of.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

aa5874 · 08-04-2008, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Jack-O wonders what the difference is between Eusebius quoting brief excerpts from Papias and having extant Papias:

http://www.textexcavation.com/papias.html#eusebius

Quote:

And the elder would say this: Mark, who had become the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, yet not in order, as many things as he remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings to the needs, but not making them as an ordering together of the lordly oracles, so that Mark did not sin having thus written certain things as he remembered them. For he made one provision, to leave out nothing of the things that he heard or falsify anything in them.

JW:
This seems clear that "interpreter" is being used as "translator" here. But consider:

http://www.textexcavation.com/papias.html#misc

Quote:

And is it possible that Clement of Alexandria preserves a gnostic version of this theme of a traditional agent being the interpreter of Peter? He writes in his Miscellanies 7.106.4 (chapter 17) that the heretics regard a certain Glaucias as both the teacher of Basilides and the interpreter of Peter (τον �*ετρου ερμηνεα). The entire passage runs as follows:

...

For the teaching of our Lord at his advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius Caesar, was finished in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero. And it was later, in the times of Hadrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder, like, for instance, Basilides, and he claims Glaucias as his teacher, as they themselves boast, the interpreter of Peter. Likewise they also allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul.

JW:
And so the orthodox confess that the Gnostics had their claimed link going back to Peter, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter. But here, does "interpreter" mean "interpreter"? Did Glaucias just "interpret" what Peter said or wrote just like, oh I don't know, like Paul interpreted earllier witness to Jesus? Is the orthodox claim that "Mark" was the "translator" of Peter actually a Reaction to a previous Gnostic claim which meant "Interpreter" or "Translator"? Why else would Eusebius' quote of Papias sound like an apology ("wrote accurately", "did not sin", "to leave out nothing of the things that he heard or falsify anything in them")? Regarding the discount this gives to the evidence here can JP get his head out of the Tacitus' Annals (comparison).

Also, we always seem to go back to Eusebius. He mentions the orthodox tradition of "Mark" as "translator" but not Glaucias as "interpreter" which he probably knew of.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Something is wrong here.

Eusebius claimed gMark was written during the time of Philo, but it has been deduced that gMark was written no earlier than just before the fall of the Jewish Temple or after the death of Peter.

And Papias was an EAR-witness.

Eusebius failed to produce a single credible EYE-witness, even though there were seven Churches with supposedly real converts.

Even "Paul" was SUPPOSEDLY known to the Churches by "EAR'.

HE WROTE to the CHURCHES.

They are all EAR-witnesses.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.