Vinnie

I am talking strictly biblical criticism works, not religious works. As I said:

"If I am wrong please provide me with a small bibliography of critical tomes you have read in regards to Biblical criticism. Books and authors please. We will set the bar low at 15 for starters."

The thread in question stemmed from "a biblical criticism forum" and it uses "critical standards and methodology". So I repeat, what critical tomes have you read? If you don't know what "Biblical Criticism" actually is please don't waste your time responding again.

Vinnie

Fitz009

A thousand pardons, if i cared. I would have considered that most atheist/agnostic works could be considered Biblical criticism because they challenge the basic tenents of Christianity, which is what i think of when i read biblical criticism. I did not realize you were restricting the literature to Biblical text.

Vinnie

It is obvious you have no significant grounding in critical scholaship in regards to Christian origins. Using things like the "I am" sayings in John, failing to even know what is meant by "biblical criticsim" in this context and no forthcoming Bibliography of critical tomes all make this explicitly clear.

You are in no position to judge or make substantial comments on anything I write that pertains to the scholarly study of Christian origins.

Good day sir,
Vinnie

Fitz009

Since you persist with the hype on John and history, lets take it to historical reasoning shall we? John wrote in AD 80-90, when there was a rise in a particular heresy that said Christ was only God's Son and not God in nature, so John was writing partially in response to that. However, Christ also refers to himself as God in Matt 26 - The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,[5] the Son of God." 64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." 65Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66What do you think?" "He is worthy of death," they answered."
Again with historical foundings. In ancient civilizations the most trusted advisor to the king, the person who acted with the authority of the king and was key to the plans of the king, sat on the right hand side of the throne. Christ is proclaiming himself to have the same authority as God. Also note that blasphemy awards Christ with a cry for death, something you questioned.

And as for scholarship in Christian origins, how about St. Augustine's Confessions, Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Hermas, Barnabas, Tertullian, and Origen? If you ask that I know about atheism and "biblical criticism" then I ask that you know what you are talking about. "Scholarly study of Christian origins." Is that the new terminology for absurd claims that Christ was gay and foundless removal of biblical text from your arguments?

Vinnie

So John made up all those detailed sayings from Jesus that no other earlier source contains (Q, Thomas, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, various epistles and so on)? Or do you mean no one else mentioned them because they didn't need to? John only mentioned these historical sayings because some people denied Jesus' divinity? Which do I get to tear to shreds?

When Matthew wrote there were "non-Christians", in fact, there were eons and eons of non-Christians. Christianity was a small minority. Those sayings would have then been useful as apologetical material all throughout the xian first century. But they are nowhere to be found. Second, many of the sayings in the Gospels were widely known so the evangelists were not merely writing sayings to churches who didn't know those specific ones.

I don't know how you are going to wiggle out of this one. I'll post a more elaborate comparison of the GJohn vs Synoptics sayings material later.

John also wrote 80-110 until demonstrated otherwise. THe text may have had a very fluid history in that layers may be present. Educate yourself a bit:
http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/johntext.html

I've read them and many more. They do not constitute critical scholarship which you obviously do know about.

"""""and foundless removal of biblical text from your arguments?"""""""

LOL. Historians don't or shouldn't distinguish their texts by "Biblical" or get angry when specifically "biblical texts" are not used for something or an extracanonical text is given priority over an intracanonical one. Maybe thats why fundibots dislike Q. Two canonical texts were directly dependent upon this earlier, extracanonical sayings Gospel!

Texts are texts and nothing more. Canonical distinctions cannot and should not be made in critical reconstruction. Source analysis and stratification is whats required.

""""""absurd claims that Christ was gay and """"""""

As absurd as my claims in fact are, only about three or four people posted intelligent response or valid questions to the article out of all the message boards I linked it on. Why is that?

And you are still using the passion narrative without critical discussion and qualification as to why these details should be accepted. You also appeal to a text which occurs in a stratum of "redacted creativity". Start with Mark if you want to discuss the passion narrative, the earliest example of the four gospels you are accustomed to using.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

It is factually incorrect to assert that this passage depicts Jesus claiming to be God when he is clearly depicted as claiming to be the Son of God. Jesus is undeniably identifying himself as a separate entity from God.

Many commentators have suggested that the high priest is declaring the statement blasphemous because it implies a divine judgment against the Temple the high priest represented.

I'm going to keep repeating my questions until you either answer them or indicate you have no answers:

1) Do you have any evidence (outside the Gospels) that claiming to be the Messiah, "the" son of God or even claiming to be God was considered blasphemous according to Jewish Law?

2) Why, in Acts, does Gamaliel not bring these charges up as a legitimate reason to persecute the followers of Jesus?