Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-27-2006, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by walt6

I have two questions.

Are there any early writings to show what happened to the disciples (or apostles)? They seem to have vanished from the scene. Is there any documentation to support Peter going to Rome.

There is no documentation for Peter outside of church tradition and sacred literature.

Quote:

I recently heard that there is some new evidence indicating that Mary Magdalene was a disciple and not a prostitute. Any comment on this?

There is no "evidence" for Mary Magdalene outside of church tradition etc, much of which dates to medieval times or later. It is unlikely that Mary M. was ever viewed as a prostitute until long after Biblical times, when she was confounded with the prostitute who wiped Jesus' feet with her hair.

There has been some reevaluation of the evidence, and a lot of publicity due to the Da Vinci Code hype..

Straight Dope on Mary M.

Clivedurdle · 01-27-2006, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

This thread is about giving the general consensus or serious competing theories in mainstream modern biblical scholarship. The theories you have mentioned do not even come close to this.

Quote:

O.K., could some members just run through for me the basic chronology, like:
Jesus is supposed to have lived from x to y. He had some apostles who never wrote anything, right? Then Paul shows up around z, and wrote something, which however, only contains something and not something else, and then we find the first fragments from someone, I think Mark, which say something about Jesus, but Mark was born after Jesus is supposed to have died, and then Mathew and some other guys wrote some stuff, which differs from Paul in some ways and is supposed to have copied Mark, and then it gets really confusing, and finally some church guys get together and decide which parts to put in the book, and threw out some other stuff, so we finally get the first new testament, in Greek, at about whatever year...something like that, only actually correct?

The stuff I have commented on about gnosticism, stoicism, dating conflicts is mainstream.

All I am asking for is the range of dates and perspectives to be clear. There is a real problem that Archaelogy, Greek and Roman studies, History of Philosophy for example may not explicittly spend their time on xianity anymore because it is not that important to them!

Which means theologians may be getting a freer run than they deserve, like everyone assuming Jesus existed out of habit!

Persian Fire is a fascinating example that gives background and context to these middle eastern and mediteranean religions, and how various interactions - like Darius inventing Holy War lead to today.

cerad · 01-27-2006, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Only John is alleged to have been a disciple. Mark is alleged to have been a secretary of Peter's. There is also an apocryphal tradition which claims he was the naked guy who ran away but even that character was not one of the traditional 12 apostles.

Any thoughts on why Peter needed a secretary?

Clivedurdle · 01-27-2006, 03:02 PM

I would start much earlier - possibly exile to Babylon.

A people who believe they are chosen by their god are seriously defeated. They come to terms with it, they change their religion, they start looking for saviours.

Parallel there are huge changes occuring in the Greek and Persian worlds - science is invented, maths makes huge leaps.

Religion is still a major part of how people see things - they try to control the future through divination - sitting on top of volcanic fumes and seeing visions, astrology, magii. Greeks invent priesthood of all believers about 500 BCE or earlier. Persians have heirarchical priests like the RC church.

A strange alchemy of greek, roman, persian, Jewish thinking ends up with the beliefs we have today, including virgin births, resurrections, hell, heaven, wine into blood and bread into flesh.

Some people like hero stories and cobble together various themes, including a psychologically very powerful passion play. And now we have at least 1500 varieties, but I would argue no two xians actually agree on anything!

S.C.Carlson · 01-27-2006, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cerad

Any thoughts on why Peter needed a secretary?

He was illiterate (cf. Acts 4:13).

xaxxat · 01-27-2006, 04:38 PM

I'd like to ask why Jesus was called that and not Immanuel? Wouldn't it have given more weight to his claim if he were named Immanuel?

Afghan · 01-27-2006, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Terminology is important here. Apostle can be misunderstood. Paul called himself an apostle. If you are referring to the disciples, i.e. the twelve who followed Jesus around then, yes, we have their names from the gospels of Mark and Luke. Unfortunately, the lists are not the same.

And, yes, Peter was supposedly one of the twelve.

And the first instance we have of anyone using the term "Apostle" is Paul himself to refer to Paul himself. He doesn't refer to "the Twelve". Furthermore, Paul wrote in koine Greek which, along with just about every other alphabet of the time, didn't have capitalisation and 'apostle' is just a Greek word meaning 'one sent forth' or 'a messenger'. So Paul almost certainly didn't intend the baggage that the word has now accrued and it isn't clear that he meant to refer to specific office at all - although contextually it seems likely that he did.

Chili · 01-27-2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

I'd like to ask why Jesus was called that and not Immanuel? Wouldn't it have given more weight to his claim if he were named Immanuel?

Bingo!!:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

Chili · 01-27-2006, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

He was illiterate (cf. Acts 4:13).

Not illiterate but not of great standing among intellectuals. Peter was faith only who went by intuition wherein he was omniscient.

You may wish to read up in Aristotle on this. Here is the last paragraph on that topic:

Quote:

Thus it is clear that we must get to know the primary premisses by
induction; for the method by which even sense-perception implants
the universal is inductive. Now of the thinking states by which we
grasp truth, some are unfailingly true, others admit of error-opinion,
for instance, and calculation, whereas scientific knowing and
intuition are always true: further, no other kind of thought except
intuition is more accurate than scientific knowledge, whereas
primary premisses are more knowable than demonstrations, and all
scientific knowledge is discursive. From these considerations it
follows that there will be no scientific knowledge of the primary
premisses, and since except intuition nothing can be truer than
scientific knowledge, it will be intuition that apprehends the primary
premisses-a result which also follows from the fact that demonstration
cannot be the originative source of demonstration, nor,
consequently, scientific knowledge of scientific knowledge.If,
therefore, it is the only other kind of true thinking except
scientific knowing, intuition will be the originative source of
scientific knowledge. And the originative source of science grasps the
original basic premiss, while science as a whole is similarly
related as originative source to the whole body of fact.

-THE END-

.

http://infomotions.com/etexts/philos...sterior-91.txt

Gawen · 01-27-2006, 05:49 PM

What was the Jesus Seminar? Or rather, why? What was the purpose and what was the results?
Who or what scholars believes the results?
I have heard that some OT scripture was used in the NT and it was wrong. Is this true?
How much do the Dead Sea Scrolls and the clay tablets (name of the city I can't remember) corroborate the bible?

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

01-27-2006, 03:02 PM	#64
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I would start much earlier - possibly exile to Babylon. A people who believe they are chosen by their god are seriously defeated. They come to terms with it, they change their religion, they start looking for saviours. Parallel there are huge changes occuring in the Greek and Persian worlds - science is invented, maths makes huge leaps. Religion is still a major part of how people see things - they try to control the future through divination - sitting on top of volcanic fumes and seeing visions, astrology, magii. Greeks invent priesthood of all believers about 500 BCE or earlier. Persians have heirarchical priests like the RC church. A strange alchemy of greek, roman, persian, Jewish thinking ends up with the beliefs we have today, including virgin births, resurrections, hell, heaven, wine into blood and bread into flesh. Some people like hero stories and cobble together various themes, including a psychologically very powerful passion play. And now we have at least 1500 varieties, but I would argue no two xians actually agree on anything!

01-27-2006, 04:38 PM	#66
xaxxat Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Space Station 33 Posts: 2,543	I'd like to ask why Jesus was called that and not Immanuel? Wouldn't it have given more weight to his claim if he were named Immanuel?

01-27-2006, 05:49 PM	#70
Gawen Contributor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Cylon Occupied Texas, but a Michigander @ heart Posts: 10,326	What was the Jesus Seminar? Or rather, why? What was the purpose and what was the results? Who or what scholars believes the results? I have heard that some OT scripture was used in the NT and it was wrong. Is this true? How much do the Dead Sea Scrolls and the clay tablets (name of the city I can't remember) corroborate the bible?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.