Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 05-28-2004, 07:40 AM

"""""""""I'll let Vinnie tackle that one, if he chooses. For myself, I consider scholars like Crossan and Meier to be more knowledgeable on the subject and continue to rely on their discussion of GTh evidence."""""""""""

Meier offers nonsense on GThomas in v1 of Marginal. Its one of the worst scholarly treatments of Thomas out there. Oddly enough Glenn Miller puppets it at the think-tank and Holding links Miller's article

Meier assumed it was gnostic and therefore late, and then proceeded to find NT materials in it on this basis. Obviously such a late text could not be independent of the canonicals it was reasoned

Patterson's the Gospel of THomas and Jesus is what sold me on independence. It should be noted There is no order and there is a serious lack of substantive redactional material from the Gospels. Many of the posed dependencies and minor redactional material are easily explainable on other grounds.

Thomas is independent of the NT Gospels and Q. It shares many sayings with Q which means they had access to the same core traditions. It also shares sayings with Mark and some of the special synoptic material also showing it had access to these same materials. On this basis alone THomas is just as important as Q and the canonical gospels for explaining xian origins. One doesn't even need to "posit" a definitive date. Just point out the nature of the material itself.

So if Thomas is not important for Christian origins questions, neither is Q or the Gospel of Matthew.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 05-28-2004, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

You claimed Jesus' teachings and crucifixion constituted the "homebase" for the two traditions. There is no crucifixion in Q and no teacher in Paul. An actual "homebase" would be concepts shared in the earliest evidence of both traditions.

All that is actually shared is the name "Jesus".

Homebase meanign starting place of the two streams of thought. Jesus was crucified. Some followers had rez experienced and jumped on this "new Jesus (Jewish?) religion" while other followers focused more on the sayings.

The crucifixion group also knows sayings of Jesus. Paul repeating Jesus' teaching on divorce is just one example. Also, have you not read Doherty who said tons of "Jesus sayings" appear in the epistles??? He just qualifies this by saying they are never explicitly said to be "said by Jesus". We discussed this in another thread recently. It was the one on Didache I started I think....lemme see if I can find a link...

Amaleq13 · 05-28-2004, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Meier assumed it was gnostic and therefore late...

I had in mind a quote from Meier where he admits that some portions of GTh likely date to the first century. I can provide the specifics of the quote when I get home if you like.

Vinnie · 05-28-2004, 07:47 AM

Found it:

When a text has "Jesus saids" Doherty """argues""" maybe they weren't part of the original (e.g. Thomas)

When they have many "Jesus sayings" but no "Jesus saids" Doherty infers mythicism.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...hlight=Didache

As I wrote:

Quote:

At least he agrees with this. Unfortunately he then goes on to note """with no attribution to Jesus""". How strong is this argument really? Is there really any need to attribute known Jesus materials and summarized ethical teachings of the Kingdom taught by Jesus//used by the community (which may have meant Jesus was behind them--see Josephus and Moses!) and accepted to Jesus? How much oral dialogue and debate an discussion went on in these communities outside the epistles that survive? Background knowledge is key. Are we not seeing simply the historical backdrop of teachings that came frin ca 30 c.e.?

Also, since Jesus "became" (after death!) the intermediary (as Doherty sugests!) isn't it possible to summarize teachings from Jesus and God together in such epistles? Isn't it possible, as noted to include "kingdom instructions" together in such ways? Ethical summaries of community rules and principles? They all come from Jesus // God. Whey the need for special attribution?

So you are incorrect on the lack of overlap. The epistles are teaming with "Jesus sayings materials". Even Doherty admits that

Vinnie

Vinnie · 05-28-2004, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I had in mind a quote from Meier where he admits that some portions of GTh likely date to the first century. I can provide the specifics of the quote when I get home if you like.

No need for me. I do beleive Meier said that as well. His treatment of THomas was and still is horrible though.

and

Doherty: "Teachings resembling or identical to those of the Gospel Jesus are found all over the place in the first century documents . . ."

Vinnie

Amaleq13 · 05-28-2004, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Homebase meanign starting place of the two streams of thought.

You can't call teachings and crucifixion the starting place of two belief systems if both are not evident in both bodies of evidence.

Quote:

The crucifixion group also knows sayings of Jesus.

We find instructions attributed to the risen Christ not to a living preacher.

Quote:

Also, have you not read Doherty who said tons of "Jesus sayings" appear in the epistles??? He just qualifies this by saying they are never explicitly said to be "said by Jesus".

Exactly. The sentiments are expressed without any hint that they originate with a living, preaching Jesus. These sentiments from Paul's theology are incorporated into the Gospel stories as sayings spoken by Jesus.

Vinnie · 05-28-2004, 07:51 AM

""""""""""We can't claim that Jesus was apocalyptic because it could very well have been a development of the Q community following his death. We can't claim that Jesus was inclined to a more gnostic viewpoint because it could very well have been a development of the Thomse community following his death."""""""""

That is of course correct and little more than axiomatic. In fact, many scholars do think Q and Thomas took the same core different ways.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 05-28-2004, 07:56 AM

""""""""You can't call teachings and crucifixion the starting place of two belief systems if both are not evident in both bodies of evidence."""""""""

The rez experiences were what started the second stream which clearly has overlap with the first (the sayings which you attribute to a non-historical person).

And THomas and Q and L and M and Mark and so on all have a lot of "Jesus saids" as do other works. Many of these are independent of the Pauline corpus. How does one conduct history if one denies these are "historical Jesus sayings"???

And I tink Paul has a historical Jesus in mind. I don't buy mythicism on Paul.

Vinnie

Amaleq13 · 05-28-2004, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

In fact, many scholars do think Q and Thomas took the same core different ways.

Apparently not any that ichabod crane has been reading.

rlogan · 05-28-2004, 06:15 PM

Hi "ich"!

Fending off multiple assailants with poise...
not bad.

Quote:

Assuming your interpretation of kata with the accusative is correct, that will solve passages like Romans 1:3 & 9:5, although even that is highly doubtful. Paul calls Abraham his ancestor "according to the flesh" using exactly the same Greek phrase (Romans 4:1). I am not convinced that Paul ever uses sarx to refer to anything other than the physical human body. But in any case, let's look at another Pauline passage, I Cor. 15. There are a number of points that could be raised here. Firstly, verses 3-7 seem to imply a connection with the historical Jesus. But consider carefully verses 12 & 13:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised;

When Paul says here that some are teaching that there is no resurrection of the dead, he is clearly speaking about dead humans. Then he says that if there is no resurrection of the dead (i.e. of dead humans), then Christ has not been raised. Now why does this follow logically, if Christ's death and resurrection are not of the same category and kind as the general death and resurrection of other human believers?

Well, we're working from different paradigms. I have not been shown that a physical Jesus ever existed. Nor an Adam.

So when I'm told about Adam and Jesus I don't infer from someone saying they "died" that they ever lived. If they are specific and relate their death to the Battle of the Bigtop on Dec. 23rd of 1904 - well I can anchor that in reality.

But when they are "over the top" with talk of rising up from the dead then I can write them off as snake oil salesmen. Nobody rises from the dead. Someone willing to say that is also willing to say a lot more fantasy.

I see Jesus arising from some afro-engineering of Hebrew Bible parts. You have the whole precept of sacrifice predating Jesus. Then you have the suffering servant stuff of Isaiah 53 and the psalms lashed together. Your story has to produce a sacrifice for atonement.

Well, you cannot very well have a sacrifice if he isn't "alive" in the first place. So you have to concoct these amorphous pseudo-life passages.

Referring to the very chapter you direct me to Cor 1:15 -

Quote:

Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4: And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures

This is a smoking gun. Christ is cobbled together from the HB junkyard. Prophesy does not come true. Therefore this is false.

Quote:

Verses 21-22 say, "For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ". Paul calls Christ here an anthropos, a human being. There just are too many holes in the theory. We have to look elsewhere for an explanation of the Pauline texts.

I realize the temptation to reach a verdict based on textual evidence such as this. But the Hebrew Bible demands a human being. As opposed to a cow. So that's what they are giving us.

Moreover, the longer the charade goes on the more absurd the story becomes. It starts with the Christ crucified business but then more parts are added. He has to be rejected by his own people, have lots cast, ride a colt, be born of a virgin, come out of Egypt, twenty pieces of silver, & etc.

If we peel off the HB prophesy layers we get to the thin air core of Jesus.

Which hypothesis is better - that it began with a real person and had HB prophesy welded on to it?

Or it began as HB prophesy and just continued to accumulate?

Since the very first layer is HB prophesy I think the evidence points to...

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

05-28-2004, 07:40 AM	#91
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	"""""""""I'll let Vinnie tackle that one, if he chooses. For myself, I consider scholars like Crossan and Meier to be more knowledgeable on the subject and continue to rely on their discussion of GTh evidence.""""""""""" Meier offers nonsense on GThomas in v1 of Marginal. Its one of the worst scholarly treatments of Thomas out there. Oddly enough Glenn Miller puppets it at the think-tank and Holding links Miller's article Meier assumed it was gnostic and therefore late, and then proceeded to find NT materials in it on this basis. Obviously such a late text could not be independent of the canonicals it was reasoned Patterson's the Gospel of THomas and Jesus is what sold me on independence. It should be noted There is no order and there is a serious lack of substantive redactional material from the Gospels. Many of the posed dependencies and minor redactional material are easily explainable on other grounds. Thomas is independent of the NT Gospels and Q. It shares many sayings with Q which means they had access to the same core traditions. It also shares sayings with Mark and some of the special synoptic material also showing it had access to these same materials. On this basis alone THomas is just as important as Q and the canonical gospels for explaining xian origins. One doesn't even need to "posit" a definitive date. Just point out the nature of the material itself. So if Thomas is not important for Christian origins questions, neither is Q or the Gospel of Matthew. Vinnie

05-28-2004, 07:51 AM	#97
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	""""""""""We can't claim that Jesus was apocalyptic because it could very well have been a development of the Q community following his death. We can't claim that Jesus was inclined to a more gnostic viewpoint because it could very well have been a development of the Thomse community following his death.""""""""" That is of course correct and little more than axiomatic. In fact, many scholars do think Q and Thomas took the same core different ways. Vinnie

05-28-2004, 07:56 AM	#98
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	""""""""You can't call teachings and crucifixion the starting place of two belief systems if both are not evident in both bodies of evidence.""""""""" The rez experiences were what started the second stream which clearly has overlap with the first (the sayings which you attribute to a non-historical person). And THomas and Q and L and M and Mark and so on all have a lot of "Jesus saids" as do other works. Many of these are independent of the Pauline corpus. How does one conduct history if one denies these are "historical Jesus sayings"??? And I tink Paul has a historical Jesus in mind. I don't buy mythicism on Paul. Vinnie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.