Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 04-19-2013, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

That assumes without proof that the other gospels were written by the end of the first century. BUT - there is no physical evidence or other indication that the gospels were written before the middle of the second century.
.

False

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

Because of the historical allusions found in the Gospel of Mark to the events of the First Jewish Revolt, the period of five years between 70 and 75 CE is the most plausible dating for the Gospel of Mark within the broader timeframe indicated of 65 to 80 CE.

There is no physical evidence or references in patristic or other literature that would date gMark to this particular time. The historical allusions establish the earliest date, but a case can be made that they apply equally to the Bar Kockba rebellion.

The case is not as straightforward as you like to think.

Quote:

...

Quote:

but it doesn't come close to showing that there were no changes in Mark.

Sure it does

It shows 600 of 661 verses, have remained virtually the same.

You can show that 600 verses are the same in documents for which we have only later copies that were produced by the same scribes . . . and you think you can conclude from this that the original was unchanged?

The logic escapes me.

Quote:

There is plenty of indication. Thats why its almost unanimous among scholars.

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegos...k/a/dating.htm

Because of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that Mark was written some time during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74). Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE.

The dating of Marks gospels isnt even really in question.

There doesnt have to be physical proof, for unbiased scholars to determine when literature was created.

Austin Cline (an internet commentator, not a credentialed scholar, and the sort of person you normally sneer at) is giving the scholarly consensus to oppose the very conservative Christian position that Mark was written earlier.

When you use the word "determine" you completely overstate the degree of certainty that these scholars can bring to their conclusions.

outhouse · 04-19-2013, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is no physical evidence or references in patristic or other literature that would date gMark to this particular time. The historical allusions establish the earliest date, but a case can be made that they apply equally to the Bar Kockba rebellion.

I understand Godfreys minority position quite well.

Quote:

The case is not as straightforward as you like to think.

Sure it is.

Quote:

and you think you can conclude from this that the original was unchanged?

It is not complete evidence, but definately part of the evidence.

Quote:

Austin Cline

Atheist, apologist, scholar, no one please you. Why does it matter? you quote people all the time with far less credential's.

Thats double standards, you apply to your own methodology.

Ehrman stated the same, and in another link from his site, he gives a great scholarly overview that states the same.

Quote:

When you use the word "determine" you completely overstate the degree of certainty that these scholars can bring to their conclusions.

Not really.

There is nobody that explains a second century recreation of the movement with any plausibility at all.

Your blindly attacking the date because it doesnt jive with your personal hobby horse, not because the date doesnt make sense.

Can you with a straight face, actually claim a second century origin for Gmark? And if so when?, and if when, by who? and how?

maryhelena · 04-19-2013, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Let's start at the beginning. We know we do not have the original manuscripts of the gospels. We only have copies of copies of copies, etc. We may never know with certainty who wrote the original gospels, what their content was, or for what agenda. But we do know the extant gospels survived only because the Roman authorities allowed them to survive and even proliferate. If these extant gospels were subversive to the Pax Romana, they would have been suppressed, but they were not. On the contrary, the gospels became the basis for ROMAN Catholic (universalist) religion.

So the next question is: Why did the Romans adopt the gospels for the basis of their new state religion?

I have some answers, but I would first like to hear from all of you.
Onias

Onias

That's not where my interest lies. My interest is trying to get as far back as possible re the origins of the gospel story. As I said earlier, what people did with the gospel story once it was in the public domain - is really not here nor there as far as searching for early christian origins. I like to keep focused on the gospel story - not what people did with that story.

Mary,
The problem with your view is that we do not have the original MSS of the gospels. We just have the extant versions that may have been so heavily redacted that they may bear little resemblance to the originals. Think of the extant gospels as an omelet or quiche . . . with the original gospel MSS being the scrambled eggs and the added ingredients being the redactions.

To my mind, the original MSS were purely messianic docs written with similar content and style as the War Scroll and other militant anti-Roman DSS. But over time they were redacted by the Romans into a less subversive doc that instead preached pacifism and love for their (Roman) enemies and their tax-collectors, etc. In other words, A doc the Romans could not only accept but promote as their state religion. For spice, add in a generous measure of lampooning of the failed messianic figures generically represented as 'Jesus', a comic and impotent excuse for salvation. . . especially when he 'resurrects' and disappears into heaven rather than to fight the Roman occupiers as his followers expected. If you listen very closely, you can hear the (Roman) gods laughing, along with myself. :funny:
Onias

Sure, no original documents. However, it's the basic story that has to be unraveled, understood, searched for clues etc. The foundation of that story is a Jewish messiah figure executed by Rome. I don't think that basic story has suffered with it's re-telling. That's the 'man of war' element in the composite JC figure. Whatever happened down the line with Romans using that story for whatever means - does not change the basic story.

Onias, let me make one thing very clear. I do not buy any conspiracy theories regarding the creation of the gospel story. No more that I would buy any conspiracy story related to the stories in the OT. These stories are what they are: A re-telling in mythological form, symbolic or prophetic form, of a Jewish interpretation of their history, or their take on their origin story.

Onias · 04-19-2013, 10:38 PM

Mary,
I think the real "conspiracy story" is to be found in the extant gospels, the ones the Romans allowed to survive (along with their editing). The real story lies deeper. We need some CSI detectives who do not accept the BS extant gospels at face value.
With respect,
Onias

maryhelena · 04-19-2013, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Mary,
I think the real "conspiracy story" is to be found in the extant gospels, the ones the Romans allowed to survive (along with their editing). The real story lies deeper. We need some CSI detectives who do not accept the BS extant gospels at face value.
With respect,
Onias

Well, I for one, do not accept the gospel story on face value! The JC crucified under Pilate story - anywhere from around 19 to 36/7 c.e. is not history.

If there are historical reflections within that gospel story - then those historical reflections are not confined to the time of Pilate. That is the gospel story setting. A gospel story that is re-telling Hasmonean/Jewish history within a symbolic, mythological or prophetic format.

Onias, we have to deal with the gospel story. It's the story that we have in our hands, so to speak. It's the gospel story that has to be evaluated for what we can dig out of it that can move forward the HJ/MJ debate. The story has to be given an explanation. It's there - like that mountain - and has to be scaled if the HJ/MJ debate is to move forward.

mountainman · 04-19-2013, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Well who do you think wrote the gospels?

And who do you think wrote the gospels and for what purpose?

Onias

I think that the entire fabrication of the Christians (which included the gospels) was commissioned by Bullneck.

I think his purpose was to achieve a total control of the Roman Empire, via an imperially appointed centralised monotheistic state religion, just like Ardashir and the Persians.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874 · 04-20-2013, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Well, I for one, do not accept the gospel story on face value! The JC crucified under Pilate story - anywhere from around 19 to 36/7 c.e. is not history.

If there are historical reflections within that gospel story - then those historical reflections are not confined to the time of Pilate. That is the gospel story setting. A gospel story that is re-telling Hasmonean/Jewish history within a symbolic, mythological or prophetic format.

Onias, we have to deal with the gospel story. It's the story that we have in our hands, so to speak. It's the gospel story that has to be evaluated for what we can dig out of it that can move forward the HJ/MJ debate. The story has to be given an explanation. It's there - like that mountain - and has to be scaled if the HJ/MJ debate is to move forward.

The story of Jesus is confined to the time of Pilate in the Gospels.

It is that very time period that we must look for Jesus of Nazareth just as we look for Pilate in the time of Tiberius as stated in the Gospels.

It is corroborated that there was a character called Pontius Pilate in the time of Tiberius and this has nothing at all to do with prophecies.

In fact, there is no mention at all of Jesus of Nazareth in non-apologetic sources.

There is no need to invent your own history of Jesus.

Let HJers and Christians invent their history of their Jesus.

MJers are not inventors--they state the actual written evidence exactly as it is presented.

Jesus was born after his mother became pregnant by a Holy Ghost. See Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1.26-35.

Jesus of the NT did NOT exist based on the abundance of evidence.

Mythological characters do NOT exist.

Jesus of the NT matches Mythology.

maryhelena · 04-20-2013, 12:05 PM

The first historical name to appear in the above chart is that of Antigonus, the last King and High Priest of the Jews. Executed in 37 b.c. by Marc Antony. It is the premise of the chart that elements from the lives of historical figures were used, by the gospel writers, in the creation of their composite gospel JC. The historical figures that are reflected within the gospel JC character are figures from different time periods. i.e. Hasmonean/Jewish history has been condensed within the gospel story.

Below is an extract from a recent article; an article suggesting that the gospel JC reflects *seditious * elements to his character. In other words - the gospel JC figure is as much a 'man of war' as a 'man of peace'. While attempts can be made to reconcile these two elements of the gospel JC - these two elements can also be used to demonstrate a composite nature to that gospel JC figure - as the above chart has set out to do. The 'man of war' element, the *seditious* element, being a reflection of the historical figure of Antigonus.

Why is the Hypothesis that Jesus Was an Anti-Roman Rebel Alive and Well?

Fernando Bermejo-Rubio

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/...er378008.shtml

Quote:

a) Jesus was crucified, i.e., executed with the usual Roman punishment for slaves and rebellious provincials, and two insurrectionists were crucified on either side of him; b) The titulus crucis was “King of the Jews”, and much evidence points to the fact that Jesus considered himself as a king or God’s viceroy; c) A heavily armed party (according to John 18:3.12, a cohort) was sent to seize Jesus secretly and at night (Mark 14:43.48; Matt 24:47.52); d) According to Luke 22:36f, on a critical occasion Jesus ensured that his disciples were armed, by ordering them to buy swords; e) At least some disciples of Jesus went about with concealed weapons, as attested by Luke 22:38.49 and Mark 14:47; f) all four Gospels record that armed resistance (involving swords) was offered in Gethsemane; g) The Temple episode involved some sort of forcible activity; h) The “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem was a prearranged action and involved a high messianic temperament and clear political claims in words and deeds; i) According to John 11:47-50, the possibility that Jesus remains untroubled is connected by the high priest with a virtually sure intervention of the Romans; j) According to John 18:19, the high priest questioned Jesus not only about his teaching, but also about his disciples, what betrays a certain apprehension regarding Jesus’ circle; k) The preaching of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God had an unmistakably political character; l) Jesus promised that his twelve disciples would sit on thrones to judge and rule Israel’s twelve restored tribes, what implies the disappearance of the actual rulers of Israel, both Romans and Jews; m) The concrete socio-political, material dimension of the kingdom of God expected by Jesus and his disciples is further proved by the hopes to grant and receive this-worldly rewards; n) According to the disciples’ own statements (Luke 24:21; Acts 1:6), Jesus’ aim was to restore the kingdom to Israel; o) Several sayings attributed to Jesus reveal the circumscription of Jesus’ preaching to Israel and his nationalistic, not to say chauvinistic, tones; p) The violent disposition of at least some of the disciples is well attested in the tradition (Mark 3:17; 9:38; Luke 9:51-56); q) Jesus impressed upon his followers that discipleship is synonymous not only with conflicts and suffering, but also with danger of death; more concretely, the saying about “taking up the cross” indicates an acute hostility between Jesus and the Empire; r) Several Jesus’ followers gave the undertaking to die with him; s) The Gospels witness a deeply antagonistic relationship between Jesus and Herod Antipas; t) There is evidence indicating that Jesus opposed the payment of tribute to Rome (Mark 12:13-17, read in the light of Luke 23:2); u) According to Luke 23:2.5.14, the main charge leveled against Jesus was that of “subverting our nation”; v) Several passages establish a link between the preaching and healing activities of Jesus and popular uprisings; w) Luke 1 – 2 abounds in strongly nationalistic longings which contemplate the subjugation and humiliation of the Gentiles; x) The tradition betrays the disciples’ deep fears of being arrested, and presumably executed (both in the flight depicted in the Passion narrative, and in the account of Peter’s betrayal); y) In Acts 5:35-39, Rabbi Gamaliel compares Jesus and his followers with Theudas and his movement as well as with Judas the Galilaean and his movement; z) Mark 15:7 / Luke 23:19 mention a well-known insurrection in Jerusalem supposedly shortly before Jesus’ arrest, in which the rebels had caused fatal casualties; aa) The Book of Revelation has preserved the memory of a conception of Christ as a fierce warrior.

aa5874 · 04-20-2013, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Why is the Hypothesis that Jesus Was an Anti-Roman Rebel Alive and Well?

Where is such an hypothesis alive and well?

Jesus could not have been a real rebel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maryhelena

Fernando Bermejo-Rubio

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/...er378008.shtml

Quote:

a) Jesus was crucified, i.e., executed with the usual Roman punishment for slaves and rebellious provincials, and two insurrectionists were crucified on either side of him; b) The titulus crucis was “King of the Jews”, and much evidence points to the fact that Jesus considered himself as a king or God’s viceroy; c) A heavily armed party (according to John 18:3.12, a cohort) was sent to seize Jesus secretly and at night (Mark 14:43.48; Matt 24:47.52); d) According to Luke 22:36f, on a critical occasion Jesus ensured that his disciples were armed, by ordering them to buy swords; e) At least some disciples of Jesus went about with concealed weapons, as attested by Luke 22:38.49 and Mark 14:47; f) all four Gospels record that armed resistance (involving swords) was offered in Gethsemane; g) The Temple episode involved some sort of forcible activity; h) The “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem was a prearranged action and involved a high messianic temperament and clear political claims in words and deeds; i) According to John 11:47-50, the possibility that Jesus remains untroubled is connected by the high priest with a virtually sure intervention of the Romans; j) According to John 18:19, the high priest questioned Jesus not only about his teaching, but also about his disciples, what betrays a certain apprehension regarding Jesus’ circle; k) The preaching of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God had an unmistakably political character; l) Jesus promised that his twelve disciples would sit on thrones to judge and rule Israel’s twelve restored tribes, what implies the disappearance of the actual rulers of Israel, both Romans and Jews; m) The concrete socio-political, material dimension of the kingdom of God expected by Jesus and his disciples is further proved by the hopes to grant and receive this-worldly rewards; n) According to the disciples’ own statements (Luke 24:21; Acts 1:6), Jesus’ aim was to restore the kingdom to Israel; o) Several sayings attributed to Jesus reveal the circumscription of Jesus’ preaching to Israel and his nationalistic, not to say chauvinistic, tones; p) The violent disposition of at least some of the disciples is well attested in the tradition (Mark 3:17; 9:38; Luke 9:51-56); q) Jesus impressed upon his followers that discipleship is synonymous not only with conflicts and suffering, but also with danger of death; more concretely, the saying about “taking up the cross” indicates an acute hostility between Jesus and the Empire; r) Several Jesus’ followers gave the undertaking to die with him; s) The Gospels witness a deeply antagonistic relationship between Jesus and Herod Antipas; t) There is evidence indicating that Jesus opposed the payment of tribute to Rome (Mark 12:13-17, read in the light of Luke 23:2); u) According to Luke 23:2.5.14, the main charge leveled against Jesus was that of “subverting our nation”; v) Several passages establish a link between the preaching and healing activities of Jesus and popular uprisings; w) Luke 1 – 2 abounds in strongly nationalistic longings which contemplate the subjugation and humiliation of the Gentiles; x) The tradition betrays the disciples’ deep fears of being arrested, and presumably executed (both in the flight depicted in the Passion narrative, and in the account of Peter’s betrayal); y) In Acts 5:35-39, Rabbi Gamaliel compares Jesus and his followers with Theudas and his movement as well as with Judas the Galilaean and his movement; z) Mark 15:7 / Luke 23:19 mention a well-known insurrection in Jerusalem supposedly shortly before Jesus’ arrest, in which the rebels had caused fatal casualties; aa) The Book of Revelation has preserved the memory of a conception of Christ as a fierce warrior.

That story is in a far worse condition that the Jesus story in the NT. It is completely uncorroborated, unattested and without a shred of evidence from any sources of antiquity.

History must be recovered from the evidence not from imagination.

The story of Jesus is FIXED in the written statements of antiquity just like the claims about Satan, the Angel Gabriel or Pontius Pilate.

The description of Jesus of Nazareth cannot be altered or re-worked.

We can examine the claims made about Jesus but not what is imagined.

The NT stories of Jesus in the Canon reflect what people of antiquity Believed.

It is extremely important to understand the stories themselves as they are presented.

Onias · 04-20-2013, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Mary,
I think the real "conspiracy story" is to be found in the extant gospels, the ones the Romans allowed to survive (along with their editing). The real story lies deeper. We need some CSI detectives who do not accept the BS extant gospels at face value.
With respect,
Onias

Well, I for one, do not accept the gospel story on face value! The JC crucified under Pilate story - anywhere from around 19 to 36/7 c.e. is not history.

If there are historical reflections within that gospel story - then those historical reflections are not confined to the time of Pilate. That is the gospel story setting. A gospel story that is re-telling Hasmonean/Jewish history within a symbolic, mythological or prophetic format.

Onias, we have to deal with the gospel story. It's the story that we have in our hands, so to speak. It's the gospel story that has to be evaluated for what we can dig out of it that can move forward the HJ/MJ debate. The story has to be given an explanation. It's there - like that mountain - and has to be scaled if the HJ/MJ debate is to move forward.

Mary,
Many, but not all of the gospels events and chronology are explained by Joe Atwill in his book, Caesar's Messiah. In his view and mine, much of the gospel tale is Roman satire that mocks and lampoons the Judean failed attempt to be free of the Roman yoke. Having said this, I do not agree with everything Atwill claims, but I think he is right to a significant extent.
You really should read his book (or at least watch some of his YouTube videos) so we can have a broader discussion.
Onias

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

04-19-2013, 10:38 PM	#64
Onias Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Primary residence in New York State Posts: 231	Mary, I think the real "conspiracy story" is to be found in the extant gospels, the ones the Romans allowed to survive (along with their editing). The real story lies deeper. We need some CSI detectives who do not accept the BS extant gospels at face value. With respect, Onias

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.