Vinnie

Cyprians silence is not probative. End of story. Back to Thess 2:14-16 and arguments for interpolation please.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

Thanks, Vinnie. Let me know when you are seriously ready to discuss this passage, instead of indulging in evasion-by-insult.

The "apocalyptic language" is not a response to any points I raised. 1 Thess clearly refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. Can you name several other Christian documents in which any of the events you claim this language discusses are referred to as "god's wrath?"

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

I demonstrated the falsity of this claim in my article. Your religion prevents you from accepting it. There is nothing more I can say or do that will make it any more clear than it is already is. Keep grinding that axe.

Vinnie

rlogan

Hey Mortal Wombat - can you please clarify something for me?

Not sure what the references here are to: "P46" "P30" "P65"...

Actually, anybody could answer that for me. I can see the cross-references in e-Catena though.

You guys, neither side has a bulletproof case. Geez Vinnie - so he disagrees. Reasonable people can disagree on this. Your side is one way to look at it. So is Vorks.

I spent some time looking into the Sanhedrin. It seems unclear as to whether they could sentence people to execution at the alleged time of the crucifixion. I had been earlier convinced they could not. But there do seem to be examples. There does not seem to be disagreement that it should have been stoning if the Sanhedrin was exclusively responsible.

I can see blaming the Jews or the Romans, depending upon the timing and the intended audience. I can see that ultimately the story they settled on in the Gosples was to blame everyone. It is the crowd that clamors for execution. Layman - you've stated it was Pilate reviewing the charges and carrying out the sentence - but we have pilate saying he can find no fault in him in the gospels. So ultimately everyone shares blame. The Jews levy the charge. Pilate pulls the trigger. But it is the crowd who calls for the lynching.

Vinnie, you did say something of interest to me. "His converts were shocked that some of their community had died before the Lord's returned". I'm not challenging you on that. But are there references to this somewhere?

Amaleq13

No, we have an author who was more concerned about blaming the Jews for the murder of Jesus than historical accuracy. I think that is more consistent with an interpolator than Paul.

Again, don't be shy. Specify the points you want addressed and I'll do my best.

Layman

Why?

Any Christian knowledgeable about the gospel stories and/or their underlying facts would quite reasonably blame any of the major players, including the Sanhedrin and the Romans.

Acts, in a speech by Peter, has no problem telling the Jews about Jesus, "you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death."

Neither this argument nor the Cpyrian argument have any probative value.


Why do you insist on playing games? You claimed you did not address points you did not understand. If you can't understand a point, then ask about it. Don't cut off the first sentence of one of my responses and pretend its the entire point. It's a distortion of the point. That kind of selective parsing shows me you weren't ever interested in a fair exchange.

It's not about being shy, it's about not wasting time with someone who was evading and distorting the points to begin with.

Amaleq13

Layman suggested that an uninterpolated copy of Thess was unlikely to survive 100 years beyond our earliest evidence of the passage and defended that suggestion by asserting:
In reply to my question about whether this was based on any actual studies or scholarly theories on textual development and he replied:
Well, I would give credence to your speculation if it was backed by some scholarship. There are numerous examples of "reasonable" ideas that turn out not to actually describe reality. I agree that it is reasonable to expect fewer uninterpolated copies to survive as we move forward in time from the introduction of the text but that clearly does not allow us to conclude, with anything approaching certainty, that none could possibly exist after 100 years.

Not "over" but "in addition to". The second part of your statement above assumes the results of an examination that has not taken place. My point has been that you appear to be rejecting the need for the examination in the first place. If the results don't support an expectation that Cyprian would refer to Paul also blaming the Jews, then it obviously couldn't be used in that way.

Again, be specific. You have asked many questions and make many "points" which I have shown to be based on an inaccurate understanding of my own position. It is entirely possible that I missed a legitimate question or point so please feel free to repeat what you think has been inappropriately ignored.

I never suggested it was only a question of counting references but how frequently Cyprian relies on Paul is clearly part of any critical examination. Unless you've been doing extra reading, you've only read what MW has posted and that is clearly not sufficient to reach a conclusion on Cyprian's typical use of Paul. Where you got the impression that I am claiming victory is beyond me. If you scan back a couple posts, I believe you will find that I acknowledge that your arguments against the silence seem credible but add that I would need to know more about Cyprian before I would consider them conclusive.

Amaleq13

And by the force of thy will, the issue is resolved!!

I wasn't aware that starting a thread granted one so much wisdom that an actual examination of the evidence is not necessary. How convenient for you. Arrogant dismissals of arguments or potential evidence does not suggest that your position is one of strength.

This waving of your arms and commanding opposing views to disappear is slightly amusing in a sad way but not very impressive as far as rational arguments go.

Amaleq13

It was my understanding as well that the Romans didn't allow the Sanhedrin to impose a death penalty. I would be interested in the contrary examples you mention.

I think Paul and some of the early Church Fathers refer to Jesus' death with a reference to Scripture that seems more consistent with stoning followed by being hung in a tree. The problem with accepting this as how Paul believed Jesus died is his persistent use of the word "cross". As I understand it, there is a word that can mean "cross" or "tree" or "generic wooden structure" but Paul uses one that can only mean "cross". I would be interested in substantiation of that claim.

If Paul says Jesus was hung on a tree, then the Jews become the primary suspects since that is a Jewish tradition following stoning. If Paul says Jesus was crucified on a cross, then only the Romans can be guilty.

True and the key word above is "ultimately". What "really" happend seems to be an open question and I've been ignoring that fact by accepting many assumptions for the sake of the argument. Was the Sanhedrin actually involved or did the Romans require no convincing to execute an apparent rebel? Perhaps this is a better way to approach this passage. On what basis do we assume Jewish involvement let alone primary responsibility for the death of Jesus? I have that there are certain questionable aspects of the Sanhedrin trial (e.g. taking place at night, explicitly seeking out false testimony) as well as questioning the realism of Pilate personally conducting every interview of every suspected rebel/trouble-maker. Perhaps I have assumed too much of this should be accepted as historical.

Amaleq13

I wrote:
No, we have an author who was more concerned about blaming the Jews for the murder of Jesus than historical accuracy. I think that is more consistent with an interpolator than Paul.

Layman replied:
Two reasons:

1) A blatant falsehood is more likely to survive the further in time one moves the insertion from the actual events.

2) Lack of evidence that Paul held this level of condemnation for his fellow Jews given that he elsewhere declares that the Jews will eventually convert. The uncompromising accusation of the passage in question does not seem to me consistent with that expressed optimism.

Clearly, later Christians who were familiar with the story felt comfortable blaming the Jews but were is the evidence that Paul was knowledgeable about the gospel stories?

And that is consistent, in my view, with the conclusion that Acts is not a 1st century text.

If I don't understand when you believe you are making a point, I can't very well ask for clarification.

I apologize if any of my paring down of your statements has resulted in an inaccurate description of your view. That was not my intention but I don't see where I have done this. In fact, I was trying to repeat only what I considered to be the "core" of your argument to save space. Anyone interested in reading your full statement can simply scroll back to it. As far as I'm concerned, I've acknowledged when your points seem valid and I've explained when I consider them faulty. I'm not playing games. That would be repeatedly claiming that my "points" are being missed without ever specifying what I'm talking about.