Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 01-05-2008, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

I am not too up on gnostic literature. Could you post a link or explain why you think that Basilides used Luke?

As well as the material in Hippolytus.

Hegemonius in the 4th century Acta Archelai claims that Basilides in the 13th book of the Exegetica referred to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus from Luke.

(Hegemonius is not online AFAIK but I did some time ago check this in the Vermes English translation.)

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic · 01-05-2008, 06:47 AM

Message to Andrew Criddle: I am curious about something. You typically make short posts that over 99.99% of Americans know nothing about. Why do you make posts at this forum? What are you trying to prove? As far as I know, your brief posts will probably not change anyone's worldview. Perhaps you are preaching to the choir who are already Christians.

I do not believe that a loving, rational God would use copies of copies of ancient texts as a primary means of communicating with humans. Doing so without supplementing them will lots of personal appearances all over the world in every century would needlessly invite hatred and wars regarding interpretation, lying, interpolations, and innocent but inaccurate revelations.

Millions of people died without having heard the Gospel message. What good are texts if people to not have access to them? Do you believe that the spread of the Gospel message is more important that the spread of a cure for cancer? Does God?

This forum is valuable, but philosophical and moral issues regarding a defense of Christianity are equally if not more important. That is why you need to spend some of your time at other forums. This forum alone cannot provide a rational defense of fundamentalist Christianity. I would like to suggest that you visit the General Religious Discussions Forum on occasion.

In my opinion, the philosophical and moral evidence against fundamentalist Christianity far outweigh copies of copies of ancient texts. Logically, if the methods that the God of the Bible uses to try to achieve his goals do not make any sense, he probably does not exist. What do you believe that God if trying to accomplish? If you wish, you can answer my question by sending me a private message, or by starting a new thread at the General Religious Discussions Forum

There are many excellent arguments against fundamentalist Christianity that you will never read if you spend all of your time at this forum, but maybe that is your intention. I am not trying to be unnecessarily provocative. I like you. You are a nice person. I just want to encourage you to expand your horizons and be willing to consider some philosophical and moral arguments that are worth considering. In my opinion, a lifetime limited exclusively to this forum is not a good chioce, just as a college degree that was limited exclusively to the study of math would not be a good choice.

Amaleq13 · 01-05-2008, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to Andrew Criddle: I am curious about something. You typically make short posts that over 99.99% of Americans know nothing about. Why do you make posts at this forum?

What an absurd and foolish question on a discussion board!!

You should be grateful that folks who know more than you do are willing to share their knowledge even when their beliefs are not the same as yours. Only more so when they consistently do so in as diplomatic and respectful a tone as Andrew.

I have found him to be a wealth of interesting information and I value his participation despite the rude reception he occasionally and entirely unfairly obtains from blatantly prejudiced individuals.

Please accept my apologies on behalf of Johnny, Andrew. He clearly isn't used to dealing with Christians who actually know something about the Bible. He seems to prefer much softer targets.

As embarrassing as it is counterproductive. :banghead:

Johnny Skeptic · 01-05-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to Andrew Criddle: I am curious about something. You typically make short posts that over 99.99% of Americans know nothing about. Why do you make posts at this forum?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

What an absurd and foolish question on a discussion board!!

You should be grateful that folks who know more than you do are willing to share their knowledge even when their beliefs are not the same as yours. Only more so when they consistently do so in as diplomatic and respectful a tone as Andrew.

I have found him to be a wealth of interesting information and I value his participation despite the rude reception he occasionally and entirely unfairly obtains from blatantly prejudiced individuals.

Please accept my apologies on behalf of Johnny, Andrew. He clearly isn't used to dealing with Christians who actually know something about the Bible. He seems to prefer much softer targets.

As embarrassing as it is counterproductive.

On the contrary, I said "I am not trying to be unnecessarily provocative. I like you. You are a nice person. I just want to encourage you to expand your horizons and be willing to consider some philosophical and moral arguments that are worth considering."

It was certainly reasonable for me ask Andrew why he makes posts. I would like to know if Andrew is trying to convert skeptics, if he is preaching to the choir, or if his interests are merely academic. My curiosity is certainly reasonable. Once you know what a person's motives are, it is easier to reply to their posts.

Of course Andrew knows a lot about Biblical criticism, and is a valuable part of this forum. I certainly have never disputed that.

There is little doubt that it is you who are the offended party, not Andrew. I assume that Andrew will accept my post in the spirit that I intended. I suggest that you do the same. I have always liked Andrew, and that goes for Ben Smith too.

Amaleq13 · 01-05-2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

It was certainly reasonable for me ask Andrew why he makes posts.

Yes, in a Private Message to him.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-05-2008, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

It was certainly reasonable for me ask Andrew why he makes posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Yes, in a Private Message to him.

I agree that that would have been better, but I did not think about that possibility at the time. I am pretty sure that Andrew was not offended by what I said. In the future, I will send private messages regarding those kinds of issues.

Cege · 01-05-2008, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

I am not too up on gnostic literature. Could you post a link or explain why you think that Basilides used Luke?

As well as the material in Hippolytus.

Hegemonius in the 4th century Acta Archelai claims that Basilides in the 13th book of the Exegetica referred to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus from Luke.

(Hegemonius is not online AFAIK but I did some time ago check this in the Vermes English translation.)

Andrew Criddle

The 13th book of the Exegetica is circa 55 CE from what I can gather.

Could you clarify whether Hegemonius claimed that Basilides referred to Luke's gospel or to a rich man/Lazaurus parable?

Loomis · 01-05-2008, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Well, skipping over the book that Johnny Skeptic posted, I have no problem at all with the 70 CE dating and find the attempts to "push the dating back" to be highly biased and not very well thought out.

Indeed, I would love to be able to favor an even earlier dating of Mark. If Mark were written in 40 CE all the better IMO, but the point is to stick to the evidence though.

The old idea that the closer the Gospels were written to the "life of Jesus" the more reliable they are has to be completely thrown out the window. This argument assumes that dating of the writing is the only factor in judging reliability and secondly assumes a real live Jesus.

If Jesus never existed then this argument is moot.

What undermines the credibility of the Gospels is not when they were written, but their content.

Indeed, their content so gravely undermines them that the closer they were written to the supposed life of Jesus the less likely it is that Jesus really existed.

The content of the Gospels is completely not believable as history and is almost entirely based on the scriptures. Take the relationship between Psalm 22 and the crucifixion.

The use of Psalm 22 displays a story based on scriptures, not observation of real events. The farther away in time the writing of this account is from the supposed time of the events the more one can justify the use of scripture to fill in details, but if this account were written within a supposed time that people should be able to provide eyewitness accounts, then the reality of such an event comes more into question.

Not only this, but the repetition of this account calls it even more into question.

Every crucifixion account uses the Markan template. If the Markan template is made-up based on scripture, and these details are not real, then we should expect that if the event really happened, and the other accounts were written withing reasonable memory of the event, and the other accounts were based on some eyewitness account of the event, then they should differ greatly from the Markan account, but they don't.

Everything that the Christians have traditionally used to support their claims actually works against them.

The parallel between Psalm 22 and the crucifixion scene doesn't demonstrate prophecy fulfillment, it demonstrates a fabricated symbolic story and the use of allusion, not observation.

The similarities of all of the accounts doesn't improve the reliability of the accounts, it shows that there were no other observations to go on, thus they all use Marks fabricated account because it was the existing description of this supposed event.

The close that all of this was written to the supposed time of the event the more the reality of the of the event is called into question, not less.

Furthermore, if you date mark after 100 CE, then how do you explain Tacitus and the possible Josephus passage?

The sooner that Mark was penned the sooner you establish the fictional basis for the Jesus story and the more time you have for the story to spread and for it to be the basis of all other views of Jesus.

If you date Mark after Tacitus, then that almost requires Jesus to have been real and the Markan account to be accurate, becuase Tacitus matches Mark.

If Mark came along in 70 CE, then Mark is easily the basis of the Tacitus account. If Mark came after Tacitus then Tacitus has to be based on either real accounts of the event or some other pre-existing tradition.

My view is much simpler and addresses everything.

Mark is essentially the basis for all of the "historical" concepts of Jesus and the basis for all Jesus narratives.

There were no Jesus narratives prior to Mark; Mark invented the first and original Jesus narrative, from which all other Jesus narratives are derived.

In order for this to be true, Mark has to be dated in the mid 1st century.

An "early" dating of Mark undermine Jesus historicity far more than a late dating, and goes far further to explain agreement in the Jesus story.

With an "early Mark" everything is explained as Mark being the sole origin of all narrative and historical accounts of Jesus.

Bingo. :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

yalla · 01-06-2008, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

I am not too up on gnostic literature. Could you post a link or explain why you think that Basilides used Luke?

Hegemonius in the 4th century Acta Archelai claims that Basilides in the 13th book of the Exegetica referred to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus from Luke.

Andrew Criddle

I wondered who was Hegemonius and what was the "Acta Archelia" and how much weight a 4th century claim should carry concerning Basilides and an alleged link to 'Luke'.
Google is my friend. This is some of what I found.
-" AA....contains a great deal of completely ficticious elements" [possibly only in reference to Mani]
-"dating uncertain, not mentioned by Eusebius, earliest reference 348 CE"
-"attributed to a certain Hegemonius about whom nothing is known...may well be a pseudonym''
-"christian polemic.."
-"until the 19ty century ...the AA were consigned to oblivion"

Not exactly confidence inspiring.

hatsoff · 01-06-2008, 08:28 AM

I know I'm a little late to the party, but here's the situation as I see it:

1. Ascription to Mark. Unlike the other three Gospels, there is little evidence to disrupt the testimony of the early Patristics that Mark, disciple of Peter, wrote this Gospel. In fact, the idea that Mark wrote shortly after Peter's death fits perfectly with the internal focus on the Jewish War, as well as Peter himself. Were the Patristics mistaken? They certainly had a habit of making just that sort of ascription error, after all. Well, it's possible, but I don't think their testimony should simply be dismissed.

2. Early popularity of Matthew. The Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, Shepherd, Ignatius, Papias, and even perhaps 1 Clement all cite Matthew with enthusiasm. The early Gospels of the Hebrews and Ebionites may also have used Matthew. Now, while none of these can be reliably dated to the first century, they do imply a growing popularity, which must have taken at least a few years, and perhaps longer. Add to that at least another period of time between Matt and Mark, and it seems unlikely that Mark could have been written much after the turn of the century.

(I'm running out of time before work, so I'm just going to list the headings for the next few evidences and let you all fill in the rest, yourselves...)

3. Primitive theology.

4. Gospel accounts as a response to the passing of the Apostolic generation.

5. Early papyrus fragments across a wide geographic area.

6. Silence concerning various later events and issues.

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

01-05-2008, 06:47 AM	#82
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to Andrew Criddle: I am curious about something. You typically make short posts that over 99.99% of Americans know nothing about. Why do you make posts at this forum? What are you trying to prove? As far as I know, your brief posts will probably not change anyone's worldview. Perhaps you are preaching to the choir who are already Christians. I do not believe that a loving, rational God would use copies of copies of ancient texts as a primary means of communicating with humans. Doing so without supplementing them will lots of personal appearances all over the world in every century would needlessly invite hatred and wars regarding interpretation, lying, interpolations, and innocent but inaccurate revelations. Millions of people died without having heard the Gospel message. What good are texts if people to not have access to them? Do you believe that the spread of the Gospel message is more important that the spread of a cure for cancer? Does God? This forum is valuable, but philosophical and moral issues regarding a defense of Christianity are equally if not more important. That is why you need to spend some of your time at other forums. This forum alone cannot provide a rational defense of fundamentalist Christianity. I would like to suggest that you visit the General Religious Discussions Forum on occasion. In my opinion, the philosophical and moral evidence against fundamentalist Christianity far outweigh copies of copies of ancient texts. Logically, if the methods that the God of the Bible uses to try to achieve his goals do not make any sense, he probably does not exist. What do you believe that God if trying to accomplish? If you wish, you can answer my question by sending me a private message, or by starting a new thread at the General Religious Discussions Forum There are many excellent arguments against fundamentalist Christianity that you will never read if you spend all of your time at this forum, but maybe that is your intention. I am not trying to be unnecessarily provocative. I like you. You are a nice person. I just want to encourage you to expand your horizons and be willing to consider some philosophical and moral arguments that are worth considering. In my opinion, a lifetime limited exclusively to this forum is not a good chioce, just as a college degree that was limited exclusively to the study of math would not be a good choice.

01-06-2008, 08:28 AM	#90
hatsoff Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rockford, IL Posts: 740	I know I'm a little late to the party, but here's the situation as I see it: 1. Ascription to Mark. Unlike the other three Gospels, there is little evidence to disrupt the testimony of the early Patristics that Mark, disciple of Peter, wrote this Gospel. In fact, the idea that Mark wrote shortly after Peter's death fits perfectly with the internal focus on the Jewish War, as well as Peter himself. Were the Patristics mistaken? They certainly had a habit of making just that sort of ascription error, after all. Well, it's possible, but I don't think their testimony should simply be dismissed. 2. Early popularity of Matthew. The Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, Shepherd, Ignatius, Papias, and even perhaps 1 Clement all cite Matthew with enthusiasm. The early Gospels of the Hebrews and Ebionites may also have used Matthew. Now, while none of these can be reliably dated to the first century, they do imply a growing popularity, which must have taken at least a few years, and perhaps longer. Add to that at least another period of time between Matt and Mark, and it seems unlikely that Mark could have been written much after the turn of the century. (I'm running out of time before work, so I'm just going to list the headings for the next few evidences and let you all fill in the rest, yourselves...) 3. Primitive theology. 4. Gospel accounts as a response to the passing of the Apostolic generation. 5. Early papyrus fragments across a wide geographic area. 6. Silence concerning various later events and issues.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.