Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-30-2011, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

...That's a start. Thank you for allowing me to use the gospels as evidence. But I don't require you to take the all-or-nothing approach you go on to detail. For purposes of this thread I am asking you only to consider whether words that got down on paper most likely came from one particular human being or another. If no such subjective stances can be identified, then we might be reduced to seeing the gospels only as evidence of later belief. Please allow me to apply Higher Criticism before you lump it all together as myth.

Pardon me!!

You are presently attempting to argue Jesus was ALL historical due to the witnesses in the Gospels.

Well, I will REBUT you and argue that Jesus was NOTHING.

The HJ/MJ argument is an ALL or NOTHING argument. History versus mythology.

Please, proceed. I eagerly await your corroborative sources.

Stringbean · 09-30-2011, 04:46 PM

Your going to attempt to use the Gospels as eyewitness accounts of this jesus? Are you for real? This I gotta see!

Adam · 09-30-2011, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

..

On my screen my Post #1 has paragraphing of my MS Word docx document

What browser are you using?

Are you going to claim that Acts has any historical value? Or that you can infer anything from this?

Acts 12:12 When this had dawned on him, he went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying.

My browser is MSN.
Lots of issues have come up that can be best addressed as a group. Rather than advance my fourth eyewitness right after the second, I'll draw upon the start of my article about sources:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam initially now

Ur-Marcus
The sources underlying the gospels can be established by general comparison and by detailed analysis. The general picture is that even John has textual overlaps with the other three gospels, the Synoptics. This shows that there was originally a gospel with only a few chapters covering the life of Jesus . Comparison with the Acts of the Apostles shows that there is no reason to assume that this text stops with the end of Jesus’s life in 29 A.D. If we look for the logical end-point, it comes near the end of chapter 12. Just before the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 A.D., the Apostle Peter arrives at the home of John Mark. The underlying text had focused on Peter to this point. Since we hear of Peter only once again, we can assume that this source ends here. It is best called “Petrine Ur-Marcus”. It was written in Aramaic at that time. It can be found in Mark (and comparable verses in Matthew, Luke, and even John):

Mark 1:16-28, 2:17-3:5, 5:1-43, 6:30-52, 8:27-9:13, 9:30-31, 9:38-42, 10:13-34, 11:27-33, 12:18-23, 12:35-13:15, 13:28-31, 14:1-9, 28-42, 14:46-54, 15:1-27, 34-40, and continuing in Luke 24:1-3, 9,11-12, 36-47, 51; John 20:1-23, 26-27; and Acts 1:6-4:31, 5:17-42, 9:32-11:18, 12:1-17.

No other Synoptic sources were employed in the Gospel of John, so we can deduce that 44 A.D. slightly preceded the major development of the writing of John. Its textual mark is identity of word-use between Mark and Luke, but not with John. This shows that it must have been translated into Greek by the time it was used in Mark and Luke.

http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Underlying
There are three other articles by me at the same site. All are relevant to the issues here that are driving me to advance my agenda.

Stringbean · 09-30-2011, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What browser are you using?

Are you going to claim that Acts has any historical value? Or that you can infer anything from this?

Acts 12:12 When this had dawned on him, he went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying.

My browser is MSN.
Lots of issues have come up that can be best addressed as a group. Rather than advance my fourth eyewitness right after the second, I'll draw upon the start of my article about sources:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Ur-Marcus
The sources underlying the gospels can be established by general comparison and by detailed analysis. The general picture is that even John has textual overlaps with the other three gospels, the Synoptics. This shows that there was originally a gospel with only a few chapters covering the life of Jesus . Comparison with the Acts of the Apostles shows that there is no reason to assume that this text stops with the end of Jesus’s life in 29 A.D. If we look for the logical end-point, it comes near the end of chapter 12. Just before the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 A.D., the Apostle Peter arrives at the home of John Mark. The underlying text had focused on Peter to this point. Since we hear of Peter only once again, we can assume that this source ends here. It is best called “Petrine Ur-Marcus”. It was written in Aramaic at that time. It can be found in Mark (and comparable verses in Matthew, Luke, and even John):

Mark 1:16-28, 2:17-3:5, 5:1-43, 6:30-52, 8:27-9:13, 9:30-31, 9:38-42, 10:13-34, 11:27-33, 12:18-23, 12:35-13:15, 13:28-31, 14:1-9, 28-42, 14:46-54, 15:1-27, 34-40, and continuing in Luke 24:1-3, 9,11-12, 36-47, 51; John 20:1-23, 26-27; and Acts 1:6-4:31, 5:17-42, 9:32-11:18, 12:1-17.

No other Synoptic sources were employed in the Gospel of John, so we can deduce that 44 A.D. slightly preceded the major development of the writing of John. Its textual mark is identity of word-use between Mark and Luke, but not with John. This shows that it must have been translated into Greek by the time it was used in Mark and Luke.

http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Underlying
There are three other articles by me at the same site. All are relevant to the issues here that are driving me to advance my agenda.

Your using the Bible to prove itself dude that don't work. Of course everything in the Bible is going to fit if you use it as a reference point. So far I do not see any witnesses that you have posted. If your intent was or is to use the Bible as eyewitness accounts then you have "Sailed to Fail.":wave:

In other words "circular reasoning" trying to demonstrate the internal consistency of the book by using the book itself.

TedM · 09-30-2011, 06:08 PM

Adam, are you familiar with the work of Bernard Muller? He, though not a Christian, concludes an original John was written early, that utilized Markan material: http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html. You may want to check out his 'blocks' of GJohn to see how they might compare to your own....just a thought.

In any case, I think you are going to run into trouble here unless you really spell out what is going on--listing a whole string of passages won't cut it. People won't look them up and it isn't clear why you are breaking them out.

Ted

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

..

On my screen my Post #1 has paragraphing of my MS Word docx document

What browser are you using?

Are you going to claim that Acts has any historical value? Or that you can infer anything from this?

Acts 12:12 When this had dawned on him, he went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying.

My browser is MSN.
Lots of issues have come up that can be best addressed as a group. Rather than advance my fourth eyewitness right after the second, I'll draw upon the start of my article about sources:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam initially now

Ur-Marcus
The sources underlying the gospels can be established by general comparison and by detailed analysis. The general picture is that even John has textual overlaps with the other three gospels, the Synoptics. This shows that there was originally a gospel with only a few chapters covering the life of Jesus . Comparison with the Acts of the Apostles shows that there is no reason to assume that this text stops with the end of Jesus’s life in 29 A.D. If we look for the logical end-point, it comes near the end of chapter 12. Just before the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 A.D., the Apostle Peter arrives at the home of John Mark. The underlying text had focused on Peter to this point. Since we hear of Peter only once again, we can assume that this source ends here. It is best called “Petrine Ur-Marcus”. It was written in Aramaic at that time. It can be found in Mark (and comparable verses in Matthew, Luke, and even John):

Mark 1:16-28, 2:17-3:5, 5:1-43, 6:30-52, 8:27-9:13, 9:30-31, 9:38-42, 10:13-34, 11:27-33, 12:18-23, 12:35-13:15, 13:28-31, 14:1-9, 28-42, 14:46-54, 15:1-27, 34-40, and continuing in Luke 24:1-3, 9,11-12, 36-47, 51; John 20:1-23, 26-27; and Acts 1:6-4:31, 5:17-42, 9:32-11:18, 12:1-17.

No other Synoptic sources were employed in the Gospel of John, so we can deduce that 44 A.D. slightly preceded the major development of the writing of John. Its textual mark is identity of word-use between Mark and Luke, but not with John. This shows that it must have been translated into Greek by the time it was used in Mark and Luke.

http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Underlying
There are three other articles by me at the same site. All are relevant to the issues here that are driving me to advance my agenda.

Adam · 09-30-2011, 06:17 PM

To: Stringbean, Post #24
A book (Luke) does not look like a 2nd Century book when it fades out in 62 A.D. with nothing happening.
A source within that book that seems to conclude about 44 A.D. does not appear to have been written later than that date.
That's not circular reasoning. That's not even showing internal consistency, because there are unexplained jumps between one source and another. However, it shows we cannot simply dismiss the text when it shows chronological markers that make sense. I show that Luke looks like history. It looks like it has historical markers that help to date it and the underlying sources (Luke and Acts 1-12). That puts the burden of proof on you to refute the markers of historicity.

Adam · 09-30-2011, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

In any case, I think you are going to run into trouble here unless you really spell out what is going on--listing a whole string of passages won't cut it. People won't look them up and it isn't clear why you are breaking them out.

Ted

No, the passages are not listed to prove anything (unless my purported author's name appears therein). They're there to identify the text I say came from that eyewitness. They give you a target to attack--can you show that person could not have written that? (Like the usual critique of John as the author of John because a Galilean fisherman could not have written all that fancy theology.)

Adam · 09-30-2011, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Adam, are you familiar with the work of Bernard Muller? He, though not a Christian, concludes an original John was written early, that utilized Markan material: http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html. You may want to check out his 'blocks' of GJohn to see how they might compare to your own....just a thought.

Thanks, Ted. No, he seems to have no concept of coherent sources underlying John. Therefore he is limited to "finding" that John must rely upon the Synoptics. Similarly on the Synoptics: he can't conceive that Mark may have used Q as a source, it has to be that Mark flowed into Q.

TedM · 09-30-2011, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

They're there to identify the text I say came from that eyewitness. They give you a target to attack--can you show that person could not have written that?

Really? If that is your approach, why would you expect anyone to conclude anything other than 'it is possible'?

Adam · 09-30-2011, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

They're there to identify the text I say came from that eyewitness. They give you a target to attack--can you show that person could not have written that?

Really? If that is your approach, why would you expect anyone to conclude anything other than 'it is possible'?

I pick out the sources by stylistic considerations, then see if these correlate with probable authors. I don't select my preferred author and then list a bunch of verses I think he would have written. There have to be objective criteria (not just dogma or ideology, where Right and Left go haywire) for source separation. Then I compare this with the subjective viewpoint of the possible author.
I don't see the relevance of your objection unless you are assuming (as is quite often valid) that I have an agenda. For fifty years I have gone where the evidence of Higher Criticism leads me, first out of my preferred Deism, even out of my Protestantism, then in stages back from extreme Roman Catholicism to Charismatic Renewal to mainstream Protestantism. My discovery of eyewitnesses accommodated all these phases except the Deism. My agenda is discovering the truth, even though that turns out not to be what anyone else is interested in.

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

09-30-2011, 04:46 PM	#22
Stringbean Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Southern United States Posts: 149	Your going to attempt to use the Gospels as eyewitness accounts of this jesus? Are you for real? This I gotta see!

09-30-2011, 06:17 PM	#26
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	To: Stringbean, Post #24 A book (Luke) does not look like a 2nd Century book when it fades out in 62 A.D. with nothing happening. A source within that book that seems to conclude about 44 A.D. does not appear to have been written later than that date. That's not circular reasoning. That's not even showing internal consistency, because there are unexplained jumps between one source and another. However, it shows we cannot simply dismiss the text when it shows chronological markers that make sense. I show that Luke looks like history. It looks like it has historical markers that help to date it and the underlying sources (Luke and Acts 1-12). That puts the burden of proof on you to refute the markers of historicity.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.