Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 04-13-2008, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

There are enough things that militate against the mainstream datings of the gospels. The most damning being the existence of the earliest heresies, docetism and ebionism, neither possible given the existence of lots of gospel material.

I did see you ask a question about this recently "Could sincere believers of later considered heresies have held their ideals if there was a gospel tradition to provide clear contrary information to those ideals?" here .

Now you seem to have jumped from asking the question to believing it to be impossible, IIUC.

Is there some new evidence or arguments to show it was impossible?

Merely re-evaluation. Why don't you wrestle with the idea seriously, treating them like yourself, and see where it leads you.

spin

Solitary Man · 04-13-2008, 10:26 AM

I wonder how many of these people have read Tacitus in Latin:

Clements, Doug Shaver, fuknukl, jdwca123, JoeWallack, karlmarx, Logic_Fault, the_cave, Toto, Peter Kirby

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-13-2008, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

.... which would tie in with 'mainstream' datings of the gospels...

There are enough things that militate against the mainstream datings of the gospels. The most damning being the existence of the earliest heresies, docetism and ebionism, neither possible given the existence of lots of gospel material. Even Mk, the earliest gospel, features the torn curtain in the temple, a symbol of the overthrow of the temple, not possible before 70 CE

.

So Jeremiah's yoke symbol depicting the Babylonian captivity, or his preaching that Shiloh was a prototype of Jerusalem, and Isaiah's nakedness and Ezekiel's symbolic action of dung cooking depicting the devastation that the Babylonian armies would unleash upon Jerusalem, were not possible before 587/586 BCE?

Jeffrey

judge · 04-13-2008, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

I did see you ask a question about this recently "Could sincere believers of later considered heresies have held their ideals if there was a gospel tradition to provide clear contrary information to those ideals?" here .

Now you seem to have jumped from asking the question to believing it to be impossible, IIUC.

Is there some new evidence or arguments to show it was impossible?

Merely re-evaluation. Why don't you wrestle with the idea seriously, treating them like yourself, and see where it leads you.

Well my own views are heretical, so if I can sincerely hold to my heretical views today, why not then? I think that divergent views on issues that later became the subject of heresy were probably there from the beginning.

It just doesn't seem to follow, to me, that the existence of these "heresies" mitigates against mainstream dating of the gospels.

spin · 04-13-2008, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Merely re-evaluation. Why don't you wrestle with the idea seriously, treating them like yourself, and see where it leads you.

Well my own views are heretical, so if I can sincerely hold to my heretical views today, why not then? I think that divergent views on issues that later became the subject of heresy were probably there from the beginning.

It just doesn't seem to follow, to me, that the existence of these "heresies" mitigates against mainstream dating of the gospels.

So you think it's alright to hold views that your religious texts clearly tell you are wrong.

spin

spin · 04-13-2008, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

There are enough things that militate against the mainstream datings of the gospels. The most damning being the existence of the earliest heresies, docetism and ebionism, neither possible given the existence of lots of gospel material. Even Mk, the earliest gospel, features the torn curtain in the temple, a symbol of the overthrow of the temple, not possible before 70 CE

.

So Jeremiah's yoke symbol depicting the Babylonian captivity, or his preaching that Shiloh was a prototype of Jerusalem, and Isaiah's nakedness and Ezekiel's symbolic action of dung cooking depicting the devastation that the Babylonian armies would unleash upon Jerusalem, were not possible before 587/586 BCE?

Jeffrey

You like to find an analogy that would be as blasphemous.

spin

judge · 04-13-2008, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

So you think it's alright to hold views that your religious texts clearly tell you are wrong.

spin

Sure

. But ..of course ..that wouldn't apply to me as I have the correct view of my, those religious texts.

View Poll Results: What is your position on the Tacitus passage
If authentic, it is proof that Jesus existed (I think its authentic)	3	12.00%
If authentic, it is proof that Jesus existed (I DON'T think its authentic)	1	4.00%
If authentic, it is only proof of Christian hearsay (I think its authentic)	8	32.00%
If authentic, it is only proof of Christian hearsay (I DON'T think its authentic)	13	52.00%
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

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

04-13-2008, 10:26 AM	#12
Solitary Man Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: ירושלים Posts: 1,701	I wonder how many of these people have read Tacitus in Latin: Clements, Doug Shaver, fuknukl, jdwca123, JoeWallack, karlmarx, Logic_Fault, the_cave, Toto, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.