Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jim Larmore · 10-01-2003, 02:14 PM

guys I have to go, I'll be back tomorrow to post some more . Bernard I promise to read your web-site and respond.

Doctor X · 10-01-2003, 02:36 PM

Quote:

What if the areas where catastrophies occurred had no one capable of historically recording something.

Then you would have no one capable of recording the deeds of Junior.

Incidentally, a great way to figure out fuctions it to hit the "edit" button on a post you like. You will then see the codes. You cannot edit someone else's post, of course, but you can see how to do what they do.

Er . . . actually that does not work . . . try the "quote" button.

--J.D.

[Edited to edit the edit into a quote.--Ed.]

Peter Kirby · 10-01-2003, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amlodhi
It is certainly interesting speculation. It had always been my understanding, however, that Herod the Great had initiated an extensive renovation of the temple complex in 19 b.c. (which was not actually completed until 63 a.d.).

Since this would, of course, place the Jew's comment regarding the temple being under construction for 46 yrs. at c. 27 a.d., I had always thought that it was this renovation that they were referring to.

Is this in error in some way?

No, it is an excellent and perceptive question, as the date we reason the temple began construction and the date we reason Jesus was crucified and the date we reason this speech in relation to the crucifixion do have a rough correspondence. I don't have a good answer. It is, as they say, only interesting speculation. It was motivated by the real reasons that I don't regard "John" as giving a "true" account of the "Word" speaking about the "temple" of his body on a "Passover" where he had a "temple tantrum" that in the Synoptics leads up to his death, which in John is the eve of Passover (which in reality was when the lambs were ritually slaughtered), and in which "The Jews" say something unperceptive, in response to something which in the Synoptics is said only by the false witnesses and imputed to Jesus, in characteristic Johannine irony and symbolism, which the apostles only "remembered" at the resurrection. It's thoroughly varnished, at least, which makes me wary of isolating this exact number and taking it as fact..

In fact, I'll let this reply stand for Bernard as well until I complete my review of his web site, which obviously requires a consideration of the whole. He can reply to this post if he wishes.

best,
Peter Kirby

Amlodhi · 10-01-2003, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby

. . . in characteristic Johannine irony and symbolism . . . It's thoroughly varnished . . .

Well, that much I have no trouble agreeing with. Thanks for your reply Peter.

Also, my apologies to Bernard Muller, I had a long day before I posted my question to Peter and didn't realize that you had already raised the point regarding Herod's reconstruction project.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Bernard Muller · 10-01-2003, 06:21 PM

Peter wrote:
Originally posted by Amlodhi
It is certainly interesting speculation. It had always been my understanding, however, that Herod the Great had initiated an extensive renovation of the temple complex in 19 b.c. (which was not actually completed until 63 a.d.).

Since this would, of course, place the Jew's comment regarding the temple being under construction for 46 yrs. at c. 27 a.d., I had always thought that it was this renovation that they were referring to.
Is this in error in some way?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Amlodhi,
Peter is handing me a hot potato but I'll oblige.

Of course, you must know by now I think these forty-six years are about Herod the Great's reconstruction of the Temple complex.
So there is no error. Even Jim is reconsidering his position in view of 'Ezra'. Very few would take the 46 years as from its destruction from the Babylonians. The evidence calls for 70 years on that.

Peter objected the entire passage is not "authentic". I agree totally, this is just fiction. That is for all conversations there (or in all of GJohn) are fiction.
Actually, according to my research, the whole episode of Jesus in Jerusalem for the first time (after meeting JB & with the disturbance) was moved from a position similar as where it shows in GMark, at one point in the composition of GJohn, after GLuke was known and "John" borrowed from it (as shown in the subwebsite of mine, starting here:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/jnintro.shtml)

I think also that Jn2:20 was inserted then:

18 The Jews then said to Him, " What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?"
19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
20 The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?"
21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body.

Does not 2:20 look like a digression out of context? And let's notice Jesus does not answer the question of 2:20!

The author was working on Mk14:57-58 and possibly also against its suggestion of Jesus threatening to destroy the temple, making the Son of God, who has a Kingdom in heaven, look like a vulgar earthly insurrectionist. For "John", the temple is destroyed (indirectly) by the Jews, as implied by "destroy this temple".

57 Some stood up and began to give false testimony against Him, saying,
58 "We heard Him say, ' I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.'"

Going back to the fourth gospel, "John" was making a point: Jesus' resurrection would replace the temple, more so after its destruction, that is, of course, when the gospel was written. And no need of Jn2:20 for that.

So, why would "John" insert something to set the date of John the Baptist's advent?
First, according to GJohn, JB had followers in the community, because "John", in two different passages, demeaned JB more so than in any other gospels. So the date of JB's advent was known there, from JB followers, very likely.
Then comes GLuke and all the confusion & controversy it caused because of its own dating "fifteenth year ...", something detrimental, not only for GLuke, but also for the Christians generally (addressed a book with wrong dating! What about the rest?).
So the sneaky fix-up by "John". And getting the dating right was advantageous against the competition, that is GLuke!
For what other reasons "John" would do that?

Best regards, Bernard

Peter Kirby · 10-01-2003, 11:22 PM

Bernard, scientists have a euphemism for "blablablah." It is a "just so story." My overall impression, of a single post of yours above, which I will let you draw your own conclusions about. That's all I'm saying for now.

best,
Peter Kirby

Jim Larmore · 10-02-2003, 11:57 AM

Bernard,
I'm studying your evaluation of John compared to the other three gospels on your web-site, this may be a pre-mature question but do you do your own synopsis or are you researching other synoptic gospel writers literature?

Also, do you address on your web site who or what you believe the "Quelle" ( Q ) is?

This may take awhile based on what I'm seeing, theres a lot of stuff here to read.

Thanks
Jim

Gregg · 10-02-2003, 12:58 PM

Jim,

I'm not nearly the scholar most of these other guys who are posting are. However, I just don't find your arguments very convincing. The problem is, you can make up all sorts of semi-plausible (and some not-so-plausible) explanations for why there is no independent attestation to individual gospel events. But when you look at the big picture, things start to get ridiculous. It's like O.J.'s lawyers attacking the individual pieces of evidence pointing to his guilt. You can make up all sorts of explanations for the individual bits of evidence, but when you look at the sheer amount of evidence, it begins to get absurd (although not, apparently, to O.J.'s jury). If a person is innocent, there shouldn't BE so much evidence against him that needs debunking.

The same principle applies to the alleged events in the gospels. You shouldn't NEED to make up so many explanations as to why they are not mentioned anywhere except in the gospels themselves. If fantastic events like this really happened--in full view of the population of Jerusalem--somebody else, somewhere, would have had something to say (and write down) about them. But nobody does. I mean, why wouldn't someone have mentioned the earthquake and the eclipse, at least? Why should the authorities have connected these natural occurrences with the execution of some obscure nuisance of a preacher? Why does Paul, for example, never say anything about the dead saints who came back to life? Didn't he meet any of them during his visit to Jerusalem?

Sorry, Occam's Razor. The pervasive silence in the non-gospel record concerning these extraordinary events suggests that the simplest explanation is--they never happened.

Also, there are Roman accounts of emperors performing miracles and healings. Do you believe those? Why not? There's as much evidence for them as there is for the crucifixion events.

Bernard Muller · 10-02-2003, 01:17 PM

Jim wrote
Bernard,
I'm studying your evaluation of John compared to the other three gospels on your web-site, this may be a pre-mature question but do you do your own synopsis or are you researching other synoptic gospel writers literature?

No, I did not do that for the other gospels as I did for GJohn (4 pages!).
However these two pages, centered on the parables, but dealing with also many issues from the Synoptics, show my evaluation on those:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appd.shtml
and
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appdx.shtml

Furthermore, all along my site, I make many comments on mostly GMark, and also GLuke & GMatthew.

BTW, I have another page on one aspect of GLuke:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appf.shtml

Also, do you address on your web site who or what you believe the "Quelle" ( Q ) is?

You bet! Here is my page on Q:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/q.shtml
Futhermore, on these other page, I displayed most of what I think are authentic sayings by Jesus. Those are chiefly from Q.
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/hjes2x.shtml

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller · 10-02-2003, 01:26 PM

Peter wrote:
Bernard, scientists have a euphemism for "blablablah." It is a "just so story." My overall impression, of a single post of yours above, which I will let you draw your own conclusions about. That's all I'm saying for now.

Peter, it would be very useful you indicate what you do not like in my reply.
My reply was a concise step by step one, taking in account all the elements which need to be consulted, and backed up by evidence, sometimes displayed, sometimes in indicated pages of mine, sometimes alluded to (as the 2 passages about JB in GJohn). I still hope you keep an open mind.

Best regards, Bernard

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

10-01-2003, 02:14 PM	#61
Jim Larmore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Bartlesville, Okla. Posts: 856	guys I have to go, I'll be back tomorrow to post some more . Bernard I promise to read your web-site and respond.

10-01-2003, 06:21 PM	#65
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Peter wrote: Originally posted by Amlodhi It is certainly interesting speculation. It had always been my understanding, however, that Herod the Great had initiated an extensive renovation of the temple complex in 19 b.c. (which was not actually completed until 63 a.d.). Since this would, of course, place the Jew's comment regarding the temple being under construction for 46 yrs. at c. 27 a.d., I had always thought that it was this renovation that they were referring to. Is this in error in some way? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello Amlodhi, Peter is handing me a hot potato but I'll oblige. Of course, you must know by now I think these forty-six years are about Herod the Great's reconstruction of the Temple complex. So there is no error. Even Jim is reconsidering his position in view of 'Ezra'. Very few would take the 46 years as from its destruction from the Babylonians. The evidence calls for 70 years on that. Peter objected the entire passage is not "authentic". I agree totally, this is just fiction. That is for all conversations there (or in all of GJohn) are fiction. Actually, according to my research, the whole episode of Jesus in Jerusalem for the first time (after meeting JB & with the disturbance) was moved from a position similar as where it shows in GMark, at one point in the composition of GJohn, after GLuke was known and "John" borrowed from it (as shown in the subwebsite of mine, starting here: http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/jnintro.shtml) I think also that Jn2:20 was inserted then: 18 The Jews then said to Him, " What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?" 19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. Does not 2:20 look like a digression out of context? And let's notice Jesus does not answer the question of 2:20! The author was working on Mk14:57-58 and possibly also against its suggestion of Jesus threatening to destroy the temple, making the Son of God, who has a Kingdom in heaven, look like a vulgar earthly insurrectionist. For "John", the temple is destroyed (indirectly) by the Jews, as implied by "destroy this temple". 57 Some stood up and began to give false testimony against Him, saying, 58 "We heard Him say, ' I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.'" Going back to the fourth gospel, "John" was making a point: Jesus' resurrection would replace the temple, more so after its destruction, that is, of course, when the gospel was written. And no need of Jn2:20 for that. So, why would "John" insert something to set the date of John the Baptist's advent? First, according to GJohn, JB had followers in the community, because "John", in two different passages, demeaned JB more so than in any other gospels. So the date of JB's advent was known there, from JB followers, very likely. Then comes GLuke and all the confusion & controversy it caused because of its own dating "fifteenth year ...", something detrimental, not only for GLuke, but also for the Christians generally (addressed a book with wrong dating! What about the rest?). So the sneaky fix-up by "John". And getting the dating right was advantageous against the competition, that is GLuke! For what other reasons "John" would do that? Best regards, Bernard

10-01-2003, 11:22 PM	#66
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Bernard, scientists have a euphemism for "blablablah." It is a "just so story." My overall impression, of a single post of yours above, which I will let you draw your own conclusions about. That's all I'm saying for now. best, Peter Kirby

10-02-2003, 11:57 AM	#67
Jim Larmore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Bartlesville, Okla. Posts: 856	Bernard, I'm studying your evaluation of John compared to the other three gospels on your web-site, this may be a pre-mature question but do you do your own synopsis or are you researching other synoptic gospel writers literature? Also, do you address on your web site who or what you believe the "Quelle" ( Q ) is? This may take awhile based on what I'm seeing, theres a lot of stuff here to read. Thanks Jim

10-02-2003, 12:58 PM	#68
Gregg Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 1,877	Jim, I'm not nearly the scholar most of these other guys who are posting are. However, I just don't find your arguments very convincing. The problem is, you can make up all sorts of semi-plausible (and some not-so-plausible) explanations for why there is no independent attestation to individual gospel events. But when you look at the big picture, things start to get ridiculous. It's like O.J.'s lawyers attacking the individual pieces of evidence pointing to his guilt. You can make up all sorts of explanations for the individual bits of evidence, but when you look at the sheer amount of evidence, it begins to get absurd (although not, apparently, to O.J.'s jury). If a person is innocent, there shouldn't BE so much evidence against him that needs debunking. The same principle applies to the alleged events in the gospels. You shouldn't NEED to make up so many explanations as to why they are not mentioned anywhere except in the gospels themselves. If fantastic events like this really happened--in full view of the population of Jerusalem--somebody else, somewhere, would have had something to say (and write down) about them. But nobody does. I mean, why wouldn't someone have mentioned the earthquake and the eclipse, at least? Why should the authorities have connected these natural occurrences with the execution of some obscure nuisance of a preacher? Why does Paul, for example, never say anything about the dead saints who came back to life? Didn't he meet any of them during his visit to Jerusalem? Sorry, Occam's Razor. The pervasive silence in the non-gospel record concerning these extraordinary events suggests that the simplest explanation is--they never happened. Also, there are Roman accounts of emperors performing miracles and healings. Do you believe those? Why not? There's as much evidence for them as there is for the crucifixion events.

10-02-2003, 01:17 PM	#69
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Jim wrote Bernard, I'm studying your evaluation of John compared to the other three gospels on your web-site, this may be a pre-mature question but do you do your own synopsis or are you researching other synoptic gospel writers literature? No, I did not do that for the other gospels as I did for GJohn (4 pages!). However these two pages, centered on the parables, but dealing with also many issues from the Synoptics, show my evaluation on those: http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appd.shtml and http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appdx.shtml Furthermore, all along my site, I make many comments on mostly GMark, and also GLuke & GMatthew. BTW, I have another page on one aspect of GLuke: http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appf.shtml Also, do you address on your web site who or what you believe the "Quelle" ( Q ) is? You bet! Here is my page on Q: http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/q.shtml Futhermore, on these other page, I displayed most of what I think are authentic sayings by Jesus. Those are chiefly from Q. http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/hjes2x.shtml Best regards, Bernard

10-02-2003, 01:26 PM	#70
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Peter wrote: Bernard, scientists have a euphemism for "blablablah." It is a "just so story." My overall impression, of a single post of yours above, which I will let you draw your own conclusions about. That's all I'm saying for now. Peter, it would be very useful you indicate what you do not like in my reply. My reply was a concise step by step one, taking in account all the elements which need to be consulted, and backed up by evidence, sometimes displayed, sometimes in indicated pages of mine, sometimes alluded to (as the 2 passages about JB in GJohn). I still hope you keep an open mind. Best regards, Bernard

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.