Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-27-2012, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

'w' represents omega in beta code, for those of us too lazy to use a Greek keyboard.

Even for those of us too lazy to use a greek keyboard, there are transliteration standards. Hence ektroma, not ektwma.

No, there's a difference between an omega and an omicron

Quote:

Why would I read about gnostics in a publication written before the Nag Hammadi find?

It would be your loss if you didn't. It's a classic work.

Quote:

More importantly, as both the LSJ and BDAG include "untimely" as a possible meaing, why would I necessarily accept the following interpretation:
....

ektroma can mean anything from a late birth (i.e., in which the fetus was expelled to late), to an insult. Hence interpretations of Paul's use range from him addressing an insult to Durant's interpretation of being born too late.

Paul clearly wasn't aborted. So either he is obviously either using the term metaphorically or using another sense of the word which already metaphorically extends the term's meaning "miscarriage/untimely birth." Probably he means "abomination" or something similar (in that he is in someway flawed), but it's certainly possible he meant "born at the wrong time."

The only wrong time would be "too early."

Read all the links. This subject has been discussed thoroughly on these boards.

Toto · 02-27-2012, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

and he wrote what his inspiration told him, not oral legends that were floating around.

you have what to base this on???

Paul's own letters

Quote:

...

Quote:

and scholars avoid the entire question of historicity.

Not even accurate

many scholars claim Josephas and Paul are all they need, while others use later sources are being relevant.

If anything scholars recognize there is no real need to debate the historicity with the vast majority of scholars and historians finding enough evidence to back a HJ

Look up the "Jesus Project" headed by R. Joseph Hoffman (not the other Jesus Project.)

You're just wrong.

LegionOnomaMoi · 02-27-2012, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No, there's a difference between an omega and an omicron

I'm aware. I (like Doherty) have a degree in ancient Greek and Latin. When it comes to transliterating, the difference between and omega and an omicron (just like the difference between an epsilon and an eta) is shown via diacritics. One doesn't transliterate an omega with a "w" anymore than one does an eta with an "h."

Quote:

The only wrong time would be "too early."

Read all the links. This subject has been discussed thoroughly on these boards.

So I should read links on this board for the meaning of a word written in koine Greek rather than THE standard lexicon for that dialect? Or for ancient Greek in general? I own the third edition of the BDAG and the most current LSJ. And although as my degree was in ancient Greek and Latin we spent most of the time reading texts written in Attic greek (or Homeric, or Ionic), that's why I used the BDAG along with reference Grammars such as A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature to study the dialect behind the NT rather than relying on works like Schweitzer's Griechishe Gammatik or Smyth's Greek Grammar (which, incidently, my grandfather edited). So unless this board includes leading specialists in NT greek, I'm not sure why I should rely on it rather than the BDAG and references therein.

outhouse · 02-27-2012, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Paul's own letters

not good enough. speculative at best, what based on a literal reading??

Quote:

Look up the "Jesus Project" headed by R. Joseph Hoffman (not the other Jesus Project.)

You're just wrong.

That will make a good read when finished, i'll follow Carriers notes and conclusions

outhouse · 02-27-2012, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

you have what to base this on???

as are all the MJ hypothesis that none of the M class agree on.

Not even accurate

many scholars claim Josephas and Paul are all they need, while others use later sources are being relevant.

If anything scholars recognize there is no real need to debate the historicity with the vast majority of scholars and historians finding enough evidence to back a HJ

What evidence beyond writers after the events relating what could only have been hearsay?

Its all hearsay.

But you know what they say about hearsay dont you?

rule #1

its acceptable in a court of law, with the right exception

rule #2, see rule #1

Adam · 02-27-2012, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

It is pointless to endlessly rehash the gosples fort clues of proof or disproof, neither are there. One can look at tne times and imagine a number of itinererant rabai/prophets prophesizing gloom and doom for Israel. It is what Jewish prophets did.

All's you have to look at for general parallels is the genesis of the Mormons and Scientology. Both fabrications and both peopled with true believers.

Yeah, I always thought that "Joseph Smith" was obviously a phony moniker with no relation to any real history. That's one for your side.
And "L. Ron Hubbard" was as mythical as his Thetans.

Adam · 02-27-2012, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Now we are getting some where

Quote:

You should have told that to the writers of The New Testament. The tales which came -from them- are filled with miracle stories.
In fact the NT plot couldn't even function without the inclusion of these miraculous elements.
You have absolutely no basis from either history, or from the content of these texts upon which to hang any statement that 'jesus life to his disciples wasnt about miracles, they didnt teach this at all.' You are simply pulling this statement out of your ass. According to the texts, he did miracles and healings, and taught his disciples to perform miracles and healings. You have no evidence from anywhere that says otherwise.

So you are saying there is no difference between biblical jesus and historical jesus??

Hardly. No one has ever yet been able to provide any 'historical' jesus. Unless you can turn up some contemorary and non-apolgetic witness, a 'historical jesus' remains a figment of peoples imaginations. The texts which we do have describe no such thing as a 'historical' jesus. They Never have, and never will.

From the outhouse;

Quote:

Who wrote about the miracles?? Roman authors who hellenized the religion and wrote to a roman audience.

Perhaps. Can you provide a different set of authentic first century CE Gospels which have no miracle accounts?

I thought not.

Shesh has a very short memory, or he just wants to forget how thoroughly I bested him in our tiresome interchange in my thread Gospel Eyewitnesses.
I particularly refer you to my Post #555 there and to its precursors in #526 and #534. Therein I developed my "Gospel According to the Atheists" to get over their inability to digest any story with miracles in it.
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....306983&page=23

I show that Proto-Luke is an entire gospel almost free of supernatural happenings, supplemented by the Passion Narrative source in the Gospel of John which is also free of the supernatural. I therefore proclaimed the Mythical Jesus dead and the Historical Jesus proven. (I do acknowledge nuances, of course, that some of what I present depends upon my credibility or that of my sources like Howard M. Teeple, but as can easily be seen, nothing will ever be enough for the likes of Shesh, so why bother? Shesh has still given no indication that he has read the chapters in Luke and John that I list.)

[From Post #555] Back to the list from Church WOW Proto-Luke including Q passages: 3:1-4:30; 5:1-11; 6:20-8:3; 9:51-18:14; 19:1-28, 37-44, 47-48; 22:14-24:53
But delete the last section from Luke and substitute Luke 22:1-38 and then the Synoptic parallels in John 18 and 19:
One can read just chapters 18 and 19 here in Fortna’s Signs:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/signs.html

[and substitute the following in my Post #557 for the comparable section in #555]
All the Synoptic overlap in the last half of gJohn is encompassed within John 11:53-57, 12:2-8, 12-14a 13:18 or 21, and 13:38 plus these verses in John 18 and 19:
18:1b, 1d, 3, 10b, 12, 13b, 15-19, 22, 25b, 27-31, 33-35, (36-40); 19:1-5a, 9-19, 21-23, 28-30, 38b, 40-42.

And see my summation in Post #600:
So I reiterate that my [new, supplemental] thesis is quite worthy of consideration. Let’s put it now in terms of two levels. In the first I refute MJ with my Gospel According to the Atheists, featuring the eyewitnesses John Mark, Matthew, Simon, and (less obviously) Nicodemus (Nikodemos?). None of that can be dismissed a priori.

steve_bnk · 02-27-2012, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

It is pointless to endlessly rehash the gosples fort clues of proof or disproof, neither are there. One can look at tne times and imagine a number of itinererant rabai/prophets prophesizing gloom and doom for Israel. It is what Jewish prophets did.

All's you have to look at for general parallels is the genesis of the Mormons and Scientology. Both fabrications and both peopled with true believers.

Yeah, I always thought that "Joseph Smith" was obviously a phony moniker with no relation to any real history. That's one for your side.
And "L. Ron Hubbard" was as mythical as his Thetans.

No.

My point was the two myths were started by known real historical humans forwhich today there are many true believers.

Hubard drew on scifi and other areas in synthesizing his relgion.

Mormonism was based on the Christian myth. Something about a lost Jewish tribe in the Americas.

By analogy it is not difficult to see how the Jesus myth grew possibly form an actual wandering Jewsh mystic.

aa5874 · 02-27-2012, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Theres alot of evidence for a HJ, its why most scholar dont debate a HJ, only the level of his historicity....

Your statement is horribly erroneous. Not even Scholars who Presume an HJ make such a claim. You very well know that there is an ON-GOING 250 year old Quest for an historical Jesus because ONLY MYTH Jesus, the Non-historical Jesus, is in the NT.

It is a Consensus among Experts that there is little or NO evidence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth and that the sources for the Jesus stories are historically unreliable.

mountainman · 02-28-2012, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

It is pointless to endlessly rehash the gosples fort clues of proof or disproof, neither are there. One can look at tne times and imagine a number of itinererant rabai/prophets prophesizing gloom and doom for Israel. It is what Jewish prophets did.

All's you have to look at for general parallels is the genesis of the Mormons and Scientology. Both fabrications and both peopled with true believers.

Yeah, I always thought that "Joseph Smith" was obviously a phony moniker with no relation to any real history. That's one for your side.
And "L. Ron Hubbard" was as mythical as his Thetans.

That the NHC "Sophia of Jesus Christ" was a literary fabrication is demonstrated by an analysis of thee separate tracts. A pagan letter Eugnostos ("Right Thinking"), the Blessed: NHC 3.3 is transformed by the addition of the word "saviour" to the tractate at NHC 5.1. Finally at NHC 3.4the text is then assembled to "The Sophia of Jesus Christ".

A process of "Christianization" is being demonstrated here from the mid 4th century. The possibility that "Eusebius Pamphilus", "Joseph Smith" and "L. Ron Hubbard" have more in common than what is generally suspected is not necessarily neglible.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.