Metacrock

Meta =>How does my belief about Jesus' theological status make the calim that he existed as an historical figure supernatural? I don't understand that kind of thinking?

That sort of logic would imply that if we were debating the war in Iraque and I said "I don't think we should go in, because we don't have the support of the world community." You would say "O well you believe something supernatural in your private life and in matters not concerned about this date, so you must be wrong about every single thing you think!"

I can't understand that kind of resaoning. What's that fallacy called? Hatred? You are so bitter against any kind of religoius belief that if someone has one then everything single thing they think is wrong? So if we were debating taxes then my view on taxe would be wrong? NO?


Well, if that's absurd, then maybe your bring upon irrelivant red herrings becasue you can't answer my arguments?

Infidelettante

quote: Vinnie in answer to JTVrocher
Vinnie: When did Meta say Jesus claimed to be God?

quote:Peter Kirby
It's a common mistake to assume Messiah=God. I was having dinner with my dad and he mentioned that Jewish people must believe that God is more than one person because they expect the Messiah, who is divine. I had to explain to him that Jews believe God to be one person and that the Messiah expected by Jews is human (if perhaps an exalted human).

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter, if I say Christians believe Christ is Messiah and so believe he is God have I made a common mistake? If I were to say Jews of the 1st B.C.E. expected Messiah to be God I would be mistaken. Were I to say Jews of 2003 expect Messiah to be God I would be mistaken. I am a tad confused on how I made so common a mistake.

JT

Peter Kirby

Metacrock said, "he claimed to be Messiah." Metacrock is talking about (what he thinks to be) the self-understanding of Jesus, a Jew of the first century.

You replied, "So you don't know much about him other than he claimed to be God..."

But, even though Metacrock may believe Jesus to be God, Metacrock may not believe and certainly has not claimed here that Jesus had the same understanding of himself.

That is why Metacrock clarified: "The claim of being Messiah did not involve the claim of being God. To say he claimed to be Messiah is not the same as saying that he claimed to be God!"

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

The claim that Jesus of Nazareth existed is not a supernaturual claim. The claim that Jesus is the son of God is a supernaturual claim. I argued the former, not the latter. The latter could never be argued on historical grounds anyways so what is your point?

Your pushing for number 6 on my mythicist methodology thread aren't you? Maybe it will work better if one of your fellow atheists slaps you with the logic stick here?

Vinnie

Infidelettante

Thank you Peter. JT

Peter Kirby

Metacrock, thanks for your participation in this thread.

To make myself clear, what I intended to say is that the argument proposed in this thread is not convincing to me without further explication. I was quoting Doherty because he is correct to acknowledge diversity in ancient Christianity. I will quote it again so that you can comment on the point.

"If Christianity is to be regarded as a single movement, then it is a wildly schizophrenic one. The variety and scale of response to one man defies explanation. The 'cultic' expression, epitomized by Paul, apparently abandoned all interest in the earthly life and identity of Jesus and turned him into a cosmic Christ who created the world and redeemed it by his death and resurrection. Individual communities like those responsible for the Q document and the Gospel of Thomas, ignored that death and resurrection and present a teaching Jesus, a preacher of the coming Kingdom of God. In what is probably the earliest stratum of material in the Gospel of John, Jesus is a type of 'descending-ascending' redeemer from heaven who saves by being God’s revealer (though he reveals nothing about him except that Jesus is his Son and representative); later, John equates Jesus with the Greek Logos. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, Jesus is the heavenly High Priest who offers his sacrifice in a heavenly sanctuary, an expression of Alexandrian-style Platonism. In the Didache, Jesus is reduced to a non-suffering intermediary servant/child of God. He is presumed to lie behind the Wisdom-Word-Son mysticism of the Odes of Solomon. In the diverse strands of Gnosticism, Jesus (or Christ) is a mythical part of the heavenly pleroma of Godhead, sometimes a revealer akin to John’s, sometimes surfacing under other names like Derdekeas or the Third Illuminator. How many other forms of 'Jesus' did not survive in extant documents is impossible to tell, though Paul in his letters hints at divergent groups and apostles all over the place, who 'preach another Jesus' so different from his own that he can lay curses upon them and accuse them of being agents of Satan."

You have responded to my own statement about the diversity of Christian writings with this: "I think given that diversity it is all the more amazing that they kept as much uniformity as they did. That makes my arugment all the stronger. But you know, I am not claiming this as a universal standard for all historicity. I just think given the other arguments, it's a good indication."

This reminds me of an old apologetic standby. It is sometimes claimed that the gospels are to be believed because they exhibit a remarkable harmony. But when the apologist is presented with points of inconsistency, the apologist says, "Ah yes, the differences show that there was no collusion and thus make the accounts more reliable." In other terms, both contradiction and non-contradiction are taken as confirming evidence. But if all contingencies are taken to point to one conclusion, it is impossible for a person to recognize a situation in which that conclusion is false.

Hold that thought. I want to get back to the matter of what data lay before us before we get too concerned with accounting for the data.

You say, "There is basically one Jesus story and it's always the same."


1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.
2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary"
3) Same principle players, Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdeline.
4) That Jesus was known as a miracle worker.
5) he claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.
6) he was crucified under Pilate.
7) Around the time of the Passover.
8) at noon.
9) rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.
10) several women with MM discovered the empty tomb.
11) That this was in Jerusalem.


You write: "There were hundreds of sources, different books and Gospels and Acts, that never made it into the New Testament. The Jesus story is re-told countrless times from early days (around AD50 first written) to the fourth century, before there was ever a major alternatiion in any of these basic details. Even after that time, no one ever disagreed with these points listed avove. Here is just a partial list of source from this era, all of them agree on the points listed above. This list comes from a website,(Gospel of Thomas Home page)"

From the way that you use an unedited list of apocrypha like this, it is clear that you haven't read the texts in order to catalogue what they say about Jesus--hey, that's a tall order, and I haven't read all of these texts either. However, based on what I have read, I would submit two hypotheses about the data:

A. Most of the texts do not contain the eleven points listed above.
B. Most of the texts date after 130 CE.

The importance of the first point should be obvious. If we are going to assert that there are multiple versions of this story that agree, we should appeal to documents that tell the story of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. But most of these documents do not go into any detail on either the death or the resurrection--for example, they don't say it was "at noon" or that there was an "empty tomb"--and thus they can't be counted as multiple versions of the story. Read The Epistle to the Laodiceans or The Apocalypse of Peter or The Acts of Paul and Thecla and tell me how much of the story of the life of Jesus you find therein.

The importance of the second point may require elaboration. I use what I like to term the Hundred Year Rule. If a document dates more than one hundred years after the events described, and if there aren't mitigating circumstances that demonstrate reliability, then I don't take the testimony of that document as good evidence. (Of course, I don't assume that documents within 100 years are always right--that would be folly!) I think that any good historian ought to have some such rule, though they might call it the Fifty Year Rule or the Two Hundred Year Rule. But there comes a point where we've got to say, "hey, that guy's too distant in time to have a clue! Let's find out what's in the earlier sources." In the study of the historical Jesus, that point will come approximately at the time of the canonization of the four gospels. From the late second century onwards, it is evident that Christian writers are not passing on ancient oral tradition but rather relying on written sources (such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) for their information about Jesus. Any document produced after a certain point can be assumed to be familiar with the canonical four; if it treats the subject of Jesus, it does so in a commentative or elaborative or polemical way, but it does not bring new facts to the table. To be generous, I will modify my Hundred Year Rule to a 150 Year Rule to make the deadline 180 CE, but we've got to have some kind of rule.

With these considerations in mind, let's go through the list. If the document does not have more than a couple of the 11 points you list (most frequently none), then I will say that it fails A. If a document does not date earlier than 180, then I will say that it fails B.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Greek Text A] -- fails A.
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Greek Text B] -- fails A.
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Latin Text] -- fails A.
A 5th Century Compilation of the Thomas Texts -- fails A and B.
An Arabic Infancy Gospel -- fails A and B.
The Gospel of James -- (Infancy Gospel) -- fails A.
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary -- fails A and B.
The Gospel of Mary [Magdalene] -- fails A.
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew -- fails A and B.
The Gospel of Nicodemus [Acts of Pilate] -- fails B.
The Gospel of Bartholomew -- fails B.
The Gospel of Peter -- fails neither A nor B.
The Gospel of Thomas -- fails A.
The Gospel of Philip -- fails A and likely B.
The Gospel of the Lord [by Marcion] -- fails neither A nor B.
The Secret Gospel of Mark -- fails neither A nor B.

The Acts of the New Testament -- fails neither A nor B (part of Luke-Acts).
The Acts of Andrew -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Andrew and Matthew -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Barnabas -- fails A and B.
Martyrdom of Bartholomew -- fails A and B.
The Acts of John -- fails A and possibly B.
The Mystery of the Cross-Excerpt from the Acts of John -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts of John the Theologian -- fails A and B.
The History of Joseph the Carpenter -- fails A and B.
The Book of John Concerning the Death of Mary -- fails A and B.
The Passing of Mary -- fails A and B.
The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew -- fails A and B.
The Martyrdom of Matthew -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Paul -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts of Paul and Thecla -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts of Peter -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts of Peter and Andrew -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts of Peter and Paul -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Philip -- fails A and B.
The Report of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius -- fails B.
The Giving Up of Pontius Pilate -- fails B.
The Death of Pilate -- fails B.
The Acts of Thaddaeus -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Thomas -- fails A and possibly B.
The Book of Thomas the Contender -- fails A and possibly B.
The Consummation of Thomas -- fails A and B.

The Apocalypse of Adam -- fails A and B.
The Revelation of Esdras -- fails A and B.
The First Apocalypse of James -- fails A.
The Second Apocalypse of James -- fails A.
The Revelation of John the Theologian -- fails A and B.
The Revelation of Moses -- fails A and B.
The Apocalypse of Paul -- fails A and B.
Fragments-The Apocalypse of Paul -- fails A and B.
The Revelation of Paul -- fails A and B.
The Apocalypse of Peter -- fails A.
The Vision of Paul -- fails A and B.
The Revelation of Peter -- fails A and B.
Fragments-The Apocalypse of Peter -- fails A.
The Apocalypse of Sedrach -- fails A and B.
The Revelation of Stephen -- fails A and B.
The Apocalypse of Thomas -- fails A and B.
The Apocalypse of the Virgin -- fails A and B.

The Teachings of Addeus the Apostle -- fails A and B.
The Epistle of the Apostles -- fails neither A nor B.
Community Rule -- fails A and B.
The Apocryphon of James -- fails A.
The Correspondence of Jesus and Abgar -- fails A and B.
The Sophia of Jesus Christ -- fails A.
John the Evangelist -- fails A and B.
The Apocryphon of John -- fails A.
The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea -- fails B.
The Epistle to the Laodiceans -- fails A and B.
The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca -- fails A and B.
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul -- fails A and possibly B.
The Letter of Peter to Philip -- fails A and possibly B.
The Letter of Pontius Pilate to the Roman Emperor -- fails B.
The Report of Pilate to Caesar -- fails B.
The Report of Pilate to Tiberius -- fails B.
Excerpts from Pistis Sophia -- fails A and B.
The Avenging of the Saviour -- fails A and B.
The Three Steles of Seth -- fails A and possibly B.
The Book of Thomas the Contender -- repeat.

I could have made a mistake or two regarding the dates or exact content of these works. I trust that you will point them out to me.

So, those apocryphal documents that include several of the eleven points and that date before 180 are:

The Gospel of Peter
The Epistle of the Apostles
The Gospel of the Lord [by Marcion]
The Secret Gospel of Mark

Suddenly the list is much smaller and more manageable. To this list we may add the canonical four:

The Gospel of Matthew
The Gospel of Mark
The Work of Luke-Acts
The Gospel of John

Now that we have this list, we need to figure out which works are derivatives of which, and which works could provide independent witness to the eleven points. For example, it is apparent that Secret Mark is dependent on the original Gospel of Mark and that its material does not provide independent testimony to any of the eleven points.

Since we now have a more refined data base to work with, I invite you to formulate your argument in a more convincing way. What is it about the agreements and disagreements of these works that points to the historical nature of the stories?

I could say more but it is now late and I wouldn't want to beat up strawmen. I await your argument.

best,
Peter Kirby

K

Meta:

But your argument was based on the "fact" that real events only have one version of their facts passed down. This is an event that you agree is real and that you concede has more than one version of the facts. Whether or not you agree with the different versions doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. I'd say this pretty much blows your arguement out of the water.

B. H. Manners

There are three legends about Crockett:

1. He died by the wooden stockade between the chapel and barracks of the Alamo.

2. He was captured alive and executed by Santa Anna over the protests of his men and generals.

3. He escaped, went west, and fought indians and pirates.

There are versions of the Alamo legend too:

1. Different numbers are given to the number of Mexican soldiers at the Alamo as well as defenders. Some sources list the Mexican army as high as 7,000 (which is the most common number in folklore) while some estimates are as low as 1200.

2. Some legends say that all the men were killed in battle while some supposedly escaped while yet still a handful were captured and executed. In fact, many of the ealiest Alamo movies featured survivors on the Texan side being executed by firing squad after the battle---which just shows how serious this legend had been taken in the past.

There are other variants to Alamo legend besides these.

B. H. Manners

"""Meta's argument is certainly interesting and apparently powerful at first glance. But we've had this discussion before. Even within the strange confines of the explanation Meta was erected, his argument won't fly. Only a gospel with a passion story, which would not include the infancy gospels, or the Sayings gospels, would fall under this rubric. Further, we know that there were variations in the passion story. Luke knew of one in which Herod whacked Jesus, which also shows up in the gospel of Peter.""""


Could you provide a link or book titles that discuss this variant story that was in Luke?

B. H. Manners

Peter Kirby,

Is there a link on the net that has the works listed by you available for study?


The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Greek Text A] -- fails A.
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Greek Text B] -- fails A.
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Latin Text] -- fails A.
A 5th Century Compilation of the Thomas Texts -- fails A and B.
An Arabic Infancy Gospel -- fails A and B.
The Gospel of James -- (Infancy Gospel) -- fails A.
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary -- fails A and B.
The Gospel of Mary [Magdalene] -- fails A.
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew -- fails A and B.
The Gospel of Nicodemus [Acts of Pilate] -- fails B.
The Gospel of Bartholomew -- fails B.
The Gospel of Peter -- fails neither A nor B.
The Gospel of Thomas -- fails A.
The Gospel of Philip -- fails A and likely B.
The Gospel of the Lord [by Marcion] -- fails neither A nor B.
The Secret Gospel of Mark -- fails neither A nor B.

The Acts of the New Testament -- fails neither A nor B (part of Luke-Acts).
The Acts of Andrew -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Andrew and Matthew -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Barnabas -- fails A and B.
Martyrdom of Bartholomew -- fails A and B.
The Acts of John -- fails A and possibly B.
The Mystery of the Cross-Excerpt from the Acts of John -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts of John the Theologian -- fails A and B.
The History of Joseph the Carpenter -- fails A and B.
The Book of John Concerning the Death of Mary -- fails A and B.
The Passing of Mary -- fails A and B.
The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew -- fails A and B.
The Martyrdom of Matthew -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Paul -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts of Paul and Thecla -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts of Peter -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts of Peter and Andrew -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts of Peter and Paul -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Philip -- fails A and B.
The Report of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius -- fails B.
The Giving Up of Pontius Pilate -- fails B.
The Death of Pilate -- fails B.
The Acts of Thaddaeus -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Thomas -- fails A and possibly B.
The Book of Thomas the Contender -- fails A and possibly B.
The Consummation of Thomas -- fails A and B.

The Apocalypse of Adam -- fails A and B.
The Revelation of Esdras -- fails A and B.
The First Apocalypse of James -- fails A.
The Second Apocalypse of James -- fails A.
The Revelation of John the Theologian -- fails A and B.
The Revelation of Moses -- fails A and B.
The Apocalypse of Paul -- fails A and B.
Fragments-The Apocalypse of Paul -- fails A and B.
The Revelation of Paul -- fails A and B.
The Apocalypse of Peter -- fails A.
The Vision of Paul -- fails A and B.
The Revelation of Peter -- fails A and B.
Fragments-The Apocalypse of Peter -- fails A.
The Apocalypse of Sedrach -- fails A and B.
The Revelation of Stephen -- fails A and B.
The Apocalypse of Thomas -- fails A and B.
The Apocalypse of the Virgin -- fails A and B.

The Teachings of Addeus the Apostle -- fails A and B.
The Epistle of the Apostles -- fails neither A nor B.
Community Rule -- fails A and B.
The Apocryphon of James -- fails A.
The Correspondence of Jesus and Abgar -- fails A and B.
The Sophia of Jesus Christ -- fails A.
John the Evangelist -- fails A and B.
The Apocryphon of John -- fails A.
The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea -- fails B.
The Epistle to the Laodiceans -- fails A and B.
The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca -- fails A and B.
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul -- fails A and possibly B.
The Letter of Peter to Philip -- fails A and possibly B.
The Letter of Pontius Pilate to the Roman Emperor -- fails B.
The Report of Pilate to Caesar -- fails B.
The Report of Pilate to Tiberius -- fails B.
Excerpts from Pistis Sophia -- fails A and B.
The Avenging of the Saviour -- fails A and B.
The Three Steles of Seth -- fails A and possibly B.
The Book of Thomas the Contender -- repeat.