Freethought & Rationalism Archive

keyser_soze · 05-26-2003, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran
This does not matter as he stated "in Matthew�s Gospel only and no where else in anyone�s writings Christian or non-Christian." As stated, it was wrong.

It is very true that Matthew may have been used by the author of the PJ, however there are apparently scholarly theories stating that the PJ was not dependent on Matthew but was actually earlier.

Yes, techically you caught an error in his post, but remember this is not a research paper. The responses are too fast, and too immediate. You were right and he was wrong on a detail. The fact that he omitted by error a second article of data(which can easily be argued by date and content to be reliant on matthew) does not negate the MEANING of his message. It is not found outside of a single SOURCE. And I like to think that if he had thought about it for more than the 3 seconds it took him to compose the message, he probably would have worded it differently. "Bad Marduck" he has been properly chastised now...happy?

keyser_soze · 05-26-2003, 04:39 PM

And I'm sure we would be interested in these other theories and supporting evidence, I know I'm always game for new material. Please elaborate!

Haran · 05-26-2003, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by keyser_soze
Rant...

Keyser.... I am not trying to win a juvenile debate. I am trying to present information that some may not know about, especially in light of the error made (albeit minor). Do you simply want to score debate points, or do you want to learn something you might not know?

keyser_soze · 05-26-2003, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran
Keyser.... I am not trying to win a juvenile debate. I am trying to present information that some may not know about, especially in light of the error made (albeit minor). Do you simply want to score debate points, or do you want to learn something you might not know?

You must have missed the post above yours.....

Marduk · 05-26-2003, 04:48 PM

""Bad Marduck" he has been properly chastised now...happy?"

I will go stand in a corner for three minutes.

Haran · 05-26-2003, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by keyser_soze
And I'm sure we would be interested in these other theories and supporting evidence, I know I'm always game for new material. Please elaborate!

Since I am not interested in defending the point, since you say you are interested, and since I'm sure you have the requisite language skills, I shall present the work so that you can read the entire work for yourself:

L. Conrady, 'Das Thomasevengelium: Ein wissenschaftlicher kritischer Versuch', ThStKr 76 (1903), pp. 377-459

Again, since you seem to have missed it, Keyser, my point was to show that the PJ contains the story.

keyser_soze · 05-26-2003, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran
Since I am not interested in defending the point, since you say you are interested, and since I'm sure you have the requisite language skills, I shall present the work so that you can read the entire work for yourself:

L. Conrady, 'Das Thomasevengelium: Ein wissenschaftlicher kritischer Versuch', ThStKr 76 (1903), pp. 377-459

Again, since you seem to have missed it, Keyser, my point was to show that the PJ contains the story.

His point was that authentication could not be found outside the single source of the bible. I apologize if I jumped down your throat, I guess I am quick on the draw today. I find your posts to be informative, please don't let my momentary lapse in demeanor dissuade you from further contribution. And thanks for the information, I meant it when I said I love new information. I will go do my timeout until I can come back with a change of attitude .

Haran · 05-26-2003, 05:10 PM

Quote:

keyser_soze
His point was that authentication could not be found outside the single source of the bible.

If you say that the Protevangelium is dependent upon Matthew, which it may be, then ok. If most others knew that this apocryphal Christian writing (which is outside the Bible) contained a similar story, my apologies...

Quote:

Keyser
I apologize if I jumped down your throat, I guess I am quick on the draw today.

It happens to the best of us. Apology accepted.

keyser_soze · 05-26-2003, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran
If you say that the Protevangelium is dependent upon Matthew, which it may be, then ok. If most others knew that this apocryphal Christian writing (which is outside the Bible) contained a similar story, my apologies...

It happens to the best of us. Apology accepted.

Thank you kindly.

Toto · 05-26-2003, 05:32 PM

Protevangelium of James

Quote:

XXI 1 And behold, Joseph made him ready to go forth into Judaea. And there came a great tumult in Bethlehem of Judaea; for there came wise men, saying: Where is he that is born king of the Jews ? for we have seen his star in the east and arc come to worship him. 2 And when Herod heard it he was troubled and sent officers unto the wise men. And he sent for the high priests and examined them, saying: How is it written concerning the Christ, where he is born ? They say unto him: In Bethlehem of Judaea: for so it is written. And he let them go. And he examined the wise men, saying unto them: What sign saw ye concerning the king that is born ? And the wise men said: We saw a very great star shining among those stars and dimming them so that the stars appeared not: and thereby knew we that a king was born unto Israel, and we came to worship him. And Herod said: Go and seek for him, and if ye find him, tell me, that I also may come and worship him. 3 And the wise men went forth. And lo, the star which they saw in the east went before them until they entered into the cave: and it stood over the head of the cave. And the wise men saw the young child with Mary, his mother: and they brought out of their scrip gifts, gold-and frankincense and myrrh. 4 And being warned by the angel that they should not enter into Judaea, they went into their own country by another way.

XXII. 1 But when Herod perceived that he was mocked by the wise men, he was wroth, and sent murderers, saying unto them: Slay the children from two years old and under. 2 And when Mary heard that the children were being slain, she was afraid, and took the young child and wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid him in an ox-manger.

This tracks Matt 2 pretty well, except that Mary is featured and Joseph is downplayed - the verses where the angel appears to him are gone, and instead Mary reacts to the story of children being slain with the totally ineffective action from Luke of wrapping the child in swaddling clothes and laying him in a manger.

It would be hard to maintain that this is independent of the gospels or an independent source for Herod's murder of the innocent.

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

05-26-2003, 04:39 PM	#12
keyser_soze Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: god's judge (pariah) Posts: 1,281	And I'm sure we would be interested in these other theories and supporting evidence, I know I'm always game for new material. Please elaborate!

05-26-2003, 04:48 PM	#15
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	""Bad Marduck" he has been properly chastised now...happy?" I will go stand in a corner for three minutes.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.