Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-07-2016, 10:57 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 10:34 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 10:02 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The quotes which "obviously came from a Gospel attributed to Luke" does not necessarily mean it "must have been in existence for quite some time before AD 140".

It only means that these phrases were common to the culture of that religion, and may have been thus included in the writings that became Gospel, long after the tales (perhaps in writing, or perhaps part of a liturgy) were circulating. I agree that it does imply that there were writings from which he was working, but it doesn't necessarily follow that these were from a completed document which would later be called Luke.

Actually it does. In Against Marcion, Book IV we see the following:

"Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process."

The above demonstrates that at the time of Marcion, Luke was an author.

And now this ...

"For if the Gospel, said to be Luke's which is current among us- we shall see whether it be also current with Marcion- is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism,"

The above demonstrates that Tertullian clearly states that Marcion argued that Luke's gospel was interpolated. So obviously one cannot interpolate something that has not been previously written down.

This is excellent evidence that the Gospel of Luke existed in written form long before Marcion butchered it, since his statements in his Antitheses state that the reason for creating his own version was that the "Luke" in existence had been interpolated.

Yes it does. I retract my objection. As I said, I have no issues with the dating of the Gospels as currently presented by Academia. My objection was to the illogical leap from "he quotes Luke, here" to "therefore the Gospel must have come first". These other supporting arguments are solid. Thanks. Smile

Since my entire argument was/is/remains that the whole story is a narrative that began orally and evolved among the disparate churches before being drawn into a written collection that was later evolved further (but to a lesser degree) after Mark was written, this is useful stuff for me to have learned. So again, thank you.

(23-07-2016 10:34 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
Quote:Also-- why use "AD 140", for "In the Year of Our Lord", if you claim to be secular and a scholar? Even Christian scholars use the "Common Era" designation in their academic writings. It would be written 140 C.E.

Other than your desperate need to throw in an ad hom, does it make any difference to the point?

Why "desperate"? I am perfectly within reason to question your alleged motives and claims to secularism, which you have put forth, previously. I think you have a strange degree of bias toward presuppositionalist arguments, and an unusual degree of disdain toward those who are skeptical of the traditional claims that have such momentum in the culture, even among the academics in the field of theology.

If I was simply attempting to ad hom, I'd just call you an imbecile or something like that (I don't think you are, just using this as an example). But questioning your allegations is not ad hominem.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 11:01 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 10:56 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 10:44 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  I see you are attacking the man, and not the points the man made.

Your ad hominems are hilarious.

Big Grin

The statement is VERY strange.
Proper historians never talk about "proper conclusions".

It's not an attack.
It's an observation.
You said it.

I am not speaking as if I am writing a thesis. I am speaking from the position of a debater.

Learn the difference.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 11:06 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 10:57 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 10:34 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Actually it does. In Against Marcion, Book IV we see the following:

"Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process."

The above demonstrates that at the time of Marcion, Luke was an author.

And now this ...

"For if the Gospel, said to be Luke's which is current among us- we shall see whether it be also current with Marcion- is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism,"

The above demonstrates that Tertullian clearly states that Marcion argued that Luke's gospel was interpolated. So obviously one cannot interpolate something that has not been previously written down.

This is excellent evidence that the Gospel of Luke existed in written form long before Marcion butchered it, since his statements in his Antitheses state that the reason for creating his own version was that the "Luke" in existence had been interpolated.

Yes it does. I retract my objection. As I said, I have no issues with the dating of the Gospels as currently presented by Academia. My objection was to the illogical leap from "he quotes Luke, here" to "therefore the Gospel must have come first". These other supporting arguments are solid. Thanks. Smile

Since my entire argument was/is/remains that the whole story is a narrative that began orally and evolved among the disparate churches before being drawn into a written collection that was later evolved further (but to a lesser degree) after Mark was written, this is useful stuff for me to have learned. So again, thank you.

Well now you are actually demonstrating the kind of integrity I was hoping to see from some people on this forum.

Thanks for acknowledging that point.



(23-07-2016 10:34 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Other than your desperate need to throw in an ad hom, does it make any difference to the point?

Quote:Why "desperate"? I am perfectly within reason to question your alleged motives and claims to secularism, which you have put forth, previously. I think you have a strange degree of bias toward presuppositionalist arguments, and an unusual degree of disdain toward those who are skeptical of the traditional claims that have such momentum in the culture, even among the academics in the field of theology.

If I was simply attempting to ad hom, I'd just call you an imbecile or something like that (I don't think you are, just using this as an example). But questioning your allegations is not ad hominem.

Like i said to Mr. Ball, I am not writing a thesis, and although you are correct regarding the proper terminology, the reality is that both A.D. and B.C. are so still entrenched in our lexicon that I don't even think about it.

However, when i wrote anything in uni, I did use the C.E. otherwise I got my ass handed to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GoingUp's post
23-07-2016, 11:13 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 11:06 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Like i said to Mr. Ball, I am not writing a thesis, and although you are correct regarding the proper terminology, the reality is that both A.D. and B.C. are so still entrenched in our lexicon that I don't even think about it.

However, when i wrote anything in uni, I did use the C.E. otherwise I got my ass handed to me.

Fair enough. Actually, even though I had left Christianity before entering university (I minored in history, though I focused mainly on ancient military tactics and technology), I was disdainful of the concept of using C.E. in place of A.D., as I felt it was unnecessary and possibly a dig against Christians, until a professor explained to me that it's not done as a slight against Christianity, but out of respect for international/multicultural scholarship... with English becoming a de facto dominant language of interchange on many academic issues, especially given that archaeology is a global endeavor, it's the height of arrogance for us to ask the Chinese, Japanese, Egyptians, Russians, Indonesians, et cetera, to use "In the Year of Our Lord" in their dating system after already having asked them to use our Gregorian-type calendar! After that, I was always careful to use C.E.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
23-07-2016, 11:22 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 11:13 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 11:06 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Like i said to Mr. Ball, I am not writing a thesis, and although you are correct regarding the proper terminology, the reality is that both A.D. and B.C. are so still entrenched in our lexicon that I don't even think about it.

However, when i wrote anything in uni, I did use the C.E. otherwise I got my ass handed to me.

Fair enough. Actually, even though I had left Christianity before entering university (I minored in history, though I focused mainly on ancient military tactics and technology),

Khan rules. Chinese bowyers ruled.


Quote:I was disdainful of the concept of using C.E. in place of A.D., as I felt it was unnecessary and possibly a dig against Christians, until a professor explained to me that it's not done as a slight against Christianity, but out of respect for international/multicultural scholarship... with English becoming a de facto dominant language of interchange on many academic issues, especially given that archaeology is a global endeavor, it's the height of arrogance for us to ask the Chinese, Japanese, Egyptians, Russians, Indonesians, et cetera, to use "In the Year of Our Lord" in their dating system after already having asked them to use our Gregorian-type calendar! After that, I was always careful to use C.E.

He's right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 11:30 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 11:22 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Khan rules. Chinese bowyers ruled.

Good choices. At the risk of going off-topic for a bit...

I was always most fascinated with the Assyrian developments in siege technology/tactics, the Hittite (et al) empire's development and guarding of their iron weapons technology, and the English/Welsh yeoman's longbow (developed from the ancient yew "war bow"). Most historians prefer to focus on the personalities of great leaders/conquerors, when discussing ancient warfare, but I think the tactics that flow from those who understood (or didn't) how to apply technology to the battlefield had a greater impact than brilliant leadership.

That's not to discount the impact of audacious leadership, such as Alexander or the Khans' application of cavalry mobility and "shock effect" to win battles even when outnumbered, of course.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 11:43 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 11:30 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 11:22 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Khan rules. Chinese bowyers ruled.

Good choices. At the risk of going off-topic for a bit...

I was always most fascinated with the Assyrian developments in siege technology/tactics, the Hittite (et al) empire's development and guarding of their iron weapons technology, and the English/Welsh yeoman's longbow (developed from the ancient yew "war bow"). Most historians prefer to focus on the personalities of great leaders/conquerors, when discussing ancient warfare, but I think the tactics that flow from those who understood (or didn't) how to apply technology to the battlefield had a greater impact than brilliant leadership.

That's not to discount the impact of audacious leadership, such as Alexander or the Khans' application of cavalry mobility and "shock effect" to win battles even when outnumbered, of course.

Again, I couldn't agree more. Every great leader surrounded himself with great followers.

The Romans use of the "sword and board" technique is exactly why they could slaughter the Jews. They could use the shield (scutum) to push back the enemy, keeping him off balance, while stabbing him with the short sword. The Jews had much smaller shields and longer swords, which proved useless in close combat.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 11:46 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
After more than 150 pages i cannot stand this any longer. I have to get this off my chest. Although i am an atheist(s), i admit

Nazareth existed

There, i said it.
There is proof everywhere, and we all knew it, at least i did, all the time. And by the mid 70s it was already pretty big actually, contrary to any claims to the opposite.

Here is the proof:







Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
23-07-2016, 11:56 AM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 07:32 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I said it may have been an addition...I don't know about that, and neither do you.

And 9/11 may have been an inside job, and the moon-landing may have been faked, and the holocaust may not have happened. "Well then how do you explain the video footage, the photographs, the survivor interviews." Listen I'm not suggesting it didn't happen, I'm just saying it may have.

That's how inbreds such as yourself sound when you say "may have".

In fact there's likely not a single verse or portion of the Gospels, which we can be more sure about being a part of the original writing than than the Nazareth passages. They appear in all four of the Gospels. Not even the slightest whiff of evidence of interpolation or editing of those particular verses exist. No manuscripts, copies of the text that show any disparity regarding these portions. Not to mention your suggestion that it may have been edited to replace the term "the nazarene", gets entirely deflated by the fact that all four Gospels contains passages in which Jesus is referred to as "the Nazarene".

It's why you prefer to back the fuck away from following through with your "may have", with an something even remotely resembling an reasonable explanation that accounts for the variety of logistical problems it raises.

Your "may have" is nonsense, in reality it's highly unlikely that the "the Nazareth" portions were later additions to the text. In fact you would think if anyone was gonna to add in a false hometown for Jesus, it would have made more sense to have it be Bethlehem, rather than a obscure town that serves no messianic purpose at all.

Being original to the text, with the text dating to the 1st century, posses a problem for your suggestion that the Nazareth didn't exist till the 4th century now doesn't it? I mean how the fuck else would folks in the first century have known of a town that wouldn't come to exist till a few centuries after them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 12:24 PM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2016 12:42 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 11:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I mean how the fuck else would folks in the first century have known of a town that wouldn't come to exist till a few centuries after them

Mark's position is that all 4 gospels and Acts are complete works of fiction that depict absolutely nothing of historical value at all. Therefore, according to him, Nazareth was an imaginary town in the Gospels, and later Christians conspired to create a real town and name it Nazareth to make it appear like it had always existed. Then, we are expected to believe that nobody noticed this invented town and said anything about it such as, "Hey, look at those fucking Christians! They actually created a town and called it Nazareth in an effort to make it look like the Nazareth that is in the Gospel actually existed!"

If that position isn't fucking weird, I don't know what is.

Consider

But, aside from all the evidence, the problem with his logic is obvious.

Despite the literary evidence demonstrating that Nazareth was mentioned as place of existence as early as CE 130, Mark also tries to make the claim that the written gospels didn't exist until nearly the middle of the 2nd century.

So the question is this:

How could early Christians invent a town called Nazareth as early as CE 130 to make it jibe with a written gospel record that didn't supposedly exist until CE 150?

Also, since we know the written Gospel of Luke existed long before CE 130 as per previous posts with evidence, and we know it mentions Nazareth, this just makes this conspiracy theory of his concerning Nazareth all the more bizarre.

No offense to anyone who thinks that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century, but I find anyone who subscribes to that view as to be kind of ... weird. It requires you to bend over backwards with really weird conspiracy theories that have no evidence for them at all, and also to defy all reason and logic, and then deny the existence of all available evidence.

People, I don't care what anybody says, but this is just too fucking weird for me. It's giving me the creeps.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: