Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-05-2015, 08:03 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(11-05-2015 03:12 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(11-05-2015 10:25 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And again, do you have textual evidence I can find re: things like Markan priority? I've heard a number of theories about Matthew and Luke authorship, it sounds good to say they copied from Mark. Is this a provable assertion you're making?

Or again, I'm currently discussing John and Paul with Ebionites and some Messianic Jews who say only the synoptics are valid. I've heard all the Pauline-knocking before. What was new to me was your theory of Paul being a Roman plant of some kind...

Thanks.

"And again, do you have textual evidence I can find re: things like Markan priority?"

YES
It is generally accepted that the original version of Mark was the first Gospel written, because it is copied by Matthew and Luke, sometimes word for word, and sometimes with editorial changes, exaggerations, and additions. Of the 661 verses in Marks’ Gospel, Matthew uses about 607 and Luke about 360. It is a big topic, well summarised here
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/mark.html

I am familiar with this debate. The similarities do not account for the many differences in the accounts. When I requested textual evidence, I was asking for documentary evidence that proves that Markan priority is more valid than, say, four-source, Q as source, or the Augustinian view that Matthew was first written. You can look at the texts and make claims as you choose, but these claims aren't falsifiable.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2015, 08:09 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
Re "I'm already conversant with most of what you shared as a holder of a Bachelor's in Religion majoring in biblical studies..."

Quote:Argumentum ad verecundiam.... An argument from authority is one in which a proposition is claimed to be true because an esteemed person says it is true. It is a fallacy in that it relies on the person's fame or reputation, rather than on logical arguments or empirical evidence.

First, I wasn't making an argument. I was stating (again) that you are giving a lot of details I already know.

Second, I was simply asking for an acknowledgment of what I already know so we can progress to discuss something new. You constantly write things like, "Let me educate you". I'd appreciate your being less assumptive in the future, please. I'm not a Ph.D. in New Testament studies, true, but I have far, far more than the average layman's understanding, even the average fundamentalist's understanding, of higher criticism, historical criticism, and source criticism of the Bible in both testaments, as well as having studied the apocrypha and church history. When I say something like, "But Matthew 8 says that..." and then you respond with 500 words as to why Matthew didn't write Matthew, it's tiresome. I'm not going to stay here and type Gospel 1, Chapter 1, Verse 3. That's ridiculous. I'm sure you agree. 99% of the people we interact with understand "Matthew's gospel says that," to mean a certain book, even though some of those persons recognize that Matthew's authorship cannot be conclusively demonstrated.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2015, 08:13 AM (This post was last modified: 12-05-2015 10:46 AM by The Q Continuum.)
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
Re What about the 5600 NT pieces extant from before the close of the 2nd century?

Quote:They don't exist. You are the one making the claim they do. Prove your claim to us.

I stand corrected. I shouldn't have used second century as we know many of these documents cannot be dated nearly that far back.

**
Biblical scholar Gary Habermas, "...The New Testament has far more manuscript evidence from a far earlier period than other classical works. There are just under 6000 NT manuscripts, with copies of most of the NT dating from just 100 years or so after its writing. Classical sources almost always have less than 20 copies each and usually date from 700-1400 years after the composition of the work. In this regard, the classics are not as well attested. While this doesn't guarantee truthfulness, it means that it is much easier to reconstruct the New Testament text."

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2015, 02:59 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(12-05-2015 08:03 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(11-05-2015 03:12 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "And again, do you have textual evidence I can find re: things like Markan priority?"

YES
It is generally accepted that the original version of Mark was the first Gospel written, because it is copied by Matthew and Luke, sometimes word for word, and sometimes with editorial changes, exaggerations, and additions. Of the 661 verses in Marks’ Gospel, Matthew uses about 607 and Luke about 360. It is a big topic, well summarised here
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/mark.html

I am familiar with this debate. The similarities do not account for the many differences in the accounts. When I requested textual evidence, I was asking for documentary evidence that proves that Markan priority is more valid than, say, four-source, Q as source, or the Augustinian view that Matthew was first written. You can look at the texts and make claims as you choose, but these claims aren't falsifiable.

Are you trying to say that what ended up as Matthew and Luke didn't use Mark as a primary source? If so you are in ignoring what is staring you in the face.

It is probable Q existed. That doesn't mean Matthew and Luke didn't pinch a whole lot of information from Mark.

My original point was that in one sense Matthew and Luke and to a lesser extent John are edits and interpolations of Mark. Hence we have evidence of the cutting and pasting of gospels that occurred in the three centuries after Jesus allegedly died.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
14-05-2015, 03:20 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(12-05-2015 08:09 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Re "I'm already conversant with most of what you shared as a holder of a Bachelor's in Religion majoring in biblical studies..."

Quote:Argumentum ad verecundiam.... An argument from authority is one in which a proposition is claimed to be true because an esteemed person says it is true. It is a fallacy in that it relies on the person's fame or reputation, rather than on logical arguments or empirical evidence.

First, I wasn't making an argument. I was stating (again) that you are giving a lot of details I already know.

Second, I was simply asking for an acknowledgment of what I already know so we can progress to discuss something new. You constantly write things like, "Let me educate you". I'd appreciate your being less assumptive in the future, please. I'm not a Ph.D. in New Testament studies, true, but I have far, far more than the average layman's understanding, even the average fundamentalist's understanding, of higher criticism, historical criticism, and source criticism of the Bible in both testaments, as well as having studied the apocrypha and church history. When I say something like, "But Matthew 8 says that..." and then you respond with 500 words as to why Matthew didn't write Matthew, it's tiresome. I'm not going to stay here and type Gospel 1, Chapter 1, Verse 3. That's ridiculous. I'm sure you agree. 99% of the people we interact with understand "Matthew's gospel says that," to mean a certain book, even though some of those persons recognize that Matthew's authorship cannot be conclusively demonstrated.

Okay. I acknowledge that you have done some study into this.

Bearing in mind that when we exchange ideas, hopefully you and I are not the only people reading it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2015, 03:40 PM (This post was last modified: 15-05-2015 02:26 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(12-05-2015 08:13 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Re What about the 5600 NT pieces extant from before the close of the 2nd century?

Quote:They don't exist. You are the one making the claim they do. Prove your claim to us.

I stand corrected. I shouldn't have used second century as we know many of these documents cannot be dated nearly that far back.

**
Biblical scholar Gary Habermas, "...The New Testament has far more manuscript evidence from a far earlier period than other classical works. There are just under 6000 NT manuscripts, with copies of most of the NT dating from just 100 years or so after its writing. Classical sources almost always have less than 20 copies each and usually date from 700-1400 years after the composition of the work. In this regard, the classics are not as well attested. While this doesn't guarantee truthfulness, it means that it is much easier to reconstruct the New Testament text."

"The New Testament has far more manuscript evidence from a far earlier period than other classical works."

A meaningless statement. What is "manuscript evidence?" "far earlier" than what?
What "other classical works?" (for eg the OT is a "classical work" that predates the NT)

"There are just under 6000 NT manuscripts,"

Are there? Mmmmm. Another meaningless statement. From when?

"with copies of most of the NT dating from just 100 years or so after its writing."

FALSE. There are no surviving copies of the new Testament, until at least I think the fifth century. I'm in a rush to get to work and can't look this up, but it might even be the sixth or seventh century.

Most of the original versions of letters in the new Testament were probably first written late in the first century.

As I wrote in my long post, we cannot, therefore, be sure what the early Church Fathers were reading. Some of their comments bare a resemblance to some of what is written in the new Testament, but that is all we can say.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
15-05-2015, 03:52 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
PS...thanks to dancefortwo...let's call it (just...maybe) sometime in the fourth century...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2015, 04:14 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
And....thankyou Minimalist for this link....

http://www.vatileaks.com/_blog/Vati_Leak..._his_word/
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2015, 01:41 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
Thank you for your acknowledgment of my own knowledge. I mean that sincerely.

Quote:Most of the original versions of letters in the new Testament were probably first written late in the first century.

And you would have to say so, knowing as we do that:

Clement of Rome circa 96-98 CE:

quotes Matthew 18:6 (also Mark 9:42) as by the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Clement ch.46 p.17-18

quotes Mark 7:6 1 (Also Matthew 15:8; Isaiah 29:13) 1 Clement ch.15 vol.1 p.9

quotes 1/4 of Acts 20:35f (5 words out of 26 words) 1 Clement vol.1 ch.2 p.

quotes Romans 1:32b 1 Clement ch.35 p.14

quotes 1 Corinthians 2:9 1 Clement ch.34 p.14

quotes half of Titus 3:1b “Ye never grudged any act of kindness, being ‘ready to every good work.’ (6 out of 13 words) 1 Clement ch.2 vol.1 p.5

quotes Heb 1:4. “’who being the brightness of His majesty, is by so much greater than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.’ For it is thus written, ‘Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.’ But concerning His Son the Lord spoke thus: ‘thou are my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee. As of Me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession.’ And again He said to Him, ‘site thou at Mu right hand, until I make Thine enemies thy footstool.’” 1 Clement ch.36 vol.1 p.15

quotes half of Heb 3:2b 1 Clement ch.17 vol.1 p.10

quotes three-fourths of Heb 10:37 1 Clement ch.23 vol.1 p.11

quotes James 4:6 (same as 1 Peter 5:5b; Proverbs 3:34) 1 Clement ch.30 vol.1 p.13

quotes: Revelation 22:12 p.14 (This is also the same as Isaiah 40:10; 62:11) 1 Clement ch.34 vol.1 p.14

Some thought he was even a disciple of Paul and so on accordingly. Now the 64-dollar question, if the NT was written by say, 90 AD, could it have been written by eyewitnesses? And would they really forget stuff Jesus said after repeating it to their disciples 100 times round campfires, having also seen Him rise from the grave?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2015, 03:23 PM (This post was last modified: 15-05-2015 03:35 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(15-05-2015 01:41 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Thank you for your acknowledgment of my own knowledge. I mean that sincerely.

Quote:Most of the original versions of letters in the new Testament were probably first written late in the first century.

And you would have to say so, knowing as we do that:

Clement of Rome circa 96-98 CE:

quotes Matthew 18:6 (also Mark 9:42) as by the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Clement ch.46 p.17-18

quotes Mark 7:6 1 (Also Matthew 15:8; Isaiah 29:13) 1 Clement ch.15 vol.1 p.9

quotes 1/4 of Acts 20:35f (5 words out of 26 words) 1 Clement vol.1 ch.2 p.

quotes Romans 1:32b 1 Clement ch.35 p.14

quotes 1 Corinthians 2:9 1 Clement ch.34 p.14

quotes half of Titus 3:1b “Ye never grudged any act of kindness, being ‘ready to every good work.’ (6 out of 13 words) 1 Clement ch.2 vol.1 p.5

quotes Heb 1:4. “’who being the brightness of His majesty, is by so much greater than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.’ For it is thus written, ‘Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.’ But concerning His Son the Lord spoke thus: ‘thou are my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee. As of Me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession.’ And again He said to Him, ‘site thou at Mu right hand, until I make Thine enemies thy footstool.’” 1 Clement ch.36 vol.1 p.15

quotes half of Heb 3:2b 1 Clement ch.17 vol.1 p.10

quotes three-fourths of Heb 10:37 1 Clement ch.23 vol.1 p.11

quotes James 4:6 (same as 1 Peter 5:5b; Proverbs 3:34) 1 Clement ch.30 vol.1 p.13

quotes: Revelation 22:12 p.14 (This is also the same as Isaiah 40:10; 62:11) 1 Clement ch.34 vol.1 p.14

Some thought he was even a disciple of Paul and so on accordingly. Now the 64-dollar question, if the NT was written by say, 90 AD, could it have been written by eyewitnesses? And would they really forget stuff Jesus said after repeating it to their disciples 100 times round campfires, having also seen Him rise from the grave?

Let's briefly nail who this "Clement" was...

Clement
St Clement I, also known as Pope Clement I, was a figure in Rome. He is regarded as one of the first apostolic fathers (someone who allegedly had contact with the disciples of Jesus) of the early Christian church, yet there is no record that he met any disciples.

It is sometimes claimed, without evidence, that Clement met Paul, but Paul never mentioned Clement in any of his letters, and Clement never mentioned Paul.

Clement’s letter to the Corinthian church (1 Clement) was widely read and is one of the oldest Christian documents still in existence.
( http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html )

It had canonical rank in at least some regions of early Christendom. It is his only genuine surviving work (a second Epistle is commonly thought to be a forgery) and probably dates from the very late first or early second century, although some scholars claim it could have been penned as late as 140 CE. Not all scholars believe this letter is his, as it does not carry any author’s name.

The letter discusses a dispute in Corinth that had led to the removal from office of several presbyters. “Clement” thought that their removal was high-handed and unjustifiable. There are several references in the letter to the Old Testament, which the author refers to as scripture. The author never quotes from the Gospels, although some phrases resemble those in the now canonical Gospels. Clement’s first epistle, traditionally dated to 95 CE, but more likely written decades later, did “quote” Jesus, and some of these quotations resemble sayings from the Gospels, but Clement never referred to a source.

Someone writing about sixty years after Jesus’ death should have mentioned something about what he knew about the origin of his beliefs. The fact that "Clement" did not, strongly suggests he was unaware of any historical facts about Jesus.

Today the Vatican claims that Clement was the fourth pope, yet Clement fails to mention or even imply in his letter that a papal position existed. Is it not impossible to be a pope and not be aware of it? If you were a pope, surely you would mention the fact, or make it obvious that you were in charge!

The Catholic encyclopedia states,
“Of the life and death of St. Clement nothing is known,” which begs the question how they can so confidently claim that he was a pope, or a saint.

So, Q
-we can't be sure "Clement" was the author
-we don't know for sure when the letter was written
-we strongly suspect the letter has pro Christian interpolations in it
-contrary to what your source asserts, there are no quotations from the gospels in the letter, just phrases that resemble some of the words in the gospels.

I'm not sure why you are somehow claiming this letter proves that this anonymous author talked to eyewitnesses of Jesus. The answer to your 64 Dollar question is a resounding NO … this does nothing to prove that today's gospels were written by eyewitnesses of Jesus, or that eyewitnesses talked around campfires about Jesus, or that Jesus rose from the dead.




Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: