Metacrock is still apologizing...
-
- Posts: 3009
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm
Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...
I don't know. I think this is a superficial. Since Jews were inevitably introduced as the 'son of' their father, the original gospels presentation of 'IC' rather than 'IC the son of Jimmy' is odd enough. I mean a Roman wouldn't be referenced simply by his 'given name' either. The difficulty is that Jesus was a 'stranger' in the gospel and that had to be explained in some way other than the original gospel writer intended - i.e. he was the angel Eesh. In other words the presentation of 'IC' had to be explained and the way the orthodox did that was to assume that he was fatherless. Typical bullshit.
Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...
Not even Divus Iulius?Stephan Huller wrote:I mean a Roman wouldn't be referenced simply by his 'given name' either.
Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...
Yes they do. just becuase they are not written by the name sakes doesn't' mean they don't have eye witnesses. You don't know that. Bauckham has real good arguments about it.Diogenes the Cynic wrote:The Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts, but just for the record, historians reject eyewitness accounts all the time. So do you, for that matter. Do you believe all the witnesses who say they saw Appolonius of Tyana or Sabbatai Zevi do miracles? Do you believe the eyewitnesses who swore they saw Joseph's Smith's golden plates? Do you believe the witnesses who saw Charles Manson make a truck fly? Do you believe the eyewitnesses who have been abducted by aliens? Herodotus said that he saw a gold mine that was mined by giant ants. Do you believe him? I have X-ray vision. Do you believe me?
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/
Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...
that's really old.it goes back to first century oral tradition that turned up in the Talmud.Diogenes the Cynic wrote:Joe Hoffman has a theory that the virgin birth was invented as an apologetic to cover up for some kind of questionable paternity. I think that actually makes some sense since there really was no expectation at all that the Messiah would be born of a virgin.
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8030
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...
The comment from Diogenes the Cynic follows from the definition of an eyewitness. If I hear a story from a guy (even if the guy says he saw it) and I am the one to tell the story, without having seen the events that I am describing, that is not an eyewitness account. That is hearsay. Maybe relatively good for hearsay, and that can be debated, but it's not an eyewitness account.Metacrock wrote:Yes they do. just becuase they are not written by the name sakes doesn't' mean they don't have eye witnesses. You don't know that. Bauckham has real good arguments about it.Diogenes the Cynic wrote:The Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts, but just for the record, historians reject eyewitness accounts all the time. So do you, for that matter. Do you believe all the witnesses who say they saw Appolonius of Tyana or Sabbatai Zevi do miracles? Do you believe the eyewitnesses who swore they saw Joseph's Smith's golden plates? Do you believe the witnesses who saw Charles Manson make a truck fly? Do you believe the eyewitnesses who have been abducted by aliens? Herodotus said that he saw a gold mine that was mined by giant ants. Do you believe him? I have X-ray vision. Do you believe me?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...
OK, exactly where do the Gospel writers indicate hey I saw this or that? They are not talking in first person. They are speaking in third person. Though it is claimed that the jesus quotes are in first person.Never quite figured that one out though.Metacrock wrote:Yes they do. just becuase they are not written by the name sakes doesn't' mean they don't have eye witnesses. You don't know that. Bauckham has real good arguments about it.Diogenes the Cynic wrote:The Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts, but just for the record, historians reject eyewitness accounts all the time. So do you, for that matter. Do you believe all the witnesses who say they saw Appolonius of Tyana or Sabbatai Zevi do miracles? Do you believe the eyewitnesses who swore they saw Joseph's Smith's golden plates? Do you believe the witnesses who saw Charles Manson make a truck fly? Do you believe the eyewitnesses who have been abducted by aliens? Herodotus said that he saw a gold mine that was mined by giant ants. Do you believe him? I have X-ray vision. Do you believe me?
-
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 5:57 am
Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...
Metacrock wrote: Yes they do. just becuase they are not written by the name sakes doesn't' mean they don't have eye witnesses. You don't know that. Bauckham has real good arguments about it.
Metacrock continues on his 'If I name enough Christians, somebody might think I have evidence' campaign.
Bauckham's arguments are so ad hoc that the guy is a crank.
At least, he had to wait until he had retired from academia before daring to publish his book on eyewitnesses.
- neilgodfrey
- Posts: 6161
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm
Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...
Bauckham's arguments had a number of negative critical reviews in the scholarly literature. I was astonished at the uncritical reception of the book when it first appeared and probably did the most detailed series of reviews of anyone. I do know that Richard Bauckham was asked to respond to my reviews but he declined.Metacrock wrote: Yes they do. just becuase they are not written by the name sakes doesn't' mean they don't have eye witnesses. You don't know that. Bauckham has real good arguments about it.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...
every indication is given by Irenaeous, Papis, Polycarp that the Johns they knew were there for most of the action and saw what Jesus did and heard what he said. that makes them eye witnesses.Peter Kirby wrote:The comment from Diogenes the Cynic follows from the definition of an eyewitness. If I hear a story from a guy (even if the guy says he saw it) and I am the one to tell the story, without having seen the events that I am describing, that is not an eyewitness account. That is hearsay. Maybe relatively good for hearsay, and that can be debated, but it's not an eyewitness account.Metacrock wrote:Yes they do. just becuase they are not written by the name sakes doesn't' mean they don't have eye witnesses. You don't know that. Bauckham has real good arguments about it.Diogenes the Cynic wrote:The Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts, but just for the record, historians reject eyewitness accounts all the time. So do you, for that matter. Do you believe all the witnesses who say they saw Appolonius of Tyana or Sabbatai Zevi do miracles? Do you believe the eyewitnesses who swore they saw Joseph's Smith's golden plates? Do you believe the witnesses who saw Charles Manson make a truck fly? Do you believe the eyewitnesses who have been abducted by aliens? Herodotus said that he saw a gold mine that was mined by giant ants. Do you believe him? I have X-ray vision. Do you believe me?
the oral tradition came form the community that saw Jesus walking down the street of Bethany after he rose that makes them eye witnesses.
The elders who testify to the words of the BD tell us he was there he saw, he heard, he's an eye witness.
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/
Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...
Probably declined because people are so reticent to give it a fair shake there's no reason to talk about it. His arguments are extremely complex, hard to follow, he takes forever to make them. never summarized them in a quick and easy way.neilgodfrey wrote:Bauckham's arguments had a number of negative critical reviews in the scholarly literature. I was astonished at the uncritical reception of the book when it first appeared and probably did the most detailed series of reviews of anyone. I do know that Richard Bauckham was asked to respond to my reviews but he declined.Metacrock wrote: Yes they do. just becuase they are not written by the name sakes doesn't' mean they don't have eye witnesses. You don't know that. Bauckham has real good arguments about it.
those are valid criticisms I can endorse any reviewer who makes them. Those are my down sides to the book. that doesn't mean they are untrue, it doesn't mean that he didn't capture the point. It does mean it makes them hard and unfun to defend.
The thing I find so great about his work is that all the end points that he's building to are stuff that I had come to years ago. That doesn't make him right just because he agrees with me but it sort of endears me to his work. He has a much more expert basis for the arguments.
One example his take on the Elder John the Beloved Disciple and Johnnie community. that's all the stuff I thought my way to over the years. the same conclusions.
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/