Metacrock is still apologizing...

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
theterminator
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:07 am

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by theterminator »

if the jews could get access to the body , why didn't they make jesus into an olah offering? or bury him in the ground. if they had put thier thinking caps on, they would not need any guards.
.
Mental flatliner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by Mental flatliner »

theterminator wrote:if the jews could get access to the body , why didn't they make jesus into an olah offering? or bury him in the ground. if they had put thier thinking caps on, they would not need any guards.
Because the crucifixion ended between 3:00 and 6:00 on the eve of Passover and none of them would have wanted to touch a dead body (and be barred from the temple).

All four gospels are specific: the crucifixion took place on Nisan 14, and the garden near Golgotha was used simply because it was close. There was no time to dilly dally with anything more complex than:
--get the body down
--prep it
--carry it to the cave
--seal the cave
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by MrMacSon »

Mental flatliner wrote:All four gospels are specific:
Yet the gospels were written at least 2 generation later ... and later redacted ... with likely embellishment. As their specificity suggests.
Mental flatliner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by Mental flatliner »

MrMacSon wrote:
Mental flatliner wrote:All four gospels are specific:
Yet the gospels were written at least 2 generation later ... and later redacted ... with likely embellishment. As their specificity suggests.
You're making three claims that I'm willing to bet you'll never support with any kind of evidence:

1. The gospels were written at least 2 generations later
2. They were redacted
3. They were embellished
4. As their specificity suggests

No one is exempt from the burden of evidence, and you've just made four positive claims.

I'm going to add several errors in your claims that you probably didn't think of:

1. The gospels are in absolute agreement (and their "specificity" suggests they were written during Jesus' lifetime and could NOT have been written later)
2. The gospels are quoted and referred to in independent writings of the first few decades after Jesus died proving they themselves were available
3. The gospels are never questioned for authenticity by the people with the greatest ability to do so: those living in the centuries following their writing
4. Gospel traditions can be found in the first century in Egypt, Turkey and Rome. This speed of proliferation suggests a history of up to 100 years that can be attributed (unless you're willing to think the evangelists were the most successful salesmen in world history and attained empire-wide appeal overnight).

People who claim the Bible is wrong NEVER offer support. Reason? There's none available.
Reality, when tested, always agrees with the Bible.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by MrMacSon »

The gospels are in absolute agreement (and their "specificity" suggests they were written during Jesus' lifetime and could NOT have been written later)
Rubbish. No scholar asserts the gospels were written during Jesus time. What evidence would you provide for that proposition?
The formation of the New Testament canon (A.D. 100-220)

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.

The period of discussion (A.D. 220-367)

In this stage of the historical development of the Canon of the New Testament we encounter for the first time a consciousness reflected in certain ecclesiastical writers, of the differences between the sacred collections in divers sections of Christendom. This variation is witnessed to, and the discussion stimulated by, two of the most learned men of Christian antiquity, Origen, and Eusebius of Cæsarea, the ecclesiastical historian.

The period of fixation (A.D. 367-405)

St. Athanasius
While the influence of Athanasius on the Canon of the Old Testament was negative and exclusive (see supra), in that of the New Testament it was trenchantly constructive. In his "Epistola Festalis" (A.D. 367) the illustrious Bishop of Alexandria ranks all of Origen's New Testament Antilegomena, which are identical with the deuteros, boldly inside the Canon, without noticing any of the scruples about them. Thenceforward they were formally and firmly fixed in the Alexandrian Canon. And it is significant of the general trend of ecclesiastical authority that not only were works which formerly enjoyed high standing at broad-minded Alexandria--the Apocalypse of Peter and the Acts of Paul--involved by Athanasius with the apocrypha, but even some that Origen had regarded as inspired--Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache--were ruthlessly shut out under the same damnatory title.

The Roman Church, the synod under Damasus, and St. Jerome
The Muratorian Canon or Fragment, composed in the Roman Church in the last quarter of the second century, is silent about Hebrews, James, II Peter; I Peter, indeed, is not mentioned, but must have been omitted by an oversight, since it was universally received at the time. There is evidence that this restricted Canon obtained not only in the African Church, with slight modifications, as we have seen, but also at Rome and in the West generally until the close of the fourth century. The same ancient authority witnesses to the very favourable and perhaps canonical standing enjoyed at Rome by the Apocalypse of Peter and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Fixation in the African and Gallican Churches
It was some little time before the African Church perfectly adjusted its New Testament to the Damasan Canon. Optatus of Mileve (370-85) does not used Hebrews. St. Augustine, while himself receiving the integral Canon, acknowledged that many contested this Epistle. But in the Synod of Hippo (393) the great Doctor's view prevailed, and the correct Canon was adopted. However, it is evident that it found many opponents in Africa, since three councils there at brief intervals--Hippo, Carthage, in 393; Third of Carthage in 397; Carthage in 419--found it necessary to formulate catalogues. The introduction of Hebrews was an especial crux, and a reflection of this is found in the first Carthage list, where the much vexed Epistle, though styled of St. Paul, is still numbered separately from the time-consecrated group of thirteen.

The Catholic Encyclopedia: Canon of the New Testament
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu May 08, 2014 3:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Diogenes the Cynic
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:59 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by Diogenes the Cynic »

Mental flatliner wrote:Because the crucifixion ended between 3:00 and 6:00 on the eve of Passover
According to the Synoptics, the Passover had started the night before. They are crystal clear about it. Are they lying?

The Romans would not have cared about getting the body down, nor would they have cared about touching a dead body, and the Romans are the one who would have taken the bodies down if anybody did.
Last edited by Diogenes the Cynic on Thu May 08, 2014 3:31 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by spin »

In passing...
Mental flatliner wrote:
MrMacSon wrote:
Mental flatliner wrote:All four gospels are specific:
Yet the gospels were written at least 2 generation later ... and later redacted ... with likely embellishment. As their specificity suggests.
You're making three claims that I'm willing to bet you'll never support with any kind of evidence:

1. The gospels were written at least 2 generations later
A few indications:
a) the rending of the temple curtain (Mk 15:38) reflects the overthrow of the temple;
b) the parable of the wicked tenants (Mk 12:1-12) reflects the decimation of the Jews; and
c) the use of the term "rabbi" reflects a Jewish usage after the time of Rabban Yohanan ben Zachai, ie post Jewish War.
Mental flatliner wrote:2. They were redacted
The existence of the synoptic gospels provides a clear indication that at least some gospels have been redacted. Neither Matthew nor Luke are totally independent sources: they evince a textual dependence on Mark. This is common scholarly knowledge, so to refute the issue you would need to show some command of the status quo scholarly consensus regarding the synoptic problem, on which numerous academic works have been written. Confessional approaches won't hack it.
Mental flatliner wrote:3. They were embellished
4. As their specificity suggests

No one is exempt from the burden of evidence, and you've just made four positive claims.

I'm going to add several errors in your claims that you probably didn't think of:

1. The gospels are in absolute agreement (and their "specificity" suggests they were written during Jesus' lifetime and could NOT have been written later),
This is a statement of belief and seems unaware of the use of textual differences in the analysis of biblical literature. It seems to reflect what is usually referred to as biblical inerrancy. a few simple examples: 1) was the father of Joseph named Jacob (Mt 1:16) or was it Heli (Lk 3:23)? 2) did the family of Jesus live in Nazareth before he was born (2:39) or did they move there only after his birth (Mt 2:23)?
Mental flatliner wrote:2. The gospels are quoted and referred to in independent writings of the first few decades after Jesus died proving they themselves were available
Which independent sources do you refer to and how are you dating them?
Mental flatliner wrote:3. The gospels are never questioned for authenticity by the people with the greatest ability to do so: those living in the centuries following their writing
This is not an argument. It's a few untested assertions.
Mental flatliner wrote:4. Gospel traditions can be found in the first century in Egypt, Turkey and Rome. This speed of proliferation suggests a history of up to 100 years that can be attributed (unless you're willing to think the evangelists were the most successful salesmen in world history and attained empire-wide appeal overnight).
This assertion does not reflect biblical scholarship.
Mental flatliner wrote:People who claim the Bible is wrong NEVER offer support. Reason? There's none available.
Reality, when tested, always agrees with the Bible.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Diogenes the Cynic
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:59 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by Diogenes the Cynic »

Mental flatliner wrote: 1. The gospels are in absolute agreement (and their "specificity" suggests they were written during Jesus' lifetime and could NOT have been written later)
2. The gospels are quoted and referred to in independent writings of the first few decades after Jesus died proving they themselves were available
3. The gospels are never questioned for authenticity by the people with the greatest ability to do so: those living in the centuries following their writing
4. Gospel traditions can be found in the first century in Egypt, Turkey and Rome. This speed of proliferation suggests a history of up to 100 years that can be attributed (unless you're willing to think the evangelists were the most successful salesmen in world history and attained empire-wide appeal overnight).

People who claim the Bible is wrong NEVER offer support. Reason? There's none available.
Reality, when tested, always agrees with the Bible.
Not a single line of this is true. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

No contradictions? You have to be kidding.

Was Jesus born under Herod or during the census of Quirinius. It can't be both. Which is it?

How did Judas die?

Did Jesus ascend to heaven on Easter Sunday or 40 days later?

Did Jesus ever teach in secret?

Did Jesus first appear to the disciples in Judea or in Galilee?

Was Jesus crucified on the Passover or on the day of Preparation?

I can do this all day, and I know that you won't be able to answer a single one of them.

You also can't name any independent, 1st century quotes of the Gospels, you cant find 1st Century Gospels in Egypt or Rome or Turkey. Prove me wrong. Shut me up.
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by TedM »

Mental, I'll jump in on these:
Mental flatliner wrote:
I'm going to add several errors in your claims that you probably didn't think of:

1. The gospels are in absolute agreement (and their "specificity" suggests they were written during Jesus' lifetime and could NOT have been written later)
I gave you the birth accounts and resurrection appearances in Luke and Matthew as examples of clearly different traditions about the same thing. You can say they are 'in agreement' but that is only possible with unreasonable means to make them compatible. A reasonable viewpoint is not yours. It is that the accounts are not compatible with each other.
2. The gospels are quoted and referred to in independent writings of the first few decades after Jesus died proving they themselves were available
similar or exact phrases aren't automatically 'quotes'. Do the references attribute the quote to the gospel writings? If not, your claim is misleading and possibly wrong.
3. The gospels are never questioned for authenticity by the people with the greatest ability to do so: those living in the centuries following their writing
This is not a strong claim due to the lack of information any time early on.
4. Gospel traditions can be found in the first century in Egypt, Turkey and Rome. This speed of proliferation suggests a history of up to 100 years that can be attributed (unless you're willing to think the evangelists were the most successful salesmen in world history and attained empire-wide appeal overnight).
This is too vague to be meaningful.
People who claim the Bible is wrong NEVER offer support. Reason? There's none available.
Reality, when tested, always agrees with the Bible.
The reality is that this universe is billions of years old and man has existed for way more than 6,000 years. The reality is that 99% of all species were extinct prior to the arrival of man. The reality is that man never lived when dinosaurs lived. The reality is that the flood represents a strange level of 'oops' factor by the Creator. The reality is animals suffer seemingly for no reason because of survival of the fittest. The reality is the life as represented in the fossil record began millions of years ago from very small, progressing to more complex forms over many years, all prior to the arrival of man. The reality is that the stories in Genesis of long lives, a flood, towers to the sky all seem to have a basis in Babylonian and Sumerian cultures. The reality is that there is evidence of much of the OT being written or changed during the Babylonian exile. The reality is that despite Jewish hopes for a King like David to help them in their troubled times, and prophecies to that effect, many of the prophecies claimed to have been fulfilled are contrived interpretations, many of them are 'two-part' in that they really were not fulfilled originally so they were re-interpreted as having to be fulfilled at a later time. The reality is that the Anointed One in Daniel has nothing to do with Jesus coming in 70 weeks of years, as that would contradict the context of several other descriptions of the same thing elsewhere in Daniel, which were clearly NOT about the Messiah. And, as I mentioned on the other thread the reality is that the arguably first two accounts having detail about the birth and resurrection appearances of Jesus, written at roughly the same time, describe 2 different stories -- as wonderful as they are around Christmas time, they are 2 different birth stories, and -- as wonderful as they are around Easter, they are 2 different resurrection stories.

The reality is that the evidence for the individual 11 disciples spreading the word and being killed for their faith is extremely weak, and in several cases very contradictory, indicating that perhaps the STRONGEST evidence for the resurrection -- changed lives by eyewitnesses -- is actually very very weak.

The Bible is a fascinating collection of writings over time. I'd love to believe the parts about a loving God. But, the reality seems to indicate that the bible is primarily myth. So why has Jesus been so influential? Because the Bible has a semi-coherent theme about a loving God saving his people. It was embedded in the Jewish culture. They desperately wanted to find a savior. They couldn't find a Savior-King so, they found one who seemed to be like the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, a martyr, and over time writings appeared to help solidify that belief. And why has it lasted so long? Because, quite frankly, it is the greatest story ever told.

But, there are plenty of clues that this was an evolving faith created by man, and not given to us by a loving God, sorry to say.
Hawthorne
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by Hawthorne »

MrMacSon wrote:
The gospels are in absolute agreement (and their "specificity" suggests they were written during Jesus' lifetime and could NOT have been written later)
Rubbish. No scholar asserts the gospels were written during Jesus time. What evidence would you provide for that proposition?
The question here though is not whether scholars make such an assertion. We could probably get some data to support that, or at least mostly support that. Let's deal with the evidence though. There are two possibilities:

H1: Gospels written during and shortly after the life of Jesus based on eyewitness accounts.
H2: Gospels written decades after the life of Jesus based on non-eyewitness sources.

We know, at least, that H1 cannot be true of the Gospel of Luke because that author tells us some time has passed. We also know that a good deal of Mark is subsumed into Matthew, so we would have questions about how that process occurred in the immediate aftermath of the events. I think we could question the process of this writing during the life of Jesus. Who was writing it? What perspective did the person have? What access did the person have to, for example, private conversations or events that occurred to Jesus alone (such as his sojourn in the wilderness)? We would also have to consider how trustworthy the source of the information is. Also, we would have to consider whether ancillary evidence appears to reflect what we would expect if H1 is true. And then, there's the issue that the Gospels appear to have been written originally in Greek, so if the Gospels were written during the life of Jesus, how did they come to be written in Greek? Did Jesus speak Greek (it's possible). If Jesus did not speak Greek, how did these Gospels get translated?

Our protagonist has some hurdles to clear, just here, and this is not at all exhaustive.

What we have to be able to explain (we think it is clear, but there's a whole lot of people who don't agree) why H2 is a better explanation of the evidence. Why does H2 fit the evidence better? Does the ancillary evidence appear as we would expect if H2 is true? Here it seems we have some good bricks on which to build a case; The Gospels, as they come to us, are Greek. It takes a backward inference to claim that they were ever written in Hebrew or Aramaic. There is scholarly support for this position; experts who have studied the Gospels are in fairly close agreement that they were written in Greek. The authors do not identify themselves as eyewitnesses, which you would expect if they were. Some of what mental has described as detail can be also said about pure fiction or historical fiction (and his use as evidence to support his position is an example of confirmatory bias, rather than critical thought).

I would like to see a thoughtful discussion with mental.
Post Reply