Message

Metacrock is still apologizing...

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Postby Metacrock » Fri May 09, 2014 4:56 am

theterminator wrote:
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



how do you know it was close when no one knows where the tomb is? how did the jews know that jesus' battered body would've been recognized by cowards who ran away? why do you christians want the jews to become sticklers for the rules when it comes to the funeral of your god, but when jesus breaks rules, you people find exceptions?


we have a real good idea where it was. A guy named Biddle proved that the site at Chruch of the Holy Sepulchre is the same sight that Constantine chose. That at least takes it back that far. There is more evidence that argues that Constantine got it right. For one thing there was a tradition held by Jewish Chrsitians that the Romans marked the site with two pagan shrines one to Jupiter and one to someone else, I think Aphrodite. But there also a temple. In 1968 an archeaolist named Corbo found those near the chruch of the Holy Sepulchre.

See my pages on this: "have tomb, will argue"
Metacrock
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 2:33 am

Advertisements

by »

 

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Postby Metacrock » Fri May 09, 2014 5:00 am

how did the jews know that jesus' battered body would've been recognized by cowards who ran away?


how do we recognize people who badly beaten up today? The family of Emit Till recognized him, barely.

why do you christians want the jews to become sticklers for the rules when it comes to the funeral of your god, but when jesus breaks rules, you people find exceptions?


that's a silly argument. First of all no one is into rules like the Hebrews of the OT. Secondly, Jesus was one. He was Hebrew, he was a Jew. Trying to separate him out form the Jews doesn't work. He was a Jew. He understood their rules and breaking their rule by their own theological understanding.
Metacrock
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 2:33 am

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Postby TedM » Fri May 09, 2014 7:03 am

Metacrock wrote:
TedM wrote:Are you kidding? You are just dead wrong in saying that the gospels claim to be eye witness accounts. They read like a story about a man, his sayings, and doings. How is that information obtained? It could be from 1st hand, 2nd hand, 3rd hand, etc, imagination, scriptural inspiration, and on and on. Do you know that 90% of Mark is included in Matthew? Do you know that Papias, our first reference to the gospels, wrote that Matthew wrote down the 'sayings' of Jesus? Not at all like the book of Matthew. And that Mark wrote things he heard from Peter, but not in a chronological manner. Mark actually is quite chronological. Our source Papias, as well as comparisons of the gospels supports the idea that these works are compilations of various sources by at least some people that may not have been eyewitnesses at all.

Most people simply don't know this stuff. They think that the gospels are straight from the disciples mouths.



(1) you are trying to judge Gosepls by modern criteria without knowing anything about the literary genres of the age.

(2) I don't think that well read in modern terms, much less ancinet.


Hi Metacrock. I'm not understanding your objections here. Please explain.
TedM
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Postby Metacrock » Fri May 09, 2014 8:01 am

TedM wrote:
Metacrock wrote:
TedM wrote:Are you kidding? You are just dead wrong in saying that the gospels claim to be eye witness accounts. They read like a story about a man, his sayings, and doings. How is that information obtained? It could be from 1st hand, 2nd hand, 3rd hand, etc, imagination, scriptural inspiration, and on and on. Do you know that 90% of Mark is included in Matthew? Do you know that Papias, our first reference to the gospels, wrote that Matthew wrote down the 'sayings' of Jesus? Not at all like the book of Matthew. And that Mark wrote things he heard from Peter, but not in a chronological manner. Mark actually is quite chronological. Our source Papias, as well as comparisons of the gospels supports the idea that these works are compilations of various sources by at least some people that may not have been eyewitnesses at all.

Most people simply don't know this stuff. They think that the gospels are straight from the disciples mouths.



(1) you are trying to judge Gosepls by modern criteria without knowing anything about the literary genres of the age.

(2) I don't think that well read in modern terms, much less ancinet.


Hi Metacrock. I'm not understanding your objections here. Please explain.



Hey Ted. Ok let me try to be more clear. you say:


You are just dead wrong in saying that the gospels claim to be eye witness accounts.


I don't contend that the Gospel writers say "this is eye witness stuff." The obviously implication is there. they clearly believe it,and their info is coming form eye witnesses. the redactors whose work we have and we think of as "Mark" or "Matthew" are not eye witnesses themselves. At least not necessarily. but they using statements by eye witnesses and they are assuming that that's what they are.

It's not a work of fiction. they are not telling a story.




They read like a story about a man, his sayings, and doings.


2000 years ago they didn't have court rooms, court room evidence, a social scinece called "hsitory>" docudramas or "reality shows." What they had was stories and these are some of them. that doesn't they don't assume they are true. They are following a literary convention that has nothing to do with weather or not its' true.



How is that information obtained? It could be from 1st hand, 2nd hand, 3rd hand, etc, imagination, scriptural inspiration, and on and on.


The community as a whole witnesses certain events, such as Jesus on the cross. Or Jesus speaking to the multitudes. Others among them witnesses more privates events such as the empty tomb. Or Jesus telling Judas "what you have to do do quicley." all of that was distilled into pericopes (pronouned< Per-ic-o-pees), that is story units. they did that so they could memorize it. they had an oral tradition where they memories the words of their teachers. It's broken down into units easy to memorize then told to the group as a whole in communal situations such as dinner. I'm guessing here but I imagine new comers were required to recite the stories as teachings then spit them back in front of the eye witnesses. that's the way oral tradition was done. No reason to assume they didn't do it that way.



Do you know that 90% of Mark is included in Matthew?


so what? I fail to see why that is so meaningful to you.


Do you know that Papias, our first reference to the gospels, wrote that Matthew wrote down the 'sayings' of Jesus? Not at all like the book of Matthew.


I knew that. that doesn't invalidate Matthew. scholars no longer think of Gospels as produced by one author. they are seen as produced by communities. hey redacted by the community they were told by the community in oral form. The redactors edited and write down the oral transmission.

And that Mark wrote things he heard from Peter, but not in a chronological manner. Mark actually is quite chronological.


the community redacted those efferent. Matthew wrote a saying source and someone else combined it with action and events. It's still based upon the understanding of the community including its eye witness. Mark shows signs of having been composed by someone from Galilee. there may be evidence that Peter is behind it. Then the community redacted it and polished and there are several versions. The version quoted by Luke is somewhat different form the version quoted by Matthew.

they all agree on the same plot, the same characters, same events.


Our source Papias, as well as comparisons of the gospels supports the idea that these works are compilations of various sources by at least some people that may not have been eyewitnesses at all.


that doesn't follow. you think eye witnesses are like documentaries where they follow the same pattern they tell all the same details that's rubbish. the fact that it's complied out of several sources does not remove i from being eye wittiness. It still has historical validity that can be demonstrated on seven levels.

oral tradition
the original pre mark redaction
canonical Gospels
non canonical Gospels
Paul (what he learned from Jerusalem chruch and Pricilla and Aquilla)
Paul (his saying source)
church fathers
Metacrock
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 2:33 am

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Postby Diogenes the Cynic » Fri May 09, 2014 8:12 am

Metacrock wrote:
MrMacSon wrote:
Mental flatliner wrote:The gospels are from original witnesses and the only way to debunk them is to find other eye-witnesses with equal or greater authority.

Good luck with that.

What shows the gospels are from original witnesses?


too much to go into here. there's a great deal of it. I suggest you read Jesus and the eye witneses by Bauckham.

http://books.google.com/books?id=zcVVp_YD4w4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=true

see my page on "community as author"

http://www.doxa.ws/Bible/Community.html

Bauckham is a joke. For instance, he thinks Papias is actually evidence and he uses an invented hermenutic whereby he imagines he can tell that Mark is writing from the viewpoints of different witnesses. Bauckham is a fucking hack apologist.
Diogenes the Cynic
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:59 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Postby TedM » Fri May 09, 2014 9:40 am

Metacrock wrote:
TedM wrote:Our source Papias, as well as comparisons of the gospels supports the idea that these works are compilations of various sources by at least some people that may not have been eyewitnesses at all.


that doesn't follow. you think eye witnesses are like documentaries where they follow the same pattern they tell all the same details that's rubbish. the fact that it's complied out of several sources does not remove i from being eye wittiness. It still has historical validity that can be demonstrated on seven levels.


First, just to be clear, my original post was to Mentalflat-liner. Some of your comments sound like you thought they were to you directly.

Anyway, what I meant to say is that SOME of the material may not have come from eyewitnesses. I tend to think Jesus lived, was influential among his group, said some things as a teacher, probably had some kind of healing event, was crucified, and when some of those who loved him thought they saw him again or dreamed about him, the idea that he was a martyr who had similarities to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 -- and it all happening during Passover -- was such a confluence of spiritually-charged ideas for the Jews, that Christianity was born. However, as I stated in the other thread about Matthew and Luke, I think the reality is that stuff was made up to supplant the original eyewitness reports. It's the greatest story ever told. It has endured not only because of that but because SOME of it was true. Just not the miraculous parts..
TedM
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Postby Metacrock » Fri May 09, 2014 10:09 am

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:Bauckham is a joke. For instance, he thinks Papias is actually evidence and he uses an invented hermenutic whereby he imagines he can tell that Mark is writing from the viewpoints of different witnesses. Bauckham is a fucking hack apologist.



Papias is evidence, Gilligan. why would he not be? Of course you can tell what view point something is written by if you actually read what it says. I hate to mention it but actually reading stuff might be a good idea. why don't you start?

start by reading Bauckham. then try reading some other stuff by scholars.
Last edited by Metacrock on Fri May 09, 2014 10:13 am, edited 2 times in total.
Metacrock
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 2:33 am

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Postby Metacrock » Fri May 09, 2014 10:11 am

TedM wrote:
Metacrock wrote:
TedM wrote:Our source Papias, as well as comparisons of the gospels supports the idea that these works are compilations of various sources by at least some people that may not have been eyewitnesses at all.


that doesn't follow. you think eye witnesses are like documentaries where they follow the same pattern they tell all the same details that's rubbish. the fact that it's complied out of several sources does not remove i from being eye wittiness. It still has historical validity that can be demonstrated on seven levels.


First, just to be clear, my original post was to Mentalflat-liner. Some of your comments sound like you thought they were to you directly.


sorry if I mistook that.

Anyway, what I meant to say is that SOME of the material may not have come from eyewitnesses. I tend to think Jesus lived, was influential among his group, said some things as a teacher, probably had some kind of healing event, was crucified, and when some of those who loved him thought they saw him again or dreamed about him, the idea that he was a martyr who had similarities to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 -- and it all happening during Passover -- was such a confluence of spiritually-charged ideas for the Jews, that Christianity was born. However, as I stated in the other thread about Matthew and Luke, I think the reality is that stuff was made up to supplant the original eyewitness reports. It's the greatest story ever told. It has endured not only because of that but because SOME of it was true. Just not the miraculous parts..


I don't think all of it is eye witness stuff, but it's based on it.
Metacrock
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 2:33 am

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Postby Diogenes the Cynic » Fri May 09, 2014 10:40 am

Metacrock wrote:
Diogenes the Cynic wrote:Bauckham is a joke. For instance, he thinks Papias is actually evidence and he uses an invented hermenutic whereby he imagines he can tell that Mark is writing from the viewpoints of different witnesses. Bauckham is a fucking hack apologist.



Papias is evidence, Gilligan. why would he not be?

'Gilligan?"

Papias is not evidence because he described books which cannot be Canonical Matthew and Mark. Mark is not a memoir of Peter. Matthew is not a Hebrew Logia.

You should expose yourself to some legit scholarship and stop listening to preachers pretending to be scholars.
Diogenes the Cynic
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:59 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Postby Metacrock » Fri May 09, 2014 11:39 am

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:
Metacrock wrote:
Diogenes the Cynic wrote:Bauckham is a joke. For instance, he thinks Papias is actually evidence and he uses an invented hermenutic whereby he imagines he can tell that Mark is writing from the viewpoints of different witnesses. Bauckham is a fucking hack apologist.



Papias is evidence, Gilligan. why would he not be?

'Gilligan?"

Papias is not evidence because he described books which cannot be Canonical Matthew and Mark. Mark is not a memoir of Peter. Matthew is not a Hebrew Logia.

You should expose yourself to some legit scholarship and stop listening to preachers pretending to be scholars.


that doesn't keep him from evidence silly. That tells us something what to look for. I already answers the supposition that we are not dealing with Mark or Mathews work.

do you know what I said? try to listen becuase it's real complex, I said the versions we have are made out of the materials from the orignial.s tha'ts really hard to understand I know.

You have contradicted yourself. you say that Papias can't be but you just used him as evidence. sill your assumptions are wrong. I just said in the post before the one you posted:

"I don't think all of it is eye witness stuff, but it's based on it." real hard stuff. :banghead:
Metacrock
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 2:33 am

Advertisement

by »

 

PreviousNext

Return to Christian Texts and History

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GakuseiDon, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 11 guests