How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7644
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Oct 10, 2015 12:44 pm

This is a stupid statement. It implies that all the gospels were written at the same time.
Anyone who takes the problem of Marcion serious knows that Irenaeus's texts are counterfeit. It is the easiest explanation to the numerous difficulties. The idea that the orthodox control the means of discussion (the Marcionites never get to speak to us directly) and do such a bad job explaining the primacy of their tradition (Irenaeus doesn't even mention 'original manuscripts' or anything of that sort being possessed in his Church outside of John). Instead he concentrates approvingly on a 'community of faith' and declarations of faith. Red flags should be raised again and again. As I have always said - it is either Marcion or Irenaeus. Stop pretending we have anything older than Irenaeus or at least demonstrate that position. Stop just assuming dubious inherited positions. Irenaeus is the first to mention these texts. The texts are his in every sense of the word.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7644
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Oct 10, 2015 12:51 pm

you are not interested or capable of having a truly rational discussion on these kinds of topics.
My son plays soccer at the highest level for his age group (he is 8 and plays 9 year old teams). At recess he plays with less talented people and gets very frustrated. Why don't you read something about Jewish history instead of expecting me to educate you. You and many here at the forum have stupid opinions about what is and isn't possible within early Judaism. As always I seek to engage equals not old retired people who are so desperate for attention that having a young suitor try to convert them to a new point of view is arousing to their otherwise dull existence. READ A FUCKING BOOK ABOUT LITERACY AND JEWS AT THE TIME OF JESUS. Then we can have a discussion. Otherwise I am an unpaid educator (like most college adjuncts I guess).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7644
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Oct 10, 2015 12:56 pm

And just for the record, since John outhouse, Michael BG and Ted M are the ones complaining. You realize of course that 90 percent of your posts are little more than the regurgitation of 'opinion' about early Christianity that any evangelical in the US of A learns from Sunday school or (maybe on the rare occasion when lightning strikes) a Christian college. I never see any of you go out and actually develop ideas with references to actual books or published points of view. How can you turn around and complain that I should go and spend time on any of this stuff when you certainly don't. I think John outhouse got his name because he texts most of his posts while sitting on the can at the car dealership where he works.

The basic mindset among these three is that 'truth' has been established in commonly held 'opinion' and it is our job as freethinkers to 'prove' this or that to pull it down from its lofty pedastal. When are you people going to realize it's all over. It's already after the end of the world. Religion is dead. This 'truth' was just an agreed upon lie which - with the death or religion - will be exposed for the ridiculous uninformed lie that it always really was.

That back when one brand of religion controlled the truth 'everyone' agreed that all the other brands of the same fucking religion were promoting evil lies is not important. That four gospels were chosen by that brand of religion as 'the truth' is irrelevant. It's time to start from scratch and assume nothing about any of these things.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

outhouse
Posts: 3505
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by outhouse » Sat Oct 10, 2015 1:28 pm

Secret Alias wrote:And just for the record, since John outhouse, .

I think John outhouse
I'm glad to have affected your thinking so much.


. I never see any of you go out and actually develop ideas with references to actual books or published points of view
Because you don't get of your soap box and actually listen.


I propose quite a few substantial hypothesis that are PhD worthy.

#1 is the need for the gospels text due to the Fall of the temple, and the impact it had on the transmission of "yearly" oral traditions.

#2 A better definition of early Judaism and its diverse practices in the first century. "Jew" is a vague worthless term during this period. It should at least be noted as Galilean Aramaic Judaism, or Hellenistic Judaism, Essene Judaism ect ect ect

#3 A better definition of the influence of Hellenism on Judaism. While Hengel's approach to not separating Hellenism from Judaism was needed in its day. Its time for another change to his view that shows there was a deeper division in some socioeconomic settings.

John2
Posts: 1348
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by John2 » Sat Oct 10, 2015 1:49 pm

Michael BG wrote (in response to Stephen):

"You quote something you call Pesharim 49 without saying what it is, where and when it was written, what Biblical text it is interpreting, and where we can find a better English translation."

I think he meant Pesachim 49 (a tractate of the Talmud).

http://www.dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-049.htm
Sometimes the light's all shining on me, other times I can barely see.

outhouse
Posts: 3505
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by outhouse » Sat Oct 10, 2015 2:18 pm

Secret Alias wrote:Anyone who takes the problem of Marcion serious knows that Irenaeus's texts are counterfeit.
Unsubstantiated, your in your little world creating a problem most don't have.

The texts are his in every sense of the word.





Unsubstantiated, your in your little world.


Now quick blame the americans for the evil in the world today! :facepalm:

Michael BG
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Michael BG » Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:21 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
And where is your evidence that in the first century any Jew believe that the Torah as only the Ten Commandments?
It's common knowledge but here is a good introduction to the topic written by the GREAT Abraham Heschel https://books.google.com/books?id=WAGK8GiNrQgC
I don’t consider posting a link to a book title as providing evidence. I have to assume that you did this because you can’t provide a quote with the page number from this work as evidence.
Secret Alias wrote:The Samaritan tradition is clearly that 'Torah' in Pentateuch means ten commandments. As with almost all things Samaritan, it is the original understanding of the terminology. The oldest Samaritan exegesis acknowledges that only the ten commandments were given at Sinai. The position of Akiba and later rabbinic interpretation is sub-retarded. Even the early Karaite reading of the Pentateuch agrees with the Samaritan (not surprising of course because it usually does).

It is common to expected in most universities that people study Hebrew before tackling Aramaic. In the same way most people who study early Christianity should learn about early Judaism first FROM THEIR OWN SOURCES (not just Josephus!!!!).
You show great contempt towards others here. I don’t understand how you think this supports your case. It will just lead to people refusing to engage with your comments.

Are you quoting the Samaritan tradition as a member of it?
Secret Alias wrote:
This is a stupid statement. It implies that all the gospels were written at the same time.
Anyone who takes the problem of Marcion serious knows that Irenaeus's texts are counterfeit. It is the easiest explanation to the numerous difficulties. The idea that the orthodox control the means of discussion (the Marcionites never get to speak to us directly) and do such a bad job explaining the primacy of their tradition (Irenaeus doesn't even mention 'original manuscripts' or anything of that sort being possessed in his Church outside of John). Instead he concentrates approvingly on a 'community of faith' and declarations of faith. Red flags should be raised again and again. As I have always said - it is either Marcion or Irenaeus. Stop pretending we have anything older than Irenaeus or at least demonstrate that position. Stop just assuming dubious inherited positions. Irenaeus is the first to mention these texts. The texts are his in every sense of the word.
If you wish to discuss this then you need to create a new topic and present your case. However that is not the question you asked in this topic nor the way you started this topic. In this topic it would be better if you tried to produce some textual evidence from the gospels for your idea that they were all written at the same time. If you think they were all written by the same author you should start another topic to provide a rational case.
Secret Alias wrote: As always I seek to engage equals not old retired people who are so desperate for attention that having a young suitor try to convert them to a new point of view is arousing to their otherwise dull existence. READ A FUCKING BOOK ABOUT LITERACY AND JEWS AT THE TIME OF JESUS. Then we can have a discussion. Otherwise I am an unpaid educator (like most college adjuncts I guess).
I don’t understand why you post here as you have such contempt for others. And swearing at people just reduces both you and any rational argument you are presenting. Why do you post here if not to educate others and expand their knowledge?
Secret Alias wrote:And just for the record, since John outhouse, Michael BG and Ted M are the ones complaining. You realize of course that 90 percent of your posts are little more than the regurgitation of 'opinion' about early Christianity that any evangelical in the US of A learns from Sunday school or (maybe on the rare occasion when lightning strikes) a Christian college. I never see any of you go out and actually develop ideas with references to actual books or published points of view. How can you turn around and complain that I should go and spend time on any of this stuff when you certainly don't.

The basic mindset among these three is that 'truth' has been established in commonly held 'opinion' and it is our job as freethinkers to 'prove' this or that to pull it down from its lofty pedastal. When are you people going to realize it's all over. It's already after the end of the world. Religion is dead. This 'truth' was just an agreed upon lie which - with the death or religion - will be exposed for the ridiculous uninformed lie that it always really was.
I am here to read new opinions and discuss them rationally with people in the hope that this exchange of views with evidence will lead to either me or others modify what we think about the origins of Christianity. You are correct I do expect everyone here who has an opinion that is not the accepted one to provide reasons why they think the established view is wrong. I consider it an intelligent and scholarly way to discuss things. If you disagree and believe that the best way to discuss things is to show people contempt and tell them to read the same books you have read and not present any meaningful evidence they can engage with, then there is little point in engaging with anything you post here.

I don’t understand how you can assert that religion is dead when the majority of the world’s population believe in some form of religion.
John2 wrote:Michael BG wrote (in response to Stephen):

"You quote something you call Pesharim 49 without saying what it is, where and when it was written, what Biblical text it is interpreting, and where we can find a better English translation."

I think he meant Pesachim 49 (a tractate of the Talmud).

http://www.dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-049.htm
Thank you John2 now I know Secret Alias is quoting from the Gemara part of the Talmud, which is generally dated around 500 CE, which makes it very unreliable as evidence for 1st century Jewish beliefs.

John2
Posts: 1348
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by John2 » Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:47 pm

Michael BG wrote:

"Thank you John2 now I know Secret Alias is quoting from the Gemara part of the Talmud, which is general dated around 500 CE, which makes it very unreliable as evidence for 1st century Jewish beliefs."

Well, what Stephen quoted includes baraita though, which may date to the Mishnaic era (c. 200 CE) and reflect earlier beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraita
Sometimes the light's all shining on me, other times I can barely see.

outhouse
Posts: 3505
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by outhouse » Sat Oct 10, 2015 6:23 pm

Michael BG wrote:I don’t understand why you post here as you have such contempt for others


.

Having debated with I'm for about 5 years, I would guess he is desperate due to lack of traction with his personal quest to substantiate his claim. His book reviews are embarrassing for any author and instead of admitting mistake, he places blame on American academia for personal perception of poisoning the well.


The far left and right needs to be investigated to a point, but when one claims everyone else is stupid because they don't go further left, is his own personal problem.

John2
Posts: 1348
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by John2 » Sat Oct 10, 2015 7:30 pm

Stephen,

I suppose I have a "maximalist position" on the meaning of "this Torah" in Dt. 31 (i.e., at least Deuteronomy, more or less) and you have an extreme "minimalist" one (i.e., Ten Commandments only), while the Mishnah takes a somewhat broader position, as this link mentions.

http://thetorah.com/hakhel-ceremony/

"It is unclear exactly to what “this Teaching (התורה הזאת)” (v. 11) refers. Mishnah Sotah 7:8 suggests a minimalist reading, that it refers to selected sections of Deuteronomy (1:1-6:3; 6:4-9; 11:13-21; 14:22-29; 26:12-15; 17:14-20; 28). Jeffrey Tigay, professor emeritus of Bible from University of Pennsylvania takes a more maximalist position. He argues that the entire book of Deuteronomy may be the referent, noting that, “[a]ll of Deuteronomy can be read aloud in three to four hours” (JPS Commentary on Deut. ad loc., p. 292), and, therefore, can still be read in one day as suggested in Deut 31."

http://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Sotah.7. ... arLang=all

Also in favor of a broader meaning is 2 Kings 23:1-2:

"Then the king called together all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem. He went up to the temple of the Lord with the people of Judah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the priests and the prophets—all the people from the least to the greatest. He read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant, which had been found in the temple of the Lord."

Note the reference to "all the people from the least to the greatest." As the link above points out:

"Verse 12 [in Dt. 31] is very clear about who must participate in the hakhel ritual: “Gather the people — men, women, children, and the strangers in your communities.” This verse offers a clear definition of העם, “the people” or “the nation,” that is very inclusive. It is much broader than the description of the same group in the unit preceding the revelation at Sinai in Exodus 19, where women are likely excluded, or at best, included via their fathers or husbands."

And regarding Ezra's reading of all of the Torah in Neh. 8 the link says:

"it is significant to note that in v. 2 the congregation is defined as, “men and women and all who could listen with understanding”; similarly the next verse notes that the text was read “to the men and the women and those who could understand.” Nehemiah uses the term “kahal” rather than “‘am,” and his congregation/nation, like that of Deuteronomy, but unlike that of Exodus, includes women."
Sometimes the light's all shining on me, other times I can barely see.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ben C. Smith, Bernard Muller, Bing [Bot], JoeWallack, lsayre, MrMacSon, rakovsky and 46 guests