HELLO. I represent the 'Christos Mythos'. Please read

Christ Myth
Theist
Christ Myth's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
HELLO. I represent the 'Christos Mythos'. Please read

My mission is to prove that Christ is a myth and to explain the origins of the myth of Christ.

My website is the culmination of my lifelong fascination with ancient history, ancient religions, mythology and the occult.

 

http://www.christos-mythos.com/

http://www.myspace.com/christmyth

 

I have created a film, in which the "Jesus Mythicist" thesis is explored, entitled "A Study on the History of the Dying and Resurrecting God" . This can be found in my Blog (direct link: Christ Myth

 

I've posted this video in the "Jesus Mythicist Campaign" Forum in hopes that it would spark discussion and because I believed that was the proper place to post it, however, I've noticed that almost no one enters that forum, so I decided to post here.

 

 

{link shortened}


Christ Myth
Theist
Christ Myth's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

In NT Greek and OT Hebrew, the term "resurrection" always refers to the rising of a physical body from the dead. It never refers to symbolism or allegory.

This is only true in your mind. You only believe that this is so, because you refuse to accept the alternative. When Paul says "if Christ be not risen from the dead, your faith is vain", he may be saying that the understanding of the symbolism of Christ is vital. ie...rising (to the surface of your consciousness) from the dead (ie. before you knew of Him or if you continue to refuse to know him).

Paul goes on to say in Corinthians: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.".

He's saying that, even though we've understood that we have fallen ("Adam" ), we can now come to the realization that we may rise again ("Christ" ) to the true understanding of God. This new understanding of God (symbolized as Christ in the NT after the Adam/Fall symbolism of OT) is what was preached by Paul and the ancient Christians.

Of course you can't believe any of what I'm telling you because of this lie you keep telling yourself:

Quote:

In NT Greek and OT Hebrew, the term "resurrection" always refers to the rising of a physical body from the dead. It never refers to symbolism or allegory.

How can you be so sure that the term "resurrection" ALWAYS and CAN ONLY refer to the rising of a physical body? You simply presume that the word never means anything different so it cannot mean something different here, but you are assuming what must be proven and then pointing to your assumption as the proof.

 


 

 


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: Little

Apotheon wrote:

Little Roller, when I said "Cell" I wasn't refering to human biology. A Cell is a room a monk sleeps in. I hope I'm spelling it right. There are many examples but I will give you one. Elder Joseph the the Cave Dweller of Mount Athos, was a clairvoyant holy man. He documents his experiences with demons in his book Monastic Wisdom. He said that demons would make all kinds of noises outside the monks rooms and would throw rocks at the window. They would howl, sing, dance and cause all kinds of disturbance. They would storm into his room in the form of pigs (there were no pigs on Mount Athos), black humanoids, monkeys and naked women (there are no women or monkeys on Athos). Everynight they would assault him in bed. He grabbed one once and he said the arm felt like a human arm but it was slimy. One night a visiter slept in Joseph's bed when Joseph was not present. The demons attacked the visiter thinking it was Joseph. The visitor fled in terror. Anyway, this is documented in his own book listed above. He is deceased now. He predicted the day of his birth (the Virgin Mary told him this), and he died that very day. Also, Elder Ephraim of Arizona his Joseph's disciple. You can contact him for more evidence on this. Ephraim came to America in 1995.

Alright, I made a mistake with the whole 'cell' thing. I would still like some physical evidence, rather than hearsay and anecdotal "evidence."

Also, I highly recommend you choose your words a bit more carefully. "black humanoids" can sound racist. ( I'm not racist. Or black. )

Apotheon wrote:
Little Roller wrote:

I dare you to ask that to the families of the 9/11 victims who did just that. I don't know what their religious views were, but the fact remains that they jumped 100 stories to avoid being roasted alive.

 

 

 

What's your proof they prayed before they died? Did their ghosts appear to you and tell you this? I on the otherhand, can point to people who did pray and survived.

What's your proof they DIDN'T pray before they died? Did their ghosts appear to you and tell you this? I grant you, I don't know whether they prayed or not. I have no proof one way or the other; but if they prayed, and died anyway, what does that say about the power of prayer?

Pointing to the people who prayed and lived is the fallacy of picking the hits and ignoring the misses. Just because these poeple prayed and lived doesn't mean prayer works - just read the last part of the previous paragraph, as well as other posts in this thread.

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: "I know

Vastet wrote:

"I know Jesus existed because the apostles knew him."

"I know Jesus existed because Mary bore him"

"I know Jesus existed, because Christians have DIED for him!"

  *Snort* Oh really? Lets take a look...  Oops, you did say the apostles were eye-witnesses of jesus as a base for claiming he exists.

 

No, your wrong again! He put those sentences in quotation marks as if I had said them word for word. I didn't. I never made the claim that Jesus existed "BECAUSE" of the reasons he gave. He put the word "because" in quotation marks. I never said that, and he misrepresented my argument as you have. While the arguments that the apostles knew Jesus, Mary bore him, and Christians have died for him constitute evidence, I never stated that those are the REASONS I believe he existed. And I never even said anything about Mary. Nor did I make reference to "Christians' in the way he tried to imply. I was talking about the apostles who knew Jesus personally, and died for the fact of the resurrection. The two of you have warped what I said.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
If Jesus was not

If Jesus was not historical, and was not resurected, then Christianity is false Jewish Sect. No one belieiving the New Testament has any reason to believe it. If you take it as Allegory or Myth or anything, then you have a problem. If any Christian should ever believe that Jesus is a Myth or an allegory, then s/he should immediately convert to Judaism since Christ being a Myth, etc. still doesn't disprove the Old Testament.

IF Judaism is True and Christ is not a historical person -- and was not resurected, then one must convert to Judaism or else.  


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Let me

todangst wrote:

Let me explain this to you: there's no good reason to believe they existed in the first place.

Actually there is sufficient reason to believe they existed. First, as I mentioned before, the New Testament speaks of their existance. And you have shown no reason on historical grounds why the NT should be rejected. Second, there is early corroberation of their existance in ancient Christian writers. Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp knew the apotles personally, and Irenaus knew Polycarp. All of these men affirmed the historicity not only of the apostles, but of Christ himself. Second, there are records demonstrating a direct historical link for the churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Rome going all the way back to the apostles. Just on Rome itself there is archaeological evidence Peter was bishop there (his tomb is still there), and there are ancient writings attesting to the fact he was bishop there such as The Poem Against Marcion, the records of Eusebius (an historian) the Liberian Catalogue, which lists all the bishops of Rome, beginning with Peter.

todangst wrote:
!) You have no idea how many people died for their christian beliefs, nor do you know precisely why they died for it. You can't just assume they died for the sort of christian beliefs you hold to...

The apostles died for their faith, and their faith was in the bodily resurrection of Christ. If you are going to actually claim they died for something else, please prove it.

todangst wrote:
2) People die for all sorts of beliefs; your claim about only christians 'dying at the foundation of the belief' is simply false, seeing as muslims died for islam during the lifetime of Muhammad.

But did anyone ever die for a person who was non-existant? Muhammed existed, and there is less evidence for Muhammed then there is for Jesus according to Yale historian Dr. Yamauchi (see Jesus Under Fire, chap.7). But I dispute your claim anyway. Can you give me documentation showing that Muslims died for their faith during the life of Muhammed?

todangst wrote:
3) Dying for a belief does not make it true.

Nor does it make it untrue.

todangst wrote:
Your claim is simply a logical fallacy, based on accepting myths as facts. You assume that people believed what you believe when you can't know that.

Oh really? What logical fallacy have I commited?  YOU are guilty of the fallacy of false cause, in that you assume that because myths existed prior to the NT era, this somehow proves that the NT is also a myth. But there is no causal relationship between those myths and the NT. That is why your argument is illogical. Its also a genetic fallacy.

todangst wrote:
You are. There are NO contemporary accounts of Jesus. None.

Several issues here: First, you didn't refute the evidence from the apostles. You just simply dismissed them out of existance, but you gave no reason for this dismissal. Your rejection of them is not based on any reasonable and historical grounds. Second, your argument is based upon the assumption that contemporary writers is even a legitimate criterian for establishing the historicity or non-historicity of a person. Can you please cite the source from where you derived this assumption? Contemporary writers has never been an absolute requisite for historical veracity. If it were, history would be in real trouble. For example, the first biography we have on Alexander the Great was not written untill 300 years after his death. Whatever there might have been before, has not survived and therefore does not constitute contemporary evidence. Third, there are ancient persons who historians accept as historical who never had contemporary writers or corroberation. Here are some examples: Honi the Circle Drawer, Hannibal, Gamaliel, Hillel, the Jewish Maccabees, etc. I can list more.

todangst wrote:
1) Tactitus is not a contemporary, so you've already failed to meet the actual challenge of providing a contemporary source.

First, I await your source proving that contemporary corroberation is an historical requisite. Second, I gave first hand primary source eye-witness corroberation: The APOSTLES! I'm sorry you don't like them but they do constitute evidence nonetheless. Pursuant to the ancient documents rule, the burden of proof is on YOU to show they were NOT contemporaries. Opinion does not constitute proof.

todangst wrote:
2) Here's the refutation of Tactitus as an account of Jesus.

Ah, yes from atheist Robert Carrier. Are you going to continue to plagarize from other fellow atheists or do you have any thoughts of your own? Carrier's arguments are nullified by the very fact that 1. historians accept the Tacitus reference as referring to Christ, and 2. The Encyclopedia Britanica cites Tacitus as a referrence to Christ. I choose to believe real historians and encylopedias over atheist Richard Carrier anyday.

todangst wrote:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_silence_that_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_for_jesus

Please note that even William Lane Craig concedes that Tacitus is not an independent corroboration of Jesus!

Interesting you say that since Craig does affirm the historical Jesus. Second, I never claimed Tacitus was our only source of corroberation for Jesus. Rather, I point to all the sources as a convergence of evidence. Third, can you show me the source where Craig said that? I would like to see the context of his statement, and verify as to whether or not he even said it.

todangst wrote:
Tacitus (ca. 56 – ca. 117)

Tacitus is remembered first and foremost as Rome's greatest historian. His two surviving works: Annals and The Histories form a near continuous narrative from the death of Augustus in 14 CE to the death of Domitian in 96.

Interestingly, I cannot report on the silence of Tacitus concerning Jesus, because the very years of the purported existence of Jesus 30, 31, are suspiciously missing from his work(!)

That proves nothing.

todangst wrote:
Richard Carrier writes:

"...we are enormously lucky to have Tacitus--only two unrelated Christian monasteries had any interest in preserving his Annals, for example, and neither of them preserved the whole thing, but each less than half of it, and by shear luck alone, they each preserved a different half. And yet we still have large gaps in it. One of those gaps is the removal of the years 29, 30, and 31 (precisely, the latter part of 29, all of 30, and the earlier part of 31), which is probably the deliberate excision of Christian scribes who were embarrassed by the lack of any mention of Jesus or Gospel events in those years (the years Jesus' ministry, death, and resurrection were widely believed at the time to have occurred). There is otherwise no known explanation for why those three years were removed.

Probably? In other words he's making an unfounded assumption.

todangst wrote:
 The other large gap is the material between the two halves that neither institution preserved. And yet another is the end of the second half, which scribes also chose not to preserve (or lost through negligent care of the manuscript, etc.)."

Ironically, Christians often cite Tacitus as historical evidence for Jesus.

 

As do all historians and encyclopedias. Sorry Richard but your alone in your stance.

todangst wrote:
This is the passage cited:

But neither the aid of man, nor the liberality of the prince, nor the propitiations of the gods succeeded in destroying the belief that the fire had been purposely lit. In order to put an end to this rumor, therefore, Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men, hateful for their crimes, whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again, not only in Judea, the native land of the monstrosity, but also in Rome, to which all conceivable horrors and abominations flow from every side, and find supporters. First, therefore, those were arrested who openly confessed; then, on their information, a great number, who were not so much convicted of the fire as of hatred of the human race. Ridicule was passed on them as they died; so that, clothed in skins of beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or committed to the flames, and when the sun had gone down they were burned to light up the night. Nero had lent his garden for this spectacle, and gave games in the Circus, mixing with the people in the dress of a charioteer or standing in the chariot. Hence there was a strong sympathy for them, though they might have been guilty enough to deserve the severest punishment, on the ground that they were sacrificed, not to the general good, but to the cruelty of one man." (Annals XV, 44)

However, there are serious problems with using this passage as independent corroboration of Jesus:

Jeffery Jay Lowder states:

Yes, another atheist from the infidel network. You're going to have to do better then that Richard.

todangst wrote:
"There is no good reason to believe that Tacitus conducted independent research concerning the historicity of Jesus. The context of the reference was simply to explain the origin of the term "Christians," which was in turn made in the context of documenting Nero's vices..."

It is not just 'Christ-mythicists' who deny that Tacitus provides independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus; indeed, there are numerous Christian scholars who do the same! For example, France writes, Annals XV.44 "cannot carry alone the weight of the role of 'independent testimony' with which it has often been invested." E.P. Sanders notes, "Roman sources that mention [Jesus] are all dependent on Christian reports."

I'm familiar with Sanders, and he is no "mythicist." Can you give me the source of that statement?  Here is what Sanders actually said:

"We know alot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place." (Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 1993., xiv).

Why would a mythicist accept Sanders alleged view on Tacitus, but not his view in the historical Jesus? It makes no sense.

todangst wrote:
 And William Lane Craig states that Tacitus' statement is "no doubt dependent on Christian tradition."

Again, you provided no reference for that statement. Craig is a strong historical Jesus apologist. Infact, he has written extensively against the "Jesus Mythers." Its interesting that William Craig dates the passion and resurrection account of Christ found in Mark at the latest to 37 AD!. This is only four years after Jesus death! (See Craig, The Empty Tomb of Jesus in Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, vol. II, pp. 182).


todangst wrote:
 Jeffery Jay Lowder, "Evidence" for Jesus, Is It Reliable?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html 

Yes, from another fellow atheist from the Infidels Network with an axe to grind.

todangst wrote:
So it may simply be that Tacitus was relying on oral tradition, and not on any historical research for his reference to Jesus. Tacitus himself tells us about the vlaue of such traditions:

"...everything gets exaggerated is typical for any story" and "all the greatest events are obscure--while some people accept whatever they hear as beyond doubt, others twist the truth into its opposite, and both errors grow over subsequent generations" (Annals 3.44 & 3.19). (Cited via Carrier's article)

As weak as the Tacitus claim is, it remains a possibility that even this weak bit of apparent corroboration is a later interpolation. The problems with this claim are examined here:

http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?p=38864&sid=eae887916e8679c9cd9fd7af5fc065e5#38864 

Its funny that atheists are always claiming foul play and interpolations despite the fact there is no evidence for any interpolations. This just shows how desperate they are in their agenda.

todangst wrote:
Some of these problems are summarized by Gordon Stein:


"While we know from the way in which the above is written that Tacitus did not claim to have firsthand knowledge of the origins of Christianity, we can see that he is repeating a story which was then commonly believed, namely that the founder of Christianity, one Christus, had been put to death under Tiberius. There are a number of serious difficulties which must be answered before this passage can be accepted as genuine. There is no other historical proof that Nero persecuted the Christians at all. There certainly were not multitudes of Christians in Rome at that date (circa 60 A.D.). In fact, the term "Christian" was not in common use in the first century. We know Nero was indifferent to various religions in his city, and, since he almost definitely did not start the fire in Rome, he did not need any group to be his scapegoat. Tacitus does not use the name Jesus, and writes as if the reader would know the name Pontius Pilate, two things which show that Tacitus was not working from official records or writing for non-Christian audiences, both of which we would expect him to have done if the passage were genuine.

Yes, Gordon Stein another atheist lol. He debated Dr. Bahnsen in 1985 and was made to look rather silly. I was embarraced for him. Its interesting that when we Christians cite from Christian sources, we are accused of going to biased sources. But its ok for atheists to quote from atheist sources. The hypocracy is simply staggering.

ME: Tacitus was the best historian of ancient Rome, and scholar F.F. Bruce states that Tacitus most likely got his data from official Roman sources. There's just one example.

todangst wrote:
Actually, that claim is patent nonsense. It wouldn't be necessary for Tacitus to consult such records, even if they existed, assuming hte one tiny passage in Tacitus were true .

Patent nonsense? Do you have any proof of this or is this just your opinion? Scholar F.F. Bruce stated that Tacitus quite possibly might have received his data from an offical Roman record.

Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant stated:

"There is no doubt that (Tacitus) took great a great deal of care in selecting his material." (Grant. Grec, 40-3; see also Grant. Tac, 18).

Finally, it is important for people to know that the majority of Jesus historians and encyclopedias accept the Tacitus' passage as a direct reference to Jesus Christ. I can cite these historians on this very subject in my next post if you like. The oppisition to this fact is coming from a small group of minority atheists who's methodology is biased and unscholarly.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Christ Myth, the term

 Christ Myth, the term "resurrection" always refers to a dead physical body. This fact is affirmed in every NT Greek lexicon, encyclopedia and dictionary. This is a fact. I did not make it up ok? Check Thayer's Greek Lexicon or Scott and Lidell, or any standard Bible encyclopedia.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: IF

simple theist wrote:

IF Judaism is True and Christ is not a historical person -- and was not resurected, then one must convert to Judaism or else.  

"Or else" what? Where in OT does it say non-Jews go to Hell, or don't go to Heaven? Of course, if it did turn out that Judaism is the correct choice, and that the God of OT exists:

  1. I would cease to be an atheist
  2. I would continue NOT worshiping God
  3. The general majority of Christians would very likely let out a collective "aw fuck!"
  4. Muslims - see number 3

I know 1 and 2 seem contradictory, but "cease to be an atheist" means I would "cease believing that no gods exist;" but I would not worship any god just because they exist.

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Little Roller Up First

Little Roller Up First wrote:

Alright, I made a mistake with the whole 'cell' thing. I would still like some physical evidence, rather than hearsay and anecdotal "evidence."

Go to Mount Athos. Also, read his book. That's the best I can do. Its from his own mouth.

Little Roller Up First wrote:
Also, I highly recommend you choose your words a bit more carefully. "black humanoids" can sound racist. ( I'm not racist. Or black. )

I did. He actually refers to them as "Ethiopians". This is a common term for demons in the stories of the saints. I used the term "black humanoids" in order to avoid any element of a racist connotation. And I'm not going to change the fact just to appeal to our "politically correct" audience.  They weren't saying they were black people. They were simply saying that they looked like Ethiopians. I'm sorry you don't like the appearance demons offten take. Take it up with them. They also appear in other forms however, but to grotesqe to even describe.

ME: What's your proof they prayed before they died? Did their ghosts appear to you and tell you this? I on the otherhand, can point to people who did pray and survive.

Little Roller Up First wrote:
What's your proof they DIDN'T pray before they died? Did their ghosts appear to you and tell you this? I grant you, I don't know whether they prayed or not. I have no proof one way or the other; but if they prayed, and died anyway, what does that say about the power of prayer?

You have no proof they prayed, so your point and argument is moot. You initially claimed that what about all those victims of 911 who prayed and died anyway. I asked you how do you know they prayed, and now your saying you don't know. So your entire argument is irrelevant. God always answers prayers. He either says yes or no.

Little Roller Up First wrote:
Pointing to the people who prayed and lived is the fallacy of picking the hits and ignoring the misses. Just because these poeple prayed and lived doesn't mean prayer works - just read the last part of the previous paragraph, as well as other posts in this thread.

It also doesn't mean prayer doesn't work. I admit God often doesn't answer prayers for people who are sick, etc. But God gives us what we need, not always what we want.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Simple Theist, some Jews

 Simple Theist, some Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah and others don't. But the Jews have never questioned the historicity of Jesus. The ancient Jews most certainly accepted his historicity. We can see this in Josephus and the Talmud/Mishna. They considerd Jesus a false prophet, a bastard and many other things too vile for me to state here, but he was never a myth in their eyes.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: Go to Mount

Apotheon wrote:
Go to Mount Athos

Thank you for the tourism tip. If I ever go to Greece, I'll be sure to give it a look.

Apotheon wrote:
I did. He actually refers to them as "Ethiopians". This is a common term for demons in the stories of the saints. I used the term "black humanoids" in order to avoid any element of a racist connotation. And I'm not going to change the fact just to appeal to our "politically correct" audience.  They weren't saying they were black people. They were simply saying that they looked like Ethiopians. I'm sorry you don't like the appearance demons offten take. Take it up with them. They also appear in other forms however, but to grotesqe to even describe.

Alright, so it wasn't racism on your part, but on the part of the monk. It still isn't good to know that the monk thought that the 'demons' attacking him were 'Ethiopian', nor is it a pleasant thought that this (very, VERY racist) term is used in the saints' stories to describe demons on a regular basis.

And as for the other forms - the pigs, the monkeys, the women and the " to grotesqe to even describe [sic]" - there is a quote from a popular tv program that can describe why the monk saw what he saw :

Edward Wong Hau Pepelu Tivrusky IV wrote:
Bad mushrooms?

The title of that episode is 'Mushroom Samba', BTW

Now, for the "Power of Prayer" part of our discussion -

Apotheon wrote:

ME: What's your proof they prayed before they died? Did their ghosts appear to you and tell you this? I on the otherhand, can point to people who did pray and survive.

Little Roller Up First wrote:
What's your proof they DIDN'T pray before they died? Did their ghosts appear to you and tell you this? I grant you, I don't know whether they prayed or not. I have no proof one way or the other; but if they prayed, and died anyway, what does that say about the power of prayer?

You have no proof they prayed, so your point and argument is moot. You initially claimed that what about all those victims of 911 who prayed and died anyway. I asked you how do you know they prayed, and now your saying you don't know. So your entire argument is irrelevant. God always answers prayers. He either says yes or no.

Little Roller Up First wrote:
Pointing to the people who prayed and lived is the fallacy of picking the hits and ignoring the misses. Just because these poeple prayed and lived doesn't mean prayer works - just read the last part of the previous paragraph, as well as other posts in this thread.

It also doesn't mean prayer doesn't work. I admit God often doesn't answer prayers for people who are sick, etc. But God gives us what we need, not always what we want.

At what point did I say that I knew that the people who died on 9/11 prayed?

At what point did I say that I knew they didn't pray?

I've already said I have no proof that they did pray, and that I have no proof they didn't pray. The point I'm trying to make is that you are showing the people who prayed and lived as proof that prayer works, but ignoring the possibility that the people who died also prayed.

And I have one other question for you, regarding this:

Apotheon wrote:
God always answers prayers. He either says yes or no.

And this:

Apotheon wrote:
I admit God often doesn't answer prayers for people who are sick, etc.

Does God "always answer" or "often doesn't answer prayers?" Which is it? It can't be both, but it can be neither. So, does God answer prayers :

  1. Always
  2. Sometimes
  3. Never

I'm gonna go with 3.

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


Christ Myth
Theist
Christ Myth's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: If Jesus was not

Quote:
If Jesus was not historical, and was not resurected, then Christianity is false Jewish Sect.

Jesus as mythical doesn't mean that Christianity is a "false" Jewish sect. That's a bizarre assertion. Why would you say that?

Quote:
If any Christian should ever believe that Jesus is a Myth or an allegory, then s/he should immediately convert to Judaism

This "believe in Christ as historical or else" business is absurd. Why would someone who believes in the symbolic Christ want to join Judaism (a religion with no central Christ figure [yes, I'm aware of the
coming of the Meshiach", but that isn't central to their faith)? It's obvious that a Christian who believes in Christ as allegory is just that: A 'CHRISTIAN who believes in Christ as allegory'. There is nothing inherently wrong with this way of thinking. Especially considering the obvious allegories throughout the NT in which Christ is described as a lamb, a lion, a fish, the vine etc... and considering the absolute lack of contemporary evidence, the similarities between Christ and pagan god-men etc...etc... 

 

 


Christ Myth
Theist
Christ Myth's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote:

Quote:
Christ Myth, the term "resurrection" always refers to a dead physical body. This fact is affirmed in every NT Greek lexicon, encyclopedia and dictionary. This is a fact. I did not make it up ok? Check Thayer's Greek Lexicon or Scott and Lidell, or any standard Bible encyclopedia.

 

Are you sure you want to argue that the Greek term for resurrection ("anastasis" ) "always refers to a dead physical body".

According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

anastasis refers to:

Quote:

  1. a raising up, rising (e.g. from a seat)
  2. a rising from the dead
    1. that of Christ
    2. that of all men at the end of this present age
    3. the resurrection of certain ones history who were restored to life (Hebrews 11:35)

This raising (eg. from a seat) is the FIRST definition given by Thayer's Greek Lexicon. "A rising from the dead" is the SECOND definition given, not the primary definition.

 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote:

Apotheon wrote:
todangst wrote:

Let me explain this to you: there's no good reason to believe they existed in the first place.

Actually there is sufficient reason to believe they existed.

No, there is not. There is no evidence that there were ever any contemporary accounts.

todangst wrote:
!) You have no idea how many people died for their christian beliefs, nor do you know precisely why they died for it. You can't just assume they died for the sort of christian beliefs you hold to...

Quote:

The apostles died for their faith,

Again, you can't even demonstratre that they existed in the first place.

todangst wrote:
2) People die for all sorts of beliefs; your claim about only christians 'dying at the foundation of the belief' is simply false, seeing as muslims died for islam during the lifetime of Muhammad.

Quote:

But did anyone ever die for a person who was non-existant?

People die for false beliefs all the time.

todangst wrote:
3) Dying for a belief does not make it true.

Quote:

Nor does it make it untrue.

The point is that you can't use it as a justificaiton for believing it is true. I'm not using it as a rule out in the first place.

todangst wrote:
Your claim is simply a logical fallacy, based on accepting myths as facts. You assume that people believed what you believe when you can't know that.

Quote:

Oh really? What logical fallacy have I commited?

The fallacy of begging the question. You do it in every post, such as when you assume the apostles existed. You also use the fallacy of naked asssertion a great deal. Oh, and the fallacy of arguing from numbers.

 

Quote:

YOU are guilty of the fallacy of false cause, in that you assume that because myths existed prior to the NT era, this somehow proves that the NT is also a myth.

1) this would not be a false cause argument. No one says simply that these myths predated Jesus, ergo Jesus is a myth. That is merely a part of the argument, and it only comes after the argument from silence demonstrates that there is no rational grounds for believing in a real jesus.

2) I've not made this argument here anyway!

todangst wrote:
You are. There are NO contemporary accounts of Jesus. None.

Quote:

Several issues here:First, you didn't refute the evidence from the apostles. You just simply dismissed them out of existance, but you gave no reason for this dismissal.

You have to first demonstrate that they existed. You keep begging the question that they did. I again make the obvious point that had they existed, their decendents would have dominated history... how could a man be the son or grandson of one of God's best friends, and not be venerated through all time? History should be replete with sons and grandsons and great grandsons of the apostles.

Where are the apostles? Where are their decedents? Why is history silent on them?

Quote:

Second, your argument is based upon the assumption that contemporary writers is even a legitimate criterian for establishing the historicity or non-historicity of a person.

You're still confused. I already corrected this error. I will have to do so again.

If there is no evidence that a contemporary source exisetd at ANY TIME, then there is no provenance for the historical claim. We don't need the actual source, but we have to have some grounds to hold that they did exisxt. If you are unaware that this is a NECESSARY criterion in historigraphy, then my condolences to your education.

todangst wrote:
1) Tactitus is not a contemporary, so you've already failed to meet the actual challenge of providing a contemporary source.

Quote:

First, I await your source proving that contemporary corroberation is an historical requisite.

Again I can only shake my head at your ignorace of historical methods. Tell me: how can you make a historical claim if you have no way to affirm if the reporter had any access, at all, in any way, to data from the purported time period?

Please, tell me: if you can't point to artifacts, if you can't point to access to documents (even if they no longer exist), if you can't demonstrate ANY connection from the later time period to the earlier one, then how can you have a historical account?!

Can you please think this through and stop ignoring it?

Quote:

Second, I gave first hand primary source eye-witness corroberation: The APOSTLES!

I must use all caps; SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT THEY EVEN EXISTED.

todangst wrote:
2) Here's the refutation of Tactitus as an account of Jesus.

Quote:

Ah, yes from atheist Robert Carrier.

Ah yes, the ad hominem genetic fallacy. What matters are his arguments. You can't just write him off for bias, you have to explore what his argument is.

Quote:

Are you going to continue to plagarize from other fellow atheists or do you have any thoughts of your own?

1) I cited my source (you just mentioned Carrrier!), so how am I plagiarizing anything ASSHOLE?!

2) You should talk: your arguments are the same old tired, weak ass theist bullshit taken from other sites that we've seen 120 times. You don't even critically examine what you post. You just assert the same precise nonsense, without citing anything. "There are 24000 copies of the bible''... blah blah blah.. want me to google your phrases and show you how much they show up?

3) While I cite sources, I do so to advocate my own arguments. You just spit out the same uncritical shit.

Quote:

Carrier's arguments are nullified by the very fact that 1. historians accept the Tacitus reference as referring to Christ

What matters is why they hold to that claim. Examine Carrier's argument and stop trying to write it off.

The reality is that there are historians who reject Tacitus as independent corroboration.

todangst wrote:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_silence_that_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_for_jesus

Please note that even William Lane Craig concedes that Tacitus is not an independent corroboration of Jesus!

Quote:

Interesting you say that since Craig does affirm the historical Jesus.

So what? The point is that Lowder informs us that even Craig rejects Tacitus. which means that your argument is so bad that even other theists reject it. We are discussing the Tacitus account, not all reasons for holding that there was a real jesus!

Quote:

Second, I never claimed Tacitus was our only source of corroberation for Jesus.

Then why waste your time with Tacitus?!!

todangst wrote:
Tacitus (ca. 56 – ca. 117)

Tacitus is remembered first and foremost as Rome's greatest historian. His two surviving works: Annals and The Histories form a near continuous narrative from the death of Augustus in 14 CE to the death of Domitian in 96.

Interestingly, I cannot report on the silence of Tacitus concerning Jesus, because the very years of the purported existence of Jesus 30, 31, are suspiciously missing from his work(!)

Quote:

That proves nothing.

You're whistling past the graveyard. The very years of the supposed ministry of Jesus are missing, while we have nearly all the rest, and you just snap your fingers at it and ignore it.

Ask yourself why only those years are missing.

todangst wrote:
Richard Carrier writes:

"...we are enormously lucky to have Tacitus--only two unrelated Christian monasteries had any interest in preserving his Annals, for example, and neither of them preserved the whole thing, but each less than half of it, and by shear luck alone, they each preserved a different half. And yet we still have large gaps in it. One of those gaps is the removal of the years 29, 30, and 31 (precisely, the latter part of 29, all of 30, and the earlier part of 31), which is probably the deliberate excision of Christian scribes who were embarrassed by the lack of any mention of Jesus or Gospel events in those years (the years Jesus' ministry, death, and resurrection were widely believed at the time to have occurred). There is otherwise no known explanation for why those three years were removed.

Quote:

Probably? In other words he's making an unfounded assumption.

Unfounded?! The single most important parts to a CHRISTIAN are missing! And yeet, we know that Christians would have played a part in making later copies of his works!

Doesn't this arouse your suspicions, or are you simply too dogmatic to think critically anymore?

todangst wrote:
The other large gap is the material between the two halves that neither institution preserved. And yet another is the end of the second half, which scribes also chose not to preserve (or lost through negligent care of the manuscript, etc.)."

Ironically, Christians often cite Tacitus as historical evidence for Jesus.

Quote:

As do all historians and encyclopedias. Sorry Richard but your alone in your stance.

Sorry, but this is a lie, others agree with his position, even theists. And it's also immaterial: what matters is his argument.


todangst wrote:
This is the passage cited:

But neither the aid of man, nor the liberality of the prince, nor the propitiations of the gods succeeded in destroying the belief that the fire had been purposely lit. In order to put an end to this rumor, therefore, Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men, hateful for their crimes, whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again, not only in Judea, the native land of the monstrosity, but also in Rome, to which all conceivable horrors and abominations flow from every side, and find supporters. First, therefore, those were arrested who openly confessed; then, on their information, a great number, who were not so much convicted of the fire as of hatred of the human race. Ridicule was passed on them as they died; so that, clothed in skins of beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or committed to the flames, and when the sun had gone down they were burned to light up the night. Nero had lent his garden for this spectacle, and gave games in the Circus, mixing with the people in the dress of a charioteer or standing in the chariot. Hence there was a strong sympathy for them, though they might have been guilty enough to deserve the severest punishment, on the ground that they were sacrificed, not to the general good, but to the cruelty of one man." (Annals XV, 44)

However, there are serious problems with using this passage as independent corroboration of Jesus:

Jeffery Jay Lowder states:

Quote:

Yes, another atheist from the infidel network. You're going to have to do better then that Richard.

You're ignoring their arguments, and merely focusing on their atheism. This is ad hominem genetic fallacy at its worst. If you actually knew anything about Lowder, you'd realize that he accepts the gospels as an account of jesus, so your desire to just toss him away because of his atheism is doubly irrational

Interesting how you reject both atheists and THEISTS for their atheism or theism! You reject Craig's rejection of Tactitus because he's not a mythicist! But the point here is only that he is rejecting Tacitus as independent corroboration! Then you reject any atheist, no matter their argument.

Tell me: who can I cite? A martian?

todangst wrote:
"There is no good reason to believe that Tacitus conducted independent research concerning the historicity of Jesus. The context of the reference was simply to explain the origin of the term "Christians," which was in turn made in the context of documenting Nero's vices..."

It is not just 'Christ-mythicists' who deny that Tacitus provides independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus; indeed, there are numerous Christian scholars who do the same! For example, France writes, Annals XV.44 "cannot carry alone the weight of the role of 'independent testimony' with which it has often been invested." E.P. Sanders notes, "Roman sources that mention [Jesus] are all dependent on Christian reports."

Quote:

I'm familiar with Sanders, and he is no "mythicist."

This response is obtuse. The point is that he's saying that the Tactitus citation is not an independent support for the existence of jesus, not that Jesus is a myth!

Interesting that you write off both atheists and theists, no matter their argument!

 

Quote:

Why would a mythicist accept Sanders alleged view on Tacitus, but not his view in the historical Jesus? It makes no sense.

We are discussing the Tacitus claim, not all historical claims for Jesus! Sander's arguments for other purported historical accounts is moot here!

If I cite an atheist who supports my claim for Tacitus, you reject it because it comes from an atheist. Never mind his actual argument, you just reject it based on the genetic fallacy.

Then, if I cite theists who reject the claim, you argue that they are theists, so their claims against Tacitus can't be used either!

You tell me: who the FUCK should I cite?

Oh, and by the way, can even you see how your claim that ONLY carrier holds to this position is a blatant lie?

 

todangst wrote:
And William Lane Craig states that Tacitus' statement is "no doubt dependent on Christian tradition."

Quote:

Again, you provided no reference for that statement.

False again. I cited Lowder making the reference.


todangst wrote:
Jeffery Jay Lowder, "Evidence" for Jesus, Is It Reliable?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

Quote:

Yes, from another fellow atheist from the Infidels Network with an axe to grind.

The source of the argument does not matter, the argument itself matters. Focusing on the source alone is the ad hominem genetic fallacy

todangst wrote:
So it may simply be that Tacitus was relying on oral tradition, and not on any historical research for his reference to Jesus. Tacitus himself tells us about the value of such traditions:

"...everything gets exaggerated is typical for any story" and "all the greatest events are obscure--while some people accept whatever they hear as beyond doubt, others twist the truth into its opposite, and both errors grow over subsequent generations" (Annals 3.44 & 3.19). (Cited via Carrier's article)

As weak as the Tacitus claim is, it remains a possibility that even this weak bit of apparent corroboration is a later interpolation. The problems with this claim are examined here:

http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?p=38864&sid=eae887916e8679c9cd9fd7af5fc065e5#38864

Quote:

Its funny that atheists are always claiming foul play and interpolations despite the fact there is no evidence for any interpolations.

It's funny how you just ignore the argument and refuse to think.

Actually, it's not funny, it's pathetic.

There are good reasons to hold that it is interpolation. I see that you just ignored them and didn't even attempt a response.

So I will repeat them:

 

Supporting Stein's claim is that, as with the Testimonium, there is no provenance for the passage: No early Christian writer uses Tacitus' passage in their apologetics, even when discussing Christian persecution by Nero:

* Tertullian (ca. 155–230)
* Lactantius (ca. 240 - ca. 320)
* Sulpicius Severus (c. 360 – 425)
* Eusebius (ca. 275 – 339)
* Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430)

 

todangst wrote:
Some of these problems are summarized by Gordon Stein:


"While we know from the way in which the above is written that Tacitus did not claim to have firsthand knowledge of the origins of Christianity, we can see that he is repeating a story which was then commonly believed, namely that the founder of Christianity, one Christus, had been put to death under Tiberius. There are a number of serious difficulties which must be answered before this passage can be accepted as genuine. There is no other historical proof that Nero persecuted the Christians at all. There certainly were not multitudes of Christians in Rome at that date (circa 60 A.D.). In fact, the term "Christian" was not in common use in the first century. We know Nero was indifferent to various religions in his city, and, since he almost definitely did not start the fire in Rome, he did not need any group to be his scapegoat. Tacitus does not use the name Jesus, and writes as if the reader would know the name Pontius Pilate, two things which show that Tacitus was not working from official records or writing for non-Christian audiences, both of which we would expect him to have done if the passage were genuine.

Quote:

Yes, Gordon Stein another atheist lol.

 

Once again, you ignore the argument, and rely on a genetic fallacy.

 

todangst wrote:
Actually, that claim is patent nonsense. It wouldn't be necessary for Tacitus to consult such records, even if they existed, assuming hte one tiny passage in Tacitus were true .

Quote:

Patent nonsense? Do you have any proof of this or is this just your opinion?

If it is my opinion, you'll write it off as opinion.

If I cite my source, you call it stealing and evidence of my inability to think for myself.

If I cite an atheist, you write it off as coming from an atheist.

If I cite a theist, you write it off as well.

I must assume you're here only to peform a comedy routine.

Anyway, I will again point you to the Carrier article where this point is made. Why would Tacitus need to research EVERY facet of EVERY claim he reported? The presumption is nonsense. In addition, how could Tacitus have any good evidence of a real jesus, and yet not write VOLUMES on the subject?

Seriuosly, I want you to stop uncritically repeating shit you've read on the intrawebs, and THINK: How could Tacitus 1) do real thorough research about Jesus 2) gather real evidence of a messiah/god man working miracles, and then go on to 3) simply note this jesus existed, in passing?

Think! How could Tacitus have any real information about Jesus, and yet simply toss off one paragraph about the messiah? Don't give me the bullshit that he was a pagan, I want to hear how a good historian could have anything more than hearsay about a mircale working godman, and yet NOT write much of anything about it?!

THINK it through... this can only be hearsay, at best... how else can you explain the passage? YOU yourself called Tacitus a good historian, so I'm dying to hear how he could have good evidence of Jesus, and yet not spend any time discussing him other than a brief passing message,while writing on a different subject!

Quote:

Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant stated:

"There is no doubt that (Tacitus) took great a great deal of care in selecting his material." (Grant. Grec, 40-3; see also Grant. Tac, 18).

He did. But how does this apply to this situation? It's ludicrous to think he researched 'jesus' in order to make the purported brief comment on jesus. Read Carrier.

In addition, if he did investigate Jesus in depth, then explain to me WHY HE ONLY MENTIONS GOD WALKING AROUND IN ONE PARAGRAPH AND NO WHERE ELSE.

 

Quote:

Finally, it is important for people to know that the majority of Jesus historians and encyclopedias accept the Tacitus' passage as a direct reference to Jesus Christ

This is an argument from numbers, another fallacy.

What matters is their reasoning, not how many of them you think there are. I notice that you dont cite any of them, nor do you present their arguments.

I also notice that you simply ignore arguments altogether, so I see little point in wasting time with you further.

 

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes - I hope]

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: Simple

Apotheon wrote:
Simple Theist, some Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah and others don't. But the Jews have never questioned the historicity of Jesus. The ancient Jews most certainly accepted his historicity. We can see this in Josephus and the Talmud/Mishna.  .

This is nonsense. Josephus is at best, part interpolation, meaning that it can only be a report of hearsay. As for the Talmud: please stop embarrassing yourself... these works come far too late to be an actual historical report of the jesus of the gospels, and the idea that they refer to such a being is ridiculous.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Christ Myth wrote: Are you

Christ Myth wrote:

Are you sure you want to argue that the Greek term for resurrection ("anastasis" ) "always refers to a dead physical body".

Yes.

Christ Myth wrote:
According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

anastasis refers to 

  1. a raising up, rising (e.g. from a seat)
  2. a rising from the dead
    1. that of Christ
    2. that of all men at the end of this present age
    3. the resurrection of certain ones history who were restored to life (Hebrews 11:35)

This raising (eg. from a seat) is the FIRST definition given by Thayer's Greek Lexicon. "A rising from the dead" is the SECOND definition given, not the primary definition.

First, I'm impressed that you quoted from Thayer's because Thayer's Greek Lexicon is written entirely in Greek. I'm also impressed that you were competant enough to even translate it into English. So I question if you actually quoted from Thayer's. Since I don't have a copy of Thayer's, I am not at liberty to discuss his statements. Even for the sake of argument your translation of him is correct, a few points have been established:

1. Resurrection is never used symbolically.

2. The first definition does not negate the second and third definitions. The rising from a seat is a physical action.

My argument is that in the Bible, the term resurrection always refers to a dead body. And you will not find one single standard lexicon, concordance, dictionary or encyclopedia of NT Greek that disputes this fact.

As for your argument against the historicity of Christ because of no apparent contemporary evidence, I have this to say:

1. Contemporary evidence is not a requisite for establishing the historicity or non-historicity of a personage. If it was, history would be in serious trouble.

2. However, the four Gospels were written by Jesus' own disciples, and they were historical persons. This is confirmed in multiple sources.

3. I Corinithians 15 is believed by all scholars: critical, moderate and conservative, to be based on a pre-pauline creed from Aramaic that dates to about four or five years after Jesus resurrection. And the context of this passage is on a literal and physical resurrection of Christ. He could not have risen from the dead if He was non-existant. Also, William Lane Craig is a specialist on the resurrection and he has noted that the passion and resurrection of Christ reported in Mark, dates to around four or five years after the events.

4. I reject your thesis of the "Christ Concept" because as Saint John noted in his epistle, the denial of Christ's historicity is rooted in the forces of Antichrist.

5. It is true there could have been more evidence for Jesus. But the question is should there have been? Ancient writers generally wrote about officially recognized political and/or religious figures. Not self-proclaimed Messiah's. Jesus was marginalized because he suffered execution as a criminal. As scholars have noted, its amazing that we have anything about him at all.

WHAT WE DO HAVE

The Church, which possesses an unbroken ontological reality of direct apostolic succession going all the way back to Christ. We have documents proving this for the churches of Antioch, Rome, Alexandria and Jerusalem. How do Jesus Mythers explain the existance of this organism?

The New Testament which exists in over 5,000  ancient Greek texts and over 20,000 alltogether.

Roman Sources Speaking about Jesus

Pagan Sources

Gnostic Sources

Jewish Sources

Patristic Sources

We have Jesus tomb, the nails He was crucified with and His crown of thorns. I would also argue for the Shroud of Turin. All the arguments against it have failed.

Roller, again, I didn't say Geronda (Elder) Joseph said they were Ethiopians. He said they LOOKED like them. Many saints described demons as charcoal color. Others as ten foot monsters. It all depends on what form they choose to take.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: First, I'm

Apotheon wrote:

First, I'm impressed that you quoted from Thayer's because Thayer's Greek Lexicon is written entirely in Greek. I'm also impressed that you were competant enough to even translate it into English. So I question if you actually quoted from Thayer's. Since I don't have a copy of Thayer's, I am not at liberty to discuss his statements.

    Apparently you don't even know what Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon is.  A Lexicon is merely a fancy name for a dictionary (Like a French-English dictionary).  It's not some ancient letter or a book containing "statements" and certaintly not "written entirely in Greek." (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon was first published in 1885)  I've heard dumb things on this board, but this takes the cake.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Todangst, there are

 Todangst, there are basically two issues I will now discuss with you:

1. Evidence for the apostles

2. Tacitus

First, in response to your question on who to cite, my answer is, anyone. Just give the source from where the quote is derived. Its interesting that you accused me of engaging in ad hominems, then turned around and referred to me an "Asshole" and "%$#" (I cannot even say it).

Ok, the apostles. There are several reasons why I would argue for the existance of the apostles.

1. The New Testament is a story of their lives and teachings It was written by apostles with the exception of Luke, who was an historian. He wrote Luke and Acts. The traditional authorship each Gospel is defended by many outstanding scholars. ( see Drane, Introducing the NT, chap 11. Gutherie presents detailed overviews of the present critical discussions (pp. 43-53 [Matthew], pp. 81-84 [Mark, pp. 113-125 [Luke], pp. 252-283 [John]. Habermas, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus, p. 63 presents a lenghty list of some contemporary scholars who accept the traditional authors (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). Also, the NT is by far the best attested document in classical history, boasting some 5,000 Greek texts and over 20,000 altogether,

2. Josephus mentions some of the apostles by name including John the Baptist.

3. The historical apostles founded historical churches (Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Rome. Thomas went to India. We have ancient records showing all of this.

4. Non-NT Christian Patristics

CLEMENT

He knew the apostles and wrote about them in his epistle to the Corinthians, dated AD 95.

Ignatius: He wrote seven letters to six churches, and one to Polycarp (<= he knew the apostle John personally. These letters are early witnesses to Christian doctrine. They include several historical references to Jesus, Pilate and Mary (see for example "Trallians&quotEye-wink. He also speaks of the other apostles and Jesus in "Smyrnaeans."

Quadratus

 Same thing echoed in his writings. I can also get into Barnabas and Justin Martyr.

EUSEBIUS

 He was the first Christian historian. No, I didn't say mythologist. I said historian; meaning, he wrote about history. Eusebius stated that Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome during the time of Nero. (see HE II, 25).

Eusebius also recorded the words of Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, who wrote to Soter, bishop of Rome in 170 speaking on how Peter and Paul had been in Corinth and how they taught in Italy. (ibid).

IRENAUS

 He was a disciple of Polycarp. The latter was a disciple of the Apostle John himself. Irenaus stated:

"The apostles left to their successors their own place of teaching authority." (Adv. Haer. III, 3. PG 7: 848)

CLEMENT

 He knew some of the apostles personally. He mentions Paul in (PG 7:849-51).

Anyway, I can continue but I hope you got my point. There is more then enough sufficient evidence to believe in the historicity of the apostles. I mentioned before the "Liberian Catalogue." This is an ancient record of the popes from Peter to their current pope. And the "Poem Against Marcion" speaks of Peter.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Todangst, there are

 Todangst, there are basically two issues I will now discuss with you:

1. Evidence for the apostles

2. Tacitus

First, in response to your question on who to cite, my answer is, anyone. Just give the source from where the quote is derived. Its interesting that you accused me of engaging in ad hominems, then turned around and referred to me an "Asshole" and "%$#" (I cannot even say it).

Ok, the apostles. There are several reasons why I would argue for the existance of the apostles.

1. The New Testament is a story of their lives and teachings It was written by apostles with the exception of Luke, who was an historian. He wrote Luke and Acts. The traditional authorship each Gospel is defended by many outstanding scholars. ( see Drane, Introducing the NT, chap 11. Gutherie presents detailed overviews of the present critical discussions (pp. 43-53 [Matthew], pp. 81-84 [Mark, pp. 113-125 [Luke], pp. 252-283 [John]. Habermas, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus, p. 63 presents a lenghty list of some contemporary scholars who accept the traditional authors (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). Also, the NT is by far the best attested document in classical history, boasting some 5,000 Greek texts and over 20,000 altogether,

2. Josephus mentions some of the apostles by name including John the Baptist.

3. The historical apostles founded historical churches (Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Rome. Thomas went to India. We have ancient records showing all of this.

4. Non-NT Christian Patristics

CLEMENT

He knew the apostles and wrote about them in his epistle to the Corinthians, dated AD 95.

Ignatius: He wrote seven letters to six churches, and one to Polycarp (<= he knew the apostle John personally. These letters are early witnesses to Christian doctrine. They include several historical references to Jesus, Pilate and Mary (see for example "Trallians&quotEye-wink. He also speaks of the other apostles and Jesus in "Smyrnaeans."

Quadratus

 Same thing echoed in his writings. I can also get into Barnabas and Justin Martyr.

EUSEBIUS

 He was the first Christian historian. No, I didn't say mythologist. I said historian; meaning, he wrote about history. Eusebius stated that Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome during the time of Nero. (see HE II, 25).

Eusebius also recorded the words of Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, who wrote to Soter, bishop of Rome in 170 speaking on how Peter and Paul had been in Corinth and how they taught in Italy. (ibid).

IRENAUS

 He was a disciple of Polycarp. The latter was a disciple of the Apostle John himself. Irenaus stated:

"The apostles left to their successors their own place of teaching authority." (Adv. Haer. III, 3. PG 7: 848)

CLEMENT

 He knew some of the apostles personally. He mentions Paul in (PG 7:849-51).

Anyway, I can continue but I hope you got my point. There is more then enough sufficient evidence to believe in the historicity of the apostles. I mentioned before the "Liberian Catalogue." This is an ancient record of the popes from Peter to their current pope. And the "Poem Against Marcion" speaks of Peter.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Piper, Thayer's

 Piper, Thayer's (incidently he was a Unitarian who denied the deity of Christ  but agreed that the NT teaches the deity of Christ), is a Greek lexicon of the New Testament. It is written in Greek. If you are going to claim it is also in English, please show me. I don't dispute the possibility that it is, I just haven't heard that yet. I hope it is in English now. It would be useful as an interlinear for Greek and English.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


I Quixie
I Quixie's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: . . . . I

Apotheon wrote:
. . . . I believe you have an agenda to destroy the truth. But your going to fail. The truth has crushed every opposition against it for two milleniums. You have NO idea what you are up against. Christ is Risen! He is alive. And He will smash you like He has all the other enemies of truth. You better think twice about what you are doing and who you are up against.

Laughs and laughs. It's like watching someone on prozac rocking to and fro, sucking on their thumb.

"Theology is that science which treats of the unknowable with infinitesimal exactitude." - Anatole France


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: Piper,

Apotheon wrote:
Piper, Thayer's (incidently he was a Unitarian who denied the deity of Christ but agreed that the NT teaches the deity of Christ), is a Greek lexicon of the New Testament. It is written in Greek. If you are going to claim it is also in English, please show me. I don't dispute the possibility that it is, I just haven't heard that yet. I hope it is in English now. It would be useful as an interlinear for Greek and English.

Let me spell this out for you:

IT IS A DICTIONARY

It is used to translate words from English into Greek, and vice-versa, and gives definition of those words.

Amazon Entry for it.  Check out the Language in Product Details.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: No, your

Apotheon wrote:
No, your wrong again! He put those sentences in quotation marks as if I had said them word for word.

You didn't say them word for word, but you did say them. The proof is all over. Please continue to deny it and make a full fledged liar of yourself.

Apotheon wrote:
I didn't. I never made the claim that Jesus existed "BECAUSE" of the reasons he gave. He put the word "because" in quotation marks. I never said that, and he misrepresented my argument as you have.

Liar. What was the point of bringing it up if it had nothing to do with proof, which is the specific topic we have running here?

Apotheon wrote:
While the arguments that the apostles knew Jesus, Mary bore him, and Christians have died for him constitute evidence

Ah, there you are saying it again.

Apotheon wrote:
I never stated that those are the REASONS I believe he existed.

And yet you mentioned them in a topic where evidence for or against jesus' existance is being presented.

Apotheon wrote:
And I never even said anything about Mary.

You hadn't before, but you have now.

Apotheon wrote:
Nor did I make reference to "Christians' in the way he tried to imply. I was talking about the apostles who knew Jesus personally, and died for the fact of the resurrection. The two of you have warped what I said.

Not at all. You're just doing intellectual backflips in a desperated attempt to withdraw your own comments. Pathetic.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Christ Myth
Theist
Christ Myth's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: First, I'm impressed

Quote:
First, I'm impressed that you quoted from Thayer's because Thayer's Greek Lexicon is written entirely in Greek.

 Wrong again (not surprisingly).

Here's proof: http://www.amazon.com/Thayers-Greek-English-Lexicon-New-Testament/dp/1565632095

 

Quote:

1. Resurrection is never used symbolically.

Just becuase you don't believe that it's used symbolically, doesn't mean that it wasn't. You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to the contrary).

 

Quote:
2. The first definition does not negate the second and third definitions.
Of course it doesn't. Why would it? That isn't how dictionaries work. The second and third entries represent alternate uses of a word, with the first definition being the PRIMARY usage of the word. Since the first definition of "anastasis" has NOTHING to do with the rising of a DEAD body, you have proven to be incorrect by the very book (Thayer's Lexicon) that YOU yourself cited. 

 

Quote:

My argument is that in the Bible, the term resurrection always refers to a dead body.

You have yet to prove this. The truth is that apologists tell this to themselves, because it's what they WANT to believe. The word "anastasis" is a Greek word meaning "to raise", it may apply to dead people OR it may NOT apply to dead people. ACCORDING TO THAYER'S LEXICON.

Quote:
 

And you will not find one single standard lexicon, concordance, dictionary or encyclopedia of NT Greek that disputes this fact.

 

THAYER'S DOES!! 

 

 

 


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Apatheon, I hate to say


Apatheon, I hate to say this but....the Gospels were not written by disciples of Jesus. Especially since there is no way illiterate Jewish fisherman could learn Koine Greek.

Furthermore, if all the gospels were eyewitness accounts, then the writers would not need to use outside sources to write about what they witnessed with their own eyes. Matthew and Luke draw heavily (sometimes word for word) off Mark. The lesson about being humble like a child can be found in Mark 9:33-37, Matt 18:1-5, and Luke 9:46-48 (one of many examples). Also, Matt and Luke used the Q document (a list of sayings of Jesus not found in Mark or John). The author of Luke even admits to not being an eyewitness (Luke 1:1-4). 

Mark was written around 70 AD. So it is very possible that the author talked to people who knew Jesus. Matt and Luke don't come until the end of the 1st Century, so that why they mainly drew off Mark and Q to write their accounts.

Finally, John could have been written over a period of time and could have been originally written by an eyewitness (John 21:20-25). However, this is a highly disputed claim.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Christ Myth wrote:

Christ Myth wrote:

Wrong again (not surprisingly).

Here's proof: http://www.amazon.com/Thayers-Greek-English-Lexicon-New-Testament/dp/1565632095

 

No, Christ Myth, you are wrong. Thayer's online only exists in the Greek. So I wondered where you derived your translation for it since in order to do so you must know Greek, unless you own your own English version. Second, your quote is a direct quote from Strong's Concordance which IS online in English. I know you did this because I just checked it. Third, you are confused. "Anastasis" is one term for resurrection in the NT. "Egersis" is another. The latter was used when speaking of Christ. At anyrate, I was right from the beginning. Resurrection (anastasis, egersis) always refers to physical rising from the dead when speaking of humans. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate I am wrong. Pick a passage in the NT where the word is used and we can analyze it.

 

P.S. In reference to Peter, we also have his house where he lved. This has been preserved.

 

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes]

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: Simple

Apotheon wrote:
Simple Theist, some Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah and others don't. But the Jews have never questioned the historicity of Jesus. The ancient Jews most certainly accepted his historicity. We can see this in Josephus and the Talmud/Mishna. They considerd Jesus a false prophet, a bastard and many other things too vile for me to state here, but he was never a myth in their eyes.

 

1st (and not to you Apotheon) if Judaism is true(by this I mean the Old Testament), that doesn't make Christianity untrue.  

2nd Apotheon, I'm Christian, and actually a dispinsationalist (sp?), and of course there are some Jews that believe Jesus and some that don't. My only point is, if (and I do mean if) it is ever proven that Jesus was not real the new testament would be a lie, however the Old Testament may still be true.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Christ Myth

Christ Myth wrote:

Quote:
If Jesus was not historical, and was not resurected, then Christianity is false Jewish Sect.

Jesus as mythical doesn't mean that Christianity is a "false" Jewish sect. That's a bizarre assertion. Why would you say that?

Quote:
If any Christian should ever believe that Jesus is a Myth or an allegory, then s/he should immediately convert to Judaism

This "believe in Christ as historical or else" business is absurd. Why would someone who believes in the symbolic Christ want to join Judaism (a religion with no central Christ figure [yes, I'm aware of the
coming of the Meshiach", but that isn't central to their faith)? It's obvious that a Christian who believes in Christ as allegory is just that: A 'CHRISTIAN who believes in Christ as allegory'. There is nothing inherently wrong with this way of thinking. Especially considering the obvious allegories throughout the NT in which Christ is described as a lamb, a lion, a fish, the vine etc... and considering the absolute lack of contemporary evidence, the similarities between Christ and pagan god-men etc...etc...

 

 Christianity is solely based on a real God (I suppose you could get away with a real prophet here)  coming in a real Human form. This real Jesus then sets up a second covenant with gentiles and Jews...(the entire world). Only a real Jesus would have the athority to allow a New Convenant without having to strictly follow the Old Testament laws.

How does an allegory allow you to no longer follow the Jewish laws? How does allegory allow you to not convert to Judaism? How does an allegory set up a new covenant?


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: Piper,

Apotheon wrote:
Piper, Thayer's (incidently he was a Unitarian who denied the deity of Christ but agreed that the NT teaches the deity of Christ), is a Greek lexicon of the New Testament. It is written in Greek. If you are going to claim it is also in English, please show me. I don't dispute the possibility that it is, I just haven't heard that yet. I hope it is in English now. It would be useful as an interlinear for Greek and English.

 Actually I have a computer version which is in English. What I have is called Thayer's Greek Definitions, so I'm not sure if that is exactly the same book as you've mentioned.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: Apatheon,

Christos wrote:

Apatheon, I hate to say this but....the Gospels were not written by disciples of Jesus. Especially since there is no way illiterate Jewish fisherman could learn Koine Greek.

Furthermore, if all the gospels were eyewitness accounts, then the writers would not need to use outside sources to write about what they witnessed with their own eyes. Matthew and Luke draw heavily (sometimes word for word) off Mark. The lesson about being humble like a child can be found in Mark 9:33-37, Matt 18:1-5, and Luke 9:46-48 (one of many examples). Also, Matt and Luke used the Q document (a list of sayings of Jesus not found in Mark or John). The author of Luke even admits to not being an eyewitness (Luke 1:1-4).

Mark was written around 70 AD. So it is very possible that the author talked to people who knew Jesus. Matt and Luke don't come until the end of the 1st Century, so that why they mainly drew off Mark and Q to write their accounts.

Finally, John could have been written over a period of time and could have been originally written by an eyewitness (John 21:20-25). However, this is a highly disputed claim.

The Apostle and Disciple Mathew was a Roman Tax Collector, not some simple illiterate Jew. His position as a Romon Tax Collector gives him the money and the need to have known Greek.

Mark, while a disciple is not an apostle or one of the twelve. It is believed that he recorded Peter's account of the events. Also it is possible Peter had other people to write his letters for him, if we are to assume he was always illeterate. (However one should recall the tounges event which could explain how all the appostles knew how to write in Greek) 

Luke is often viewed as a Gentile. He was also a Docter, so there is no reason to say he was illeterate. He was a disciple (because desciple means follower) however was not an apostle. His introduction basically admits that he interviewed people and used other accounts.

John, see my comments about Mark. Once again the gift of toungues could explain why he could write Greek.

THe most Important thing however is the LXX and was written between the 3rd century and 1st century B.C. A good time before any of the gospels were written. The need to write the Hebrew scriptures in Greek shows that not only did Jews speak Greek prior to the Gospels, but aslo they wrote Greek.

Lastly, there is no reason to assume that any of the Apostles or Disciples were illeterate. 


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: Apatheon,

Christos wrote:

Apatheon, I hate to say this but....the Gospels were not written by disciples of Jesus. Especially since there is no way illiterate Jewish fisherman could learn Koine Greek.

 

Sigh! Before I can even catch my breath I'm forced to refute more errors. I'm going to have to take a leave of absence for a while after this. First, what is your proof the Gospels were not written by the disciples? The authenticity of the Gospel was maintained by the ancient Church and even contamporary scholarship, with the exception of a few liberals. I can give you multiple resources showing that there is a huge consensus of scholars who believe the Gospels were written by the apostles. I have already listed some in a previous post. Second, koine Greek was the general language in that area at that time. Koine was common street language. The Alexandrian/Hellenized Jews brought it to the Holy Land and the Jews learned it.

Christos wrote:

Furthermore, if all the gospels were eyewitness accounts, then the writers would not need to use outside sources to write about what they witnessed with their own eyes. Matthew and Luke draw heavily (sometimes word for word) off Mark. The lesson about being humble like a child can be found in Mark 9:33-37, Matt 18:1-5, and Luke 9:46-48 (one of many examples). Also, Matt and Luke used the Q document (a list of sayings of Jesus not found in Mark or John). The author of Luke even admits to not being an eyewitness (Luke 1:1-4). 

 

Luke was not an apostle, but he relied on apostolic reports (see Luke 1, Acts 1). And "Q" is only theoretical to exist. There is no evidence it ever existed. Peter is probably behind the book of Mark, according to scholars.

Christos wrote:

Mark was written around 70 AD. So it is very possible that the author talked to people who knew Jesus. Matt and Luke don't come until the end of the 1st Century, so that why they mainly drew off Mark and Q to write their accounts.

 

Your dates are off.  Everything was written between 40-60 AD.

Christos wrote:

Finally, John could have been written over a period of time and could have been originally written by an eyewitness (John 21:20-25). However, this is a highly disputed claim.

 

Of course its disputed. What else would atheists have to do with their time?

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: Christos

Apotheon wrote:
Christos wrote:
Mark was written around 70 AD. So it is very possible that the author talked to people who knew Jesus. Matt and Luke don't come until the end of the 1st Century, so that why they mainly drew off Mark and Q to write their accounts.

Your dates are off.  Everything was written between 40-60 AD.

If I'm not mistaken, the point Christos is trying to make is that the gospels were NOT written during Jesus' lifetime (4BCE - ca 33CE). Even if "(e)verything was written between 40-60 AD" as you assert without evidence, everything was written at least 7 years AFTER Jesus died. Why was nothing written while Jesus was still alive? Why the 7-year wait? One would think there wouldn't be such a delay in writing the biography of the most important person who (supposedly) ever lived. His contemporaries would have (should have) written events as they happened, instead of waiting years or decades and relying on memory

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Little Roller Up First

Little Roller Up First wrote:
Apotheon wrote:
Christos wrote:
Mark was written around 70 AD. So it is very possible that the author talked to people who knew Jesus. Matt and Luke don't come until the end of the 1st Century, so that why they mainly drew off Mark and Q to write their accounts.

Your dates are off. Everything was written between 40-60 AD.

If I'm not mistaken, the point Christos is trying to make is that the gospels were NOT written during Jesus' lifetime (4BCE - ca 33CE). Even if "(e)verything was written between 40-60 AD" as you assert without evidence, everything was written at least 7 years AFTER Jesus died. Why was nothing written while Jesus was still alive? Why the 7-year wait? One would think there wouldn't be such a delay in writing the biography of the most important person who (supposedly) ever lived. His contemporaries would have (should have) written events as they happened, instead of waiting years or decades and relying on memory

Below are some possibilities 

 

1) The commom answer to this is that the disciples (being Jewish) still believed Jesus was going to quickly return and set up his kingdom. It took them a while to finally realize that Jesus had a very different opinion about when he was going to return.

2) The disciples had more urgent matters to attend to.  (Like converting people and setting up the Church)

3) Paper was expensive and Judas stole a lot of their money. They had to wait till they could afford paper and writing instruments.

4) The theoretical Gospel Q was written around 33 or 34 A.D.

5) There are earlier Gospels that we don't have today. 


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: 1)

simple theist wrote:

1) The commom answer to this is that the disciples (being Jewish) still believed Jesus was going to quickly return and set up his kingdom. It took them a while to finally realize that Jesus had a very different opinion about when he was going to return.

2) The disciples had more urgent matters to attend to.  (Like converting people and setting up the Church)

3) Paper was expensive and Judas stole a lot of their money. They had to wait till they could afford paper and writing instruments.

4) The theoretical Gospel Q was written around 33 or 34 A.D.

5) There are earlier Gospels that we don't have today. 

  1. This is hardly reason to not take any notes while Jesus was still alive.
  2. The Church would not be set up for another three hundred years. Surely the disciples had time to write SOMETHING
  3. Firstly, Judas sold Jesus out for 30 pieces of silver, which he got from the Romans. He died shortly after Jesus, and so could not have taken any money from the disciples after that. Second, while I don't know how readily available ink and paper were in that part of the world at that point in time, I don't think it would have taken more than 5 years to get money to buy paper.
  4. Same problem as the Gospels themselves. Why couldn't the write a book of Jesus' saying AS HE SAID THEM? Why wait until after he died? And what happened to 'not being able to afford ink and paper?
  5. I grant you, this may very well be the case. But until these 'lost' Gospels are found, their content is pretty much worthless in this discussion. If we don't have them, we can't use them. Period.

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: Apatheon,

Christos wrote:

Apatheon, I hate to say this but....the Gospels were not written by disciples of Jesus. Especially since there is no way illiterate Jewish fisherman could learn Koine Greek.

Well said. Interesting how the theists in this thread are refuting the more outlandish claims from fellow theists. Well done.

Quote:
 

Furthermore, if all the gospels were eyewitness accounts, then the writers would not need to use outside sources to write about what they witnessed with their own eyes. Matthew and Luke draw heavily (sometimes word for word) off Mark.

Bingo!

Quote:
 

The lesson about being humble like a child can be found in Mark 9:33-37, Matt 18:1-5, and Luke 9:46-48 (one of many examples). Also, Matt and Luke used the Q document (a list of sayings of Jesus not found in Mark or John). The author of Luke even admits to not being an eyewitness (Luke 1:1-4).

Mark was written around 70 AD. So it is very possible that the author talked to people who knew Jesus.

I am glad that you say "the author" and not "Mark" because this indicates to me that you accept that the work is anonymous. Is this correct?

  

Quote:

Matt and Luke don't come until the end of the 1st Century, so that why they mainly drew off Mark and Q to write their accounts.

Finally, John could have been written over a period of time and could have been originally written by an eyewitness (John 21:20-25). However, this is a highly disputed claim.

Indeed. I am glad to hear from a theist who knows his facts.

Let me now discuss why I believe that Mark is actually midrash, and not an eyewitness account.

There are very good reasons to question the claim that the Gospels of the New Testament are, or rely upon, actual eyewitness accounts.

First, we need consider that all of the Gospels appear to owe their existence to the first "Gospel", the book of "Mark"

All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from a single source: whoever produced the first version of Mark. That Matthew and Luke are reworkings of Mark with extra, mostly teaching, material added is now an almost universal scholarly conclusion, while many also consider that John has drawn his framework for Jesus’ ministry and death from a Synoptic source as well. We thus have a Christian movement spanning half the empire and a full century which nevertheless has managed to produce only one version of the events that are supposed to lie at its inception. Acts, as an historical witness to Jesus and the beginnings of the Christian movement, cannot be relied upon, since it is a tendentious creation of the second century, dependent on the Gospels and designed to create a picture of Christian origins traceable to a unified body of apostles in Jerusalem who were followers of an historical Jesus. Many scholars now admit that much of Acts is sheer fabrication.

- Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle.

So, we do not have 'four' accounts, we have one.

Next, we must recognize that the book of "Mark" as well as all the other "Gospel" accounts, are anonymous:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_gospels_are_anonymous_works_and_none_are_eyewitness_accounts

As Thomas Paine first noted in "The Age of Reason", the value of testimony is based on the credibility of the witness. An anonymous witness, therefore, is of questionable value at best.

Then we must consider that there are no contemporary historical confirmations of the Gospels:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_silence_that_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_for_jesus

Finally, historical and literary analysis provides a good grounds for holding that the book of "Mark" is 'Midrash', i.e. a set of stories that follow the rely on the Jewish practice of drawing on scriptural themes and passages to create new stories and homilies.

Not only do the Gospels contain basic and irreconcilable differences in their accounts of Jesus, they have been put together according to a traditional Jewish practice known as "midrash", which involved reworking and enlarging on scripture. This could entail the retelling of older biblical stories in new settings. Thus, Mark’s Jesus of Nazareth was portrayed as a new Moses, with features that paralleled the stories of Moses. Many details were fashioned out of specific passages in scripture. The Passion story itself is a pastiche of verses from the Psalms, Isaiah and other prophets, and as a whole it retells a common tale found throughout ancient Jewish writings, that of the Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent Righteous One. It is quite possible that Mark, at least, did not intend his Gospel to represent an historical figure or historical events, and designed it to provide liturgical readings for Christian services on the Jewish model. Liberal scholars now regard the Gospels as "faith documents" and not accurate historical accounts.

- Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle

Michael A. Turton's Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, does a wonderful job of demonstrating that "Mark" is 'Midrash' and therefore not history.

His site was formerly located here:

http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark_index.html

I believe it was taken down so that he could present the work as a published book. The site can still be found here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060427175532/users2.ev1.net/~turton/GMark/GMark_index.html)

Michael Turton writes:

If Mark is history, where are the reliable methods for uncovering it? If Mark knew real traditions, why would be bother to parallel some other story every time Jesus does something major? It's not like this is a sometime thing. Almost every story in Mark draws on the OT, and Mark often tells you where he got it from one way or another (and if he doesn't, that fussbudget Matthew certainly will). The few stories that are not OT in origin have a narrative function, and of course, are so totally bound up with the supernatural that they are certainly fiction -- sometimes both (as in the Gerasene Demoniac, for example, though that has OT echoes too).

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=d239f8ccf586656ab7cdeadddb5bb815&t=132440&page=2

Note: Turton's work also serves a secondary role: it serves to invalidate any argument that Gospel 'prophecies' are supportive of the Gospel's divine origin. It shows that such a claim is based on backwards logic: The Mark author isn't capturing a series of events that 'fulfills a prophecy, he's writing a story built upon Old Testament passages! Seeing as this provides us with a more parsimonious explanation for the purported prophecies of the Old Testament, the claim for Midrash follows the basic rules of valid historiography, whereas 'prophecy claims' violate them.

*************************************************

Because the later Gospels all clearly rely on Mark to some degree (Matthew and Luke are even considered "synoptic', 'similar eyed'/same view,) demonstrating that 'Mark' is a work of fiction unseats the validity of all the supposed "Gospel' accounts. Yet we need not rely on this 'cascade' problem alone. An examination of the other "Gospels' reveals that each "Gospel' claim falls short of "Gospel Truth".

Robert Price's deconstruction of the gospels helps to invalidate the concept of a 'historical jesus'.

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING SON OF MAN
How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?
by Robert M. Price, Prometheus Books, 2003

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/BkrvSonofMan.htm

Price is one of the sources that Turton draws upon. This review of his work demonstrates just how poor the case is for a 'historical jesus'.

From the site:

" It is clear from this that a concern for historical accuracy played no part in the creation of the Gospels. The principle of eyewitness, perhaps even of representing history at all, was simply not operating. This is a chain of original storytelling, not a reproduction or editing of earlier tradition. Literary criticism reveals Mark as writing most of his Gospel out of his own imagination (drawing mostly on scriptural elements), while his redactors are recasting his efforts for their own purposes, with no concerns about compromising or falsifying historical truth or accuracy. That there was vast fabrication by all involved throughout the Christian documentary record has long been undeniable, and there is no reason to make any distinction in reliability between canonical and non-canonical writings."

Richard Carrier is another source that Michael Turton relies upon. Carrier's work goes far to weaken the claim for an historical jesus:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

This work helps demonstrate how much Luke relied on Josephus.

From the page:

Luke and Josephus (2000)
Richard Carrier

There has long been the observation that Luke-Acts contains numerous parallels with the works of Josephus, generating three different theories to account for this: that Josephus used Luke, that Luke used Josephus, or that they both used some common but now lost source. Steve Mason has reviewed the arguments [1] and in summarizing the evidence concludes that, besides generic parallels of genre and form and the use of identical historical events, which are inconclusive as proofs, the "coincidence ... of aim, themes, and vocabulary ... seems to suggest that Luke-Acts is building its case on the foundation of Josephus' defense of Judaism," and therefore that Luke is consciously and significantly drawing on Josephus to supplement his use of Mark and Q and to create the appearance of a real history, a notable deviation from all the other Gospels which have none of the features of a historical work.

Carrier's work can be found here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/

Finally, one ought to consider looking at the works of Josephus himself:

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/JOSEPHUS.HTM

Josephus writes a history of the Jewish people.. one would expect that if he really had information about jesus, that jesus would dominate his telling of their history. Yet while we do hear glowing reports of John the Baptist, nothing in the works of Josephus speak of any Jesus, the Christ.

More on Micahel Turton
(Vorkosigan)

Turton writes:

First, we'll see how much of Mark is based on the OT. The "OT Frame" represents a significant event parallel between the OT and Mark, "(OT parallels)" represents a signficant number of verses with parallels in the OT.

Pericope...OT Frame (verse origin)

1:1-8..........NONE KNOWN (OT parallels)
1:9-11........(OT Parallels)
1:12-13......1 Kings 19, The Fall
1:14-20......1 Kings 19:19-21 (Galilee Isa (9:1)
1:21-28......(many OT/Jewish lit echoes)
1:29-39......NONE KNOWN
1:40-45......2 Kings 5, Nm 5:1-2
2:1-12........2 Kings 1:2-17
2:13-17......1 Kings 19:19-21
2:18-22......CHREIA SAYING
2:23-28......(v25=2 Sam 15-16)
3:1-6..........1 Kings 13:4-6
3:7-12........Invention
3:13-19......Exodus 18:2-26
3:20-30......(Zech 3:13), Exodus 18:2-26
3:31-35......CHREIA SAYING, Exodus 18:2-26
4:1-20........(many to OT/Hellenistic culture)
4:21-25......SAYING (OT/Jewish parallels)
4:26-29......SAYING (OT parallels)
4:30-34......SAYING (OT parallels)
4:35-41......Jonah through Psalm 107
5:1-20........(Isa 65:1-7)
5:21-43.....2 Kings 4:8-37
6:1-6..........CHREIA SAYING
6:7-13........MISSION CHARGE (CYNIC)
6:14-29......Esther
6:30-44......2 Kings 4:38-44
6:45-56......(Psalm 77, Isa 43, Job 9)
7:1-23........(many OT, anachronism)
7:24-30......Elijah-Elisha echoes, CHREIA SAYING
7:31-37......Isa 35:5-6
8:1-13........2 Kings 4:38-44
8:14-21......Non-Markan
8:22-26......Interpolation based on 7:31-7
8:27-33......Invention (Peter's Confession)
8:34-38......Hellenistic Philosophical Concepts
9:1-13........2 Kings 1, other OT
9:14-29......NONE KNOWN
9:30-37......Invention (2nd passion prediction
9:38-41......Num 11:26-29
9:42-50......(Isa, Num, Lev)
10:1-12......OT, CHREIA (Paul on Divorce)
10:13-16....CHREIA
10:17-31[color=white]....[/colorCHREIA
10:32-34....Invention (3rd passion prediction)
10:35-45....Invention/anachronism (OT parallels)
10:46-52....Plato? NONE KNOWN
11:1-11......2 Kings 9:13, 1 Samuel 9 & 10 (OT parallels)
11:12-14....(Jeremiah 8, 29, Joel 1, Hosea 9)
11:15-19....2 Kings (OT parallels)
11:20-25....Invention -- 2nd fig tree
11:27-33....Baptism authority? SAYING
12:1-12......PARABLE, 2 Kings 9:22-10:27 (OT parallels)
12:13-17....CHREIA (Paul?)
12:18-27....CHREIA (OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
12:28-34....(OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
12:35-44....2 Kings 12:5-17
13:1-31......2 Kings 10:26-28, anachronisms, (OT parallels)
13:32-37....PARABLE
14:1-11......2 Kings 9:1-13 (OT parallels)
14:12-25....1 Samuel 10:1-7 (Paul?)
14:26-31....(OT parallels)
14:32-42....1 Kings 19:1-5 (Psalm 78:39-41)
14:43-52....2 Samuel 15-16
14:53-65....Invention (OT parallels)
14:66-72....NONE KNOWN (Peter's denial= invention)
15:1-15......Daniel 6 (Josephus War?)
15:16-20....(OT parallels, Roman procession)
15:21-32....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:33-41....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:42-47....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
16:1-8........Daniel 6, 2 Kgs 13: 20-1 (OT parallels)

Let's now group them:

DIRECT OT PARALLELING:

1:12-13......1 Kings 19, The Fall
1:14-20......1 Kings 19:19-21 (Galilee Isa (9:1)
1:40-45......2 Kings 5, Nm 5:1-2
2:1-12........2 Kings 1:2-17
2:13-17......1 Kings 19:19-21
3:1-6..........1 Kings 13:4-6
3:13-19......Exodus 18:2-26
3:20-30......(Zech 3:13), Exodus 18:2-26
3:31-35......CHREIA SAYING, Exodus 18:2-26
4:35-41......Jonah through Psalm 107
5:21-43.....2 Kings 4:8-37, Num 5:1-2
6:14-29......Esther
6:30-44......2 Kings 4:38-44
6:45-56......(Psalm 77, Isa 43, Job 9)
7:31-37......Isa 35:5-6
8:1-13........2 Kings 4:38-44
9:1-13........2 Kings 1, other OT
9:38-41......Num 11:26-29
11:1-11......2 Kings 9:13, 1 Samuel 9 & 10 (OT parallels)
11:12-14....(OT: Jeremiah 8, 29, Joel 1, Hosea 9)
11:15-19....2 Kings (OT parallels)
12:1-12......PARABLE, 2 Kings 9:22-10:27 (OT parallels)
12:35-44....2 Kings 12:5-17
13:1-31......2 Kings 10:26-28, anachronisms, (OT parallels)
14:1-11......2 Kings 9:1-13 (OT parallels)
14:12-25....1 Samuel 10:1-7 (Paul?)
14:32-42....1 Kings 19:1-5 (Psalm 78:39-41)
14:43-52....2 Samuel 15-16
15:1-15......Daniel 6 (Josephus War?)
15:21-32....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:33-41....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:42-47....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
16:1-8........Daniel 6, 2 Kgs 13: 20-1 (OT parallels)
------------------
DIRECT PARALLELS 33/71

OT VERSE CONSTRUCTION (built out of individual Verses)

1:9-11........(OT Parallels)
1:21-28......(many OT echoes) also 1 Enoch, Tobit
9:42-50......(Isa, Num, Lev)
12:28-34....(OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
14:26-31....(OT parallels)
15:16-20....(OT parallels, Roman procession)
14:53-65....Invention (OT parallels)
6:7-13........MISSION CHARGE (CYNIC) (OT parallels)
4:1-20........PARABLE (many to OT/Hellenistic culture)
4:21-25......SAYING (OT/Jewish parallels)
4:26-29......SAYING (OT parallels)
4:30-34......SAYING (OT parallels)
------------------
plus 12 = 45/71 or 63.3%

CHREIA

2:18-22......CHREIA SAYING
2:23-28......CHREIA (OT parallels)
6:1-6..........CHREIA SAYING
7:24-30......Elijah-Elisha echoes, CHREIA SAYING
10:1-12......OT, CHREIA (Paul on Divorce)
10:13-16....CHREIA
10:17-31....CHREIA
12:13-17....CHREIA (Paul?)
12:18-27....CHREIA (OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
-------------------

9/71

OUTRIGHT INVENTION

3:7-12........Invention
7:1-23........(many OT, anachronism)
8:27-33......Invention (Peter's Confession)
9:30-37......Invention (2nd passion prediction
10:32-34....Invention (3rd passion prediction)
10:35-45....Invention/anachronism (OT parallels)
11:20-25....Invention -- 2nd fig tree
13:32-37....PARABLE
14:66-72....NONE KNOWN (Peter's denial= invention)
----------------
8/71

UNKNOWN or SOURCE NOT OT

9:14-29......NONE KNOWN
10:46-52....Plato? NONE KNOWN
5:1-20........Josephus? (OT Parallels=Isa 65:1-7)
8:34-38......Hellenistic Philosophical Concepts
8:22-26......Interpolation based on 7:31-7
8:14-21......NONE KNOWN Non-Markan
11:27-33....Baptism authority? SAYING
1:1-8..........NONE KNOWN (OT parallels)
1:29-39......NONE KNOWN

-------------------
9/71 = 13.8%

Well, about 65% of Markan pericopes are built off of the OT one way or another, sometimes by direct paralleling of events, sometimes by verse inspiration. The rest is either Chreia from the culture or hand of Mark, or obvious invention. Some things are difficult to classify, of course....

Mark is fiction. If there was really a community spurring Mark to write this, where are the traditions? There is nothing in Mark that does not go back to the OT, Paul, or something Hellenistic. Exegetes are found of arguing that Matthew cannot be a disciple, else why would have copied Mark? That is just as true of Mark: if he knew stories about the HJ, why did he bother to parallel the OT?

Vorkosigan

The original chatboard post site:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=122535

On chiasms or pericopes

http://www.textexcavation.com/turtonchiasms.html

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Christ Myth

Christ Myth wrote:

Quote:
First, I'm impressed that you quoted from Thayer's because Thayer's Greek Lexicon is written entirely in Greek.

Wrong again (not surprisingly).

Indeed 

Quote:

And you will not find one single standard lexicon, concordance, dictionary or encyclopedia of NT Greek that disputes this fact.

Quote:
 

THAYER'S DOES!!

LOL

CM, you can see for yourself that our friend simply asserts whatever he likes, damn the reality. 

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: Christos

Apotheon wrote:
Christos wrote:

Apatheon, I hate to say this but....the Gospels were not written by disciples of Jesus. Especially since there is no way illiterate Jewish fisherman could learn Koine Greek.

 

Sigh! Before I can even catch my breath I'm forced to refute more errors. I'm going to have to take a leave of absence for a while after this. First, what is your proof the Gospels were not written by the disciples?

 

The only one making gross errors here is you.

As for your assertion here, you again fail to recognize that you can't simply beg the question, you yourself have the burden of proof. 

However, here's your answer. I look forward to you disregarding what any atheist says, because they are atheists, as well as disregarding what any theist says, because they are theists.  This sort of naysaying seems to be all you're capable of producing in response to actual arguments.... anyway:

Frank Zindler writes:

"The notion that the four "gospels that made the cut" to be included in the official New Testament were written by men named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John does not go back to early Christian times. The titles "According to Matthew," etc., were not added until late in the second century. Thus, although Papias ca. 140 CE ('Common Era&#39Eye-wink knows all the gospels but has only heard of Matthew and Mark, Justin Martyr (ca. 150 CE) knows of none of the four supposed authors. It is only in 180 CE, with Irenæus of Lyons, that we learn who wrote the four "canonical" gospels and discover that there are exactly four of them because there are four quarters of the earth and four universal winds:

But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church has been scattered throughout the world, and since the "pillar and ground" of the church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing incorruption on every side, and vivifying human afresh. From this fact, it is evident that the Logos, the fashioner demiourgos of all, he that sits on the cherubim and holds all things together, when he was manifested to humanity, gave us the gospel under four forms but bound together by one spirit.

—Against Heresies 3.11.8

Thus, unless one supposes the argument of Irenæus to be other than ridiculous, (couldn't a Christian come up with an equally ad hoc justication based on the number 1 (one god) 3 (the trinity) 10 (ten commandments) 12 (the disciples)?) we come to the conclusion that the gospels are of unknown origin and authorship, and there is no good reason to suppose they are eye-witness accounts of a man named Jesus of Nazareth. At a minimum, this forces us to examine the gospels to see if their contents are even compatible with the notion that they were written by eye-witnesses. We cannot even assume that each of the gospels had but one author or redactor.

- Did Jesus Exist? by Frank R. Zindler

The following is written by Rook Hawkins concerning the four Gospels.

MARK

John P. Meier provides an example in which the author of Mark shows himself to be dependent on oral tradition. The story of the feeding of the multitude is found twice in Mark and once in John. Meier writes (A Marginal Jew, v. 2, pp. 965-6):

"This suggests a long and complicated tradition history reaching back to the early days of the first Christian generation. Prior to Mark's Gospel there seems to have been two cycles of traditions about Jesus' ministry in Galilee, each one beginning with one version of the feeding miracle (Mk 6:32-44 and Mk 8:1-10). Before these cycles were created, the two versions of the feeding would have circulated as independent units, the first version attracting to itself the story of Jesus' walking on the water (a development also witnessed in John 6), while the second version did not receive such an elaboration. Behind all three versions of the miracle story would have stood some primitive form."

Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6):

"Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."

Concerning v. 9-13, Robert Funk writes in The Five Gospels:

"The sayings in Mark 13:9-13 all reflect detailed knowledge of events that took place - or ideas that were current - after Jesus' death: trials and persecutions of Jesus' followers, the call to preach the gospel to all nations, advice to offer spontaneous testimony, and the prediction that families would turn against one another are features of later Christian existence, not of events in Galilee or Jerusalem during Jesus' lifetime. The note about children betraying their parents may be an allusion to the terrible calamities that took place during the siege of Jerusalem (66-70 C.E.)"

Randel Helms comments on the reference to Daniel in the Gospel of Mark (op. cit., p. Cool:

So Daniel's "time, times, and half a time" is three and a half years, or twelve hundred and ninety days. The author of Daniel was referring, with the "abomination of desolation," to the altar to Zeus that Antiochus IV established in the Jerusalem temple in December, 167 B.C.E., as I Maccabees 1:54 tells us. But in Mark's eyes, Daniel really was speaking of Mark's own time, the "time of the end," when another "abomination of desolation" was set up in the Jerusalem temple. For according to Josephus, the regular offering ceased in the temple in July, 70, the temple was burnt in August, and later that month the imperial Roman eagle was set up in the temple precincts and sacrifice was offered to it; then in September the temple was razed to the ground (Josphus, The Jewish War, Chapters 6, 7). Three and a half years thereafter would be early in the year 74. It should not be surprising that a first-century author might apply the Book of Daniel to the Jewish War; Josephus himself did so, he tells us, in the summer of the year 70, at the height of the seige (Josephus, 309)....As far as Mark was concerned the Jewish War was over; there remained only the cosmic disorder and the Second Coming.

Robert Eisenman writes (James the Brother of Jesus, p. 56):
"From the same internal textual considerations already noted, it is possible to show that Mark, too, was written after the fall of the Temple in 70 CE. The whole nature of its anti-Jewish polemic and opposition to the family and brothers of Jesus on the one hand and its pro-Peter orientation on the other distinguish it as having appeared after the destruction of the Jerusalem centre - in particular, after the attempt by the Roman Community to represent itself as the legitimate heir to Jesus and the Messianic movement he represented, however absurd, historically speaking, that might have seemed to any objective observer at the time."

MATTHEW

As one historian notes:

It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience.

Herman N. Ridderbos writes (Matthew, p. 7):

This means, however, that we can no longer accept the traditional view of Matthew's authorship. At least two things forbid us to do so. First, the tradition maintains that Matthew authored an Aramaic writing, while the standpoint I have adopted does not allow us to regard our Greek text as a translation of an Aramaic original. Second, it is extremely doubtful that an eyewitness like the apostle Matthew would have made such extensive use of material as a comparison of the two Gospels indicates. Mark, after all, did not even belong to the circle of the apostles. Indeed Matthew's Gospel surpasses those of the other synoptic writers neither in vividness of presentation nor in detail, as we would expect in an eyewitness report, yet neither Mark nor Luke had been among those who had followed Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry.

J. C. Fenton argues (The Gospel of Saint Matthew, p. 12):

It is usually thought that Mark's Gospel was written about A.D. 65 and that the author of it was neither one of the apostles nor an eyewitness of the majority of the events recorded in his Gospel. Matthew was therefore dependent on the writing of such a man for the production of his book. What Matthew has done, in fact, is to produce a second and enlarged edition of Mark. Moreover, the changes which he makes in Mark's way of telling the story are not those corrections which an eyewitness might make in the account of one who was not an eyewitness. Thus, whereas in Mark's Gospel we may be only one remove from eyewitnesses, in Matthew's Gospel we are at one remove further still.

Francis Write Beare notes (The Gospel according to Matthew, p. 7):

But the dependence of the book upon documentary sources is so great as to forbid us to look upon it as the work of any immediate disciple of Jesus. Apart from that, there are clear indications that it is a product of the second or third Christian generation. The traditional name of Matthew is retained in modern discussion only for convenience.

J.C. Fenton summarizes the evidence for the dating of Matthew as follows (op. cit., p. 11):

The earliest surviving writings which quote this Gospel are probably the letters of Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, who, while being taken as prisoner from the East to Rome about A.D. 110, wrote to various churches in Asia in Asia Minor and to the church at Rome. Ignatius refers to the star which appeared at the time of the birth of Jesus, the answer of Jesus to John the Baptist, when he was baptized, and several sayings of Jesus which are recorded only in this Gospel (12:33, 15:13, 19:12). It seems almost certain that Ignatius, and possibly the recipients of his letters also, knew this Gospel, and thus that it was written before A.D. 110. But how long before?

Here we cannot be so certain. But it is possible that we can find evidence that Matthew was writing after the war between the Romans and the Jews which ended in the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem in A.D. 70. See, for example, 22:7: The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city; and compare also 21:41, 27:25. Similarly, Matthew's Gospel contains a strongly anti-Jewish note running through it, from the teaching not to do as the hypocrites do in Chapter 6, to the Woes on the scribes and Pharisees in Chapter 23; and this may point to a date after c. A.D. 85 when the Christians were excluded from the Jewish synagogues. It is worth noting here that Matthew often speaks of their synagogues (4:23, 9:35, 10:17, 12:9, 13:54), as if to distinguish Christian meetings and meeting places from those of the Jews, from which the Christians had now been turned out.

Beare offers the following to date the Gospel of Matthew (op. cit., pp. 7-8):

It is generally agreed that it was written after the fall of Jerusalem to the armies of Titus (AD 70), and the widespread acquaintance with it which is exhibited in all the Christian literature of the second century makes it difficult to place its composition any later than the opening decade of that century. If the Sermon on the Mount can be regarded in any sense as 'the Christian answer to Jamnia. . . a kind of Christian mishnaic counterpart to the formulation taking place there' (Davies, Setting, p. 315), this would indicate a date a few years before or after the turn of the century.

Concerning the knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem that the author evinces, Schweizer writes concerning Matthew 22:7 (op. cit., p. 418):

The wrath of the host is mentioned by both evangelists, but it is impossible to conceive of the king coming with his army not only to slay those who had been invited but to burn down their city (not "cities&quotEye-wink, and doing all this while the feast stands ready for the newly invited. The parable deals with ordinary citizens, who buy fields and use oxen, not with men who rule entire cities. After his punishment, furthermore, the verdict of the king in verse 8 is pointless. Verses 6-7 are thus clearly an interpolation in the narrative, which earlier passed directly from verse 5 to the wrath of the king (beginning of vs. 7), and then to verse 8. Here the events of A.D. 70 - the taking and burning of Jerusalem by Roman armies - have colored the language of the parable.

LUKE

F. F. Bruce writes on the occasion of Luke's writing (The Book of Acts, pp. 10-12):

It is necessary, then, to look for an appropriate life-setting for a work which strikes the apologetic note in just this way. One attractive suggestion points to the period A.D. 66 or shortly afterward, when the chief accusers of Paul, the Judean authorities, ahd so completely discredited themselves in Roman eyes by the revolt against imperial rule. True, Paul himself was dead by then, but the accusations against him, especially that of fomenting public disorder, continued to be brought against Christians in general, and his defense, which could have been seen as vindicated in the event, might be validly pleaded on their behalf. In those years it would have been quite effective to emphasize that, unlike the rebellious Jews, Christians were not disloyal to the empire--that, in fact, it was the rebellious Jews themselves who had always done their best to disown Christianity.

The argument that there is nothing in Acts--or even in Luke--that presupposes the Jewish revolt and the resultant destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem (A. D. 70) has been used in defense of a pre-70 dating for the twofold work--early in the twentieth century by Adolf Harnack and over sixty years later by J. A. T. Robinson. Indeed, it has been further argued, since there is no allusion to two earlier events--the Neronian persecution and the execution of Paul--that the composition of Luke-Acts should probably be dated not later than A.D. 65. So far as the Neronian persecution is concerned, even Tacitus (no friend to Christians) admits that it was the action of one man's malignity rather than an expression of public policy, and the official reprobation of Nero's memory and actions at his death could have been held to cover his persecution of the Christians of Rome. So Luke's recording of favorable judgments which had been passed on Christianity by other Roman authorities might have been intended to suggest that Nero's anti-Christian activity was an irresponsible and criminal attack by that now excrated ruler on a movement whose innocence had been amply attested by many worthier representatives of Roman power.

Again, whether Paul's execution was or was not an incident in the Neronian persecution, the fact that it is not mentioned in Acts is not a decisive argument for the dating of the book: Luke's goal has been reached when he has brought Paul to Rome and left him preaching the gospel freely there. Certainly, Paul's arrival in Rome, his gospel witness there for two years, the legal procedure involved in the bearing of his appeal to Caesar, must have brought Christianity to the notice of classes in Roman society on which it had until then made no impression. The interest that was now aroused in it did not die out, but maintained itself and increased, until under Domitian (A.D. 81-96) it had penetrated the highest ranks of all. At any time in this period a work which gave an intelligible history of the rise and progress of Christianity, and at the same time gave a reasoned reply to popular calumnies against it, was sure of a reception amongst the intelligent reading public--or rather listening public--of Rome, of whom Theophilus was probably a representative. Its positive defense was best expressed in the words of Paul, the Roman citizen, whose appeal to Caesar was made not only on his own behalf but on behalf of the Christian community and its faith.

It is difficult to fix the date of composition of Acts more precisely than at some point within the Flavian period (A.D. 69-96), possibly about the middle of the period. The arguments by which Sir William Ramsay, late in the nineteenth century, concluded that it was composed about A.D. 80 are precarious, but nothing that has been discovered since then has pointed to a more probable dating. One consideration, admittedly subjective, is the perspective from which the work has been composed. The relations between Peter, Paul, and James of Jerusalem are presented in a way which would be more natural if all three of them had died and the author had been able to view their lasting achievements in a more satisfactory proportion than would have been so easily attained if they had still been alive. Certainly the impression he gives us of their relations is not the impression received from Paul's letters, and this is more intelligible if they had been dead for some years and their disagreements (in the eyes of a man like Luke, at any rate) no longer seemed as important as they would have done at the time.

Stevan Davies writes (Jesus the Healer, p. 174):
"Luke wrote at least sixty years after Pentecost and perhaps closer to a century after that event. Scholarship on the subject presently vacillates between a late first century and an early to mid-second century date for Luke's writings."

JOHN

Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):

The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.

Morton Enslin observes (Christian Beginnings, pp. 369-370):

That Papias’ source of information is simply an inference from Mark 10:35-40 or its parallel, Matt. 20:20-23, is possible. None the less, this Marcan passage itself affords solid ground. No reasonable interpretation of these words can deny the high probability that by the time these words were written [ca. 70 CE] both brothers had 'drunk the cup' that Jesus had drunk and had been 'baptized with the baptism' with which he had been baptized." Since the patristic tradition is unanimous in identifying the beloved disciple with John, at least this evidence discredits the patristic tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of John.

Kysar states concerning the dating of the Gospel of John:

"Those who relate the expulsion to a formal effort on the part of Judaism to purge itself of Christian believers link the composition of the gospel with a date soon after the Council of Jamnia, which is supposed to have promulgated such an action. Hence, these scholars would date John after 90. Those inclined to see the expulsion more in terms of an informal action on the part of a local synagogue are free to propose an earlier date." (p. 919)

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
todangst, you know you can

todangst, you know you can resize an image like this right

 

Et alors?


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Little, as far as we know,

 Little, as far as we know, Jesus never told anyone to write anything. He came to found his Church (Matt.16), and that was before the NT was written. Even if we had no NT, the Church would still survive because it existed before the NT, it is protected by God, and is based on apostolic tradition. There are two forms of revelation and theology in Christianity: oral tradition and written tradition. Written tradition (NT) is not the sum total of the revelation of God. It is only part of it. There is also an oral tradition that was never written but is contained within the Church. Paul speaks about this in such passages as 2 Thess.2, etc.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Little, no! The Church

 Little, no! The Church was not set up three hundred years later. Jesus founded His Church in Matthew 16, and we see the development of it in the Book of Acts. Already in Acts and the first century we have bishops and churches all over the place. The early apostolic writers such as Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaus, etc speak about bishops and the Church and they themselves were bishops. The book of Acts speaks about Linus, who became bishop in Rome. The churches of Antioch, Alexandria, Rome and Jerusalem were founded by apostles. We see James as the first bishop of Jerusalem in the book of Acts.

 

What happened in the 4th century was that Christianity finally became legal. The Emperer Constantine converted to Christianity after having a vision of the cross in the sky which had the words "In Hoc Signo Vinces" (in this sign you will conquer), and he did conquer and won the war. He then converted and made Christianity the religion of the empire.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Tod, your arguments are

 Tod, your arguments are based on old liberal arguments that have already been refuted by contemporary scholars. The Gospel is history. Mark is history. This link refutes all of your claims. There are several articles here.

http://www.christiancadre.org/topics/dating_nt.html

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: Little, as

Apotheon wrote:
Little, as far as we know, Jesus never told anyone to write anything. He came to found his Church (Matt.16), and that was before the NT was written. Even if we had no NT, the Church would still survive because it existed before the NT, it is protected by God, and is based on apostolic tradition. There are two forms of revelation and theology in Christianity: oral tradition and written tradition. Written tradition (NT) is not the sum total of the revelation of God. It is only part of it. There is also an oral tradition that was never written but is contained within the Church. Paul speaks about this in such passages as 2 Thess.2, etc.

As far as we know, Jesus never told anyone to NOT write anything. Why none of Jesus' contemporaries wrote anything about him while he was alive is a question that remains unanswered. It's not like it wasn't possible - records of this kind exist for Julius Caesar (d. 44 BCE ), for instance.

Also, I'm pretty sure NT is a necessary part of Christianity, as Jesus is not mentioned anywhere in OT. I have 2 Th. 2 open in another window, and it doesn't say anything about oral tradition. But it IS written.

The only 'Church' that existed before the 4th Century CE, in the context in which you use the term, was the Jewish 'church'. The Christian church was still up-and-coming at the time, and didn't become powerful until the big meeting when they chose which books to put into NT.

I'm not a history major ( hell, I've never even spent one day as a college studentEmbarassed ), so I'll admit my assertion may not be 100% accurate. I'll stand by what I've said, unless I learn I was wrong.

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Christ Myth no! Thayer's

 Christ Myth no! Thayer's does not disagree with that I stated. When speaking on human resurrection, Thayer's and all Greek lexicons affirm the fact that resurrection always refers to the body of a dead person. This belief comes from Jewish thought and is rooted in the Old Testament. And I challenge you to show me any lexicon refuting this point. Your quote was word for word from Strong's Concordance and it also proved my point, becuase this is what the sources say.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Little Roller Up First

Little Roller Up First wrote:

As far as we know, Jesus never told anyone to NOT write anything. Why none of Jesus' contemporaries wrote anything about him while he was alive is a question that remains unanswered.

There's no proof they didn't write anything while he was alive. You're only assuming that. They could have compiled notes and then later assembled them into the Gospel picture, but as I said before. Jesus founded the CHURCH, and there is no record of him ever telling anyone to write anything. We have historical documents proving the existance of the Church within the first century.

Little Roller Up First wrote:
  It's not like it wasn't possible - records of this kind exist for Julius Caesar (d. 44 BCE ), for instance.

Even if thats true it proves nothing. Caesar would be expected to have that kind of material because he was an emperer. Many ancient persons did not have contemporay writers. But Jesus had contemporary disciples who wrote of him, and Jesus himself founded the historical organization known as the Church. No one in history has ever founded an institution of this kind.

Little Roller Up First wrote:
Also, I'm pretty sure NT is a necessary part of Christianity, as Jesus is not mentioned anywhere in OT. I have 2 Th. 2 open in another window, and it doesn't say anything about oral tradition. But it IS written.

2 THESS.2:15

"Therefore brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle."

Commentary: Paul speaks of traditions. There is an inner tradition (NT) and outer tradition (oral tradition). He makes the distinction between "word" (preaching which is oral) and "Epistle" (written). The revelation of Christianity is comprised in writing and oral tradition. This is why protestantism is false because they reject oral tradition and only accept written tradition. Fr. Gerorges Florovsky of Princeton wrote extensively on the two aspects of tradition in his work Bible Church and Tradition. I recommend it. There are also other passages in the NT which speak of the oral tradition.

Little Roller Up First wrote:
The only 'Church' that existed before the 4th Century CE, in the context in which you use the term, was the Jewish 'church'. The Christian church was still up-and-coming at the time, and didn't become powerful until the big meeting when they chose which books to put into NT.

I'm not a history major ( hell, I've never even spent one day as a college studentEmbarassed ), so I'll admit my assertion may not be 100% accurate. I'll stand by what I've said, unless I learn I was wrong.

Again, the first Christians were Jews, that is true. James was bishop of the church in Jerusalem. This is reported in Acts 15. We also see in Acts the mandate from Christ to take the Gospel to the gentiles. The Church was in full force long before 325 AD. As I noted, we have Christian writers within the first century speaking about bishops, clergy, the Lord's Table, baptism, etc. The book of Acts itself documents much of this detail. And the epistles speak of bishops. My point is that the Church produced the NT. The NT didn't produce the Church. The Church existed over 300 years before it was decided upon to even assemble and canonize the NT gospels and epistles. However they date to the first century, but were not added to the Bible untill 300 years later.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: There's no

Apotheon wrote:
There's no proof they didn't write anything while he was alive. You're only assuming that. They could have compiled notes and then later assembled them into the Gospel picture, but as I said before. Jesus founded the CHURCH, and there is no record of him ever telling anyone to write anything. We have historical documents proving the existance of the Church within the first century.

I do not assume there is proof that the apostles wrote nothing while Jesus was alive. Such proof manifestly cannot exist, for the same reason that there is no proof that I am not a direct descendant of Hammurabi. As far as I know, I'm not related to him, but evidence of such a relation may yet be found ( improbable, but not impossible ) . Until and unless evidence is found that the apostles DID write about Jesus during his lifetime, I'll stick with the idea that they didn't.

Apotheon wrote:

Little Roller Up First wrote:
  It's not like it wasn't possible - records of this kind exist for Julius Caesar (d. 44 BCE ), for instance.

Even if thats true it proves nothing. Caesar would be expected to have that kind of material because he was an emperer. Many ancient persons did not have contemporay writers. But Jesus had contemporary disciples who wrote of him, and Jesus himself founded the historical organization known as the Church. No one in history has ever founded an institution of this kind.

I'm sure Julius Caesar isn't the only person of the time period with contemporary writers. I only cited him as an example of someone who does. As far as Jesus' contemporaries and the church he founded, no writings of the same written during his lifetime have been found, despite the fact that volumes of other writings from the same period of history have been found.

And I'm fairly certain Jesus wasn't the only person in history to start a church - Martin Luther, L. Ron Hubbard and Bobby Henderson have done so successfully.

Apotheon wrote:
2 THESS.2:15

"Therefore brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle."

Commentary: Paul speaks of traditions. There is an inner tradition (NT) and outer tradition (oral tradition). He makes the distinction between "word" (preaching which is oral) and "Epistle" (written).

Here I will admit I was wrong. 2 Th. 2 does mention oral tradition.

Apotheon wrote:
The revelation of Christianity is comprised in writing and oral tradition. This is why protestantism is false because they reject oral tradition and only accept written tradition. Fr. Gerorges Florovsky of Princeton wrote extensively on the two aspects of tradition in his work Bible Church and Tradition. I recommend it. There are also other passages in the NT which speak of the oral tradition.

I'm fairly certain that the only oral traditions of the time ( in this context ) were the Jewish oral traditions. Somehow I have the feeling that the message of 2 Th. 2, indeed all of NT, isn't that we should be Jewish.

Judging by your screen name, your repeated capitalization of "Church," and the disdain you display towards Protestantism above, I'm guessing you're either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox ( correct me if I'm wrong ).

I'll refrain from making an all-too-easy joke about Catholic priests and "oral tradition."

Apotheon wrote:
Again, the first Christians were Jews, that is true. James was bishop of the church in Jerusalem. This is reported in Acts 15. We also see in Acts the mandate from Christ to take the Gospel to the gentiles. The Church was in full force long before 325 AD. As I noted, we have Christian writers within the first century speaking about bishops, clergy, the Lord's Table, baptism, etc. The book of Acts itself documents much of this detail. And the epistles speak of bishops. My point is that the Church produced the NT. The NT didn't produce the Church. The Church existed over 300 years before it was decided upon to even assemble and canonize the NT gospels and epistles. However they date to the first century, but were not added to the Bible untill 300 years later.

I won't argue your point that the Church produced NT. I agree. They chose which books to include in NT and which to exclude from NT (all of which were written after Jesus died, BTW ). They chose the ones which served their interests best, and rejected the others, including the gospel of Judas.

However, this does not solve the problem - that no contemporary writings were found describing Jesus, written during his lifetime. If such documents existed, they would likely have a physical description of what he looked like - for instance, height, hair color, etc. I don't think anyone living in that part of the world at that period of history would look anything like the Jesus of DaVinci's paintings.

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote:

Apotheon wrote:

Tod, your arguments are based on old liberal arguments that have already been refuted by contemporary scholars.

No, they have not. First, these arguments have been updated by more recent arguments.  Second,calling them 'liberal arguments' is just more of your use of ad hominem to avoid actually dealing with an argument. Third, many contemporary scholars are actually dating the gospels as being created after 70 AD, so your claim is simply a lie. 

 Next, there are good reasons to reject the book of Mark as anything other than midrash, and you didn't even attempt to read the argument, let alone respond to it.

By the way, this argument is so new that it's not published yet, so HOW THE FUCK WAS IT REFUTED ALREADY? Tell me, do you just lie, or are you so ignorant that you don't even realize that what you assert is blatantly false?

You're a joke. A waste of time. An logical fallacy machine. Please don't waste our time any further.

Here, let me demonstrate to the board how closed minded and irrational you are. I will again post the argument, to again demosnstrate how you simply close your eyes to arguments, rather than deal with them:

 

Michael A. Turton's Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, does a wonderful job of demonstrating that "Mark" is 'Midrash' and therefore not history.

His site was formerly located here:

http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark_index.html

I believe it was taken down so that he could present the work as a published book. The site can still be found here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060427175532/users2.ev1.net/~turton/GMark/GMark_index.html)

Michael Turton writes:

If Mark is history, where are the reliable methods for uncovering it? If Mark knew real traditions, why would be bother to parallel some other story every time Jesus does something major? It's not like this is a sometime thing. Almost every story in Mark draws on the OT, and Mark often tells you where he got it from one way or another (and if he doesn't, that fussbudget Matthew certainly will). The few stories that are not OT in origin have a narrative function, and of course, are so totally bound up with the supernatural that they are certainly fiction -- sometimes both (as in the Gerasene Demoniac, for example, though that has OT echoes too).

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=d239f8ccf586656ab7cdeadddb5bb815&t=132440&page=2

Note: Turton's work also serves a secondary role: it serves to invalidate any argument that Gospel 'prophecies' are supportive of the Gospel's divine origin. It shows that such a claim is based on backwards logic: The Mark author isn't capturing a series of events that 'fulfills a prophecy, he's writing a story built upon Old Testament passages! Seeing as this provides us with a more parsimonious explanation for the purported prophecies of the Old Testament, the claim for Midrash follows the basic rules of valid historiography, whereas 'prophecy claims' violate them.

More on Micahel Turton
(Vorkosigan)

Turton writes:

First, we'll see how much of Mark is based on the OT. The "OT Frame" represents a significant event parallel between the OT and Mark, "(OT parallels)" represents a signficant number of verses with parallels in the OT.

Pericope...OT Frame (verse origin)

1:1-8..........NONE KNOWN (OT parallels)
1:9-11........(OT Parallels)
1:12-13......1 Kings 19, The Fall
1:14-20......1 Kings 19:19-21 (Galilee Isa (9:1)
1:21-28......(many OT/Jewish lit echoes)
1:29-39......NONE KNOWN
1:40-45......2 Kings 5, Nm 5:1-2
2:1-12........2 Kings 1:2-17
2:13-17......1 Kings 19:19-21
2:18-22......CHREIA SAYING
2:23-28......(v25=2 Sam 15-16)
3:1-6..........1 Kings 13:4-6
3:7-12........Invention
3:13-19......Exodus 18:2-26
3:20-30......(Zech 3:13), Exodus 18:2-26
3:31-35......CHREIA SAYING, Exodus 18:2-26
4:1-20........(many to OT/Hellenistic culture)
4:21-25......SAYING (OT/Jewish parallels)
4:26-29......SAYING (OT parallels)
4:30-34......SAYING (OT parallels)
4:35-41......Jonah through Psalm 107
5:1-20........(Isa 65:1-7)
5:21-43.....2 Kings 4:8-37
6:1-6..........CHREIA SAYING
6:7-13........MISSION CHARGE (CYNIC)
6:14-29......Esther
6:30-44......2 Kings 4:38-44
6:45-56......(Psalm 77, Isa 43, Job 9)
7:1-23........(many OT, anachronism)
7:24-30......Elijah-Elisha echoes, CHREIA SAYING
7:31-37......Isa 35:5-6
8:1-13........2 Kings 4:38-44
8:14-21......Non-Markan
8:22-26......Interpolation based on 7:31-7
8:27-33......Invention (Peter's Confession)
8:34-38......Hellenistic Philosophical Concepts
9:1-13........2 Kings 1, other OT
9:14-29......NONE KNOWN
9:30-37......Invention (2nd passion prediction
9:38-41......Num 11:26-29
9:42-50......(Isa, Num, Lev)
10:1-12......OT, CHREIA (Paul on Divorce)
10:13-16....CHREIA
10:17-31[color=white]....[/colorCHREIA
10:32-34....Invention (3rd passion prediction)
10:35-45....Invention/anachronism (OT parallels)
10:46-52....Plato? NONE KNOWN
11:1-11......2 Kings 9:13, 1 Samuel 9 & 10 (OT parallels)
11:12-14....(Jeremiah 8, 29, Joel 1, Hosea 9)
11:15-19....2 Kings (OT parallels)
11:20-25....Invention -- 2nd fig tree
11:27-33....Baptism authority? SAYING
12:1-12......PARABLE, 2 Kings 9:22-10:27 (OT parallels)
12:13-17....CHREIA (Paul?)
12:18-27....CHREIA (OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
12:28-34....(OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
12:35-44....2 Kings 12:5-17
13:1-31......2 Kings 10:26-28, anachronisms, (OT parallels)
13:32-37....PARABLE
14:1-11......2 Kings 9:1-13 (OT parallels)
14:12-25....1 Samuel 10:1-7 (Paul?)
14:26-31....(OT parallels)
14:32-42....1 Kings 19:1-5 (Psalm 78:39-41)
14:43-52....2 Samuel 15-16
14:53-65....Invention (OT parallels)
14:66-72....NONE KNOWN (Peter's denial= invention)
15:1-15......Daniel 6 (Josephus War?)
15:16-20....(OT parallels, Roman procession)
15:21-32....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:33-41....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:42-47....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
16:1-8........Daniel 6, 2 Kgs 13: 20-1 (OT parallels)

Let's now group them:

DIRECT OT PARALLELING:

1:12-13......1 Kings 19, The Fall
1:14-20......1 Kings 19:19-21 (Galilee Isa (9:1)
1:40-45......2 Kings 5, Nm 5:1-2
2:1-12........2 Kings 1:2-17
2:13-17......1 Kings 19:19-21
3:1-6..........1 Kings 13:4-6
3:13-19......Exodus 18:2-26
3:20-30......(Zech 3:13), Exodus 18:2-26
3:31-35......CHREIA SAYING, Exodus 18:2-26
4:35-41......Jonah through Psalm 107
5:21-43.....2 Kings 4:8-37, Num 5:1-2
6:14-29......Esther
6:30-44......2 Kings 4:38-44
6:45-56......(Psalm 77, Isa 43, Job 9)
7:31-37......Isa 35:5-6
8:1-13........2 Kings 4:38-44
9:1-13........2 Kings 1, other OT
9:38-41......Num 11:26-29
11:1-11......2 Kings 9:13, 1 Samuel 9 & 10 (OT parallels)
11:12-14....(OT: Jeremiah 8, 29, Joel 1, Hosea 9)
11:15-19....2 Kings (OT parallels)
12:1-12......PARABLE, 2 Kings 9:22-10:27 (OT parallels)
12:35-44....2 Kings 12:5-17
13:1-31......2 Kings 10:26-28, anachronisms, (OT parallels)
14:1-11......2 Kings 9:1-13 (OT parallels)
14:12-25....1 Samuel 10:1-7 (Paul?)
14:32-42....1 Kings 19:1-5 (Psalm 78:39-41)
14:43-52....2 Samuel 15-16
15:1-15......Daniel 6 (Josephus War?)
15:21-32....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:33-41....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:42-47....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
16:1-8........Daniel 6, 2 Kgs 13: 20-1 (OT parallels)
------------------
DIRECT PARALLELS 33/71

OT VERSE CONSTRUCTION (built out of individual Verses)

1:9-11........(OT Parallels)
1:21-28......(many OT echoes) also 1 Enoch, Tobit
9:42-50......(Isa, Num, Lev)
12:28-34....(OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
14:26-31....(OT parallels)
15:16-20....(OT parallels, Roman procession)
14:53-65....Invention (OT parallels)
6:7-13........MISSION CHARGE (CYNIC) (OT parallels)
4:1-20........PARABLE (many to OT/Hellenistic culture)
4:21-25......SAYING (OT/Jewish parallels)
4:26-29......SAYING (OT parallels)
4:30-34......SAYING (OT parallels)
------------------
plus 12 = 45/71 or 63.3%

CHREIA

2:18-22......CHREIA SAYING
2:23-28......CHREIA (OT parallels)
6:1-6..........CHREIA SAYING
7:24-30......Elijah-Elisha echoes, CHREIA SAYING
10:1-12......OT, CHREIA (Paul on Divorce)
10:13-16....CHREIA
10:17-31....CHREIA
12:13-17....CHREIA (Paul?)
12:18-27....CHREIA (OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
-------------------

9/71

OUTRIGHT INVENTION

3:7-12........Invention
7:1-23........(many OT, anachronism)
8:27-33......Invention (Peter's Confession)
9:30-37......Invention (2nd passion prediction
10:32-34....Invention (3rd passion prediction)
10:35-45....Invention/anachronism (OT parallels)
11:20-25....Invention -- 2nd fig tree
13:32-37....PARABLE
14:66-72....NONE KNOWN (Peter's denial= invention)
----------------
8/71

UNKNOWN or SOURCE NOT OT

9:14-29......NONE KNOWN
10:46-52....Plato? NONE KNOWN
5:1-20........Josephus? (OT Parallels=Isa 65:1-7)
8:34-38......Hellenistic Philosophical Concepts
8:22-26......Interpolation based on 7:31-7
8:14-21......NONE KNOWN Non-Markan
11:27-33....Baptism authority? SAYING
1:1-8..........NONE KNOWN (OT parallels)
1:29-39......NONE KNOWN

-------------------
9/71 = 13.8%

Well, about 65% of Markan pericopes are built off of the OT one way or another, sometimes by direct paralleling of events, sometimes by verse inspiration. The rest is either Chreia from the culture or hand of Mark, or obvious invention. Some things are difficult to classify, of course....

Mark is fiction. If there was really a community spurring Mark to write this, where are the traditions? There is nothing in Mark that does not go back to the OT, Paul, or something Hellenistic. Exegetes are found of arguing that Matthew cannot be a disciple, else why would have copied Mark? That is just as true of Mark: if he knew stories about the HJ, why did he bother to parallel the OT?

Vorkosigan

The original chatboard post site:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=122535

On chiasms or pericopes

http://www.textexcavation.com/turtonchiasms.html

You will ignore this again. It will demonstrate that you have no real interest in examining your beliefs. 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: todangst,

Gauche wrote:

todangst, you know you can resize an image like this right

Yes, I do. I've been coding since the 90s.

The pic is small because it's a link

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Little Roller Up First

Little Roller Up First wrote:

Apotheon wrote:
There's no proof they didn't write anything while he was alive. You're only assuming that. They could have compiled notes and then later assembled them into the Gospel picture, but as I said before. Jesus founded the CHURCH, and there is no record of him ever telling anyone to write anything. We have historical documents proving the existance of the Church within the first century.

I do not assume there is proof that the apostles wrote nothing while Jesus was alive. 

I see this dipshit is still begging the question that the apostes existed... 

Seriously, I don't know why anyone bothers to respond to this guy, he simply ignores direct challenges to back up his own claims, and when you post a refutation, he simply lies in response.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote:    Sigh!

Apotheon wrote:

 

 Sigh! Before I can even catch my breath I'm forced to refute more errors. I'm going to have to take a leave of absence for a while after this. First, what is your proof the Gospels were not written by the disciples? The authenticity of the Gospel was maintained by the ancient Church and even contamporary scholarship, with the exception of a few liberals. I can give you multiple resources showing that there is a huge consensus of scholars who believe the Gospels were written by the apostles. I have already listed some in a previous post. Second, koine Greek was the general language in that area at that time. Koine was common street language. The Alexandrian/Hellenized Jews brought it to the Holy Land and the Jews learned it.

 

Luke was not an apostle, but he relied on apostolic reports (see Luke 1, Acts 1). And "Q" is only theoretical to exist. There is no evidence it ever existed. Peter is probably behind the book of Mark, according to scholars.

  I listed my proof in my last post. Why would an eyewitness need to utilize outside sources to write an eyewitness account?  Furthermore, ARAMAIC was the spoken language of Jesus and his followers, not Koine Greek. If the disciples somehow learned to write from their peasant background, they would have learned Aramaic or possibly Hebrew, not Greek.

 Apatheon, I don't want to be mean, but I'm just demonstrating the conclusions found by 99% of biblical scholars. Although I am not a Christian, it makes Christians look anti-intellectual to reject gospel dates by claiming that they were written before 70 AD. If you want Christian writings between 40-60, look to Paul.

        I'm not sure what scholars you utilize to back your claims, but I hope you aren't referencing LaHaye and Jenkins

 

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Toadangst: Excellent work

Toadangst: Excellent work pointing out parallels to the OT in Mark. To me, the parallels mean that the author or Mark wrote a historical interpretation of events. He took a story that was told to him and he wrapped sacred Jewish history around Jesus. Tis obviously means that we should not look at Mark as an eyewitness account.

Some Christians I have studied actually find your evidence to make Jesus more meaningful. A great example would be John Shelby Spong (literally the most liberal Christian you could ever find).

By the way, you do make an incorrect assertion that Mark is the only account for Jesus. Q was probably written before Mark, around 65 AD.  

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:

Christos wrote:

Toadangst: Excellent work pointing out parallels to the OT in Mark. To me, the parallels mean that the author or Mark wrote a historical interpretation of events. He took a story that was told to him and he wrapped sacred Jewish history around Jesus. Tis obviously means that we should not look at Mark as an eyewitness account.

Precisely. And I believe that the early Chrisians understood this all precisely as you do. They weren't "lying" when they told these stories, in the same sense Stephen Hawkings isn't lying when he makes claims about the cosmos that cannot be confirmed. In both situations, people are specualing upon matters that they believe are true, using the best models available to themselves.

Mark used the best source available for understanding such phenomena: scripture. And just look at the level of writing of the Mark author: the man, whoever he was, was a very talented and intelligent person. This wasn't some liar or lunatic making up a story, this wasn't an ordinary writer like the Matthew author, pretending to write history, while both illustrating an abject ignorance of ancient historicity while basically bastardizing the beautiful writing of Mark; this was a very talented man who wrote in creative pericopes. Something well beyond the skill set of the matthew author.

My sense of what happened is this: When an abstract concept reaches the masses, two things generally happen: it either goes over their heads, or they concretitize it so that they can grasp it. I believe this happened with the spiritual concept of Jesus Christ.

Quote:

Some Christians I have studied actually find your evidence to make Jesus more meaningful. A great example would be John Shelby Spong (literally the most liberal Christian you could ever find).

I am glad to hear this. I would agree that it makes the writing of the Mark author appear even more profound. He's not just 'writing what he saw" he's using scripture to investigate what he considered to be an incredibly important aspect of human existence, our relationship to the divine. In a sense, I can't help but draw an analogy to cosmologists....

Quote:

By the way, you do make an incorrect assertion that Mark is the only account for Jesus. Q was probably written before Mark, around 65 AD.

I think my statement may stand for the following reason: We can only speculate on is existence (although the reasoning is good), ergo, assuming that it does record anything about the Jesus of the gospels may not be a sound assumption: the 'Q" document may not even make references to a Jesus at all, it may well be a work of sayings of various cynics that were similar in nature to the statements a Jesus might make.

However, I do consider your response a very good counter point. I will amend my claim to note that the Q document may well be a second possible source.

Such a pleasure talking to a well reasoned theist. I have no problem conceding an issue in these cases.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.