Jesus is alive in Waco, Texas!!!!!!!!!!!
David Nye
>Well , looks like Jesus is alive and "WELL" armed folks.
>In fact he has more amunitions than some countries
>in the world.
>Comments?
It's sad what religious fanaticism (or gullibility) will do to people.
I'm not feeling sorry for him, of course. He is another Charles Manson.
Just for his several wives and the other folks he has misled, and
particularly for the 11 to 14 year old girls he is reported by defectors
to be raping.
===================================================================
This is patently absurd; but whoever wishes to become a philosopher
must learn not to be frightened by absurdities. -- Bertrand Russell
David Nye (ny...@cnsvax.uwec.edu). Midelfort Clinic, Eau Claire WI
===================================================================
James Felder
After all the original JC only had a dozen hard core followers. This guy
has nearly a hundred.
Xianians seem fond of saying that the followers of the original JC couldn't
be lying about what they saw because the were tortured and killed for it,
and no one would do that unless they were telling the truth. By this
logic then the Waco Jesus must be real because his followers have already
shown that they are willing to die for him. So Xianians has HE come again?
If this guy isn't really Jesus, yet people are have died for him already,
then why couldn't the original JC have been just another deranged religious
fanatic with a strong charasmatic (sp?) streak. All you have is the writing
of these followers. Knowing that people can become so convinced by someone
that he is more that just a man that they will die for him, can you see that
it a very real possibility that same might be true for the original as well.
That fact the Jesus cult of 2000 years ago spread and prospered is no evidence
that it is any more true than the Branch Dividians in Texas. Who knows, in a
couple hundred years the ATF might be cast as the new Satan that persecuted
the one true faith that now represents a new majority religion in the world.
Maybe the last Sunday in will be a new holy day of obligations to
celibrate the day the truely faithful rebuffed the satanous ATF :-)
-Jim
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
James L. Felder |
Sverdrup Technology,Inc. | phone: 216-891-4019
NASA Lewis Research Center |
Cleveland, Ohio 44135 | email: jfe...@lerc.nasa.gov
"Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge, other people gargle"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charley Wingate
>Xianians seem fond of saying that the followers of the original JC couldn't
>be lying about what they saw because the were tortured and killed for it,
>and no one would do that unless they were telling the truth. By this
>logic then the Waco Jesus must be real because his followers have already
>shown that they are willing to die for him. So Xianians has HE come again?
If you would read the bible instead of throwing cheap shots around, you
might find out some answers:
1: You can't predict the second coming.
2: When it *does* happen, you'll know it.
3: Anyone who says they're the christ in the meantime is wrong.
It's not like it takes any great powers of interpretation to get this out of
scripture; it's right there, albeit not quite so bluntly. Some people don't
want to believe it (or maybe they never read these parts), so they get
hooked into these prediction things.
--
C. Wingate + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
+ but strife closed in the sod.
man...@cs.umd.edu + Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe + the marv'lous peace of God."
Richard Meyer
>If you would read the bible instead of throwing cheap shots around, you
>might find out some answers:
>
> 1: You can't predict the second coming.
>
> 2: When it *does* happen, you'll know it.
>
> 3: Anyone who says they're the christ in the meantime is wrong.
>
Wasn't it true though, that when jesus came around the first time, only
a handful of people believed in him (the 12 apostles and a few others)?
So it is certainly possible that if he comes again, only a few people
in his immediate vicinity would be aware, while the rest of the world
sticks to its old beliefs. The original jesus was also forecast in
the scriptures, was he not?
Isn't that what you believe about the jews?
Rich
Robert Knowles
>FROM: Charley Wingate <man...@cs.umd.edu>
>
>James Felder writes:
>
>>Xianians seem fond of saying that the followers of the original JC couldn't
>>be lying about what they saw because the were tortured and killed for it,
>>and no one would do that unless they were telling the truth. By this
>>logic then the Waco Jesus must be real because his followers have already
>>shown that they are willing to die for him. So Xianians has HE come again?
>
>If you would read the bible instead of throwing cheap shots around, you
>might find out some answers:
>
> 1: You can't predict the second coming.
>
> 2: When it *does* happen, you'll know it.
>
> 3: Anyone who says they're the christ in the meantime is wrong.
>
>It's not like it takes any great powers of interpretation to get this out of
>scripture; it's right there, albeit not quite so bluntly. Some people don't
>want to believe it (or maybe they never read these parts), so they get
>hooked into these prediction things.
And the Jews might say the same things about the original Messiah. Seems
that interpretation IS the major problem with religions (with so few hard
facts or tests to rely upon). I guess you "know" that David Koresh is not
talking to God, the same way we "know" that Jesus did not either. It just
doesn't happen. And it is easier to accept miracles 2000 years ago than it
is to accept them happening today isn't it ? (even though Jesus of Waco and
Jesus of Nazareth may have quite a bit in common). It's just harder to start
a new prophetic religion nowadays because people are a little more skeptical.
Do all Christians agree on exactly what will happen when Jesus returns? Do
they all know what things will be like? Or is there a lot of interpretation
involved in this as well?
And surely, you are not claiming that David Koresh does not know his Bible
inside out. A profile of Koresh in March 15, 1993 _People_ magazine says:
Indeed, his mother says that even though he was a poor student in school,
he managed to memorize the New Testament on his own by the time he was 12.
"He would go out in the barn and pray for hours," his mother recalled.
"I've seen him sitting by his bed, on his knees for hours, crying and
praying. Vernon was always a good boy."
Of course, if they had taken his bed out of the barn, he might not have cried
so much (and he might have gotten better grades as well). But I guess the
lure of the manger was too much for the young Jesus of Waco to resist.
Robert Knowles
>FROM: James Felder <spb...@hopper3.lerc.nasa.gov>
>
>My question is why shouldn't we believe that this guy is who he says he is.
>After all the original JC only had a dozen hard core followers. This guy
>has nearly a hundred.
>
In a similar vein, I always wondered why all Christians (and Moslems for
that matter) weren't Mormons. I mean, Joseph Smith was the last person
to get a serious revelation of scripture, wasn't he? How is that any
different from Mohammed or Jesus or any other religious figure? If I
were a believer, I would want the LATEST revelation from God, just in case he
left out a few important points in his earlier stuff. If you do not accept
that God could have left a few things out, then how can you accept Jesus
or Mohammed since they both claimed to be adding on to earlier revelations?
Exactly why do most Christians and Moslems balk at Joseph Smith's revelations?
Millions of Mormons don't. What criteria do they use? Is it just a matter
of birth?
Who knows? A few thousand years and miles may be all that separate Jesus
of Waco from Jesus of Nazareth.
James F. Tims
>
>>DATE: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 15:10:46 GMT
>>FROM: James Felder <spb...@hopper3.lerc.nasa.gov>
>>
>>My question is why shouldn't we believe that this guy is who he says he is.
>>After all the original JC only had a dozen hard core followers. This guy
>>has nearly a hundred.
>>
>
>In a similar vein, I always wondered why all Christians (and Moslems for
>that matter) weren't Mormons. I mean, Joseph Smith was the last person
>to get a serious revelation of scripture, wasn't he? How is that any
How about Haili Selasi?
-jim
Brian Cash
<p00...@psilink.com> writes:
|>>DATE: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 15:10:46 GMT
|>>FROM: James Felder <spb...@hopper3.lerc.nasa.gov>
|>>
|>>My question is why shouldn't we believe that this guy is who he says he is.
|>>After all the original JC only had a dozen hard core followers. This guy
|>>has nearly a hundred.
|>>
|>
|>In a similar vein, I always wondered why all Christians (and Moslems for
|>that matter) weren't Mormons. I mean, Joseph Smith was the last person
|>to get a serious revelation of scripture, wasn't he? How is that any
|>different from Mohammed or Jesus or any other religious figure? If I
|>were a believer, I would want the LATEST revelation from God, just in case he
|>left out a few important points in his earlier stuff.
|>
Maybe they didn't want to pay the $50 upgrade cost?
Bible 5.0, due to be released this fall!
:)
Brian /-|-\
F. Karner
> >FROM: James Felder <spb...@hopper3.lerc.nasa.gov>
> >
> >My question is why shouldn't we believe that this guy is who he says he is.
> >After all the original JC only had a dozen hard core followers. This guy
> >has nearly a hundred.
>
> Who knows? A few thousand years and miles may be all that separate Jesus
> of Waco from Jesus of Nazareth.
>
>
believer than (s)he who wants to believe.
There is no logic involved, no verification, etc., just faith...
--
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine
solely and do not represent my employer in any way.
F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | kar...@austin.vnet.ibm.com
James Felder
>
>>Xianians seem fond of saying that the followers of the original JC couldn't
>>be lying about what they saw because the were tortured and killed for it,
>>and no one would do that unless they were telling the truth. By this
>>logic then the Waco Jesus must be real because his followers have already
>>shown that they are willing to die for him. So Xianians has HE come again?
>
>If you would read the bible instead of throwing cheap shots around, you
>might find out some answers:
I tried, really. But I made the mistake of starting at the beginning where
it went from silly (Genesis) to gruesome (Dueteronomy), at which point my
stomach gave out on me. I have recently started on the NT. Maybe that will
be better, jury's still out.
But I do resent being told to read your particular fable to get answers.
I haven't the time to read every religious fable that is floating around.
In my opinion it is up to the followers of the myth to prove to me that it is
anything more than a myth. It is then up to me to make a personal decision
concerning the evidence or arguments presented. So, If you have some hard
evidence, or clear and convincing arguments, then I would sincerly like to
hear them. I won't hold my breath, because nearly everyday this request
is made in this group to theists and thus far I have seen very few that
come back with anything that doesn't involve circular reasoning (it says
so in the bible!), or appeals to authority, or special pleading. Speaking
of special pleading.
What does get tossed out for evidence is a lot of *special pleading*
type aurguments, like the one I was taking a shot at (cheap is in the
eye of the beholder). I have seen a number of Christians say that everything
in the NT just *has* to be true because the disciples were martyred, and
no one would be willingly martyred for a cause they knew was false. Therefore,
since they were martyred (assuming the NT does indeed record historical events)
then all their disciptions of supernatural events must be true.
I was bringing up an example of a current event that shows that people will
die for anyone they believe in strongly enough, regardless of the truth of
their beliefs. So if one of the basis for your belief is that the NT is
true because people were willing to die before renouncing it, then that same
logic leads one to conclude that the claims of divinity made by David Keresh
(sp?) must have some validity because people have died, and may yet die,
rather than renounce him and his claims.
>
> 1: You can't predict the second coming.
>
> 2: When it *does* happen, you'll know it.
>
> 3: Anyone who says they're the christ in the meantime is wrong.
>
>It's not like it takes any great powers of interpretation to get this out of
>scripture; it's right there, albeit not quite so bluntly. Some people don't
>want to believe it (or maybe they never read these parts), so they get
>hooked into these prediction things.
Seriously, how will we know? If the second coming is anything like the
first, then most of us won't know. After all only a handful "knew" the first
time. Number 3 indicates that if the second coming is as splashy as the first,
then Christ will be reject when he comes again, because it will be just a man
who claims to be Christ v2.0, yet we are warned against false prophets who will
be just men (sorry ladies need not apply). Kind of sounds like a real nice
tight catch-22 you all have set up here. Good luck getting out of it.
>--
>C. Wingate + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
-Jim
jbr...@batman.bmd.trw.com
> In article <64...@mimsy.umd.edu> man...@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>>James Felder writes:
I've been too busy recently to post much, but I just couldn't let this one
pass. I'm even doing this one interactively no less! (What a chore!) :)
>>
>>>Xianians seem fond of saying that the followers of the original JC couldn't
>>>be lying about what they saw because the were tortured and killed for it,
>>>and no one would do that unless they were telling the truth. By this
>>>logic then the Waco Jesus must be real because his followers have already
>>>shown that they are willing to die for him. So Xianians has HE come again?
No!! I'll explain below after a few more of your comments.
[...]
> ... So, If you have some hard
> evidence, or clear and convincing arguments, then I would sincerly like to
> hear them. I won't hold my breath, because nearly everyday this request
> is made in this group to theists and thus far I have seen very few that
> come back with anything that doesn't involve circular reasoning (it says
> so in the bible!), or appeals to authority, or special pleading. Speaking
> of special pleading.
>
> What does get tossed out for evidence is a lot of *special pleading*
> type aurguments, like the one I was taking a shot at (cheap is in the
> eye of the beholder). I have seen a number of Christians say that
> everything in the NT just *has* to be true because the disciples were
> martyred, and no one would be willingly martyred for a cause they knew
> was false. Therefore, since they were martyred (assuming the NT does
> indeed record historical events) then all their disciptions of
> supernatural events must be true.
>
> I was bringing up an example of a current event that shows that people
> will die for anyone they believe in strongly enough, regardless of the
> truth of their beliefs. So if one of the basis for your belief is that
> the NT is true because people were willing to die before renouncing it,
> then that same logic leads one to conclude that the claims of divinity
> made by David Keresh (sp?) must have some validity because people have
> died, and may yet die, rather than renounce him and his claims.
OK, let me explain why the martyrdom argument is not:
1. special pleading,
2. analogous to the David Koresh / Jim Jones phenomenae,
3. a validation of the apostles belief or faith.
1. Why the martyrdom argument is not special pleading.
Special pleading, if I understand the term correctly (and please correct
me if I'm wrong) means that one asserts that something *has* to be true
because they can't imagine the converse being true. It's a resort to
incredulity. For example, "The Bible *has* to be true because the
apostles *couldn't* have lied." Now if there is no good reason why the
apostles couldn't have lied, then the argument resorts to special pleading.
This is my understanding of the term. If I'm wrong, I'll revise my
comments accordingly.
First, I'll admit that if a person believes in a Cause or holds a belief
strongly enough, he or she might decide to die for it, even if the belief
is wrong or misplaced. But consider that the person sacrificing him/herself
does not realize that the belief or motivation is wrong. A person may believe
that Jim Jones or David Koresh is the Messiah reincarnated, and they might
follow the "Messiah" to a tragic end, but they do not *know* (or haven't
accepted) the fact that they are in error.
Imagine, however, someone dying for something they *know* for a fact is
wrong. I can't imagine it because it's not human nature to give up one's
life for a false cause. But perhaps there is someone, or a few idiots
who might do so. But choose a dozen or more ordinary people, tell them
that something is true when its not, and provide clear evidence to the
contrary, and see how many of them are willing to sacrifice *anything*,
especially their lives, in order to hold to such a "truth". You will,
I bet, have 11+ deserters who quickly deny that "truth".
Now in the case of the apostles, 5 or 6 of whom were New Testament writers,
they did not testify that they merely *believed* that Jesus was the Messiah
(God incarnate), they testified that they saw Him alive, spoke with Him and
ate with Him, after His crucifixion. They did not state this as a belief,
but as a *fact*. As a fact it is either right or wrong. Either Jesus
was resurrected, or He was not. If He did not rise from the dead, then
the apostles lied when they wrote of the post resurrection appearances
of Jesus, they knew that they lied, and they died for what they knew to
be a lie. Not one of them recanted or denied their knowledge of the
resurrection or their corresponding belief that Jesus was the Christ.
If it had all been a hoax, then human nature and statistics indicates
that at least one of the apostles would have admitted the hoax to save
his life. And the Jewish leaders, and the Romans after them, would have
used such an admission as an effective propaganda tool to discourage
would-be believers from the new religion.
2. This situation as just described is fundamentally different from
instances of would-be Messiahs like J. Jones, D. Koresh, or S. Moon.
People who believe in these "Messiahs" believe in them on the basis
of blind faith alone. There are no miracles or resurrections to
validate their claims. Devotees may indeed follow them to death, but
they follow based on *belief* and not on *experience*. The apostles
*experienced* the risen Christ, or so they claimed; so their situation
is entirely different. Their belief in Jesus as being the Christ was
based on their experiences of Him, His miracles and His post-resurrection
appearances. As Peter contends in his epistle (2 Peter 1:16), "For we
did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the
power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of
His majesty." For Peter to contend such a thing while knowing it to
be false, and then to be willingly crucified for such a lie, would be
utter folly -- likewise with the other apostles and the 500 disciples that
saw the risen Lord as Paul (who himself came to faith through a personal
revelation of the risen Christ) claimed. Far more folly than that
exemplified by the followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh, though
they were/are quite foolish in their own right.
3. And finally, the martyrdom of the apostles does not validate their
belief in Jesus as the Christ, but rather their testimony of the eye
witness experiences they claimed to have had. This has been alluded to
above, but just to reiterate the point, the apostles did not die simply
because they refused to repudiate a belief they held, rather, they died
because they refused to deny the experiences which they testified to
upon which their belief was based. One cannot read the NT accounts and
simply gloss over or discount the apostles' testimony out of hand. Not
if one understands human behavior and motivation. God allowed the
apostles to be tortured and killed for the gospel to validate their
testimony of their experiences of Christ, not just their belief in Christ.
This was for the benefit of future generations, so that no one could say
that they were simply a bunch of gullible men who held to a harmless
irrational belief until they died of old age. No, the persecution coupled
with the desire to live ensured that their testimony could not be so
mistaken. One must either accept it as true, or one must imagine an
elaborate hoax, for which there is not one shred of tangible evidence.
>>
>> 1: You can't predict the second coming.
>>
>> 2: When it *does* happen, you'll know it.
>>
>> 3: Anyone who says they're the christ in the meantime is wrong.
>>
>>It's not like it takes any great powers of interpretation to get this
>>out of scripture; it's right there, albeit not quite so bluntly. Some
>>people don't want to believe it (or maybe they never read these parts),
>>so they get hooked into these prediction things.
>
> Seriously, how will we know? If the second coming is anything like the
> first, then most of us won't know. After all only a handful "knew" the
> first time. Number 3 indicates that if the second coming is as splashy
> as the first, then Christ will be reject when he comes again, because
> it will be just a man who claims to be Christ v2.0, yet we are warned
> against false prophets who will be just men (sorry ladies need not apply).
> Kind of sounds like a real nice tight catch-22 you all have set up here.
> Good luck getting out of it.
>
>>--
>>C. Wingate + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
>
> -Jim
>
No, when Christ returns, it won't be as an ordinary man, but as the Lord,
in power and great glory, coming in the clouds of heaven. There won't be
any mistaking Him, for the scripture claims that the entire world will
know and will mourn. He won't come to convince you, but to judge you.
No one who has claimed to be the Messiah has lived up to this quite
difficult requirement, so Christians need not be bamboozled by any
would-be Messiahs. If the Messiah is not one who comes in the air
with great power and without the aid of any external devices, then
he's not the Messiah. Period. No, the second coming won't be anything
like the first.
Regards,
Jim B.
please send comments and replies to Jim_...@oz.bmd.trw.com
since I can't read a.a. every day. Thanks.
Jim Perry
>OK, let me explain why the martyrdom argument is not:
>
> 1. special pleading,
> 2. analogous to the David Koresh / Jim Jones phenomenae,
> 3. a validation of the apostles belief or faith.
>
>1. Why the martyrdom argument is not special pleading.
Special pleading as I understand it is presenting arguments for your
position that you wouldn't accept in favor of someone else, e.g.
asserting that the apostles' martyrdom qualifies as evidence for
Christianity, when you wouldn't accept the martyrdom of Jones/Koresh
followers.
>Imagine, however, someone dying for something they *know* for a fact is
>wrong.[...]
>Now in the case of the apostles, 5 or 6 of whom were New Testament writers,
>they did not testify that they merely *believed* that Jesus was the Messiah
>(God incarnate), they testified that they saw Him alive, spoke with Him and
>ate with Him, after His crucifixion.
This is not as clear as all that; the gospel accounts are not
decisive, and in any event do not constitute "testimony" of the
apostles.
> Not one of them recanted or denied their knowledge of the
>resurrection or their corresponding belief that Jesus was the Christ.
We don't know this; we have no records of the death of the apostles,
nor evidence that they were given a chance to live if they recanted
their beliefs. There are traditions, of course, but for all we *know*
Peter was dragged screaming into the arena, or lived out a happy life
in Southern France.
>2. This situation as just described is fundamentally different from
>instances of would-be Messiahs like J. Jones, D. Koresh, or S. Moon.
>People who believe in these "Messiahs" believe in them on the basis
>of blind faith alone. There are no miracles or resurrections to
>validate their claims. Devotees may indeed follow them to death, but
>they follow based on *belief* and not on *experience*.
Not so. Jim Jones was indeed a miracle worker, specializing in
healings, pretty spectacular ones too, such as removing cancer tumors
right through the lucky sufferer's mouth. I don't know if Koresh does
tricks, but his followers are most impressed with his biblical wisdom
and scriptural knowledge... Besides, all this says is that the
apostles (apparently) had faith that they had experienced the risen
Jesus, not that they really did. If one can die for blind faith that
someone is God, why not for blind faith that someone appeared to them
after death? The gospel accounts of what actually happened are pretty
vague.
Another factor to be considered is the status of Jones/Koresh et al --
do we think that they *really* believed they were who they said they
were, or was it a hoax? If the latter, Jones at least was "willing to
die for a hoax", taking his followers with him, when the doodoo hit
the fan.
>God allowed the
>apostles to be tortured and killed for the gospel to validate their
>testimony of their experiences of Christ, not just their belief in Christ.
>This was for the benefit of future generations[...]
(Nice guy, but he sure moves in mysterious ways...)
It's too bad, then, isn't it, that God somehow managed to lose any
record of the actual deaths of the apostles, so we'd know that these
weren't just fables made up long after the fact. Oh well, I guess we
all screw up sometimes.
>please send comments and replies to Jim_...@oz.bmd.trw.com
OK.
--
Jim Perry pe...@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615
Does anyone know where David Koresh was born?
Brian Ceccarelli
----------------
br...@gamma1.lpl.arizona.edu
Ed McCreary
BC6> Does anyone know where David Koresh was born?
I hate to say it, but I think he was born here in Houston. Possibly
Dallas, I know he lived there for a spell. I know that his grandmother
still lives here though.
--
Ed McCreary ,__o
e...@gocart.eng.hou.compaq.com _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao." (*)/'(*)
Robert Beauchaine
>
>Does anyone know where David Koresh was born?
>
I believe Bethlehem. Something about a manger rings a bell, too.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bo...@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
James Felder
that I follow this group to read. Theist, take note, this is how to discuss
the issues without resorting to insults or flamebait.
My newsreader lops off most of the header, so I don't always see who is
writing the post. The start of the message had me thinking it was Wingate,
and I was wondering if he had undergone a personality transplant, and had
also check the box next to the logic option when ordering his new personality
:-O
A couple of points I would like some additional information about.
In article <1993Mar18....@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbr...@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>In article <1993Mar16.2...@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, spb...@hopper3.lerc.nasa.gov (James Felder) writes:
>Imagine, however, someone dying for something they *know* for a fact is
>wrong. I can't imagine it because it's not human nature to give up one's
>life for a false cause.
Good point.
>
>Now in the case of the apostles, 5 or 6 of whom were New Testament writers,
>they did not testify that they merely *believed* that Jesus was the Messiah
>(God incarnate), they testified that they saw Him alive, spoke with Him and
>ate with Him, after His crucifixion. They did not state this as a belief,
>but as a *fact*. As a fact it is either right or wrong. Either Jesus
>was resurrected, or He was not. If He did not rise from the dead, then
>the apostles lied when they wrote of the post resurrection appearances
>of Jesus, they knew that they lied, and they died for what they knew to
>be a lie. Not one of them recanted or denied their knowledge of the
>resurrection or their corresponding belief that Jesus was the Christ.
>If it had all been a hoax, then human nature and statistics indicates
>that at least one of the apostles would have admitted the hoax to save
>his life. And the Jewish leaders, and the Romans after them, would have
>used such an admission as an effective propaganda tool to discourage
>would-be believers from the new religion.
A biblical scholar I am not, but I have seen a number of postings saying that
,even amongst Christians, it is believed that the original apostles did not
write the gospels. Rather they were written in the 70-125 A.D. timeframe,
and that they were written by people who had no first hand knowledge of
the events.
IF the gospels were written considerably after the fact, and not written by
the original apostles, I can see plenty of
opportunity for revision in the original accounts. Especially as the early
church was under persecution by nearly everyone. I don't think it is
incredable to imagine that the divinity of Jesus was inflated by the early
followers. I seem to remember reading that followers of hero figures
attribute more and more feats to their hero as time goes along (sorry, no Ref.)
One example of this is the Mormons. They fit the model of the persecuted early
church (they even have their Paul in Brigham Young who revised much of
Mormonism to fit his notions of what it should be). The heroic Josheph Smith
reading the gold tablets given to him by angels is being shown to be a
considerable inflation of the early writings of Smith which is coming to light
which says that he was given the tablets by a salamander. Now grounding your
faith on the say so of a salamander probably didn't sit to well, especially if
you are being persecuted for it, so it became tablets from angels.
I can envision a similar situation in the early Christian church, also heavily
persecuted. Under heavy persecution, Jesus, the rabinical prophet, became Jesus
the messiah. One indication I can think of, and maybe other can add more, is
one of the gospels talking about the dead walking about the streets, when no
Roman or Jewish sources mention this. This looks like a clear case of
bravado. Let me try to anticipate one objection, why would anyone make this
claim even 100 years after the fact, when the readers could simply ask
someone in Jerusalem. Well after the distruction of the temple, my understanding
is that Christianity was a gentile religion. There not being regularly
schedules shuttle flights to Jerusalem at the time, I don't think that such
claims would be that easy to check.
If, however, the gospels were written directly by the first apostles, then
you have made a very good point. I would have a hard time believing that
anyone would die rather than say that Jesus didn't really rise from the dead.
>Jim B.
>please send comments and replies to Jim_...@oz.bmd.trw.com
>since I can't read a.a. every day. Thanks.
Thanks again, please keep posting, this group needs more responses like
yours.
Charley Wingate
>A biblical scholar I am not, but I have seen a number of postings saying
>that, even amongst Christians, it is believed that the original apostles did
>not write the gospels. Rather they were written in the 70-125 A.D.
>timeframe, and that they were written by people who had no first hand
>knowledge of the events.
This remains a point of dispute. The usual argument, reduced to its
essentials, is:
Luke and Matthew are obviously based on Mark. Mark does not predict the
fall of Jerusalem (which happened in CE 70), whereas the other two do;
therefore they must fall after CE 70 and Mark before [a typical date for
Mark is ca. CE 65]. John must be much later because of its theological
considerations; it's not primitive enough.
This is basically the stock argument of the middle part of the century.
However, there are two very obvious holes:
(1) Earlier manuscripts of John have been discovered.
(2) The argument about Luke and Matthew presumes that "accurate"
predictions are made after the fact. Some have argued that
INaccuracies in the predictions show that they must predate CE 70.
If one goes into the epistles, the situation is much different. People have
argued for years as to which of the letters attributed to Paul are actually
of his authorship; in the case of the two letters of Peter, it is obvious
even in translation that they are of different authors. If one assumes that
I Peter is authored by the apostle (which would be consistent with its
rather crude style and diction), then it is the earliest document we have.
Moreover, it mentions Mark as a companion. Mark therefore becomes a single
step removed from the events. Luke's apparent association with Paul puts
him slightly further removed.
In most of the theories, the gospels come from a time when the apostles-- the
original witnesses-- were being lost to persecutions. (This covers a period
of at least a decade, it should be noted.) This clearly creates a need to
write it all down. One apparently has the previous generation speaking to
the next, with John possibly representing a transition between the two.
(Some people hold out for very late dates-- CE 90 for Mark, and so forth.
These seem really weak and do not represent the main consensus. Manuscripts
are starting to make these less and less tenable.)
It might be pointed out that the most clear claims to divinity by Jesus
appear in what is supposed to be the oldest gospel. When the chief priests
ask Jesus if he is the son of God, in Mark he says "I am", but in Matthew and
Luke he says "You say that I am".
As far as Joseph Smith is concerned, BTW, isn't it the case that it is HE
who changed the story over the years?
--
C. Wingate + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
Benedikt Rosenau
man...@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>>A biblical scholar I am not, but I have seen a number of postings saying
>>that, even amongst Christians, it is believed that the original apostles did
>>not write the gospels. Rather they were written in the 70-125 A.D.
>>timeframe, and that they were written by people who had no first hand
>>knowledge of the events.
>
>This remains a point of dispute. The usual argument, reduced to its
>essentials, is:
>
> Luke and Matthew are obviously based on Mark. Mark does not predict the
> fall of Jerusalem (which happened in CE 70), whereas the other two do;
> therefore they must fall after CE 70 and Mark before [a typical date for
> Mark is ca. CE 65]. John must be much later because of its theological
> considerations; it's not primitive enough.
>
There is some evidence that he must have known Luke, and that the content
of Q was known to him, but not in a 'canonized' form. This can be argued
both ways, like he knew from a time before it was given an official wording,
or that he knew only second hand accounts of it.
Assuming that he knew Luke would obviously put him after Luke, and would
give evidence for the latter assumption.
>This is basically the stock argument of the middle part of the century.
>However, there are two very obvious holes:
>
>(1) Earlier manuscripts of John have been discovered.
>
>(2) The argument about Luke and Matthew presumes that "accurate"
> predictions are made after the fact. Some have argued that
> INaccuracies in the predictions show that they must predate CE 70.
>
>If one goes into the epistles, the situation is much different. People have
>argued for years as to which of the letters attributed to Paul are actually
>of his authorship; in the case of the two letters of Peter, it is obvious
>even in translation that they are of different authors. If one assumes that
>I Peter is authored by the apostle (which would be consistent with its
>rather crude style and diction), then it is the earliest document we have.
>Moreover, it mentions Mark as a companion. Mark therefore becomes a single
>step removed from the events. Luke's apparent association with Paul puts
>him slightly further removed.
>
hand knowledge of the events, and it obvious that at least two of them used
older texts as the base of their account. And even the association of Luke to
Paul or Mark to Peter are not generally accepted.
>In most of the theories, the gospels come from a time when the apostles-- the
>original witnesses-- were being lost to persecutions. (This covers a period
>of at least a decade, it should be noted.) This clearly creates a need to
>write it all down. One apparently has the previous generation speaking to
>the next, with John possibly representing a transition between the two.
>(Some people hold out for very late dates-- CE 90 for Mark, and so forth.
>These seem really weak and do not represent the main consensus. Manuscripts
>are starting to make these less and less tenable.)
>
>It might be pointed out that the most clear claims to divinity by Jesus
>appear in what is supposed to be the oldest gospel. When the chief priests
>ask Jesus if he is the son of God, in Mark he says "I am", but in Matthew and
>Luke he says "You say that I am".
>
manuscripts? To my knowledge (which can be antiquated) the oldest is
quite after any of these estimates, and it is not even complete.
Benedikt
The One and Only
>In article <65...@mimsy.umd.edu>
>man...@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
Darn, and I thought this thread was about a new TV game show...
JC
--
Have you washed your brain today?
Bill Conner
:
: It is also obvious that Mark has been edited. How old are the oldest
: manuscripts? To my knowledge (which can be antiquated) the oldest is
: quite after any of these estimates, and it is not even complete.
: Benedikt
Benedikt,
It might be worthwhile to ask also, are there -any- documents dating
from the first century extant? Virtually the entire corpus of knowledge of
that time (and before obviously) is in the form of copies of copies.
Another point is that, unlike this generation, the ancients didn't
commit their every thought, deed or bowel movement to writing; there
was no mass media. To expect to find empirical evidence of -anyone-
existing in that time is a little much. That there is a lack of
documentation for the existence of any Biblical personality isn't
surprising when you consider that there is no documentation for any
non-Biblical persons either.
Bill
Keith M. Ryan
Ah, but no one is claiming that the Illiad is the word of God.
err.. well, not many =)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With a God like that, who needs the Devil?
Jon Livesey
Lack of evidence for X means we can accept a lower standard
of proof for Y?
jon.
Benedikt Rosenau
>from the first century extant? Virtually the entire corpus of knowledge of
>that time (and before obviously) is in the form of copies of copies.
There are quite a lot of manuscripts, inscripts, etc, that are even older.
>To expect to find empirical evidence of -anyone-
>existing in that time is a little much. That there is a lack of
>documentation for the existence of any Biblical personality isn't
>surprising when you consider that there is no documentation for any
>non-Biblical persons either.
>
Benedikt
Peter Walker
>
[whatever]
>
> Bill
He's baaaaaaack!
Peter W. Walker "Yu, shall I tell you what knowledge is? When
Dept. of Space Physics you know a thing, say that you know it. When
and Astronomy you do not know a thing, admit you do not know
Rice University it. This is knowledge."
Houston, TX - K'ung-fu Tzu
Jon Livesey
|> In article <C4s5n...@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>
|> b...@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
|>
|> >
|> >It might be worthwhile to ask also, are there -any- documents dating
|> >from the first century extant? Virtually the entire corpus of knowledge of
|> >that time (and before obviously) is in the form of copies of copies.
|>
|> Nope. Think of Qumran.
|>
|> There are quite a lot of manuscripts, inscripts, etc, that are even older.
My Sunday Paper this week had an article suggesting that the Dead Sea
Scrolls are much later than commonly supposed. Perhaps medieval.
Did anyone else see that?
jon.
Bill Conner
: Ah, but no one is claiming that the Illiad is the word of God.
:
:
: err.. well, not many =)
:
Keith,
The point is the historicity of the Bible, not its consequences.
Bill
Bill Conner
:
: Lack of evidence for X means we can accept a lower standard
: of proof for Y?
:
Jon,
If the same standards of evidence are used to determine existence of
Socrates, then he didn't exist either. What the real objection comes
down to is not the historical accuracy of the Bible, or to any
individual mentioned therein, the whole discussion centers around the
affects of the Biblical claims. If they are true then your atheism is
mistaken, and it is on that basis that the Bible is criticized.
Bill
Bill Conner
: >To expect to find empirical evidence of -anyone-
: >existing in that time is a little much. That there is a lack of
: >documentation for the existence of any Biblical personality isn't
: >surprising when you consider that there is no documentation for any
: >non-Biblical persons either.
: >
:
: Either I can't make any sense out of this paragraph or it is wrong.
: Benedikt
Benedikt,
In what way does the above paragraph confuse you? Secular historians
accept the existence of people, places, things and events with far
less "evidence" than is available for those mentioned in the NT. I've
always thought it kind of interesting that Egyptologists have
constructed the bulk of pre-Ptolemaic Egyptian history based on the
hear-say evidence of Manetho (who may have never existed), and yet
all the while denouncing him as an unreliable source (possilby
fictional).
There is very little trustworthy history of the first century with
what little there is being heavily skewed by modern bias; there is
just no solid basis for historical criticism. Of course if you have an
axe to grind, then the first century is conveniently malleable.
Bill
Keith M. Ryan
Wild and fanciful claims require greater evidence. If you state that
one of the books in your room is blue, I certainly do not need as much
evidence to believe than if you were to claim that there is a two headed
leapard in your bed. [ and I don't mean a male lover in a leotard! ]
The existance of Socrates makes no wild claims of the state of
affair. A normal man who existed. We know of many many normel men who have
existed. Sure, we still have to be careful. But, we need not suspend any
rationality, and/or logic in believing his existance.
The "historical events" as described in the bible, make a much
greater claim. Not only did a man exist, he has supernatual powers X, Y and
Z. We must suspend the normal rules of logic to allow his existance.
---
"If that's my prayerbook
Lord let us pray!"
David Wood
b...@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>If the same standards of evidence are used to determine existence of
>Socrates, then he didn't exist either. What the real objection comes
>down to is not the historical accuracy of the Bible, or to any
>individual mentioned therein, the whole discussion centers around the
>affects of the Biblical claims. If they are true then your atheism is
>mistaken, and it is on that basis that the Bible is criticized.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Repeat it. Write it down 1000 times. Internalize it.
If it still doesn't work for you, there is a Messiah in Waco who will
accept you with open arms.
--Dave Wood
Jim Perry
>Socrates, then he didn't exist either.
We know that our information about Socrates is limited to the
depictions in Xenophon and Plato, and that the depiction in Plato, and
thus our understanding of him, is almost certainly fictionalized to
some extent. He probably existed, but he probably didn't say exactly
the things we think he said.
>What the real objection comes
>down to is not the historical accuracy of the Bible, or to any
>individual mentioned therein, the whole discussion centers around the
>affects of the Biblical claims. If they are true then your atheism is
>mistaken, and it is on that basis that the Bible is criticized.
The Bible says there is a God; if that is true then our atheism is
mistaken. What of it? Seems pretty obvious to me. Socrates said
there were many gods; if that is true then your monotheism (and our
atheism) is mistaken, even if Socrates never existed.
Jon Livesey
What do you mean by 'historicity?' Be precise.
jon.
Jon Livesey
Why don't you just answer the question? Are you arguing that
we should accept the historial accuracy - whatever that really
means - of the Bible on lesser evidence?
What does it matter if we have strong evidence of the existence
of Socrates, weak evidence, or no evidence at all?
jon.
Jon Livesey
So what? Are you arguing that we should accept X on inadequate
evidence just because some people accept Y - if they really do -
on inadequate evidence?
jon.
Robert Knowles
>FROM: Jon Livesey <liv...@solntze.wpd.sgi.com>
If people want to spin tales about what happened in pre-Ptolemaic Egypt
based on the hear-say evidence of someone who may never have existed, that
is surely their problem. If they ask us to believe in Egyptian gods based
on hear-say evidence of someone who may never have existed, they just cannot
be taken very seriously.
Benedikt Rosenau
b...@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>: >To expect to find empirical evidence of -anyone-
>: >existing in that time is a little much. That there is a lack of
>: >documentation for the existence of any Biblical personality isn't
>: >surprising when you consider that there is no documentation for any
>: >non-Biblical persons either.
>: >
non-Biblical persons either. It is not my problem that you word it
badly. Or that you make wrong claims about the evidence we have
about that time.
(Deletion)
>
>There is very little trustworthy history of the first century with
>what little there is being heavily skewed by modern bias; there is
>just no solid basis for historical criticism. Of course if you have an
>axe to grind, then the first century is conveniently malleable.
>
than that Jesus guy. And I am afraid you're barking up the wrong tree,
I think the stories tradited refer to a person that actually lived.
The point in the discussion is that the reference of the bible is skewed,
as you admit here as well, so badly skewed in fact that it does not allow
to call anything in the NT evidence for the claims further connected with
the Jesus guy. Many Christians conveniently ignore this. It is quite easy
to get them thinking with the demand that they'd give evidence for that
Jesus is not a myth anyway.
Benedikt
Jon Livesey
|>
|> Jon,
|>
|> If the same standards of evidence are used to determine existence of
|> Socrates, then he didn't exist either.
I already answered this posting, but something about it nagged
at me. Do scholars think Plato's Socrates existed or not?
So this morning I hied me down to the bookstore, and dug out
various editions. Guess what. The very first one said
"It is unknown whether Socrates was a historical person, or
a theatrical creation of Plato".
On reading about half a dozen editors' I think that the
scholarly concensus - if that's not an oxymoron - is that
someone called Socrates may well have existed, but that it
is pretty unlikely that Plato was writing his biography.
In fact, it seems that it's just as likely that Socrates
was a person that many people admired after his death, and
so he was a convenient protagonist or vehicle for Plato's
own teachings.
So I think Mr Conner is hoist with his own petard. If he
really wants us to apply the same standards to Jesus as to
Socrates, then we would probably say that someone of the
name of Jesus may have, but not certainly, existed, but we
don't know if he said or did the things attributed to him.
In fact, it's just as likely that he was a popular folkloric
figure that the Gospel writers found convenient as a vehicle
for their own ideas.
jon.
Charley Wingate
> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
I think that's an extraordinary claim. Where's the extraordinary evidence?
:-)
More seriously, this is just a high-falutin' way of saying "I don't believe
what you're saying".
Also, the existence if Jesus is not an extradinary claim. You may want to
complain that the miracles attributed to him do constitute such claims (and
I won't argue otherwise), but that is a different issue.
Keith M. Ryan
>> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
>
>I think that's an extraordinary claim. Where's the extraordinary evidence?
>
>:-)
>
>More seriously, this is just a high-falutin' way of saying "I don't believe
>what you're saying".
So then, you require the same amount of evidence to believe that I
a) own a pair of bluejeans and b) have superhuman powers?
Assignment for the reader: why does one not need the same level of
evidence to verify both of the above claims?
>Also, the existence if Jesus is not an extradinary claim. You may want to
>complain that the miracles attributed to him do constitute such claims (and
>I won't argue otherwise), but that is a different issue.
When you say the "existence of [ sic ] Jesus", I assume that you
mean just the man, without any special powers, etc.
Many will agree that it is very possible that a man called Jesus DID
in fact live. In fact, I am willing to agree that there was some man named
Jesus. I have no reason to believe that there wasn't ever a man.
However, most of the claims ARE extradinary: eg virgin birth
[ virgin in the sense of not having any sexual intercourse ], resurection,
Son of God, etc. THOSE claims require extra evidence.
I think you are building a strawman.
---------------
"In a dark episode of Quebec's postwar history, as many as 8,000
children were FALSELY DECLARED MENTALLY RETARDED, and many of them
were then MENTALLY, PHYSICALLY and SEXUALLY ABUSED BY THE NUNS
who ran the orphanages where they liveed, according to hundreds of
people who have publically said they were victums of the abuse.
The alleged misdeeds occured in the 1940's '50s, when the
Roman Catholic Church dominated the educational and social systems
of Canada's French-speaking province, and they remained a virtual
secret for nearly 40 years."
"It was March 18, 1955. He was 12, sitting in his classrom in Mont
Providence, a massive red-brick institution north of Montreal. Shortly
after 11 a.m, he said, a nun strode into the room, stood before the
class and said the words that would change his life: "FROM THIS DAY
ON, YOU ARE MENTALLY RETARED[ IN THE EYES OF GOD]"
Herve Betrand and thousands of other boys and girls through
out the province, would speand up to 100 hours a week scrubbing
floors, painting walls, washing laundry and dishes, cooking food -
noodles for the children, filet mignon for the nuns - and doing other
menial tasks. They also, according to some of their allegations in
the lawsuits, would be BEATEN, WHIPPED, tied to beds, dumped into
icy baths, placed in straightjackets, given ELECTROSHOCK THERAPY,
SEXUALLY ABUSED"
"The punishment for bedwetting, [ in the Roman Catholic Church
orphanage in Montreal ] Le Coq said, took place in the chapel. The
offending boys were brought in and lined up against the wall -toes
to the molding, heads to the wall. Then, they were ordered to BEAT
their HEADS against the WALL, and kick their feet against the wall,
usually until BLOOD came. "
"One night when she was about 12, Cascon said, she got out of her
bed to go to the bathroom. Her barefoot landed on a mouse, or a rat
and she screamed. The other 54 girls in the room woke up, screaming
too. The nun who supervised her group ordered Gascon to undress, and
put a STRAIGHT-JACKET on her. Then she took the mattress off Gascon's
bed and told her to lie down on the metal slats. She tied her there,
then put a pan on the floor underneath to catch the girl's waste.
Yvette Gascon remained on that bed for a month."
"Le Coq said a nun once called him into her room and undressed them
both. "You are a beautiful boy," she said. She FONDLED him and told
him to fondle her.** "
- Washington Post
** Pedophilia: n ( ca. 1906 ) : sexual perversion in which children
are the preferred sexual object.
Robert Knowles
>FROM: Keith M. Ryan <km...@po.CWRU.edu>
>
>In article <65...@mimsy.umd.edu> man...@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>
>>> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
>>
>>I think that's an extraordinary claim. Where's the extraordinary evidence?
>>
>>:-)
>>
>>More seriously, this is just a high-falutin' way of saying "I don't believe
>>what you're saying".
>
> So then, you require the same amount of evidence to believe that I
>a) own a pair of bluejeans and b) have superhuman powers?
>
> Assignment for the reader: why does one not need the same level of
>evidence to verify both of the above claims?
>
DUH. Maybe the consequences of the claim? Of course, in some countries,
owning a pair of bluejeans could be proof of superhuman powers. Does that
count?
Stilgar
: Ah, but no one is claiming that the Illiad is the word of God.
:
I've done it before...
THE ILLIAD IS THE UNDISPUTED WORD OF GOD(tm) *prove me wrong*
Brian West
--
THIS IS NOT A SIG FILE * -"To the Earth, we have been
THIS IS NOT A SIG FILE * here but for the blink of an
OK, SO IT'S A SIG FILE * eye, if we were gone tomorrow,
posted by we...@wam.umd.edu * we would not be missed."-
who doesn't care who knows it. * (Jurassic Park)
** DICLAIMER: I said this, I meant this, nobody made me do it.**
Keith M. Ryan
>THE ILLIAD IS THE UNDISPUTED WORD OF GOD(tm) *prove me wrong*
I dispute it.
Ergo: by counter-example: you are proven wrong.
Have a nice day.
---
"One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that
say "Mom", because of the love of their mom. It makes for more
virile men."
Bobby Mozumder ( snm...@ultb.isc.rit.edu )
April 4, 1993
The one TRUE Muslim left in the world.
Charley Wingate
>Well, John has a quite different, not necessarily more elaborated theology.
>There is some evidence that he must have known Luke, and that the content
>of Q was known to him, but not in a 'canonized' form.
This is a new argument to me. Could you elaborate a little?
>Assuming that he knew Luke would obviously put him after Luke, and would
>give evidence for the latter assumption.
I don't think this follows. If you take the most traditional attributions,
then Luke might have known John, but John is an elder figure in either case.
We're talking spans of time here which are well within the range of
lifetimes.
>>(1) Earlier manuscripts of John have been discovered.
>Interesting, where and which? How are they dated? How old are they?
Unfortunately, I haven't got the info at hand. It was (I think) in the late
'70s or early '80s, and it was possibly as old as CE 200.
>I don't see your point, it is exactly what James Felder said. They had no
>first hand knowledge of the events, and it obvious that at least two of them
>used older texts as the base of their account. And even the association of
>Luke to Paul or Mark to Peter are not generally accepted.
Well, a genuine letter of Peter would be close enough, wouldn't it?
And I don't think a "one step removed" source is that bad. If Luke and Mark
and Matthew learned their stories directly from diciples, then I really
cannot believe in the sort of "big transformation from Jesus to gospel" that
some people posit. In news reports, one generally gets no better
information than this.
And if John IS a diciple, then there's nothing more to be said.
>It is also obvious that Mark has been edited. How old are the oldest
>manuscripts? To my knowledge (which can be antiquated) the oldest is
>quite after any of these estimates, and it is not even complete.
The only clear "editing" is problem of the ending, and it's basically a
hopeless mess. The oldest versions give a strong sense of incompleteness,
to the point where the shortest versions seem to break off in midsentence.
The most obvious solution is that at some point part of the text was lost.
The material from verse 9 on is pretty clearly later and seems to represent
a synopsys of the end of Luke.
If one looks to the age of manuscripts alone, the limits are very high.
Stilgar
> In article <1993Apr5.0...@wam.umd.edu>
we...@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
>
> >THE ILLIAD IS THE UNDISPUTED WORD OF GOD(tm) *prove me wrong*
>
> I dispute it.
>
> Ergo: by counter-example: you are proven wrong.
I dispute your counter-example
Ergo: by counter-counter-example: you are wrong and
I am right so nanny-nanny-boo-boo TBBBBBBBTTTTTTHHHHH
8^p
Benedikt Rosenau
man...@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>>Well, John has a quite different, not necessarily more elaborated theology.
>>There is some evidence that he must have known Luke, and that the content
>>of Q was known to him, but not in a 'canonized' form.
>
>This is a new argument to me. Could you elaborate a little?
>
the almost codified way they were in Matthew or Luke. However, they are
considered to be similar enough to point to knowledge of Q as such, and
not an entirely different source.
>>Assuming that he knew Luke would obviously put him after Luke, and would
>>give evidence for the latter assumption.
>
>I don't think this follows. If you take the most traditional attributions,
>then Luke might have known John, but John is an elder figure in either case.
>We're talking spans of time here which are well within the range of
>lifetimes.
explanation for the time order of Mark, Matthew and Luke does not consider
their respective ages. It says Matthew has read the text of Mark, and Luke
that of Matthew (and probably that of Mark).
As it is assumed that John knew the content of Luke's text. The evidence
for that is not overwhelming, admittedly.
>>>(1) Earlier manuscripts of John have been discovered.
>
>>Interesting, where and which? How are they dated? How old are they?
>
>Unfortunately, I haven't got the info at hand. It was (I think) in the late
>'70s or early '80s, and it was possibly as old as CE 200.
>
putting John after the rest of the three?
>>I don't see your point, it is exactly what James Felder said. They had no
>>first hand knowledge of the events, and it obvious that at least two of them
>>used older texts as the base of their account. And even the association of
>>Luke to Paul or Mark to Peter are not generally accepted.
>
>Well, a genuine letter of Peter would be close enough, wouldn't it?
>
fine. So what's that supposed to say? Am I missing something?
>And I don't think a "one step removed" source is that bad. If Luke and Mark
>and Matthew learned their stories directly from diciples, then I really
>cannot believe in the sort of "big transformation from Jesus to gospel" that
>some people posit. In news reports, one generally gets no better
>information than this.
>
>And if John IS a diciple, then there's nothing more to be said.
>
together with the theology are usually used as counterargument.
The argument that John was a disciple relies on the claim in the gospel
of John itself. Is there any other evidence for it?
One step and one generation removed is bad even in our times. Compare that
to reports of similar events in our century in almost illiterate societies.
Not even to speak off that believers are not necessarily the best sources.
>>It is also obvious that Mark has been edited. How old are the oldest
>>manuscripts? To my knowledge (which can be antiquated) the oldest is
>>quite after any of these estimates, and it is not even complete.
>
>The only clear "editing" is problem of the ending, and it's basically a
>hopeless mess. The oldest versions give a strong sense of incompleteness,
>to the point where the shortest versions seem to break off in midsentence.
>The most obvious solution is that at some point part of the text was lost.
>The material from verse 9 on is pretty clearly later and seems to represent
>a synopsys of the end of Luke.
>
and arguments based on Mark are pretty weak.
But how is that connected to a redating of John?
Benedikt
Keith M. Ryan
>In article <kmr4.1422...@po.CWRU.edu> km...@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M.
>Ryan) writes:
>> In article <1993Apr5.0...@wam.umd.edu>
>we...@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
>>
>> >THE ILLIAD IS THE UNDISPUTED WORD OF GOD(tm) *prove me wrong*
>>
>> I dispute it.
>>
>> Ergo: by counter-example: you are proven wrong.
>
> I dispute your counter-example
>
> Ergo: by counter-counter-example: you are wrong and
> I am right so nanny-nanny-boo-boo TBBBBBBBTTTTTTHHHHH
No. The premis stated that it was undisputed.
I dispute it. I have the authority to state that I dispute it.
However, you do not have the authority to dispute whether or not that
I dispute it: eg You do not have the authority to claim that I do believe it
to be the Word of God.
Robert Knowles
>FROM: Stilgar <we...@next02cville.wam.umd.edu>
>
>In article <kmr4.1422...@po.CWRU.edu> km...@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M.
>Ryan) writes:
>> In article <1993Apr5.0...@wam.umd.edu>
>we...@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
>>
>> >THE ILLIAD IS THE UNDISPUTED WORD OF GOD(tm) *prove me wrong*
>>
>> I dispute it.
>>
>> Ergo: by counter-example: you are proven wrong.
>
> I dispute your counter-example
>
> Ergo: by counter-counter-example: you are wrong and
> I am right so nanny-nanny-boo-boo TBBBBBBBTTTTTTHHHHH
> 8^p
>
This looks like a serious case of temporary Islam.
Stilgar
> In article <1993Apr5.1...@wam.umd.edu>
we...@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
> >In article <kmr4.1422...@po.CWRU.edu> km...@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M.
> >Ryan) writes:
> >> In article <1993Apr5.0...@wam.umd.edu>
> >we...@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
> >>
> >> >THE ILLIAD IS THE UNDISPUTED WORD OF GOD(tm) *prove me wrong*
> >>
> >> I dispute it.
> >>
> >> Ergo: by counter-example: you are proven wrong.
> >
> > I dispute your counter-example
> >
> > Ergo: by counter-counter-example: you are wrong and
> > I am right so nanny-nanny-boo-boo TBBBBBBBTTTTTTHHHHH
>
> No. The premis stated that it was undisputed.
>
Fine... THE ILLIAD IS THE WORD OF GOD(tm) (disputed or not, it is)
Dispute that. It won't matter. Prove me wrong.
Keith M. Ryan
>Fine... THE ILLIAD IS THE WORD OF GOD(tm) (disputed or not, it is)
>
>Dispute that. It won't matter. Prove me wrong.
The Illiad contains more than one word. Ergo: it can not be
the Word of God.
But, if you will humbly agree that it is the WORDS of God, I
will conceed.
:-D
Charley Wingate
>a) own a pair of bluejeans and b) have superhuman powers?
Well, I could use the argument that some here use about "nature" and claim
that you cannot have superhuman powers because you are a human; superhuman
powers are beyond what a human has, and since you are a human, any powers
you have are not beyond those of a human. Hence, you cannot have superhuman
powers. Sound good to you?
Anyway, to the evidence question: it depends on the context. In this group,
since you are posting from a american college site, I'm willing to take it
as given that you have a pair of blue jeans. And, assuming there is some
coherency in your position, I will take it as a given that you do not have
superhuman powers. Arguments are evidence in themselves, in some respects.
>When you say the "existence of [ sic ] Jesus", I assume that you
>mean just the man, without any special powers, etc.
Yep.
>Many will agree that it is very possible that a man called Jesus DID
>in fact live. In fact, I am willing to agree that there was some man named
>Jesus. I have no reason to believe that there wasn't ever a man.
Good.
>However, most of the claims ARE extradinary: eg virgin birth
>[ virgin in the sense of not having any sexual intercourse ], resurection,
>Son of God, etc. THOSE claims require extra evidence.
"Extra" evidence? Why don't we start with evidence at all?
I cannot see any evidence for the V. B. which the cynics in this group would
ever accept. As for the second, it is the foundation of the religion.
Anyone who claims to have seen the risen Jesus (back in the 40 day period)
is a believer, and therefore is discounted by those in this group; since
these are all ancients anyway, one again to choose to dismiss the whole
thing. The third is as much a metaphysical relationship as anything else--
even those who agree to it have argued at length over what it *means*, so
again I don't see how evidence is possible.
I thus interpret the "extraordinary claims" claim as a statement that the
speaker will not accept *any* evidence on the matter.
Charley Wingate
>The argument goes as follows: Q-oid quotes appear in John, but not in
>the almost codified way they were in Matthew or Luke. However, they are
>considered to be similar enough to point to knowledge of Q as such, and
>not an entirely different source.
Assuming you are presenting it accurately, I don't see how this argument
really leads to any firm conclusion. The material in John (I'm not sure
exactly what is referred to here, but I'll take for granted the similarity
to the Matt./Luke "Q" material) IS different; hence, one could have almost
any relationship between the two, right up to John getting it straight from
Jesus' mouth.
>We are talking date of texts here, not the age of the authors. The usual
>explanation for the time order of Mark, Matthew and Luke does not consider
>their respective ages. It says Matthew has read the text of Mark, and Luke
>that of Matthew (and probably that of Mark).
The version of the "usual theory" I have heard has Matthew and Luke
independently relying on Mark and "Q". One would think that if Luke relied
on Matthew, we wouldn't have the grating inconsistencies in the geneologies,
for one thing.
>As it is assumed that John knew the content of Luke's text. The evidence
>for that is not overwhelming, admittedly.
This is the part that is particularly new to me. If it were possible that
you could point me to a reference, I'd be grateful.
>>Unfortunately, I haven't got the info at hand. It was (I think) in the late
>>'70s or early '80s, and it was possibly as old as CE 200.
>When they are from about 200, why do they shed doubt on the order on
>putting John after the rest of the three?
Because it closes up the gap between (supposed) writing and the existing
copy quit a bit. The further away from the original, the more copies can be
written, and therefore survival becomes more probable.
>>And I don't think a "one step removed" source is that bad. If Luke and Mark
>>and Matthew learned their stories directly from diciples, then I really
>>cannot believe in the sort of "big transformation from Jesus to gospel" that
>>some people posit. In news reports, one generally gets no better
>>information than this.
>>And if John IS a diciple, then there's nothing more to be said.
>That John was a disciple is not generally accepted. The style and language
>together with the theology are usually used as counterargument.
I'm not really impressed with the "theology" argument. But I'm really
pointing this out as an "if". And as I pointed out earlier, one cannot make
these arguments about I Peter; I see no reason not to accept it as an
authentic letter.
>One step and one generation removed is bad even in our times. Compare that
>to reports of similar events in our century in almost illiterate societies.
The best analogy would be reporters talking to the participants, which is
not so bad.
>In other words, one does not know what the original of Mark did look like
>and arguments based on Mark are pretty weak.
But the statement of divinity is not in that section, and in any case, it's
agreed that the most important epistles predate Mark.
Benedikt Rosenau
man...@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
(Deletion)
>I cannot see any evidence for the V. B. which the cynics in this group would
>ever accept. As for the second, it is the foundation of the religion.
>Anyone who claims to have seen the risen Jesus (back in the 40 day period)
>is a believer, and therefore is discounted by those in this group; since
>these are all ancients anyway, one again to choose to dismiss the whole
>thing. The third is as much a metaphysical relationship as anything else--
>even those who agree to it have argued at length over what it *means*, so
>again I don't see how evidence is possible.
>
as extraordinary claims that don't match their evidence. In this case, it
is for one that the gospels cannot even agree if it was Jesus who has been
seen. Further, there are zillions of other spook stories, and one would
hardly consider others even in a religious context to be some evidence of
a resurrection.
There have been more elaborate arguments made, but it looks as if they have
not passed your post filtering.
>I thus interpret the "extraordinary claims" claim as a statement that the
>speaker will not accept *any* evidence on the matter.
probably be part of it, but the says nothing about the claims.
Charlie, I have seen Invisible Pink Unicorns!
By your standards we have evidence for IPUs now.
Benedikt
David Wood
man...@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>>David Wood writes:
>>
>> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
>
>More seriously, this is just a high-falutin' way of saying "I don't believe
>what you're saying".
Are you making a meta-argument here? In any case, you are wrong.
Think of those invisible pink unicorns.
>Also, the existence if Jesus is not an extradinary claim.
I was responding to the "historical accuracy... of Biblical claims",
of which the existence of Jesus is only one, and one that was not even
mentioned in my post.
>You may want to
>complain that the miracles attributed to him do constitute such claims (and
>I won't argue otherwise), but that is a different issue.
Wrong. That was exactly the issue. Go back and read the context
included within my post, and you'll see what I mean.
Now that I've done you the kindness of responding to your questions,
please do the same for me. Answer the Charley Challenges. Your claim
that they are of the "did not!/ did so!" variety is a dishonest dodge
that I feel certain fools only one person.
--Dave Wood
Benedikt Rosenau
>really leads to any firm conclusion. The material in John (I'm not sure
>exactly what is referred to here, but I'll take for granted the similarity
>to the Matt./Luke "Q" material) IS different; hence, one could have almost
>any relationship between the two, right up to John getting it straight from
>Jesus' mouth.
>
and not the original, assuming that there has been one. It has weaknesses,
of course, like that John might have known the original, yet rather referred
to Q in his text, or that the logia were given in a codified version in
the first place.
The argument alone does not allow a firm conclusion, but it fits well into
the dating usually given for the gospels.
>>We are talking date of texts here, not the age of the authors. The usual
>>explanation for the time order of Mark, Matthew and Luke does not consider
>>their respective ages. It says Matthew has read the text of Mark, and Luke
>>that of Matthew (and probably that of Mark).
>
>The version of the "usual theory" I have heard has Matthew and Luke
>independently relying on Mark and "Q". One would think that if Luke relied
>on Matthew, we wouldn't have the grating inconsistencies in the geneologies,
>for one thing.
>
version given by Matthew. Improving on Matthew would give a motive, for
instance.
As far as I know, the theory that Luke has known Matthew is based on a
statistical analysis of the texts.
>>As it is assumed that John knew the content of Luke's text. The evidence
>>for that is not overwhelming, admittedly.
>
>This is the part that is particularly new to me. If it were possible that
>you could point me to a reference, I'd be grateful.
>
is good enough. :-)
>>>Unfortunately, I haven't got the info at hand. It was (I think) in the late
>>>'70s or early '80s, and it was possibly as old as CE 200.
>
>>When they are from about 200, why do they shed doubt on the order on
>>putting John after the rest of the three?
>
>Because it closes up the gap between (supposed) writing and the existing
>copy quit a bit. The further away from the original, the more copies can be
>written, and therefore survival becomes more probable.
>
>>That John was a disciple is not generally accepted. The style and language
>>together with the theology are usually used as counterargument.
>
>I'm not really impressed with the "theology" argument. But I'm really
>pointing this out as an "if". And as I pointed out earlier, one cannot make
>these arguments about I Peter; I see no reason not to accept it as an
>authentic letter.
>
many letters is still discussed. It looks as if conclusions about them are not
drawn because some pet dogmas of the churches would probably fall with them as
well.
>>One step and one generation removed is bad even in our times. Compare that
>>to reports of similar events in our century in almost illiterate societies.
>
>The best analogy would be reporters talking to the participants, which is
>not so bad.
>
big meeting. Not necessarily wrong, but certainly bad.
>>In other words, one does not know what the original of Mark did look like
>>and arguments based on Mark are pretty weak.
>
>But the statement of divinity is not in that section, and in any case, it's
>agreed that the most important epistles predate Mark.
Question: Are there letters not from Paul and predating Mark claiming the
divinity of Jesus?
Benedikt
Bill Conner
: one of the books in your room is blue, I certainly do not need as much
: evidence to believe than if you were to claim that there is a two headed
: leapard in your bed. [ and I don't mean a male lover in a leotard! ]
Keith,
If the issue is, "What is Truth" then the consequences of whatever
proposition argued is irrelevent. If the issue is, "What are the consequences
if such and such -is- True", then Truth is irrelevent. Which is it to
be?
Bill
Bill Conner
: The Bible says there is a God; if that is true then our atheism is
: mistaken. What of it? Seems pretty obvious to me. Socrates said
: there were many gods; if that is true then your monotheism (and our
: atheism) is mistaken, even if Socrates never existed.
Jim,
I think you must have come in late. The discussion (on my part at
least) began with Benedikt's questioning of the historical acuuracy of
the NT. I was making the point that, if the same standards are used to
validate secular history that are used here to discredit NT history,
then virtually nothing is known of the first century.
You seem to be saying that the Bible -cannot- be true because it
speaks of the existence of God as it it were a fact. Your objection
has nothing to do with history, it is merely another statement of
atheism.
Bill
Keith M. Ryan
I disagree: every proposition needs a certain amount of evidence
and support, before one can believe it. There are a miriad of factors for
each individual. As we are all different, we quite obviously require
different levels of evidence.
As one pointed out, one's history is important. While in FUSSR, one
may not believe a comrade who states that he owns five pairs of blue jeans.
One would need more evidence, than if one lived in the United States. The
only time such a statement here would raise an eyebrow in the US, is if the
individual always wear business suits, etc.
The degree of the effect upon the world, and the strength of the
claim also determine the amount of evidence necessary. When determining the
level of evidence one needs, it is most certainly relevent what the
consequences of the proposition are.
If the consequences of a proposition is irrelvent, please explain
why one would not accept: The electro-magnetic force of attraction between
two charged particles is inversely proportional to the cube of their
distance apart.
Remember, if the consequences of the law are not relevent, then
we can not use experimental evidence as a disproof. If one of the
consequences of the law is an incongruency between the law and the state of
affairs, or an incongruency between this law and any other natural law,
they are irrelevent when theorizing about the "Truth" of the law.
Given that any consequences of a proposition is irrelvent, including
the consequence of self-contradiction or contradiction with the state of
affiars, how are we ever able to judge what is true or not; let alone find
"The Truth"?
By the way, what is "Truth"? Please define before inserting it in
the conversation. Please explain what "Truth" or "TRUTH" is. I do think that
anything is ever known for certain. Even if there IS a "Truth", we could
never possibly know if it were. I find the concept to be meaningless.
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. "
S.N. Mozumder (snm...@ultb.isc.rit.edu)
Jon Livesey
|> Jim Perry (pe...@dsinc.com) wrote:
|>
|> : The Bible says there is a God; if that is true then our atheism is
|> : mistaken. What of it? Seems pretty obvious to me. Socrates said
|> : there were many gods; if that is true then your monotheism (and our
|> : atheism) is mistaken, even if Socrates never existed.
|>
|>
|> Jim,
|>
|> I think you must have come in late. The discussion (on my part at
|> least) began with Benedikt's questioning of the historical acuuracy of
|> the NT. I was making the point that, if the same standards are used to
|> validate secular history that are used here to discredit NT history,
|> then virtually nothing is known of the first century.
No, Bill, I think you're the one that came in late. I've already
posted evidence that when scholars evaluate the evidence for the
existence of Socrates - the example *you* introduced - they conclude
that they can't be sure he even existed, let alone existed as Plato
described him.
So please stop trying to slide in this implication that we claim we
know a lot about ancient history, and that therefore, if we use the
same standards of proof, you can claim to know a lot about the world
of the Bible.
Scholars say that we don't *know* a heck of a lot about *either*.
jon
ron house
>In article <kmr4.1422...@po.CWRU.edu> km...@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M.
>Ryan) writes:
>> In article <1993Apr5.0...@wam.umd.edu>
>we...@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
>>
>> >THE ILLIAD IS THE UNDISPUTED WORD OF GOD(tm) *prove me wrong*
>>
>> I dispute it.
>>
>> Ergo: by counter-example: you are proven wrong.
> I dispute your counter-example
> Ergo: by counter-counter-example: you are wrong and
> I am right so nanny-nanny-boo-boo TBBBBBBBTTTTTTHHHHH
You have missed Keith's point. He disputes that the Illiad is the word of
god, thus disproving your claim that this assertion is undisputed. You
have been proven wrong, not because he is or is not right in disputing
the claim, but because the mere fact of his disputation _proves_ that
it is not undisputed.
--
Ron House. USQ
(ho...@helios.usq.edu.au) Toowoomba, Australia.
Keith M. Ryan
>You have missed Keith's point. He disputes that the Illiad is the word of
>god, thus disproving your claim that this assertion is undisputed. You
>have been proven wrong, not because he is or is not right in disputing
>the claim, but because the mere fact of his disputation _proves_ that
>it is not undisputed.
Ron, Ron, Ron...
We were having a fun parady of the traditional Theist approach,
"Prove the Bible is not the Word of God."
Its called levity...
=)
---
"In Allah's infinite wisdom, the universe was created from nothing,
just by saying "Be", and it became. Therefore Allah exists."
--- Bobby Mozumder proving the existence of Allah, #1
Kent Sandvik
(Bill Conner) wrote:
> In what way does the above paragraph confuse you? Secular historians
> accept the existence of people, places, things and events with far
> less "evidence" than is available for those mentioned in the NT. I've
> always thought it kind of interesting that Egyptologists have
> constructed the bulk of pre-Ptolemaic Egyptian history based on the
> hear-say evidence of Manetho (who may have never existed), and yet
> all the while denouncing him as an unreliable source (possilby
> fictional).
I would like to point out that there's a huge difference in defining
the validity of historical persons, and the validity of actions, especially
anything related to miracles. The ancient history is full of miracle
makers, but that does not mean that we should take for granted that
such things happened. However, historical validity based on persons
and more mundane events is far easier to check out.
As we all know most of Christianity is really based on the miracle
part, not the historical aspect if Jesus existed or not. If this
Messiah existed, but he was one of the many Messiah-wannabes (my
personal belief) then the validity of Christianity today is indeed
questioned.
Cheers,
Kent
---
san...@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND
This news entry was written by 600 apes typing on my keyboard, in other
words private stuff, not owned by any company.
Charley Wingate
>>You may want to complain that the miracles attributed to him do constitute
>>such claims (and I won't argue otherwise), but that is a different issue.
>Wrong. That was exactly the issue. Go back and read the context
>included within my post, and you'll see what I mean.
Fine. Accounts of miracles are untestable and unprovable. Happy?
Therefore you may believe in them or not, at your pleasure. It doesn't
matter. Happy? (I doubt that.)
Charley Wingate
>No, the argument says John has known Q, ie a codified version of the logia,
>and not the original, assuming that there has been one. It has weaknesses,
>of course, like that John might have known the original, yet rather referred
>to Q in his text, or that the logia were given in a codified version in
>the first place.
Without further explication, I am not convinced. The "Q" material in
Matthew and Luke is almost identical, whereas I am hard pressed to find
identical material in John.
>>The version of the "usual theory" I have heard has Matthew and Luke
>>independently relying on Mark and "Q". One would think that if Luke relied
>>on Matthew, we wouldn't have the grating inconsistencies in the geneologies,
>>for one thing.
>As far as I know, the theory that Luke has known Matthew is based on a
>statistical analysis of the texts.
I'd have to see this. It's been quite a while since I looked at it, but my
impression was that the common material between the two was almost entirely
either Mark or "Q".
>Yes, but an if gives only possibilities and no evidence. The authencity of
>many letters is still discussed. It looks as if conclusions about them are not
>drawn because some pet dogmas of the churches would probably fall with them as
>well.
I'm afraid I don't follow this.
>>The best analogy would be reporters talking to the participants, which is
>>not so bad.
>Well, rather like some newsletter of a political party reporting from the
>big meeting. Not necessarily wrong, but certainly bad.
How else would you find anything out?
>>But the statement of divinity is not in that section, and in any case, it's
>>agreed that the most important epistles predate Mark.
>Yes, but the accuracy of their tradition is another problem.
In some respects the voices of tradition are better authorities than modern
scholars are. The voices of tradition are really the only possible link
from the writers to the texts; modern scholars can connect texts to each
other, and draw some negative conclusions, but connection to the authors is
necessarily on the basis of authority-- someone has to say "yes, he wrote
that." Now, one can reasonably conclude that II Peter is not by the author
of I Peter, and that it is probably not authentic. The style is obviously
different, even in English; moreover, it has an elegance and style which
does not sound at all like the Peter of the gospels or the Acts.
>Question: Are there letters not from Paul and predating Mark claiming the
>divinity of Jesus?
Dating the epistles with respect to the gospels is a problem, but if one
takes I Peter as authentic, it predates the *usual* dates given the gospels,
and it refers to Jesus as the Son of God, and also refers to the
resurrection.
I have just stumbled upon one of my references for the early John date,
which unfortunately lacks a citation. I'm afraid I completely misremembered
the situation. A papyrus fragment of the gospel in Egypt was responsible
for some consensus from a pre-100 CE date. My source doesn't really say a
lot more than that, but I misspoke about it being a 'recent" discovery; it
would have to predate 1961.
David Wood
man...@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes
>Dave Wood (no, I'm not answering your "challenges"):
Gee, what a shock! At least we have positive proof that I'm not in
your kill file.
>>>You may want to complain that the miracles attributed to him do constitute
>>>such claims (and I won't argue otherwise), but that is a different issue.
>>Wrong. That was exactly the issue. Go back and read the context
>>included within my post, and you'll see what I mean.
>Fine. Accounts of miracles are untestable and unprovable. Happy?
Charley, you moron, the original Bill Connor assertion was that we
should accept the Bible as historically accurate, or at least as
accurate as contemporary non-biblical documents. My response was that
doing so precludes consideration of extraordinary claims (i.e.,
miracles) that lack extraordinary evidence, such claims being the only
items of any interest in this newsgroup anyway.
Your vapid non-sequitur was that the existence of Jesus in and of
itself is not an extraordinary claim, as if I had ever implied that it
was.
>Therefore you may believe in them or not, at your pleasure. It doesn't
>matter.
Golly, what a revelation! Thank you for adding such value to the
debate. My, what pleasure you must take in reading your own words.
>Happy? (I doubt that.)
I'm very happy, thanks for asking.
As to whether I'm specifically happy with your answer, well, I guess
I'll be *satisfied* when you finally answer my Challenges and stop
trying to divert attention to other threads. Happiness is not really
an issue.
Alternatively, state flat out that you *will not* answer the
challenges, and I won't post them anymore (unless of course I catch
you making the same assertions over again.) When you said this:
>Dave Wood (no, I'm not answering your "challenges"):
... did you mean that you *will not* answer the challenges or that you
are not doing so in the present article? If the former, please let me
know so I won't have to waste bandwidth on another re-posting of the
challenges.
--Dave Wood
Benedikt Rosenau
>>As far as I know, the theory that Luke has known Matthew is based on a
>>statistical analysis of the texts.
>
>I'd have to see this. It's been quite a while since I looked at it, but my
>impression was that the common material between the two was almost entirely
>either Mark or "Q".
>
The author, and I understand that the view is accepted by others, argues
that the dichotomy that the logia in Luke have to be either from Q or from
Matthew is not necessary, though it was used to justify the Four Source
theory before. He shows correlations between Matthew and Luke that are not
in Mark and not in the logia.
>>Yes, but an if gives only possibilities and no evidence. The authencity of
>>many letters is still discussed. It looks as if conclusions about them are not
>>drawn because some pet dogmas of the churches would probably fall with them as
>>well.
>
>I'm afraid I don't follow this.
>
dubious, right?
>>>The best analogy would be reporters talking to the participants, which is
>>>not so bad.
>
>>Well, rather like some newsletter of a political party reporting from the
>>big meeting. Not necessarily wrong, but certainly bad.
>
>How else would you find anything out?
>
(Deletion because I don't understand the paragraph)
>>Question: Are there letters not from Paul and predating Mark claiming the
>>divinity of Jesus?
>
>Dating the epistles with respect to the gospels is a problem, but if one
>takes I Peter as authentic, it predates the *usual* dates given the gospels,
>and it refers to Jesus as the Son of God, and also refers to the
>resurrection.
>
is not original. By the way, there was also a correlation between giving
evidence and that opinion, too.
>I have just stumbled upon one of my references for the early John date,
>which unfortunately lacks a citation. I'm afraid I completely misremembered
>the situation. A papyrus fragment of the gospel in Egypt was responsible
>for some consensus from a pre-100 CE date. My source doesn't really say a
>lot more than that, but I misspoke about it being a 'recent" discovery; it
>would have to predate 1961.
Never mind. Rather answer the Charley Challenges.
Benedikt
Mike Cobb
so kind, to help catch me up. What are the standards by which ancient
historical texts are judged? The ideas that the NT would pass or fail by these
"standards" sure sounds neat, but what are these standards?
MAC
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs." Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate co...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
With new taxes and spending cuts we'll still have 310 billion dollar deficits.