Home found in Nazareth dates to Jesus' time
crunch
"Archaeologists say the dwelling housed a 'simple Jewish family' and
speculate that Jesus may have known the house during his childhood in
what was then an out-of-the-way hamlet."
-----
Yet, I am quite certain that no significant part
of Jesus's childhood was historically spent in
Nazareth and that Jesus was not born there.
David Christainsen
SolomonW
That assumes that Jesus was a poor man.
Gilgamesh
"SolomonW" <Solo...@nospamLamp.com.au> wrote in message
news:cgCZm.2558$5l1...@newsfe06.ams2...
become known as Jesus.
JTEM
SolomonW <Solom...@nospamLamp.com.au> wrote:
> (PST), crunch wrote:
> >http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-nazareth26-2009...
>
> > "Archaeologists say the dwelling housed a
> > 'simple Jewish family' and speculate that
> > Jesus may have known the house during his
> > childhood in what was then an out-of-the-way
> > hamlet."
> That assumes that Jesus was a poor man.
Actually, from it's description, it assumes that it
is a 1st century structure, but NOT from the time
of Jesus.
Hint: Jesus was supposed to be dead before the 1st
century was half over, and the most likely explanation
for the find is that it dates to a time during the
rebellion, some decades AFTER Jesus.
: Archaeologists also found a camouflaged entryway
: into a grotto, which Alexandre believes was used
: by Jews to hide from Roman soldiers who were
: battling Jewish rebels for control of the area.
Today we would call these people "Refugees" -- ordinary
people trying to escape a war. And, for that we'd need
more than a long standing "dispute," we'd need the kind
of war that lead to the Roman sacking of Jerusalem...
which was supposed to have taken place decades AFTER
Jesus.
crunch
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 11:44:16 -0800 (PST), crunch wrote:
>
> > "Archaeologists say the dwelling housed a 'simple Jewish family' and
> > speculate that Jesus may have known the house during his childhood in
> > what was then an out-of-the-way hamlet."
>
> > -----
>
> > Yet, I am quite certain that no significant part
> > of Jesus's childhood was historically spent in
> > Nazareth and that Jesus was not born there.
>
> > David Christainsen
>
> That assumes that Jesus was a poor man.
Exactly why do you make this specific assumption
in your comment?
BTW the Historical Christ was not poor.
Martin Edwards
consistency in the tales, and they cannot have originated with one
person. With Mack and others he points out that the supposed teachings
of Jesus had actually been around since the early Hellenistic period.
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie
Cormac
> BTW the Historical Christ was not poor.
There is no historical Jesus. There are many stories and fables about
him but there is a lack of proper historical evidence.
Cormac.
crunch
Any historian with a sincere interest in the Historical
Jesus would investigate the Letter of Jesus.
My former Christian Origins yahoo forum
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3816
"By the way, you will be pleased to know that my article
on the Abgar legend ... will appear in an electronic version
soon, on the internet. Volume 11, number 1, of the Journal
of Higher Criticism."
S. 67-82: Thiering, Barbara E.: Authenticity of the Abgar
documents and the letter of Jesus / Barbara Thiering
---
My Christian Origins yahoo forum
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3346
"You will have noticed that the recent correspondence
between Sergey and myself, in #3334,3336,3338,3341,
3342, led to a positive conclusion about the authenticity
of the Abgar documents, in particular of the letter of Jesus
quoted by Eusebius. Sergey supplied a missing link, with
the '343rd year' in a document in an 1876 book, not
published in AN-F."
---
For calendar experts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3522
Peace,
David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA
Peter Alaca
> On Jan 2, 1:41 am, Cormac<cormac.brada...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 27 2009, 6:09 pm, crunch<pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> BTW the Historical Christ was not poor.
>>
>> There is no historical Jesus. There are many stories and fables about
>> him but there is a lack of proper historical evidence.
>>
>> Cormac.
>
> Any historian with a sincere interest in the Historical
> Jesus would investigate the Letter of Jesus.
You are no historian, you are talking out of your ass
and you are as always very off topic on sci.archeology.
Fuck off.
> [...]
crunch
Grow up, kid.
Peter Alaca
Fuck of, senile old wanker
Cormac
> On Jan 2, 2:06 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al...@invallid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> 02/01/2010 20:01 wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 2, 1:41 am, Cormac<cormac.brada...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Dec 27 2009, 6:09 pm, crunch<pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> BTW the Historical Christ was not poor.
>
> > >> There is no historical Jesus. There are many stories and fables about
> > >> him but there is a lack of proper historical evidence.
>
> > >> Cormac.
>
> > > Any historian with a sincere interest in the Historical
> > > Jesus would investigate the Letter of Jesus.
You are suffering from a chronic condition: Diarrhea verbosa et
scripta var.babsthieringitis
Seek help.
Cormac
ADR
There is no evidence that he was well off. Of course, all is open to
speculation. However, the greatest clue that we have regarding the
actual Jesus is all the information that made it over to us written
well before any of the gospels. Of course, the most influential of
these was Paul who preached and wrote well before any of the gospels
were written. In fact, Paul interacted extensively with men who
personally knew Jesus (and not always in an amicable way). In fact,
Paul's decision to allow non-circumcised males into Christianity run
afoul of some influential Christians and caused his arrest. In any
case, even if Paul had not met Jesus in person, he lived in such close
temporal proximity that he had surely heard of him from many other
Jews who of course knew of this Jesus (since he had attained a certain
notoriety). The Jesus of Paul's teachings is not a rich Jesus
although he does indeed differ from the Jesus of the Gospels
somewhat. And, as I said before, Paul personally knew James and other
brothers and sisters of Jesus as well as some of his disciples and
many of the members of the "proto-Christians" of Jerusalem. It is
unlikely that he would have disseminating inaccuracies while these
persons were still alive.
In fact, the presence of Paul and several others who started teaching
about Jesus within a decade or so of his death makes it difficult to
believe that there are substantial inaccuracies in our accounts. They
may be misinterpretations and omissions but probably not overt
distortion of the actual historical record. It would have been nice
to have had access to an un-edited very early copy of the "teachings
of Jesus" that serve as the basis of the synoptic Gospels, but we are
not that lucky.
Jack Linthicum
Read this bit from something I posted. James comes off as the more
famous of the two. pics at the cite in rogueclassicist
James, the brother of Jesus
The authenticity of the mention of James is the least questionable of
the three anecdotes. Josephus identifies James not as the son of "X",
but as "the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ". Paul also
refers to him as "James the brother of the Lord". The atmosphere of
the story reflects the political situation in Jerusalem in the first
century CE, with Roman governors and Jewish high priests constantly
vying with one another for power.
For Josephus, the James episode serves to illustrate the violent
career of the high priest Ananus. In the gubernatorial vacuum — the
procurator Festus (60-62 CE) was already dead and the incoming Albinus
(62-64) still on his way — Ananus attempted to flex his political
muscles. He brought his opponents, James "and certain others", before
the Sanhedrin and sentenced them to be stoned for transgressing the
Law. The fair-minded and strictly observant representatives of the
ruling classes — no doubt the leading Pharisees who opposed Ananus and
his heartless Sadducees — were outraged and appealed to King Agrippa
II. Agrippa, who had been granted the privilege to appoint and dismiss
high priests by the emperor Claudius, promptly sacked Ananus, a mere
three months after his elevation to office.
Fraternal love: Jesus and his brother, James (right)
Josephus's notice possesses all the appearances of authenticity. It
lacks New Testament parallels that might have inspired a forger.
Moreover, the church fathers, Origen (185-254) and Eusebius (260-340),
not only attest to the existence of the passage, but also assert that
Josephus saw in the fall of Jerusalem divine punishment for the murder
of James. Unfortunately, no surviving Josephus manuscript contains
such a statement and its authenticity is doubtful.
Christian tradition presents a substantially different version of
James's killing. According to the second-century chronicler of the
early church, Hegesippus, James was pushed from the parapet of the
Temple but survived the fall and the subsequent stoning.
Finally, he was clubbed to death. Josephus's interest is wholly
centred on Ananus's misconduct and has nothing to say about the
admirable virtues heaped on the victim by Hegesippus: James "the
Righteous" was holy from birth, was teetotal and vegetarian, never cut
his hair or beard and shunned cosmetic oil and bath water. Compared to
this, the sober picture of Josephus appears all the more believable.
As a final comment, Josephus's identification of James as "the brother
of Jesus called Christ" would have made no sense unless there was an
earlier mention of Jesus in Antiquities. The Testimonium Flavianum is
likely to be this prior reference.
JTEM
Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> As a final comment, Josephus's identification
This is utter nonsense.
Josephus had absolutely *Zero* first-hand knowledge
of anything, and couldn't have. He was simply too
young.
If you MUST take Josephus at face value -- ignoring
the obvious problems -- then you have no choice but
to conclude that he is merely repeating what he
heard, directly or indirectly, from early Christians.
I'll explain, though we both know that it'll only make
you angry...
I was born too late to have any first-hand knowledge
and understanding of the Vietnam war. But, there are
plenty of Vietnam veterans I could speak to, and I
could use what I learned from these talks to write
about Vietnam. But...
But these writings wouldn't be independent verification
of everything the veterans told me. I would simply
be repeating what they said.
No verification.
The same is absolutely true for Josephus, and that's
*IF* we take the writing attributed to him at face
value.
I see no reason to do so.
But, if you were the type to lick up the writings of
Josephus as if they were ice cream, there's still no
independent verification of ANYTHING.
Josephus wasn't a Christian. Josephus wasn't an
eyewitness. All he could ever have been is someone
REPEATING what Christians were saying.
--------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The NT frequently portrays the Pharisees as
bad guys, and Josephus was a Pharisee.
--------------------------------------------------
If -- and I do mean "IF" -- you are willing to take
"Sources" like Josephus or others at face value then,
AT BEST, they offer you some insight into the early
Christian church of Rome, what was commonly believed
by early Christians.
....and that is all.
They do not nor can not "Verify" the accuracy of any
church tradition, as they themselves have nothing but
church tradition (as told to them) to draw on for their
information.
Period.
crunch
Ebionites
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1965
"Steve asks about the differences between the Jewish Christians called
Ebionites and the Roman church.
Ebionites were the Poor, Hebrew ’ebion, their name found in the
Scrolls as the opponents of the Wicked Priest, eg in 1QpHab 12:3. From
the records of Irenaeus and subsequent Fathers, they are to be linked
with James the brother of Jesus.
I’ll let Joseph Fitzmyer do the work for me, giving items from the
list of Ebionite beliefs that he has assembled from the Fathers. (ref
1).
They believe in one God, the creator of the world. They use the gospel
of Matthew only. They reject Paul as an apostate from the law. They
practise circumcision and observe the sabbath. They face Jerusalem
when they pray. They reject the virgin birth of Christ, and hold him
to be a mere man. They use purificatory baths and baptism. They hold
that Christ came to abrogate sacrifice in the temple. They give up all
goods and possessions. They reject virginity, and permit divorce. They
abstain from meat."
-----
LEXICON OF SPECIAL MEANINGS
http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/index_For_Reference.html
"Poor ptōchos The class of Therapeuts, one of the two classes called
Poor and Afflicted, ebion and ani in the Qumran literature. The Greek
"poor" is used for the Afflicted, the Therapeuts, while the Hebrew
"Poor" were the monastic Ebionites. In plu. rep. with article, the
Chief Therapeut at grade 7 (Luke 14:21; 19:8)."
-----
James the Rich/Poor Man
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/4397
"I will, however, bring out more clearly why that particular
pseudonym, the Rich
Man, is used in the gospels for James. (This is an answer to Itamar
also). The
name is a jibe, reflecting the dispute between Christians and Jewish
Christians
within the mission. James was, from his own point of view, the Poor
Man. He was
the lay head of the "ebionim", Poor Ones, the Essene celibates who
gave up their
property. The party of Ebionites recorded in the histories came from
him. The
name is found as a title for the ascetic community in 1QpHab 12:3, 6,
10, 1QM
11:9, 13; 13:14, frequently in 1QH. In 1QpHab 12:10, the term "the
wealth of the
Poor" is used. The Wicked Priest is said to have stolen it."
In the Thiering reconstruction the Wicked Priest
is Jesus Christ!!!
-----
More brief answers
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2809
"There were no ‘lost years’ of Jesus. As the current heir of the
Davids, to those who accepted his legitimacy, he was given the best
possible education at Qumran and its associated centres, and from his
initiation at the age of 23 in AD 17 (‘year 12’ of the Sadducee
chronology) took on the duties of the David crown prince, primarily
the leadership of Gentiles. Since their centre was in Rome, it is not
impossible that he paid a visit to Rome, but this might have been
prevented in AD 18 when Caiaphas became high priest, with the result
that Jesus was declared illegitimate and James the David crown
prince."
In this Thiering reconstruction does it sound that
Historical Jesus is poor?
ADR
wrote:
> Read this bit from something I posted. James comes off as the more
> famous of the two. pics at the cite in rogueclassicist
James comes of as more famous that Paul??? Of course, Paul did not
participate in the politics of Jerusalem between 30 to 66 CE but
within the context of Christianity, James was an aberration and Paul
the founder of the mainstream. In any case, what does all of this
have to do with the question of the family fortume of Jesus?
Jack Linthicum
James was a big time rebel who thumbed his nose at the king. You don't
find many carpenter's sons doing that, even today. The other piece of
evidence is the soldiers gambling for Jesus' clothes. Not pure
evidence but who would want some penniless slob's underwear?
Paul cut himself in on a going opportunity and cut others, like Peter,
out. More Gentiles than Jews in those days.
JTEM
Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The other piece of evidence is the soldiers gambling
> for Jesus' clothes.
Is this from the same Christian account that has Jesus
crucified, dying, buried and then resurrected in
roughly the same time it took other people just to die
from crucifixion?
And then they add the whole stabbing-him-with-a-spear
nonsense. Crucifixion was a very slow, very painful
means for executing someone, and the Romans did it for
the show. Yet, that's the last thing the Romans were
interested in, according to the Christian accounts.
Pure nonsense.
JTEM
ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In any case, what does all of this have
> to do with the question of the family
> fortume of Jesus?
This is a history newsgroup, idiot. There
is no shortage of religious newsgroups where
it would be appropriate to discuss your
nonsense.
ADR
Feel free not to post anything in this thread. In any case, inquiries
about the real historical events of the period are legitimate
threads. Considering how many times you have posted on your religious
conviction as to when the Bible was written, you should not complain.
Jack Linthicum
Pure inability to learn. Not that one at all, as a matter of fact (or
real fact as my boss used to say)
The resurrection appearances on the third day, together with the
relevant prophecies, are part of the apologetic arsenal of the early
church and have nothing to do with Josephus.
http://standpointmag.co.uk/jesus-in-the-eyes-of-josephus-features-jan...
crunch
On the contrary re: "stabbing-him-with-a-spear' -
More ecclesiastical politics
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3202
"The note in Jn 19:34, omitted in the other gospels, that blood came
from the side of Jesus, must be read with the following verse, a
solemn oath by a witness, for those with enough medical knowledge to
know that a dead body does not bleed. His friend John Mark, a
physician, had simply pricked his side with a lancet as a test for
death."
-----
Objections raised by Geoff Woods
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2246
"The basic facts about the crucifixion, as derived from the pesher
are: Jesus was crucified as the third man with two militants, called
‘thieves’ (lestai) both because that was the accepted term for armed
brigands, and because they misused the mission money to buy arms. They
were zealots in the sense that Josephus uses the term in his account
of the final war. They were legally crucified by Pilate for armed
insurrection against Rome. Their leader, the man in the centre, was
Simon Magus, an extraordinary man who was the original of the Faust
legend; a thaumaturge, believed by his followers to be a god.
Jesus was an associate of Simon Magus in his attack on the Herodian
monarchy, and in opposing the misgovernment of Pilate. But he
disagreed with him on the method, upholding evangelism of pagans in
place of armed warfare. He had opposed other members of the party for
other reasons, and they saw their opportunity of getting rid of an
embarrassment, by informing Pilate, correctly, that he was an
associate of Simon Magus. Despite Pilate’s doubts, he was readily
persuaded by threats and bribes to condemn him as the third man."
-----
Crucifixion - the medical view
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/311
"Hearty thanks to Kevin King, M.D., for that very interesting resume
and
comment. All such treatments of the crucifixion omit the fact that the
intention was to make the suffering last many days. This is shown in
Josephus' account of his rescue of a crucified man after a number of
days.
In order to prevent immediate asphyxiation, and tearing of the nailed
hands,
some method would have been used to keep the man hanging there, such
as a
narrow shelf under the buttocks, too narrow to sit on but enough to
hoist
himself on. The narrative makes a point of saying that the other two
men had
not died at 3 pm. Their legs were broken, not in order to hasten death
- as
is sometimes taught - but in order to prevent them from escaping from
the
cave where they were to be put in order to be buried alive. Their
friends
had deceived Pilate into changing the method by telling him that
Jewish law
required that they should not be left hanging overnight (Deut 21:23
and in
the Temple Scroll 64:7-9). Pilate was in fear of his job, having
already
offended the Jews on such matters. The friends told Pilate that the
burial
cave would not be approached on Friday night, as it was also a
latrine, and
the Essenes were forbidden to use it on the sabbath (J.W. 2,148). But
they
carefully omitted to mention that Jesus' Gentile friend John Mark, and
the
non-monastic Peter, were not bound by this law. They rescued Jesus on
the
Friday night, which became, after some verbal play with the calendar,
the
'third day', in order to change the holy day to Sunday."
Peace (after the Quaker fashion),
Peter Alaca
=====================================================
Sci.Archaeology, established in May 1991, is an
unmoderated Usenet newsgroup dedicated to the
discussion of archaeology in its many aspects.
=====================================================
*Charter Sci.Archaeology*
=====================================================
1. To exchange information on various concerns
in archaeology, including method and theory, pot
hunting, egyptology, typology, dating, and other
related topics.
2. To facilitate ongoing debates and comments on
ideas or research that may not necessarily be in
a publishable form.
3. To query other interested archaeologists about
resources which could be made generally available.
(e.g. programs, images, data, references, but not
exact site locations).
4. To keep each other informed on upcoming events
of interest to social science researchers and
computing in the field of archaeology.
=====================================================
*End of charter*
=====================================================
=====================================================
*What is Archaeology*?
=====================================================
"*{Archaeology is] a subdiscipline of anthropology.
Anthropology is the study of humankind.
* Archaeology is the study of the human past
through material remains.
- Material remains are collectively referred to
as the archaeological record. This includes
artifacts (e.g., stone tools, ceramic vessels);
features(e.g., housepits, hearths); and ecofacts
(e.g., animal bones, plant remains).
* Archaeologists have three main goals:
1. Reconstruct Culture History: understand the
distribution of archaeological remains through
time and space.
2. Reconstruct Past Lifeways: determine past behavior
through material remains.
3. Explain the Process of Culture Change: understand
how and why cultures change through time.
*Forms of Archaeological Data*
* Artifacts: portable objects whose form has been
created or modified by human activity (e.g.,
projectile points, pottery vessels). Artifacts
retain their appearance after the archaeologist
takes them from the ground.
* Features: non-portable artifacts that cannot be
removed from the ground without altering or
destroying their original form (e.g., housepits,
burials, hearths).
* Ecofacts: non-artifactual material remains that are
not directly created or modified by human activity
but have cultural relevance and provide information
about past human behavior (e.g., animal bones,
sediment, pollen).
* Sites: spatial clusters of artifacts, features, and
ecofacts. Sites identify where humans have occupied
the landscape
(e.g., Birch Creek, Stonehenge).
* Regions: the largest definable spatial clusters of
archaeological data. Regions can be a geographical,
ecological, or cultural concept. Definition of a
region allows the archaeologist to investigate a
wider range of past activities that extend beyond
a single site (e.g., Great Basin, Columbia Plateau,
Southwest)."
Archaeological Field Methods: Principles of Excavation
http://www.indiana.edu/~arch/saa/matrix/afm/afm_princexc.htm
=====================================================
"Archaeology is usually defined as the study of the
human past through material culture, although
archaeologists are increasingly arguing that a better
definition would be the study of human behaviour
through material culture, making it a much broader
discipline and one of relevance to the contemporary
world. The most important aspect of the discipline is
that archaeologists study the physical changes human
beings have made to their world. Archaeology looks at
the artefacts (the tools, ornaments and other
objects), the structures (buildings, tombs and other
enclosed spaces) and landscapes (field systems,
settlements, communication routes and so on) that
people have been creating for the seven million or so
years we have been creatures distinct from the other
great apes."
http://www.kmatthews.org.uk/cult_archaeology/index.html
=====================================================
"Archaeology is concerned with cultural development
and variation through time. It involves the
reconstruction of past human behaviour through the
study of material remains recovered by field survey
and excavation. Archaeology encompasses a wide variety
of analytical and experimental methods and techniques
which draw on both the natural and social sciences."
http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/departments/index.cfm?P=9142
=====================================================
"Archaeology is the study of past cultural behaviour,
from the beginnings of the human species to events
that happened yesterday, through the material remains,
or artefacts, that people leave behind. By carefully
applying scientific techniques in excavation and
analysis of their findings, archaeologists attempt to
reconstruct past lifeways and understand why different
customs developed and evolved.
Archaeology is a part of anthropology, because it
studies individuals and their different cultures, even
if limited to the past. This is the most interesting
aspect of archaeology: it is a way to understand
humanity and ourselves. Archaeology is also a part of
history, but it is more reliable sometimes because
while history uses essentially written documents,
archaeology uses material evidence. A description of
facts can be very precious, but if we have only one
description, or descriptions from only one point of
view, we can not be sure to know a true part of the
past. Individuals in fact can lie or simply see things
in a convenient way."
"History is an interpretation of the past based on
ancient/old writings. Archaeology is different from
history especially for the methods used. It can help
and complement history by offering studies on
materials to be compared with documents to have a
clearer idea of how the interpretation was done. But
also archaeology, when beginning from an evidence
arrives to an inference, interprets data; for this
reason archaeologists must be careful trying to
explain the background culture in the present they
have and which part of the evidence they focused: an
objective interpretation is impossible. History uses
archaeology also for the periods when written
documents were not available, particularly prehistory,
but more extensively for any period for which there
are no documents available."
Andrea Vianello
http://www.geocities.com/andreavi/1.htm
Università Ca' Foscari ,Venezia. Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia
<http://lettere.unive.it/materiale_didattico/archeologia_egea/1.htm>
=====================================================
*Three Basic Principles of Archaeological Research*
by Garrett Fagan
<http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=5>
=====================================================
crunch
> crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> 04/01/2010 20:30 wrote:
>
> =====================================================
> Sci.Archaeology, established in May 1991, is an
> unmoderated Usenet newsgroup dedicated to the
> discussion of archaeology in its many aspects.
> =====================================================
I am well within the sci.archaeology charter in my
usenet posts.
David Christainsen
Sir David
<pchristain...@yahoo.com> crrr-rackled:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_ <FLUSH>
Carl rides his hobbyhorse.
crunch
<UNFLUSH>
Grow up, kid.
David Christainsen
Sir David
Crunchy Comedy Hour script:
> Grow up, kid.
Crunchy catch phrase!
Hayabusa
<pchris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Was there a Historical Jesus?
Please go away.
Hayabusa
JTEM
Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Is this from the same Christian account that has Jesus
> > crucified, dying, buried and then resurrected in
> > roughly the same time it took other people just to die
> > from crucifixion?
>
> > And then they add the whole stabbing-him-with-a-spear
> > nonsense. Crucifixion was a very slow, very painful
> > means for executing someone, and the Romans did it for
> > the show. Yet, that's the last thing the Romans were
> > interested in, according to the Christian accounts.
>
> > Pure nonsense.
> Pure inability to learn.
.....what?
Now hold on, lunatic, and settle that knee-jerk for a
moment. Do you honestly want to dispute the notion that
crucifixion was a slow, painful and VERY public way to
execute someone -- that the Romans did it for the show?
...or do you simply suffer from pathetic communication
skills?
> The resurrection appearances on the third day, together
> with the relevant prophecies, are part of the apologetic
> arsenal of the early church and have nothing to do with
> Josephus.
Apart from highlighting your lack of reading comprehension,
what does THAT have to do with anything?
JTEM
crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[---nonsense snipped---]
You are grossly mistaken, as per your usual.
The point I was making was that the Christian
account of the crucifixion is wrong, and we all
know that it is wrong.
It could not have happened.
The account is historically inaccurate.
JTEM
ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Feel free not to post anything in this thread.
Ah, once again earning the horrendously bad
reputation you worthless religious nutters
have.
Did it ever occur to even one of you to NOT act
like complete assholes, and to take your personal
religious beliefs somewhere where they're
appropriate instead of acting like a dog and just
shitting them on everybody else's lawn?
No?
I didn't think so...
crunch
> crunch wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 7:41 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> crunch wrote:
> >>> On Jan 4, 7:13 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> >>>> <snipped groups>
> >>>> crunch wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 4, 9:13 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> The other piece of evidence is the soldiers gambling
> >>>>>>> for Jesus' clothes.
> >>>>>> Is this from the same Christian account that has Jesus
> >>>>>> crucified, dying, buried and then resurrected in
> >>>>>> roughly the same time it took other people just to die
> >>>>>> from crucifixion?
> >>>>>> And then they add the whole stabbing-him-with-a-spear
> >>>>>> nonsense. Crucifixion was a very slow, very painful
> >>>>>> means for executing someone, and the Romans did it for
> >>>>>> the show. Yet, that's the last thing the Romans were
> >>>>>> interested in, according to the Christian accounts.
> >>>>>> Pure nonsense.
> >>>>> On the contrary re: "stabbing-him-with-a-spear' -
> >>>> this isn't archaeology.
> >>>> <snip non-archaeology>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Tom "Go Pack" McDonald- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> You don't get it; you never did.
> >>> So, what is needed for discussion is for Qumran archaeologists
> >>> to disprove with archaeological evidence the Thiering
> >>> Reconstruction of the Crucifixion at Qumran, if they can.
> >>> Now, do you finally get why my material is
> >>> appropriate for sci.archaeology?
> >>> BTW, if you disagree, I promise that I will give you
> >>> a very hard time when I refute your arguments.
> >> What was the archaeological content in what I snipped?
>
> >> Do not threaten me. If you can show me wrong, do so.
>
> > Do not patronize me.
>
> I'm not. I'm just not into being threatened.
Such is not the case; you are quite mistaken.
> > If you can show me wrong, do so.
>
> Ball's in your court, Skippy. Show me the archaeological content
> in the bit of the post I snipped as not-archaeology.
I did not claim it had archaeological content, did I?
I merely stated that it is appropriate for sci.archaeology
because it is in the framework of a MASSIVE scholarly
argument to put the Crucifixion at Qumran, using every
shred of legitimate evidence possible on the multi-disciplinary,
academic scene.
> Come on, Skipper. You are the big man, the tough guy, the
> all-that of archaeology. Beat me into the ground with your
> superior archaeological prowess.
Why are you patronizing me?
> Or shut up.
You are completely out of your depth unless
you start doing homework for a change. Please
get up to speed on Qumran archaeology, for
starters.
> >> You cannot, of course. You posted nothing related to archaeology
> >> in the bit I snipped.
>
> > Yet, my material is appropriate for sci.archaeology.
>
> Prove it. Put up or shut up.
>
> >> You owe me an apology.
>
> > No, I do not.
>
> Yes, you do.
>
> --
> Tom "Go Pack" McDonald
No, I do not.
So, I have 2 question for you -
In terms of the Thiering Thesis how does Dr. Thiering
put the scene of the Crucifixion at Qumran, according
to NT text?
Further, as far as you know, is there any material within
Qumran archaeology that would disprove the Thiering
Reconstruction of the Crucifixion?
Peace,
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
result of an order.
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and
inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their
abominations,
called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had
its origin,
suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the
hands
of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous
superstition,
thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea,
the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things
hideous
and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and
become popular.
Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty;
then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not
so much of the crime
of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every
sort was added
to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by
dogs and perished,
or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt,
to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero
offered his gardens
for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus,
while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood
aloft on a car.
Tacitus 15:44
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/a15040.htm
JTEM
"jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> Tacitus 15:44
Tacitus is not a source.
Tacitus was born too late. Period. The most likely
scenario is that his Christian "insights" are latter
day inventions. Less likely, but still the only
remaining option, is that he took information from
Christian sources (whether first, second, third, *.*
hand) and merely repeated it.
Martin Edwards
the dead in varying stages of decomposition, somebody would surely have
made a note of it.
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie
JTEM
Martin Edwards <big_mart...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> Also if there had been a thunderstorm, an earthquake
> and resurrection of the dead in varying stages of
> decomposition, somebody would surely have made a
> note of it.
Besides Thiering, you mean.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
obviously is not an eyewitness.
Let me give you a quick summation. There must
have been an epicenter for Christianity. In a court
of law independent witnesses that are in basic
agreement are considered poof of truth. Both
Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian of Carthage from
opposite areas of the Roman Empire pointed out
all the Apostolic Churches had the same four Gospels
in the late second century, this was over one
hundred years before the Edict of Milan 313 A.D. that
made Christianity legal. There was no group in
the late 2 century A.D. that could have evforced
that unity. Q.E.D. The basic agreement of the
four witnesses proves they are truthful.
You can check this out by going to your
local Bible Society and check out the ancient
versions of the Aramaic. Greek, Coptic, Vetus
Latin, and other ancient churches.
You are quoting scholars from the 20th century. Lets quote
an author from the 2nd who heard Polycarp in his youth and
Polycarp knew the Apostle John, Irenaeus of Lyons.
"So Matthew ... issued a writting of the gospel...Peter and Paul
were preaching the gospel at Rome...after their decease, Mark, the
disciple
and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writting what
Peter
had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book
the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of
the
Lord,
who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel,
while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."
"Early Christian Fathers", Cyril C. Richardson, P 370
Let me give a quote by Terullian circa 200 A.D.
"run over [to] the Apostolic Churches, in which the very thrones
of the Apostles are still pre-emminent in their places, in which
their own authentic writings (autheniticae) are read, uttering the
voice and representing the face of them severally . Achaia is very
near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from
Macedonia, you have Philippi;; (and there too) you have the
Thessalononians. Since you are able to cross to Asia[minor], you
get Ephesus. Since, morever, you are close upon Italy, you have
Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very
authority
(of the Apostles themselves).
Prescription against Heretics, p 36, Voll III, "The Ante-Nicene
Fathers"
Jim
Ac 1:3 - To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by
many
infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the
things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
JTEM
"jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> JTEM born almost 2000 years later
> obviously is not an eyewitness.
Doesn't matter if it's 2000 years or two minutes,
if you weren't born yet then you can't be an
eyewitness.
> Let me give you a quick summation.
Well that's it then, open up THAT old wound...
> There must have been an epicenter for
> Christianity.
Greece, you mean.
> In a court of law independent witnesses
> that are in basic agreement are considered
> poof of truth.
You have no witnesses. That's the point.
> Both Irenaeus of Lyons
This is utter bullshit.
> and Tertullian of Carthage from
> opposite areas of the Roman Empire pointed out
> all the Apostolic Churches had the same four
> Gospels
How would they know? Clearly they're either spewing
nonsense or they weren't isolated at all. In fact,
they would have had to travel everywhere from Britain
to Syria in order to make such statements TRUTHFULLY.
But they didn't. You're "Irenaeus of Lyons" wasn't
recording an eyewitness account, he was attempting
to counter the gnostics.
IT WAS HIS AGENDA SPEAKING!
> in the late second century, this was over one
> hundred years before the Edict of Milan 313 A.D.
What on earth do you think this establishes?
> There was no group in the late 2 century A.D.
> that could have evforced that unity.
There was no unity. There isn't unity NOW.
> You are quoting scholars from the 20th century.
I haven't quoted anyone. You're making this up as
you go along.
> Lets quote an author from the 2nd who heard Polycarp
> in his youth and Polycarp knew the Apostle John,
> Irenaeus of Lyons.
Impossible. Never happened.
ADR
I find your continuous assertions on the veracity of Tacitus accounts
on the Christians so boring. He was contemporary with the rise of the
Christian church in Rome, in fact. His information is as close to a
contemporary account as you are likely to get. I am sure that the
issue of new cults was discussed extensively around the dinner
gatherings in Rome of his day. There were probably many in his circle
who had some understanding of Christianity. In his days, Christianity
was spreading like a wildfire. And with good justification. It was a
mystery rite combining the same themes of redemption and resurrection
as others but with some better theology and a robust call for social
and personal change. That Tacitus is rather dismissive with it is a
good indication of how uncomfortable the leading class of Rome was
this religion.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
that could have evforced that unity.
"There was no unity. There isn't unity NOW."
Fallacy of proof by mere assertion.
This is what I wrote.
Today, all you need to do is go to your local Bible
Society and check out the ancient versions of the
Aramaic, Greek, Coptic(both Southern and Northern Egypt),
Vetus Latin, and other ancient churches.
Did you go to your local Bible society and
check if those churches had the same four Gospels.
Of course not. Instead of studying documented
evidence, you just make an unsupported assertion
That might be good Gestalt therapy for you, but
an inabilty to engage with evidence you don't
like, is not impressive.
Jim
Lu 1:2 - Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the
beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
2Pe 1:16 - For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we
made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but
were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
JTEM
"jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> There was no group in the late 2 century A.D.
> that could have evforced that unity.
There was no unity.
The claim of unity was a means towards an end: Shouting
down the gnostics.
> "There was no unity. There isn't unity NOW."
>
> Fallacy of proof by mere assertion.
There is no unity now. There is nothing approaching an
establishment of unity in the past.
> This is what I wrote.
In reply to.... what?
If you go back & look even you might notice that your
reply was utter nonsense, bearing ZERO relationship to
what you were replying to.
> Today, all you need to do is go to your local Bible
> Society and check out the ancient versions of the
> Aramaic, Greek, Coptic(both Southern and Northern Egypt),
> Vetus Latin, and other ancient churches.
There are none.
Seriously. How old were you mistakenly believing the oldest
to be?
JTEM
ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Tacitus was born too late. Period. The most likely
> > scenario is that his Christian "insights" are latter
> > day inventions. Less likely, but still the only
> > remaining option, is that he took information from
> > Christian sources (whether first, second, third, *.*
> > hand) and merely repeated it.
>
> I find your continuous assertions on the veracity of
> Tacitus accounts on the Christians so boring.
Hey, shit for brains: Tacitus was supposed to be born
around 56 AD. Jesus was supposed to have been dead for
some 20 years or more by then.
It was physically impossible for Tacitus to be an eye
witness, and the fact that you have disputed this on
numerous occasions establishes your mental illness.
You're welcome.
ADR
Shit for brains, who ever claimed that Tacitus was alive at the time
of Jesus? Certainly not I. Did you read my post? All I said is that
Tacitus is dependable in his information regarding the Christians of
his era in Rome and what they believed in. And this is all. The
person who was alive during Jesus life and heard about and of him is
Paul. Paul was slightly older than Jesus when the latter was
crucified. So, it was his contemporary, although not at Jerusalem at
the time. Since he was aligned with the Pharisees, it is difficult to
believe that he "converted" to a belief around a person that did not
exist. Most of Paul's writings predate the gospels.
Archaeotype
> On Jan 8, 8:54 am, JTEM<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ADR<aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> JTEM<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Tacitus was born too late. Period. The most likely
>>>> scenario is that his Christian "insights" are latter
>>>> day inventions. Less likely, but still the only
>>>> remaining option, is that he took information from
>>>> Christian sources (whether first, second, third, *.*
>>>> hand) and merely repeated it.
>>
>>> I find your continuous assertions on the veracity of
>>> Tacitus accounts on the Christians so boring.
>>
>> Hey, shit for brains: Tacitus was supposed to be born
>> around 56 AD. Jesus was supposed to have been dead for
>> some 20 years or more by then.
>>
>> It was physically impossible for Tacitus to be an eye
>> witness, and the fact that you have disputed this on
>> numerous occasions establishes your mental illness.
>>
>> You're welcome.
>
> Shit for brains, who ever claimed that Tacitus was alive at the time
> of Jesus?
Why do you think that sci.,archaeology is the group
to talk crusifiction?
=====================================================
Sci.Archaeology, established in May 1991, is an
unmoderated Usenet newsgroup dedicated to the
discussion of archaeology in its many aspects.
=====================================================
crunch
>...
> Most of Paul's writings predate the gospels.
On the contrary -
Dates of the Gospels - a few facts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2787
"The problem that exercised the 19th century Higher Critical School,
and still influences some, was the fact that the gospels contain so
much unbelievable material, are confused, self-contradictory, and that
the epistles of Paul, certainly written in the 50’s, seem to show no
knowledge of their contents. On the assumption that Jesus had founded
Christianity, and that he became the subject of legend and myth-
making, the conclusion was that the gospels had been composed late,
after at least a generation, and were a belated attempt to collect
together everything that was said about Jesus, no matter how
unreliable. The public are still being told by liberal scholars that
the gospels come from the late 1st century or early 2nd century, and
that is why you can’t believe them.
The first sign that the DSS would challenge this critical view was
when W.F. Albright, at the end of his great scholarly career, pointed
out that the terminology of John’s gospel, its dualism, ‘sons of
light’, and so on, which had been taken to be evidence of late
hellenising of an original simple peasant figure, were in fact
thoroughly at home in the DSS before the time of Jesus, in the 1st
century BC.
About the same time came J.A.T. Robinson, quoted in the Duggan
article, who pointed out that there was simply no evidence that the
gospels were so late, and their contents could just as well be
accounted for if they were re-dated, earlier.
The present controversy, to which the educated public worldwide are
paying attention, comes from the argument I have put forward that the
Scrolls give us something more. They give us the missing link, the
theory of pesher. It suggests a hypothesis that is capable of
validation, a true-false matter, not opinions and guesses. The gospels
were constructed, deliberately, and were all completed by AD 49."
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
repeating the fallacy of proof by mere assertion
doesn't make it any less of a fallacy.
It is obvious you havn't checked out the texts
of the ancient churches. What are you afraid
of? With your bias documented evidence won't
make a difference to you.
Jim
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who
may
wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the
apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a
position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted
bishops
in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to
our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like
what
these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden
mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect"
apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them
especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches
themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very
perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving
behind
as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to
these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly,
would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away,
the direst calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as
this,
to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to
confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil
self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion,
assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by
indicating
that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very
ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome
by
the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing
out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means
of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity
that
every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-
eminent authority,6 that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the
apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those
[faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the
Church,
committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of
this
Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him
succeeded
Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles,
Clement
was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed
apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have
the
preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their
traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there
were
many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles.
In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred
among
the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most
powerful
letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their
faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from
the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of
heaven
and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called
Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses,
set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for
the
devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so,
may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached
by
the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of
the
Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are
now
propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god
beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this
Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus;
then,
sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus,
who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then
after
him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now,
in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the
episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical
tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have
come
down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the
same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the
apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and
conversed
with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia,
appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early
youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very
old
man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom,7 departed this
life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the
apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are
true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also
those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,-a man
who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth,
than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was
who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away
from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he
had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,-that, namely,
which is handed down by the Church.8 "
Irenaeus Book III, Chapter III
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
1 Corinthians 15
1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached
unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached
unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day
according to the scriptures:
5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of
whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen
asleep.
7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due
time.
JTEM
"jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> repeating the fallacy of proof by mere assertion
> doesn't make it any less of a fallacy.
You are grossly mistaken. That only applies to the person
on whom the burden rest -- which would be you.
YOU are the one making a claim. I'm simply denying that
claim. I needn't do anything. The burden is on you.
> It is obvious you havn't checked out the texts
> of the ancient churches.
There are none from the period.
The absolute oldest copy dates at least 200 years later
than the 2nd century date you excreted.
This is fundamental stuff. You clearly don't know the
basics.
Go away.
ADR
wrote:
> > Shit for brains, who ever claimed that Tacitus was alive at the time
> > of Jesus? Certainly not I. Did you read my post? All I said is that
> > Tacitus is dependable in his information regarding the Christians of
> > his era in Rome and what they believed in. And this is all. The
> > person who was alive during Jesus life and heard about and of him is
> > Paul. Paul was slightly older than Jesus when the latter was
> > crucified. So, it was his contemporary, although not at Jerusalem at
> > the time. Since he was aligned with the Pharisees, it is difficult to
> > believe that he "converted" to a belief around a person that did not
> > exist. Most of Paul's writings predate the gospels.
>
> 1 Corinthians 15
> 1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached
> unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
Again, one is trying to draw up conclusions from an english text while
the original is in Greek. Gospel is the typical english tranlation of
the Greek word "evangellion" which simply means "good news". Thus, in
Greek Paul is saying that "the good news that I preached unto you", he
is not referring to any text. However, during this time, certain
documents dod exist, especially the "teachings of Jesus" on which the
synoptic gospels are based on.
JTEM
ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Shit for brains,
...as original as he is clever.
> who ever claimed that Tacitus was
I said that Tacitus was not born yet, that he
couldn't be a source. That, at best he was
merely repeating what he was getting 2nd, 3rd
fourth (or whatever) hand from the Christians
themselves.
This upset you for reasons known only to you in
your mental illness.
Why you would be enraged at what you claim to
agree with is a mystery.
Please keep it to yourself.
The fact remains: Tacitus is NOT a source. He
never could be. He was never capable of being
a source.
There are none.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Glad you admit you refuse to look
at the eividence.
The point you are missing is that these churches
have the same 4 Gospels with small scribal differences.
That is evidence there was no collusion, thus the texts
are independent witnesses, that they trace back to eye
witnesses.
Jim
Lu 1:2 - Even as they delivered them unto us,
which from the beginning were eyewitnesses,
and ministers of the word;
2Pe 1:16 - For we have not followed cunningly devised fables,
when we made known unto you the power
and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
ADR
> On Jan 8, 2:28 pm, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >...
> > Most of Paul's writings predate the gospels.
>
> On the contrary -
>
Well, David, I know your position but virtually none of the scholars
in the field embrace it. And I never said that the period between the
writing of the gospels that we have today and the death of Jesus was
devoid of any writings. In fact, as I said many times before,
collections of the "teachings of Jesus" circulated very soon after
Jesus's crucifixion. Analysis of the texts clearly shows that they
were written mostly after the Jewish rebellion as they are aware of
certain "concessions" that they needed to do to the Roman state.
Thus, the repeated exonaration of Pontius Pilatus and placement of the
guilt on the Jewish hieratic establishment.
You have to reconcile your continuous contradictions. You cannot
seriously defend the utilization of zealot messages in christian
literature and the same time support that the gospels were written by
49 CE which embrace the Roman state. There is no way that "zealot"
oriented Christianity (or even Essene influenced) would have given
such a pass to the Romans. The gospels are replete with it. The good
Roman centurion that believes, the Pontius Pilatus that washes his
hands, the Jesus who says that giving the monies owed to Caesar should
be given to Caesar etc, etc. In fact, the Roman oppression of the
Jewish population of Palestine hardly features in the gospels There
are many other clues, of course, I only mention some of the major.
There is little doubt that the authors of the gospels had to stay
clear from associating themselves with the Jewish establishment which
means that the gospels were written under the tutelage of members of
Paul's faction of Christianity with the Jewish-oriented Christians
having perished during the rebellion. Nothing that you can deduce
from the dead sea scrolls can overcome these hard facts.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
I was citing Paul because, he cites eyewitnesses, but on dating
the four Gospels, an interesting work, INMOHO is,
Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic
Problem (Paperback)
~ John Wenham (Author)
21 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars A good alternative to the "Q" hypothesis., April
16, 2001
By Shawn W. Gillogly "DenSem Grad" (Denver, CO United States)
Wenham's work is, as noted above, thoroughly documented, researched
and conducted. And I would go further than the earlier review. If you
don't have a working knowledge of Greek, this will probably be too
painful for you.
However, I would say it rewards careful reading of the one willing to
examine the issue without buying into the current dogmas of NT
scholarship. I did not find him uncritically assuming his own evidence
true, rather in several places I recall him saying he would not
dogmatically assert either way. The point is to him much of the
evidence can be used to support whatever theory one wishes to
contrive. "Q" can be made to look reasonable to many, as can Markan
priority, if we don't examine the facts behind WHY these works were
written.
http://www.amazon.com/Redating-Matthew-Mark-Luke-Synoptic/dp/0830817603
As to counting Patristic evidence, one could say NT scholarship today
dogmatically REJECTS Patristic evidence whenever it doesn't fit their
hypothesis. Who's to say that scholars sitting in their offices 2000
years removed automatically have a better concept of the events than
2nd & 3rd century scholars? Am I attacking all NT scholarship? No. But
I think it is fair to give the author a reasonable hearing. And I
think, after a reasonable hearing, it is not unreasonable to see at
least Matthew and Mark written before AD55, and see some measure of
MUTUAL dependance between the Gospels.
Neither of these would be fashionable in many NT circles today. But
that doesn't mean they are not real possiblities.
Weland
Martin Edwards
This clearly describes a "spiritual experience" and is older than the
gospels. Even the Lukan quote is ambiguous.
Martin Edwards
>
> 1 Corinthians 15
> 1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached
> unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
>
> 2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached
> unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
>
> 3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
> how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
>
translations for some reason.
crunch
No surprise there; it's a paradigm shift.
> And I never said that the period between the
> writing of the gospels that we have today and the death of Jesus was
> devoid of any writings. In fact, as I said many times before,
> collections of the "teachings of Jesus" circulated very soon after
> Jesus's crucifixion. Analysis of the texts clearly shows that they
> were written mostly after the Jewish rebellion as they are aware of
> certain "concessions" that they needed to do to the Roman state.
> Thus, the repeated exonaration of Pontius Pilatus and placement of the
> guilt on the Jewish hieratic establishment.
Well, ADR, Caiaphas and Jonathan Annas were
guilty of condemning Jesus Christ. BTW they
belonged to a secret society, outside mainstream
Judaism, and their condemnation took place at Qumran.
> You have to reconcile your continuous contradictions. You cannot
> seriously defend the utilization of zealot messages in christian
> literature and the same time support that the gospels were written by
> 49 CE which embrace the Roman state.
Just a second - I was precise with my language; I
said that 2 instances of Christian Scripture used
the language of Zealots in code re: Babylon. Also,
I gave an instance of the DSS Damascus Document etc.
> There is no way that "zealot"
> oriented Christianity (or even Essene influenced) would have given
> such a pass to the Romans. The gospels are replete with it. The good
> Roman centurion that believes,
Just a second - the Roman centurion was actually
John Mark from the tribe of Dan.
> the Pontius Pilatus that washes his
> hands, the Jesus who says that giving the monies owed to Caesar should
> be given to Caesar etc, etc. In fact, the Roman oppression of the
> Jewish population of Palestine hardly features in the gospels There
> are many other clues, of course, I only mention some of the major.
> There is little doubt that the authors of the gospels had to stay
> clear from associating themselves with the Jewish establishment which
> means that the gospels were written under the tutelage of members of
> Paul's faction of Christianity with the Jewish-oriented Christians
> having perished during the rebellion. Nothing that you can deduce
> from the dead sea scrolls can overcome these hard facts.
On the contrary -
I have already given too many Thiering identifications
that refute your version. What is needed on usenet
is full discussion/debate as to who is right.
I say the Thiering Thesis breaks a paradigm in place
for 2,000 years.
ADR
> I have already given too many Thiering identifications
> that refute your version. What is needed on usenet
> is full discussion/debate as to who is right.
No, we do not. There is no factual basis to discuss anything and
spending too much time on wild made-up hypotheses is a waste of
everybody's time. I cannot stop you from discussing whatever you want
but there should be a limit to what time one can devote to a cookie
theory that nobody pays any attention to but you.
> I say the Thiering Thesis breaks a paradigm in place
> for 2,000 years.
So says you and nobody else.
Peter Alaca
>[...]
> I have already given too many Thiering ...
A true word. Now fuck off.
ADR
<jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> think, after a reasonable hearing, it is not unreasonable to see at
> least Matthew and Mark written before AD55, and see some measure of
> MUTUAL dependance between the Gospels.
>
> Neither of these would be fashionable in many NT circles today. But
> that doesn't mean they are not real possiblities.
The reason that this view is not fashionable is that it is unlikely to
be correct. First and foremost, the synoptic gospels are all derived
from a previous document, usually referred to as "the gospel of Y".
Second, the gospels in our hands today give very good press to Rome,
with Pontius Pilatus "washing off his hands". This is very unlikely
to be true. Even if Pontius Pilatus got at all involved, he would have
summarily condemned to death anybody suspected of revolutionary
potential. Thus, what he have in our hands today was written well
after the Jewish rebellion in an effort to present Christianity as
well disposed towards the Roman state. It is difficult to conceive
any text written prior to 66 CE by Jews that would have been as
friendly to Rome.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
~ John Arthur Thomas Robinson (Author)
98 of 100 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars A Title That Deserves Reprinting, April 8, 2000
By E. T. Veal (Chicago, Illinois USA) -
This review is from: Redating the New Testament (Hardcover)
What a pity that this pathbreaking work is out of print while
publishers flood the bookstores with fantasy-as-history in an unending
stream.
Bishop Robinson, a theological modernist whose "Honest to God" made
him controversial within the Anglican communion, began this book as
what he labels "a theological joke": "I thought I would see how far
one could get with the hypothesis that the whole of the New Testament
was written before 70", the year in which the Roman army sacked and
burned the Temple of Jerusalem. As it turned out, he got much further
than he had ever expected, a journey made more impressive by his lack
of any predisposition toward a "conservative" point of view.
His conclusion is that there is no compelling evidence - indeed,
little evidence of any kind - that anything in the New Testament canon
reflects knowledge of the Temple's destruction. Furthermore, other
considerations point consistently toward early dates and away from the
common assumption (a prejudice with a seriously circular foundation)
that a majority of primitive Christian authors wrote in the very late
First or early-to-middle Second Century under assumed names.
For want of data, absolute proof of Robinson's thesis is impossible,
and the weight of his arguments varies - from overwhelming in the case
of the Epistle to the Hebrews through powerful (the Gospels, Acts and
the Epistles of John) to merely strong (the Pastoral Epistles, the non-
Johannine Catholic Epistles and Revelation).
In a postscript, Robinson reconsiders the dates of several
subapostolic works: The Clementine Epistles, the Shepherd of Hermas,
the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache, the accepted dates for which
range from the 90's to the latter half of the Second Century. He shows
that, freed of the "push" of late dating of the canon, the most
natural dates for these writings are earlier and that all could well
have been written by 85 A.D.
Whether or not one agrees with every word of Robinson's analysis, he
makes his case well and should force all students of the New Testament
to rethink seriously the presuppositions that underlie much of what is
currently written about First Century Christianity. Of course, that's
not likely to happen unless some publisher brings "Redating the New
Testament" back into print.
http://www.amazon.com/Redating-Testament-Arthur-Thomas-Robinson/dp/1579105270
ADR
None of the above is true. Actually, Jesus prophesized the
destruction of the Temple. Had the Temple not have been destroyed,
why include this reference in the work? The Gospels are excessively
pro-Roman. This strongly suggests a much later date for the
compilation. As I said before, the synoptic gospels are based on a
previous text which was in circulation probably within years of Jesus'
death. This earlier text probably covered the teachings of Jesus
without the biographical notes that nobody in the original Christian
community actually needed because they knew the man. In addition, it
is highly unlikely that a gospel including a "virgin birth" in
Nazareth would have gained much readership when the early Church was
led by James, Jesus' brother!!!
We do not have a lot of material on the early church save the letters
of Paul which are probably consistent with his writings. What we know
is that Paul's teachings *enraged* the traditional Christian sect so
much that it engineered his arrest and extradition to Rome. It is
commonly assumed that the disagreement was centered on the practice of
circumcision but my guess is that there was a lot more than that. It
is likely that the Jerusalem sect did not believe in the divinity of
Jesus nor in his resurrection and it may have been very upset with
Paul's introduction of elements of mystery religions into
Christianity. But all these are suppositions since the early
Christian sect disappeared totally along with the Zealots in the
Jewish revolt.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
You are quoting scholars from the 20th century. Lets quote
an author from the 2nd who heard Polycarp in his youth and
Polycarp knew the Apostle John, Irenaeus of Lyons.
"So Matthew ... issued a writting of the gospel...Peter and Paul
were preaching the gospel at Rome...after their decease, Mark, the
disciple
and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writting what
Peter
had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book
the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of
the
Lord,
who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel,
while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."
"Early Christian Fathers", Cyril C. Richardson, P 370
ADR
wrote:
Well, by your own source, this dates the writings of the gospels in
the late 60's to early 70's in the 1st century CE which is when
virtually all modern scholars place them. Paul and Peter died in 67
CE.
> Lord,
> who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel,
> while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."
John, the writer of the fourth gospel is no the same person as apostle
John who was illiterate and did not know Greek. The Gospel of John
was originally written in Greek very much like Mark and Luke. In
addition, it was written later than the synoptic gospels, sometime
around 90 CE. The author is much more preoccupied with theological
issues and makes stronger declarations on the divinity of Jesus than
the synoptic gospels.
In any case, your source agrees that the synoptic gospels were written
in the 70's very much in tune with current thinking.
Van Chocstraw
> On Jan 4, 9:13 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
Roman executions, nothing more, nothing less.
JTEM
"jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> Glad you admit you refuse to look
> at the eividence.
Dude, are you insane?
You started with what was supposed to be a 2nd century
quote that WE BOTH know has to be bullshit, unless the
man it came from traveled the known world... something
there is no evidence for. You then told me to check the
texts myself to see that the 2nd century man was correct.
I pointed out that no texts survive from the 2nd century,
that the oldest is AT LEAST two centuries NEWER.
...and that's WITHOUT touching on the fact that it's
EXTREMELY different from modern texts -- each of which
is different from each other.
So, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE of 2nd century unity. What we
do know -- from the differing traditions and changed
texts -- is that there was either NEVER a time when there
was such unity, or at some point between the 2nd century
and today Christians just started making it all up.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
John was a fisherman involved in trade, and probably used
koine Greek in trade and Aramaic at home.e.g. Many Jewish
people used to speak Yiddish at home and English outside.
As to him being illiterate, he was middle class and
in trade, so probably not.
Besides most used stenograhers and scribes to write.
e.g. Romans was written by Tertius.
I also think Irenaeus definitely puts the Apostle John
as the author, and the church universal has received the same.
The Gospel of John
> was originally written in Greek very much like Mark and Luke.
In
> addition, it was written later than the synoptic gospels, sometime
> around 90 CE. The author is much more preoccupied with theological
> issues and makes stronger declarations on the divinity of Jesus than
> the synoptic gospels.
>
I find many such statements in the synoptic.
> In any case, your source agrees that the synoptic gospels were written
> in the 70's very much in tune with current thinking.
>
That's your interpretation.
>
>
> > "Early Christian Fathers", Cyril C. Richardson, P 370- Hide quoted text -
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > Glad you admit you refuse to look
> > at the eividence.
>
> Dude, are you insane?
>
> You started with what was supposed to be a 2nd century
> quote that WE BOTH know has to be bullshit,
No, Irenaeus knew Polycarp who knew the Apostle John.
e.g. My mother told me about relatives who had
fought with Garibaldi, check how many years
ago that was. I guess according to you, Garibaldi
was a myth. My mother's parents were born in the
town of Barga (barganews.com) in Tuscany. I checked
out my ancestry from that town, so my mother was right.
unless the
> man it came from traveled the known world... something
> there is no evidence for. You then told me to check the
> texts myself to see that the 2nd century man was correct.
> I pointed out that no texts survive from the 2nd century,
> that the oldest is AT LEAST two centuries NEWER.
>
Sorry, I went over your head. Let me try
again. The texts come from different churches
that never got together to compare their texts.
The small scribal differences prove that.
Once a copy was made and the copy was taken
to another area there was no way to check with
the original. Copies were made from the new copies,
that's why Aramaic, Greek, Coptic, Vetus Latin, and
other ancient texts are compared with each other.
I know with your bias, it's probably still over your
head, but I'll keep trying, in the mean time,
You can check this out by going to your
local Bible Society and check out the ancient
versions of the Aramaic. Greek, Coptic, Vetus
Latin, and other ancient churches.
Jim
Heb 12:1 - Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about
with so great a cloud of witnesses,
let us lay aside every weight,
and the sin which doth so easily beset us,
and let us run with patience the race
that is set before us,
JTEM
LESSON 1:
"jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> No, Irenaeus knew Polycarp who knew the Apostle John.
You're literally arguing that this "Irenaeus" has to be
genuine & accurate because he is.
It's called a "Circular Argument."
After all, this "Polycarp" exists nowhere else in history
EXCEPT for what writings are attributed to a 2nd century
"Irenaeus."
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
There is also Tertullian of Carthage, a long
way from Lyons.
"According to Tertullian, Polycarp of Smyrna was a disciple of the
Apostle John (Tertullian, Liber de praescriptione haereticorum)"
http://www.cogwriter.com/polycarpletter.htm
Again, I go over your head. It is the argument of
Irenaeus, and also Terullian that challenged people
to check out the texts in the ancient Apostolic Churches
that convinced me.
"run over [to] the Apostolic Churches, in which the very thrones
of the Apostles are still pre-emminent in their places, in which
their own authentic writings (autheniticae) are read, uttering the
voice and representing the face of them severally . Achaia is very
near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from
Macedonia, you have Philippi;; (and there too) you have the
Thessalononians. Since you are able to cross to Asia[minor], you
get Ephesus. Since, morever, you are close upon Italy, you have
Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very
authority
(of the Apostles themselves).
Prescription against Heretics, p 36, Voll III, "The Ante-Nicene
Fathers"
Irenaeus went beyond scripture, however, and taught that orthodoxy
is also based ultimately on a succession of teachers, the bishops, in
any church founded by an apostle. This is called the doctrine of
apostolic succession. “It is within the power of all, therefore, in
every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly
the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world;
and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles
instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the
succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor
knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about” (Against
Heresies 3.3.1). Since the teachings of the gnostics are of recent
origin and are not taught by the successors to the apostles, Irenaeus
concluded, they must not be orthodox. Irenaeus went so far as to
provide a list of bishops of the church at Rome, which he argued,
proved an unbroken succession from Peter and Paul down to his own day.
“And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same
vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the
apostles until now, and handed down in truth” (Against Heresies
3.3.3).
Today, all you need to do is go to your local Bible
Society and check out the ancient versions of the
Aramaic, Greek, Coptic(both Southern and Northern Egypt),
Vetus Latin, and other ancient churches.
Remember once a copy had been made, and the copy
left the area, other copies had to be made from
the new copy. That is why texts from the Aramaic,
Greek, Coptic(both North and South Egypt), Vetus
Latin, and other ancient texts are compared. Sorry,
I believe, I went over your head again.
Jim
(d) Text according to Metzger. According to Zahn (Geschichte, ii,
pp.
252-3),
in 419 another council held at Carthage gave the concluding words
in the following form: "the Revelation of John, one book.
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow-bishop, Boniface [of
Rome],
and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this
canon,
for these are the things that we have received from our fathers to
be
read in church."
And so in Westcott.
ADR
You must be kidding, of course. The fishermen of the Sea of Galilee
were dirt poor. Fishing in that lake was a miss and hit affair and
even the boats were extremely basic crudely put together. It is
simply not believable that the ragtag group of fishermen there spoke
Greek when even Jesus did not. They spoke Aramaic, just like Jesus
and they were illiterate. I do not know what you thought was middle
class at that time but none of Jesus disciples belonged to it. To
even believe that John would write a theologically based gospel in his
very late years (assuming that he lived in ripe old age) is rather
difficult to accept. This gospel actually required some advanced
knowledge of Greek. The presentation of Jesus as the Logos requires
some good understanding of advanced Greek notions. This gospel was
written by somebody with very good education. It may have
incorporated certain memories and traditions from the disciples, but
it was not written by any of them. Let's not forget that for the
longest time, the author of this gospel was anonymous. It is very
unlikely that a gospel written by John the apostle would have been
assigned to an anonymous author. The clues that this gospel was
written near the end of the 1st century CE are just too numerous to
assign it to John the Apostle.
> Besides most used stenograhers and scribes to write.
> e.g. Romans was written by Tertius.
> I also think Irenaeus definitely puts the Apostle John
> as the author, and the church universal has received the same.
My arguments as to why this is not true are listed above. Other
arguments exist, of course. But the fact that this gospel mentions
the expulsion of the Christians from Jewish synagogues is a very
strong evidence of a late date for it.
> The Gospel of John
>
> > was originally written in Greek very much like Mark and Luke.
>
> In> addition, it was written later than the synoptic gospels, sometime
> > around 90 CE. The author is much more preoccupied with theological
> > issues and makes stronger declarations on the divinity of Jesus than
> > the synoptic gospels.
>
> I find many such statements in the synoptic.
Please mention a statement in the synoptic gospels in which Jesus
presents himself as divine. Actually, in the synoptic gospels, Jesus
is quite careful not to make such statements. Although he does present
himself as the Messiah, within the Jewish context the Messiah was not
divine. He was a person that was supposed to lead Israel to
greatness. The Romans were not mistaken when the placed the
inscription "King of the Jews" on the cross.
> > In any case, your source agrees that the synoptic gospels were written
> > in the 70's very much in tune with current thinking.
>
> That's your interpretation.
Not only mine
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
No, Alexander the great, a greek, conquered the
area circa 330 BC. and Greek became the linqua
franca of the area.
The fishermen of the Sea of Galilee
> were dirt poor. Fishing in that lake was a miss and hit affair and
> even the boats were extremely basic crudely put together. It is
> simply not believable that the ragtag group of fishermen there spoke
> Greek when even Jesus did not.
I believe, he probably did, and owning boats and
being a carpenter is middle class imo.
They spoke Aramaic, just like Jesus
> and they were illiterate. I do not know what you thought was middle
> class at that time but none of Jesus disciples belonged to it.
See above.
To
> even believe that John would write a theologically based gospel in his
> very late years (assuming that he lived in ripe old age) is rather
> difficult to accept.
Why, I know a lot of Jewish people who aren't
rich, but are still learned.
This gospel actually required some advanced
> knowledge of Greek.
John as middle class could have been learned,
Any way, he could have used learned converts.
The presentation of Jesus as the Logos requires
> some good understanding of advanced Greek notions. This gospel was
> written by somebody with very good education.
See above
It may have
> incorporated certain memories and traditions from the disciples, but
> it was not written by any of them.
Not according to Irenaeus and the church universal.
Let's not forget that for the
> longest time, the author of this gospel was anonymous.
Not according to Irenaeus and the church universal.
It is very
> unlikely that a gospel written by John the apostle would have been
> assigned to an anonymous author.
The church universal has always stated John the Aposle
wrote it.
The clues that this gospel was
> written near the end of the 1st century CE are just too numerous to
> assign it to John the Apostle.
>
John died in the reign of Trajan which fits
the time period.
You are quoting scholars from the 20th century. Lets quote
an author from the 2nd who heard Polycarp in his youth and
Polycarp knew the Apostle John, Irenaeus of Lyons.
"So Matthew ... issued a writting of the gospel...Peter and Paul
were preaching the gospel at Rome...after their decease, Mark, the
disciple
and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writting what
Peter
had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book
the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of
the
Lord,
who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel,
while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."
"Early Christian Fathers", Cyril C. Richardson, P 370
> > Besides most used stenograhers and scribes to write.
> > e.g. Romans was written by Tertius.
> > I also think Irenaeus definitely puts the Apostle John
> > as the author, and the church universal has received the same.
>
> My arguments as to why this is not true are listed above.
With which I beg to differ.
I missed where you documented people didn't
use stenographers or scribes in the ancient world.
Stenography, also referred to as shorthand, is a popular form of
speed writing. It incorporates the use of symbols to translate
messages. This type of writing dates back to ancient times in Greece.
http://www.ehow.com/about_5133326_stenography-definition.html
Other
> arguments exist, of course. But the fact that this gospel mentions
> the expulsion of the Christians from Jewish synagogues is a very
> strong evidence of a late date for it.
>
There were always strong disagrements within synagogues,
e.g. the debates between Hillel and Shammai.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/hillel.html
> > The Gospel of John
>
> > > was originally written in Greek very much like Mark and Luke.
>
> > In> addition, it was written later than the synoptic gospels, sometime
> > > around 90 CE. The author is much more preoccupied with theological
> > > issues and makes stronger declarations on the divinity of Jesus than
> > > the synoptic gospels.
>
> > I find many such statements in the synoptic.
>
> Please mention a statement in the synoptic gospels in which Jesus
> presents himself as divine. Actually, in the synoptic gospels, Jesus
> is quite careful not to make such statements. Although he does present
> himself as the Messiah, within the Jewish context the Messiah was not
> divine. He was a person that was supposed to lead Israel to
> greatness. The Romans were not mistaken when the placed the
> inscription "King of the Jews" on the cross.
>
He forgives sins, which the Pharisees recognized
as divine.
> > > In any case, your source agrees that the synoptic gospels were written
> > > in the 70's very much in tune with current thinking.
>
> > That's your interpretation.
>
> Not only mine
The church universal didn't. It was only with the
rise of what Burgon of Oxford called the "German Scholarship"
that those speculations were advanced.
Since I was raised an atheist, I beliee I know where you
are getting your ideas. All I am saying as in most things
there is an other side. Reading both sides wouldn't hurt.
Tom McDonald
> On Jan 10, 10:43 pm, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 1:43 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
<snip>
>>> John was a fisherman involved in trade, and probably used
>>> koine Greek in trade and Aramaic at home.e.g. Many Jewish
>>> people used to speak Yiddish at home and English outside.
>>> As to him being illiterate, he was middle class and
>>> in trade, so probably not.
>> You must be kidding, of course.
>
> No, Alexander the great, a greek, conquered the
> area circa 330 BC. and Greek became the linqua
> franca of the area.
>
>
> The fishermen of the Sea of Galilee
>> were dirt poor. Fishing in that lake was a miss and hit affair and
>> even the boats were extremely basic crudely put together. It is
>> simply not believable that the ragtag group of fishermen there spoke
>> Greek when even Jesus did not.
>
> I believe, he probably did, and owning boats and
> being a carpenter is middle class imo.
Finally! An issue that can be addressed by archaeology!
What archaeological evidence is there about the kind of
construction used in fishing boats on the Sea of Galilee in the
early first century? If John were a carpenter (and I were a lady?
:-) ), he would presumably have built his own boat(s). The
boat(s) would have been his most expensive piece of equipment for
the fishing enterprise.
What archaeological evidence is there about the kind of housing
used by fishermen at that place and time? Specifically, did such
fishermen live in better housing than other working stiffs of the
time?
What archaeological evidence is there about the type and quality
of burial of Galilean fishermen at that time and place?
I have other questions, but these will do for a start.
<snip>
--
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald
Jack Linthicum
This one is called "The Jesus Boat" for its age and location.
Tom McDonald
Looks substantial. From the article, it would seem to be usable
for two or more generations, with regular repairs. While the
initial investment might have been substantial, too, someone with
woodworking skills could probably keep it going for the price of
the nails and wood. And, of course, the repair, maintenance and
replacement of tools, nets, lines, sails, etc.
Who would have crewed these boats in their role for fishing?
Would this have been a family operation? Or a group occupation
comprising two or more families?
I have to wonder whether fishing income was supplemented by
passenger transportation; or whether there was a relatively
bright-line distinction between the two activities.
In any case, I have to think it likely that fishermen had
somewhat more independence than folks in many other occupations.
Whether this would make any fisherman at that time "middle class"
is to be determined.
Jack Linthicum
Here is one attempt to bring the economy of the Sea of Gallilee into
the world of the religious. The concept of "free independent"
fishermen is not accurate. There is a complicated heirarchy of
obligations and "taxes", in Part III. "Galilean Fishing as a Social
Sub-System" a diagram of this system and the idea of "collection
rights", processed fish and money, labor and processing the raw caught
fish. It's 33 pages with notes, appendices and bibliography.
"V. Conclusions
1. Literary sources, inscriptions and stelae, and archaeological
evidence confirm that fishing was an important and organized part of
the economy throughout the Roman Empire. Despite the fact that our
evidence for Galilee is fragmentary, the model advanced here is at
least a beginning for understanding the complex web of participants
and arrangements involved in such a complex enterprise.
2. The fishers could hardly be classed as "entrepreneurs" in such a
highly regulated, taxed, and hierarchical political-economy. While the
boat owners/fishers may or may not have also been involved in fish
processing, this would not have made them wealthy, and certainly not
"middle class," as many authors have contended, since the whole
conceptualization of a middle-class is anachronistic relative to Roman
Palestine. The "surplus" went to the brokers and the ruling elite. The
importance of fish is further highlighted by the references in the
gospels to people who eat fish and carry fish with them. That some of
these references appear as metaphors or in non-historical stories does
not diminish their importance as believable scenarios in a Galilean
context.
3. The hostility of the general population in both Judean and early
Christian sources against the telônai may have stemmed originally from
the conflict in the economy: the ancient sources stereotype them as
inequitable and liable to unjust treatment of the population.
4. With regard to the Jesus tradition, it seems to me that the role of
Galilean fishing has been severely underrated for its impact on Jesus'
network, locations of operation, aphorisms, parables, and "acts of
power." It does not seem an overstatement to say that Jesus'
proclamation of God's Reign had its primary audience in Galilean
fishing-villages and towns. This at least partially accounts for his
avoidance of Galilean cities (notably Tiberias and Sepphoris) and the
snide view of his ministry by Jerusalemite elites. It may also account
for the tradition of Jesus drawing crowds from the fishing regions of
Tyre and Sidon. Because Jesus made his residence in the fishing
village of Capernaum during his ministry and traveled up, down, and
across the Sea of Galilee, the lives of these real fishing families
became the fabric from which he wove many of his metaphors and told
his stories. Moreover, it was his sitting in a boat, crossing the Sea,
and healing and exorcising in fishing-villages which were the stories
vividly told in the earliest Jesus-groups. This hardly seems
tangential to our modern attempts at recapturing the dynamics of
Jesus' career in his own setting."
Martin Edwards
The Gospel referred to need not have been a narrative, nor are the
"Apostles" anywhere called "disciples" of a physical Jesus.
Jack Linthicum
>
> The Gospel referred to need not have been a narrative, nor are the
> "Apostles" anywhere called "disciples" of a physical Jesus.
>
> --
> As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
> Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
>
> Woody Guthrie
You also fail to trim what you are responding to.
JTEM
"jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> There is also Tertullian of Carthage, a long
> way from Lyons.
: Though the author of the "Martyrdom of Polycarp" is
: unknown, the story is recorded by Eusebius, who
: claims to have received it through a letter
: addressed to the Church of Philemelium by the
: Church of Smyrna.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrdom_of_Polycarp
I'll explain the issue, though we both know that I
won't make so much as a dent in that concrete you
call a skull...
The only thing that matters is the "Source."
Let's say I had the court documents from your
commitment hearing. That would be a "Source"
document. One source. And then, say, someone
names Tom comes around and writes a book based
on those documents. That would bring the total
to one source. And, finally, we have Joe who
writes a story, quoting from the court documents
extensively. We add Joe's writing to the first
two and that brings us all the way up to one
source.
But it gets worse.
Let's say that Tom reads all the court documents,
writes about the court case and quotes extensively,
though not exhaustively, from the records. Next,
Joe comes around and bases his writings on Tom's
work, having never seen the actual source documents
himself. Finally, Bill writes on the subject of
your commitment hearing using only Joe as a "Source."
THIS is what we have here, only worse.
We have an UNKNOWN source, with several people either
repeating that ONE source, or their works are one or
more times removed from any original.
We have clear agendas, not attempts at recording
history. We have names like Polycarp invoked NOT
as historical records, but as JUSTIFICATION for
personal authority, power (My church is legit and
yours is not!), and AS WEAPONS in religious wars
(Oh, yeah? Well Polycarp says you're wrong, even
though he's dead, and he knew an Apostle of
Christ!")
Taken at face value, all you offer is the record
of petty men who are struggle for control of
Christianity, who are struggling for their power.
This is why such religious crap does not belong
in a history newsgroup.
Tom McDonald
> Christian sources against the tel�nai may have stemmed originally from
> the conflict in the economy: the ancient sources stereotype them as
> inequitable and liable to unjust treatment of the population.
>
> 4. With regard to the Jesus tradition, it seems to me that the role of
> Galilean fishing has been severely underrated for its impact on Jesus'
> network, locations of operation, aphorisms, parables, and "acts of
> power." It does not seem an overstatement to say that Jesus'
> proclamation of God's Reign had its primary audience in Galilean
> fishing-villages and towns. This at least partially accounts for his
> avoidance of Galilean cities (notably Tiberias and Sepphoris) and the
> snide view of his ministry by Jerusalemite elites. It may also account
> for the tradition of Jesus drawing crowds from the fishing regions of
> Tyre and Sidon. Because Jesus made his residence in the fishing
> village of Capernaum during his ministry and traveled up, down, and
> across the Sea of Galilee, the lives of these real fishing families
> became the fabric from which he wove many of his metaphors and told
> his stories. Moreover, it was his sitting in a boat, crossing the Sea,
> and healing and exorcising in fishing-villages which were the stories
> vividly told in the earliest Jesus-groups. This hardly seems
> tangential to our modern attempts at recapturing the dynamics of
> Jesus' career in his own setting."
>
>
> http://www.kchanson.com/articles/fishing.html
ADR
<jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > You must be kidding, of course.
>
> No, Alexander the great, a greek, conquered the
> area circa 330 BC. and Greek became the linqua
> franca of the area.
You are, then, kidding. It is true that the use of Greek became
widespread but only among educated men in major cities. The vast
number of the subjects of the Hellenistic kings did not speak Greek.
Thus, both the Ptolemies and the Seleukids erected multi-lingual
inscriptions. One would expect Greek to be spoken in Greek colonies
or some of the new Herodian cities such as Caesarea Maritima, but it
would not have been spoken in most of Palestine. In Jerusalem, some
of the priesthood and aristocracy would have been facile in Greek, the
troops definitely spoke Greek, but the populace spoke Aramaic by and
large. In the dirt poor settlements by the Galilee, where poverty was
extreme, knowledge and use of Greek would have been minimal.
> The fishermen of the Sea of Galilee
>
> > were dirt poor. Fishing in that lake was a miss and hit affair and
> > even the boats were extremely basic crudely put together. It is
> > simply not believable that the ragtag group of fishermen there spoke
> > Greek when even Jesus did not.
>
> I believe, he probably did, and owning boats and
> being a carpenter is middle class imo.
You should read how these boats were constructed and how flimsy they
were. Archaeology of the area has shown that existence there was
harsh. In addition, I am sorry to burst the myth, but Jesus was not a
carpenter. The Greek text says nothing about him being a carpenter.
It utilizes the term "tecton" which means that he was nothing more
than a hire hand for all types of construction. Again, life for him
and his simblings would have been harsh.
> > They spoke Aramaic, just like Jesus
> > and they were illiterate. I do not know what you thought was middle
> > class at that time but none of Jesus disciples belonged to it.
>
> See above.
I saw and I answered.
> > even believe that John would write a theologically based gospel in his
> > very late years (assuming that he lived in ripe old age) is rather
> > difficult to accept.
>
> Why, I know a lot of Jewish people who aren't
> rich, but are still learned.
Trying to equate existence in the 21st century with that of the 1st
century CE is not a very good idea.
> John as middle class could have been learned,
> Any way, he could have used learned converts.
There was no "middle class" in Palestine at the time.
> > The presentation of Jesus as the Logos requires
> > some good understanding of advanced Greek notions. This gospel was
> > written by somebody with very good education.
>
> See above
Not responsive. In fact, the adoption of the term "Logos" is based on
the work of the Philo of Alexandria who produced text mixing Greek
philosophy and the Jewish religion. The author of the "Gospel
according to John" must have been aware of the works of Philo as well
as other contemporary Greek philosophy. In all gospels, there is
simply no indication that any of the disciples or even Jesus have been
aware of works of philosophers or any other texts outside the Torah.
> > incorporated certain memories and traditions from the disciples, but
> > it was not written by any of them.
>
> Not according to Irenaeus and the church universal.
Who is actually "the Church Universal"?
> > unlikely that a gospel written by John the apostle would have been
> > assigned to an anonymous author.
>
> The church universal has always stated John the Aposle
> wrote it.
I am not sure what is this "church universal" but the canon was put
together by a small group of men and only then did this gospel got its
designation as "according to John".
You have to immerse yourself in the environment of the early centuries
CE. Books were handwritten manuscipts, passed around with a minimum
of documentation. Documentation itself was minimal because literacy
was minimal, especially among the early Christian crowd that consisted
mostly of the poor. Transmission of information was mostly oral and we
know how reliable this is. Our whole information network was totally
absent, libraries were few and they were located in the seats of
government with only a group of dedicated scholars having access to
them. A few learned Christians would have had access to a few books
and their importance would have been magnified based on their rarity.
When you get to the canon, many of the decisions rested on Eusebius of
Caesarea. Is he the "Church Universal"? My own guess on the "gospel
according to John" is that the early version was put together sometime
in the last decades of the 1st century CE by somebody who embraced the
work of Philo of Alexandria and then it was amplified, especially in
the discourses by others, possibly pulling in some reminisces by
apostles. It is a very peculiar gospel as Jesus speaks "ex cathedra"
in an authoritative manner.."I am the beginning...." etc. The author
of this gospel knew explicitly that Christianity was much different
from Judaism, a very separate religion, and this fact is inconsistent
with the early Church in which this decision had not been made.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Tertullian was the other source I cited,
not Eusebius.
My main argument which goes over your head
is the Aramaic, Greek, Coptic(both Northern
and Southern Egypt), Vetus Latin and other
ancient Apostolic Churches all have the same
four Gospels with minor scribal variations.
let me try again, once a copy has been made
and leaves the area, new copies can only be
made from the copy, thus the basic agreement is strong
evidence of theit trustwothness.
Jim
Also available are scans of the fragments of Irenaeus that Harvey
supplies in his second volume; these are in Greek, Latin, and Syriac
only. The first two columns below consist of Syriac fragments from
Against Heresies itself; the two columns below consist of fragments
from lost works by Irenaeus:
Pages. Fragments. Pages. Fragments. Pages. Fragments. Pages.
Fragments.
430-431. 1. 450-451. 21b-24a. 470-471. 1-2a. 490-491. 21-24.
432-433. 2-3a. 452-453. 24b. 472-473. 2b-3a. 492-493. 25-28a.
434-435. 3b-5a. 454-455. 25-26. 474-475. 3b. 494-495. 28b-31a.
436-437. 5b-7a. 456-457. 27-28. 476-477. 3c-5a. 496-497. 31b-33a.
438-439. 7b-10a. 458-459. 29a. 478-479. 5b-8. 498-499. 33b-35a.
440-441. 10b-13a. 460-461. 29b-30. 480-481. 9-12a. 500-501. 35b-36a.
442-443. 13b-15a. 462-463. 31. 482-483. 12b-14a. 502-503. 36b.
444-445. 15b-17a. 464-465. 32a. 484-485. 14b. 504-505. 36c-37a.
446-447. 17b-20a. 466-467. 32b. 486-487. 14c-17. 506-507. 37b-40a.
448-449. 20b-21a. 468-469. 32c. 488-489. 18-20. 508-509. 40b-44.
510-511. 45-47.
http://www.textexcavation.com/irenaeusah.html
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> On Jan 10, 10:00 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
>
> <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > > You must be kidding, of course.
>
> > No, Alexander the great, a greek, conquered the
> > area circa 330 BC. and Greek became the linqua
> > franca of the area.
>
> You are, then, kidding. It is true that the use of Greek became
> widespread but only among educated men in major cities. The vast
> number of the subjects of the Hellenistic kings did not speak Greek.
> Thus, both the Ptolemies and the Seleukids erected multi-lingual
> inscriptions. One would expect Greek to be spoken in Greek colonies
> or some of the new Herodian cities such as Caesarea Maritima, but it
> would not have been spoken in most of Palestine. In Jerusalem, some
> of the priesthood and aristocracy would have been facile in Greek, the
> troops definitely spoke Greek, but the populace spoke Aramaic by and
> large. In the dirt poor settlements by the Galilee, where poverty was
> extreme, knowledge and use of Greek would have been minimal.
>
of the area was Koine or common Greek. guess what,
the NT is in Koine Greek, not Attic Greek.
> > The fishermen of the Sea of Galilee
>
> > > were dirt poor. Fishing in that lake was a miss and hit affair and
> > > even the boats were extremely basic crudely put together. It is
> > > simply not believable that the ragtag group of fishermen there spoke
> > > Greek when even Jesus did not.
>
> > I believe, he probably did, and owning boats and
> > being a carpenter is middle class imo.
>
> You should read how these boats were constructed and how flimsy they
> were. Archaeology of the area has shown that existence there was
> harsh. In addition, I am sorry to burst the myth, but Jesus was not a
> carpenter. The Greek text says nothing about him being a carpenter.
> It utilizes the term "tecton" which means that he was nothing more
> than a hire hand for all types of construction. Again, life for him
> and his simblings would have been harsh.
>
I say middle class, you don't but the use of
scibes and stenoghaphers makes your argument nugatory,anyway.
> > > They spoke Aramaic, just like Jesus
> > > and they were illiterate.
Luke 4
16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as
his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and
stood up for to read.
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias.
And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was
written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to
preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the
brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering
of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and
sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were
fastened on him.
Notice: Jesus read from the scroll.
I do not know what you thought was middle
> > > class at that time but none of Jesus disciples belonged to it.
>
> > See above.
>
> I saw and I answered.
>
See my response above.
> > > even believe that John would write a theologically based gospel in his
> > > very late years (assuming that he lived in ripe old age) is rather
> > > difficult to accept.
>
> > Why, I know a lot of Jewish people who aren't
> > rich, but are still learned.
>
> Trying to equate existence in the 21st century with that of the 1st
> century CE is not a very good idea.
>
In your opinion. People were still people.
> > John as middle class could have been learned,
> > Any way, he could have used learned converts.
>
> There was no "middle class" in Palestine at the time.
>
In your opinion. I have heard others use the term.
> > > The presentation of Jesus as the Logos requires
> > > some good understanding of advanced Greek notions. This gospel was
> > > written by somebody with very good education.
>
> > See above
>
Jesus read in the synagogue, all that was needed
was one person who could read be a lector(i.e.
read to them.
> Not responsive. In fact, the adoption of the term "Logos" is based on
> the work of the Philo of Alexandria who produced text mixing Greek
> philosophy and the Jewish religion. The author of the "Gospel
> according to John" must have been aware of the works of Philo as well
> as other contemporary Greek philosophy. In all gospels, there is
> simply no indication that any of the disciples or even Jesus have been
> aware of works of philosophers or any other texts outside the Torah.
>
Any way the use of scribes and stenographers
makes your arguments nugatory.
> > > incorporated certain memories and traditions from the disciples, but
> > > it was not written by any of them.
>
> > Not according to Irenaeus and the church universal.
>
> Who is actually "the Church Universal"?
>
The Apostolic Churches, Aramaic, Greek, Coptic,
Vetus Latin, Church of India, and others.
> > > unlikely that a gospel written by John the apostle would have been
> > > assigned to an anonymous author.
>
> > The church universal has always stated John the Aposle
> > wrote it.
>
> I am not sure what is this "church universal" but the canon was put
> together by a small group of men and only then did this gospel got its
> designation as "according to John".
>
Mythology. No Ecumenical Council declared the cannon.
Two authoritive views.
(d) Text according to Metzger. According to Zahn (Geschichte, ii,
pp.
252-3),
in 419 another council held at Carthage gave the concluding words
in the following form: "the Revelation of John, one book.
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow-bishop, Boniface [of
Rome],
and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this
canon,
for these are the things that we have received from our fathers to
be
read in church."
And so in Westcott.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html
All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we
do receive, and account them canonical.
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/thirtyni.htm
> You have to immerse yourself in the environment of the early centuries
> CE. Books were handwritten manuscipts, passed around with a minimum
> of documentation. Documentation itself was minimal because literacy
> was minimal, especially among the early Christian crowd that consisted
> mostly of the poor. Transmission of information was mostly oral and we
> know how reliable this is. Our whole information network was totally
> absent, libraries were few and they were located in the seats of
> government with only a group of dedicated scholars having access to
> them. A few learned Christians would have had access to a few books
> and their importance would have been magnified based on their rarity.
> When you get to the canon, many of the decisions rested on Eusebius of
> Caesarea. Is he the "Church Universal"? My own guess on the "gospel
> according to John" is that the early version was put together sometime
> in the last decades of the 1st century CE by somebody who embraced the
> work of Philo of Alexandria and then it was amplified, especially in
> the discourses by others, possibly pulling in some reminisces by
> apostles. It is a very peculiar gospel as Jesus speaks "ex cathedra"
> in an authoritative manner.."I am the beginning...." etc. The author
> of this gospel knew explicitly that Christianity was much different
> from Judaism, a very separate religion, and this fact is inconsistent
> with the early Church in which this decision had not been made.
As I said, the use of scribes and stenographers
makes your argument nugatory, and my reading of
ancient literature makes your speculation seem the mythology
that Burgon of Oxford called the "German Scholarship"
that was invented in the 18th century.
John
21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and
wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
Notice: probably a scribe
Also, the NT was written in Koine Greek, not
Attic Greek.
You still havn't or any follower of what Burgon of Oxford
called the "German Scholarship" explained how
the Aramaic, Greek, Coptic(both Southern and Northern Egypt),
Vetus Latin, and other ancient churches all have the same
4 Gospels with only minor scribal variations unless they
go back to the original followers.
You can check this out by going to your
local Bible Society and check out the ancient
versions of the Aramaic. Greek, Coptic, Vetus
Latin, and other ancient churches.
Jim
ADR
<jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> The educated knew Attic Greek, the linqua franca
> of the area was Koine or common Greek. guess what,
> the NT is in Koine Greek, not Attic Greek.
I think that you do not know what you are talking about. Attic was
not spoken at the time. The Koine itself is simplified Attic as you
will find in even the most basic encyclopedia. Just check Wikipedia.
The Koine was not called thus because it was "common", it was called
that because it was a consensus Greek understood and spoken by all
Greeks: it was their **common** language. The term "Koine" does not
have the meaning that you assume here. As for the penetration of
Greek in Syria, Palestine, Egypt and the interior of Asia Minor, there
are excellent treatises on this in every historical text on the
Hellenistic age, so I do not want to continue on this. Just read.
The reason that the gospels were written and propagaded in Greek is
because Christianity soon became a very urban phenomenon. It spread
in the Hellenistic metropoles. Usually, there was little evidence of
Christianity in the countryside. It is interesting to read the
polemic against Christianity by Julian the Apostate when he was at
Antioch.
> > You should read how these boats were constructed and how flimsy they
> > were. Archaeology of the area has shown that existence there was
> > harsh. In addition, I am sorry to burst the myth, but Jesus was not a
> > carpenter. The Greek text says nothing about him being a carpenter.
> > It utilizes the term "tecton" which means that he was nothing more
> > than a hire hand for all types of construction. Again, life for him
> > and his simblings would have been harsh.
>
> I say middle class, you don't but the use of
> scibes and stenoghaphers makes your argument nugatory,anyway.
A scribe and a stenographer can only record what a person says, they
cannot teach that person Philo's philosophical musings.
> > > > They spoke Aramaic, just like Jesus
> > > > and they were illiterate.
>
> Luke 4
>
> 16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as
> his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and
> stood up for to read.
The disciples were illiterate and spoke Aramaic. Apparently, at least
according to gospels, Jesus was able to read the Torah. You
misunderstood me at that.
>
> > Trying to equate existence in the 21st century with that of the 1st
> > century CE is not a very good idea.
>
> In your opinion. People were still people.
Yes. But there is a great deal of difference between the material
world today and that of 2000 years ago. Famine was common, death from
all kinds of diseases very common and early death even commoner. The
average life span was about 25 years and one had led a full life had
he made it to his forties. Life was brutish and short.
> > There was no "middle class" in Palestine at the time.
>
> In your opinion. I have heard others use the term.
Maybe you should investigate it yourself
>
> > Not responsive. In fact, the adoption of the term "Logos" is based on
> > the work of the Philo of Alexandria who produced text mixing Greek
> > philosophy and the Jewish religion. The author of the "Gospel
> > according to John" must have been aware of the works of Philo as well
> > as other contemporary Greek philosophy. In all gospels, there is
> > simply no indication that any of the disciples or even Jesus have been
> > aware of works of philosophers or any other texts outside the Torah.
>
> Any way the use of scribes and stenographers
> makes your arguments nugatory.
Not at all. Because one is a scribe does not mean that one had read
the works of Philo. Even assuming that person had the curiosity to
read the work of Philo, do you have any idea how much money it would
taken to secure a copy? There was no printing at that time. Usually
the author used a few scribes to produce copies which were distributed
to a few literati and to the libraries of the institution were he
worked. Buying a book at that time was a very expensive proposition.
Philo's work was addressed to the leadership of the hieratic order in
Israel. Whoever had access and had read Philo's work was not a poor
fisherman from the Galilee.
> > Who is actually "the Church Universal"?
>
> The Apostolic Churches, Aramaic, Greek, Coptic,
> Vetus Latin, Church of India, and others.
They are not very universal as far as I know
> > I am not sure what is this "church universal" but the canon was put
> > together by a small group of men and only then did this gospel got its
> > designation as "according to John".
>
> Mythology. No Ecumenical Council declared the cannon.
You are wrong. The canon was originally generated by Origen of
Alexandria and finalized by Athanasius of Alexandria and St. Augustine
in a number of Synods. These men had imperial power behind them to
enforce it. If you want to believe that all of this is mythology,
then so be it.
> Two authoritive views.
>
Scribes and stenographers had no idea of complex theological
arguments. They wrote down what they were told. For someone to
equate Jesus with the Logos, it took a lot of reading and
understanding of complex philosophical works. You can provide a
scribe and a stenographer to any illiterate person but you are not
going to get anything usable produced. Whoever wrote the "Gospel
according to John" was a person with a keen theological interest who
had read both Jewish and Greek theology and understood rhetoric. Have
you ever read the Gospel of John from the beginning to the end? I
have. In fact, it is a rather dense work (and contradictory in
certain areas to other gospels, such as the description of the Last
Supper). You should actually read in the original as I have, as its
language appears to be a more complex Koine than that of the other
gospels.
Listen, you are believer and you chose to believe rather than evaluate
the evidence.
Martin Edwards
Not always, but in this case I felt that I had to leave it there to make
it clear what I was responding to. My point is that the "evangellion"
was the good news about Jesus Christ, which could simply have been his
death and rebirth in the First Heaven, in which heavenly beings were
nearly, but not fully, physical. Most of the Pauline corpus can be read
this way. It is only in Christian times properly speaking that we have
come to read it as meaning the four stories aboout a historical Jesus
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie
As through this world I've rambled, as through this world I've roamed,
I've never seen an outlaw drive a family from their home.
Plus �a change, or what?
Meteorologist
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 10:18 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> The Gospel referred to need not have been a narrative, nor are the
> >> "Apostles" anywhere called "disciples" of a physical Jesus.
>
> >> --
> >> As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
> >> Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
>
> >> Woody Guthrie
>
> > You also fail to trim what you are responding to.
>
> Not always, but in this case I felt that I had to leave it there to make
> it clear what I was responding to. My point is that the "evangellion"
> was the good news about Jesus Christ, which could simply have been his
> death and rebirth in the First Heaven, in which heavenly beings were
> nearly, but not fully, physical. Most of the Pauline corpus can be read
> this way. It is only in Christian times properly speaking that we have
> come to read it as meaning the four stories aboout a historical Jesus
Yet -
The full story (2). Sep AD 43 in Ephesus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1989
"The passage in Rev 10 describes an event that is recorded for the
same date in Acts 11:20. In this passage, certain people ‘preached the
gospel’ ( euangelizomenoi ) on Cyprus. That is, there was a
simultaneous publication in Ephesus and on Cyprus of the original form
of Matthew’s gospel (later expanded and completed in AD 49, as shown
in Rev 6). The date of the event in both places was Tuesday September
24 AD 43. It was the 31st of the solar calendar, at the equinox. A
gospel, the word meaning ‘good news’ was always published at the New
Year in one of its versions, either Julian or solar, because it was
said to fulfil the promise of the ‘good news’ of atonement (Isa 61:1,
Lk 4:18)."
David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> On Jan 11, 3:47 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
>
> <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > The educated knew Attic Greek, the linqua franca
> > of the area was Koine or common Greek. guess what,
> > the NT is in Koine Greek, not Attic Greek.
>
> I think that you do not know what you are talking about. Attic was
> not spoken at the time. The Koine itself is simplified Attic as you
> will find in even the most basic encyclopedia. Just check Wikipedia.
> The Koine was not called thus because it was "common", it was called
> that because it was a consensus Greek understood and spoken by all
> Greeks: it was their **common** language. The term "Koine" does not
> have the meaning that you assume here. As for the penetration of
> Greek in Syria, Palestine, Egypt and the interior of Asia Minor, there
> are excellent treatises on this in every historical text on the
> Hellenistic age, so I do not want to continue on this. Just read.
>
> The reason that the gospels were written and propagaded in Greek is
> because Christianity soon became a very urban phenomenon. It spread
> in the Hellenistic metropoles. Usually, there was little evidence of
> Christianity in the countryside. It is interesting to read the
> polemic against Christianity by Julian the Apostate when he was at
> Antioch.
>
What is Koine Greek? Koine Greek is the Greek dialect that was used to
write the New Testament. The Apostle Paul and others wrote in Greek
because people in the eastern half of the Roman Empire spoke Greek as
a common language. So, they wrote in a language the people of that
time and place could read (or hear) and understand.
In contrast, Attic Greek is a Greek dialect spoken in Attica, a region
of Ancient Greece. Athens. Most courses teaching classical Greek will
teach the attic dialect. Examples of Attic Greek authors include
Euripides and Sophocles.
Koine Greek evolved from Attic Greek. "
http://koinegreekgeek.blogspot.com/2005/11/koine-greek-vs-attic-greek-whats.html
> > > You should read how these boats were constructed and how flimsy they
> > > were. Archaeology of the area has shown that existence there was
> > > harsh. In addition, I am sorry to burst the myth, but Jesus was not a
> > > carpenter. The Greek text says nothing about him being a carpenter.
> > > It utilizes the term "tecton" which means that he was nothing more
> > > than a hire hand for all types of construction. Again, life for him
> > > and his simblings would have been harsh.
>
> > I say middle class, you don't but the use of
> > scibes and stenoghaphers makes your argument nugatory,anyway.
>
> A scribe and a stenographer can only record what a person says, they
> cannot teach that person Philo's philosophical musings.
>
Point over your head, a movement that became
a threat to Rome had access to educated people.
e.g. Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews
> > > > > They spoke Aramaic, just like Jesus
> > > > > and they were illiterate.
>
> > Luke 4
>
> > 16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as
> > his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and
> > stood up for to read.
>
> The disciples were illiterate and spoke Aramaic. Apparently, at least
> according to gospels, Jesus was able to read the Torah. You
> misunderstood me at that.
>
Documentation shows Jesus could read.
I say the deciples probably spoke Koine
Greek outside and Aramaic in the home as
many Jewish people used to speak Yiddhish
at home and English outside.
>
>
> > > Trying to equate existence in the 21st century with that of the 1st
> > > century CE is not a very good idea.
>
> > In your opinion. People were still people.
>
> Yes. But there is a great deal of difference between the material
> world today and that of 2000 years ago. Famine was common, death from
> all kinds of diseases very common and early death even commoner. The
> average life span was about 25 years and one had led a full life had
> he made it to his forties. Life was brutish and short.
>
read the plays of Plautus who shows
how people lived and even slaves.
Zero Mostel made a movie from one
of his plays(i.e. Something Funny nHappened
on the way to the Forum)
> > > There was no "middle class" in Palestine at the time.
>
> > In your opinion. I have heard others use the term.
>
> Maybe you should investigate it yourself
>
I have, and besides the nobility there
were merchants, and people involved in
trade such as Carpenteers and fishermen.
>
>
> > > Not responsive. In fact, the adoption of the term "Logos" is based on
> > > the work of the Philo of Alexandria who produced text mixing Greek
> > > philosophy and the Jewish religion. The author of the "Gospel
> > > according to John" must have been aware of the works of Philo as well
> > > as other contemporary Greek philosophy. In all gospels, there is
> > > simply no indication that any of the disciples or even Jesus have been
> > > aware of works of philosophers or any other texts outside the Torah.
>
> > Any way the use of scribes and stenographers
> > makes your arguments nugatory.
>
> Not at all. Because one is a scribe does not mean that one had read
> the works of Philo. Even assuming that person had the curiosity to
> read the work of Philo, do you have any idea how much money it would
> taken to secure a copy? There was no printing at that time. Usually
> the author used a few scribes to produce copies which were distributed
> to a few literati and to the libraries of the institution were he
> worked. Buying a book at that time was a very expensive proposition.
> Philo's work was addressed to the leadership of the hieratic order in
> Israel. Whoever had access and had read Philo's work was not a poor
> fisherman from the Galilee.
>
Point over your head, a movement that became
a threat to Rome had access to educated people.
e.g. Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews
> > > Who is actually "the Church Universal"?
>
> > The Apostolic Churches, Aramaic, Greek, Coptic,
> > Vetus Latin, Church of India, and others.
>
> They are not very universal as far as I know
>
The church universal in spite of what Rome says is
all the churches that can trace back to the Apostles.
> > > I am not sure what is this "church universal" but the canon was put
> > > together by a small group of men and only then did this gospel got its
> > > designation as "according to John".
>
> > Mythology. No Ecumenical Council declared the cannon.
>
> You are wrong. The canon was originally generated by Origen of
> Alexandria and finalized by Athanasius of Alexandria and St. Augustine
> in a number of Synods. These men had imperial power behind them to
> enforce it. If you want to believe that all of this is mythology,
> then so be it.
>
Is that the Origen excommunicated
by the church of Egypt<rhetorical>
is that the Athanasius exiled about seven times<rhetorical>
Is that the Augustine that tried to stop Jerome's
Vulgate<rhetorical>
Is that the Synod of Trent that Bishop Pike
said was the firct to canonize Scripture<rhetorical>
I guess the Roman Empire forced the Aramaic
Peshirra to leave out Revelation, Jude, II Peter,
II + III Jogn, and the woman in Adultery<rhetorical>
Point over your head, a movement that became
a threat to Rome had access to educated people.
e.g. Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews
> Listen, you are believer and you chose to believe rather than evaluate
> the evidence.
I have read both sides, and I also know
what the genetic fallacy is.
Jim
Lu 1:2 - Even as they delivered them unto us,
which from the beginning were eyewitnesses,
and ministers of the word;
2Pe 1:16 - For we have not followed cunningly devised fables,
when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ,
but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
Meteorologist
> On Jan 12, 7:31 am, Meteorologist <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Gospel means "good news"
>
> And when you say you are a meteorologist, it should be the truth.
> Since it's not the truth, you are choosing to lie and mislead those
> who don't already know you and your history of lies and delusions in
> Usenet.
>
> IOW - you are purposely choosing to be deceptive.
>
> <removed Thiering fiction and fantasy>
Kelly is dishonest in her statements here. Also, she
is blatantly off-topic.
So, the beat goes on with nobody in usenetland able
to refute Dr. Thiering and her Thiering Thesis.
BTW the original form of Matthew's gospel was published
September AD 43.
(<<Kelly>>)
"Published"? Uhh...no. That's not how Scripture was written then,
doofus. But why should I be surprised you would say such a thing? I
seem to remember you not knowing that wadis are the same thing as
cisterns...
:-D
ADR
<jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 12:32 am, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 11, 3:47 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
>
> > <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > > The educated knew Attic Greek, the linqua franca
> > > of the area was Koine or common Greek. guess what,
> > > the NT is in Koine Greek, not Attic Greek.
>
> > I think that you do not know what you are talking about. Attic was
> > not spoken at the time. The Koine itself is simplified Attic as you
> > will find in even the most basic encyclopedia. Just check Wikipedia.
> > The Koine was not called thus because it was "common", it was called
> > that because it was a consensus Greek understood and spoken by all
> > Greeks: it was their **common** language. The term "Koine" does not
> > have the meaning that you assume here. As for the penetration of
> > Greek in Syria, Palestine, Egypt and the interior of Asia Minor, there
> > are excellent treatises on this in every historical text on the
> > Hellenistic age, so I do not want to continue on this. Just read.
>
> > The reason that the gospels were written and propagaded in Greek is
> > because Christianity soon became a very urban phenomenon. It spread
> > in the Hellenistic metropoles. Usually, there was little evidence of
> > Christianity in the countryside. It is interesting to read the
> > polemic against Christianity by Julian the Apostate when he was at
> > Antioch.
>
> "Koine Greek vs. Attic Greek: What's the Difference?
You seem to sing your own tune no matter what anybody else is talking
about
> What is Koine Greek? Koine Greek is the Greek dialect that was used to
> write the New Testament. The Apostle Paul and others wrote in Greek
> because people in the eastern half of the Roman Empire spoke Greek as
> a common language. So, they wrote in a language the people of that
> time and place could read (or hear) and understand.
No kidding Einstein. However, unfortunately for you, it was not true
that the people in the Eastern half of the Roman Empire spoke Greek.
In fact, only a minority did. This is why after the Arab conquest,
Arabic, which was very close to the Aramaic spoken in the region
predominated. Goptic, of course, remained extensively spoken in
Egypt. Greek was spoken in urban centers around the coast and in the
Greek colonies in the interior. Those who wanted to get ahead in life
learned Greek and it was not easy to do. One needed to go to school
and spent a lot of time learning Greek. It was not the language of
the people. In fact, even in Asia Minor, local languages such as
Karian and Phrygian remained active local languages well into the
middle ages. ****It seems to me that this is something you do not want
to know because information on this is so easy to find**** Most books
on the Hellenistic Age (Peter Green's "From Alexander to Cleopatra")
and many on the Later Roman Empire (Jones' "The Later Roman Empire) or
even Momsens classical text ("The provinces of the Roman Empire ")
provide a very good and detailed information on the languages spoken.
But you are obstinate in your ignorance.
> In contrast, Attic Greek is a Greek dialect spoken in Attica, a region
> of Ancient Greece. Athens. Most courses teaching classical Greek will
> teach the attic dialect.
Guess why Einstein? The Koine was not spoken at all during the
classical Age!!!!
> Koine Greek evolved from Attic Greek.
Isn't this what I told you?
> > > I say middle class, you don't but the use of
> > > scibes and stenoghaphers makes your argument nugatory,anyway.
>
> > A scribe and a stenographer can only record what a person says, they
> > cannot teach that person Philo's philosophical musings.
>
> Point over your head, a movement that became
> a threat to Rome had access to educated people.
> e.g. Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews
Joseph of Arimathea was an educated person? Nicodemus himself was a
Pharisee who was well disposed towards Jesus but I do not think that
he was ever a Christian!! Where do you get all this? And Christianity
did eventually have a number of educated persons in its mist, but none
of them were dirt poor fishermen from the Galilee.
> Documentation shows Jesus could read.
> I say the deciples probably spoke Koine
> Greek outside and Aramaic in the home as
> many Jewish people used to speak Yiddhish
> at home and English outside.
Why would these fishermen who never got an education speak Greek? Who
were they going to speak Greek to? An occasional turma of Roman
cavalry that went through once in a blue moon? Who were they talking
Greek to? Come on, answer this.
> > > > Trying to equate existence in the 21st century with that of the 1st
> > > > century CE is not a very good idea.
> read the plays of Plautus who shows
> how people lived and even slaves.
> Zero Mostel made a movie from one
> of his plays(i.e. Something Funny nHappened
> on the way to the Forum)
Wow, is this where you are getting your education? A Zero Mostel play?
The people in Galilee were dirt poor and were subjected to famine more
often than not. The construction of their boats was rudimentary and
of poor quality. You can read all about it here:
http://christianactionforisrael.org/isreport/jboat.html
> I have, and besides the nobility there
> were merchants, and people involved in
> trade such as Carpenteers and fishermen.
Being a fisherman was not a trade. It was a way of scraping a living
for those who had no land and no other skills. They were the poorer
of the poor. They were the meek that Jesus was talking about.
> > Not at all. Because one is a scribe does not mean that one had read
> > the works of Philo. Even assuming that person had the curiosity to
> > read the work of Philo, do you have any idea how much money it would
> > taken to secure a copy? There was no printing at that time. Usually
> > the author used a few scribes to produce copies which were distributed
> > to a few literati and to the libraries of the institution were he
> > worked. Buying a book at that time was a very expensive proposition.
> > Philo's work was addressed to the leadership of the hieratic order in
> > Israel. Whoever had access and had read Philo's work was not a poor
> > fisherman from the Galilee.
>
> Point over your head, a movement that became
> a threat to Rome had access to educated people.
> e.g. Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews
You keep whistling your tune. I am talking about the author of the
gospel according to John, my man, not the Christian Church overall
> > You are wrong. The canon was originally generated by Origen of
> > Alexandria and finalized by Athanasius of Alexandria and St. Augustine
> > in a number of Synods. These men had imperial power behind them to
> > enforce it. If you want to believe that all of this is mythology,
> > then so be it.
>
> Is that the Origen excommunicated
> by the church of Egypt<rhetorical>
> is that the Athanasius exiled about seven times<rhetorical>
> Is that the Augustine that tried to stop Jerome's
> Vulgate<rhetorical>
Yes, it was all them with assistance from the imperial authorities
(minus Origen, of course). Athanasius' problems were actually caused
by his defense of orthodoxy against Arianism, as he had to battle a
number of Arian emperors
> Is that the Synod of Trent that Bishop Pike
> said was the firct to canonize Scripture<rhetorical>
>
> I guess the Roman Empire forced the Aramaic
> Peshirra to leave out Revelation, Jude, II Peter,
> II + III Jogn, and the woman in Adultery<rhetorical>
The emperor was the supreme leader of the Church and the Patriarchs
and bishops were under this control. Imperial control over religious
matters was key to all decisions. In fact, the term Caesaropapism has
been coined from the experience of this period.
JTEM
"jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> Tertullian was the other source I cited,
No. I explained it to you and STILL you can't
grasp it.
The "Source" is unknown.
The "Source" would be the original document, or
an eyewitness, and we have neither. Neither
exists.
If & when you can grasp this you will be on your
way to being fit to post to a history group, and
still be taken seriously. Until then, you're
simply another crank.
Good luck with that.
Meteorologist
> On Jan 12, 2:11 pm, Meteorologist <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 12, 11:04 am, "(<<Kelly>>)" <rosie_be...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 12, 7:31 am, Meteorologist <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Gospel means "good news"
>
> > > And when you say you are a meteorologist, it should be the truth.
> > > Since it's not the truth, you are choosing to lie and mislead those
> > > who don't already know you and your history of lies and delusions in
> > > Usenet.
>
> > > IOW - you are purposely choosing to be deceptive.
>
> > > <removed Thiering fiction and fantasy>
>
> > Kelly is dishonest in her statements here. Also, she
> > is blatantly off-topic.
>
> > So, the beat goes on with nobody in usenetland able
> > to refute Dr. Thiering and her Thiering Thesis.
>
> > BTW the original form of Matthew's gospel was published
> > September AD 43.
>
> "Published"? Uhh...no. That's not how Scripture was written then,
> doofus.
You are an irritant with the use of this language.
Please correct your style of language on usenet
to be more polite.
> But why should I be surprised you would say such a thing? I
> seem to remember you not knowing that wadis are the same thing as
> cisterns...
>
> :-D
Yet, you are wrong to attribute any such idea to me about
cisterns and wadis. You were deceived by usenet mockers
like Matt Giwer on sci.archaeology, way back when.
Would you please correct your inappropriate behaviour
on usenet when you comment on my ideas about Qumran
archaeology and Thiering Thesis?
-----
Now, I address any usenetter sincerely interested in the
Thiering style of interpreting the New Testament; I am not
now addressing Kelly.
So, for the layperson Dr. Thiering's analysis is extremely
difficult to understand without guidance from an expert.
Here is just a sample; feel free to ask me any questions
about it; if any usenetter disagrees and we have conversation,
it's just an intellectual disagreement as far as I am concerned;
in the end the stronger arguements on the merits will prevail;
that is the scholarly method -
Acting like a literalist gives you the pesher
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/4229
Extract -
According to all the gospels, Jesus shortly before the crucifixion
rode in a
triumphal procession on a colt (polos), accompanied by a crowd singing
"Hosanna
to the Coming One (ho erchomenos)". It was obviously a fulfilment of
Zech 9:9,
from the later part of Zechariah, which was written at a time when the
Greek
presence was stirring up renewed hopes of a return of the Davidic
monarchy.
The words of the Zech passage are: "Lo, your king comes to you.humble
and riding
on an ass, on a colt the foal of an ass." It alludes to the coronation
rite of
the David, when he rode on the royal mule from the Mt of Olives, past
the spring
Gihon, where he was anointed by the Zadokite and his levite, and in
triumph
entered the city (1 Kings 1:32-40) . In the Zech passage, the naming
of two
animals is due to the poetic device of parallelism, which uses a rhyme
of
thought, repeating a word or phrase in parallel words. The style is
found in all
OT poetry.
In Matthew's gospel (21:1-10), the episode of Jesus' procession
presents two
animals. Jesus' disciples were sent to the village, where they would
find "an
ass tied, and a colt with her". The full Zech passage is quoted, with
both
animals. It would have been taken as the poetic form, but Matthew
prevents this
by making it clear that there were two. It is standard biblical
scholarship to
say that he was inventing the narrative from the quotation, and was
free to do
so since the whole episode was a later interpretation aimed at
glorifying Jesus.
Not so. Matthew is giving the actual facts. John's version in 12:12-15
gives the
same facts, but in a more disguised form. There were two animals, and
two men
riding them, and the episode actually took place. There were two
animals because
there were two kings, of whom Jesus was the subordinate one. The
superior was
Agrippa I, rehearsing his ascent to the monarchy. He was riding ahead
on the
superior animal, the ass, more closely resembling the royal mule. The
subordinate animal, the colt or foal of an ass, was ridden by Jesus,
"the Coming
One", that is the lay head. Gentiles hailed hm with palm branches
because he was
the chief teacher of the lowly class of Gentiles. Agrippa, adopting
the role of
his grandfather Herod the Great, was claiming to be both the Messiah
of Aaron
and the Messiah of Israel, the king as well as the Zadokite. He was at
that time
accepting Jesus as the legitimate lay head because he was in his
Sadducee mode.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Some time after Koine Greek faded in use, many scholars were very
perplexed as to where it came from. It was not the Modern Greek spoken
today and it was not the Classical Greek of Plato and Homer. Some
even thought it was a "Semitic Greek" (Jewish Greek) or a special
"Holy Ghost" language.
Koiné Greek is actually a nonliterary Greek. Through the conquests of
Alexander the Great, Greek became the language of the Greco-Roman
Empire. As nations were assimilated into the Roman Empire, people
often learned Greek as a second language and many of Classical Greek's
subtleties were lost. The language was simplified and many words took
on new or different meanings. At the time the New Testament was
written, there were two forms of Greek; Literary Greek for formal
writings and Koiné Greek for everyday, spoken communication.
Martin Edwards
the second century BCE, so it is the correct pronunciation for the NT,
while the pronunciation of the Septuagint was transitional. Most Greeks
refuse to believe that Classical Greek was pronounced differently, while
Western clergy learn the NT in the Classical pronunciation.
Martin Edwards
small amount execrable. Only Matthew shows signs of "translationese"
and even there scholars are still arguing about it.
ADR
>
> To give the pot another stir,the modern pronunciation was in place by
> the second century BCE,
This is patently not true. The various accent marks typical in
written Greek from the 2nd century onwards virtually to today
originated during Alexandrine times to help non-Greeks with typical
Greek pronunciation. Had Greek attained its modern pronunciation,
they would have been redundant. The transition to modern Greek
happened, I am certain progressively but when exactly was it fully in
place remains an unknown. My guess is that it was fully in place
sometimes after the 4th century CE but a process of simplification had
started earlier.
> so it is the correct pronunciation for the NT,
> while the pronunciation of the Septuagint was transitional. Most Greeks
> refuse to believe that Classical Greek was pronounced differently, while
> Western clergy learn the NT in the Classical pronunciation.
I do not know who are the "most Greeks" you are talking to. Typical
Greeks that attend a typical Greek high school and learn ancient Greek
are fully aware that the pronunciation of ancient Greek was very
different from modern Greek. Nobody really can miss that Aristophanes
has the sheep bleating "bn, bn" which in modern Greek would read as
"vi, vi" when we know that the sheep sound "bee, bee". So, the value
of high sounds indicated by a "dasia" is also understood. What is
rejected is the Erasmian pronunciation which has been part and parcel
of western academia for centuries and which is patently wrong.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
With you I couldn't prove
Abraham Lincoln existed, since
all the eyewitnesses are dead.
Jim
Lu 1:2 - Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the
beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
2Pe 1:16 - For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we
made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but
were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
1 Corinthians 15
1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached
unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached
unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day
according to the scriptures:
5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of
whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen
asleep.
7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due
time.
ADR
<jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> The Nature of New Testament Greek
> Some time after Koine Greek faded in use, many scholars were very
> perplexed as to where it came from. It was not the Modern Greek spoken
> today and it was not the Classical Greek of Plato and Homer.
I love it when people have absolutely no clue as to what they are
talking about but feel compelled to put their 5 cents in. The
Wikipedia is not the fountain of all knowledge. First of all, the
Koine was part and parcel of the evolution of the language to modern
Greek. It is actually, very close to modern Greek. Today, any modern
literate Greek can read the language of the New Testatment (and that
of the Old Testament) without any special education in its use. It is
that close to modern Greek.
The Koine itself was a substantial departure from Attic in which
Herodotus and Thucydides had written in. However, later writers
including Plato, Xenophon and others did write in simplified versions
of the Attic that approach the Koine in simplicity. The Iliad and
Odyssey are not written in classical (attic) Greek. They are written
in archaic Greek
> Some
> even thought it was a "Semitic Greek" (Jewish Greek) or a special
> "Holy Ghost" language.
He, he...funny!!
> Koiné Greek is actually a nonliterary Greek. Through the conquests of
> Alexander the Great, Greek became the language of the Greco-Roman
> Empire. As nations were assimilated into the Roman Empire, people
> often learned Greek as a second language and many of Classical Greek's
> subtleties were lost. The language was simplified and many words took
> on new or different meanings. At the time the New Testament was
> written, there were two forms of Greek; Literary Greek for formal
> writings and Koiné Greek for everyday, spoken communication.
None of this is true. The Koine in fact was in full use even prior to
Alexander, and it was actually extensively spoken by his troops. The
Koine was a full literary language, with many works written in it.
There were differences between the vernacular and the written form.
The term "Koine" arose not because it was spoken by the "common"
people but because it became a "common" language for the Greeks who
previously utilized at least four major dialects -and many minor
ones-: Attic, Dorian, Aeolic, Western. In fact, these dialects were
substantially different from each other that an Athenian had
difficulty understanding a Spartan, etc, etc. Thus, the "koine" arose
as a means of unifying Greek dialects (thus the designation "Koine").
Those who have read Greek in Dorian (like the poetry of Tyrtaios) can
clearly realize its very strong difference from Attic.
The differences between the vernacular and the written language
remained in Greek since the imposition of the Koine. Many later
authors kept on writing in Attic (such as Procopius, Michael Psellus
and others) well into the end of the middle ages. In fact, a version
of simplified Attic (katharevousa, purist) was introduced in the 19th
century. The Gospels were written in the Koine mainly because they
were supposed to be means of mass communication, even addressing
populations for which Greek was a foreign language.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> On Jan 12, 10:47 am, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 12, 12:32 am, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 11, 3:47 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
>
> > > <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
"You seem to sing your own tune no matter what anybody else is
talking
about"
LOL! I feel the same about you, but I
can demonstrate you ignore what is said.
I guess the Roman Empire forced the Aramaic
Peshirra to leave out Revelation, Jude, II Peter,
II + III Jogn, and the woman in Adultery<rhetorical>
"The emperor was the supreme leader of the Church and the Patriarchs
and bishops were under this control. Imperial control over religious
matters was key to all decisions. In fact, the term Caesaropapism
has
been coined from the experience of this period."
The point was the Aramaic Peshitta didn't
agree with the Greek Church, so some ignored
the Emperor,
The Coptic Church was monophysite.
The Syrian church was also.
Then there was the Nestorian church.
The Armenian.
The Gothic Arians had their oen Bible.
Rome used Jerome's Vulgate not the Bible of the Greek Church.
Even the Greek Orthodox defied the Emperor over icons.
In Russia, the Old Believers defied the Czars.
Even Rome has never been able to unite the Apostolic Churches.
That's why the FACT that all these churches have the same
four Gospels and letters of Paul with small scribal
variations impresses me.
I guess you still won't go to your local
Bible Society and check out the ancient
Aramaic, Greek, Coptic(both Southern and Northern Egypt)
Vetus Latin, and other texts of the Apostolic churches.
Jim
Heb 12:1 - Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so
great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin
which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race
that is set before us,