U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 03-17-2018, 12:23 AM
 
20,322 posts, read 15,670,237 times
Reputation: 7436

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
There are two pointers to mark and John not knowing of a nativity
(1) such a significant event ought to have been mentioned.

(2) John 7.14 I I remember..No 7.42. has a debate where "The Jews" remark that the messiah ought to come from Bethlehem. That neither Jesus corrects then, not John explain to the reader that Jesus was indeed born in Bethlehem, as well as of course not having a Nativity, is evidence enough for me (if not for you) that neither of then knew of a Bethlehem birth.

There's of course another point. The two accounts in Matthew and Luke are quite contradictory. That, I suggest, is strong evidence that they were made up, and you have to invent your own story unless there isn't one already.

I take your point about the divinity of Jesus, though. I've always rather seen a difference between Mark's meat puppet, pushed around by the Shekinah and John's Jesus which is pretty much God in person with a thin human shell around it. But perhaps there isn't all that much difference between a god in human form and a man with a god in it.

The thing is that point number one ignores the fact that long before any of the Gospels were written, the oral traditions of Jesus' life included the details of the nativity. After all, Luke, who was not an eyewitness but relied on both written and oral accounts knew of the nativity and virgin birth. All of the Gospel writers would have known the oral traditions that were in circulation during their lifetime. Point number one also ignores the fact that since John wrote his Gospel account near the end of the first century he surely would have known of the other Gospel accounts and what they contained. John's Gospel account differs from the synoptics in may ways. Further, point number one denies the right of the Gospel writers to pick and choose the details they wish to include in their Gospels. Again, since John, as well as Mark chose to begin their Gospel accounts with the public ministry of Jesus there was no point in mentioning Jesus' birth.

As for John 7:40-42, neither John not recording whether Jesus corrected the crowd, or adding an explanation for the reader indicates that John didn't know of a nativity account. John simply recorded that the crowd was divided over Jesus.

Matthew's and Luke's genealogy are the same from Abraham to David but then diverge because Matthew continues Jesus' line of descent through David's son Solomon while Luke continues Jesus' line of descent through David's other son Nathan. For that reason, the genealogies list different people from David onward. The simplest explanation is that while Matthew's genealogy runs to Jesus' legal though not blood father Joseph, Luke's genealogy runs through Mary even though she isn't mentioned in keeping with Jewish tradition, and since Joseph was Eli's son-in-law, Luke mentions him. In the Greek, Luke's genealogy doesn't say that Joseph is Eli's son, it simply says that Joseph is of Eli. Logically, since Jesus had to be related to David by blood, and Joseph was only Jesus legal father, then Jesus had to be related by blood tho David through His mother Mary. Difficulties in understanding precisely why both genealogies mention Joseph while not mentioning Mary don't mean the genealogies were made up. Both Matthew and Luke had the genealogical records available to them. Those records were kept in the temple and so until the temple was destroyed in AD 70 Jesus' line of descent could be traced. And yes, I believe that both Matthew and Luke's Gospel accounts were written before AD 70.

Okay, I don't want to get into an endless debate on discrepancies in the Gospel accounts. I simply wanted to point out, which I have done, that the synoptic Gospels do make references to Jesus as God.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-17-2018, 03:24 AM
 
34,687 posts, read 8,945,785 times
Reputation: 4805
I rather expected Explaining the evidence away. This Oral tradition of yours is merely a claim, unless you can validate it. I say that it is a theological evolution that answered two needs - that Jesus should have been god from conception, not from baptism, and that Jesus must have been born in Bethlehem, even though the tradition was that he was a Galilean. I say that the three points I made are evidence that incompatible stories were made up to Sort two dogmatic requirements, and to postulate an oral tradition is simply explaining it away.

If there was an oral tradition, evidently Mark and John hadn't heard it or they would have written it down (yes, I've heard the excuses that "everybody knew it so Mark didn't need to" and "John didn't think it was important" and I don't buy either excuse).

And your response to the passage in John is really evasive. It shouts for John to have put in parenthesis (as he sometimes does) "But they knew not the oral tradition that he was for sure born in Bethlehem, so there". But he doesn't.

I am aware that you can take the "I don't care what you say, I still believe..." line, but I don't think you have the evidence (just excuses) and i do. I must leave it to others to judge.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2018, 03:28 AM
 
Location: US
26,325 posts, read 13,956,226 times
Reputation: 1597
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
Partial segregation is deeply tribalist. If you read some broader history you will find that there were plenty lawless Jewish colonists also (killing Christians because they wouldn't assimilate into the "Gentile/Jew" dichotomy, or just killing Romans for having won wars against them, etc).

Christians were likewise (although in their myth, Jews wouldn't just be heretics, but physical traitors).
In fact, their "foundations" history is basically about how both Romans and Jews persecuted them to the death. They simply got the upper hand because they didn't segregate themselves.

The Greco-Roman Europeans also viewed many other peoples (such as Africans and Gypsies) as sub-human, as wild beasts, as no better than apes, and wouldn't allow various people to own land (such as women, or how the Spartans treated the hill-people Helots around them).

To be a zealot is to be treacherous to the human race (that includes the Christians, Muslims, and Jains who do so). As you do, many Christians and Muslims think that one of their kind would "practically be a traitor" for "even reading" some hypnotic writings from another religion or denomination.

Both the Christians and Muslims promise each other and the Jews that they will become co-heirs if they accept their respective special myths (or sometimes even for just being monotheist). So you (and modern Judaism) would be destroying that promise of allowed unity. But as it stands, any Christian is allowed to follow the rules laid out in the Tanakh (but be they Christian or syncretic polytheist still, they just wouldn't choose to).

The Christians say that they were only persecuted for following their non-affecting precepts also, but we know that is not true. People are persecuted because they are feared (segregated growth) or hated (speaking/acting against the norms or being portrayed that way).

I was saying that Richard1965 had "human stubbornness" just like other zealous and stubborn people (of which there are various and different reactionary types) because they wouldn't accept the reality that a self-proclaimed Jew won't assimilate to their way of thinking.

The gypsies, homosexuals, and Jehova Witnesses were also deemed stubborn by Hitler, I'm sure.

No one should be killing themselves or each other, we should all be striving for further understanding. Especially beyond what our tribalist reactions/instincts and family traditions allow (which is why Hilter and his ilk were so hateful, ardent, and weak).
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2018, 03:39 AM
 
Location: US
26,325 posts, read 13,956,226 times
Reputation: 1597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
It is hardly fair to say that John didn't know about the nativity or virgin birth simply because he didn't write about it. Both John and Mark chose to begin their Gospel accounts with the public ministry of Jesus. Not with his birth. That being the case they naturally wouldn't have mentioned the nativity or virgin birth.

It is well known that the Gospel of John emphasizes the deity of Jesus. Writing his Gospel account around AD. 95 he opens his gospel with a direct statement that the Word (the pre-incarnate Jesus) is not only with God but is Himself God and that He became flesh. John 1:1 with John 1:14. This is similar to what Paul wrote in Philippians 2:5-8 which Paul wrote sometime during the late 50's or early 60's. Paul states that Jesus existed in the form of God and that He took the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. Both Paul and John agree that the Word (Jesus) was God and that He became flesh (man).

Of interest also is the fact that while sharply debated among scholars, John 1:18, according to the earliest and best manuscripts, which are, P⁶⁶ א* B C* // P⁷⁵ 33 as stated in Dan Wallace's book Revisiting the Corruption of The New Testament, p73 (as well as א¹, except that the superscript ¹ belongs on the right of the aleph but I couldn't get it to format that way) reads as ''No one has ever seen God; the unique God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.''

So in John 1:18 the earliest and best manuscripts read μονογενὴς Θεὸς [the] 'unique God' instead of μονογενὴς Υἱὸν [the] 'unique Son.' The reading μονογενὴς Θεὸς in John 1:18 is in keeping with John 1:1 in which the Word is said to be God.

And of course, Jesus Himself self designates as God when He states in John 8:58, ''before Abraham was born, I am.' In the context of John 8:58 Jesus' 'I am' statement reflects the 'I am' statements of God in Old Testament passages such as Isaiah 41:4 'I, the LORD, am the first, and with the last. I am He.' Isaiah 42:8 ''I am the LORD, that is My name; . . .'' Isa. 43:10, Isa. 43:13, Isa. 44:6, etc.

But as I said, contrary to the claims of most, even of scholars who should know better, the synoptic Gospels also contain references in which Jesus demonstrates in a very Jewish manner that He is God. My source material for this is the book by Dr. Brant Pitre titled, 'The Case for Jesus' which pointed out some things that I wasn't aware of.

For one, all three synoptic Gospels record Jesus' stilling of the waters in Matthew 8:23-27, Mark 4:35-41, and Luke 8:22. What is significant about this miracle revealing that Jesus is God is not simply that it is a miracle since the apostles were given the authority to perform miracles, but that this particular miracle in which Jesus stills the sea reflects the Old Testament instances in which God stilled the waters as in Job 26:11-12 where God rebukes the sea and quiets it with His power, in the creation account in Psalm 104:1-7 in which God rebukes the waters causing them to flee, and Psalm 106:8-9 where God rebukes the Red Sea and causes it to dry up.

It is God who stills the waters. The apostles, being Jewish, knew the Hebrew scriptures concerning God stilling the waters. And so when they witnessed Jesus' demonstration of His deity, they wondered, ''What kind of a man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?'' (Matthew 8:27). The episode was designed to get the apostles to think about who Jesus really was.

On another occasion, in one of the first miracles recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus reveals His identity, again, in a very Jewish way, by healing a paralytic after first telling him that his sins are forgiven (Matthew 9:2-7, Mark 2:1-12, Luke 5:21). Mark 2:7 and Luke 5:21 record the Scribes and the Pharisees reasoning in their hearts that Jesus was blaspheming because only God can forgive sins. Now while a person can forgive someone who sins against him, since sin is ultimately an offense against God, only God can forgive men's sins. The Jews, understanding this then considered Jesus' statement that the paralytic's sins were forgiven as blasphemous because Jesus was claiming to be God, again, in a very Jewish way.

Dr. Pitre also mentions, as I did some time ago in my thread, Jesus' claim to be Deity as recorded by Matthew and Mark, that Jesus' reply to Caiaphas at His trial in which He says that He would be seen coming on the clouds of heaven is a claim to deity. Since I gave the details in that thread concerning why that statement of Jesus was a claim to deity I won't go into it here. But do click on the link.

These are some of the ways in which the synoptic Gospels do present Jesus as God. And once again, these are presentations that are done in a very Jewish way. The Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be God. Jesus was identifying Himself as God in ways that would make people think about who He really was.
The “I AM” statement is different in the Greek from the Hebrew...Ehyey Asher Ehyey does not have the same meaning as ego eimai...Ani and ego eimai are the counterparts of each other...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2018, 03:41 AM
 
34,687 posts, read 8,945,785 times
Reputation: 4805
I am aware of course that Jewish zealots and siccarii would carry out what were effectively terrorist attacks for pretty much the same reasons muslim extremists do now, that they were fighting unbelievers with God's approval.

I am aware that apart from that, Judea rubbed along reasonably well with the Romans until Nero's time when it seems the veniality of the Procurators (using their posting to fund a future political career was the norm) became particularly obnoxious and I would remark that the Boudiccan revolt broke out not long before the Jewish war and for rather the same reason- Nero's lax rulership allowing for rapacious tax collectors.

So the finger can't be altogether pointed at the jews as being at fault. I am aware of ongoing riots in Alexandria between Greeks and Jews, but when Claudius caesar judged on it, he rather found in favour of the Jews. Of course his pal Agrippa might have influenced him.

And the traditional Apartness of Jews (apart from forcible conversion of Edom by the Hasmoneans) seems to cast doubt on this suggestion that they killed people for not converting. I suppose there is some historical support for that, other than the points I touched on.

And I'll leave it to others to comment on the end post comparing their supposed attitude to those of the Nazis.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2018, 08:38 AM
 
20,322 posts, read 15,670,237 times
Reputation: 7436
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
I rather expected Explaining the evidence away. This Oral tradition of yours is merely a claim, unless you can validate it. I say that it is a theological evolution that answered two needs - that Jesus should have been god from conception, not from baptism, and that Jesus must have been born in Bethlehem, even though the tradition was that he was a Galilean. I say that the three points I made are evidence that incompatible stories were made up to Sort two dogmatic requirements, and to postulate an oral tradition is simply explaining it away.

If there was an oral tradition, evidently Mark and John hadn't heard it or they would have written it down (yes, I've heard the excuses that "everybody knew it so Mark didn't need to" and "John didn't think it was important" and I don't buy either excuse).

And your response to the passage in John is really evasive. It shouts for John to have put in parenthesis (as he sometimes does) "But they knew not the oral tradition that he was for sure born in Bethlehem, so there". But he doesn't.

I am aware that you can take the "I don't care what you say, I still believe..." line, but I don't think you have the evidence (just excuses) and i do. I must leave it to others to judge.
Explaining what evidence away? Making excuses in order to dismiss something, which is what you are doing, is not evidence. Claiming that because one of the Gospel writers didn't include something in his Gospel account that you think he should have, he must therefore have not have known about it is not evidence that he didn't know about it. It's an excuse to claim that he didn't, and an unwillingness to try to find legitimate solutions to problems real or imagined. Problems usually do have explanations. And there's a difference between providing legitimate explanations and 'explaining evidence away.'

As for your claim that oral tradition didn't exist, Luke himself states at the beginning of his Gospel account that he compiled an account (written) of things that were handed down to 'us' (oral tradition handed down from those who were eyewitnesses).

How do you think that stories and traditions that found their way into the Gospels which weren't written until years later did so if not orally? It is well acknowledged by scholars that what Paul passed on to his readers and which he himself had received, with reference to 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is a pre-Pauline creed or tradition which he received mostly likely from Peter and James some three years after his own conversion.

Scholarship usually falls into three broad categories. Sceptical, mainstream, and apologetic. The vast number of professional scholars who do Biblical scholarship are mainstream. Mainstream scholars aren't interested in either debunking or defending Christianity. They simply examine the New Testament and related material in the same way that historians treat any other comparable historical documents from the same period. Historian Paula Fredriksen, whose book, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, I am currently reading, is a mainstream or middle of the road scholar who is simply interested in analyzing the facts.

While Fredriksen believes the synoptic Gospels weren't written until at least AD 70, something with which I disagree, she states that the 40 to 70 years (John was written near the end of the first century AD) chronological gap between Jesus' public ministry and the documents which speak of him is not bad. Like most historians, she acknowledges that oral tradition spanned the gap between Jesus' lifetime and the written documents which record what he said and did. Quoting Fredriksen;
In brief, where Jesus' teaching was oral and his setting Jewish, Aramaic, rural, and Palestinian, the evangelists' is written, mixed (that is, Jewish and Gentile both), linguistically Greek, and probably within the matrix of the Diaspora city. Flung out over the gap between these distinctions across time, space, culture, and ethnicity, are the filaments of oral tradition. Ultimately, many stories and sayings presented in the Gospels probably do go back across these various frontiers to the original followers of Jesus.'' Jesus of Nazareth, Fredriksen, p. 19
She has much more to say on the subject of oral tradition, but what I quoted above is to show that she, as do most or all historians, recognizes the reality of oral tradition during the period between the life of Jesus and the written Gospel accounts

So while you personally may choose to dismiss oral tradition as an unvalidated claim, professional historians and scholars do not.

You simply cannot force onto the Gospel writers your own personal assumptions about what they should have written and then claim that because they didn't include something that you think they should have included they must therefore not have known about it.

Your personal opinions Transponder, which you have a right to, are only your personal opinions. I don't dismiss the Gospel accounts because of differences between them. You do. And with that, I am not inclined to continue this discussion.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2018, 09:33 AM
 
20,322 posts, read 15,670,237 times
Reputation: 7436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965 View Post
The “I AM” statement is different in the Greek from the Hebrew...Ehyey Asher Ehyey does not have the same meaning as ego eimai...Ani and ego eimai are the counterparts of each other...
I didn't even refer to Exodus 3:14. I specifically referred to the 'I am' statements of God in Isaiah.

From post #29.
And of course, Jesus Himself self designates as God when He states in John 8:58, ''before Abraham was born, I am.' In the context of John 8:58 Jesus' 'I am' statement reflects the 'I am' statements of God in Old Testament passages such as Isaiah 41:4 'I, the LORD, am the first, and with the last. I am He.' Isaiah 42:8 ''I am the LORD, that is My name; . . .'' Isa. 43:10, Isa. 43:13, Isa. 44:6, etc.
The Hebrew ’ă·nī- hū means 'I [am] he.' Strictly speaking, ’ă·nī- means 'I.' So ’ă·nī- hū is 'I he.' The word 'am' is inserted.

Quoting scholar Dr. F. F. Bruce on John 8:58 and Jesus' 'I am' statement;
Jesus' reply to their protest repeats the affirmation 'I am He' (egō eimi), used twice already in this chapter (verses 24, 28), and does so in a way which underlines the magnitude of the claim which it expresses. He echoes the language of the God of Israel, who remains the same from everlasting to everlasting: 'I, the LORD, the first, and with the last, I am He' (Isa. 41:4). . . So much, in this context, is conveyed by egō eimi. And if we suppose that the conversation was carried on in Aramaic or even or even in Hebrew, then Jesus would have uttered the very words ’ă·nī hū, as though he were applying them to himself.

The Gospel of John, F. F. Bruce, pp. 205-6
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2018, 09:59 AM
 
Location: US
26,325 posts, read 13,956,226 times
Reputation: 1597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
I didn't even refer to Exodus 3:14. I specifically referred to the 'I am' statements of God in Isaiah.

From post #29.
And of course, Jesus Himself self designates as God when He states in John 8:58, ''before Abraham was born, I am.' In the context of John 8:58 Jesus' 'I am' statement reflects the 'I am' statements of God in Old Testament passages such as Isaiah 41:4 'I, the LORD, am the first, and with the last. I am He.' Isaiah 42:8 ''I am the LORD, that is My name; . . .'' Isa. 43:10, Isa. 43:13, Isa. 44:6, etc.
The Hebrew ’ă·nī- hū means 'I [am] he.' Strictly speaking, ’ă·nī- means 'I.' So ’ă·nī- hū is 'I he.' The word 'am' is inserted.

Quoting scholar Dr. F. F. Bruce on John 8:58 and Jesus' 'I am' statement;
Jesus' reply to their protest repeats the affirmation 'I am He' (egō eimi), used twice already in this chapter (verses 24, 28), and does so in a way which underlines the magnitude of the claim which it expresses. He echoes the language of the God of Israel, who remains the same from everlasting to everlasting: 'I, the LORD, the first, and with the last, I am He' (Isa. 41:4). . . So much, in this context, is conveyed by egō eimi. And if we suppose that the conversation was carried on in Aramaic or even or even in Hebrew, then Jesus would have uttered the very words ’ă·nī hū, as though he were applying them to himself.

The Gospel of John, F. F. Bruce, pp. 205-6
I don’t care what Bruce says...Ego eimei means I am just Ani means I am...Anyway, I can say the same thing, I am he, it doesn’t mean that I am G-d...Why dont you do what I did, and go and study the pertinent languages without someone else’s bias?...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2018, 10:17 AM
 
34,687 posts, read 8,945,785 times
Reputation: 4805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Explaining what evidence away? Making excuses in order to dismiss something, which is what you are doing, is not evidence. Claiming that because one of the Gospel writers didn't include something in his Gospel account that you think he should have, he must therefore have not have known about it is not evidence that he didn't know about it. It's an excuse to claim that he didn't, and an unwillingness to try to find legitimate solutions to problems real or imagined. Problems usually do have explanations. And there's a difference between providing legitimate explanations and 'explaining evidence away.'

As for your claim that oral tradition didn't exist, Luke himself states at the beginning of his Gospel account that he compiled an account (written) of things that were handed down to 'us' (oral tradition handed down from those who were eyewitnesses).

How do you think that stories and traditions that found their way into the Gospels which weren't written until years later did so if not orally? It is well acknowledged by scholars that what Paul passed on to his readers and which he himself had received, with reference to 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is a pre-Pauline creed or tradition which he received mostly likely from Peter and James some three years after his own conversion.

Scholarship usually falls into three broad categories. Sceptical, mainstream, and apologetic. The vast number of professional scholars who do Biblical scholarship are mainstream. Mainstream scholars aren't interested in either debunking or defending Christianity. They simply examine the New Testament and related material in the same way that historians treat any other comparable historical documents from the same period. Historian Paula Fredriksen, whose book, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, I am currently reading, is a mainstream or middle of the road scholar who is simply interested in analyzing the facts.

While Fredriksen believes the synoptic Gospels weren't written until at least AD 70, something with which I disagree, she states that the 40 to 70 years (John was written near the end of the first century AD) chronological gap between Jesus' public ministry and the documents which speak of him is not bad. Like most historians, she acknowledges that oral tradition spanned the gap between Jesus' lifetime and the written documents which record what he said and did. Quoting Fredriksen;
In brief, where Jesus' teaching was oral and his setting Jewish, Aramaic, rural, and Palestinian, the evangelists' is written, mixed (that is, Jewish and Gentile both), linguistically Greek, and probably within the matrix of the Diaspora city. Flung out over the gap between these distinctions across time, space, culture, and ethnicity, are the filaments of oral tradition. Ultimately, many stories and sayings presented in the Gospels probably do go back across these various frontiers to the original followers of Jesus.'' Jesus of Nazareth, Fredriksen, p. 19
She has much more to say on the subject of oral tradition, but what I quoted above is to show that she, as do most or all historians, recognizes the reality of oral tradition during the period between the life of Jesus and the written Gospel accounts

So while you personally may choose to dismiss oral tradition as an unvalidated claim, professional historians and scholars do not.

You simply cannot force onto the Gospel writers your own personal assumptions about what they should have written and then claim that because they didn't include something that you think they should have included they must therefore not have known about it.

Your personal opinions Transponder, which you have a right to, are only your personal opinions. I don't dismiss the Gospel accounts because of differences between them. You do. And with that, I am not inclined to continue this discussion.

Well, here we are again. I have given evidence and you say 'what evidence?' You have claimed oral traditions and provide no real evidence for it, except quoting a few Authorities.

It was just the same with Acts being a contradiction with Paul. You invented an explanation and stuck to it.

Ok, you believe what you want. That's your right, but, as you know, I am persuaded by good evidence, not denial and excuse or appeal to what this or that writer on Bible -studies says.

I have considered the gospels, and the only oral tradition I find is a failed Jewish messiah, and That was overlaid by a Pauline interpetation of the disciples belief that Jesus would come back and finish the job properly.

So I see three kinds of gospel -writing overlaying this, and by Gospel -writing I mean Jew -despising Greek Christians who had evolved Paul's messianic spirit into a holy one which, as I said, became more holy in John that it was in Mark.

1`. the original synoptic version, essentially like Mark shorn of the common material with Matthew and like Luke, shorn of his common material with Mathew, which incudes the sermon on the mount, John's question, the details of the temptations.

2 the additions common to two of them, indicating some written (Not oral, I think) as mentioned above.

3 individual additions, and this is shown up where they contracict each other, such as the nativity and the resurrection.

If I had to give dates, well the Pauline messianic spirit -Christianity itself deeloping from 'for the gentiles' and the Law being binding on all Jews around AD 45 to one that released all jews from the law around AD 55..

The oral tradition of the Jewish messianic mission being a death at the hands of the Romans being blamed on the Jews (through an absurd blasphemy charge and a release custom that nobody knew about (1). the various write -ups started to appear after the Jewish war where Christianity now had a free hand, (other than still being persecuted by Rome) and it was almost inevitable that they would see the destruction of the Temple as God's punishment for rejecting and killing Jesus. We get this in the lament over Jerusalem in the gospels and Bar Serapeon's remark that the Jews killed their king.

So Mark in the revised form (with additions of his own, like Pilate's surprise) c AD 80? John early 2nd c, Matthew and Luke late second or early 3rd. ballpark figures.

You may dismiss all of this (and I haven't given my evidence - which you will dismiss anyway) and I dould be wrong totally, not just in detail. But I'm saying that i do think my 'evidence' has credibility, appeal to oral traditions and explanations that you frankly invent, and appealing to this or that writer whom you claim supports your view.

Well, I'm out on a limb as Nobody I know is doing the work I have done, And I'm getting ready to post Ch 1 at least, and perhaps it can be refuted, though I don't see how (2).

So I know I have to make my case, and that you dismiss my evidence as no evidence, and present your no evidence as evidence, I don't think that's good enough and frankly I think that even Skeptical Bible -scholars are still labouring under a Christian tradition of how and by whom the Gospels were written, so waving them at me is getting you nowhere.

(1) yes. This is signal indication that something wasn't true. John doesn't know of the transformation, history doesn't know of the massacre of innocents or the release custom. The difference is that the release was made up early on for the Christian story getting Rome off the hook for Jesus' death and blaming the Jews and Matthew's massacre is just made up as part of his nativity plot.

(2) Pneuma did his very best to validate the nativity, mainly by ignoring the real contradictions and arguing a bout piddling details like the reappointment of Joazar trying to make the Augustan loyalty oath of 3 BC the Lucan census (all the evidence is against it) and making the re

ason the nativity was made up - Bethlehem birth - the "reliable fact" which justified dismissing and ignoring anything that doesn't fit.

Standard apologetics.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-17-2018 at 10:54 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2018, 11:06 AM
 
34,687 posts, read 8,945,785 times
Reputation: 4805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965 View Post
I don’t care what Bruce says...Ego eimei means I am just Ani means I am...Anyway, I can say the same thing, I am he, it doesn’t mean that I am G-d...Why dont you do what I did, and go and study the pertinent languages without someone else’s bias?...
I'll leave you to debate this matter. To me it is irrelevant as it is merely arguing what John intended by it and meant by the Greek, because in my view, Jesus never said it.

The evidence? In the synoptics we have parables, and that some are common to all three shows they were part of the original synoptic gospel - (proto Matthew or some say proto - Mark) and we get some common parables like the parable of the talents, the revisions by Luke, probably, being evident, and that it comes from some source Mark didn't see is shown by it not being in Mark. If it was part of the original gospel, one has to explain why Mark decided to take it out. Just as one has to explain why he decided the nativity wasn't important or how the resurrection got lost.
No, that stuff was never there originally and it was added later.

And finally we get really memorable and important parables like the good samaritan and the prodigal son, and you get them nowhere but in Luke. And nobody is going to tell me that Mark and Matthew knew of them but decided they weren't worthy of inclusion.

So we get to John and blow me not a single parable. Not a hint of them. But what we do get? Long theological sermons that we find nowhere in the synoptics. Evidence that John invented this material and the individual parables were made up by the individual writers?

Oh, says Mike. That's not evidence. Well, I'll just have to plug away and make my case to others.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top