oldest gospels

[bwcourtn]

hello, i've recently read that the current versions that the church uses of the gospels were based on egyptian texts and that there are actually older versions (syriac maybe?)..........my question is, where can i find a translation of the oldest known canonical gospel of MARK manuscript(s)? If this is not possible, could someone explain some of the differences, especially theological deviations based on Jesus' sayings. Why is it that christians are not using the older versions' translations..........it seems that common sense would dictate that they would be closer in content to the autographs. Thanks in advance for any comments!

[Dark Knight Bob]

Because historically the newer texts were enforced by the ruler of that time as "the correct" version. And thus the culture around them rejected the older texts as no longer nessesary.

Such is the way with such bizarre things.

[Toto]

You might find some answers in this recent thread Oldest fragments of scripture (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=111440)

[bwcourtn]

sorry for not catching that thread myself..........thanks, that's pretty much what i was looking for. i find it interesting that the very earliest piece of the new testament gospels (john fragment~150 c.e.) is thought to be derived from what is considered the last written gospel out of the four canonical ones (not to mention it was discovered in egypt, suggesting the early spread of christianity). mark must have been written quiet early, indeed. as skeptical as i am, i don't find it as easy to dismiss christianity as all of you people do, even despite various new testament inaccuracies.......how could approx. 12 people be so easily deceived over one dead man........this apologetic is stronger, in my opinion, than its refutation is (though, i still wouldn't know how jesus would fit into an evolutionary world-view, which seems to have a strong case......but i'm definitely a novice in biology). thanks again!

[JEST2ASK]

mark must have been written quiet early, indeed. as skeptical as i am, i don't find it as easy to dismiss christianity as all of you people do.......how could approx. 12 people be so easily deceived over one dead man........this apologetic is stronger, in my opinion, than its refutation is (though, i still wouldn't know how jesus would fit into an evolutionary world-view, which seems to have a strong case......but i'm definitely a novice in biology). thanks again!

I missed where Mark was one of the 12 :huh:
However what does any of that have to do with evolution :confused:

One step at a time if you would ... I will try to follow but my mind works only on small Leaps (of Faith) at a time :)

[bwcourtn]

no, i've just always heard that the consensus is that mark was the earliest written nt gospel.........him not being an eye-witness is irrelevant, because he supposably records what he's heard from others who were his contemporaries. i'm playing the devil's (or god's?) advocate here.

[funinspace]

sorry for not catching that thread myself..........thanks, that's pretty much what i was looking for. i find it interesting that the very earliest piece of the new testament gospels (john fragment~150 c.e.) is thought to be derived from what is considered the last written gospel out of the four canonical ones (not to mention it was discovered in egypt, suggesting the early spread of christianity). mark must have been written quiet early, indeed. as skeptical as i am, i don't find it as easy to dismiss christianity as all of you people do, even despite various new testament inaccuracies.......how could approx. 12 people be so easily deceived over one dead man........this apologetic is stronger, in my opinion, than its refutation is
Ponder Joseph Smith, and the delusion that became Mormonism. Or a host of others. People are quite willing to ignore reason and such, in search of some mystical truth. One of the problem is that we don't really know what this "12" saw or knew. All we know is what we have is copies 120-200 years later from documents written some 10-80 years later. 10 years is only because of Paul, other wise it would be about 30-80 years later.

[easychair]

I think there are a lot of websites on the Coptic Gospels. I don't know a lot about them except that sects in Ethiopia claim to be the oldest Christians.

[Vorkosigan]

no, i've just always heard that the consensus is that mark was the earliest written nt gospel.........him not being an eye-witness is irrelevant, because he supposably records what he's heard from others who were his contemporaries. i'm playing the devil's (or god's?) advocate here.

That's a reference to the apologetic legend of Papias, recorded in Eusebius:

"For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." (Papias, ECW)

However, outside of a few religious conservatives, modern scholars do not accept this as an accurate discussion of the origins of the Gospel of Mark. For the reasons why this is inaccurate, see any mainstream introductory text. For a vigorous defense of this account as accurate, see Gundry's Mark.

Vorkosigan

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

hello, i've recently read that the current versions that the church uses of the gospels were based on egyptian texts


Yes, bwcourtn, this is correct.


and that there are actually older versions (syriac maybe?)..........


The oldest gospels that we have are according to the Western/Peripheral text (including the Old Syriac). See my analysis at,

http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/cvers.htm


my question is, where can i find a translation of the oldest known canonical gospel of MARK manuscript(s)?


Try the Old Syriac Mark (not available on the Net), or the Bezae Mark.


If this is not possible, could someone explain some of the differences, especially theological deviations based on Jesus' sayings.


There are lots of differences. The oldest texts were more Jewish-Christian, for example.


Why is it that christians are not using the older versions' translations..........


Becasuse they've been deceived.


it seems that common sense would dictate that they would be closer in content to the autographs. Thanks in advance for any comments!

Also, at a later point, you mentioned P52, the Rylands Papyrus, containing a few lines of Jn. But there's no proof that this Papyrus is actually so early. See,

THE RYLANDS PAPYRUS FRAUD
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/rylands.htm

All the best,

Yuri.

[judge]

Why is it that christians are not using the older versions' translations..........

I imagine most don't really care about small differences. Particularly when no one can be sure which came first anyway.

the message comes through the same in any version.

[WinAce]

how could approx. 12 people be so easily deceived over one dead man........

If true (as there's quite some doubt about the fate of several of the apostles), amazing, isn't it? One can hardly believe people can be that deceived. But when one reads about incidents like people continuing to believe a prophet after he admits to being a fake (http://skepdic.com/truebeliever.html), and thinking he's testing their faith; or the Jehovah's Witnesses explaining away failed apocalyptic predictions about a dozen times, and still remaining a viable movement (or even gaining new members); or that "God will flood the world" cult that just inferred their beliefs impressed him into not carrying out his plan, when that didn't pan out, and became even more zealous; then it becomes alot easier to see how a few people who followed a charismatic teacher, who was crucified when they least expected (or something like that), couldn't accept that fact and became deluded into denying it through a reinterpretation of the event where he actually triumphed, and was in control the whole time.

[Metacrock]

Yes, bwcourtn, this is correct.



The oldest gospels that we have are according to the Western/Peripheral text (including the Old Syriac). See my analysis at,

http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/cvers.htm



Try the Old Syriac Mark (not available on the Net), or the Bezae Mark.



There are lots of differences. The oldest texts were more Jewish-Christian, for example.



Becasuse they've been deceived.



Also, at a later point, you mentioned P52, the Rylands Papyrus, containing a few lines of Jn. But there's no proof that this Papyrus is actually so early. See,

THE RYLANDS PAPYRUS FRAUD
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/rylands.htm

All the best,

Yuri.


No you have been decieved. You want to take small bs and blow it out of proportion. Ryands is either in a range of 123-150. that's not so huegley late. It's all pretty early.

you also inroge unciels and quotations in apostolic fathers.

Common sense tells us that an older ms is closer to the orignal, but that's not always right. By far it can be wrong. Textual cirtics have done a great job of working out a scienece.

[Metacrock]

<insult deleted>

[Vorkosigan]

No you have been decieved. You want to take small bs and blow it out of proportion. Ryands is either in a range of 123-150.

Rylands has been redated, Meta and should now be seen as ~150 +/- 25 yrs. See the discussion of John in Schnelle's History and Theology of the New Testament Writing. As Yuri pointed out a long time ago, it can't be a coincidence that both of our earliest fragments are from the same part of a gospel that looks a lot like John. I personally believe that p52 is from the second half of the century.

Vorkosigan

[Metacrock]

Rylands has been redated, Meta and should now be seen as ~150 +/- 25 yrs. See the discussion of John in Schnelle's History and Theology of the New Testament Writing. As Yuri pointed out a long time ago, it can't be a coincidence that both of our earliest fragments are from the same part of a gospel that looks a lot like John. I personally believe that p52 is from the second half of the century.

Vorkosigan



Vork, 150 is the date I've always assumed on Rylands.That doesn't change anything! It's still just as good as proof that the Gospel of John had to exist in late first century. Just travel time alone would be 20 years as standard rule of thumb. Then it also has to spread to the circles it showed up in in Egypt. and that's not the only dating method. Looka Gsopel quotations in 1 Clement.

[Metacrock]

what insult was deleted. I've never seen an atheist's inslut deleted. I bet if I said i was an atheist you'd let me inslut anyone I wanted to.,

[Vorkosigan]

what insult was deleted. I've never seen an atheist's inslut deleted. I bet if I said i was an atheist you'd let me inslut anyone I wanted to.,

Complaints about modding should be addressed in Problems & Complaints (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

[Vorkosigan]

Vork, 150 is the date I've always assumed on Rylands.That doesn't change anything! It's still just as good as proof that the Gospel of John had to exist in late first century. Just travel time alone would be 20 years as standard rule of thumb.

Travel time is a few weeks, as that's what it takes to get from one end of the empire to the other. What evidence supports the claim of 20 years?

Then it also has to spread to the circles it showed up in in Egypt. and that's not the only dating method. Looka Gsopel quotations in 1 Clement.

Can you give me 10 or so of these gospel quotations in 1 Clement?

Vorkosigan

[Metacrock]

Travel time is a few weeks, as that's what it takes to get from one end of the empire to the other. What evidence supports the claim of 20 years?



Can you give me 10 or so of these gospel quotations in 1 Clement?

Vorkosigan


No, Travel time doesnt' mean the time it takes to get on a horse and go over there. It means the time it takes for a text to be copied and spread by word of mouth and through one circle and another. Its' a long slow process. They didnt 'just dash it off then load it up and run it over to egypt and burry so Rylands could disover it. It filtered in over time.

20 years is standard assumption, rule of thumb, that all textual critics allow for travel time.

See the Text by Eguene R. Fairweather on 1 Clement. He shows in the fn's many quotations from Matt and Mark, maybe John.

[Metacrock]

scholars have determined that the earliest narratival form of the Gospel was written about 50AD. Thus the orignal form of the Gosples, which was the saying source, was ciruclaring before that. It would probably be a good idea to allow circulation time (what I called "travel time") for those sources to find their way into the hands of the narrative writters. So the saying soruces such as Q and Matt's Logia were probably circularing as early as 40AD. Just a gap 10 years between events and record of sayings.


The oldest Gospels were the premarkan redaction, and the saying sources.

[Magdlyn]

as skeptical as i am, i don't find it as easy to dismiss christianity as all of you people do, even despite various new testament inaccuracies.......how could approx. 12 people be so easily deceived over one dead man........this apologetic is stronger, in my opinion, than its refutation is

The idea that there were 12 apostles is merely a creation of the narrators of this myth we call the gospels.

There were legendarily (again, not necc true history as we seek it today) 12 tribes of Israel. Much of the gospel narratives was written to recall the heroic "history" of the Jews. Jesus was made to seem to be a prophet like Moses or Elijah. His followers were made to seem to be a reflection of the 12 Tribes. If you know this background, your belief falls by the wayside.

When you use the word "approximately" you reflect your doubt over the neatness of the number 12.


(though, i still wouldn't know how jesus would fit into an evolutionary world-view, which seems to have a strong case......but i'm definitely a novice in biology).

What are you suggesting here? I have no idea.

[Metacrock]

The idea that there were 12 apostles is merely a creation of the narrators of this myth we call the gospels.

There were legendarily (again, not necc true history as we seek it today) 12 tribes of Israel. Much of the gospel narratives was written to recall the heroic "history" of the Jews. Jesus was made to seem to be a prophet like Moses or Elijah. His followers were made to seem to be a reflection of the 12 Tribes. If you know this background, your belief falls by the wayside.

When you use the word "approximately" you reflect your doubt over the neatness of the number 12.




What are you suggesting here? I have no idea.



So you think if there were more people it woudl be easier to convence the masses? I dont' see how that follows.

(1) The more people you let in on a secret the less time it says secret. So if you expand beyond 12 you reduce the chances of any kind of unified agreement on what to cliam; you conversly increase the number of claims people are going to make.

(2) Doesnt' matter how many were pushing it, no one is going to believe in events that know for a fact didn't happen. People right there in Jerusalem just a few years latter are told about the Jesus and the miracles, the cross,t he empty tomb and all that, but never heard of any of it, and don't know anyone who ever heard of it, they aren't going to be receptive.

(3) Myth always proliforates. The fact that there is only one basic Jesus stroy proves that those events in general sense were histoircal.

[Roger Pearse]

Rylands has been redated, Meta and should now be seen as ~150 +/- 25 yrs. See the discussion of John in Schnelle's History and Theology of the New Testament Writing.

Is Schnelle a paleographer? Doesn't Metzger, in the Text of the NT, treat this dating as one end of the consensus? As far as I know P52 remains dated to between 100-150, with highest probability around 125. If anyone knows better, of course, what the consensus of the paleographers is, I'd be interested to hear it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[andrewcriddle]

Is Schnelle a paleographer? Doesn't Metzger, in the Text of the NT, treat this dating as one end of the consensus? As far as I know P52 remains dated to between 100-150, with highest probability around 125. If anyone knows better, of course, what the consensus of the paleographers is, I'd be interested to hear it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I am not a paleographer but IIUC the following recent work is relevant

Schmidt dated P52 to around 170 CE in A. Schmidt, Zwei Anmerkungen zu P.Ryl.III 457, APF 35, 1989. This is a very brief paper and only partly concerned with redating the papyrus. It seeks to redate P52 as being similar in age but slightly earlier to Chester Beatty papyrus X which is itself not a dated manuscript but which paleographers usually date c 200 BCE.

The paper (which I have read) is so brief as to provide little basis for evaluating it.

However, it has generally been thought that P52 is not all that much older than the 'unknown gospel' known as the Egerton papyrus. This used to be dated to c 150 CE however recent discovery of a new fragment of this manuscript has provided strong paleographical evidence for redating to c 200 CE.

Given the paleographical similarities between P52 and the Egerton papyrus this supports a somewhat later date for P52.

The present situation seems to be that dating on the basis of comparison with precisely dated (non-Christian) papyri still supports a date of 100-150 CE.

However, comparison with Christian but unfortunately not precisely dated papyri supports a date of 170 CE with probably a rather large uncertainty IMO a sensible representation of this evidence would be 135-205 CE.

Combining these two types of evidence I would prefer to express the probable range as 120-160 CE. Before 120 runs into problems with the similar but not precisely dated Christian material whereas after 160 runs into problems with the precisely dated paleographically similar but non-Christian material.

AndrewCriddle

[Toto]

So you think if there were more people it woudl be easier to convence the masses? I dont' see how that follows.

(1) The more people you let in on a secret the less time it says secret. So if you expand beyond 12 you reduce the chances of any kind of unified agreement on what to cliam; you conversly increase the number of claims people are going to make.

(2) Doesnt' matter how many were pushing it, no one is going to believe in events that know for a fact didn't happen. People right there in Jerusalem just a few years latter are told about the Jesus and the miracles, the cross,t he empty tomb and all that, but never heard of any of it, and don't know anyone who ever heard of it, they aren't going to be receptive.

(3) Myth always proliforates. The fact that there is only one basic Jesus stroy proves that those events in general sense were histoircal.

Hi Metacrock - I remember a thread in which Peter Kirby meticulously refuted your claim that there was only one basic Jesus. There were many versions of Jesus until the orthodox Christian church imposed a uniform version in the 2nd-3rd centuries.

We have no evidence outside of the Christian gospels (written after 70 CE, when no witnesses remained) that anyone "in Jerusalem just a few years later are told about the Jesus and the miracles, the cross, the empty tomb." The empty tomb in particular seems to be a late legend. Paul knows nothing about miracles.

[Metacrock]

Hi Metacrock - I remember a thread in which Peter Kirby meticulously refuted your claim that there was only one basic Jesus. There were many versions of Jesus until the orthodox Christian church imposed a uniform version in the 2nd-3rd centuries.




No you don't. I dont' know why you guys just love to do this to yourself. i've corrected you and other making this mistake many times. Now let' try to remember this time, here's what happened:



Kirby posted a super long respnose that attacked everything except the actaul thesis. it did not show a different version of the Jesus story, not one single version! It showed:





(1) changes in small detalis but not one single version that included any point of the 11 I staked out

(2) difference in peoples understanding such as Papias syaing Jesus was 50 when he died. But not anything delaing with the 11 points.

(3) other interpriations of the same stody, such as gnsotics saying Jesus was not flesh and bood. But these assume the origingal story.


what I argued was that he failed to show any counter evidence at all because he didni't deal with the 11 points, until after 400 which is what I said to begin with.

The only alternate versions he could show were witin the time frame I gave.



We have no evidence outside of the Christian gospels (written after 70 CE, when no witnesses remained) that anyone "in Jerusalem just a few years later are told about the Jesus and the miracles, the cross, the empty tomb."



Wrong! we have evidence, and it only stands to reason, because why would they wait to tell people? the longer they waited the less likely it was catch on. Think about it, someone was going the "good news" bit and saying this guy rose form the dead, then you find out it was 20 years ago??? Come on!


The empty tomb in particular seems to be a late legend. Paul knows nothing about miracles.



Very very wrong as the author of that book will soon learn to their suprize when I relaise my anti-their book stuff I've been working on, but shhhhhh enough for now.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Very very wrong as the author of that book will soon learn to their suprize when I relaise my anti-their book stuff I've been working on, but shhhhhh enough for now.
I hope you have a good copy editor.

[Metacrock]

I hope you have a good copy editor.


I do have a good copy editor. When I do things for publication I take a hell of a lot more pains because its not just a message board. No peer review, no editor to send your stuff back with a little slip saying "not what we are looking for." So I just post. In fact most people seem communicate wtih me they don't find it too difficult to know what I'm saying.

I do find some who attack the spelling when they have nothing else to say. Soem think formalities are all that there are to thought.If you spell correctly and have good grammar it doesnt' matter what you say with it. I'm one of those old fashioned "content matters' kind of people.

[funinspace]

(3) Myth always proliforates. The fact that there is only one basic Jesus stroy proves that those events in general sense were histoircal.
:rolling: You mean the Mandeans know the truth... Yep, there are lots of Mormon sects out there diverging from the original Mormon myth...

[Metacrock]

:rolling: You mean the Mandeans know the truth... Yep, there are lots of Mormon sects out there diverging from the original Mormon myth...


I dont' think you understand the issues invovled.

(1) Mormaonism is not a true mythology. Mythology is more a literary genre and it emrges from a certian conscoiusness in history. You can't say that any time someone has a wrong idea its mythology.

(2) Morman lore was written down right after it was made up, in fact its' first from was written. So that means no chance for it to spread in diffrerent forms.

(3) Mandeans, you have no proof that they had only one strory, but they were an offshoot of Christianity, so they part of the profussion of multiying Gnsticism that marked heretical christainity.

[Metacrock]

<snipped for bandwidth>

please see this link, which is easier to read:

http://www.geocities.com/metacrock2000/Jesus_pages/versions.htm

[Toto]

The last thread on Metacrock's claim that Jesus had no variants is here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=98215). Peter saved his reply on ChristianOrigins (http://www.christianorigins.com) here (http://www.christianorigins.com/variants.html).

I will let the readers decide.

[Metacrock]

The last thread on Metacrock's claim that Jesus had no variants is here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=98215). Peter saved his reply on ChristianOrigins (http://www.christianorigins.com) here (http://www.christianorigins.com/variants.html).

I will let the readers decide.



see this Toto's version of winning an argument. So slipshod I don't see who would be fooled. But apparenlty Toto is.

Rich Summer, in response to that thread, says


Originally Posted by Metacrock
Bull. You telling me there's a version that says Jesus wasn't crucified? Now we've been through this. this comes up every time. Gosptic belief that it was an illusion of Jesus and not really jesus doesn't count.


summer:
Actually, it comes from the Talmud, where Jesus was stoned and then hanged. That doesn't have much to do with Gnostics.



Right, so in other word, he totally ignores what I said were the peratiors for the arugment and uses an example almost a thousands years latter. Those Talmudic passages are middle ages. So that's way beyond the limit of first 400 years that i set for the argument.

hey you there's this thing called "The golden legond" where mideval Christians make up a bunch of wild legonds. Those really do change things. LIke they give jesus a twin brother. But that's like 500 years latter.

My argument mainly pertains to the first 50 years, becasue onece they start writiting things down the propensity for proliphoration goes way down. But then wait long eough and people began making new storeis, centuries latter.

the point is that durning crucial period of formation there are no other versions, and these guys have to reach into the middle ages to find them.

Now I argued taht agsint Peter. No one remembers it beause that wouldn't give the glory to the atheists. But I bet his argument with that and you conviently overlook it.

[Metacrock]

Ok look, time out. Just time out! let's come together and have a meeting of the minds ok?


<snipped for bandwidth>

please use this link: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1828928#post1828928

[Metacrock]

what do atheists mean by the statment "so and so took you to taks for this?"

They mean "if an atheist ever disagrees with a believer in anyway, he has beaten that beliver's argument."

[Toto]

Metacrock: let's have a meeting of the minds.

This debate happened over a year ago. There is no need to cut and paste all of your previous arguments, whether they are on your website or a previous thread.

If you have something new to say, say it. Otherwise anyone who cares can read the old threads.

Toto

moderator and clean up crew on BCH

[Metacrock]

Metacrock: let's have a meeting of the minds.

This debate happened over a year ago. There is no need to cut and paste all of your previous arguments, whether they are on your website or a previous thread.

If you have something new to say, say it. Otherwise anyone who cares can read the old threads.

Toto

moderator and clean up crew on BCH



Ok fair enough. fair enough. i wont that debte. you want proof, read the deal. So stop saying otherwise.

[funinspace]

I dont' think you understand the issues invovled.

(1) Mormaonism is not a true mythology. Mythology is more a literary genre and it emrges from a certian conscoiusness in history. You can't say that any time someone has a wrong idea its mythology.

(2) Morman lore was written down right after it was made up, in fact its' first from was written. So that means no chance for it to spread in diffrerent forms.
Hum, do you make your definitions up as you go? Is "true mythology" akin to "true Christianity"?
Yahoo dictionary: myth:
A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. A fictitious story, person, or thing:
I would think Mormonism would explain very well the worldview, customs, and ideals of the majority of people from Utah, but oh well... Ah, I get it, your definition fits Christianity perfectly...it emerged from a certain consciousness in history, and is a literary genre. The Jews borrowed from the Babylonians and got their flood myths (Note: all the differing flood myths out there showing that all flood myths are in fact myths. That's how it works, right?). And then the mythmakers of the gospels drew from the Moshe myths to build another variant of birthing a god/prophet. Yeah, that didn't emerge from a certain consciousness in history. Certainly Paul wouldn't want to mention such an amazing birth to evidence this god, when the first Xian writings emerged 10-15 years after Jesus' death. Yep, makes more sense that Paul let the magical virgin tales be told by others at a later date, like they were really concocted... I think your onto something here...so the Mormon, post Judaic, god was smarter than the Trinitarian god of true xianity, and built better fail safes into the mythos.

(3) Mandeans, you have no proof that they had only one strory, but they were an offshoot of Christianity, so they part of the profussion of multiying Gnsticism that marked heretical christainity.

The bolded part...Huh?...oh, I get it... You were thinking it was an example of non-divergent stories for a single mythos within Mandeanism. Not at all my point, but an interesting argument. So because I can't prove their mythos to be a singular thread, then it must be multiple? Well, then why don't you provide proof that Jesus had only one story; and that alternate myths were not destroyed by the tyrannical church of Rome....that should be a fun demonstration.

My point was that the Mandeans have a very different mythos surrounding this same guy you call Jesus. Thereby providing an example as to why the Jesus story has in fact proliferated (or is part of differing tales) into multiple mythos. I'll agree the Mandeans were an offshoot of something, but more like Judaism and a mish mash of others. So are you agreeing that there were other understandings of "Jesus" outside of your original claimed "only one basic Jesus story" view like Gnosticism? The Mandeans held this "Jesus" to be a liar and deceiver that formerly followed John the Baptist. And JtB supposedly taught some form of ancient dualism. Sounds a little different than that "one basic story".

[Metacrock]

Hum, do you make your definitions up as you go? Is "true mythology" akin to "true Christianity"?
Yahoo dictionary: myth:



Typical atheist fallacy. The atheists take the no true scottsman fallacie and conclude from it there is no such thing as a true anything.


Read Joseph Campbell and Marceia Elliade. they are the experts on the nature of mythology.





I would think Mormonism would explain very well the worldview, customs, and ideals of the majority of people from Utah, but oh well... Ah, I get it, your definition fits Christianity perfectly...it emerged from a certain consciousness in history, and is a literary genre.




It wasn't invented in Utah, it might be important to understand how the people of that state have been shaped, but it was invetned by one guy. It didn't rise out of the culture over time. It's not a unqiue Grenre it's a cheap and badly done copy of King James Bible.




The Jews borrowed from the Babylonians and got their flood myths (Note: all the differing flood myths out there showing that all flood myths are in fact myths. That's how it works, right?).


Right, the flood story is a myth,it is borrowed from the Sumerians and Babylonians. I am a liberal, I am not a Bible thumper. In fact I'm not a theist either.






And then the mythmakers of the gospels drew from the Moshe myths to build another variant of birthing a god/prophet. Yeah, that didn't emerge from a certain consciousness in history. Certainly Paul wouldn't want to mention such an amazing birth to evidence this god, when the first Xian writings emerged 10-15 years after Jesus' death. Yep, makes more sense that Paul let the magical virgin tales be told by others at a later date, like they were really concocted... I think your onto something here...so the Mormon, post Judaic, god was smarter than the Trinitarian god of true xianity, and built better fail safes into the mythos.



I dont' know what you think you are saying but it's absurdly childish. The NT is not mytholgoical. You don't know the difference. Mythology is not just any supernatuarl tale. Go read Elliade.

Now Mormonism is copied after KJV. it's a badly done ignorant coutner fit because Smith assumed that any divine writting must sound like the Bible, so he tried to copy the KJV (forgetting the Bible was writtenin hebrew and Greek). He didn't have a true mythology to wokr with, so he used a bunch of bs that sounded holy because it copied the Bible. In his enthusiasm he plagerigzed a new York School teacher and he also said the Indians were the 10 lost tribes, not knowing that anthropologists can tell a genetic difference in the teeth of natrive amerians and the teeth of Jews.

so moromon is just a bad attempt at forging a holy document. The OT is a collection of writtings that come from people who experinced the power of God, and as all power must, they tried to encode that experience into the clutural constructs.



The bolded part...Huh?...oh, I get it... You were thinking it was an example of non-divergent stories for a single mythos within Mandeanism. Not at all my point, but an interesting argument. So because I can't prove their mythos to be a singular thread, then it must be multiple? Well, then why don't you provide proof that Jesus had only one story; and that alternate myths were not destroyed by the tyrannical church of Rome....that should be a fun demonstration.



I did. I did prove it. The only way you can possibly counter it is to provide another version. let's hear it. But don't forget now, it has to be fore 400 AD.

I showed that all those verwsions are the same and I shoed over 100 documents that all affirm those same 11 points. That's proof enough to meet a prmia facie case. Now you must prove your assertions against it.

My point was that the Mandeans have a very different mythos surrounding this same guy you call Jesus. Thereby providing an example as to why the Jesus story has in fact proliferated (or is part of differing tales) into multiple mythos.


It's not different. They don't deny any of those 11 points. Now they do combrine mythos with that of the Ot/Nt but they don't screw with the actual story line; Jesus is still from Nazerath, he still crucified in jerusalem, his sides kicks are still matt and Peter, he is stil cricufied at noon on passover and mother named mary and so on. Same 11 ponits, don't contradict them.



I'll agree the Mandeans were an offshoot of something, but more like Judaism and a mish mash of others.



People have researched that you know. There is actually of literature on that subject. I think if you would research it you would find they are usuallky thought of as an offshoot of Gnsoticism.





So are you agreeing that there were other understandings of "Jesus" outside of your original claimed "only one basic Jesus story" view like Gnosticism? The Mandeans held this "Jesus" to be a liar and deceiver that formerly followed John the Baptist. And JtB supposedly taught some form of ancient dualism. Sounds a little different than that "one basic story".




I dont' know why it's so hard for you to understand the differnce between story line and criticism. It may be that there are a milliions ways to look at the same facts, but none of them deney the facts--those 11 points, the "story line"! its' the events I said are historical, so that might be your clue. The Events of his life are not changed, only the ideas about what the mean!

[Amaleq13]

That subsequent authors copied most of the basic plot of an original story does not require that the original story be historically accurate.

The "eleven points" are not consistently reported in independent texts but that is not actually meaningful with regard to establishing or denying historicity. There is ample evidence that authors are perfectly willing to rewrite both history and fiction.

[Vorkosigan]

What are the "eleven points?" From what I can see none of them are found in Paul....

[funinspace]

Typical atheist fallacy. The atheists take the no true scottsman fallacie and conclude from it there is no such thing as a true anything.

Read Joseph Campbell and Marceia Elliade. they are the experts on the nature of mythology.
LOL...and I don't call myself atheist, I prefer agnostic since I don't think one can prove no god exists. So we are both non-theists then...cool. But ok, you've set up a narrower definition of "myth". Anywho, the point really wasn't about whether the Jesus tales encompased something defined as mythical. I assumed the point was that it contained some real historical truths of a miraculous nature; that the veracity of the historical background is sufficient to demonstrate why one should believe the fantastical to also be truth. Or how would you put it? So things, by your own definition can be still wrong/false, but not be mythical. So the Jesus tale could still be wrong, just not attributed to a narrow definition of myth? You see I don't think Jesus is purely fictional. I suspect he lived/preached in Judea; was probably a heretical Jewish sage; maybe even hung out with JtB for a time; and was probably killed in some manner; and stayed dead. But I consider all of it to be a SWAG.

Right, the flood story is a myth,it is borrowed from the Sumerians and Babylonians. I am a liberal, I am not a Bible thumper. In fact I'm not a theist either.
Ok, the Deluge is myth. Is the Exodus tale a myth as well? Sure sounds similar in construct; has lots of elements that fit the type. How about Joshua's solar object demands, another myth? David and Goliath? Was Solomon so wise; was his temple so amazing; 300 concubines; gazillions of horses....? Or does hyperbole come to mind? When and why does the BS stop in your non-bible thumping view?

I dont' know what you think you are saying but it's absurdly childish. The NT is not mytholgoical. You don't know the difference. Mythology is not just any supernatuarl tale. Go read Elliade.

Now Mormonism is copied after KJV. it's a badly done ignorant coutner fit because Smith assumed that any divine writting must sound like the Bible, so he tried to copy the KJV (forgetting the Bible was writtenin hebrew and Greek). He didn't have a true mythology to wokr with, so he used a bunch of bs that sounded holy because it copied the Bible. In his enthusiasm he plagerigzed a new York School teacher and he also said the Indians were the 10 lost tribes, not knowing that anthropologists can tell a genetic difference in the teeth of natrive amerians and the teeth of Jews.

so moromon is just a bad attempt at forging a holy document. The OT is a collection of writtings that come from people who experinced the power of God, and as all power must, they tried to encode that experience into the clutural constructs.
Ok, I'm not going to quibble about the definition of myth or the BS of Mormons. Yes, Mormonism is crap. But is is an excellent example of how people are willing to delude themselves into believing the most upsurd of things. How is the birthing tale of Jesus not reeking of borrowed metaphors of the Moshe tale? Why would Paul not bother mentioning this miraculous birthing tale? It sounds like it would be another great weapon to convince the sceptic. Paul could challange people to go ask others about the Magi, shepards seeing angels, Herod's murder of babies/todlers and so forth. This is only 45ish years later. How could Paul not know of this, and then not bother to report such a fabulous thing. Could it be that it is BS as well, made during the ensuing decades as the Gospels headed towards being written? Why is that not a reasonable understanding?

I did. I did prove it. The only way you can possibly counter it is to provide another version. let's hear it. But don't forget now, it has to be fore 400 AD.

I showed that all those verwsions are the same and I shoed over 100 documents that all affirm those same 11 points. That's proof enough to meet a prmia facie case. Now you must prove your assertions against it.
Hum, now you later qualify the meaning of proof, calling it "proof enough to meet a prima facia case". You can no more prove (I'll stick to the dictionary definition) that alternate mythos didn't exist 2000 years ago, than I could prove only one thread of mythos grew within Mandeanism. At best you could show that we know of no other alternate mythos outside this "one basic story".

Here's the order of what was said:
(3) Mandeans, you have no proof that they had only one strory, but they were an offshoot of Christianity, so they part of the profussion of multiying Gnsticism that marked heretical christainity.
I'll agree the Mandeans were an offshoot of something, but more like Judaism and a mish mash of others. Now to your latest comment:
People have researched that you know. There is actually of literature on that subject. I think if you would research it you would find they are usuallky thought of as an offshoot of Gnsoticism.
Not to belabor the point, but Mandeanism is considered Gnostic ( i.e. contained within), not an offshoot of it. Not all Gnosticism is off of xianity by definition.

The below is suggestive of these peoples already getting around before xianity (note that I am not calling this proof, but merely evidence):

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/scripts/johannite.html
"While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when [or after] you believed?'
They answered, 'No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.'
So Paul asked, 'Then what baptism did you receive?'
'John's baptism,' they replied.
Paul said, 'John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.' On hearing this, they were baptized into [or in] the name of the Lord Jesus."
- Acts 19:1-5

"In Acts 19:1-7 Luke refers to a group whom Paul met in Ephesus who knew only John's baptism of repentance. But since they are said explicitly to be 'disciples' (a term Luke always uses to refer to followers of Jesus) this passage provides very slender support for the existence in the first century of groups who saw John rather than Jesus as the Messiah."
- Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), paperback, p. 167

It's not different. They don't deny any of those 11 points. Now they do combrine mythos with that of the Ot/Nt but they don't screw with the actual story line; Jesus is still from Nazerath, he still crucified in jerusalem, his sides kicks are still matt and Peter, he is stil cricufied at noon on passover and mother named mary and so on. Same 11 ponits, don't contradict them.

I dont' know why it's so hard for you to understand the differnce between story line and criticism. It may be that there are a milliions ways to look at the same facts, but none of them deney the facts--those 11 points, the "story line"! its' the events I said are historical, so that might be your clue. The Events of his life are not changed, only the ideas about what the mean!
Hum, the below jives with what I have read before...another mythos with this Jesus not "dying at noon", but in fact skating off to finish living off elsewhere. Never mind that they view his life in a way diametrically opposed to the Xian view, that certainly wouldn't be a thing to consider when deciding on whether to label fabulous things as historical vice false, mythos, or wrong. Now I cannot say definitively that it was written before 400AD, but I believe the Mandeans think so. We have no reason to decide it wasn't written earlier or part of a previous oral tradition. Or do you have evidence for the otherwise?

http://i-cias.com/e.o/jesus.htm
Jesus is with the Mandeans presented as a lying prophet.

The Mandeans have John the Baptist as an important religious figure, and the history of religion suggests John the Baptist could have represented an alternative religious orientation to Jesus. While Christianity presents John to have baptized Jesus, symbolizing that Jesus is his Lord, Mandean religion tells about a messenger of light that was sent to Jerusalem in order to undress the lie of Jesus.

Beyond this, Jesus appears not to play much of a role in the theology of the Mandeans.

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/scripts/johannite.html

"The Mandaeans subscribe to the belief that Judas Thomas was Jesus' twin brother-as the Celtic and Egyptian Christians did - it seems, but they also believe that it was this Judas, not Iscariot, who was crucified. Why? Because his resemblance to Jesus was sufficient to fool Pilate-who knew what Jesus looked like and was legally obliged to witness the Roman punishment of crucifixion when meted out by Jews - and because Judas Thomas had been instrumental in a rift among Jesus' followers that ultimately brought down the crucifixion sentence."
Jesus had then posed as Thomas for the rest of his life to avoid the taint of his failure as messiah interfering with his work. He had enacted the drama, played the role: now he wished to get on with his life."
- Paul William Roberts, Journey of the Magi (1995) p. 285
The Mandaeans believe that it was Jesus, not Thomas, who was the source of the Gospel of Thomas.
"Jesus-Thomas had continued to preach wherever he could that was beyond the reach of the Roman-Pauline church, ending up in Madras, where he was finally burned to death by ungrateful Hindu priests. St. Paul was the great villain of the piece, seen by the Mandaeans as a fanatic and a Roman agent."
- Paul William Roberts, Journey of the Magi (1995) p. 285

Here appear to be your 11 points (don't you know that it's supposed to be 12 :D), with counter points inserted from Peter Kirby (and a many thanks):
All of these mythical figures change over time, but not Jesus. There is basically one Jesus story and it's always the same.

1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.
2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary."
Origen quotes the Jewish interlocutor of Celsus in Contra Celsum 1.32: "when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera." This is a tradition that denies the Virgin birth.
3) Same principal players: Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdalene.
4) That Jesus was known as a miracle worker.
5) He claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.
6) He was crucified under Pilate.
This is found in the Apocalypse of Peter in the Nag Hammadi Library:

When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."
7) Around the time of the Passover.
8) At noon.
9) Rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.
10) Several women with Mary Magdalene discovered the empty tomb.
11) This was in Jerusalem.
And so we have yet more counter mythos surounding this Jesus. I just picked 2 and 6 for the vividness of differences. And 6 now has a second counter tale beyond the Mandeans. And as to dating the Apocalypse of Peter:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apocalypsepeter.html Detlef G. Müller writes (New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, p. 622):
Period of origin and circulation: we do not know the original text of the Apocalypse of Peter. The translation below makes it clear that the Greek and Ethiopic texts frequently diverge from one another. The Ethiopic version contains a series of linguistic obscurities which are evidently to be traced back to lacunae and defects in the transmission of the text. In this respect it deserves attention that Clement of Alexandria regards the Apocalypse of Peter as Holy Scriptures (cf. Euseb. HE VI 14.1), which is proof of an origin at least in the first half of the 2nd century.
So in the end, I would say the above does in fact deny many of your 11 points.

[Amaleq13]

What are the "eleven points?" From what I can see none of them are found in Paul....

The relevant links are in this post (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2108736#post2108736) and, no, they aren't found in anything that can be reliably attributed to Paul.

[Intelligitimate]

I am a liberal, I am not a Bible thumper. In fact I'm not a theist either.

Wha?

[Metacrock]

Wha?


You are asking how I can be a beleiver (Christian) and not be a theist? by being a PanENtheist. See Paul Tillich.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Panentheism is still theism.

Do you think that the divine revelation is exclusive to Christianity or would you recognize Hindu avatars as being valid incarnations as well?

Also, do you believe that human souls are discrete from the panentheistic deity? And if so, isn't that a contradiction?

[Metacrock]

funinspace
Veteran User


Join Date: March 2004
Location: Idaho
Posts: 907

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metarock
Typical atheist fallacy. The atheists take the no true scottsman fallacie and conclude from it there is no such thing as a true anything.

Read Joseph Campbell and Marceia Elliade. they are the experts on the nature of mythology.


LOL...and I don't call myself atheist, I prefer agnostic since I don't think one can prove no god exists. So we are both non-theists then...cool. But ok, you've set up a narrower definition of "myth". Anywho, the point really wasn't about whether the Jesus tales encompased something defined as mythical. I assumed the point was that it contained some real historical truths of a miraculous nature; that the veracity of the historical background is sufficient to demonstrate why one should believe the fantastical to also be truth. Or how would you put it? So things, by your own definition can be still wrong/false, but not be mythical. So the Jesus tale could still be wrong, just not attributed to a narrow definition of myth? You see I don't think Jesus is purely fictional. I suspect he lived/preached in Judea; was probably a heretical Jewish sage; maybe even hung out with JtB for a time; and was probably killed in some manner; and stayed dead. But I consider all of it to be a SWAG.



It's a good indication of probablity. It's certainly not an absolute proof of historicity, but it's a good indication that these 11 points are probably historically factual.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Metarock
Right, the flood story is a myth,it is borrowed from the Sumerians and Babylonians. I am a liberal, I am not a Bible thumper. In fact I'm not a theist either.


Ok, the Deluge is myth. Is the Exodus tale a myth as well? Sure sounds similar in construct; has lots of elements that fit the type. How about Joshua's solar object demands, another myth? David and Goliath? Was Solomon so wise; was his temple so amazing; 300 concubines; gazillions of horses....? Or does hyperbole come to mind? When and why does the BS stop in your non-bible thumping view?


I think you are losing focuss here on the issues. It not important to me if you find myths in the Bible. I argue for mythological content in the Bible all the time. The improtant part is that Jesus life story is not myth and its' probalby historical in those general peramitors.





Quote:
I dont' know what you think you are saying but it's absurdly childish. The NT is not mytholgoical. You don't know the difference. Mythology is not just any supernatuarl tale. Go read Elliade.

Now Mormonism is copied after KJV. it's a badly done ignorant coutner fit because Smith assumed that any divine writting must sound like the Bible, so he tried to copy the KJV (forgetting the Bible was writtenin hebrew and Greek). He didn't have a true mythology to wokr with, so he used a bunch of bs that sounded holy because it copied the Bible. In his enthusiasm he plagerigzed a new York School teacher and he also said the Indians were the 10 lost tribes, not knowing that anthropologists can tell a genetic difference in the teeth of natrive amerians and the teeth of Jews.

so moromon is just a bad attempt at forging a holy document. The OT is a collection of writtings that come from people who experinced the power of God, and as all power must, they tried to encode that experience into the clutural constructs.


Ok, I'm not going to quibble about the definition of myth or the BS of Mormons. Yes, Mormonism is crap. But is is an excellent example of how people are willing to delude themselves into believing the most upsurd of things. How is the birthing tale of Jesus not reeking of borrowed metaphors of the Moshe tale? Why would Paul not bother mentioning this miraculous birthing tale? It sounds like it would be another great weapon to convince the sceptic. Paul could challange people to go ask others about the Magi, shepards seeing angels, Herod's murder of babies/todlers and so forth. This is only 45ish years later. How could Paul not know of this, and then not bother to report such a fabulous thing. Could it be that it is BS as well, made during the ensuing decades as the Gospels headed towards being written? Why is that not a reasonable understanding?


What's the deal with Paul? I was talking about the historicity of the Jesus story, not of Paul. Where does that come from? I also see you making two general fallacies: argument from silence and guilt by assocition (story X is a myth in the Bible, therefore, stiroes y and z are mths too becasue they are in the bible).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Metarock
I did. I did prove it. The only way you can possibly counter it is to provide another version. let's hear it. But don't forget now, it has to be fore 400 AD.

I showed that all those verwsions are the same and I shoed over 100 documents that all affirm those same 11 points. That's proof enough to meet a prmia facie case. Now you must prove your assertions against it.


Hum, now you later qualify the meaning of proof, calling it "proof enough to meet a prima facia case". You can no more prove (I'll stick to the dictionary definition) that alternate mythos didn't exist 2000 years ago, than I could prove only one thread of mythos grew within Mandeanism. At best you could show that we know of no other alternate mythos outside this "one basic story".



I dont' have to! why do you guys (myhers, internet atheists, dinesins of the sec web) not understand that you have to prove the arguments you advance. You dont' get a free pass as making whatever assumption you want to make and then sticking Christians with the burden to prove it false.

I give good primie facie reason to assume historicity of the Jesus story, I dont' have to go and turn over every rock in the middel east to prove there is not another version of the story under it. You have to prove theres is!




Here's the order of what was said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metarock
(3) Mandeans, you have no proof that they had only one strory, but they were an offshoot of Christianity, so they part of the profussion of multiying Gnsticism that marked heretical christainity.



Quote:
Originally Posted by funinspace
I'll agree the Mandeans were an offshoot of something, but more like Judaism and a mish mash of others.

Now to your latest comment:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metarock
People have researched that you know. There is actually of literature on that subject. I think if you would research it you would find they are usuallky thought of as an offshoot of Gnsoticism.


Not to belabor the point, but Mandeanism is considered Gnostic ( i.e. contained within), not an offshoot of it. Not all Gnosticism is off of xianity by definition.



What are you arging about here? I said they were "offshoot" of Gnstoics, if that's not good enough, we have to say they were Gnostics, well that's just peachy. So they were Gnsotics, big deal? That does't prove had a different version of the story!




The below is suggestive of these peoples already getting around before xianity (note that I am not calling this proof, but merely evidence):

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/st.../johannite.html


Link doesnt' work

Quote:
"While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when [or after] you believed?'
They answered, 'No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.'
So Paul asked, 'Then what baptism did you receive?'
'John's baptism,' they replied.
Paul said, 'John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.' On hearing this, they were baptized into [or in] the name of the Lord Jesus."
- Acts 19:1-5



again no alternate story! You are just assuming an unrelated group would have a different story, but there is no reason to assume that.



"In Acts 19:1-7 Luke refers to a group whom Paul met in Ephesus who knew only John's baptism of repentance. But since they are said explicitly to be 'disciples' (a term Luke always uses to refer to followers of Jesus) this passage provides very slender support for the existence in the first century of groups who saw John rather than Jesus as the Messiah."
- Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), paperback, p. 167



that doesnt' prove anything. It first doesnt' even prove they didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah, it only proves they were still doing John's baptism. That secondly, certianly doesnt' prove they knew a different version of the jesus story, only that they didn't buy the first one, or maybe didnt' know it!






Quote:
Originally Posted by Metarock
It's not different. They don't deny any of those 11 points. Now they do combrine mythos with that of the Ot/Nt but they don't screw with the actual story line; Jesus is still from Nazerath, he still crucified in jerusalem, his sides kicks are still matt and Peter, he is stil cricufied at noon on passover and mother named mary and so on. Same 11 ponits, don't contradict them.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Metarock
I dont' know why it's so hard for you to understand the differnce between story line and criticism. It may be that there are a milliions ways to look at the same facts, but none of them deney the facts--those 11 points, the "story line"! its' the events I said are historical, so that might be your clue. The Events of his life are not changed, only the ideas about what the mean!


Hum, the below jives with what I have read before...another mythos with this Jesus not "dying at noon", but in fact skating off to finish living off elsewhere. Never mind that they view his life in a way diametrically opposed to the Xian view, that certainly wouldn't be a thing to consider when deciding on whether to label fabulous things as historical vice false, mythos, or wrong. Now I cannot say definitively that it was written before 400AD, but I believe the Mandeans think so. We have no reason to decide it wasn't written earlier or part of a previous oral tradition. Or do you have evidence for the otherwise?



And that's coming from after 400! that's the Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Divinci Code bull shit that has not reall validity for anyone. You can't even prove anyone ever beileved it.

It's beyond the peramiter I gave for a time range.




http://i-cias.com/e.o/jesus.htm



That above link didnt' work, but it did give me a big batch of spy ware. Thanks.

Quote:
Jesus is with the Mandeans presented as a lying prophet.

The Mandeans have John the Baptist as an important religious figure, and the history of religion suggests John the Baptist could have represented an alternative religious orientation to Jesus. While Christianity presents John to have baptized Jesus, symbolizing that Jesus is his Lord, Mandean religion tells about a messenger of light that was sent to Jerusalem in order to undress the lie of Jesus.

Beyond this, Jesus appears not to play much of a role in the theology of the Mandeans.


I bet it's not authentically mandean. I bet it's also from beyond 400. I'll check that out.



http://www.mystae.com/restricted/st.../johannite.html


Quote:
"The Mandaeans subscribe to the belief that Judas Thomas was Jesus' twin brother-as the Celtic and Egyptian Christians did - it seems, but they also believe that it was this Judas, not Iscariot, who was crucified. Why? Because his resemblance to Jesus was sufficient to fool Pilate-who knew what Jesus looked like and was legally obliged to witness the Roman punishment of crucifixion when meted out by Jews - and because Judas Thomas had been instrumental in a rift among Jesus' followers that ultimately brought down the crucifixion sentence."
Jesus had then posed as Thomas for the rest of his life to avoid the taint of his failure as messiah interfering with his work. He had enacted the drama, played the role: now he wished to get on with his life."
- Paul William Roberts, Journey of the Magi (1995) p. 285
The Mandaeans believe that it was Jesus, not Thomas, who was the source of the Gospel of Thomas.
"Jesus-Thomas had continued to preach wherever he could that was beyond the reach of the Roman-Pauline church, ending up in Madras, where he was finally burned to death by ungrateful Hindu priests. St. Paul was the great villain of the piece, seen by the Mandaeans as a fanatic and a Roman agent."
- Paul William Roberts, Journey of the Magi (1995) p. 285
Here appear to be your 11 points (don't you know that it's supposed to be 12 ), with counter points inserted from Peter Kirby (and a many thanks):

Quote:
All of these mythical figures change over time, but not Jesus. There is basically one Jesus story and it's always the same.

1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.
2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary."

Quote:
Origen quotes the Jewish interlocutor of Celsus in Contra Celsum 1.32: "when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera." This is a tradition that denies the Virgin birth.


3) Same principal players: Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdalene.
4) That Jesus was known as a miracle worker.
5) He claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.
6) He was crucified under Pilate.

Quote:
This is found in the Apocalypse of Peter in the Nag Hammadi Library:

When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."


into to Nagg hamadi library says most of the words date to late 400s. that's after the time frame I give.



In


7) Around the time of the Passover.
8) At noon.
9) Rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.
10) Several women with Mary Magdalene discovered the empty tomb.
11) This was in Jerusalem.


And so we have yet more counter mythos surounding this Jesus. I just picked 2 and 6 for the vividness of differences. And 6 now has a second counter tale beyond the Mandeans. And as to dating the Apocalypse of Peter:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.c...lypsepeter.html Detlef G. Müller writes (New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, p. 622):

Quote:
Period of origin and circulation: we do not know the original text of the Apocalypse of Peter. The translation below makes it clear that the Greek and Ethiopic texts frequently diverge from one another. The Ethiopic version contains a series of linguistic obscurities which are evidently to be traced back to lacunae and defects in the transmission of the text. In this respect it deserves attention that Clement of Alexandria regards the Apocalypse of Peter as Holy Scriptures (cf. Euseb. HE VI 14.1), which is proof of an origin at least in the first half of the 2nd century.


So in the end, I would say the above does in fact deny many of your 11 points.



why do you guys continue to ignore the time frame? I said the story starts to proliforate a couple of hundred years latter, but the point is the basic facts are set in stone within the first 20 after the events. That is probably because they were public knowlege. 300 years latter no one remembered that publlic knowledge, heretics felt more free to invent things.

[Metacrock]

Panentheism is still theism.



Depends upon what you mean by either term. Theism basically is the residue of Aristotelian unmoved mover. PanEnthesm attributes less of a personality to God than does Chrsitain theism.



Do you think that the divine revelation is exclusive to Christianity or would you recognize Hindu avatars as being valid incarnations as well?


I dont' recognize Hinu Avators per se, but I do think that God is working in all cultures, that many Hindus experience God, that they may be saved if they follow the moral law on their hearts. (Rom 2)





Also, do you believe that human souls are discrete from the panentheistic deity? And if so, isn't that a contradiction?


Yes and no. To me a soul is a symbol or metaphor for the over all live of the person. So we dont' have souls we are souls.

I equate spirit with mind. So we are spirits to the extent that we are our minds, but spirits integrated into an overall corporeal life. My brian is a center of conscoiusness, does that mean it's not connected to God? I think it is in some way.

I do not say that Panenthism is pantheism> Im' not a pantheist. But I'm not a theist either. I see theism as treating God like an object, or a thing alongside other things, I see God as a level of reality.

[funinspace]

It's a good indication of probablity. It's certainly not an absolute proof of historicity, but it's a good indication that these 11 points are probably historically factual.
Thank you. I can understand an argument for "good indication of probability". I would disagree, but understand a difference of opinion.
What are you arging about here? I said they were "offshoot" of Gnstoics, if that's not good enough, we have to say they were Gnostics, well that's just peachy. So they were Gnsotics, big deal? That does't prove had a different version of the story!
Hum, I guess you really didn't see the point...Your not the only one who can be nit picky on meaning and usage of words, I just didn't get snide about it. Why did you even make the one previous response then, if not to be bitchy? And your right, neither of our statements were a "big deal".
why do you guys continue to ignore the time frame? I said the story starts to proliforate a couple of hundred years latter, but the point is the basic facts are set in stone within the first 20 after the events. That is probably because they were public knowlege. 300 years latter no one remembered that publlic knowledge, heretics felt more free to invent things.
Previous Metarock:
what I argued was that he failed to show any counter evidence at all because he didni't deal with the 11 points, until after 400 which is what I said to begin with.
Basic facts in stone and 20 years...allot could be said about that, but I really don't see the point anymore.

Hum, is you middle name Lucy? The goal post was 400 years for your 11 points, so I addressed your standards previously stated. Never mind the other shifts I saw. I'm not Charlie Brown, so you can go play with yourself. Enjoy.

[Amaleq13]

...the point is the basic facts are set in stone within the first 20 after the events. That is probably because they were public knowlege.

Paul wrote his letters within 20 years of the alleged events but he fails to mention your "eleven points". Even if we assume the existence of Q, your "eleven points" are not supported.

The "eleven points" don't appear to exist until the first story was written at least 40 years after the alleged events.

[Metacrock]

Paul wrote his letters within 20 years of the alleged events but he fails to mention your "eleven points". Even if we assume the existence of Q, your "eleven points" are not supported.

The "eleven points" don't appear to exist until the first story was written at least 40 years after the alleged events.



Yea but why should he?


(1) He alludes to them. Ok so he can't allude to mary being named mary wihtout saying it, but to the res. and to the crcucifiction he's all over the crucifiction.

(2) The says Jesus was a flesh and blood guy.

(3) He's talking to pople who know the story about adminstriative matters in their chruches. There is no need for him to go over again.

(4) he also doesn't tell the story of the flood, or the Genesis creation myth, should we assume he didn't believe in them?

[Metacrock]

Thank you. I can understand an argument for "good indication of probability". I would disagree, but understand a difference of opinion.

Hum, I guess you really didn't see the point...Your not the only one who can be nit picky on meaning and usage of words, I just didn't get snide about it. Why did you even make the one previous response then, if not to be bitchy? And your right, neither of our statements were a "big deal".



Well I didnt' make the orignal statment to be snide. I really do think of them as an offshoot. I wrote a paper on the Mandeans, of all things, for a class on Samuel Beckett (I was the Drama Turge for a campus production of "All That Fall."). so I think of them as an offshoot, they weren't Gnsotics per se but Mandeans.

Previous Metarock:

Basic facts in stone and 20 years...allot could be said about that, but I really don't see the point anymore.

Hum, is you middle name Lucy? The goal post was 400 years for your 11 points, so I addressed your standards previously stated. Never mind the other shifts I saw. I'm not Charlie Brown, so you can go play with yourself. Enjoy.



show me the docs where you fit within the 400 years?


I think I see the problem every time, from arguing with Peter I probably sould do the lucy thing and move the football. But I think that would be reasonabale since it's only within the first century that it would really matter.

but I'll change the argument on my site before I argue it that way on a board.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The eleven points aren't even consistent in the Canonicals and virtually none of them are found in Paul.
[1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.
Paul isn't really clear on whether Jesus was a "man who lived on Earth." None of the Gospels state that he was born in the 1st century or that he died in 33 CE and point of fact, he couldn't have if he was a.) born during the reign of Herod the Great and b) was 33 years old when he died. Herod died in 4 BCE so that screws the first point. And if he died when he was 33 he would have had to die no later than 29 CE.

Even the traditional of 33 is nowhere explicitly stated in the Gospels. Luke says that Jesus was "about 30" when he started his ministry and John seems to imply that Jesus celebrated four Passovers, the first one starting six months after his ministry, so the age is derived from conflating those two details from John and Luke. It hardly amounts to a multiplicity of attestations as to either the dates of Jesus' birth and death or his age at death.
2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary."
This is attested only by Matthew and Luke. Paul doesn't know about it. Neither do Mark or John.
3) Same principal players: Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdalene.
4) That Jesus was known as a miracle worker.
5) He claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.
6) He was crucified under Pilate.
7) Around the time of the Passover..
Where are these things found in Paul?
8) At noon.
Depends on which Gospel you read. Also, not in Paul.
9) Rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.
Not in Paul. Not in Q. Not in Thomas. The first part is not in Mark.
10) Several women with Mary Magdalene discovered the empty tomb.
Conflicts with Paul's statement that Cephas was the first to see Jesus.
11) This was in Jerusalem.
Which part was in Jerusalem? Are you talking about the appearances? Are you sure?

Where does Luke say the first apostles saw Jesus? How does that square with Mark or Paul or Matthew or John?

[Amaleq13]

Yea but why should he?

What other evidence of the "Jesus story" do you have besides Paul that dates to within 20 years of the alleged events?

(1) He alludes to them. Ok so he can't allude to mary being named mary wihtout saying it, but to the res. and to the crcucifiction he's all over the crucifiction.

I agree that Paul repeatedly declares that Jesus was crucified but your "point" is restricted to that claim, alone. My understanding was that you claimed all the points as you wrote them were consistently reported. Perhaps you want to modify your points?

Paul asserts that Jesus was crucified but he doesn't say where or when. The reference to Pilate is thought to be an interpolation by many scholars so, at the very least, it doesn't qualify as "reliable".

(2) The says Jesus was a flesh and blood guy.

This is not one of the "eleven points" as you stated them.

(3) He's talking to pople who know the story about adminstriative matters in their chruches. There is no need for him to go over again.

This assumes what you are trying to prove. There is no reason to assume either he or they are familiar with the "eleven points" as you stated them.

(4) he also doesn't tell the story of the flood, or the Genesis creation myth, should we assume he didn't believe in them?

This is irrelevant to your assertion about the "eleven points" existing within 20 years of the alleged events.

[Metacrock]

Originally Posted by Metacrock
Yea but why should he?



What other evidence of the "Jesus story" do you have besides Paul that dates to within 20 years of the alleged events?


A lot. The Koester stuff on the Diatesseron, pre Markan redaction


Quote:
(1) He alludes to them. Ok so he can't allude to mary being named mary wihtout saying it, but to the res. and to the crcucifiction he's all over the crucifiction.



I agree that Paul repeatedly declares that Jesus was crucified but your "point" is restricted to that claim, alone. My understanding was that you claimed all the points as you wrote them were consistently reported. Perhaps you want to modify your points?



No I didn't say that.Paul doesnt' contradict the Gosples, he doesn't tell another version of the story.





Paul asserts that Jesus was crucified but he doesn't say where or when. The reference to Pilate is thought to be an interpolation by many scholars so, at the very least, it doesn't qualify as "reliable".



I'd have to see some textual evidence ont that. So conveient.


Quote:
(2) The says Jesus was a flesh and blood guy.



This is not one of the "eleven points" as you stated them.




Hmmm, maybe I'll make a 12th point.


Quote:
(3) He's talking to pople who know the story about adminstriative matters in their chruches. There is no need for him to go over again.



This assumes what you are trying to prove. There is no reason to assume either he or they are familiar with the "eleven points" as you stated them.



Yes! Come on, can't you see that? Ok OK for the sake of argument argumebnt argument for the sake arguent, ok do i have to be obviuos about everything.

So we assume they knew the stroy like I do, what'w the point of teling it again when the topics invovle other things?

It's like all arguments from silence, it assumes there's thsi golden point that his silence highlights but all other silences and their meanings it just ignores.


Quote:
(4) he also doesn't tell the story of the flood, or the Genesis creation myth, should we assume he didn't believe in them?



This is irrelevant to your assertion about the "eleven points" existing within 20 years of the alleged events.



No! it is not irrelivant, it shows how foolish the argument from silence is. He has a thausand silences. why should we not expect to speak on everything. Why is this one thing the one thing that must be spoken of, so that his failure to speak really proves something, but all the other silences are just coincidence?

[Metacrock]

The eleven points aren't even consistent in the Canonicals and virtually none of them are found in Paul.



Certinly are: that he was crucified, that rose, those are there.

Quote:
[1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.


Paul isn't really clear on whether Jesus was a "man who lived on Earth." None of the Gospels state that he was born in the 1st century or that he died in 33 CE and point of fact, he couldn't have if he was a.) born during the reign of Herod the Great and b) was 33 years old when he died. Herod died in 4 BCE so that screws the first point. And if he died when he was 33 he would have had to die no later than 29 CE.




Yea, Paul is clear that he was a man with a flesh blood life. Romas 1;3 speaks of his linage, Doherty's greek is so bad he doesnt' know what it says. But he's totally wrong. From my own Greek studies and a friend who teaches Gerek at Cambridge who helped me work out the passage, Doherty is totally wrong. Also the Pauline insider who wrote Hebrews says "in his life on earth>'






Even the traditional of 33 is nowhere explicitly stated in the Gospels. Luke says that Jesus was "about 30" when he started his ministry and John seems to imply that Jesus celebrated four Passovers, the first one starting six months after his ministry, so the age is derived from conflating those two details from John and Luke. It hardly amounts to a multiplicity of attestations as to either the dates of Jesus' birth and death or his age at death.



So what? But you are reading that in John say nothing of the kind.




Quote:
2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary."


This is attested only by Matthew and Luke. Paul doesn't know about it. Neither do Mark or John.




Paul doesnt' have to. We were talking about the oldest Gospels. Remember?





Quote:
3) Same principal players: Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdalene.
4) That Jesus was known as a miracle worker.
5) He claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.
6) He was crucified under Pilate.
7) Around the time of the Passover..


Where are these things found in Paul?



they are not improtant because it was the issue. Paul says nothing that contradicts and he doesn't give an alternate story. CAn't you people understand the important issue is NO ALTERNATE VERSIONS! Taht's the important point!!
Quote:
8) At noon.


Depends on which Gospel you read. Also, not in Paul.




So fucking what? why do you keep saying that? It's not contradicted by Paul.

Quote:
9) Rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.


Not in Paul. Not in Q. Not in Thomas. The first part is not in Mark.



Yea it is in Paul. The bit about rose first to the 12 and then the 500 and then me, that's allusion to resurrection. It's in Mark, the resurrection is in Mark. The angles say "he has risen." The lost ending takes up after that point.




Quote:
10) Several women with Mary Magdalene discovered the empty tomb.


Conflicts with Paul's statement that Cephas was the first to see Jesus.




That's really persenting an alternate story. And Paul doesn't actaully rule out the women, he quotes a baptismal formula that leaves them out, but that's not the same as rulilng them out.



Quote:
11) This was in Jerusalem.


Which part was in Jerusalem? Are you talking about the appearances? Are you sure?


Crucifiction

Where does Luke say the first apostles saw Jesus? How does that square with Mark or Paul or Matthew or John?



see my website Doxa for my resurrection harmony.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Yea, Paul is clear that he was a man with a flesh blood life. Romas 1;3 speaks of his linage, Doherty's greek is so bad he doesnt' know what it says. But he's totally wrong. From my own Greek studies and a friend who teaches Gerek at Cambridge who helped me work out the passage, Doherty is totally wrong. Also the Pauline insider who wrote Hebrews says "in his life on earth>'
I've studied Greek as well. I don't want to hijack this into another kata sarka debate, and I'm not necessarily convinced that Doherty is correct in his conclusion but he's also not demonstrably incorrect and I do think that en sarka would be preferable to denote flesh and blood and that kata sarka is subtly yet distinctively less direct. My own sense of kata from my own Greek study is that it implies a sense of being "around" or "in the area of" rather than "inside" or "within."

This gives Paul's words a little more ambiguity and uncertainty than if he had said en karta but it's admittedly not clear what he did mean. If I had to guess, I would guess that he meant something like "among the living" (or "among the flesh") but that leaves a tiny bit of uncertainty as to whether Paul perceived Jesus himself as being human or spiritual. I am not trying to argue for the latter necessarily. I admit that I just don't know. However I would submit that a spiritual connotation is not dispostively incompatible with the language.
Paul doesnt' have to. We were talking about the oldest Gospels. Remember?
The oldest Gospels are Q, Thomas and Mark. None of them mention a Virgin Birth. I don't even think they say that Jesus' mother was named Mary.
they are not improtant because it was the issue. Paul says nothing that contradicts and he doesn't give an alternate story. CAn't you people understand the important issue is NO ALTERNATE VERSIONS! Taht's the important point!!
This is an argument from silence at best, but the fact that Paul doen't mention such keystone details in Jesus' life is so silent that it's deafening.
So fucking what? why do you keep saying that? It's not contradicted by Paul.
See above.
Yea it is in Paul. The bit about rose first to the 12 and then the 500 and then me, that's allusion to resurrection. It's in Mark, the resurrection is in Mark. The angles say "he has risen." The lost ending takes up after that point.
The question is what does Paul (or Mark, for that matter) mean by "risen?"

It is not a lead cinch that either of them was referring to the physical resuscitation of a dead body. I'm not making a positive declaration that they didn't mean that but I do think the matter is debatable and unsettled.
[Quote]That's really persenting an alternate story. And Paul doesn't actaully rule out the women, he quotes a baptismal formula that leaves them out, but that's not the same as rulilng them out.
It's a prima facie disagreement. The first empty tomb narrative does not even mention Cephas. If you think that Paul knew about the women and was excluding them for some reason, I think you have to provide some sort of argument as to why.
Crucifiction
OK. I agree that the crucifixion is unanimously attested as having occurred in Jerusalem.

[Arouet]

One plausible explanation for JC's followers goes like this:

The Romans were aware of Jewish messianic tradition. So they removed the body and disposed of it during the Sabbath (sneaky, huh?!)

So the two Marys go to the tomb to annoint the body as soon as allowable. So they enter the tomb and see the stone rolled from its place and the burial clothes laying about (the Romans must of been in a hurry).

Unable to accept the reality of the missing body and reacting to the messianic concept, they believed that JC arose. Then they run back to the male followers with their claims which are accepted by them in their shock over the crucifiction.

Then Paul runs away with the story so he can convert the Helenistic Jews and pagans.

Does that sound plausible to you?

[Vivisector]

The Romans were aware of Jewish messianic tradition. So they removed the body and disposed of it during the Sabbath (sneaky, huh?!)

Assuming the Romans were aware of and took seriously any messianic tradition, what would this tradition have consisted of? For example, would the Romans have been aware of the idea that the Messiah would be crucified and resurrected after three days? And how would stealing the body have advanced Roman objectives?

So the two Marys go to the tomb to annoint the body as soon as allowable. So they enter the tomb and see the stone rolled from its place and the burial clothes laying about (the Romans must of been in a hurry).

This seems to rely very heavily on Gospel accounts. Why wouldn't the Romans have simply left him on the cross as carrion or tossed him in a common grave with perhaps a sprinkling of quicklime? And the burial clothes - I gotta tell ya, if I were going to be wagging someone around who'd been through what Jesus experienced, I'd want that guy covered up!

Unable to accept the reality of the missing body and reacting to the messianic concept, they believed that JC arose. Then they run back to the male followers with their claims which are accepted by them in their shock over the crucifiction.

Again, depends very heavily on their characterization of the Messiah at that time.

Does that sound plausible to you?

Sorry, but not very. I doubt the historical basis of any kind of entombment (why would Jesus have been treated any differently than most others who suffered crucifixion?). Additionally, I've never seen it firmly established that, prior to Jesus, there was any expectation that the Messiah would be crucified and resurrected. The author of Mark, for example, seems to go to great pains to point out that the disciples were dolts who never really understood the true meaning of "Messiah."

Cheers,

V.

[Amaleq13]

]What other evidence of the "Jesus story" do you have besides Paul that dates to within 20 years of the alleged events?

A lot. The Koester stuff on the Diatesseron, pre Markan redaction

How does a 2nd century attempt at harmonizing the canonical stories constitute evidence of the same story within 20 years of the events?

Pre-markan redaction isn't particularly helpful since one opposing view to your claim is that the story attributed to Mark is the basis for all subsequent revisions. If, as you claim, the same story was told from the very beginning, shouldn't we find evidence of it outside and earlier than the earliest extant version?

My understanding was that you claimed all the points as you wrote them were consistently reported.

No I didn't say that.Paul doesnt' contradict the Gosples, he doesn't tell another version of the story.

Perhaps you need to clarify what it is you are claiming. There is a significant different between "contradicting" and "telling another version". Your original claim seemed to focus only on the latter. Paul clearly does tell a different version of the story of Jesus because he tells it without referring to any of your eleven points as you wrote them. That is clearly a different version of the story.

Whether you want to change your claim to denying "contradicting stories" or not, I don't see how the absence of either establishes the historicity of Mark if we don't find prior evidence of the story.

I'd have to see some textual evidence ont that. So conveient.

It might seem "convenient" if only mythicist proponents made the argument but that does not appear to be the case. I'll have to check when I get home but I thought Koester considers it interpolated.

[added later]My mistake. The reference to Pilate is not an interpolation but included in 1 Timothy which Koester, I believe, recognizes as written by someone other than Paul.

Yes! Come on, can't you see that? Ok OK for the sake of argument argumebnt argument for the sake arguent, ok do i have to be obviuos about everything.

So we assume they knew the stroy like I do, what'w the point of teling it again when the topics invovle other things?

You seem to have missed the point that assuming your conclusion renders your argument logically flawed. A logical argument procedes from the evidence to the conclusion. If you get to assume the conclusion, there isn't any point in considering the evidence.

The evidence from Paul, absent any illogical conclusion-assuming, does not give us any reason to assume either he or the group at Jerusalem knew the story later told in the Gospels.

It's like all arguments from silence, it assumes there's thsi golden point that his silence highlights but all other silences and their meanings it just ignores.

I have no idea what you are talking about but it doesn't appear to be related to anything I have written. I'm simply noting that Paul tells a "story of Jesus" that does not include your eleven points as you have stated them.

why should we not expect to speak on everything. Why is this one thing the one thing that must be spoken of, so that his failure to speak really proves something, but all the other silences are just coincidence?

Nobody expects Paul to "speak on everything" but your argument seems to require that his story of Jesus include the eleven points. His story clearly does not include your elevent points, therefore, your claim that this same story is consistently told for the first 400 years of Christianity is untrue.

[Vorkosigan]

Then Paul runs away with the story so he can convert the Helenistic Jews and pagans.
Does that sound plausible to you?

No, because the Empty Tomb story is taken from various OT passages.

Vorkosigan

[Metacrock]

I've studied Greek as well. I don't want to hijack this into another kata sarka debate, and I'm not necessarily convinced that Doherty is correct in his conclusion but he's also not demonstrably incorrect and I do think that en sarka would be preferable to denote flesh and blood and that kata sarka is subtly yet distinctively less direct. My own sense of kata from my own Greek study is that it implies a sense of being "around" or "in the area of" rather than "inside" or "within."


I like those Greek fonts. I notice you use font face symbol, that's good. My Camrbidge frined and I both concluded that when Kata is used that way (as in kata Lukan, Kata Ionion) it means "according to" or "by" or "as a result of." So the question is, to say "Kata Sarx" is that the same as saying "kata" and then an authorship? I think it's akin to it (no pun). Because he's distinguishing between his fleshly linage and his divine linage. It's wouldn't make sense to say this if he as speaking of a merely symbolic linage.

It's not a very popular use of it Doherty's way. one doesn't find kata used that way very often.



This gives Paul's words a little more ambiguity and uncertainty than if he had said en karta but it's admittedly not clear what he did mean. If I had to guess, I would guess that he meant something like "among the living" (or "among the flesh") but that leaves a tiny bit of uncertainty as to whether Paul perceived Jesus himself as being human or spiritual. I am not trying to argue for the latter necessarily. I admit that I just don't know. However I would submit that a spiritual connotation is not dispostively incompatible with the language.


seems pretty clear to me. What would be the point of his discussion of verious types of flesh if he didn't think Christ had a fleshly existence? What would be the point of spekaing of his appearing to people if it were as a ghost? The idea of a ghost living after execution is not amazing or memorable and wouldnt' be seen as a resurrection at all.





The oldest Gospels are Q, Thomas and Mark. None of them mention a Virgin Birth. I don't even think they say that Jesus' mother was named Mary.



Koester argues for the notion that Q might be part of Thomas. What we have as Thomas is latter framework with some early material in it. Neihter of these are the Pre Markan redaction. The pre Markan redaction and Matt's "logia" (whatever that was) would be earliest. I believe we don't know the proto Gospel, we dont' have a copy we can't know what it was.



This is an argument from silence at best, but the fact that Paul doen't mention such keystone details in Jesus' life is so silent that it's deafening.



Why? Given that he's writting to people who know the story, he's the preachign the Gosple to them for the first time. Why would he mention it? Why is that silence anymore improtant than his failure to speak of Noah's flood?

See above.
[quote]Yea it is in Paul. The bit about rose first to the 12 and then the 500 and then me, that's allusion to resurrection. It's in Mark, the resurrection is in Mark. The angles say "he has risen." The lost ending takes up after that point.
The question is what does Paul (or Mark, for that matter) mean by "risen?"



I just can't see how a ghost would excite anyone. "there's good new! jesus is a ghost now!" Big deal!! :huh:




It is not a lead cinch that either of them was referring to the physical resuscitation of a dead body. I'm not making a positive declaration that they didn't mean that but I do think the matter is debatable and unsettled.

It's a prima facie disagreement. The first empty tomb narrative does not even mention Cephas. If you think that Paul knew about the women and was excluding them for some reason, I think you have to provide some sort of argument as to why.


I don't see any foregone conclusion why he would have to mention anything! how many other Christian writters start talking about these matters? Read Anathagora or Polycarp or Igantius they don't start every letter by re-telling the gosel story. They dont' start every letter by going "Jesus phsysically rose from the dead."



OK. I agree that the crucifixion is unanimously attested as having occurred in Jerusalem.


thanks. I dont' want to be dogmatic about the 11 points. But by and large for the frist couple of centuries when you read about Jesus its' the same story. His mother is never named Ethalred or Astregard or Lassfogal, or Betty, she'a always mary. He's never hung or stabbed he's always crucified. His head side kick is never Robin or Aqualad or George, it's always Peter.

[Metacrock]

No, because the Empty Tomb story is taken from various OT passages.

Vorkosigan


which ones? :huh:

[Amaleq13]

OK. I agree that the crucifixion is unanimously attested as having occurred in Jerusalem.

Where does Paul offer this attestation?

[Metacrock]

How does a 2nd century attempt at harmonizing the canonical stories constitute evidence of the same story within 20 years of the events?

Pre-markan redaction isn't particularly helpful since one opposing view to your claim is that the story attributed to Mark is the basis for all subsequent revisions. If, as you claim, the same story was told from the very beginning, shouldn't we find evidence of it outside and earlier than the earliest extant version?



No that's wrong! You really need to read Koester. They all use the same one. mark, Matt, Luke, John, GPete they all use the PMR! They all follow the basic line, except for the epiphanies, that's where Koster and Crosson part company. Corsson includes them, Koster thinks they come from many different sources.

It's called pre Markan becasue it came before Mark, so they were arond before that.





Perhaps you need to clarify what it is you are claiming. There is a significant different between "contradicting" and "telling another version". Your original claim seemed to focus only on the latter. Paul clearly does tell a different version of the story of Jesus because he tells it without referring to any of your eleven points as you wrote them. That is clearly a different version of the story.




NO he doesnt'. It's not a different version. It doesn't contradict any of the points. Just leaving them out is not contradicting. Not a different version. he also alludes to Peter and the 12, and to Jerusalem, and to crucifiction, to resurrection. How many points is that?

He's not giving a version where Jesus' side kick is harvy and his mother is Gertrude and he was Stabbed to death in France. See what i'm saying? Why is never a contradiction to these basic points? Leaving them out is not contraditing them!




Whether you want to change your claim to denying "contradicting stories" or not, I don't see how the absence of either establishes the historicity of Mark if we don't find prior evidence of the story.




How many times i have to say this? The pre-Markan redcaction is the prior evidence--it came before!



It might seem "convenient" if only mythicist proponents made the argument but that does not appear to be the case. I'll have to check when I get home but I thought Koester considers it interpolated.

[added later]My mistake. The reference to Pilate is not an interpolation but included in 1 Timothy which Koester, I believe, recognizes as written by someone other than Paul.



Of cousre not! I know that Koster book like the back of my hand. I dont' mean to sound arrogant, but the co authors of the empty tomb will know it all too well to when I'm through with them.



You seem to have missed the point that assuming your conclusion renders your argument logically flawed. A logical argument procedes from the evidence to the conclusion. If you get to assume the conclusion, there isn't any point in considering the evidence.



show me a bleeding alternate version! I didn't say it proved it, I said it made it more likely. You can't show another version, the most likeloy reason is because we are dealing with known facts.




The evidence from Paul, absent any illogical conclusion-assuming, does not give us any reason to assume either he or the group at Jerusalem knew the story later told in the Gospels.


O right, he just knew one that had Jesus crucified and risen from the dead and appearing to Apostles led by Peter, but it's not the same story right? Get real man. Besides, his use of the early saying sources in reference to Jesus teachings shows that the was up on all the Jesus lore then had at the time, and Koester argues this.



I have no idea what you are talking about but it doesn't appear to be related to anything I have written. I'm simply noting that Paul tells a "story of Jesus" that does not include your eleven points as you have stated them.



But it doesn' open contradict any, and does include several of them.



Nobody expects Paul to "speak on everything" but your argument seems to require that his story of Jesus include the eleven points. His story clearly does not include your elevent points, therefore, your claim that this same story is consistently told for the first 400 years of Christianity is untrue.


You still can't give me an alternate version. It's true the 11 points was just a device I pulled off the top of my head. So mabey on one stroy version gives the 11 points as such. But you can't show me a single alterante version, or a version that's different on any one of the 11 points, before a resonable date, like say 300?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Paul tells a contradictory version of the appearance chronology. Saying he "left stuff out" is a specious bit of unsupported and ad hoc apology. It is a prima facie contradiction and you have shown no reason that we should believe that Paul left anything out or knew another version.

He als says nothing about an empty tomb and that's a significant bit of silence.

[Metacrock]

Paul tells a contradictory version of the appearance chronology. Saying he "left stuff out" is a specious bit of unsupported and ad hoc apology. It is a prima facie contradiction and you have shown no reason that we should believe that Paul left anything out or knew another version.

He als says nothing about an empty tomb and that's a significant bit of silence.


So what you are saying is, Gospel info includes x,y,z,a,bc,d,e,f

Pual only uses x,y,z so because he doesnt use the rest of it, we cant' assume "leaving it out" because that begs the question that it was ever in, so Paul's "version" counts as another version.

But that's a crazy way to look at it. Because Paul and Gosples both include x.y,z. What Paul doesnt' include we can't know one way or the other, but he doesn't contradict them either, so ti's not like the things I"m calling "facts" are being refutted by another telling.

[Amaleq13]

Metacrock,

It is very frustrating trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't appear to be actually reading all the parts of the discussion.

Regarding your reference to the Diatesseron, I asked:
"How does a 2nd century attempt at harmonizing the canonical stories constitute evidence of the same story within 20 years of the events?"

I continue to be interested in the answer.


They all use the same one. mark, Matt, Luke, John, GPete they all use the PMR!...It's called pre Markan becasue it came before Mark, so they were arond before that.

They may have used a single original source. This is just as much a speculative reconstruction as is Q (which, incidently, also does not include all of your eleven points). Even if we assume the existence of an original story prior to Mark, my question stands. Why should we assume this original was historically reliable? If we rely on your "eleven points" as a guide, that is all that was provided in this original source. The subsequent consistent usage by later authors doesn't appear to require that the original be historically reliable. I'm not even sure it requires that we assume the subsequent authors considered it historically reliable. It seems just as reasonable to assume they simply considered it a damn good framework for a narrative without any consideration of historical accuracy. The author of Luke is the only one who claims to be recording history and we've already seen that he considers adding his own fabrication to be a legitimate part of the effort.

It's not a different version. It doesn't contradict any of the points.

You seem to have skipped over my post explaining the difference between "different" and "contradicting". Your original claim only involved the former and I asked if you wanted to change it to the latter. Leaving out every one of your points as you wrote them clearly does constitute a different version of the story of Jesus.

he also alludes to Peter and the 12, and to Jerusalem, and to crucifiction, to resurrection. How many points is that?

None as you wrote them. He doesn't refer to Peter as Jesus' sidekick and "the twelve" seems not to include him since the appearance to them is listed separately from Peter's. Jerusalem is mentioned as the location of the "pillars" but not as the location of the crucifiction (I think I'll keep your spelling :) ) or the resurrection. So, as I said before, none of your points as you wrote them can be found in Paul's letters.

Why is never a contradiction to these basic points?

As I have already stated, the most obvious alternate explanation is that those "basic points" had not been created yet. What evidence eliminates this possibility?

The pre-Markan redcaction is the prior evidence--it came before!

Hypothetical reconstructions of non-extant texts doesn't actually constitute evidence, Metacrock. Do you consider Q to be "evidence"?

You can't show another version, the most likeloy reason is because we are dealing with known facts.

Why is that the "most likely" explanation?

The evidence from Paul, absent any illogical conclusion-assuming, does not give us any reason to assume either he or the group at Jerusalem knew the story later told in the Gospels.

O right, he just knew one that had Jesus crucified and risen from the dead and appearing to Apostles led by Peter, but it's not the same story right?

That isn't the story Paul tells. As far as we can tell from Paul, the risen Christ first appeared to Cephas then to others. There is no indication Cephas was a leader before the appearance. As far as we can tell from Paul, they became apostles after the risen Christ appeared to them just as it went with Paul. It is not the same story that we read in Mark's Gospel.

Besides, his use of the early saying sources in reference to Jesus teachings shows that the was up on all the Jesus lore then had at the time, and Koester argues this.

The only "teaching" that Paul might be attributing to a living, preaching Jesus is the one on marriage and it could just as easily be revealed knowledge from the risen Christ. Since that appears to be the soure of all his other information, I would think we would need more evidence to conclude this was different. I've read what Koester says on this in my book and he seems to be making assumptions without any basis in evidence.

I'm simply noting that Paul tells a "story of Jesus" that does not include your eleven points as you have stated them.

But it doesn' open contradict any, and does include several of them.

Your original claim did not require contradiction and none of your points as they were written is included. If you want to revise your origninal claim, that is another story. :)

It's true the 11 points was just a device I pulled off the top of my head.

It seemed to be a bit more involved than that but you are always free to revise it in face of the obvious failure as it currently stands.

But you can't show me a single alterante version, or a version that's different on any one of the 11 points, before a resonable date, like say 300?

As I've stated repeatedly, it doesn't appear to make a difference either way. The presence or absence of variations and the presence or absence of contradicting versions doesn't seem to require one to accept or deny the