Breaking News: Liberals are not fundies; Answering Atheist assertions about folklore in Gospels

Image result for Metacrock's blog ancient Manuscripts














One of our regular atheist friends on the blog, "Gary," says: "Not only were the Gospels written by anonymous non-eyewitnesses, scholars suspect that fictional folklore are included in these books. The question is: Which stories are fiction, and which are fact?"[1] 

On his own  site he quotes the great scholar Ray Brown in support  of this idea: 

I find the special material [material unique to Matthew; not found in any other gospel] that Matthew has grouped around the birth and the death of Jesus a consistency that suggests a source, but one of another nature than Mark and Q—a source that reflects popular dramatization through storytelling, much like expanded birth and passion narration ever since.... With regard to the common Synoptic passion narrative  I argued that OT allusions or citations did not create the basic passion narrative sequence but helped to fill in the established, skeletal preaching outline.  In the instance of the Matthean special material, however, the OT background may have actually generated the stories, eg., of the manner of Judas’ death.[2]
On his site he calls this a "bombshell,Respected Christian Scholar Suspects Gospel Authors Included Fictional Folklore in their Gospels. "  He thinks this is just devastating because a moderate scholar who believes in the resurrection is  saying it's all based upon  folklore
"So, with that background, the above statement by highly respected New Testament scholar Raymond Brown is devastating to the conservative Christian claim that we can trust the historical reliability of the Gospels due to the “fact” that first century Jews lived in an “oral” culture which strictly maintained the accuracy and consistency of their traditions and oral stories."[3]
I can't help but laugh, "News flash, not everyone is a fundie." He is spinning the material far beyond the intent of Brown. He's reading into Brown's statement much more than is there. Looking back at the statement quoted above which is the only one he quotes, Brown does not say "the whole thing is fictional." he does not use the word "fictional" or "folklore." The closest he comes is the word "story telling" but reexamining more closely we find he's talking about the outline not the content,  He specifically denies that it creates content:"I argued that OT allusions or citations did not create the basic passion narrative sequence but helped to fill in the established, skeletal preaching outline." The use of the word fiction  is absent from the quotes.  he's talking about the way they organized the material not the content. Theological labels are somewhat subjective. I went to a very liberal seminary,one of the best in the country, I call myself "liberal" other liberals say I'm too conservative,

We know that scholars no longer think in in terms of individual men as authors of the Gospels but of whole communities, This is  because of redaction and oral tradition. That does not mean that they think of Jesus as made up or of the Crucifixion as made up. There are not very many credible scholars who are willing to say anything is made up,. Paul Mirecki, KU associate professor of religious studies."The question is not if these are the actual words of Jesus,...That's a question that can never be answered, as even the biblical Gospels contain the teachings of diverse early communities rather than the direct teachings of Jesus. All such texts have gone through the interpretive filter of early Christian editors and scribes."
[4]
The idea that there were no eyewitnesses among these communities is absurdly silly. The only reason any one would join such a community is because a cohesive social group understood itself to be witness to the drama of Jesus' life,teachings and death. The question "did"Matthew" or "Mark" see this event himself is irrelevant and meaningless, There is no Mathew as such there is a community which bore witness as a whole.As Luke Timothy Johnson says. That makes historicity more likley not less since the group could not vent a  coherent story with hundreds of authors working along the same lines.


Non narrative New Testament writtings datable with some degree of probability before the year 70 testify to traditions circulating within the Chrsitian movement concerning Jesus that corrospond to important points within the Gospel narratives. Such traditions do not, by themselves, demonstrate historicity. But they demonstrate that memoires about Jesus were in fairly wide circulation. This makes it less likely that the corrosponding points within the Gospels were the invention of a single author. If that were the case than such invention would have to be early enough and authoritative enough to have been distributed and unchallenged across the diverse communities with which Paul delt. Such an hypothosis of course would work agaisnt the premise that Paul's form of christiantiy had little to do with those shaping the memory of Jesus...." "As I have tried to show, the character of the Gospel narratives does not allow a fully satisfying reconstruction of Jesus ministry. Nevertheless certain fundamental points when taken together with confirming lines of convergence from outside testimony and non-narrative New Testament evidence, can be regarded as historical with a high degree of probability.Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by Crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death. These assertions are not mathematically or metaphysically certain, for certainty is not within the reach of history. But they enjoy a very high level of probability."[5]
We see these communities at work in the New testament, In Acts  they are sanitized and idealized for propagandist purposes but they no doubt contain historicity,(Acts. 2:42-47)There is no doubt that the material was organized in such a way as to speak to the needs of the community at the time of witting not to a modern conception of "data" or "history." That does not mean they had no way of keeping straight the information they passed on. As the great Stephen Neil said:


No one is likely to deny that a tradition that is being handed on by word of mouth is likely to undergo modification. This is bound to happen, unless the tradition has been rigidly formulated and has been learned with careful safeguard against the intrusion of error. This is exactly the way in which the tradition was handed on among the Jews. It is precisely on this ground that Scandinavian scholar H. Risenfeld in an essay entitled "The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings" (1957) has passed some rather severe strictures on the form cuticle method. But there is a vast difference between recognition of this kind of flexibility, of this kind of creative working of the community on existing traditions, and the idea that the community simply invented and read back into the life of Jesus things that he had never done, and words that he had never said. When carried to its extreme this method suggests that the community had far greater creative power than the Jesus of Nazareth, faith in whom had called the community into being. [6]

Oral tradition in first-century Judaism was not uncontrolled as was/is often assumed, based on comparisons with non-Jewish models. Brown is not saying that the Gospels pulled together a  bunch of folklore and made up it's major elements, Bultmann already tried that, it was shot down, Chilton and Evens:

"...[T]he early form criticism tied the theory of oral transmission to the conjecture that Gospel traditions were mediated like folk traditions, being freely altered and even created ad hoc by various and sundry wandering charismatic jackleg preachers. This view, however, was rooted more in the eighteenth century romanticism of J. G. Herder than in an understanding of the handling of religious tradition in first-century Judaism. As O. Cullmann, B. Gerhardsson, H. Riesenfeld and R. Riesner have demonstrated, [a] the Judaism of the period treated such traditions very carefully, and the New Testament writers in numerous passages applied to apostolic traditions the same technical terminology found elsewhere in Judaism for 'delivering', 'receiving', 'learning', 'holding', 'keeping', and 'guarding', the traditioned 'teaching'. [b] In this way they both identified their traditions as 'holy word' and showed their concern for a careful and ordered transmission of it. The word and work of Jesus were an important albeit distinct part of these apostolic traditions...Luke used one of the same technical terms, speaking of eyewitnesses who 'delivered to us' the things contained in his Gospel and about which his patron Theophilus had been instructed. Similarly, the amanuenses or co-worker-secretaries who composed the Gospel of John speak of the Evangelist, the beloved disciple, 'who is witnessing concerning these things and who wrote these things', as an eyewitness and a member of the inner circle of Jesus' disciples.[c] In the same connection it is not insignificant that those to whom Jesus entrusted his teachings are not called 'preachers' but 'pupils' and 'apostles', semi-technical terms for those who represent and mediate the teachings and instructions of their mentor or principal.[7]
 A connected assumption (one Brown did not support) is that oral tradition went on for a long time writing was sporadic and only replaced oral tradition after a long development in which the community had time to make up an elaborate myth, Modern scholarship understands the primordial source, the pre Mark redaction. Pre Mark Passion narrative (PMPN) being written as early as mid first century and including all the basic aspects of the Jesus story we see in the canonical gospels including the empty tomb.[8] It is used by all four canonical gospels and the Gospel of Peter.Qumran shows  us that writing was profuse in first century.  

Gary is reading into Brown's statements assumptions about the nature of story telling and folklore; it's just making things up, it's  based not on realty, it's changing and inaccurate. These are the same assumptions made by Bultmannian form criticism. These assumptions do not match the reality of what we know about oral cultures. Chilton and Evens show that story telling cultures can codify information and keep it in a standardized form, they can reflect historical reality.[9]

If "folklore" as it pertains to the Gospels really was just wild rumors and made up fantasy flying about the community then we should find examples of different stages in which there are what we might consider other stories, floating around. This is obvious given two facts, (1) myth always proliferates; there two versions of Hercules' death and several different gods shaped in the mold of Venus Hercules,Zeus, Hera and so on,[10] and (2) we have thousands of documents from late antiquity with what we might call orthodox and  "Gnostic" ideologies, so we have a pretty good picture of the development of Christianity and it is very diverse. But in all of that we do not have but one version of the Jesus' story.

Had the community made up the major elements of the Jesus story we would find examples of  the other versions that would serve as trail balloons. This is the empirical  verification of the argument above,  We have fragments of the earliest period and from all periods we we do not find other revisions of Jesus, No story where he's stoned rather than crucified, or his mother's name is not Mary, or he grew up- in another town.


All The most basic details about these mythological figures changes and forms of multiple myths. Who they were, what they stood for, their function, how they lived, how they died, even their country of origin all change. A god like Mirthra begins as an unimportant figure in Indian pantheon and winds up the sun God, the God of shepherds in Persia and then something else in Rome. 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.(dated to the Cesar and to Pilate).

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

3) Same principle players, Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdeline.

4) That Jesus was known as a miracles worker.

5) he claimed to be the son of God/Messiah.

6) he was crucified under Pilate.

7) Around the time of the Passover.

8) at noon.

9) rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.

10) several woman with MM discovered the empty tomb.

11) That this was in Jerusalem.

There were hundreds of sources, different books and Gospels and Acts, that never made it into the New Testament. The Jesus story is re-told countless times from early days (around AD 50 first written) to the fourth century, before there was ever a major alternation in any of these basic details. Even after that time, no one ever disagreed with these points listed above. 


So if Brown saw multiple versions of Judas' death  and we can see that--he hung himself and jumped off a cliff) that does not constitute another Jesus' story.That;s a minor point. It should not be devastating to anyone's faith. I know scholars who are believers and who walk through this stuff every day without harming thier faith,


See the developed version of the "no other versions" argument[see fn10]




Sources 

[1] Coments, "The genre of the Gospel of John part 1." by "Layman" (Chris {Price) Cadre Comments blog (May 20, 2010)
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2018/01/03/bombshell-respected-christian-scholar-suspects-gospel-authors-included-fictional-folklore-in-their-gospels/
(accessed 5,2018)

[2] "Gary," "Bombshell! Respected Christian Scholar Suspects Gospel Authors Included Fictional Folklore in their Gospels" Escaping Christian Fundamentalism (Jan 3, 2018)
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2018/01/03/bombshell-respected-christian-scholar-suspects-gospel-authors-included-fictional-folklore-in-their-gospels/

Gary cites as his source:
Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, pp. 60-61

[3] Gary, Ibid.

[4] Paul Mirecki,  "Researchers say Coptic Fragments reveal lot gospel" (March 7 1997,)
KU (University of Kansas) public relations site.http://www.oread.ku.edu/Oread97/OreadMarch7/page5/researchers.html
(accessed 5,2018)

[5] Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus, San Francisco: Harper, 1996.121

[6] Stephen Neil, The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861-1961, London: University of Oxford Press, 1964, 250

[7] B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans* (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998. 53-55.

they cite:
a. O. Cullmann, "The Tradition," in Cullmann, The Early Church (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956) 55-99; B. Gerhardsson The Origins of the Gospel Traditions (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); H. Riesenfeld The Gospel Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970) 1-29; Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer.
b. Rom 6:17; 16:17; 1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:3; Phil 4:9; Col 2:6-7; 2 Thess
2:15; 3:6; 2 Tim 3:14; Titus 1:9; 2 John 9-10; Jude 3: Rev 2:13, 24. Cf. Abot 1:1; Philo, The Worse Attacks the Better 65-68.
c. John 19:35; 21:24-25; cf. 13:23; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:1-10; 21:7, 21-23. Cf. J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976) 298-311. 25. On parallels with other rabbis and their disciples and other Jewish usage cf. Mark 2:18 = Luke 5:33; K.H. Rengstorf TDNT 1 (1964) 412-43;.TDNT 4 (1967) 431-55.**Wright:
[8] Joseph Hinman, "Story of Empty Tomb Dated To mid First Century (part 1)." Cadre Comments Blog (April 2, 2017)
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017/04/story-of-empty-tomb-dated-to-mid-first.html
(accessed 5,2018)

Part 1 is what was published in J.P. Holdings book on the Resurrection, this is the part that's not in the book Defending the Resurrection. It was not turned because it's bad but because it made the overall article too long.
part 2 is on Metacrock's blog

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2013/09/part-2-of-story-of-empty-tomb-dated-mid.html

[9] B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans. op cot, Ibid, 55.

[10] Joseph Hinman, "No Alternate Versions of Jesus" The The Religious A priori, (no date)
http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/no-alternate-versions.html
(accessed 5,2018)


















































Comments

Anonymous said…
Joe: I can't help but laugh, "News flash, not everyone is a fundie." He is spinning the material far beyond the intent of Brown. He's reading into Brown's statement much more than is there. Looking back at the statement quoted above which is the only one he quotes, Brown does not say "the whole thing is fictional." he does not use the word "fictional" or "folklore."

You are doing exactly what you accuse Gary of. Gary (in the bits you quoted anyway) does not claiming that Brown said "the whole thing is fictional." All he says is we cannot trust the gospel accounts as fact. It is you spinning the material far beyond the intent of the author.

Joe: That does not mean they had no way of keeping straight the information they passed on.

But neither can we assume that that is what happened. How critical were the early Christians of circulating rumours? How thoroughly did they bother to check facts that aligned with their expectations?

We were discussing the virgin birth recently. Why should we imagine the ear;y Christians checked with Mary or Joseph before allowing it to be accepted, to be written in the gospels? Given the time scale, I think we can be sure it was not checked. And I have to say that my experiences with certain Christians on CARM proves beyond any doubt that some Christians will just ignore any evidence that disagrees with their position does not exist (remember ferengi?).

The post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in Jerusalem are another example. These are absent in the first two gospels, Mark and Matthew, and indeed Mark states clearly that Jesus went on ahead to Galilee. Somehow these stories appeared in the community, presumably after the witnesses were all dead, and were accepted uncritically, presumably because the early Christians wanted them to be true.

Sure they had the potential to keep straight the information they passed on, but that is quite different to showing that they actually did.

Joe: Oral tradition in first-century Judaism was not uncontrolled as was/is often assumed, based on comparisons with non-Jewish models

How Judaic was Christianity? It split early into the Jewish community and and gentile community, and what we have today is a product of the gentile community. It would be foolish to assume the gentile community controlled oral tradition as well as the Jewish model. Indeed, you have just stated that that was not the case.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Pix did you see my note on Metacrock about the message board? I will start a blog and make you and Jim and Met co authors so we can make it a site like the old message board,
Joe Hinman said…
You are doing exactly what you accuse Gary of. Gary (in the bits you quoted anyway) does not claiming that Brown said "the whole thing is fictional." All he says is we cannot trust the gospel accounts as fact. It is you spinning the material far beyond the intent of the author.

Not even close. when he uses the word fiction e is obviously saying this is equivalent to what Brown is saying, Brown never comes close to saying that we can;t trust the account,

Joe: That does not mean they had no way of keeping straight the information they passed on.

But neither can we assume that that is what happened. How critical were the early Christians of circulating rumours? How thoroughly did they bother to check facts that aligned with their expectations?

yes we can (2) the non orthodox agree with the sane points (2) no one ever circulated another version of Jesus story,


We were discussing the virgin birth recently. Why should we imagine the early Christians checked with Mary or Joseph before allowing it to be accepted, to be written in the gospels? Given the time scale, I think we can be sure it was not checked. And I have to say that my experiences with certain Christians on CARM proves beyond any doubt that some Christians will just ignore any evidence that disagrees with their position does not exist (remember ferengi?).

The accusation that CARM represents all Christians is absurdly stupids, like saying Trumps represents all Americans, you are like turning being Christian into a heritable trait and a negative one.

the gospel accounts are full of Jesus relatives, that bothersome family keeps showing up in Church sophistry all the way to the fourth century. When Luke writes about the baby leaping in Elizabeth's womb he is the first ancient writer to write about a woman's internal states,it stands to reason he met the woman, Mary. when they talk about Jesus mother and brothers showing up to take him home they probably were hovering around and thus the community saw them and heard them.


The post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in Jerusalem are another example. These are absent in the first two gospels, Mark and Matthew, and indeed Mark states clearly that Jesus went on ahead to Galilee. Somehow these stories appeared in the community, presumably after the witnesses were all dead, and were accepted uncritically, presumably because the early Christians wanted them to be true.

Yes and there is a big disagreement between Koester and Crosson as to weather or not the epiphanies were part of the Passion narrative or accumulated from various latter sources,what is undeniable is there was never a source that denied them.No source from that period ever contradicts the concept that the tomb was empty or that he was seen alive. The epiphanies can have different weights. Some are more likely to be historical than others, The women at the Tomb for example are pretty clearly more trustworthy than the guys on the road. Remember now Mark was not the first writing to cover that material., it's just the first of the canonical gospels.

Anonymous said…
No I had not (I look at Metacrock occasionally, but it seems mostly political, which I know is important, but less of interest to me the UK). Sad that the old forum has gone just like that.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
btw one of the guys on the road to Emaus is reckoned Jesus' cousin,this is the kind of thing I mean when I say his realities are all over the gospel.


Sure they had the potential to keep straight the information they passed on, but that is quite different to showing that they actually did.

Not at all. Since its something they did anyway why wouldn't they: That's like saying "prove they did wear coats in winter," History is probability ,No historian says "prove this conclusively." History is not about proving it,it's probabilistic.

Besides there are only two things we need to prove. died on the cross and the tomb was empty. That's the minimal case that needs making for Christianity to have teeth,


Joe: Oral tradition in first-century Judaism was not uncontrolled as was/is often assumed, based on comparisons with non-Jewish models

How Judaic was Christianity? It split early into the Jewish community and and gentile community, and what we have today is a product of the gentile community. It would be foolish to assume the gentile community controlled oral tradition as well as the Jewish model. Indeed, you have just stated that that was not the cas

All the claims of the passion narrative are Hebrew and come out of the Jerusalem community. It spread fast and partly that is due to the structure of Pax Romana. the basic Jesus story was in place from the beginning. One test textual critics use for dating texts or readings is it's Jewishness, the more Jewish the earlier the reading.
Joe Hinman said…
btw I have no way to reach yo now I don't have your email
Anonymous said…
Joe: Not even close. when he uses the word fiction e is obviously saying this is equivalent to what Brown is saying, Brown never comes close to saying that we can;t trust the account,

Gary says the account includes fiction, not that it is all fiction: "bombshell,Respected Christian Scholar Suspects Gospel Authors Included Fictional Folklore in their Gospels." As soon as I read that, I thought of the virgin birth; a great example of fictional folklore that is included in Luke and Matthew. That does not mean they are complete works of fiction, however.

Brown says: "In the instance of the Matthean special material, however, the OT background may have actually generated the stories, eg., of the manner of Judas’ death." I read that as saying that the story of Judas' death is fictional folklore, inspired by the OT, just as the virgin birth is fictional folklore, but inspired by pagan mythology.

Joe: yes we can (2) the non orthodox agree with the sane points (2) no one ever circulated another version of Jesus story,

Matthew, Luke and Mark all have pretty much the same Jesus story because Matthew and Luke are copied from Mark. Even so Matthew and Luke circulated very different nativity stories and very different accounts of how Jesus was seen after the resurrection. How can that possibly be if they had such a good way of keeping the story straight?

Joe: The accusation that CARM represents all Christians is absurdly stupids, like saying Trumps represents all Americans, you are like turning being Christian into a heritable trait and a negative one.

It is an illustration of how some people are. Scientology is (or was before the internet) based firmly on this principle; its claims are absurd, but only revealed to members once the members are so committed they will not question it. When someone has dedicated their life to something they are very resistant to anything that might show that was wrong, that they have basically wasted their lives. They seek evidence to support their view and ignore evidence that might challenge it. ferengi on CARM is a prime example, with her constant demands for evidence, even after evidence has been provided, but it is all too common.

Look up "conformation bias" for more. This is a real thing, and not limited to Christians.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-choice/201504/what-is-confirmation-bias

Tell me how the early Christians critically considered new claims, such as the virgin birth. What steps do you imagine they could have performed to verify the story before accepting it was true?

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: the gospel accounts are full of Jesus relatives, that bothersome family keeps showing up in Church sophistry all the way to the fourth century. When Luke writes about the baby leaping in Elizabeth's womb he is the first ancient writer to write about a woman's internal states,it stands to reason he met the woman, Mary. when they talk about Jesus mother and brothers showing up to take him home they probably were hovering around and thus the community saw them and heard them.

Here is a great example. You have no evidence Luke spoke to Elizabeth, but you want it to be true, so you say "stands to reason he met the woman". If Elizabeth was 40 when she conceived (given she was too old to conceive this is a conservative value), she would be around 95 when Luke is traditionally thought to have joing Paul, in 51 AD. You actually think she was still alive at that point? How about 40 years later when Luke was writing?

You could have thought about this yourself, but failed to do so. Why? Conformation bias.

Joe: Yes and there is a big disagreement between Koester and Crosson as to weather or not the epiphanies were part of the Passion narrative or accumulated from various latter sources,what is undeniable is there was never a source that denied them.No source from that period ever contradicts the concept that the tomb was empty or that he was seen alive. The epiphanies can have different weights. Some are more likely to be historical than others, The women at the Tomb for example are pretty clearly more trustworthy than the guys on the road. Remember now Mark was not the first writing to cover that material., it's just the first of the canonical gospels.

The accounts in Luke and John certainly are contradicted by the account in Mark, with Mark stating Jesus had gone on aheads to Galilee. The appearances in Jerusalem are almost certainly fictional folklore.

The empty tomb has the advantage of being earlier, and so was set in stone before the different accounts diverged. Thus, no account contradicts it. It is a stretch to say it must therefore be true - and we know Koester believes it was made up despite being early.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: Besides there are only two things we need to prove. died on the cross and the tomb was empty. That's the minimal case that needs making for Christianity to have teeth,

All the claims of the passion narrative are Hebrew and come out of the Jerusalem community. It spread fast and partly that is due to the structure of Pax Romana. the basic Jesus story was in place from the beginning. One test textual critics use for dating texts or readings is it's Jewishness, the more Jewish the earlier the reading.


So we are talking specifically about the Empty Tomb. But the Empty Tomb is not without problems.

Why was it not mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor 15? You just said the Empty Tomb is one of two things that make the minimal case for Christianity, so it is extraordinary that Paul then omitted it. Unbelievable really.

Why do the disciples not cite the Empty Tomb as evidence when preaching, in the accounts in Acts? Again, you have made the point that this was absolutely fundamental evidence, and yet we have no record of the disciples even mentioning it.

Why was the tomb not venerated until Constantine built a house of prayer there in the fourth century? The Jews of that age had a predilection for venerating tombs, and even if the body was missing, this was still the site of the most important event ever. Compare to Lourdes, and how that site is venerated.

Why would the Romans allow a criminal accused of treason against Rome to be buried in an honorable tomb? Again, veneration of tombs was a big deal, and the last thing the Roman's wanted was a claimant to Jewish Kingship becoming a martyr. It was Roman policy to discard bodies into a pit for criminals, and for a man accused of treason there was even more reason to do so.

Why does the original account say the only witnesses did not tell anyone about it? How, then, was it established that there was an empty tomb?

All these issues are neatly resolved by supposing - as Koester does - that the Empty Tomb was invented, even if it was invented prior to Mark.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Gary says the account includes fiction, not that it is all fiction: "bombshell,Respected Christian Scholar Suspects Gospel Authors Included Fictional Folklore in their Gospels." As soon as I read that, I thought of the virgin birth; a great example of fictional folklore that is included in Luke and Matthew. That does not mean they are complete works of fiction, however.

You are merely asserting it's functional because you are ideologically opposed to miracles,

Brown says: "In the instance of the Matthean special material, however, the OT background may have actually generated the stories, eg., of the manner of Judas’ death." I read that as saying that the story of Judas' death is fictional folklore, inspired by the OT, just as the virgin birth is fictional folklore, but inspired by pagan mythology.

Joe: yes we can (2) the non orthodox agree with the sane points (2) no one ever circulated another version of Jesus story,

Matthew, Luke and Mark all have pretty much the same Jesus story because Matthew and Luke are copied from Mark. Even so Matthew and Luke circulated very different nativity stories and very different accounts of how Jesus was seen after the resurrection. How can that possibly be if they had such a good way of keeping the story straight?

there are no differences between those thee imn terms of the list I posted the iconic aspects of the story the infancy appearances are not part of that. you totally missed my point, Brown's statement is aboiut order of presentation not content, so he would not say any of the details were function,

Joe: The accusation that CARM represents all Christians is absurdly stupids, like saying Trumps represents all Americans, you are like turning being Christian into a heritable trait and a negative one.

It is an illustration of how some people are. Scientology is (or was before the internet) based firmly on this principle; its claims are absurd, but only revealed to members once the members are so committed they will not question it. When someone has dedicated their life to something they are very resistant to anything that might show that was wrong, that they have basically wasted their lives.

Christianity doesn't do that, there are too many denominational for that (I've been a Christian 40 something years).


They seek evidence to support their view and ignore evidence that might challenge it. ferengi on CARM is a prime example, with her constant demands for evidence, even after evidence has been provided, but it is all too common.


CARM is very atypical, they are the bottom of the barrel. most Christians don't like CARM


Look up "conformation bias" for more. This is a real thing, and not limited to Christians.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-choice/201504/what-is-confirmation-bias

consult your mirror


Tell me how the early Christians critically considered new claims, such as the virgin birth. What steps do you imagine they could have performed to verify the story before accepting it was true?

Pix

prove the VB was anew claim, you have no evidence it wasn't part of the original Kyrigma

We know from Acts they gathered communally they lived communally and at meal time they studied scripture to find messianic claims that applied to Jesus, its very likely the eye witnesses in the community critiqued what people said and even the telling of the Jesus story,

Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
Joe: the gospel accounts are full of Jesus relatives, that bothersome family keeps showing up in Church sophistry all the way to the fourth century. When Luke writes about the baby leaping in Elizabeth's womb he is the first ancient writer to write about a woman's internal states,it stands to reason he met the woman, Mary. when they talk about Jesus mother and brothers showing up to take him home they probably were hovering around and thus the community saw them and heard them.

Here is a great example. You have no evidence Luke spoke to Elizabeth, but you want it to be true, so you say "stands to reason he met the woman". If Elizabeth was 40 when she conceived (given she was too old to conceive this is a conservative value), she would be around 95 when Luke is traditionally thought to have joing Paul, in 51 AD. You actually think she was still alive at that point? How about 40 years later when Luke was writing?

y point was that he spoke with Mary not E.Luke 1:39 Mary visits and E tells her the baby lept so she told Luke years later,

You could have thought about this yourself, but failed to do so. Why? Conformation bias.

yea if I really said that! you assumed it was the more illogical because of your configuration bias


Joe: Yes and there is a big disagreement between Koester and Crosson as to weather or not the epiphanies were part of the Passion narrative or accumulated from various latter sources,what is undeniable is there was never a source that denied them.No source from that period ever contradicts the concept that the tomb was empty or that he was seen alive. The epiphanies can have different weights. Some are more likely to be historical than others, The women at the Tomb for example are pretty clearly more trustworthy than the guys on the road. Remember now Mark was not the first writing to cover that material., it's just the first of the canonical gospels.

The accounts in Luke and John certainly are contradicted by the account in Mark, with Mark stating Jesus had gone on aheads to Galilee. The appearances in Jerusalem are almost certainly fictional folklore.

No they are not, See my page on gospel harmony



The empty tomb has the advantage of being earlier, and so was set in stone before the different accounts diverged. Thus, no account contradicts it. It is a stretch to say it must therefore be true - and we know Koester believes it was made up despite being early.


It's a good reason to think it;s true, it;snot the only reason and it's not proof in itself,
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
Joe: Besides there are only two things we need to prove. died on the cross and the tomb was empty. That's the minimal case that needs making for Christianity to have teeth,

All the claims of the passion narrative are Hebrew and come out of the Jerusalem community. It spread fast and partly that is due to the structure of Pax Romana. the basic Jesus story was in place from the beginning. One test textual critics use for dating texts or readings is it's Jewishness, the more Jewish the earlier the reading.

So we are talking specifically about the Empty Tomb. But the Empty Tomb is not without problems.

the CRUSIFICTION is equally important and certain basic things have to be in place for both, we don't have to support every details we jut have to prove things necessary to support those two.

Why was it not mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor 15? You just said the Empty Tomb is one of two things that make the minimal case for Christianity, so it is extraordinary that Paul then omitted it. Unbelievable really.


why is he talking about resurrection in 1 cor 15 if he didn't assume the empty tomb? That was like AD55. It's old news everyone knows about it and it is not controversial,why mention it?



Why do the disciples not cite the Empty Tomb as evidence when preaching, in the accounts in Acts? Again, you have made the point that this was absolutely fundamental evidence, and yet we have no record of the disciples even mentioning it.

they did not have a modern concept of evidence, you need to know about the empty tomb because you don't accept God could exist let alone work miracles they had no doubt of that,that was one of their foundation assumptions of knowledge

Why was the tomb not venerated until Constantine built a house of prayer there in the fourth century? The Jews of that age had a predilection for venerating tombs, and even if the body was missing, this was still the site of the most important event ever. Compare to Lourdes, and how that site is venerated.


It was venerated, There is a whole literature on that, The Jewish Christians told the gentiles how to find it when they were forced out of the city in 135. That's how Helena found it, they marked the site because the Romans put a temple over it and a shrine to another god also. The temple was I think to Venus and the shrine was to Jupiter, Jewish Christians used it as the marker, modern archaeologists have found those markers,by the church of the holy seplechure,

Why would the Romans allow a criminal accused of treason against Rome to be buried in an honorable tomb? Again, veneration of tombs was a big deal, and the last thing the Roman's wanted was a claimant to Jewish Kingship becoming a martyr. It was Roman policy to discard bodies into a pit for criminals, and for a man accused of treason there was even more reason to do so.

Josephus tells of taking three friends down from crosses and burying the individual graves,so we know it was possible,

Why does the original account say the only witnesses did not tell anyone about it? How, then, was it established that there was an empty tomb?

that is not the original account it;s the oldest canonical account, not the first, what they were getting at is probably some secret sectarian thing we just don;t know about, but it was limited to the Markan community,

All these issues are neatly resolved by supposing - as Koester does - that the Empty Tomb was invented, even if it was invented prior to Mark.

all math problems are neatly resolved by changing your major to English
BK said…
I would amend your one sentence to read, "We know that some scholars no longer think in in terms of individual men as authors of the Gospels but of whole communities..." And to play with your statement, ""News flash, not everyone is a liberal." But nice write up from a more liberal position.
Joe Hinman said…
never mind that BK what about this:(?)

Him:All these issues are neatly resolved by supposing - as Koester does - that the Empty Tomb was invented, even if it was invented prior to Mark.

Me:all math problems are neatly resolved by changing your major to English

see I'm a savant at being a genius, I;'m one of them unstable geniuses.

Joe Hinman said…
the idea community as author is pretty much consensus that's the modern view, sure some don't see it that way some doctors didn't accept the theory of germs for a while after the civil war,
BK said…
I am not going to argue about this with you, but I think that the appeal to consensus should be seen as a logical fallacy. Everyone appeals to consensus when they cannot establish their point convincingly which is generally saying in shorthand that this is what I think and a couple of people who I respect think, therefore it must be what most scholars think. And the "germs" analogy is simply disrespectful of those who hold a different, reasoned view.
Joe Hinman said…
BK said...
I am not going to argue about this with you, but I think that the appeal to consensus should be seen as a logical fallacy. Everyone appeals to consensus when they cannot establish their point convincingly which is generally saying in shorthand that this is what I think and a couple of people who I respect think, therefore it must be what most scholars think. And the "germs" analogy is simply disrespectful of those who hold a different, reasoned view.

First of all consensus is a real thing in the academic world. Real scholars actually do worry about that, it's not as tyrannical as people on message boards think but it is a consideration. It's not a fallacy unless you start stalking kike it's absolute proof.

I am not considered with convincing you to hold my view. But I will unpack y full vie so it makes ore s ese.

(1) there is clearly a redaction process. That does't disprove a single author as initiating the text. But it does mean the text was the result of a process process that involved the entire community.

(2) This does not preclude the participation of the namesakes but their input is different for each text.

(a)Papius tells us Matthew wrote the Logoia, presumably sayings of Jesus and written in Hebrew and it was translated by many,so oit's probable that Matthew's saying source was combined with narrative account and put into Greek forming the basis of a gospel and they Matthew to refer to it,the narrative they used? The passion narrative,

(b) the namesakes could have been the leaders of the various communities that's why the names stuck.

(3) read Jesus and the eye witnesses he really establishes that the elder John wrote John,I think Lazarus was the BD a Elder John was the final chief redactor,

(4)I credit Luke with authorship because his Gospel is individualistic in it's beginning it;snot a community.
BK said…
As I said, I am not going to argue about it. You make a good case for your point of view which is held by a number of scholars.
Joe Hinman said…
hey man I didn't start the cadre to argue with Christians,
Weekend Fisher said…
Hey Joe

Here's a random question for you, & it's basically a request for reading material / sources 'cause I'd like to get into more depth on a few things. When you mention that scholars generally consider that the more Jewish an early Christian document is, the earlier it is -- I agree with that reasoning based on the history, and have used that line of reasoning. But if I wanted to look at the academic context of the argument, or read some of the recognized scholars advocating that position, what authors or writings would you recommend that I look at? Or is it more of a common-sense thing?

Take care & God bless
WF
Joe Hinman said…
a really good book that;s going to fill n a lot of gaps on the things I argue on this kind of area: Ancient Christian Gospels (1992) by Helmutt Koester/. Also Jesus and the eye witnesses by Balckham (s-) is real good.
Anonymous said…
Joe: You are merely asserting it's functional because you are ideologically opposed to miracles,

Not at all. It is based on evidence. Evidence in the Bible, at that, as we discussed less than a week ago.

Joe: there are no differences between those thee imn terms of the list I posted the iconic aspects of the story the infancy appearances are not part of that. you totally missed my point, Brown's statement is aboiut order of presentation not content, so he would not say any of the details were function,

What you are doing is looking for the (very few) bits in common, then claiming that these are the "iconic" points. Those points are little more than who Jesus' parents were. And both accounts say a virgin birth AND that Joseph was the father!

Joe: Christianity doesn't do that, there are too many denominational for that (I've been a Christian 40 something years).

Of course it does. Christianity expects Christians to devote their lives to God. The vast majority of Christians live in Christian communities that would reject them if they became atheists. That is a huge reason to ignore evidence that might challenge Christianity.

Joe: CARM is very atypical, they are the bottom of the barrel. most Christians don't like CARM

It is more extreme, I know, but "conformation bias" is a thing.

Joe: consult your mirror

Show me the evidence I am ignoring. I doubt I am immune to conformation bias, but my life is not dedicated to atheism and my social life would not change if I stopped being an atheist. I do not think I have the huge barrier to change that theists do.

Joe: prove the VB was anew claim, you have no evidence it wasn't part of the original Kyrigma
We know from Acts they gathered communally they lived communally and at meal time they studied scripture to find messianic claims that applied to Jesus, its very likely the eye witnesses in the community critiqued what people said and even the telling of the Jesus story,


You have done half the job for me. The early Christians, when it was still Jewish, studied scripture to find messianic claims that applied to Jesus. The claims required that Jesus be a direct male-line descendant of David. That is contradicted by the virgin birth.

Joe: y point was that he spoke with Mary not E.Luke 1:39 Mary visits and E tells her the baby lept so she told Luke years later,

Mary would have been around 70 in 51 AD, when Luke joined Paul, and around a hundred when he was writing his gospel. Almost certain she was dead.

Let us suppose she was not, why did she think that her being a virgin meant she could not bear children? She was already betrothed; bearing children is what she was expected to do. The text does not actually say she was still a virgin when she conceived, only that she was a virgin - a confused virgin - when she spoke to the angel.

Joe: No they are not, See my page on gospel harmony

Yes they are. Mark is clear that Jesus went on ahead to Galilee. This is in both chapter 14 and 16. The supposed appearances in Jesusalem contradict that. You page on harmonisation fails to even mention Galilee, totally ignoring both Mark and Matthew!

Furthermore, John and Luke contradict the early creed in 1 Cor 15. The most likely scenario is they were made up later.

Joe: the CRUSIFICTION is equally important and certain basic things have to be in place for both, we don't have to support every details we jut have to prove things necessary to support those two.

I am not disputing the crucifixion; I take that as historical.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: why is he talking about resurrection in 1 cor 15 if he didn't assume the empty tomb? That was like AD55. It's old news everyone knows about it and it is not controversial,why mention it?

Why mention burial? That was just as much old news and implicit anyway, and of no particular significance. The verse says the same thing if it is omitted. Nevertheless Paul chose to include that, and miss what you consider to be one of the two most significant events. That is a bizarre decision... unless he was not aware of the Empty Tomb.

Joe: they did not have a modern concept of evidence, you need to know about the empty tomb because you don't accept God could exist let alone work miracles they had no doubt of that,that was one of their foundation assumptions of knowledge

Okay, that is a valid point.

Joe: It was venerated, There is a whole literature on that, The Jewish Christians told the gentiles how to find it when they were forced out of the city in 135. That's how Helena found it, they marked the site because the Romans put a temple over it and a shrine to another god also. The temple was I think to Venus and the shrine was to Jupiter, Jewish Christians used it as the marker, modern archaeologists have found those markers,by the church of the holy seplechure,

That allows a century for the tomb to be forgotten and then assigned to some convenient spot. However, I will allow that it is possible.

Joe: Josephus tells of taking three friends down from crosses and burying the individual graves,so we know it was possible,

They were three amongst "many captives", not rebel leaders. They were likely tried and sentenced as a group. Jesus was - from the Roman point of view - a rebel leader. He had been singled out for trial and sentencing. The Romans were not about to change their mind about crucifying someone who was proclaimed "king of the Jews".

Joe: that is not the original account it;s the oldest canonical account, not the first, what they were getting at is probably some secret sectarian thing we just don;t know about, but it was limited to the Markan community,

Okay, I should have said oldest that we have, and therefore closest to the original. We know Luke and Matthew were based on Mark, and yet they chose to remove the claim that the women did not say anything. They (their respective communities) were adding their own embellishments, and it made more sense to have the women talk, so they changed the text.

Joe: all math problems are neatly resolved by changing your major to English

Huh?

We have a whole bunch of facts that need to be pieced together to make a coherent narrative. The author of Mark wrote what he wrote for a reason. I suggest he wrote that Jesus went on ahead to Galilee because that is what he believed, because when he was writing there were no stories of Jerusalem appearances. He wrote of the Empty Tomb because that is what the community held to, and wrote that the women said nothing because that explained why stories of the Empty Tomb were not circulating at the time.

Joe: the idea community as author is pretty much consensus that's the modern view

No problem with that. I would guess each gospel had a single author, and what he wrote is a snapshot of what his community believed at that time. A possible exception to that is the scriptural references in Matthew; I wonder if they are added by the author. For example, the community believed in the virgin, and the author added the reference to Isaiah.

Joe: First of all consensus is a real thing in the academic world.

Agreed. If you are arguing against consensus, you need some good evidence.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: You are merely asserting it's functional because you are ideologically opposed to miracles,

Not at all. It is based on evidence. Evidence in the Bible, at that, as we discussed less than a week ago.

what evidence?

Joe: there are no differences between those thee imn terms of the list I posted the iconic aspects of the story the infancy appearances are not part of that. you totally missed my point, Brown's statement is aboiut order of presentation not content, so he would not say any of the details were function,

What you are doing is looking for the (very few) bits in common, then claiming that these are the "iconic" points. Those points are little more than who Jesus' parents were. And both accounts say a virgin birth AND that Joseph was the father!


who his parents were determine who he was! Obviously a major point, and they are always the same, how the guy who betrayed him killed himself is a minor point it has nothing to do with who Jesus was or what he did,


Joe: Christianity doesn't do that, there are too many denominational for that (I've been a Christian 40 something years).

Of course it does. Christianity expects Christians to devote their lives to God. The vast majority of Christians live in Christian communities that would reject them if they became atheists. That is a huge reason to ignore evidence that might challenge Christianity.

that is so stupid, you think Americans are like they were a hundred years ago, you could live in modern America and never think about God and no one would notice,


Joe: CARM is very atypical, they are the bottom of the barrel. most Christians don't like CARM

It is more extreme, I know, but "conformation bias" is a thing.

Joe: consult your mirror

Show me the evidence I am ignoring. I doubt I am immune to conformation bias, but my life is not dedicated to atheism and my social life would not change if I stopped being an atheist. I do not think I have the huge barrier to change that theists do.


atheists make a bad habit or using that term and never examining their own behavior,you are ignoring the obvious evidence about one story of Jesus and you have no rational dividing line between what is iconic of Jesus and what is a minor point,


Joe Hinman said…
Joe: prove the VB was anew claim, you have no evidence it wasn't part of the original Kyrigma
We know from Acts they gathered communally they lived communally and at meal time they studied scripture to find messianic claims that applied to Jesus, its very likely the eye witnesses in the community critiqued what people said and even the telling of the Jesus story,

You have done half the job for me. The early Christians, when it was still Jewish, studied scripture to find messianic claims that applied to Jesus. The claims required that Jesus be a direct male-line descendant of David. That is contradicted by the virgin birth.

wrong. Ancient Israel had a Queen, checkout the 10 tribes not part of Judah, so the linage could travel through the woman,and Jo could adopt Jesus into his line an it would work, if Jo says he is my son who can dispute it?

Joe: my point was that he spoke with Mary not E.Luke 1:39 Mary visits and E tells her the baby lept so she told Luke years later,

Mary would have been around 70 in 51 AD, when Luke joined Paul, and around a hundred when he was writing his gospel. Almost certain she was dead.

70 is not unrealistic, people lived that long,also she was probably a teenager when Jesus was born.

Let us suppose she was not, why did she think that her being a virgin meant she could not bear children? She was already betrothed; bearing children is what she was expected to do. The text does not actually say she was still a virgin when she conceived, only that she was a virgin - a confused virgin - when she spoke to the angel.

that no importance in relation to the issue of one Jesus story,the issue is that they kept the info straight not that everything they said made sense.

Joe: No they are not, See my page on gospel harmony

Yes they are. Mark is clear that Jesus went on ahead to Galilee. This is in both chapter 14 and 16. The supposed appearances in Jerusalem contradict that. You page on harmonisation fails to even mention Galilee, totally ignoring both Mark and Matthew!

that is irrelevant as an argument on the issue of one Jesus story,

Furthermore, John and Luke contradict the early creed in 1 Cor 15. The most likely scenario is they were made up later.

again you are confusing the issue of logical contradictions in the story arc with the issue of fragmentation of Jesus stories,you don't seem to get why that's important, the contradictions you point to if they are that are not indicative of multiple Jesus stories,

I am bracketing that issue and I will answer it latter.


Joe: the CRUSIFICTION is equally important and certain basic things have to be in place for both, we don't have to support every details we jut have to prove things necessary to support those two.

I am not disputing the crucifixion; I take that as historical.

ta da!
Joe Hinman said…
I will get to second post after breakers
Joe Hinman said…
I have asked the Cadre to do a new post on the res contradiction if they don;t answer it I will this week,

The Pixie said…
Joe: what evidence?

For example:

Matthew 1:1 This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham

Mark 10:47 When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"

Luke 1:32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,

John 7:42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David's descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?

Romans 1:3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David,

Joe: who his parents were determine who he was! Obviously a major point, and they are always the same, how the guy who betrayed him killed himself is a minor point it has nothing to do with who Jesus was or what he did,

The iconic aspects of the nativity include the journey to Bethlehen, born in a manger, the shepherds, the wise men, the flight to Egypt, the massacre of the children. Ask any school kid! None of which appear in both versions.

Joe: that is so stupid, you think Americans are like they were a hundred years ago, you could live in modern America and never think about God and no one would notice,

I think a lot of Christians have friends that they know through church, and that they would lose - or at least would worry they would lose - if they renounced their faith. That may not be true for some, but if you want to convince me the majority of Christians do not socialise with people they share a faith with, that they know through their church attendance, you have a big mountain to climb.

Joe: atheists make a bad habit or using that term and never examining their own behavior,you are ignoring the obvious evidence about one story of Jesus and you have no rational dividing line between what is iconic of Jesus and what is a minor point,

It is you who is making an issue of the distinction. You tell me what the dividing line is.

Joe: wrong. Ancient Israel had a Queen, checkout the 10 tribes not part of Judah, so the linage could travel through the woman,

Read the genealogy in Matthew 1. Direct, male-line descent from Abraham, to Jesus, via David.

It may be that the ancient monarchy could travel through the female line, but I would have to look carefully at exactly what circumstances. If you are referring to Athaliah then the monarchy passed to her grandson, who was a direct male-line descendant of David. Athaliah's rule is regarded as bad, and she tried to re-introduce the worship of Baal, so would be a strong motivation for sticking to the direct male-line descendant of David!

Joe: and Jo could adopt Jesus into his line an it would work, if Jo says he is my son who can dispute it?

While adoption was certainly a legal thing, was it good enough for messiahship? The promise God made to David was that one of his descendants would sit on the throne; did God really allow for adoption in that promise? It becomes a bit of a half-hearted promise. It is like saying someone will sit on the throne, and we can pretend he is your descendant by saying he is adopted.

Furthermore, why should adoption be necessary? If a man is favoured by God, then he would not need to adopt; God will ensure he has children, and God will protect them. And really, that is what God was promising David - that his seed would survive and flourish.

Joe: 70 is not unrealistic, people lived that long,also she was probably a teenager when Jesus was born.

So 70 when Luke became a Christian, how many years after that before they met? How many more years before they were sufficiently friendly that they could discuss Jesus' conception? The gospel was written around 90 AD, even if Luke started to research it ten years earlier, Mary would be 100!

According to Wiki, in classical times, a child that lived to 10 still had a life expectancy of less than 50.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
Joe Hinman said…
I have no answered all of your posts so wait until I do to answer, don't flame. I still need your email address.
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
Joe: why is he talking about resurrection in 1 cor 15 if he didn't assume the empty tomb? That was like AD55. It's old news everyone knows about it and it is not controversial,why mention it?

Why mention burial? That was just as much old news and implicit anyway, and of no particular significance. The verse says the same thing if it is omitted. Nevertheless Paul chose to include that, and miss what you consider to be one of the two most significant events. That is a bizarre decision... unless he was not aware of the Empty Tomb.

He had begun to formulate theological implications of the Resurrection and in 1 Cor he is developing those. So he has to refer to the empty tomb by implication,

Joe: they did not have a modern concept of evidence, you need to know about the empty tomb because you don't accept God could exist let alone work miracles they had no doubt of that,that was one of their foundation assumptions of knowledge

Okay, that is a valid point.

;-)

Joe: It was venerated, There is a whole literature on that, The Jewish Christians told the gentiles how to find it when they were forced out of the city in 135. That's how Helena found it, they marked the site because the Romans put a temple over it and a shrine to another god also. The temple was I think to Venus and the shrine was to Jupiter, Jewish Christians used it as the marker, modern archaeologists have found those markers,by the church of the holy seplechure,

That allows a century for the tomb to be forgotten and then assigned to some convenient spot. However, I will allow that it is possible.

they told the gentile Christians that site was always venerated, I see no reason to assume they forgot and made up a new one;that goes back to the atheist stupidity in not understanding religious thinking, people don't just make stuff up kowingly.,

Joe: Josephus tells of taking three friends down from crosses and burying the individual graves,so we know it was possible,

They were three amongst "many captives", not rebel leaders. They were likely tried and sentenced as a group. Jesus was - from the Roman point of view - a rebel leader. He had been singled out for trial and sentencing. The Romans were not about to change their mind about crucifying someone who was proclaimed "king of the Jews".

assertion not i evidence, you have no proof they would not resale leader's body, But they would do for Jesus because it would profane the holy day otherwise,

Joe: that is not the original account it;s the oldest canonical account, not the first, what they were getting at is probably some secret sectarian thing we just don;t know about, but it was limited to the Markan community,

Okay, I should have said oldest that we have, and therefore closest to the original. We know Luke and Matthew were based on Mark, and yet they chose to remove the claim that the women did not say anything. They (their respective communities) were adding their own embellishments, and it made more sense to have the women talk, so they changed the text.

Joe: all math problems are neatly resolved by changing your major to English

Huh?

you don;t resolve problems by sweeping them aside,

Joe Hinman said…
We have a whole bunch of facts that need to be pieced together to make a coherent narrative.

coherent is a separate issue, it does not answer my only version argument,


I will answer it but in another venue


Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: what evidence?

For example:

Matthew 1:1 This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham

Mark 10:47 When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"

Luke 1:32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,

John 7:42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David's descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?

Romans 1:3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David,


Mary was descended from David, Most scholars agree Luke is Mary's genealogy Mat is Jo's.
Another reason to think Luke spoke with Mary, or her children.



Joe Hinman said…
Joe: who his parents were determine who he was! Obviously a major point, and they are always the same, how the guy who betrayed him killed himself is a minor point it has nothing to do with who Jesus was or what he did,

The iconic aspects of the nativity include the journey to Bethlehen, born in a manger, the shepherds, the wise men, the flight to Egypt, the massacre of the children. Ask any school kid! None of which appear in both versions.

that is silliness, the most important issue in terms of genealogy is Jesus' decent from David, That is secure on either side.Infancy birth narrative are not important,who came to see him at advent is not a major issue. The major issue they all agree upon they don't argue over where he was born.No offense Pix but speaking of confirmation bias you are not even considering differences in the weight of evidence you seem to be jumping on any difference in detail as equally major.


Joe Hinman said…
Joe: that is so stupid, you think Americans are like they were a hundred years ago, you could live in modern America and never think about God and no one would notice,

I think a lot of Christians have friends that they know through church, and that they would lose - or at least would worry they would lose - if they renounced their faith. That may not be true for some, but if you want to convince me the majority of Christians do not socialise with people they share a faith with, that they know through their church attendance, you have a big mountain to climb.

Of course there are segments of society that would be troubled by one going atheist. But that doesn't mean they will problems living in the world; they will get jobs and find no discrimination they will make friends and not be lonely as the majority do not care about that in those terms,

Joe: atheists make a bad habit or using that term and never examining their own behavior,you are ignoring the obvious evidence about one story of Jesus and you have no rational dividing line between what is iconic of Jesus and what is a minor point,

It is you who is making an issue of the distinction. You tell me what the dividing line is.

you have no concept of critical distinction between one point and another? If Mark said Jesus ate beans on Frieda and Mat said he ate fish on Friday you would say these are totally different versions of the Jesus story, even if all other details were the same???what if you had two different account of Jesus that were identical except one said his tunic had a higher thread count than the other narrative acknowledged?

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: wrong. Ancient Israel had a Queen, checkout the 10 tribes not part of Judah, so the linage could travel through the woman,

Read the genealogy in Matthew 1. Direct, male-line descent from Abraham, to Jesus, via David.

read the one one in Luke also decent from David to Jesus, thorugh the male down to Mary.


It may be that the ancient monarchy could travel through the female line, but I would have to look carefully at exactly what circumstances. If you are referring to Athaliah then the monarchy passed to her grandson, who was a direct male-line descendant of David. Athaliah's rule is regarded as bad, and she tried to re-introduce the worship of Baal, so would be a strong motivation for sticking to the direct male-line descendant of David!

how her rule was has nothing to do with it, we are talking about her line no her work performance. Mary descends from male heirs from David to her father


Joe: and Jo could adopt Jesus into his line an it would work, if Jo says he is my son who can dispute it?

While adoption was certainly a legal thing, was it good enough for messiahship? The promise God made to David was that one of his descendants would sit on the throne; did God really allow for adoption in that promise? It becomes a bit of a half-hearted promise. It is like saying someone will sit on the throne, and we can pretend he is your descendant by saying he is adopted.

again Mary was decided from David through male heirs,


Furthermore, why should adoption be necessary? If a man is favoured by God, then he would not need to adopt; God will ensure he has children, and God will protect them. And really, that is what God was promising David - that his seed would survive and flourish.


If God has to choose from v birth and a particular line he has to use what's there and he can't have two parents,

Joe: 70 is not unrealistic, people lived that long,also she was probably a teenager when Jesus was born.

So 70 when Luke became a Christian, how many years after that before they met? How many more years before they were sufficiently friendly that they could discuss Jesus' conception? The gospel was written around 90 AD, even if Luke started to research it ten years earlier, Mary would be 100!

Luke was a Christian when he met Paul and they were on the missionary journey together, That was well before any of the epistles were written probably in the 40s.

According to Wiki, in classical times, a child that lived to 10 still had a life expectancy of less than 50.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

Seneca lived to be over 80. the council in Jerusalem was in AD 50. I think we can assume Paul knew Luke by that time, He could have know Mary years before he wrote his gospel

1/09/2018 06:26:00 AM Delete
Weekend Fisher said…
If you all are interested, it's likely that Luke met Jesus' brother in the 50's AD, if we're considering how Luke would get access to information about Jesus' childhood (Acts 21:17-18).
Joe Hinman said…
very good point Annne.
The Pixie said…
Joe: He had begun to formulate theological implications of the Resurrection and in 1 Cor he is developing those. So he has to refer to the empty tomb by implication,

The bit at the start of 1 Cor 15 is generally regarded as Paul repeating an early creed (verses 3 to 5 or so). Later he is developing his theology, but that bit at the start reflects what the community believed at that point (and some date it much earlier). The community believed Jesus had been buried, it believed he had been resurrected, and seen first by Peter. It did not believe in the Empty Tomb.

Joe: they told the gentile Christians that site was always venerated, I see no reason to assume they forgot and made up a new one;that goes back to the atheist stupidity in not understanding religious thinking, people don't just make stuff up kowingly.,

But they will repeat it unquestioningly. BK posted a video by Dr John Lennox just before Christmas, a professor at a top university and a philosopher of science, and it was very clear that his ability to think critically is switched off when it comes to his own religion. He actually stated that we can be sure the virgin birth happened because the author of Luke - who he unquestioningly assumes is Luke - tells us we can be certain it happened.

All it takes is one person in the community to wrongly guess the tomb was over there, and that concept can be circulated and reinforced until it is accepted as fact a century later.

Joe: assertion not i evidence, you have no proof they would not resale leader's body, But they would do for Jesus because it would profane the holy day otherwise,

I cannot prove it, but the probability is very much on my side. The point of crucifixion was to dishonour the victim. Allowing the body to be taken away for honourable burial is contrary to the point of the act. That has to be more important when the victim is the leader than a follower. The Romans had to make it absolutely clear that Jesus was not the Jewish King, and that he was not a martyr to rally round but a dishonoured nobody.

Allowing honourable burial for a couple of captives amongst many does not create a martyr. Allowing a supposed messiah most definitely does. The Romans were in the busy of suppressing rebellion, and giving Jesus a dishonourable burial was a necessary part of that.

Joe: Mary was descended from David, Most scholars agree Luke is Mary's genealogy Mat is Jo's.
Another reason to think Luke spoke with Mary, or her children.


Christian scholars say that to force a compatibility with the virgin birth. However, if you read what is actually written in the text, it says Joseph.

Joe: that is silliness, the most important issue in terms of genealogy is Jesus' decent from David, That is secure on either side.

Via the male line, which is why both geneologies are via Joseph!

Joe: Infancy birth narrative are not important,who came to see him at advent is not a major issue. The major issue they all agree upon they don't argue over where he was born.No offense Pix but speaking of confirmation bias you are not even considering differences in the weight of evidence you seem to be jumping on any difference in detail as equally major.

For you the major issues just happen to be where he was born. Where were his family from? According to Matthew, his family came from Bethlehem, and later moved to Nazareth. Luke says they came from Nazareth. If Mary was around to talk to, why the disagreement?

If Luke talks to Mary, as you claim, do you think he got the journey to Bethlehem for the census from her? The census that was about 6 years after Herod died. The census that did not actually require anyone to go to another city?

The more likely scenario is both authors wanted Jesus to come from Bethlehem for the prophecy, but knew that he actually came from Nazareth, and so contrived different stories to fit, without reference to any witness - given Mary would be about a hundred when they were written.
The Pixie said…
Joe: Of course there are segments of society that would be troubled by one going atheist. But that doesn't mean they will problems living in the world; they will get jobs and find no discrimination they will make friends and not be lonely as the majority do not care about that in those terms,

It is not a question of how they would fare, but how they perceive it. You only have to look at CARM to see how some Christians regard atheists - immoral and irrational. If you are a Christian who has doubts, and you have friends you know through church (and I am sure virtually all Christians do) you will worry that your current friends will consider you to be immoral and irrational if you become an atheist.

Seriously, are you really telling me a Christian could become an atheist without any worries about his church friends thinking less of him?

Joe: read the one one in Luke also decent from David to Jesus, thorugh the male down to Mary.

Are you reading the same book as me?

Luke 3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

I see nothing about Mary in there.

Joe: how her rule was has nothing to do with it, we are talking about her line no her work performance. Mary descends from male heirs from David to her father

She ruled as the surviving queen on the death of the king, who was a direct male line descendant. She was deposed in favour of her grandson, who, again was a direct male line descendant

Are you saying the Jews of Jesus time considered her as a possible model or precedent for the messiah? They were consequently looking for a man or a woman, not a descendant of David at all? That is quite a bold claim.

Joe: If God has to choose from v birth and a particular line he has to use what's there and he can't have two parents,

Exactly!

Joe: Luke was a Christian when he met Paul and they were on the missionary journey together, That was well before any of the epistles were written probably in the 40s.

When did he first go to Jerusalem?

Joe: Seneca lived to be over 80. the council in Jerusalem was in AD 50. I think we can assume Paul knew Luke by that time, He could have know Mary years before he wrote his gospel

I appreciate people did live to an old age, but it was very rare, and you are pushing credibility when you claim that without evidence. The probability is that she died before turning 50.

Weekend Fisher: If you all are interested, it's likely that Luke met Jesus' brother in the 50's AD, if we're considering how Luke would get access to information about Jesus' childhood (Acts 21:17-18).

That is possible, but that is decades before Luke was written. It is more likely that Luke was not researching the gospel until after James died in 62 or 69 AD.
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: He had begun to formulate theological implications of the Resurrection and in 1 Cor he is developing those. So he has to refer to the empty tomb by implication,

The bit at the start of 1 Cor 15 is generally regarded as Paul repeating an early creed (verses 3 to 5 or so). Later he is developing his theology, but that bit at the start reflects what the community believed at that point (and some date it much earlier). The community believed Jesus had been buried, it believed he had been resurrected, and seen first by Peter. It did not believe in the Empty Tomb.

true but the fact that they had a creed means they had a doctrinal understanding that was deep and associated with the creedal formula,so they did not need explication of what the empty tomb was just using the creed said it all because they had the association,


Joe: they told the gentile Christians that site was always venerated, I see no reason to assume they forgot and made up a new one;that goes back to the atheist stupidity in not understanding religious thinking, people don't just make stuff up kowingly.,

But they will repeat it unquestioningly. BK posted a video by Dr John Lennox just before Christmas, a professor at a top university and a philosopher of science, and it was very clear that his ability to think critically is switched off when it comes to his own religion. He actually stated that we can be sure the virgin birth happened because the author of Luke - who he unquestioningly assumes is Luke - tells us we can be certain it happened.

Luke is not asserting w/o evidence he spoke to Mary or to her children so he knew. Luke probably wrote Luke because why makeup the name of a nobody who no one cares about? If you are going psudeopigraphal use a big name,



Joe Hinman said…
All it takes is one person in the community to wrongly guess the tomb was over there, and that concept can be circulated and reinforced until it is accepted as fact a century later.

assumption not i evidence, The community had eye witnesses they are going to be the major voices, they will not be dolled about where it was,

atheists are so MF stupid to think religious people are itching to make stuff up how dumb can you get?




Joe: assertion not i evidence, you have no proof they would not resale leader's body, But they would do for Jesus because it would profane the holy day otherwise,

I cannot prove it, but the probability is very much on my side. The point of crucifixion was to dishonour the victim. Allowing the body to be taken away for honourable burial is contrary to the point of the act. That has to be more important when the victim is the leader than a follower. The Romans had to make it absolutely clear that Jesus was not the Jewish King, and that he was not a martyr to rally round but a dishonoured nobody.

If that were true then they would not have allowed Jo to take down his friends, you haven no idea about their centrality in their movement, the Romans respected teh local religious set up. They allowed the Jews to do their thing when religious participation was at issue. They needed Jesus' body to be buried it was an emergency the whole passover was at steak,

Allowing honourable burial for a couple of captives amongst many does not create a martyr. Allowing a supposed messiah most definitely does. The Romans were in the busy of suppressing rebellion, and giving Jesus a dishonourable burial was a necessary part of that.

they had to save the passover many people would have died if they didn't save it because it would have sparked a revolt they would allow it. these foreign invaders you hate are telling you you can't have passover, which means God wont forgive your sins think about it,


Joe: Mary was descended from David, Most scholars agree Luke is Mary's genealogy Mat is Jo's.
Another reason to think Luke spoke with Mary, or her children.

Christian scholars say that to force a compatibility with the virgin birth. However, if you read what is actually written in the text, it says Joseph.

false. the insertion of Jo i Luke's line is purely technician


Joe: that is silliness, the most important issue in terms of genealogy is Jesus' decent from David, That is secure on either side.

Via the male line, which is why both geneologies are via Joseph!

he had male decent thorough Mary;s line, the thorn was passed from Queen to grandson with no man on throne, That;s not an issue,

Joe: Infancy birth narrative are not important,who came to see him at advent is not a major issue. The major issue they all agree upon they don't argue over where he was born.No offense Pix but speaking of confirmation bias you are not even considering differences in the weight of evidence you seem to be jumping on any difference in detail as equally major.

For you the major issues just happen to be where he was born. Where were his family from? According to Matthew, his family came from Bethlehem, and later moved to Nazareth. Luke says they came from Nazareth. If Mary was around to talk to, why the disagreement?

his ancestral home that doesn't mean he ever lied there,


If Luke talks to Mary, as you claim, do you think he got the journey to Bethlehem for the census from her? The census that was about 6 years after Herod died. The census that did not actually require anyone to go to another city?


you are still trying to conflate logical inconsistencies in the story with different versions of the story, my argument is there is only one Jesus story. I will not answer inheritances at this time.
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: Of course there are segments of society that would be troubled by one going atheist. But that doesn't mean they will problems living in the world; they will get jobs and find no discrimination they will make friends and not be lonely as the majority do not care about that in those terms,

It is not a question of how they would fare, but how they perceive it. You only have to look at CARM to see how some Christians regard atheists - immoral and irrational. If you are a Christian who has doubts, and you have friends you know through church (and I am sure virtually all Christians do) you will worry that your current friends will consider you to be immoral and irrational if you become an atheist.

not relevant to the argument( a going to assume that have granted my arguments because keep trying to lead us away from them,

Seriously, are you really telling me a Christian could become an atheist without any worries about his church friends thinking less of him?

no I'm saying he would still get by in society, Probably his close friends would stick,


Joe: read the one one in Luke also decent from David to Jesus, thorugh the male down to Mary.

Are you reading the same book as me?

Luke 3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

I see nothing about Mary in there.

"Maternal ancestry in Luke. A more straightforward and the most common explanation is that Luke's genealogy is of Mary, with Eli being her father, while Matthew's describes the genealogy of Joseph. ... Luke's text says that Jesus was "a son, as was supposed, of Joseph, of Eli".
Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus"


Jew did not like women so they didn't put women in the genealogy, But it is her line they just put Jo for her since he marys into her line was "a son, as was supposed, of Joseph, of Eli".

Joe: how her rule was has nothing to do with it, we are talking about her line no her work performance. Mary descends from male heirs from David to her father

She ruled as the surviving queen on the death of the king, who was a direct male line descendant. She was deposed in favour of her grandson, who, again was a direct male line descendant

she was not deposed fro beinga woman, the reasonswerespecificto thignshe didnot to her gneder,

Are you saying the Jews of Jesus time considered her as a possible model or precedent for the messiah? They were consequently looking for a man or a woman, not a descendant of David at all? That is quite a bold claim.

of course not her son was, he inherited her bloodline,

Joe: If God has to choose from v birth and a particular line he has to use what's there and he can't have two parents,

Exactly!

you do not know what you are agreeing to because that beats your argument
Joe Hinman said…
Joe: Luke was a Christian when he met Paul and they were on the missionary journey together, That was well before any of the epistles were written probably in the 40s.

When did he first go to Jerusalem?

for the church council

Joe: Seneca lived to be over 80. the council in Jerusalem was in AD 50. I think we can assume Paul knew Luke by that time, He could have know Mary years before he wrote his gospel

I appreciate people did live to an old age, but it was very rare, and you are pushing credibility when you claim that without evidence. The probability is that she died before turning 50.

how strong is that probability? you dropped the argument that he talked to her children,

Weekend Fisher: If you all are interested, it's likely that Luke met Jesus' brother in the 50's AD, if we're considering how Luke would get access to information about Jesus' childhood (Acts 21:17-18).

That is possible, but that is decades before Luke was written. It is more likely that Luke was not researching the gospel until after James died in 62 or 69 AD.


total red herring,he can't answer the argument that there's only one version he totally takes is off that path by shot gunning more arguments on different issues, makes everything I say into an issue we never get to the point,'I won,he can not answer my argument,
The Pixie said…
Joe: true but the fact that they had a creed means they had a doctrinal understanding that was deep and associated with the creedal formula,so they did not need explication of what the empty tomb was just using the creed said it all because they had the association,

You are just clutching at straws. The early creed omits the Empty Tomb, something you say is very important. By far the most likely reason it omits it is because it was not part of the narrative.

Joe: Luke is not asserting w/o evidence he spoke to Mary or to her children so he knew. Luke probably wrote Luke because why makeup the name of a nobody who no one cares about? If you are going psudeopigraphal use a big name,

Not sure I get your point. Lennox said we can be certain the Gospel of Luke is true because the Gospel of Luke says we can be certain the Gospel of Luke is true. I think that that is circular reasoning, and anyone going into a public forum with that as the basis of their argument has failed at critical thinking. Given Lennox is very intelligent and very well educated, this illustrates how people will switch off their critical thinking when it comes to their own religion.

If it happens to Lennox then it seems highly likely it could have happened to the early Christians, and in particular the gospel writers. If Lennox blindly accepts Luke as true, it is very probably that Luke blindly accepted the reports he had as true.

Joe: assumption not i evidence, The community had eye witnesses they are going to be the major voices, they will not be dolled about where it was,
atheists are so MF stupid to think religious people are itching to make stuff up how dumb can you get?


So do not assume the Empty Tomb was true, just because it is in the gospels!

The Lennox video proves theists turn off their critical thinking when it comes to their own religion.

Joe: If that were true then they would not have allowed Jo to take down his friends, you haven no idea about their centrality in their movement, the Romans respected teh local religious set up. They allowed the Jews to do their thing when religious participation was at issue. They needed Jesus' body to be buried it was an emergency the whole passover was at steak,

The friends were just random people within a group. They were not leaders. There was no reason to suppose that they would become martyrs.

Jesus was a leader who was proclaimed the messiah. The Jews particular venerated their dead saints, and the Romans had good reason to think that would happen to Jesus. They had good reason to not want Jesus to be a martyr, and so had good reason to deny an honourable burial.

That was not the case for Josephus' friends. They were not leaders, they were not proclaimed as the messiah, they were not prophets. There was no reason to suppose they would be considered saints, and the Romans would not expect them to be regarded as martyrs and would not expect their tombs to be venerated.

Joe: they had to save the passover many people would have died if they didn't save it because it would have sparked a revolt they would allow it. these foreign invaders you hate are telling you you can't have passover, which means God wont forgive your sins think about it,

What is your point?

The Romans trod a fine line to try to keep the peace, suppressing the merest hint of rebel, but - for the most part - trying not to offend the religion. They allowed the passover, but crucified anyone who might be about to lead a rebel, anyone considered a messiah.
The Pixie said…
Joe: false. the insertion of Jo i Luke's line is purely technician

What are you talking about? The genealogy of Jesus in Luke does not mention Mary. How can you claim, then, it is her genealogy?

Joe: he had male decent thorough Mary;s line, the thorn was passed from Queen to grandson with no man on throne, That;s not an issue,

It passed from the Queen, who took the throne when her husband - who was a direct male-line descendant of David - died. After her, it passed to her grandson - who was also a direct male-line descendant of David.

The king was always a direct male-line descendant of David. The reigning monarch was always either a direct male-line descendant of David, or the surviving queen of a direct male-line descendant of David.

Joe: no I'm saying he would still get by in society, Probably his close friends would stick,

I am talking about the barrier to conversion. Sure the convert would survive, but anyone considering converting would naturally be worried about the impact on their life, and the social impact will generally be perceived as bad. As you say, close friends would probably stick with you, but the implication is that by converting you risk losing them. That is a big incentive to stay in the faith, and a big incentive to ignore any evidence that challenges your faith.

And that is exactly what we see at CARM and is exactly what we see in the Lennox video too.

Joe: Jew did not like women so they didn't put women in the genealogy, But it is her line they just put Jo for her since he marys into her line was "a son, as was supposed, of Joseph, of Eli".

That is right, Jews did not put women in genealogies... Follow it through Joe. That is why they were looking for a direct male-line descendant of David as the messiah. That is why Luke and Matthew both have the genealogies via the male line.

It does not say it was Mary's genealogy. It says people supposed Jesus was the son of Joseph, and that Joseph was the son of Eli.

And people supposed Joseph was the father because no one had made up the virgin birth!

Joe: you do not know what you are agreeing to because that beats your argument

I am agreeing that it is either a virgin birth OR Jesus was a direct male-line descendant of David; it cannot be both.

Joe: how strong is that probability? you dropped the argument that he talked to her children,

It is possible, but how can we tell? If Luke was written in 90 AD, then James was dead over 20 years, and Mary probably much longer. Why should we suppose Luke had a way to contact other siblings (who would be in the 80s and 90s too, by then, so likely dead too).

Far more likely that Mark talked to Mary and James, and yet he omitted the virgin birth. Why? No one had made it up yet.
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: true but the fact that they had a creed means they had a doctrinal understanding that was deep and associated with the creedal formula,so they did not need explication of what the empty tomb was just using the creed said it all because they had the association,

You are just clutching at straws. The early creed omits the Empty Tomb, something you say is very important. By far the most likely reason it omits it is because it was not part of the narrative.

No dodo that is sociology it;s called deep context try getting out of your chemistry ghetto some time.That would be like saying we talked about politics in UK and you did not explain the basis of magna charta so you must not really be from UK.

Joe: Luke is not asserting w/o evidence he spoke to Mary or to her children so he knew. Luke probably wrote Luke because why makeup the name of a nobody who no one cares about? If you are going psudeopigraphal use a big name,

Not sure I get your point. Lennox said we can be certain the Gospel of Luke is true because the Gospel of Luke says we can be certain the Gospel of Luke is true.

that has nothing to do with what I'm saying, noting like what I'm saying. I am saying if you are going to make up an author for your gosling you want a big named guy so your gospel will have respect, why make up an unknown author that doesn't garner respect?,


I think that that is circular reasoning, and anyone going into a public forum with that as the basis of their argument has failed at critical thinking. Given Lennox is very intelligent and very well educated, this illustrates how people will switch off their critical thinking when it comes to their own religion.

I'm not arguing his argument,

Joe Hinman said…
If it happens to Lennox then it seems highly likely it could have happened to the early Christians, and in particular the gospel writers. If Lennox blindly accepts Luke as true, it is very probably that Luke blindly accepted the reports he had as true.

black is white slide

Joe: assumption not i evidence, The community had eye witnesses they are going to be the major voices, they will not be dolled about where it was,
atheists are so MF stupid to think religious people are itching to make stuff up how dumb can you get?

So do not assume the Empty Tomb was true, just because it is in the gospels!

I assume it's true because the community attests to it as a fact they all saw and knew.
Many ties in social sciences anthropologists and sociologists have gotten in trouble by assuming the locals are dumb shits who don't know what they have seen,




The Lennox video proves theists turn off their critical thinking when it comes to their own religion.

your argument proves that atheists are rather stupid when it comes logic, you are committing two informal fallacies,guilt by association and black is white slide,

Joe: If that were true then they would not have allowed Jo to take down his friends, you haven no idea about their centrality in their movement, the Romans respected teh local religious set up. They allowed the Jews to do their thing when religious participation was at issue. They needed Jesus' body to be buried it was an emergency the whole passover was at steak,

The friends were just random people within a group. They were not leaders. There was no reason to suppose that they would become martyrs.


you don't know, Jo doesn't say "Thea guys were not leaders," you do not konw that,you are asserting it

Jesus was a leader who was proclaimed the messiah. The Jews particular venerated their dead saints, and the Romans had good reason to think that would happen to Jesus. They had good reason to not want Jesus to be a martyr, and so had good reason to deny an honourable burial.

listen and try to learn something this is not chemistry,if the Jews profaned the day on Passover they would riot, they would fight, that would erupt in revolt the Romans would slaughterer many of them, the Romans wanted to Alkaid that because it's not orderly, it is not keeping order to have to massacre people all the time.

That was not the case for Josephus' friends. They were not leaders,

YOU DON;T KNOW THAT!!!! YOU MADE IT UP!!! STOP ASSET WHAT YOU' DON'T KNOW!!!!!

they were not proclaimed as the messiah, they were not prophets.

you don't knkow they were not prophets you are asserting that based upon your ignorance,You don't if the Roans understood what messiah was, there's no reason to think the Romans were out to kill the messiah,you are also assert mg that they Romans can;t be flexible enough to allow burial o a leader if the whole country is going to erupt in war,


Joe Hinman said…
There was no reason to suppose they would be considered saints, and the Romans would not expect them to be regarded as martyrs and would not expect their tombs to be venerated.

in one breath you argue he was important to kill without burial then turn around in the net breath and assert so unimportant they would not want to profane the burial ground,

use your brain--they put the Roman temple at the site after AD 70 because they had the revolt of 66 they were trying to suppress Hebrew religion,which they were not doing back in 33 when Jesus died. In the mean time the site had become a major venerated sight,



Joe: they had to save the passover many people would have died if they didn't save it because it would have sparked a revolt they would allow it. these foreign invaders you hate are telling you you can't have passover, which means God wont forgive your sins think about it,

What is your point?

they would let then bury Jesus because it would prone the day otherwise,

The Romans trod a fine line to try to keep the peace, suppressing the merest hint of rebel, but - for the most part - trying not to offend the religion. They allowed the passover, but crucified anyone who might be about to lead a rebel, anyone considered a messiah.

that supports my arguent
The Pixie said…
Joe: No dodo that is sociology it;s called deep context try getting out of your chemistry ghetto some time.That would be like saying we talked about politics in UK and you did not explain the basis of magna charta so you must not really be from UK.

No, it is not like that. The creed is a historical narrative, it is saying this happened, then this happened, then this happened. It is specifically iterating the salient events during that period of time. And it omits the Empty Tomb, an event you describe as vital.

A discussion of UK politics is not doing that, not by a long way. This is more like describing a football game, but omitting the winning goal. Why do that? Well, because really it was a draw.

Joe: that has nothing to do with what I'm saying, noting like what I'm saying. I am saying if you are going to make up an author for your gosling you want a big named guy so your gospel will have respect, why make up an unknown author that doesn't garner respect?,

And that is the best evidence you have that Luke wrote the gospel? There are plenty of people who are not even named who are more unknown that Luke. And they did pick some bizarre people as supposed authors, such as Judas and Pilate. Luke likely appealed as he was not Jewish; this was a time when the gentile church was trying to distance itself from Judaism.

Joe: I'm not arguing his argument,

No, but he gives a great example of how people think with regards to religion. He is very intelligent, very well educated, and yet his ability to think critically just turns off when it comes to his religion. That may not be the case for you, but it shows it could easily have been the case for Luke. If Luke's critical thinking skills were similar to (or less than) a university professor and philosopher of science like Lennox, then it is reasonable to suppose he would accept the virgin birth as blindly as Lennox.

Joe: I assume it's true because the community attests to it as a fact they all saw and knew.
Many ties in social sciences anthropologists and sociologists have gotten in trouble by assuming the locals are dumb shits who don't know what they have seen,


We do not know what they actually saw.

According to the earliest account we have, only the women saw it and they told no one. That account also suggests the disciples fled Jerusalem as soon as Jesus was arrested (Mark 14:27). That is a very shaky basis for the community to attest it is true.

Let us assume these were intelligent, well-educated people. Let us suppose their ability to think critically was comparable to a university professor and philosopher of science like Lennox... Then it is reasonable to suppose they would accept the Empty Tomb blindly.

Joe: you don't know, Jo doesn't say "Thea guys were not leaders," you do not konw that,you are asserting it

He says there were among many captives, and we know the Romans let them down, so it seems likely, but let us allow the possibility they were not. Where does that leave us? That leaves us with what might be a precedent for Jesus given an honourable burial and it might not.

Meanwhile, we know Jesus was crucified for treason, as a rebel against Rome. We know the Jews of the time venerated their saints and martyrs. We can be reasonably sure the Romans would not want that to happen for Jesus, and so had a good motive for not allowing honourable burial.

Is that a fair summary?
The Pixie said…
Joe: listen and try to learn something this is not chemistry,if the Jews profaned the day on Passover they would riot, they would fight, that would erupt in revolt the Romans would slaughterer many of them, the Romans wanted to Alkaid that because it's not orderly, it is not keeping order to have to massacre people all the time.

Not sure what your point is. If you are talking about Jesus being taken down from the cross before Passover, I agree that that is highly plausible.

It is the honourable burial that is not. It stretches credibility that Joseph of Arimathea's tomb was nearer to the hill where they did the crucifixions than the pit where they buried the victims. Almost certainly the tombs of the wealthy (i.e., those who could afford their own tombs) were well away from where criminals were crucified. Conversely, the pit for crucifixion victims was certain to be somewhere nearby.

Joe: You don't if the Roans understood what messiah was, there's no reason to think the Romans were out to kill the messiah,you are also assert mg that they Romans can;t be flexible enough to allow burial o a leader if the whole country is going to erupt in war,

The messiah was the expected King of the Jews. We know that the Romans knew that, because it says so in Mark:

Mark 15:25 It was nine in the morning when they crucified him. 26 The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews.

I am saying the Romans crucified Jesus because of his claim to be King of the Jews (which might just be what others said of him, but that was clearly enough to get him crucified). I am saying the Romans wanted to stamp out any chance of rebellion, which is why Jesus was crucified. Crucifixion was the most dishonorable way to be executed, and Jesus was crucified to dishonour him. "Look Jews, this is your so-called King. Not much of a king is he? Don't even think about fllowing this loser!"

It would be counter to their purpose to then allow an honourable burial.

Joe: in one breath you argue he was important to kill without burial then turn around in the net breath and assert so unimportant they would not want to profane the burial ground,

The bit you quoted I was talking about Josephus' friends.

It was important to crucify without honourable burial anyone claiming to be king of the Jews. Were all Josephus' friends claiming to be king of the Jews?

I have not mentioned profaning the burial ground at all.

Joe: use your brain--they put the Roman temple at the site after AD 70 because they had the revolt of 66 they were trying to suppress Hebrew religion,which they were not doing back in 33 when Jesus died. In the mean time the site had become a major venerated sight,

Right, so they built a Roman temple just next to where they were doing the crucifixions, of which they would have been many more than usual after the revolt, presumably... That must be the case because Jesus' body was taken somewhere nearby, right? Even nearer than the usually pit for crucifixion victims.
Joe Hinman said…
he Pixie said...
Joe: No dodo that is sociology it;s called deep context try getting out of your chemistry ghetto some time.That would be like saying we talked about politics in UK and you did not explain the basis of magna charta so you must not really be from UK.

No, it is not like that. The creed is a historical narrative, it is saying this happened, then this happened, then this happened. It is specifically iterating the salient events during that period of time. And it omits the Empty Tomb, an event you describe as vital.

yes but that doesn't mean they have to recite it every time they talk about Jesus, the myther argument is if Paul didn't mention the empty tomb there was no empty tomb. the reason he doesn't is because it was not an issue they already knew it,


A discussion of UK politics is not doing that, not by a long way. This is more like describing a football game, but omitting the winning goal. Why do that? Well, because really it was a draw.

that's my point, magna charta is so basic to British democracy there's no need to talk about it,

Joe: that has nothing to do with what I'm saying, noting like what I'm saying. I am saying if you are going to make up an author for your gosling you want a big named guy so your gospel will have respect, why make up an unknown author that doesn't garner respect?,

And that is the best evidence you have that Luke wrote the gospel?

where did I say it was the best?


There are plenty of people who are not even named who are more unknown that Luke. And they did pick some bizarre people as supposed authors, such as Judas and Pilate. Luke likely appealed as he was not Jewish; this was a time when the gentile church was trying to distance itself from Judaism.

good God! duh if he wrote it doesn't matter if there are obscure people,duh no one would use an unknown person for psuopiographal name,

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: I'm not arguing his argument,

No, but he gives a great example of how people think with regards to religion. He is very intelligent, very well educated, and yet his ability to think critically just turns off when it comes to his religion.

you are having a time getting the drift on most of my arguments here. you are arguing from bigotry you can;t see how it;s fallacious


That may not be the case for you, but it shows it could easily have been the case for Luke. If Luke's critical thinking skills were similar to (or less than) a university professor and philosopher of science like Lennox, then it is reasonable to suppose he would accept the virgin birth as blindly as Lennox.

that is argument from bigotry, those kind of people are all like this your argument just says "If Im right I am right," you have to show some kind of propensity or your just whirligig in the dark,

Joe: I assume it's true because the community attests to it as a fact they all saw and knew.
Many ties in social sciences anthropologists and sociologists have gotten in trouble by assuming the locals are dumb shits who don't know what they have seen,

We do not know what they actually saw.

why not? just because they say stuff you don't want to hear

According to the earliest account we have, only the women saw it and they told no one. That account also suggests the disciples fled Jerusalem as soon as Jesus was arrested (Mark 14:27). That is a very shaky basis for the community to attest it is true.

that is wrong on many levels,

(1) MARK IS NOT THE EARLIEST THE ACCOUNTS IN LUKE AND mAT ARE JUST EARLY

(2) Ms of Mark include readings that say the women did tell people, footnote on Bible gateway

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16&version=ESV

"Mark 16:9 Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9–20 immediately after verse 8. At least one manuscript inserts additional material after verse 14; some manuscripts include after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. These manuscripts then continue with verses"

(3) the mysterious men say he rose fro the dead,


Let us assume these were intelligent, well-educated people. Let us suppose their ability to think critically was comparable to a university professor and philosopher of science like Lennox... Then it is reasonable to suppose they would accept the Empty Tomb blindly.

you are asserting they accepted it indelibly because you are prejudice you are begging the question,they accepted it because they saw it,it was knowingly not blindingly you are rejectigit blindly

Joe: you don't know, Jo doesn't say "Thea guys were not leaders," you do not konw that,you are asserting it

He says there were among many captives, and we know the Romans let them down, so it seems likely, but let us allow the possibility they were not. Where does that leave us? That leaves us with what might be a precedent for Jesus given an honourable burial and it might not.

what sees likely to you is not historical

Meanwhile, we know Jesus was crucified for treason, as a rebel against Rome. We know the Jews of the time venerated their saints and martyrs. We can be reasonably sure the Romans would not want that to happen for Jesus, and so had a good motive for not allowing honourable burial.

your argument is they would not allow him to be burred because he was an enemy but they would risk a full scale a Jewish revolt?

Is that a fair summary?

no
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: listen and try to learn something this is not chemistry,if the Jews profaned the day on Passover they would riot, they would fight, that would erupt in revolt the Romans would slaughterer many of them, the Romans wanted to Alkaid that because it's not orderly, it is not keeping order to have to massacre people all the time.

Not sure what your point is. If you are talking about Jesus being taken down from the cross before Passover, I agree that that is highly plausible.

then why do you keep arguing against it?

It is the honorable burial that is not. It stretches credibility that Joseph of Arimathea's tomb was nearer to the hill where they did the crucifixions than the pit where they buried the victims.

No what teaches credulity is the idea that the Romans woudl wreck the Passover, they would not do that. Burring Jesus in a common grave would profane Passover, an executed man would have to be buried properly by sun set or it's over, they used the only tomb they could get,


Joe Hinman said…
It is the honourable burial that is not. It stretches credibility that Joseph of Arimathea's tomb was nearer to the hill where they did the crucifixions than the pit where they buried the victims. Almost certainly the tombs of the wealthy (i.e., those who could afford their own tombs) were well away from where criminals were crucified. Conversely, the pit for crucifixion victims was certain to be somewhere nearby.

Ray Brown says Jo loaned his tomb because it was important to bury him properly to prevent profaning the day,



Joe: You don't if the Romans understood what messiah was, there's no reason to think the Romans were out to kill the messiah,you are also assert mg that they Romans can;t be flexible enough to allow burial o a leader if the whole country is going to erupt in war,

The messiah was the expected King of the Jews. We know that the Romans knew that, because it says so in Mark:

they had a king he was a Roman pet,

Mark 15:25 It was nine in the morning when they crucified him. 26 The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews.

that was not a formal charge, it was mocking,the Romans crucified him as a favor to the sanhedrin because he threatened their political power,

I am saying the Romans crucified Jesus because of his claim to be King of the Jews (which might just be what others said of him, but that was clearly enough to get him crucified).

that';s not it, Pilate says he's not guilty he would not do that if he was a threat t Rome

I am saying the Romans wanted to stamp out any chance of rebellion, which is why Jesus was crucified.

profaning Passover would do the very same thing,so to profane the day but not burrying Jesus so they would not have a Jewish revolt is stupid because it would result in a revolt,

Crucifixion was the most dishonorable way to be executed, and Jesus was crucified to dishonor him. "Look Jews, this is your so-called King. Not much of a king is he? Don't even think about fllowing this loser!"

that is neither here nor there

It would be counter to their purpose to then allow an honourable burial.


I just explained to you why that would result in the thing they are trying to avoid,

Joe: in one breath you argue he was important to kill without burial then turn around in the net breath and assert so unimportant they would not want to profane the burial ground,

The bit you quoted I was talking about Josephus' friends.

It was important to crucify without honourable burial anyone claiming to be king of the Jews. Were all Josephus' friends claiming to be king of the Jews?

no they were not threatened by anyone saying he wasking, Herod was kingof tehJewstehy werenot threatened by harod

Joe Hinman said…
I have not mentioned profaning the burial ground at all.

I did, Ray Brown does

Joe: use your brain--they put the Roman temple at the site after AD 70 because they had the revolt of 66 they were trying to suppress Hebrew religion,which they were not doing back in 33 when Jesus died. In the mean time the site had become a major venerated sight,

Right, so they built a Roman temple just next to where they were doing the crucifixions, of which they would have been many more than usual after the revolt, presumably... That must be the case because Jesus' body was taken somewhere nearby, right? Even nearer than the usually pit for crucifixion victims.

they venerated that sight straight through from the day he as criticized to after 135. It is possible that the Romans didn't even know why it was a special sight,they just knew it was,

Pux you don;'t know enough about this topic, read Ray Brown Death of the Messiah,
The Pixie said…
Joe: yes but that doesn't mean they have to recite it every time they talk about Jesus, the myther argument is if Paul didn't mention the empty tomb there was no empty tomb. the reason he doesn't is because it was not an issue they already knew it,

That is exactly what a creed is - something that gets recited the same every time. If it was missing from the creed, it was not part of the narrative.

Joe: that's my point, magna charta is so basic to British democracy there's no need to talk about it,

The crucifixion is basic to the passion narrative, but that gets mentioned. Why? Because that actually happened!

Joe: where did I say it was the best?

It was implicit in that it was the only evidence you gave.

Joe: good God! duh if he wrote it doesn't matter if there are obscure people,duh no one would use an unknown person for psuopiographal name,

Right. They chose a reasonably prominent gentile. Can you name three gentiles who would have made a better choice if it was an anonymous author wanting to publish a new gospel for the gentile church?

Joe: you are having a time getting the drift on most of my arguments here. you are arguing from bigotry you can;t see how it;s fallacious

The simple fact is that a university professor at a top university who is also a philosopher of science has gone on the public stage and presented his best argument for the virgin birth - the author of Luke says we can be certain it happened so we can be certain it happened.

That necessarily means at least some Christians turn off their critical thinking when it comes to their own religion. We know Lennox does. It is not a stretch to say it is true of some others too. That necessarily means that that could be the case for Luke.

Now, you claim this is fallacious. Why?

Joe: why not? just because they say stuff you don't want to hear

We do not know because we were not there. Are you aware of how history is done, Joe? We cannot have absolute certainty. Some bits we can be more sure of than others, depending on the evidence. We do not know what they saw, and and evidence is not great, given we do not even have first hand accounts.

Joe: (1) MARK IS NOT THE EARLIEST THE ACCOUNTS IN LUKE AND mAT ARE JUST EARLY

Most Biblical scholars date Luke and Matthew to some decades later than Mark. They may be based on earlier accounts, but we do not have the original, and we have no reason to suppose they are faithful copies. Mark is the earliest that we have.

Joe: (2) Ms of Mark include readings that say the women did tell people, footnote on Bible gateway
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16&version=ESV


What makes you think that that is the original version?

We know later Christians added to the gospels. John 21 and the Pericope Adulterae are two examples. In Mark we have two possible ends (besides ending at 16:8), so at least one must be a later addition.

Both the additional ends in Mark seek to harmonise Mark with the later gospels, and ignore the plain fact that Mark said Jesus went directly to Galilee. The most likely explanation is that both are additions added some time after Matthew was written.

Joe: (3) the mysterious men say he rose fro the dead,

Sure; that Jesus had risen was undoubtedly the belief of the community from very early.

Joe: you are asserting they accepted it indelibly because you are prejudice you are begging the question,they accepted it because they saw it,it was knowingly not blindingly you are rejectigit blindly

Thank goodness you are so open-minded about this, and are looking at all the possibilities with a critical eye. Oh, wait. You are blindingly accepting it as true.
The Pixie said…
Joe: what sees likely to you is not historical

Is that the best you have? I presented a case for why it is probably. That is how history works. Unless you can present a counter argument, then my argument stands. As far as we know, the friends of Josephus who taken down from the crosses were not claimants to the Jewish throne.

Joe: your argument is they would not allow him to be burred because he was an enemy but they would risk a full scale a Jewish revolt?

No, they were stopping a full-scale revolt, by executing anyone identified as a claimant to the Jewish throne in the most dishonourable way possible.

Joe: then why do you keep arguing against it?

I am not. I am arguing against an honourable burial. If Jesus was taken down - which is plausible - he will have been buried dishonourably, in a pit for the crucifixion. The Roman would undoubtedly have such a pit nearby for that purpose, given the numbers of Jews they crucified.

Joe: No what teaches credulity is the idea that the Romans woudl wreck the Passover, they would not do that. Burring Jesus in a common grave would profane Passover, an executed man would have to be buried properly by sun set or it's over, they used the only tomb they could get,

What does "buried properly" mean in this context? Jewish custom only required the body to be in the ground.

People die all the time. If a "proper burial" takes any significant amount of time, then the Passover will be profaned every year. If it takes an hour to do it properly, they will frequently be a death within 60 minutes of the passover, and so a proper burial will be impossible. As a matter of practicality, the "proper burial" has to be quick. It cannot be any more than getting the body in the ground.

The gospels even allude to this. The women go to the tomb to wrap the body and with gallons of oil to annoint it, because there had not been time for the "buried properly". There had only been time to get the body into the ground.

The Romans did not wreck the passover. They allowed the body to be taken down and put in the ground. But in the pit for crucifixion victims, near to the site of the crucifixion, not for an honourable burial in the tomb of a rich man on the other side of the city.

Joe: Ray Brown says Jo loaned his tomb because it was important to bury him properly to prevent profaning the day,

So why would burial in a communal grave for crucifixion profane the day?

Joe: they had a king he was a Roman pet,

Are you actually aware what the messiah was to the Jews? Go look it up.

Joe: that was not a formal charge, it was mocking,the Romans crucified him as a favor to the sanhedrin because he threatened their political power,

What? Jesus was crucified, therefore it was for the Roman charge of treason. And the Bible says the Jews proclaimed him as the messiah. Again, I suggest you look up what the messiah was to the Jews.

If Jesus was convicted of blasphemy against the Jewish religion, and not treason against Rome, he would have been stoned to death, not crucified (he could have been convicted of both, of course). We know that because the Bible is clear on the punishment for blasphemy, and this is how James was executed. James was not hailed as the messiah, of course, so of no interest to the Romans.

Joe: that';s not it, Pilate says he's not guilty he would not do that if he was a threat t Rome

Really? Who witnessed that conversation, Joe? See, this is what I am talking about with Lennox. You assume because it is in the gospel it must be true. The reality is there is no way the early Christians would know what was said between Pilate and Jesus, and later gospels had an agenda to sell Christianity to the Romans, so strove to put Pilate in a good light.

We know Jesus was crucified, so we know he was found guilty of treason. The Bible says he was hailed as a messiah, which tells us why he was found guilty of treason.
The Pixie said…
Joe: profaning Passover would do the very same thing,so to profane the day but not burrying Jesus so they would not have a Jewish revolt is stupid because it would result in a revolt,

So they allowed the body to be taken down, and buried in the nearby pit that was there for the purpose. Body quickly in the ground, Passover saved.

Joe: no they were not threatened by anyone saying he wasking, Herod was kingof tehJewstehy werenot threatened by harod

Seriously, look up what the messiah was to the Jews. They really did not think Herod was the messiah!

Joe: they venerated that sight straight through from the day he as criticized to after 135. It is possible that the Romans didn't even know why it was a special sight,they just knew it was,

How do you know they venerated the site from the day he was crucified?
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: yes but that doesn't mean they have to recite it every time they talk about Jesus, the myther argument is if Paul didn't mention the empty tomb there was no empty tomb. the reason he doesn't is because it was not an issue they already knew it,

That is exactly what a creed is - something that gets recited the same every time. If it was missing from the creed, it was not part of the narrative.

No. you do not recite the creed every time you refer to it

Joe: that's my point, magna charta is so basic to British democracy there's no need to talk about it,

The crucifixion is basic to the passion narrative, but that gets mentioned. Why? Because that actually happened!

Mentioned when relevant but he does not go into detail about it, they know what it is, he does't ever explain how it works,



Joe: where did I say it was the best?

It was implicit in that it was the only evidence you gave.

I did not want to get off on that topic,

Joe: good God! duh if he wrote it doesn't matter if there are obscure people,duh no one would use an unknown person for psuopiographal name,

Right. They chose a reasonably prominent gentile. Can you name three gentiles who would have made a better choice if it was an anonymous author wanting to publish a new gospel for the gentile church?

No need to have a gentile author. why make up that he's gentile?

Joe: you are having a time getting the drift on most of my arguments here. you are arguing from bigotry you can;t see how it;s fallacious

The simple fact is that a university professor at a top university who is also a philosopher of science has gone on the public stage and presented his best argument for the virgin birth - the author of Luke says we can be certain it happened so we can be certain it happened.

I was arguing for Lukan authorship not the V-birth

That necessarily means at least some Christians turn off their critical thinking when it comes to their own religion. We know Lennox does. It is not a stretch to say it is true of some others too. That necessarily means that that could be the case for Luke.

Now, you claim this is fallacious. Why?

Because you are arguing from guilt by association-one Christian does this so they all do it-- and black is white slide. BIWS = black has quality x, white has quality x, therefore,
black is white


Joe Hinman said…
Joe: why not? just because they say stuff you don't want to hear

We do not know because we were not there. Are you aware of how history is done, Joe? We cannot have absolute certainty.

I was Ph.D. candidate in History program for 12 years,I know a lot more about how history works than you do,

Some bits we can be more sure of than others, depending on the evidence. We do not know what they saw, and and evidence is not great, given we do not even have first hand accounts.

that is not a reason to assume we know nothing

Joe: (1) MARK IS NOT THE EARLIEST THE ACCOUNTS IN LUKE AND mAT ARE JUST EARLY

Most Biblical scholars date Luke and Matthew to some decades later than Mark. They may be based on earlier accounts, but we do not have the original, and we have no reason to suppose they are faithful copies. Mark is the earliest that we have.

we have whole Ms and.or large fragments of Gospel of the Savior, Egerton II,GPete,GTom. and several others, these date to time equivalent to or earlier than Mark. The readings of the PMPN date to mid century, AD50 or so.How any times MustI tell you that?

Joe Hinman said…
The Romans did not wreck the passover. They allowed the body to be taken down and put in the ground. But in the pit for crucifixion victims, near to the site of the crucifixion, not for an honourable burial in the tomb of a rich man on the other side of the city.

No Baht is not what they did because THAT WOULD WRECK THE PASSOVER, THEY HAD TO BE PUT IN A PROPER GAVE BEING IN A MASS GAVE WITH OTHER VICTIMS IS NOT PERMITTED!!!!

why do you thin Joe had to got his friends down even if they were dead? If just stuffing them in any hole was god enough they were dead just let them be,


Joe: Ray Brown says Jo loaned his tomb because it was important to bury him properly to prevent profaning the day,

So why would burial in a communal grave for crucifixion profane the day?

because it;snot a proper buarriel

Joe: they had a king he was a Roman pet,

Are you actually aware what the messiah was to the Jews? Go look it up.

Joe: that was not a formal charge, it was mocking,the Romans crucified him as a favor to the sanhedrin because he threatened their political power,

What? Jesus was crucified, therefore it was for the Roman charge of treason.

No it was not! that was to able eh Romans to allow it


And the Bible says the Jews proclaimed him as the messiah. Again, I suggest you look up what the messiah was to the Jews.

that does not prove it was the charge
Joe Hinman said…
on the charge against Jesus, the stack exchange has two goo answersL

There wasn't really one, there were just a few supposed reasons. The certain Jews who wanted to see him executed claimed it was for blasphemy in making himself out to be God, or alternatively for supposing him to have violated the Sabbath.

Yet the rulers of the Jews only had derivative powers granted by the Romans and didn't have the authority to actually execute criminals, so they needed to pass this task along to the Romans, so they delivered him to Pilate under the accusation that as someone who has made himself out to be king, he is not loyal to Caesar.

Upon actually trying the case, Pilate admits that he found no fault in him, however ultimately Jesus' conviction was a matter of political expediency. The Jews were pressuring him and he was more interested in keeping the peace.

It's comparable to police shutting down a peaceful protest on the charge that they lack a noise permit but really because it upsets a favored politician.

shareimprove this answer
edited Jun 7 '14 at 15:52
answered Mar 5 '13 at 1:54

Ben Mordecai
2,6111233


"The "subverting our nation" charge may be a religious charge, in which Pilate is, of course, not concerned except with how it interferes with ruling the region. The statement in Luke 23:5 seems to be the religious leaders pointing out that this is causing trouble about which the Romans should be concerned. Anyone that could draw crowds of thousands of people in relatively remote places would naturally be a concern for established authorities, especially given the Jewish history of rebellion (e.g., see Esther 3:8--even after the Babylonian scattering, they were recognized as being non-conformists--and Ezra 4:12-16, speaking of Jerusalem as historically a rebellious city)."
The Pixie said…
Joe: No. you do not recite the creed every time you refer to it

He did not "refer" to it, he recited it.

Joe: No need to have a gentile author. why make up that he's gentile?

Luke was written when Christianity was shaking off its Jewish roots, and so claiming a gentile author would have made sense.

Joe: I was arguing for Lukan authorship not the V-birth

Okay. The evidence for or against Lukan authorship seems pretty even to me. The virgin birth, on the other hand...

Joe: Because you are arguing from guilt by association-one Christian does this so they all do it-- and black is white slide. BIWS = black has quality x, white has quality x, therefore,
black is white


That is what people are like. Look up "sunk cost fallacy". When people have a big commitment to an idea they tend to ignore anything that challenges that position. Lennox is a perfect example of that, as he is clearly very intelligent and very well educated, which indicates that is a problem right across the population.

Given people in general behave like that, it is likely that if the virgin birth was made up, then it would soon become embedded as fact in the community.

Joe: I was Ph.D. candidate in History program for 12 years,I know a lot more about how history works than you do,

So you should know that we cannot be absolutely certain of any of it.

Joe: that is not a reason to assume we know nothing

Yes it is. NOTHING is certain when we talk about what happened 2000 years ago, and therefore we know nothing. We can be fairly certain of much, but we cannot know any of it is true.

Given you were a Ph.D. candidate for 12 years, you really should know this already.

Joe: we have whole Ms and.or large fragments of Gospel of the Savior, Egerton II,GPete,GTom. and several others, these date to time equivalent to or earlier than Mark. The readings of the PMPN date to mid century, AD50 or so.How any times MustI tell you that?

Gospel of the Savior: I understand that to be later. What is your reason for giving it an early date?

Egerton II: I understand this to be about a century later

GPete: This may originally date from earlier, but may not, and has been heavily revised later. What we have, again, dates from rather later than Mark, given we do have have the original version.

GTom: As far as I know, this has no references to Jesus' life, other than a mention of Mary, so while it may be older (and may not), it does not support any claims about what Jesus did or what happened to him.

Of the material that we have and that discusses Jesus' life, Mark is the oldest. How many times must I tell you that?

Joe: No Baht is not what they did because THAT WOULD WRECK THE PASSOVER, THEY HAD TO BE PUT IN A PROPER GAVE BEING IN A MASS GAVE WITH OTHER VICTIMS IS NOT PERMITTED!!!!

This is nonsense. It was usual practice to share tombs! Look up "rock-cut tombs in ancient Israel".

Joe: why do you thin Joe had to got his friends down even if they were dead? If just stuffing them in any hole was god enough they were dead just let them be,

Two points. Firstly they were not dead, two died subsequently, but one recovered. Secondly, it was clearly preferable to give them an honourable burial. However, that does not imply the Passover would be wrecked if a Jew was buried in a communal tomb.

Especially as the usual practive among the wealthy was to be burialed in a family, i.e., a tomb shared with others!

Joe: because it;snot a proper buarriel

So you assert, but I see nothing to indicate what counts as a proper burial.

Just so you know, the salient text is this:

Deuteronomy 21:22 If someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole, 23 you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse. You must not desecrate the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
The Pixie said…
Joe: No it was not! that was to able eh Romans to allow it

So why was James stoned to death?

The reality is that the Romans let the Jews police their own blasphemy laws. If Jesus was accused of blasphemy only, the Romans would have left it to the Jews to deal with it, just as they did with James, and the Jews would have had him stoned to death.

The reality is that Jesus was a threat to Roman rule in Israel. He entered Jerusalem as the messiah, which was understood to be the new king of the Jews, the one who would throw off the shackles of the oppressors (and the puppet king Herod was certainly not the messiah!). That was the last the the Romans wanted, so they executed him.

Mark is very clear what the charge was:

Mark 15:26 The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews.

And soon after makes clear the link between messiah and king of the Jews:

Mark 15:32 Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

But hey, you studied history for twelve years. What do you think "messiah" meant to the Jews of the time?

Joe: that does not prove it was the charge

Sure, it does not "prove" it; it happened 2000 years ago, we cannot know for sure what happened. But it is by far the most likely explanation. And it is far more likely than Jesus being executed for blasphemy, because the Romans did not give a hoot about Jesus blaspheming the religion of the Jews.

Worth pointing out that Pilate was particularly known for being insensitive to the Jewish religion, and indeed inclined to actions that would insult it. Josephus recounts Pilate having a load to effigies brought into Jerusalem at night by soldiers, and how a riot almost ensued. The idea that he would help the Jews with a charge of blaspheme is nonsense.

The idea that he would not want to wreck the Passover strains what we know of him, but perhaps he did have sense enough for that.
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: No. you do not recite the creed every time you refer to it

He did not "refer" to it, he recited it.

No he didn't, it's called "creedal" statement it's not full fledged creed,it's a testament functions as a creed but it's not a a full fledged creed and it's not complete.

Joe: No need to have a gentile author. why make up that he's gentile?

Luke was written when Christianity was shaking off its Jewish roots, and so claiming a gentile author would have made sense.

It was still an issue in their day weather gentiles had to circularize,it would be another century or maybe half century before the stage you are talking about.It was the decade after the destruction of the temple they are just now seeing the faith exerted as a separate entity from Judaism,

Joe: I was arguing for Lukan authorship not the V-birth

Okay. The evidence for or against Lukan authorship seems pretty even to me. The virgin birth, on the other hand...

Joe: Because you are arguing from guilt by association-one Christian does this so they all do it-- and black is white slide. BIWS = black has quality x, white has quality x, therefore,
black is white

That is what people are like. Look up "sunk cost fallacy". When people have a big commitment to an idea they tend to ignore anything that challenges that position. Lennox is a perfect example of that, as he is clearly very intelligent and very well educated, which indicates that is a problem right across the population.

cuts both ways, you are risking hell to rebel agaisnt God
Joe Hinman said…
Given people in general behave like that, it is likely that if the virgin birth was made up, then it would soon become embedded as fact in the community.

you can't base history on that kind of conjecture, that's not the only veritable,

Joe: I was Ph.D. candidate in History program for 12 years,I know a lot more about how history works than you do,

So you should know that we cannot be absolutely certain of any of it.

I'm not arguing for absolute certainty, i'm arguing for best argument. rational warrat.

Joe: that is not a reason to assume we know nothing

Yes it is. NOTHING is certain when we talk about what happened 2000 years ago, and therefore we know nothing. We can be fairly certain of much, but we cannot know any of it is true.

there is no certainty, when you are in a coma you are out of it. when I was in my coma I was liking another life I thought was real. ,we do not know everything,

Given you were a Ph.D. candidate for 12 years, you really should know this already.

you know shit about history,you quoting popular truisms you get in 2100 classes,no historian I;ve known would ever argue for absolute knowledge of history. History is probable.
Joe Hinman said…
Joe: we have whole Ms and.or large fragments of Gospel of the Savior, Egerton II,GPete,GTom. and several others, these date to time equivalent to or earlier than Mark. The readings of the PMPN date to mid century, AD50 or so.How any times Must I tell you that?

Gospel of the Savior: I understand that to be later. What is your reason for giving it an early date?

that assumed in the days before they started trying to use non canonical sources as history,Brown was one of the people who changed that. as for G of S I;ve seen Charles W. Hendrick,refer to it.

the context is lost gospels dated to period earlier than canicakl

Hendrick:
Charles W. Hendrick, quoted in Bible Review, (June 2002), 20-31; 46-47

professor who discovered the lost Gospel of the Savior tells us

"The Gospel of the Saviour, too. fits this description. Contrary' to popular opinion, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not included m the canon simply because they were the earliest gospels or because they were eyewitness accounts. Some non canonical gospels are dated roughly to the same period, and the canonical gospels and other early Christian accounts appear to rely on earlier reports. Thus, as far as the physical evidence is concerned, the canonical gospels do not take precedence over the noncanonical gospels. The fragments of John, Thomas and theEgerton Gospel share the distinction of being the earliest extant pieces of Christian writing known. And although the existing manuscript evidence for Thomas dates to the mid-second century, the scholars who first published the Greek fragments held open the possibility that it was actually composed in the first century, which would put it around the time John was composed"


Egerton II: I understand this to be about a century later

old view need to read Koester,all reappraised,


GPete: This may originally date from earlier, but may not, and has been heavily revised later. What we have, again, dates from rather later than Mark, given we do have have the original version.

PMPN is consensus Brown made his rep proving it's presence in GePete, it;s the main one,

Joe Hinman said…
GTom: As far as I know, this has no references to Jesus' life, other than a mention of Mary, so while it may be older (and may not), it does not support any claims about what Jesus did or what happened to him.

It's a saying source that doesn't mean it's not relevant,

Of the material that we have and that discusses Jesus' life, Mark is the oldest. How many times must I tell you that?

the saying sources are sayings by Jesus, there are hints about his life in them, go read Koester, I'll be saying more about this on Monday.

Joe: No Baht is not what they did because THAT WOULD WRECK THE PASSOVER, THEY HAD TO BE PUT IN A PROPER GAVE BEING IN A MASS GAVE WITH OTHER VICTIMS IS NOT PERMITTED!!!!

This is nonsense. It was usual practice to share tombs! Look up "rock-cut tombs in ancient Israel".

no it wasn;t. why did Josephus take his friends down? without the proper payers and stuff it would have been profane, see Brown Death of the Messiah he has a chapter on it,

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: why do you thin Joe had to got his friends down even if they were dead? If just stuffing them in any hole was god enough they were dead just let them be,

Two points. Firstly they were not dead, two died subsequently, but one recovered. Secondly, it was clearly preferable to give them an honourable burial. However, that does not imply the Passover would be wrecked if a Jew was buried in a communal tomb.

He did not know they were not dead, the odds were they would be by the time he got then,yes it does see Brown

https://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FR91103.TXT


"Writing in the> Catholic Biblical Quarterly on Mark's account of
the burial of Jesus (15:42-47), Raymond E. Brown, S.S., contends that
Joseph of Arimathea was not an adherent of Jesus, but buried him
anyway, ignominiously, in a criminal's grave, out of respect for the
approaching Sabbath, and also in compliance with Deut 21:22-23 which
(as it had come to be interpreted) commanded the burial of crucified
criminals before sunset of the day of execution.1"





Especially as the usual practive among the wealthy was to be burialed in a family, i.e., a tomb shared with others!

Joe: because it;snot a proper buarriel

So you assert, but I see nothing to indicate what counts as a proper burial.

Just so you know, the salient text is this:

Brown

Deuteronomy 21:22 If someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole, 23 you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse. You must not desecrate the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

that does not tell us how it was interpreted Jesus day Brown wa a major scholar he has a whole chapter on it,

1/13/2018 09:02:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
I'm closing this topic because it will overlap with Monday


The Pixie said...
Joe: No it was not! that was to able eh Romans to allow it

So why was James stoned to death?

The reality is that the Romans let the Jews police their own blasphemy laws. If Jesus was accused of blasphemy only, the Romans would have left it to the Jews to deal with it, just as they did with James, and the Jews would have had him stoned to death.


the Romams dod not kill James teh SanhedrindidkandJesus too,Joe dsoes not getspecifoic aboitcahrgre
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws,"



1/13/2018 09:20:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
The reality is that Jesus was a threat to Roman rule in Israel. He entered Jerusalem as the messiah, which was understood to be the new king of the Jews, the one who would throw off the shackles of the oppressors (and the puppet king Herod was certainly not the messiah!). That was the last the the Romans wanted, so they executed him.



Mark is very clear what the charge was:

Mark 15:26 The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews.

And soon after makes clear the link between messiah and king of the Jews:

Mark 15:32 Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

you are assuming that putting it on the sign makes it the charge it does not, that was a cover it was never pushed it;ps nto what they got him,

Look at mark closely:

15 Very early in the morning the leading priests, the elders, and the teachers of religious law—the entire high council[a]—met to discuss their next step. They bound Jesus, led him away, and took him to Pilate, the Roman governor.

2 Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?”

Jesus replied, “You have said it.”

3 Then the leading priests kept accusing him of many crimes, 4 and Pilate asked him, “Aren’t you going to answer them? What about all these charges they are bringing against you?” 5 But Jesus said nothing, much to Pilate’s surprise.

6 Now it was the governor’s custom each year during the Passover celebration to release one prisoner—anyone the people requested. 7 One of the prisoners at that time was Barabbas, a revolutionary who had committed murder in an uprising. 8 The crowd went to Pilate and asked him to release a prisoner as usual.

9 “Would you like me to release to you this ‘King of the Jews’?” Pilate asked. 10 (For he realized by now that the leading priests had arrested Jesus out of envy.) 11 But at this point the leading priests stirred up the crowd to demand the release of Barabbas instead of Jesus. 12 Pilate asked them, “Then what should I do with this man you call the king of the Jews?”

13 They shouted back, “Crucify him!”

14 “Why?” Pilate demanded. “What crime has he committed?”

But the mob roared even louder, “Crucify him!”

15 So to pacify the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He ordered Jesus flogged with a lead-tipped whip, then turned him over to the Roman soldiers to be crucified.

notice it says an d other charges,notice is says Pilate did;t buy it, it's not why he waskilled





But hey, you studied history for twelve years. What do you think "messiah" meant to the Jews of the time?

Joe: that does not prove it was the charge

Sure, it does not "prove" it; it happened 2000 years ago, we cannot know for sure what happened. But it is by far the most likely explanation. And it is far more likely than Jesus being executed for blasphemy, because the Romans did not give a hoot about Jesus blaspheming the religion of the Jews.




Worth pointing out that Pilate was particularly known for being insensitive to the Jewish religion, and indeed inclined to actions that would insult it. Josephus recounts Pilate having a load to effigies brought into Jerusalem at night by soldiers, and how a riot almost ensued. The idea that he would help the Jews with a charge of blaspheme is nonsense.

The idea that he would not want to wreck the Passover strains what we know of him, but perhaps he did have sense enough for that.
Joe Hinman said…
Sure, it does not "prove" it; it happened 2000 years ago, we cannot know for sure what happened. But it is by far the most likely explanation. And it is far more likely than Jesus being executed for blasphemy, because the Romans did not give a hoot about Jesus blaspheming the religion of the Jews.

It's not more likely that jesus was killed because he was a threat to rome;s more liely he was victim of the Sahedre's ideology




Worth pointing out that Pilate was particularly known for being insensitive to the Jewish religion, and indeed inclined to actions that would insult it. Josephus recounts Pilate having a load to effigies brought into Jerusalem at night by soldiers, and how a riot almost ensued. The idea that he would help the Jews with a charge of blaspheme is nonsense.

The idea that he would not want to wreck the Passover strains what we know of him, but perhaps he did have sense enough for that.


that is really stupid, you can;t see the difference in caring about their religion and no wanting your administration to be characterized by chaos and violence that;suit I did not say he cared abotu thier reoiion it wasa career movem he was covering his ass,
Joe Hinman said…
this topic is closed

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

Dr. John Lennox: Video - Christmas for Doubters

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

William Lane Craig on "If Mind is Reducible to Brain Function, Why Trust Thought?"

The Meaning of the Manger

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition

Fine Tuning Bait and Switch