Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-13-2017 12:02 AM
303 online now:
DrJones*, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 301 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,060 Year: 28,666/21,208 Month: 732/1,847 Week: 107/475 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Author Topic:   Science proves that the tomb of Jesus (Christ ?)and James the Just have been found.
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 61 of 110 (823902)
11-19-2017 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by ringo
11-05-2017 2:08 PM


Re: Conclusion
ringo writes:

You'd want to know the truth, wouldn't you? So why do YOU get bent out of shape if people want to know the truth about Jesus?

First, I don't trust the sources. I believe (insanely I'll admit) that there is a spiritual war being fought on this planet. These debunkers have a major ax to grind and are not at all interested in Jesus being real--they go out of their way to disprove and discredit the stories. Granted they have an evidenced and persuasive argument---but only persuasive to those predisposed to finding an excuse why Christianity, as marketed, is bunk. Perhaps critics could and will accuse me of confirmation bias. And at the end of the day that's what it always gets down to, isn't it? I want and need a God Who is on my side...not an expose of how religions have manipulated and controlled a world for ages.

Perhaps they are slaying a sacred cow right in front of me...but their motive seems against what my motive is. Yes, I suspect that there is a diabolical evil behind the attempts at expose.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by ringo, posted 11-05-2017 2:08 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Tangle, posted 11-19-2017 9:04 AM Phat has responded
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 11-19-2017 1:34 PM Phat has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5234
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 62 of 110 (823913)
11-19-2017 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Phat
11-19-2017 3:13 AM


Re: Conclusion
Phat writes:

Perhaps they are slaying a sacred cow right in front of me...but their motive seems against what my motive is. Yes, I suspect that there is a diabolical evil behind the attempts at expose.

Good grief....I'm now diabolical. This is very, very primitive stuff


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Phat, posted 11-19-2017 3:13 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Phat, posted 11-19-2017 9:10 AM Tangle has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 63 of 110 (823914)
11-19-2017 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Tangle
11-19-2017 9:04 AM


Re: Conclusion
I've never said that you were diabolical. I am not referring to you, Tangle. I told you how I felt about you on the other topic. I am referring to the New Atheists...Carrier et al. You have never had an ax to grind against Jesus...only against organized religion.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Tangle, posted 11-19-2017 9:04 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Tangle, posted 11-19-2017 9:45 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5234
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 64 of 110 (823918)
11-19-2017 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Phat
11-19-2017 9:10 AM


Re: Conclusion
Phat writes:

You have never had an ax to grind against Jesus...only against organized religion.

You think Dan Dennet, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris et al have an axe to grind against Jesus? Wow have you missed the point. They're intellectual atheists, they have nothing against Jesus, it's not personal.

'Struth, you believer always find new ways to surprise me.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Phat, posted 11-19-2017 9:10 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13965
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 65 of 110 (823930)
11-19-2017 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Phat
11-19-2017 3:04 AM


Re: Metaphors Galore
Phat writes:

I would cash it of course. The morality of that particular messenger does not concern me so much as his ability to do his job well, which is to bring me my cheques.


So why is the messenger Jesus different? Why do you care about his morality? Why do you throw his cheques away? Or why do you throw his bills away? Why is that messenger more important than his message?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Phat, posted 11-19-2017 3:04 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13965
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 66 of 110 (823932)
11-19-2017 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Phat
11-19-2017 3:13 AM


Re: Conclusion
Phat writes:

These debunkers have a major ax to grind and are not at all interested in Jesus being real--they go out of their way to disprove and discredit the stories.


Nonsense. I don't believe Jesus is real and it's for the same reason I don't believe leprechauns are real. I don't go out of my way to discredit anything and it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if Jesus and/or leprechauns were real.

Phat writes:

Granted they have an evidenced and persuasive argument---but only persuasive to those predisposed to finding an excuse why Christianity, as marketed, is bunk.


Nonsense. I was raised Christian. Almost everybody I know is a Christian. My life would be simpler if I could believe.

Phat writes:

I want and need a God Who is on my side...not an expose of how religions have manipulated and controlled a world for ages.


So you're not interested in the truth at all. You just want to go on deluding yourself.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Phat, posted 11-19-2017 3:13 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Phat, posted 11-20-2017 2:39 AM ringo has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1024
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 67 of 110 (823942)
11-19-2017 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Phat
11-19-2017 3:04 AM


"Mariamne is the name of Mary Magdalene...that’s the missing piece, that’s the Ringo"
Phat said:

quote:

I must say, however, that I don't follow your deductive reasoning as easily as you yourself do, and I suspect that nobody else does either. It is a strange way to learn about things

Theodoric offered a link that ridiculed the Mary Magdalene Talpiot Tomb identification and it was based around a different reading of the Greek lapidary inscription letters, on the tomb, which would not only would show a much more common form of "Mary" (as opposed to the super duper rare "Mariamne" form), but it would also not be a match for the certain Mary-form used by a limited number of 2nd century Gnostics.

During the press conference to the documentary, James Cameron said:

quote:

according to certain Christian texts, of the early Christian texts such as the Acts of Phillip and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Mariamne is the name of Mary Magdalene. So that’s the missing piece, that’s the Ringo, and that’s what set this whole investigation in motion


What if we didn't know that Ringo's real name was Richard Starkey?

Richard Starkey is Mary Magdalene.

Mariamne is the equivalent to Ringo.

The Acts of Phillip, Gospel of Mary Magdalene , and Hippolytus texts have variants (of the same texts) that say Mariamme in one and then Mariamne on the other.

I found it interesting that Richard Bauckham stated that he felt Mariamme in these texts would very likely have been an OLD 1st century use that was maintained in later texts. (However, he felt that the Mariamne form would have simply been a post 200 AD textual corruption, plus he had a few grammatical issues for the 1st century Talpiot Tomb that were relevant and would have caused spelling for the Talpiot Mary/Mariamene to be somewhat different from the later Miriamne).

He was admitting that the Gnostic texts - ALONE! (alone, unless one wants to say that the Orthodox Hippolytus using the "Miriamne" spelling to refer to early Gnostic beliefs count as his own rendering as opposed to a reference to the Gnostic spelling in their texts) - would have preserved the actual nickname of Mary Magdalene that the immediate 1st century Jewish Christians used.

Understand his conclusion.

This (sort of) conservative-ish scholar feels that the Gnostics (and not the Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant theological line!) of the 2nd century had a form of the name for Mary Magdalene that the Apostles themselves (or perhaps some related folk slightly later in the 1st century) could very well have been using the actual nick name she was known by.

He felt that the specific original (Greek using) 1st century Jewish Christian nick name was Mariamme (not Mariamene, which he considered a late corruption) but he still credits the Gnostics for having the older name than the typical Greco-Roman Orthodox Christian form of the name.

That should speak volumes to those who claim to want to follow Jesus Christ (the folks that call themselves "Christians" today) and what he actually taught.

quote:

In the Gospels Mary Magdalene’s name is always given in the Greek form Maria, which is the New Testament’s standard practice for rendering Mariam into Greek, except for Luke 10:39-42. As we have noted it is standard Greek form of Mariam. However, from probably the mid-second century onwards we find some references to Mary Magdalene (often identified with Mary of Bethany and/or other Gospel Maries) that use the alternative standard Greek form Mariamme (or Mariame). These references are all either in Gnostic works (using ‘Gnostic’ fairly loosely) or in writers referring to Gnostic usage.

We find the form Mariamme in Celsus, the second-century pagan critic of Christianity, who lists Christian sectarian groups, including some who follow Mary (apo Mariammes). These may well be the group who used the Gospel of Mary (late 2nd century?), a Greek fragment of which calls Mary Magdalene Mariamme. This form of her name also appears in the Coptic (a translation from Greek) of the Gnostic Work the Sophia of Jesus Christ (CG III,4). The usage may have been more widespread in Gnostic literature, but the fact that we have most Gnostic works only in Coptic makes it hard to tell.)

This tradition of using the form Mariamme for Mary Magdalene must have been an alternative tradition of rendering her name in Greek. It most likely goes back to a usage within the orbit of Jewish Palestine (since the name Mary in any form was very rare in the diaspora and Gentile Christians would not be familiar with the name Mariamme ordinarily). But so does the usage of Maria in the New Testament Gospels, at least one of which is at least a century earlier than any evidence we have for giving her the name Mariamme. It would be hazardous to suppose that Mariamme was the Greek form of her name use by Mary Magdalene herself or the earliest disciples of Jesus.

The Gnostic use of Mariamme is also reported by Hioppolytus in his Refutation of All Heresies (written between 228 and 233). He says that the Naassenes claimed to have a secret teaching that James the brother of Jesus had transmitted to Mary (5.7.1; 10.9.3). What is especially significant is that the manuscript evidence is divided between two forms of the name: Mariamme and Mariamne (note the ‘n’!). It is probably impossible to tell which Hippolytus himself wrote. However, it is easy to see that, in a milieu where the name Mariamme was not otherwise known, the usage could slip from Mariamme to Mariamne.

These variant readings in Hippolytus are the first known occurrences of the form Mariamne (which the Discovery Channel programme claims is the same name as that on one of the ossuaries). Since it occurs in Hippolytus as a variant of Mariamme, and since the latter is well attested in Jewish usage back to the first century CE, it seems clear that the form Mariamne is not really an independent version of the name Mariam (independent of Mariamme, that is). But a late deformation of the form Mariamme, a deformation made by Greek speakers not familiar with the name. This must also then explain the usage in the apocryphal Acts of Philip (late 4th or early 5th century), where Mariamne is consistently and frequently used for the sister of the apostle Philip, apparently identified with both Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany.


Even if Mariamne in ONLY a late corruption of Mariamme, the Miriamme form being an early Jewish Christian (1st century!) form, it IS evidence that the "Gnostics" diverged from a more "pure" form of true "Christianity" (with the connection to the actual Jesus community) than what all of today's Christians valued as "Apostolic" (the Greco-Roman "Orthodox" folk from Clement of Rome to Augustine).

And I think Mariamne would have been the 1st century spelling for Mary Magdalene and the Mariamme form was the slight corruption (it would have been corrupted by those who didn't think the Mariamne was the correct spelling, and the GREEK Miriamme would have been seen as much closer to the actual standard Miriam Hebrew form).

I find this to be remarkable REGARDLESS OF WHICH EACT FORM WAS THE ORIGINAL.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Phat, posted 11-19-2017 3:04 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Phat, posted 11-20-2017 2:36 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 68 of 110 (823944)
11-20-2017 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by LamarkNewAge
11-19-2017 10:14 PM


Re: "Mariamne is the name of Mary Magdalene...that’s the missing piece, that’s the Ringo"
but what do your quoted sources know that other sources missed? What is it that makes you trust these sources? Seems to me to be a lot of googling of information with little evidence of authenticity. Or perhaps you see or know something that I missed....

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-19-2017 10:14 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-20-2017 11:54 PM Phat has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 69 of 110 (823945)
11-20-2017 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by ringo
11-19-2017 1:34 PM


Re: Conclusion
ringo writes:

I was raised Christian. Almost everybody I know is a Christian.

So what kept you from becoming one? What made you search for further truth? And what is it that caused you to question what so many others see as a foregone conclusion?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 11-19-2017 1:34 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by ringo, posted 11-21-2017 10:46 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1024
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 70 of 110 (823994)
11-20-2017 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Phat
11-20-2017 2:36 AM


Evidence that Apostolic tradition that Catholics and Protestants accept is FALSE.
quote:

but what do your quoted sources know that other sources missed? What is it that makes you trust these sources? Seems to me to be a lot of googling of information with little evidence of authenticity. Or perhaps you see or know something that I missed....

I have read journals from the Dallas Theological Seminary and lots of fundamentalist apologetics.

Let me give you an example of how I don't agree with the suggestions of my sources.

Notice how Tabor suggested that the tradition that Polycarp (Bishop of Smyrna) was a disciple of the Apostle John (a lie made up by the king of liars: Irenaeus) could explain Hippolytus knowing the naickname of Mary Magdelene.

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp.

He communicated with Hippolytus for sure.

quote:

The first text is a quotation from Hippolytus, a third century Christian writer who records that James, the brother of Jesus, passed on secret teachings of Jesus to “Mariamene,” i.e., Mary Magdalene.[xii] There it was, in plain Greek—this unusual spelling of the name Miriame or Mary—precisely like the spelling on the ossuary. How could this be, since the ossuary was from the 1st century and Hippolytus was writing at least 150 hundred years later? According to tradition Hippolytus was a disciple of Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John—who of course knew both Mary Magdalene and Jesus. Perhaps it is this link of oral teaching, through three generations, that somehow had preserved this special name for Mary Magdalene. Its diminutive ending makes it a term of endearment—like calling someone named James “Jimmy,” or an Elizabeth “Betty.”

The fact that Tabor could even mention this without any sort of description of what a liar Irenaeus was is disturbing.

I don't always agree with the way my sources present their arguments.

He is how I know it is a lie that Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle (and it is important because this lie allows people to claim that Papias must have known the Apostle also as the liar Irenaeus also claimed).

Here is a journal that showed the vitally important scholarly debate over the use of Matthew by the "Apostolic Fathers". (I have it on my zip drive and I typed it over a decade ago)

(the issue of Polycarp and John came up)

The introduction is this:

quote:

The Second Century
A Journal of Early Christian Studies
WINTER 1992

Volume 9 Number 4
p.193
Preface
William R. Farmer

…Bellinzoni, a student of Helmut Koester at Harvard University…is presently engaged in editing the English translation of Edouard Massaux’s Influence de l’Evangile de saint Matthieu. Sur la literature chretienne avant saint Irenee, 1950. Reprinted with additional bibliographical entries, and with a new “Preface” by Frans Neirynck, Massaux’s work re-emerged in 1986 to present a critical challenge to Koester’s 1957 Synoptische Uberlieferung bei den apostolischen Vatern. Bellinzoni’s English edition of Massaux’s work is based on the original French text reprinted in 1986, but also includes the updated bibliographical material and the new “Preface” by Neirynck from the second printing. More important, however, the English edition includes certain “Addenda” prepared by Bellinzoni himself, in addition to his own “Preface to the English Translation.” Both the new “Preface” by Neirynck and Bellinzoni’s “Preface to the English Translation,” juxtapose the work of Koester to that of Massaux. This sets the terms for a forthcoming critical debate that overshadows all contemporary discussion of the topic, “The Gospel of Matthew in the Second Century.”
….
….
p.194

The English edition of Massaux’s work, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature Before Saint Irenaeus, is being published by Mercer University Press in three separate volumes. The first volume, containing Bellinzoni’s “Preface” and three of his “Addenda” did not appear until 1991.

….
Bellinzoni’s “Addenda seem to present prima facie evidence to support Massaux against Koester. In my opinion, it is a sign of Bellinzoni’s scholarly objectivity that he would voluntarily bring forth these “Addenda” when we realize that he believed that his teacher’s work, … “supersedes” that of Massaux precisely in the case of the writers most centrally concerned in the debate, i.e., the Apostolic Fathers, including 1 Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius. Bellinzoni’s “Addenda” clearly appear to work against this conclusion, and that must be borne in mind as we shape the agenda for future discussion.

Bellinzoni’s “Addenda” summarize the findings of Koester, Wolf-Dietrich Kohler, and Biblia Patristica regarding the use of Matthew by 1 Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius. (See Added Note below). The results underscore Professor Ulrich Luz’s judgment set forth in Das Evangelium nach Matthaus, 1985, pp. 75-76, that the relevant evidence supports conclusions that are nearer to those of Massaux than to those of Koester. Frans Neirynck, in his new “Preface” to Massaux, 1986, cites the relevant passage from Luz as well as texts from Wolf-Dietrich Kohler (a student of Luz) and Klaus Wengst, both of whom reach conclusions nearer to those of Massaux than Koester. …
….
p.195

Added Note
See Wolf-Dietrich Kohler, Die Rezeption des Mattausevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenaus, WUNT 2/24 (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1987), and Biblia Patristica: Index des Citations et Allusions bibliques dans la literature patristique, des origines a Clement d’Alexandrie etTertullien, Vol. I (Paris, 1975) 223-93. Bellinzoni’s “Addenda” are found on pp. 58, 83-84, and 121-122 of The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature Before Saint Irenaeus, Book I, The First Ecclesiastical Writers, by Edouard Massaux, translated by Norman J. Beval and Susan Hecht, edited with an introduction and addenda by Arthus J. Bellinzoni (Louvain: Peeters and Macon: Mercer University Press, 1990). Based on the data reported in these addenda, my summary observations are three in number: (1) Against Koester’s conclusion that “I Clement never refers to a written Gospel, Kohler and Biblia Patristica agree in finding several possible allusions and three possible citations of Matthew”, but Massaux’s use of “demonstrate” for the degree of proof rendered by his three passages in support of literary dependence is stronger than the [p.196] findings of Kohler and Biblia Patristica will support. (2) In relation to Koester’s conclusion, “that Barnabas used the Gospel of Matthew simply cannot be proved,” Kohler and Biblia Patristica agree in finding several possible illusions and as many as three quite possible citations of Matthew by Barnabas. Their findings agree with Massaux that there is evidence for literary dependence at certain points, one of which turns on The Source question. (3) In relation to Koester’s conclusion that “There is no positive citation of Matthew (by Ignatius), Kohler’s and Biblia Patristica’s findings agree in showing that there is “probable” evidence of citation. Other writings treated by Koester, including 2 Clement and Polycarp, are treated by Massaux in Vol. II of the English edition, which is due to appear in July, 1992. The Didache, another book treated by Koester, is treated by Massaux in Vol. III of the English edition. This is to appear in September, 1992.
….

….
p.195

It is within the context of this on-going critical discussion that Bellinzoni’s paper ad the responces by Everding, Nardoni, and Farkasfalvy take on a certain relevance, more apparent today perhaps than at the time of the Symposium itself. The issues have been given a certain prominence by subsequent public announcements made to the media by representatives of the “Jesus Seminar” and the “Claremont ’Q’ Project,” Professors Robert Funk and James Robinson, respectively. On the one hand, if Koester’s conclusions are more probably correct, the whole critical movement of Walter Bauer, James Robinson, Helmut Koester, the “Jesus Seminar,” and the “Claremont ’Q’ Project” is lent significant credibility. On the other hand, if Massaux’s conclusions are more probably correct, this influential movement is correspondingly denied a significant measure of credibility, and a very different picture of Christian origins begins to take shape.

A careful reading of this set of papers will set to underscore the somewhat chaotic and frustrating state of much of contemporary critical work on the Gospel of Matthew and its influence on the shaping of early Christianity… …on-going scholarly research and its publication by responsible peer-reviewed journals and university-related presses, is a sine qua non for all responsible parties interested in the advance of this scholarly discussion.


Now I will quote just a sliver of Bellinzoni's very long article from the same journal issue.

quote:

p.197
The Gospel of Matthew in the Second Century
Arthur J. Bellinzoni
….
Koester observed that for the period before the third century “we have no manuscript evidence at all, and text types can be identified, only by that evidence that comes from those who [p.198] used Gospels,” such as the Apostolic Fathers and early Christian apologists [1]. Koester further indicated that “a text not protected by canonical status, but used in liturgy, apologetics, polemics, homiletics, and instruction of catechumens is most likely to be copied frequently and is thus subject to frequent modifications and alterations.” [2] He also noted:

All of that evidence…points to the fact that the text of the Synoptic Gospels was very unstable during the
first and second centuries. …With respect to Matthew and Luke, there is no guarantee that the archetypes
of the manuscript tradition are identical with the original text of each Gospel. The harmonizations of
these two Gospels demonstrates that their text was not sacrosanct and that alterations could be expected,
even if they were not always as radical as in the case of Marcion’s revision of Luke, the Secret Gospel’s
revision of Mark, and Justin’s construction of a harmony.
New Testament textual critics have been deluded by the hypothesis that the archetypes of the textual
tradition which were fixed ca. 200 CE-how many archetypes for each gospel?-are (almost) identical
with the autographs. This cannot be confirmed by any external evidence. On the contrary, whatever
evidence there is indicates that not only minor, but also substantial revisions of the original texts have
occurred during the first hundred years of the transmission. [3]
….
[1] Subsequently published as Helmut Koester, “The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century,” in Gospel Traditions in the Second Century, ed. William L. Peterson (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989). 19
[2] Ibid., p.2.
[3] Ibid., p.28.

….
p.201
1 Clement was probably written in Rome sometime between 90-100. Koester dates it in 96-97. [7]
….
[7] Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, Volume II, History and Literature of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982) 288.
….
p.201
Massaux identifies direct influence of Matthew on 1 Clement in six passages…
p.202
….
Koester argues that only two sayings of Jesus are found in 1 Clement (1 Clem. 13:1-2; 46:7-8)…
….
Koester finds no literary relationship between this passage and Mt. 5:7, for the passage in 1 Clem. 13:2 is shorter and more precise than the synoptic parallels and seems earlier, like a first step in the development of the saying. He suggests that 1 Clem. 13:2 can be traced back to a stage in the tradition that lies behind our synoptic gospels. Koester also argues that the saying in 1 Clem. 46:8 shows no knowledge of the form found in the synoptic gospels, but rather reproduces a variant of the text that shows a special relationship with what he calls “the Q-form” of this logion, handed down in Mt. 18:6-7 and Lk. 17:1-2.
The result of Koester’s investigation is to conclude that 1 Clement never refers to a written gospel. Even if he did use one, it never functioned for [p.203] him with the authority of scripture. The only authority that 1 Clement recognized apart from the Old Testament is “What the Lord said.”
….
p.202
…Kohler (pp.60-66) adopts a position close to that of Massaux. With respect to 1 Clement, Kohler identifies as passages that are probably dependent on Matthew: 1 Clem. 16.17; 24.5; and 46.8.
……………
p.204
Didache
Based on what he assumes is Didache’s use of the “Two Ways” tradition in The Epistle of Barnabas, Massaux argues that the Didache should be dated sometime after 150. In his Synoptische Uberlieferung, Koester seems to agree on a relatively later dating for the Didache, although in his Introduction he located the writing in Syria sometime toward the end of the first century.
….
[LamarkNewAge note Synoptische Uberlieferung is a 1957 work by Koester Introduction is 1982]

p.205
Koester’s conclusions with respect to the Didache are quite different. He acknowledges that Did. 1:3ff contains sayings that go back to Matthew and Luke, but they are not the result of a direct use of the written gospels but come rather from ready-made sayings collections. …It appears that the compiler of the Didache knew a written gospel, but he apparently did not use it himself. …Koester continues by arguing that the Didache establishes the existence of the synoptic gospels, but certainly not their value as authoritative sources of what the Lord said and what his community was ordered to do. …Koester argues that the Didache establishes that written gospels came into use in the first half of the second century, but certainly as sources among many others without special authority to be used for the production of collections of sayings of the Lord.
….
p.206
Ignatius of Antioch
The letters of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in Syria, were written sometime between 110-117 (the last years of Trajan’s reign)…
p.207
Koester’s analysis of many of these same texts yields quite different results. According to him, there is no citation drawn positively from the synoptic gospels. The similarity between Smyrn 1:1 and Mt. 3:13ff. Is, in his judgment, probably best accounted for not on the basis of a familiarity with the text of Matthew, but rather because the seemingly Matthean turn of the phrase in the context of Jesus’ baptism (“in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him”) may be the result of an Antiochian rather than a peculiarly Matthean “revision.”
….

….
Polycarp of Smyrna
Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna at the time of Ignatius’s martyrdom (110-117), has left behind a document (not very well preserved) known as his Letter to the Philippians. Paul N. Harrison has shown that this letter is [p.208] actually based on two different writings addressed to the church in Philippi. The earlier of these writings, consisting of chapter 13 and possibly chapter 14, was a short covering note sent by the bishop of Smyrna to accompany the letters of Ignatius that the Philippian church had requested. This letter was written shortly after Ignatius’ visit, perhaps within two weeks, sometime between 110 and 117. This letter reflects no knowledge of Ignatius’s martyrdom in Rome, but speaks only to the question of forwarding the letters. Phil. 1-12 reflects a totally different situation, and in Phil. 9:1 Ignatius is called a blessed martyr whose memory and example, now passed into history, can now be recalled. This document must have been written toward the end of Hadrian’s reign, 117-138, or “several decades later” than the first letter. [LamarkNewAge note: quote is from Koester’s Introduction]
….
p.209
In his Introduction, Koester once again addresses the question of Polycarp’s use of the gospels. There he notes that “it not only knows and uses 1 Clement, but also corrects the quotations of sayings of Jesus in 1 Clem. 13:2 according to the text that had been established by the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Phil. 2:3); a knowledge of the text of those gospels is also shown elsewhere (Phil. 7:2).
The question of the use of Matthew (and Luke) in Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians is simplified by Harrison’s thesis. It is not in the earlier letter (110-117) but in the later letter (135 or later) that we find clear use of Matthew, Luke, and 1 Clement. The results, therefore, conform to our picture of the other early Apostolic Fathers, i.e. they reflect no use of our canonical gospels. In addition, the issue raised by Massaux with respect to the absence of citations from the Gospel of John in Polycarp’s letter is addressed by Harrison’s thesis as well. Clearly Polycarp of Smyrna is not the author of this later writing.

[ LamarkNewAge note: Polycarp was traditionally described as a disciple of the apostle John]
….
The Epistle of Barnabas
….
Massaux dates Barnabas at the same time as 1 Clement, i.e. at the end of the first century. …in his Introduction Koester dates Barnabas about 100. The truth of the matter is that we know nothing about the author of Barnabas, its place of writing, or its time of composition.
….
[ LamarkNewAge note: Shepherd of Hermas was reported to have been written in Rome around 150 according to Canon Muratori and both scholars say the synoptic aren’t quoted or in influence. 2 Clement isn’t dated earlier than 120]
….
p.215
The conclusions of Koester are radically different. The citations in the Apostolic Fathers that appear to parallel texts in the Gospel of Matthew are, for Koester, not dependent upon Matthew, but are rather explained in almost all instances by the history of a tradition which runs from the pre-synoptic tradition parallel to the tradition in the written gospels. The Gospel of Matthew and the Apostolic Fathers are, therefore, parallel traditions, both of which reflect use of pre-synoptic church tradition, whether written or oral or both. …The source of this tradition is rather the community, which handed on and made use of the synoptic-like tradition based on its practical needs, and which placed its own stamp on the material already extant and then transformed and added to it.
Actually, for Koester, the Gospel of Matthew stands right in the middle of this process, neither at the beginning, nor at the end as a last step. …instances in which gospels may have been used, the gospels seem to have been drawn upon and used along with other (oral and/or written) traditions. Rather the Apostolic Fathers stand in the middle of the living history of the tradition. …The Apostolic Fathers borrowed of necessity from the syn- [p.216] optic material, the same sources (whether written or oral) from which the synoptic gospels themselves drew. In fact, the Apostolic Fathers seem to be members of that same community of faith which found its outcome in the synoptic gospels. In other words, for Koester, we cannot conclude that in the Apostolic Fathers we have later forms of synoptic sayings of Jesus.
After comparing the conclusions of Massaux and Koester, we are forced to acknowledge that the results of this investigation are obviously inconclusive. The two authors present radically different interpretations of the data. For Massaux, the Apostolic Fathers are using the Gospel of Matthew, although often with considerable freedom, perhaps from memory without the text of Matthew before them much of the time. Yet, for Massaux, it is clearly Matthew upon which the Apostolic Fathers are usually dependent, or sometimes even upon a post-Matthean written source. ….
Although the conclusions of Massaux and Koester are very different, there is an important point of agreement between them. Both agree that the Apostolic Fathers do not cite the Gospel of Matthew in such a way as to indicate that it was regarded by them as “scripture.” The Apostolic Fathers are clearly not slavishly dependent upon a written gospel tradition. If they knew Matthew at all, they were either very independent in their use of Matthew (Massaux), or they were still inclined to cite more often from the living tradition of the Christian community (Koester).


Notice that there is no quotation of John by Polycarp.

Here is a fundamentalist apologetic work attempting to make a big deal out of what a great quoter of the New Testament Polycarp was ( I admit that he quoted ALMOST everything that came to be know as the New Testament).

(This is the entirety of the extant works attributed to Polycarp, even the parts that most scholars notice were added later, taking note that fundamentalists deny that the writings came from any other hand but Polycarp's himself)

https://books.google.com/books?id=hlhNAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA56&dq...

quote:

Polycarp, writing to the Philippian church (c. 115 A.D. ?), weaves an almost continuous string of clear quotations and allusions to New Testament writings. His heavy use of Scripture is reminiscent of Clement of Rome; however, Clement used mostly the Old Testament while Polycarp usually used the New. There are perhaps fifty clear quotations taken from Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1 John, and many allusions including to Mark, Hebrews, James, and 2 and 3 John. (The only NT writer not included is Jude! But remember that the above refers to only one letter - if Polycarp wrote other letters he may well have quoted Jude.)

Phat.

You asked me this:

quote:

what do your quoted sources know that other sources missed? What is it that makes you trust these sources?

I have no choice but to go to the actual documents available.

I read the arguments from the scholars (of all stripes) and the Greco-Roman fundamentalist "Christian" apologists (from 108 A.D. or 117 A.D. like Polycarp and from the 20/21 century A.D. )

The evidence is that the European Orthodox version of Christianity have pushed lies about connections to the Apostles.

The Gospel of John is a forgery and Irenaeus lied about his teacher Polycarp being associated with the Apostle John. Polycarp knew no Gospel of John and nobody has a "Gospel of John" until after 140-150 A.D.

Irenaeus was one of the liars who added the name "John" to the Gospel that Justin Martyr first quoted.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Phat, posted 11-20-2017 2:36 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Phat, posted 11-22-2017 1:09 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 71 of 110 (823997)
11-21-2017 12:22 AM


Science proves?
The IP starts out, "Science proves that..."

What follows is pages of religious belief and closely related matters, with no appreciable relationship to science.

This is particularly true as science does not "prove" anything, but comes up with verifiable explanations for given sets of facts. Belief, scriptures, and the like have nothing to do with science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-21-2017 9:55 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 74 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-21-2017 10:01 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 88 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-22-2017 5:19 PM Coyote has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13965
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 72 of 110 (824018)
11-21-2017 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Phat
11-20-2017 2:39 AM


Re: Conclusion
Phat writes:

What made you search for further truth? And what is it that caused you to question what so many others see as a foregone conclusion?


You answered your own question. I don't like the idea of a "foregone conclusion". If you had been raised in a different culture your "foregone conclusion" would have been a lot different. If there are different "foregone conclusions" about the same thing, some or all of them must be wrong.

The real question is: Why wouldn't you set your culture's "foregone conclusion" aside and search for further truth?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Phat, posted 11-20-2017 2:39 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1024
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 73 of 110 (824049)
11-21-2017 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Coyote
11-21-2017 12:22 AM


Re: Science proves?
quote:

The IP starts out, "Science proves that..."
What follows is pages of religious belief and closely related matters, with no appreciable relationship to science.

This is particularly true as science does not "prove" anything, but comes up with verifiable explanations for given sets of facts. Belief, scriptures, and the like have nothing to do with science.


I actually think that science can decisively prove that the "James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" ossuary belongs to the same tomb where we have a "Jesus son of Joseph" ossuary and a "Judah son of Jesus" ossuary.

The chemical composition in the soil was a scientific test, and it had a hypothesis.

I think the problem is that people generally don't respect a field that they aren't an expert in.

Too few people understand the science (and to compound the problem, this might be something of a new scientific field, but I'm not sure).

Dr. Michael Savage (a radio host and scientist) gave advice to people who specialize in a field. He said that they shouldn't talk about it to people (in conversation) because it is human nature for somebody, who doesn't understand something (like another person's profession), to make fun of what it is that they do.

These scientific tests just won't get the respect they deserve by the general public (for sure) AND even the professional field's in the humanities and sciences. Perhaps the only thing that will change this factor is the (unlikely) possibility that these chemical test get used more often and more widespread in its (worldwide?) use.

It becomes a real challenge when it is a requirement to get people to wake up and take notice.

ADDITIONAL SCIENTIFIC TESTS.

Patina:

quote:

VERDICT: NOT GUILTY

Two Remaining Defendants Cleared of Forgery Charges After 5-year Trial

Hershel Shanks • 03/14/2012

July 2012 update: In the July/August 2012 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Hershel Shanks presents the authoritative post-trial analysis of the James Ossuary in the article “‘Brother of Jesus’ Inscription is Authentic.” Read it in the BAS Library.

For more on the James Ossuary trial, visit the Bible History Daily James Ossuary Forgery Trial Resources Guide.

After a trial of more than five years with 138 witnesses, more than 400 exhibits and a trial transcript of 12,000 pages, Judge Aharon Farkash of the Jerusalem District Court has cleared the defendants of all forgery charges. His opinion in the case, handed down on March 14, is 474 pages long.

....

Let’s consider the evidence regarding the three objects with inscriptions that have received the most attention.

The first is the ossuary inscribed “James, the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus.” All agree that the ossuary itself is authentic and ancient. The question is whether the inscription is forged—or more specifically whether the phrase “brother of Jesus” was added in recent times to an ancient inscription “James, son of Joseph.”

The first stop in any investigation of this question would be at the door of paleographaers, scholars who can date and authenticate inscriptions of particular periods based on the style and stance of the letters. In this case, the inscription has been authenticated by two of the greatest world authorities on the paleography of this period, as referred to previously, Andre Lemaire of the Sorbonne and Ada Yardeni of Hebrew University.

What is even more significant is that no paleographer of any repute has even suggested that this inscription might be a forgery. There is no other side paleographically.

Scientifically, however, there is. Professor Yuval Goren of Tel Aviv University found what he called “James Bond” covering the inscription in order to hide evidence of forgery. The James Bond was, he said, a mixture of ground-up limestone and hot water that formed a fake patina. But it turned out there was no way to make the mixture Goren hypothesized stick to the surface of the ossuary without the addition of an acid, traces of which would be found—and it wasn’t there. This so-call James Bond could be removed with a toothpick; it was hardly “bonded.” Goren even admitted that his “James Bond” could be the result of cleaning the ossuary (something dealers customarily do to make inscriptions stand out).

More important, after treatment, original ancient patina could be seen in several letters of the inscription, including one of the letters of the word “Jesus.” Before the trial, Goren had denied that there was any ancient patina in the inscription. When he was presented on cross-examination with new pictures taken by one of the defendant’s experts, Professor Goren became flummoxed and asked for a recess to allow him time to examine the box itself, rather than the pictures. He returned the next day and admitted in court that there was indeed original ancient patina in some of the letters. However, he sought to explain this, suggesting that the forger had incorporated ancient scratches with naturally formed patina as strokes of the forged letters of the inscription. (If anyone believes that, I have a bridge I’d like to sell them—very cheaply.)

Actually, this original ancient patina had been observed much earlier by Orna Cohen, one of the members of the Israel Antiquities Authority committee that examined the ossuary before the trial, but no one paid any attention to this; the IAA knew where it wanted to go.

There are other, simpler reasons why I believe that the inscription is not a forgery. Oded Golan has owned the ossuary since the late 1970s; he proved this with old photographs authenticated by an ex-FBI agent as using paper no longer used at a later date. And Golan never tried to sell the ossuary or publicize the inscription. He claims, quite believably, that he didn’t even know the New Testament mentions James as the brother of Jesus, or as he put it, “I never realized God could have a brother.” Even more understandably, he had no idea Ya’acov (on the ossuary and Jacob to any Israeli) was translated as James in English New Testaments.

The prosecution claims it found forgers’ tools in Golan’s apartment. Golan claims they were used in restoring antiquities from his collection, not for making forgeries. None of these tools, however, could be used to engrave the inscription on this ossuary. Even if he is a forger, that doesn’t mean everything in his vast collection is a forgery.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...cs/verdict-not-guilty


DNA

The DNA of the "Jesus, son of Jospeh" has actually been preserved and tested.

Same for the Mariam(enou?).

However.

There is a really sad and sucky issue here.

A God awful thing happened to the DNA inside most of the other ossuaries.

(there is unfortunately only limited opportunity to do DNA tests, on the bone fragments stuck to the ossuary interior chamber, because the vast majority of the ossuaries were scrubbed/cleaned so they could be put on display)

The "Jude, son of Jesus" DNA cannot be tested because it is no long in the ossuary.

That is awful.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Coyote, posted 11-21-2017 12:22 AM Coyote has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1024
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 74 of 110 (824051)
11-21-2017 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Coyote
11-21-2017 12:22 AM


Re: Science proves? Here is the caption text from the article.
quote:

The inscription reading “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” on the James Ossuary is the most well-known piece of the case. Paleographic analyses and the existence of ancient patina suggest that the inscription is authentic

This is a shorter post for everybody to respond to.

UNDERSTAND.

Patina tests are indeed part of the scientific fields.

(the paleographic analysis is a textual study and not considered science)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Coyote, posted 11-21-2017 12:22 AM Coyote has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1024
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 75 of 110 (824053)
11-21-2017 10:38 PM


The SCIENTIFIC soil composition issue again.
quote:

Israeli Geologist Reignites Debate on 'Burial Tomb' of Jesus

By Elliot Jager | Tuesday, 07 Apr 2015 07:56 AM

A retired Israeli geologist has reported a geochemical match between dirt in the Talpiot Tomb — where coffin-like boxes were found with Aramaic inscriptions understood to read "Jesus son of Joseph," Mary Magdalene, and "Judah son of Jesus" — and soil in a burial box inscribed "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus," according to The New York Times.

The Talpiot Tomb was discovered at a construction site in the Jerusalem neighborhood of East Talpiot, or Armon HaNetziv, in 1980. The area had been uninhabited when it was captured by Israel from Jordan in 1967's Six Day War.

The Talpiot findings were popularized in the 2007 documentary "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," produced by James Cameron and written by Simcha Jacobovici, that was broadcast on the Discovery Channel.

The tomb has since been sealed and its burial boxes, or ossuaries, are in the custody of the Israel Antiquities Authority. The James ossuary is in the hands of a private Tel Aviv collector, who has said that he purchased the box in 1976 from an Arab dealer.

In 2012, a Jerusalem court dismissed charges of fraud against the collector brought by Israeli authorities, the Times reported.

Geologist Aryeh Shimron, 79, reported that, after seven years of study, he had identified Rendzina soil in both sets of artifacts, tying the provenance of the James ossuary to the Talpiot Tomb. His lab costs were picked up by Jacobovici, an Israeli-born filmmaker based in Canada, who is planning a follow-up film, according to the Times.

"I think I've got really powerful, virtually unequivocal evidence that the James ossuary spent most of its lifetime, or death time, in the Talpiot Tomb," Shimron told the Times.

If the relics are indeed connected, this could be seen as reinforcing the view that the Jesus of the Talpiot Tomb is the Jesus of the New Testament. Such a claim would be rejected outright by Christians, since it infers burial remains of Jesus of Nazareth and is contrary to the Resurrection.

The burial boxes further infer that "Jesus" was married to Mary Magdalene, and that they had a son named Judah, contrary to the biblical Jesus.

https://www.newsmax.com/...rial-ossuary/2015/04/07/id/636861


Avoid posts with only cut & pastes. Your own words need to be involved.~AdminPhat

Edited by AdminPhat, : admin warning


    
Prev1234
5
678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017