Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,150 Year: 5,407/9,624 Month: 432/323 Week: 72/204 Day: 14/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the new new testament???
ramoss
Member (Idle past 722 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


(1)
Message 39 of 226 (702930)
07-12-2013 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
07-08-2013 2:00 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
Just to point out.. you cna't show that ANY of the aposltes actually wrote any of the New testament. We have a tradition that Mark was written by the student of Peter, and Matthew and luke copied from him.
John is far out, and was modified quite a lot.
Except for the some of the letter attributed to Paul, we don't know who wrote any of the books of the NT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 07-08-2013 2:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 722 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 50 of 226 (703484)
07-22-2013 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dawn Bertot
07-22-2013 9:17 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
One of the big problems with Josephus is that passages were added or modified. It doesn't matter HOW accurate Josephus was (and experience has shown he was not always accurate) , if what he wrote was tampered with.
It is generally acknowledged that Josephus was tampered with when it comes to the reference to Jesus. Let's see evidence that that passage was original to Josephus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-22-2013 9:17 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 07-22-2013 11:27 PM ramoss has replied
 Message 55 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-23-2013 5:40 PM ramoss has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 722 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


(6)
Message 52 of 226 (703487)
07-23-2013 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Faith
07-22-2013 11:27 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
From Josephus and Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Question
The Testimonium Question
The following passage is found in the extant Greek manuscripts of Josephus (Ambrosianus in the 11th century, Vaticanus in the 14th century, and Marcianus in the 15th century). This passage is quoted by Eusebius in the fourth century: in the Evangelical Demonstration 3.5, in the Ecclesiastical History 1.11, and in the Theophany.
Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."
Here is the text in Greek.
Ginetai de kata touton ton chronon Isous sophos anr, eige andra auton legein chr: n gar paradoxn ergn poits, didaskalos anthrpn tn hdoni talth dechomenn, kai pollous men Ioudaious, pollous de kai tou Hellnikou epgageto: ho christos houtos n. kai auton endeixei tn prtn andrn par' hmin stauri epitetimkotos Pilatou ouk epausanto hoi to prton agapsantes: ephan gar autois tritn echn hmeran palin zn tn thein prophtn tauta te kai alla muria peri autou thaumasia eirkotn. eis eti te nun tn Christiann apo toude nomasmenon ouk epelipe to phulon.
Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.
In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist. In one book, by Freke and Gandy, the authors go so far as to state that no "serious scholar" believes that the passage has authenticity (p. 137), which is a serious misrepresentation indeed.
It is impossible that this passage is entirely genuine. It is highly unlikely that Josephus, a believing Jew working under Romans, would have written, "He was the Messiah." This would make him suspect of treason, but nowhere else is there an indication that he was a Christian. Indeed, in Wars of the Jews, Josephus declares that Vespasian fulfilled the messianic oracles. Furthermore, Origen, writing about a century before Eusebius, says twice that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ."
Either the passage received a few glosses, or the passage was inserted here in entirety. Those who favor partial authenticity usually bracket the phrases "if it be lawful to call him a man," "He was the Christ," and "for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousan other wonderful things concerning him."
Arguments that the Testimonium is Spurious
There are several arguments of various quality that aim to show that the Testimonium Flavianum is entirely spurious.
It is sometimes argued that the phrase "to this day" at the end of the passage indicates the perspective of a writer who was writing long after the events in question and that Josephus was too close in time to make it believable that he would have used the expression. On the contrary, a span of 60 years time after the death of Jesus is sufficient to cause some surprise at the survival of the cult. According to the speech of Gamiliel in Acts 5:35-39, most movements disbanded shortly after the death of the leader.
It is often argued that the description of Jesus is unusually short for Josephus. For example, Josephus devotes over twice as much space to the description of John the Baptist. Although suggestive, this argument is not conclusive. Professor Sanders considers this passage to be "the best objective evidence of the importance of Jesus during his own lifetime. The gospels create the impression that the entire populace was vitally interested in Jesus and what happened to him. Certainly he did attract attention. But if we measure the general impact of prophetic figures by the degree of disturbance they caused, we shall conclude that Jesus was less important in the eyes of most of his contemporaries than were John the Baptist and the Egyptian..." (pp. 50-51)
Earl Doherty argues: "In the section on Pilate in the earlier Jewish War, written in the 70s, Josephus outlines the same two incidents with which he began chapter 3 of Book 18 in the Antiquities of the Jews, incidents which caused tumult in Judea during the governorship of Pilate. In the Antiquities, these descriptions are immediately followed by the Testimonium about Jesus. In Jewish War (2.9/169-177) no mention of Jesus is included." (p. 222) This is also suggestive but inconclusive. Robert Grant notes that "none of them [John the Baptist, James, or Jesus] is to be found in the parallel passages in his earlier War; presumably Christians had become more important in the interval." (p. 291)
It is sometimes claimed that manuscripts before Eusebius do not have the passage in question. This is simply not true; there are no extant manuscripts before Eusebius. It is also sometimes pointed out that the Josippon, a medieval Hebrew version of Josephus, lacks the passage in question. However, Josippon is dependent on the text of the Antiquities preserved by Christians, so it is clear that the author of Josippon does not represent an independent manuscript tradition but rather purposely omits the passage.
R. Joseph Hoffmann notes: "Further, the language used to describe John is very close to the language used to describe Jesus, leading some to theorize that the original version of the Antiquities carried no reference to Jesus at all." (p. 54)
In Ecclesiastical History 1.11, Eusebius writes: "After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words..." This suggests the possibility that the Testimonium was inserted in some manuscripts after the passage concerning John.
Louis H. Feldman writes (Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, p. 57): "The fact that an ancient table of contents, already referred to in the Latin version of the fifth or sixth century, omits mention of the Testimionium (though, admittedly, it is selective, one must find it hard to believe that such a remarkable passage would be omitted by anyone, let alone by a Christian, summarizing the work) is further indication that there was no such notice..." I regard this as an important and powerful piece of evidence, although one that doesn't get much attention.
It is argued that the reference to "the tribe of Christians so named from him" requires the earlier phrase "He was the Christ."
Meier writes: "But as Andre Pelletier points out, a study of the style of Josephus and other writers of his time shows that the presence of 'Christ' is not demanded by the final statement about Christians being 'named after him.' At times both Josephus and other Greco-Roman writers (e.g., Dio Cassius) consider it pedantry to mention explicitly the person after whom some other person or place is named; it would be considered an insult to the knowledge and culture of the reader to spell out a connection that is taken for granted." (p. 61)
This reply is seen to be insufficient. Pelletier points out the example of Antiquities 17.5.1, where Josephus explains the name of the port Sebastos by saying: "Herod, having constructed it at great expense, named it Sebastos in honor of Caesar." Josephus leaves out the technical explanation that Caesar's honorific name in Latin is Augustus, which was translated into the Greek language as Sebastos. It may be assumed that the reader would be aware of Caesar's title. However, it cannot be assumed that the reader would be aware that Jesus was known as the Christ.
Some would avoid this problem by substituting "He was believed to be the Christ" or "He was the so-called Christ" in place of the phrase, "He was the Christ." This is possible, though not without its problems. Meier argues that the statement "seems out of place in its present position and disturbs the flow of thought. If it were present at all, one would expect it to occur immediately after either 'Jesus' or 'wise man,' where the further identification would make sense. Hence, contrary to Dubarle, I consider all attempts to save the statement by expanding it to something like 'he was thought to be the Messiah' to be ill advised. Such expansions, though witnessed in some of the Church fathers (notable Jerome), are simply later developments in the tradition." (p. 60) It is also problematic that Josephus would have introduced the term Christ here without any explanation of its meaning. This problem will be considered in more detail in relation to the 20.9.1 passage.
Steve Mason states: "the passage does not fit well with its context in Antiquities 18. . . Josephus is speaking of upheavals, but there is no upheaval here. He is pointing out the folly of Jewish rebels, governors, and troublemakers in general, but this passage is completely supportive of both Jesus and his followers. Logically, what should appear in this context ought to imply some criticism of the Jewish leaders and/or Pilate, but Josephus does not make any such criticism explicit. He says only that those who denounced Jesus were 'the leading men among us.' So, unlike the other episodes, this one has no moral, no lesson. Although Josephus begins the next paragraph by speaking of 'another outrage' that caused an uproar among the Jews at the same time (18.65), there is nothing in this paragraph that depicts any sort of outrage." (p. 165)
Earl Doherty argues: "G. A. Wells and others have argued that the continuity of the flanking passages works best when no passage about Jesus intervenes. The final thought of the previous paragraph flows naturally into the words of the one following, whereas the opening of the latter paragraph does not fit as a follow-up to the closing sentence of the Testimonium. This argument is somewhat tempered by the fact that since the ancients had no concept of footnotes, digressional material had to be inserted into the main text, as there was nowhere else to put it. However, one might ask whether the Testimonium should be considered digressional material, since it continues with the theme of Pilate's activities and about various woes which befall the Jews. One might also suggest that, digression or no, once Josephus had written it, his opening words in the subsequent paragraph ought to have reflected, rather than ignored, the paragraph on Jesus." (p. 207)
The fact that Josephus was prone to digressions does allow that Josephus could have inserted this passage here simply because it relates to Pilate. Meier suggests the following explanation: "In the present case, one wonders whether any greater link need exist for Josephus than the fact that the account of Jesus (who is crucified by Pilate) is preceded by a story about Pilate in which many Jews are killed (Ant. 18.3.2, 60-62) and is followed by a story in which the tricksters are punished by crucifixion." (p. 86)
However, the real difficulty is not that the content of the Testimonium is only tangentially related to the surrounding content; the real difficulty is the way that Josephus begins the subsequent paragraph with a reference to "another outrage," a reference that skips over the Testimonium entirely and points to the previous section.
No form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the extant works of Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, or Lactantius. According to Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, each of these authors shows familiarity with the works of Josephus.
Jeffery Jay Lowder writes: "Assuming that contemporary reconstructions of the passage are accurate, it is difficult to imagine why the early church fathers would have cited such a passage. The original text probably did nothing more than establish the historical Jesus. Since we have no evidence that the historicity of Jesus was questioned in the first centuries, we should not be surprised that the passage was never quoted until the fourth century."
John P. Meier argues: "One possible explanation of this silence would jibe well with my reconstruction of the Testimonium and my isolation of the Christian interpolations. If until shortly before the time of Eusebius the Testimonium lacked the three Christian interpolations I have bracketed, the Church Fathers would not have been overly eager to cite it; for it hardly supports the mainline Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God who rose from the dead. This would explain why Origen in the 3d century affirmed that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah (Commentary on Matthew 10.17; Contra Celsum 1.47). Origen's text of the Testimonium simply testified, in Christian eyes, to Josephus' unbelief -- not exactly a useful apologetical tool in addressing pagans or a useful polemical tool in christological controversies among Christians." (p. 79)
Earl Doherty counters: "Meier's argument is that the Christian Fathers would have recognized that Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God, or believe that he had risen from the dead. The Testimonium witnessed to Josephus' unbelief and was therefore avoided. But should the apologists have found this disconcerting in a non-Christian? They dealt with unbelief every day, faced it head on, tried to counter and even win over the opponent. Justin's major work, Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, did just that. Origen, in his own confrontation with Celsus, did not shy away from criticizing Josephus for attributing the fall of Jerusalem to God's punishment on the Jews for the death of James, rather than for the death of Jesus (see below). In fact, Origen refers to the very point which Meier suggests Christian commentators shied away from, that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah. It hardly seems that the silence on Antiquities 18.3.3 by all the apologists prior to Eusebius can be explained in this way." (pp. 209-210)
So there was some cause for the early Church Fathers to have quoted from a reconstructed Testimonium. Consider Origen, who quoted from the Antiquities of the Jews in order to establish the historical existence of John the Baptist even though there is no evidence that the historicity of John the Baptist was questioned. If Origen found it useful to quote Josephus in order to establish the historicity of John, how much more so would Origen be eager to quote Josephus in order to establish the historicity of Jesus? Indeed, Origen cites Josephus to establish the existence of the Baptist even though Celsus represented the Jew in his discourse as accepting the historicity of John (Contra Celsus 1.47). Celsus grants that Jesus performed "miracles" for the sake of argument but attributes them to sorcery. Interestingly, Eusebius' motive for quoting Josephus in the Evangelical Demonstration is precisely to establish that Jesus performed true miracles, not merely to establish the historicity of Jesus. Thus, there was a motive for the early Church Fathers to have quoted a reconstructed Testimonium.
Steve Mason indicates several ways in which the Testimonium deviates from Josephan style.
First, Mason writes:
It uses words in ways that are not characteristic of Josephus. For example, the word translated "worker" in the phrase "worker of incredible deeds" is poietes in Greek, from which we get "poet." Etymologically, it means "one who does" and so it can refer to any sort of "doer." But in Josephus' day it had already come to have special reference to literary poets, and that is how he consistently uses it elsewhere (nine times) - to speak of Greek poets like Homer. (p. 169)
Second, Mason observes:
Notice further that the phrase "they did not cease" has to be completed by the translator, for it is left incomplete in the text; the action which his followers ceased must be understood from the preceding phrase. This is as peculiar in Greek as it is in English, and such a construction is not found elsewhere in Josephus' writing. (p. 169)
Third, Mason argues:
Again, the phrase "the tribe of the Christians" is peculiar. Josephus uses the word "tribe" (phyle) eleven other times. Once it denotes "gender," and once a "swarm" of locusts, but usually signfies distinct people, races, or nationalities: the Jews are a "tribe" (War 3.354; 7.327) as are the Taurians (War 2.366) and Parthians (War 2.379). It is very strange that Josephus should speak of the Christians as a distinct racial group, since he has just said that Jesus was a Jew condemned by Jewish leaders. (Notice, however, that some Christian authors of a later period came to speak of Christianity as a "third race.") (pp. 169-170)
Finally, there is a peculiarity with the reference to the "principal men among us." Josephus elsewhere refers to the "principal men," but Josephus consistently refers to the principal men "of Jerusalem" or "of the city," using these phrases instead of the first person plural. In his autobiography, Josephus refers to the "principal men of the city" (2), "the principal men of Jerusalem" (7), the "principal men of the city" (12), the "principal men belonging to the city" (12), the "principal men of the city" (12), and the "principal men of Jerusalem" (44). In each case Josephus identifies the leading men as belonging to Jerusalem.
Ken Olson indicates several ways in which the Testimonium aligns with the style and argument of Eusebius of Caesarea.
Olson writes:
In Adversus Hieroclem Eusebius argued that if he had to accept the supernatural feats attributed to Apollonius, he must regard him as a GOHS [wizard] rather than a wise man (A.H. 5); here he has Josephus call Jesus a 'wise man' and thus, implicitly, not a GOHS.
Olson states:
The term PARADOXWN ERGWN POIHTHS is markedly Eusebian. POIHTHS never occurs in Josephus in the sense of "maker" rather than "poet," and the only time Josephus combines forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW it is in the sense of "acting contrary to custom" (A.J. 12.87) rather than "making miracles." Combining forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW in the sense of "miracle-making" is exceedingly common in Eusebius, but he seems to reserve the three words PARADOXOS, POIHW, and ERGON, used together, to describe Jesus (D.E. 114-115, 123, 125, H.E. 1.2.23)
Olson argues:
Eusebius' opponents were not denying that Jesus was crucified by the Roman and Jewish authorities; this was probably a main part of their argument that Jesus was a GOHS. Eusebius, however, cleverly inverts this argument. If Jesus had been a deceiver, and his followers had been deceivers, would not self-interest have compelled them to abandon his teachings after they had witnessed the manner of his death at the hands of the authorities? The fact that they did not abandon Jesus after witnessing the punishments he had brought upon himself can only mean that the disciples had recognized some greater than normal virtue in their teacher. This argument is developed at great length in D.E. 3.5, but I shall quote only a part of it here, "Perhaps you will say that the rest were wizards no less than their guide. Yes - but surely they had all seen the end of their teacher, and the death to which He came. Why then after seeing his miserable end did they stand their ground?" (D.E. 111).
Olson concludes: "the Testimonium follows Eusebius' line of argument in the Demonstratio so closely that it is not only very unlikely that it could have been written by Josephus, but it is unlikely it could have been written by any other Christian, or even by Eusebius for another work. There is nothing in the language or content of the Testimonium, as it appears in the Demonstratio Evangelica, that suggests it is anything other than a completely Eusebian composition."
Earl Doherty states: "the entire tenor of such an 'original' does not ring true for Josephus. In the case of every other would-be messiah or popular leader opposed to or executed by the Romans, he has nothing but evil to say. Indeed, he condemns the whole movement of popular agitators and rebels as the bane of the century. It lead to the destruction of the Temple, of the city itself, of the Jewish state. And yet the 'authentic' Testimonium would require us to believe that he made some kind of exception for Jesus." (pp. 210-211)
Doherty argues: "To judge by the Christians' own record in the Gospels and even some of the epistles, 'the tribe of Christians' toward the end of the first century was still a strongly apocalyptic one. It expected the overthrow of the empire and established authority, along with the transformation of the world into God's kingdom. What would have led Josephus to divorce this prevailing Christian outlook - for which he would have felt nothing but revulsion - from his judgment of the movement's founder?" (p. 212)
Crossan emphasizes that the description of Jesus by Josephus is "carefully and deliberately neutral," indicating "prudent impartiality" on his part (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, pp. 162-163). However, there was no reason for Josephus to be neutral concerning Jesus. Doherty argues:
His readers were primarily Roman, some Jewish. What reason would he have had for being, in Meier's phrase, "purposely ambiguous"? He had nothing to fear from Christians, and no reason to consider their sensibilities. Regardless of what he may have thought about the character of Pilate, if Pilate had executed Jesus, then there had to have been - in official Roman and Flavian eyes - a justification for doing so. Crucifixion was a punishment for rebels, and Jesus' crucifixion would have been seen as part of Rome's ongoing campaign to deal with the problems of a troubled time in a troubled province. (p. 213)
Thus, the fact that the reconstructed Testimonium has nothing but nice things to say about Jesus tends to work in favor of its inauthenticity. Consider the reference to Jesus as a "wise man" (sophos aner). Josephus reserves this phrase elsewhere for such worthies as King Solomon (Ant. 8.53) and the prophet Elisha (Ant. 9.182). Mason notes, "If Josephus said it, it was a term of high praise." (p. 171) But it is inconceivable that Josephus should have such high praise for one who is only given so little space and who is attributed with such negative characteristics (to Josephus) as apocalyptic prophecy and the cleansing of the Temple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 07-22-2013 11:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 07-23-2013 9:34 PM ramoss has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 722 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 82 of 226 (703916)
07-30-2013 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dawn Bertot
07-29-2013 9:26 PM


Re: Subsets
From a Jewish perspective, Jesus did not qualify to be a messiah, much less "The Messiah. He did not perform the needed tasks for being "THe Messiah", and he did not qualify to be any 'anointed one'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-29-2013 9:26 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 07-30-2013 9:00 PM ramoss has replied
 Message 86 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-31-2013 12:21 AM ramoss has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 722 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 83 of 226 (703917)
07-30-2013 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dawn Bertot
07-29-2013 9:49 PM


Re: Subsets
It appears you can not understand the comparison.
SOmeone can act presidential.. but not be president. Someone can act 'christ like', but not be a christ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-29-2013 9:49 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 722 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 85 of 226 (703924)
07-30-2013 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
07-30-2013 9:00 PM


Re: Subsets
Well, that is what the Gospels claim.
Seems to me , most of the so called Christans were Gentile converts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 07-30-2013 9:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 722 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 89 of 226 (703982)
07-31-2013 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Dawn Bertot
07-31-2013 12:21 AM


Re: Subsets
I can't tell you what the truth about what the GOSPELS say, but I know what the attitude of the Jewish faith is. There is a difference.
As for 'cherry picking'... why.. I pick the Jewish intepretation, and also what we know about Jewish laws and tradition.
Frankly, the Gospels lie about a lot of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-31-2013 12:21 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 722 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 106 of 226 (704248)
08-06-2013 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by kofh2u
08-06-2013 8:51 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
Really?? They were?? Which book did they write?? Or, is that just things that the New Testament folks wrote about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by kofh2u, posted 08-06-2013 8:51 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 722 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 113 of 226 (704341)
08-08-2013 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Dawn Bertot
08-08-2013 2:40 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
You mean, other than pointing out that you can't back up your claim that they were accurate transcriptions?
I would love to see you show that they are more than speculation, opinion, or stories to promote a specific religious dogma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-08-2013 2:40 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-12-2013 8:47 PM ramoss has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 722 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 117 of 226 (704635)
08-12-2013 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Dawn Bertot
08-12-2013 8:47 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
Basically, even if the Gospels are not modified to the very end, you can't show that the supernatural events described is anything more than myth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-12-2013 8:47 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-12-2013 11:24 PM ramoss has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 722 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


(2)
Message 127 of 226 (704686)
08-13-2013 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Dawn Bertot
08-13-2013 5:24 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
I see. You can't show that the supernatural claims for the bible are more than a myth, so you go into full attack against the person who pointed that out to you.
Very transparent . And you still can not show that any of the supernatural claims are anything more than stores.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-13-2013 5:24 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-14-2013 8:39 PM ramoss has not replied
 Message 134 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-19-2013 8:42 PM ramoss has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 722 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 136 of 226 (704899)
08-19-2013 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Dawn Bertot
08-19-2013 8:42 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
WHy, you response is quite telling, .. because, you see, I said you can't show that those miracles actually happened. The fact you basically are saying 'Prove they didn't', is indeed proof that you can show they happened.
Your very response is evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-19-2013 8:42 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-19-2013 10:23 PM ramoss has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 722 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 139 of 226 (704902)
08-19-2013 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dawn Bertot
08-19-2013 10:23 PM


Re: is it all interpretation/s?
I personally am not talking about 'what happened in history' I am talking about miracles that are alleged to 'prove' that Jesus was God. Without that claim, and without the associated theology that goes with it, there isn't any meat in Christianity that isn't found elsewhere, and phrased better.
Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-19-2013 10:23 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-19-2013 10:42 PM ramoss has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 722 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 148 of 226 (704954)
08-20-2013 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Dawn Bertot
08-20-2013 6:01 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
I love how you try to turn it around.. but. alas, you can't show that any of these supposed miracles happened, and neither can anyone else,
The fact, that after 2000 years, there still isn't 1 iota of anything beyond the claims of the bible is indeed evidence that those incidence never happened.
Nor, can it show that they are even possible

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-20-2013 6:01 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 722 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


(1)
Message 189 of 226 (705977)
09-04-2013 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Theodoric
09-03-2013 9:52 PM


Re: winning people over...
I really wouldn't think that anything that was written in the Talmud would have bearing on this historical value of Jesus. The Babylonian Talmud, which is the one that would have any references , was written between the third, and the sixth centuries. That is more than enough time for stories, and a strong reaction against those stories to develop.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Theodoric, posted 09-03-2013 9:52 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Theodoric, posted 09-04-2013 5:25 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024