Page 68 of 122
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:05 pm
by Minimalist
1. Jesus was born
2. born to Mary & Joseph
3. born in bethleham
4. is the Son of God
5. taught
6. had 12 disciples
7. performed miracles
8. traveled throughout Judea
9. Died on the cross
10. Rose again
Don't put words in my mouth. While I doubt that any of that stuff happened my point was that these two bozos can't get their story straight on WHEN it happened. Their stories fail to agree with known history.
BTW, Mithras pulled a lot of the same tricks that they later attributed to Jesus. That sort of thing was not uncommon in the First Century AD.
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:08 pm
by john
archaeologist wrote:But they both have it starting in 1861 and ending in 1865. The history agrees. You can't say that with your gospels
but neither set exact dates either as again, just like for creation, the flood and other major events, the date is not the most important piece of the story.
when something happened, which is easily debatable, doesn't change the fact that it happened and must be dealt with.
now as for agreeing here are some consistancies:
1. Jesus was born
2. born to Mary & Joseph
3. born in bethleham
4. is the Son of God
5. taught
6. had 12 disciples
7. performed miracles
8. traveled throughout Judea
9. Died on the cross
10. Rose again
so if you are going to use the consistancy argument for Catton & Foote be prepared to use it for the Gospels as well,
placing the Bible on a separate set of standards isn't right and leads to unrealistic criticisms.
could you please refer me to the archaelogical record for these events. or are you depending on oral history?
john
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:12 pm
by Minimalist
You still here?
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:22 pm
by john
Minimalist wrote:You still here?
i must have done something incredibly bad in my previous lives to deserve this kind of karma. yes, dammit.
and i haven't backed off one little bit in terms of certain people unloading their ego goulash.
"to live outside the law you must be honest"
b. dylan
john
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:23 pm
by Guest
You still here?
sorry, in class now can't really respond.
could you please refer me to the archaelogical record for these events. or are you depending on oral history?
ancient texts
When contradicted by C14 he denies it's validity
though it would be nice to rely on c-14 dating, even when it supports my side of the issue, i have doubts. as for woods, i can't speak for him
Now you are hypothesizing about alleged "missing clues." Yet, when Finkelstein finds that evidence of a large Davidic empire is "missing" you are the first one shouting "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense!"
no i am pointing out the problem that exists and also when i mentioned the papyrus example, there was a lot of criticism towards that even though it is a very reasonable answer.
the pointof my list was the comparison argument...it applies both ways, by the way, luke and matthew do not disagree as neither gives an exact date.
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:25 pm
by Minimalist
i must have done something incredibly bad in my previous lives to deserve this kind of karma. yes, dammit.
Call it "Purgatory."
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:27 pm
by Minimalist
luke and matthew do not disagree as neither gives an exact date
Bull. One cites Quirinius (AD 6-9) the other cites Herod (d. 4 BC)
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:38 pm
by john
archaeologist wrote:You still here?
sorry, in class now can't really respond.
could you please refer me to the archaelogical record for these events. or are you depending on oral history?
ancient texts
When contradicted by C14 he denies it's validity
though it would be nice to rely on c-14 dating, even when it supports my side of the issue, i have doubts. as for woods, i can't speak for him
Now you are hypothesizing about alleged "missing clues." Yet, when Finkelstein finds that evidence of a large Davidic empire is "missing" you are the first one shouting "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense!"
no i am pointing out the problem that exists and also when i mentioned the papyrus example, there was a lot of criticism towards that even though it is a very reasonable answer.
the pointof my list was the comparison argument...it applies both ways, by the way, luke and matthew do not disagree as neither gives an exact date.
stepping aside for the moment that there is no archaeological evidence supporting the theory of jesus, just which ancient texts?
john
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:45 pm
by Minimalist
Nothing outside of the NT.
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:54 pm
by john
Minimalist wrote:Nothing outside of the NT.
and what is the earliest known date of publication for the NT?
john
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:00 pm
by Minimalist
As a unified body ( or at least as selected by the committee) or as individual pieces of literature?
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:12 pm
by john
Minimalist wrote:As a unified body ( or at least as selected by the committee) or as individual pieces of literature?
individual piece of litterachure. by one author, and not constantine.
john
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:18 pm
by Minimalist
I believe that some of the letters of Paul date from the mid first century AD. Authorship of the other documents is mere speculation but it seems to be strung out between 50 and 150 AD.
Scholars vary in their estimates.
If you are curious about this there is an excellent book called "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty which discusses the issue, particularly of Paul.
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:25 pm
by john
Minimalist wrote:I believe that some of the letters of Paul date from the mid first century AD. Authorship of the other documents is mere speculation but it seems to be strung out between 50 and 150 AD.
Scholars vary in their estimates.
If you are curious about this there is an excellent book called "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty which discusses the issue, particularly of Paul.
so we have letters, but no "bible". next question, who created the "bible", and when, and for what reason. not putting you on the spot here, Min, its just that you know a hell of a lot more about it than i do.
john
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:32 pm
by Minimalist
I believe the final form was determined by Bishop Athanasius c. 365 AD.
Various bishops had put their two cents in prior to that including Irenaeus and Eusebius.
One of them is supposed to have demanded that only books which were written by "apostles" could be included which explains why the gospels are given the names of apostles even though no one knows who wrote them.