Announcement

Collapse

Church History 201 Guidelines

Welcome to Church History 201.

Believe it or not, this is the exact place where Luther first posted the 94 thesis. We convinced him to add one.

This is the forum where the Church and its actions in history can be discussed. Since CH201, like the other fora in the History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here. This means that anything like Ecclesiology can be discussed without the restrictions of the Ecclesiology forum, and without the atmosphere of Ecclesiology 201 or the Apologetics-specific forum.

Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is and such is not the area to try disembowel anyone's faith.

If you need to refresh yourself on the decorm, now would be a good time.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

More secular proof of Jesus' existence?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
    The rabbinic writings come too late to be good commentaries on scriptures. Anything post-Messianic is liable to be altered to make the fulfilled Messianic prophecies less apparent. There is plenty of incentive to cover-up the message of the Messiah, after the fact.
    On what textual source evidence? Given that the Jewish Messiah has, as yet not arrived, how can Jewish literature contain anything "post Messianic"?
    "It ain't necessarily so
    The things that you're liable
    To read in the Bible
    It ain't necessarily so
    ."

    Sportin' Life
    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      Riiight. That explains why you spend so much time hanging out on religious forums arguing with lay Christians about what you believe are mere fairy tales.
      I detect a distinct animus. If the presence of those who challenge Christian preconceptions and beliefs causes you such irritation, and given that you are one of the owners, perhaps you should put a suggestion to the Board that this site be closed to anyone who does not profess a Christian belief.
      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        I detect a distinct animus. If the presence of those who challenge Christian preconceptions and beliefs causes you such irritation, and given that you are one of the owners, perhaps you should put a suggestion to the Board that this site be closed to anyone who does not profess a Christian belief.
        That would be sarcasm you're detecting, cherie. Looks like Sparko's comment hit uncomfortably close to the mark, given your reaction.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          That would be sarcasm you're detecting, cherie. Looks like Sparko's comment hit uncomfortably close to the mark, given your reaction.
          If you consider that the comments of pseudonymous contributors to a minor internet site are of any serious concern to me, you are sadly mistaken.

          However, Sparko has made personal comments to me elsewhere on this site.

          And from those remarks it appears that he does not care to have his preconceived theological ideas challenged in any way.
          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            If you consider that the comments of pseudonymous contributors to a minor internet site are of any serious concern to me, you are sadly mistaken.
            Well said.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
              If you consider that the comments of pseudonymous contributors to a minor internet site are of any serious concern to me, you are sadly mistaken.

              However, Sparko has made personal comments to me elsewhere on this site.

              And from those remarks it appears that he does not care to have his preconceived theological ideas challenged in any way.
              Oh, you're whinging about remarks made elsewhere. Seems like his remarks are more of a concern to you than you're willing to admit.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                Oh, you're whinging about remarks made elsewhere. Seems like his remarks are more of a concern to you than you're willing to admit.
                I am not "whinging" about anything. I merely did you the courtesy of replying to your remark and provided you with a little more information for clarification.
                "It ain't necessarily so
                The things that you're liable
                To read in the Bible
                It ain't necessarily so
                ."

                Sportin' Life
                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  On what textual source evidence? Given that the Jewish Messiah has, as yet not arrived, how can Jewish literature contain anything "post Messianic"?
                  Perhaps we should define what we mean by Rabbinic writings. Hilell? Gamaliel? Or the Masoretic texts?
                  Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
                    Perhaps we should define what we mean by Rabbinic writings. Hilell? Gamaliel? Or the Masoretic texts?
                    You can select any Jewish writings you wish to. The Messiah has yet to arrive therefore there are no Jewish writings that contain any references to periods that are "post messianic".
                    "It ain't necessarily so
                    The things that you're liable
                    To read in the Bible
                    It ain't necessarily so
                    ."

                    Sportin' Life
                    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      You can select any Jewish writings you wish to. The Messiah has yet to arrive therefore there are no Jewish writings that contain any references to periods that are "post messianic".
                      Naturally not.
                      Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        If you consider that the comments of pseudonymous contributors to a minor internet site are of any serious concern to me, you are sadly mistaken.

                        However, Sparko has made personal comments to me elsewhere on this site.

                        And from those remarks it appears that he does not care to have his preconceived theological ideas challenged in any way.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          Yet you have ignored answering the question I to put you on the Stolen Land thread that is to be found on the Civics 101 board re the canonical gospels' accounts of the blasphemy charge.

                          Which of those do you accept as being the authentic and accurate account? Is it one of the versions found in the Synoptics? If so which one?

                          Or is John's version correct which mentions no such Sanhedrin trial?
                          "It ain't necessarily so
                          The things that you're liable
                          To read in the Bible
                          It ain't necessarily so
                          ."

                          Sportin' Life
                          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                            Yet you have ignored answering the question I to put you on the Stolen Land thread that is to be found on the Civics 101 board re the canonical gospels' accounts of the blasphemy charge.

                            Which of those do you accept as being the authentic and accurate account? Is it one of the versions found in the Synoptics? If so which one?

                            Or is John's version correct which mentions no such Sanhedrin trial?
                            I didn't answer because CP said to drop the discussion in that thread.

                            Here is what I see happening in discussions with you.

                            1. You pronounce some off the wall claim about the bible as if you were an expert. i.e. Paul never claimed to be a Jew, Jesus didn't claim to be divine, and was charged with blasphemy.
                            2. Your fringe claims seem based on obscure sources in defiance to 2000 years of Christian scholarship.
                            3. When we show you actual scripture that proves your claims wrong, you hand wave it away as either not authentic (i.e. Paul didn't really write it) or even claiming the scriptures are just a fiction.

                            You use the scripture when you feel it helps your case and handwave them away when they don't. You have created a bubble of invincible ignorance around yourself that is basically a waste of my and other's time trying to pop.

                            Even IF the scripture is just "fiction," if you are going to debate them, you have to accept what they say in their own paradigm. Even if they are fiction, that doesn't mean that Jesus didn't claim to be divine, or that others claimed he was divine, or that Paul didn't claim he was Jewish within that "fiction"

                            As long as you handwave away anything others say, there is no discussion to be had with you.

                            As far as the gospels go, they don't all mention the same events. Also the Gospel of John's core message is that Jesus is divine. Heck it starts out with equating him with God! And in John 10, the Pharisees accuse him of blasphemy and equating himself with God:

                            John 10:33
                            “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

                            And John does mention him going before the high priest and being handed over by the "jewish leaders" - That was referring to the Sanhedrin trial even if not mentioned specifically by name.
                            Last edited by Sparko; 07-14-2020, 09:10 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              I didn't answer because CP said to drop the discussion in that thread.

                              Here is what I see happening in discussions with you.
                              You pronounce some off the wall claim about the bible as if you were an expert. i.e. Paul never claimed to be a Jew, Jesus didn't claim to be divine, and was charged with blasphemy.
                              In Paul’s letters he never states he is a Jew. That is a fact. He may have been a Jew – but he never personally states he is one. Nor does Paul state that he came from Tarsus or that he studied with Gamaliel. All this is put into the mouth of Paul by the writer of Acts.

                              Jesus did not categorically state he was divine. That is also a fact.

                              Likewise it is also a fact that claiming to be the Messiah [who is not God] was not blasphemy under contemporary Jewish religious law. Even claiming to be God [idolatry] would not have demanded the death sentence. Any such claimant would have been severely reprimanded and would probably have received a good beating, or considered to be insane and released.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Your fringe claims
                              They are not “fringe claims”. Simply because the names of various eminent scholars [some of them Jewish] whose works, studies, and opinions I have cited remain a closed book to you, does not imply that they are obscure within the academic corpus of New Testament scholarship.

                              Your own acknowledged “hillbilly” background is not generally regarded as the epicentre of accredited academic study on either the texts of the bible, its philology, or those other numerous, related disciplines associated with the historical periods within which those texts came to be composed.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              seem based on obscure sources in defiance to 2000 years of Christian scholarship.
                              I consider these texts as I would any other ancient source. Nor is it strictly accurate to allege that Christian scholarship dates back “2000 years”. Modern critical historical New Testament scholarship as it is now undertaken did not commence until David Strauss published his Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet in 1835.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              When we show you actual scripture that proves your claims wrong, you hand wave it away as either not authentic (i.e. Paul didn't really write it).
                              Several of the epistles attributed to Paul are considered pseudepigrapic [aka Deutero-Pauline]. That is not a defamatory accusation that implies some unknown author was fraudulently passing off their work as that of Paul. Pseudepigraphy was common in the ancient world and often done as a mark of respect towards the person whose name was being employed.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              or even claiming the scriptures are just a fiction.
                              As Paul Winter has noted, all four of the evangelists’ accounts tell us that Jesus was led to the house of the high priest but after that their narratives differ widely.

                              Matthew and Mark contend that the Jewish Senate [i.e. the Sanhedrin] met in the high priest’s resident during the night immediately after the arrest. This conflicts with all the information available concerning the procedural activities of that body. Josephus and the Talmud cover centuries of Jewish history and they contain the data in respect to public affairs in Palestine in the first century against which the gospel narratives need to be checked when their historical character is called into question.

                              Neither in Josephus nor anywhere in rabbinical writing is there to be found any evidence of the Sanhedrin holding a meeting in the residence of a high priest. Not only does Mark 14, 53b conflict with information derived from the writings of Josephus, the Mishnah, the Tosefta, and the Talmud, it also stands in contrast to the accounts we have from the other evangelists. The wording in Luke 22.66 is presupposed in the Old Syriac Version “and they led him away into their council chamber”. συνέδριον in Luke 22.66 signifies the hall, or the building, not the Council as such. It is clear that Luke 22.66 differs from Mark 14, 53b but not to Mark 15, 1.a. In this latter passage we are told that the Sanhedrin met in the morning, but it makes no reference to any previous nocturnal meeting [Mark 14, 53 b, 55-64]. Charitably one might read the statement in Mark 15, 1 a in the sense that the morning session was held at a different place from that in which Mark 14,53-72 is set, in other words where Luke 22.66 puts it. However, Mark 15, 1 displays no knowledge whatsoever regarding an earlier session and therefore no inference can be drawn concerning Mark’s intention regarding the topographical location between Mark 15, 1 a and Mark 14, 53 b. Luke is explicit that the place of the council meeting [Luke 22.66] is different from that in the scenes found in Luke 22, 54-65. [See Winter, P. On The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth chapter 3]

                              Winter continues with regard to the account in the gospel of John, that this is a dramatisation on the part of that author with a distinct tendency to overstate the importance of Jesus’ opponents and the summary Roman military court proceedings out of all proportion to the nature of the case and the social position of the accused.

                              It was more likely to have been a decurio and not a tribunus militaris that arrested Jesus and more likely one of the high priest’s subordinate clerks rather than the high priest’s father–in-law who examined him. For this there may be a plausible historical basis for the account.

                              While no χιλίαρχος took part in the arrest and most likely no Annas in the investigation, thereby suggesting that both are the invention of the writer of John; it remains a possibility that Jesus was arrested by a detachment of Roman soldiers who then took him to the residence of the high priest for interrogation by some Jewish official and that he was then handed back to the Roman soldiers to be taken to stand trial before the governor. After all he could hardly have been brought to Pilate in the early morning if Pilate had not had prior knowledge of his arrest. It also needs to be remembered that, like all Imperial powers, Rome had a well organised military intelligence service.

                              So we are once again back to the question, which you persistently refuse to address, as to which of these different versions is the accurate and authentic account?

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              You use the scripture when you feel it helps your case and handwave them away when they don't.
                              These texts are all we have on this topic and necessitate being assessed in a dispassionate and objectively critical manner. They sometimes mention known historical personages and real places, however, so does much narrative fiction. It is therefore required to analyse these texts and extract from them the known historical evidence and distinguish it from the surrounding literary embellishments.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              You have created a bubble of invincible ignorance around yourself that is basically a waste of my and other's time trying to pop.
                              Your feeble attempt to patronise is duly noted. There is no “ignorance” on my part. That you have felt it necessary to make an ad hominem remark simply exhibits your own prejudice towards someone who challenges your preconceived and unquestioning acceptance of the veracity of these texts in every single respect.
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Even IF the scripture is just "fiction," if you are going to debate them, you have to accept what they say in their own paradigm.
                              I suspect that what you really mean by that remark is that these texts must be unquestioningly accepted as inerrant. This is nothing more than your own tendentious theological standpoint.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Even if they are fiction, that doesn't mean that Jesus didn't claim to be divine, or that others claimed he was divine, or that Paul didn't claim he was Jewish within that "fiction"
                              That is a contradictory and nonsensical remark.

                              If these texts are indeed fictions, [as you have remarked], then it follows that their content is likewise fiction.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              As long as you handwave away anything others say, there is no discussion to be had with you.
                              Once again this suggests that you appear unable to view these works except through the lens of your own preconceived beliefs in their inerrancy.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              As far as the gospels go, they don't all mention the same events.
                              That is manifestly self-evident.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Also the Gospel of John's core message is that Jesus is divine. Heck it starts out with equating him with God! And in John 10, the Pharisees accuse him of blasphemy and equating himself with God:
                              The term Logos or Word plays an essential part in Greek philosophy and mysticism, and the writer of John appears to have been conversant with these ideas. It is a pivotal concept in the theology of Philo and in Hermetism, attributed to the god Hermes Trismegistus; both of which are likely to have influenced Hellenistic Christianity. For John, as with Philo, the Logos was God’s tool in creation, a mediator figure between god and mankind. In Hermetic mysticism, the Logos is called the ‘son of God’. This phrase echoed by John ‘the only Son in the bosom of the father’ is the principle that brings form and order into the world. This Logos is a subordinate supernatural entity; God’s revelation [the Word] incarnated in mere human flesh, but it is not God.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              John 10:33
                              “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
                              And that is yet another dramatic fiction created by the writer of John.

                              You appear completely unable to comprehend that claiming to be the Jewish Messiah was not blasphemy in contemporary Judaism of the first century CE.
                              Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 07-15-2020, 03:01 PM.
                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                                In Paul’s letters he never states he is a Jew. That is a fact. He may have been a Jew – but he never personally states he is one. Nor does Paul state that he came from Tarsus or that he studied with Gamaliel. All this is put into the mouth of Paul by the writer of Acts.

                                Jesus did not categorically state he was divine. That is also a fact.

                                Likewise it is also a fact that claiming to be the Messiah [who is not God] was not blasphemy under contemporary Jewish religious law. Even claiming to be God [idolatry] would not have demanded the death sentence. Any such claimant would have been severely reprimanded and would probably have received a good beating, or considered to be insane and released.

                                They are not “fringe claims”. Simply because the names of various eminent scholars [some of them Jewish] whose works, studies, and opinions I have cited remain a closed book to you, does not imply that they are obscure within the academic corpus of New Testament scholarship.

                                Your own acknowledged “hillbilly” background is not generally regarded as the epicentre of accredited academic study on either the texts of the bible, its philology, or those other numerous, related disciplines associated with the historical periods within which those texts came to be composed.

                                I consider these texts as I would any other ancient source. Nor is it strictly accurate to allege that Christian scholarship dates back “2000 years”. Modern critical historical New Testament scholarship as it is now undertaken did not commence until David Strauss published his Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet in 1835.

                                Several of the epistles attributed to Paul are considered pseudepigrapic [aka Deutero-Pauline]. That is not a defamatory accusation that implies some unknown author was fraudulently passing off their work as that of Paul. Pseudepigraphy was common in the ancient world and often done as a mark of respect towards the person whose name was being employed.

                                As Paul Winter has noted, all four of the evangelists’ accounts tell us that Jesus was led to the house of the high priest but after that their narratives differ widely.

                                Matthew and Mark contend that the Jewish Senate [i.e. the Sanhedrin] met in the high priest’s resident during the night immediately after the arrest. This conflicts with all the information available concerning the procedural activities of that body. Josephus and the Talmud cover centuries of Jewish history and they contain the data in respect to public affairs in Palestine in the first century against which the gospel narratives need to be checked when their historical character is called into question.

                                Neither in Josephus nor anywhere in rabbinical writing is there to be found any evidence of the Sanhedrin holding a meeting in the residence of a high priest. Not only does Mark 14, 53b conflict with information derived from the writings of Josephus, the Mishnah, the Tosefta, and the Talmud, it also stands in contrast to the accounts we have from the other evangelists. The wording in Luke 22.66 is presupposed in the Old Syriac Version “and they led him away into their council chamber”. συνέδριον in Luke 22.66 signifies the hall, or the building, not the Council as such. It is clear that Luke 22.66 differs from Mark 14, 53b but not to Mark 15, 1.a. In this latter passage we are told that the Sanhedrin met in the morning, but it makes no reference to any previous nocturnal meeting [Mark 14, 53 b, 55-64]. Charitably one might read the statement in Mark 15, 1 a in the sense that the morning session was held at a different place from that in which Mark 14,53-72 is set, in other words where Luke 22.66 puts it. However, Mark 15, 1 displays no knowledge whatsoever regarding an earlier session and therefore no inference can be drawn concerning Mark’s intention regarding the topographical location between Mark 15, 1 a and Mark 14, 53 b. Luke is explicit that the place of the council meeting [Luke 22.66] is different from that in the scenes found in Luke 22, 54-65. [See Winter, P. On The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth chapter 3]

                                Winter continues with regard to the account in the gospel of John, that this is a dramatisation on the part of that author with a distinct tendency to overstate the importance of Jesus’ opponents and the summary Roman military court proceedings out of all proportion to the nature of the case and the social position of the accused.

                                It was more likely to have been a decurio and not a tribunus militaris that arrested Jesus and more likely one of the high priest’s subordinate clerks rather than the high priest’s father–in-law who examined him. For this there may be a plausible historical basis for the account.

                                While no χιλίαρχος took part in the arrest and most likely no Annas in the investigation, thereby suggesting that both are the invention of the writer of John; it remains a possibility that Jesus was arrested by a detachment of Roman soldiers who then took him to the residence of the high priest for interrogation by some Jewish official and that he was then handed back to the Roman soldiers to be taken to stand trial before the governor. After all he could hardly have been brought to Pilate in the early morning if Pilate had not had prior knowledge of his arrest. It also needs to be remembered that, like all Imperial powers, Rome had a well organised military intelligence service.

                                So we are once again back to the question, which you persistently refuse to address, as to which of these different versions is the accurate and authentic account?

                                These texts are all we have on this topic and necessitate being assessed in a dispassionate and objectively critical manner. They sometimes mention known historical personages and real places, however, so does much narrative fiction. It is therefore required to analyse these texts and extract from them the known historical evidence and distinguish it from the surrounding literary embellishments.

                                Your feeble attempt to patronise is duly noted. There is no “ignorance” on my part. That you have felt it necessary to make an ad hominem remark simply exhibits your own prejudice towards someone who challenges your preconceived and unquestioning acceptance of the veracity of these texts in every single respect.
                                I suspect that what you really mean by that remark is that these texts must be unquestioningly accepted as inerrant. This is nothing more than your own tendentious theological standpoint.

                                That is a contradictory and nonsensical remark.

                                If these texts are indeed fictions, [as you have remarked], then it follows that their content is likewise fiction.

                                Once again this suggests that you appear unable to view these works except through the lens of your own preconceived beliefs in their inerrancy.

                                That is manifestly self-evident.

                                The term Logos or Word plays an essential part in Greek philosophy and mysticism, and the writer of John appears to have been conversant with these ideas. It is a pivotal concept in the theology of Philo and in Hermetism, attributed to the god Hermes Trismegistus; both of which are likely to have influenced Hellenistic Christianity. For John, as with Philo, the Logos was God’s tool in creation, a mediator figure between god and mankind. In Hermetic mysticism, the Logos is called the ‘son of God’. This phrase echoed by John ‘the only Son in the bosom of the father’ is the principle that brings form and order into the world. This Logos is a subordinate supernatural entity; God’s revelation [the Word] incarnated in mere human flesh, but it is not God.

                                And that is yet another dramatic fiction created by the writer of John.

                                You appear completely unable to comprehend that claiming to be the Jewish Messiah was not blasphemy in contemporary Judaism of the first century CE.
                                I don't care enough to answer your bloviating wall of text, other than to point out you responded with the exact tactics I said you use, proving me right, handwaving away scripture as fiction or some other excuse not to accept it. And then had the gall to accuse me of having preconceived beliefs. I can see why JP Holding kicked you out of his area so quickly.

                                Oh, and yes Christian scholarship goes back 2000 years to the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X