[Old Man G Funk]

I mean, you are more than welcome to think that he's not actually referring to killing non-believers if you can come up with something supporting it in the Bible. You're also free to deny the common view that disbelief is the only unpardonable sin, but it would mean you are running against the grain.

I should perhaps be more clear in my usage of words.

I shouldn't be saying "non-belief" without qualifying it to include willful non-belief or denial of god. One who is simply ignorant is probably forgivable (although that is up for question since many Christians believe that not only does god exist, but he has shown himself to everyone and everyone chooses to follow or not follow,) but one who willfully does not believe is what I am referring to here.

 

[kinghami3]

Maybe you should have clarified that BEFORE the argument? Still, I don't entirely agree. What are your beliefs if someone rejects Jesus and then converts, as is often the case?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Maybe you should have clarified that BEFORE the argument? Still, I don't entirely agree. What are your beliefs if someone rejects Jesus and then converts, as is often the case?

It's not my belief, but according to most things that I've seen, one in that case never truly rejected Jesus, so therefore never actually committed the sin.

"Often the case?" I'm not sure how often it happens, but I'd be willing to bet that it doesn't happen as often as you might think.

 

[fluff]

I like Chorizo

 

[MMike]

I like Chorizo

The lady prime minister of the philipines?

 

[Westy]

From Wikipedia

In Mexico's Spanish slang, "chorizo" can refer to a penis.

Is Fluff trying to tell us something?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

From Wikipedia



Is Fluff trying to tell us something?

Chorizo is a sausage. Fluff says he likes sausage? Yeah, that's a little fishy.

 

[fluff]

I like MMike's response best...

 

[Westy]

I like MMike.

Your just digging the hole deeper.

 

[fluff]

I just dig your hole.

!gasp!

 

[Westy]

!gasp!

!shudder!

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Hey you two, get a room.

 

[fluff]

Hey you two, get a room.

What, like you and Andy you mean?

 

[Westy]

Consider these posts to be similar to a ref breaking up two boxers who refuse to fight and just hug each other on the ropes.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Consider these posts to be similar to two who refuse to fight and just hug each other.

With homosexual overtones?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

What, like you and Andy you mean?

You can join us if you like. We could all have a big man-loving orgy.

 

[Andyman_1970]

What, like you and Andy you mean?

Watch it......................

 

[fluff]

You can join us if you like. We could all have a big man-loving orgy.

I have rarely been so thankful for the existence of the Atlantic Ocean.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I have rarely been so thankful for the existence of the Atlantic Ocean.

What if I got the LPFC to come and cheerlead? Would that tickle your fancy?

 

[Andyman_1970]

Every reference to him is after the fact by people who were not eye-witnesses.....

That doesn't mean the sources are not, or don't contain accurate historical information.......

There are three criteria that historians use to examine sources of antiquity to determine their historic validity and usefulness. These by no means “prove” anything, they do however certainly raise the historical probabilities of an actual Jesus.

The first criteria used by historians to examine ancient sources is the criteria of multiple/independent attestation: events mentioned by multiple independent sources are more likely to be historically valid. Stories, for example found in Matthew, Mark and Luke, the story of the rich young man for instance – Matthew and Luke got that story from Mark and since it’s only found in one independent source historically this would be considered questionable. While I’m not saying that this story didn’t happen, I am saying that when examining it against this criteria it falls short as it’s not independently attested.

Stories about John the Baptist encountering Jesus that are independently attested – it happens in Mark, Matthew and Luke contain saying from JtB that Mark doesn’t have indicating they used a different source, probably Q. Also there is an encounter between Jesus and JtB in the Gospel of John which didn’t use Q or Mark as a source. So Jesus beginning His ministry with JtB is attested in 3 independent sources. This increases likelihood of this tradition being authentic…..from a historical perspective.

Stories about Jesus’ crucifixion - all 4 Gospels attest to the crucifixion, the Gospel of Peter, Paul, Tacitus………in all these accounts (except Paul) the event is dated to the governorship of Pontius Pilate. We know Pilate was the governor of Judea from the years 26-36 AD. So given the widespread attestation to the crucifixion we can (according to this criteria) safely say that in all likely hood Jesus was crucified somewhere between the years 26-36 AD.

Jesus’ brothers – the Gospel of Mark, John, Paul’s 1st letter to the Corinthians, additionally both Mark, Paul (in Galatians) and Josephus (?) identify one of Jesus’ brothers as James. So again when placed against this criteria, Jesus probably had brothers and one was probably named James.

It’s multiply attested that Jesus caused a disturbance in the Temple which ultimately resulted in His death. This is found in Mark, John, Gospel of Thomas…….all these are independent sources……….Jesus probably did cause a disturbance in the Temple.

Jesus’ parable where the Kingdom of God is like a seed, this is found in Mark, Q, and in Thomas.

The second criteria is the criteria of dissimilarity: best example I can give, if I’m on trial for arson, and my mother takes the witness stand and says she saw me do it, that carries more weight than say a convenient alibi. If a witnesses testimony goes against their vested interested their testimony is more likely to be accurate.

Essentially this criterion maintains that any tradition about Jesus that does not support a clear Christian “agenda” or appears to work against the vested interest of the Christians telling the stories is more likely to be historical.

Jesus’ association with John the Baptist – this is not the kind of tradition an early believer would make up. It was understood by early Christians that the one being baptized was spiritually “inferior” than the one doing the baptizing……….this show’s Jesus being spiritual “inferior” to JtB……..what Christian would make that up?

Jesus crucifixion – this is not a tradition early Christians would have made up. Evidently there are Jewish sources form both the first century BCE and AD that describe the Messiah as a new King that would throw out the Romans, another one was the Messiah was a judge from Heaven and set up God’s Kingdom on earth, one thing was common all the Jewish expectations portray the Messiah as a figure of power and grandeur. We have no indications from Jewish sources prior to Jesus that the Messiah was going to suffer and die. This is why Paul says the crucifixion is the major stumbling block for Jews accepting Jesus as Messiah. So the question becomes, why would Christians invent the concept of the Messiah being crucified if it was the biggest obstacle to having people convert? A story of Jesus kicking the Romans out of Israel would have been something more beneficial to Christians rather than His being killed.

It seems unlikely that Christians would have invented the story that Jesus was betrayed by Judas. This might show Jesus didn’t even have power and authority over His own followers.

Matthew 25 the whole sheep, goats, and feeding those in need story – the striking thing about this parable is that salvation is attained by doing good deeds, and in the parable the people doing the good deeds don’t realize they are doing it for Jesus. Would a Christian make up a story that shows it’s by doing good deeds one gains salvation? Would a Christian make up a story that might seem to indicate that someone who doesn’t even know Jesus can by doing good deeds gain salvation? Not likely because we know that the early Christians thought salvation was through believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus. It’s unlikely a Christian would have made up that story.

Traditions that don’t pass this criterion: Mark’s citation 3 times that Jesus says He would have to go to Jerusalem, get killed and rise from the dead……..historically this is suspect when examined against this criteria.

The third criteria is the criteria of contextual credibility: reliable sources must conform to the cultural and social context of the time they were written. So the stories of Jesus have to be situated in the context of 1st century Palestine for them to be historically trusted.

Peter’s Gospel where he frames the Jewish king Herod as the one who has Jesus killed. This runs against Roman sources that document how Roman territories were run and how the territory of Judea was run in the 1st century.

John 3, talking with Nicodemus, the whole born again saying. The misunderstanding is based on the Greek word, the Aramaic word (which is what Jesus and Nicodemus would have spoken to each other) does not have the dual meaning of “born again” or “born above”. Thus we see a conversation, or clarification of a conversation that is based on the language of a later writing rather the actual language of the conversation would have taken place. So obviously this account does not pass the criteria of contextual credibility.

As I said they don’t 100% historically “prove” Jesus, but they do certainly raise the probabilities that He did exist historically.

 

[MudGrrl]

What if I got the LPFC to come and cheerlead? Would that tickle your fancy?

I love tickling fancies.




G Funk, do you have a fancy that you want me to tickle?

 

[Andyman_1970]

G Funk, do you have a fancy that you want me to tickle?

Hey now, this is a Jesus thread...........take that fancy tickling to the no Jesus thread.......LOL

 

[Old Man G Funk]

That doesn't mean the sources are not, or don't contain accurate historical information.......

I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist, but I am saying we should be skeptical.

There are three criteria that historians use to examine sources of antiquity to determine their historic validity and usefulness. These by no means “prove” anything, they do however certainly raise the historical probabilities of an actual Jesus.

"Probabilities" is too strong a word here (I'll explain below).

The first criteria used by historians to examine ancient sources is the criteria of multiple/independent attestation: events mentioned by multiple independent sources are more likely to be historically valid....

(note: emphasis in original)
I don't think you can use that criteria at all when discussing the gospel accounts for a couple reasons. One, all the authors are describing hearsay since none of them were there. None of their accounts would survive a court of law. Two, the gospels were cribbed from one another. Three, the books were all brought together and redacted by a single source. Similarities and independent attestation does not hold any water when the writings have in all likelihood been edited by a single source.

For example of this:
Let's say both of us are called in to testify about a robbery. You were nowhere near the robbery and have nothing to say on the matter. I go first. After my testimony, you get a chance to read my testimony overnight and study it. You come in the next day and recount my testimony as your own. No one would consider that to be independent verification. The gospel authors cribbed from each other, thus negating the chance to consider independent verification as a criteria. (Note: this should not be construed as an endorsement that their testimonies would be allowed at all in court since they are clearly hearsay and as such would not be heard at all.)

The second criteria is the criteria of dissimilarity...
Essentially this criterion maintains that any tradition about Jesus that does not support a clear Christian “agenda” or appears to work against the vested interest of the Christians telling the stories is more likely to be historical.

Jesus’ association with John the Baptist – this is not the kind of tradition an early believer would make up. It was understood by early Christians that the one being baptized was spiritually “inferior” than the one doing the baptizing……….this show’s Jesus being spiritual “inferior” to JtB……..what Christian would make that up?

(note:emphasis in original)
I'm not really sure how this really doesn't support the "agenda".

Jesus crucifixion – this is not a tradition early Christians would have made up....It seems unlikely that Christians would have invented the story that Jesus was betrayed by Judas. This might show Jesus didn’t even have power and authority over His own followers.

Both of these have roots in the myths of earlier godhead figures, much like the virgin birth. To use them was simply drawing on what other earlier religions had used in their own mythology. Example: mithra.

Matthew 25 the whole sheep, goats, and feeding those in need story – the striking thing about this parable is that salvation is attained by doing good deeds, and in the parable the people doing the good deeds don’t realize they are doing it for Jesus. Would a Christian make up a story that shows it’s by doing good deeds one gains salvation? Would a Christian make up a story that might seem to indicate that someone who doesn’t even know Jesus can by doing good deeds gain salvation? Not likely because we know that the early Christians thought salvation was through believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus. It’s unlikely a Christian would have made up that story.

Hence the passages in the gospels about what happens to those who disbelieve.

The third criteria is the criteria of contextual credibility: reliable sources must conform to the cultural and social context of the time they were written. So the stories of Jesus have to be situated in the context of 1st century Palestine for them to be historically trusted....

(note: emphasis in original)
Once again, that's just good storytelling./narration. Your two examples do seem to run counter to your argument, however.

As I said they don’t 100% historically “prove” Jesus, but they do certainly raise the probabilities that He did exist historically.

Again, I think "probabilities" is probably too strong of a word here. The gospels are rife with accounts that the authors could not have known, like what Jesus said and did while alone. They would simply not hold up in any court of law, because they don't meet the bare minimum of requirements to pass as evidence. What's very strange is that we have all this upheaval by one man, but no one recorded it while it was happening, even though there were historians in that time period and in that part of the world that recorded such events. That fact alone makes Jesus as a historical figure pretty doubtful.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I love tickling fancies.




G Funk, do you have a fancy that you want me to tickle?

How about some lesbian action?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Hey now, this is a Jesus thread...........take that fancy tickling to the no Jesus thread.......LOL

Hey, don't try to rain on my parade!

 

[Andyman_1970]

I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist, but I am saying we should be skeptical.
"Probabilities" is too strong a word here (I'll explain below).

I disagree………….and several PHD level Bible scholars do as well………..

I don't think you can use that criteria at all when discussing the gospel accounts for a couple reasons.

I don’t limit this critical examination to “just” the canonical Gospels…………

One, all the authors are describing hearsay since none of them were there.

According to this criteria for historical analysis of an ancient source that is not the case, nor does it matter. The point that multiple independent sources document the same or similar events/traditions points to the validity of said tradition.
I don’t limit this critical examination to “just” the canonical Gospels…………

Two, the gospels were cribbed from one another.

Not all of them were, we have no evidence that John used either Mark or Q or L or M for a source. That is the point of this criteria is to weed out the traditions/events that were dependant on the other Gospels and thus suspect……..the examples I cited are come from multiple independent sources, not John, for example, taking what Luke wrote.

Three, the books were all brought together and redacted by a single source. Similarities and independent attestation does not hold any water when the writings have in all likelihood been edited by a single source.

I’m not limiting sources to only the canonical Gospels, so this is not entirely relevant to our discussion. Also, the point if independent attestation is that they have an independent source, so how can it not hold water? If they did have a common single source they would fail this criteria…….duh.

The gospel authors cribbed from each other, thus negating the chance to consider independent verification as a criteria.

This is a sweeping assumption that is not true. Mark did not cite Luke and Matthew, and John was on his own.

(Note: this should not be construed as an endorsement that their testimonies would be allowed at all in court since they are clearly hearsay and as such would not be heard at all.)

I’m not citing this for a court of law, I am merely giving examples from what has been documented about Jesus using accepted methods of analysis of ancient sources. This is a historical discussion, not a legal one, nor is it a theologial one.

Both of these have roots in the myths of earlier godhead figures, much like the virgin birth. To use them was simply drawing on what other earlier religions had used in their own mythology. Example: mithra.

True, but we also have sources that have no theological agenda citing that Jesus was killed.

Hence the passages in the gospels about what happens to those who disbelieve.

Yeah so if that’s the case, why include a passage that clearly indicates one could by doing good deeds gain eternal life?

Once again, that's just good storytelling./narration. Your two examples do seem to run counter to your argument, however.

Both my examples don’t line up with the contextual credibility criteria and are thus considered suspect, I was giving the examples as a demonstration of the concept, not trying to prove a verse or two.

The gospels are rife with accounts that the authors could not have known, like what Jesus said and did while alone.

That doesn’t mean that what they wrote wasn’t historically accurate. However, because of the time gap, the Text does need to be critically examined using the criteria that secular Bible scholars have been using for years.

They would simply not hold up in any court of law, because they don't meet the bare minimum of requirements to pass as evidence.

Does the “court” of history have the same requirements at the court of law? Where does it say that for Jesus to be a historical that the Gospels must live up to the requirements of a court of law? Who set up this arbitrary condition? Or is this a response to the popular book “evidence that demands a verdict”………if you’re in any way assuming I’m using that as a source you’re mistaken.

[Edit]The point of my post was not to “prove” historically the Jesus described in the Gospels, my point was to show that portions of the Gospels and other non canonical sources point to a historical Jesus that may or may not be the Jesus the Gospels paint.

 

[fluff]

lots of stuff that's probably very interesting but...

can we get back to the fancy-tickling bit?

and what does LPFC stand for?

 

[Westy]

can we get back to the fancy-tickling bit?

and what does LPFC stand for?

Lesbian Pillow Fight Club.

 

[MudGrrl]

Hey now, this is a Jesus thread...........take that fancy tickling to the no Jesus thread.......LOL

W.W.L.P.F.C.D?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I disagree………….and several PHD level Bible scholars do as well………..

It's only recently that scholars have started to question the validity of assuming the Bible is describing an historical Jesus.

I don’t limit this critical examination to “just” the canonical Gospels…………

The gospels were written before the rest of the books, with the exception of Paul's letters. Paul, however, never met Jesus and never claims to.

According to this criteria for historical analysis of an ancient source that is not the case, nor does it matter. The point that multiple independent sources document the same or similar events/traditions points to the validity of said tradition.

Actually, hearsay does matter. Look at the example I gave. Make this modification. I tell you what I saw and what happened. You go up and tell my story. It may seem like you are an independent source, but you aren't because you are simply providing hearsay of my story.

Not all of them were, we have no evidence that John used either Mark or Q or L or M for a source. That is the point of this criteria is to weed out the traditions/events that were dependant on the other Gospels and thus suspect……..the examples I cited are come from multiple independent sources, not John, for example, taking what Luke wrote.

But, there is enough overlap to show that they were not written independently.

I’m not limiting sources to only the canonical Gospels, so this is not entirely relevant to our discussion. Also, the point if independent attestation is that they have an independent source, so how can it not hold water? If they did have a common single source they would fail this criteria…….duh.

The gospels had a common, single editor. Whether the editor made changes or not, we don't know.

This is a sweeping assumption that is not true. Mark did not cite Luke and Matthew, and John was on his own.

No, they didn't cite each other, but it's pretty obvious that they did crib. There are whole passages that are practically lifted from one gospel and imported into another.

I’m not citing this for a court of law, I am merely giving examples from what has been documented about Jesus using accepted methods of analysis of ancient sources. This is a historical discussion, not a legal one, nor is it a theologial one.

I understand that. We can, however, use modern examples as a way to relate, and I think that the hearsay exemption is one that should be considered.

True, but we also have sources that have no theological agenda citing that Jesus was killed.

Which ones? We certainly don't have Roman records, which is strange since they recorded that kind of stuff very well.

Yeah so if that’s the case, why include a passage that clearly indicates one could by doing good deeds gain eternal life?

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I think you are mistaken that one can gain eternal life with only good deeds based on the Bible.

Both my examples don’t line up with the contextual credibility criteria and are thus considered suspect, I was giving the examples as a demonstration of the concept, not trying to prove a verse or two.

I just found it sort of odd that you didn't give a positive example.

That doesn’t mean that what they wrote wasn’t historically accurate. However, because of the time gap, the Text does need to be critically examined using the criteria that secular Bible scholars have been using for years.

No, it doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus didn't exist, but it does throw that idea into doubt. Also, the criteria is fine, except for the part about assuming that Jesus was historical then working from that point.

Does the “court” of history have the same requirements at the court of law? Where does it say that for Jesus to be a historical that the Gospels must live up to the requirements of a court of law? Who set up this arbitrary condition? Or is this a response to the popular book “evidence that demands a verdict”………if you’re in any way assuming I’m using that as a source you’re mistaken.

I don't know if history holds itself to the same standards as a court of law, but history should at least try to make its case as well as possible and strive to meet the burdens that would be imposed in a court of law. As for that book; never heard of it.

[Edit]The point of my post was not to “prove” historically the Jesus described in the Gospels, my point was to show that portions of the Gospels and other non canonical sources point to a historical Jesus that may or may not be the Jesus the Gospels paint.

And my point isn't to definitively say he didn't exist, but to point out that we should look at it with some good measure of doubt. If one wants to take it on faith, go ahead. But, don't look at me like I've got three heads when I say that it's quite possible he never existed (not saying that you do that or would do that, but many people do.) I will say this. The Jesus that the gospels paint is above and beyond just finding an historical Jesus due to the miracles that he supposedly performed. If you wanted to make a connection from an historical Jesus to the Jesus of the gospels, then that would be an even taller order, so it's good that you aren't trying to do that.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

W.W.L.P.F.C.D?

They would take off their tops, start a pillow fight, fall into a big ball of women, and make out.

 

[fluff]

If you bring the LPFC I'm there...

 

[Old Man G Funk]

If you bring the LPFC I'm there...

How about it MudGrrl?

Will you and the LPFC come over and get naked?

 

[Westy]

Right now it looks more like the Old Man Bible Arguing Pillow Fight Club, eewwww.

 

[MudGrrl]

How about it MudGrrl?

Will you and the LPFC come over and get naked?

I'll send you some nudie pics.




or, I can do one better.

I know where *you* live.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I'll send you some nudie pics.




or, I can do one better.

Yes...to both!

 

[fluff]

Bah, just post 'em..

 

[Andyman_1970]

It's only recently that scholars have started to question the validity of assuming the Bible is describing an historical Jesus.

The professors I’ve been listening to don’t limit their sources to only the canonical Texts.

The gospels were written before the rest of the books, with the exception of Paul's letters. Paul, however, never met Jesus and never claims to.

Really, before Q, M, L…………..those were the sources for those Gospels.

Actually, hearsay does matter. Look at the example I gave. Make this modification. I tell you what I saw and what happened. You go up and tell my story. It may seem like you are an independent source, but you aren't because you are simply providing hearsay of my story.

The purpose of independent attestation is to filter those modifications out from sources that were not eye witnesses.

But, there is enough overlap to show that they were not written independently.

Or that they attest to the same event that actually happened. As to them not written independently, that is the case for Matthew and Luke, but not for Mark and John.

The gospels had a common, single editor. Whether the editor made changes or not, we don't know.

I would disagree that the earliest manuscripts we have all had a “single” editor.

No, they didn't cite each other, but it's pretty obvious that they did crib. There are whole passages that are practically lifted from one gospel and imported into another.

How could John “crib” from the other Gospel writers when a) his Gospel was different from the synoptic and b) he was in an isolated community in Asia Minor when he wrote his Gospel. How could Mark crib from anyone, his was first?

I understand that. We can, however, use modern examples as a way to relate, and I think that the hearsay exemption is one that should be considered.

Since it’s not one historians consider I don’t see it as valid. Unless of course you’re a Phd Bible scholar then I might consider it………..LOL

Which ones? We certainly don't have Roman records, which is strange since they recorded that kind of stuff very well.

Dr. Ehrman mentioned Tacticus in a lecture I heard the other day on this subject……….but I’ll double check that.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I think you are mistaken that one can gain eternal life with only good deeds based on the Bible.

My point was not to lay out how one attains eternal life, my point was to point out the dissimilarity of the passage in Matthew to the generally accepted soterological method of Christianity.

I just found it sort of odd that you didn't give a positive example.

I couldn’t find one off the top of my head. However, contextually, Matthew seems to be the most “credible” of the Gospels from a Jewish point if view.

Also, the criteria is fine, except for the part about assuming that Jesus was historical then working from that point.

I don’t think in that post I made that assumption, I stated that because the passages I cited “pass” the criteria I listed the probability and historical reliability of said passages definitely goes up.

And my point isn't to definitively say he didn't exist, but to point out that we should look at it with some good measure of doubt.

I think the term historians use is critical examination rather than doubt.

The Jesus that the gospels paint is above and beyond just finding an historical Jesus due to the miracles that he supposedly performed.

Keep in mind that it was not uncommon for rabbi’s with s’mikah (authority, which from the Gospels we see that He was [note: which would mean that we take the Gospels as actually what happened. So for this example and point I’m deviating from my purely historical perspective and switching to my Christian perspective – the comment being made is merely food for thought, not meant to be a hard and fast…..”yep I’ve just proved Jesus”]) to perform miracles and healings…….Jesus was a regular rabbi in that sense.

 

[Westy]

The professors I’ve been listening to don’t limit their sources to only the canonical Texts.



Really, before Q, M, L…………..those were the sources for those Gospels.

[/QUOTE = Old Man G Funk]Actually, hearsay does matter. Look at the example I gave. Make this modification. I tell you what I saw and what happened. You go up and tell my story. It may seem like you are an independent source, but you aren't because you are simply providing hearsay of my story.

What does that have to do with the LPFC?

 

[MudGrrl]

Bah, just post 'em..

can't post 'em while I'm at work....



the man got me locked down.