Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Produce the Body!


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#31    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 22 July 2013 - 06:20 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 22 July 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

The one you specifically call the "Reconstruction of the crucifixion of Yehohanan ben Hagkol" and the one directly above it. For the feet to be turned outward in order to hammer the nail through or between the heel bone and the achilles tendon then it would have had to be done from the inside of the foot. Nailing to an upright post this way would make the legs bow outward, somewhat frog-style. This is not indicated in either the above mentioned pictures of yours.

cormac

Ok, thanks for the heads up on that.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#32    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 22 July 2013 - 06:29 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 22 July 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

Thanks for putting me straight on the "bile" issue.  Now we need confirmation of the myrrh.  What is the earliest known reference to the incident and what did they say?  Who was the author and when did he write?  Again, there are at least two and maybe many gospels that pre-date Irenaeus' four.  What do they have to say?
Doug

There are no known Gospels, canonical or other than the 4 we have in the bible.

PS - by the above statement I mean that there are non earlier than those, all others were written long after these by as much as a century or three.

Edited by Jor-el, 22 July 2013 - 07:26 PM.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#33    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,395 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 22 July 2013 - 09:18 PM

View PostJor-el, on 22 July 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

There are no known Gospels, canonical or other than the 4 we have in the bible.

PS - by the above statement I mean that there are non earlier than those, all others were written long after these by as much as a century or three.
"The Teachings of the Apostles" dates from about 120 AD.
"The Epistle of Clement" is datable to 96 AD and, while it does not claim to be an account of Jesus' life or teachings, it does relate the oil-on-head incident.
"Mary of Cassoboli" dates to about 81 or 82 AD.
"Ignatius the Martyr of Antioch" dates to about 115 AD.  The account of Ignatius trip to Rome is spurious according to St. Jerome.
"The Gospel of the Hebrews" is cited by Clement of Rome, Origen and Didymus the Blind, placing it sometime before 100 AD.

And there are others.  All of these potentially predate the Irenaean gospels, to which the earliest reference is in 180 AD.

I know you believe through faith that the Irenaean gospels were written far earlier, but can you show me something to confirm that?  A reference to Matthew or Mark in some ancient writer's work would be helpful.

I have stated my reasons for Matthew/Mark being written between 132 and 135 AD, for Luke/Acts being written in 159 and for John being written in the 160s or 170s and will be glad to do so again.  I wish you would present something tangible with which to confirm the dates you propose.  So far, you have not produced a quote from any of your authors that would establish any other dates.  Yes, they think the gospels were written in the first century, but they can't give any reasons for their opinions.  I would like to know how they came to their conclusions and on what basis.  Only then can I tell if they know what they're talking about.

With due respect,
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#34    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 22 July 2013 - 10:23 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 22 July 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

"The Teachings of the Apostles" dates from about 120 AD.

Also known as the Didache was never and still is not a Gospel or anything equating to the meaning of that word.

Quote

"The Epistle of Clement" is datable to 96 AD and, while it does not claim to be an account of Jesus' life or teachings, it does relate the oil-on-head incident.

An Epistle is not a Gospel. An Epistle is a letter, a Gospel is something else entirely, in effect it is a public proclamation of "Good News".

Quote

"Mary of Cassoboli" dates to about 81 or 82 AD
.
Do you know, I have never heard of her and neither has the internet. All I could find is a reference in books and usually accompanied by the term spurious... I cannot even get an account of what is supposedly written within it, but again it is an Epistle, not a Gospel.

Quote

"Ignatius the Martyr of Antioch" dates to about 115 AD.  The account of Ignatius trip to Rome is spurious according to St. Jerome.

Again, Ignatius, spurious or not is NOT a Gospel.

Quote

"The Gospel of the Hebrews" is cited by Clement of Rome, Origen and Didymus the Blind, placing it sometime before 100 AD.

But all we have are quotes from that Gospel we do not actually have an intact copy, so it is useless to speculate on what it may or may not have contained.

Quote

And there are others.  All of these potentially predate the Irenaean gospels, to which the earliest reference is in 180 AD.

There are only three known Gospels that do not actually predate the cannonical Gospels but were written in and around the same time period as the cannonical gospels.

They are:

Gospel of the Ebionites - 7 quotes cited, all by Epiphanius
Gospel of the Hebrews - 7 quotes survive, six of them by Jerome
Gospel of the Nazarenes - 30 quotes survive in works by Jerome and Origen

Then we have the non-cannonical gospels that were written much later...

Gospel of Marcion (mid 2nd century)
Gospel of Mani (3rd century)
Gospel of Apelles (mid-late 2nd century)
Gospel of Bardesanes (late 2nd - early 3rd century)
Gospel of Basilides (mid 2nd century)

And here you actually have list that you should keep and study... http://reluctant-mes...otten_books.htm

Quote

I know you believe through faith that the Irenaean gospels were written far earlier, but can you show me something to confirm that?  A reference to Matthew or Mark in some ancient writer's work would be helpful.

Why does it always have to be through faith... there are enough scholars out there who actually do give early dates for the gospels... and they are not all christians... but it is interesting that you should mention this in the way you have, as if there is actually no evidence supporting such a view.

Quote

I have stated my reasons for Matthew/Mark being written between 132 and 135 AD, for Luke/Acts being written in 159 and for John being written in the 160s or 170s and will be glad to do so again.  I wish you would present something tangible with which to confirm the dates you propose.  So far, you have not produced a quote from any of your authors that would establish any other dates.  Yes, they think the gospels were written in the first century, but they can't give any reasons for their opinions.  I would like to know how they came to their conclusions and on what basis.  Only then can I tell if they know what they're talking about.

With due respect,
Doug

I have and done so more than once, you ignored and stated that it was not evidence... even when scholars admit that same information as evidence.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#35    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,395 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 23 July 2013 - 12:14 AM

Agreed that the items I referenced are not gospels, but they might provide information that validates one or more gospels.  And I don't really care whether we call a written document a gospel or not.  Most ancient "gospels" do not bear that name.  What I want to know is whether they contain useable information about themselves and about Jesus.

Quote

There are only three known Gospels that do not actually predate the cannonical Gospels but were written in and around the same time period as the cannonical gospels.

They are:

Gospel of the Ebionites - 7 quotes cited, all by Epiphanius
Gospel of the Hebrews - 7 quotes survive, six of them by Jerome
Gospel of the Nazarenes - 30 quotes survive in works by Jerome and Origen

Then we have the non-cannonical gospels that were written much later...

Gospel of Marcion (mid 2nd century)
Gospel of Mani (3rd century)
Gospel of Apelles (mid-late 2nd century)
Gospel of Bardesanes (late 2nd - early 3rd century)
Gospel of Basilides (mid 2nd century)

And here you actually have list that you should keep and study... http://reluctant-mes...otten_books.htm
Now we're getting somewhere.  Thanks for the list.  I have some reading to do.

Quote

Why does it always have to be through faith... there are enough scholars out there who actually do give early dates for the gospels... and they are not all christians... but it is interesting that you should mention this in the way you have, as if there is actually no evidence supporting such a view.

I have and done so more than once, you ignored and stated that it was not evidence... even when scholars admit that same information as evidence.
You have many times posted opinions by this or that scholar, then been unable to present anything that would support what they are saying.  An opinion, no matter how learned, is not evidence.  A conclusion without reasoning is not evidence.  Speculation isn't even scholarship.

What I want to know is WHY they think early dates are valid.  Example, if Eusebius mentions an early writing, that's pretty good evidence that it pre-dates Eusebius.  If we want to say that a gospel existed in 55 AD, for example, we must find something reliable that was written in 55 AD that references it.  Or the gospel must reference an emperor or other known historical person, building or event.  It might be a battle, the construction of something like the Colliseum, or a historical person such as "most excellent Felix."  We can then track the writing back, step-by-step.  The religion of the writer is irrelevant.

We can use quotes, but that is dangerous because there were many versions of the gospels floating around in the early days of Christianity and the quotation has to be clear enough that it indicates what it came from.  Most of the "quotations" turned up on the internet are only scraps that could come from anywhere.  A good quotation is hard to find.  If we want to know when a gospel was written, we need a good quote from it in a datable document.  Unfortunately for the traditional four, I can't name even one document that quotes from them before Irenaeus.

And what if I find a quotation from Marcion in the Book of Luke?  Several "experts" think they have (Haven't had a chance to check it out, yet.).  What would that say about when Luke was written?  And if that were corroborated by the names of two historical people from the Book of Luke?  I am finding some evidence that supports much older dates for the four gospels.  And I am looking for something to counter it.  I'm sorry if I sound like I'm rejecting everything you say, but the testing is needed to make sure that what people are telling me is true.  Everybody and everything gets tested.

Most of the time, you don't even try to counter things I propose.  Even things I know are shaky manage to go right by you.  You should catch them quite easily.  That's the same test I use on the "experts:"  I expect them to catch my mistake when I know I'm making one so I know I can trust them when I don't know I'm making one.  Even then, I check out what they say before accepting it.

I am trying to build a framework for the gospels so I can determine what was written when and get an idea of how reliable it might be.  Then I plan to use that framework to find out what the earliest writings say about Jesus, as they SHOULD be the most reliable.

Above you referred to several of the writings I listed as "spurious."  I don't know that to be the case.  They, too, must pass the same tests of truthfulness and consistency that must be applied to the gospels.  Then by accepting truth where we find it and rejecting falsehood without regard to its source, we can learn as much as possible about what really happened.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 23 July 2013 - 12:25 AM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#36    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 23 July 2013 - 12:36 AM

Posting error.

Edited by Jor-el, 23 July 2013 - 12:49 AM.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#37    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 25 July 2013 - 06:51 PM

View Postand then, on 20 July 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

So these eleven men gave themselves to a quest that led them to be whipped and mocked, poverty and shameful treatment and in all but one case martyrdom -all for a lie?  Yeah.. that sounds like reasonable human behavior...

Muslims die by the bunches for the Cause of Islam. Does that vindicate Islam as the guarantor of the Truth.


#38    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 25 July 2013 - 07:06 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 21 July 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

Perhaps more important to establishing the story is to produce an example of someone else, especially in the modern world, who has reached this stage of death and revived without medical intervention.  If such a case could be found, that would point toward the possibility that someone could survive crucifixion.  Failing that, a mechanism of how that could happen needs to be proposed.

One has been.  According to this, while Jesus was on the cross, he was given something ("Bile" in vinegar.).  Whatever it was knocked him out.  After he was most-likely dead, his body was taken down and he was revived.  He returned from the grave; therefore, he must be god.  Only one problem with this:  somebody forgot to bribe that Roman soldier with the spear.  Although Jesus revived and returned to his followers, sepsis in the massive wound eventually did him in.  But by now, the legend of his return from the grave was gathering strength and there was hope of overthrowing Roman rule.  A dead Jesus would crush any hope of a rebellion.  Quietly, his followers dug an unmarked grave...

And that's how the story might have actually happened; that is, IF it happened at all.
Doug

Josephus in his "Wars of the Jews" makes reference to the fact that it was not uncommon for Jews to lingers on their crosses for days even up to 3 or 4 passing our and back till they eventually died although he does not mention that they would escape the cross. In the case of Jesus it was different because "money talks". Two millionaire Pharisees, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus brought about 100 pounds of medications to mend Jesus wounds which perhaps prevented sepsis from doing him in. (John 19:39) Then after appearing to his disciples for 40 days with instructions about keeping the Cause alive he just left the scene and never returned. (Acts 1:3)

Edited by Ben Masada, 25 July 2013 - 07:08 PM.


#39    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,395 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 26 July 2013 - 12:52 AM

View PostBen Masada, on 25 July 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

Josephus in his "Wars of the Jews" makes reference to the fact that it was not uncommon for Jews to lingers on their crosses for days even up to 3 or 4 passing our and back till they eventually died although he does not mention that they would escape the cross. In the case of Jesus it was different because "money talks". Two millionaire Pharisees, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus brought about 100 pounds of medications to mend Jesus wounds which perhaps prevented sepsis from doing him in. (John 19:39) Then after appearing to his disciples for 40 days with instructions about keeping the Cause alive he just left the scene and never returned. (Acts 1:3)
Interesting.  That's another angle.

It's going to be awhile before I can work on this again.  I'm in the middle of a bruising peer review that is eating up time something awful.  Thanks for the tip.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#40    shadowsot

shadowsot

    Nightstalker

  • Member
  • 9,139 posts
  • Joined:27 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Oops.

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:35 AM

View Postand then, on 20 July 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

So these eleven men gave themselves to a quest that led them to be whipped and mocked, poverty and shameful treatment and in all but one case martyrdom -all for a lie?  Yeah.. that sounds like reasonable human behavior...
Ad Then, I didn't figure you for a Mormon.

I mean, the followrs of Joseph Smith went through hell here in the US. Even more so the ones that refused to give up the tenant of polygamy.
Must mean that Joseph Smith was a real prophet of God, right?
Or what about those heaven's gate people? There really must have been a UFO following the comet for all of those people to drink the kool aid, right?

Reasonable behavior? No. Normal, very human behavior? Yes.

It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
-Terry Pratchett

#41    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 26 July 2013 - 10:04 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 23 July 2013 - 12:14 AM, said:

Agreed that the items I referenced are not gospels, but they might provide information that validates one or more gospels.  And I don't really care whether we call a written document a gospel or not.  Most ancient "gospels" do not bear that name.  What I want to know is whether they contain useable information about themselves and about Jesus.

Now we're getting somewhere.  Thanks for the list.  I have some reading to do.

You have many times posted opinions by this or that scholar, then been unable to present anything that would support what they are saying.  An opinion, no matter how learned, is not evidence.  A conclusion without reasoning is not evidence.  Speculation isn't even scholarship.

What I want to know is WHY they think early dates are valid.  Example, if Eusebius mentions an early writing, that's pretty good evidence that it pre-dates Eusebius.  If we want to say that a gospel existed in 55 AD, for example, we must find something reliable that was written in 55 AD that references it.  Or the gospel must reference an emperor or other known historical person, building or event.  It might be a battle, the construction of something like the Colliseum, or a historical person such as "most excellent Felix."  We can then track the writing back, step-by-step.  The religion of the writer is irrelevant.

We can use quotes, but that is dangerous because there were many versions of the gospels floating around in the early days of Christianity and the quotation has to be clear enough that it indicates what it came from.  Most of the "quotations" turned up on the internet are only scraps that could come from anywhere.  A good quotation is hard to find.  If we want to know when a gospel was written, we need a good quote from it in a datable document.  Unfortunately for the traditional four, I can't name even one document that quotes from them before Irenaeus.

And what if I find a quotation from Marcion in the Book of Luke?  Several "experts" think they have (Haven't had a chance to check it out, yet.).  What would that say about when Luke was written?  And if that were corroborated by the names of two historical people from the Book of Luke?  I am finding some evidence that supports much older dates for the four gospels.  And I am looking for something to counter it.  I'm sorry if I sound like I'm rejecting everything you say, but the testing is needed to make sure that what people are telling me is true.  Everybody and everything gets tested.

Most of the time, you don't even try to counter things I propose.  Even things I know are shaky manage to go right by you.  You should catch them quite easily.  That's the same test I use on the "experts:"  I expect them to catch my mistake when I know I'm making one so I know I can trust them when I don't know I'm making one.  Even then, I check out what they say before accepting it.

I am trying to build a framework for the gospels so I can determine what was written when and get an idea of how reliable it might be.  Then I plan to use that framework to find out what the earliest writings say about Jesus, as they SHOULD be the most reliable.

Above you referred to several of the writings I listed as "spurious."  I don't know that to be the case.  They, too, must pass the same tests of truthfulness and consistency that must be applied to the gospels.  Then by accepting truth where we find it and rejecting falsehood without regard to its source, we can learn as much as possible about what really happened.
Doug

Sorry it's taken me so long to post a response but my original response had too many problems, so I decided to scrap it at the time.

I have posted quotes from the early church fathers who predate Irenaeus and are KNOWN quotes from the four Gospels. You have ignored those repeatedly.

One item everybody seems to be forgetting, what does it mean to you that not one Gospel mentions even indirectly the destruction of the temple?

For the scholars in question which you seem to doubt, it means that they predate that event.

You mention this in regards to Eusebius, but silence speaks as loudly as an actual mention of something. As an event it would be irresistable to the author of said Gospels to not mention said destruction in any way, especially since such an event would largely legitimize the claims of Jesus followers in regard to Judaism.

You also seem to forget that the politcs of the 2nd and 3rd centuries are very different from the politics in play in the mid 1st century and these too would be reflected unconsciously in the very words written by the author or authors of the gospels, that is... if they were written in the time frame you claim, which is the time of Irenaeus. I'm not blind to the implications of what you are saying and not saying in your posts.

The fact that they reflect pure 1st century politcs also defeats your claims to a later date. The church heirarchy is another aspect of the same argument. the heirarchies used in the 2nd and later centuries differ substantially from that portrayed in the 1st century. the themes and goals and everything else demonstrate a clear distinction between the time periods in question.

That you have a number of early church fathers, all whom predate Irenaeus quoting entire bits of the Gospels means that that particular Gospel was around, don't you think?

When you have these men quote those Gospels many times and not just once it becomes the very bit of evidence you seem to refuse to see.

And I have posted the actual quotes in question at least twice with you.

Edited by Jor-el, 26 July 2013 - 10:13 PM.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#42    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 10,170 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 26 July 2013 - 10:26 PM

View PostJor-el, on 26 July 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

One item everybody seems to be forgetting, what does it mean to you that not one Gospel mentions even indirectly the destruction of the temple?
Mark 13 1-2 and Matthew 24 1-2 says otherwise.



#43    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 26 July 2013 - 10:37 PM

View PostTiggs, on 26 July 2013 - 10:26 PM, said:

Mark 13 1-2 and Matthew 24 1-2 says otherwise.

Now we are going to argue if that is a revisionist statement or that was actual prophecy?

Where are the equivalent statements in the other two gospels and the Pauline letters for that matter?

Edited by Jor-el, 26 July 2013 - 10:38 PM.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#44    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,395 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 26 July 2013 - 11:20 PM

View PostJor-el, on 26 July 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

I have posted quotes from the early church fathers who predate Irenaeus and are KNOWN quotes from the four Gospels. You have ignored those repeatedly.
Sorry about that.  Could you point me to your post?  I think I may be able to frame a reply sometime next week, maybe.

Quote

One item everybody seems to be forgetting, what does it mean to you that not one Gospel mentions even indirectly the destruction of the temple?
What is an "abomination in a high place?"
Can you name an obvious high place in Jerusalem?
What abominations are known to have been there?
Who put them there?
What is their symbol?

Matthew and Mark all-but-name the Temple of Jupiter on Temple Mount and the Roman Tenth Legion that built it.  But they did a better job of describing that than they did of describing Herod's temple.  They also describe a bunch of demons named "Legion" who left a man and entered some pigs - the very symbol of the Roman Tenth Legion.  And the Apocolypses of Matthew and Mark sound very much like people anticipating a major attack, which Bar Kochba's people knew Rome was preparing.

I'd say the case for the Temple of Jupiter is a lot stronger than the case for the Jewish Temple being the one Matthew and Mark were referring to.  Besides, when our first modern gospels were written, the Jewish Temple had been history for over 60 years.  It's not surprising that nobody would mention it.  But, of course, there's that prediction that not one stone would be left on another.  Are you saying that's not a reference to the destruction of the temple?  Jesus might have been talking about the destruction of the Temple of Jupiter, or the Crusader Church, or if you're really thinking big - the Dome of the Rock.

Quote

For the scholars in question which you seem to doubt, it means that they predate that event.
The "scholars" I am doubting are modern ones.  So which ancient writers do you think were quoting the gospels?  Justin was using a different source (One of those gospels that you don't think existed - the text is available online.).  He described the Jordan as being on fire when Jesus was baptized.  He certainly didn't get that from Irenaeus' gospels.  Aristides of Athens didn't quote from any gospel or mention them.  That was 125 AD.  If the gospels were known to him, a prominent Greek philosopher, why would he not use them?  Weren't there any gospels in Athens in 125 AD?  And Papias' (died 165 AD) description of "Mark" was way off the mark.

Quote

You mention this in regards to Eusebius, but silence speaks as loudly as an actual mention of something. As an event it would be irresistable to the author of said Gospels to not mention said destruction in any way, especially since such an event would largely legitimize the claims of Jesus followers in regard to Judaism.
In the case of Matthew/Mark, we're talking 62 years after the destruction of the temple.  Would people be writing about a story their grandfather told them when the ax is about to fall on their heads?  In Luke/Acts, the temple had been gone for nearly 110 years.  Its destruction was no longer part of living memory.  So which stone was it that wouldn't be found upon another one?

Quote

You also seem to forget that the politcs of the 2nd and 3rd centuries are very different from the politics in play in the mid 1st century and these too would be reflected unconsciously in the very words written by the author or authors of the gospels, that is... if they were written in the time frame you claim, which is the time of Irenaeus. I'm not blind to the implications of what you are saying and not saying in your posts.
No wonder we aren't communicating!  You aren't reading my posts!  Mark/Matthew - 132 to 135.  Luke/Acts - c. 160.  John - c. 170.  Irenaeus - 178 - 192. Yes.  I know about attempts by Jews to re-establish Israel, even after Bar Kochba.  And I know about all the heresies that were growing up in Christianity - and that the gospels were being re-written to support this or that faction.  The Christians weren't just a persecuted minority - they were right in the thick of the battle (And I mean a violent one.).

And it's those second-century politics that make me doubt the authenticity of Irenaeus' gospels.  The winners (Rome) got rid of the losers by declaring them heretics.  That's why our gospels were written (mostly) - to suppress heresy.

Quote

That you have a number of early church fathers, all whom predate Irenaeus quoting entire bits of the Gospels means that that particular Gospel was around, don't you think?
I don't think those quotes came from the gospels.  If you're going to say they did, you have to have enough of the sentence so that you know it didn't come from somewhere else.  Like I said above, most of the quotes you dig up on line are worthless because they're just fragments and you can't tell where they came from.  And when I have dug into some of those quotes, the syntax has been different, or the writer was writing about something else entirely ...

But if you'd like to have another go at it, why not?  But let's do them one at a time so we can actually do some research.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 26 July 2013 - 11:26 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#45    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 10,170 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 27 July 2013 - 01:27 PM

View PostJor-el, on 26 July 2013 - 10:37 PM, said:

Now we are going to argue if that is a revisionist statement or that was actual prophecy?
Nope.

Quote

Where are the equivalent statements in the other two gospels and the Pauline letters for that matter?
Which part of "not one gospel" are you having trouble remembering that you said earlier?








Recent blog entries on this topic

Photo

Produce the Body! How Jesus died

By markdohle in markdohle's Blog, on 21 April 2014 - 09:05 PM



According to the Gospels, Jesus died after only six hours on the cross. Crucifixion was designed as a slow, painful death which oftentimes...

Read Full Entry →

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users