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

#46    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,722 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 27 July 2013 - 02:26 PM

View PostTiggs, on 27 July 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

Nope.


Which part of "not one gospel" are you having trouble remembering that you said earlier?

I said it yes, but I also accept those verses you quoted as actual prophecy not revisionist statements from a later era.

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


#47    DeWitz

DeWitz

    DeWitz

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:11 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Niagara Frontier

  • "Follow me, it's in Room 101."
    Clyde P. Fesmire, PhD

Posted 27 July 2013 - 02:36 PM

View PostStarMountainKid, on 20 July 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:

In my view, Jesus didn't die on the cross, as he appeared later in the flesh. I think this is true because I don't consider resurrection of the dead possible, even when it is claimed to be factual, and written down in books as proof.

But, "isn't it ironic" how zombies ("on the third day he rose again from the dead") and vampires (undead quasi-immortals) are all the rage these days? Especially among the young?

Myths,fantasies and fables are "resurrected" whenever the narratives of the older generation(s) are revealed to be worn and tattered. 'Tis the way o' the world.

[previously incarnate as 'szentgyorgy']

"Things fall apart. . . it's scientific." - Talking Heads

#48    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,129 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 27 July 2013 - 06:53 PM

View PostJor-el, on 27 July 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

I said it yes, but I also accept those verses you quoted as actual prophecy not revisionist statements from a later era.
I don't think anyone would expect you to claim otherwise.

Oh. And Luke 21:5-19, while we're at it.

NaNoWriMo 2014 - Posted Image


#49    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,722 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 27 July 2013 - 07:40 PM

View PostTiggs, on 27 July 2013 - 06:53 PM, said:

I don't think anyone would expect you to claim otherwise.

Oh. And Luke 21:5-19, while we're at it.

Well, you got me there... I do not in fact claim otherwise.

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


#50    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,366 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 29 July 2013 - 02:06 PM

View PostJor-el, on 22 July 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

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)
First, there are about 30 writings that call themselves "Gospel":  none of those include the traditional four.  That term was added to the traditional four centuries later.

Some of these "gospels" - like the Gospel of Nicodemus, were written so long after the fact that it is difficult to believe they are anything other than myths.  Nicodemus was written in the fourth century, for example, and contains an account of Jesus' trial that reads like a transcript.  But there are some that date from earlier.

Those seven quotations by Epiphanius that you mention are from a writing made in the fourth century.  But in 183 AD, Irenaeus mentioned that the Ebionites follow the teachings of Matthew and ignor the letters of Paul.  If this is a reference to the Gospel of the Ebionites, then those quotations come from before 183.  This is the problem:  in order to understand Eiphanius, you have to read Irenaeus.  And there's no telling where you're going to find a useful clue, so that's an awful lot of reading.

I note a major difference in our approach.  You are studying what the Bible says; I am studying the Bible, itself.  To you it is a holy book.  To me it is an artifact of a bygone time.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 29 July 2013 - 02:08 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

#51    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,366 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 02 August 2013 - 09:49 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 29 July 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

Those seven quotations by Epiphanius that you mention are from a writing made in the fourth century.  But in 183 AD, Irenaeus mentioned that the Ebionites follow the teachings of Matthew and ignor the letters of Paul.  If this is a reference to the Gospel of the Ebionites, then those quotations come from before 183.  This is the problem:  in order to understand Eiphanius, you have to read Irenaeus.  And there's no telling where you're going to find a useful clue, so that's an awful lot of reading.
Did a little more digging on the Gospel of the Ebionites.  The earliest historical reference to it is the one by Irenaeus, above.  That probably makes it older than any of Irenaeus' gospels by three or four years, if my estimate is right.  There seems to be an opinion by some "experts" that it might have been an early version of Matthew, but as it can't be dated anywhere before 183, we'll have to consider that idea as speculation.
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

#52    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,885 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 19 October 2013 - 08:44 AM

Doug1o29

Doug1o29
Alien Abducter

125]
Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:52 AM

Posted ImageBen Masada, on 25 July 2013 - 08:06 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You haven't returned. What has happened? I hope you are well and just decided to drop the discussion of this issue.



Edited by Ben Masada, 19 October 2013 - 08:48 AM.


#53    fullywired

fullywired

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,099 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:08 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...


Yes almost as reasonable as this


March 26, 1997 brought the grizzly discovery that 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult had committed mass suicide, believing their souls would be transported to a spaceship trailing the Hale-Bopp comet.
Fifteen years have passed since the group became an international sensation -- attracting a mix of horror and ridicule -- but New Age believers are still harboring hopes that alien visitors will beam them up and away from earth.

The newest crop of these have gathered in a commune, 200-strong, outside the upside-down mountain Pic de Bugarach in the south of France. There, they hope extraterrestrial saviors will whisk them away .

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2iMvnc8eT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
  

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. Abraham Lincoln,   


And let's not forget another series of reasonable behaviour The most notorious example was the Jonestown affair of 1978, when Jim Jones ordered the deaths of some eight hundred followers of his People's Temple, then based in Guyana. Many did kill themselves, but many others were executed by Jones's loyalists. In the 1990s again, we find events that precisely fit the image of doctrinally-driven mass suicide. Between 1994 and 1997, 75 members of the Order of the Solar Temple perished in a series of murders and suicides in Europe and Canada. .

http://www.realclearreligion.org

Need I say more?


  fullywired.

Edited by fullywired, 21 October 2013 - 03:13 PM.

Posted Image  



"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
-------Buddha (563 - 483 BC)

#54    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,885 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 31 March 2014 - 07:56 PM

Produce the body! Here is the reason why the body could not have been produced: According to Josephus, Pilate was an expert at crucifying Jews almost every day. He also, like Josephus, was aware that some of the crucified would linger on their crosses sometimes even for 3 or 4 days till death would eventually reach them. When Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate to take Jesus off his cross, not more than 2 or 3 hours he had been on the cross. So, Pilate surprised that Jesus should have died so soon he summoned the Centurion and inquired whether Jesus was already dead. Learning from him that Jesus was dead, he released the corpse to Joseph.

Joseph was a very rich man in Israel. He had all the money a Roman soldier could desire even a Centurion. It is quite obvious that Joseph got Jesus' body, the Centurion got some good money and Pilate got the word of the Centurion that Jesus was dead. (Mark 16:42-46) In order to prevent onlookers at the site, Joseph laid Jesus in a new hewn walk-in tomb for an hour or two, went for his men and, together with Nicodemus removed Jesus somewhere else to treat his wounds with the help of Nicodemus, another rich man in Israel who had by the way come with about 100 pounds of medication for that matter. (John 19:39)

Now, here are the consequences of having produced the body: Although under cover, Jesus was produced unto his disciples whom he appeared to for the next 40 days with whom he would eat and drink just as before he had been crucified. And Luke asserts that he did appear after his crucifixion aka passion and not after his resurrection. (Acts 1:3)  Then, if his body had otherwise been produced, not only he would return to the cross but also Joseph of Arimathea and his companion Nicodemus would have ended up on the cross from having made a fool our of Pilate. Let alone the Centurion who would die even without standing trial.


#55    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,366 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 01 April 2014 - 07:11 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...
First:  according to the legend, Jesus ascended into heaven; thus, there is no body to produce.

On the other hand, if he didn't, there might not be one to produce, either.  Can anybody produce the body of Moses?  He was supposedly buried in a cave on Mount Nebo - there is only one such cave that we know of and it is now the water supply of a monastery.  No signs of the body of Moses.  So if Moses was ever buried there, the body has been long since exhumed or completely decomposed.

Same with the graves of the Patriarchs.  There is a magnificent temple at the site, but no bodies.

Whose body is actually buried in Napoleon's tomb?  Custer's Tomb?  Or Lenin's Tomb?  If we can't be sure of these, what chance do we have of resolving the issue of Jesus' missing body?

The question is unanswerable; thus, it contributes nothing to our understanding of events.  It is a straw man.
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

#56    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,366 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 01 April 2014 - 08:36 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 19 October 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

Doug1o29

Doug1o29
Alien Abducter


125]
Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:52 AM

Posted ImageBen Masada, on 25 July 2013 - 08:06 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You haven't returned. What has happened? I hope you are well and just decided to drop the discussion of this issue.

Like I said:  It's going to be awhile.  Jor-el produced some good references, writings that might produce something useful and I am in the process of reading through them.  It is going to take months yet.  The sky opened up and dumped a lot of work on me, so this low-priority project is going to go even slower.

I just noticed a couple things in re-reading Jor-el's post:
1.  I am defining any writing that contains details of Jesus' life as a "gospel," so Jor-el's points that the Didache and the Epistle of Clement were not gospels is only arrogant hair splitting (Jor-el evidently defines only the traditional four as "gospels.").  By my definition, there are at least 30 gospels, some of which were written decades to centuries after the fact (and thus, even more dubious than the traditional four).  I am really only interested in those written before about 200 AD.  While later ones may exhibit quotations, it doesn't matter because they can shed no light on the dates of the four.
2.  Jor-el claims to have posted "quotations" that show that other gospels used the four traditional gospels as their sources.  Quotations are very difficult things to use to show whether it was the chicken or the egg that came first.  You need an complete verse; otherwise, there is not enough to show that it even is a quote and not an accidental phrase having nothing to do with the original.

You also need a way to show which author was quoting which.  That means reading both texts, almost in their entirety.  If the questionable verse was a quote, the second author will almost always use other quotes from the same source.  If reading both texts shows two different stories that differ in important details, then even if a given sentence translates exactly the same way as another, it still is not likely a quotation.

Lastly, Jor-el's statement that the four traditional gospels are the earliest versions of themselves completely ignores things like "Original Mark" and "proto-Mark."  We know that there were other versions of the gospels floating around.  If you had a copy of the "one-and-only" true gospel sitting in front of you, why would you write a new one?  Yet Jor-els' assumption requires somebody to do exactly that.  And if that somebody thought the "one-and-only" true gospel was wrong, how are we who have even less evidence available, to demonstrate anything different?

I did say that I was willing to change my opinions as soon I found evidence that warranted such a change.  Something that may be that evidence has come to light:  The Oxyrhyncus Papyrii contain a fragment that contains some text from Revelation.  That fragment of text is talking about the Devil's Number, which traditional Revelation gives as "666."  But the Oxyrhyncus Papyrus renders as "616."

In Jewish numerology 666 could be a reference to "Caesar Nero."  But if the true number is "616," then it is a reference to somebody else.  That somebody else turns out to be Caligula who reigned from 37 to 41 AD.  Why is John (the traditional author of Revelation) who traditionally lived in the late first and early second century, referring to Caligula?  He should be referring to Nero.  UNLESS:  Revelation was written a lot earlier than we suppose - like the 40s or 50s maybe?  And if that was the case, what does that say about when John lived?  Could the same person who wrote Revelation be the one who wrote the Gospel of John?  If we think of Revelation as nothing more than an anti-Roman diatribe, then perhaps it may contain other details that give it a date.  And that means I have to read Revelation in detail and at the same time study up on Roman history.  It's going to be awhile.

So I have a lot of reading to do before I can render judgment; you might not want to stay tuned that long.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 01 April 2014 - 08:39 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

#57    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,722 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 02 April 2014 - 06:36 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 01 April 2014 - 08:36 PM, said:

Like I said:  It's going to be awhile.  Jor-el produced some good references, writings that might produce something useful and I am in the process of reading through them.  It is going to take months yet.  The sky opened up and dumped a lot of work on me, so this low-priority project is going to go even slower.

I just noticed a couple things in re-reading Jor-el's post:
1.  I am defining any writing that contains details of Jesus' life as a "gospel," so Jor-el's points that the Didache and the Epistle of Clement were not gospels is only arrogant hair splitting (Jor-el evidently defines only the traditional four as "gospels.").  By my definition, there are at least 30 gospels, some of which were written decades to centuries after the fact (and thus, even more dubious than the traditional four).  I am really only interested in those written before about 200 AD.  While later ones may exhibit quotations, it doesn't matter because they can shed no light on the dates of the four.

You may call it hairsplitting, but as far as I know, no-one calls them gospels except you.

Here is an official listing for your perusal:

Gnostic gospels

Main article: Gnostic Gospels Jewish-Christian gospels

Main article: Jewish-Christian gospels Infancy gospels
Partially preserved gospels
Fragmentary preserved gospels
  • Gospel of Eve – mentioned only once by Epiphanius circa 400, who preserves a single brief passage in quotation.
  • Gospel of Mani – 3rd century – attributed to the Persian Mani, the founder of Manichaeism.
  • Gospel of the Saviour (also known as the Unknown Berlin gospel) – highly fragmentary 6th-century manuscript based on a late 2nd- or early 3rd-century original. A dialogue rather than a narrative; heavily Gnostic in character in that salvation is dependent upon possessing secret knowledge.
  • Coptic Gospel of the Twelve – late 2nd century Coptic language work – although often equated with the Gospel of the Ebionites, it appears to be an attempt to re-tell the Gospel of John in the pattern of the Synoptics; it quotes extensively from John's Gospel.
Reconstructed gospels
  • Secret Gospel of Mark – suspect: the single source mentioning it is considered by many to be a modern forgery, and it disappeared before it could be independently authenticated.
  • Gospel of Matthias
Lost gospels
  • Gospel of Cerinthus – ca. 90–120 AD – according to Epiphanius this is a Jewish gospel identical to the Gospel of the Ebionites and, apparently, a truncated version of Matthew's Gospel according to the Hebrews.
  • Gospel of Apelles – mid-to-late 2nd century; a further edited version of Marcion's edited version of Luke.
  • Gospel of Valentinus
  • Gospel of the Encratites
  • Gospel of Andrew – mentioned by only two 5th-century sources (Augustine and Pope Innocent I) who list it as apocryphal.
  • Gospel of Barnabas – not to be confused with the 16th century pro-Moslem work of the same name; this work is mentioned only once, in the 5th century Decree of Gelasius which lists it as apocryphal.
  • Gospel of Bartholomew – mentioned by only two 5th-century sources which list it as apocryphal.
  • Gospel of Hesychius – mentioned only by Jerome and the Decree of Gelasius that list it as apocryphal.
  • Gospel of Lucius – mentioned only by Jerome and the Decree of Gelasius that list it as apocryphal.
  • Gospel of Merinthus – mentioned only by Epiphanius; probably the Gospel of Cerinthus, and the confusion due to a scribal error.
  • An unknown number of other Gnostic gospels not cited by name.
  • Gospel of the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets
  • Memoirs of the Apostles – Lost narrative of the life of Jesus, mentioned by Justin Martyr. The passages quoted by Justin may have originated from a gospel harmony of the Synoptic Gospels composed by Justin or his school.
Fragments of possibly unknown or lost (or existing) gospels
  • Papyrus Egerton 2 – late 2nd-century manuscript of possibly earlier original; contents parallel John 5:39–47, 10:31–39; Matt 1:40–45, 8:1–4, 22:15–22; Mark 1:40–45, 12:13–17; and Luke 5:12–16, 17:11–14, 20:20–26, but differ textually; also contains incomplete miracle account with no equivalent in canonical Gospels
  • Fayyum Fragment – a fragment of about 100 Greek letters in 3rd century script; the text seems to parallel Mark 14:26–31
  • Oxyrhynchus Papyri – Fragments #1, 654, & 655 appear to be fragments of Thomas; #210 is related to MT 7:17–19 and LK 6:43–44 but not identical to them; #840 contains a short vignette about Jesus and a Pharisee not found in any known gospel, the source text is probably mid 2nd century; #1224 consists of paraphrases of Mark 2:17 and Luke 9:50
  • Gospel of Jesus' Wife – 4th century at the earliest.
  • Papyrus Berolinensis 11710 – 6th-century Greek fragment, possibly from an apocrpyhal gospel or amulet based on John.
  • Papyrus Cairensis 10735 – 6th–7th century Greek fragment, possibly from a lost gospel, may be a homily or commentary.
  • Papyrus Merton 51 – Fragment from apocryphal gospel or a homily on Luke 6:7.
  • Strasbourg Fragment – Fragment of a lost gospel, probably related to Acts of John.

Quote

2.  Jor-el claims to have posted "quotations" that show that other gospels used the four traditional gospels as their sources.  Quotations are very difficult things to use to show whether it was the chicken or the egg that came first.  You need an complete verse; otherwise, there is not enough to show that it even is a quote and not an accidental phrase having nothing to do with the original.

You also need a way to show which author was quoting which.  That means reading both texts, almost in their entirety.  If the questionable verse was a quote, the second author will almost always use other quotes from the same source.  If reading both texts shows two different stories that differ in important details, then even if a given sentence translates exactly the same way as another, it still is not likely a quotation.

Quotations are by nature repetitions of certain sayings as such you can certainly argue which of them came first. In the case of the Epistle of Clement he quotes from three Gospels, if in fact he was the inventor of said quotations then one would have to argue that the gospels were written much later than what is accepted, which would suite you quite well, but then again I do not see you assuming anything else if I may be sincere.

Quote

Lastly, Jor-el's statement that the four traditional gospels are the earliest versions of themselves completely ignores things like "Original Mark" and "proto-Mark."  We know that there were other versions of the gospels floating around.  If you had a copy of the "one-and-only" true gospel sitting in front of you, why would you write a new one?  Yet Jor-els' assumption requires somebody to do exactly that.  And if that somebody thought the "one-and-only" true gospel was wrong, how are we who have even less evidence available, to demonstrate anything different?

Do you have evidence that "Original Mark" or "Proto-Mark" ever actually existed at all? Or is it simply a translation from Aramaic for example?

There were indeed other Gospels floating around at the time. John was written in response to one of these Gospels for example, more specifically a defense of the faith against Gnosticism. I never argued that there were only four Gospels, I only ever argued that there are four accepted Gospels for clear reasons.

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


#58    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,885 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 03 April 2014 - 05:27 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 01 April 2014 - 08:36 PM, said:

Like I said:  It's going to be awhile.  Jor-el produced some good references, writings that might produce something useful and I am in the process of reading through them.  It is going to take months yet.  The sky opened up and dumped a lot of work on me, so this low-priority project is going to go even slower.

I just noticed a couple things in re-reading Jor-el's post:
1.  I am defining any writing that contains details of Jesus' life as a "gospel," so Jor-el's points that the Didache and the Epistle of Clement were not gospels is only arrogant hair splitting (Jor-el evidently defines only the traditional four as "gospels.").  By my definition, there are at least 30 gospels, some of which were written decades to centuries after the fact (and thus, even more dubious than the traditional four).  I am really only interested in those written before about 200 AD.  While later ones may exhibit quotations, it doesn't matter because they can shed no light on the dates of the four.
2.  Jor-el claims to have posted "quotations" that show that other gospels used the four traditional gospels as their sources.  Quotations are very difficult things to use to show whether it was the chicken or the egg that came first.  You need an complete verse; otherwise, there is not enough to show that it even is a quote and not an accidental phrase having nothing to do with the original.

You also need a way to show which author was quoting which.  That means reading both texts, almost in their entirety.  If the questionable verse was a quote, the second author will almost always use other quotes from the same source.  If reading both texts shows two different stories that differ in important details, then even if a given sentence translates exactly the same way as another, it still is not likely a quotation.

Lastly, Jor-el's statement that the four traditional gospels are the earliest versions of themselves completely ignores things like "Original Mark" and "proto-Mark."  We know that there were other versions of the gospels floating around.  If you had a copy of the "one-and-only" true gospel sitting in front of you, why would you write a new one?  Yet Jor-els' assumption requires somebody to do exactly that.  And if that somebody thought the "one-and-only" true gospel was wrong, how are we who have even less evidence available, to demonstrate anything different?

I did say that I was willing to change my opinions as soon I found evidence that warranted such a change.  Something that may be that evidence has come to light:  The Oxyrhyncus Papyrii contain a fragment that contains some text from Revelation.  That fragment of text is talking about the Devil's Number, which traditional Revelation gives as "666."  But the Oxyrhyncus Papyrus renders as "616."

In Jewish numerology 666 could be a reference to "Caesar Nero."  But if the true number is "616," then it is a reference to somebody else.  That somebody else turns out to be Caligula who reigned from 37 to 41 AD.  Why is John (the traditional author of Revelation) who traditionally lived in the late first and early second century, referring to Caligula?  He should be referring to Nero.  UNLESS:  Revelation was written a lot earlier than we suppose - like the 40s or 50s maybe?  And if that was the case, what does that say about when John lived?  Could the same person who wrote Revelation be the one who wrote the Gospel of John?  If we think of Revelation as nothing more than an anti-Roman diatribe, then perhaps it may contain other details that give it a date.  And that means I have to read Revelation in detail and at the same time study up on Roman history.  It's going to be awhile.

So I have a lot of reading to do before I can render judgment; you might not want to stay tuned that long.
Doug.

Oh no, I just checked you out to hear that you are still there. The dates of the gospels and the reason why they were written would be irrelevant to me if they did not  claim any connection with the Tanach. As far as the gospels in the NT are concerned and my opinion of them, they were not written by Jews but Hellenists former disciples of Paul. Even the assumption that there were at least 30 gospels, if they speak not according to the Law and the Prophets as Isaiah is concerned, there is no truth in them. (Isa. 8:20) So, my point is not about the gospels themselves but what they teach. I have nothing against the tenants of another religion as long as it does not claim the same foundation of Judaism or a continuation of it which would be akin to Replacement Theology.

Edited by Ben Masada, 03 April 2014 - 05:29 PM.


#59    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,366 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 10 April 2014 - 06:30 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 03 April 2014 - 05:27 PM, said:

Oh no, I just checked you out to hear that you are still there. The dates of the gospels and the reason why they were written would be irrelevant to me if they did not  claim any connection with the Tanach. As far as the gospels in the NT are concerned and my opinion of them, they were not written by Jews but Hellenists former disciples of Paul. Even the assumption that there were at least 30 gospels, if they speak not according to the Law and the Prophets as Isaiah is concerned, there is no truth in them. (Isa. 8:20) So, my point is not about the gospels themselves but what they teach. I have nothing against the tenants of another religion as long as it does not claim the same foundation of Judaism or a continuation of it which would be akin to Replacement Theology.
I try to avoid theology - not always successfully.  So whether or not "the truth is in them" is a side issue for me.  I assume that all such writings are a mix of truth and falsehood and that the writer thought he was writing truth.  Next to the mess that is ancient writing, reading tree rings is a piece of cake.  I must be a Druid.
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

#60    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,366 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 10 April 2014 - 06:53 PM

View PostJor-el, on 02 April 2014 - 06:36 PM, said:

You may call it hairsplitting, but as far as I know, no-one calls them gospels except you.
The definition is that if a text claims first-hand knowledge of details of Jesus' life, it is a gospel.  Whether it is accurate or not is another question.  A text written in the sixth century, even if based on earlier ones, is probably corrupt.  Thus, we need to get as close to the original as we can.  I am not the only one to use this definition by far.

Quote

Here is an official listing for your perusal:
I think the sky has fallen on me.

Quote

Gospel of Marcion – 2nd century; an edited version of Luke's Gospel (see: Marcionism)
Some people think Luke is actually an edited version of Marcion.

Seems to me that a lot of the texts you listed have the word "Gospel" in their titles.  So I am obviously not the only one who thinks there are more than four gospels.

Quote

Quotations are by nature repetitions of certain sayings as such you can certainly argue which of them came first. In the case of the Epistle of Clement he quotes from three Gospels, if in fact he was the inventor of said quotations then one would have to argue that the gospels were written much later than what is accepted, which would suite you quite well, but then again I do not see you assuming anything else if I may be sincere.
One of Clement's "quotations" differed from the four modern gospels in a detail of the story line (The woman poured oil on Jesus' head instead of his feet.).  That suggests very strongly that Clement's source was not the same as the traditional gospels; thus, the line IS NOT a quotation.  As I recall, there was insufficient text to make a judgment on the others.

Quote

Do you have evidence that "Original Mark" or "Proto-Mark" ever actually existed at all? Or is it simply a translation from Aramaic for example?
I do not have such evidence.  I raised the question looking for an answer.  It could well be that, like the Q Document, they are completely hypothetical.

Quote

There were indeed other Gospels floating around at the time. John was written in response to one of these Gospels for example, more specifically a defense of the faith against Gnosticism. I never argued that there were only four Gospels, I only ever argued that there are four accepted Gospels for clear reasons.
At least temporarily, I am retracting my previous dating for John.  At this time, I consider the Gospel of John undated.
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






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