1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by leroy, Jan 28, 2021.

  1. joelr

    joelr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,670
    Ratings:
    +533
    That isn't the point at all? scholarship has demonstrated that one of Mark's sources for material was Paul's letters. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.
    You think? The scholarship I've seen doesn't agree. In 15:39 they all record the centurion as saying, “Certainly this was God’s Son.”
    Does Mark 1:1 Call Jesus 'God’s Son’? A Brief Text-Critical Note | Bible.org

    No, it actually continues to look like he sourced Paul?
    It's still evidence that Mark was sourcing Paul. This objection is unintelligable?

    Again, unintelligable? Carrier is pointing out that at the same point both Mark and Paul mention manual labor. More evidence Mark is using Paul as a guide? And they do both mention manual labor....so......?

    Really? Is this that hard? Both mention marriage indirectly.
    Let me check......yup, they both do.
    Wow, it's almost like Mark was using Paul's writings as a guide for what to write next?

    Wow, Mark is really using Paul in a serious way. The basic message is the same. Nitpicking about how it's not exactly literal is incredibly apologeticy. Although I see no reference to tax collectors of this time being "most likely Levites"? It's so obvious that Mark was like "hmmm, what's next....ah, a passage about hanging out with someone of lower status". You are really quibbling over nothing and haven't debunked any single example.

    Oh my God? You are actually putting forth an argument that Mark isn't sourcing Paul because "of course Jesus should be angry"???
    Do you even understand what you are arguing about? Mark is making up a fictional story. To guide him he is using Paul's letters to create imaginary events. The more I go over these the more it's so obvious. You can't debunk it at all either. Saying "of course he would be angry" isn't even an argument against that. Are you in the wrong debate?

    You "reckon" clerics changed this gospel? Uh huh. Meanwhile yeah, it looks like Mark used Paul as a source.

    Cool, when you have some proof let me know. Until then, Jesus is a fictional character inside Marks story, so yes, Mark imagined. You say it like you were actually there. What you did is read Mark and imagine it was a real story. That doesn't make it real.
    No he doesn't say stuff em and move on?
    "And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place. "
    So you are wrong and Carrier was correct, Jesus does say people will help them.
    Yes Paul's "living in the gospels" is his message. Mark's passage is basically the same - go out and preach and the gospel will support you through the help of people.
    Mark is clearly using Paul. You are actually making it clearer.

    You think it's evidence that because Mark didn't use "drunkenness" it shows he didn't source Paul? As if when one uses a source you cannot create your own version? Which he obviously did by adding all sorts of other myths. Point is they both go into a rant about sins. It's so obviously taken from Paul. It's a common fallacy to think something wasn't copied unless it uses literally every word. Somehow this fallacy only happens with religious apologetics. If I made a movie about a Luke Skyhopper and he had an android 3pco you wouldn't say "oh that isn't like Star Wars because there is no R2D2 character". You have not debunked any of these even a little.

    Probably, you reckon? Proof? None. Evidence? Yes, the evidence is Jesus would have taught in Aramaic in an area that had a 3% literacy rate. 40 years later Mark was written in a different language. 38 years is a lifetime then. Mark not only clearly sourced Paul but he sources several OT narratives line by line as well as other fiction. He uses expert level mythic literary devices like ring structure that never happen in real life and give almost 100% probability that he is writing fiction.
    So there is no need for "probably". We already have more than enough evidence to conclude Mark is creating myth. You were not able to counter any of these examples nor offer any evidence except for "probably" and "I reckon".
     
  2. joelr

    joelr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,670
    Ratings:
    +533
    Paul wasn't giving accounts of Jesus. He only claimed to have a vision and knew about scripture. Do you even know what the topic is? Mark sourced Paul when creating his story. This has been demonstrated.

    It isn't Mark's mistake? He's writing a myth. We see he gets the idea of the last supper from something Jesus said to Paul.
    You seem to have some sort of conspiracy theory that goes beyond standard Christianity. Provide some scholarship because I have no idea what you are talking about and if you have no sources I do not care to hear about it.
    Cool but that isn't the discussion? Paul was writing fiction same as Mark so there is no evidence that Paul wrote about a demigod named Jesus.

    Oh darn, you have some conspiracy theory? Had I known I could have just skipped this entire response.

    There are no historians who view the supernatural stories in the gospels as true. There are no peer reviewed papers in the field that demonstrate evidence for any supernatural claims in the Bible.

    Sorry the topic is about how Mark used PAul as a source. That remains true. He also used Psalms and other stories.

    It's well known in scholarship that Mark also uses Psalm 22 which is where Mark got that. Wow, you walked right into that one.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. joelr

    joelr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,670
    Ratings:
    +533
    Most of Carrier's views are standard in the field. Many historians are admitting to coming to his side actually. I can provide a list.
    Doesn't matter because all historians are still in favor of either mythicism or historicity meaning Jesus was a man. The rest is myth.

    Do not confuse Carrier's mythicism with all the crankish and polemical noon-scholarship mythicism like Caesar’s Messiah by Joseph Atwill. Carrier is the most modern (since 1926) Jesus historicity study which has gone through peer review and is gaining support by many in his field. His views have been debated by dozens of apologists and fellow historians all free to watch on youtube and his 3 to 1 odds favoring mythicism are looking pretty accurate.

    How dare you? "Extreme skepticism"????All extra biblical accounts are either forgery or historians saying that there are a group called Christians lead by Jesus.
    The OT was calling for a savior after borrowing the myth from their captors and his name actually means "savior"?
    The only history featuring an actual Jesus is the wildly fictitious mythology in Mark. Paul knew of no earthly Jesus and resurrecting saviors before Paul were often played out in the celestial realms by fictional demigods.
    All you have are numbers of people who believe but there are more people combined who believe in either Krishna, Islam or other Gods.
    So that demonstrated a lot of people can be wrong. The Christian group is likely wrong as well.




    Doesn't matter if he existed or not he's not claiming to be a world savior. But still -

    Alexander’s life is described in great detail in numerous surviving accounts written by various ancient Greek and Roman historians. There are five major detailed histories of the campaigns of Alexander the Great written by reputable historians that have survived to the present day:

    Of these accounts, Arrianos and Diodoros’s are generally considered to be the most historically reliable. In addition to all these writers who wrote detailed histories of Alexander’s campaigns, Alexander is also mentioned by countless other ancient writers. Indeed, he is at least mentioned by just about every major Greek or Roman historian who lived after him whose writings have survived to the present day.

    If, for whatever bizarre reason, you are only willing to believe someone existed if we have direct archaeological evidence of them, then you are also in luck here. You see, we have all kinds of overwhelming archaeological evidence of Alexander the Great’s existence because he was the king of a large swathe of the literate world at the time when he was alive. Perhaps the most impressive evidence of him comes in the form of contemporary Babylonian accounts of him inscribed in clay tablets.
    What Evidence Is There for the Existence of Alexander the Great? Quite a Lot. - Tales of Times Forgotten




    No, I gave you one of the best NT historians reading on Josephus? At best it says a man existed who was a good teacher.
    But I also gave the scholarship that argues against it and it's overwhelming. This is most likely a Christian addition. Ehrman says it DEFINITELY was altered by Christians and the supernatural aspects are what was added. The remaining Greek talks about a man. But there is evidence against that. A lot of evidence that the entire thing is a later addition by Christians.
    If you go back and read the link to the arguments against TV you can see it is not reliable history.

    Most history is NOTHING as contraversial as this. Why would you say "alll histories" as if there isn't mountains of evidence against this one thing.
    Also, he wrote about John the Baptist more. As well as other Jewish prophets.


    But let's move forward with more scholarship on Josephus:

    "A new article just beats this dead horse deader still. Hat tip to Vridar and Peter Kirby. Honestly. The evidence that the Testimonium Flavianum (or TF) is entirely a late Christian forgery is now as overwhelming as such evidence could ever get. Short of uncovering a pre-Eusebian manuscript, which is not going to happen. All extant manuscripts derive from the single manuscript of Eusebius; evidently everything else was decisively lost.

    The new article is by Paul Hopper, Distinguished Professor of the Humanities Emeritus at Carnegie Mellon University, “A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63,” in Monika Fludernik and Daniel Jacob, eds., Linguistics and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers (2014: de Gruyter), pp. 147-169 (available at researchgate).

    So in addition to all the evidence I and other scholars have amassed (summarized, with bibliography, in On the Historicity of Jesus, ch. 8.9), including the fact that what was once thought to be an Arabic testimony to a pre-Eusebian version of the text actually derives from Eusebius (as proved by Alice Whealey), and the peer reviewed article by G.J. Goldberg that proved the TF was, as a whole unit, based on the Gospel of Luke (and thus even if Josephan, not independent of the Gospels) and my own peer reviewed article (now reproduced in Hitler Homer Bible Christ, ch. 19) that added even more evidence, including proving the other brief mention of Jesus in Josephus was also fake (an accidental insertion made centuries after Josephus wrote), and the literary evidence produced by Ken Olson that the TF is far closer to Eusebian style than Josephan style, now Paul Hopper shows that grammatical and structural analysis verifies all of this.

    For those who want to understand how this new evidence from Hopper works to produce that conclusion, here is a quick summary:

    • (1) Hopper shows the author of the TF consistently used finite verbs differently than Josephus does.

    • (2) Hopper shows the author of the TF consistently used oblique and passive language to insert Pontius Pilate into its story, contrary to what Josephus had been doing in the whole Pontius Pilate sequence before that.
    • (3) “The time organization in the Testimonium is strikingly different from that of the surrounding text.”Yep. In fact, it makes no sense for Josephus to use that kind of temporal narrative style, when he doesn’t anywhere else here, or pretty much anywhere else in the Antiquities at all. This is exactly, however, how Christians would write it.

    • (4) Indeed, not just its organization of time, but the absence of plot indicates the same
    • (5) The TF makes no sense to Josephus’s intended narrative; it only makes sense to Christians who needed it there.
    details of each point are at
    The Josephus Testimonium: Let's Just Admit It's Fake Already • Richard Carrier


    Mark wrote myth. Of that there is no doubt. I have only touched on the mountains of clear evidence.
    A recent post or 2 of mine detailed many of the passages that give evidence that Mark was using Paul's letters as a guide to create his version of the myth. For example the "last supper" was a revelation to Paul and Mark changed it into an actual event with other people, an actual historical event but it wasn't that at all in Paul.

    Did you not see all that? I also linked to 5 papers on the subject. So yes, Mark got that from Paul.


    Any reference from any brother in any ancient text could be interpreted in the same way.

    From the context we can infer that there was only one James that was a brother of Jesus ......are we to believe that there was only one "Christian brother" named James?[/QUOTE]

    Why do you say it is "obvious"? Paul never uses the Greek word for biological brother? And indeed the only two times he uses the full phrase “brother of the Lord”, he needs to draw a distinction between apostolic and non-apostolic Christians.
    Like he does in 1 Cor 9:5.

    1 Corinthians 9:5
    Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephasa]">[


    So we cannot know for sure and it's far from "obvious"? This is odd wishful thinking. At best, even if we had definitive reasons to believe Jesus had a brother you cannot go from a human person with a brother to myths being true.[/QUOTE]
     
    #463 joelr, Feb 7, 2021
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2021
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. joelr

    joelr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,670
    Ratings:
    +533

    You're coming up short here. I gave you 5 papers on the Paul/Mark connection and a list of examples of how Mark used Paul to craft his narrative. You can't debunk or counter these arguments except to suggest it's like flat earth? You might as well just go all in and use this one "I don't trust secular scholarship" or just call them "heathens".

    Your point about a biological brother is mind numbingly incorrect. We see Mark took a personal revelation Paul had and changed it to a real historical event. In Paul’s version, no one else is present. It is not a “last” supper (as if Jesus had had any others before), but merely “the bread and cup of the Lord.” And Jesus is not speaking to “disciples” but to the whole Christian Church unto the end of time—including Paul and his congregations.
    Paul is describing Jesus miming some actions and explaining their importance. His audience is future Christians. Mark has transformed this into a narrative story by adding people being present and having Jesus interact with them: now “they were eating” (Paul does not mention anyone actually eating) and Jesus gave the bread “to them” (does not occur in Paul) and instructs them to “take” it (no such instruction in Paul); and Jesus gave the cup “to them” (does not occur in Paul) and “they all drink it” (no such event in Paul); and Jesus describes the meaning of the cup “to them” (no such audience in Paul).

    And somehow you cannot imagine Mark transforming the use of the word brother into a biological brother? Even though Mark also gave Jesus an entire life on Earth, parents and all sorts of miracle events, actions and narratives?


    I don't understand your reference to flat earth? If a historian were studying myths from China and discovered some earlier myths from India that had hundreds of examples that appeared to be matches for source material and several PhDs wrote papers on it, why would that be flat earth level work? Mark is 100% sourcing Paul and the examples are endless?

    Michael Turton discovered this cool chiasmus Mark has constructed within Mark 12 that demonstrates his dependence on Paul.
    But there is something even more remarkable about this parallel: it comes in the middle of a chiasmus Mark has constructed within Mark 12 that demonstrates his dependence on Paul. This was first discovered by Michael Turton and is used to significant effect under peer review by David Oliver Smith. Mark is fond of chiastic structure and uses it often. And here we have an instance that demonstrates Mark’s knowledge of Paul’s Epistles.-v from Turton’s demonstration:

    A

    Romans 8:31-38, References Psalm 118, verse 6; then warns of persecution and denounces all religious authorities but Jesus = Mark 12:10-12, Quotes Psalm 118, verses 22-23; then mentions the religious authorities want to kill Jesus.

    B
    Romans 13:1-7, Paul exhorts to obey your government and pay your taxes = Mark 12:13-17, Jesus declares “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”


    C
    1 Corinthians 15:12-34, Paul confronts those who deny resurrection = Mark 12:18-23, Jesus confronts the Sadduccees who deny resurrection.


    C’
    1 Corinthians 15:35-50, Paul answers what the resurrection body is like, after declaring the folly of those who don’t know (15:36) = Mark 12:24-27, Jesus answers what the resurrection body is like, after declaring the folly of those who don’t know (12:24).

    B’
    Romans 13:8-10, Paul explains how love fulfills the Law = Mark 12:28-34, Jesus explains how love fulfills the Law.
    A’
    1 Corinthians 15:24-28 references Psalm 110, verse 1 (in 15:25), and declares Jesus will defeat all enemies and authorities = Mark 12:35-40, Quotes the exact same verse in Psalm 110, then preaches to beware of the religious authorities.

    These coincidences and parallels are so statistically improbable as to render any other explanation effectively impossible: Mark is adapting and playing off of specific content in Romans and 1 Corinthians.


    laid out in grid here:
    Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier


    The principal works to consult on this (all of which from peer reviewed academic presses) are:


    Mark is writing fiction. Even if Jesus were a real teacher who had a brother he was later mythicized into a Hellenistic savior which is mythology.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. joelr

    joelr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,670
    Ratings:
    +533
    They all agree the supernatural stories in the bible are myth. If not source one.

    Evidence?

    Then I would have to prove that Thor didn't exist, and Santa Clause and every single fictional character.
    But you know we don't have to. The actual evidence does not favor a supernatural Jesus existing at all. I'm sensing a pattern which has to do with having zero evidence. If all you can provide are your beliefs then I don't care. When someone says "you have to prove my fictional character didn't exist" then that tells me they do not care about what is true and only care about what their beliefs are. Even if they are completely unsupported.
    Which is a waste of time. Would you want to debate with someone who says "Krishna exists, I have no evidence, prove he didn't exist".
    Nah.


    Uh huh, Is that what we need to do. Cool, see ya.
     
  6. joelr

    joelr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,670
    Ratings:
    +533
    This is flat out wrong. Carrier was paid to do a historicity study based on all available evidence and to treat it the way historians are taught to when getting a PhD. He spent 7 years on that project and expected to confirm what his peers believed (historicity).
    The evidence did not support that and he details it in a 700 age book. He has several free lectures and dozens of debates online and a free blog. All the information is available for inspection.
    He had no "view" until assessing evidence. He also has several real debates with other historians where unlike when he debates apologist fundamentalists they just deny and run to "well I believe anyways" and "well I disagree so lets move on" they actually get deep into details and scholarship.
    Carriers lectures on gospels as myth and so on are all based on previous scholarship already standard in the field. The only new thing with Carrier is Jesus mythicism. The expert on Mark being the source gospel is Mark Goodacre.
    Mark Goodacre's Homepage

    Before Mark's work was accepted it was generally thought in academia that there was a Q gospel or "quela" for
    source". Mark has pretty much demolished that idea in his work The Case Against Q
    The Case Against Q: A Synoptic Problem Web Site by Mark Goodacre
    This page has an overview of the book and explains some of his reasoning regarding the synoptic problem.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    19,707
    Ratings:
    +6,727
    Religion:
    deist
    You cling on to your chosen 'scholarship' for dear life.
    I'll bet that you disregard that which does not agree.... am I right?


    Oh please! THat's Christian waffle. I study HJ, not HC!
    I do not believe for one second that any soldier said any such thing and since Mark tells us (not Paul) that Magdalene, Salome and other women watched from 'afar', who is supposed to have heard these words?
    The mistake that you are making all the way through is selecting out Christian additions and using threse to chuck the who deposition out.


    I can see that you cannot understand, and so you write.... but Carrier is clutching at straws in attempt to destroy the whole deposition.

    If Paul and Mark both referred to a 'nice-day' you would be clutching to it!

    Bingo! So Cephas really really was married!
    That's how we know about his mum-in-law being ill.

    You would need to study taxation in Galilee and on the Lake to figure out who controlled taxation directorship and who handled it at lower levels.
    You don't actually think that local people were hired to tax local people, do you?


    No...... I am telling you that Mark did not source any incidents from Paul to include in the main body of his gospel, and that's easy to show because Paul never described any of them. Easy.
    You are picking out the parts of the gospel that probably were not there originally.

    You must tell me where Paul wrote about incidents such as the Barabbas riot, or the trip through Samaria, or making a night run down to the Gadarenes by boat.... etc. No.... nothing.

    Now if you were telling me that Luke used Paul for small phrases etc I would accept that, but Mark's main gospel has no Paul in it.

    You mention soldiers commenting on the dead Jesus, I am not sure that Jesus died. That's how far apart you and I are on this ...

    All the proof is there for you...... just trawl through G-Mark and find a Pauline reference for every (any) of the real accounts.
    It's just homework, is all.


    No....... 'Shake the dust off your sandals' is what I was referring to.



    ...... this just goes on........

    Carrier cannot show that the main body of Mark was influenced by Paul, only thre 'holy' additions.
     
  8. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,573
    Ratings:
    +7,430
    Religion:
    Atheist
    It's not arbitrary at all, as the claims in the bible are the very claims that require supporting evidence.

    The bible isn't evidence of itself.
     
  9. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,573
    Ratings:
    +7,430
    Religion:
    Atheist
    The thread is filled with on point and supported exposing of your failures.
    You ignored them all. Why should they be repeated? You'll just ignore them again.

    Go back and address the posts properly without ignoring the inconvenient bits with a shred of intellectual honest and you'll see that people will be more inclined to engage you on your replies.

    As it stands, all that needed to be said was already said. There's no reason to repeat it as the pattern here clearly is that you'll just ignore it again.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  10. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,573
    Ratings:
    +7,430
    Religion:
    Atheist
    For the same reason that eventhough the quran gets many details correct, that does not mean that we should it give it "the benefit of the doubt" that mohammed flew to the heavens on a winged horse or split the moon in 2.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,573
    Ratings:
    +7,430
    Religion:
    Atheist
    When a person reports on what a certain sect of people believes, then that person is not confirming that what this sect believes is actually correct.

    Instead, he's just repeating the claims that the sect believes.

    It doesn't support the claims. It just reports them.
     
  12. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,573
    Ratings:
    +7,430
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Being a mighty dragonball fan...

    I'm curious why you asked that question.
     
  13. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,573
    Ratings:
    +7,430
    Religion:
    Atheist
    For the same reason that the Iliad, the Quran, the bagavad ghita, etc is not enough for you.
     
  14. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,573
    Ratings:
    +7,430
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Key word: independent.

    None of the gospel authors are "independent". In fact, none of them are even witnesses... :rolleyes:
     
  15. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    19,707
    Ratings:
    +6,727
    Religion:
    deist
    Ha ha! Of course they agree that the supernatural is supernatural.
    You need to separate the history from the supernatural.

    A man who they called Jesus Son of the Father led a demonstration in the Temple and city which turned in to a riot. A person died in the chaos. Jesus was convicted and sentenced to death. But the people loved him so much that they clamoured for his release and the Roman Prefect felt obliged to carry out their
    All in the Gospel of Mark, although later editions took out his first name.

    In the second possibility Pilate agreed to take down Jesus alive and get him away. Pilate hated the Sanhedrin and all about it. I reckon he was not unpleased with the trouble in the Temple caused by Jesus. So the guards broke the other convicts' legs (a quick death) and got Jesus down..... and away.

    Both accounts are in G-Mark....... if you need me to teach you about these and show you chapter and verse, then please just ask.




    Redirection....... straying off subject to disprove subject is not academic.

    Supernatural Jesus?
    I believe in an Historical; Jesus.

    You're still mixing up history with holiness and chucking the lot out. That isn't any kind of academic quality at all.
     
  16. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    19,707
    Ratings:
    +6,727
    Religion:
    deist
    From material that Paul never wrote about? No.

    Jresus never knew Paul.
    Do you want to rethink the above?

    I'm talking about the history behind the gospels.
    I know that all you want to do is copy/paste your chosen scholars to the pages, but if you would just study the subject-matter for yourself then you might do better.

    Picking scholars that suit your purpose is not academy...... really

    I'm not interested in Paul...... or his total lack of interest in what happened during Jesus and the Baptist's missions. I am interested in the missions of the Baptist and Jesus both..... real men, who really did exist.

    You're still stuck on this, can see. Of course historians do not view the supernatural as natural. But the vast majority of historians agree that Jesus and the Baptist were real men who both had real missions.

    You are out of sync with 'scholarship' there.

    I accept you apology, but I also have to tell you that Paul NEVER WROTE ANYTHING about the men, the mission, or the incidents.

    I feel very confident in believing that you are what I call a myther..... desperate to trash every part of the gospels. But you cannot..... You cannot trash the Baptist's story, nor that of Jesus who picked up and carried the mission after the Baptist's arrest.

    The fact that a few of Paul's sentences (and lots of OT prophecies) somehow got knitted in to the Jesus story does not kill the basic story.

    You just need to become your own investigator.
     
  17. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    19,707
    Ratings:
    +6,727
    Religion:
    deist
    Not at all...... I simply showed that Paul didn't lead Mark all the way as you pretend.
    In fact Paul led Mark hardly at all, only in a few places and I expect that these 'places' were later 'fiddlings' from clerics.....
     
  18. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    19,707
    Ratings:
    +6,727
    Religion:
    deist
    This was all sent to Leroy....

    We've already put the last supper to one side. Anything that Paul wrote about you can put to one side.
    There is a homework for you, maybe.??
    All you have to do is to trawl through G-Mark and remove any sentence that was originally written by Paul. You can also remove all OT prophecy stuff...... and what you will end up with is a real account. Obviously you have to chuck your agenda to one side and be objective.
    But Paul never did describe anything that Jesus did before the last supper........ he didn't care about anything before the last supper.

    Pick three incidents (previous to the last supper) that you think are total myth and I'll discuss them with you.
    Jesus is in the Temple handling the Priests' interrogation of him. The account is brilliant and involves coinage. How much do you (or Michael Turton) know about the Temple coinage?
    The earlier story that Jesus uses he could have learned anywhere. I don't worry about that.
    Stop you (and Michael) right there! Paul telling Christians to keep within the laws of lands where they live, and Jesus stuffing Priesthood hypocrisy down its own throat are miles apart.
    I certainly believe that the real reasons for the account of the coin has been lost. Jesus was really enjoying himself there and at the priesthood's expense. How much do you know about Temple coinage? I don't think that coin was a silver denarius @ 19.5 grams.... I think it was a Tyrian shekel at 20 grams.... hardly any difference to a bystander.
    I would debate your Michael Tyrton about this particular incident any time. He clearly is lost on this one.
    Not accounts about Jesus or his followers actually did. Just religious stuff.
    Rubbish.... A clear manipulation.
    Mark {12:30} And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first
    commandment. {12:31} And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

    Jesus just amplified the most important of 507 laws. (He had redacted the sacrificial laws..... do I need to show you?)

    Matthew certainly got the real mission statement exactly right.... here:-
    Matthew {5:17} Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. {5:18} For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
    fulfilled. {5:19} Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them,] the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
     
  19. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    19,707
    Ratings:
    +6,727
    Religion:
    deist
    Richard Carrier by Wiki:-

    He is a prominent advocate of the theory that Jesus did not exist, which he has argued in a number of his works.[2] Carrier's methodology and conclusions in this field have proven controversial and unconvincing to specialists,[3][4][5] and he and his theories are often identified as "fringe".

    Ah....... so that's what a 'peer reviewed' scholar looks like.
    :p
     
  20. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    16,842
    Ratings:
    +8,031
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Yes, Carriers view are controversial and extreme, but not totally without merit, because of the lack of records of Jesus during his life and after.. What needs clarification is whether the Biblical Divine Jesus existed. Most scholars believe that among the rebellious Messianic leaders Jesus was a real person who preached a Messianic message, lived at the time the New Testament describes, and was tried and convicted of treason by the Romans for claiming to be the King of the Jews, and crucified. I believe that Paul's testimony is sufficient that Jesus was a real person, but Paul never met Jesus and relied on second and thirdhand testimony of those that believed in a Divine Jesus.

    I believe in God and Jesus Christ was a Messiah, but fully recognize the limits of scholarly documentation based on the evidence to support this. Like all religions the testimony of the scriptures represents to a degree a human view and belief in the early centuries of Christianity.
     
Loading...