-
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!
Flavius Josephus About Jesus?
- Thread starter Ben Masada
- Start date
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
.
Historical events 101:
Mark9 It came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove. 11 Then a voice came from heaven, “You are My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
Some claim that this event is of no historical merit, and that even the holiest man alive was of no historical merit. But do not doubt the educated, the greatest of historians in all the world, with the greatest amount of degrees, that believe the histories that live under what is but a veil of myth, are true, that a great man was indeed baptized on this day that has long come to pass, just as foretold in the written Prophesy.
Historical events 101:
Mark9 It came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove. 11 Then a voice came from heaven, “You are My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
Some claim that this event is of no historical merit, and that even the holiest man alive was of no historical merit. But do not doubt the educated, the greatest of historians in all the world, with the greatest amount of degrees, that believe the histories that live under what is but a veil of myth, are true, that a great man was indeed baptized on this day that has long come to pass, just as foretold in the written Prophesy.
This is your evidence? An "if" statement? You must be joking.
HAHAHAHA! Persecution!??? Funk, Koester, et al have faced no such persecution. Moreover, you have a lot to learn about NT academia. There are many, many, many, fancy professors at top levels outside the Jesus seminar (which is an American group, and doesn't even represent the bulk of american scholarship, let alone do justice to english, german, and french scholarship). And the consensus of scholarship is that Thomas is later than the synoptics. Sorry.
Wrong. Simply and factually incorrect. J. P Meier, N. T. Wright, and J. D. G. Dunn, Gerd Theissan and Kurt Rudolph have just as many awards and degrees. And more academic publications. They all have lists of awards, degrees, positions, etc like the ones you list.
Again, despite a small group of primarily american scholars, the consensus of scholarship is and has been that Thomas postdates the synoptics.
See James D.G. Dunn, Bart Ehrman, Christopher Tuckett, N. T. Wright, J. P. Meier, L. Michael White, Jean-Marie Sevrin, H. E. W. Turner, Robert M. Grant, Bertil Gartner, Kurt Rudolph, Boudewijn Dehandschutter, Wolfgang Schrage, and Gerd Theissan among others.
Last edited:
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
The most educated, from universities that provide these incredible minds with degrees as proof of their greatness of mind, believe. They believe what was written in the Prophets, as told in the gospels, was of actual, historical events, that these holiest of men once walked among ordinary men, that these written Prophets speak the truth. How can one not recognize such authority and not believe as they do? That the Son of God (2 As it is written in the Prophets), can be denied by some in the face of such greatness is truly one of the worlds great mysteries.
Yes, thanks giving more of this bunk. It remains as worthless and as false as the first time.
Dave, I said "False. It's a minority position, but some, such as Mahlon Smith consider it possible."
You said "Citation?", and I provided it.
C'mon man, you're a sharp cookie, you even understand science, let's don't do that kind of thing. We can't approach truth that way.
You started with this:
To which I responded:
To which you responded: "False"
In defense of your response, you have given a quote by one person who states there is a possibility that part of the gospel we now have goes back to Jude/Judas, Jesus' brother. Again, where is the single academic publication defending the claim that Judas wrote Thomas?
Last edited:
"HAHAHAHA" ???? They Jesus Seminar says members of the Jesus Seminar lost their jobs because of it, just as I said. Are you calling them liars or are you innocent of that cold hard fact? Something about not being able to make a living not "persecution"? Something about those above, the top scholars on earth still being able to make a living so the persecution of others doesn't matter?
What's so funny?
And now the inevitable ad-hominem. How tedious.
You still haven't produced one "biblical scholar" with even remotely the academic honors.
Which ones? Funk kept his job until the end. So did Koestor and Crossan. Where is this "presecution" bunk from?
Just because you don't know the scholars I listed doesn't mean they don't have more academic honors. N.T. Wright, J. D. G. Dunn, and J. P. Meier have more academic awards, honors, and publications than Crossan and Funk. In fact, N.T. Wright is perhaps the most influential scholar alive today in this field.
It gives a distorted picture certainly. There has been a fair amount of scholarship on how Thomas rearranges sayings based on and shows an awareness of the synoptics. And you put the Didache that early? Based on what?
Happy to disappoint. You start with the bald assertion that Thomas may have been written by Jesus' brother, and so far you have produced no academic publication to back this. Your one quote states merely that part of it may go back to Jesus.
Furthermore, you are overly dependent on the Jesus seminar, one group among many, and american, for your understanding of NT scholarship. I gave you a list of scholars who have produced academic publications on Thomas dependency on the synoptics, or who have written about its late date. I can give many more.
You, on the other hand, make entirely baseless claims about their lack of "scholarly" credentials, despite the fact that I listed more published and more awarded scholars than Crossan or Funk.
I base the Didache, (and it's certainly been modified somewhat), early for various reasons. That they considered themselves Jews, and not Gentiles is a clue, as is the Didache having those intermediate forms of those sayings, placing it after Paul, but before Matthew/Luke. That it's talking about a time when there were churches starting and the wandering preacher/healers place it there too. Seems like it was all churches by the end of the century.
alastair.adversaria » N.T. Wright: A Biography
Just for starters. See the faculty page at University of Notre Dame for info on J. P. Meier. Wikipedia has info on both as well as on J. D. G. Dunn. The academic credentials of Funk really aren't all that impressive.