Summoning Ethelred. . . About Genesis

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
You are right. I have been dismissive on some points. Why? Because I see no point to making an extensive reply. You prove the maxim, "A little education is a dangerous thing."

No wonder you think your dangerous in this discussion. So little eduction about non-religious things.

Ad-homimym attack supplied as t!t-for-tat. You just don't want to discuss issues at all do you? Yet another uncalled for personal attack.

An extensive reply on my part, as I've done on some issues, would only meet with an uneducated, opinion-based reply on your part or alternatively a misrepresentation of my statements so that you can more easily disagree with it (i.e. "straw man" representations of my argument) as has happened several times already. I've given up on trying to argue my point because you make it mean what you want (i.e. the "sources" issue) not what I mean.

You have given few extensive replies You have made some extensive posts but few that actualy were replies that dealt with what I said. You have no idea of my level of education yet you act as if I am some Junior High kid.

Most likely your education is by mail-order for the Universal Life Church.

Ad-homimym attack supplied as t!t-for-tat. You just don't want to discuss issues at all do you? Yet another uncalled for personal attack.

If you are actually interested in the scholarly debate on the history of Israel, a good starting point would be to read Israel's Past in Present Research, edited by V. Phillips Long. It contains the best research in this area from all the varied and opposing viewpoints. Also available, an article supporting your basic views but much better argued is written by Niels Peter Lemche:

That is reading not debating. You started the thread. Perhaps Lemche has done a better job. Perhaps he did not disturb you as much. You are not a good source of information considering the odd claims you have made about me and for that matter Tacitus.

http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_13.htm

Nice link maybe but I will read it later. You have been mostly talking about the New Testament and that is pre-Hellenistic.

Not dismissed out of hand it just not what you have been talking about. I think you would agree on that. So I will read it later, a quick skim shows nothing the fits this discussion. Perhaps if you gave a clue assuming it was intended as more than background material.

On Christianity, you really need to start with some introductory history books. There are alot of good ones out there. I've found Christianity: A Social and Cultural History well done. But, there are literally hundreds of competent books on this topic.

I am sure there are. My point has been that a history of belief is not evidence of a reality behind the belief. I don't think this has penetrated you mind since you have NEVER even addressed it when I say it.

If you have something specific to say in this regard then say so. Suggesting that I read a load of books is condescending since you refuse to adress what I have said. I simply am not the ignoramus you are trying to paint me as. I havn't studied that area because frankly it doesn't interest me without some outside evidence for Jesus and the Resurection to support the field.

Point to a web site for instance that at least covers what you are thinking. Not just a front page but something that points to the specifics. Its annoying when someone gives a home page and the point is buried three layers deep.

On the historical Jesus, there are many competing scholarly voices. Leading scholars (of varying different takes on the issue, including against) include J.D. Crossan (esp. Birth of Christianity and The Historical Jesus), Marcus Borg, N.T. Wright (esp. Jesus and the Victory of God), J.P. Meier (esp. A Marginal Jew), E.P. Sanders (The Historical Figure of Jesus), Raymond Brown (The Birth of the Messiah and The Death of the Messiah), Paula Fredriksen (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews), etc. etc.

Personally, I recommend Paula Fredriksen, N.T. Wright, and Raymond Brown as scholars largely representative of my views. Actually Fredriksen I haven't read but I have heard her speak so I assume I would agree with her book. Wright and Brown are sometimes too conservative for me but their scholarship is impeccable. They are extremely well respected.

I am sure if you wanted to you could present some of this yourself. You refusal to even try is indicative that you were never interested in an actual discussion.

Now, if you actually read these books and then interacted with me on your readings, we might be able to have a fruitful discussion. But, otherwise, I'm just speaking to someone who has no interest in learning, only justifying themself (which to me is monologue). And, that, is a waste of my time.

I am not going to read that much stuff that is based on little actual information. There is little at all about Jesus outside the Bible and all but one sentence is from believers in writings that were deliberatly left out of the Bible. Writing huge tomes based on non-existent information is a exercise in scholorly masturbation. Its a popular pastime but little actual information ever comes from it.

What I asked for was source material not more speculation on top of speculation. You did claim there was outside sources. I asked for you to present them. Instead you demand that I read a lot of inherently speculative material that has nothing to do with the request.

Frankly I think you know there is no such source material. You just are refusing to admit to me or yourself. I might be wrong on this but you have adamantly refused to deal with it. Instead you have engaged in personal attacks and a pretense that I must have the same sort of reading as you do to discuss this.

------------------------------------

Christianity: A Social and Cultural History

A comprehensive, chronological history with emphasis on how Christianity was shaped and influenced by the social and cultural world in which it flourished, and its impact on that world. Annotation copyright Book News, Inc. Portland, Or

Very nice. How does that show that the Resurection is real though?

-----------------------------------------

J.D. Crossan (esp. Birth of Christianity and The Historical Jesus

Crossan's book is a rigorous exploration of the anthropological, historical, and literary issues surrounding what we can know about Jesus of Nazareth. Though Crossan himself is not a Christian, this work is by no means an unfavorable portrait of the Galilean. In fact, reading this book may make you realize what it was about this peasant and his "ragtag followers" that has made a 2,000-year impact on Western Civilization.

Not a christian. I suppose that means the he too is unconvinced that the "socialogical phenomana" of early Christianity is not evidence of a Resurection. Which after all is what you have been claiming.

Crossan's conclusions don't come from newly discovered documents; they come from freshly-minted academic methodologies. He uses anthropology, history, and archaeology to construct his arguments about the essential nature of both Jesus' religion and Paul's. The 25-cent summary of his conclusion is that Jesus did not recognize the dualism between spirit and flesh that formed the basis of Paul's apocalyptic Christianity. In other words, Jesus was more Jewish than Paul.

That last I believe. I thought it was kind of obvious though. If nothing else Jesus was raised in a Jewish land and Paul was a Roman citizen even though he was Jewish.

-------------------------

Jesus and the Victory of God

Odd, Amazon only has Volume Two.

In any case I don't see any mention of outside support for the Resurection. I know you don't want to deal with this but it is second of the three keys to your belief. The third being your thinking that a "socialogical phenomana" somehow does more than merely indicate a possibility that the second key is a real event.

If I have this wrong PLEASE DO NOT attack me or ignore me again. Just explain the mistake. That is a what a dialogue entails. Not the dismissal out of hand of things you don't want to hear.

--------------------------------

A Marginal Jew

Dear Ethelred

Please read this multi-volume series or I shall ignore you again.

Yes that has been your attitude.

Meier (Religion/Catholic Univ. of America), a Catholic priest, offers a vigorously honest, skeptical, and scholarly attempt to discover the historical Jesus. The author poses an intriguing hypothetical: ``suppose that a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, and an agnostic...hammered out a consensus document on who Jesus of Nazareth was.'' Meier tries to create such a ``consensus document'' by examining the fundamental facts of Jesus' life (while excluding those aspects of Jesus' biography that are premised on tenets of Christian belief, like the Resurrection). In this, the first volume of a two-part work, Meier carefully conducts an exegesis of the ``Roots of the Problem'' (the New Testament texts, which are not primarily historical works; the apocryphal gospels; and the fleeting references in the works of Josephus, Tacitus, and other pagan and Jewish writers that constitute the entire historical record of Jesus), and an analysis of the ``Roots of the Person'' (in which Meier brings hermeneutic tools to bear on the birth, development, and early years of Jesus). Meier points out Jesus' historical ``marginality''--his peripheral involvement in the society, history, and culture of his age--that ironically underscores the central position he has occupied in Western culture in the centuries since he died. Rife with scholarly terminology, and thus slow going for the nonspecialist--but, still, a superb examination of a fascinating historical problem.

Well that is sort of your view. He was margininal and therefor there must have been a resurection for him to be remembered. I don't see it that way. He wasn't necissarily all that marginal in the first place. If he preached to the vast mobs claimed in the Bible he was in no way marginal. He simply wasn't recorded by people that weren't eventually Christians. Barring that one note in Josephus anyway. Buddah while he started out a Prince (Jesus was the House of David himself) he was also on the margin of history. Mohammed of course does not fit that since he went out and MADE history. Savage SOB.

---------------------------------------------

Historical Figure of Jesus

The book covers are beginning to blend. They are much alike.

His discussion of the miracles attributed to the man is set against a backdrop of acceptance of magic and miracles generally in the ancient world.

Which has been mentioned allready. People were willing to believe all kinds that really weren't true. Checking for omens was endemic for instance.

Fr. Brown taks an honest hard look at the infancy narrative of Matthew and Luke. It is a struggle to find the truth in these narrative amid all the mythic lore and revisionist speculations. He digs deep down into the mountain of rubble that has accumulated, bringing out the sparkling truth that is contained within. He brings them out into the light of the day, where all speculation and myth are shown for what they are.

Well that one is hardly relevant. Lets look at the death. Volume one hmm. 928 pages isn't enough? Sure is a lot for so little actual evidence. That is what I mean by speculation on top of speculation. Sure there is some real history but the question here is the extraordinary stuff.

Brown breaks down the walls of theological density to recapture the full drama and meaning of Jesus' final days from his arrest to his execution and burial. While scholars may be staggered by Brown's exhaustively comprehensive bibliography and assured grasp of its contents, his introductory division of the passion's unfolding into four ``Acts'' and several ``Scenes'' will especially appeal to pastors and devout lay readers.

I have read that part of all four gospels. Its amazingly short on information. I would suppose he is trying to flesh it out with a knowledge of the culture of the time. However what I am looking for from YOU is some sort of outside evidence. Not two thousand pages of speculation no matter how well written or researched. Its an extraordinary claim. I want extraordinary evidence not speculation that the Bible might be right.

As I said I know its not an easy thing. You however have not made the slightest effort. Modern books of scholorly Angel dancing is not what I have in mind as proof. If Tacitus for instance had clearly had something that could at least give the appearance of his knowing that a man realy did rise from the dead that would exceptionly good evidence. Halfway there as I never believe anything without two sources. Thats normal in the sciences by the way. One is not enough. All kinds of crap gets done that can't be verified by others.

In case your curious I a writing this while ripping some of my CD collection. I am converting it to MP3Pro. Save a lot of space this way.

----------------------------------

Paula Fredriksen

Well her book is on why Jesus was executed and his followers weren't. A claim is made his death is the most solid thing we know about him. Well its really his attempted execution that is fairly certain. Really dead people don't get up and walk around barring a miracle but not quite dead but looks really really dead people do that sort of thing upon occasion.

In fact we know a lot more about him to the same exact degree. What we know is in the Bible. What we know about him outside the Bible is that he existed. I am fairly certain he existed and that the Romans got really annoyed and crucified him. I am also aware that a few hours on the cross is not the normal time for death at all.

In any case I don't see any claim of new evidence there and that is what is needed.

Now your claim that I am unwilling to learn is just false. I have asked you many times for some sort of evidence. Those books do not constitute evidence. Tacitus could have but he isn't. There are several others that get claimed as evidence but as I recall Tacitus was closer than the others. If you have something in mind please give me a clue not another set of massive tomes that are in the end mostly useing the Bible as a source for specific information about Jesus. There simply is no other source.

[ckweb]

See, this is exactly what I mean. You went through all the sources I listed and made infantile comments about them (interspersed with a few tidbits that might be worth responding to) . You also didn't take into consideration what I said about the sources themselves or the manner in which they were offered or the purpose behind the suggestion. Here's just a couple of the specific problems I have with your response: I indicated that people like Crossan and Borg don't support my view. I also indicated that Christianity: A Social and Cultural History is a book to give you basic knowledge that is a prerequisite for our discussion. I never indicated the books "on the historical Jesus" were limited to discussion of the resurrection; in fact, I indicated they were books relevant to the discussion "on the historical Jesus." And so on and so on.

Universal Life Church . . . . It just so happens I've been accepted at Harvard (GSAS and HDS), among a few other schools, for my graduate studies.

You are right that I have no idea of your level of education but I can tell from your posts that you have next to no education in the field of religion and theology, classics, or history. Furthermore, while you might have an undergraduate degree (possibly) in a field other than those I've mentioned, I would make a guess that you probably do not have graduate or post-graduate degrees of any kind. I base my guess on your use of sources (such as infidels.org) and your analytical skills, neither of which are consistent with the manner in which they should be employed by the majority of people possessing degrees above the undergraduate level. But, perhaps I am wrong and you are a PhD. Whatever education you have, it does not matter to me because what I wrote still remains true:

An extensive reply on my part, as I've done on some issues, would only meet with an uneducated, opinion-based reply on your part or alternatively a misrepresentation of my statements so that you can more easily disagree with it (i.e. "straw man" representations of my argument) as has happened several times already. I've given up on trying to argue my point because you make it mean what you want (i.e. the "sources" issue) not what I mean.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb
See, this is exactly what I mean. You went through all the sources I listed and made infantile comments about them (interspersed with a few tidbits that might be worth responding to) .

Yes exactly you again respond with puerile comments like that. There was nothing infintile in what I said. You are doing little but ignore what I say and make ad-hominym attacks. If that isn't puerile than nothing is.

You also didn't take into consideration what I said about the sources themselves or the manner in which they were offered or the purpose behind the suggestion.

I most certainly did, you comments had nothing to do with it though. I was not commenting on what you said but the books themselves and there relevence and the lack thereof to my questions.

Here's just a couple of the specific problems I have with your response: I indicated that people like Crossan and Borg don't support my view.

Yes. So what of that. I was dealing with the books since you are reluctant to say anything yourself.

I also indicated that Christianity: A Social and Cultural History is a book to give you basic knowledge that is a prerequisite for our discussion.

Its not. In fact the original discussion if you just look at the top of the page was Genisis. The prerequisite for discussing the Bible as fact is evidence to support it as fact. Outside evidence. If it exists you should be able to point me to something that does not entail a trip to bookstore, the expenditure of a lot of money and a great deal of reading time just to find something that is two pages that may or may not support you.

I never indicated the books "on the historical Jesus" were limited to discussion of the resurrection; in fact, I indicated they were books relevant to the discussion "on the historical Jesus." And so on and so on.

There is no historical Jesus without some evidence for his existence. NOR was that the discusion. I have never ever claimed that Jesus did not exist. I am not in the least interested in discussing the details of the more mundane aspects of his existence. The key wether you like it or not is the alleged supernatural events. You are the one that claimed the Resurection is one of the keys to your belief. So that seemed a good thing to discuss to me.

Universal Life Church . . . . It just so happens I've been accepted at Harvard (GSAS and HDS), among a few other schools, for my graduate studies.

Congratulations.

I have no evidence to support that but I will accept as true. However I have had people just plain lie about their education in these discusions. I am not saying you are. Just that it does happen. The guy I knew was lying claimed to be both a Creationist and working on a Masters in Anthropology. Considering the number of easly exposed lies he told it was not hard to figure that his alleged education was another. He tried to bluff me on Anthropology. Big mistake.

As a consequence you education and mine is quite imaterial. What you say here is. What you can show is. I am not impressed by degree in theology in any case. I put it on the level of politcal science. What you say means far more than what you think you know.

Oh the Universal Life Church comment was inspired by Anthony at the Maximum PC forum. He was a certified priest in the organization. Also a ex-Catholic Agnositic. Why he applied for it I don't know. I guess he thought it was funny.

You are right that I have no idea of your level of education but I can tell from your posts that you have next to no education in the field of religion and theology, classics, or history.

I have studied history a lot. Not the same periods as you though. I certainly haven't had any formal eduction in religion or theology since elementary school. Nevertheless that in no way is an indication of the level of ignorance you are pretending.

Furthermore, while you might have an undergraduate degree (possibly) in a field other than those I've mentioned, I would make a guess that you probably do not have graduate or post-graduate degrees of any kind.

I never claimed to. I have 92 units. That a year short of a degree at best. That was in the 70s. It really doesn't matter here however. Its the facts that count and I am waiting for some. This is just another of your efforts to pretend I am not able to discuss things with your magnificence rather than actually engage in a discussion. That is the usuall reason for people engaging in personal attack like you keep doing. You are not doing well in the discussion so you try to change the subject to your opponent rather than deal with what I have said.

I base my guess on your use of sources (such as infidels.org) and your analytical skills, neither of which are consistent with the manner in which they should be employed by the majority of people possessing degrees above the undergraduate level. But, perhaps I am wrong and you are a PhD. Whatever education you have, it does not matter to me because what I wrote still remains true:

What you have written remains without sources. You have claimed them and you still refuse to give an example. A large book is not the same thing. I want the originals so I can decide for myself. Its really not that hard to supply if they exist. The only thing wrong with my analytical skills is you don't like the results.

An extensive reply on my part, as I've done on some issues, would only meet with an uneducated, opinion-based reply on your part or alternatively a misrepresentation of my statements so that you can more easily disagree with it (i.e. "straw man" representations of my argument) as has happened several times already. I've given up on trying to argue my point because you make it mean what you want (i.e. the "sources" issue) not what I mean.

Your extensive replies have been opinion based. You constant attacks are beneath contempt. I have never engaged in straw man representations at least intentionaly. You have always had the opportunity to show any errors and you have usually instead engaged personal attacks just as you did this time. The source issue is important. If you can't see that you are not the thinker you believe you are.

You obviously prefer to continue in these unwaranted personal attacks rather than to discuss anything. Hence I dub thee Troll.

Growup childish one.

This ad-hominym attack was brought to you by T!t-For-Tat Incorporated.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by ckweb
You are right that I have no idea of your level of education but I can tell from your posts that you have next to no education in the field of religion and theology, classics, or history

You forgot about philosophy or any other logic-oriented subject.
Unless you managed to find a reply from him with a bit of logic (wich I never found).

[Ethelred]

Hey you broke your promise.

You said you had me on ignore.

You are a Fundamentalist Creationist. You have no concept of what constitutes logic. Not so far anyway. Perhaps someday but I have more hope for Lincoln. Not so sure about Ckweb since he is immersed in academia and thinks an online discussion is the same thing. Perhaps Harvard can help.

Oh do you think that Ckweb used a pentacle to summon me. I am pretty sure that if he did he failed to close it. He certainly hasn't managed to gain any controll over me.

[SpencerH]

Accepted for graduate studies at Harvard, or anywhere else, doesnt mean you'll finish. If I was the non-departmental member of your thesis defense commitee (and theoretically I could be) and these were your arguments and methods you'd fail. Ethelred can be exasperating sometimes, but you started the discussion. You didnt stick to your point and you didnt prove it.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Hey you broke your promise.

You said you had me on ignore.

I never made any promise regarding you. And you're still in my ignore list. It's just that I can see at what time you posted in the thread and see your light bulb on or off. I just felt into the mood to give poor Ckweb a little tip.
Trust me, this is my first "read this post" of yours in many many months!
And you'll still be on my ignore list, trust me on that one too.

Originally posted by Ethelred
You are a Fundamentalist Creationist. You have no concept of what constitutes logic. Not so far anyway. Perhaps someday but I have more hope for Lincoln. Not so sure about Ckweb since he is immersed in academia and thinks an online discussion is the same thing. Perhaps Harvard can help.

Oh do you think that Ckweb used a pentacle to summon me. I am pretty sure that if he did he failed to close it. He certainly hasn't managed to gain any controll over me.

I think what?!?!?!?
Gain control over you?!?!?
Dude, get a grip. You're so wacked!

Bye... :waving:

[SpencerH]

Ethelred, you do seem to stir up the most 'colourful' people

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Zealot

And you'll still be on my ignore list, trust me on that one too.

I don't trust you on anything. You flew off the handle just before you anounced that you putting me on ignore.

I think what?!?!?!?
Gain control over you?!?!?
Dude, get a grip. You're so wacked!

Bye... :waving:

It didn't say you think it. I asked what you thought.

It was a joke. Magic isn't real. A pentacle is only good for decoration and annoying those that don't get the joke.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Ethelred, you do seem to stir up the most 'colourful' people

Its a talent. I didn't ask for the talent but it would be wrong for me to waste it.

I try to add my own color but sometimes it just all mixes together into a grey mess like my Easter Eggs often did as a kid. I didn't understand the subtractive nature of dyes then.

I don't know if you saw some of my first posts here. I took on Zylka for trolling with his Lutherian numbered complaints about Civ III. Three people got banned. Not me or Zylka though.

I later came to the conclusion that I was shooting fish in a barrel and should cut back on that.

[SpencerH]

Yeah I saw that one it was very funny. I'm still not sure why Zylka didnt get banned though.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Accepted for graduate studies at Harvard, or anywhere else, doesnt mean you'll finish. If I was the non-departmental member of your thesis defense commitee (and theoretically I could be) and these were your arguments and methods you'd fail. You didnt stick to your point and you didnt prove it.

Really? Who are you, besides "SpencerH" of course? My area is Hebrew Bible. What is your department? Do you have a link to your faculty profile?

If this was my thesis, these wouldn't be my arguments and methods. This is a forum not a thesis. Also, I didn't stick to my point because it was being derailed by nonsensical rebuttals, which I'm relatively certain I would not receive from a Harvard non-departmental thesis advisor (i.e. his comment about "Canon" and "Bible"; or, Christian oral tradition being preserved in the Talmud; or, analogies with modern events; etc. etc.). My argument has also been waylaid by misconstruals of my position that require too much time and effort to rectify. It may be true that at times I have inadequately expressed my point (for lack of time and interest) but most of the time, it appears to me that the misconstruals result from Ethel's ignorance of the field and an ignorance he was not willing to admit to having let alone changing. Also, in my opinion, a good conversation or debate on an issue must at least share an implicit (and sometimes explicit) agreement on the goal. This is clearly not the case in the recent discussions in this thread. Ethel seems to think that I am attempting to prove the resurrection, which I am not. I was attempting (before I decided to give up) to show that it was exceedingly likely, defensible, and reasonable that a resurrection occurred. This is a considerably different goal. He also seems to think that I believe there are independent sources to corroborate the resurrection as an historical fact when I have never said so. When sources became an issue in our debate, I only discussed them for the purposes of clarifying their nature (not as a support to my argument as Ethel keeps allegeding--although I did toss in a few throw-away comments about them, which are easily identifiable). I should hope if you were my non-departmental thesis advisor, I would not have these problems with you.

You are right that I may not finish my studies, although I consider that exceedingly unlikely. I am already in a position where my papers and comments are interacting with the professionals in my field. As I've indicated, I'm presenting at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Toronto, 2002. This is the largest and most significant professional society in my field. My paper is one of six (I believe) that got accepted, after peer review, for presentation in the Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah section. This section is presently one of the "hottest" of the sections that deal with biblical books. So, I think if I am already at a level such as this, graduating from Harvard (while challenging and difficult) will not be beyond my abilities.

BTW, if you actually care to read a draft of the paper I'm presenting at SBL, it's online:

http://anduril.ca/PDFs/In%20the%20ho...%20my%20father's%20house.pdf [I can't get this link to work properly. Sorry.]

This paper is a much better representation of my ability to formulate arguments and apply method.

Also, I thought you disappeared so I didn't bother responding to a criticism you made about me. You wrote a while back:

You refute the arguments that deny the scientific accuracy of the bible by asserting that it must be judged as a theological (literary) text without taking into account science as a basis for judging its accuracy or significance.

Then you deride other theological texts using the same scientific arguments that you assert cant be used to judge the bible.

How typical.

I think your criticism derives from a misunderstanding of how I believe science can function with respect to theological texts. My point back then was all types of texts make particular claims for themselves. Some claim to be historical. Some do not. Some are representative of particular genres and must be dealt with on that basis. In the case of the Genesis narratives, I pointed out that the claim of the Creation and Flood stories was not one of communicating history and so if the authors did not intend to communicate history, why read as such. And why impose that standard upon the text. When I criticized BoM, I did so under the belief that BoM and the Mormons claimed the stories were historical. I have since accepted some criticism in this respect and ceded on points where my understanding of BoM was clearly inadequate (something incidentally Ethel does not do). Historical-scientific approaches can be applied to theological texts because there are texts that do claim (at least in some respect) the telling of history. For instance, I believe it is entirely appropriate to apply appropriate historical-scientific approaches to Ancient Israelite Historiography (bearing in my mind of course that "historiography" is not the same as "history") in order to determine the credibility of the bible in the reconstruction of Ancient Israel. Does this resolve your criticism or do you still feel that I am being inconsistent in my application?

[Ethelred]

I think its because Ming knows he has real problem. He made some odd posts on a thread about someone elses drug problems.

Someone got banned for quoting him though. Ming said it was because the post was off topic. Which it was as it was directed at the quesion of why Zylka was not in Mingapulco. Kind of a dumb thing to do as Ming was on the warpath allready. I was being very carefull in what I said there but I was stirring things up with someone that realy had control issues. I just didn't know it at the time. If I had been the least bit careless I would have been banned in my first week on the forum. Got warned as it was.

[ckweb]

Ethel:

Can you explain some things?

(1) You wrote:

Jesus was the House of David himself

In another place, you wrote:

He was of the line of David

Where did you get this information? You reject the Bible as a credible source, correct? So, it wasn't from the Bible was it? Perhaps, it was Gnostic literature from which you derived this information because you write:

Gnostics claim he was the legitmate King of Israel which he very well could have been if he was in David's line.

If the Gnostics are your source, what makes Gnostic literature more reliable than the Bible?

(2) You made those statements about Jesus in the line of David in part to support your point that Jesus was not an insignificant person as I indicated Crossan and Borg believed him to be. Here is what I wrote:

If you take the picture of Jesus drawn up by Borg and Crossan (two leading secular scholars on Jesus), you have a very insignificant man wandering through a very insignificant province doing what as many as hundreds before him had done. What made him different?

You replied:

Not being that way in the first place. He was of the line of David. Gnostics claim he was the legitmate King of Israel which he very well could have been if he was in David's line. Herod certainly wasn't. The province was not insignifcant. It was just as now the crossroads between Europe and both Africa and India. Hardly insignificant.

Yes there were others. They didn't get lucky. Perhaps they and their followers weren't as good at deliberatly doing things that matched a prophecy. Jesus riding into Jerusalem on an ass was no accident. It was done to fit a prophecy. HE CHOSE to go in on ass. Even said to take one without asking according to the Bible.

That kind of manipulation of oppinion makes a difference.

Now, here's what I don't understand. If Jesus wasn't insignificant, why isn't he mentioned in contemporary Roman sources of the period (as you so repeatedly point out)?

Also, you deny Ant 18.3.3 S63-64 contains anything that can be attributed to Josephus, declaring that Ant 20.9.1 S200-201 is the only reference to Jesus in the writings of Josephus. This latter reference mentions him only by association to his brother, James, who is actually the focus of the passage. From your standpoint then, if Jesus wasn't insignificant, why doesn't Josephus mention him?

(3) Here's a problem I have that exhibits the problems of #1 and #2 in the same argument. You wrote:

Perhaps they and their followers weren't as good at deliberatly doing things that matched a prophecy. Jesus riding into Jerusalem on an ass was no accident. It was done to fit a prophecy. HE CHOSE to go in on ass. Even said to take one without asking according to the Bible.

Now, you do have the qualifier "Perhaps" so perhaps you do not believe this actually happened but it would seem you do as you are using it as proof that Jesus wasn't insignificant. If I get the gist of your argument, Jesus became popular because he deliberately did "things that matched a prophecy." According to the quote, you received this information from "the Bible" but I thought the Bible wasn't a credible witness? Why are you allowed to use it to prove your point?

(4) Based on your use of the Bible to corroborate certain statements, perhaps you will find this article interesting:

http://www.cga94.com/contributors/stuff/crucifixion/

This article makes rather literal use of the Bible, which I might even have cause to dispute but you appeared to have shown a willingness to use the Bible to prove certain things in your argument so I guess I should have no qualms about using it here. Irregardless of its high view of the Bible as an historical witness (obviously derived from the Pastors who unfortunately co-wrote the article), its medical findings about crucifixion would seem to strongly contradict your claim that Jesus swooned.

[ckweb]

Speaking about the Bible, you wrote:

Its one book. Multiple sources. All filtered by the same group.

Yes the same group. I did not say the same source. I said filtered by the same group. A single group filtered all the different writing and chose what goes in and what doesn't. That means that stuff they didn't like (Gnostic documents for instance) got left out.

I responded by saying,

Simply not true. Canon wasn't decided by the Catholic Church until Trent in response to the Protestants who set their Canon shortly before. The RCC and the Protestant canons are different. I'm not sure when the Orthodox Church set their Canon but theirs is different from both the RCC and the Protestant churches. Coptic Christianity has still yet another Canon.

So, as you can see, canon was a pretty late development and was not filtered by one group.

You then replied:

Do try reading. I didn't say one word about the Canon. I was talking about the Bible.

Britannica World Language Dictionary gives the contextually-relevant of definition of "canon" that I used as "The books of the Bible that are recognized by the Church as inspired." As you were talking about a "filtered" Bible whereby certain documents "got left out," weren't we talking about "Canon"? In fact, isn't my choice of words more exact?

You also add:

The only difference between major Christion versions is wether the Apochrypha are in or not.

First of all, you make it seem as if that is an inconsequential difference. The Apocrypha of the RCC, which they call the deutero-canonical books, adds seven other books and exapnds the books of Daniel and Esther. The Greek Orthodox Church is more drastic in its differences: First, the GOC uses the LXX (rather than the MT or a critical text) as its official OT text; Second, they add everything the RCC does plus 1 & 2 Edras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabees.

Second of all, while these are the major differences in the versions since the text was canonized by their respective churches (there are more minor ones, i.e. the RCC accepts the longer ending of Mark and John 7:53-8:11, while Protestants typically do not), before that time, there was considerable variation in the accepted texts as evidenced by codices and manuscripts that exist. In the case of the NT, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas are found in the Codex Sinaiticus (mid-4th Century). The Muratorian Fragment (late-2nd Century C.E.) suggests that the Apocalypse of St. Peter and again the Shepherd of Hermas were accepted by some churches. The Marcion Canon consisted only of a bastardized form of Luke and ten Pauline Epistles. At various times and places, the Acts of Paul, the Didache, the Gospel of the Hebrews, and I Clement were used as Scripture. And so on and so on.

Third of all, I'd like to contend with your statement that the Bible is "filtered." I'm not sure how you mean this term but it seems to carry the conviction that the books were chosen on the basis of whether they were agreeable or not to the doctrine of the church. Yet, if that was the case, we would not have four gospels as canonical, we would have the Diatessaron as canonical or another edited version of the gospels. The gospels themselves contain many obstacles to harmonization and in that respect have often been criticized past and present. So, why would the church preserve four gospels with "apparently" uncomplimentary accounts of Jesus Christ? The tendency of most early Christian churches was to possess and use only one gospel. So, why wasn't just one gospel chosen?

The core biblical books were not filtered by one group with one view. Instead, they represent the texts that over the course of history were regarded as the most reliable and authentic of the ancient witnesses by a consensus of Christians from disparate communities of faith. These ancient witnesses were repeatedly debated as I've indicated by way of a few examples and still are today. But, even if you opened the canon today, the end result would probably still be a consensus that the 27 books of the NT are the best, most reliable, and authentic witnesses to Jesus and early Christianity. Modern scholarship supports this view:

The fallout in noncanonical tradition from the historic career of Jesus was enormous: gospels (mainly Jewish-Christian and gnostic), homilies, testimonies, liturgies, acts, apocalypses, rabbinic and Islamic traditions, texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Greek, Latin, Coptic, and other languages. Though this tradition is voluminous even in the fragmentary state in which it has survived, only a few short narratives and perhaps a dozen sayings have a serious claim to historical value. David Noel Freedman (editor), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (New York: Doubleday, 1996, c1992), Vol. 3, Page 775.