Originally posted by ckweb
Ethel:
Can you explain some things?
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:
"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:
Its either that or we can talk about whether anything in the Bible is real.
"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?
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:
The Gnostics believe the wedding that Jesus is supposed have turned water into wine was his wedding to Mary Magdeline.
Who knows? In the English translation it could be that way but why isn't it stated explicitly. Perhaps the Gnositics had a version where it was so stated.
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."
So whats the problem there. Its a supposition based on the Bible and Gnostic writings. Plus the reality of Israel's importance as a trade route.
The Romans did trade with India even if they did no know the source. So did Carthage. A coin or perhaps a medalion has been found that shows one of Hannibals elephants and its an Indian elephant.
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)?
I don't know. I wasn't saying that he was significant. I was saying they were ignoring things that the Bible had that appear to put Jesus in a rather more significant position than they were saying. I was pointing out flaw that may or may not be a real one depending largely on wheter Jesus really was descended from David. If he wasn't then he does not fit the requirements of being the Messiah. Which makes the question of whether he was or was not a significant figure a bit more significant.
If he wasn't significant then how do you deal with the claim that he was legitamate heir to the House of David which is what follows from the Biblical and Gnostic claims. It is also needed to be the Messiah.
Of course the Romans wouldn't see it that way. They didn't bother to record any of this or if they did the information has been lost. The Jews obviously wouldn't have agreed with it. Jesus definitly did not fit the Jewish of a Mesiah. Dying is then end of such a claim as dead people don't rule nations.
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?
He does mention him. Once. I hear that in other places he shows a dislike for Christians. I can't find that in the bits of Josephus that I have however.
(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.
You need to work on the concept of casting doubt on someones thesis. I am not trying to prove anything. I am showing ways in which they may be wrong. They may be right.
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?
Why should I not? This a discusion about Christianity and the Bible. Its real hard to discuss that without actualy using the Bible. I cannot at all discuss books about the history of Jesus without using the ONLY sources available. There is information on the general history and culture from that era that is not in the Bible but those books only use that to better understand what is in the Bible. If they have missed something that is in the Bible than the other sources don't really help much since they are dealing with errors in the first place.
You do have an understanding of the idea of treating something as true or at least possibly true for the sake of going on don't you? I cannot discuss those things without doing this. Its exactly the same as when I discuss the Bible as literly true with a Creationist. I must deal with the Bible and have no other choice except to exit the discusion. Perhaps that is really what you want but you summoned me. You get to deal with the consequences just like a sorcerer that forgot to close a pentagram when summoning a demon (see The Fallible Fiend by L. Sprague De Camp told from the demon's point of view).
(4) Based on your use of the Bible to corroborate certain statements, perhaps you will find this article interesting:
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.
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.
When dealing with the scourging of Jesus they talk as if the Romans that lashed Jesus might have struck more then 39 times the Jewish law required. They were Romans not Jews. They did what Romans did and were not acting according to Jewish law. That means it could have been far lass than 39 strokes yet they failed to see that possibility. They also claim that when the Romans took of a cloak that his wounds might have reopened. How? The wounds were fresh at that point so the blood would still be wet. This is not a sign of clear thinking.
The spear thrust is only in John. Its odd that the other versions do not have it. Even if such a thing actually happened it may not have been done well. It is the only real reason for thinking that Jeusus must have died in such a short time. If it was in all four gospels it would be a little more probable. However people do add things over time to stories and most signs point to John being the last gospel to be written down.
Shock does not always lead to death. What they were doing really is assuming that Jesus died and were trying how it could have happened so quickly. He could just as easily have collapsed into unconciousness and coma under those conditions. That is what sometimes happens when people are badly injured.
There was a case in the newpaper (I don't know it was true or not, sometime people like to make things up just to con the papers) during the Viet Nam War where someone was sent home in a body bag. The body had not yet been embalmed. When the embalmer cut the body open to replace the blood with embalming fluid he noticed the artery that is usually used was pulsing. The man recovered.
A friend of mine, Greg, had something similar. The doctors called his father five seperate times telling him that Greg had died after a very bad auto accident that killed his grandparents and badly injured his brother Bruce. Bruce woke up in the hospital and asked where his brother was. That was the first anyone knew there were four people and not three in the car. Greg had been thrown out of the car, hit a light pole, dented it with his head and landed on the side of road where he was not seen till they went back to find him. Greg survived. I am not so sure he was undamaged (he had some annoying habits) but he did survive.
Gregs father was a neuro-surgeon and he kept telling the docters that he was still alive. Over the phone. Somehow he was right and the people on the scene were wrong.
Now that was a man that was injured badly and in a coma and know one that handled the body had noticed that he was still alive. The doctors did say Greg was brain dead they said he was dead. These of course are not a frequent occurances but these things do happen upon occasion.
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.
What is this odd dislike you have for me using the Bible in a discussion involving the Bible? I am not using it as if I believed in it but as if you, and others do. If you don't then why did you start the thread?
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.
I said coma not swooned. Swooning does not involve a lowered metabolic rate. It would not protect someone from asphyxiation wheras a coma has a possiblity of doing so. Those weren't medical findings so much as medical oppinions that assume death and the accuracy of both the Bible and the Shroud of Turin, a known fake. Many of things are plausible, others are open to question. The spear thrust has always looked to me like something that was added on. Both to prove death and show that Jesus even in death had no broken bones as is needed to qualify for a sacrifice.
Comment