Those over there! .... They are not Christians!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Safely....! Thank you.
The Gospel of Mark was a good deposition written by and on behalf of two witnesses. Not Bad.

On what evidence?

Oral Tradition was the one method that illiterate Galileans used to pass on memories.

That is rather a sweeping generalisation. However, remember that Q is only a theoretical text.

Josephus wrote about Jesus, even if the account was later altered.

Josephus mentions James and James' brother. The Testimonium Flavianum would constitute a separate thread.

The place where mention was made shows that the account was accurate.

Which account?

That the Baptist can be shown to have existed

That is not my point. You are making some sweeping statements without an iota of historical evidence to support them. You are entitled to your opinions. However, your opinions are not necessarily, in and of themselves, facts.

Let's start with the Temple coin, all on its own. That was reason enough for the uprising.

On what evidence? Or this just another hunch of yours?

But the Hypocrisy and apostasy of the Priesthood (and royalty) is EASY to Prove.

If it so easy, kindly do so with some attested historical evidence.

(Roman and Greek Temples and altars scattered over Palestine?) And not just for Romans. There were no Roman troops in Galilee, but lots of Temples and Altars. Lots of evidence.

And the Prirsts ran the country under the Tetrarchs for the Romans (and the Prefect in the South).



Excellent! So that's a Human Kingdom run by the Jewish Priesthood, and not the Romans. Well at least we can agree on that.
You see? Run by the Priesthood. Overseen by Tetrarchs and a Prefect.




613 Laws of Moses, many overlooked by the fat greedy careless Priesthood.
The Poor Laws were long forgotten, I expect.
Jesus said all this out loud. If you don't know the passage please just say so and I'll be glad to print it.

This is all incoherent opinion. If you cannot or will not substantiate your comments with some attested historical evidence, I see little point in pandering to your bizarre notions.

[eider]

"Particular Baptists" -- been a LONG time since I've heard of them!

And I never found out anything about them.
In forty years I never once found that little chapel open......
I have found a photo of the interior though..... surprising large for such a tiny building.
Ity looks four times bigger (in those photos) than it really is

[Cow Poke]

And I never found out anything about them.
In forty years I never once found that little chapel open......
I have found a photo of the interior though..... surprising large for such a tiny building.
Ity looks four times bigger (in those photos) than it really is

I once made a comment like "it's so sad when a church dies", and my pastor asked me, "why"?
It surprised me, but he continued "people die, and other people are born - and there may be times when a church is not doing what they need to be doing, and that particular church needs to die.

He has a point. It is sad to me, however, when a church building gets purchased and converted into a retail shop or bar or something. It happens.

Bottom line, though - the church building is not "the Church".

[eider]

On what evidence?

That is rather a sweeping generalisation. However, remember that Q is only a theoretical text.

Who mentioned Q?
Q is not in the Gospel of Mark.

Josephus mentions James and James' brother. The Testimonium Flavianum would constitute a separate thread.

I'm referring to the mentions of the Baptist and Jesus.
But James is interesting.

Which account?

That is not my point. You are making some sweeping statements without an iota of historical evidence to support them. You are entitled to your opinions. However, your opinions are not necessarily, in and of themselves, facts.

But you don't want to recognise the Gospel of Mark as a deposition. I can't help that.

On what evidence? Or this just another hunch of yours?

No hunch. I detail the coin in the Thread about the coin.

If it so easy, kindly do so with some attested historical evidence.

I made mention in brief for you, and you dismissed it all............
(Roman and Greek Temples and altars scattered over Palestine?) And not just for Romans. There were no Roman troops in Galilee, but lots of Temples and Altars. Lots of evidence.
A Jewish Tetrarch Antipasrules Galilee, with Jewish officials.

And the Priests ran the country under the Tetrarchs for the Romans (and the Prefect in the South).
You told me about the Theocracy. Well here it is!

And again.......
Excellent! So that's a Human Kingdom run by the Jewish Priesthood, and not the Romans. Well at least we can agree on that.
You see? Run by the Priesthood. Overseen by Tetrarchs and a Prefect.


613 Laws of Moses, many overlooked by the fat greedy careless Priesthood.
The Poor Laws were long forgotten, I expect.
Jesus said all this out loud. If you don't know the passage please just say so and I'll be glad to print it.

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.

This is all incoherent opinion. If you cannot or will not substantiate your comments with some attested historical evidence, I see little point in pandering to your bizarre notions.

QED.
If you want more detailed answers please pick one sentence at a time.
Answers can be extensive.

[rogue06]

I once made a comment like "it's so sad when a church dies", and my pastor asked me, "why"?
It surprised me, but he continued "people die, and other people are born - and there may be times when a church is not doing what they need to be doing, and that particular church needs to die.

He has a point. It is sad to me, however, when a church building gets purchased and converted into a retail shop or bar or something. It happens.

Bottom line, though - the church building is not "the Church".

Growing up one of my favorite restaurants was in an old monastery and called the Abbey. I tried looking it up the interwebz but it doesn't appear to be around any more. It was a bit pricey so it was reserved for special occasions and as a lad just reaching "that age" I was intrigued by the waitresses who wore what were essentially cassocks but cut like minidresses. They were called minimonks.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Who mentioned Q?
Q is not in the Gospel of Mark.


I'm referring to the mentions of the Baptist and Jesus.
But James is interesting.


But you don't want to recognise the Gospel of Mark as a deposition. I can't help that.



No hunch. I detail the coin in the Thread about the coin.


I made mention in brief for you, and you dismissed it all............
(Roman and Greek Temples and altars scattered over Palestine?) And not just for Romans. There were no Roman troops in Galilee, but lots of Temples and Altars. Lots of evidence.
A Jewish Tetrarch Antipasrules Galilee, with Jewish officials.

And the Priests ran the country under the Tetrarchs for the Romans (and the Prefect in the South).
You told me about the Theocracy. Well here it is!

And again.......
Excellent! So that's a Human Kingdom run by the Jewish Priesthood, and not the Romans. Well at least we can agree on that.
You see? Run by the Priesthood. Overseen by Tetrarchs and a Prefect.


613 Laws of Moses, many overlooked by the fat greedy careless Priesthood.
The Poor Laws were long forgotten, I expect.
Jesus said all this out loud. If you don't know the passage please just say so and I'll be glad to print it.

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.



QED.
If you want more detailed answers please pick one sentence at a time.
Answers can be extensive.

I am asking you for some attested historical evidence. Do you have any?

[eider]

I once made a comment like "it's so sad when a church dies", and my pastor asked me, "why"?
It surprised me, but he continued "people die, and other people are born - and there may be times when a church is not doing what they need to be doing, and that particular church needs to die.

He has a point. It is sad to me, however, when a church building gets purchased and converted into a retail shop or bar or something. It happens.

Bottom line, though - the church building is not "the Church".

Absolutely!
A Church is a collection of believing people, a congregation. The blooming hill can be the place of congregation, which it mostly was here where I live. Then the buildings went up.

I must say that several churches/chapels have been converted in to homes, flats and offices around here. But a surprising (to me) number of churches still stand, even if only holding small ciongregations.

But there is one. ....... A church near here was built a few years ago in an old industrial complex. It is called 'Riverside Church' Whitstable, Kent. UK and its participation is very much greater than the 'old' churches. (My wife just put me right about all this). It has those street-pastors that I told you about in its congregation. It has (had) a cafeteria open to anybody (before lockdown, that is) but it is very very moderate. It's sign outside is a huge rainbow sign.

[rogue06]

Josephus' reference to Jesus being crucified by Pilate, the so-called Testimonium Flavianum, is almost certainly either a later interpolation or has been modified. IIRC, the latter is the majority view.

OTOH, the oft overlooked^[1] offhand reference to him wrt to being the brother of James is regarded as largely authentic. Few scholars question its authenticity, most notably (surprise, surprise) Richard Carrier. According to Louis H. Feldman's Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980) something like only 13 of the 52 Josephus scholars he analyzed thought it was an interpolation. And one of those who rejects it, Graham Twelftree, oddly enough accepts most of the Testimonium as being authentic.

In a way it's remarkable that Jesus is even mentioned at all. Typically, for other Jewish Messianic figures, Roman troops needed to be called out to put them and their followers down. In fact the Gospels indicate that Pilate had no idea of who He even was when He was dragged before Him.

My apologies I'm not trying to derail your thread





1. at least by internet atheists, not so much by legitimate scholars

[Starlight]

One of the things that I think is not remarked on enough about Josephus's works is that, despite hundreds of pages of exhaustive description of the actions of all sorts of different Jewish sects active in Jerusalem pre-70AD, Christians are barely mentioned at all. Clearly Christians didn't comprise any significant fraction of the population of Jews in Jerusalem in the period 30-70AD.

Clearly, neither Jesus's life (if it happened), nor death, nor resurrection appearances, nor any changes in the life of the disciples etc, had any sort of overwhelming convincing impact on the Jews in Jerusalem.

This is particularly worth noting given we are sometimes told by apologists that the resurrection appearances were sooo convincing that we should believe in Christianity 2000 years later because of it, or the willingness of the disciples to die for their cause was proof of Christianity, or that Jesus's miracles were proof etc. The vast vast majority of Jews of that era apparently found none of those convincing at the time they occurred or in the decades that followed.

The mass resurrection in Matthew 27 is also pretty clearly fictional given that Josephus doesn't mention such a stunning event when he covers the history of this period, nor mentions any groups being influenced by it in the slightest.

None of the claims of Jesus or his followers seem to have been convincing to the vast vast majority of Jews in Jerusalem at that time.

[Tassman]

It is truly amazing, who faithful Christians could support that President. Amazing!

For the anyone to believe that he is anti-gay or anti-abortion is just mind boggling for me to wonder about. He has many friends and colleagues who are gay and I have seen him holding up a rainbow flag (which I am perfectly happy about, by the way). And I have read before that he paid a girlfriend to end a pregnancy once...... can't tell if that's true but I've never heard that claim refuted.

That incident where security and law enforcement forced demonstrators off the White House lawn area so that he could walk in front of the Church/Chapel to hold up a bible ......... No.

I feel quite confident to believe that President Trump's God is money, power and status.

Oh yes, "money ,power and status" - but his real God is himself and himself alone, as one would expect of a personality disordered narcissist.

https://www.helpguide.org/articles/m...y-disorder.htm

[eider]

Oh yes, "money ,power and status" - but his real God is himself and himself alone, as one would expect of a personality disordered narcissist.

https://www.helpguide.org/articles/m...y-disorder.htm

I'm not going to write the name, but who does your description remind you of?
What might have come about? *shivers*

[Tassman]

I'm not going to write the name, but who does your description remind you of?
What might have come about? *shivers*

I know this is not what you have in mind, but Trump reminds me of Duane Gish and his technique known as the Gish Gallop, wherein one overwhelms opponents with a stream of lies and specious arguments.

[rogue06]

One of the things that I think is not remarked on enough about Josephus's works is that, despite hundreds of pages of exhaustive description of the actions of all sorts of different Jewish sects active in Jerusalem pre-70AD, Christians are barely mentioned at all. Clearly Christians didn't comprise any significant fraction of the population of Jews in Jerusalem in the period 30-70AD.

Clearly, neither Jesus's life (if it happened), nor death, nor resurrection appearances, nor any changes in the life of the disciples etc, had any sort of overwhelming convincing impact on the Jews in Jerusalem.

This is particularly worth noting given we are sometimes told by apologists that the resurrection appearances were sooo convincing that we should believe in Christianity 2000 years later because of it, or the willingness of the disciples to die for their cause was proof of Christianity, or that Jesus's miracles were proof etc. The vast vast majority of Jews of that era apparently found none of those convincing at the time they occurred or in the decades that followed.

The mass resurrection in Matthew 27 is also pretty clearly fictional given that Josephus doesn't mention such a stunning event when he covers the history of this period, nor mentions any groups being influenced by it in the slightest.

None of the claims of Jesus or his followers seem to have been convincing to the vast vast majority of Jews in Jerusalem at that time.

As I noted

In a way it's remarkable that Jesus is even mentioned at all. Typically, for other Jewish Messianic figures, Roman troops needed to be called out to put them and their followers down. In fact the Gospels indicate that Pilate had no idea of who He even was when He was dragged before Him.

In a sense Jesus' ministry was like the "still small voice" mentioned in the OT and certainly not the message that most Jews, suffering under the yoke of Roman control, wanted to hear. They wanted a message of violent revolt led by a military leader like the Maccabees who kicked out the Seleucid Empire two centuries earlier and established the Hasmonean dynasty. Yet another instance of people trying to tell God how to act

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

As I noted

[box]In a way it's remarkable that Jesus is even mentioned at all.

Not really given the context in which Josephus refers to James.

[eider]

I know this is not what you have in mind, but Trump reminds me of Duane Gish and his technique known as the Gish Gallop, wherein one overwhelms opponents with a stream of lies and specious arguments.

I must admit.... I've not heard of Duane Gish.
I'll Google him.....