Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Ancient Sources: History and Theology.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Once again into the land of multiple unnecessary coding commands surrounding virtually every phrase making reading what was written while trying to respond to it difficult

    Then again, maybe that's the plan all along.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    PART TWO

    I would also take issue with Loke’s comment on the Corinthian community and their attitude to Paul’s letters [p.55] “In that case, Paul’s letters would have been discarded, rather than kept as divinely authoritative writings by the Corinthian Christians”. There is no evidence in any of the letters deemed authentic to Paul that he regarded any of his writing to various congregations as “divinely authoritative”. That notion was formulated by other people and at a much later period in the development of the religion and its canon of Scripture.
    Who claimed that Paul ever said that he considered his letters as divinely authoritative?

    Straw man much?

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    One also has to wonder why, if as Hurtado [and indeed others contend [see Michael B Thompson’s essay in Bauckham’s The Gospels for All Christians, “The Holy Internet Communication between Churches in the First Generation Christians”] this cult, despite engaging in “communication” and “networking”, was beset with internal dissention from the outset.
    Is that a serious question? I can't think of one major endeavor where, in spite of all the major players being onboard, it wasn't "beset with internal dissention from the outset." Look at the founding of our country and the drawing up of the Constitution for instance. An awful lot of "internal dissension" which sometimes got rather heated, and yet can still be described as involving a consensus.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    In Paul’s authentic letters we see his antagonism and degree of contempt towards the Jerusalem Movement [i.e. those Messianic Jewish members of Jesus’ own group] and those who are “in opposition to the teaching that you have learned” [Romans 16.17-19]. We also know that only a matter of decades after his disappearance from history [the 60s CE] that there were various conflicting ideas within this fledgling cult such as those of Marcion, Valentinus, and Basilides.
    So... pretty much like any and everything run by humans.

    It also appears that Paul's major complaint against the "Judaizers" was that they were "adding to" the Gospel message. Requiring acts that Christ Himself never did. Basically, putting "an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way" (Romans 14:13) rather than spreading completely alien lessons. IOW, you could even ask them about the Resurrection and get the same answer.

    And has anyone thanked you for taking on the role of judge for what is and is not "Paul's authentic letters" lately?

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    It is therefore quite apparent that the consensus that Bauckham and Hurtado wish to present with regard to “networking” and “communities with constant, close communication” is not really borne out by what we know of events seventy years or so after 50 CE.
    That there has been different disagreements among Christians is hardly anything new. You wouldn't find Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox denominations if there weren't any.

    As I noted, you'll always find disagreement among humans -- ironically even when they're all in agreement.

    If you look at I Corinthians you will see how Paul, over and over again suggests that anyone who wishes to check the veracity of his message should just ask any of the eyewitnesses who were still around and available. No, they couldn't exactly call them on the phone, but history indicates that many of them were among those "peripatetic teachers" (who you think never traveled) and it likely wouldn't be long before some stopped by (especially at a large city like Corinth with what appears to have been a fairly robust Christian community). I mean, if it weren't the case, the Corinthians would have dismissed Paul as a fraud.


    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Moving to later scholarship; after WW1 the translations of the Mandaean texts were published.

    Rudolf Bultmann discovered in these texts examples of a possibly pre-Christian Gnosticism; they later assisted him to reconstruct Gnostic sources as the basis of the revelation speeches in the Gospel of John. The primary impetus of these Mandaean texts, however, was a new departure for the study of possible Gnostic influences on early Christian writings. Gnosticism was thus seen for the first time as a possible “heresy” already in the first century rather than as a second-century aberration from early Christianity” [My emphasis https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/psco/year...ster-bauer.pdf


    In his Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum, [1934] Bauer contended that in what came to be known in the ecclesiastical tradition as "heresy" was in fact the original manifestation of Christianity. For example, according to Bauer, the major figures in earliest Christianity at Edessa were the "heretics" Marcion, Bar Daisan, and Mani. In Egypt a gnostic form of Christianity appears to have been dominant before A.D. 200, and in Asia Minor "orthodox" leaders such as Ignatius and Polycarp waged only moderately success battles against gnosticism and judaising”. [See Daniel J Harrington, “The Reception of Walter Bauer's "Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity" during the Last Decade”. The Harvard Theological Review. 73. (1980) 289-298


    It is clearly apparent that there was no accepted “orthodoxy” or indeed a consensus of belief within this Christian cult in its early decades.
    An awful lot of scholarship has taken place since Bultmann nearly a century ago -- and much of it disputes his conclusions. Relying on him for an accurate summary is like relying on a physicist who supported the existence of luminous ether to explain electromagnetics or gravity. Even Bart Ehrman, who agrees with some of his positions, admits that nobody agrees with his theories any more (how he reached those positions).

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    With regard to the survival of particular Christian texts Moses Hadas and Morton Smith in their work Heroes and Gods: Spiritual Biographies in Antiquity, [1965, Harper and Row] also made the point that almost all we know about Jesus is via the four canonical gospels that were accepted and handed down by the party that eventually gained overall dominance within the early Christian movement. However, those four gospels were by no means the only works written in the first and second centuries as extant Christian Apocrypha make clear. It is therefore highly probable that other such works existed that have now been lost and are therefore unknown. Furthermore, given the fragility of papyrus if regularly handled, the surviving Christian texts [including those in the Apocrypha] are those that were accepted by their relevant communities and then copied and recopied by particular parties. [See Morton Smith, “The Introduction to the Gospel According to Luke” pp.161-162.]
    I'd be surprised if you could find a New Testament scholar who contends that any of those apocryphal works aren't much later than the four canonical gospels. Even the much ballyhooed Gospel of Thomas reveals a dependence upon Mathew, Luke and Paul's Epistle to the Romans. NT historian Craig A. Evans (John Bisagno Distinguished Professor of Christian Origins at Houston Baptist University) has estimated that roughly half the text is dependent upon them. And I'll note that, these gnostic works have been shown to be vastly inferior to the canonical Gospels are at providing historical information about Jesus (see, for instance Philip Jenkins Hidden Gospels and the later Who Chose the Gospels? Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy by Charles Hill)


    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    In chapter two of Loke the following section again raises serious questions.

    Bauckham observes that the commonsensical idea of ‘checking out’ these important ‘eyewitnesses’ is implicit in 1 Corinthians, a letter which was intended for public reading in the churches. Paul is in effect saying in 1
    Corinthians 15:6, ‘If anyone wants to check this tradition, a very large number of the eyewitnesses are still alive and can be seen and heard’ (Bauckham 2006, p. 308). Given the early date of 1 Corinthians 15:3–11, the Corinthians could check with the eyewitnesses of Jesus, the eyewitnesses of the author of 1 Corinthians, and even with the author (Paul) himself about what he preached to find out whether the message had been distorted or whether there were indeed ‘more than five hundred brethren’ who claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus at once
    .p.50-51


    Why is it assumed that the members of the Corinth sect could attempt to verify these individuals or the alleged event? These were generally people of primarily low status and limited financial means. Corinth is over 1300 km from Jerusalem and the journey would have included a sea voyage. There was no Skype or Zoom available despite the “networking” of the “Holy Internet”.
    Again, you sound like those who will list the reasons that Columbus could never have made a trip across the Atlantic given all the perils of such a sea journey in the 16th cent.

    The simple fact is that they were in steady communication. Look at Paul's first letter. He's writing to folks he has already visited and met. In Romans he's listing the names of prominent Christians there even though he had never been to the city at that point. How could that be unless Christians endeavored to stay connected with one another?

    Further, as Bauckham shows, many Jewish Christians would have travelled to Jerusalem for various festivals much like other Jews around the Empire did. And we have churches that popped up all over the Roman Empire as well as outside of it during the 1st cent. -- someone had to found them since they didn't just magically sprout up ex nihilo. You know, maybe it just might have had something to do with what Jesus told His disciples after the Resurrection in the Great Commission recorded at the end of Matthew: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations."

    Sorry H_A, your personal incredulity just doesn't cut it in face of the historic evidence.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Furthermore, what was this “tradition? Paul was preaching his own ideas. These theological speculations were all quite new. That “tradition” would have been Judaism which Paul had completely rejected.
    If Paul was merely teaching his own tradition then he would have been rejected. He went to a lot of cities that already had vibrant Christian communities (amazing how that happened what with everyone staying home ) that would have considered him to be the false prophet if he arrived teaching "another gospel." But the fact that he generally was warmly received indicates that he wasn't, as you so very much want him to, "preaching his own ideas."

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    And finally, nor can we ever ignore the possibility that Paul imagined [invented] the entire incident in I Corinthians 15.3-12 in order to give himself and his new religion some kudos and authority. Despite the rather obsequious language in verses.7-9, the reality was that here was a man establishing a new cult with himself as that cult’s leader. Furthermore, the very basis of his soteriological belief was the resurrection. He therefore needed the “witnesses” of those other individuals to give his account some status and weight. Nor, it should be noted, have any of those other individuals left us their records of what they allegedly witnessed.
    And maybe he flew off on a T. rex wearing a jet pack.

    Talk about your utterly baseless, pure speculation. Please keep this bit of nonsense in mind the next time you haughtily criticize anyone else for theorizing.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    I also found the section on miracles rather partisan, despite references to Hume and Hawking. How does one define a miracle? It could be postulated that to a less technologically advanced community of people, an anti-biotic injection is a miracle, preventing what their experience would have shown them was the likely [inevitable?] outcome of blood poisoning. Nor should it be forgotten that a belief in magic and miracles underpinned the ancient world in both the Graeco-Roman and Jewish spheres and formed part of the contemporary socio-religious context. For a comprehensive survey of this subject see Witchcraft and Magic in Europe. Vol 2. Ancient Greece and Rome. Eds. Flint, Gorden, Luck & Ogden. The Athlone Press, London, 1999.
    What constitutes a "miracle" has been open to debate for some time now. Is it only something that pretty much flies in the face of natural law (like resurrections), or can it also include very mundane occurrences where the timing is, shall we say, incredibly fortuitous. But that really is a discussion for another thread.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    I have not had time to read Loke from cover to cover but I have examined certain sections and while I appreciate his academic credentials it is clearly evident from his own comments [and those of others he cites] that he is looking at these events through the lens of his own particular theological perceptions and not as an impartial and enquiring historian.
    Translation: I disagree with him therefore he must be wrong.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    EDITED TO ADD: You will just have to live with my formatting I am afraid!

    Your incompetence at posting is duly noted. Further, as a result, don't get upset if a poster doesn't respond to you because it is just not worth all the effort required to parse through all the codes to pick out the snippets of text.
    Last edited by rogue06; 05-25-2021, 10:52 AM. Reason: missed something near the bottom of your post

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      I have often found coding in replies from other people.
      I rarely if ever run across it to the extent I see in yours. See post #129 for a screen capture of the morass of something that should have been a straightforward copy and paste at the very most

      I will say though, looking at this, it is a far sight better than usual. You even have apostrophes and quotation marks that aren't coding!

      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      I ask again if you have such an extensive library in your own home, why do you never quote titles and/or chapters/page numbers from these "other sources" you have to hand? Why do you always use quotes from various authors that may be found freely available on the internet?
      First, I've never claimed to have an extensive home library, but I do have my share of books. One of which I have quoted here from a couple times (as well as cited and then paraphrased) I obtained after the author's lecture some 4-5 years ago to which I was invited to attend by his son-in-law and wife. The book is even inscribed "To [rogue06]: | Keep up the good work | on tweb | [author's signature]" -- which more resembles a cross between an Arabic script and an ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic cartouche and AFAICT isn't available online, except maybe if you purchase it.

      And let's be clear. The biographical bit was not intended to "impress" you, but was intended to be more than sufficient for some staff members here to know exactly who and what I'm referring to (although it isn't exactly hard to guess by going back through my posts).

      Now for another biographical snippet that's relevant to your question.

      I've played Dungeons and Dragons on and off since the 80s. What does that have to do with anything? Well, nowadays it is primarily online when I play. Not video games, but with other players I know. Generally I end up "DMing" (running the game) largely because everyone likes the adventures I usually run. Some times I have to slap something together quick and having every issue of "Dungeon" magazine (a magazine that printed short adventures for the game) printed and several dozen old adventure modules to "borrow" pieces from still allows for an enjoyable time.

      So what does that have to do with anything? When I'm borrowing bits and pieces from multiple adventures I don't dig out the various modules and magazine issues I had in mind to use. I go online to various sites (The Trove is a current favorite) and download a pdf version from which I can copy and snip from bits from.

      Why? Because it is so much easier than tediously writing out things by hand.

      The exact same thing goes here whether I'm posting in Apologetics discussing theological matters or in Nat Sci discussing science. Unfortunately, most of my science texts that I rely on are too current to be found on the interwebz so when I quote from them I have to do so by hand.

      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      I referenced precisely the same work by Carrier that Loke referenced, and I also included a short passage from an online essay by Carrier. Perhaps Loke was also using "Carrier like a crutch".
      Tell me H_A, what percent of those quotes from other scholars you've cited in your replies to me lately will I find in one of Carrier's books. What portion would it represent if I went back and started calculating?

      And Loke's book is in part a refutation of Carrier so it is natural for him to cite him just like Carrier's Not the Impossible Faith (which you cited) was his attempt at refuting JP Holding and will therefore cite him extensively.

      Why am I having to explain this to you?

      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      I also cited Bauckham's work that was referenced by Loke and even mentioned a chapter in that work, edited by Bauckham, which was written by Thompson. Do you think I am also using those authors as a "crutch"?
      See above. And is this the part where I'm supposed to sneer and say all that is available online?

      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      That is a theological belief. It is not an attested historical event.
      I and several billion others might argue that it is both.

      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      Oh I think you are very eager to impress your coterie of friends and admirers.
      Everyone has that one friend or relative that you worry about what they might say or do because he largely doesn't give a #ф@ги%$ what other's might think?

      I'm that friend. I'm that relative.

      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      Why do you present interpretation and opinion as if it is attested fact?
      So this is yet another area that you have absolutely no knowledge about. The majority of New Testament scholars now hold that the Gospels belong to the genre of Greco-Roman biography. And that view is steadily gaining support thanks to the work of folks like Michael Licona[1] and others, although it is hardly a new one (The Gospels and Contemporary Biographies). Sort of reminds me of how early on scientists were conjecturing that birds evolved from dinosaurs but that idea never really caught on until about the 90s, and now is nearly universally accepted as true (there will always be outliers like Alan Feduccia)

      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      With regard to Haberman's writings he brings no objective and dispassionate inquiry into his works.
      And here we go with another one of H_A's favorite ploys. You stuck your foot into it when you ignorantly dismissed them as not being historians -- as if historians don't have biases despite your constant bleating about "impartial historians." An authentic historian would never have made such a preposterous assertion, but some history fangirl (or would that be fanfrau?)... smiley dunno.gif

      In any case, whenever this sort of thing happens you immediately swing into damage control and begin besmirching others. Some time to hysterical affect, like when you tried to dismiss one of Israel's foremost archaeologists because he flat out disagreed with your (never supported) assertions about Masada because he probably buried some remains improperly once.

      You did the same thing with a military historian. First, apparently because you saw that he was in the military, you attempted to dismiss him as only knowing about modern warfare. When it turned out that was not the case do you remember your reaction? You then tried to hand wave him off because the book he wrote on the subject only consisted of one volume.

      And here you go again. Any historians that disagree with you don't count.

      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      I'd also ask how many freethinkers, rationalists, or religious sceptics are on the academic staff at Liberty University. I suspect there are none.
      I suspect the percentage would be statistically equivalent to the number of actual conservative professors found on an elite Ivy League campus, but I'll bet you wouldn't immediately and out-of-hand reject anything coming from them because of it.

      Your just flailing about looking for excuses as you always do.

      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      Please do make your mind up. When I do not provide citations you get cross and when I give detailed citations I am accused of playing games.
      Please stop fabricating straw men

      What I call you out on his your constant demanding the most detailed verification for every statement someone makes while you yourself often provide unsubstantiated statements. This is not something only I have noticed and remarked upon.

      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      Here, as demanded, are some works that examine Paul's influence and beliefs. You may peruse them at your leisure, although you may need to access a reference library! If you want detailed citations I am happy to oblige.

      Geza Vermes, Christian Beginnings. From Nazareth to Nicaea. Yale University Press, 2012

      Gerd Lüdemann, Paul the Founder of Christianity, Prometheus Books, 2002

      David Wenham, Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? William B. Eerdmans, 1995

      Hyam Maccoby:

      Paul and Hellenism, Trinity Press International, 1991
      Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Barnes & Noble, 1986

      S. G. F. Brandon:

      "Saint Paul the Problem Figure of Primitive Christianity" in, Religion in Ancient History: Studies in Ideas, Men, and Belief. George Allen and Unwin, 1973
      Jesus and the Zealots: A Study in the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity, University of Manchester Press, 1969

      Entries on Paul may be found in:

      Evans, C.A. The Routledge Encyclopaedia of the Historical Jesus, Routledge, New York & London, 2010
      Cross, F.L. and Livingston, E. A. [eds]. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press, 1997
      Anyone can cut and paste the bibliography from the back of a book



      I will again thank you for not burdening your post here with a tangle of coding commands.




      1. Licona, in particular focuses in on Plutarch's Lives, picking those who's stories overlap resulting in parallel pericopes, resulting in some hard to dismiss observations and comparisons in style and techniques employed in the Gospel.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • Anyone else notice how little H_A wants to discuss the supposed contradictions in the Gospel Resurrection accounts after arrogantly issuing a list of challenges?

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Who claimed that Paul ever said that he considered his letters as divinely authoritative?
          Loke suggests that the Corinthian congregation considered Paul’s letter to be “divinely authoritative”. [see page 55 of Loke’s work that you have allegedly read].

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Is that a serious question?
          Yes. If we are to accept some of the remarks made by those individuals. Why was this new cult beset with internal dissention from the outset?

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          So... pretty much like any and everything run by humans.
          Despite all that “networking” and “communication” it is evident that those early Christian communities differed widely in their beliefs.

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          It also appears that Paul's major complaint against the "Judaizers" was that they were "adding to" the Gospel message.
          Might we have some specific evidence in support of that remark? Or is this once again Also Sprach rogue06?

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          And has anyone thanked you for taking on the role of judge for what is and is not "Paul's authentic letters" lately?
          The document we call ‘2 Thessalonians’ is among the letters attributed to Paul whose authorship has been disputed by scholars (along with Colossians and Ephesians, the so-called ‘deutero-Paulines’). Decisions about the authorship of 2 Thessalonians, or any other letter, drastically affect the interpretation of the setting, purpose, and meaning of the text. Arguments that Paul did not write this letter stem from literary, historical, and theological considerations.

          And in reference to the Pastoral Letters:

          In spite of the fact that the letters themselves designate Paul as their author, the Pastorals are not actually attributed to him by known external sources until the second half of the second century.[See James Dunn, The Cambridge Companion to St Paul, Cambridge University Press. 2006. pp 75;158]


          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          That there has been different disagreements among Christians is hardly anything new.
          Indeed it goes right back to the origins of the religion.

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          If you look at I Corinthians you will see how Paul, over and over again suggests that anyone who wishes to check the veracity of his message
          One wonders why he does that. In Galatians he makes a similar comment “I do not lie” almost as if he is trying to convince himself as well as other people that he is telling the truth.


          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          An awful lot of scholarship has taken place since Bultmann nearly a century ago
          Perhaps you can provide some detailed citations from individual scholars in support of that remark rather than your usual Wiki links. Incidentally Bultmann died in 1976 and was writing up to his later years.

          However, with regard to Bultmann’s contributions Kurt Rudolph notes that by investigating into the history of religions [he is referring to Reitzenstein’s work on Manicheism and Mandeism] the NT has been drawn more and more into the area of research into Gnosis. This is particularly as a result of Bultmann who made use of the concerns of the Religiongeschichtliche Schüle and since then Gnosis has presented a problem for NT scholarship with the mutual relationships between the NT or primitive Christianity and early Gnosis still being a topic of research. Rudolph continues that the process is plain and from the NT itself, with the Christianising of Gnosis and the gnosticising of Christianity. The result of these two processes leading to, on the one hand, the canonising of Christianity as an orthodox Church, and on the other the elimination of Gnosis as a heresy. And hence when we come across Gnosis in the NT it is understood less as an alien pagan religion; “rather it is only dealt with so far as it is a phenomenon within Christianity”.[See Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: the Nature and History of Gnosticism, T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1983 pp.33;300]

          And now what of your opinions on Harrington’s comments on Bauer? Oh and by the way Daniel Harrington died in 2014 so he's fairly recent.


          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          I'd be surprised if you could find a New Testament scholar who contends that any of those apocryphal works aren't much later than the four canonical gospels.
          snipped for irrelevancy. None of which denies the fact that these works were preserved, and read by, those early communities for whom they were written and that those texts comprised part of what those various communities deemed to be Scripture.

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          The simple fact is that they were in steady communication.
          On what specific evidence outside of the NT texts?

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Look at Paul's first letter. He's writing to folks he has already visited and met. In Romans he's listing the names of prominent Christians
          He is writing of prominent Christians within his own social sphere and while they might have been prominent within his Christian sects they were hardly prominent citizens within the city. He was not mixing with patricians and magistrates or various others of high social status.

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          How could that be unless Christians endeavored to stay connected with one another?
          That is highly possible for a minority. However, remember that this period i.e. pre 70 CE this was a secretive clandestine new cult and it would have been regarded with suspicion by many within the local community. Given the time involved in exchanging information I consider this allegation of “networking” and “communication” to be rather exaggerated. And to reiterate, given the dissention within this new cult from its very beginnings one can only opine that if such "networking" took place it was remarkably ineffectual in getting the various adherents to this new cult to "all sing from the same hymn sheet".

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Further, as Bauckham shows, many Jewish Christians would have travelled to Jerusalem for various festivals much like other Jews around the Empire did
          Some Jews from around the surrounding region [e.g. Syria and Egypt] may have travelled to Jerusalem [assuming they could afford to do so] but we have no idea how many Jews from other parts of the diaspora did so.

          There was no El Al in those days!


          Furthermore, what extraneous contemporary evidence is Bauckham citing in support of his contention?

          And more to the point why would Jewish Christians attend Jewish festivals? These people had rejected Judaism.


          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          And we have churches that popped up all over the Roman Empire
          Where in the first century and what do you understand by the word "churches"? An early Ekklesia may only have consisted of a few individuals, or even just one or two families.

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          as well as outside of it during the 1st cent.
          In the first century? And beyond the bounds of the Graeco-Roman oikouménē? Where?

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Sorry H_A, your personal incredulity just doesn't cut it in face of the historic evidence.
          You have yet to present any "historic evidence". All you have so far done is offer the opinions of a few academics and your own speculative observations.

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          If Paul was merely teaching his own tradition then he would have been rejected.
          Why? What did the average Gentile in Corinth or Galatia know about Second Temple Judaism?

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          He went to a lot of cities that already had vibrant Christian communities
          Again a speculative remark entirely lacking in any supporting extraneous [i.e. non Christian/NT] historical evidence.

          It is now blatantly apparent that that you have not had much luck in your internet searches in order to compose this reply.

          Ignoring your puerile nonsense you also forget the fact that this man was preaching his own soteriological beliefs; and fundamental to Paul’s soteriology was the resurrection. I will therefore repeat my earlier remark that Paul needed thewitnesses” of those other individuals to give his account some status and weight. And nor have any of those other individuals left us their records of what they allegedly witnessed. We only have Paul’s word for it all. There is nothing else.

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          What constitutes a "miracle" has been open to debate for some time now. Is it only something that pretty much flies in the face of natural law
          I am not entirely sure why you have made the comparison with "natural law", a term that refers to a type of moral or legal theory and which does not refer to the laws of nature i.e. those laws that science aims to describe and understand.

          However, I would suggest it “flies in the face” of known and observable experience, to wit my example of the anti-biotic injection and its perceived miraculous properties to a less technologically advanced community. Furthermore, what constitutes a “miracle” will vary from society to society and age to age.

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Translation: I disagree with him therefore he must be wrong.
          Isn't that precisely your attitude towards Richard Carrier?

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Your incompetence at posting is duly noted.
          I repeat my earlier observation that it appears you have not had much luck trawling the net. Your various digressions and irrelevant remarks are a clear indication of that.

          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            In point of fact we have evidence of other known of Jewish Messianic claimants from the late first century BCE and the first century CE. Jesus of Nazareth was not the only man ever acclaimed as the Jewish Messiah over that period.
            True.
            Nor is the Jewish Messiah an anthropomorphic deity.
            Well, no. I'm not aware of a group outside of the Mormons who believe that.
            He will be a man selected by the Almighty.
            According to whom?
            [quote]
            That Paul founded a new religion is widely accepted.
            [quote]
            No. It is widely asserted in some academic circles, predominantly by those who do not practice said alleged new religion.
            What Paul was propounding was not the Palestinian Judaism as practised by Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples.
            If you'd read the canonical gospels, you'd understand that Jesus (and, by extension, his disciples) tended to be rather antagonistic to the Palestinian Judaisms of his day.
            It was something totally new that was acceptable and intelligible to the Graeco-Roman world.
            Balderdash. Paul's central message was Jesus Christ crucified (see, e.g., 1 Cor. 1:13-25, Gal. 6:14, Phi. 2:8). Following someone executed as a slave would have been highly unacceptable to the Graeco-Roman world, as Paul rightly noted.
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
              [SIZE=14px][FONT=Verdana] Loke suggests that the Corinthian congregation considered Paul’s letter to be “divinely authoritative”. [see page 55 of Loke’s work that you have allegedly read].
              I haven't finished it since it was primarily relevant to the challenge you issued wrt supposed contradictions in the Gospel Resurrection accounts. The one that the moment I picked up the gauntlet and accepted your challenge, you very quickly and mysteriously lost any and all interest in the subject

              But I definitely am past page 55 and probably the reason I didn't remember it is that is not exactly what Loke said.

              In that case, Paul’s letters would have been discarded, rather than kept as divinely authoritative writings by the Corinthian Christians or considered to be ‘weighty and strong’ (2 Cor. 10:10) by his sophisticated opponents in Corinth


              Loke is not saying when they became regarded as being "divinely authoritative" (which obviously they eventually were regarded as), you're just apparently assuming that Loke was claiming that they were instantly accepted as scriptural, for which there is no evidence of either in what we know or what Loke said.

              They would have been kept his letters if for no other reason than that they came from the founder of their church and were instructive. So in that way they would be considered immediately authoritative. Later, they would become accepted as being divinely inspired.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                First, I've never claimed to have an extensive home library, but I do have my share of books.
                Then I ask again, why do you never offer brief citations or references from any relevant works?

                Why do you always use easily and freely obtained quotes from the net?


                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                One of which I have quoted here from a couple times (as well as cited and then paraphrased)
                One book? Oh rogue06 you have completely overwhelmed me with your erudition. I really am impressed that, on occasion, you have quoted from just one solitary book.


                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                Tell me H_A, what percent of those quotes from other scholars you've cited in your replies to me lately will I find in one of Carrier's books. What portion would it represent if I went back and started calculating?
                Why not obtain some works by Carrier and look at the bibliographies? Failing that, and given your propensity to trawl, I am sure you can find something on Amazon [or some other site] that gives a few pages of a particular work.

                You really are completely ignorant of academic texts aren’t you? That is remarkably odd given all those scientific texts you claim to have in your possession.

                You quite evidently did not understand why Loke provided no citations in a link you quoted, which led to you crowing “Do you see that? Just the author and the work (which you have to go to the back to look up). No quote. No page numbers Although those are often given elsewhere in other instances” [see post #113].

                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                And Loke's book is in part a refutation of Carrier so it is natural for him to cite him just like Carrier's Not the Impossible Faith (which you cited) was his attempt at refuting JP Holding and will therefore cite him extensively.
                Oh I do not think Carrier’s work is an “attempt at refuting JP Holding”; on the contrary, I would suggest that it is a remarkably successful demolition of Holding’s tendentious allegations.

                As you clearly do not understand what a reference actually is, let me enlighten you.

                A reference is a reference irrespective of whether it is cited as a refutation of the views expressed in that text or whether it is used in support of one’s own argument or position.

                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                See above. And is this the part where I'm supposed to sneer and say all that is available online?
                You are welcome engage upon your usual fishing trips but judging from the tone of this reply and indeed others it is apparent that you have not been having much luck

                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                I and several billion others might argue that it is both.
                You are welcome to try but neither you nor those billions of others can provide one iota of attested [non Christian] contemporary evidence that it ever occurred. No one living in Jerusalem in the early first century CE has left us a record that they saw a recently crucified Jew doing his shopping in the market ten days after his death.

                However, that you deemed it necessary to produce all that irrelevant posturing at the beginning of this reply, leads me to surmise why you felt the need to do so and also to consider if such behaviour hints at deeper emotional insecurities.

                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                So this is yet another area that you have absolutely no knowledge about. The majority of New Testament scholars now hold that the Gospels belong to the genre of Greco-Roman biography.
                Who comprises this majority of scholars? You need to provide authors, works and detailed citations from their works in order to substantiate that comment. You had better go fishing again.

                However, I suspect that this sentence that contends "the Gospels belong to the genre of Greco-Roman biography" is something you have read somewhere and you are now simply parroting it at every available opportunity.

                I’d also remind you that Richard A. Burridge’s work What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography was published in 1992 and I have a copy.

                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                And that view is steadily gaining support
                With whom? Once again we need detailed citations from you not your own opinion premised on viewing a few reviews and/or selected pages of Licona [no doubt online] as I suspect you do not have a copy in your possession.

                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                although it is hardly a new one (The Gospels and Contemporary Biographies).
                How interesting that you produce a text over 100 years old in support of your own contentions yet challenged me for citing Bultmann who died in 1976.

                By the way have you actually read Weber Votaw’s paper? Or did you just find the first page on one your fishing trips?

                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                And here we go with another one of H_A's favorite ploys. You stuck your foot into it when you ignorantly dismissed them as not being historians
                You have a marked propensity to caricature what your correspondent has written when you are being defensive. My observation was that they are primarily theologians. Theologians examine history in association with their theological works. Unfortunatelysome theologians are unable to put aside their theological beliefs when doing so. However, other theologians [and indeed historians with religious beliefs] can, and do, achieve this.

                Licona is [at least at the present] a biblical inerrantist, as indeed are Norman Geisler and [so I understand] Gary Habermas. If someone believes in the supernatural then that belief is going to colour how that person interprets history in to order explain the purported supernatural event[s] in which they believe.

                Furthermore, if one alleged set of supernatural events are to be accepted as historical facts, why not accept all alleged supernatural events as historical facts?

                Perhaps Osiris, Baal, and Attis also rose from the dead. Perhaps there really were angels and ghostly English archers at the battle of Mons, and perhaps the supernatural entity, Zeus, really did turn into a swan and impregnate Leda, who then laid two eggs out of which were hatched Helen [later of Troy] Clytemnestra, and Castor and Pollux.

                Precisely how far do you wish to take your notion that alleged supernatural events are attested historical facts?

                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                And here you go again. Any historians that disagree with you don't count.
                You are the one who has dismissed a reputable academic [Richard Carrier] without, I suspect, having ever actually read a single book he has written.

                As previously noted you cannot seem to avoid caricature when you are being defensive. I asked a rhetorical question regarding the personal views of the academic staff at Liberty University. I made no observation on the academic abilities of those individuals.

                You, as is your wont, made an unfounded assumption.

                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                I suspect the percentage would be statistically equivalent to the number of actual conservative professors found on an elite Ivy League campus
                So in point fact you haven’t the slightest idea as to the personal opinions of the academic staff at Liberty University. Why not just admit that you do not know?

                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                Your just flailing about looking for excuses as you always do.
                It is self-evident from what you have written in this reply that the only individual doing any “flailing” is you. You are obviously somewhat annoyed and so have resorted to your default position which is to resort to puerility, emoticons, introduce entirely irrelevant topics [to wit your social life, D&D etc.] and of course engage in personal abuse.

                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                What I call you out on his your constant demanding the most detailed verification for every statement someone makes
                You repeatedly, and on a wide range of topics, pass off your own personal and unsubstantiated opinions as if they are attested facts. Your nonsensical remarks concerning Christmas and its apparent influence on non-Christian festivals is a perfect example of that tendency.

                You are also very good at using the internet to ascertain the titles of texts [and the remarks/reviews made by others about those texts] but you never actually offer a detailed citation from any of those works [i.e. a quote] that cannot be obtained freely online. The exception to that behaviour being this one book by Loke, from which all your recent citations have been taken.

                As an example of your behaviour you have twice now mentioned O’Collins, but despite my earlier question to you asking for the specific evidence O’Collins has produced in support of his contentions you have never answered. I can only presume that is because you cannot find [freely available online] any relevant passage[s] from his work.

                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                Anyone can cut and paste the bibliography from the back of a book
                Once again I extend my offer regarding page numbers, chapter headings, or short citations from any of those works I listed. That bibliography was compiled it was not cut and pasted.








                "It ain't necessarily so
                The things that you're liable
                To read in the Bible
                It ain't necessarily so
                ."

                Sportin' Life
                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                Comment



                • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  I haven't finished it
                  Good grief! Loke's work is hardly difficult to read and the actual text [excluding bibliography and index] is only 206 pages.

                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  The one that the moment I picked up the gauntlet and accepted your challenge, you very quickly and mysteriously lost any and all interest in the subject
                  I addressed some of your comments and asked you for citations from Carter, Brandon, Feldman, and Twelftree.

                  And surprise surprise you could not provide them because you do not have access to those works. You could not even tell me to which of Twelftree's works you were referring because you do not know.

                  And so to cover your proverbial you deflected.

                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  and probably the reason I didn't remember it is that is not exactly what Loke said.
                  Just to refresh your memory, here is my opening paragraph from the Part Two of my reply [post # 125] which, incidentally, you quoted in your reply at post #136.

                  I would also take issue with Loke’s comment on the Corinthian community and their attitude to Paul’s letters [p.55] “In that case, Paul’s letters would have been discarded, rather than kept as divinely authoritative writings by the Corinthian Christians”. There is no evidence in any of the letters deemed authentic to Paul that he regarded any of his writing to various congregations as “divinely authoritative”. That notion was formulated by other people and at a much later period in the development of the religion and its canon of Scripture.

                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  you're just apparently assuming that Loke was claiming that they were instantly accepted as scriptural
                  That is what he wrote.


                  "It ain't necessarily so
                  The things that you're liable
                  To read in the Bible
                  It ain't necessarily so
                  ."

                  Sportin' Life
                  Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post

                    According to whom?
                    https://www.myjewishlearning.com/art...ge-in-judaism/

                    The Arrival of the Messiah


                    The rabbis speculated on the conditions under which the Messiah was likely to appear.

                    He will not arrive on the Sabbath, since that would require people to violate the Sabbath in welcoming him [Babylonian Talmud Pesahim 13a]. [The prophet] Elijah [who is supposed to usher in the messianic age] will arrive no later in the week than Thursday, leaving room for the Messiah to arrive by Friday. Elijah will announce the arrival of the Messiah from Mount Carmel in the Land of Israel [Jerusalem Talmud Pesahim 3:6].

                    Many rabbis believed that the Messiah would arrive suddenly on the eve of Passover, the first redemption, which serves as a model of the final redemption [Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Pischa 14].

                    Corruption and Degradation Will Precede Redemption


                    One statement from the time of the rabbis describes the era leading up to the Messiah in the darkest terms of societal corruption:

                    “In the footsteps of the Messiah, arrogance [chutzpah] will increase; prices will rise; grapes will be abundant but wine will be costly; the government will turn into heresy; and there will be no reproach. The meeting place [of scholars] will become a bordello; the Galilee will be destroyed; the highland will lie desolate; the border people will wander from city to city and none will show them compassion; the wisdom of authors will stink; sin‑fearing people will be detested; truth will be missing; young men will humiliate the elderly; the elderly will stand while the young sit; sons will revile their fathers; daughters will strike their mothers, brides will strike their mothers‑in‑law; and a man’s enemies will take over his house. The face of the generation is like the face of a dog! Sons have no shame in front of their fathers; and on whom can one depend? Only upon our father in heaven [Sotah 9:15].”

                    This era will be characterized by God’s war against Gog and Magog and other catastrophic events. Another statement, which may date from the time of the Hadrianic persecutions (132‑35 C.E.), offers the dark assessment that the Messiah will arrive in a period when Jews collaborate with their enemies, Torah learning disappears, poverty increases, and religious despair deepens:


                    You can read the rest of that text here https://www.myjewishlearning.com/art...ge-in-judaism/

                    [quote]
                    That Paul founded a new religion is widely accepted.
                    [quote]
                    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    No. It is widely asserted in some academic circles
                    Academic opinion is what was under discussion, not the views of the ordinary Joe in the street.

                    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    predominantly by those who do not practice said alleged new religion.
                    On the contrary, there are academics who hold/held religious beliefs who are/were of that opinion. For example, S G F Brandon [died 1971] was an Anglican cleric and an army chaplain during WW2. John Dominic Crossan still holds to a religious view, albeit some may not regard his beliefs as "true" Christianity. Hyam Maccoby [died 2004] was a Rabbinic scholar..

                    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    If you'd read the canonical gospels, you'd understand that Jesus (and, by extension, his disciples) tended to be rather antagonistic to the Palestinian Judaisms of his day.
                    Well of course the canonical gospels take that view. They are written under the influence of Paul's views and Paul rejected Judaism.

                    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    Balderdash. Paul's central message was Jesus Christ crucified
                    For Paul the death of Jesus was a transcendent and spiritual event. It was part of a divine plan. The demonic powers in the world, unaware that this had all been predestined by God at the beginning of time, were responsible for the crucifixion of a supernatural "Lord of Glory" [I Corinthians 2.6-8]. Such a construct is a very long way from an ascetic Galilean Jewish teacher preaching of the End Times to his fellow Jews and telling them to repent.


                    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    Following someone executed as a slave
                    Jesus wasn't a slave. From where do you get that impression?


                    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    would have been highly unacceptable to the Graeco-Roman world, as Paul rightly noted.
                    Gentiles who were familiar with the demi-gods of various ancient religions and cults and who had no preconceived ideas about "Messiah" meaning the Anointed King of Israel would, no doubt, have found little difficulty in thinking of the "Christos" as a divine being or an incarnate god.
                    "It ain't necessarily so
                    The things that you're liable
                    To read in the Bible
                    It ain't necessarily so
                    ."

                    Sportin' Life
                    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                    Comment


                    • When did the interrogation by Pilate occur? Before or after Passover?
                      At least three relevant calendars were in play during the first century: the Temple calendar, the Essene Calendar, and the Samaritan calendar - each with its own dating system, which often resulted in three Passover celebrations in the one year. The Roman and Egyptian calendars were not relevant to liturgical practices. Preparation [day] is Nisan 14 in the Temple Liturgical Calendar, with the (Festival of) Unleavened commencing on that day. In the Torah, the 14th is Passover, and the first day of the festival of Unleavened is the 15th. In both calendars, Nisan 14 is NOT a Sabbath, but Nisan 15 is a (deutero) Sabbath. According to all the gospels, Pilate interrogated Jesus during the morning of the "Day of Preparation." Accounts vary wrt the exact time, whether early or late morning. Jesus was buried shortly before sunset on that same day. So

                      John
                      19:14, and it was about the sixth hour of the Passover's Preparation Day. He (Pilate) says to the Jews, "Behold! Your king."
                      19:31, So then, because it was Preparation Day, the Jews petitioned Pilate {so ⇒ to allow} that their legs might be broken and {they ⇒ their bodies} removed, so that {the bodies ⇒ they} would not remain on the crosses on the Sabbath, because that Sabbath Day was great.
                      19:42, So then, due to the Preparation of the Jews and because the tomb was nearby, there they put Jesus. [temple observant Jews and Essenes had a Preparation Day, Torah observant Jews did (and do) not.]

                      Luke
                      22:7 But then came the first day of Unleavened, on which it is necessary to sacrifice the Passover. (In the Torah, the first day of Unleavened is the day after the mandated day of Passover sacrifice.)
                      23:54 And that day was the Preparation, with the Sabbath about to begin.

                      Mark
                      15:42 And because it was already late on Preparation Day, that is, Sabbath Eve. [("Eve" meaning "the day before," as; Christmas Eve is (all of) December 24th.)]
                      14:12 And on the first day of the unleavened, whilst they were sacrificing the Passover, his disciples say to him, “Where do you desire that we go to prepare, so that we might eat the Passover?”

                      Matthew

                      26:17 On the first day of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus, saying to him, "Where do you prefer that we prepare, for you to eat the Passover?"
                      27:62 On the next day, that is, after the Preparation, the chief priests and pharisees gathered before Pilate. (Christ was interred very late on the day of Preparation, which ends at [nominally] 6:00 pm; this meeting probably happened soon after).


                      Sacrifice made on the day of Preparation, then the night of Christ's arrest and interrogation, then the daylight hours when Christ was on trial before the Sanhedrin, then before Pilate, then he was crucified and died. And at his burial it is still the day of Preparation. Every one of the gospel authors records the day of Jesus' burial as the Day of Preparation. Those that record the sacrifice of the Passover, record it as occurring on the day of Preparation.

                      In accord with the procedures of Torah, Jesus and the disciples sacrificed the Passover early (shortly after 6:00 pm) on the day that the Passover must be sacrificed, and ate the meal that night. Less than 18 hours later that same day, Jesus was on trial before Pilate: By midday he had been crucified. The temple adherent Jews were to begin their own sacrifice for Passover about three hours later.
                      Last edited by tabibito; 06-22-2021, 06:57 AM.
                      sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                        At least three relevant calendars were in play during the first century: the Temple calendar, the Essene Calendar, and the Samaritan calendar - each with its own dating system, which often resulted in three Passover celebrations in the one year. The Roman and Egyptian calendars were not relevant to liturgical practices. Preparation [day] is Nisan 14 in the Temple Liturgical Calendar, with the (Festival of) Unleavened commencing on that day. In the Torah, the 14th is Passover, and the first day of the festival of Unleavened is the 15th. In both calendars, Nisan 14 is NOT a Sabbath, but Nisan 15 is a (deutero) Sabbath. According to all the gospels, Pilate interrogated Jesus during the morning of the "Day of Preparation." Accounts vary wrt the exact time, whether early or late morning. Jesus was buried shortly before sunset on that same day. So

                        John
                        19:14, and it was about the sixth hour of the Passover's Preparation Day. He (Pilate) says to the Jews, "Behold! Your king."
                        19:31, So then, because it was Preparation Day, the Jews petitioned Pilate {so ⇒ to allow} that their legs might be broken and {they ⇒ their bodies} removed, so that {the bodies ⇒ they} would not remain on the crosses on the Sabbath, because that Sabbath Day was great.
                        19:42, So then, due to the Preparation of the Jews and because the tomb was nearby, there they put Jesus. [temple observant Jews and Essenes had a Preparation Day, Torah observant Jews did (and do) not.]

                        Luke
                        22:7 But then came the first day of Unleavened, on which it is necessary to sacrifice the Passover. (In the Torah, the first day of Unleavened is the day after the mandated day of Passover sacrifice.)
                        23:54 And that day was the Preparation, with the Sabbath about to begin.

                        Mark
                        15:42 And because it was already late on Preparation Day, that is, Sabbath Eve. [("Eve" meaning "the day before," as; Christmas Eve is (all of) December 24th.)]
                        14:12 And on the first day of the unleavened, whilst they were sacrificing the Passover, his disciples say to him, “Where do you desire that we go to prepare, so that we might eat the Passover?”

                        Matthew

                        26:17 On the first day of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus, saying to him, "Where do you prefer that we prepare, for you to eat the Passover?"
                        27:62 On the next day, that is, after the Preparation, the chief priests and pharisees gathered before Pilate. (Christ was interred very late on the day of Preparation, which ends at [nominally] 6:00 pm; this meeting probably happened soon after).


                        Sacrifice made on the day of Preparation, then the night of Christ's arrest and interrogation, then the daylight hours when Christ was on trial before the Sanhedrin, then before Pilate, then he was crucified and died. And at his burial it is still the day of Preparation. Every one of the gospel authors records the day of Jesus' burial as the Day of Preparation. Those that record the sacrifice of the Passover, record it as occurring on the day of Preparation.

                        In accord with the procedures of Torah, Jesus and the disciples sacrificed the Passover early (shortly after 6:00 pm) on the day that the Passover must be sacrificed, and ate the meal that night. Less than 18 hours later that same day, Jesus was on trial before Pilate: By midday he had been crucified. The temple adherent Jews were to begin their own sacrifice for Passover about three hours later.
                        Some sources would be useful.
                        "It ain't necessarily so
                        The things that you're liable
                        To read in the Bible
                        It ain't necessarily so
                        ."

                        Sportin' Life
                        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                        Comment


                        • When does the feast of unleavened bread begin?
                          Leviticus 23:5 ‘In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight is the LORD’S Passover. 6 ‘Then on the fifteenth day of the same month there is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread.

                          Which part of Passover is to be conducted on the 14th day of the first month?
                          Numbers 9: 2 “Now, let the sons of Israel observe the Passover at its appointed time. 3 “On the fourteenth day of this month, at twilight, you shall observe it at its appointed time; you shall observe it according to all its statutes and according to all its ordinances.”

                          If those do not make it clear, perhaps this will disambiguate.
                          Numbers 28:16 ‘Then on the fourteenth day of the first month shall be the LORD’S Passover. 17 ‘On the fifteenth day of this month shall be a feast, unleavened bread shall be eaten for seven days.
                          And then there is Ezra 6:19-22

                          So then primary sources are adequate to demonstrate that there is no difficulty with celebrating Passover at different times on the same day. The Torah shows that Passover – in full – is to be celebrated on the fourteenth day of the first month, just as the Samaritan Jews today claim [and Bayit Israel/Beta Israel, Ethiopia]. The gospels show that Jesus and the disciples observed the Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month, “according to all its statutes” as outlined by the Torah. There is no viable argument that Jesus and the disciples somehow violated the rules by celebrating the Passover in the first few hours of Nisan 14. Nor can any viable argument be made that only one celebration of Passover existed in Israel during the first century CE. The Essenes celebrated Passover on the 14th day of the first month in a fashion similar to the temple observance, BUT according to their own calendar. The fourteenth of the first month, according to that calendar, always fell on a Tuesday.

                          Adequate information on the Essene Calendar is not hard to find:
                          Roger T. Beckwith. “The Perpetual Calendar of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian, 94: https://brill.com/view/book/9789004332874/BP000006.xml
                          sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                          Comment


                          • Among the thousands of fragments found in the caves around Qumran, one fragment in particular, given the designation 4Q321, gives more information on the calendar used by the Essenes. It contains twelve months, unnamed but referred to as the first month, the second month, etc. The third, sixth, ninth and twelfth months have 31 days; the other months have 30 days. 364 days total; 52 weeks. The first month corresponds roughly with Nisan, the first month of the Lunar Calendar. It begins every year on a Tuesday evening at sunset. The first day of the first month thus falls on Wednesday every year. Passover is on the 15th day of the first month, also beginning on Tuesday at sunset and continuing to Wednesday at sunset. Waiving of the barley sheaves, instead of being the Sunday immediately after Passover, is on Sunday, the 26th day of the first month, eleven days after Passover. The Festival of the First Fruits is on Sunday, the 15th day of the third month, sixty days after Passover. The Feast of Trumpets is on Wednesday, the first day of the seventh month. The Day of Atonement is on Friday, the 10th day of the seventh month. The Feast of Tabernacles is eight days, beginning on Wednesday, the 15 day of the seventh month, and continuing to the following Wednesday. It was intended to be a perpetual calendar, with none of the feasts days (except the fourth day of Tabernacles) falling on the Sabbath.

                            Other documents from the caves made reference to the Jubilee calendar. 4Q320 and 4Q328 give the schedule for the several orders of priests for their weekly service in the temple in accordance with the Jubilee calendar. 4Q326 lists the days of the Sabbaths, Passover and other feast days.

                            Annie Jaubert (1912-1980) was a French Bible scholar known for her research on the calendrical teachings of the Hebrew Bible and other ancient Hebrew literature. She offered a solution to the conflicting chronologies of the Passover in the four Gospels.

                            In conclusion: it is certain that, at the beginning of the first century, A.D., there existed two liturgical calendars. In one of these the feasts were assigned to days of the lunar month; this was the official calendar, about which we can find information in later rabbinical Judaism. In the second, the feasts always fell on fixed days of the week. The character of this calendar may now be discovered in contemporary Jewish sources. It is witnessed only in its Jubilees-Qumran type; but it is probable that it also existed in modified forms which could have either preserved an intermediary stage of the calendar's development or attempted a certain compromise with the official reckoning. [Annie Jaubert; The Date of the Last Supper. French orig. 1957. Translated by Isaac Rafferty. (Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1965), 52]
                            What is interesting is that on this calendar Passover always fell on a Wednesday, two weeks after the spring equinox. In AD 30 the spring equinox took place on Wednesday, March 22 (Julian calendar), just before midnight, local Jerusalem time. If the Essene calendar began the day before, Tuesday March 21 at sunset and continued through Wednesday March 22 until sunset, then the Passover feast according to the calendars of the Essenes, the Damascus Document, the Book of Jubilees and the First Book of Enoch would have taken place on Tuesday night, April 5, the very night that Jesus and the disciples held their Passover Seder if we adhere to the chronology in the Gospel According to Matthew and allow three days for the trial of Jesus and Herod’s involvement. The very same day that the Didiscalia Apostolorum and Epiphanius’s Panarion say it took place.

                            I'm probably notorious for objecting to some commonly accepted interpretation held by the vast majority of Christians. One more example would be the chronology of events which took place during Holy Week. Let me start out by stating that I also disagree with a certain individual who pops up on numerous Christian websites challenging the commonly held date of the crucifixion of Jesus. On that I agree with the majority that Jesus was Crucified on Friday.

                            Some of the Issues that make me question the usual chronology:

                            (1) There are issues about how many participated in the Passover sacrifice. Tacitus (Historiae (Histories), V.13) states that the number of men and women, of every age, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, was 600,000. This would mean somewhere from 30,000 to 60,000 Passover sacrifices.

                            Josephus wrote,
                            That the city could contain so many is clear from the count taken under Cestius. For he, being anxious to convince Nero, who held the nation in contempt, of the city’s strength, instructed the chief priests, if by any means possible, to take a census of the population. Accordingly, on the occasion of the feast called Passover, at which they sacrifice from the ninth to the eleventh hour, and a little fraternity, as it were, gathers round each sacrifice, of not fewer than ten persons (feasting alone not being permitted), while the companies often include as many as twenty, the victims were counted and amounted to two hundred and fifty-five thousand six hundred; allowing an average of ten diners to each victim, we obtain a total of two million seven hundred thousand, all pure and holy. (Josephus, War, Book 6 (Niese, 6:422-26; Whiston, vi.9.3), trans. by H. St. John, Thackeray, M.A. Josephus, with an English Translation In Nine Volumes, Vol. III (The Jewish War, Books IV-VII). (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961) 497, 499. Thackeray’s translation of the number 255,600 is consistent with the Greek text on the Perseus Collection website. Whiston, as well as a translation by Rev. Robert Traill, D.D., M.R.I.A., (The Jewish War of Flavius Josephus: A New Translation, Vol. II, The Jewish War, Books 3-7. (London: Houlston and Stoneman, Paternoster Row, 1851) 208) give the number of victims as 256,500. Traill adds a note on page clxi that one or two Greek manuscripts read 255,600.)
                            But 256,500 sacrifices in three hours? That’s 24 sacrifices per second! Almost the frequency of the first key (A0) on a piano! That simply couldn't be done within the few hours during which the Passover sacrifices took place. In contrast, Tractate Pesachim, folio 64a describes a passover in which all the sacrifices were divided into three groups, the last of which was well less than capacity.

                            (2) The Sanhedrin did not judge capital cases on the day in which they were heard and witnesses were brought forward. It had to wait until the next day, so that the Sanhedrin had time to think. Also, capital cases were not heard on the day immediately before a shabbat. The Talmud goes on to explain that the second day of the trial had to immediately follow the first day, else the facts of the trial will no longer be fresh in the minds of the judges. But there’s another issue: The execution is supposed to take place on the second day, but cannot take place on a Sabbath day or on a festival day. Therefore the first day of the trial cannot take place on the day immediately before a Sabbath day or a festival day.

                            (3) The Synoptic Gospels clearly describe the Last Supper as a Passover seder. Yet John's Gospel clearly does NOT, and clearly states that the Passover which the priest held took place later. How many days later is the issue that I take here.

                            (4) According to the Didaskalia,
                            And the priests and the elders (S. + considered and) commanded (S. + and decreed) that they should keep the feast with haste, that they might take Him without tumult; for the people of Jerusalem were occupied in the sacrifice and the eating of the Passover, and all the people from without had not yet come, because they deceived them [about] the days, that they might be reproved before God that they were greatly mistaken in everything. So they anticipated and kept the Passover three days earlier, in the eleventh of the moon on Tuesday; for they said, because that all the people go astray after Him, now that we have the opportunity to take Him; and then when all the people have come, we will kill Him before all men for His fault, and this will be known openly, and all the people will turn from after Him. Thus in the night (S. + when Wednesday dawned) Judas delivered up our Lord, but they had given the reward to Judas when he covenanted with them (S. + on the tenth of the moon) on Monday. (Margaret Dunlop Gibson M.R.A.S.; LL.D., trans.; Didascalia Apostolorum, (St Andrews); The Didascalia Apostolorum in English. S. + refers to added text in the Syrian version which didn’t appear in the Latin version.) (London; C. J. Clay and Sons; Cambridge University Press Warehouse; Ave Maria Lane; 1903) 94)
                            (5) The number of events which took place within a two hour span: If we hold to a traditional Thursday night seder, then this is the order in which the events on Friday morning took place:

                            ∙ Early in the morning, after the morning Tamid sacrifice, the Sanhedrin took counsel to deliver Jesus to Pilate. The Tamid ceremony began at sunrise and lasted an hour. This is around 7 AM local time, or an hour after sunrise.

                            ∙ Early in the morning, Jesus was taken to the Hall of Judgment to be tried by Pilate. The Jews addressed Pilate outside the Hall of Judgment because they felt that entering the chambers of a gentile would disqualify them from observing the Passover.

                            ∙ Pilate questioned Jesus inside the Hall of Judgment; found no fault in Jesus.

                            ∙ Pilate returned to the Sanhedrin outside the Hall of Judgment. Pilate learned that Jesus was from Galilee, sent Jesus to Herod Antipas.

                            ∙ Herod Antipas questioned Jesus; chief priests accused Him before Herod. Herod’s guards mocked Jesus; Jesus was sent back to Pilate.

                            ∙ Pilate summoned the rulers, offered to release Jesus; They wanted Barabbas released instead. They demanded that Jesus be crucified. Pilate submitted to their demand.

                            ∙ Jesus was scourged, then taken to the Praetorium where He was mocked by the Roman soldiers.

                            ∙ Either Jesus or Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry Jesus’s cross. Tradition states that Simon was forced to drag the cross after Jesus was no longer able. Not knowing the place of origin, and debating the actual location of Calvary (Cranion, or Golgotha), we can only estimate that somebody dragged a three-hundred-pound cross for the length of one or two thousand feet. The soldiers took Him to Golgotha, outside the gates of the city.

                            ∙ Jesus spoke to the lamenting women.

                            ∙ At the third hour (9 AM) Jesus was crucified. (Mark 15:25)

                            All this in only two hours???

                            I know, I've said too much. I'll shut up now.
                            Last edited by Faber; 06-22-2021, 08:45 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Faber

                              Rules of conduct for trials re a capital crime, IIRC, were formulated by Hillel II, long after the events described in the Bible. Also, the calendar preventing Sabbaths from occurring on consecutive days was formulated by Hillel II. The rule shows that the weekly Sabbath is not the only day referred to as a Sabbath - two Saturdays cannot fall on consecutive days: the deutero-Sabbaths are also referred to simply as Sabbaths. Hillel II's calendar is not perfect: the last time that Passover (by the temple liturgy) and the weekly Sabbath occurred on consecutive days was in 2008. The next is due in three hundred years or so.
                              Samaritan Jews do not adjust the calendar to prevent Sabbaths from occurring on consecutive days.

                              With regard to the day of the week for Christ's execution, two traditions are relevant - Palm Sunday: the day that Jesus rode into Jerusalem five days before the Passover of the Jews: not the Passover of the Essenes, nor that of the Samaritans: thus, a minimum of three individual celebrations of Passover in first century Judea. Jesus, according to John, arrived in Bethany six days before Passover. He was executed on the day before Passover, which is five days after his arrival in Bethany.

                              According to Luke's report (24:21) the day of Jesus' resurrection was three days after his execution. The timetable below makes it clear that Palm Sunday and Execution on Friday are mutually exclusive.

                              Count of days relative to Christ's Execution.

                              -5 Sat - Arrive Bethany
                              -4 Sun - Palm Sunday
                              -3 Mon
                              -2 Tue - Jesus says "after two days is the Passover." (Matthew 26:2) Mark records "after two days ..." without attribution. according to some interpretations.
                              -1 Wed - as above, according to alternative interpretations.
                              0. Thurs - the day of execution
                              +1 Fri - Passover (of the Jews)
                              +2 Sat
                              +3 Sun - Resurrection.

                              Argument that "three days" and "third day" are inclusive falls flat. The terms are ambiguous, sometimes referring to "the third day of" (inclusive) sometimes referring to the "third day since.after.before" et al (exclusive) without anything explicit indicating which is meant (High context language: the reader is expected to use a bit of nous). The explicit designations that are provided by the Biblical authors show "before" and "after:" It should not need saying (but this is a theological issue) that 1 day before Friday is not Friday, one day after Friday is not Friday.
                              Last edited by tabibito; 06-22-2021, 11:50 PM.
                              sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                              Comment


                              • When was Jesus born? During the reign of Herod the Great or during the census of Quirinius?
                                Given that the word, ηγεμονευοντος, used by Luke when referring to Quirinius, is not restricted to the meaning of "governor," but can apply to anyone in a command position, there is no evidence that Luke might have been mistaken: even if there was no evidence of Quirinius' being a consul and active in Syria around the time of Christ's birth.

                                A monument dating from 12 BCE found in Antioch, Pisidia, gives adequate evidence that Quirinius was in fact a consul in 12 BCE, and further evidence shows that he was active in Syria at that time.

                                Source: Augustus. Res Gestae Divi Augusti10 [URL="https://www.livius.org/sources/content/augustus-res-gestae/

                                [/URL] I [Augustus] accepted that sacred office [of Pontifex Maximus] when he at last was dead who, taking advantage of a time of civil disturbance, had seized it for himself, [i.e., Lepidus.] such a multitude from all Italy assembling for my election, in the consulship of Publius Sulpicius* and Gaius Valgius,[12 BCE.] as is never recorded to have been in Rome before.

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                *Publius Sulpicius: aka Quirinius


                                Source: Bryan Windle. “Quirinius: An Archaeological Biography.” Bible Archaeology Report. ([URL="https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/12/19/quirinius-an-archaeological-biography/"

                                https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2...cal-biography/[/URL]), no pages.]“The only certain dates in the life of Quirinius are his consulship in B.C. 12, his second government of Syria beginning in A.D. 6, and his prosecution of his former wife, Domitia Lepida in A.D. 20 and his death and public funeral in A.D. 21.”16 In the years since he penned those words, no significant discovery has been made that positively dates other events in Quirinius’s life. The only other major event that is know is his role in Syria leading the war against the Homonadenses sometime between 12 BC and 6 AD.

                                © Copyright Original Source

                                Last edited by tabibito; 06-23-2021, 12:36 PM.
                                sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seer, 07-20-2021, 12:05 PM
                                94 responses
                                371 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-16-2021, 07:39 AM
                                52 responses
                                253 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Mountain Man, 07-05-2021, 04:27 PM
                                74 responses
                                445 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by tabibito, 06-30-2021, 02:53 AM
                                50 responses
                                325 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by seer, 05-12-2021, 05:35 AM
                                660 responses
                                4,218 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Working...
                                X