Was Jesus a Progressive Socialist?

[rogue06]

In the link provided by "our mutual friend" there were no links that I could discern.

You never said anything about links but rather "supporting citations"

[...]

And we see that the tendency for rogue06 to make comments with no supporting citations goes back to at least 2015.

Be a little less obvious about your attempts to frantically move the goal posts to cover your hiney next time

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

being located within the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea
which was controlled by Herod Antipas (under roman
overlordship), Capernaum was near the boundary
with the tetrarch controlled by Herod Philip. As
such, Capernaum was important enough to be a
Roman garrison town with at least a Century of
soldiers stationed there (Hill 2018).

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...l_140-7-4-2019 (page 81)

I am almost sure that you will find some excuse to dismiss the source as unreliable.

Informed amateurs should never be dismissed because they have no academic qualifications. Local history societies can be invaluable for detailed knowledge of a particular site or area.

However, Mr Crook cites as his authority a certain Daniel W Hill who runs Grace Gospel Missions and who allegedly has a Ph.D but we have no idea what his research involved. Both his higher academic institutions appear to be of Christian origin and while within the USA there are reputable and respected religious academic institutions there are also those that are less rigorous. Furthermore I am not entirely sure of some of these US Christian groups that offer accreditation to various Christian academic organisations. Again, how academically rigorous are they?

All that sets alarm bells ringing because reading the opening pages of the work on Amazon.com this person has a great deal of baggage and some preconceived ideas. That the book runs to a mere 75 pages is not reason for concern but what is alarming for a work published in 2018 is that the bibliography is so out of date. He has has no citations beyond the early 1970s, several go back to the turn of the twentieth century and at least one to the 1880s. Most also appear to be from a religious perspective and there are some generalised works that I would not expect to be cited by a serious academic on a specialist topic.

I would therefore take anything that Daniel Hill has written concerning the archaeology of Capernaum and its place in the first century CE with a very large spoonful of the proverbial salt.

[tabibito]

That remark rather proves my point.



You would need to cite those archaeological digs and any academic papers resulting from them.

being located within the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea
which was controlled by Herod Antipas (under roman
overlordship), Capernaum was near the boundary
with the tetrarch controlled by Herod Philip. As
such, Capernaum was important enough to be a
Roman garrison town with at least a Century of
soldiers stationed there (Hill 2018).

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...l_140-7-4-2019 (page 81)

I am almost sure that you will find some excuse to dismiss the source as unreliable.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Looks like someone's allergic reaction to honesty and truth is kicking in.

I cited and quoted from the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and the Journal of American History (the first and last source twice) as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the book Damned Lies and Statistics. I also cited the San Francisco Examiner but didn't quote them.

In the link provided by "our mutual friend" there were no links that I could discern.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It is a confident assertion based on the evidence provided by the text itself, rather than what biased commentators say about the text.

That remark rather proves my point.

I am aware that archaeologists who actually worked on the site have questioned whether that is so since 1987 at the latest, possibly as early as 1967.

You would need to cite those archaeological digs and any academic papers resulting from them.

[rogue06]

[...]

And we see that the tendency for rogue06 to make comments with no supporting citations goes back to at least 2015.

Looks like someone's allergic reaction to honesty and truth is kicking in.

I cited and quoted from the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and the Journal of American History (the first and last source twice) as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the book Damned Lies and Statistics. I also cited the San Francisco Examiner but didn't quote them.

[tabibito]

Is that another pronouncement ex cathedra?

It is a confident assertion based on the evidence provided by the text itself, rather than what biased commentators say about the text.

I could make a confident assertion that no Roman garrison could have been based in Capernaum during the early first century, but I am aware that archaeologists who actually worked on the site have questioned whether that is so since 1987 at the latest, possibly as early as 1967.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No-one who has bothered to read verse five would make such a claim.

Is that another pronouncement ex cathedra?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Hardly. All it does is show that it is unsafe to assume that a commentator is correct just because he has credentials.

When the commentator makes a perfectly valid point premised on the evidence in front of them, while one may not agree with their conclusions, it does not follow that they are dishonestly drawing those conclusions.

Assuming that there was no colloquial usage of the term "sat on" when referring to riding an animal which allowed for the term to extend to other animals in train:
The outcome would be that Mark had simply made an easily made error - and an error which presented no difficulty whatever in understanding what he intended.

Matthew is the only text that refers to two animals.

The base assumption is however, wrong.

Is that a pronouncement ex cathedra?

[tabibito]

It has suggested that the writer apparently failed to recognize that Zechariah uses a poetic parallelismus memborum

No-one who has bothered to read verse five would make such a claim.

[tabibito]

However, citing instances of academic dishonesty does provide a useful excuse by which to dismiss any academic research that goes against preconceived beliefs and/or personal opinion.

Hardly. All it does is show that it is unsafe to assume that a commentator is correct just because he has credentials.

Assuming that there was no colloquial usage of the term "sat on" when referring to riding an animal which allowed for the term to extend to other animals in train:
The outcome would be that Mark had simply made an easily made error - and an error which presented no difficulty whatever in understanding what he intended.

The base assumption is however, wrong.

But not all is lost -

If you try hard enough you will find allegations of error in the Biblical record that actually pan out. Maybe as many as one or two for every fifty that are claimed (I'm inclined to think it is 1 or 2 in a hundred, but playing it safe.)

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Do you seriously contend that Matthew thought, or intended his readers to understand that, Jesus sat astride two donkeys simultaneously?

That is a translation of the text as it has come down to us, however once again it is possible there was an early corruption. Certainly the author of Matthew has been ridiculed for the notion that Jesus sat astride two separate animals. However, as with all these texts various arguments have been put forward. It has suggested that the writer apparently failed to recognize that Zechariah uses a poetic construction called “parallelismus memborum,” a repetition using synonyms for heightened effect, rather than to refer to two separate things [donkey and colt] and thereby makes an overly literal attempt to illustrate the precise wording of the text, rather than its intent. The other contention is that the writer was fully cognisant with the Hebrew texts and modified the ending of Zechariah 9.9 to read υίόν ύποζυγίου thereby describing the female donkey as a beast of burden and by doing so makes a a connection between Zechariah 9:9 and Genesis 49:14–15 where Issachar [at least in the Hebrew text] is compared to such an animal.

Once again, it all comes down to interpretation.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Luke claimed to be a companion traveller with Paul.

What the author claims is entirely irrelevant. The earliest reference we have to Acts appears in Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses [c. 180 CE] who cites the text and one may assume recognised its potential in the conflict against Marcion as well as various Gnostic writers and beliefs. There is also the matter of different editions and possible early textual corruptions.

They should be. Evaluating a writer's work on the basis of his credentials instead of evaluating the writer's claims themselves is a fast track to getting misled.

In which case Helms has a perfectly valid argument with evidence, as has Nineham, and indeed with Syme [re the Lucian census]. That the views and arguments of various academics do not tally with your own appears to be the basis by which you dismiss those individuals. You also seem unable to recognise that there is paucity of extraneous contemporary evidence for the events recounted in these gospels.

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum/social-studies/civics-101/8936-knife-control-yep-next-after-gun-control?p=368817#post368817

And we see that the tendency for rogue06 to make comments with no supporting citations goes back to at least 2015.

One cannot argue by selected instances and issues surrounding American gun crime/ownership have little bearing on the textual analysis of ancient texts as these have come down to us.

However, citing instances of academic dishonesty does provide a useful excuse by which to dismiss any academic research that goes against preconceived beliefs and/or personal opinion.

[NorrinRadd]

Funny how you have to make up your own definitions for words to support your nonsense. You wouldn't happen to know a Jorge Fernandez by chance?

I reiterate my assertion that the fact that he resorts to such radical redefinition effectively makes the entire thread an exercise in trollery.

[NorrinRadd]

This is why inerrantists like me refer to the original manuscripts being without error.

Which is unprovable and ultimately irrelevant since they are long gone.