Eight Levels of Verification for the Gospels

Discuss either theological doctrines, ideas about God, or Biblical criticism. I don't want any debates about creation vs evolution.

Moderator: Metacrock

Forum rules
(1) be interesting (2) be nice.

Re: Eight Levels of Verification for the Gospels

Postby Metacrock on Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:17 am

The Pixie wrote:
Metacrock wrote:Doesn't invalidate his dating Josephus shows us he got people down from cross so they did not always wind up in mass graves, or unhurried.

No it does not. However:

1. It makes it look as if you cherry-pick the data that fits your own pet theory. You accept Crossan's data when it agrees with you, and reject it when it disagrees.
[/quote]

since we both know not true why bring it up? the conclusion he reaches about empty tomb is not data its an opinion,its not a fact it's not proven.

2. It is apparent that the dating is consistent with the empty tomb being made-up.


No it's not, its much more consistent with it being true,


Metacrock wrote:I did not argue that they are true as documents, I argued that points in agreement with orthodoxy are more likely to be true.

Okay. But that only follows if those points are not derived from the same source.


That's the whole point of both Brow n and Koester talking about diatesseron (Koester) identifying older readings, I had already fojmulated the idea that GTom had a older core before I knew about the PN.

If Peter draws from the PMPN, then Peter is not independent of the synoptics, and does not help at all. And if the guards were added in a later editing, based on the account in Matthew, then that does not help you either.


Yes and Crosson makes that point, but by the time those sources have become part of other docs like GTom And GPete and canonical they are the acceptance of different communities,so all of those communities are the sources that say "ok we know this is true," they are ratifying as true the same points.


they are backed by two sources and you can;t account for it in any other way,

Yes, Joe, I can. And have. Here it is again:

The author of Matthew made it up. A later redactor of Peter inserted into that text, embellishing it to shore up the holes.


that's an opinon nota fact and I think youare pullinga fast one, he does noit have MS with out empty tob,He;snot basing thaton older reading like he is the PN
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Eight Levels of Verification for the Gospels

Postby Metacrock on Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:28 am

you are playing fast and loose we with your quotes. You are quotinganother gy qhotecRosson not the man direclty thus youareleavingout the context from whichhe has renoved theoriginal,

JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN: THE BODY OF JESUS EATEN BY CROWS OR DOGS
By Ken Silva pastor-teacher on Dec 3, 2008 in Quotes

In conclusion, what is the historicity of the burial account [of Jesus]? From Roman expectations, the body of Jesus and of any others crucified with him would have been left on the cross as carrion [dead and putrefying flesh] for the crows and the dogs. From Jewish expectations, would not Deuteronomy 21:22-23 have been followed? Maybe, but only the barest maybe…

But, even if it was, the soldiers who crucified Jesus probably would have done it, speedily and indifferently, in a necessary shallow and mounded grave rather than a rock-hewn tomb. That would mean lime, at best, and the dogs again, at worst. (Who Killed Jesus?, 187, 188)

John Dominic Crossan

See also:

JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN ON JESUS AS FOOD FOR DOGS



Look at the quote he does not say this is from a text he says it's assumed based upon what the Jews did, But what it is not saying is "but thee are exceptions,"I know there are and I said that, Josephus proves it,
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Eight Levels of Verification for the Gospels

Postby The Pixie on Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:31 pm

Metacrock wrote:since we both know not true why bring it up? the conclusion he reaches about empty tomb is not data its an opinion,its not a fact it's not proven.

Just like the date.

In both cases he has researched the issue, reviewed the available evidence, and from it formulated his opinion. One you agree with so claim it is a proven fact, and one you do not, so label as opinion.
No it's not, its much more consistent with it being true,

Crossan, an expert you consider to be an authority in this area, agrees with me.
That's the whole point of both Brow n and Koester talking about diatesseron (Koester) identifying older readings, I had already fojmulated the idea that GTom had a older core before I knew about the PN.

What is the providence of these older readings? Are they too based on the PMPN? If so (as seems likely), then everything comes from a single source.

And that source may well be the Old Testament, rather than a witness!
Yes and Crosson makes that point, but by the time those sources have become part of other docs like GTom And GPete and canonical they are the acceptance of different communities,so all of those communities are the sources that say "ok we know this is true," they are ratifying as true the same points.

But that does not mean they were actually true. Your own authority on this thinks the Empty Tomb was made up.

The most likely scenario is that once Jesus was arrested, the disciples fled Jerusalem to avoid being arrested themselves. They guessed what happened based on scripture and usual Roman practice. There were no witnesses in the community, so there was no one to say it did not happen like that, and so the community ratified. I see no reason to suppose the bare bones of it (up to the burial) were not circulating within a few years. The Empty Tomb was added later, the guards and the various appearances around Jerusalem much later.
that's an opinon nota fact and I think youare pullinga fast one, he does noit have MS with out empty tob,He;snot basing thaton older reading like he is the PN

Yes, Joe, opinion not fact. Like you have. And Crossan.

And no, we do not have a manuscript of the PMPN, with or without the Empty Tomb. Therefore we do not know if the Empty Tomb was in it, or if, as Crossan says, it was in later versions but not earlier.
The Pixie
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: Eight Levels of Verification for the Gospels

Postby Metacrock on Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:54 pm

The Pixie wrote:
Metacrock wrote:since we both know not true why bring it up? the conclusion he reaches about empty tomb is not data its an opinion,its not a fact it's not proven.

Just like the date.

In both cases he has researched the issue, reviewed the available evidence, and from it formulated his opinion. One you agree with so claim it is a proven fact, and one you do not, so label as opinion.


his opinion is inconsistent with the facts,

No it's not, its much more consistent with it being true,

Crossan, an expert you consider to be an authority in this area, agrees with me.
That's the whole point of both Brow n and Koester talking about diatesseron (Koester) identifying older readings, I had already fojmulated the idea that GTom had a older core before I knew about the PN.



What is the providence of these older readings? Are they too based on the PMPN? If so (as seems likely), then everything comes from a single source.


you are not getting it. The older readings are evidence of the PMPN but the communicates that use it have to approve it, so we gate keepers saying this is valid, in effect.

And that source may well be the Old Testament, rather than a witness!


that's fallacious, you base that upon their structure of the narrative drawing upon OT that does not prove its invented, that only proves they had to invent a narrative structure, they still had a set of facts, trey are only drawing upon OT to know how to organize them.

Yes and Crosson makes that point, but by the time those sources have become part of other docs like GTom And GPete and canonical they are the acceptance of different communities,so all of those communities are the sources that say "ok we know this is true," they are ratifying as true the same points.



But that does not mean they were actually true. Your own authority on this thinks the Empty Tomb was made up.


they are not wetting fiction ,they are witting about what they know happened, they weren't actually there at the trail of Jesus so they have to make up the way it went but they dont' make up the fact he was on trail,

The most likely scenario is that once Jesus was arrested, the disciples fled Jerusalem to avoid being arrested themselves. They guessed what happened based on scripture and usual Roman practice. There were no witnesses in the community, so there was no one to say it did not happen like that, and so the community ratified.


they ran away because the leader was killed,if thee were no res sightings what hgten claim he rose That's like I love Lucy on we told, hey Ethal we'll Ricky Fred rose from the dead, and what would give the courage to come back and start telling this absurd story no one would believe? The real issue is the time period, so close proximity to the lives of witnesses, people who could contradict it.

I see no reason to suppose the bare bones of it (up to the burial) were not circulating within a few years. The Empty Tomb was added later, the guards and the various appearances around Jerusalem much later.

<b>Crosson dates the empty tomb story to mid century,that puts it within the lives witnesses, He lacks the courage to be contestant, he seeks approval from the academic world which demands that discount the resurrection.</b>

that's an opinon nota fact and I think youare pullinga fast one, he does noit have MS with out empty tob,He;snot basing thaton older reading like he is the PN



Yes, Joe, opinion not fact. Like you have. And Crossan.


No I have an argument based upon the facs, Crosson has denies based upon fear to depart from ideology,

And no, we do not have a manuscript of the PMPN, with or without the Empty Tomb. Therefore we do not know if the Empty Tomb was in it, or if, as Crossan says, it was in later versions but not earlier.
[/quote]

WE have textual critics who have done a good job of uncovering the MS preserved in the latter works, you cant be inconsistent and approve the method when it helps you then disparage it when it strikes you down ,
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Eight Levels of Verification for the Gospels

Postby The Pixie on Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:58 am

Metacrock wrote:his opinion is inconsistent with the facts,

Then he is a bad scholar. We should therefore reject his claims of an early date.
you are not getting it. The older readings are evidence of the PMPN but the communicates that use it have to approve it, so we gate keepers saying this is valid, in effect.

What is the gate keepers' motivation for rejecting a part of the narrative if that addition enhances their religion?

Further, how do you think they validated it? Did they interview the two Marys? They who are the only witnesses to anything after Jesus' arrest according to Mark, and if they were not around for whatever reason then the gate keepers have no way to confirm any of it.
that's fallacious, you base that upon their structure of the narrative drawing upon OT that does not prove its invented, that only proves they had to invent a narrative structure, they still had a set of facts, trey are only drawing upon OT to know how to organize them.

I agree it is not proven, but neither is your claim that they had a set of facts. Who heard Jesus say "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?"? I can point to the OT verse it was lifted from.
they are not wetting fiction ,they are witting about what they know happened, they weren't actually there at the trail of Jesus so they have to make up the way it went but they dont' make up the fact he was on trail,

They did not know what happened because they had fled Jerusalem (see Mark 14:27 And Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away, for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ 28 But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.”).

They were not writing fiction, they built the narrative using the best information they had - a knowledge of Roman practices and scripture. I do not doubt they they believed it to have happened in the way they made it up. But they did make it up.
they ran away because the leader was killed,if thee were no res sightings what hgten claim he rose That's like I love Lucy on we told, hey Ethal we'll Ricky Fred rose from the dead, and what would give the courage to come back and start telling this absurd story no one would believe? The real issue is the time period, so close proximity to the lives of witnesses, people who could contradict it.

I would guess the disciples saw something that hey thought was Jesus resurrected, but that was later in Galilee - as the first account in Mark says. The various appearances in Jerusalem were written by different groups long after the event, once the people who would have been there were dead.
<b>Crosson dates the empty tomb story to mid century,that puts it within the lives witnesses, He lacks the courage to be contestant, he seeks approval from the academic world which demands that discount the resurrection.</b>

What witnesses? In Mark the only witnesses to the burial and empty tomb were the two Marys. Mary the mother of Jesus would be around 70 by AD50 (say she was 16 when she gave birth), and it is no stretch to say she was dead by then.
WE have textual critics who have done a good job of uncovering the MS preserved in the latter works, you cant be inconsistent and approve the method when it helps you then disparage it when it strikes you down ,

That goes for you too, Joe. The fact is that there is a lot of disagreement over exactly what was in the PMPN, and a lot of scholars reject the claim that it included the Empty Tomb.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/p ... young.html
https://sites.google.com/site/briansgre ... -narrative

Further, at best, all we have is a snapshot of what it was when Mark used it. We have no idea of its development up to that point.
The Pixie
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: Eight Levels of Verification for the Gospels

Postby Metacrock on Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:02 am

do e a favor? will come over to cadre blog and make some comments discuss the evolution of God thing with me?
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Eight Levels of Verification for the Gospels

Postby Metacrock on Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:26 am

The Pixie wrote:
Metacrock wrote:his opinion is inconsistent with the facts,

Then he is a bad scholar. We should therefore reject his claims of an early date.
you are not getting it. The older readings are evidence of the PMPN but the communicates that use it have to approve it, so we gate keepers saying this is valid, in effect.

What is the gate keepers' motivation for rejecting a part of the narrative if that addition enhances their religion?


It's total silliness to do thing all or nothing thing, either everything he says is right or everything is wrong that's nonsense,

Further, how do you think they validated it? Did they interview the two Marys? They who are the only witnesses to anything after Jesus' arrest according to Mark, and if they were not around for whatever reason then the gate keepers have no way to confirm any of it.


he doesn't say they are the only two. But yes they had ample time to hear from the two Marys since they were in the community.

that's fallacious, you base that upon their structure of the narrative drawing upon OT that does not prove its invented, that only proves they had to invent a narrative structure, they still had a set of facts, trey are only drawing upon OT to know how to organize them.



I agree it is not proven, but neither is your claim that they had a set of facts. Who heard Jesus say "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?"? I can point to the OT verse it was lifted from.


It is inanity to assume they had no facts to go by, not a fair assumption.

ME: they are not wetting fiction ,they are witting about what they know happened, they weren't actually there at the trail of Jesus so they have to make up the way it went but they dont' make up the fact he was on trail,


t


They did not know what happened because they had fled Jerusalem (see Mark 14:27 And Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away, for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ 28 But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.”).


you are back reading that into every moment of Jesus; ministry. You are also creating a canon within the canons by making that one phrase the key to everything, what if that was the phrase added latter? Someone would have known what happened in that gap and they pieced it together latter, they are not filming a documentary,

ME: They were not writing fiction, they built the narrative using the best information they had - a knowledge of Roman practices and scripture. I do not doubt they they believed it to have happened in the way they made it up. But they did make it up.they ran away because the leader was killed,if thee were no res sightings what hgten claim he rose That's like I love Lucy on we told, hey Ethal we'll Ricky Fred rose from the dead, and what would give the courage to come back and start telling this absurd story no one would believe? The real issue is the time period, so close proximity to the lives of witnesses, people who could contradict it.



I would guess the disciples saw something that hey thought was Jesus resurrected, but that was later in Galilee - as the first account in Mark says. The various appearances in Jerusalem were written by different groups long after the event, once the people who would have been there were dead.


that's conjecture you are piecing that together to suit your agenda,


<b>Crosson dates the empty tomb story to mid century,that puts it within the lives witnesses, He lacks the courage to be contestant, he seeks approval from the academic world which demands that discount the resurrection.</b>



What witnesses? In Mark the only witnesses to the burial and empty tomb were the two Marys. Mary the mother of Jesus would be around 70 by AD50 (say she was 16 when she gave birth), and it is no stretch to say she was dead by then.


that's bull shit, it only mentions the it's silly to think no one else was there.you re assuming Mark is the original author who made it all up,Mark got it from other people, He edited it to his own needs,

WE have textual critics who have done a good job of uncovering the MS preserved in the latter works, you cant be inconsistent and approve the method when it helps you then disparage it when it strikes you down ,


That goes for you too, Joe. The fact is that there is a lot of disagreement over exactly what was in the PMPN, and a lot of scholars reject the claim that it included the Empty Tomb.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/p ... young.html


It is the consensus

https://sites.google.com/site/briansgre ... -narrative

Further, at best, all we have is a snapshot of what it was when Mark used it. We have no idea of its development up to that point.


my view is based upon the best snap shot
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Eight Levels of Verification for the Gospels

Postby Metacrock on Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:27 am

Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Eight Levels of Verification for the Gospels

Postby Metacrock on Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:29 am



Peter Kirby's sight his research is biased and he is not honest, he kicked me off his message board because I was winning all the arguments, but his a article says PMPN is consensus!
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Eight Levels of Verification for the Gospels

Postby Metacrock on Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:34 am

two things Px I am going to do a thing on this for CADRE in a couple of weeks, you might want to save it to discuss there. also come discuss evolution of god concept. please.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

PreviousNext

Return to Theology/Bible

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron