Paul and Jesus

[smokydot]

Nope, I quoted you and thus was referring to what you were saying.

I'm sensin' a lota' hat here. . .and no cowboy.

Read it as well as the commentary on it.

You really don't understand the letter to the Hebrews, do you?
Why don't you just say so. . .it's no crime.

Maybe you want to actually show me what you're talking about.

If you are going to get it, I will have to. . .but I really don't want to quote the whole NT letter to the Hebrews.
So I'll take one topic--Jesus the new and permanent high priest, and mediator of a new covenant.

Read Heb 2:14--3:6; 4:14--5:10; 6:16--10:18. Some of the things you will find there are:

Jesus is a high priest forever (Heb 6:20),
with a permanent and superior priesthood (Heb 7:24, 8:6),
whose perfect sacrifice offered once for all (Heb 7:27)
supersedes and replaces all previous sacrifices (Heb 10:9).

The Levitical law was weak and useless (Heb 7:18).

The old covenant was
faulty (Heb 8:7),
obsolete (Heb 8:13) and
temporary (Heb 9:10).

The new covenant is
a better covenant (Heb 7:22),
founded on better promises (Heb 8:6),
with Christ as its mediator (Heb 9:15).

As a side note, a work written some half century after the fact may not be the best source. Just saying.

But reconstruction some 40 half-centuries after the fact is? Just saying. . .man, at least be consistent.

 

[waitasec]

smokeydot,
i brought up the curtain to show how each gospel was written for a different audience.
these events were changed to emphasis a theology the writer believed in and was trying to propagate. in any case, how would these writers know when the curtain ripped? they didn't have real time cameras comparing what and when things happened. think about it, if someone was in the temple how would they know the moment jesus died to compare that to the curtain ripping... how would they know?

all these details seem very suspicious especially coming from an oral tradition that lasted 40-95 yrs or so.
my point is this, each gospel was written for a different audience as propaganda in an effort to explain why god allowed the temple to be destroyed.

 

[dogsgod]

smokeydot,
i brought up the curtain to show how each gospel was written for a different audience.
these events were changed to emphasis a theology the writer believed in and was trying to propagate. in any case, how would these writers know when the curtain ripped? they didn't have real time cameras comparing what and when things happened. think about it, if someone was in the temple how would they know the moment jesus died to compare that to the curtain ripping... how would they know?

all these details seem very suspicious especially coming from an oral tradition that lasted 40-95 yrs or so.
my point is this, each gospel was written for a different audience as propaganda in an effort to explain why god allowed the temple to be destroyed.

Details from what oral tradition that lasted 45-95 years or so? What is this assumption based on?

 

[Oberon]

Details from what oral tradition that lasted 45-95 years or so? What is this assumption based on?

Oh I don't know, decades of detailed examination of the oral nature of the greek in the synoptics, the technical language of oral tradition used by Paul, luke, and others, studies into orality in the mediterranean, studies on orality in general, along with various other important work done by hundreds and hundreds of experts for over a century. None of which you have read. But I'm sure as the objective investigator you are, eventually you'll stop dedicating all your time to the tiny minority of experts (virtually all in completely unrelated fields like german studies) and the mass of amateurs who argue that Jesus wasn't historical and start reading actual scholarship...

 

[waitasec]

Details from what oral tradition that lasted 45-95 years or so? What is this assumption based on?

from your posts...
bart ehrman, paula fredriksen and wiki

mark was written near the time of the destruction of the temple 70AD
matthew between 70 and 100
luke 80-90 although some Christians argue for a date 60-65.
john was apparently written near the end of the first century

what makes you think differently? i'd be interested to know.

curious, according to your sources, were these separate gospels written for a specific region?

 

[waitasec]

I believe the Scriptures are true and I do not defend their truth.

However, I can offer a practical response to your question.
The sun was darkened for three hours during which time the curtain of the Temple was rent.
It would have been easy to compare notes to determine at which point Jesus died in relation to the three-hour darkness and at which point the curtain was rent.
Luke was a contemporary of Paul and Peter, all of whom wrote during the same time frame.
They are part of the basis of Christianity, whose authenticity was attested by early church fathers who knew them.
And what is the authoritative source of this conjecture nowhere found in the Scriptures?

another interesting thing you brought to the table...
where, other than in the bible, can you find evidence for such an incredible event describing this fantastic eclipse? not one astronomer of the time ever mentions this.

 

[smokydot]

smokeydot,
i brought up the curtain to show how each gospel was written for a different audience.
these events were changed to emphasis a theology the writer believed in and was trying to propagate. in any case, how would these writers know when the curtain ripped? they didn't have real time cameras comparing what and when things happened. think about it, if someone was in the temple how would they know the moment jesus died to compare that to the curtain ripping... how would they know?

I believe the Scriptures are true and I do not defend their truth.

However, I can offer a practical response to your question.
The sun was darkened for three hours during which time the curtain of the Temple was rent.
It would have been easy to compare notes to determine at which point Jesus died in relation to the three-hour darkness and at which point the curtain was rent.

all these details seem very suspicious especially coming from an oral tradition that lasted 40-95 yrs or so.

Luke was a contemporary of Paul and Peter, all of whom wrote during the same time frame.
They are part of the basis of Christianity, whose authenticity was attested by early church fathers who knew them.

my point is this, each gospel was written for a different audience as propaganda in an effort to explain why god allowed the temple to be destroyed.

And what is the authoritative source of this amateurish conjecture nowhere found in the Scriptures?

 

[dogsgod]

from your posts...

mark was written near the time of the destruction of the temple 70AD
matthew between 70 and 100
luke 80-90 although some Christians argue for a date 60-65.
john was apparently written near the end of the first century

what makes you think differently? i'd be interested to know.

curious, according to your sources, were these separate gospels written for a specific region?

Mark may have drawn from some various oral traditions in order to put together a story as well as from written tradition such as ancient Hebrew scriptures, but what makes us assume they date back to the time of one specific ministry in the early thirties? Are you basing this on the time that Mark sets his story, as if to assume that his story is set in real time and that these oral traditions all funnel back to that specific time and place? Are any of the epistle writers aware of these same oral traditions?

 

[smokydot]

another interesting thing you brought to the table...
where, other than in the bible, can you find evidence for such an incredible event describing this fantastic eclipse? not one astronomer of the time ever mentions this.

Okay, one more time I don't defend the truth of the Bible.

Try looking up Thallus or Phlegon, first century historians.
It was likewise noted worldwide by Roman historians.

 

[dogsgod]

curious, according to your sources, were these separate gospels written for a specific region?

Mark's gospel might be a reflection of a Pauline tradition, whereas Mathew changed or altered Mark's gospel in order to reflect a James tradition. Reading Paul we see that he was open to including gentiles (non Jews), whereas James was not interested, they agreed that Paul would preach to the gentiles and James and the Jerusalem group would continued to preach to Jews. Galatians 2: 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.

There was some serious division that Paul brings to light:

Galatians2: 11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

Incidentally, Acts attempts to smooth over these differences.

 

[waitasec]

Mark may have drawn from some various oral traditions in order to put together a story as well as from written tradition such as ancient Hebrew scriptures, but what makes us assume they date back to the time of one specific ministry in the early thirties? Are you basing this on the time that Mark sets his story, as if to assume that his story is set in real time and that these oral traditions all funnel back to that specific time and place? Are any of the epistle writers aware of these same oral traditions?

great question!
i'm just going by what these biblical scholars say, that and i don't want to think my hard earned money went to waste... not that i really invested that much

but what makes us assume they date back to the time of one specific ministry in the early thirties

am i correct in saying, you don't believe their ever was a jesus (not the jesus depicted in the gospels), at all?

Are any of the epistle writers aware of these same oral traditions?

i'm not sure if they were aware of each other, which is why i asked you if these gospels were written for a certain region according to your sources?

 

[waitasec]

Okay, one more time I don't defend the truth of the Bible.

Try looking up Thallus or Phlegon, first century historians.
It was likewise noted worldwide by Roman historians.

but you just did...

i will look them up,
i'm off
until next time.

 

[dogsgod]

great question!
i'm just going by what these biblical scholars say, that and i don't want to think my hard earned money went to waste... not that i really invested that much


am i correct in saying, you don't believe their ever was a jesus (not the jesus depicted in the gospels), at all?


i'm not sure if they were aware of each other, which is why i asked you if these gospels were written for a certain region according to your sources?

I honestly don't know if there was a Jesus from Galilee or not, some of Q is consistent with a Jewish preacher but some of Q consists of Greek cynic sage type teachings that don't necessarily lead to anyone in particular. Perhaps a leader came along and took Q into a different direction, but when? I think Mark's gospel reflects many traditions all woven together into a story of destruction and despair, a story altered by later writers, Matthew, Luke, John, and a host of other non canonical writers, it's very complex and so the question of an actual Jesus as portrayed in the gospels is not an easy question to answer. The epistle writers predate the gospels and draw an entirely different picture, but we can see that Mark had some kind of association with these writers or at least with the writings.

 

[smokydot]

I honestly don't know if there was a Jesus from Galilee or not, some of Q is consistent with a Jewish preacher but some of Q consists of Greek cynic sage type teachings that don't necessarily lead to anyone in particular. Perhaps a leader came along and took Q into a different direction, but when? I think Mark's gospel reflects many traditions all woven together into a story of destruction and despair, a story altered by later writers, Matthew, Luke, John, and a host of other non canonical writers, it's very complex and so the question of an actual Jesus as portrayed in the gospels is not an easy question to answer. The epistle writers predate the gospels and draw an entirely different picture, but we can see that Mark had some kind of association with these writers or at least with the writings.

Scripture presents itself as the true Word of God written.

That it is cannot be proven, it is a matter of faith.

You either believe it, or you don't.

 

[smokydot]

but you just did...

i will look them up,
i'm off
until next time.

Yes, I did, by directing you to sources you were seeking.

Hurry back.

 

[waitasec]

Scripture presents itself as the true Word of God written.

That it is cannot be proven, it is a matter of faith.

You either believe it, or you don't.

would it be fair to say, it is impossible to refute faith but necessary to refute reason in order to come to a logical conclusion?

Try looking up Thallus or Phlegon, first century historians.
It was likewise noted worldwide by Roman historians.

i briefly checked them out, but alas they seem questionable and unreliable.

Such an impossible event would not fail to be recorded in the works of Seneca, Pliny, Josephus or other historians, yet it is not mentioned anywhere else outside of Christian rhetoric…

We know next to nothing about Thallus or his works. We don't even know if he wrote only one book or several. The only information we have about him, even his name, comes entirely from Christian apologetic sources beginning in the late 2nd century, and that information is plagued with problems.

Thallus: an Analysis

can you give me link that can refute this source?

 

[smokydot]

would it be fair to say, it is impossible to refute faith but necessary to refute reason in order to come to a logical conclusion?

Reason is based on logic, faith is not.

Reason is subject to refutation only on its basis--logic, while Biblical faith is subject to refutation only on its basis--the Word of God written.

i briefly checked them out, but alas they seem questionable and unreliable.

Such an impossible event would not fail to be recorded in the works of Seneca, Pliny, Josephus or other historians, yet it is not mentioned anywhere else outside of Christian rhetoric…

We know next to nothing about Thallus or his works. We don't even know if he wrote only one book or several. The only information we have about him, even his name, comes entirely from Christian apologetic sources beginning in the late 2nd century, and that information is plagued with problems.

Thallus: an Analysis

can you give me link that can refute this source?

Try
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060726123647AAvYjcT

 

[fallingblood]

Reason is based on logic, faith is not.

Reason is subject to refutation only on its basis--logic, while Biblical faith is subject to refutation only on its basis, the Word of God written.
Try
Why did the sky DARKEN when Jesus died>>? - Yahoo! Answers

:slap:

 

[smokydot]

fallingblood:
You have not addressed the refutations of the posts presented.
Disagreeing by "implication" is not refutation. . .refute them.
Show the Scriptures do not say what I have presented.

I don't intend to keep repeating the same information over and over to you.
The questions you keep asking regarding the Jewish feasts and the day Christ was crucified are addressed in detail in my posts #80 and #44,
and your question on the NT letter to the Hebrews' abolition of the Levitical priesthood is addressed in post #101.
If you're sincere, and not just playing games, as is a not-uncommon practice in this Forum, you will specificially refute the information presented in them.

Until you do, the argument is over regarding the day on which Jesus was crucified.

Let me suggest you read the Bible for yourself, in English first, before you try reading it in Greek or Hebrew, and familiarize yourself with the text,
instead of just mouthing what someone else says.

 

[fallingblood]

You have not addressed the refutations of the posts presented.
Disagreeing by "implication" is not refutation. . .refute them.
Show the Scriptures do not say what I have presented.

I've presented a complete refutation. I made a separate thread to even refute your idea of the crucifixion.

I don't intend to keep repeating the same information over and over to you.
The questions you keep asking regarding the Jewish feasts and the day Christ was crucified are addressed in detail in my posts #80 and #44,
and your question on the NT letter to the Hebrews' abolition of the Levitical priesthood is addressed in post #101.
If you're sincere, and not just playing games, as is a not-uncommon practice in this Forum, you will specificially refute the information presented in them.

Trust me, I don't want you to continue repeating the same old stuff over and over again. I've already refuted it, and simply don't want to again. But please, if you want to show me wrong, go to my other thread about the crucifixion of Jesus and show me.

I've already refuted enough here. I haven't seen a counter argument from you though, instead of saying go to this post or that post. That is why I put the entire argument in another thread.

Let me suggest you read the Bible for yourself, in English first, before you try reading it in Greek or Hebrew, and familiarize yourself with the text,
instead of just mouthing what someone else says.

Again, with the belittling remarks. But I guess that works for you, as you can't actually debate. If you represent Christians, I'm glad I'm not one.