Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Apr 10, 2020 4:44 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 522 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 ... 35  Next
The NT was written in the 2nd century 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4898
Location: Florida
Thanks: 177
Thanked: 344 times in 294 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century
tat tvam asi wrote:
Good point Frank. The deeper questions are how in the hell has a blind man read the posts and typed responses? With help from some one? If so, then why the f!@ck wouldn't the same helper also click play on the video series and continue helping? Oh he's blind alright, blind to logic and reason. And that post was even more idiotic than the former posts...



You highlight text, move it to MSword or another program which has a reading function.
You dictate responses using DragonSpeech program by Nuance or a similar program, and have your text read back to you for corrections, despite Nuance claims, my program is only ~70% accurate.

You guys are a real trip. I have a friend who is a VP for a fortune 100 company. He is a CPA and JD and has been blind from birth. Of course there are all kinds of blindness arn't there?


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Sun Jan 23, 2011 10:49 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4898
Location: Florida
Thanks: 177
Thanked: 344 times in 294 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century
Vishnu wrote:
I've heard the resuscitation theory before. Certainly plausible, but only if it is granted that there even was a historical Ben Stada or any such person at the root of the Christ myth, which of course, such a person is lacking in the evidence department.
But there were certainly stories of people being rescued from crucifixion and out of tombs. Josephus himself said as he was passing by some crucifixions, he recognized a few of the guys and had them taken down. If I recall correctly, two of them died, but one managed to survive. So right there you have an allegedly historical case of someone surviving crucifixion, and reported by the same source that is THE go to source by apologists for "proving" the historicity of a Jesus Christ.
Also, although fictional, there is Cariton's story of Carius & Calliriway, in which Calliriway is mistaken for dead and buried, but then kidnapped by grave robbers, and thus Carius, finding the empty tomb, thought the gods had taken her up to heaven. Carius later in the story is himself crucified but rescued. So, we see all of these elements, both in fiction & "history" floating around at the same time christianity was getting the ball rolling.
So I think such a tale about Ben Stada would not be surprising to find at all.


I suggest that you read The Crucifixion of Jesus, Second Edition, Completely Revised and Expanded: A Forensic InquiryFrederick T. Zugibe, he deals extensively with the swoon theory. He also explains how the scouraging would have been sufficient to cause death even if Jesus has not been crucified and then pierced with a speer.

Are you really citing a fictional story as a defense?
Name the people who were rescued from crucifixion? Were they scouraged first? What is your source?


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Sun Jan 23, 2011 10:57 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4898
Location: Florida
Thanks: 177
Thanked: 344 times in 294 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century
Vishnu wrote:
Quote:
We can't discuss the videos because there it no text provided to base the discussion on.


That's a lie. WE can, and WE have because WE actually watched the videos. Now, if YOU can't discuss the videos because YOU have NOT watched them nor found a transcript of them, then YOU are just shit out of luck. No one is stopping you from watching but you.

I know that in my own experience, and I am confident in saying I speak for many people here, I can discuss videos I have actually seen, and I do it quite often, even without EVER having a written transcript. I've discussed many, MANY movies without ever having a written transcript of it. I've likewise discussed many a television program, vhs, and dvd with people even though none of us ever had a written transcript.

How were we able to accomplish such an amazingly impossible feat you ask?

Because we all WATCHED the videos. THAT is how we all obtained information about them and thus were able to discuss them.

You repeatedly demand a transcript in a tone as though it is somehow OWED to you. Now, if someone does do such thing, then that's good, they are a nice person. But NO ONE, not even the maker of these videos owes it to you to make a transcript and if we continue to opt not to make one then none of us have done a damn thing wrong. We are not under an obligation to include you in the discussion at all, and we are especially not obligated to include you in the discussion on your own terms, i.e., you will only read a written transcript rather than watch.

If YOU refuse to WATCH a VIDEO, then that is on you and no one else and so you are just shit out of luck. And if you have no knowledge of the contents of the videos, that does not mean you get to still participate in the discussion about it by just trying to 'guess' what is in them until someone provides the contents to you on your own terms.

If some folks are having a conversation right in front of you in Spanish, and you happen to not be able to speak Spanish, those folks are NOT obligated to translate THEIR conversation into Spanish for you just so you can be included in the conversation. Nope, if YOU have refused to learn Spanish then you are just shit out of luck- you don't get to participate in the conversation. And just because no one has provided a translation of their conversation for you does not mean you get to interject yourself into the conversation anyway even though you have no knowledge of the subject of the discussion, and just because YOU lack that knowledge does not mean you get to just 'guess' or 'assume' what the subject of their conversation is about and just interject comments into their discussion anyway. Nope, no one is under any obligation to just let you into the conversation anyway nor does anyone owe it to you to translate it, and if they decide not to translate their conversation, they have not done a damn thing wrong and they are not being rude or inconsiderate for doing so. The fact that YOU won't learn Spanish is all on you.
Now, if someone DOES translate the conversation for you, then that's cool, they are a nice person, doing you a FAVOR that they do not owe you. But if they opt not to, then you are just shit out of luck, and just out of the conversation.

WE have watched the videos, and so WE will continue to discuss these videos as we have been, since WE actually know the contents and thus are in a position to discuss them, unlike yourself.

That being said, I think I'll now join the movement to stop feeding the troll.


You can't discuss them without resorting to reducing the material to text. What would you say? I really loved the section starting at 4:50 of Video 5? No, you have to explain what you liked or disliked about the section and reduce it to text. If I am wrong, discuss them without detailing any material from the video.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:01 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4898
Location: Florida
Thanks: 177
Thanked: 344 times in 294 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century
Frank 013 wrote:
Quote:
Stahrwe
What would you say if I told you I was blind?
How do the blind watch the videos?

I begin this with the upmost and sincere apology… to everyone I told I would not post to stahrwe… this needs to be addressed.

Stahrwe… if you are blind why not say so from the beginning? Why imply… no, actually outright say you will not watch the videos and let us think you are capable of the feat… when you actually are not… and besides you can still listen to them can’t you?

Your comments were leading and if you are blind dishonest... and if your not this is just a sick attempt at attention.

That is what I would say if you were blind.

Bye, bye now…


Why would it be any of your business?


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:03 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4898
Location: Florida
Thanks: 177
Thanked: 344 times in 294 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century
I am not going to bother reviewing the recent posts for the reference to Marcion. I have already posted regarding him. His writings were not the original documents for the epistles of Paul. Instead Marcion took Paul's Epistles and edited them to suit his purpose. His plagurism was a major reason that the Church initiated a committee to canonize the NT.

REview my previous posts on this discussion for the references and full explanation.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:07 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Intern


Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 167
Thanks: 224
Thanked: 91 times in 63 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century
Hey, Frank, concerning OUR discussion that the two of us have been having, here's the actual quote from Josephus, you know, the SOURCE I already explicitly stated by name in my previous post so that bystanders reading my post would know the SOURCE I was referring to and thus not have to ask what my SOURCE is. This quote can be found in his autobiography, which I will link to at the bottom.
"I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered."

Sure enough, Josephus himself, you know, the SOURCE I cited in my previous post, didn't give their names in this passage, hence I could also not give any names in that post.

But as I said, Josephus is the same source apologists try to cite for authenticating Jesus Christ, revealing the reliability they place upon him.

Anyway, here is the passage at Google books-
http://books.google.com/books?id=0QsR8p ... 22&f=false

So there you go, Frank, just in case you were interested in getting a hold of the actual quote, Frank. So, good night, Frank. I guess we'll continue our discussion tomorrow, Frank.



The following user would like to thank Vishnu for this post:
Frank 013
Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:31 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Reading Addict


Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1367
Location: Florida
Thanks: 581
Thanked: 549 times in 411 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century
The Ben Stada thing is interesting enough. If It could be proven then that's so much worse for the believer position than the purely mythical Jesus theory. But either way the believer position is a complete fraud which ever way it goes. At least now I sit back and laugh at the whole thing. They had me duped. The Christ Conspiracy is just that. I'm just glad that I've at least caught on to it. And rather know the cold hard facts than otherwise. It sucks for a lot of people but it is what it is. The world is a very deceptive place and our religions are certainly not excluded in any way from that, they're rather the very forefront of it...

This is pretty sad especially for all of the sick, lame, BLIND, deaf, dumb, etc. It's a sick and twisted lie to have dangled over these poor peoples heads for all these years. But at least if you die and that's it for consciousness, the end, then these poor people never get around realizing that they were duped by the myth the entire time. I've been around a lot of disabled people who cling to the Jesus myth for obvious reasons. But my disabled step daughter who will never walk in this life time, however, has not been raised to believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, or the bible as literal truths. I simply spoil her with lots of love and tell her the truth - death is a mystery that no one knows with absolute certainty. So is the mystery of causation. Those who claim to know absolutely are lying dangerous people who need to be kept at arms length. And she understands that. She chooses not to go to church because she doen't really like it or the people there for that matter. I love that little girl a lot and I'm proud of how smart she is. She can't walk or use the bathroom by herself, but her mind is sharp and brilliant for a kid. It would be wrong to give her false ideas about Jesus and some magical heaven knowing what I know about this dark myth that masqurades around as a great light to the world...


_________________
YEC theory put to rest!!!

https://www.ex-christian.net/


Last edited by tat tvam asi on Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.



The following user would like to thank tat tvam asi for this post:
Frank 013
Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:15 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Likes the book better than the movie

Gold Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 826
Location: Germany
Thanks: 201
Thanked: 179 times in 139 posts
Gender: Female
Country: Germany (de)

Post Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century
Frank, Vishnu, Thou, Robert, Interbane,

Re: blindness: do you guys remember this quote--
" As BT participants we tend to think in terms or poetry, prose, etc. but there might also be some visual art and musical talent out there. I think Lady of Shallot's husband has some leanings in that direction. I think it would be fascinating to see a artisitc interpretation of a variation on the song." Stahrwe, Contests.

We once again have a typical "turn the words around in my mouth" situation used by trolls. I'm amused.


_________________
Gods and spirits are parasitic--Pascal Boyer

Religion is the only force in the world that lets a person have his prejudice or hatred and feel good about it --S C Hitchcock

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. --André Gide

Reading is a majority skill but a minority art. --Julian Barnes


The following user would like to thank oblivion for this post:
tat tvam asi
Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:38 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5880
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2335
Thanked: 2256 times in 1705 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century
What astounds me is that our blind friend can clog up a thread with thousands of words without even hinting that his disability may have prevented him from engaging in and understanding the material that the thread was discussing. Here was us just thinking he was mentally blinkered. Sympathy for the disabled aside, it is quite rude and arrogant, as Vishnu pointed out, to heap abuse on a conversation that you cannot understand. The polite thing to do would be to excuse oneself from a discussion of videos if you are unable to watch them.



Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:48 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5880
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2335
Thanked: 2256 times in 1705 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century
A recent issue of the New York Review of Books has a fine article about how popular memory, in this case the Tea Party memory of the American Revolution, can be oblivious to critical historical accounts of the events that have been enshrined in myth and legend. As I read this article it reminded me of this discussion, of how popular Christianity is indifferent to historical analysis because the myth of Christ has such powerful emotional hold. The book under review is The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party’s Revolution and the Battle Over American History by Jill Lepore. Christian faith is a form of popular memory, where the emotional instinct of a story that resonates with cultural need completely overrides any objective and dispassionate account. Maybe that is what religion is. Because faith is so politically and emotionally powerful, its origins remain a big exception to the critical spirit, with even the critics struggling to engage with the level of fraud and fiction that seems to be involved in the actual story of Christian origins. As one historian quoted below ruefully accepted, perhaps heritage is more important than history.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... es/?page=2
No Thanks for the Memories
Quote:
...[p2] The Tea Partiers are certainly not scholars, but their emotional instincts about the Revolution they are trying to remember on behalf of their cause may be more accurate than Lepore is willing to grant. Popular memory is not history, and that important distinction seems to be the source of the problem with Lepore’s book. Although she has spent much of her career mulling over the difference between critical history and popular memory, she doesn’t have any sympathy for the way in which some advocates of the Tea Party movement have remembered the Revolution.

As Lepore knows very well, there has always been a tension between critical history and popular memory, between what historians write and what society chooses to remember. But that tension has become much more conspicuous in recent years. Lepore herself dates the change from 1970, which “marked the end of an era in the writing of American history.” That was the year Richard Hofstadter died, and he was “one of the last university professors of American history to reach readers outside the academy with sweeping interpretations both of the past and of his own time.” Lepore suggests that since Hofstadter’s death academic historians have more or less abdicated their responsibility to write serious history that is relevant to the present:

Historians mocked the Bicentennial as schlock and its protests as contrived but didn’t offer an answer, a story, to a country that needed one. That left plenty of room for a lot of other people to get into the history business. That includes the Tea Party movement.

If only it were this simple. If only academic historians would write for the general public and relate their history to the present, Lepore suggests, the kind of “antihistory” the Tea Party has constructed about the Revolution and the Founding would never be created. But the separation between critical history-writing and memory goes back before 1970, back to the beginning of professional history-writing at the end of the nineteenth century. From the outset scientific-minded historians have tried to transform memory, to eliminate its falsehoods and anachronisms, to reconstruct the past and recapture it as accurately as possible. Critical historians want the public to know that George Washington did not cut down his father’s cherry tree, that Benjamin Franklin in his own lifetime was not the Founding Father of free enterprise, that Sojourner Truth did not utter the famous words “A’n’t I a woman?,” that Thomas Jefferson was not really very original in writing the Declaration of Independence.

These were myths that people came to believe, and presumably it is the responsibility of critical historians to destroy these myths and to establish the truth of the past as much as possible and prevent the sort of silly history that the Tea Party people have imagined. And Lepore blames her fellow academics for not doing a better job of it.

But it turns out that it is not easy to dispel the power of popular memory. Although many historians of Washington have made sure that no one puts much stock in the cherry tree myth anymore, Mason Weems’s Life of Washington, which created the myth, still remains in print as the most popular biography of the man ever written. The artisans and entrepreneurs in the early Republic who produced the myth of Franklin as the self-made businessman needed a hero, and their image of Franklin as a founder of capitalism has stuck, much to the chagrin of Lepore and other imaginative writers. The historian Nell Painter found that her revisionist and historically accurate portrait of Sojourner Truth was not welcomed by those who remembered the famous ex-slave and abolitionist differently.

Painter came to realize that audiences and readers did not want to hear about her revisions, however historically accurate they were, especially her evidence that Sojourner Truth never uttered the famous remark “A’n’t I a woman?” At the end of her book, Sojourner Truth: A Life, A Symbol (1996), Painter herself concedes that heritage is more important than history. “The symbol of Sojourner Truth,” she says, “is stronger and more essential in our culture than the complicated historic person.” “The symbol we require in our public life still triumphs over scholarship.”

In her very contextual history of the Declaration of Independence, American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence (1997), Pauline Maier criticized all the ways subsequent generations embellished, misused, and refashioned the original historical character of the Declaration. She even criticized Abraham Lincoln’s use of the Declaration to condemn slavery as bad history. “Lincoln’s view of the past,” she wrote, “was a product of political controversy, not research, and his version of what the founders meant was full of wishful suppositions.” Lincoln, in his invocation of Jefferson’s Declaration, was of course creating memory, not history. John Ford and his scriptwriters knew what they were doing when they had the newspaper editor in his movie The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance say, “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

Certainly Lepore is correct in believing that historians have a professional obligation to dispel myths and legends; it is what they are trained to do. In 1969 the distinguished English historian J.H. Plumb wrote a book entitled The Death of the Past. By “the past” Plumb essentially meant memory, what he called the “created ideology”—the “mythical, religious and political interpretations”—with which humans have sought to sanctify their societies, buttress their institutions, and invest their lives and their nations with a sense of destiny. Such memory, such imagined pasts, said Plumb, should never be identified with critical history. “True history,” he wrote, is basically “destructive”: “for by its very nature it dissolves those simple, structural generalizations by which our forefathers interpreted the purpose of life in historical terms.” Its role is to eliminate those simple generalizations and “to cleanse the story of mankind from those deceiving visions of a purposeful past.”

Perhaps not in America, but in other nations some intellectuals have come to believe that historical scholarship over the past generation has more than fulfilled its role of destroying memory, and they have reacted with alarm. In France the power of critical history-writing in eroding memory became serious enough in recent years that historian and editor Pierre Nora was provoked into publishing his seven-volume Lieux de Mémoire—Realms of Memory—much of which has appeared in English translations.

Modern critical history-writing in the Western world, Nora claimed, has broken the “ancient bond of identity” with “memory.” The “conquering force of history,” said Nora, has called “into question something once taken for granted: the close fit between history and memory.” History has now clearly become the enemy of memory. “Memory,” wrote Nora, “is always suspect in the eyes of history, whose true mission is to demolish it, to repress it.” Because critical historians had been so successful in disenchanting the history of France, in reducing its past to a cold and critical contextualism in which no living memory could survive, Nora believed that something had to be done to reverse the process. His project was designed to revive many of those sites that evoke the collective memory of the French people. So he and his collaborators wrote essays on everything they could think of as vital elements of French memory—Joan of Arc, Versailles, the Louvre, the Eiffel Tower, the Arc de Triomphe, Bastille Day, the “Marseillaise,” the Dictionnaire Larousse, the Tour de France, Verdun, and so on.

Nora believed, as does the English historian David Lowenthal in his Possessed by the Past: The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History (1996), that this kind of collective memory is essential for any society. Memory, or what Lowenthal calls “heritage,” may be, like the Tea Party’s use of the Founding, a worthless sham, its credos fallacious, even perverse; but, wrote Lowenthal, “heritage, no less than history, is essential to knowing and acting.” It fosters community, identity, and continuity, and in the end makes possible history itself. “By means of it we tell ourselves who we are, where we came from, and to what we belong.”

The eminent American historian Bernard Bailyn agrees. Critical history-writing is all head and no heart. Scientific history-writing, Bailyn writes, is always skeptical and problematic; it questions itself constantly and keeps its distance from the past it is trying to recover. By contrast, "memory’s relation to the past is an embrace. It is not a critical, skeptical reconstruction of what happened. It is the spontaneous, unquestioned experience of the past. It is absolute, not tentative or distant, and it is expressed in signs and signals, symbols, images, and mnemonic clues of all sorts. It shapes our awareness whether we know it or not, and it is ultimately emotional, not intellectual."

Bailyn made these remarks about history and memory at the conclusion of a 1998 conference on the Atlantic slave trade that had threatened to break apart, as many black scholars and others present emotionally reacted to the presentation of the cold and statistically grounded scholarly papers dealing with the slave trade. With his distinction between history and memory, Bailyn calmed the passions of the conference. He confirmed that the dataset of the Du Bois Institute at Harvard laying out the statistics of the slave trade over three centuries would be “a permanent source for the future enrichment of our critical, contextual understanding” of the Atlantic slave trade. “But the memory of the slave trade,” he said, "is not distant; it cannot be reduced to an alien context; and it is not a critical, rational reconstruction. It is for us, in this society, a living and immediate, if vicarious, experience. It is buried in our consciousness and shapes our view of the world. Its sites, its symbols, its clues lie all about us."

The accounts of the Middle Passage in textbooks read by every child, as well as in Alex Haley’s Roots and Steven Spielberg’s Amistad, are all more memory than history; they evoke emotions, not dispassionate analysis. This sort of emotion-laden memory, said Bailyn, “is inescapable for all of us, white or black, and we cannot distance ourselves from it by the rational, critical reconstruction of the past.” Bailyn concluded his remarks not by decrying the power of memory to distort history, as Lepore has done, but by suggesting that “perhaps history and memory…may act usefully upon each other.” While memory may be shaped and informed by critical history, history “may be kept alive, made vivid and constantly relevant and urgent by the living memory we have of it.” Memory is as important to our society as the history written by academics.



Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:34 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4898
Location: Florida
Thanks: 177
Thanked: 344 times in 294 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century
The Tea Party is not intended to be a historical reenactment group and therefore criticisms of such a concept are irrelevant. The reason the Tea Party chose The Tea Party is that the historical event demonstated opposition to taxation without representation and when children are born in the US owing $14,000+ to the Government, they are being subjected to a tax liability they had no say in.

Of course you are not interested in the Tea Party other than to get a dig in, your primary interest is in continuing attacks on Christianity via the old saw about the fallability of memory. You cite an article, I cite a books:

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Bauckman, Richard, Eerdmans, 2006:

Chapters
9 Papias on Mark and Matthew
10 Models of Oral Tradition
11 Transmitting the Jesus Tradition
12 Anonymous Tradition or Eyewitness Testimony
13 Eyewitness Memory
14 The Gospel of John as Eyewitness Testimony

Notice that the term testimony is used frequently


Fabricating Jesus, Evans, Craig, IVP, 2006
Chapter 11, Will the Real Jesus Please Standup?


The Jesus Legend, Eddy, Paul Rhodes, & Gregory A. Boyd, Baker, 2007
Chapter
6 Ancient Literacy and Oral Tradition: Assessing the Early Oral Jesus Tradition
7 Historical Remembrance or Prophetic Imagination? Memory, History, and Eyewitness Testimony in the Early Oral Jesus Tradition

how about discussing these?


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Last edited by stahrwe on Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:51 am, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:49 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4898
Location: Florida
Thanks: 177
Thanked: 344 times in 294 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century
Vishnu wrote:
Hey, Frank, concerning OUR discussion that the two of us have been having, here's the actual quote from Josephus, you know, the SOURCE I already explicitly stated by name in my previous post so that bystanders reading my post would know the SOURCE I was referring to and thus not have to ask what my SOURCE is. This quote can be found in his autobiography, which I will link to at the bottom.
"I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered."

Sure enough, Josephus himself, you know, the SOURCE I cited in my previous post, didn't give their names in this passage, hence I could also not give any names in that post.

But as I said, Josephus is the same source apologists try to cite for authenticating Jesus Christ, revealing the reliability they place upon him.

Anyway, here is the passage at Google books-
http://books.google.com/books?id=0QsR8p ... 22&f=false

So there you go, Frank, just in case you were interested in getting a hold of the actual quote, Frank. So, good night, Frank. I guess we'll continue our discussion tomorrow, Frank.


Once again we have apples and oranges.
The first thing to note is that if all three were crucified at the same time, the fact that only one survived is strong evidence of the effectiveness of crucifixion.

The second thing to note is that it is likely that the many crucified were otherwise healthy prior to being placed on the crosses and had not been scourged before being nailed up. To see the effects of scourging see The Crucifixion of Jesus, Second Edition, Completely Revised and Expanded: A Forensic Inquiry Frederick T. Zugibe.

Dr. Zugibe shows that the scourging alone would have been sufficient to cause death even without Jesus being crucified.

Were the 3 rescued from the crosses in Josephus under guard? Apparently not as they were removed.
Were the 3 scourged prior to being crucified? Doubtful as that takes time and energy and there were many crucified at the same time. Additionally, scourging was considered to be a humane act as the victim often died during the scourging and was saved the agony of the cross.
Were the 3 rescued from the crosses pierced through the side with a Roman spear?

Dr. Zugibe has a section on the swoon theory in his book.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:08 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4898
Location: Florida
Thanks: 177
Thanked: 344 times in 294 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century
In De Carne Christi Tertullian submits proofs against the heresey of the Gnostic docetism of Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus and Alexander. He proves that the body of Christ was a real human body, taken from the virginal body of Mary, but not by way of human procreation.

http://www.tertullian.org/works/de_carne_christi.htm


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:31 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7088
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1084
Thanked: 2088 times in 1674 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century
Stahrwe is blind now? When did this happen? Sounds like a ploy....



Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:19 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Intern


Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 167
Thanks: 224
Thanked: 91 times in 63 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century
Huh? Who's blind now?



Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:02 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 522 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 ... 35  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank