No Alternate Versions of the Jesus Story



 photo sacred-tree_zps54533af1.jpg 
The tree of life from the creation story in Gilgamesh.

There are no alternate version's of the Jesus story. There are minor differences in different telling's but there are no other versions. For at least 200 years after the original events the very same major outline is kept as it was written in stone. Myth always proliferates but when everyone knows a story is true they don't dare change it. The fact that there's only one basic Jesus story tells us that it's probably a true story.

Argument:

1) Mythology tends to proliforate:multiple story versions are common

2) When historical facts are known to a wide audience, people tend not to deny the basic facts of an event.

...a) eye witnesses keep it stairght

...b) People who try to invent new aspects of the event are confronted with the fact that most everyone knows better.

...c) people know the story for a fact and just dont' bother to change it.

3) Story proliforations would probably influence further tellings, thus creating many more documents with different versions of the same story.

4) If a myth proliforates we would tend to find more versions of the same story, when there is only one version we can accept a degree of certainty that the story did not proliforate.
5) We do not find a proliforation of versions of the Jesus story in any sources we know of.
6) The most logical way to account for this single Jesus story is through p2, that everyone knew it was the case, there were too many eye witnesses to spread new versions.
...a) It is illogical to assume that everyone just liked it so they didn't add to it.

...b) There was no canonization process in place in the early period, and the single unified verison existed from the earliest trace of the story.

7)Therefore, we can assume that it is probably the case that the masses were familiar with the story of Jesus because the story reflects events known by all to be factual.

The main thing that myths do is change. Given enough time, a myth will transmography until the names of the heroes are different, how they died is forgotten and retold so many times, there came to be multiple versions of their death. Myths change over time, but history does not. People remember a basic event they know its real, they don't forget it. Herclues has two deaths, in one he's poisaned, in another shot with an arrow. There are about 14 versions of the Tamuz myth. But there is only one way for the guys at the Alamo to die, there is only one death for Arthur, and there is only one way that Jesus Christ is ver portrayed as dying, that's by the cross. Why? Because that's how he really died. No one could deny it, so no one ever propossed another method.

I have made the argument, on message boards, that there are no alternate versions of the basic Gospel story. The point being, there are many versions of most myths. The fact that with tons of "other Gospels" not a one of them before the fourth century gives an alternate account of Jesus life, death, burial and resurrection is a good indication that everyone knew the basic facts, they were public knowledge because they were history; these things happened before the community of Jerusalem, the whole community was a witness and no one could deny it.Now skeptics have responded that certain alternate Gospels deny the resurrection. They name the Apochraphon of James. This is not true. As will be seen from what I quote below James does mention the resurrection. Some of the latter Gnostics denied the theology of the Virginal conception, but they still allude to the story. They denied that Jesus' death was real, but they do not deny that it happened, only that he was not a flesh and blood being and so could not die. What they accept is that the illusion of a flesh and blood man lived on the earth and was taken for a real person why all who saw him.

That is a fundamental mistake of Dohrtey (the champion of the "Christ-myth" theory), he thinks all the action originally was set in a heavily realm, that is not the case. The Gnostics generally accepted that the illusion of a man was seen on earth and seemed to be living among men. So they just spiritualized the history of Jesus.Below I will quote from several "other Gospels" to show that they affirm the deity of Christ, the resurrection, that they include references to many of the stories and periscopes in the canonical Gospels, and that they assume the general outline of the story that we call "fact."

Of course this in and of itself is not "proof" of the Jesus story, but taken together with the other evidence, it makes a compelling case.

Myths have Multiple Versions

Myths Encyclopedia: Myths and Legends of the world.

"Hinduism and Mythology," accessed 10/23/15
"Most myths occur in several different versions, and many characters have multiple roles, identities, and histories. This seeming confusion reflects the richness of a mythology that has expanded and taken on new meanings over the centuries."

Read more: http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Go-Hi/Hinduism-and-Mythology.html#ixzz3pQPJKLPF Or:

Examples and documentation of Multiple versions of myth Mithra

Mithra comes from Persia and is part of Zoroastrian myth, but this cult was transplanted to Rome near the end of the pre-Chrsitian era. Actually the figure of Mithra is very ancient. He began in the Hindu pantheon and is mentioned in the Vedas. He latter spread to Persia where he took the guise of a sheep protecting deity. But his guise as a shepard was rather minor. He is associated with the Sun as well. Yet most of our evidence about his cult (which apparently didn't exist in the Hindu or Persian forms) comes from Post-Pauline times. Mitrha changed over time from Hindu patheon to persian sun god, to mystery cult savior.

(Marvin W. Meyer, ed. The Ancient Mysteries :a Sourcebook. San Francisco: Harper, 1987,, p. 201).

Dionysus

The Greek god Dionysos is said to be the god of wine, actually he began as a fertility god in Phrygian and in Macedonia, Thrace, and other outlying regions. The origin of the cult is probably in Asia. (Charles Seltman, The Twelve Olympians, New York: Thomas Y. Corwell Company, 1960.)
In some stories Dionysos is torn apart by the Titans. IN other stories it is Hera's orders that he be torn apart. (Edith Hamilton, Mythology, Mentor edition, original copywriter 1940, pp. 61-62).
Tamuz Easter: Myth, Hallucination or History by Edwin M. Yamauchi Leadership u. Updated 22 March 1997 (prof. of History at Miami University, Oxford Ohio)

"In the case of the Mesopotamian Tammuz (Sumerian Dumuzi), his alleged resurrection by the goddess Inanna-Ishtar had been assumed even though the end of both the Sumerian and the Akkadian texts of the myth of "The Descent of Inanna (Ishtar)" had not been preserved. Professor S. N. Kramer in 1960 published a new poem, "The Death of Dumuzi," that proves conclusively that instead of rescuing Dumuzi from the Underworld, Inanna sent him there as her substitute (cf. my article, "Tammuz and the Bible," Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXIV [1965], 283-90). A line in a fragmentary and obscure text is the only positive evidence that after being sent to the Underworld Dumuzi may have had his sister take his place for half the year "(cf. S. N. Kramer, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 183 [1966], 31). "Tammuz was identified by later writers with the Phoenician Adonis, the beautiful youth beloved of Aphrodite. According to Jerome, Hadrian desecrated the cave in Bethlehem associated with Jesus' birth by consecrating it with a shrine of Tammuz-Adonis. Although his cult spread from Byblos to the GrecoRoman world, the worship of Adonis was never important and was restricted to women. P. Lambrechts has shown that there is no trace of a resurrection in the early texts or pictorial representations of Adonis; the four texts that speak of his resurrection are quite late, dating from the second to the fourth centuries A.D". ("La 'resurrection' d'Adonis," in Melanges Isidore Levy, 1955, pp. 207-40).
The "Great" Cybele
"Cybele, also known as the Great Mother, was worshiped through much of the Hellenistic world. She undoubtedly began as a goddess of nature. Her early worship included orgiastic ceremonies in which her frenzied male worshipers were led to castrate themselves, following which they became "Galli" or eunuch-priests of the goddess. Cybele eventually came to be viewed as the Mother of all gods and the mistress of all life." (Ronald Nash,"Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?" The Christian Research Journal, Winter 1994, p.8)

In some versions of the myth, Attis's return to life took the form of his being changed into an evergreen tree.(Ibid)

The cult changes over time and the story changes:Lambrechts has also shown that Attis, the consort of Cybele, does not appear as a "resurrected" god until after A.D. 1 50. ( "Les Fetes 'phrygiennes' de Cybele et d' Attis," Bulletin de l'lnstitut Historique Belge de Rome, XXVII 11952], 141-70).

Osiris

The Cult (Osiris) moved to Rome where it was at first rejected, but finally was allowed into the city between 37 and 41. Only after the next two centuries did it become a rival of Christianity. Its eventual popularity came from its elaborate ritual and hope of immortality, although this was a latter development which post dates Christian origins and does not include Osiris. During the Osiris phase the immortality aspects were very minimal. 3) Early phase of cult no savior, in period of clash with Christianity, no Osiris! Thus, during the early part of the cult they had no great savior figure and no salvation aspects to speak of, and in the phase where they competed with Christianity (two or more centuries after the Gospels) they had no dying or rising savior figure. (Ronald Nash, "Was The New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?" the Christian Research Journal, Winter 19994, p 8)

Global phenomena

It seems to be a universal law of mthology that myths transmutate over time. Here is a report about mythology of the Northwestern United States and it's native people. It states that they have multiple versions of the same myths.

DRAFT: CASCADIA MEGATHRUST EARTHQUAKES IN PACIFIC NORTHWEST INDIAN MYTHS AND LEGENDS

by Ruth Ludwin, University of Washington Dept. of Earth and Space Sciences 12/29/99 DRAFT

"Incomplete as the preserved oral history of Cascadia is, many stories are repeated in multiple versions, with some "mixing and matching" of story elements, and some of the stories are geographically wide-spread."

Here are (not all) basic points of agreement between all Jesus sources from before the fourth century.

All The most basic details about these mythological figures changes and froms mutltiple myths. Who they were, what they stood for, their function, how they lived, how they died, even their country of origin all change. A god like Mirthra begins as an unimportant figure in Indian pantheon and winds up the sun God, the God of shepards in Persian and then something else in Rome. All of these mythical figures change over time, but not Jesus. There is basically one Jesus story and it's always the same.

1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.

2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary"

3) Same principle players, Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdeline.

4) That Jesus was knows as a miracles worker.

5) he claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.

6) he was crucified under Pilate.

7) Around the time of the Passover.

8) at noon.

9) rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.

10) several woman with MM discovered the empty tomb.

11) That this was in Jerusalem.

There were hundreds of sources, different books and Gospels and Acts, that never made it into the New Testament. The Jesus story is re-told countrless times from early days (around AD50 first written) to the fourth century, before there was ever a major alternatiion in any of these basic details. Even after that time, no one ever disagreed with these points listed avove.

The most flagrant exception might seem to be the Gnostics who claimed that Jesus was not flesh and blood but illusory so he didn't really die on the cross. Yet, the didn't deny that there was an event where he seemed to die on the cross. Even when their ideology contradicted the history they still could not deny the seeming facts. they just re-interpreted the facts.

Comments

The Pixie said…
Joe: Myth always proliferates but when everyone knows a story is true they don't dare change it.

When they believe it is true, they do not dare change it. But they will add to it. Thus, when you compare Mark to the later gospels, we can see additions like the virgin birth, the various post-resurrection appearances in Jerusalem, guards on the tomb, etc. Going back the other way, we can see a more primitive version in 1 Cor 15, indicating the Empty Tomb was also an addition, but because it was present it Mark, it got preserved in later versions because, as you say, no one would dare to change it.

Joe: 1) Mythology tends to proliforate:multiple story versions are common

A good counter-example would be the theology of Mormonism. We both are sure it is just mythology (just made up even) but there is the one basic story. I would suggest that multiple stories are common until the written narrative is established, and the passion narrative shows how even then embellishments get added.

Joe: ...a) eye witnesses keep it stairght

Probably why the Virgin Birth appeared around AD80, the eye witnesses were all dead by then.

Joe: ...b) People who try to invent new aspects of the event are confronted with the fact that most everyone knows better.

Again, the Virgin Birth would be a great example of a new aspect getting invented when everyone who might know better was dead. The Empty Tomb was invented when no one knew any better - there were no accounts of anyone seeing the tomb was not empty and the narrative neatly explained why stories of an empty tomb were not previously circulating (the women were too frightened to tell anyone).

Joe: ...b) There was no canonization process in place in the early period, and the single unified verison existed from the earliest trace of the story.

Actually there were a lot of different narratives. The Gospel of Peter, for example, is quite different to the canonical gospels. There are some basics the same, but we see each story diverge significantly from that. Each version adds its own embellishments.

Joe: 1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.
2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary"
3) Same principle players, Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdeline.
4) That Jesus was knows as a miracles worker.
5) he claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.
6) he was crucified under Pilate.
7) Around the time of the Passover.
8) at noon.
9) rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.
10) several woman with MM discovered the empty tomb.
11) That this was in Jerusalem.


Some of those seem reasonable, others not so much. The Virgin Birth and Empty Tomb are highly suspect, unknown to Paul, as we have discussed elsewhere. Mark 15:25 suggests Jesus was crucified at about nine am, but I strongly suspect that that was just a guess, like most of the passion account (as the disciples had fled the city). I think it possible Jesus claimed to be the son of God and Messiah, but that meant something quite different to how modern Christians understood the terms; he was the one appointed by God to lead the Jews to triumph, and usher in the new age; he did not claim to be God incarnate or part of the trinity.
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: Myth always proliferates but when everyone knows a story is true they don't dare change it.

When they believe it is true, they do not dare change it. But they will add to it. Thus, when you compare Mark to the later gospels, we can see additions like the virgin birth, the various post-resurrection appearances in Jerusalem, guards on the tomb, etc. Going back the other way, we can see a more primitive version in 1 Cor 15, indicating the Empty Tomb was also an addition, but because it was present it Mark, it got preserved in later versions because, as you say, no one would dare to change it.

that'as just circular reasoning,(beg question). You start with the assumption that those things can't be true because only naturalism can be true, thus they had to be added. Then you accept the facticity of the addition then they become part of the very principle upon which heir acceptance is based.

Joe: 1) Mythology tends to proliforate:multiple story versions are common

A good counter-example would be the theology of Mormonism. We both are sure it is just mythology (just made up even) but there is the one basic story. I would suggest that multiple stories are common until the written narrative is established, and the passion narrative shows how even then embellishments get added.

You are just murdering the word mythology. Mormonism is not just ",akin things up." Farwell to Arms<> is not mythology, I don't know that there is only one story of Mormonism. That's a produce to too much control. If there was only one story there was only one community spreading it. But early Christianity proliferated way too fast to control in that way.

There is another obvious disproof of this argument but I;ll come back to it,


Joe: ...a) eye witnesses keep it stairght

Probably why the Virgin Birth appeared around AD80, the eye witnesses were all dead by then.


classic mistake, armatures, gotta love em,...the first known written example cannot be assumed to be the origin of a doctrine, especially when most scholars assume Christianity emerged from oral tradition. Atheists used to regularly assume that Mark wss the first ever appearance of the empty tomb,


Joe Hinman said…
Joe: ...b) People who try to invent new aspects of the event are confronted with the fact that most everyone knows better.

Again, the Virgin Birth would be a great example of a new aspect getting invented when everyone who might know better was dead.

that same circular reasoning I pointed out above


The Empty Tomb was invented when no one knew any better - there were no accounts of anyone seeing the tomb was not empty and the narrative neatly explained why stories of an empty tomb were not previously circulating (the women were too frightened to tell anyone).

An extension of the same fallacy, the assumption that the first appearance in writing has to be the first appearance ever. We know there was an oral tradition that means we should assume that everything in the Gospels has already been taught as part of the oral tradition,



Joe: ...b) There was no canonization process in place in the early period, and the single unified verison existed from the earliest trace of the story.

Actually there were a lot of different narratives. The Gospel of Peter, for example, is quite different to the canonical gospels. There are some basics the same, but we see each story diverge significantly from that. Each version adds its own embellishments.

GPet was written in second century it uses traditions that early and pre date Mark but it was written much latter a lot of it's contents are accumulation of latter legend,

Joe: 1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.
2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary"
3) Same principle players, Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdeline.
4) That Jesus was knows as a miracles worker.
5) he claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.
6) he was crucified under Pilate.
7) Around the time of the Passover.
8) at noon.
9) rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.
10) several woman with MM discovered the empty tomb.
11) That this was in Jerusalem.

Some of those seem reasonable, others not so much. The Virgin Birth and Empty Tomb are highly suspect, unknown to Paul, as we have discussed elsewhere.


Missing the Point Dude! This is not a list of just things I believe or things that were early it's a LIST OF THINGS THAT ARE NOT EXISTENT IN OTHER VERSIONS WITHIN THE FIRST 200 YEARS. There is no other story where his his mom is named Agnes, there is no other story where he doesn't rise from the dead,


Mark 15:25 suggests Jesus was crucified at about nine am, but I strongly suspect that that was just a guess, like most of the passion account (as the disciples had fled the city).

Just another stupid mistake on your part, Nine when they put him up and 12 when he died,He didn't die instantly,


I think it possible Jesus claimed to be the son of God and Messiah, but that meant something quite different to how modern Christians understood the terms; he was the one appointed by God to lead the Jews to triumph, and usher in the new age; he did not claim to be God incarnate or part of the trinity.

that doesn't change the fact of no other story, that's a theological interpretation,
Anonymous said…
Joe: that'as just circular reasoning,(beg question). You start with the assumption that those things can't be true because only naturalism can be true, thus they had to be added. Then you accept the facticity of the addition then they become part of the very principle upon which heir acceptance is based.

It is based on how the gospel story changed over time. Those things I listed are absent from Mark, but there later. That indicates to me (and anyone not already committed to Christianity) that they were later embellishments. This is looking at the evidence, Joe.

Joe: You are just murdering the word mythology. Mormonism is not just ",akin things up." Farwell to Arms<> is not mythology, I don't know that there is only one story of Mormonism. That's a produce to too much control. If there was only one story there was only one community spreading it. But early Christianity proliferated way too fast to control in that way.

Farewell to Arms is not mythology because it is not a religious or cultural tradition. The Mormon claims, on the other hand, are. And pretty obviously were just made up (I am surprised you would think otherwise).

There is only one Mormon mythology because, as you say, it was well controlled.

That is quite different to Christianity, which headed off in numerous directions, just look at the list of gospels at Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gospels

For all we know that was only the tip of the iceberg. Who can say how many different stories were circulating, whether written down or by word of mouth, that were subsequently lost? Given how little we have of the canonical gospel manuscripts from the second and third century, it is no stretch to think there could be hundreds of works that are now lost to us.

Pix: Probably why the Virgin Birth appeared around AD80, the eye witnesses were all dead by then.

Joe: classic mistake, armatures, gotta love em,...the first known written example cannot be assumed to be the origin of a doctrine, especially when most scholars assume Christianity emerged from oral tradition. Atheists used to regularly assume that Mark wss the first ever appearance of the empty tomb,

Straw man! I was talking about the Virgin Birth, and you start ranting about me thinking Mark invented the Empty Tomb!

Joe: An extension of the same fallacy, the assumption that the first appearance in writing has to be the first appearance ever.

I never said that; I did not mention Mark at all.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: We know there was an oral tradition that means we should assume that everything in the Gospels has already been taught as part of the oral tradition,

Likely it was, but that just pushes the date back a bit. The Virgin Birth almost certainly pre-dates Luke and Matthew, as it appears in both, but post-dates Mark. The gospel writers were first and foremost compilers. They recorded the stories the community had previously invented. How else can we explain the authors of both Matthew and Luke claiming Jesus was both born of a virgin and the son of Joseph? Both these claims were circulating, and so the authors were obliged to record both in their records. As you say, they would not dare change the story, so they had to include the contradiction.

Joe: GPet was written in second century it uses traditions that early and pre date Mark but it was written much latter a lot of it's contents are accumulation of latter legend,

Exactly. Think about what you just said. This is a diverging mythology.

Joe: Missing the Point Dude! This is not a list of just things I believe or things that were early it's a LIST OF THINGS THAT ARE NOT EXISTENT IN OTHER VERSIONS WITHIN THE FIRST 200 YEARS. There is no other story where his his mom is named Agnes, there is no other story where he doesn't rise from the dead,

But Mark gives a story where he was not born of a virgin. Paul gives an account with no Empty Tomb.

They all believed Mary was his mother; she probably was (about a third of Jewish women at the time were called Mary, it was a good bet). But plenty of people did not believe Jesus rose from the dead - all the people of that time who were not Christians!

Do the Christians agree about the nature of the resurrection? Paul has Jesus resurrected in a new, celestial body, whilst the author of John has Jesus in his original body. Mark has Jesus seen in Galilee, the authors of Luke and John have him wandering around Jerusalem. Big differences that you gloss over.

Joe: Just another stupid mistake on your part, Nine when they put him up and 12 when he died,He didn't die instantly,

You put a full stop (period) after "at noon", indicating to me that that referred to the crucifixion.

Joe: that doesn't change the fact of no other story, that's a theological interpretation,

It shows the idea changed. You are claiming the story did not change because Jesus was considered the messiah from the start. That is misleading. The story did change because the understanding of what the messiah is changed. Just as the idea of the nature of the resurrection changed. Yes, these are theological considerations, but they are significant changes in the story.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Joe: that'as just circular reasoning,(beg question). You start with the assumption that those things can't be true because only naturalism can be true, thus they had to be added. Then you accept the facticity of the addition then they become part of the very principle upon which heir acceptance is based.

It is based on how the gospel story changed over time. Those things I listed are absent from Mark, but there later. That indicates to me (and anyone not already committed to Christianity) that they were later embellishments. This is looking at the evidence, Joe.

Here is your list from above of things you claim are added on:


additions like (1)the virgin birth, the (2) various post-resurrection appearances in Jerusalem, (3)guards on the tomb,

Yes there was theological development and the way Christians view these ideas have continued to change that's not a problem, revelation is progressive. But these thigs were part of it in some form from the beginning.

(1) V birth is probably a midrash not an actual prophesy even though it's translated so in matt, but even so there are antecedent ideas in Qumran. It's silly to to thing the gospel writers could have invented something the community had not been ho to all along.

(2)Post res appearance are misleading because Koster and
Crosson disagreed on them,one of them felt they were part of pre mark redaction((think it was Crosson)/ Moreover that is not indicative of another story it's just a detail of the original story, It does not constitute another story.

(3)Guards on tomb. I have demonstrated Brown understands a source for that showing up in GPet that is contrary with or older than Markian redaction,


Joe: You are just murdering the word mythology. Mormonism is not just ",akin things up." Farwell to Arms<> is not mythology, I don't know that there is only one story of Mormonism. That's a produce to too much control. If there was only one story there was only one community spreading it. But early Christianity proliferated way too fast to control in that way.

Farewell to Arms is not mythology because it is not a religious or cultural tradition. The Mormon claims, on the other hand, are. And pretty obviously were just made up (I am surprised you would think otherwise).


I made my answer incoherently.One thing I was trying to get across was that mythology is not just making things up, that's like calling photosynthesis "turning green." I am sure mormonism is made up but it only had one story because they controlled it well, there also another point that he did actually claim, that he found the tablets, in that sense it is true.Of course he did not show them to anyone. But the empty tomb was there for all to see, no body for the Romans to make known,

There is only one Mormon mythology because, as you say, it was well controlled.



That is quite different to Christianity, which headed off in numerous directions, just look at the list of gospels at Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gospels


Yes but that makes the lack of story proliferation all the more significant,

Joe Hinman said…
For all we know that was only the tip of the iceberg. Who can say how many different stories were circulating, whether written down or by word of mouth, that were subsequently lost?


that is begging the question again you can't assert there must have been more stories because it can't be true, you have no evidence for even one alternate story,



Given how little we have of the canonical gospel manuscripts from the second and third century, it is no stretch to think there could be hundreds of works that are now lost to us.


yes we have thousands, its utterly stupid claim, you are only including whole MS not fragments and Uncials and Minuscules and other forms we have thousands,
dAd
from famous scholar Brice Metzger Other the Ehrman is Bart/s Dad.

http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm

"n light of this, the number of ancient writings containing the New Testament is staggering. To date, over 5800 Greek New Testament fragments have been found (Taylor, 2012). Over 10,000 Latin New Testament manuscripts dating from the 2nd to 16th century have been located. The earliest are in fragments that cover a substantial amount of the New Testament. Some manuscripts have also been found in a number of other languages, including Coptic, Syriac, Gothic, and Arabic. Taking all languages together, over 25,000 handwritten copies of the New Testament have been recovered. But there is more. Almost the entire New Testament could be reproduced by quotes from the ancient church fathers. “So extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament” (Metzger & Ehrman, 2005).




Pix: Probably why the Virgin Birth appeared around AD80, the eye witnesses were all dead by then.

Joe: classic mistake, armatures, gotta love em,...the first known written example cannot be assumed to be the origin of a doctrine, especially when most scholars assume Christianity emerged from oral tradition. Atheists used to regularly assume that Mark wss the first ever appearance of the empty tomb,

Straw man! I was talking about the Virgin Birth, and you start ranting about me thinking Mark invented the Empty Tomb!

It's the same principle you see.I was saying atheists used to make the same argument about the empty tomb, that Mark invented it because that's the fist written mention of it,Now you make the same mistake about this,

Joe: An extension of the same fallacy, the assumption that the first appearance in writing has to be the first appearance ever.

I never said that; I did not mention Mark at all.

with the VB you begin dating it at Luke's gospel that's just same trick, different page,
Joe Hinman said…
Joe: We know there was an oral tradition that means we should assume that everything in the Gospels has already been taught as part of the oral tradition,

Likely it was, but that just pushes the date back a bit. The Virgin Birth almost certainly pre-dates Luke and Matthew, as it appears in both, but post-dates Mark.

That doesn't follow why should we assume that Mark mentions all Christian ideas? Moreover, Mark didn't deal with birth narrative. My explanation is he wanted to put the emphasis on Peter taking it away from the brother faction.



The gospel writers were first and foremost compilers. They recorded the stories the community had previously invented. How else can we explain the authors of both Matthew and Luke claiming Jesus was both born of a virgin and the son of Joseph? Both these claims were circulating, and so the authors were obliged to record both in their records. As you say, they would not dare change the story, so they had to include the contradiction.

Joe: GPet was written in second century it uses traditions that early and pre date Mark but it was written much latter a lot of it's contents are accumulation of latter legend,

Exactly. Think about what you just said. This is a diverging mythology.

It doesn't introduce a different story, changing the interpretation adding examples is not creating a whole new story,

Joe: Missing the Point Dude! This is not a list of just things I believe or things that were early it's a LIST OF THINGS THAT ARE NOT EXISTENT IN OTHER VERSIONS WITHIN THE FIRST 200 YEARS. There is no other story where his his mom is named Agnes, there is no other story where he doesn't rise from the dead,

But Mark gives a story where he was not born of a virgin. Paul gives an account with no Empty Tomb.

Nope! you are confusing avoidance with divergence, he doesn't deal with it he doesn't deny it,no passage Mark says Jesus was not born o a Virgin

They all believed Mary was his mother; she probably was (about a third of Jewish women at the time were called Mary, it was a good bet). But plenty of people did not believe Jesus rose from the dead - all the people of that time who were not Christians!

that is not evidence of a different story,there is evidence of people who did not believe in the resurrection but they still acknowledged that such a belief existed,there is no example of any one saying no one bleieved or that something else happened,

Joe Hinman said…
Do the Christians agree about the nature of the resurrection? Paul has Jesus resurrected in a new, celestial body,

that is utter bull shit what he says Roman 1 is tollway clear he says Jesus was a man in flesh and blood he says it Philippians too


whilst the author of John has Jesus in his original body. Mark has Jesus seen in Galilee, the authors of Luke and John have him wandering around Jerusalem. Big differences that you gloss over.

the Jerusalem based group that had people in Bethany who actually saw him are quite clear about it the people who saw him in Galilee are clear about it too, No reason why ]hey could not be in both places in the same night,


Joe: Just another stupid mistake on your part, Nine when they put him up and 12 when he died,He didn't die instantly,

You put a full stop (period) after "at noon", indicating to me that that referred to the crucifixion.

really I'm assuming that it was generally middle of the day people may round it off to noon,I live wiggle room from like 9-1:00. they had no clocks so they thought of noon aw by the sun,

Joe: that doesn't change the fact of no other story, that's a theological interpretation,

It shows the idea changed.

change is not another story, some change is still within parameters

You are claiming the story did not change because Jesus was considered the messiah from the start. That is misleading. The story did change because the understanding of what the messiah is changed. Just as the idea of the nature of the resurrection changed. Yes, these are theological considerations, but they are significant changes in the story.

No that's more bull shit, the Messianic concept of the Gospels was very Jewish, it even includes Athene and death remember Qumran, I:ve already proven that. the Talmud shows he will be unrecognized except by a few rejected by hi people imprisoned and murderer then come back latter,
The Pixie said…
Joe: Yes there was theological development and the way Christians view these ideas have continued to change that's not a problem, revelation is progressive. But these thigs were part of it in some form from the beginning.

It is a problem for your claim "No Alternate Versions of the Jesus Story". Remember what this blog post is about?

Joe: (1) V birth is probably a midrash not an actual prophesy even though it's translated so in matt, but even so there are antecedent ideas in Qumran. It's silly to to thing the gospel writers could have invented something the community had not been ho to all along.

Midrash or not, it is absent from Paul and Mark. What you are giving here is a rationale for the embellishment to be added later - once any eye witnesses were dead.

Joe: (2)Post res appearance are misleading because Koster and
Crosson disagreed on them,one of them felt they were part of pre mark redaction((think it was Crosson)/ Moreover that is not indicative of another story it's just a detail of the original story, It does not constitute another story.


The earliest detailed account that we have is in Mark, and Mark clearly indicates the disciples first saw the resurrected Jesus in Galilee. This stands in stark contrast to Luke and John, which claim the disciples first saw the resurrected Jesus in Jerusalem. Alternate versions of the story.

Joe: (3)Guards on tomb. I have demonstrated Brown understands a source for that showing up in GPet that is contrary with or older than Markian redaction,

And I have shown that Brown believes the guards on the tomb were an apologetic fabrication, and further than the Gospel of Peter account of the guards was later, and was contrived to fill in holes in the Matthew account.

Joe: I made my answer incoherently.One thing I was trying to get across was that mythology is not just making things up, that's like calling photosynthesis "turning green." I am sure mormonism is made up but it only had one story because they controlled it well, there also another point that he did actually claim, that he found the tablets, in that sense it is true.Of course he did not show them to anyone. But the empty tomb was there for all to see, no body for the Romans to make known,

I did not say mythology is just making things up. I gave one specific example, showing that mythology can be made up.

The empty tomb was not there for all to see because it was invented many years after the event. Even five years after the crucifixion all evidence would have disappeared, because the body would have been moved within a year anyway, and the bones put in an ossuary. That is even assuming there was a tomb. More likely, the Romans would have insisted on dishonourable burial for a claimant to the Jewish throne, and the disciples had no idea what happened to the body (as Crossan believes).

Twenty years later, with Mary, Jesus' mother dead (she would be around 65 by then, so a reasonable assumption), there would be no one around to say that actually there was no tomb, there was no missing corpse.

Joe: that is begging the question again you can't assert there must have been more stories because it can't be true, you have no evidence for even one alternate story,

And you have no evidence there were no other stories. The true is that we do not know what stories were circulating. Your entire post is based on the assumption that there that were no other accounts. The question begging is yours.

Furthermore we do have differing accounts. Mark clearly indicates the disciples first saw the resurrected Jesus in Galilee, while Luke and John claim the disciples first saw the resurrected Jesus in Jerusalem.

You present the accounts as identical by focusing on the similarities, using semantic trickery to create an illusion and downplaying the differences.
The Pixie said…
Joe: yes we have thousands, its utterly stupid claim, you are only including whole MS not fragments and Uncials and Minuscules and other forms we have thousands,

According to Wiki we had 38, and another 10 that could be third or fourth century. These vary from what it calls "fragments" to "large fragments".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

Your quote of Metzger is of all manuscripts up to the sixteenth century, not just second and third century. Do you really think the way the gospels were controlled in the sixteenth century gives us a useful insight into what happened in the first century?

Joe: It's the same principle you see.I was saying atheists used to make the same argument about the empty tomb, that Mark invented it because that's the fist written mention of it,Now you make the same mistake about this,

But I am not claiming the authors of Luke and Matthew invented the Virgin Birth! That they both contain it indicates it predates both. But it was still invented after Mark.

Joe: That doesn't follow why should we assume that Mark mentions all Christian ideas? Moreover, Mark didn't deal with birth narrative. My explanation is he wanted to put the emphasis on Peter taking it away from the brother faction.

What possible reason would Mark have for not including the Virgin Birth?

Why does Mark say that Jesus' family thought he was mad? If Jesus was the product of a Virgin Birth, then they would know he was the Messiah, and would not think him mad. It makes much more sense to suppose Mark believed Jesus was adopted as the son of God at his baptism. Mark did not deal with the birth narrative because it was not relevant, there was nothing special about it.

Oh, and let us note that the birth narrative in Luke is quite different to that in Matthew. Two alternate versions, so just mythology, right?

Further, remember that both Luke and Mathew have genealogies with Joseph as Jesus' father, so it is not just Mark that contradicts the Virgin Birth.

Joe: It doesn't introduce a different story, changing the interpretation adding examples is not creating a whole new story,

Right, so the basic story in 1 Corinthians 15 is consistent, they just changed the interpretation (resurrection in the original body, the trinity), and added bits to it (the Empty Tomb, the Virgin Birth).

Joe: Nope! you are confusing avoidance with divergence, he doesn't deal with it he doesn't deny it,no passage Mark says Jesus was not born o a Virgin

But passages in Matthew and Luke do.
The Pixie said…
Joe: that is not evidence of a different story,there is evidence of people who did not believe in the resurrection but they still acknowledged that such a belief existed,there is no example of any one saying no one bleieved or that something else happened,

There were a huge number in Jerusalem at that time who believed Jesus claimed to be messiah, who believed he got arrested, tried by the Romans and crucified, but they did not believe he was resurrected. All the Romans and the vast majority of the Jews. If any of them bothered to write that narrative down, it failed to get preserved so we no longer have it, and so their story is lost to us.

Your argument seems to be that because the narrative of a tiny minority has been preserved then that one must be true.

When you say "that is not evidence of a different story" do you really think that the non-Christian Jews of that time had no story of the death of Jesus? What of the 70 odd members of the Sanhedrin who tried Jesus? What did they believe happened? Are their opinions on the matter worthless because they were not written down as a "story"?

What you are doing is cherry-picking. Of course there are no alternate versions of the story if you carefully filter out any version of the story that does not fit your expectations. The Sanhedrin did not believe Jesus was resurrected, so ignore their version. Paul makes no mention of the Empty Tomb, so ignore his version. Gospel of Peter has a flying cross - just ignore that bit, and consider the bits it has in common.

See it is easy to show all stories the same if you first filter out the ones that do not fit, and then ignore the parts where they are different.
The Pixie said…
Joe: that is utter bull shit what he says Roman 1 is tollway clear he says Jesus was a man in flesh and blood he says it Philippians too

Not sure which bit of Romans 1 you are referring to, but worth noting the verse where Paul says Jesus was appointed:

Romans 1:4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul goes on a some length about there being two different bodies, the natural one we inhabit on Earth and the new one the righteous get in the afterlife.

Joe: the Jerusalem based group that had people in Bethany who actually saw him are quite clear about it the people who saw him in Galilee are clear about it too, No reason why ]hey could not be in both places in the same night,

I do not doubt Christianity's ability to invent a sticking plaster to cover the hole in the narrative. However, what you are suggesting is that Mark, writing some thirty to forty years after the event, had never heard Peter speak of Jesus appearing to the disciples the evening of the first Easter, and so still believed that the disciples did not see Jesus until they went to Galilee.

Joe: change is not another story, some change is still within parameters

If you keep it vague enough, the parameters sufficiently wide, then of course the stories are the same (given you have already filtered out the ones that are not).

Joe: No that's more bull shit, the Messianic concept of the Gospels was very Jewish, it even includes Athene and death remember Qumran, I:ve already proven that. the Talmud shows he will be unrecognized except by a few rejected by hi people imprisoned and murderer then come back latter,

The Jews were waiting for a Messiah to lead them to triumph over their oppressors. The vast majority of OT prophecies are about how God's people will become great again. Never happened with Jesus.
Joe Hinman said…
there is a lot to respond to so please don;t answer until I get all four answered,





Joe: Yes there was theological development and the way Christians view these ideas have continued to change that's not a problem, revelation is progressive. But these things were part of it in some form from the beginning.



It is a problem for your claim "No Alternate Versions of the Jesus Story". Remember what this blog post is about?





This is a definitional issue, I mean a major structural elements. Theological interpretation is never part of the story it's an interpretation of the story



Joe: (1) V birth is probably a midrash not an actual prophesy even though it's translated so in matt, but even so there are antecedent ideas in Qumran. It's silly to to thing the gospel writers could have invented something the community had not been ho to all along.



Midrash or not, it is absent from Paul and Mark. What you are giving here is a rationale for the embellishment to be added later - once any eye witnesses were dead.



was not even an eye witness he's only supporting evidence .he;s not a major source of evidence,



Joe: (2)Post res appearance are misleading because Koster and

Crosson disagreed on them,one of them felt they were part of pre mark redaction((think it was Crosson)/ Moreover that is not indicative of another story it's just a detail of the original story, It does not constitute another story.



The earliest detailed account that we have is in Mark, and Mark clearly indicates the disciples first saw the resurrected Jesus in Galilee. This stands in stark contrast to Luke and John, which claim the disciples first saw the resurrected Jesus in Jerusalem. Alternate versions of the story.



We know Mark is not the origin of the empty tomb. So why assume he's the origin of VB or any other thing just because it's the first written example we have? it may not even be that because you are not even cognizant of non canonical gospels some of them pre date Mark. You are actin like if the method doesn't work just try it again with a different example





Joe Hinman said…
Joe: (3)Guards on tomb. I have demonstrated Brown understands a source for that showing up in GPet that is contrary with or older than Markian redaction,



And I have shown that Brown believes the guards on the tomb were an apologetic fabrication, and further than the Gospel of Peter account of the guards was later, and was contrived to fill in holes in the Matthew account.

Hell no you did not prove that! most emphatically NOT! I already answers your assertion about Gpet that makes me think you didn't read Brown,you don't get the distinction between a latter work and a latter work that contains older readings,if you don't get that you don't get Brown you might as well not read him,

The empty tomb was not there for all to see because it was invented many years after the event. Even five years after the crucifixion all evidence would have disappeared, because the body would have been moved within a year anyway, and the bones put in an ossuary. That is even assuming there was a tomb. More likely, the Romans would have insisted on dishonourable burial for a claimant to the Jewish throne, and the disciples had no idea what happened to the body (as Crossan believes).

(1)story of empty tomb pre dates mark by 20 years then some that is a link to my essay,

(2) Evidence disappearing a year latter is not a problem the empty tomb was there oeplew saw it they knew it was real that's why no one ever argues there was no tomb, a lot of people can see an obvious public fact in a year.

(3) atheists used to argue this kind of thing all the time, They don't any more because we killed it,see my essay refuting no tomb theory
on that link Brown argues tomb existed,

(4)have guards will argue


Joe Hinman said…
Twenty years later, with Mary, Jesus' mother dead (she would be around 65 by then, so a reasonable assumption), there would be no one around to say that actually there was no tomb, there was no missing corpse.

which assumes some knowing cadre of conspirators know but are shrewd enough to know that and also assumes people in an establish Catullus will accept a radical change to the myths with practically no authoritative support,you already agreed to this principle above

Let's not forget the point if it was mythological it would have proliferated into more than one story,




Joe: that is begging the question again you can't assert there must have been more stories because it can't be true, you have no evidence for even one alternate story,



And you have no evidence there were no other stories.


Of course I do, the fact that there are none is good reason to thin there never were any,


The true is that we do not know what stories were circulating. Your entire post is based on the assumption that there that were no other accounts. The question begging is yours.

that is not evidence, you are only saying let's hope I'm right you have no proof of your point,how far would you get in court "your honor we have no evidence anyone else could have committed the crime my client is cussed of committing, but it could have been and there is no evidence there wasn't therefore there must have been,

Furthermore we do have differing accounts. Mark clearly indicates the disciples first saw the resurrected Jesus in Galilee, while Luke and John claim the disciples first saw the resurrected Jesus in Jerusalem.

not a different account it's a minor detail.


You present the accounts as identical by focusing on the similarities, using semantic trickery to create an illusion and downplaying the differences.

we know that narratives have elements that make a story the story what it is, plot, charters, location, setting and so on. There are trivial differences and major ones. you want to use any triviel difference to establish a new story you act like you can't tell the difference,



12/05/2018 01:25:00 AM







Joe: (3)Guards on tomb. I have demonstrated Brown understands a source for that showing up in GPet that is contrary with or older than Markian redaction,


And I have shown that Brown believes the guards on the tomb were an apologetic fabrication, and further than the Gospel of Peter account of the guards was later, and was contrived to fill in holes in the Matthew account.



Joe: I made my answer incoherently.One thing I was trying to get across was that mythology is not just making things up, that's like calling photosynthesis "turning green." I am sure mormonism is made up but it only had one story because they controlled it well, there also another point that he did actually claim, that he found the tablets, in that sense it is true.Of course he did not show them to anyone. But the empty tomb was there for all to see, no body for the Romans to make known,



0
Joe Hinman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: yes we have thousands, its utterly stupid claim, you are only including whole MS not fragments and Uncials and Minuscules and other forms we have thousands,

According to Wiki we had 38, and another 10 that could be third or fourth century. These vary from what it calls "fragments" to "large fragments".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

there are different types of copies.There are copying copies and there are copies read in church and used for private reading there are fragments and so on. your quote is only about complete MS not all versions, if we include the copies used for church and so on have thousands, it is also documented the entire NT can be reproduced reading in the apostolic feathers,




Your quote of Metzger is of all manuscripts up to the sixteenth century, not just second and third century. Do you really think the way the gospels were controlled in the sixteenth century gives us a useful insight into what happened in the first century?

yes. the science of textual criticism says the more copies you have the more certain your knowledge of the original. we can trace variations back to their source we can reconstruct the original. more Ms is more data,

controlled copies in the middle ages still had to be copped from something,


Joe: It's the same principle you see.I was saying atheists used to make the same argument about the empty tomb, that Mark invented it because that's the fist written mention of it,Now you make the same mistake about this,

But I am not claiming the authors of Luke and Matthew invented the Virgin Birth! That they both contain it indicates it predates both. But it was still invented after Mark.

still the fallacious assertion that if they had it Mark had to mention it,he did not,I told why he wouldn't. You didn't answer my argument you are trying to repeat your initial idea that I refitted,

Joe: That doesn't follow why should we assume that Mark mentions all Christian ideas? Moreover, Mark didn't deal with birth narrative. My explanation is he wanted to put the emphasis on Peter taking it away from the brother faction.

What possible reason would Mark have for not including the Virgin Birth?

I'VE TOLD YOU THAT TWICE ALREADY OPEN YOUR EYES THIS TIME==BECAUISE OF THE SCHISM OVER THE AUTHORITY OF jESUS;S BROTHER

Joe Hinman said…
Why does Mark say that Jesus' family thought he was mad? If Jesus was the product of a Virgin Birth, then they would know he was the Messiah, and would not think him mad. It makes much more sense to suppose Mark believed Jesus was adopted as the son of God at his baptism. Mark did not deal with the birth narrative because it was not relevant, there was nothing special about it.


If the story was just made up he would never admit Jesus' family didn't accept his Messiah ship,something like that just have happen,it would be absurdly stupid of Mark to make that up to illiterate some nonessential point that ludicrous,But if something like that happened Mark might include it to counter the James faction or to answer some other issue,

Oh, and let us note that the birth narrative in Luke is quite different to that in Matthew. Two alternate versions, so just mythology, right?

they are not different stories, they don't contradict it,they are different minor details but they go to gather you can believe in both they don't exclude each other,I've already said I allow for details changes that is not a new story

Further, remember that both Luke and Mathew have genealogies with Joseph as Jesus' father, so it is not just Mark that contradicts the Virgin Birth.

one is Mary one is Joseph

Joe: It doesn't introduce a different story, changing the interpretation adding examples is not creating a whole new story,

Right, so the basic story in 1 Corinthians 15 is consistent, they just changed the interpretation (resurrection in the original body, the trinity), and added bits to it (the Empty Tomb, the Virgin Birth).

Paul believed in body res Doherty is an idiot, stop listening to third rate people

Joe: Nope! you are confusing avoidance with divergence, he doesn't deal with it he doesn't deny it,no passage Mark says Jesus was not born o a Virgin

But passages in Matthew and Luke do.

are you nuts? that is stupid==showme the passage that says not born of virgin,show me
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: that is not evidence of a different story,there is evidence of people who did not believe in the resurrection but they still acknowledged that such a belief existed,there is no example of any one saying no one bleieved or that something else happened,

There were a huge number in Jerusalem at that time who believed Jesus claimed to be messiah, who believed he got arrested, tried by the Romans and crucified, but they did not believe he was resurrected. All the Romans and the vast majority of the Jews. If any of them bothered to write that narrative down, it failed to get preserved so we no longer have it, and so their story is lost to us.\

belief in the truth content does not affect the nature of then narrative have you lost your senses? you are argining like a child,try thinking logically.

Your argument seems to be that because the narrative of a tiny minority has been preserved then that one must be true.

Let's remember the claim now,myth proliferates and becomes different stories. a historical narrative does not change when people knows established fact. True that the majority did not start out believing Jesus really rose but they did start out knowing his followers claimed he did, they didn't have a version where he was stabbed or hung by the nek certain basic structures of the story that never alter even though there are differences in detail

When you say "that is not evidence of a different story" do you really think that the non-Christian Jews of that time had no story of the death of Jesus?

they knew the story that's how Josephs was able to record it,what he recorded fits the basic outline.

What of the 70 odd members of the Sanhedrin who tried Jesus? What did they believe happened? Are their opinions on the matter worthless because they were not written down as a "story"?

we don't know their opinions because they did not record them. But I bet they thought something different three days latter than they did that first night. Jerusalem went bonkers for Christian belief in that first year, they didn't stay a tiny minority they grew by leaps and bounds,

What you are doing is cherry-picking. Of course there are no alternate versions of the story if you carefully filter out any version of the story that does not fit your expectations.

you want to violate the principle of the argent by counting any differences however minor as a different story because you can't answer the partner there is only one story you are just beginning to realize what that means.

you are pruipoelsy trying to blur distinction between major and minor elements to make any differences significant,


The Sanhedrin did not believe Jesus was resurrected, so ignore their version.

we don't know their version,but I bet they didn't dispute that he existed as a man or that he was crucified

Paul makes no mention of the Empty Tomb, so ignore his version. Gospel of Peter has a flying cross - just ignore that bit, and consider the bits it has in common.

I've explained that you have no answer you have not dealt with my argumemt,

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: that is utter bull shit what he says Roman 1 is tollway clear he says Jesus was a man in flesh and blood he says it Philippians too

Not sure which bit of Romans 1 you are referring to, but worth noting the verse where Paul says Jesus was appointed:

Romans 1:4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul goes on a some length about there being two different bodies, the natural one we inhabit on Earth and the new one the righteous get in the afterlife.

that does not change the Jesus narrative,first you are totally wrong about it secondly it just interpretation not a difference in structure,the narrative

Joe: the Jerusalem based group that had people in Bethany who actually saw him are quite clear about it the people who saw him in Galilee are clear about it too, No reason why ]hey could not be in both places in the same night,

I do not doubt Christianity's ability to invent a sticking plaster to cover the hole in the narrative. However, what you are suggesting is that Mark, writing some thirty to forty years after the event, had never heard Peter speak of Jesus appearing to the disciples the evening of the first Easter, and so still believed that the disciples did not see Jesus until they went to Galilee.

yes actually he did Pspias says he was Peter's interpreter in Rome. why else name the gospel after some unknwon guy?

Joe: change is not another story, some change is still within parameters

If you keep it vague enough, the parameters sufficiently wide, then of course the stories are the same (given you have already filtered out the ones that are not).


what is veg about the 11 elements that spell out the narrate I pit in the OP?



Joe: No that's more bull shit, the Messianic concept of the Gospels was very Jewish, it even includes Athene and death remember Qumran, I:ve already proven that. the Talmud shows he will be unrecognized except by a few rejected by hi people imprisoned and murderer then come back latter,

The Jews were waiting for a Messiah to lead them to triumph over their oppressors. The vast majority of OT prophecies are about how God's people will become great again. Never happened with Jesus.


that is short hand C of E Sunday school version of their the truth is they had a much more complex vision. the Jewishness of the Gospels is the big story from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Anonymous said…
Joe: This is a definitional issue, I mean a major structural elements. Theological interpretation is never part of the story it's an interpretation of the story

Not necessarily. If each account proclaims Jesus as the Messiah, but Paul sees Jesus as a man appointed by God, the harbinger of the imminent kingdom of God coming to earth, that is very different to John claiming Jesus is the messiah, the "biological" son of God. It is the same word, but understood very differently, and so indicating very different narratives.

Joe: We know Mark is not the origin of the empty tomb. So why assume he's the origin of VB or any other thing just because it's the first written example we have? it may not even be that because you are not even cognizant of non canonical gospels some of them pre date Mark. You are actin like if the method doesn't work just try it again with a different example

I never said Mark was the origin of the Empty Tomb, and he certainly was not the oroigin of the virgin Birth, given that was invented later.

Joe: Hell no you did not prove that! most emphatically NOT! I already answers your assertion about Gpet that makes me think you didn't read Brown,you don't get the distinction between a latter work and a latter work that contains older readings,if you don't get that you don't get Brown you might as well not read him,

Here are Brown's own words:

Yet there is a major argument against historicity that is impressive indeed. Not only do the other Gospels not mention the guard at the sepulcher, but the presence of the guard there would make what they narrate about the tomb almost unintelligible. The three other Gospels have women come to the tomb on Easter, and the only obstacle to their entrance that is mentioned is the stone. ... There are other internal implausibilities in Matt's account (e.g., that the Jewish authorities knew the words of Jesus about the resurrection and understood them, when his own disciples did not; that the guards could lie successfully about the astounding heavenly intervention); ....
- Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah vol 2, p1311-12

If you have the book, you can read it for yourself. This is from the conclusion of a lengthy section on the guards, and he is quite clear. I have pointed this out before and quoted this text before.

Frankly, this illustrates how your faith has blinded you to evidence that contradicts your position.

Joe: (1)story of empty tomb pre dates mark by 20 years then some that is a link to my essay,

I was a assuming adate of around 50 AD, which fits that just fine.

Joe: (2) Evidence disappearing a year latter is not a problem the empty tomb was there oeplew saw it they knew it was real that's why no one ever argues there was no tomb, a lot of people can see an obvious public fact in a year.

Who saw the empty tomb? The oldest account we have (excluding Paul's that omits it altogether) claims only the two women saw the Empty Tomb, and further more that they never told anyone about it!

You are basing your argument on witnesses notably absent from the older account. Kind of like they were made up later.

Joe: which assumes some knowing cadre of conspirators know but are shrewd enough to know that and also assumes people in an establish Catullus will accept a radical change to the myths with practically no authoritative support,you already agreed to this principle above

Is that how myths develop? A knowing cadre of conspirators deliberately setting out to add their own embellishments to the story?

I doubt that. This would have been a vague rumour that possibly predated Mark, but only gained traction once the witnesses were gone. And people believed it because they wanted it to be true.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: Of course I do, the fact that there are none is good reason to thin there never were any,

The point is that we do not know. Your claim is based on the assumption that there were no other stories. Absnce of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Joe: that is not evidence, you are only saying let's hope I'm right you have no proof of your point,how far would you get in court "your honor we have no evidence anyone else could have committed the crime my client is cussed of committing, but it could have been and there is no evidence there wasn't therefore there must have been,

The point is we do not know either way. Remember you are the one stood in court trying to make your case. How far would you get in court with "Your honour, while I admit there is no evidence that the accused perpetrated this crime, I would like to point out that they is no evidence he did not commit the crime. Therefore I am confident we can assume he is guilty."

Joe: not a different account it's a minor detail.

Sure, like the virgin Birth and the Empty Tomb. If you just pretend any difference is a "minor difference", then your thesis is safe.

Joe: there are different types of copies.There are copying copies and there are copies read in church and used for private reading there are fragments and so on. your quote is only about complete MS not all versions, if we include the copies used for church and so on have thousands, it is also documented the entire NT can be reproduced reading in the apostolic feathers,

It was not about complete manuscripts, it was about fragments. There are a couple of dozen fragments from the second and third century.

If we include the ones the church chose to preserver, then we are filtering out any that disagree with church teachings. And then, wow the shock, all the copies we have agree with church teachings.

Joe: yes. the science of textual criticism says the more copies you have the more certain your knowledge of the original. we can trace variations back to their source we can reconstruct the original. more Ms is more data,

Data in support of what exactly?

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: I'VE TOLD YOU THAT TWICE ALREADY OPEN YOUR EYES THIS TIME==BECAUISE OF THE SCHISM OVER THE AUTHORITY OF jESUS;S BROTHER

James dies in 62 AD. Do you really think Mark would omit the Virgin Birth years later because it might enhance the reputation of a dead man?

Joe: If the story was just made up he would never admit Jesus' family didn't accept his Messiah ship,something like that just have happen,it would be absurdly stupid of Mark to make that up to illiterate some nonessential point that ludicrous,But if something like that happened Mark might include it to counter the James faction or to answer some other issue,

Given the light it puts Jesus in, seems pretty likely his family really did think he was mad.

I guess they were just really, really stupid not to realise Jesus was special after the Virgin Birth, right? I mean sure Mary was pure and all that, but clearly stupid as can be (look at her exchange with the angel before the birth!). James too, clearly lacking in the brains department. Probably could not put his sandals on himself.

Joe: they are not different stories, they don't contradict it,they are different minor details but they go to gather you can believe in both they don't exclude each other,I've already said I allow for details changes that is not a new story

Of course the are different stories! Minor details like Herod killing all the babies, like the census, like the inn, like the wise men, and in fact all the elements of the story, besides the actual birth, can be found in one story or the other, but not both.

Joe: one is Mary one is Joseph

Sure if we pretend really hard.

But if we use what the text actually says, both say Joseph was the father.

Joe: Paul believed in body res Doherty is an idiot, stop listening to third rate people

I am going by the text in 1 Cor 15, written by Paul. A physical body, maybe, but a new body, not the original one.


Joe: are you nuts? that is stupid==showme the passage that says not born of virgin,show me

Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: belief in the truth content does not affect the nature of then narrative have you lost your senses? you are argining like a child,try thinking logically.



Joe: Let's remember the claim now,myth proliferates and becomes different stories. a historical narrative does not change when people knows established fact. True that the majority did not start out believing Jesus really rose but they did start out knowing his followers claimed he did, they didn't have a version where he was stabbed or hung by the nek certain basic structures of the story that never alter even though there are differences in detail

I am not arguing that he was not crucified. The significance of the discussion is whether he was resurrected. Was the tomb empty? Who witnessed it was empty? Where was Jesus seen? What form did Jesus take?

Joe: they knew the story that's how Josephs was able to record it,what he recorded fits the basic outline.

What of the passion narrative do you think Josephus recorded (as oppposed to later Christians)? Do you think Josephus believed Jesus was the Messiah, as the passages would have us think?

Joe: we don't know their opinions because they did not record them. But I bet they thought something different three days latter than they did that first night. Jerusalem went bonkers for Christian belief in that first year, they didn't stay a tiny minority they grew by leaps and bounds,

What proportion of the Jews in Jerusalem became Christian within a year? The Bible talks of mass conversions, but Acts still makes it seem like a tiny minority of the population. The majority of the city believed that Jesus had died, and stayed dead.

Joe: you want to violate the principle of the argent by counting any differences however minor as a different story because you can't answer the partner there is only one story you are just beginning to realize what that means.
you are pruipoelsy trying to blur distinction between major and minor elements to make any differences significant,


Maybe you are right. Please give a clear definition so there can be no blurring of the boundary.

Joe: we don't know their version,but I bet they didn't dispute that he existed as a man or that he was crucified

Nor do I Joe, nor do I.

Joe: that does not change the Jesus narrative,first you are totally wrong about it secondly it just interpretation not a difference in structure,the narrative

I will reserve judgment until you have clearly defined major and minor differences.

Joe: yes actually he did Pspias says he was Peter's interpreter in Rome. why else name the gospel after some unknwon guy?

Oh yes... So kind of odd that Mark chose to omit Peter witnessing the Empty Tomb... Unless it never happened, of course.

Joe: what is veg about the 11 elements that spell out the narrate I pit in the OP?

How about "rose from the dead"? That is by far the most contentious claim, and is vague in the extreme.

Joe: that is short hand C of E Sunday school version of their the truth is they had a much more complex vision. the Jewishness of the Gospels is the big story from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Are you saying they were NOT expecting to once more become the dominant nation when the Messiah arrived?

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
Joe: This is a definitional issue, I mean a major structural elements. Theological interpretation is never part of the story it's an interpretation of the story

Not necessarily. If each account proclaims Jesus as the Messiah, but Paul sees Jesus as a man appointed by God, the harbinger of the imminent kingdom of God coming to earth, that is very different to John claiming Jesus is the messiah, the "biological" son of God. It is the same word, but understood very differently, and so indicating very different narratives.

no one ever claimed he was the biological son of God God has no biology. There i no real difference in Paul's version and Johns.

Joe: We know Mark is not the origin of the empty tomb. So why assume he's the origin of VB or any other thing just because it's the first written example we have? it may not even be that because you are not even cognizant of non canonical gospels some of them pre date Mark. You are acting like if the method doesn't work just try it again with a different example

I never said Mark was the origin of the Empty Tomb, and he certainly was not the oroigin of the virgin Birth, given that was invented later.

empirically wrong, it was at Qumran pre dating christian era,

Joe: Hell no you did not prove that! most emphatically NOT! I already answers your assertion about Gpet that makes me think you didn't read Brown,you don't get the distinction between a latter work and a latter work that contains older readings,if you don't get that you don't get Brown you might as well not read him,

Here are Brown's own words:

Yet there is a major argument against historicity that is impressive indeed. Not only do the other Gospels not mention the guard at the sepulcher, but the presence of the guard there would make what they narrate about the tomb almost unintelligible. The three other Gospels have women come to the tomb on Easter, and the only obstacle to their entrance that is mentioned is the stone. ... There are other internal implausibilities in Matt's account (e.g., that the Jewish authorities knew the words of Jesus about the resurrection and understood them, when his own disciples did not; that the guards could lie successfully about the astounding heavenly intervention); ....
- Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah vol 2, p1311-12


He does not say that is is view he says it's impressive he sets it up to knock it down he goes on to show the independent tradition of the guards in Gpet

If you have the book, you can read it for yourself. This is from the conclusion of a lengthy section on the guards, and he is quite clear. I have pointed this out before and quoted this text before.
don't don't you read it?,

I don't have access to my books now, U covered this in my essay you are not reading it


Frankly, this illustrates how your faith has blinded you to evidence that contradicts your position.

you area sloppy reader, your ignorance of theology en albs you to accept half anaswers and not push ontoseeifyougotthepoint, what youaresayingmakei]his whyolepoit about theindepdent traditioninGetrealloy stuoid, uf youwere right. youarehot becauseyoudidn;treaditall.


Brown says:
"In this particular instance, in my judgment, what is found in _GPet_ [concerning the tomb-guards] is best explained in terms of the author's knowing the canonical Gospels (perhaps by distant memory of having heard them), especially Matt, as well as an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story, and of his own activity in combining these two sources of material." pages .1305-1310

Joe Hinman said…
note the acknowledgement of the second source for the guards. Your argument makes Brown';s point about an independent tradition for PN look like insanity, your interpretation cant be right because he was not an idiot,

In addition I don't think that has anything to do with no other story,I think you are still trying to make minor differences into a new story,











Joe: (1)story of empty tomb pre dates mark by 20 years then some that is a link to my essay,

I was a assuming adate of around 50 AD, which fits that just fine.


that also makes your argument rather foolish, it means there;s no reason to think Marks lock of mention indicative of no such idea,


Joe: (2) Evidence disappearing a year latter is not a problem the empty tomb was there oeplew saw it they knew it was real that's why no one ever argues there was no tomb, a lot of people can see an obvious public fact in a year.

Who saw the empty tomb? The oldest account we have (excluding Paul's that omits it altogether) claims only the two women saw the Empty Tomb, and further more that they never told anyone about it!

everyone saw it, it was still there after Easter, they obviously didn't keep it a secret,

You are basing your argument on witnesses notably absent from the older account. Kind of like they were made up later.

Joe: which assumes some knowing cadre of conspirators know but are shrewd enough to know that and also assumes people in an establish Catullus will accept a radical change to the myths with practically no authoritative support,you already agreed to this principle above

Is that how myths develop? A knowing cadre of conspirators deliberately setting out to add their own embellishments to the story?

No but that's what you argued for read your words,

I doubt that. This would have been a vague rumour that possibly predated Mark, but only gained traction once the witnesses were gone. And people believed it because they wanted it to be true.

you are just making that up,remember the Pre Mark passion narrative?it;s the consensus in the field they all agree now it stuff in Mark was noised about decades before Mark was written,

you are doing the old atheist bit send the dead guys back into battle I;ve kicked your ass on this,
Joe Hinman said…

Joe: Of course I do, the fact that there are none is good reason to thin there never were any,

The point is that we do not know. Your claim is based on the assumption that there were no other stories. Absnce of evidence is not evidence of absence.

you are still not facing reality, you can't argue counter evidence from fantasy evidence, you have to have to evidence or its not real,

Joe: that is not evidence, you are only saying let's hope I'm right you have no proof of your point,how far would you get in court "your honor we have no evidence anyone else could have committed the crime my client is cussed of committing, but it could have been and there is no evidence there wasn't therefore there must have been,

The point is we do not know either way. Remember you are the one stood in court trying to make your case. How far would you get in court with "Your honour, while I admit there is no evidence that the accused perpetrated this crime, I would like to point out that they is no evidence he did not commit the crime. Therefore I am confident we can assume he is guilty."


yes we do know you have no evidence

Joe: not a different account it's a minor detail.

Sure, like the virgin Birth and the Empty Tomb. If you just pretend any difference is a "minor difference", then your thesis is safe.

you have no evidence that the empty tomb was not part of the gospel from day one, it is acknowledged by all scholars that it was,

Joe: there are different types of copies.There are copying copies and there are copies read in church and used for private reading there are fragments and so on. your quote is only about complete MS not all versions, if we include the copies used for church and so on have thousands, it is also documented the entire NT can be reproduced reading in the apostolic feathers,

It was not about complete manuscripts, it was about fragments. There are a couple of dozen fragments from the second and third century.


no you are wrong,I know we have tons of uniclas and dictionaries and fragments and we can reconstruct the whole NT from apostolic fathers, you are probably thinking of the period from writing to early second century where John Rylands is our oldest fragment but by end of second century we have a lot,the Diatesseron is 170s.


Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
Joe: I'VE TOLD YOU THAT TWICE ALREADY OPEN YOUR EYES THIS TIME==BECAUISE OF THE SCHISM OVER THE AUTHORITY OF jESUS;S BROTHER

James dies in 62 AD. Do you really think Mark would omit the Virgin Birth years later because it might enhance the reputation of a dead man?

get over Mark he did not invent the story, it was already part o the story for decades for decades before he wrote. Some scholars place the writing of the Ur Mark in the 30s! So we could be talking about the Ur Mark vs Thomas, or Apocrphyon of James, but it's the trajectory that set the writing of Mark as it turned out, vs Luke,

Joe: If the story was just made up he would never admit Jesus' family didn't accept his Messiah ship,something like that just have happen,it would be absurdly stupid of Mark to make that up to illiterate some nonessential point that ludicrous,But if something like that happened Mark might include it to counter the James faction or to answer some other issue,

Given the light it puts Jesus in, seems pretty likely his family really did think he was mad.

so? families always underrate their own,

I guess they were just really, really stupid not to realise Jesus was special after the Virgin Birth, right? I mean sure Mary was pure and all that, but clearly stupid as can be (look at her exchange with the angel before the birth!). James too, clearly lacking in the brains department. Probably could not put his sandals on himself.

you ar trying to argue based upon a knowledge gap you don't have to be stupid to miss thing your son is the incorporation of God. If she spent all those years waiting for him to raise an army and beat the Romans then he's out preaching about love and living like a hippie that might do it,

Joe: they are not different stories, they don't contradict it,they are different minor details but they go to gather you can believe in both they don't exclude each other,I've already said I allow for details changes that is not a new story

Of course the are different stories! Minor details like Herod killing all the babies, like the census, like the inn, like the wise men, and in fact all the elements of the story, besides the actual birth, can be found in one story or the other, but not both.

It's my argent I defined what I mean by different story,I don't care what you mean that by term I made the argument I spelled out what I meant,I spelled out those 11 things that are always the sane, that is the outline of the narrative,



1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.

2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary"

3) Same principle players, Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdeline.

4) That Jesus was knows as a miracles worker.

5) he claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.

6) he was crucified under Pilate.

7) Around the time of the Passover.

8) at noon.

9) rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.

10) several woman with MM discovered the empty tomb.

11) That this was in Jerusalem.


see the original pag for ore clarity of the argumemt




x
Joe Hinman said…

Joe: one is Mary one is Joseph

Sure if we pretend really hard.

the opinion of most scholars,Edersheime thinks so, the Talmudic passages on Mary;s genealogy agrees with Luke on her father's name,


But if we use what the text actually says, both say Joseph was the father.

they both say supposed or assumed



Joe: Paul believed in body res Doherty is an idiot, stop listening to third rate people

I am going by the text in 1 Cor 15, written by Paul. A physical body, maybe, but a new body, not the original one.

nothing in that text says says Res body is a totally different body, more importantly nothing there says there is resurrection without a body


Joe: are you nuts? that is stupid==showme the passage that says not born of virgin,show me

Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

that doesn't say it wasn;t a virgin birth, it just says Mary was married to Jo

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

supposed imposes not



12/05/2018 10:52:00 AM Delete

What of the passion narrative do you think Josephus recorded (as oppposed to later Christians)? Do you think Josephus believed Jesus was the Messiah, as the passages would have us think?


I doubt that Jo believed Jesus was Messiah. I think his reference is sarcasm,Ive always thought that the first time I ever heard it before I heard the issue I thought he;s being sarcastic,


What proportion of the Jews in Jerusalem became Christian within a year? The Bible talks of mass conversions, but Acts still makes it seem like a tiny minority of the population. The majority of the city believed that Jesus had died, and stayed dead.

I think the real movement got underway with the stoning of Stephen, but they seem to have cultivated the lone group pulling together before that, it was spreading apart from the Jerusalem community they didn;t know it. I think the John community and what they became the Jerusalem church started both separately and form the beginning,

Joe: you want to violate the principle of the argent by counting any differences however minor as a different story because you can't answer the partner there is only one story you are just beginning to realize what that means.
you are pruipoelsy trying to blur distinction between major and minor elements to make any differences significant,

Maybe you are right. Please give a clear definition so there can be no blurring of the boundary.

see previous page the 11 points and the link to the freest page of the original argument,


Joe: yes actually he did Papias says he was Peter's interpreter in Rome. why else name the gospel after some unknwon guy?

Oh yes... So kind of odd that Mark chose to omit Peter witnessing the Empty Tomb... Unless it never happened, of course.

if we have the end of Mark

Joe: what is veg about the 11 elements that spell out the narrate I pit in the OP?

How about "rose from the dead"? That is by far the most contentious claim, and is vague in the extreme.

even those who doubt it happened do not doubt it was claimed form the earliest time

Joe: that is short hand C of E Sunday school version of their the truth is they had a much more complex vision. the Jewishness of the Gospels is the big story from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Are you saying they were NOT expecting to once more become the dominant nation when the Messiah arrived?

Rabbisin the Talmid quote older sources who said Messiah would be not reconed by his people rejected and killed then come back latter and beat up the enemies,
Joe Hinman said…
when in doubt go back to the OP: the stuff fir clarification is there



1) Mythology tends to proliforate:multiple story versions are common

2) When historical facts are known to a wide audience, people tend not to deny the basic facts of an event.

...a) eye witnesses keep it stairght

...b) People who try to invent new aspects of the event are confronted with the fact that most everyone knows better.

...c) people know the story for a fact and just dont' bother to change it.

3) Story proliforations would probably influence further tellings, thus creating many more documents with different versions of the same story.

4) If a myth proliforates we would tend to find more versions of the same story, when there is only one version we can accept a degree of certainty that the story did not proliforate.
5) We do not find a proliforation of versions of the Jesus story in any sources we know of.
6) The most logical way to account for this single Jesus story is through p2, that everyone knew it was the case, there were too many eye witnesses to spread new versions.
...a) It is illogical to assume that everyone just liked it so they didn't add to it.

...b) There was no canonization process in place in the early period, and the single unified verison existed from the earliest trace of the story.

7)Therefore, we can assume that it is probably the case that the masses were familiar with the story of Jesus because the story reflects events known by all to be factual.

The main thing that myths do is change. Given enough time, a myth will transmography until the names of the heroes are different, how they died is forgotten and retold so many times, there came to be multiple versions of their death. Myths change over time, but history does not. People remember a basic event they know its real, they don't forget it. Herclues has two deaths, in one he's poisaned, in another shot with an arrow. There are about 14 versions of the Tamuz myth. But there is only one way for the guys at the Alamo to die, there is only one death for Arthur, and there is only one way that Jesus Christ is ver portrayed as dying, that's by the cross. Why? Because that's how he really died. No one could deny it, so no one ever propossed another method.



also


All The most basic details about these mythological figures changes and froms mutltiple myths. Who they were, what they stood for, their function, how they lived, how they died, even their country of origin all change. A god like Mirthra begins as an unimportant figure in Indian pantheon and winds up the sun God, the God of shepards in Persian and then something else in Rome. All of these mythical figures change over time, but not Jesus. There is basically one Jesus story and it's always the same.

1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.

2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary"

3) Same principle players, Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdeline.

4) That Jesus was knows as a miracles worker.

5) he claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.

6) he was crucified under Pilate.

7) Around the time of the Passover.

8) at noon.

9) rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.

10) several woman with MM discovered the empty tomb.

11) That this was in Jerusalem.

There were hundreds of sources, different books and Gospels and Acts, that never made it into the New Testament. The Jesus story is re-told countrless times from early days (around AD50 first written) to the fourth century, before there was ever a major alternatiion in any of these basic details. Even after that time, no one ever disagreed with these points listed avove.
Anonymous said…
Guards on the Tomb

Joe: He does not say that is is view he says it's impressive he sets it up to knock it down he goes on to show the independent tradition of the guards in Gpet

He does not specifically say it is view because it is an academic book, and so written from an objective perspective that keeps his opinion out of it. Nevertheless, it is clear from the book that he believed it was made up.

Joe: Brown says:
"In this particular instance, in my judgment, what is found in _GPet_ [concerning the tomb-guards] is best explained in terms of the author's knowing the canonical Gospels (perhaps by distant memory of having heard them), especially Matt, as well as an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story, and of his own activity in combining these two sources of material." pages .1305-1310


So right off the bat we know that the author was writing after Matthew, dating it to very late first century at the earliest.

Secondly, all this indicates is Brown believed they were another source, not that he considered that source reliable, not that he considered the event historical.

Joe: In addition I don't think that has anything to do with no other story,I think you are still trying to make minor differences into a new story,

I would agree this is a minor difference, but it is an illustration of how the early Christians were happy to embellish the story to help their cause. The author even admits there were stories circulating that the disciples had stolen the body, so we know exactly why the guards were invented. If you are right about Brown (and I will show later you are not), then that would make the invention of the guards early that Matthew, but likely later than Mark.

Joe: Brown says:
"In this particular instance, in my judgment, what is found in _GPet_ [concerning the tomb-guards] is best explained in terms of the author's knowing the canonical Gospels (perhaps by distant memory of having heard them), especially Matt, as well as an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story, and of his own activity in combining these two sources of material." pages .1305-1310


Brown: I have argued that Matt broke up a consecutive guard-at-the-sepulcher story to interweave it with the women-at-the-tomb story, while GPet preserved the original consecutive form of the guard story. That does not mean, however, that the GPet story is more original. ... While I disagree firmly with Crossan's contention that much of the GPet passion account antedated the canonical passion accounts...
pages 1305-06

Brown: In "Gospel of Peter" I wrote a detailed refutation of Crossan's thesis, and throughout the commentary on individual scenes I showed why I did not think GPet presents a more original form of the PN han d the canonical Gospels.
- page 1332

Brown: After working with the table and lists above (...), I am convinced that one explanation makes better sense of the relationship between GPet and the canonical Gospels than any other. I doubt that the author of GPet had any written Gospel before him, although he was familiar with Matt because he had read it carefully in the past and/or heard it read several times in community worship on the Lord's Day, so that it gave the dominant shaping to his thoughts.
- pages 1334-35

Pix
Anonymous said…
Virgin Birth

Joe: no one ever claimed he was the biological son of God God has no biology. There i no real difference in Paul's version and Johns.

I appreciate God has no biology, that is why I put "biological" in quotes. I was making the difference between a son by adoption. Mark and Paul believed Jesus was adopted by God, according to the believes of the Jews, that any king of the Jews was an adopted son of God. It was part of being a messiah. The later Christians (presumably including the authors of Luke, Matthew and John) saw Jesus as the actual son of God. You may think that that is a minor difference or just a difference in their theology, but this seems pretty big to me. An important impact on the narrative is that Jesus was not divine until he was adopted, and so we can explain why - in Mark - his family thought him mad when he started his ministry.

Joe: empirically wrong, it was at Qumran pre dating christian era,

With regards to Jesus being of a virgin birth? I doubt that very much, given they were not Christians.

Joe: so? families always underrate their own,

Seriously? Wise men traveled from a far to see the baby. Herod was so afraid of the baby that he murdered all the other babies in the area. Both Mary and Joseph were told by angels from God that Jesus was special. Then there was the Virgin Birth. And yet still Mary underrated Jesus.

As I say, she was clearly very stupid.

Joe: you ar trying to argue based upon a knowledge gap you don't have to be stupid to miss thing your son is the incorporation of God.

You do have to be stupid if an angel told that. Mary might not get exactly what it meant, but to not realise Jesus was special to God indicates rank stupidity. Mary, Joseph and James; all of them.

Joe: If she spent all those years waiting for him to raise an army and beat the Romans then he's out preaching about love and living like a hippie that might do it,

Oh, right. Because the Jewish expectation was that the messiah would lead the Jews to triumph. We do agree then that Jesus failed to fulfill the basic messianic expectation of that time.

Joe: the opinion of most scholars,Edersheime thinks so, the Talmudic passages on Mary;s genealogy agrees with Luke on her father's name,

The Catholic, Anglican and and Orthodox churches traditionally believe Joachim was the father of Mary (and Islam too!).

Where in the Talmud is Mary's genealogy?

Joe: they both say supposed or assumed

Luke says that, Matthew does not.

Joe: that doesn't say it wasn;t a virgin birth, it just says Mary was married to Jo

It says Joseph was Jesus' father.

Joe: supposed imposes not

"supposes" indicates the author of Luke (or a later redactor?) was aware of the issue, and took steps to lessen it - thereby disqualifying Jesus as messiah (but that would be less important to the Hellenised author).

Pix
Anonymous said…
Empty Tomb

Joe: everyone saw it, it was still there after Easter, they obviously didn't keep it a secret,

You know this how? You are assuming the later accounts are true because that is what your faith insists. If we look at the earliest available account in Mark, we find that he claims only two people saw it and that they kept it secret.

Joe: you have no evidence that the empty tomb was not part of the gospel from day one, it is acknowledged by all scholars that it was,

What exactly do you mean by "the gospel"? If you mean Mark, then of course all scholars say that.

If you mean the oral tradition that developed within five years of the crucifixion, then absolutely not! We KNOW it was not, because it is absent from the creed in 1 Corinthians 15.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Physical body

Joe: nothing in that text says says Res body is a totally different body, more importantly nothing there says there is resurrection without a body

The issue is whether it was in the original body, complete with holes where the crucifixion nails had penetrated, as the author of John would have us believe, or in a new body (whether replaced or transformed), as Paul states:

1 Cor 15:40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another.
...
44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
...
51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

Do you think Doubting Thomas was examining the wounds in Jesus' new spiritual body? Of course not! The spiritual body is imperishable and immortal; no wounds.
Anonymous said…
Other Accounts

Joe: you are still not facing reality, you can't argue counter evidence from fantasy evidence, you have to have to evidence or its not real,

So show me the evidence that there were no other stories circulating in the first century about that first Easter. All I have seen so far is an argument from silence.

Joe: yes we do know you have no evidence

So exactly as much as you about other stories circulating in the first century about that first Easter.

Joe: no you are wrong,I know we have tons of uniclas and dictionaries and fragments and we can reconstruct the whole NT from apostolic fathers, you are probably thinking of the period from writing to early second century where John Rylands is our oldest fragment but by end of second century we have a lot,the Diatesseron is 170s.

Are you really claiming we have a complete manuscript of the Diatesseron from the second century?

Pix: Maybe you are right. Please give a clear definition so there can be no blurring of the boundary.

Joe: see previous page the 11 points and the link to the freest page of the original argument,

Do you know what a definition actually is Joe? I guess not; it is not the same as an example. Go study up, and when you have learnt, you can give a clear definitions of minor and major differences.

Pix: How about "rose from the dead"? That is by far the most contentious claim, and is vague in the extreme.

Joe: even those who doubt it happened do not doubt it was claimed form the earliest time

And how does that address the vagueness of the claim?

Joe: Rabbisin the Talmid quote older sources who said Messiah would be not reconed by his people rejected and killed then come back latter and beat up the enemies,

Where?

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Joe: He does not say that is is view he says it's impressive he sets it up to knock it down he goes on to show the independent tradition of the guards in Gpet

He does not specifically say it is view because it is an academic book, and so written from an objective perspective that keeps his opinion out of it. Nevertheless, it is clear from the book that he believed it was made up.

That is a spurious answer because academics take positions all the time. Sometimes they want it clearly understood what they advocate.More importantly that would contradict his demonstration of an indictment early tradition that is not based upon synoptic but agrees with them. that is what he's known for, that is what made him famous,

Joe: Brown says:
"In this particular instance, in my judgment, what is found in _GPet_ [concerning the tomb-guards] is best explained in terms of the author's knowing the canonical Gospels (perhaps by distant memory of having heard them), especially Matt, as well as an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story, and of his own activity in combining these two sources of material." pages .1305-1310

So right off the bat we know that the author was writing after Matthew, dating it to very late first century at the earliest.

He's talking about the author of Gpet,("in terms of the author's knowing the canonical Gospel") we know that,You still don't understand that just because the source is older doesn't mean the readings are necessarily older. A late source can preserve early readings.

Anonymous said...
Guards on the Tomb

Joe: He does not say that is is view he says it's impressive he sets it up to knock it down he goes on to show the independent tradition of the guards in Gpet

He does not specifically say it is view because it is an academic book, and so written from an objective perspective that keeps his opinion out of it. Nevertheless, it is clear from the book that he believed it was made up.

Nonsense academics often take positions and up front about them andeven want to be known by them,

Joe: Brown says:
"In this particular instance, in my judgment, what is found in _GPet_ [concerning the tomb-guards] is best explained in terms of the author's knowing the canonical Gospels (perhaps by distant memory of having heard them), especially Matt, as well as an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story, and of his own activity in combining these two sources of material." pages .1305-1310

So right off the bat we know that the author was writing after Matthew, dating it to very late first century at the earliest.

that is the author of Gpet not of the PMRN he quotes


Secondly, all this indicates is Brown believed they were another source, not that he considered that source reliable, not that he considered the event historical.

there is no evidence that he did not. you still think you can just fantasize positions into validity because you went them to be,



Joe: In addition I don't think that has anything to do with no other story,I think you are still trying to make minor differences into a new story,

Joe Hinman said…
I would agree this is a minor difference, but it is an illustration of how the early Christians were happy to embellish the story to help their cause. The author even admits there were stories circulating that the disciples had stolen the body, so we know exactly why the guards were invented. If you are right about Brown (and I will show later you are not), then that would make the invention of the guards early that Matthew, but likely later than Mark.

on the 1968 camp tv Batman penguin says Batman is a criminal because he;s always seen with criminals,you are using Penguin logic, He says there is an early tradition not based upon Matthew you can't use your fallacious assumption about Mark.

Trying to use Mark as the litigious test for historicity because if Mark would have to mention every single Christi idea-- that is bonkers, no one accepts that,you watched too much Monty Python as a child,




Joe: Brown says:
"In this particular instance, in my judgment, what is found in _GPet_ [concerning the tomb-guards] is best explained in terms of the author's knowing the canonical Gospels (perhaps by distant memory of having heard them), especially Matt, as well as an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story, and of his own activity in combining these two sources of material." pages .1305-1310

Brown: I have argued that Matt broke up a consecutive guard-at-the-sepulcher story to interweave it with the women-at-the-tomb story, while GPet preserved the original consecutive form of the guard story. That does not mean, however, that the GPet story is more original. ... While I disagree firmly with Crossan's contention that much of the GPet passion account antedated the canonical passion accounts...
pages 1305-06

Brown: In "Gospel of Peter" I wrote a detailed refutation of Crossan's thesis, and throughout the commentary on individual scenes I showed why I did not think GPet presents a more original form of the PN han d the canonical Gospels.
- page 1332

that doesn't mean ahtit does;t have an independent early tradition.I quotehimaove saying e did,

Brown: After working with the table and lists above (...), I am convinced that one explanation makes better sense of the relationship between GPet and the canonical Gospels than any other. I doubt that the author of GPet had any written Gospel before him, although he was familiar with Matt because he had read it carefully in the past and/or heard it read several times in community worship on the Lord's Day, so that it gave the dominant shaping to his thoughts.
- pages 1334-35

that does not say that he did not have an early independent tradition,


you are just conveniently leaving out the bit where he goes on on to show that i follows the Psalms rather than the synoptic

Your readingis a directcontradiction towhatheclearly saysinthe qoteiused onmy paper ;

"I have argued that Matt [i.e. GosMatt's final author/redactor/editor/whatever] broke up a consecutive guard-at-the-sepulcher story to interweave it with the women-at-the-tomb story, while _GPet_ PRESERVED THE ORIGINAL CONSECUTIVE FORM OF THE GUARD STORY. [my all-caps emphasis] That does not mean, however, that the _GPet_ story is more original."

[...soon afterward on p.1306...].

that says there says there is an dependent tradition that Matthew used,


the rest of the quote shows Brown thought there were two traditions with guards,

"In this particular instance, in my judgment, what is found in _GPet_ [concerning the tomb-guards] is best explained in terms of the author's knowing the canonical Gospels (perhaps by distant memory of having heard them), especially Matt, as well as an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story, and of his own activity in combining these two sources of material."
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Virgin Birth

Joe: no one ever claimed he was the biological son of God God has no biology. There i no real difference in Paul's version and Johns.

I appreciate God has no biology, that is why I put "biological" in quotes. I was making the difference between a son by adoption. Mark and Paul believed Jesus was adopted by God, according to the believes of the Jews, that any king of the Jews was an adopted son of God.

that is not really the view Jews had of Messiah that day We see in the Talmud form the earliest Talmudic sources that are said cover first century oral tradition that Messiah existed before the world. He was in heaven he sat on God's throne and he was so beautiful satan could not stand to be in the room with him,. He wasnotjusta regular guy.

we can wee that Paul held to a incorporate view of Christ because in Philippians he says he counting not equality with God an thing to be grasped he took the form of a servant, So he was equal to God not just regular guy,

Moreover arguing about versions of Christology is not going to affect this argument it doesn't constitute smother story,



It was part of being a messiah. The later Christians (presumably including the authors of Luke, Matthew and John) saw Jesus as the actual son of God. You may think that that is a minor difference or just a difference in their theology, but this seems pretty big to me. An important impact on the narrative is that Jesus was not divine until he was adopted, and so we can explain why - in Mark - his family thought him mad when he started his ministry.

It's very well known that the concept of Christology evolved from Jesus as a prophet to Jesus as the incarnate logos it requires a serious close reading of the tradition to see the development unfolding, that doesn't mean he is not incarnate logos revelation is progressive,but what the skeptics don't appreciate is that the original church position from the beginning was a lot closer to the Christian position then they think,They didn't think Messiah was just a some guy,

Joe: empirically wrong, it was at Qumran pre dating christian era,

With regards to Jesus being of a virgin birth? I doubt that very much, given they were not Christians.

Obviously not Jesus who is never mentioned at Qumran, But The Messiah,

Joe: so? families always underrate their own,

Seriously? Wise men traveled from a far to see the baby. Herod was so afraid of the baby that he murdered all the other babies in the area. Both Mary and Joseph were told by angels from God that Jesus was special. Then there was the Virgin Birth. And yet still Mary underrated Jesus.


they thought he was supposed to be arsing Arminius and preparing for war, they could not understand the salt of the earth sermon on the mount kind of Messiah,to their view it looked like he was forsaking the great shareholding of work given his birth,

Joe Hinman said…
"supposes" indicates the author of Luke (or a later redactor?) was aware of the issue, and took steps to lessen it - thereby disqualifying Jesus as messiah (but that would be less important to the Hellenised author).

No that's a recognition that Jo was not Jesus actual father but in the eyes of the world he was.
Joe Hinman said…
I still have a couple more thins to answer,So don;t respond until I get to them that wll be late tonight,
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Empty Tomb

Joe: everyone saw it, it was still there after Easter, they obviously didn't keep it a secret,

You know this how? You are assuming the later accounts are true because that is what your faith insists. If we look at the earliest available account in Mark, we find that he claims only two people saw it and that they kept it secret.

Stop Trying to turn gaps in Mark into positive assertions!I promise you this is a stupidly amateurish move. Mark fails to mention more than two people seeing the tomb and so you assert he says only two saw it, no he only talks about two seeing it. Why didn't he make a bigger deal about the women? Again think about the factionalism between Peter and James.Jesus' mother and girl friend were among the witnesses that backs the family faction.

Again your assertion that all information begins with Mark is wrong, You assume that there was hardly anything to Christian ideas before Mark and Mark must have dealt with every single idea they had, those are both very foolish assumptions. I have counted at least 34 lost Gospels and most of them pre date mark.

what do you think a pre nark redaction would be? what is a redaction? It;s an editing of a source of writing.So preMark redaction means there were writings of the gospel before Mark,

Charles W. Hendrick talks about a first century Gnostic Gospel he discovered and says:"Mirecki and I are not the first scholars to find a new ancient gospel. In fact scholars now have copies of 19 gospels (either complete, in fragments or in quotations), written in the first and second centuries A.D— nine of which were discovered in the 20th century. Two more are preserved, in part, in other andent writings, and we know the names of several others, but do not have copies of them. Clearly, Luke was not exaggerating when he wrote in his opening verse: "Many undertook to compile narratives [aboutJesus]" (Luke 1:1). Every one of these gospels was deemed true and sacred by at least some early Christians." see my essay Gospel Behind the Gospels


Joe Hinman said…
Joe: you have no evidence that the empty tomb was not part of the gospel from day one, it is acknowledged by all scholars that it was,

What exactly do you mean by "the gospel"? If you mean Mark, then of course all scholars say that.

I had reference to the general teachings of Jesus and the church collectively called "the Gospel of Christ" the Good news of God's love love for man,

If you mean the oral tradition that developed within five years of the crucifixion, then absolutely not! We KNOW it was not, because it is absent from the creed in 1 Corinthians 15.

That is not proof, it o,y means they had not fixated upon the tomb itself because it was not an issue. Paul refers to the resurrection, They didn't believe in the resurrection. That means there had to be an empty tomb,No one disputed that so there was no need to insist on it,or put it in a creed.

Mark tells us there was an empty tomb,Mark 16:"4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’"

don't give your bs about where he first appeared just reflect upon the fact that Mark just told us there was an empty tomb,he doesn't talk about those wh saw it because we don't have the ending of his book.


Pix

12/06/2018 10:48:00 AM Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Physical body

Joe: nothing in that text says says Res body is a totally different body, more importantly nothing there says there is resurrection without a body

The issue is whether it was in the original body, complete with holes where the crucifixion nails had penetrated, as the author of John would have us believe, or in a new body (whether replaced or transformed), as Paul states:

1 Cor 15:40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another.

He is not saying your old body will be replaced with a new one from heaven,He's talking about angle bodes,he's alluding to refurbishment of our bodies,

...
44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

same body transformed,he says it, it goes in it comes out,same deal
...
51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

Do you think Doubting Thomas was examining the wounds in Jesus' new spiritual body? Of course not! The spiritual body is imperishable and immortal; no wounds.

you are asserting Thomas knew it was Jesus and just wants to inspect the res body, He looking at the wounds to be convinced it was really Jesus. Jesus told Mary not touch him because he had not ascended to the father yet,so his risen body was not the same form as
the body is in heaven,


12/06/2018 10:49:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Other Accounts

Joe: you are still not facing reality, you can't argue counter evidence from fantasy evidence, you have to have to evidence or its not real,

So show me the evidence that there were no other stories circulating in the first century about that first Easter. All I have seen so far is an argument from silence.

Joe: yes we do know you have no evidence

So exactly as much as you about other stories circulating in the first century about that first Easter.

there are four different versions in the canonical Gospels,there is a totally different story arc about the witnesses from Paul since he doesn't mention the women but the apostles and James, that is five stories, two major traditions. Then there is the independent story of the guards that shows up in GPet. The overall passion narrative in GPet.Then there is the possibility of GTom resurrection if we accept liberal dating, then someoftheother 34 lost Gospels might allude to it I would have to research that, But that;s 8 at least




Joe: no you are wrong,I know we have tons of uniclas and dictionaries and fragments and we can reconstruct the whole NT from apostolic fathers, you are probably thinking of the period from writing to early second century where John Rylands is our oldest fragment but by end of second century we have a lot,the Diatesseron is 170s.

Are you really claiming we have a complete manuscript of the Diatesseron from the second century?

no they date its compilation to the second century but it;s possible we have some,I;m counting fragments, because they tell us things,

Pix: Maybe you are right. Please give a clear definition so there can be no blurring of the boundary.

Joe: see previous page the 11 points and the link to the first page of the original argument,

Do you know what a definition actually is Joe? I guess not; it is not the same as an example. Go study up, and when you have learnt, you can give a clear definitions of minor and major differences.

to be clear you are trying to assert that it;s totally unclear what risen from the dead means?so that you think there was no clear and specific about Jesus risen from the dead until Mark? Like they didn't have that concept?

First clear: he was dead then he comes alive again. what is UNclear? As for the concept they had it in the OT and Jesus raised people from the dead himself so they had it before he was an example of it,



Pix: How about "rose from the dead"? That is by far the most contentious claim, and is vague in the extreme.

Joe: even those who doubt it happened do not doubt it was claimed form the earliest time

And how does that address the vagueness of the claim?

what vegness? We see the Trope all over the place in the Gospels and in OT so they had a notion. also the Rabbinical teaching that Messiah held the keys to death and would raise all of fallen Israel at the end of days,that's why Paul calls Jesus the frist fruits from the dead. So they had a specific model.

Joe: Rabbisin the Talmid quote older sources who said Messiah would be not record by his people rejected and killed then come back latter and beat up the enemies,

Where?

Talmud. Edershiem gives the exact books in his list of 450 passage about messiah,Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,
Anonymous said…
Guards on the Tomb

Joe: That is a spurious answer because academics take positions all the time. Sometimes they want it clearly understood what they advocate.More importantly that would contradict his demonstration of an indictment early tradition that is not based upon synoptic but agrees with them. that is what he's known for, that is what made him famous,

At the end of the day, Brown's book argues that the guards were made up, as the bit I quoted shows. You have failed to find any evidence he believed otherwise.

Joe: He's talking about the author of Gpet,("in terms of the author's knowing the canonical Gospel") we know that,You still don't understand that just because the source is older doesn't mean the readings are necessarily older. A late source can preserve early readings.

So go read Brown and tell me what he thinks Peter's source was besides Matthew (around page 1306 by the way). All we can say is that the source is prior to 80 AD, which gives a five decade span for the guards to be made up.

Joe: there is no evidence that he did not. you still think you can just fantasize positions into validity because you went them to be,

Sure there is:

Yet there is a major argument against historicity that is impressive indeed. Not only do the other Gospels not mention the guard at the sepulcher, but the presence of the guard there would make what they narrate about the tomb almost unintelligible. The three other Gospels have women come to the tomb on Easter, and the only obstacle to their entrance that is mentioned is the stone. ... There are other internal implausibilities in Matt's account (e.g., that the Jewish authorities knew the words of Jesus about the resurrection and understood them, when his own disciples did not; that the guards could lie successfully about the astounding heavenly intervention); ....
- Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah vol 2, p1311-12

If you want to claim Brown believed the guards are historical, go find the quote that shows that. It is all in pages 1310 to 1313 of his book.

Joe: on the 1968 camp tv Batman penguin says Batman is a criminal because he;s always seen with criminals,you are using Penguin logic, He says there is an early tradition not based upon Matthew you can't use your fallacious assumption about Mark.

Trying to use Mark as the litigious test for historicity because if Mark would have to mention every single Christi idea-- that is bonkers, no one accepts that,you watched too much Monty Python as a child,


As opposed to your approach which is to assume all ther accounts are true because that is what your faith demands? I thought you had some academic training. Apparently not.

Like it or not, each account tells us what the community believed at the time it was written. Our best guess of what they believed when Mark was written is what is in Mark. No guards on the tomb, no Virgin Birth. Our best guess of what was believed when 1 Corinthians was written is the creed in 1 Cor 15. No Empty Tomb, and a new body.

Joe: you are just conveniently leaving out the bit where he goes on on to show that i follows the Psalms rather than the synoptic

I did not notice that, but I would have quoted it if I had!

You see, the OT is one of the primary sources for the passion narrative. The disciples were not there; they had fled Jerusalem. They had to guess what happened to Jesus, based on Roman practice and scripture, including, as you say, Psalms.

Not an eye witness account.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Virgin Birth

Joe: that is not really the view Jews had of Messiah that day We see in the Talmud form the earliest Talmudic sources that are said cover first century oral tradition that Messiah existed before the world. He was in heaven he sat on God's throne and he was so beautiful satan could not stand to be in the room with him,. He wasnotjusta regular guy.

He was HUMAN. We know they expected a human, because he had to be of the seed of David. We know that was still the view in Jesus time because both Luke and Matthew took the time to present the genealogies. Mark also has Jesus discussing it too.

The Virgin Birth is simply not compatible with the Jewish concept of Messiah.

Joe: It's very well known that the concept of Christology evolved from Jesus as a prophet to Jesus as the incarnate logos it requires a serious close reading of the tradition to see the development unfolding, that doesn't mean he is not incarnate logos revelation is progressive,but what the skeptics don't appreciate is that the original church position from the beginning was a lot closer to the Christian position then they think,They didn't think Messiah was just a some guy,

Well you just destroyed your own argument. The narratives changed hugely (because of progressive revelation if you like) from Jesus as prophet to Jesus as the incarnate logos. You seriously think that is a minor change?

Joe: Obviously not Jesus who is never mentioned at Qumran, But The Messiah,

So quote the evidence they expected a messiah born of a virgin.

Joe: they thought he was supposed to be arsing Arminius and preparing for war, they could not understand the salt of the earth sermon on the mount kind of Messiah,to their view it looked like he was forsaking the great shareholding of work given his birth,

So they thought this man, with numerous followers, who worked miracles was insane? Angels from God had supposedly told them this man was divine, special to God. To say he was mad would have been pretty much blasphemy! And the penalty for blasphemy was death, remember.

Joe: No that's a recognition that Jo was not Jesus actual father but in the eyes of the world he was.

So why have a genealogy for the guy that the world erroneously thought was Jesus father?

The author of Luke had to include the genealogy because it was part of what the community believed, and as you say, no one dared to change the narrative. But some of the community also believed in a Virgin Birth, so he was also obliged to include that.

Perhaps in a similar manner the author included the Virgin Birth, but in a manner that still allows Joseph to be the father:

27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
...
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.
...
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

How would Mary, a virgin, become pregnant? Well, if she was not so stupid, she would realise that plenty of virgins get pregnant though the natural act of sexual intercourse. The text makes no claim she was still a virgin when she conceived, so the part of the community that preferred Messiah to Virgin Birth were appeased.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Empty Tomb (and Physical body)

Joe: Stop Trying to turn gaps in Mark into positive assertions!I promise you this is a stupidly amateurish move. Mark fails to mention more than two people seeing the tomb and so you assert he says only two saw it, no he only talks about two seeing it. Why didn't he make a bigger deal about the women? Again think about the factionalism between Peter and James.Jesus' mother and girl friend were among the witnesses that backs the family faction.

If there was a fracture between Peter and James (which is unlikely when Mark was writing, given James died nearly a decade earlier), then we would expect Mark to be trying to enhance Peter's role - and yet he chose to omit Peter seeing the empty tomb - and play down the family - yet he choose to include their role.

This is not merely a silence, it is a silence where we would expect no silence.

Furthermore, Mark clearly indicates Galilee as the place the disciples would first see the risen Jesus. This directly contradicts Luke and John (and the later addition to Mark). Mark specifically says the women did not tell anyone, whilst other gospels specifically say they immediate went and told people.

Joe: Again your assertion that all information begins with Mark is wrong,

I never said that and indeed have pointed to the earlier creed in 1 Cor 15 several times.

Joe: That is not proof...

Not proof, but very good evidence.

Far better than anything you have produced to support your ridiculous claim that the Empty Tomb was part of the gospel from day one.

Joe: , it o,y means they had not fixated upon the tomb itself because it was not an issue. Paul refers to the resurrection, They didn't believe in the resurrection. That means there had to be an empty tomb,No one disputed that so there was no need to insist on it,or put it in a creed.

But Paul did mention the burial. Was that an issue? Of course not! He mentioned the burial because he believed the burial happened.

Remember, this was a creed. Paul was repeating the beliefs of the church at that time. The passion narrative included the crucifixion, the burial and the resurrection. It did not include the Empty Tomb.

And the Empty Tomb was not implicit. Paul did not believe Jesus was resurrected in his original body, 1 Cor 15 makes that clear. We have a good idea what form Paul believed Jesus took after resurrection, a bright light and a voice.

Joe: Mark tells us there was an empty tomb,

WRONG!

Mark tells us he believed there was an empty tomb.

Joe: don't give your bs about where he first appeared just reflect upon the fact that Mark just told us there was an empty tomb,he doesn't talk about those wh saw it because we don't have the ending of his book.

We have enough to know Jesus was first seen in Galilee and the women never told any one, both contradicting later claims in Luke and John.

Joe: He is not saying your old body will be replaced with a new one from heaven,

That is exactly what he says. He specifically states that earthly flesh will not do, so you need a new heavenly body. Like the one he saw on Jesus on the Road to Damascus.

Joe: same body transformed,he says it, it goes in it comes out,same deal

Transformed for those living at that moment, new bodies for the dead. Paul knew a lot of Jews had been dead for many centuries, and there would be nothing left of them but dust. He must have believed that they would get new bodies at the resurrection because they had no bodies left.

Jesus was the prototype, the first fruits. Paul believed what happened to Jesus would happen to all the righteous. That necessarily means a new body.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Numerous versions

Joe: there are four different versions in the canonical Gospels,there is a totally different story arc about the witnesses from Paul since he doesn't mention the women but the apostles and James, that is five stories, two major traditions. Then there is the independent story of the guards that shows up in GPet. The overall passion narrative in GPet.Then there is the possibility of GTom resurrection if we accept liberal dating, then someoftheother 34 lost Gospels might allude to it I would have to research that, But that;s 8 at least

All of which likely had the same base story (as seen in 1 cor 15), and got embellished and further embellished.

Pix: Are you really claiming we have a complete manuscript of the Diatesseron from the second century?

Joe: no they date its compilation to the second century but it;s possible we have some,I;m counting fragments, because they tell us things,

No, of course not. So how is this at all relevant to the number of actual manuscript fragments from the second and third century?

Absolutely nothing.

Joe: to be clear you are trying to assert that it;s totally unclear what risen from the dead means?so that you think there was no clear and specific about Jesus risen from the dead until Mark? Like they didn't have that concept?

I am saying that Paul belief that Jesus was resurrected in a new body is significantly different to Mark's view that Jesus rose in his original body and was seen in Galilee which was in turn very different to the later accounts where Jesus was seen in Jerusalem.

Joe: First clear: he was dead then he comes alive again. what is UNclear? As for the concept they had it in the OT and Jesus raised people from the dead himself so they had it before he was an example of it,

It is not unclear, it is vague. You are glossing over BIG differences in the narrative to allow you to pretend they are similar.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Guards on the Tomb

Joe: That is a spurious answer because academics take positions all the time. Sometimes they want it clearly understood what they advocate.More importantly that would contradict his demonstration of an indictment early tradition that is not based upon synoptic but agrees with them. that is what he's known for, that is what made him famous,

At the end of the day, Brown's book argues that the guards were made up, as the bit I quoted shows. You have failed to find any evidence he believed otherwise.

No Brown was a believer he does not argue that, you don't understand him. He said there is a second major endpoint tradition of the guards that is just as old as Mark or older,he did not say the guards were made up, nothing you quoted sassy that.

You are simply ignoring my quote from Brown which says the opposite,


Joe: He's talking about the author of Gpet,("in terms of the author's knowing the canonical Gospel") we know that,You still don't understand that just because the source is older doesn't mean the readings are necessarily older. A late source can preserve early readings.

So go read Brown and tell me what he thinks Peter's source was besides Matthew (around page 1306 by the way). All we can say is that the source is prior to 80 AD, which gives a five decade span for the guards to be made up.

that does not mean he thought it was made up. He thinks it was written around 80, the standard date for Matt (hell I agree with that date!), he also says Matt used an older independent tradition not based upon the synoptic sources, so hes really got two sources for the guards,

Joe: there is no evidence that he did not. you still think you can just fantasize positions into validity because you went them to be,

Sure there is:

Yet there is a major argument against historicity that is impressive indeed. Not only do the other Gospels not mention the guard at the sepulcher, but the presence of the guard there would make what they narrate about the tomb almost unintelligible. The three other Gospels have women come to the tomb on Easter, and the only obstacle to their entrance that is mentioned is the stone. ... There are other internal implausibilities in Matt's account (e.g., that the Jewish authorities knew the words of Jesus about the resurrection and understood them, when his own disciples did not; that the guards could lie successfully about the astounding heavenly intervention); ....
- Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah vol 2, p1311-12

You see "impressive" and you read "I agree, this is my view." I see that I read "I 'will be even more celebrated when I knock this down,which he does,i quote where he dose, you have said nothing I have not already discussed, have not beaten,Nothing in that quote says the guards are made up.

If you want to claim Brown believed the guards are historical, go find the quote that shows that. It is all in pages 1310 to 1313 of his book.

I already quoted it you are just ignoring it,


As opposed to your approach which is to assume all ther accounts are true because that is what your faith demands? I thought you had some academic training. Apparently not.

that's far from my assumption, you are lampooning my position but I describe yours actually,

Joe Hinman said…
Like it or not, each account tells us what the community believed at the time it was written. Our best guess of what they believed when Mark was written is what is in Mark. No guards on the tomb, no Virgin Birth. Our best guess of what was believed when 1 Corinthians was written is the creed in 1 Cor 15. No Empty Tomb, and a new body.

Mark does not say there were no guards, he just doesn't mention them,don't you see how illogical that is to turn silence into positive negation? taht's arugent fro silence in it;s worst form,

Joe: you are just conveniently leaving out the bit where he goes on on to show that i follows the Psalms rather than the synoptic

I did not notice that, but I would have quoted it if I had!

don't you see how it destroys your case?

You see, the OT is one of the primary sources for the passion narrative. The disciples were not there; they had fled Jerusalem. They had to guess what happened to Jesus, based on Roman practice and scripture, including, as you say, Psalms.

that's really uneducated amateurish conclusion based upon just ignorance of the fiel,d,

Not an eye witness account.


atheism of the message boards, learning for the ignorant, Jews followed O
T because that;s the way they made accounts, not proof they made it up,taht;s stupoid,not ahtisutterly stuid It;s a literary conversion,

ignorant! ignorant! try to do some learning'


x
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
Virgin Birth

Joe: that is not really the view Jews had of Messiah that day We see in the Talmud form the earliest Talmudic sources that are said cover first century oral tradition that Messiah existed before the world. He was in heaven he sat on God's throne and he was so beautiful satan could not stand to be in the room with him,. He wasnotjusta regular guy.

He was HUMAN. We know they expected a human, because he had to be of the seed of David. We know that was still the view in Jesus time because both Luke and Matthew took the time to present the genealogies. Mark also has Jesus discussing it too.

your view is tainted by modern outlook, they had a different view in Jesus; day. Edersheim understands that he was trined to be a Rabbi he shows the Talmudic record

The Virgin Birth is simply not compatible with the Jewish concept of Messiah.

that is irrelevant, it's part of the story, it was understood that this was the sophistical answer, i twas the fact of his birth, it was the received view, so it's how things went for Jesus, anything else is changing the story at a basic level. there is no other version told by his followers. Even the Jewish clinician of illegitimate affair with Roman acknowledges the claim of Virgin birth,



Joe: It's very well known that the concept of Christology evolved from Jesus as a prophet to Jesus as the incarnate logos it requires a serious close reading of the tradition to see the development unfolding, that doesn't mean he is not incarnate logos revelation is progressive,but what the skeptics don't appreciate is that the original church position from the beginning was a lot closer to the Christian position then they think,They didn't think Messiah was just a some guy,

Well you just destroyed your own argument. The narratives changed hugely (because of progressive revelation if you like) from Jesus as prophet to Jesus as the incarnate logos. You seriously think that is a minor change?

No that is theology not narrative, it's interrogation. the narrative is in the outline in those 11 articles, they don't change,

Joe: Obviously not Jesus who is never mentioned at Qumran, But The Messiah,

So quote the evidence they expected a messiah born of a virgin.

see Dead sea Scrolls John Allegro Isah 9 at Qumran

also the Messenger/Angel of the Great Council. (cf. the Targum: "the Angel of the Face"!)
Ibid. "In one of their hyms the sect pictures itself as a pregant woman suffering the pangs of parturition as she gives birth to her 'firstborn' who is described in terms reminiscent of the Child of Isaish 9:6, the 'Wonderful Counsellor.' Most scholars agree that the passage retains its biblical Messianic significance, in which case it appears that the Sect believed that out of its suffering of atonement for 'the land' would come the Anointed One or Christ."(161).

This links the child of Isaiah 9 to the Messiah in pre-Christian understanding, which is linked to the Messiah through Rabbis Edersheim quotes.




Joe Hinman said…
part II of VBirth

Joe: they thought he was supposed to be arsing Arminius and preparing for war, they could not understand the salt of the earth sermon on the mount kind of Messiah,to their view it looked like he was forsaking the great shareholding of work given his birth,

So they thought this man, with numerous followers, who worked miracles was insane? Angels from God had supposedly told them this man was divine, special to God. To say he was mad would have been pretty much blasphemy! And the penalty for blasphemy was death, remember.

not listening they wanted him to be prepared for war. can't you read between the lines" They didn't think that it was the excuse,They were trying to Manipulate him.

Joe: No that's a recognition that Jo was not Jesus actual father but in the eyes of the world he was.[use of "suposed in genealogy']

So why have a genealogy for the guy that the world erroneously thought was Jesus father?

Because it establishes his authority as Messiah,to the world he was the son of Joseph,


How would Mary, a virgin, become pregnant? Well, if she was not so stupid, she would realise that plenty of virgins get pregnant though the natural act of sexual intercourse. The text makes no claim she was still a virgin when she conceived, so the part of the community that preferred Messiah to Virgin Birth were appeased.

v35 tells us that: 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." you think Mary was a dolt? an angel tells her the holy Spirit will make her pregnant but she is going to go screw anyway? why? Ludicrous. that is not cleaver daring or shocking it;s Just stupid.

Pix

12/07/2018 05:37:00 AM Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Empty Tomb (and Physical body)

Joe: Stop Trying to turn gaps in Mark into positive assertions!I promise you this is a stupidly amateurish move. Mark fails to mention more than two people seeing the tomb and so you assert he says only two saw it, no he only talks about two seeing it. Why didn't he make a bigger deal about the women? Again think about the factionalism between Peter and James.Jesus' mother and girl friend were among the witnesses that backs the family faction.

If there was a fracture between Peter and James (which is unlikely when Mark was writing, given James died nearly a decade earlier), then we would expect Mark to be trying to enhance Peter's role - and yet he chose to omit Peter seeing the empty tomb - and play down the family - yet he choose to include their role.

the James faction was still around, Those who wanted the family to run the church, James Place was filled by their cousin,,

This is not merely a silence, it is a silence where we would expect no silence.

You have no answer to my explanation

Joe Hinman said…
Furthermore, Mark clearly indicates Galilee as the place the disciples would first see the risen Jesus. This directly contradicts Luke and John (and the later addition to Mark). Mark specifically says the women did not tell anyone, whilst other gospels specifically say they immediate went and told people.


you are so mixed up, Mark can't contradict books that aren't written yet, he was in Galilee when he wrote it. he only heard that report, He was not in Jerusalem so he couldn't knkow the sightings there,

Joe: Again your assertion that all information begins with Mark is wrong,

I never said that and indeed have pointed to the earlier creed in 1 Cor 15 several times.

Joe: That is not proof...

Not proof, but very good evidence.

not it doesn't say anything you want it to,

Far better than anything you have produced to support your ridiculous claim that the Empty Tomb was part of the gospel from day one.

I have the major scholars saying the PMPN ends with the empty tomb and pre dates mark by several decades,you have nothing on par with that,


Joe: , it o,y means they had not fixated upon the tomb itself because it was not an issue. Paul refers to the resurrection, They didn't believe in the resurrection. That means there had to be an empty tomb,No one disputed that so there was no need to insist on it,or put it in a creed.

But Paul did mention the burial. Was that an issue? Of course not! He mentioned the burial because he believed the burial happened.

Remember, this was a creed. Paul was repeating the beliefs of the church at that time. The passion narrative included the crucifixion, the burial and the resurrection. It did not include the Empty Tomb.

you think he didn't believe in the creeds he sited? how can you prove that? because it's a silly assertion,not likely. Paul didn't advocate things he didn't believe,

And the Empty Tomb was not implicit. Paul did not believe Jesus was resurrected in his original body, 1 Cor 15 makes that clear. We have a good idea what form Paul believed Jesus took after resurrection, a bright light and a voice

yes he sure as hell did, there is no way you can get a second body out of that passage,it says A goes in A comes out of the ground then you just assert it became B just to teach those old Christians a lesson

Joe: Mark tells us there was an empty tomb,

WRONG!

Mark tells us he believed there was an empty tomb.

YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT Mark never says anything like this is just what I think. He says this is the way walk there in, or burn, He says they went in the tomb and saw the place where he had lain it doesn't say maybe it doesn't say I claim it, it says it,

Joe: don't give your bs about where he first appeared just reflect upon the fact that Mark just told us there was an empty tomb,he doesn't talk about those who saw it because we don't have the ending of his book.

We have enough to know Jesus was first seen in Galilee and the women never told any one, both contradicting later claims in Luke and John.

Joe: He is not saying your old body will be replaced with a new one from heaven,

That is exactly what he says. He specifically states that earthly flesh will not do, so you need a new heavenly body. Like the one he saw on Jesus on the Road to Damascus.

No it;s just bleeding obvious he sasy it goes in the ground it comes out of the ground nothing about a new one. all the idea are about redemption not about getting new one;sit st held new,

PMPN says the empty tomb tomb mid century, PMPN empty tomb mid century,Crosson and Koester,




I'm closing this, but I will brig up some of these on Monday
Joe Hinman said…
Let's look at the bleeding ridiculous way Pix deal with y argue ht, He had no argument. He never said anything that threatened to disprove the argument. He tired to turn every minute difference in telling into a new story which didn't work at all.

Then he tried to bombard me with a huge amount of silly ideas all the message board ignorance anything to deny the possibility of an empty tomb. That genitals raging really tenaciously for the most ricidous idea,s

It all hendges upon turning Mark;s silences into absolute fact.His whole case is bassed upon not understanding basic ideas of scripture and insisting upon the most crack brained hypothesis as fact,
Anonymous said…
I see you want to close this off, so I will give some concluding remarks, and quit.

Raymond Brown and the Guards on Tomb

You really need to read the book again. He has a whole section of his book title "Historicity of the Matthean Guard Story", starting on page 1310. He spends the first page or so pointing out that the usual arguments against historicity are pretty poor (eg, because it involved a supernatural event). But then goes on to say:

"Yet there is a major argument against historicity that is impressive indeed."

You think he is impressed by an argument that he rejects? He goes on:

"Not only do the other Gospels not mention the guard at the sepulcher, but the presence of the guard there would make what they narrate about the tomb almost unintelligible."

You think he believes something that he clearly states is "almost unintelligible"?

"The three other Gospels have women come to the tomb on Easter, and the only obstacle to their entrance that is mentioned is the stone."

"There are other internal implausibilities in Matt's account"

"that the Jewish authorities knew the words of Jesus about the resurrection and understood them, when his own disciples did not"

"that the guards could lie successfully about the astounding heavenly intervention"

Perhaps you think Brown believes something which he thinks has "internal implausibilities".

Nothing in the book supports your position that the guards are historical. Brown is arguing that the story was invented prior to Matthew (and after Mark, implicitly). It was added to the written account by Matthew, but continues to develop independently, and it is this more developed account that was later added to Peter.

Joe: that does not mean he thought it was made up. He thinks it was written around 80, the standard date for Matt (hell I agree with that date!), he also says Matt used an older independent tradition not based upon the synoptic sources, so hes really got two sources for the guards,

Older than Matthew yes, but still made up.

Please note that Brown does NOT goes on to knowk down the argument after saying "there is a major argument against historicity that is impressive indeed".

To the contrary, hegoes on to say that that "does not mean the story is without value", and that "its main thrust was an apocalyptic eschatology dramatization of the power of God to make the cause of he Son successful against all human opposition".

He adds: "Truth conveyed by drama can at times be more effectively impressed on people's minds than truth conveyed by history". He is very clear that the guards are a drama and not a history.

You need to read it without your Christian-tinted glasses and see what he really says.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Virgin Birth

All the messianic prophecies said a descendant of David. If you want me to believe there were prophecies that the messiah would instead be born of a virgin you will need some actual quotes. Edersheim's book can be read on-line here:
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/The%20Life%20and%20Times%20of%20Jesus%20the%20Messiah.pdf

On page 588 he discusses the prophecy in Isaiah, seeming to think that God wwas reassuring King Ahaz that the two knigdoms threating Judah would fall with seven centuries, so no need for poor Ahaz to worry! But I found nothing to suggest non_Christian Jews of Jesus time were expecting a Virgin Birth (though I only lightly skimmed it). Can you point me to the page?

You mention Isaiah 9, but I see nothing there about a mother, virgin or not.

And with regards to Jesus family, are we to think them so arrogant that they can manipulate God's chosen to do what they think he should do, rather that what God wants done? The Bible presents them as pious rather than blasphemous.

The Virgin Birth is incompatible with the messiah being of the line of David AND with Jesus' family thinking him mad.


Empty Tomb (and Physical body)

Joe: the James faction was still around, Those who wanted the family to run the church, James Place was filled by their cousin,,

You point about a fracture between Peter and James is refuted by the text in Mark which, if you are right, plays down Peter's role in discovering the Empty Tomb, and bolster's the family's role - the exact opposite of what we would expect.

The idea that Mark was not aware of the Jerusalem appearances is beyond ludicrous. He was Peter's scribe - can you really contend that Peter never in forty years told Mark about them?

I accept that some major scholars put the Empty Tomb in the pre-Markan passion narrative, but that would be Koester and Crossan, both of whom think it was made up.


Reliability of the Accounts

Despite your "YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT" comment, the stark reality is that all we can see in the Gospel of Mark is what the author believed to be true at the time of writing - and that is making the assumption he was entirely honest. The idea that we should talk the text as absolute truth is what I would expect from a fundamentalist, not an academic scholar.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
I told you this was closed You pit more on it i and I'll zap it.

You really need to read the book again. He has a whole section of his book title "Historicity of the Matthean Guard Story", starting on page 1310. He spends the first page or so pointing out that the usual arguments against historicity are pretty poor (eg, because it involved a supernatural event). But then goes on to say:

"Yet there is a major argument against historicity that is impressive indeed."

You think he is impressed by an argument that he rejects? He goes on:

"Not only do the other Gospels not mention the guard at the sepulcher, but the presence of the guard there would make what they narrate about the tomb almost unintelligible."

You think he believes something that he clearly states is "almost unintelligible"?

"The three other Gospels have women come to the tomb on Easter, and the only obstacle to their entrance that is mentioned is the stone."

my position on this was that he set's up an argument so he can knock it down, you now assert if he says it's impressive he must agree with it. Spoken like a true non debater,in debate we see arguments we can beat but thy are strong enough to be impressive they mean nothing more than that when I beat it it will be even more impressive!

you are still ignoring the quot I gave fro Brown saying there is a historical independent traditon of guards on the tomb, you are totally wrong.You are ignoring the truth, You havee not answered my quote I;ve put it in your face several times,

do not try to respond to this,I wll eliminate it,

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

William Lane Craig on "If Mind is Reducible to Brain Function, Why Trust Thought?"

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition

Is Science one Gene away From Defeating Religion?

Early Church Mythers, told you they were coming.

A Simple Illustration of the Trinity