tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post5411737897503739045..comments2024-03-28T15:31:02.860-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: The Easter Event: Trnasmitted Faithfully From the BeginingJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-22784671332512411462009-04-26T19:52:00.000-07:002009-04-26T19:52:00.000-07:00First off if you want to discuss this I think you ...First off if you want to discuss this I think you might want to adopt a different tone.<br /><br />That being said, are you asserting that there is no evidence that the skeptical case involves a pre-existing myth or that there is no evidence for a pre-existing myth.<br /><br />If the first how would you like to establish this? <br /><br />If the second then I'd site just about every study of paganism out there from the Golden Bough through Kersey Graves, "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors" to modern stuff like Turner's work on the development of the Sethians, Berger Pearson Gnosticism, Judaism and Egyptian Christianity.<br /><br />And yes I read what you wrote on the Diatessaron, which is well into the 2nd century. Your claims about the resurrection started with the "unified presentation" and moved directly to Mark. Mark doesn't provide evidence for your main point since the unification involving Mark occurs late. You are the one who opens with Mark. <br /><br />If you want a text which is frequently dated to the 1st centuy and contains a resurrection Matthew is probably your best bet (and even that is questionable). <br /><br />As for the textual criticism and the "pre Markian" material even if the theory were true, doesn't help you because it isn't tied to a specific preacher necessarily. Older legends can get attached to new people or new things. The gospel writers do this themselves explicitly and arguably that is all that Mark is, a construction from the LXX. So you can do better than Mark if you want to go early. Go back to 100 BCE with resurrection material using Wisdom literature and much further back than that from non Jewish sources. <br /><br />In other words what you need is all of:<br /><br />1) Early 100 C.E., preferably sooner<br />2) Talking about the specific historical person you are interested in Jesus of Nazareth<br />3) Resurrection account<br /><br />To prove your "the resurrection happened early" and was widely agreed to. <br /><br />And for that use the 7 core Pauline epistles not the gospels. Those at least get you #1 and #3. You still have a big problem with #2, but I'll stop here for now. <br /><br />You want an unquestionably early Gospel (early 2nd century) that ties to a historical individual, and talks of the resurrection then Gospel of the Lord is probably you best bet.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-89179163092661080802009-04-26T18:40:00.000-07:002009-04-26T18:40:00.000-07:00I'm not you are accurately capturing the skeptical...I'm not you are accurately capturing the skeptical argument here. The skeptical argument is that there was a pre-existing myth regarding a resurrection and that this mythos was applied to Jesus; not that a myth developed independently about Jesus.<br /><br /><br /><B>that doesn't negate the arguemnt I made and it has no basis in reality. No evidence to support it.</B>Further using Mark for the resurrection is rather questionable<br /><br /><B>I used all the Gospels including non canonical and pre Mark.<br /><br />even so there's no valid basis for your statement.</B> if you are going to argue on the basis of good quality transmission of ancient texts. The earlier version of Mark (2nd century and most 3rd century end midway through Mark 16:8. There are then 2 separate endings that start showing up and finally we end up canonical Mark.<br /><br /><br /><B>did you read the article? do you not under textual crticism. what you are saying has nothing at all to do with it. You are not even thinking about the pre mark redaction and the diatessonic evidence. <br /><br />read it again. pay attention.</B>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-21160232179440043452009-04-26T16:23:00.000-07:002009-04-26T16:23:00.000-07:00J.L. --
I'm not you are accurately capturing the...J.L. --<br /><br />I'm not you are accurately capturing the skeptical argument here. The skeptical argument is that there was a pre-existing myth regarding a resurrection and that this mythos was applied to Jesus; not that a myth developed independently about Jesus. <br /><br />Further using Mark for the resurrection is rather questionable if you are going to argue on the basis of good quality transmission of ancient texts. The earlier version of Mark (2nd century and most 3rd century end midway through Mark 16:8. There are then 2 separate endings that start showing up and finally we end up canonical Mark.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-60853771229425857232009-04-22T07:15:00.000-07:002009-04-22T07:15:00.000-07:00Loren it takes more than just incredulity to make ...Loren it takes more than just incredulity to make an argument. What you are saying boils down to nothing more than "I don't' believe it." so what? calling a "thought experiment" doesn't turn into proof of anything.<br /><br />either it's right or it's wrong. We can't back in time. We can't record it. Unless Dr Who shows up and takes me in the Tardis all I can do is go by the evdience. The evidence tells me belief is rational.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-67450179375488002402009-04-22T03:26:00.000-07:002009-04-22T03:26:00.000-07:00I propose this thought experiement.
Imagine that ...I propose this thought experiement.<br /><br />Imagine that you have a time machine and a video camera, and that you could go back in time and try to watch Jesus Christ rise from the dead. What would you see? And what would your camera record?<br /><br />Metacrock, according to what you are claiming, you could not only watch JC rise from the dead, but also take some video of him doing so. Is that correct?<br /><br />However, I've seen one theologian, John Haught, who claims that such a camera would record nothing. Agree or disagree? Why?<br /><br />My own opinion is that that event never happened, that it was as fictional as the Greek Gods getting involved in the Trojan War or the prophet Mohammed riding a winged horse to Heaven.<br /><br />I believe that because miracles have a remarkable shyness effect, just like psi phenomena. The better one's observation techniques and the closer one is to the alleged events, the weaker the claimed effects become. Why aren't large numbers of people with video cameras recording big, spectacular miracles on the scale of the parting of the Red Sea?<br /><br />And I also believe this because of the human capacity for will to believe, and also for fraudulence, including pious fraudulence. Metacrock, do you think that all those medieval relics are genuine?Lorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984896453534621864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-57923461642397658492009-04-11T07:04:00.000-07:002009-04-11T07:04:00.000-07:00thanks you left the very same comment on atheist w...thanks you left the very same comment on atheist watch but signied it "Alanna"Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com