(December 28, 2011 at 7:53 am)Welsh cake Wrote:

(December 28, 2011 at 6:01 am)Barre Wrote: The question of debate: Does Mark 15:34 probably contain the words of a historical Jesus?

There is no historical evidence that Jesus, his life, death, crucifixion and/or resurrection ever occurred. Not a single shred.

As a pantheist why do you care in any case?

Because NT studies was my minor in graduate school. I advocate and practice the secular, academic study of the biblical writings no different from say an Egyptologist or a classics scholar.

---

(December 28, 2011 at 7:53 am)Welsh cake Wrote:

(December 28, 2011 at 6:01 am)Barre Wrote: The question of debate: Does Mark 15:34 probably contain the words of a historical Jesus?

There is no historical evidence that Jesus, his life, death, crucifixion and/or resurrection ever occurred. Not a single shred.

As a pantheist why do you care in any case?

Jesis. James, the brother of Jesus and John the Baptizer are all mentioned in both the canonical writings and in extra-biblical writings. Then there are the wriings in the Christian canon. Here are some occurences found outside of the Bible.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib.html

Then you need to understand that people around here react negatively to bible studies because we have too many nutjobs show up insisting that this shit is not only REAL but LITERAL and trying to shove it up our asses as the 'word of god.'

It gets tiresome.


My complaint is that parsing words - which were written in ancient languages and then translated and re-translated into modern languages is pretty much a pointless exercise since we lack the original documents and have no way of knowing what the originals said.

Anyway, what you quoted turns up in Psalm 22:

Quote:Psalm 22

1My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Kind of backs up Earl Doherty's point that this shit is little more than a rehash of the OT.

(December 28, 2011 at 9:56 pm)Barre Wrote: Jesis. James, the brother of Jesus and John the Baptizer are all mentioned in both the canonical writings and in extra-biblical writings.

Such as?

Quote:Then there are the wriings in the Christian canon.

Citation please.

Quote:Here are some occurences found outside of the Bible.
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib.html

You claim to be advocate in Biblical scholarship and yet you link to a site that mentions Josephus. >.>

That gets discounted from the get-go, most good scholars suspect the passages are nothing more than 4th Century Christian interpolations.

Read here for more on the supposed authenticity of those writings because I honestly don't have the time to waste on you if your standards of evidence are THAT low:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/s...ojfaq.html

These alleged xtian scholars get real quiet whenever Origen's Contra Celsus is mentioned.

He specifically names Book XVIII of Antiquities of the Jews and correctly cites the John the Baptist reference from it. However, he specifically denies that Josephus accepted jebus as the messiah and never makes any reference whatsoever to any inkling of the TF in spite of the fact that it would have clinched the point he was trying to make at the time. Instead he goes off on some absurd tangent about how Jerusalem was destroyed because the Jews killed "James the Just" and doesn't mention how they also, just as an aside, killed the fucking son of god, too.

It takes a special kind of xtian asshole to try to salvage Eusebius' obvious forgery.

(December 28, 2011 at 8:11 am)aleialoura Wrote: Barre! Again? The bible is ancient trash fiction!

It is simply ignorant to talk of the Bible as some sort of supernaturalistic, unified "book." No, it is obviously a collection of many documents, many of which have undergone significant editing. I can only conclude that you know next to nothing about the academic study of the Bible and probably know little about the contents of these ancient writings. Your triumphant statement is patent blather. You are making yourself look no-minded, uneducated and stupid... and proud of it to boot.

---

(December 28, 2011 at 10:48 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Then you need to understand that people around here react negatively to bible studies because we have too many nutjobs show up insisting that this shit is not only REAL but LITERAL and trying to shove it up our asses as the 'word of god.'

It gets tiresome.

I am not one of them. . .by a long shot.


My complaint is that parsing words - which were written in ancient languages and then translated and re-translated into modern languages is pretty much a pointless exercise since we lack the original documents and have no way of knowing what the originals said.

You seem to be confused about textual criticism. Do you understand it?

Anyway, what you quoted turns up in Psalm 22:

Quote:Psalm 22

1My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Kind of backs up Earl Doherty's point that this shit is little more than a rehash of the OT.

What shit are you talking about specifically and why, in your considered opinion, is it "shit?"

Bare, i suggest if you want to get biblical insight you not go to this form. athiests only believe what is physical and only read the bible enough to try to throw it back at christians playing the "got you" game. they have no interest in understanding it.

(December 30, 2011 at 9:48 am)Barre Wrote: It is simply ignorant to talk of the Bible as some sort of supernaturalistic, unified "book." No, it is obviously a collection of many documents, many of which have undergone significant editing. I can only conclude that you know next to nothing about the academic study of the Bible and probably know little about the contents of these ancient writings. Your triumphant statement is patent blather. You are making yourself look no-minded, uneducated and stupid... and proud of it to boot.

He who has no respect for ancient texts –any ancient texts- is an ignoramus!

Anyway, I did not read the whole thread so go ahead and ignore my post if you have already discussed Mark 15:35-36 or Matthew 27:47-49, that is, what happens after Jesus spoke those four Hebrew words.

I suspect that the author of the gospel committed a grave mistake because he most probably did not speak himself Hebrew or Aramaic or whatever language Jesus was supposed to speak.
He was writing in Greek, he had Jesus speaking in Greek and when he eventually used four words of Jesus’ own language he was carried away and presented those standing by the cross (or some of those there) expecting Jesus to actually speak in Greek. They mistook the name “Eloi” or “El” for the common Greek name Ηλίας (Elias).

Quote:καί τινες τῶν παρεστηκότων ἀκούσαντες ἔλεγον• ἴδε Ἠλίαν φωνεῖ.

Those by the cross did not understand the Hebrew words because in his mind they did not speak Hebrew.

The gospels were written directly in Greek. There were never any originals in Hebrew.

"He who has no respect for ancient texts –any ancient texts- is an ignoramus!"

i like this quote. i totally agree with it.

(December 28, 2011 at 7:53 am)Welsh cake Wrote:

(December 28, 2011 at 6:01 am)Barre Wrote: The question of debate: Does Mark 15:34 probably contain the words of a historical Jesus?

There is no historical evidence that Jesus, his life, death, crucifixion and/or resurrection ever occurred. Not a single shred.

As a pantheist why do you care in any case?

Here is some "data" you might want to know about regarding extra-blbical mention of NT figures.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib.html

I am trained to advance knowledge of the biblical writings. It's my profession.

Quote:F. F. Bruce has provided a more likely translation:

Oh, that's baloney. He has done exactly what Thomas Jefferson did and taken out all the magic tricks in order to salvage some of what xtians desperately need: a historical reference to their boy.

There is no earlier text which gives even a hint of this watered-down TF. It appears, in all its glory, in Eusebius in the 4th century. Not a single xtian or non-xtian writer makes the slightest reference to it before then.

Whatever was written originally was insufficient to give the earlier xtian writer, Origen, even a hint that the passage was about his jesus.

Bruce says Josephus wrote: "He was the so-called Christ. "

Origen, writing 75 years before Eusebius says of Josephus: "Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ,"


Something smells here.