Plagiarism in the NT

[GUBU]

Aquinas's 5W

---

Indeed Ash I found it

I love how he dismisses the base elements of the quinque viae as untenable, yets bleats how the quinque viae are themselves correct. It's almost as if Wooters believes that reciting a lie often enough makes it true.

[Mister Agenda]

In regards to claims, that the crucifixion account is inaccurate of what occurred at the time:

Here is a paper with a number of citations about the Jewish tradition to take down even accursed criminals from crucifixion. It presents a larger argument with references to the Old Testament, examples before and after Jesus, and also of some of the other practices in regards to the crucifixion.

http://www.craigaevans.com/Burial_Traditions.pdf

I don't normally like to just post links, and I realize this is two now.  But the first was for speed....for the second is much more than I could do with my limited time and resources.

Thanks for that bit of information. It seems to me that it makes the 'Jesus was in a deep coma from which he awoke' hypothesis more plausible: no need to bribe guards to get Jesus off the cross as quickly as possible, once he appeared to be dead and passed the 'spear-poke test', they could take him down.

[Astonished]

I notice that you attack and try to discredit the source, rather than the information.  You actually said nothing about any of his arguments or facts in this regard. You are going to have to do a lot better than that.

Considering your entire argument is based on asserted authority and no actual evidence, you're not giving us much choice, but if someone has an agenda to push and good reason to lie, or comes from a time when ignorance was rife and communication was at its lowest, then fuck yes, we'll question the validity of the source, you fucking moron, what the fuck is so hard to grasp about that?

[Minimalist]

I don't think that basing an argument on the number of scrolls depicted in a 13th Century painting is a wise choice.

It's an example and obviously lost on someone like you.  NOnetheless, the pastorals are universally considered forgeries except by fundie fuckups and I share Carrier's opinion of them.  Of even more note is the far more recent determination by scholarship that even the so-called "authentic" epistles of nothing but mash-ups of multiple letters.

I must say, I always thought that "paul" was drivel.  Now I know why.  These were not coherent works but shit strung together by later editors.  But let's get past the pastorals first.  I've got time.

[RoadRunner79]

I don't think that basing an argument on the number of scrolls depicted in a 13th Century painting is a wise choice.

It's an example and obviously lost on someone like you.  NOnetheless, the pastorals are universally considered forgeries except by fundie fuckups and I share Carrier's opinion of them.  Of even more note is the far more recent determination by scholarship that even the so-called "authentic" epistles of nothing but mash-ups of multiple letters.

I must say, I always thought that "paul" was drivel.  Now I know why.  These were not coherent works but shit strung together by later editors.  But let's get past the pastorals first.  I've got time.

Ok... well please explain, what is lost in the number of scrolls in a painting many centuries later.  Is there more to the story, and argument that you are not stating? 

Ok.... as I said, there are number of scholars who disagree.... the question is why should I believe that they are or are not?

[The Grand Nudger]

Thanks for that bit of information. It seems to me that it makes the 'Jesus was in a deep coma from which he awoke' hypothesis more plausible: no need to bribe guards to get Jesus off the cross as quickly as possible, once he appeared to be dead and passed the 'spear-poke test', they could take him down.

Plausible in the sense that once you've already bought the implausible one might find the need to refer to comas on the cross....which is a fairly creative use of the term plausibility. Supposing, for the sake of discusion, that there -was- a jesus..you aren;t getting any details of his life from the gospels. You're getting theology and ritual symbolism. Referring to them for the details is like referring to myths about pixies as a treatise on gardening.

This isn;t even lost on the faithful, though their faith blindsides them to it. You will not find, in the gospels..the story of that one time jesus stubbed his toe, or took a particularly solid shit. He doesn't call in sick on a monday or make idle conversation. All that is "recorded" is steeped in doctrinal authority. If there ever were a jesus...and I don't think there was, the success of the jesus myth is -precisely- why any knowledge of that person has been eradicated. The same is and was true of paul bunyan, almost certainly based on at least one person if not a racial stereotype of a group of people....but you'll learn nothing about any of them by referring to the stories. You are, above, looking for plausibility in his big blue ox. Maybe it was just abnormally large and covered in azurite chalk?

[RoadRunner79]

I notice that you attack and try to discredit the source, rather than the information.  You actually said nothing about any of his arguments or facts in this regard. You are going to have to do a lot better than that.

Considering your entire argument is based on asserted authority and no actual evidence, you're not giving us much choice, but if someone has an agenda to push and good reason to lie, or comes from a time when ignorance was rife and communication was at its lowest, then fuck yes, we'll question the validity of the source, you fucking moron, what the fuck is so hard to grasp about that?

I'm curious.... did you even read the article that was posted?   And no, I'm not saying that it must be accepted, because of authority.  I encourage you to check things out for yourself.

Here is a reference to what you are replying to, just in case your interested.

---

In regards to claims, that the crucifixion account is inaccurate of what occurred at the time:

Here is a paper with a number of citations about the Jewish tradition to take down even accursed criminals from crucifixion. It presents a larger argument with references to the Old Testament, examples before and after Jesus, and also of some of the other practices in regards to the crucifixion.

http://www.craigaevans.com/Burial_Traditions.pdf

I don't normally like to just post links, and I realize this is two now.  But the first was for speed....for the second is much more than I could do with my limited time and resources.

---

[The Grand Nudger]

Evans quote mines a suspicious half sentence of josephus, and builds the body of his argument around OT myths...including exodus. That's not exactly impressive, at least..if what you're aiming for is historicity, rather than theological flourish. Seems like Min nailed it the first go round. We have an apologist on our hands, more than willing to lie for christ - not a historian.

[RoadRunner79]

Evans quote mines a suspicious half sentence of josephus, and builds the body of his argument around OT myths...including exodus.  That's not exactly impressive, at least..if what you're aiming for is historicity, rather than theological flourish.  Seems like Min nailed it the first go round.   We have an apologist on our hands, more than willing to lie for christ - not a historian.

He has a lot of citations, and I have read the quote of Josephus in War of the Jews.   How do you think that it is quote mined or taken out of context?  But then again, he quotes Josephus a number of times, so you may be referring to something else.    As to "OT myths" these are referencing the customs and beliefs of the Jewish people, which is relevant to the discussion (regardless of your bias against the origins).   This is also supported by other references. 

However; if you checked it out.... name 1 lie in the article.  Even then if only partially correct, there is more than enough here to substantiate that the claim as plausible that Jesus would not have been removed so quickly from the cross.  Now I'm more than willing to listen to the arguments and reasons, no matter who the source is.   But simply rejecting the source, and vague claims aren't going convince me. Nor are appeals to many scholars, when there are also many scholars also disagree.   I want to know why.  I'm starting to notice a pattern, and beginning to believe that many athiest don't really think through their own arguments, that they proclaim, nor the arguments against.   At least based on the evidence here.

[Amarok]

Carrier already addressed the guards being bribed it's entirely possible they were. Evans is an apologist quack

Evans tried this crap in his debate with Carrier and was hammered for it

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10935