In a message dated 31/12/00 15:14:57 GMT Standard Time, sejones@iinet.net.au
writes:
Avoiding answering. Lesson #1
> >PR>Is this proof of the paucity of apologetics. You haven't provided
evidence
> >for any of these "mutually contradictory". True there are different
> >explanations for different parts but no-one claims they are all true.
>
> Which is the same as saying they are all "mutually contradictory"!
Nope.
> >PR>True. But this is supported by simply reading the Gospels together.
> >And it is far more common for Christians to make ad hoc explanations !
>
> Since Christians are the ones making the explanations in defence of the
> Gospels, a critic could always say this.
And the point is.
> >PR>True. And they did that. But they changed bits to fit their own
theology.
> >Some things don't fit at all (for example, Jesus last words). John
> >doesn't fit the other three at all well.
>
> Paul is making the unfounded assumption that Jesus can only have said the
> things in the synoptic gospels. But unless Paul was there himself, he
cannot
> know this. John was probably the last of the gospels to be written and it
> would make sense for him not to repeat what the others had said but
> supplement their account with his own account.
And this is an answer how ?
> In the case of Jesus' sayings on the cross, Matthew and John were probably
> the only gospel writers actually present at Jesus' crucifixion. And it
seems
> from Mk 15:40 and Lk 23:49 that most of Jesus' followers "stood at a
> distance, watching these things". But Jn 19:25-26 says that John was with
> Jesus' mother "Near the cross of Jesus", so he probably heard more things
> that Jesus said than the other gospel writers.
Coming from someone who complains about assertions....
> >PR>No, you need to show they are [Gospels PR] true.
>
> No. All that I need to do is show that the gospel accounts *could* be
true.
> It is beyond my abilities to show that they *are* true.
*Almost* anything "could" be true. Actually, this is disguised shifting the
burden of proof.
> Besides, an anti-supernaturalistic critic like Paul would always deny that
> the gospels were true, no matter what evidence I was able to present.
Same old ad hominem saws.
Jones doesn't really understand ad hominem. He thinks , I suspect, it's
being called an "idiot". Actually this is a perfect usage of it above.
> But if the gospel accounts *are* true, then anti-supernaturalistic critics
> like Paul will know one day, too late, that they were true.
About the thirtieth threat of hell received from Jones.
> No. Paul himself claimed in a previous post to the effect that the gospel
> writers could not be trusted because all Christian apologists could not be
> trusted.
A gross simplification.
> See previous. [Gospel Historical Accuracy]
Never answered, needless to say.
> >PR>No, its the bits of Matthew and Luke that are common and not in Marcan
> >material, Steve.
>
> See previous. That the gospel writers made use of source materials is not
> disputed. That it was a document named Q is disputed.
Gloriously stupid argument. Of course it wasn't named "Q".
> The fact is that the Q hypothesis has failed and is rejected by most NT
> scholars:
Scholars = people who agree with me.
Long quote 20 years old. Much snipped, to show the real reason
the author doesn't like "Q" ; it doesn't support his preconception
of Jesus.
> 11, and 7? (e) If "Q" is conceived of-as it often is-as having been
> an early Gospel, we may well ask, "What kind of Gospel is this,
> one that lacks the most essential part of all, namely, the story of the
> crucifixion and the resurrection?" .... It is understandable,
>
> And:
>
[another long quote from a fundie]
Fundies don't like it. I know.
> >PR>Oohhh... Radical [Jesus Seminar], Must be bad then.
>
> No. Just inconsistent and therefore wrong.
That settles it then.
> See above.
> See above.
> There is no evidence that it *ever* existed! [all about Q]
>
> >I am referring to the original written sources kept by the apostle
Matthew,
> >the record of Peter's teaching kept by Mark, the historical research
> >conducted by Luke: and either the notes or memory of the apostle John. I
> >can expand on this if necessary.
>
>PR>Okay, I mean this has to be a joke, doesn't it Steve. I mean , look at
> your complaints above about 'Q', and then you write this !
>
> No. See above.
Is there another human being on the planet that can't spot this inconsistency.
> See above.
> No. See above.
> >PR>Er. Read the bits of Matthew that came from Mark and see how he changed
> >some of them.
>
> Paul has no conclusive evidence that "Matthew that came from Mark". It is
> just an *assumption*.
There are two possible conclusions here. Jones is being incredibly pedantic
about language. Or he is mind numbingly ignorant.
> Personally I agree with the original view, now making a comeback, which
> is that Matthew was the original source gospel:
Still a major minority view, of course. Does it bother you that your arguments
are totally inconsistent ; see about 5 lines up.
> >PR>No, they are rewriting Mark's version, [and the "core event" document
> you don't like].
>
> See above.
>
> PR>You surely don't think this is based on eyewitness testimony
> >do you ? Well, you probably do.
>
> Yes. One of the gospels (Luke) *claims* that his gospel was " based on
> eyewitness testimony":
>
> Lk 1:2 "just as they were handed down to us by those who from the
> first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."
Highly questionable whether this means "based on eyewitness testimony"
except in the most pedantic use of language. Why do you think Luke
says "us" rather than "me" ?
> Another gospel writer (John) claims he wrote his gospel based on his
> "witness" of them:
>
> Jn 21:24 "This is the disciple who testifies [Gk. witnesses] to these
> things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is
> true."
Vague at best. Tell me, do you believe everyone who tells you they
witnessed something to be accurafe ?
> >PR>I can't believe you are so stupid to believe that 'Q' was constructed
> this way.
>
> Paul still doesn't get it. I don't believe that there was a 'Q' to be
> "constructed" (i.e. re-constructed) in the first place!
That's actually an irrelevance. You're claim that "Q" was constructed
by naturalists (usual Jones buzz words) is unsupported, and
comes from the fact that you don't like it.
> So when naturalistic (= anti-supernaturalistic) scholars
Who were Christians.
> derived a
> hypothetical document called `Q' from the gospels, the only document that
> *could* have resulted was one that depicted "a far more credible,
> demythologised Jesus than anything in the Bible"!
Gosh.
> It is an exercise in self-deception if they really thought that what they
> finished up with was what the *real* source of the gospels. What Geisler
> writes of the Jesus Seminar anti-supernaturalist methodology applies here
> also:
Oh, here we go. More quotes. From Norman "God is not a religious
concept" Giesler.
He seems to have the same stupid ideas as to how "Q" was put together
as you do. "Q" is the material common to Matthew and Luke which isn't
in Mark.
> They demoted the first-
> century and eyewitness contemporary accounts of Jesus' life (the
> four Gospels)
[snip]
> Circular Reasoning. The reasoning process of the Jesus Seminar is a
> sophisticated form of the logical fallacy known as Petitio Princippi,
> or begging the question. Its circular reasoning begins with a
> desupernaturalized view or a first-century figure and concludes at
> the same point.
Is Giesler really this dumb ?
> criticism. Their conclusions are contrary to the overwhelming
> evidence for the historicity of the New Testament and the reliability
> of the New Testament witnesses. They are based on an
> unsubstantiated antisupernatural bias. "
Yes, he is !
> >PR>Of course, it doesn't occur to you that the Gospel authors could do
this
> too.
>
> Unlike the modern critics, the gospel authors *knew* Jesus first-hand.
Wow !
> PR>Actually I agree with your "reflection of themselves" remark.
> Then Paul has just shot himself in the foot!
Why ?
> >>PR>It amazes me that you can write such nonsense. Paul had no knowledge
> >>of the Jesus in the Gospels.
>
> >SJ>Since Paul's companion for much of his Christian life was Luke who
wrote
> >one of the gospels,
I missed this ! How did I miss this ?
>> this bit of modern liberal scholarship dogma is itself
> >"nonsense".
>
> >PR>Well, point out to me where Paul refers to the life and works of Jesus
> >outside the absolute basics then.
>
> Paul contradicts himself. His first claim was "Paul had no knowledge of
the
> Jesus in the Gospels" but now he admits that Paul knew of "the absolute
> basics" of 'the life and works of Jesus"!
Pedantic, to be generous, but technically accurate. I am pretty sure
Jones knows what I mean.
> I did not say that "Paul refers to the life and works of Jesus" (i.e. in
any
> detail). I said earlier that Paul's letters were to Christian churches
about
> various specific matters where "the life and works of Jesus" (to use
Paul's
> words) were not in dispute.
Standard apologetic "it wasn't worth repeating". Odd that (like your Tacitean
"analysis" noone behaved like that before or since, isn't it ?).
Isn't a much simpler conclusion that Paul didn't know any of the salient
facts beyond "Christ and him crucified"
> I also pointed out that Paul's friend and travelling companion was one of
> the gospel writers, Luke (Col 4:14, 2Tim 4:11; Phm 1:24), but I should
> have added that at another time it was Mark (Acts 12:25; Phm 1:24).
Assertion ; you've already stated the Gospel authors
>
> himself (Acts 9:22; 11:26). So the idea that Paul was ignorant of "the
life
> and works of Jesus" is simply absurd.
Cos you say so, eh ? And the Bible ? Why do you think in this case, that
"Scholars" don't agree and apologists are continually desperately trying to
tweak bits of the Gospels out of Paul's letter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 01 2001 - 12:22:38 EST