Did Jesus ever exist? (96)

If this is so, you need to demonstrate the Trinitarian nature of YHWH by quotation from the Hebrew Bible.

You then go on to quote from John, an early second century document written in a highly sectarian milieu - remember we were discussing the state of play in Rome in 64AD. This is a Gospel which often shows us a completely different Christ, certainly not one who could have said the above words from Mark. When John's is placed alongside the synoptic Christ, He can give the impression that His Jewish left hand doesn't always know what His Greek right hand is doing. It is however, a great text and does contain what I regard as Christ's greatest moment in Chapter 8, his saving of the woman taken in adultery. This episode does not exist in the earliest versions of the text however. John is not writing history, he's writing theology, in which a great amount of mission creep from Messiah to God has taken place.

Many Biblical scholars regardless of faith no longer attribute the letters of Peter to the fisherman himself.

As for Peter the rock, I must in that case share my misunderstanding of scripture with the Pope.

The Messiah is not part of the Godhead, and besides, there is a military connotation in Judaic history which you fail to mention.

The lack of texts about the Great Fire - perhaps (here I go speculating again) some of them may have been burned in another Great Fire, that of the library of Alexandria.

An occupying power has its intelligence services. These could easily have conveyed the usefulness of some of Christ's teachings to the Roman authorities. They would have served as an antidote to radical Jewish groups.

You haven't responded to what I said about Philo's lack of witness to Matthew by the way. The reason I don't believe in the literal truth of Matthew is because, depraved sceptic that I am, I don't believe that the dead saints left their tombs and walked and appeared unto many, that the Veil of the Temple was rent, that darkness covered the land and there was an earthquake. I think Matthew made all this up from Old Testament points of reference, and commentaries on the OT known as Midrash. One reason I hold these depraved views is because Philo, who knew the area well and whose voluminous writings are still extant, didn't notice any of it.

It was Philo, and not the author of John, who first presented the idea of the Logos, the Word of God. John just takes the process of Hellenization that bit further.

Pilate - Matthew states that he realised he couldn't prevail. He was defeated by the mob, in this case. I don't declare that the pictures of Pilate in Philo and Jospehus are more brutal than the Gospel account - they simply are. Go read them for yourself courtesy of Mr Google.

In reference to Tacitus, dealing with the period around AD69, I wondered why there was no reference to Christians simply because their "turning the other cheek" and general willingness to pay taxes would have been of use to the Roman war effort against the radicals. With Pilate, we are dealing with a period of time 40 years before this. 40 years in which you would have expected the Christian presence in Judea to have grown. Now, if Philo of Alexandria is paying the region enough attention to notice the fact that in AD36 Pilate is recalled to Rome for his killing of the Samaritan leader and his group, why did he fail to report the walking dead, rending veil and general supernatural goings-on in Jerusalem around a decade before? If you had tried harder you could have resolved my apparent contradictions!

I haven't made this claim, go find another strawman. Neither am I "attacking faith" in the way you suggest.

I expressed the strong belief that the words "His blood be upon us and our children" were never said. Just as the dead never actually rose and roamed around Jerusalem. In this case however there is a definite echo of those verses from Exodus - the ones discussed on this board a while back - you know, the ones about "I your God am a jealous God and I will visit the sins of the fathers on the children even down to the nth generation". Matthew is referencing this text here, he does this kind of stuff all the time. Lots of his Gospel is made up of this kind of oblique comment. Sometimes he gets it wrong, as in the case of the thirty pieces of silver in Jeremiah which were actually in Zachariah.

By the way, it isn't only I who doubt the veracity of the crowd's words. There are Christians too who think that the course of history would have run a lot smoother had Matthew never written these words in a text that was considered to be absolutely Gospel truth. But never mind, we are all of us in thrall to supposition and prejudice...

Edited 27 Aug 11, 6:44 PM by Arry_le_Switch

Edited 27 Aug 11, 6:42 PM by Arry_le_Switch

There's a strong connection between Jesus and Homer Simpson. I've never met either but so much of what I've heard about each points to the existence of men who live within the world I'm aware of and yet some of the stuff they're also attributed to have done equally convinces me they don't exist at all. Either they exist and some of their escapades are lies or they're non-existent and were created for allegorical purposes within their age.

"Fork handles?" "No, not 'fork handles' ... four candles."

(I posted that specially for Proccie, and English_Master)

"To Rample: the ability to reduce a man to helplessness through a chilly sensuality" (Barry Norman, about Charlotte Rampling)

Here are the verses being referred to from Matthew -

15 He saith unto them But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him Blessed art thou Simon bar Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven.

18 And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I made an off the cuff comment to your reply "Well, I must share my misunderstanding with the Pope then" and moved on.

I had a look again at the text as I wondered if you could possibly be right. I thought that that the only way in which your interpretation might work is if the words "thou art Peter" were dropped from the text. I was genuinely puzzled as to why you put this way of considering the text forward. However you read it, with "Thou art Peter" in you just can't escape the impression that the text means what I had always thought it meant.

Then the penny dropped.

Your interpretation is a Protestant or sectarian one. It must be, for it is profoundly anti-Catholic. Its object is to delegitimise the Papacy. It must be. There can be no other plausible explanation. Can there?

There are enormous issues here.

Edited 27 Aug 11, 10:19 PM by Arry_le_Switch

The silky-smooth soothing voice of reason and logic. (You WILL feel much better and speak more sense while very securely tied-up...)

and Matthew was present, wrote it all down word for word in shorthand and then wrote it as a permanent certified record?

^Thunder^
@For_Sale_And_Wanted I.C's own Exchange & Mart| ThunderPix XXtra|

Nothing's much changed, so anyone thinking 'politics' has been divorced from 'religious control' had better get real.

Like him or loathe him, as an historian Eric Jon Phelps (on youtube) says loads which should not be ignored.

The silky-smooth soothing voice of reason and logic. (You WILL feel much better and speak more sense while very securely tied-up...)

Edited 28 Aug 11, 11:32 AM by SirLashleyS

No, really, we're not trying to take over the world. Just looking to get by and protect our families from the mäelstrom of hatred, insanity and murderous conflict that swirls around us.

"He took a single sip of her pain and found it exquisite"