Evidence for Jesus

[_marg]

marg,

There is something it the above asserted by Ehrman that doesn't square with me. At the outside chance that you are online and reading this right now, are you using "passover meal" in terms of what is traditionally called "The Last Supper"? I need a bit of time to examine this in my Bible and then come back to it here.

I'll try to have a response shortly (this evening).

Ehrman discusses the Jewish festival..Feast of Passover. It was a major annual event in Jesus' day. Jews came from around the world to celebrate the feast in Jerusalem.

They would arrive a week in advance to undergo a ritual of purification that would allow them to eat the meal. Then the afternnon before the meal, they would bring a lamb- which was to be eaten as part of the celebration - to the Temple (or else the lamb would be purchased there) to be sacrificed by the priests.

The rest of the day was spent preparing the meal and was called the "Day of Preparation for the Passover" In Jewish reckoning a new day begins not at midnight but when it gets dark. After the lambs were sacrificed, they were taken home to cook. The meal was eaten after it got dark on the day of Passover itself.

In Mark- Jesus lived through the Day of preparation, had Passover meal that night and put on cross the next morning, the day of Passover.

In John, Jesus was condemned and led off to be executed at 12 noon the day of Preparation of Passover, before the meal for the festival even began.

That's Ehrman's explanation, with a few of my words in there. He doesn't refer to any meal as the Last supper, I guess because Last Supper says nothing about timing in relation to the Festival.

[_Jersey Girl]

marg,

There is something it the above asserted by Ehrman that doesn't square with me. At the outside chance that you are online and reading this right now, are you using "passover meal" in terms of what is traditionally called "The Last Supper"? I need a bit of time to examine this in my Bible and then come back to it here.

I'll try to have a response shortly (this evening).

Ehrman discusses the Jewish festival..Feast of Passover. It was a major annual event in Jesus' day. Jews came from around the world to celebrate the feast in Jerusalem.

They would arrive a week in advance to undergo a ritual of purification that would allow them to eat the meal. Then the afternnon before the meal, they would bring a lamb- which was to be eaten as part of the celebration - to the Temple (or else the lamb would be purchased there) to be sacrificed by the priests.

The rest of the day was spent preparing the meal and was called the "Day of Preparation for the Passover" In Jewish reckoning a new day begins not at midnight but when it gets dark. After the lambs were sacrificed, they were taken home to cook. The meal was eaten after it got dark on the day of Passover itself.

In Mark- Jesus lived through the Day of preparation, had Passover meal that night and put on cross the next morning, the day of Passover.

In John, Jesus was condemned and led off to be executed at 12 noon the day of Preparation of Passover, before the meal for the festival even began.

That's Ehrman's explanation, with a few of my words in there. He doesn't refer to any meal as the Last supper, I guess because Last Supper says nothing about timing in relation to the Festival.

Yes, I know about the process and the accounts. The thing is that Mark includes the identifcation of Judas in the same "meal" as that of John. Or at least I think that is the case. I'm checking...

[_GoodK]

And once again...there is no derailment here, GoodK. You raised the issue.

It's clear to anyone who can read that you are now backpeddling away from your previous post. I provided some good examples of our "exchange".

I don't see what the big deal is, if you want to discuss the many, many flaws in what is known as the Bible, I'm down like a clown, Charlie Brown.

I'll keep my eyes out for a new thread (in one of the lower kingdoms, of course, because ad hominems aren't allowed here)

What's clear GoodK, is that you are unable or unwilling to engage the issues that you yourself raised in a discussion of Evidence for Jesus. The "big deal" is that this is a topical discussion and you fail to engage the topic. By all means, keep your eye out wherever you wish and feel free to report my posts here to any moderator of your choice. I've already asked the mods to review my posts and you?

Jersey Girl, this is probably the last off-topic exchange I will indulge you with.
The issue is whether or not there is evidence for Jesus, not whether or not the New Testament contradicts itself.
I'll let the other posts speak for themselves...

GoodK,

One more time. The topic is Evidence for Jesus. The New Testament was raised as evidence for Jesus. You rejected the New Testament as evidence for Jesus, in part, because you assert that the New Testament contradicts itself. I then asked you to provide evidence for said contradictions, you supplied the Friday/Saturday issue as evidence for said contradictions and I countered.

Of course, the issue of contradictions is part of the topic. If you felt it were not, you wouldn't have raised the issue.

If you disagree with the above evaluation, tell me why you raised the issue.

For the third time, the New Testament is not evidence for anything other than itself. This would be true even if the New Testament was completely succinct about the details of Jesus' life.

I pointed out that it can't get much of the details of Jesus life straight as another reason why we shouldn't take it too seriously.

Are you still trying to say that the New Testament doesn't contradict itself, or are you just arguing this for the sake of derailing the thread?

I've asked five times now for you to move this portion to a new thread where it can be addressed in depth without distracting from the very specific topic Richard brought up in this thread and now a new one. If you don't want to do it, ask another moderator to do it for us. Liz -- help????

[_Jersey Girl]

I've asked five times now for you to move this portion to a new thread where it can be addressed in depth without distracting from the very specific topic Richard brought up in this thread and now a new one. If you don't want to do it, ask another moderator to do it for us. Liz -- help????

What part of you refuses to read the remarks I've made to you regarding moderator action on this thread? You can contact any other moderator via PM's and they will respond here.

[Anonymous]

Besides being an ad hominal which seems to be the modus operandi in discussion of just about every religious individual in this thread, that is just attack anyone who doesn't share your opinion, you are grossly distorting and misrepresenting GoodK's argument.

If I grossly distorted and misrepresented GoodK's argument, then I apologize. But I don't believe I did.

The reason why the Gospels are unreliable regarding the historicity of Jesus because that is by the way what GoodK is arguing not what you bring up Nevo, "historical Jesus scholarship, goes well beyond that they contradict each other, that's only one aspect of why they are unreliable evidence for Jesus' existence. And no where did I read GoodK imply that because there are contradictions that means there can not be any factual information in the them.

Okay. You're saying that GoodK argued that the Gospels are unreliable regarding the historicity of Jesus. I agree. Now what reasons did GoodK give in support of that argument? The only reason I saw--which GoodK stated repeatedly--is that the Gospels contain contradictions.

Was I wrong to connect the two? You don't seem to think so because you write that this is "one aspect of why they are unreliable evidence." Well, what were the other reasons he gave? I must have missed them.

Do you really think that GoodK believes that there is any factual information to be gleaned about Jesus in the New Testament? Isn't GoodK in fact claiming that there is no historical information about Jesus in the New Testament?

If GoodK agrees that the New Testament constitutes historical evidence for Jesus' existence but simply considers it problematic then I don't see where we disagree.

[_GoodK]

I've asked five times now for you to move this portion to a new thread where it can be addressed in depth without distracting from the very specific topic Richard brought up in this thread and now a new one. If you don't want to do it, ask another moderator to do it for us. Liz -- help????

What part of you refuses to read the remarks I've made to you regarding moderator action on this thread? You can contact any other moderator via PM's and they will respond here.

I read all of your remarks Jersey Girl. I rather you start your own thread if you want to make it about something other than the topic being discussed. You've poisoned this one, and anyone that is just browsing through the last few pages will be left with a horrible impression of what the discussion has been about.

Not only did I expect you to act like the other moderators -- of course now you have shown you can't, I mean with the ad hominems and all -- but I expected you to follow the rules of the Celestial Forum. Maybe your lacking has to do with your die hard defense of the Bible. Of course that is why I mentioned your position on the flood... that thread is still fresh in my mind...

[_Jersey Girl]

marg,

I need to sleep on this one. I understand what you're saying about the time frame but I stubbornly focus on the significance of the meal conversation that is described in the Gospels, including John, in the same meal. I'm going to take time to look at more resources before I continue.

[_Jersey Girl]

I've asked five times now for you to move this portion to a new thread where it can be addressed in depth without distracting from the very specific topic Richard brought up in this thread and now a new one. If you don't want to do it, ask another moderator to do it for us. Liz -- help????

What part of you refuses to read the remarks I've made to you regarding moderator action on this thread? You can contact any other moderator via PM's and they will respond here.

I read all of your remarks Jersey Girl. I rather you start your own thread if you want to make it about something other than the topic being discussed. You've poisoned this one, and anyone that is just browsing through the last few pages will be left with a horrible impression of what the discussion has been about.

Not only did I expect you to act like the other moderators -- of course now you have shown you can't, I mean with the ad hominems and all -- but I expected you to follow the rules of the Celestial Forum. Maybe your lacking has to do with your die hard defense of the Bible. Of course that is why I mentioned your position on the flood... that thread is still fresh in my mind...

Stop going around in circles with me, GoodK. If you have a mod report or request to make, then do it via PM's to any other moderator besides me.

[_GoodK]

If I grossly distorted and misrepresented GoodK's argument, then I apologize. But I don't believe I did.

You did, apology accepted.

Okay. You're saying that GoodK argued that the Gospels are unreliable regarding the historicity of Jesus. I agree. Now what reasons did GoodK give in support of that argument? The only reason I saw--which GoodK stated repeatedly--is that the Gospels contain contradictions.

Why don't you read the thread before participating... it's the least you can do to avoid dense statements like the one above.

I even clarified my position again two pages back for Jersey Girl (to be fair, I know this isn't your fault. If Jersey Girl hadn't derailed this so bad, you could have followed along better)

It is a dubious collection of early writings that contradict eachother, promote ideas that were popular at the time, and that don't have a clear author or date.

The New Testament can't even keep from contradicting itself, let alone be trusted as evidence

.

Was I wrong to connect the two? You don't seem to think so because you write that this is "one aspect of why they are unreliable evidence." Well, what were the other reasons he gave? I must have missed them.

You did miss them. Care to apologize again? You are forgiven.

Do you really think that GoodK believes that there is any factual information to be gleaned about Jesus in the New Testament? Isn't GoodK in fact claiming that there is no historical information about Jesus in the New Testament?

I am claiming there is no historical evidence for Jesus. The New Testament is not evidence. Neither is the Koran evidence for Muhammed, neither is the Book of Mormon evidence for Alma the Younger, etc...

It's really hard for me to see why this is so hard to grasp...

If GoodK agrees that the New Testament constitutes historical evidence for Jesus' existence but simply considers it problematic then I don't see where we disagree.

No, I do not think the New Testament is historical evidence for Jesus' existence, for the sixth time.

If you think that, fine, go ahead and rest your faith on that crappy collection of writings... I just wanted to be sure there is no evidence for Jesus, and so far 12 plus pages later there isn't.


This has been a blast.

[_GoodK]

Stop going around in circles with me, GoodK. If you have a mod report or request to make, then do it via PM's to any other moderator besides me.

Going around in circles... wow... you really have demonstrated some peculiar tactics in this thread Jersey Girl... I'll be happy to get back on topic thanks...

PS. starting your own thread on a new topic can be done by regular posters, it is not a moderator function...