It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Why thank you Logician, that suggests to me that you have been found at a loss for words. I promise you at the end of this flamboyant post, you will be lost for even more, and I intend to treat you in kind.
Originally posted by Logician
How are you? First impression: you have the propensity for the flamboyant, volumous post, just like Amadeus. A true sign of the exhibitionist.
You stay with Clement, if I find it necessary to discuss him I will. I have grander plans coming up shortly for you.
Have you filtered through the Epistles of Clement yet ? Even a cursory read will instantly educate you that by 96AD ALL the fundamental ideas about the nature, mission and character of Jesus were already firmly in place;
I have no idea from which cathecism book you glean your notes, I only know that it must be severely lacking in historic information, epistles, manuscripts, truth and anything relative to any of the councils, starting with Nicea.
Or are you planning to follow Amadeus's road, and operate on the fringes; claim Christian thought in this period(AD 100) was 'massively' deficient and in tremendious flux(in need of profound 'jelling')...
They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord," maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,"(13) when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years,(1) and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.(2) And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. (3) Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?
Originally posted by rosebeforetime
Logician and Graystar
Thanks for the great read, I found it very inspiring to see such an awesome witness for our Saviour,
in other words, the tradition had not yet jelled into firm and widely accepted writing format around AD 100. Ands yet you seem to think the NT was "substantially completed" by AD 100:
Originally posted by Graystar
Did you ever wonder why people go to such great legnths to disprove the deity of Jesus Christ or the Accuracy of the Bible, but not any other religion?
Originally posted by Graystar
Secondly, the Scripture angers most non believers because it shines light on our true nature, but we love darkness more.
Originally posted by Graystar
And finally, you can't ever accept it because you are a slave to this nature.
NOW another great proof for me...is Mary's silence at the cross....
look at it this way...suppose you were mary...they accused you of having a bastard son...they were ready to kill your very son because he claimed his father was God...now...if Mary DID know a man who fathered Jesus...SURELY she would have said...OKAY OKAY...DONT CRUCIFY MY SON...HE IS NOT THE SON OF GOD...BUT THE SON OF "So and so"...
Mary clearly would have spoken out and saved her son....and named an earthly father...if there was one...
Her silence....speaks volumes of evidence...
Running away Logician? What is the matter, have you no plausible explanation as to why an elder santicfied as a saint by Rome, claimed Jesus died an old man, and was so affirmed by John and his apostles? Why it can't be that faced with the truth, you are afraid to admit had the gospels been the same then as they are now, he would not have presented such a case?
Originally posted by Logician
Hi inbetween person, Your post is neither here nor there. It makes absolutely no sense at all. What's your point? ......Never mind. I've no interest in a dialogue with you.
It is not obvious to the first point, and the latter is a fallacy.
Logican- You should know by now that I don't make any claims without first thoroughly researching and thinking through them. It is a fair statement that most scholars(whether secular or religious) today agree with my point of view.
I would bet my house that everything he sees here is new to him/her. Just as it is for those others reading this thread and hanging on to their belief because the Bible tells them to, because the truth is hard to swallow, I know that for a fact.
Amadeus- Now be honest, Logician, is this REALLY all new information to you? If so, I would have to suggest you read around the subject of text transmission a little more widely.
meant something different to R. Yehoshua bar Yosef and his Pre AD 66 Band of Disciples and what GOSPEL MESSAGE meant in Greek AFTER THE JEWISH WAR (in which the Palestinian Aramaic speaking Jews and their nation and Temple were virtually destroyed) WHEN THE MESSAGE WAS FUNDAMENTALLY ALTERED BY A SHIFT IN FOCUS AND SOME VERY COMPLEX TEXT TRANSLATION ISSUES--all of which the faithful Sheep of the Church are rarely if ever told about.
It tends to make them shall we say “furious as hell” when you throw hard evidence like “actual documents” at them !
and then consider the “21st century mainstream” position, which is the one I and others who have come to their senses regarding the gospel tradition formally espouse.
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND THE CONFUSED TRANSMISSON OF THE TEXT OF THE HEBREW TANAKH and CANON before JAMNIA (JAVNEH) in AD 90 FORCED THE MASORETIC TEXT ON WORLD JEWRY
What a MESS. Especially for Christians who like everything so nice and neat and pretty and tied up with pink ribbons.
That means R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (you know, Jeeezziss” ) was quite FREE to quote any text in any version “written down” (or memorized or paraphrased in any Aramaic Targum) as scriptural “authority”
or as C.K. Barrett put it, “sort of like trying to reconstruct the PIG from the SAUSAGE…!”
Which is to say simply that: Mr “Jesus” did NOT have a SINGLE TEXT OR EVEN A SINGLE TEXT VERISON set in stone between two covers (or even a scroll lid) from which to call a “Bible” when he was living in Palestine—i.e.
Most Christians assume that Surely Jesus had a set number of Old Testament Books at least as “Scripture” and in one single authorized version too !!
All he and his disciples had to work with scripture-wise in his own day were, well…..a loose collection of un-authorised Scriptures without a FIXED table of contents…and More Scriptures.
But it did not say which books (either the ”Torah of Moses ” or book called “the Testament of Moses” (i.e. Jubilees) or which “Psalms” were meant exactly (extra ones were found at Qumran and in the LXX) or which “prophets” exactly were meant etc. and the Dead Sea Scrolls (which were still being copied whilst Iesous was still alive) had a LOT MORE scriptures at their disposal than the Council of Jamnia later authorized iun AD 90 and it was then that they narrowed down the Canon List to the ones they voted on which they believed "defiled the hands".
In other words, no matter how you slice it, Iesous HAD NO SPECIFIC CANON of Jewish OT Scriptures.
That CANON STUFF came later at the Rabinnic Council of Javneh in AD 90 after Jersualem and the Temple was ground to tiny bits by the Romans------and after most of the Jews, scattered to the 4 winds, finally had to become for all time, THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK.
Of the “three main variant scripture families” freely and uncontrollably running around in Palestine at the time after the Jewish War of AD 66-70, very few of them actually ever matched the later “approved” Masoretic text that the Babylonian Rebbes later forced on the Judean remnant population—
Since they both proofed their own individual arguments from DIFFERENT TEXTS that did not match each other (like Isaiah talking about “raising the dead” (not in the MT) alongside cleansing lepers!)
I hope you can begin to understand some of the complexities here----and hopefully you will be able in future to avoid more of your inane and sweeping generalities (and disproven clichés)
that I keep hearing on this subject “from the faithful flock” who often do not know why they are told to believe so much they are forced to swallow “on faith” when the actual facts of the matter are often purely "political"......and are often the results of the whims of history...
Or as they say, SO NOW YOU KNOW !!!
Originally posted by Amadeus
...which the Church so carefully avoids teaching their sheep/flock (in bible classes or in their catechisms or in their Sunday schools etc.)
Originally posted by Amadeus
...sweeping generalities (and disproven clichés) that I keep hearing on this subject “from the faithful flock”...
...merry Galilean Band of sword wielding (and ear cutting!) disciples used BEFORE THE WAR AGAINST ROME IN ANY WAY MATCHED the more standardized Hebrew Text of the later Jamnia Approved AD 90 “proto-Masoretic Texts”...THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
And any one in your “church” who tells you otherwise is a LIAR
Or maybe….perhaps like you…. just in a frantic state of denial. And there’s a lot of that going on these days from that person in the White House on down.
Let’s start with one of your wildly unsupported clichés that sounds like something you picked up in Sunday School by a teacher who had no Greek and even less Hebrew.
Especially it ignoresthe variants in the the Prophetic Books (like Isaiah, since you mentioned it) which existed in at least two text family forms with some 6,000 differences between them.
And yet you parrot some oversimplified Chrsitian Pablum without even bothering to check any of the pertinent facts for yourself.
and this kind of nonsense is the biggest complaint I have with “bible believing Christians”: who are generally too lazy to investigate their belief claims when it comes to the text of their Scriptiures beyond their own approved Sunday School Level apologetic reading material
The setting of this (“Q-saying”) pericope is after the arrest by Herod of Yohanon bar Zechariah the Levite (aka the Baptist) who in sitting in his prison cell in the Fortress of Macchaereus (in present day Jordan) gets a REAL Bad Case of Amnesia and (to everyone’s “Shock and Awe!) somehow “forgets” that he just baptized the Lamb of Theos who Takes Away the Sin of the World… in John's echo of the Baptism of "Iesous"
In other words, Yohnanon he sends out two of his own disciples (“who never even knew there was a Holy Spirit!” if you believe Acts 19: 1-5 ! ) to find out what his evident replacement is up to, or maybe to enquire whether there were going to be a second Messaih coming (since the Dead Sea Scroll “Wilderness of Judaea” Messianic Sectarians were hoping to TWO messiahs, one of Messiah ben-Joseph and one of Messiah ben-David (i.e. Aaron and Israel)
In other words, according to this “yet another variant” stream of the early gospel tradition (among so many other contradictory streams in the gospel material that somehow inconveniently “do not match up”)
John (Yohanon bar Zechariah) is confused according to this text: maybe he is here wondering if R. Yehoshua bar Yosef is The One to Come (i.e. the Prophet Like Unto Moses spoken of in the book of Numbers)
The key difference between these two “Scriptures” and the Greek words placed into the mouth of Ieosus IN THE GOSPELS is the issue of the cuours added Phrase: "the dead being raised up."
WAS THIS PART OF THE EARLY GOSPEL MESSAGE? THEN WHY DID IT NOT MATCH THE JAMNIA COUNCIL APPROFVED "OLD" TESTAMENT WORDING.......?? INSTEAD THERE ARE EVEN MORE LINKS BETWEEN THE DEAD SEA SCROLL FLUID TEXTS AND THE WORDS PLACED INTO THE MOUTH OF IESOUS IN THE GOSPELS......SO THE MORE FLUID DEAD SEA SCROLLS TEXTS PROVIDES YET ANOTHER CLUE AS TO WHAT HE ORIGINAL GOSPEL MESSAGE CONTAINED (before going Greek after the War)
Yet, in the scrolls found at Qumran, is one that relates the raising of the dead to the Messiah. Since the caves were sealed in AD 68, this text must be BEFORE JAMNIA of AD90.
This may suggest that R. Yehoshua and Yohanon the Baptist were communicating with each other using a mutually-recognized (and possibly coded) message/teaching not found in the general “later canon approved” Old Testament attested-by-the-Rebbes-at- Jamnia version of Isaiah (and yes, one fairly close copy of Isaiah’s MT was found also in Cave One right next to one that was not of the same text type), but known to those who spent time "in the wilderness of Judaea" which can only refer to the area around Qumran, as the gospels later claim that Yehoshua and Yohanon his former Rabbi and mentor did).
They demonstrate that the pre AD 70 and pre Jamnia (AD 90) Hebrew Old Testament Text (reflected in the Qumran Caves) was in fact highly pluriform: certainly not set in stone.
The Samaritan Pentateuch, the Greek LXX Septuagint, the varioius Biboical citations of OT Scripture found scattered in the later canonical New Testament, and Josephus's recasting of the biblical narrative in the Jewish Antiquities—all point to this undeniable fact.