On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:18:12 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:

Please read this book:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R4EC21287

Did you read Peter Kirby's review of the book on that page?

Yea, I wasn't impressed.

I was.

While it is evident that Crossan, Borg, Funk and Friedricksen
have used their "isogesis"

The word you're looking for is eisegesis.

Well excuse me, I'm not a scholar,

Obviously.

but if you do a google search
on "isogesis", you'll see it is used in that spelling also.

Don't try it with a dictionary though.

to make millions on their books,

It's very doubtful that their sort of books make millions, or even
hundreds of thousands.

You'll be suprised.

Cite please. Even as a non-scholar I presume you know what a cite is?

there is still truth out there.

The Jesus Seminar, basing it's beliefs, or non-beliefs in
miracles, the resurection and a supernatural God,

As all honest scholars must, since there is no evidence of any...

And there is no evidence there isn't.

So by that rule we must also believe in leprechauns and werewolves.

Read Habermas's chapter "Limitations".

Amphora coepit institui; currente rota cur urceus exit?

have based their writings on presuppositions based
on THEIR philosphy, ideology and fantasy.

No they base their conclusion on the facts.

That's laughable. What facts prove that Jesus was a politcal
malcontent (as one example)?

The history of the times and the nature of the political reality
in Judea. If the claim of the Gospel writers that Y'shua rode into
Jerusalem before enthusiastic crowds is true, then what he had to have
been preaching is pretty well defined. Y'shua was a Kingdom of God
activist.

His ministry was as much political as religious.

Testament passages point to this.

A socialist Jesus?

A nationalist Y'shua.

hero for a new religion.

rebel against Roman rule.

of Judean nationalism.

Yet these are the observations of a Crossan
or Fredricksen. But where is the documentation?

Read their books and see.

Where are the historical facts?

Read their books and see.

What they say is not scholarship, it's guess work.

How would you know? By your own admission YOU'RE no scholar.

Where is their proof? There is none.

Have you read their books?

uh-huh.

Really? Crossan's "Historical Jesus" or "Birth of Christianity"
or "James the Brother of Jesus"? You're prepared to dispute the points
he makes in this forum? How about Maccoby? Read any of Maccoby's books
on Paul?

While the NT bible has stood the test of 2000
years of scruntity,

Scruntity? I presume you mean scrutiny.

So your argument is spelling and grammar?

Well I didn't want to assume the wrong meaning.

Stood it how? The Bible's
credibility has not stood up very well in the past couple of
centuries, and in the past couple of decades the situation has become
worse.

Hardly. Are you speaking of the Jesus Semminar?

Biblical criticism got underway in the 19th century. No I'm not
speaking of the Jesus seminar. I'm talking about scholarship
addressing the whole Bible.

they HAVE NO DOCUMENTATION.

On the contrary, it's the Bible that lacks documentation to back it
up.

There are many non-biblical historical sources that give mention to
Jesus.

None. Not a one. All are mentions of early Christian sects and their
beliefs. Does a 2nd century mention of a sect of the pagan god
Mithra's followers mean Mithra existed?

In fact, more then some other historical figures.
If we followed your reasoning, you could not prove the existence
of Marc Anthony or many other historical figures.

There's a difference between a historian's mention of a person, and an
evangelist's claim of a miracle-working god. One is just a report, the
other a claim designed to win converts in competition with rival
sects.

Following the lead of their father Bultman,
because it doesn't fit THEIR human reasoning,
and using the "bead method" of scholarship,
they have tried unsuccssefully to to trample
the scriptures and claim the authors of the Gospels
were nothing more then breakers of the 9th
commandment. "Thou shall not bear false witness".
Yet most of the Gospel writers and Paul were devout
Jews as well as Christians.

And a pack of bigger liars you're not likely to meet.

You haven't proven that.

I thought you said you'd read Crossan's books?

But your bias anti-christian attitude surely has been proven.

My anti-religion attitude. And as for bias, may I suggest a distinct
bias toward gullible piety on your part? It isn't truth you're
seeking, so much as comfortable certitude.

How is it, that a religon could bloom and circulate SO FAST
if it was built upon a lie?

Is Islam true then? It bloomed and spread with similar alacrity.

Some of Islam IS true. BTW, they believe in the existence of Jesus.

As a prophet. But the fact is that if your audience is poor and
desperate, a lie about pie-in-the-sky is believed in eagerly.

Especially amoungst Jews of dispersion.
Yet there is no historical record that disputes them.

On the contrary. History does not support the NT account at all.

There is no "account" seperate from the Gospels or biblical
sources.

Exactly. And the details given don't agree with history.

A star that stopped over Bethlehem but nobody noticed?

A star possible only if it was over a flat earth?
A journey to Bethlehem in response to a misread prophecy?
A journey necessitated by a census that never happened, and which
would not have been necessary if it had happened?

But there are historical documents that support the existence
of Jesus Christ

None. Not a one.

and many of the characters in the NT.

Some of them. Peter and Paul and James for example.

There is also archeological evidence supporting many of the facts.

Cite please.

But because there is no "account" does not make them false.

Then Mithra is a real god too.

That's your problem my friend. Not just to prove Y'shua existed, which
I don't dispute, but to prove his divinity. And that's a tall order.

Even your liberal scholar friends mostly agree Jesus exsited,
was a charasmatic figure or preacher in 30 AD.

I have no doubt of that.

Yet, if you read the above book, non-biblical historical documentation
is given OVER AND OVER of the historical Jesus.

Not a word. All history recounts is the existence of Christian sects
and their beliefs.

Think again. All of these scources disagree with you.
Flavius Josephus, Thallus, Phlegon, Pliny the Younger,
Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Mara Bar-Serapion.

Nope. Try making some cites and watch that ground crumble from beneath
your feet. Those references are to the BELIEFS of Christian sects

about their deity which came to the notice of the mentioned historians
and writers. None are independent reports as to the nature and
activities of the man Y'shua ben Yussef.

Most scholars, even the most liberal agree that Jesus was a
real person.

Well, Rabbi Y'shua ben Yussef probably was.

Son of Joseph if they were looking at Jesus in a historical context.
Although there is no historical proof he was the son of Joseph.

And certainly none that he was the son of YHWH!

The gospels and the NT are both faith based written material
mixed with historical facts as reported by the authors.

Exactly. And there were other Gospels written by other sects on the
same topic which the Paulists declared heretical and industriously set
about burning.

of Matthew and not the Gospel of Peter? Why should I accept the Gospel
of Mark and not the Gospel of Thomas? Why the Gospel of Luke and not
the Gospel of Judas? Why the Gospel of John and not the Gospel of the
Hebrews? Or the Gospels of the Egyptians, Ebionites or Nazareans?
What about the Gospel of Mary? The Gospel of Philip?

To their validity you would have to assume a level of trust.

To their validity you would have to assume a high level of
gullibility!

But the same could be said about any historical document.

No. Those other historical documents didn't have an agenda like
gospels do. They were written to inform educated scholars, not to
impress gullible slaves and peasants.

Remember, the NT was not a joined "book" until many years later.

And it was canonized by the victorious sect.

So they were sperate accounts. Written by seperate authors.

Rival authors, who disputed each other vociferously and spent much
time cussing each other out.

With varying views and to varying audiences.

But the same greedy agenda. Fill the collection plates.

There are historical documents that have one written account.
And ONLY one author. And many famous historical documents where
written hundreds of years after the event.

But not with the intent of imprssing unlettered suckers with
fabricated miracles and phony prophecy.

Futhermore, if four people witnessed a car accident, and you put
each in a seperate room and asked them to write what they saw.
Each saw the same event, but each saw different things

There's a difference between honest errors in observation and tall
tales. For instance the Persian god Mithra was claimed to have walked
on water by his followers. So naturally the mythic Jesus was claimed
to have done so too by his followers.

This in itself gives credibility to the gospels.
The fact they included differences, though small as they were.

Not when it's so obviously fabrication. What did Mary and Joseph do
after the birth at Bethlehem? Go proudly to the Temple to show off
their newborn, or skulk off in the night to Egypt? That's hardly a
minor error in observation.

That they didn't hide the the deficiencies of themselves the authors.
As well including their faults, only gives crededence that there
was no attempt to editorialize or hide anything.

I see those wowsers as just such obfuscation, along with the phony
genealogies, the supposedly fulfilled prophecy and the whole
improbable theme of the NT that Salvation is necessary and logical.

The evidence is very clear by the changes in my own life.

Hardly evidence that would stand up in court.
"Your Honor, I've become a good person because of my belief in Jesus.
Therefor Jesus exists!"

So when did sholarship have to pass a court of law?

Actually, academic scholarship tends to be more stringent.

Like I said, I'm not a scholar. But I do know there are
rules of scholarship, and methods of scholarship.
What the Jesus Seminar presents is nothing new.

Exactly. They are collecting and applying scholarly criticism built up
over more than a century.

It just has a wider audience because of the day and age we live in.

And about time too. There was a time when such a book would have been
censored. Ministers in seminaries have been taught about such things
for decades, but it's been kept carefully out of the sight of the
laity.

And the technology. Rudolph Bultmann was the father of this form of
critical scholarship.

Hardly. Bultmann addressed himself to the NT. The whole Bible was
under scholarly scrutiny long before Bultmann.

But when you really analyze what they are saying
it isn't anything but presupposition.

Presupposition that when an ancient writer recounts a miracle to sell
his god, he's probably lying.

Much of what they say is "It could have been like this"
or "it may have been like this".

"It may have been like this and it wasn't likely like that, or we'll
have to accept Mithra's miracles too."

Now that may sound and look good to human reasoning,
but like I said, there is no historical fact to back up their
guess work.

They have more facts on their side than you have on yours.

"I don't think he said this because it doesn't seem logical to me".

"I don't think he said this because it doesn't seem logical to me that
a holy man in Judea in the 1st century could say such a thing and get
away with it."

For instance could a holy man in 1st century Judea invite his
followers to drink blood and engage in ritual symbolic cannibalism and
not become the center of a riot?

Could a claimant to the throne of David riding into Jerusalem before
adoring crowds not be engaging in politics?

What they REALLY try and do is guess motive.
They try and guess what was the motive of the Gospels author
in writing this or that phrase.

No, that's pretty well known. The motivation was to aquire converts.

In other words, "Jesus could not have said
that because I believe that the author only attributed them to him."

And it's unlikely that a 1st century Judean would have said such a
thing.

But, where is the factual eveidence to support this reasoning? Human
reasoning.

Where is the factual evidence that Y'shua was a deity who could see
into the future? When Jesus foretells the destruction of the temple,
which is more believable: that he could see into the future or that
those words were later put in his mouth by a man who knew the temple
had been destroyed?

You see, in actuallity, there is a belief system being
interjected here that is just like a person of faith saying it must be

because I believe.

Except the scholar's is more honest. No real miracle has ever been
observed.

Why should the scholar accept ancient wowsers?

Basically it comes down to their own belief system.

Yeah. Honest scholarship versus gullible piety.

Thier own idelogy is therefore injected.

And yours is slighted. Awwww! How sad!

Only that which is believable TO THEM is kept while throwing
out that which doesn't coincide with their own ideology.

Said ideology being a search for the truth with no dependence on faith
in miracles.

Obviously you have no concept of what it means to have a spiritual
connection.

Precisely! You have it there.
Spirituality is to me no more than self-delusion.

That means you don't correct yourself, or use your own energies to make
changes.

It means no such thing.

Rather they come from the spiritual connection.
A cleansing of the heart.

No.

Jer 13:23
23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots?
Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil.
NKJV

John 3:12 If I have told you about earthly things and you do not
believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?

## Remember, history is written by the victors.