At What Point?

Why would Jesus "leave" after coming out of the Tomb? Cypress has hypothesized that he would be a wanted man by the Romans so he kept a low profile and got away.

That doesn't make any sense given the rest of the story of Jesus. Jesus accepted his fate at the hands of the Romans. The whole scene in the Garden of Gethsemane where he asks for the cup to be removed from him, but ultimately accepts the requirement of his sacrifice would seem to make the idea of him "running away from the Romans" after "coming back to life" absurd on the face of it.

So was Gethsemane yet another part of the Cypress Hypothesis that we are allowed to say was "Made up" but the Resurrection couldn't possibly be?
 
Damocles said:
The tax collectors of the time were not illiterate, at the very least Matthew was literate and capable of "mathing" with the best of them. Saying they were aggramatos does not always equate to illiterate, it means ignorant of Jewish law specifically so when the Pharisee stated they were "unschooled" (aggramatos is the word used) it was not what you think it was and has nothing to do with whether they could read and write. It is likely far more than just Matthew were literate though they clearly had help writing their gospels. Scholars guess that the average literacy rate at the time was around 10%, this would mean that it is likely more than one of the disciples were capable of reading even if they were within the average and that average is currently questioned by current scholars. Jews specifically were usually schooled and many were capable of reading the Torah.
Click to expand...
Good info.

Reading and writing were two different skill sets in antiquity, and I guess the question is whether any of the Apostles could write in Greek, since Aramaic was the vernacular most Hebrews.

Key to remember that Luke and Mark weren't apostles. They were educated Greek speaking companions of Paul and Peter respectively, or so the tradition holds.

I read that region of Galilee in the first century was very Hellenized, much more so than Judea, so the Galileans must have been familiar with Greek culture, possibly even Greek language.
 
Commander Dutch said:
Translation: Cypress is a secret agent for the Illuminati. Don't trust him!!!

Or maybe he's a Templer Knight like me?
ky7xlpYt.jpg
Click to expand...
I always thought of myself as more of a Cossack, since that is the heritage of my maternal grandmother. :)
 
Obtenebrator said:
We certainly don't know who wrote the Gospels. But given that they were all written decades after the fact would certainly suggest they were not written by the Disciples.

There is the possibility of an earlier "source" document ("Q" as I recall) but beyond that it is difficult to tell where the Gospel stories came from.

Personally my assumption is that the Gospel stories were a mix of stories that had been going around at the time (probably mainly verbally) and getting changed and altered by the needs of the teller. Either innocently or maybe with some degree of dishonesty. I don't know. My assumption would be innocently.

I don't have ANYTHING against Cypress's hypothesis of a "near death experience" where Jesus was just stunned by the Crucifixion and his "rising from the dead" was merely a misinterpretation by the observers. But it doesn't really have a solid answer to what happened AFTER the resurrection. By this rubric we presume Jesus just wandered off (whether it was Cypress' strange theory that he'd run away from the Romans...which doesn't make a lot of sense given that he accepted his fate at the hands of the Romans just a few days before) or it means he died from his injuries and no one bothered to note it.

But Cypress demands his hypothesis be correct because Paul spoke with the Disciples and no one disabused him of the idea of the Resurrection. Ironically at that same meeting Paul fought with the Jerusalem Church over matters of doctrine....and WON. I'm not sure how that works, but clearly it wasn't as if Paul saw eye to eye with the Jerusalem Church at the time.

The real problem is that Paul clearly was never told "Oh yeah, Jesus didn't just disappear from in front of our eyes or flew up into the sky". Instead we are left with a story that ends quite inconveniently for the Cypress Hypothesis.

But it ends quite rationally for the "Made up by later authors" hypothesis. (Even innocently written by people who actually believed the supernatural things happened).

None of this makes the Disciples or Paul into "Liars" except the Cypress hypothesis. That most definitely does paint either Jesus as a "fly by night" guy or the Disciples as liars by omission.
Click to expand...
Pretty much agree. The gospels were written in Greek and with the timeframe, no real scholar thinks any of the disciples wrote them. I was listening to a podcast about Luke. There are a couple thousand known manuscripts in existence. Hundreds of thousands of discrepancies, some minor or insignificant, some not.

So, yeah, the gospels were recorded as stories handed down probably through both oral and written tradition. They weren’t written in a vacuum either. Mark was probably familiar with Paul, Luke and Matthew familiar with both, and Q. On and on. Some had additions of others. Some had things left out. It all depended on what was important to the author.
 
domer76 said:
Pretty much agree. The gospels were written in Greek and with the timeframe, no real scholar thinks any of the disciples wrote them. I was listening to a podcast about Luke. There are a couple thousand known manuscripts in existence. Hundreds of thousands of discrepancies, some minor or insignificant, some not.

So, yeah, the gospels were recorded as stories handed down probably through both oral and written tradition. They weren’t written in a vacuum either. Mark was probably familiar with Paul, Luke and Matthew familiar with both, and Q. On and on. Some had additions of others. Some had things left out. It all depended on what was important to the author.
Click to expand...
Lots of transcription errors, spelling errors, and definitely some additions added as embellishments.

When the Dead Sea scrolls were found, it pretty much put to rest the theory that there could have been massive and fundamental changes to the Old Testament over the centuries. On balance, the Hebrew scripture found in the Dead Sea scrolls match up well with copies of the Old Testament/Hebrew bible transcribed in the Middle Ages.
 
Cypress said:
Judaism didn't exist in the 10th century BC, when the unified Davidic monarchy existed. The religion practiced by the ancient Israelites bears no resemblance to Rabbinic Judaism.

The Hebrew bible wasn't even compiled and edited until hundreds of years after the Davidic monarchy, around the time of the Babylonian captivity.

Christianity came a thousand years after King David and King Solomon. No one points to King David as a model for a Christian life

Harems and polygamy hadn't existed for centuries by the time of Rabbinic
Jesus and the apostle Paul preached a program of sexual modesty, temperance, and even celibacy. Enslaving oneself to passions and vices would prevent true moral freedom in their view.


It takes a certain kind of stupidity and ignorance to attempt to equate the convicted fraudster, plagiarizer, bar room brawler, and self-serving polygamist Joeseph Smith to the Buddha, Jesus, the Apostle Paul
Click to expand...
And Mormonism didn't exist when Joseph Smith googled magic rocks in his hat.

abraham had several wives, dumb bitch.

Like Blackinator said, special pleading.

does blackinator like Cynthia McKinney?
 
Obtenebrator said:
We certainly don't know who wrote the Gospels. But given that they were all written decades after the fact would certainly suggest they were not written by the Disciples.

There is the possibility of an earlier "source" document ("Q" as I recall) but beyond that it is difficult to tell where the Gospel stories came from.

Personally my assumption is that the Gospel stories were a mix of stories that had been going around at the time (probably mainly verbally) and getting changed and altered by the needs of the teller. Either innocently or maybe with some degree of dishonesty. I don't know. My assumption would be innocently.

I don't have ANYTHING against Cypress's hypothesis of a "near death experience" where Jesus was just stunned by the Crucifixion and his "rising from the dead" was merely a misinterpretation by the observers. But it doesn't really have a solid answer to what happened AFTER the resurrection. By this rubric we presume Jesus just wandered off (whether it was Cypress' strange theory that he'd run away from the Romans...which doesn't make a lot of sense given that he accepted his fate at the hands of the Romans just a few days before) or it means he died from his injuries and no one bothered to note it.

But Cypress demands his hypothesis be correct because Paul spoke with the Disciples and no one disabused him of the idea of the Resurrection. Ironically at that same meeting Paul fought with the Jerusalem Church over matters of doctrine....and WON. I'm not sure how that works, but clearly it wasn't as if Paul saw eye to eye with the Jerusalem Church at the time.

The real problem is that Paul clearly was never told "Oh yeah, Jesus didn't just disappear from in front of our eyes or flew up into the sky". Instead we are left with a story that ends quite inconveniently for the Cypress Hypothesis.

But it ends quite rationally for the "Made up by later authors" hypothesis. (Even innocently written by people who actually believed the supernatural things happened).

None of this makes the Disciples or Paul into "Liars" except the Cypress hypothesis. That most definitely does paint either Jesus as a "fly by night" guy or the Disciples as liars by omission.
Click to expand...
and doesn't it really come down to "supernatural events are not the point"?
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
And Mormonism didn't exist when Joseph Smith googled magic rocks in his hat.

abraham had several wives, dumb bitch.

Like Blackinator said, special pleading.

does blackinator like Cynthia McKinney?
Click to expand...
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism did not exist when Abraham was alive.

If you want to run your pie hole about New Testament ethics, you can't point to Abraham as an excuse to have two wives.
 
Cypress said:
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism did not exist when Abraham was alive.

If you want to run your pie hole about New Testament ethics, you can't point to Abraham as an excuse to have two wives.
Click to expand...
I think If everyone agrees it could be fine.

but with jealousy it;s harder than people think.

the children are best served by a steady home provided by the minor suffering of parents.

:truestory:
 
Cypress said:
Lots of transcription errors, spelling errors, and definitely some additions added as embellishments.

When the Dead Sea scrolls were found, it pretty much put to rest the theory that there could have been massive and fundamental changes to the Old Testament over the centuries. On balance, the Hebrew scripture found in the Dead Sea scrolls match up well with copies of the Old Testament/Hebrew bible transcribed in the Middle Ages.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s what I understand.

Some of the differences in the NT gospels I found interesting. For instance, when Joseph and Mary take the baby Jesus to the temple, one version of Luke says something about his “parents” presenting him, while another transcription reads “Mary and Joseph”. Obviously, a divine birth can’t have “parents” if one is God! That kind of thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top