Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,249 Year: 5,506/9,624 Month: 531/323 Week: 28/143 Day: 1/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Tension of Faith
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 107 of 1540 (820814)
09-27-2017 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
09-19-2017 9:19 AM


Your issues are with more than just Muslims.
quote:
My beliefs regarding Islam are also a matter of objective truth and have nothing to do with any personal attitude toward Muslims, except that I see them as victims of that miserable ideology.
But you also seem to have an issue with even Christian immigrants (infact immigrants are overwhelmingly Christian)
White Christians are just 43% of the nation. (in identification, remember many whites answer surveys by saying they have no religion)
It is the immigrants that are keeping the (by self identification) Christian population at 225-250 million American residents (over 70% of the population), and they fill churches up with attendees.
You seem to have a thing with immigrants and liberals and many others. (you often mention immigration when you cry wolf about Muslims)
Just my observation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 09-19-2017 9:19 AM Faith has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 577 of 1540 (823499)
11-10-2017 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 576 by Faith
11-10-2017 10:18 PM


Even the earliest Gospel has unhistorical additions.
Mark is the earliest, and it was the first Gospel (that we know of) that has a chronological outline of the life of Jesus.
But the last 12 verses are apparently forgeries.
quote:
Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
2nd edition
(Hendrickson Publishers, 2005)
p.123
Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them
The Gospels that the early "church" used lacked Mark 16:9-20
It was glaringly obvious back then.
It is obvious to Greek scholars who say the style and vocabulary of the last 12 verses are very obviously an addition.
There is a problem with not knowing what was unhistorical verses what was historical.
And it is written in a European language (not exactly a reassuring thing since the early followers of Jesus were all Semitic Middle Easterners).
Paul never quoted from any of the Gospels either.
So he didn't have them (or know anybody who had them it seems).
He had a message though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 576 by Faith, posted 11-10-2017 10:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 580 by Faith, posted 11-11-2017 3:41 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 585 of 1540 (823526)
11-11-2017 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 580 by Faith
11-11-2017 3:41 PM


Re: Even the earliest Gospel has unhistorical additions.
quote:
There are no "unhistorical additions," there are, however, subtractions galore showing an anti-supernatural bias in the so-called "earliest" manuscripts which are heretical forgeries.
The " 'earliest' manuscripts" were not mentioned by me, because even the earliest are quite late and almost irrelevant.
But are you saying that Mark ending at verse 8 proves or disproves something about the supernatural?
What does the difference make between "Mark" writing the verses 1-8 alone one the one hand and 16:9-20 on the other?
Is it significant?
quote:
You buy all the BS the modern textual critics throw at you, and the lies about the "earliest" manscripts, so we have little we can agree about. Mark was NOT the earliest gospel, Matthew was, which is why the books are arranged as they are. And the last twelve verses of Mark are genuine, clumsily erased from Sinaiticus leaving a big gaping obvious hole in the text, because either the early heretic that produced it didn't like it, or the later forger didn't. And Bruce Metzger should never have been allowed to get his profane paws on the Bible.
All today's "Greek scholars" are deceived and deceiving. I have a whole blog on this subject by the way.
Sinaiticus being among the "earliest" complete extant New Testament Bible's (which have the same books as our modern English Bible's), is irrelevant since it is 4th century.
(You can give me your evidence for Matthew being the earliest if you want)
I was more interested in which "version" of Mark was most in use in the 4th century (when the canon was set). And the testimony is important.
quote:
Eusebius
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Eusebius of Caesarea)
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Eusebius (disambiguation).
Eusebius of Caesarea
Eusebius of Caesarea.jpg
Eusebius in a modern imagining
Born
Eusebius
260/265
Died
339/340 (aged 74—79)
Occupation
Bishop, historian, theologian
Period
Constantinian Rome
Notable works
Ecclesiastical history, On the Life of Pamphilus, Chronicle, On the Martyrs
Eusebius of Caesarea (/juːˈsiːbiəs/; Greek: Εὐσέβιος τῆς Καισαρείας, Eusbios ts Kaisareas; AD 260/265 — 339/340), also known as Eusebius Pamphili, was a historian of Christianity, exegete, and Christian polemicist. He became the bishop of Caesarea Maritima about 314 AD. Together with Pamphilus, he was a scholar of the Biblical canon and is regarded as an extremely learned Christian of his time.[1] He wrote Demonstrations of the Gospel, Preparations for the Gospel, and On Discrepancies between the Gospels, studies of the Biblical text. As "Father of Church History" he produced the Ecclesiastical History, On the Life of Pamphilus, the Chronicle and On the Martyrs.
Eusebius - Wikipedia
Wikipedia SAID ( Mark 16 - Wikipedia ) "Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Gospel Problems and Solutions to Marinus #1, writes toward the beginning of the fourth century:
quote:
EUSEBIUS
One who athetises that pericope would say that it [i.e., a verse from the ending of Mark] is not found in all copies of the gospel according to Mark: accurate copies end their text of the Marcan account with the words of the young man whom the women saw, and who said to them: 'Do not be afraid; it is Jesus the Nazarene that you are looking for, etc. ' , after which it adds: And when they heard this, they ran away, and said nothing to anyone, because they were frightened." That is where the text does end, in almost all copies of the gospel according to Mark. What occasionally follows in some copies, not all, would be extraneous, most particularly if it contained something contradictory to the evidence of the other evangelists.
Why on earth would Eusebius lie?
It wasn't like Mark had anything important that other Gospels (by the 4th century) lacked.
Jerome used verses 9-20 in his Vulgate translation.
quote:
Paul didn't need to have the physical gospels, he spent time with the disciples and with the Lord and everything he wrote shows agreement with the gospels.
Paul liked to quote scripture.
He didn't have any quotes from the "New Testament" books.
The "Gospel" he talks about isn't a term for a written book.
I was more interested in the testimony of the Bishop Eusebius that the vast majority or USED Mark books lacked the verses 9-20.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by Faith, posted 11-11-2017 3:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 587 of 1540 (823531)
11-11-2017 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 586 by kbertsche
11-11-2017 10:42 PM


The body will be sun,moon, and star stuff NOT flesh and blood. Flesh remains dead.
quote:
The Resurrection Body
35 But someone will ask, How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come? 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: The first man Adam became a living being[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.
50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 586 by kbertsche, posted 11-11-2017 10:42 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 588 of 1540 (823532)
11-11-2017 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 580 by Faith
11-11-2017 3:41 PM


The issue is which Mark manuscripts were USED not what we have found archaeologically
quote:
There are no "unhistorical additions," there are, however, subtractions galore showing an anti-supernatural bias in the so-called "earliest" manuscripts which are heretical forgeries.
See page 97 of this text to see (The Greek text is on 95-96) a good English translation of Eusebius saying that the USED MANUSCRIPTS lack verses 16:9-20.
Eusebius of Caesarea: Gospel Problems and Solutions - Roger Pearse, Claudio Zamagni, David J. D. Miller, Adam C. McCollum, Carol Downer - Google Books
quote:
accurate copies end their text of the Marcan account with the words of the young man whom the woman saw, and who said to them: "'Do not be afraid; it is Jesus the Nazarene that you are looking for, etc. ...' ",after which it adds: "And when they heard this, they ran away, and said nothing to anyone, because they were frightened." That is where the text does end, in almost all copies of the gospel according to Mark.
This site attempts to say that the archaeological evidence shows preservation of way more manuscripts with 16:9-20
quote:
(8) Some manuscripts have the Shorter Ending after Mark 16:8, and some have verses 9-20 after 16:8. This is technically true, but the term some is so vague that it deceives the reader. The number of Greek manuscripts that contain the Shorter Ending in any way at all is six. (A footnote in the NET gives the false impression that the number is higher — partly by listing the same manuscript twice, as 083 and as 0112.) The number of Greek manuscripts in which 16:8 is followed by 16:9 is over 1,640. (In the medieval manuscript 274, the Shorter Ending is written in the lower margin, linked by asterisks to 16:8, which is followed in the text by 16:9 which begins on the same line on which 16:8 ends.)
Of the five Greek manuscripts in which the Shorter Ending is between 16:8 and 16:9, Codex L and 083 have a note preceding 16:9 (to the effect of, In other copies, the following material appears after ‘for they were afraid’) which is also found in the Greek-Sahidic lectionary 1602. This establishes this arrangement of the text as a localized Egyptian treatment — that is, four of the Greek manuscripts with the Shorter Ending between 16:8 and 16:9 display a distinctly Egyptian form of the text, indicating that the Shorter Ending originated in Egypt (which suggests, in turn, that only in Egypt did the text of the Gospel of Mark lack verses 9-20 in the early centuries in which the Gospel of Mark was circulated).
The Text of the Gospels: Mark 16:9-20 - Sorting Out Some Common Mistakes
(go to Google with key words " Jerome Mark 16:9-20 " find relevant sites)
Preservation is one thing.
Use is another thing.
What do you think about the difference? Is my point legitimate or is it a distinction without a difference?
Why should the archaeological remains dictate what we think the majority used? Why not just listen to the devout Christian Church Fathers in their survey and observations?
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by Faith, posted 11-11-2017 3:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 691 of 1540 (823787)
11-16-2017 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 681 by Faith
11-16-2017 1:59 PM


Take miracles in the Acts of the Apostles.
quote:
The Bible IS full of evidence of miracles and you'll never know it. There is really nothing to discuss with you. Futility upon futility.
I am certainly glad there are a lot of people who do know how to judge evidence rightly.
Blessed are those who did not see and yet believed.
Where is there evidence that there actually were all these thousands of witness to these miracles?
And these people (WITNESSES!) were all confined to (a narrow miracle zone) in Palestine alone.
It seems that all these stories of witnesses, in Acts, only have caused people to discredit the stories when there is seemingly little historical evidence of these miracles even being notice by any of the involved parties (Jews, Romans, various observers, etc.).
Acts has stories where a massive slice of the Palestinian population would have been a witness to. And many were not only witnesses to the miracles but in fact also were described as Christians (and often because of the miracles).
There is no historical evidence from what I have seen (the Bible stories exist but absent any external corroboration for the said miracles).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 681 by Faith, posted 11-16-2017 1:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 696 by Faith, posted 11-17-2017 12:08 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 697 of 1540 (823793)
11-17-2017 12:10 AM


"write something like the Bible" What "Bible"?
The fact of the matter is that there were Gospel Harmonies from the 2nd century on. It wasn't until about 200 A.D. that we started seeing evidence of the Gospel of John in these harmonies.
The earlier ones seemed to only have Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
John the Apostle as the author of a Gospel was first attested by Irenaeus (around 180, plus the Muratorian fragment from around 170), and the first quotation was about 150 by Justin Martyr.
Papias seemed to be saying, in a few sentences, that the Apostle John and John the Elder were two different people.
Eusebius and Dionysius said that there were two different tombs (in their day!) for each individual.
The Epistles of John are written from The Elder. The same author as the Gospel author?
Different people.
Tradition places John's writing at about 100 AD.
Long after the life of Jesus, and at best, it seemed to be some Greek(?) guy from Ephesus (John the Elder). If John actually wrote it, it was in Greek.
Another Greek Gospel from the early second century.
No "Bible" that the Jewish Christians used, that is for sure.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 698 of 1540 (823794)
11-17-2017 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 696 by Faith
11-17-2017 12:08 AM


Re: Take miracles in the Acts of the Apostles.
quote:
"And these people (WITNESSES!) were all confined to (a narrow miracle zone) in Palestine alone."
Gosh I guess so. Pretty much disqualifies the whole thing then, hey?
I was saying that the numbers of people witnessing miracles of Christians in Acts seems to be nearly (like) a massive chunk of the overall population in Palestine.
A big percentage.
So why no historical records of the miracles?
Josephus didn't mention any miracles, did he?
He knew of James and Jesus.
Nobody else recorded them, did they?
Why is it a shock that people are skeptical?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 696 by Faith, posted 11-17-2017 12:08 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 699 by Faith, posted 11-17-2017 12:19 AM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 700 by Faith, posted 11-17-2017 12:21 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 702 of 1540 (823798)
11-17-2017 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 699 by Faith
11-17-2017 12:19 AM


Re: Take miracles in the Acts of the Apostles.
quote:
What miracles are you talking about anyway?
Take the Samaritans, who did not get along with the Jerusalem authorities (or hardly any mainstream Jewish folks, it seems?)
Jesus healed the 10 lepers (Luke 17:11-20).
Jesus told them he was the Messiah in John 4:1-26.
Now read the text of Acts.
quote:
Acts 8New International Version (NIV)
8 And Saul approved of their killing him.
The Church Persecuted and Scattered
On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. 2 Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. 3 But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.
Philip in Samaria
4 Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went. 5 Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah there. 6 When the crowds heard Philip and saw the signs he performed, they all paid close attention to what he said. 7 For with shrieks, impure spirits came out of many, and many who were paralyzed or lame were healed. 8 So there was great joy in that city.
Simon the Sorcerer
9 Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, 10 and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, This man is rightly called the Great Power of God. 11 They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery. 12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.
NOW
quote:
14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
Where is the shred of evidence from the historical documents?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 699 by Faith, posted 11-17-2017 12:19 AM Faith has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 703 of 1540 (823799)
11-17-2017 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 699 by Faith
11-17-2017 12:19 AM


Re: Take miracles in the Acts of the Apostles.
More miracles
quote:
Acts 4New International Version (NIV)
Peter and John Before the Sanhedrin
4 The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. 2 They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people, proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. 3 They seized Peter and John and, because it was evening, they put them in jail until the next day. 4 But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand.
5 The next day the rulers, the elders and the teachers of the law met in Jerusalem. 6 Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and others of the high priest’s family. 7 They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: By what power or what name did you do this?
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: Rulers and elders of the people! 9 If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a man who was lame and are being asked how he was healed, 10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 Jesus is
‘the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the cornerstone.’[a]
12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.
13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. 14 But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say. 15 So they ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin and then conferred together. 16 What are we going to do with these men? they asked. Everyone living in Jerusalem knows they have performed a notable sign, and we cannot deny it. 17 But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn them to speak no longer to anyone in this name.
Where is the evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 699 by Faith, posted 11-17-2017 12:19 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 704 by Faith, posted 11-17-2017 12:45 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 705 of 1540 (823801)
11-17-2017 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 704 by Faith
11-17-2017 12:45 AM


Re: Take miracles in the Acts of the Apostles.
quote:
The Book of Acts IS evidence, it's historical evidence. I really don't know what your point is. There should be something other than the Bookof Acts as evidence? Why?
5000 Christians and growing in Jerusalem around 30 A.D.?
Miracles galore.
All of Jerusalem hearing about them?
No records, outside the circa 90 AD Acts of the Apostles?
The Jewish authorities were that good at covering up history?
What about the Romans?
The Samaritans weren't influenced by the Jewish authorities?
Where is any evidence that a massive chunk of those folks become Christians totally absent?
Why didn't they stay Christian?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 704 by Faith, posted 11-17-2017 12:45 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 711 by Faith, posted 11-17-2017 2:31 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 726 of 1540 (823838)
11-17-2017 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 711 by Faith
11-17-2017 2:31 PM


Re: Take miracles in the Acts of the Apostles.
quote:
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Some idea there should have been independent testimony to these things? Why? I'd expect the Christian community to be very aware of all of it, but even so isn't there only the Book of Acts as written evidence among them? Histories weren't written all the time in those days the way they are now, it was a big project to write things down and then have them copied to be distributed, it would have been enough for the news to be passed word of mouth. In any case the Book of Acts itself is good evidence. It certainly has been for two thousand years for those who became Christians. Looks to me like God wasn't bending over backwards to convert skeptics, but made sure people who could recognize sufficient evidence got the message.
The Samaritans existed long after Acts (they still exist to this day)
They were very much a part of history during the Byzantine Empire.
Samaritan revolts - Wikipedia
The history does not show mass conversion to Christianity in the early 1st century.
Perhaps you should look into search engine terms like this:
SAMARITANS CHRISTIAN CONVERTS ACTS 7
I just don't see how Acts can be considered accurate history (at least the bulk of the material before the later ministry of Paul).
The miracles aren't supported even indirectly (which is my point when I notice that important background details - 1st century Samaritans being Christian - aren't supported)
quote:
Samaritans fared badly under the Roman Empire, when Samaria was a part of the Roman-ruled province of Judaea. Though not directly targeted, Samaritans also suffered the severe consequences of Jewish—Roman wars in the area, during and after 66—135 CE.
Following the period of Jewish—Roman wars, the previously dominating Jewish community went almost extinct across Judaea and the shore of Southern Levant, remaining a majority only in Southern Judea, Galilee and Bashan (Golan). Samaritans and Byzantine Christians filled this vacuum in the central regions of Southern Levant, whereas Nabataeans and Christian Ghassanid Arabs settled the periphery.
This period is considered a golden age for the Samaritan community. The Temple of Gerizim was rebuilt after the Bar Kochba revolt in Judaea, around 135 CE. With the withdrawal of Roman legions, Samaria enjoyed a limited kind of independence during the 3rd and 4th centuries. Baba Rabba, the leader of the Samaritans, divided Samaritan territories into districts, and established local rulers out of aristocratic Samaritan families. He also executed a series of reforms and installed state institutions. Much of Samaritan liturgy was set by Baba Rabba during this time. This period of semi-independence was brief, however, as Byzantine forces overran Samaria and took Baba Rabba captive to Constantinople, where he died in prison several years later around 362 CE.[3]

Do you have any evidence of Samaritans becoming Christians?
Where was this massive Christian presence in Samaria?
Any textual evidence (Josephus?)?
Any?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 711 by Faith, posted 11-17-2017 2:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 742 of 1540 (823854)
11-17-2017 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 741 by Faith
11-17-2017 10:48 PM


Can you stick to the issue of evidence for miracles Faith?
This Samaritan issue really is important because the miracles, in Acts of the Apostles, were described as being witnessed by all of Samaria and Jerusalem (with massive conversions).
Here is an article by a conservative on the issue.
John P. Meier, «The Historical Jesus and the Historical Samaritans: What can be Said?» biblica, Vol. 81 (2000) 202-232 page 202
It would be nice if you would engage the actual issues.
Your quote about the "centuries when the Roman Church insisted " on things is really strong evidence that people were forced to swallow the ideas of "miracles from God" without critical reflection.
Now, in the 21st century, can you engage the issues critically?
From the first page of the scholarly article (which first appeared in the Journal for the Study of the New Testament)
quote:
Vol 81 (2000)
John P. Meier, The Historical Jesus and the Historical Samaritans: What can be Said?, Vol. 81 (2000) 202-232
Careful analysis of the Gospels shows that there is not very much hard data about the historical Jesus’ interaction with or views about the Samaritans. There is multiple attestation, found in the Lucan and Johannine traditions, that Jesus, different from typical views of his time, held a benign view of Samaritans and had positive, though passing, encounters with some Samaritans. However, there is gospel agreement, from silence or statement, that Jesus had no programmatic mission to the Samaritans. Besides the above important conclusions, this essay also makes clear the useful distinction between Samaritans and Samarians.
Page 202
Books on the historical Jesus regularly treat Jesus’ relationship to various Jewish groups and movements of the time, especially the Pharisees1. Relatively rare, though, in books on the historical Jesus is a detailed consideration of the relationship of the historical Jesus to the historical Samaritans. I stress the adjective historical in each case because in this qualifier lie the rub and the problem. If treatments of the historical Jesus even advert to the question of the Samaritans, the Samaritans are often described in uncritical fashion, with the narrative of 2 Kgs 17 and later polemics being taken more or less uncritically as sober history2. In contrast, those studies of the Samaritans which sift
Page 202/232
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 741 by Faith, posted 11-17-2017 10:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 743 by Faith, posted 11-17-2017 11:15 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 744 of 1540 (823857)
11-17-2017 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 743 by Faith
11-17-2017 11:15 PM


Re: Can you stick to the issue of evidence for miracles Faith?
quote:
guess I'm just not interested enough to try to figure out what you are claiming. I assume a reasonable explanation for any phenomena in the Bible especially when someone acts like there isn't a reasonable explanation.
You know exactly what the issue is.
There is no evidence at all for Samaria converting to Christianity.
Out with a Christian Samaria (in the first century) and out with the miracle story.
A major Palestinian town in Roman times that Acts says was converted to a Christian town.
It is a made up story and you have essentially admitted it.
quote:
Caesar Augustus entrusted Samaria to Herod the Great, under whom it flourished anew as Sebaste. Herod rebuilt it in 27 B.C.E. on a much larger scale and embellished it with magnificent buildings, including the new Temple of Augustus. In the same year he married the beautiful Samaritan princess Malthace, to whom two of his heirs were born. Under Herod the city became the capital of the Roman administrative district of Samaria, which was one of the subdivisions of the Roman province of Syria Iudaea, the other two being Judea and Galilee.
....
Sebaste is mentioned in the Mishnah ('Ar. iii. 2), where its orchards are praised. After Herod's death, Sebaste and the province of Samaria came under the administration of his son Archelaus, after whose banishment it passed to the control of Roman procurators. It then came under Herod Agrippa I, and later again came under the procurators ("Ant." xvii. 11, 4). At the outbreak of the Jewish war in 66 C.E. it was attacked by the Jewish forces ("B. J." ii. 18, 1). Josephus ("B. J." ii. 3, 4) also speaks of the Jewish soldiers of Sebaste who had served in Herod's army and later sided with the Romans when the Jews revolted. In the aftermath of the Bar Kochba revolt of the second century C.E., Hadrian consolidated the older political units of Judea, Galilee, and Samaria into the new province of Syria Palaestina (Palestine).
Samaria - New World Encyclopedia
Look at this massive timeline (full of every bit of historical evidence found) for Samaria.
The Samaritans: 720 BC The pagan half-Jews of the Old Testament.
You have no evidence for the miracle story.
A lot of evidence it is fictional though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 743 by Faith, posted 11-17-2017 11:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 745 of 1540 (823858)
11-17-2017 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 743 by Faith
11-17-2017 11:15 PM


Re: Can you stick to the issue of evidence for miracles Faith?
quote:
I assume a reasonable explanation for any phenomena in the Bible especially when someone acts like there isn't a reasonable explanation.
Here is one.
quote:
Luke’s aim was to show a progression of conversion from Jerusalem to Rome. The chief city of Samaria was Sebaste rebuilt by Herod the Great in the Greek style and doubtless with a largely Hellenised population so Philip’s mission is entirely credible. Luke had been given a whiff of tradition but no detail so he made it up on the Marcan model. Furthermore, for Luke, the martyrdom of Stephen proved that the Jews had rejected the messiaheven though the apostles (Jews) were still active elsewherebut the Samaritans readily accept the gospel. Luke chooses the Samaritans as representing gentiles since both were hated by orthodox Jews but, progressing gradually, he was not yet ready to have gentiles converted.
There were fictional stories thrown in to make a point.
Where is the evidence of a massive Christian community in an important city?
There aren't even any (fictional?)traditions for crying out loud.
It was a made up miracle story.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 743 by Faith, posted 11-17-2017 11:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024