Didn't you say he was the Logos son of a ghost and a myth?
How do you nail a ghost to a cross?
How do you hang a ghost on a gibbet, for that matter?
How could Paul have been talking about a celestial Jesus displayed on a stick?
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
Didn't you say he was the Logos son of a ghost and a myth?
How do you nail a ghost to a cross?
How do you hang a ghost on a gibbet, for that matter?
How could Paul have been talking about a celestial Jesus displayed on a stick?
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
eight bits;9902084...We wouldn't blame gravity if Jesus' homies in [i said:
I see the idea the Ascension of Isaiah is a source of Paul's writings has its adepts.
Here's a link to vridar's blogs on the subject
http://vridar.org/tag/ascension-of-isaiah/
David Mo
Philosopher
Don’t worry. It doesn’t matter.
Sorry, it is no "my" translation. It is the translation of all versions I consulted, including of some miticists as Richard Carrier or Neil Godfrey.
I would like to know why you insist on translating "gibbeted". All other translations without exception write "crucified" or "nailed". You will need to give me some very powerful reason, because as far as I know you are not a qualified translator.
“Maxtin Mengel, however who wrote what is perhaps the definitive scholarly report of the subject of Crucifixion in antiquity, takes along with Hewitt (1932) an opposing view. He argues that nailing the victim by both hands and feet was the rule and tying the victim to the cross was the exception. During the first revolt of the jews against the Romans in AD 66-73, Josephus mentions that in the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70), "the soldiers out of rage and hatred amused themselves by nailing their prisoners in different postures."9
(Joe Zias: “Crucifixion in Antiquity. The Evidence”)
Perhaps this text will illustrate the relationship between crucifixion and nails.
It is not a good comparison, because it is incomplete. We must add that he journalist wrote in other chronicles that Snowden died in the electric chair. So we have a complete overview.
David Mo
Philosopher
Your personal preferences have little to do here. The date that "honestly" recognizes Carrier is the 70-130 EC and, of course, all the others I have consulted establish a similar date. And Carrier also acknowledges that he has no reason to advance it. The reasons you have given to fit the Pauline epistles within this temporal frame, not about 50 EC, as is usually done, have no value. Your fancy assumptions have no probative value. I can also imagine what I want. If you want to do it, we can both have some fun.
So the date is the 70-130AD for me unless other arguments be presented here.
David Mo
Philosopher
You are quite right on this occasion.
David Mo
Philosopher
I see the idea the Ascension of Isaiah is a source of Paul's writings has its adepts.
Here's a link to vridar's blogs on the subject
http://vridar.org/tag/ascension-of-isaiah/
As far as I know this point of view is only claimed by Tim Widowfield by following Roger Parvus. It don't seem very consistent to me. By the way, the Ascension of Isaiah was never include in the Scriptures.
PS:If we include accept the apocripha in the "scriptures" mentioned by Paul we can accept whatever else.
Last edited:
How did Romulus become the founder of Rome?
How did God Create Adam?
How could God talk to Adam?
How could a Pauline writer have been talking about a resurrection?
How could a Pauline writer have been saying that Jesus was the Last Adam--A Spirit?
How could a Pauline write have been saying he was a witness that God raised Jesus from the dead?
How could a Pauline writer be in conference with non-flesh and blood entities?
You seem to be completely unaware of Jewish, Greek and Roman mythology.
The Jesus story is no different to ancient mythology.
What is the name for an entity that is NOT Flesh and Blood?
A GHOST.
Galatians 1:16 KJV
It is documented since at least the 2nd century.
The Pauline writers got their revelation story of Jesus from a GHOST.
Last edited:
It's very different to ancient mythology, that's exactly why Historians conclude that a HJ is the most likely answer to the question.
Or, are you smarter than every Historian in the world? That seems unlikely to me.
I hope you will give me leave to doubt that, and state that Paul probably got his information from the Apostles, Prophets, James, Cephas, John, their "myriads" of followers; or from the people he was persecuting and imprisoning earlier: you know it's the custom of persecutors to interrogate their victims, don't you?
dejudge said:
Richard Carrier an Historians concludes that Jesus was a figure of mythology and Robert Eisenman, another historian, argues that NO-ONE has EVER solved the HJ question.
Christians Scholars argue that the Historical Jesus was a Resurrected being.
It is well established that there is NO actual contemporary evidence for Jesus, the disciples and Paul pre 70 CE.
Jesus of Nazareth is just stupid Ghost stories from the 2nd century which were propagated by Illiterates according to Justin.
Or were they falsified hoax fabrications forged by literate liars?
Why do you insist with your propaganda?
The Pauline Corpus is NOT history.
It is a compilation of forgeries, false attribution, fiction, Lies and implausibility.
How in the world could a fiction character get information from a resurrected Ghost and people who not did exist?
Now, it is document in hundreds of manuscripts that the Pauline writers claimed they Got THEIR GOSPEL from a resurrected being.
How many times do I have to show you?
Paul was in conference with GHOSTS when he was called by a Non-existing God.
See Galatians 1
Last edited:
No, the literate liars were forging the hoax fabrications, while the illiterate liars were fabricating the falsified hoax...
About ghosts...
In Egypt...
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Wooooosh !
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
dejudge
It is uncontroversial that Romans used nails on Jews (the one bit of physical evidence we have for crucifixion is a Roman nail embedded in a human heel bone recovered from a Jewish burial site - BTW so much for the bull-pie that Jewish victims' corpses were never properly disposed of). However, it seems that Romans might sometimes use ropes, for example. (Please see below, another poster's source discussing rope use).
David
There are no nails in the sources you provided. How Richard Carrier or Neil Godfrey likes to translate things into English is uninformative about whether Paul referred to nails. He didn't, at least not in what you provided.
On the substance, crucifixion is a kind of gibbeting. That is a fact about the world, not a translation issue. Crucifixion with nails is a specific form of crucifxion (there are other ways to crucify), and so, too, is crucifixion a specific form of gibbeting (there are other ways to gibbet).
Paul is not specific as to the kind of gibbeting. Mark is more specific than Paul, but not so specific as to describe the use of nails. John, assuming that Thomas refers to wounds inflicted near the time of death, is more specific than Mark. This is one of many ways in which the story acquires additional detail as time goes on and the story is told and retold.
I owe you no explanation whatsoever of why I choose to keep straight which author is our first source for which detail of an ever-improving tale.
On another point arisng, in English, the proper noun The Crucifxion refers to Jesus' death, and to no other. In the popular English-speaking imagination, Jesus died by being nailed to a Roman cross, relying on the very late John. An English-language translator will tend to use words consistent with the ideas prevalent among educated native speakers of English, even when the source material was composed earlier than John.
Compare how the occupational word tekton is so often translated into English, for both Jesus and his father. Stauros is no more definitiely a cross than tekton is definitely a carpenter, and neither one would necessarily be involved with nails on any given day.
As interesting as it is to read current opinions concerning Roman crucifixion (about which very little is known, BTW), Paul is still not our source that Jesus suffered a Roman crucifxion, no more than Paul is a source for crucifxion methods used during the siege of Jerusalem.
In any case, the chief point of my hypothetical was to illustrate how agency attribution may depend on an author's purpose in writing, personal experience and background. Whom to blame for what can be a matter of choice when many agents are involved in a complex cooperative venture.
Quite so, both to gibbet and to crucify are English words, a language which did not exist when the canonical works were written. As to nailing, my request was for a canonical work that portrays Jesus as having been nailed to his gibbet, earlier in composition than John 20. Josephus is not canonical.
It is uncontroversial that Romans used nails on Jews (the one bit of physical evidence we have for crucifixion is a Roman nail embedded in a human heel bone recovered from a Jewish burial site - BTW so much for the bull-pie that Jewish victims' corpses were never properly disposed of). However, it seems that Romans might sometimes use ropes, for example. (Please see below, another poster's source discussing rope use).
David
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own English language. (Thank you, Daniel Patrick Moynihan) What you post under your username is fairly described in English as yours. Get over it.
There are no nails in the sources you provided. How Richard Carrier or Neil Godfrey likes to translate things into English is uninformative about whether Paul referred to nails. He didn't, at least not in what you provided.
First, I don't "need" to give you anything. I have consistently cited my sources for both the Greek and the translations I present here. I have not discussed my qualifications as a translator.
On the substance, crucifixion is a kind of gibbeting. That is a fact about the world, not a translation issue. Crucifixion with nails is a specific form of crucifxion (there are other ways to crucify), and so, too, is crucifixion a specific form of gibbeting (there are other ways to gibbet).
Paul is not specific as to the kind of gibbeting. Mark is more specific than Paul, but not so specific as to describe the use of nails. John, assuming that Thomas refers to wounds inflicted near the time of death, is more specific than Mark. This is one of many ways in which the story acquires additional detail as time goes on and the story is told and retold.
I owe you no explanation whatsoever of why I choose to keep straight which author is our first source for which detail of an ever-improving tale.
On another point arisng, in English, the proper noun The Crucifxion refers to Jesus' death, and to no other. In the popular English-speaking imagination, Jesus died by being nailed to a Roman cross, relying on the very late John. An English-language translator will tend to use words consistent with the ideas prevalent among educated native speakers of English, even when the source material was composed earlier than John.
Compare how the occupational word tekton is so often translated into English, for both Jesus and his father. Stauros is no more definitiely a cross than tekton is definitely a carpenter, and neither one would necessarily be involved with nails on any given day.
I missed the reference to the specific execution of Jesus in what you posted. Nobody here has argued that Romans never used nails (and please see my remarks above, to another poster, about physical evidence), and your source says that ropes were sometimes used. What was used on Jesus, according to whom?
As interesting as it is to read current opinions concerning Roman crucifixion (about which very little is known, BTW), Paul is still not our source that Jesus suffered a Roman crucifxion, no more than Paul is a source for crucifxion methods used during the siege of Jerusalem.
Not in my example. The hypothetical-Snowden dies in American custody by drowning, a foreseeable hazard of a well-known method to encourage talkativeness. Without doubt, electricity can be employed to the same effect, with its own hazards, but Americans pride themselves on their energy efficiency. I did not discuss electrocution, and wonder why you do.
In any case, the chief point of my hypothetical was to illustrate how agency attribution may depend on an author's purpose in writing, personal experience and background. Whom to blame for what can be a matter of choice when many agents are involved in a complex cooperative venture.
Last edited:
Then you and I have nothing more to discuss here. Because you already automatically know that certain dates must be accepted as true and that Jesus was real etc. That is a totally unscientific position lacking all credible argument and devoid of any objectivity at all. But at least it now saves me from the task of repeatedly having to explain to you what the problems are and why your beliefs are not supported by the evidence.
Oh, and thank you for the deceit of pretending that you wanted an end to the earlier rude and argumentative nature of the exchanges.
OK, so .... what do you think about that as a possible source of Paul's beliefs?
Is it possible that the story of the Ascension of Isaiah was known to Paul and influenced his belief in what he thought was a messiah story prophesised by divine "scripture"?
Or is that impossible? Impossible that the Isaiah Vision pre-dated whatever was really the actual date of Paul writing as is subsequently found in the words of P46 by around 200AD? Impossible?
How close do you think parts of that Ascension story come to what little was described about Jesus in Paul's letters. E.g., the Lord will indeed descend into the world, he will be called "Jesus", he will be hung on a tree, but he will then rise up again on the third day, and this will be our proof that the faithful will also be raised unto heaven ... does that remind you of Paul's beliefs at all?
By the way - when I first mentioned the Ascension of Isaiah about 10 pages back, I did not realise that anyone else had put that forward as a possible influence on Paul ... or at least I was not overtly aware of anyone proposing that.
Last edited:
Mmm. This is you earlier, but I think you may have changed your approach.
Read his last 5 or 6 replies to me.
And other than that - lets stick to arguing the subject please (and not continually attacking individuals or moaning when individuals like me reply asking people to stop such responses).
Stick to discussing the subject (claimed evidence of Jesus). Because if you cannot do that, then you are frankly off-topic and spamming the thread.
The evidence of anyone writing to credibly claim they knew Jesus, please? Where is it?
- Status