Greg Boyd on the Resurrection

[stiggy wiggy]

No, that was made up later.

the empty tomb was made up.

Doesn't it embarrass you to have to keep saying that for everything you don't believe and fail so miserably to disprove?

 

[Lucian]

That’s cool.. . I didn’t know that. Do you know if someone learning contemporary Greek in the day would still read the classic Illiad, such as English majors today would be introduced to and utilize ideas and narrative methods of classic Shakespeare or Beowulf despite the language evolution?

Someone with a high degree of education in Greek would be able to read the Iliad and be conversant with it. The question is the extent of the education the author of Mark had. I don't suggest he couldn't read Homer; rather, I suggest we can't blithely assume that he could, or could with the required competence.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

No. Normative history can be reassembled from basic human sociological and anthropological realities, possibilities, and patterns and reports that adhere to them.

Would you like Ranch or Blue Cheese on that word salad? Sheesh! REASSEMBLED?? Did you forget that you had implied that the only true history was "written as the events happened?"

...........like a dormant volcano had erupted as opposed to God spit fire on the town.

No, attempts at clever irrelevant metaphors won't help you here. You had implied that the only true history was "written as the events happened."

Vespasian had contemporary historians record his miracles,...........

Your Vespasian card expired many posts ago.

normative history can be reassembled from basic human sociological and anthropological realities and patterns.

You said that already. Your word salad has wilted.

And if you can get over the hump of online references I found this search for Ancient Embedded Biographers going all the way back to Augustine pretty relevant:

Were you under the impression that I didn't accept the testimony of embedded reporters? No, I'm only reminding you of your goofy contention that the only true history was "written as the events happened," in which case the only TRUE historians would BE embedded reporters.

 

[5wize]

Someone with a high degree of education in Greek would be able to read the Iliad and be conversant with it. The question is the extent of the education the author of Mark had. I don't suggest he couldn't read Homer; rather, I suggest we can't blithely assume that he could, or could with the required competence.

There are amazing parallels between the eschatology of the Sadducees and Homer’s Iliad with its bland shadowland of Hades where all souls are treated equal regardless of lives led as with the Sadducees Sheol, and the growing concept of eternal justice of the Pharisees that began to mimic Virgil’s Aeneas where the dead were sported consciously either to Elysium Fields or the path to Tartarus and doom where trials are mentioned such as moving boulders endlessly and being subject to the lash (Apocalypse of Peter) for not having confessed their sins in life. What is even more interesting is the later epic (Aeneas) even details the dead being owed second bodies by the fates and some would return to earth after a 1000 years.

Considering these cultural evolutions in thinking going on all around the earlier OT world and later NT world doesn’t lend itself to thinking these influences would be the realm of blithe thinking. Thinking that this was all some unique, isolated, new and homogeneous Jewish and Christian revelation of God seems more blithe to me.

 

[Lucian]

There are amazing parallels between the eschatology of the Sadducees and Homer’s Iliad with its bland shadowland of Hades where all souls are treated equal regardless of lives led as with the Sadducees Sheol,

But that isn't the Iliad's model of the afterlife, to the extent there is such a model, which is pretty ambiguous.

Considering these cultural evolutions in thinking going on all around the earlier OT world and later NT world doesn’t lend itself to thinking these influences would be the realm of blithe thinking. Thinking that this was all some unique and new and homogeneous Jewish and Christian revelation of God seems more blithe to me.

Again, you're arguing about a topic that I'm not talking about.

 

[5wize]

Would you like Ranch or Blue Cheese on that word salad? Sheesh! REASSEMBLED?? Did you forget that you had implied that the only true history was "written as the events happened?"

You implied that, not me. Sometimes I let you run with your strawmen. I don’t have time to play whack-a-mole with all your thoughts.

No, attempts at clever irrelevant metaphors won't help you here. You had implied that the only true history was "written as the events happened."

It’s very relevant how the ancient world interpreted the origin of events.

Your Vespasian card expired many posts ago.

And you still have not addressed it from a perspective of history as opposed to weak theology. Theology only evades the charge. This is a thread about recording and reporting history, not your theology.

You said that already. Your word salad has wilted.

Only because you have to leave it alone to bake. You don’t address it with the proper historical approach. You answer it with lazy theology.

Were you under the impression that I didn't accept the testimony of embedded reporters? No, I'm only reminding you of your goofy contention that the only true history was "written as the events happened," in which case the only TRUE historians would BE embedded reporters.

First you said I “implied it” which I didn’t - you did, and now you say I “contend” it. Changing the word doesn’t change the fact that you asserted it about me. Time for a silly fill in the blanks exercise? _____________________________.

 

[5wize]

But that isn't the Iliad's model of the afterlife, to the extent there is such a model, which is pretty ambiguous.

Sorry, I meant the Odyssey. "The rest of the dead are empty flitting shades..." Book 10.

Again, you're arguing about a topic that I'm not talking about.

You are not talking about whether the author of Mark could have been influenced in some way, either by directly mimicking of other familiar story narratives due his education in Greek or being at least influenced by a culture that already baked in many of the narratives?

What are you talking about then?

 

[stiggy wiggy]

You implied that, not me.

WRONG! Your words, verbatim, in your failed attempt to debunk the gospel accounts:

"They were not being written as the events happened."

And you still have not addressed it from a perspective of history as opposed to weak theology. Theology only evades the charge.

Theology has nothing to do with your contention that the only valid historical accounts are those "written as the events happened."

Only because you have to leave it alone to bake.

Ain't no baking going on here.

You don’t address it with the proper historical approach. You answer it with lazy theology.

I've said nothing theological in this thread, as is manifest by your failure to have copy/pasted me doing so.

First you said I “implied it” which I didn’t - you did, and now you say I “contend” it.

Yep, you both implied and contended it. Again:

Your words, verbatim, in your failed attempt to debunk the gospel accounts:

"They were not being written as the events happened."

 

[docphin5]

There are amazing parallels between the eschatology of the Sadducees and Homer’s Iliad with its bland shadowland of Hades where all souls are treated equal regardless of lives led as with the Sadducees Sheol, and the growing concept of eternal justice of the Pharisees that began to mimic Virgil’s Aeneas where the dead were sported consciously either to Elysium Fields or the path to Tartarus and doom where trials are mentioned such as moving boulders endlessly and being subject to the lash (Apocalypse of Peter) for not having confessed their sins in life. What is even more interesting is the later epic (Aeneas) even details the dead being owed second bodies by the fates and some would return to earth after a 1000 years.

Considering these cultural evolutions in thinking going on all around the earlier OT world and later NT world doesn’t lend itself to thinking these influences would be the realm of blithe thinking. Thinking that this was all some unique, isolated, new and homogeneous Jewish and Christian revelation of God seems more blithe to me.

Here is an example further supporting your line of thought that the new testament was written borrowing ideas from older Greek conceptions.

The term “aeon” goes all the way back to Plato in which aeons represent spiritual beings who are bearers of God’s thoughts.

“Plato used the word aeon to denote the eternal world of ideas, which he conceived was "behind" the perceived world, as demonstrated in his famous allegory of the cave.”
(Wikipedia)

Baur points out that where Paul writes,

”which once ye did walk according to the age of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience,” (Eph 2:2)

would be better translated as,

”which once you did walk…

1) “according to the aeons of this world” in the sense that the aeons are parallel with,​

2) “according to the ruler of the authority of the air…”,​

3) “according to the spirit working in the sons of disobedience.”​

​

IOW, when we lived sinful lives we were under the negative influence of evil spiritual powers, to include, aeons. But translators avoid that meaning because it is also the meaning taken by gnostic Christians of the first century. Nevertheless, this suggests that Paul was educated in the Plato’s eternal world of ideas or aeons, and translated them to mean spiritual powers influencing humans on earth.

 

[5wize]

WRONG! Your words, verbatim, in your failed attempt to debunk the gospel accounts:

"They were not being written as the events happened."

So where do I say I totally discount reflective history in the cases where the events are normative? I discount reflective history for religious literature reporting miracles - especially for growing religious cults and sects elbowing their way into the superstitious minds of its potential followers.

Big difference here Stiggy and your need need to bundle them together to kick at one is your issue, not mine.

Theology has nothing to do with your contention that the only valid historical accounts are those "written as the events happened."

Yes it does. See above.

Ain't no baking going on here.
I've said nothing theological in this thread, as is manifest by your failure to have copy/pasted me doing so.

You used theology to earlier answer a historical issue about the reported history of Vespasian. Your explanation was out of context to the charge and therefor was meaningless as an address to it.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Mark 12:18 does not support a late date since the Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) present tense did not exist in AD 70. Disappeared AD 66 after Jewish revolt. It is a nuance that is not lost on those who pay attention to detail. The present tense indicates they did exist at the time of the writing.
---------------------------
18 Some Sadducees (who say that there is no resurrection) *came to [a]Jesus, and began questioning Him, saying,

Do you have a link that confirms the end date of the Sadducees that you mention? Wiki say they ended sometime after 70.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

I discount reflective history for religious literature reporting miracles

How conveniently selective.

- especially for growing religious cults and sects elbowing their way into the superstitious minds of its potential followers.

So the receptivity of an account is a criterion by which you measure its authenticity?

You used theology to earlier answer a historical issue about the reported history of Vespasian.

In this thread? Show me where. If all you're saying about my "using" theology is that I often express my theological beliefs in a Christian discussion board, guilty as charged. But what's that have to do with:

Your words, verbatim, in your failed attempt to debunk the gospel accounts:

"They were not being written as the events happened."

 

[Gus Bovona]

Alright: in that case, the mistake is yours, rather than his.

Sure, but that does little to make that claim more plausible, unless we should be surprised by the lack of that additional attestation.

Im OK with little.

Has he? Please provide a reference.

Even if so, I'm not sure I've much faith in the robustness of the peer review process of such a minor publisher, especially if a claim like this got through.

If you know the publisher, do you still need a reference? Or do you mean the page number? If the latter, I don’t have the book so I can’t provide the reference, sorry.

How might we go about confirming your claim that they are a minor publisher? I don’t know if they are or not, and I’m not even sure how I would go about determining that question one way or the other. (I’m not saying now that they are not a minor publisher.)

Also, I’m not sure about evaluating the contents of a peer reviewed book to be less confirmed merely on the basis that it’s a minor publisher. Can you justify that approach?

But the checking of the box is here immaterial, or all but immaterial.

Why? The checking the boxes metaphor stands for the process of totaling up all the evidence one way or the other.

 

[5wize]

How conveniently selective.

So the receptivity of an account is a criterion by which you measure its authenticity?

No.

In this thread?

No. In the thread where I introduced Vespasian (I can’t remember what OP and I’m not going to look it up) and you discounted the reports based on your own personal theological grounds when it was a comment as to how history is done. You just discounted it above again giving the false implication that you somehow addressed that already. You never really did with the appropriate tool-set for the charge.

Your words, verbatim, in your failed attempt to debunk the gospel accounts:

"They were not being written as the events happened."

That was to debunk the charge of eye-witness testimony. There is none. There are only post-hoc assertions that eye-witnesses existed by later authors receiving an oral tradition.

 

[docphin5]

@5wize

Another good example of christians fusing the Greek “Odyssey” of Homer, Hebrew scriptures, and New Testament conceptions can be found in “Exegesis of the Soul” (Nag Hammadi). After quoting the book of Hosea, Ezekiel, and Psalms, Paul’s epistles, and the Gospels, the author then quotes Homer here,

“For God examines what is within and searches the depths of the heart to find out who is worthy of salvation. And no one is worthy of salvation who still loves the place of deception. Thus it is written in the poet:​

Odysseus sat weeping and grieving on the island. He turned his face from the words of Calypso and from her tricks, and longed to see his village and smoke coming from it. If he had not [received] help from heaven, [he would not have been able to return] to his village.”​

​

All of this was written for the purpose

“to offer an interpretation (“exegesis”) of the story of the soul, built on the Gnostic myth of Psyche, from the account of her heavenly origin and her fall into the world to the description of her return to heaven. The author has chosen to tell this myth as a symbolic tale, whose heroine, the soul, is portrayed with female features.” (Madeiline Scopello)​

​

Orthodoxy will, of course, DENY any connection between Greek myth, Jewish myths, and christian conceptions based merely on theological grounds, erroneously presuming a unique supernatural beginning of christianity, but the historical evidence suggests otherwise. There were gnostic christians who perceived the connection and expounded on them.

Different religions were being boiled down to their essence and fused into a universal faith during the Hellenistic age. Paul boiled them down and fused them in his epistles, whereas, The Gospels took Paul’s epistles and rewrote them esoterically into a new god-man myth infused with Jewish-Christian interpretations of Hebrew scripture. The fusion arguably succeeded given that a sect of Judaism, namely, the Essenes, was absorbed by the Greek and Roman civilizations.

BTW, even though we track along the same line of thought our conclusions apparently differ. I know you see this as reason for condemnation whereas I see it as reason for a universal Good God who is drawing all men to himself, through the allegorizing of the respective myths.

 

[Lucian]

Sorry, I meant the Odyssey. "The rest of the dead are empty flitting shades..." Book 10.

This is the problem with taking one line of an epic poem in isolation: the Neukuia of the following book shows anything but "a bland shadowland of Hades where all souls are treated equal regardless of lives led". In fact, it doesn't seem to be about desert at all.

You are not talking about whether the author of Mark could have been influenced in some way, either by directly mimicking of other familiar story narratives due his education in Greek or being at least influenced by a culture that already baked in many of the narratives?

Nope, and I've no idea why you would think I had.

What are you talking about then?

I've been talking about Carrier's claim that Mark uses the Iliad as an intertext and the problems with this claim.

 

[Lucian]

Im OK with little.

Cool.

If you know the publisher, do you still need a reference? Or do you mean the page number? If the latter, I don’t have the book so I can’t provide the reference, sorry.

I meant the latter; no problem.

How might we go about confirming your claim that they are a minor publisher? I don’t know if they are or not, and I’m not even sure how I would go about determining that question one way or the other. (I’m not saying now that they are not a minor publisher.)

You would have to have relevant contextual knowledge, in addition to having been apprised by this of someone working professionally in the field, as I have.

Also, I’m not sure about evaluating the contents of a peer reviewed book to be less confirmed merely on the basis that it’s a minor publisher. Can you justify that approach?

I haven't done this. I've evaluated the content I've seen on its own (de)merits, as you've seen.

Why? The checking the boxes metaphor stands for the process of totaling up all the evidence one way or the other.

But it isn't evidence, any more than the fact people can be 5 feet tall is evidence I am.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

No.

So you are retracting your comment indicating that you do.

No. In the thread where I introduced Vespasian (I can’t remember what OP and I’m not going to look it up) and you discounted the reports based on your own personal theological grounds when it was a comment as to how history is done.

No I didn't. You made that up.

You just discounted it above again giving the false implication that you somehow addressed that already.

No I didn't. You made that up too.

You never really did with the appropriate tool-set for the charge.

"Tool-set?" What are you talking about?

That was to debunk the charge of eye-witness testimony. There is none.

WRONG. I John 1:1:

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;"

 

[Gus Bovona]

You would have to have relevant contextual knowledge, in addition to having been apprised by this of someone working professionally in the field, as I have.

I haven't done this. I've evaluated the content I've seen on its own (de)merits, as you've seen.

But you did use the publisher's status to questions the robustness of the peer-review process, and peer-review reflects on the content, no?

But it isn't evidence, any more than the fact people can be 5 feet tall is evidence I am.

If someone (Carrier) claims that two things share some patterns or are otherwise homologous - or claims one was inspired by the other and therefore must be homologous to some extent, the comparison of the structures of both is material, and that was the check box I was referring to. It is necessary, but may not be sufficient. If your claim is that Carrier's evidence isn't sufficient, that's fine, we can agree that's where the issue is.

 

[5wize]

So you are retracting your comment indicating that you do.

No. I’m addressing your incorrect assumption about the scope of the comment.

No I didn't. You made that up.
No I didn't. You made that up too.

I just have a better memory than you.

"Tool-set?" What are you talking about?

The type of analysis that is applied to history as opposed to theology. You munge them inappropriately.

WRONG. I John 1:1:

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;"

Back to theology again in a topic about history. It doesn’t work.