ŚFiNiA

decir

Jan Lewandowski napisał:

Jan Lewandowski

O.K.

decir

Odnosząc się ,do wtórności Twojego wpisu.

:rotfl:

Dla Ciebie domysły i fantazje ,dla mnie wnioski.Koniec

Jan Lewandowski

Kruchy04

@Jan Lewandowski

Jan Lewandowski

REGMEN

Jan Lewandowski napisał:

Jan Lewandowski

placus3

I. W ogóle to dyskusyjna jest datacja Ewangelii na powstałe po roku 70, bazowana jedynie na ideologii racjonalistów, a nie argumentach.

Np. argumentem za tym jest proroctwo zburzenia Jerozolimy. Skoro jest proroctwo, to Ewangelia nie mogła powstać przed zburzeniem Jerozolimy, bo Jezus "nie mógł" tego przepowiedzieć. Na jakiej podstawie nie mógł? Bo tak z góry założy racjonalista? Podobne proroctwa pojawiały się na długo przed zburzeniem Jerozolimy, np u Daniela, albo w Księdzie Jubileuszy z II w. p.n.e. ("Wojna przeciwko Jezusowi" s. 335-336)

Antonio Socci w "Wojnie przeciwko Jezusowi" wskazał dużo argumentów za wczesną datacją Ewangelii, polecam ci poczytać.

II. Co do Tacyta, mógł jak najbardziej czerpać informacje z rzymskich archiwów, bo sprawa Jezusa trafiła do Senatu już w 35r. cesarz chciał włączyć Jezusa do panteonu bóstw rzymskich i zyskać przychylność chrześcijan. Pisze o tym Tertulian i odsyła do rzymskich archiwów w tej sprawie, a na dodatek Tetrulian był temu przeciwny i uważał pomysł cesarza za herezję. ("Wojna przeciwko Jezusowi" s. 141-142)

mat

placus3

mat

placus3

Bartosz Czapski

Janie? A czy ta argumentacja przeciw zmartwychwstaniu jest Ci znana?

Napisał to nijaki turchisrong że swojego blogu. Ten co wygrał sądowy spór z Holdingiem.

1 - Generously granting assumptions of traditional authorship, the only testimony to the resurrection of Jesus in the NT that comes down to us today in first-hand form, is Matthew, John, and Paul. Everything else in the NT saying Jesus rose from the dead, is either hearsay, or the author asserts it in a context that doesn’t allow a finding that he speaks from personal knowledge (or else the author is depending on visions, which of course, don’t count for apologists who promote the ‘eyewitness’ thesis). I'm not saying all hearsay is automatically worthless or inadmissible. I'm just saying that if you have 500 brothers in the first century who all allegedly saw a risen Jesus as Paul alleged in 1st Cor. 15, you'd expect that if they were so impressed by it that it mightily changed their lives, more first-hand accounts of such witnesses would have survived than the three that did. How could the early Christians have succeeded in preserving the words of less than 20 mightily transformed disciples, but somehow lost the words of the other 480 mightily transformed apostles? (Paul says his seeing the risen Christ is the criteria for apostleship, 1st Cor. 9, so in that case, there must have been 500 apostles).

2 – If witnessing the risen Jesus “mightily transformed” the lives of the apostles, then the failure of the alleged eyewitnesses to obey the risen Jesus, would count as legitimate evidence that their experience of him was less objective than apologists would wish. In Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands THEM to initiate and work a Gentile ministry. Do they? No. Paul says in Galatians 2:9 that the three main apostles decided to give Paul exclusive dominion over the Gentile mission, while they would confine themselves to Jews alone. Such confinement to Jews alone directly contradicts the command of the risen Jesus that THEY work the Gentile ministry (Matthew 28:19). Apparently, whatever they experienced during the alleged 40 days mention in Acts 1, it wasn’t such a clear and objective experience of Jesus that they were too transformed by it, they still think it acceptable to disobey Jesus. Apostolic resistance to any thought that Gentiles could even GET saved, is also proven from Acts 10-11, where Peter has to convey a special vision of God to the church before they conclude with surprise that God has granted salvation to Gentiles too (Acts 11:18), as if Gentile Salvation were some shocking unexpected theological development they wouldn’t otherwise have guessed without Peter’s disclosure of special revelation. James Patrick Holding says they were marveling that Gentile salvation was only a one-step process as opposed to the two-step process, but Acts 11:18 clearly indicates that it is the fact that Gentiles could GET saved, at all, period, not the WAY they could be saved, that was found so unexpected by the church. The problem in Acts 10-11 strongly argues that the Gentile friendly Jesus of the gospels is fiction. Otherwise, how could the apostles run around with God himself for three years watching Him grant salvation to Gentiles, then a few short years after His death, they need special revelation to realize that Gentiles can get saved? “They just didn’t get it” is nothing but a cop-out, you would not so easily forget a teaching that Jesus drilled into your head for three prior years. If the gospels use fiction when making Jesus look Gentile-friendly, they are untrustworthy also when mentioning his resurrection.

3 – Most Christian scholars believe Mark’s gospel was earliest, and that Matthew extensively borrowed from Mark’s gospel text. If those assumptions are true, then it is not likely that an eyewitness Matthew would depend so heavily on the word of a non-eyewitness Mark. It doesn’t matter if you can conjure up thought-experiments in which an eyewitness to an event would not testify except through the version held by a non-eyewitness, such a thing would only be an exception proving the rule. If this argument be true, we get rid of Matthew and whittle down the first-hand resurrection testimony to just John and Paul.

4 – The choice of the entire church in Acts 1 to make Matthias apostle # 12 to replace Judas, indicates that the original apostles did not agree with Paul’s watered down idea of apostleship (seeing the risen Christ, 1st Cor. 9), but felt the number of apostles could not exceed 12. You are not apostles because you’ve seen the risen Jesus. You are only allowed into that group if you lived with the historical Jesus along with the others (Acts 1:21) and there is a need to add somebody to the group to keep the number at 12. The clues in Acts 1 refute the desperate Christian apologists who trifle that the election of Matthias in that chapter was against the will of God. As such, Paul is not a true apostle, and an apostle # 13 is mathematically excluded by the Revelation author from any credit for founding Christianity (it was founded on 12 foundations of 12 apostles with 12 names, Rev, 21:14) a direct contradiction to Paul’s claim that he labored more than all the apostles to lay this foundations, 1st Cor. 15:10).

5 – Licona and Tertullian interpret Paul’s “lest I ran in vain” comment in Galatians 2:1-2 as meaning that despite his dogmatism, Paul was not entirely confident that the original apostles would approve of his version of the gospel. This lack of confidence justifies suspicion toward the veracity of his claimed divinely revealed mission to preach a law-free gospel to the Gentiles. He would hardly express such lack of confidence if he was 100% certain his experience of Jesus was authentic.

6 – The parts of the NT that provide the most explicit support for the claim that Paul was an eyewitness of the risen Jesus, fail to do so. Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus was while he was in the company of other men. First, Paul only sees a blinding flash of light and hears a voice, nothing is expressed or implied that he was physically viewing Jesus. If the light you see is sufficient to temporarily blind you, it’s a pretty good argument that anything else that was part of the light, would be something you couldn’t physically see while the blinding was in progress. Second, the other men could not see this Jesus (Acts 9:7). If you admit that Jesus appeared to Paul in some miraculous way that prevented his traveling companions standing less than 10 feet from him from being able to see Jesus too, you lose the “eye” in “eyewitness”. If you are walking with your friend down the sidewalk, both of you with normal vision that is not being otherwise blocked, and see and hear a loud motorcycle go by you down the street, the police who obtain your testimony to this in a report would start having severe difficulties with it if your friend said that they only heard but didn’t see the motorcycle. How could the friend possibly not see something that YOU saw as you stand less than 10 feet from each other on the sidewalk? Feel free to invoke a miracle, but when you do, be prepared to admit that visions don’t count.

7 – Most of Paul’s own churches abandoned him for the Judaizer version of things (Gal. 1:6), including Barnabas (2:14) who was otherwise personally chosen by God to assist Paul in the ministry (Acts 13:2). Apparently, today’s Christians are far more impressed with Paul’s theological ramblings than most of his own contemporaries. That seriously impeaches his credibility as a legitimate witness, since if he got the gospel wrong, his experience with Jesus was likely inauthentic.

8 – The risen Jesus required his followers to teach to Gentiles all that Jesus originally taught his first disciples (Matthew 28:0), and in context, Matthew clearly understood that to mean teaching them on the basis of what Jesus actually did and said, since that’s what Matthew’s gospel mostly consists of. For this reason, Paul’s infamous near total lack of concern with the words and deeds of the historical Jesus, is an attitude in direct defiance of the risen Christ’s command in the Great Commission, again, impeaching him sufficiently to rationally justify rejecting his view of things.

9 – Paul characterizes his Damascus road experience as a ‘vision’ (Acts 26:19), using the same Greek word optasia that he uses to characterize his otherwise totally bizarre unbelievable visions that leave him unable to tell, 14 years after the fact, whether they occurred as an in-body or out-of-body experience. 2nd Cor. 12:1-4. If Paul’s experience of Christ was something different than “eyewitness”, we’ve now whittled down the NT first-hand accounts to John alone. There is no point in citing Pual as an eyewitness, if the only way you can show him as an eyewitness is to invoke a miracle. The point of his being an eyewitness is to show that you can demonstrate the resurrection of Jesus on historical grounds alone.

10 – The Muratorian Fragment that apologists constantly appeal to as historically reliable to show how early the NT canon was settled, also says John’s first idea when pressured by the apostles to write a gospel, was for everybody to starve for three days, then report whatever God “revealed” to them. This MF testimony is consistent with the conservative theory that this John was the same as the author of Revelation, who also had a fascination with the visionary and esoteric. Andrew got him to change his mind. Clearly, John does not agree with modern apologists and conservative scholars, that the sole intent of gospel authors was to convey only truthful historical facts based on eyewitness testimony. John’s first inclination was to write a gospel that was a mixture of revelations contributed by the other apostles. The MF also says the apostles checked John’s finished gospel for accuracy, which means we don’t have any idea which parts of canonical John come from him and which were corrections made by other apostles. Affidavits that are a tangled mixture of testimony from unidentifiable sources, is worthless for historical purposes.

11 – Luke’s accuracy can be rationally disputed: for despite Jesus having had many Gentile followers before he died, when Judaizers at the Council of Jerusalem require Gentiles to be circumcised (Acts 15), the apostles never appeal to Jesus (i.e., “Jesus never required circumcision, so case dismissed”), rather, suspiciously like Paul himself who also neglected the historical Jesus to a marked degree, they try to refute the Judaizers by their own arguments, their understanding of OT texts, and their alleged current ministry successes. I’m sorry, but it’s highly unlikely that if the gospels are historically reliable, the apostles at the Council of Jerusalem would have failed to appeal to the Gentile friendly Jesus as their authority. What authority could possibly be greater than the teachings of Jesus (Matthew 28:20)? Luke is apparently spin-doctoring history to make the original apostles appear more aligned with Paul than they actually were…and of course the bulk of Acts concerns nobody except Paul.

12 – Luke’s bias is sufficiently high to justify skepticism of his honesty: Despite the Council of Jerusalem having involved heated arguments (15:1-5), Luke only represents the Judaizer position with a short summary statement (v. 1) once repeated (v. 5), while Luke fills out the rest of a long chapter giving the reader far more details about the apostolic arguments/reactions. While bias alone is expected and cannot suffice, alone, to justify skepticism, Luke’s giving the reader far more information on the apostolic response than he gives on the arguments of the Judaizers, rationally justifies suspicion toward any claim that he engaged in fair and balanced reporting. You’d feel the same way about any atheist who reports on an unpublished atheist-Christian debate, by representing the Christian side in only two sentences, but giving you a whole chapter on how the atheist responded.

13 – If most scholars are correct that Mark originally ended at 16:8 and was the earliest published gospel, then the earliest gospel did not mention resurrection-appearances while the later gospels do, which perfectly fits the expected trend: that which is the more fictitious version of the story, is usually the later form of the story, the original is usually less embellished. N.T. Wright’s attempt to avoid the obvious was valiant, but unconvincing except to those believers already primed to adopt any interpretation that happens to support them.

14 – Mark never mentions the virgin birth of Jesus. You will say he didn’t find it necessary to repeat what his originally intended audience already believed. But according to Clement as quoted in Eusebius, Mark only wrote out Peter’s preaching because Peter’s original church requested Mark do so. So it was Mark’s express purpose to exactly “repeat” in written form that which the church already believed upon oral preaching. The greater probability is that Mark doesn’t include the virgin birth, which is otherwise such a strong supporter of his theme of Jesus as Son of God, because Peter never preached any such thing, and the only likely way Peter could avoid preaching such a strong supporter of Jesus’ sonship to God is if Peter either didn’t know any such story, or thought it false. The point here is that the realities surrounding Mark strongly suggest that Matthew and Luke are lying in telling their virgin birth stories, thus impeaching their general credibility to tell the truth on miraculous matters.

15 – Jesus’ statements now uniquely confined to John’s gospel represent high Christology, yet they don’t appear in the Synoptics. It is highly unlikely that if the Synoptic authors knew Jesus had said such theologically significant things about himself, they would “choose to exclude” these. This argument rationally justifies the conclusion that the unique Johannine sayings of Christ are fictions, hurting John’s credibility.?

placus3

Jeśli mogę coś wtrącić pokrótce od siebie

fedor