Help! Words/Miracles of Jesus - literally true?

[buffalo]

Dear Buffalo:

Thank you for this reference. I cannot remember when I last enjoyed a reading so much. If it holds up to scrutiny, it might be one of the single most helpful readings I have done in the last ten years.

Thanks again.

By the way, do you know anything about the author, Dennis Barton?

Pax Christi tecum.

John Hiner

Go here

 

[vern_humphrey]

Of course we have no evidence that would stand up in a court of law, but neither have you, that the Gospels were set to paper prior tp AD 200.
It is not.

So what?

I see you are shooting from the hip, prior to reading the entire paragraph. I actually made that point. But I made the point that, at least in the Gospels, the verse boundaries reflect a more ancient system of division.

And my point is, it’s not an original system. It was not created by the actual writers.

The ancient writers used scripta continuousa – they didn’t even leave spaces between words. They had no punctuation, nor any of the more modern scriptoral devices. So the divisions are after the fact.

It ‘proves’ nothing. No proof of anything in this matter is possible. However, it does show that there is a construct in the text, indicating that a number of sections of text could have been transcribed from Roman tablets.
You obviously mean possible misinterpretation

Which proves nothing.

It is a scrap. Usually papyrus. This indicates letters or pamphlets, rather than sacred scripture, which would have been parchment.

Huh? Where do you get that?

In point of fact, papyrus was widely used. Parchment was developed at Pergamon because the Ptolomies embargoed papyrus to retard the library of Pergamon.

Clearly you have no imagination.

Whereas you have a surfeit of that talent.

‘Pieces of eight, pieces of eight!’

Actually, his own description, of, as he himself says, the worst of sinners.
And that means he was not an inspired writer? And his epistles ought to be ripped out of the Bible?

As I said, no imagination.

Actually, it’s simply an application of Herbivore’s First Law of Epistemology: “Just 'cause I don’t know what happened, that don’t mean I have to accept your cockamamie explanation.”

By the same token, you prove to me that, other than Tatian’s witness of AD 180, which, due to the brevity of account, is probably verbal witness. that the Gospels were set to paper prior to AD 200.

Why? What relevance does this have to the discussion?

You will, if you are honest, find this extraordinarily difficult.
It is easy to accept the voice of authority, and I understand the temptation. But you have no proof. Only faith.

You want me to have faith in you?

Your attempted use of ridicule only make you seem rtdiculous.

Ah, your whole argument is constructed of mere opinion and ridicule.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Is it OK to just believe in the real Bible that the Catholic Church led by the Holy Spirit has Authoritatively given us?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

So what?

Do not ask of me, a degree of proof which you, yourself cannot produce, even for the classical theory.

And my point is, it’s not an original system. It was not created by the actual writers.
The ancient writers used scripta continuousa – they didn’t even leave spaces between words. They had no punctuation, nor any of the more modern scriptoral devices. So the divisions are after the fact.

Absolutely. but there existed, and exist still, context boundaries, which reflect the boundaries between the vignettes used to synthesize the original text. Ammonius in his system of division, used these context boundaries, and the modern system of verses is based on the Ammonian divisions. This is not conjecture. You can test this for yourself.

Huh? Where do you get that?

In point of fact, papyrus was widely used. Parchment was developed at Pergamon because the Ptolomies embargoed papyrus to retard the library of Pergamon.

Yes papyrus was widely used, but except in the desert places, it was rapidly friable, and soon lost. It was adequate for letters and pamphlets, but for any document, expected to survive much handling, parchment was without exception, chosen.
Only in places like Oxyrincus did papyrus survive to any extent, and that was by a geological accident, where other midden contents provided a drying agent, which prevented the rot of time.

Whereas you have a surfeit of that talent.

‘Pieces of eight, pieces of eight!’

Of course not!, whether they are inspired or otherwise, they provide excellent witness to the early church.

Actually, it’s simply an application of Herbivore’s First Law of Epistemology: “Just 'cause I don’t know what happened, that don’t mean I have to accept your cockamamie explanation.”

Look, no-one actually knows what really happened.
In the absence of fact, imagination is required to generate a plausible hypothesis.
If you consider the hypothesis, and it is no more than that, open-mindedly, you will find that it gives good compliance with the Clementine theory of Gospel temporaral sequence, viz:
Matthew,
Luke,
Mark,
John.
Both Matthew and Mark are dependant on ‘Q’, which I submit is actually proto Matthew.
Mark is an unschooled dictation of the words of the illiterate Peter.
John is his own work, with additions of recollections of other disciples, and also of Mary Magdalen.

Why? What relevance does this have to the discussion?

As I said, you have no concrete proofs, you have no right to demand of me proofs better than you have.
I do not dispute the Clementine sequence, my hypothesis supports it, by giving a plausible mechanism.

You want me to have faith in you?

Absolutely not!

Ah, your whole argument is constructed of mere opinion and ridicule.

Opinion, yes: imagination, yes: ridicule, No, that is your game.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Do not ask of me, a degree of proof which you, yourself cannot produce, even for the classical theory.

Knock, knock! I am not advancing any theory. You are.

The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Absolutely. but there existed, and exist still, context boundaries, which reflect the boundaries between the vignettes used to synthesize the original text. Ammonius in his system of division, used these context boundaries, and the modern system of verses is based on the Ammonian divisions. This is not conjecture. You can test this for yourself.

I did. And I found two boundaries – one at the beginning, and one at the end of each Gospel.

Yes papyrus was widely used, but except in the desert places, it was rapidly friable, and soon lost. It was adequate for letters and pamphlets, but for any document, expected to survive much handling, parchment was without exception, chosen.

Look, no-one actually knows what really happened.
In the absence of fact, imagination is required to generate a plausible hypothesis.a

Which does not mean we have to accept any cockamamie idea that comes down the pike.

If you have evidence, trot it out. If you don’t, then it’s just another, “Well, things might have happened this way.”

Both Matthew and Mark are dependant on ‘Q’, which I submit is actually proto Matthew.

And where do we find a “proto Matthew?”

As I said, you have no concrete proofs, you have no right to demand of me proofs better than you have.

Wrong! You are advancing a theory. Therefore the burden of proof is on you.

Opinion, yes: imagination, yes: ridicule, No, that is your game.

Try not to make rediculous remarks, then – like pretending the burden of proof is on those who do not accept your theory.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Try not to make rediculous remarks, then – like pretending the burden of proof is on those who do not accept your theory.
Vern,
The way science works is by postulating a hypothesis, then everyone tries to shoot it down.
If the hypothesis cannot be destroyed, and it makes useful predictions, it then is accepted as a theory.
Virtually no scientific theory can be proved in your sense of the word.
As my hypothesis concerns events in ancient history, for which too many witnesses have transpired to be fancyful, then only hypotheses can be advanced.
Such hypotheses need to be possible and plausible.
It is impossible to prove either, however it may be possible to prove contrary.
You have failed so to do.
You have questioned the existance of vignettes of the sayings of Our Lord, and of some of his acts.
Actually there exists in the Nag Hamadi Library, a document called the Gospel of Thomas. It contains such vignettes, some which correspond to what we find in the four Gospels, and some we do not.
So there does exist a set of non-narative sayings of Our Lord. This sets aside your objection that there exists, or existed, no such tradition.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern,
The way science works is by postulating a hypothesis, then everyone tries to shoot it down.
If the hypothesis cannot be destroyed, and it makes useful predictions, it then is accepted as a theory.
Virtually no scientific theory can be proved in your sense of the word.

Oh, what nonsense!

You take the position that because metaphysical certainty is beyond human ability, no evidence or proof is ever required and any cockamamie theory is as good as the next.

That’s called “post modernism.”

As my hypothesis concerns events in ancient history, for which too many witnesses have transpired to be fancyful, then only hypotheses can be advanced.
Such hypotheses need to be possible and plausible.

No. You need evidence.

It is impossible to prove either, however it may be possible to prove contrary.
You have failed so to do.

I don’t have to prove the contrary – all I have to do is, as you say, shoot holes in your theory. And the biggest hole is that you have absolutely no evidence!

You have questioned the existance of vignettes of the sayings of Our Lord, and of some of his acts.
Actually there exists in the Nag Hamadi Library, a document called the Gospel of Thomas. It contains such vignettes, some which correspond to what we find in the four Gospels, and some we do not.

So you plan to add the Gospel of Thomas to the Canon?

So there does exist a set of non-narative sayings of Our Lord. This sets aside your objection that there exists, or existed, no such tradition.

Who said that? I said there is no evidence for your “notelets” or pamphlets.

And you have yet to provide any.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Goodbye Vern,
I regret that it is not possible to communicate sensibly with you.
I hope your faith based universe serves you well.
Via con dios.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Goodbye Vern,
I regret that it is not possible to communicate sensibly with you.
I hope your faith based universe serves you well.
Via con dios.

Goodbye Voco,
I regret that it is not possible to communicate sensibly with you.
I hope your fantasy based universe serves you well.
Via con dios

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

Thank you to all who participated - this thread is now closed.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary