(who was Jesus) wasRoman records
Ed Tyler errancy@infidels.org
Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:50:44 -0500 (00924652244, 4.1.19990420134023.00b8d240@pop.truman.edu)
At 07:01 PM 4/20/99 +0100, Matthew Bell wrote:
>> ><snip for brevity>
>> >
>> >>Ed
>> >>
>> >>Again, you must demonstrate that Jesus was actually
>> >>calling anyone "Father." There's a very strong case to
>> >>be made that all this "Father" talk was inserted by the
>> >>gospelers long after Jesus died.
>> >
>> >Matthew Bell
>> >Judas Seminar votes hardly constitutes '..a very strong case!!!'
>> >(Nor does Ed Tyler-says-it-so-it-must-be-true!). Why don't you
>> >PRESENT this '..very strong case!!!' so we can all see just how
>> >strong or weak it really is? I promise you I will gladly find the
>> >extra time on top of my work on the Ezekiel debate to respond
>> >fully to any case you present backing your claim.
>> >
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> I'm curious as to why you attribute this position to the Jesus Seminar,
>> since they're only a recent example of a long line of scholars who have
>> noted the late appearance of the Father-Son language in the gospels.
>> Must be attributable to a complete lack of knowledge on the subject.
>
>Matthew Bell
>More question begging! What late appearance, where is the EVIDENCE, THE
>PROOF. Again, your assertion does not constitute such, however much you
>like to think it does.
Ed
No, I was just curious as to why you attributed it to the Jesus Seminar
instead of the scholars who actually discovered the absence of the
Father/Son language in the antecedents. Guess you didn't want to answer
that question, so you changed the subject.
>>
>> Ed Tyler
>> And of course as everyone but you and Helen know, I don't
>> expect or want anyone to take my word for anything. But
>> since you both read my posts with the same attention and
>> critical thought you apply to everything else, I can expect
>> you to overlook my constant references to objective
>> scholarship on these topics.
>
>Matthew Bell
>If you presented 'objective scholarship on these topics' I wouldn't have to
>keep pointing out the subjective question begging approach you exhibit in
>your posts.
Ed
So you don't consider the texts of the Markan material, Q or GoT to be
objective evidence?
>
>> Ed Tyler
>> As to your question regarding the later development of the Father-Son
>> language, the answer is very simple: it's resoundingly absent from the
>> antecedent sayings of the Markan material, Q, and the gospel of Thomas.
>
>Matthew Bell
>Ah, so your 'very strong case' amounts to an argument from silence. As I
>thought, you have no argument at all, save what you hear from your
>selective 'scholars'.
Ed
Apparently, you rushed this post off rather quickly and without thinking
too much about it. Yes, of course the absence of the Father/Son language
in the earliest sayings attributed to Jesus is evidence that the earliest
sayings attributed to Jesus did not contain Father/Son language; that's my
whole point that you're trying with marked lack of success to argue
against. This is not an argument from silence, it is evidence that the
Father/Son language is later than these sayings.
>
><snip remainder as a matter of irrelevance>
>
>Thanks
>M.Bell
>