From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Crucifixion of Jesus?
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:04:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.002757.14586@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.034645.791@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>
>>Robert, Robert, Robert...again your logic escapes me.  When it
>>suits your purpose, you have so much delight expounding the
>>*differences* in the different Gospels suggesting that this author
>>purposely misheld information to make their point, etc, etc.
>>Then, when it is pointed out that all 4 Gospels agree on some
>>point, you poo pah that by saying that two were derived from the
>>third.  You cannot have it both ways.  If in your mind, the
>>differences in the Gospels take away from their authenticity, then
>>the likeness in the Gospels must add to their authenticity.
>
>When a later author copies an earlier one more or less exactly, it
>neither adds nor subtracts from the earlier account, although it
>does give the original a sort of "vote of confidence." Nonetheless,
>it is NOT an independent source.
>
>But when a later author copies an earlier one in nearly all aspects,
>changing a few particulars, THEN those particulars become extremely
>important, as they were perceived at the time of the second author
>as "problems" in the original story. Such as: the youth who fled

If an author "copies" one account from another changing a few
particulars as you characterize the Gospels (I think this is an
unfair characterization, it is more accurate to say that they were
based off of a common source), and they had the idea to delete
particular passages either because they were inaccurate or because
they didn't fit into what they was trying to show, then doesn't it
make sense that if they *included* a certain passage, they did it
because they agreed with it and it properly illustrated their
point?  Therefore, if all 4 Gospel writers have explicitly stated
that Christ was crucified, then even if three of them were based
on a common source, it still is a strong affirmation of
authenticity since all the Synoptic writers deliberately described
Christ's death in that fasion.  Remember, they *could* have
changed it and they didn't.  Now of course, they could have all
been liars, but you would have that problem with three independant
sources also. Another possbility is that they were all mislead
from the same source, but this is highly unlikely since the Gospel
writers all had access and means to verify their information,
especially one so important as to how Christ died.  So again I
state, that if the Gospel writers were selective about what points
were deleted even when they "copied" from one another, then it
makes sense that they were selective about what they included
also.

>naked in the garden, Pilate's surprise at how quickly Jesus died,
>Jesus being called "the son of Mary" (which implies an illegitimate
>paternity), Jesus needing to be baptised, etc.

Just curious, but how does Jesus being called the son of Mary
imply illegitimacy?  Remember, at the time of the passage Joseph
is believed to have been dead.  It seems quite natural to be
labeled the son of a widow, doesn't it?

>>
>>The 1 Thessalonian letter is basically a short one (1950 words) with a specific
>>purpose in mind.  What logical reason do you have for Paul to have mentioned
>>the crucifixion in that letter specifically?
>
> Arguably, you could be right, there *might* have been no need to mention
> the cross - although we see that by the time he wrote 1 Corinthians,
> Paul had become positively *obsessed* with "the cross." The significance
> of this matter is that 1 Thess. 2:15 quite plainly blames the JEWS, not
> the Romans, for executing Jesus. This implies that, when it was written
> (c. 48) Paul had in mind a Jewish, not a Roman, execution.

Not at all. "Blame" as you put it, has no necessary connection
with who did the actual execution.  If I pay someone to murder my
brother, then who shoulders the majority of the blame, myself or
the payed hit man?

>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com



-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic