The Anatomical And Physiological Details Of Death By Crucifixion:

[Shaker]

Or see Nottingham and wish you'd died beforehand 

[BashfulAnthony]

Or see Nottingham and wish you'd died beforehand 

Nottingham, "Queen of the Midlands."     

[Shaker]

Or see Nottingham and wish you'd died beforehand 

Nottingham, "Queen of the Midlands."     

A useless anachronism long past its sell-by date? 

[BashfulAnthony]

Or see Nottingham and wish you'd died beforehand 

Nottingham, "Queen of the Midlands."     

A useless anachronism long past its sell-by date? 

Just two very recent happenings:  Nottingham, voted the country's leading sporting city, and Flowers in Bloom capital (or something) in the Midlands!    It just goes on!   

[Owlswing]

Or see Nottingham and wish you'd died beforehand 

Nottingham, "Queen of the Midlands."     

A useless anachronism long past its sell-by date? 

Or as Julian Clary once said - Tight as a drum, never been done. I'm the Queen of the fairies!

He is never one to stand back from sending himself up.

[BashfulAnthony]

Or see Nottingham and wish you'd died beforehand 

Nottingham, "Queen of the Midlands."     

A useless anachronism long past its sell-by date? 

Or as Julian Clary once said - Tight as a drum, never been done. I'm the Queen of the fairies!

He is never one to stand back from sending himself up.

Nottingham, "Queen of the Fairies."  That should make it must place to visit for you.   

[jeremyp]

If you call propagandists 'good' historians.

You seem to be dissing your own evidence here.

Second of all, "the bulk" is not everybody, It should be clear, even to you, that some Christians were well educated.

Actually, people can lead a group, run a business and do a whole host of complex things without being 'well-educated', jeremy.  Educated, perhaps.  Jewish children - male and female - were usually educated in basic life skills to the equivalent of our middle-school level.  It was only the nhigh-flyers who went on to higher, generally theological and other areas of education.

The New Testament is written entirely in Greek. The fact that it exists at all tells us that some Christians were well educated i.e. they could write.

Suggest away. How about some solid evidence for one of your suggestions?

Well, as I have already pointed out, much of their material relates to military, political and other issues.  That suggests that their contacts and sources were from the higher eschelons of society.

Tacitus frequently tells us what his sources are. You don't need to speculate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Sources

It makes a refreshing change to the gospel writers.

[BashfulAnthony]

If you call propagandists 'good' historians.

You seem to be dissing your own evidence here.

Second of all, "the bulk" is not everybody, It should be clear, even to you, that some Christians were well educated.

Actually, people can lead a group, run a business and do a whole host of complex things without being 'well-educated', jeremy.  Educated, perhaps.  Jewish children - male and female - were usually educated in basic life skills to the equivalent of our middle-school level.  It was only the nhigh-flyers who went on to higher, generally theological and other areas of education.

The New Testament is written entirely in Greek. The fact that it exists at all tells us that some Christians were well educated i.e. they could write.

Suggest away. How about some solid evidence for one of your suggestions?

Well, as I have already pointed out, much of their material relates to military, political and other issues.  That suggests that their contacts and sources were from the higher eschelons of society.

Tacitus frequently tells us what his sources are. You don't need to speculate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Sources

It makes a refreshing change to the gospel writers.

But the circumstances were hardly similar.  Tacitus was a historian, and wrote with the historian's disciplines.  The Gospel writers were attempting to relate a story and set of incidences, in times when they were in danger from both Roman and Jewish authorities.   The niceties of academic scholarship were not really what they were about.   

[jeremyp]

this mythologising of illiterate cultures' capacity for perfect recall is significantly overstated. Studies of non-literate cultures show that stories are conveyed in archetypes and poetry, but there is significant drift in detail in relatively short periods.

Interesting point: I have just been listening to the In Our Time on the Empire of Mali. One of the things hey talked about was the Epic of Sundial, an orally transmitted poem that has come down to us in many different versions ins site of this mythical perfect recall. Not only that, the epic is often adapted for the audience. One of the scholars said it tells us more about the people who live in Mali now than during the time it describes.

We also know that Christian writers did exactly the same thing. Matthew and Luke both copied Mark to a large extent but both also made edits to suit their particular theology or audience. If these two authors can do it, who knows how many times it was done in the oral chain between Jesus and Mark.

[jeremyp]

But the circumstances were hardly similar.  Tacitus was a historian, and wrote with the historian's disciplines.  The Gospel writers were attempting to relate a story and set of incidences, in times when they were in danger from both Roman and Jewish authorities.   The niceties of academic scholarship were not really what they were about.

Good, so we can dismiss them as historical documents and put them where they belong in the fiction section.

[BashfulAnthony]

But the circumstances were hardly similar.  Tacitus was a historian, and wrote with the historian's disciplines.  The Gospel writers were attempting to relate a story and set of incidences, in times when they were in danger from both Roman and Jewish authorities.   The niceties of academic scholarship were not really what they were about.

Good, so we can dismiss them as historical documents and put them where they belong in the fiction section.

It may be fiction to you, but you seem to have issues with religion; otherwise you wouldn't pursue this enmity to it with such obsessive fervour.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But the circumstances were hardly similar.  Tacitus was a historian, and wrote with the historian's disciplines.  The Gospel writers were attempting to relate a story and set of incidences, in times when they were in danger from both Roman and Jewish authorities.   The niceties of academic scholarship were not really what they were about.

Good, so we can dismiss them as historical documents and put them where they belong in the fiction section.

The Gospels have more right to be in the history section than the God Delusion has to be in the popular science section.
But hey, that's just one of the many of the miracles of New Atheism......it makes theologians out of ethologists and scientists out of booksellers.

[jeremyp]

The Gospels have more right to be in the history section than the God Delusion has to be in the popular science section.

I don't think anybody is claiming that TGD is pop science. This is another of your straw men isn't it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Gospels have more right to be in the history section than the God Delusion has to be in the popular science section.

I don't think anybody is claiming that TGD is pop science. This is another of your draw men isn't it.

Nope, it's been seen in branches of Waterstone's    eg, Both Folkestone Branches and Both Canterbury and I should imagine it is or has been in the past, policy.

[jeremyp]

Nope, it's been seen in branches of Waterstone's    eg, Both Folkestone Branches and Both Canterbury and I should imagine it is or has been in the past, policy.

Nobody here is claiming it is pop science, Richard Dawkins wouldn't claim it is pop science.

The gospels are certainly not history and are probably best classified as mythology (to return to the subject).

[floo]

Anyone claiming the gospels are history need to get real!

[BashfulAnthony]

Anyone claiming the gospels are history need to get real!

Re-read your post: and try and appreciate the irony of it!   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope, it's been seen in branches of Waterstone's    eg, Both Folkestone Branches and Both Canterbury and I should imagine it is or has been in the past, policy.

Nobody here is claiming it is pop science, Richard Dawkins wouldn't claim it is pop science.

The gospels are certainly not history and are probably best classified as mythology (to return to the subject).

I'm not talking about people here Jeremy I'm talking about Waterstone's and the people who don't mind that they miscategorise The God Delusion.....and if the cap fits...........

The main Gospel points and personae are attested to in the Epistles which were written within a couple decades of the events. It is stuff like that that leads most historians....not just many......... to declare the historicity of Jesus. And why Jesus mythers have gone from Anchor to wanker.

[BashfulAnthony]

Nope, it's been seen in branches of Waterstone's    eg, Both Folkestone Branches and Both Canterbury and I should imagine it is or has been in the past, policy.

Nobody here is claiming it is pop science, Richard Dawkins wouldn't claim it is pop science.

The gospels are certainly not history and are probably best classified as mythology (to return to the subject).

The subject of the thread was to do with crucifixion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Anyone claiming the gospels are history need to get real!

Well the personnel, the context, the gatherings and the discipleship are certainly accepted by most historians....mainly because they crop up in epistles.

Ravers and ranters such as yourself would certainly not be allowed on any jury because of your bias and you have demonstrated a generic bias against Christian and bias for any bollocks coming out the New Atheist stable.

[Enki]

Dear Whatever,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4q3WlM9rCI

Just saying like!! no sorry Erhman is saying, hey!! it makes a change from me quoting wee Albert

Gonnagle.

Good for Bart Erhman, he always tries to be unbiased. The thing is, some atheists are so in denial of Jesus Christ they can hardly bear to think he existed and are quite prepared to believe that he didn't.

Jesus Christ is the only way out of the matrix of this world. During his 'physical' time on earth he knew we were all caught in Satan's trap and came to tell us and show us the way out. There only is one way.... and that is through Him.

I agree completely with your first sentence. I've just finished reading Bart Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'. Most interesting.

[jeremyp]

Nope, it's been seen in branches of Waterstone's    eg, Both Folkestone Branches and Both Canterbury and I should imagine it is or has been in the past, policy.

Nobody here is claiming it is pop science, Richard Dawkins wouldn't claim it is pop science.

The gospels are certainly not history and are probably best classified as mythology (to return to the subject).

I'm not talking about people here Jeremy I'm talking about Waterstone's and the people who don't mind that they miscategorise The God Delusion.....and if the cap fits...........

And this thread is not meant to be about The God Delusion so why do you keep banging on about it? It's a very strange argument with which to try to counter the "gospels are fiction" point.

Me: The gospels are fiction

Vlad: This other book was wrongly classified in Waterstones, so there.

I mean WTF?

The main Gospel points and personae are attested to in the Epistles which were written within a couple decades of the events.

Wonders will never cease. Vlad makes a relevant argument.

Interestingly, the epistles do not attest to the main gospel points at all, excepting that Jesus was executed and the obviously mythical resurrection. If you look for anything else, like the Lord's Prayer, the Sermon on the Mount, the virgin birth, any of Jesus' miracles, you search in vain. How could this be? How is it that, when arguing that Jesus was resurrected, Paul fails to mention the empty tomb, preferring a ridiculous use of the fallacy of adverse consequences?

The answer is because those stories hadn't been made up yet.

[jeremyp]

The subject of the thread was to do with crucifixion.

Which is first documented in the gospels. Therefore, their fictional nature is important to this thread.

[BashfulAnthony]

Nope, it's been seen in branches of Waterstone's    eg, Both Folkestone Branches and Both Canterbury and I should imagine it is or has been in the past, policy.

Nobody here is claiming it is pop science, Richard Dawkins wouldn't claim it is pop science.

The gospels are certainly not history and are probably best classified as mythology (to return to the subject).

I'm not talking about people here Jeremy I'm talking about Waterstone's and the people who don't mind that they miscategorise The God Delusion.....and if the cap fits...........

And this thread is not meant to be about The God Delusion so why do you keep banging on about it? It's a very strange argument with which to try to counter the "gospels are fiction" point.

Me: The gospels are fiction

Vlad: This other book was wrongly classified in Waterstones, so there.

I mean WTF?

The main Gospel points and personae are attested to in the Epistles which were written within a couple decades of the events.

Wonders will never cease. Vlad makes a relevant argument.

Interestingly, the epistles do not attest to the main gospel points at all, excepting that Jesus was executed and the obviously mythical resurrection. If you look for anything else, like the Lord's Prayer, the Sermon on the Mount, the virgin birth, any of Jesus' miracles, you search in vain. How could this be? How is it that, when arguing that Jesus was resurrected, Paul fails to mention the empty tomb, preferring a ridiculous use of the fallacy of adverse consequences?

The answer is because those stories hadn't been made up yet.

Get back on topic, or start a new thread.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope, it's been seen in branches of Waterstone's    eg, Both Folkestone Branches and Both Canterbury and I should imagine it is or has been in the past, policy.

Nobody here is claiming it is pop science, Richard Dawkins wouldn't claim it is pop science.

The gospels are certainly not history and are probably best classified as mythology (to return to the subject).

I'm not talking about people here Jeremy I'm talking about Waterstone's and the people who don't mind that they miscategorise The God Delusion.....and if the cap fits...........

And this thread is not meant to be about The God Delusion so why do you keep banging on about it? It's a very strange argument with which to try to counter the "gospels are fiction" point.

Me: The gospels are fiction

Vlad: This other book was wrongly classified in Waterstones, so there.

I mean WTF?

The main Gospel points and personae are attested to in the Epistles which were written within a couple decades of the events.

Wonders will never cease. Vlad makes a relevant argument.

Interestingly, the epistles do not attest to the main gospel points at all, excepting that Jesus was executed and the obviously mythical resurrection. If you look for anything else, like the Lord's Prayer, the Sermon on the Mount, the virgin birth, any of Jesus' miracles, you search in vain. How could this be? How is it that, when arguing that Jesus was resurrected, Paul fails to mention the empty tomb, preferring a ridiculous use of the fallacy of adverse consequences?

The answer is because those stories hadn't been made up yet.

Yes but Paul talks at length of the resurrection which kind of assumes an empty tomb.