A refutation of the refutation of 'an affair on Golgatha'

[muhammad_isa]

V. Garaffa: if Jesus did not say it, how dare men use this ‘sacred’ vehicle to demand that he did when they admit to the contrary? In the same manner, they have used God’s Holy Scriptures to advance their own doctrines and traditions throughout history.

Thomas: But, on the other hand, if Jesus did say it, then the argument is void. As no argument is presented, this is void.

Perhaps I should remind people that Garaffa is claiming that Jesus did not say he was God.

Now, I can show you verses in the Bible which imply that he most certainly is NOT God .. and you can show
me verses which imply that he is.

I therefore suggest that one needs evidence APART from quoting literal Bible verses to sort out this issue.
If one is not prepared to do that, then I would say that Garaffa wins by default.

NB. Garaffa has supplied references
For example: the Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
https://archive.org/details/commentaryonbibl00peak/page/n5/mode/2up

 

[Thomas]

Response withdrawn.

This would prove to be a fruitless discussion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Response withdrawn.

This would prove to be a fruitless discussion.

OK .. I accept that.
..which means that your statement "As no argument is presented, this is void." is incorrect.
You are not prepared to answer to the refs. that he has provided.

 

[RJM]

OK .. I accept that.
..which means that your statement "As no argument is presented, this is void." is incorrect.
You are not prepared to answer to the refs. that he has provided.

Can you please post the passages in Garaffa's work and the Peake References to which they refer?

 

[muhammad_isa]

the context
--------------
...
If anyone wishes to debate the schism between historic fact and the editorialized scriptures, let them go to any proficient dissertation concerning the Greek scriptures. The simplest and most acceptable would appear to be, Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, The Interpreter’s Bible, or The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. In, The Interpreter’s Bible, a full exposition on the 13th Chapter of Mark is in, Volume 7; Page 853, entitled, The Apocalyptic Discourse.

There is also Bruce Metzger’s, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, and scores of other text to be studied for verification.

I will note only the opening text to underline the great importance of the layman understanding where the statements he is taught, actually come from.

According to, The Interpreter’s Bible, this chapter is considered to be composite by scholars and includes general apocalyptic material, “…not necessarily to be attributed to Jesus…” along with statements of his that are genuine. (See: Volume 7; Page 853.)

If Jesus did not say it, how dare men use this ‘sacred’ vehicle to demand that he did when they admit to the contrary? In the same manner, they have used God’s Holy Scriptures to advance their own doctrines and traditions throughout history.
...

An online version of Peakes Commentary is available on the link above..
..and a download of a 10 volume set of the interpreters Bible is available
here ->> http://mylovelibrabry.com/map/free.php?asin=1426739125

 

[RJM]

In, The Interpreter’s Bible, a full exposition on the 13th Chapter of Mark is in, Volume 7; Page 853, entitled, The Apocalyptic Discourse.

Ok. So the Interpreters Bible has an interpretation of the 'Apocalyptic Discourse' in the 13th Chapter of Mark. There are millions of other interpretations. What makes the Interpreters Bible interpretation the correct one?

The simplest and most acceptable would appear to be, Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, The Interpreter’s Bible, or The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament.

Surely I'm not supposed to have to work through all these books? References are supposed to be linked to individual passages within the thesis, as confirmation that can be accessed and verified -- not as just another person's opinion?

It is for the person who presents the thesis to provide concrete references, not for the reader to have to wade through parts of extraneous literature, that are not historical and have no relevance except also to offer opinions on the subject, the happen to agree with those of the author.

No- one has time in theit life to wade through all this stuff, unless it is crisply linked to the relevant passages in the thesis, and does in fact offer real evidence apart from just another person's opinion on the subject.

So I'm not saying it's not there. But it's not my responsibility to have to go and look for it. The author of the thesis needs to provide his outside confirmation sources in an unequivocal way?

So ... not denying, but still waiting

Imo

 

[muhammad_isa]

So I'm not saying it's not there. But it's not my responsibility to have to go and look for it. The author of the thesis needs to provide his outside confirmation sources in an unequivocal way?

It's entirely up to you whether you are interested in educating yourself.
It seems to me that it doesn't matter how much "leg-work" a person does,
if a person wants to follow a particular creed, they will

People will always find reasons why they reject it .. such as suggesting "they don't believe" .. "they have no faith" or "there are millions of other interpretations"

@Thomas says that no argument has been put forward. It is untrue.
I know you don't want me harping on about Jesus not being God .. that much is obvious .. but you started it.
You allege that @Garaffa's articles are badly written or have no credibility.
Maybe you would like ME to write an article with explicit refs, being more precise?
No .. I didn't think so

 

[RJM]

It's entirely up to you whether you are interested in educating yourself.
It seems to me that it doesn't matter how much "leg-work" a person does,
if a person wants to follow a particular creed, they will

My legs have enough to do. Is it for me to chase up your proofs or for you to provide them, brother?

 

[RJM]

Maybe you would like ME to write an article with explicit refs, being more precise?
No .. I didn't think so

Go for it. Post it on the forums first.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Happens on Facebook all the time. My legs have enough to do. Is it for me to chase up your proofs or for you to provide them, brother?

tut tut
Do you really think that God is happy with that attitude?

i.e. I can't be bothered to study the Bible .. I will follow others of my liking
I don't have proofs. I have sincere opinions based on rationality.
You are free to ignore them. I have nothing to prove.

You suggested earlier that you'd be happy to have your "books" scribbled over.
I'm sorry if you don't agree .. but that is what it looks like to me.
You might as well delete the articles altogether. That would be more respectful, imo.

 

[RJM]

I don't have proofs

Correct

I have sincere opinions based on rationality.

Correct

You are free to ignore them.I have nothing to prove.

Oh, really?

suggested earlier that you'd be happy to have your "books" scribbled over.

Updates attached

I'm sorry if you don't agree

Of course I do not

You might as well delete the articles altogether

I would. I think they're very poor quality. But others figure better to keep them, with an alternative view neatly attached below them

would be more respectful, imo.

A writer writes to be read and to be discussed and argued with -- not to be preserved forever in holy sanctity. He's not Kim jong-un.

His work is out there for debate.

 

[muhammad_isa]

His work is out there for debate.

@Thomas doesn't agree with you .. he thinks it would be "friutless".
He seems quite happy to "update it" as Mr. Garaffa is no longer with us.

No .. it's human nature to dislike articles that disagree with your beliefs.
A writer does not write a book or serious article to be defaced. Are you seriously trying to tell me that if he was still here
you would have "attached" what you have attached?

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is for the person who presents the thesis to provide concrete references, not for the reader to have to wade through parts of extraneous literature, that are not historical and have no relevance except also to offer opinions on the subject, the happen to agree with those of the author.

That's just ridiculous .. perhaps you'd like me to quote wiki on the subject, or perhaps that just "agrees with the author"?
Which ones of the following are biased then .. all of them?!?

BIBLIOGRAPHY
A Critical Lexicon And Concordance To The English And Greek New Testament: Ethelbert W. Bullinger, D.D.; Zondervan Publishing House: Grand Rapids, Mi. 1976

A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament: Bruce W. Metzger: United Bible Societies: 1971

Beginnings Of Christianity: ed F.J. Fookes, Jackson & Kersopp

Bloodline Of The Holy Grail: Laurence Gardner: Barnes & Noble Books

Cruden’s Complete Concordance: Zondervan Publishing House: Grand Rapids, Mi. 1968

Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire: Edward Gibbons: The Modern Library: Random House, Inc.

Encarta Learning Center: Internet Access: Microsoft

Encylopedia Brittanica: Internet Access

From Jesus To Christ: Paula Fredriksen: Yale University Press: New Haven & London: 1988

Josephus’ Complete Works: Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, Mi. 1976

Peake’s Commentary On The Bible: Thomas Nelson & Sons LTD: May 1962

The Book Of Concord: Fortress Press: Philadelphia: 1959

The Gospel According To Thomas: Harper & Rowe: New York & Evanston: 1959

The Gospel Of Philip: The Nag Hammadi Library: The Dead Sea Scrolls: James M. Robinson, General Editor: Wesley M. Isenberg

The Holy Bible King James and Revised Standard Versions

The Holy Qur’an: Mohammad Zafrulla Khan: Olive Branch Press

The Holy Scriptures According To The Masoretic Text: Jewish Publication Society Of America: Philadelphia, Pa. 1955

The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament: Rev. Alfred D. Little: Zondervan Publishing House: Grand Rapids, Mi. 1976

The Interpreter’s Bible: Abingdon Press: New York and Nashville, Tenn. 1951

The New American Bible: Saint Joseph Edition: Catholic Book Publishing Co. New York: 1970

The New English Bible with Apocrypha: Oxford University Press: Cambridge University Press: 1970

The New International Commentary On The New Testament: The Gospel According To Mark: William B. Eerdman Publishing Co.

The Original Jerusalem Gospel: A conjectural restoration of, Q: Reprinted from the Hibbert Journal: Publisher and date unknown.

The Outline of History: H.G. Wells: Camden City Books

The Qur’an: Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Inc. Elmhurst, NY 1988

The Second Treatise of the Great Seth: Nag Hammadi Library: The Dead Sea Scrolls: James M. Robinson, General Editor

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary: G & C Merriam Co; 1977

Young’s Analytical Concordance To The Bible: Robert Young, LL.D.

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.: Grand Rapids, Mi; 1975

 

[RJM]

Are you seriously trying to tell me that if he was still here
you would have "attached" what you have attached?

I would send it back to him, asking him to boil it down to about a-fifth of the length and to supply concrete references in support of much of the conjecture, after letting someone with a good knowledge of the subject have a look at it first.

That's just ridiculous .. perhaps you'd like me to quote wiki on the subject, or perhaps that just "agrees with the author"?
Which ones of the following are biased then .. all of them?!?

BIBLIOGRAPHY
A Critical Lexicon And Concordance To The English And Greek New Testament: Ethelbert W. Bullinger, D.D.; Zondervan Publishing House: Grand Rapids, Mi. 1976

A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament: Bruce W. Metzger: United Bible Societies: 1971

Beginnings Of Christianity: ed F.J. Fookes, Jackson & Kersopp

Bloodline Of The Holy Grail: Laurence Gardner: Barnes & Noble Books

Cruden’s Complete Concordance: Zondervan Publishing House: Grand Rapids, Mi. 1968

Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire: Edward Gibbons: The Modern Library: Random House, Inc.

Encarta Learning Center: Internet Access: Microsoft

Encylopedia Brittanica: Internet Access

From Jesus To Christ: Paula Fredriksen: Yale University Press: New Haven & London: 1988

Josephus’ Complete Works: Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, Mi. 1976

Peake’s Commentary On The Bible: Thomas Nelson & Sons LTD: May 1962

The Book Of Concord: Fortress Press: Philadelphia: 1959

The Gospel According To Thomas: Harper & Rowe: New York & Evanston: 1959

The Gospel Of Philip: The Nag Hammadi Library: The Dead Sea Scrolls: James M. Robinson, General Editor: Wesley M. Isenberg

The Holy Bible King James and Revised Standard Versions

The Holy Qur’an: Mohammad Zafrulla Khan: Olive Branch Press

The Holy Scriptures According To The Masoretic Text: Jewish Publication Society Of America: Philadelphia, Pa. 1955

The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament: Rev. Alfred D. Little: Zondervan Publishing House: Grand Rapids, Mi. 1976

The Interpreter’s Bible: Abingdon Press: New York and Nashville, Tenn. 1951

The New American Bible: Saint Joseph Edition: Catholic Book Publishing Co. New York: 1970

The New English Bible with Apocrypha: Oxford University Press: Cambridge University Press: 1970

The New International Commentary On The New Testament: The Gospel According To Mark: William B. Eerdman Publishing Co.

The Original Jerusalem Gospel: A conjectural restoration of, Q: Reprinted from the Hibbert Journal: Publisher and date unknown.

The Outline of History: H.G. Wells: Camden City Books

The Qur’an: Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Inc. Elmhurst, NY 1988

The Second Treatise of the Great Seth: Nag Hammadi Library: The Dead Sea Scrolls: James M. Robinson, General Editor

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary: G & C Merriam Co; 1977

Young’s Analytical Concordance To The Bible: Robert Young, LL.D.

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.: Grand Rapids, Mi; 1975

It just means he's read a lot of books that's all, and selecting whatever parts of them he needs to support his own narrative. There are no concrete references attached to specific passages that can be checked as confirmation. And even if there were, there would be many others in support of a different conclusion.

The debate has been continuing for two thousand years.. Anyway @muhammad_isa ... There's no way I'm going to get sucked in to another whirlpool here

 

[Thomas]

...which means that your statement "As no argument is presented, this is void." is incorrect.

No it doesn't, as well you know.

Let's look at the text:
“…not necessarily to be attributed to Jesus…”
Not necessarily means it may, or it may not.

If Jesus did not say it...

Should reasonably be followed by

If Jesus did say it...

But he does not.

So the author presents a reference which is not definitive (the 'not necessarily' in his source), but treats it as definitive. So his thesis rests on an unproven assumption.

Ergo, it is void.

Does that make sense?

 

[muhammad_isa]

V. Garaffa says "they have used God’s Holy Scriptures to advance their own doctrines and traditions throughout history"

..meaning mankind are guilty of "bending the truth" for their own gain. I assume you agree with that.

Let's look at the text:
“…not necessarily to be attributed to Jesus…”
Not necessarily means it may, or it may not.

If Jesus did not say it...
Should reasonably be followed by
If Jesus did say it...
But he does not.

So "your word" against his opinion that he backed up with references.
I'm well aware that his articles are not brilliantly written.

I don't, however, think that it looks professional to what amounts to "attaching your own beliefs" to the written article.
I don't agree with MANY of the articles that are navigable from the homepage. So what? I don't expect to.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..and that is why we have been having this discourse over the last few weeks.
I don't agree with the modifying of the IO website to appease "the Christian majority".

It has little to do with what I might believe or not believe
If everybody feels that the articles are "not suitable", then they should be deleted .. not spoilt.
It just isn't professional, imo.

 

[RJM]

has little to do with what I might believe or not believe

Oh, really?

don't agree with the modifying of the IO website to appease "the Christian majority".

Have you noticed that ALL the articles on the homepage were strongly biased contra-NT and contra Torah?

And Garaffa's articles are mostly poorly written and badly presented as well as filled with unprofessional conjecture unsupported by decent references. Do you think that is a correct look for the homepage of an interfaith website?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Have you noticed that ALL the articles on the homepage were/are strongly biased contra-NT and contra Torah?Eventually they were all biased contra-deist/theist?

No .. I clearly don't perceive things in the same way as you do.
IO was not a Christian ecumenical site, quite obviously.

I suppose we all have a different idea of what "interfaith" means.
In order to promote good relations between human beings, we need to appreciate other people's views, I'm sure you agree.
That does not include changing a published article because you don't like it.

You previously said you do not wish to be "educated" by me.
I see you are quite happy to be "educated" by @Thomas

Me? I'm quite happy to be "educated" by anybody .. as long as they have a decent, rational argument.
I quote wikipedia regularly, as it is "peer reviewed" and isn't written exclusively by a majority or minority.

 

[RJM]

IO was not a Christian ecumenical site, quite obviously.

So why did you write that?

suppose we all have a different idea of what "interfaith" means.
In order to promote good relations between human beings, we need to appreciate other people's views, I'm sure you agree.
That does not include changing a published article because you don't like it

It doesn't include blaspheming and sneering at another religion and scripture. I assure you it's not Mr Garaffa I'm talking about.

You previously said you do not wish to be "educated" by me.

It's called unasked for advice and it is proselytizing and is against the rules.

I'm done