..>>Can you point to one line of third-party evidence that any of the unusual, defining events in the life of Jesus actually occurred
Posted by Pericles<<..

http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/histjesu/histjesu.htm
http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Is_There_Evidence_for_Jesus_Outside_the_Bible
http://www.gotlife.org/ramp.swf
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Plin.+Nat.+toc
http://www.answering-islam.org/Intro/islamic_jesus.html
http://homepages.which.net/~radical.faith/reviews/harvey2.htm

OK thats only from the first page of my google search

Its not for any to prove anything [to anyone ]
as jesus reveals your faith alone

Its seek and you will find
[remembering that some [vile][evil] type person will gladly destroy any document ][or any paper or libery ] just to suppress ANY fool-proof truth

Its amasing the newtestimeant stories even survived as long as they have to this day

[let alone truths that proove definativly that jesus ever came[say the people who killed him [or athiests ;they arnt really a new invention]

To demand proof [yet not even bother to look ] is to presume your own position is secure
[the historians are saying that the people of god took others peoples stories ,that the old testiment didnt happen ,BUT so what?

Its the moral IN the stories that leads to god [jesus is only one of the narrow paths TO GOD [the living loving god of grace and light

[and here we are wasting typing on yet another messenger'smess-age]

jesus came to reveal to mankind OUR GOD
not ritual not the new testiment,not miricles

JUST GOD
and the best way to find GOD is by doing what jesus said
[love god [love neighbour]

Who cares to proove that to those who's ears are deaf
[who's eyes are blind [who cant be bothered confirming ,

only enjoy complaining ,mocking things that are greater than they can concieve, to discover greater things than holy texts
[or any holy prophet]
[find GOD]

the living loving god

THE one who sustains each of us our every breath

and we debate about the messengers
and yet still have no concept of or belief in WHAT they revealed
ie how to realise
A [THE] LIVING LOVING GOD
now

Pericles... I and others have provided all the information that relates to Jesus many times over.
-Josephus
-Herodotus
-Pliney
-and so it goes on.. you could actually do some googling on this.
I won't say anything about the various archeological finds which were not known by any other source than the Bible... there is too much. Particularly the New Testament. End of sidetrack.

Pericles, you said:

"the scabrous interpretation of carefully selected verses"

I've shown that you can arrive at the very same understanding of the intent of a biblical text as I do...yet you say the above? that is totally irrational.. I mean..it really is.

As for Mark 1:1-4.. Having now established what the text is 'saying'.. we can then ask 'Does this mean anything for us'.. that is 'interpretation'.. Thus far, we know very little on which to base any 'personal application'.
It doesn't tell us to 'do' anything. Get it?

BUGSY.. not at all. It has already been a very worthwhile exercise as it has shown that there is no rocket science to getting the plain meaning of a religious text...or.. a text written by Darwin.

The place where it becomes divisive is the 'application'.

It's a pity that Pericles has taken an irrational approach, bordering on bigotry to be truthful, 'scabrous interpetation' ...good grief.

If I said "Mark 1:1-4 means that the moon is made of green cheeze..THAT would be a 'scabrous interpretation'. Sorry Pericles, you shot yourself in the foot there mate.

If we could show that the Ananda Marga had a 'foundation text' which said "All people named Bugsy must be killed" and we then found that this text applies for all time, then Bugsy would rightly be concerned if the Ananda Marga applied to build a school in his street.

Boazy: << If I said "Mark 1:1-4 means that the moon is made of green cheeze..THAT would be a 'scabrous interpretation'. >>

Nope. It would be funny. One would think that a self-styled hermeneutic scholar would be able to spell "cheese".

Say CHEEZE Boazy :D

Now go and look up 'scabrous' in the dictionary.

Curaezipirid.. (welcome)

You said:

"I agree that we need to comprehend the cultural bias of any text to be able to interpret it."

Yep.. indeed we do. But what we should do prior to looking up external information, is closely examine the text as it stands, and see if it answers those kinds of questions itself. In the case of Mark, there will be some questions of that nature which we can only guess at.. such as 'It was set in an agricultural/fishing society'.. we can see this from the illustrations and imagery used in the language.

In some ways, its like a stone in a pond.. the ripples go ever wider.

Oliver

"Boaz did not want this analytical interpreation. I think, he wants use to read, as if, naive interpreters, without the knowledge of language or history or context?"

Exactly :) you were providing great information, but it was obtained outside the text...and for this exercise, I'm trying to focus 'just' on the information provided by the text.

TRTL said:
<you would not like to confront the fact that there is not a certain way to interpret them all>

Actually, I believe there is a 'zone' of acceptable interpetation.

Some churches differ on Baptism. "Sprinkle" or.."immerse" The simplest solution is to ask "How did the early church, John the baptist do it"?
Problem solved? :) I wish! Nope.. you can then see how a particular tradition, like 'child baptism', and 'confirmation'.

The message of John the Baptist and Jesus, and the Apostles was the same "Repent, and believe in Christ the Son of God -you will be forgiven and receive eternal life in so doing" There is not much to 'interpet' there..its mentioned so many times.

The only difference of opinion I believe I have with how John performed baptism is in the length of time the head is kept under water.

Also, as far as the answer to "how to interpret texts", it appears all you have to do is be able to read them.

As I said, it's a complete and utter wank, designed to get people to talk about Boazy's favourite subject (no not muslims, the other one).

Boazy,

With: Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 12:45:57 PM

I did try to exclude context, except Star Wars & Zeus.

As to your questions about Baptism, I have the answers in books recently arrived and locked-up in my garage. I think you will find Baptism, pre-dates John?

In the early centuries, there was one Baptism, which was taken later in life, often before death, so the folks would die sin free. This is why above I refer to the Christians being a civil problem for the Romans. Sin now repent and be forgiven later.

You may care to visit before I close it:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1841&page=8

Cheers.