Freethought & Rationalism Archive

05-24-2001, 10:36 AM

I have made the argument that there are no alternate versions of the basic Gospel story. The point being, there are many versions of most myths. The fact that with tons of "other Gospels" not a one of them before the fourth century gives an alternate account of Jesus life, death, burial and resurrection is a good indication that everyone knew the basic facts, they were public knowledge because they were history; the happened before the community of Jerusalem, the whole community was a witness and no one could deny it.

Now Turtonm tries to argue that certain alternate Gospels deny the resurrection. He names the Apochraphon of James. This is not true. As will be seen from what I quote below James does mention the resurrection. Some of the latter Gnostics denied the theology of the Virginal conception, but they still allude to the story. They denied that Jesus' death was real, but they do not deny that it happened, only that he was not a flesh and blood being and so could not die. What they accept is that the illusion of a flesh and blood man lived on the earth and was taken for a real person why all who saw him. That is a fundamental mistake of Dhortey, he thinks all the action originally was set in a heavily realm, that is not the case. The Gnostics generally accepted that the illusion of a man was seen on earth and seemed to be living among men. So they just spiritualized the history of Jesus.

Below I will quote from several "other Gospels" to show that they affirm the deity of Christ, the resurrection, that they include references to many of the stories and periscopes in the canonical Gospels, and that they assume the general outline of the story that we call "fact."

1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.
2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary"
3) Same principle players, Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Madeline,
4) That Jesus was knows as a miracles worker
5) he claimed to be the son of God and Messiah
6) he was crucified under Pilate
7) Around the time of the Passover
8) at noon
9) rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb
10) several woman with MM discovered the empty tomb
11) That this was in Jerusalem.

Not all of these sources say all of these points and they may have different theological takes on them. But none of them ever deny that basic outline and all affirm some parts of it.

I don't have time to point out language that is identical or similar to that of the canonical or to show where verses are found, but I'll point out in a general way and hope that most of you are familiar enough that you will recognize the similarity.

Now similarity is important because it means agreement, but differences in the wording are important to because that indicates that it is not just a copy of the canonical but comes form a different text. That a passage is from a different text than the canonical Gospels but agrees with them is crucial, since it indicates that the story is widely accepted, the versions dot' differ significantly and it is not just being copied from the canonical Gospels. You will see this is very widespread.

Observe this source, the emboldened passage is contradiction to what Turtonm said about it, that this work denies the resurrection.

Apocryphon of James

Jesus of Nazerath in early Christian Gospels: Andre Bernard (visited May 22 '01)

http://www.goto.com/d/sr;$sessionid$...5M0cxKzi4thi2P 2OokFgUABQCppCk%3D

From Ron Cameron, The Other Gospels (Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1982),
as quoted in Willis Barnstone, The Other Bible (Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1984

Risen from Dead

Quote:

"Now the twelve disciples were sitting all together at the same time, and, remembering what the Savior had said to each one of them, whether secretly or openly, they were setting it down in books. And I was writing what was in my book - lo, the Savior appeared, after he had departed from us while we gazed at him. And five hundred and fifty days after he arose from the dead, we said to him: "Have you gone and departed from us?"

Acknolwedges the cross

[he also said that it doesn't mention the cross]

Quote:

And I answered and said to him: "Lord, do not mention to us the cross and the death, for they are far from you."
The Lord answered and said: "Truly I say to you, none will be saved unless they believe in my cross. But those who have believed in my cross, theirs is the Kingdom of God. Therefore, become seekers for death, just as the dead who seek for life, for that which they seek is revealed to them. And what is there to concern them? When you turn yourselves towards death, it will make known to you election. In truth I say to you, none of those who are afraid of death will be saved. For the Kingdom of God belongs to those who have put themselves to death. Become better than I; make yourselves like the son of the Holy Spirit."

Dialouge of the Savior
Ibid.
trans Stephen Emmel

http://www.goto.com/d/sr;$sessionid$...5M0cxKzi4thi2P 2OokFgUABQCppCk%3D

Selection made from James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library, revised edition. HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1990.

Quote:

"So when you offer praise, do so like this: Hear us, Father, just as you heard your only-begotten son, and received him, and gave him rest from any [...] You are the one whose power [...] your armor [...] is [...] light [...] living [...] touch [...] the word [...] repentance [...] life [...] you. You are the thinking and the entire serenity of the solitary. Again: Hear us just as you heard your elect. Through your sacrifice, these will enter; through their good works, these have saved their souls from these blind limbs, so that they might exist eternally. Amen.

[take note of this next source it mirrors much that is in the canonicals and basically lays out the general outline of the whole canonical Jesus story]

EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLES

From "The Apocryphal New Testament"
M.R. James-Translation and Notes
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924

http://www.goto.com/d/sr;$sessionid$...5M0cxKzi4thi2P 2OokFgUABQCppCk%3D

Quote:

Intro:

The authorities for the text are: (a) a Coptic MS. of the fourth or fifth century at Cairo, mutilated; (b) a complete version in Ethiopic (c) a leaf of a fifth-century MS. in Latin, palimpsest, at Vienna. The only edition which makes use of all the authorities is C. Schmidt's 19]9. The Ethiopic was previously edited by Guerrier in Patrologia orientalis under the title of Testament of our Lord in Galilee. A notice of this text by Guerrier in the Revue de l'Orient Chretien (1907) enable me to identify it with the Coptic text, of which Schmidt had given preliminary account to the Berlin Academy. As to the date and character of the book, Schmidt's verdict is that it was written in Asia Minor about AD 160 by an orthodox Catholic. The orthodoxy has been questioned (see a review by G. Bardy in Revue Biblique, 1921.) No ancient writer mentions it, and very few traces of its use can be found: the (third?)-century poet Commodian seems to use it in one place.

Ethiopic version:

We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas,

[same principle players as always]

write unto the churches of the east and the west, of the north and the south declaring and imparting unto you that which concerneth our Lord Jesus Christ: we do write according as we have seen and heard and touched him, after that he was risen from the dead: and how that he revealed unto us things mighty and wonderful and true.3 This know we: that our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ is God the Son of God, who was sent of God the Lord of the whole world, the maker and creator of it, who is named by all names and high above all powers, Lord of lords, King of kings, Ruler of rulers, the heavenly one, that sitteth above the cherubim and seraphim at the right hand of the throne of the Father: who by his word made the heavens,

[note similairity to John 1:1]

and formed the earth and that which is in it, and set bounds to the sea that it should not pass: the deeps also and fountains,that they should spring forth and flow over the earth: the day and the night, the sun and the moon, did he establish, and the stars in the heaven: that did separate the light from the darkness: that called forth hell, and in the twinkling of an eye ordained the rain of the winter, the snow (cloud), the hail, and the ice, and the days in their several seasons: that maketh the earth to quake and again establisheth it: that created man in his own image, after his likeness, and by the fathers of old and the prophets is it declared (or, and spake in parables with the fathers of old and the prophets in verity), of whom the apostles preached, and whom the disciples did touch. In God, the Lord, the Son of God, do we believe, that he is the word become flesh: that of Mary the holy virgin he took a body, begotten of the Holy Ghost, not of the will (lust) of the flesh, but by the will of God: that he was wrapped in swaddling clothes in Bethlehem and made manifest, and grew up and came to ripe age, when also we beheld it.

[very close confimation form John 1:1, with the word become flesh but clearly not following the text of that Gospel]

[It goes on to speak of Jesus' healing and riasing the dead, the marrage in canna incident is recounted,the loaves and fishes and feeding of the multitude but the language is quite different from that of the canonicals, indicating that it follows a different text but gives the same information. It also follows the text of the cononicals in mentioning many pereicopes.]

Coptic version:

Resurrection

9 Concerning whom we testify that the Lord is he who was crucified by Pontius Pilate and Archelaus between the two thieves (and with them he was taken down from the tree of the cross, Eth.), and was buried in a place which is called the place of a skull (Kranion). And thither went three women, Mary, she that was kin to Martha, and Mary Magdalene (Sarrha, Martha, and Mary, Eth.),

[always the same principle players, same women at the tomb, never any different ones]

and took ointments to pour upon the body, weeping and mourning over that which was come to pass. And when they drew near to the sepulchre, they looked in and found not the body (Eth. they found the stone rolled away and opened the entrance).10 And as they mourned and wept, the Lord showed himself unto them and said to them: For whom weep ye? weep no more I am he whom ye seek. But let one of you go to your brethren and say: Come ye, the Master is risen from the dead. Martha (Mary, Eth.) came and told us. We said unto her: What have we to do with thee, woman? He that is dead and buried, is it possible that he should live? And we believed her not that the Saviour was risen from the dead. Then she returned unto the Lord and said unto him: None of them hath believed me, that thou livest. He said: Let another of you go unto them and tell them again. Mary (Sarrha, Eth.) came and told us again, and we believed her not; and she returned unto the Lord and she also told him.

[bascially rigt in line wthe the canonicals but not following the text of it because the language is different, and yet many phrases are barrowed from it]

[next one is higly abstract and esoteric gnostic work]

Gospel of Philip

http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/gospels/gosphil.htm

Quote:

Those who say that the Lord died first and then rose up are in error, for he rose up first and then died. If one does not first attain the ressurrection will he not die? As God lives, he would already be dead.

Christ came to ransom some, to save others, to redeem others. He ransomed those who were strangers and made them his own. And he set his own apart, those whom he gave as a pledge in his will. It was not only when he appeared that he voluntarily laid down his life, but he voluntarily laid down his life from the very day the world came into being. Then he came forth in order to take it, since it has been given as a pledge. It fell into the hands of robbers and was taken captive , but he saved it. He redeemed the good people in the world as well as the evil.

[Turtonm said that that the GPhil dneies the resurrection. But as we have just seen its deniel is a very esoteric maxim that is not necessarily a deniel but a spiritualized theology. The second statement might seem to confirm the actual historical resurrection.]

The Gospel of the Ebionites is known only by the quotations from Epiphanius in these passages of his Panarion: 30.13.1-8, 30.14.5, 30.16.4-5, and 30.22.4. The following selection is excerpted from Montague Rhode James in The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1924), pp. 8-10.

http://www.goto.com/d/sr;$sessionid$...5M0cxKzi4thi2P 2OokFgUABQCppCk%3D

Quote:

In the Gospel they have, called according to Matthew, but not wholly complete, but falsified and mutilated (they call it the Hebrew Gospel), it is contained that 'There was a certain man named Jesus, and he was about thirty years old, who chose us.

[confirmation of basic story outline,got his age in agreement with others]

And coming unto Capernaum he entered into the house of Simon who was surnamed Peter, and opened his mouth and said: As I passed by the lake of Tiberias, I chose John and James the sons of Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew and <Philip and Bartholomew, James the son of Alphaeus and Thomas> Thaddaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the Iscariot: and thee, Matthew, as thou satest as the receipt of custom I called, and thou followedst me. You therefore I will to be twelve apostles for a testimony unto (of) Israel. And: John was baptizing, and there went out unto him Pharisees and were baptized, and all Jerusalem. And John had raiment of camel's hair and a leathern girdle about his loins: and his meat (it saith) was wild honey, whereof the taste is the taste of manna, as a cake dipped in oil. That, forsooth, they may pervert the word of truth into a lie and for locusts put a cake dipped in honey (sic). These Ebionites were vegetarians and objected to the idea of eating locusts. A locust in Greek is akris, and the word they used for cake is enkris, so the change is slight. We shall meet with this tendency again. And the beginning of their Gospel says that: It came to pass in the days of Herod the king of Judaea <when Caiaphas was high priest> that there came <a certain man> John <by name>, baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan, who was said to be of the lineage of Aaron the priest, child of Zecharias and Elisabeth, and all went out unto him. The borrowing from St. Luke is very evident here. He goes on: And after a good deal more it continues that: After the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John; and as he came up from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Ghost in the likeness of a dove that descended and entered into him: and a voice from heaven saying: Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased: and again: This day have I begotten thee. And straightway there shone about the place a great light. Which when John saw (it saith) he saith unto him: Who art thou, Lord? and again there was a voice from heaven saying unto him: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. And then (it saith) John fell down before him and said: I beseech thee, Lord, baptize thou me. But he prevented him saying: Suffer it (or let it go): for thus it behoveth that all things should be fulfilled. And on this account they say that Jesus was begotten of the seed of a man, and was chosen; and so by the choice of God he was called the Son of God from the Christ that came into him from above in the likeness of a dove. And they deny that he was begotten of God the Father, but say that he was created as one of the archangels, yet greater, and that he is Lord of the angels and of all things made by the Almighty, and that he came and taught, as the Gospel (so called) current among them contains, that, 'I came to destroy the sacrifices, and if ye cease not from sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from you'.

G of Hebrews

Quote:

The Gospel called according to the Hebrews which was recently translated by me into Greek and Latin, which Origen frequently uses, records after the resurrection of the Savior: And when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went to James and appeared to him.

[begining of the legeond of the Shourd?]

For James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he should see him risen from among them that sleep. And shortly thereafter the Lord said: Bring a table and bread! And immediately it added: he took the bread, blessed it and brake it and gave it to James the Just and said to him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man is risen from among them that sleep. (Jerome, De viris inlustribus 2)

continued in next post.

05-24-2001, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock:
Papyrus Egerton 2

[/B]

Intro

From Bernard.

The following translation is based on the Greek text printed in Kurt Ehrland's article "Papyrus Egerton 2: "'Missing Link' zwischen synoptischer und johanneischer tradition" found in New Testament Studies 42.1; the text is reprinted from A. de Santos Otero's Los Evangelios Apocrifos. Two different line numbers are printed because a new numbering system was developed after the identification of Papyrus K�ln 255. The first line numbers use the most recent system; the original line numbers are printed second, when applicable.�

http://www.goto.com/d/sr;$sessionid$...5M0cxKzi4thi2P 2OokFgUABQCppCk%3D

[here the healing of the lepper is presented almost word for word, and other passages from the canonicals with only slight veriations in the wording]

Quote:

Then Jesus said to the lawyers, "Punish everyone that behaves unjustly and is lawless, but do not punish me . . . how he does what he does? Turning to the leaders of the people, he said this word: "Search the scriptures in which you think you have life. These are a testimony to me. Do not think that I came to accuse you to my father. The one accusing you is Moses, in whom you have hoped." Then they said, "We know that God spoke through Moses, but you, we don't know where you've come from."In reply, Jesus said to them, "Now you are being accused for your unbelief through the things that he bore witness to. For if you believed Moses, you would believe in me. For he wrote to your fathers about me. . ."�They plotted in the crowd to take up stones together and try to stone him. And the rulers laid their hands on him that they might seize him and hand him over to the crowd, but they were unable to seize him because the hour of his betrayal had not yet come. But the Lord went out right through the middle of them and withdrew.

Now a leper came to him and said, "Teacher Jesus, when I was traveling with lepers and eating with them in the inn, I also became leprous myself. But if you wish, I will be made clean." So the Lord said to him, "I do wish. Be made clean." And immediately the leprosy departed from him.

[the bit about traveling with lepers and eating in an inn is an addition not in the canonicals. This indicates that there was another older text upon which the canonical version was based--see Koester]

Then Jesus said to him, "When you go, show yourself to the priest and offer the cleansing sacrifice commanded by Moses and sin no more. . ."
After coming to him, they exactingly tested him, saying, "Teacher Jesus, we know that you have come from God. For the things you do bear greater witness than all the prophets. Tell us then, when it is possible to pay the rulers the things that belong to them, should we pay them or not?" But Jesus knew their plan and warned them sternly and said to them, "Why do you call me teacher with your mouths, since you are not hearing what I am saying? Well did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said, "This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far distant from me. In vain, they worship me . . . command[ments . . .
�. . . being in a shut-in place . . .has been subordinated uncertainly . . . its unweighted weight . . . But although they were at a loss as to his bizarre question, Jesus, while he was wandering, stood on the lip of the Jordan river, and stretching out his right hand . . . and he sowed on the river, and at that time . . . water and then . . . and . . . before them, he brought forth fruit . . . much . . . to . . .

The Fayyum Fragment
The following translation is based on the Greek text printed in Jack Finegan's Hidden Records of the Life of Jesus.
�

Quote:

As he led them out, he said, "You will all fall away tonight according to the scripture: 'I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered.'"

Then Peter said, "Even if everyone else denies you, I won't."
Jesus said, "Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times today."

[that's a perfect agreement with the canonicals but different enough that shcolars don't say it's a fragment of Mark or Matthew but a lost Gospel]

�
Epistle of the Apostles

from the same Website as above, Bernard. I've discussed this; this passag indicates remarkable agreement with several canonical pericopes but is not the same]

Quote:

5 Thereafter was there a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and they bade him with his mother and his brethren, and he changed water into wine. He raised the dead, he caused the lame to walk: him whose hand was withered he caused to stretch it out, and the woman which had suffered an issue of blood twelve years touched the hem of his garment and was healed in the same hour. And when we marvelled at the miracle which was done, he said: Who touched me? Then said we: Lord, the press of men hath touched thee. But he answered and said unto us: I perceive that a virtue is gone out of me. Straightway that woman came before him, and answered and said unto him: Lord, I touched thee. And he answered and said unto her: Go, thy faith hath made thee whole. Thereafter he made the deaf to hear and the blind to see; out of them that were possessed he cast out the unclean spirits, and cleansed the lepers. The spirit which dwelt in a man, whereof the name was Legion, cried out against Jesus, saying: Before the time of our destruction is come, thou art come to drive us out. But the Lord Jesus rebuked him, saying: Go out of this man and do him no hurt. And he entered into the swine and drowned them in the water and they were choked.Thereafter he did walk upon the sea, and the winds blew, and he cried out against them (rebuked them), and the waves of the sea were made calm. And when we his disciples had no money, we asked him: What shall we do because of the tax-gatherer? And he answered and told us: Let one of you cast an hook into the deep, and take out a fish, and he shall find therein a penny: that give unto the tax-gatherer for me and you. And thereafter when we had no bread, but only five loaves and two fishes, he commanded the people to sit them down, and the number of them was five thousand, besides children and women. We did set pieces of bread before them, and they ate and were filled, and there remained over, and we filled twelve baskets full of the fragments, asking one another and saying: What mean these five loaves? They are the symbol of our faith in the Lord of the Christians (in the great christendom), even in the Father, the Lord Almighty, and in Jesus Christ our redeemer, in the Holy Ghost the comforter, in the holy church, and in the remission of sins.

This is just a small sample. It would be a monumental task to coordinate all the paraells and agreements in all the "other books." It's not just those one might call Gospels, but Acts, and epistles and other fragments. In all the literature there is no other story. There are differences, different sayings, and as we go fruther in time the Gnostic stuff becomes more esoteric an dabstract and less and less like the canonicls. But none of them ever offer another version or deny the 11 basic points I made above. None places Jesus death in another city, or by another method, or denies the empty tomb or any of that. they all include MM and the major Apostles. Why is this when there are two versions of Herculaes life, 14 of Tamuz, and several others of every major myth? But of this story there is only one core story.

Here is a list of "alternate" works, Gospels, Acts and fragments of letters, and in all of it there is only one Jesus story.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Greek Text A]
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Greek Text B]
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Latin Text]
A 5th Century Compilation of the Thomas Texts
An Arabic Infancy Gospel
The Gospel of James
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
The Gospel of Mary [Magdalene]
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
The Gospel of Nicodemus [Acts of Pilate]
The Gospel of Bartholomew
The Gospel of Peter
The Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Philip
The Gospel of the Lord [by Marcion]
The Secret Gospel of Mark Return to Top

The Acts of the New Testament

The Acts of Andrew
The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew
The Acts of Andrew and Matthew
The Acts of Barnabas
Martyrdom of Bartholomew
The Acts of John
The Mystery of the Cross-Excerpt from the Acts of John
The Acts of John the Theologian
The History of Joseph the Carpenter
The Book of John Concerning the Death of Mary
The Passing of Mary
The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew
The Martyrdom of Matthew
The Acts of Paul
The Acts of Paul and Thecla
The Acts of Peter
The Acts of Peter and Andrew
The Acts of Peter and Paul
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles
The Acts of Philip
The Report of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius
The Giving Up of Pontius Pilate
The Death of Pilate
The Acts of Thaddaeus
The Acts of Thomas
The Book of Thomas the Contender

The Consummation of Thomas Return to Top

Apocryphal Apocalypse

The Apocalypse of Adam
The Revelation of Esdras
The First Apocalypse of James
The Second Apocalypse of James
The Revelation of John the Theologian
The Revelation of Moses
The Apocalypse of Paul
Fragments-The Apocalypse of Paul
The Revelation of Paul
The Apocalypse of Peter
The Vision of Paul
The Revelation of Peter
Fragments-The Apocalypse of Peter
The Apocalypse of Sedrach
The Revelation of Stephen
The Apocalypse of Thomas

The Apocalypse of the Virgin Return to Top

Other Writings

The Teachings of Addeus the Apostle
The Epistle of the Apostles
Community Rule
The Apocryphon of James
The Correspondence of Jesus and Abgar
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
John the Evangelist
The Apocryphon of John
The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
The Epistle to the Laodiceans
The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
The Letter of Peter to Philip
The Letter of Pontius Pilate to the Roman Emperor
The Report of Pilate to Caesar
The Report of Pilate to Tiberius
Excerpts from Pistis Sophia
The Avenging of the Saviour
The Three Steles of Seth

The Book of Thomas the Contender Return to Top

And that's not even all of them. I can't think of several that aren't included. And out of all of that, not one offers a different version of Jesus life, death, or resurrection. why? When other myths are always re-told in other ways why is the Jesus story always the same on the basic outline? Because they all knew the facts. The whole community knew what basically happned and it could not be denied.

Meta
Welcome to Doxa
http://pub18.ezboard.com/bhavetheologywillargue

Ulrich · 05-24-2001, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock:

Why is this when there are two versions of Herculaes life, 14 of Tamuz, and several others of every major myth? But of this story there is only one core story.

Are you suggesting that there exists another tradition of Hercules that has the core of the story, that he was the sun of the god Zues concieved by a mortal woman, different? If so I would like to see you reference it, if not you had better dust off your greek mythology and start worshipping a whole host of gods.

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited May 24, 2001).]

Lance · 05-24-2001, 11:06 AM

Meta: The whole gospels themselves are alternate rip-offs of older myths and legends. Sure, there might be some fact at the bottom, but it sure as hell isn't a resurrection.

Because if so many knew about it, it was common fact, then why is it so uncommonly hard to find anyone willing to talk about it? Because if it was fact, you'd have people all over the Med talking about it.

As it stands, you have one little group of heretics that stood outside in the sun too long in the desert.

05-24-2001, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lance:
Meta: The whole gospels themselves are alternate rip-offs of older myths and legends. Sure, there might be some fact at the bottom, but it sure as hell isn't a resurrection.

Because if so many knew about it, it was common fact, then why is it so uncommonly hard to find anyone willing to talk about it? Because if it was fact, you'd have people all over the Med talking about it.

As it stands, you have one little group of heretics that stood outside in the sun too long in the desert.

Paul was a fact (or are you arguing that Paul did not exist too?). One that travelled all over the Roman Empire personally. But we have no nonChristian references to him at all. So I guess the fact that something was a fact doesn't necessarily mean that everyone all over the Med would be talking about it.

Even so, considering the fact that "talking" about something is different than "writing" about something, I guess you really have no way of knowing whether people were talking about Jesus or Paul do you? And even if people were "writing" about it, only a fraction of what was written during that time has survived for us to read about. So I guess you really can't know that no one was "writing" about Jesus can you?

And I'm curious. Have you renounced your U.S. citizenship or are you, based on your brilliant legal analysis of the crime of conspiracy, accepting responsibility for the massacre of civilians in Vietnam? The murder of so many Native Americans? And Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

05-24-2001, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ulrich:
Are you suggesting that there exists another tradition of Hercules that has the core of the story, that he was the sun of the god Zues concieved by a mortal woman, different? If so I would like to see you reference it, if not you had better dust off your greek mythology and start worshipping a whole host of gods.

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited May 24, 2001).]

There are two different traditions for how he died. That's one of the main points I'm talking about as always consistant. There are other detials that very but that's a major one I think.

Even so some scholars think he was based upon a real guy and theres a lot less to argue for that than for Jesus.

05-24-2001, 01:06 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Lance:
Meta: The whole gospels themselves are alternate rip-offs of older myths and legends. Sure, there might be some fact at the bottom, but it sure as hell isn't a resurrection.[/font]

Meta =>No they are not! That is totally overblowen. All of that paralellism is BS. I'll do a post on that.

Quote:

Because if so many knew about it, it was common fact, then why is it so uncommonly hard to find anyone willing to talk about it? Because if it was fact, you'd have people all over the Med talking about it.

Meta =>Greeks and Roman don't talk about it because it's not important to them. They thought Palestine was totally unimportant. That would be like me saying well you claim to be well informed about current events but you don't know who the mayer of Lancaster Texas is!

Moreover, we hardly have anything from the first century. We just don't have that many writings. And it's easy to forget that's what the Gopsels are, they are people talking about it, as is Paul, 1 clement and in the second century a lot more.

As it stands, you have one little group of heretics that stood outside in the sun too long in the desert.

Meta =>
Yea how about that hohoho isn'[t that the most cleverist thing I've ever heard!

Lance · 05-24-2001, 01:36 PM

Meta: We have multiple crucified saviors. We have multiple holy men that somehow managed to be born on the Winter Solstice.

And you're quite right, we hardly have anything from the first century. So how can we make such huge decisions based on so flimsy evidence?

Layman: Sure I accept responsibility for those things. That's part of what I'm doing right now, trying to change the crapy system so things like that don't happen again.

As to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thats war. We were attacked and defended ourselves. We got into the mess in Vietnam exactly because we didn't treat a war as a war. Probably that whole topic deserves a thread on its own.

I haven't seen you renouncing the cult of Christianity lately, now have I?

Back to Paul: Parts of him may well be over-blown as well. We do have surviving writings that are supposed to be his, so I'd be far willing to assign him a higher likelyhood of existing than Jesus himself.

Now, just because a sun-touched fanatic believes something, does it make it fact? Do we take David Korish's version of things as true? How about Jim Jones? The Hale-Bopp nuts?

The very lack of historical backup makes it far far more likely Paul is in the above category than right-hand of the son of God.

05-24-2001, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Layman: Sure I accept responsibility for those things. That's part of what I'm doing right now, trying to change the crapy system so things like that don't happen again.

As to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thats war. We were attacked and defended ourselves. We got into the mess in Vietnam exactly because we didn't treat a war as a war. Probably that whole topic deserves a thread on its own.

I haven't seen you renouncing the cult of Christianity lately, now have I?

Why would I do that?

Just as you condemn those actions of your country with which you disagree, yet retain your citizenship and all of its benefits, so I denounce the actions of the Crusades, yet retain my faith in Jesus Christ.

Your attempt to use the crime of conspiracy to indict all Christians was completely baseless, as you yourself have demonstrated.

Quote:

Back to Paul: Parts of him may well be over-blown as well. We do have surviving writings that are supposed to be his, so I'd be far willing to assign him a higher likelyhood of existing than Jesus himself.

The point is not whether Paul existed. The point was that he did exist, he travelled much farther than Jesus ever did, he strated churches in many different countries, and encountered plenty of Roman and Jewish authorities. But no one mentions him. This shows who meaningless your claim is that if something was a fact then it should have been talked about all over the Med.

Iconoclast · 05-24-2001, 01:46 PM

How much water did Paul turn into wine?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-24-2001, 11:06 AM	#4
Lance Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Overland Park, KS USA Posts: 335	Meta: The whole gospels themselves are alternate rip-offs of older myths and legends. Sure, there might be some fact at the bottom, but it sure as hell isn't a resurrection. Because if so many knew about it, it was common fact, then why is it so uncommonly hard to find anyone willing to talk about it? Because if it was fact, you'd have people all over the Med talking about it. As it stands, you have one little group of heretics that stood outside in the sun too long in the desert.

05-24-2001, 01:36 PM	#8
Lance Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Overland Park, KS USA Posts: 335	Meta: We have multiple crucified saviors. We have multiple holy men that somehow managed to be born on the Winter Solstice. And you're quite right, we hardly have anything from the first century. So how can we make such huge decisions based on so flimsy evidence? Layman: Sure I accept responsibility for those things. That's part of what I'm doing right now, trying to change the crapy system so things like that don't happen again. As to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thats war. We were attacked and defended ourselves. We got into the mess in Vietnam exactly because we didn't treat a war as a war. Probably that whole topic deserves a thread on its own. I haven't seen you renouncing the cult of Christianity lately, now have I? Back to Paul: Parts of him may well be over-blown as well. We do have surviving writings that are supposed to be his, so I'd be far willing to assign him a higher likelyhood of existing than Jesus himself. Now, just because a sun-touched fanatic believes something, does it make it fact? Do we take David Korish's version of things as true? How about Jim Jones? The Hale-Bopp nuts? The very lack of historical backup makes it far far more likely Paul is in the above category than right-hand of the son of God.

05-24-2001, 01:46 PM	#10
Iconoclast Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,588	How much water did Paul turn into wine?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.