FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-02-2013, 04:56 PM   #71
spin
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44 View Post
There was also no acknowledgement of the 4 gospels until the 2nd century.
That is precisely why it can be argued that the Jesus story was composed in the 2nd century.
It can be argued, but there is no evidence for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
1. There is acknowledgement of the Jesus story in the 2nd century.

2. There are NT manuscripts of the Jesus story that have been dated to the 2nd century or later.

3. 2nd century Non-Apologetic sources mention the Jesus story and cult.

4. Irenaeus' "Against Heresies"--The first to acknowledge the Four Gospels contradicts the time Jesus was crucified and render the Entire Canon as total fiction and chronologically bogus.

5. There is no mention of Paul in non-Apologetic sources that mention the Jesus story and cult in the 2nd century.

There is no credible supporting evidence for the four Gospels in the 1st century.
What is the supporting evidence for Tacitus before the year 200?? You are not supporting your assertion. You are just indicating a lack of sources. That tells you nothing about the value of the content or when it was written. You are merely pointing towards a terminus ad quem, ie the latest possible date.
spin is offline  
Old 06-03-2013, 12:40 PM   #72
jgreen44
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: About 120 miles away from aa5874
Posts: 268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
That is precisely why it can be argued that the Jesus story was composed in the 2nd century.
Agreed. But that is an argument that does not help your case at all. If the gospels are 2nd century, then the likelihood that the Epistles preceded the gospels increases.
jgreen44 is offline  
Old 06-03-2013, 01:04 PM   #73
Duvduv
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

Not if all the texts were produced as part of a set of books at approximately the same time, whereby they were intended to complement one another. There is no evidence that any of the texts existed among anyone as a singular text of perhaps a set of say 2 gospels and 5 epistles, or 6 gospels and 11 epistles.

All evidence shows that the Church only knew of a singular SET of texts that included at least the epistles and gospels.

And of course there is no evidence that the epistles were actually written by "Paul" to any actual community; there is no evidence that any of the named communities in the epistles actually existed or that any such communities ever received such complete epistles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
That is precisely why it can be argued that the Jesus story was composed in the 2nd century.
Agreed. But that is an argument that does not help your case at all. If the gospels are 2nd century, then the likelihood that the Epistles preceded the gospels increases.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 06-03-2013, 01:15 PM   #74
Jeffrey Gibson
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
And of course there is no evidence that the epistles were actually written by "Paul" to any actual community; there is no evidence that any of the named communities in the epistles actually existed or that any such communities ever received such complete epistles.
No evidence of a christian community at Rome by mid 1st century?

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 06-03-2013, 02:07 PM   #75
jgreen44
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: About 120 miles away from aa5874
Posts: 268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
Not if all the texts were produced as part of a set of books at approximately the same time, whereby they were intended to complement one another.
I agree. But it still remains true that arguing for a late composition of the gospels does not support the idea that the gospels preceded the Epistles. Maybe the gospels did come before the Epistles. But claiming the gospels are late arrivals does nothing to support the idea that the gospels came before the Epistles. If anything it tends to argue against it. OR, as you said, it suggests that the gospels and the Epistles were composed at "approximately the same time".

Which also makes sense given the contradictions between the gospels and the Epistles and the numerous Jesus teachings and story points missing from the Epistles.
jgreen44 is offline  
Old 06-03-2013, 02:29 PM   #76
Duvduv
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

Consider the fact that the epistles are ALWAYS presented and discussed by apologists, et al as an entire set. NEVER do any sources even attempt to discuss the existence of the alleged communities, their leaders, histories, etc. This is essentially because there were NO epistles written to any communities in the first or second centuries. And there is no evidence that anyone received any such epistles.
This is hardly ever discussed by scholars to undermine the authenticity of any epistles or any Christianity in the first or second century.
And then all some folks can do here is engage in argumentum ad hominum against Mountainman instead of addressing issues of substantive context.
IF there is no proof that any epistles were ever actually written or received by anyone, or any proof that Christian communities existed in the places identified in the epistles, then what are they left with?

And of course most people like to assume that the epistles were essentially written by single authors rather than written as composites. In any case, the FOUR gospels are always presented together and always with the epistles.

No church writers ever showed evidence of Christians whose canon included only 2 or 3 gospels with half a dozen epistles, or 6 gospels with 18 epistles. They were all part of a set of the empire's canon that were intended to complement and supplement one another using apparently GMark as the boilerplate for the rest of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
Not if all the texts were produced as part of a set of books at approximately the same time, whereby they were intended to complement one another.
I agree. But it still remains true that arguing for a late composition of the gospels does not support the idea that the gospels preceded the Epistles. Maybe the gospels did come before the Epistles. But claiming the gospels are late arrivals does nothing to support the idea that the gospels came before the Epistles. If anything it tends to argue against it. OR, as you said, it suggests that the gospels and the Epistles were composed at "approximately the same time".

Which also makes sense given the contradictions between the gospels and the Epistles and the numerous Jesus teachings and story points missing from the Epistles.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 06-03-2013, 06:09 PM   #77
jgreen44
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: About 120 miles away from aa5874
Posts: 268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
They were all part of a set of the empire's canon
So what was the problem? Was it so hastily put together that no one had time to realize that there were contradictions between the gospels and the Epistles and numerous Jesus teachings and story points missing from the Epistles?
jgreen44 is offline  
Old 06-03-2013, 06:46 PM   #78
Duvduv
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

It would seem that they were more interested in successionism vis a vis Judaism, and polemics rather than being interested in consistency. They did not have an editorial board. Besides, they must have (and do) consider the texts to COMPLEMENT one another rather than contradict each other.

The epistles may not have needed historical details that could be found elsewhere in the "Set"........

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
They were all part of a set of the empire's canon
So what was the problem? Was it so hastily put together that no one had time to realize that there were contradictions between the gospels and the Epistles and numerous Jesus teachings and story points missing from the Epistles?
Duvduv is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 01:31 AM   #79
jgreen44
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: About 120 miles away from aa5874
Posts: 268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
Besides, they must have (and do) consider the texts to COMPLEMENT one another rather than contradict each other.
To declare that the gospels and Epistles complement one another is not to make the problems go away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
The epistles may not have needed historical details that could be found elsewhere in the "Set"........
At least not until the Mythicists came along.
jgreen44 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:25 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.