Toto

Before we get too far off track, let me note for the record that the dating for Paul's letters cannot be established with any degree of certainty, as has been discussed here often enough.

I don't know who first brought up the 100 years, but I believe the intent was to say that no non-Christian source seems have heard of Jesus until nearly 100 years after his death. This probably assumes that the mentions of Jesus in Josephus were inserted by Christians. This also has been discussed here.

Juststeve

Bacht:

Were I to author a book called George W. Bush The Greatest President In History would that be a fictional character? It is quite possible to write about someone you believe is real, even someone who is real, while attributing to him false characteristics. It probably happens more often than not. That Gospel writers made preposterous claims about Jesus tells us nothing about whether he existed.

Steve

avi

No argument here, steve, I agree with this sentiment.

My point is simple: I don't know when "Paul's" letters were written, or by whom. I only know the date of the oldest extant copy of those letters, and that date is a couple of centuries after the date of their creation, if they were indeed written in the middle of the second century, after the third Jewish Roman war, as I believe was the case.

I seek EVIDENCE from you, (rather than opinion or a recounting of (many, many) other folk's opinions,) that Paul's letters date from anytime during the first century.

The supposition that 99% of all experts believe xyz, does not convince me, that xyz is true. I need to see the evidence upon which their opinion is formed. Take a look, for example, at the discovery of the papyrus document at Dura Europos. Wasn't it convenient the way it suddenly appeared, as if by magic!!! haha. (or even better, by a miracle!!)

Where is the DATA to support a first century creation for Paul's letters?

If we ask this question, for the Trojan War, i.e. where is the evidence that it occurred from 1194 BCE to 1183 BCE. Answer: the information was originally supplied by Eratosthenes (formerly head librarian in Alexandria). Is it still extant today? No. Is it relatively credible? yes, why?

1. He had access to all the documents;
2. There is no obvious benefit to be gained by Eratosthenes' deliberate misrepresentation of that date.

I am not sure that the same can be said for Paul's letters. "There's gold in them thar hills", so to speak....Money could be, and was made, by accepting wealthy people into the church, en route to heaven.....

Do you suppose that cher Paul/Saul knew a thing or two about making money?

avi

aa5874

Exactly!!! Exactly!!!!

Will you please STOP wasting our time when you have ADMITTED on RECORD that "Gospel writers made preposterous claims about Jesus tells us nothing about whether he existed".

You SIMPLY CANNOT use the Gospels for the EXISTENCE OF JESUS. They TELL US NOTHING.

avi

post 517:

avi

bacht

I dunno Steve. We're talking about a religious text with seemingly no interest in presenting itself as 'normal' history. Josephus has a preface to Jewish War where he discusses specific historical issues and authors. I believe the Roman historians also included explanatory remarks.

When gMark was written there were no histories of Jesus as far as we know. He never says to whom the text is addressed or the reason for writing. The book may have been written for believers but we have to guess this. If it was intended for a general audience I think we can say he didn't make this very clear.

Mark is describing a character similar to OT figures like Elijah and Moses, legendary if not completely fictional. He's not talking about Jewish kings or high priests or Roman governors or Hellenistic philosophers.

Kapyong

Gday,

If ONLY they had done so -
then you would have evidence for your claim they were
"presented as fact".

But here, you are tacitly admitting they did NOT do so, after repeatedly insisting they did !

Let's recap how it all went :

JustSteve : I see no evidence the Gospels were not true history.

Toto : how about this evidence : XXX

dog-on : how about this evidence : YYY

Doug : whar about this evidence : ZZZ

JustSteve : I see no evidence the Gospels were not true history.

Kapyong : Pardon? what about evidence X,Y and Z that was presented - and what about AAA also ?

JustSteve : I see no evidence the Gospels were not true history.

Incredible.


So,
then you insisted ALL the Gospels were "presented as fact".

I asked you for evidence of that.
Doug repeated the question to you.

But NOW you tacitly admit they did NOT clearly indicate that at all!


Like we said - they did NOT present the stories as fact;
you just ASSUMED they were presented as fact;
but the evidence shows otherwise.

The only confused one is you, JustSteve.



Kapyong

Kapyong

Gday,

Of course it is POSSIBLE - but you just ASSUMED the person was real to write stories about - that's what we are arguing about !

You haven't shown Jesus was real yet.


Your argument seems to be :

Fictional stories can be written about REAL people,
therefore fictional stories WERE written about a real Jesus,
therefore Jesus was historically real.

Ridiculous.

One just just as easily say :
Fictional stories can be written about mythical people,
therefore fictional stories were written about a mythical Jesus,
therefore Jesus was a myth.



When anonymous people they write religious books based on earlier scriptures - stories full of magic and supernatural events and demons and divine intervention etc. that DOES argue AGAINST being historical.


Kapyong

Juststeve

Bacht:

You and I just see Mark differently. What I see in a series of somewhat disjointed episode from the life of a guy he calls Jesus. Jesus went there, then he did this, then he said something to someone, then he went somewhere, etc. To me it reads like a collection of things the author heard about some guy named Jesus put together in a very loose order. As you may know the traditional Christian view is that Mark recorded things he heard Peter say but in no particular order. I would not argue that myself but it seems entirely plausible that the author of Mark heard this stuff somewhere, from someone.

I do not see the Jesus of Mark as being particularly rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures. In fact Matthew re-wrote Mark extensively to make connections, somewhat fancifully in my opinion, that are absent from Mark. If you go through the various episodes recorded in Mark by no means can most of them be said to come from Hebrew scripture and Mark himself makes no such connection, in contradistinction from Matthew.

I agree that qas far as I know Mark would have been the first written account of the doings and sayings of Jesus but I don't see how that matters. Some writing has to be first, why not Mark?

Steve

Kapyong

Gday,

Well, the Christian record shows clearly that the wider Christian community did NOT know the Gospel stories about Jesus until a century after his ALLEGED death (you keep assuming he DID die - but you haven't shown that yet.)

The early Christians do NOT mention :
* any miracles or healings, or Lazarus
* Joseph or Mary
* the birth stories - Bethlehem, Nazareth, Herod, Egypt
* the baptism in Jordan
* the triumpant entry
* the sermons
* the walking on water
* the trial before Pilate
* Jesus' last words
* the empty tomb
* the Lord's Prayer

Christians were supposedly taught the Lord's Prayer by Jesus himself - yet Paul says they do NOT know how to pray!

The early Christian writers do NOT even mention it.

Finally, we see DIFFERENT version of the Lord's Prayer arise in 2nd century - the Didakhe, 2 different Gospel versions, numerous variations in the manuscript.

For the first 100 years of Christianity - the Gospel stories about a historical Jesus were UNKNOWN to the wider Christian community.

Sure, you can claim the Gospels were WRITTEN as early as the 70s - but the wider Christian community did NOT learn of them until early-mid 2nd century.

Have a look at this table which makes it clear :
http://members.iinet.net.au/~dal.sahota/qdj/Table.html


Kapyong