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

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-03-2012, 11:16 AM   #61
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

When one develops a theory the very HARDEST of evidence that is available MUST, MUST, MUST be employed NOT imaginary evidence and Presumptions.

Presently the HARDEST available evidence is the TEXTS of antiquity dated by Paleography and C 14.

The HARDEST available evidence show a BIG BLACK HOLE for the 1st century and Before c 70 CE for Jesus, the Disciples and Paul.

This BIG BLACK HOLE was EXPECTED when the Jesus story is FICTION.

NOTHING except Forgeries have been recovered and discovered.

The Single most important Jesus story is the short-ending gMark found in the Codex Sinaiticus because it is the ONLY Jesus story that is compatible with the HARDEST evidence available--the DATED Texts of antiquity.

The short-ending gMark CONTAINS a story of THREE CRUCIFIED where ONE SURVIVED and this unique story is found in the LAST writing of Josephus--The Life of Flavius Jopsephus--composed around the End the 1st century.

And what is even more remarkable, the person who ASKED for the Body of Jesus in gMark has the SAME Name as the one who ASKED that the three Crucified be taken down in "The Life of Flavius Josephus".

Both are called JOSEPH.

But, what MUST be remembered at all times about the short-ending gMark is that NO story was being PREACHED ANYWHERE of a resurrected Jesus as a Savior, Messiah and Son of God who was Sacrificied and Resurrected for the UNIVERSAL Remission of Sins and that Jewish Laws for Remission of sins were obsolete.

The short-ending gMark has NOTHING about a new religion.

The Jesus cult of Christians STARTED AFTER the short-ending gMark sometime AFTER the End of the 1st century.

The HARDEST evidence, today, the DATED Texts of antiquity place the ENTIRE Canon authors and the start of the Jesus cult NO earlier than in the 2nd century.

Mark 15
Quote:
42 And evening having now come, because it was the preparation, which is sabbath-eve,

43 Came Joseph ......... and went in boldly to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.
Life of Flavius Josephus 75
Quote:
...... I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 07-03-2012, 12:55 PM   #62
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
When one develops a theory the very HARDEST of evidence that is available MUST, MUST, MUST be employed NOT imaginary evidence and Presumptions.
We have evidence in the form of the gnostic gospels and acts of the apostles. Who were the gnostic heretics that authored these texts, and when, and what does this evidence represent?
mountainman is offline  
Old 07-03-2012, 02:27 PM   #63
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
When one develops a theory the very HARDEST of evidence that is available MUST, MUST, MUST be employed NOT imaginary evidence and Presumptions.
We have evidence in the form of the gnostic gospels and acts of the apostles. Who were the gnostic heretics that authored these texts, and when, and what does this evidence represent?
Right now, I no longer accept imaginary evidence. The acceptable methods of dating ancient writing material and writing style, Paleography and C 14, SHOW that the Jesus story is 2nd century and NOT 1st century.

As soon as more evidence becomes available I will review my position.

Imaginary evidence does NOT resolve anything.

The Present DATED Texts show a MASSIVE Black Hole for Jesus, the disciples and Paul in the 1st century and this is compatible with the short-ending gMark, writings of Justin Martyr, Aristides, Minucius Felix and "True Discourse" attributed to Celsus based on Origen's "Against Celsus".

Also, it would appear that the Forgeries in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 may have been written AFTER Eusebius was dead.

Based on "Against the Galileans" attributed to Julian the Emperor he was NOT aware that any well-known writers wrote anything about Jesus and Paul.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 07-04-2012, 02:46 PM   #64
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

The use of IMAGINARY evidence and IMAGINARY Dating of Text is out of control. People here IMAGINE when the Pauline letters and the Gospels were written and completely IGNORE ACTUAL DATED sources.

And not only that, those very people who RELY on IMAGINATION IMPOSE their Speculation on others.

The very people who ADMIT Acts of the Apostles is not to be trusted are the same persons who use Acts ALONE to Date the Pauline letters.

Dating writings by Acts is WHOLLY unacceptable. There is NO corroborative source for any statement made in Acts about the history of Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

The ACCEPTABLE methods to date writings and material is Paleography and C14.

ALL DATED TEXTS of antiquity SHOW a BIG BLACK HOLE in the 1st century for Jesus, the Disciples and Paul.

In other words, the HARD EVIDENCE [the Dated Texts] supports the theory that the Jesus cult of Christians is a 2ND century cult.

An argument, a theory, a conclusion should be based on the HARD evidence available, Not Imaginary evidence.

If Jesus, the disciples and Paul did NOT really exist in the 1st century then this is EXACTLY PRECISELY what we EXPECT--NO EVIDENCE at all in the 1st century.

We would ALSO EXPECT that the real history of the disciples and Paul would NOT ever be found in the 1st century and that is PRECISELY EXACTLY what has happened.

Now if Jesus, the disciples and Paul did EXIST before c 68 CE we would Expect OPPOSITION to and Arguments Against the NEW religion but we have NOTHING in the 1st century.

The OPPOSITION and Arguments AGAINST Jesus, disciples and Paul OCCURED in mid-late 2nd century, or 100 years LATER .

The Jesus cult of Christians is a 2nd century cult and the Pauline letters are Anti-Marcionite Texts.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 07-04-2012, 05:08 PM   #65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
The use of IMAGINARY evidence and IMAGINARY Dating of Text is out of control. People here IMAGINE when the Pauline letters and the Gospels were written and completely IGNORE ACTUAL DATED sources.

And not only that, those very people who RELY on IMAGINATION IMPOSE their Speculation on others.

The very people who ADMIT Acts of the Apostles is not to be trusted are the same persons who use Acts ALONE to Date the Pauline letters.

Dating writings by Acts is WHOLLY unacceptable. There is NO corroborative source for any statement made in Acts about the history of Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

The ACCEPTABLE methods to date writings and material is Paleography and C14.

ALL DATED TEXTS of antiquity SHOW a BIG BLACK HOLE in the 1st century for Jesus, the Disciples and Paul.

In other words, the HARD EVIDENCE [the Dated Texts] supports the theory that the Jesus cult of Christians is a 2ND century cult.

An argument, a theory, a conclusion should be based on the HARD evidence available, Not Imaginary evidence.

If Jesus, the disciples and Paul did NOT really exist in the 1st century then this is EXACTLY PRECISELY what we EXPECT--NO EVIDENCE at all in the 1st century.

We would ALSO EXPECT that the real history of the disciples and Paul would NOT ever be found in the 1st century and that is PRECISELY EXACTLY what has happened.

Now if Jesus, the disciples and Paul did EXIST before c 68 CE we would Expect OPPOSITION to and Arguments Against the NEW religion but we have NOTHING in the 1st century.

The OPPOSITION and Arguments AGAINST Jesus, disciples and Paul OCCURED in mid-late 2nd century, or 100 years LATER .

The Jesus cult of Christians is a 2nd century cult and the Pauline letters are Anti-Marcionite Texts.
Is it just me or is this really starting to make sense?

aa is correct about the dating of Paul. I have held long to 1 century Paul, but based on authority and consensus.

I remember when I first came on Roger Pearse said something about being careful or this will all start to make sense. He meant it as a warning, of course.

But now...

How can we hold to early Paul? So much of the early Christian record makes little sense and is hard to fit together. When and how and why were the pastorals written?

I'm asking these questions, still holding on to early Paul, but also feeling that aa is making a good point, albeit one that is largely ignored.
Grog is offline  
Old 07-04-2012, 07:03 PM   #66
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tasmania
Posts: 383
Default

My two cents:

The gospels don't pretend to be witness statements. They describe events where the writer couldn't have been present - "the beginning", Jesus' birth, the temptation in the desert etc. GMark, perhaps, includes the least of this.

The gospels describe remarkable public spectacles for which there is no contemporary independent corroboration. You would think some Jew, Roman or Greek would record Herod slaying kids in Bethlehem, the dead walking the streets of Jerusalem or a resurrected man appearing to 5000 folk.

Paul never mentions meeting Jesus and in fact persecuted the first Christians.

Basically there isn't much evidence. However, charismatic leaders weren't uncommon, Jesus was a common name and lost documents could be unearthed tomorrow so I hedge my bets on HJ/MJ.
Tommy is offline  
Old 07-04-2012, 08:33 PM   #67
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy View Post
...Paul never mentions meeting Jesus and in fact persecuted the first Christians.
It is NOT a fact that Paul persecuted the first Christians because there is NO evidence at all of such event in the 1st century.

Remember there is NO DATED Texts, by Paleography or C 14, that mentions Paul in the 1st century but letters have been forged to place Paul in the 1st century.

This is EXTREMELY significant.

Instead of finding credible evidence for a 1st century Paul--we find FORGERIES.

De Viris Illustribus"
Quote:
Lucius Annæus Seneca of Cordova, disciple of the Stoic Sotion and uncle of Lucan the Poet, was a man of most continent life, whom I should not place in the category of saints were it not that those Epistles of Paul to Seneca and Seneca to Paul, which are read by many, provoke me....
Jerome used Forgeries to place Paul before c 70 CE.

Origen and Eusebius claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke when Paul was supposed to be dead.

An ANONYMOUS letter was the first to mention Paul as a letter writer but it was FALSELY attributed to Clement of Rome..Not Even the Church of Rome know when Clement was bishop for hundreds of years.

The author of Acts although he claimed to have traveled with Paul did NOT claim Paul wrote letters to Churches.

The Jesus story is OUTSIDE the 1st century based on the abundance of evidence.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 07-04-2012, 08:35 PM   #68
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
Is it just me or is this really starting to make sense?
It's just you. Since you ask.
J-D is offline  
Old 07-04-2012, 09:11 PM   #69
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
Is it just me or is this really starting to make sense?
It's just you. Since you ask.
Again, you are NOT credible. You have EXPOSED your problems. I no longer trust you as a fair moderator.

It is most remarkable what you do to show that you are presenting mis-leading information.

You very well know that other posters stated that my posts make sense and well developed in this very thread.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tanya View Post
Thank you aa5874, for taking the time to develop your ideas, in a systematic summary. Well done.

Your effort, industriousness, and credibility are noted, with enthusiasm, here.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stringbean
...Sweet aa! Put it in a book and I will buy it. Will have to cite some of it in my debates with fundies on other boards.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 07-04-2012, 10:56 PM   #70
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
When one develops a theory the very HARDEST of evidence that is available MUST, MUST, MUST be employed NOT imaginary evidence and Presumptions.
We have evidence in the form of the gnostic gospels and acts of the apostles. Who were the gnostic heretics that authored these texts, and when, and what does this evidence represent?
Right now, I no longer accept imaginary evidence.

Physical manuscript evidence exists for the gnostic gospels. When one develops a theory one must explain all the physical non-imaginary evidence. How does your theory explain the physical (non canonical) evidence?
mountainman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:15 PM.

Top

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