sschlichter

How did you figure it out?

Doug Shaver

What quotes? Paul does not attribute one word to Jesus. Once in a great while he attributes some teaching to "the lord," but to say that in those cases the lord is Jesus of Nazareth is to presuppose historicity.

On those occasions when Paul is explicit about his sources, he either references scripture or claims to have a gotten a revelation. In light of that, it is at least as reasonable to construe his attributions to "the lord" as claims to have learned the teachings by divine revelation as it is to assume he is passing on something that somebody told him Jesus had said.

Doug Shaver

Go for it.

avi

You may be absolutely correct, but to
minimize confusion, I would simply like to clarify, if this comment on your text does so, that the
Jews were NOT alone in revolting against Nero's atrocities. Yes, you are discussing specifically,
worship of Roman "gods", while I am generalizing. In my opinion, someone reading your text
could misunderstand your intention as suggesting, contrary to the facts, that the Jews alone
opposed Nero.

In my opinion, you are completely wrong.

From Wikipedia:
The name "Palestine" is the cognate of an ancient word meaning "Philistines " or "Land of the
Philistines" The earliest known mention is thought to be in Ancient Egyptian texts of the temple at
Medinet Habu.

page 242, 'Origin of the Western Nations & Languages', by Charles Lassalle (1883)
Again, according to Wikipedia, the name Judea is a Greek/Roman adaptation of the name Judah-
-history of which is largely based upon writings of Josephus.

I don't have a citation for recent archaeological digs in Jerusalem in 2006-7-8, which have
confirmed the existence of an earlier civilization, in Palestine, from 2-3k BCE, predating arrival of
the Jews. Here's a summary of an older archaeological reference:

Steiner, M.L. (2001) Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961-1967. III. The
Settlement in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press/Continuum Press.

Apart from the Egyptians, other folks who referred to this geographic locale as Palestine, some 25
centuries ago, include:

The Assyrian emperor Sargon II called the same region Palashtu or Pilistu in his Annals. In the
5th century BCE , Herodotus wrote in Ancient Greek of a
'district of Syria, called Palaistinê'
(whence Palaestina, whence Palestine).

angelo

One beautiful Sunday morning, Samuel, a priest, announced to his congregation: "My good people, I have here in my hands, three sermons...a $100 sermon that lasts five minutes, a $50 sermon that lasts fifteen minutes, and a $10 sermon that lasts a full hour.
"Now, we'll take the collection and see which one I'll deliver.

I feel this thread needs a little light relief.

avi

In response to my question to Vinnie, asking him how he knows "who wrote what, in the 2nd century", Vinnie replied succinctly with just three words:Apart from the fact that these three words, juxtaposed, have absolutely no meaning, whatsoever, for me, I doubt that anyone, even someone who understands this jargon, this esoteric bit of linguistic fluff, (yeah, somebody like "spin") could then explain to any lay person, like me, how Vinnie claims to possess knowledge of who wrote which documents in the second century CE. Is Vinnie clairvoyant? :huh:

Even Josephus' writings are suspected of redaction, tampering, and modifications. How can one be certain that a particular document is authentic, not fictional, even in the case where we have some notion, as with Josephus, of authenticity of authorship by a real, sentient human being, as opposed to an entirely fictional author? François-Marie Arouet's famous novel embracing the genuine Lisbon earthquake comes to mind....

My claim is that neither Vinnie, nor anyone else on this forum knows for sure what transpired in the 2nd century CE.
In response to my question to Vinnie, of how he is certain that certain documents were authored by "Christians", despite not possessing knowledge of the author, Vinnie replied:
I accept "plain silly" as epithet on my cup of ashes. I have no idea who ANY of those guys were. For all I know, they are all noms de plume. For all I know the entire "New Testament" was created as entertainment, or as a morality play.

John 10: 30
I and the Father are one.
John 14: 28
for the Father is greater than I

"... plain silly"
yup.

No. I am writing that there is no evidence of historical Jesus in the first century, and a paucity of evidence of historical Christians in the second century, and evidence of the most dubious character, that "Ireneas, Paul, Mark, Mathew, John, or Luke" ever existed.

There is ample evidence, however, that various Roman authorities persecuted Jews and Christians, and there is also an abundance of evidence of tampering with manuscripts, which leads me to imagine, that there has been some considerable rewriting of history during the past 18 centuries, much of it under the leadership of Constantine.

I again repeat myself, how does anyone on this forum claim knowledge of who wrote which documents in the first and second centuries CE? How does anyone know, with certainty, that a particular document is bona fide? In the case of Septuagint, we have at least the dead sea scrolls. What comparable confirmatory evidence do we possess for the New Testament?

sschlichter

John 10:30, silly or not cannot be blamed on Constantine because it is quoted by Cyprian, Tertullian, Origen. Also, Justin Martyr and Clement quote passages in John 10 just before and after this one in a way that is consistent with later quotes. Papyrus fragment(s?) dated long before Constantine include John 10:30. as well as most of the book of John. if it is was altered, please tell me when.

Newfie

I agree.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

On second thought, maybe there's nothing funny about that quote. :frown:

jakejonesiv

Who wrote what in the second century?

I think that is a very good question. How indeed can we assume there was any Christainity whatsoever in the first century, or even the second?

The goal of the Catholic Church was to establish herself as the one true Universal Christian church from earliest times. To do that, she had to refute early competitors (i.e Marcionites, Gnostics, Ebionites, etc), not invent them.
I have no idea why Constantine & his lackeys would waste time writing dozens of volumes (in various styles and languages) by fake 2c & 3c. heresiologists to refute non-existant 2c & 3c heretics. So the theory that proposes a diversified, varigated, and competitive second century Christianity invented by fourth century (or later) Christians is not the most parsimonious answer. The fourth century church had plenty of real problems in the Empire's pagan cults which had previously held a more privleged position--as Julian illustrates so well. (Such theoroes are adaptable if anything, so it is quite possible to fold 'make believe" (or otherwise) heretics into a conspiracy theory, but at the expense of additional presumptions).
So, given the likely historical situation of doctrinal battles being waged between second century Christian secterians, how do we indeed evaluate the putative texts? Vinnie answered, "Historical critical method" and I concur, particularly the "Higher" criticism. To do anything less is to substitue debate rhetoric for scholarship.

But this does not presuppose that we know what the answer will be.
Indeed, it is the very tools of the Historical Critical Method that Philospher Jay (for example) uses to argue his points, and he does this very well.

And Mountainman, last time I looked, had received no adequate answer for why Tertullian thought Jesus had lived 300 years before his time. I think MM wants to find an Eusebian/Constantine forgey slipup, but an alternative proposal would be a 100 BCE Jesus similar to the proposal of GRS Mead, Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?

Best,
Jake Jones IV

sschlichter

Tertullian said NOT 300 years have passed, not that Jesus lived 300 years before his time. (not that I feel any need to defend him).