Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 08-10-2012, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

No, that is not true. What is true is that despite all valid arguments to the contrary you want to believe in an historical Jesus in the first century followed by a Paul in the first century. Plain and simple. At least say so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

because the evidence for dating isnt there to support your position.

based on the evidence I have seen and read about. There is no reason at all to believe a later date for paul.

I dont buy, "faith" and do not place it in any part of my belief

"want" does not play into anything.

I started out a myther and argued it for a while, the more educated I became. the less evidence there actually is to support 100% mythology, and plenty for belief in a early paul and a historical charactor the mythology surrounds.

Duvduv · 08-10-2012, 11:18 AM

You must have forgotten about the other elements that have been discussed here exhaustively and analytically (even amongst various disagreements) not the least of which is the fact that nothing about the alleged first century Jesus and followers is mentioned anywhere in the Talmud, midrashim, etc. Nothing. That's because they did not exist.

Indeed, the entire story of Jesus son of Miriam and Joseph originally went back to the tale of Yeshu ben Pandera, who lived in the 1 century BCE under the rule of Jannaeus and his wife Shlomzion Alexandra.

However, this does not directly affect the details of historical events from the first to fourth centuries and the contradictions and confusion existing in the church-sanctioned texts and heresiologist writings which we discuss here exhaustively.

Dave31 · 08-10-2012, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

"pauls epistles were sent to private homes, there were no churches then."

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

"yet all evidence no matter how limitied it may be, points exactly to a first century jesus and paul."

These claims are not accurate and are not backed up with credible evidence.

Quote:

"In his epistles to the various "churches" around the Mediterranean, the apostle Paul is clearly speaking to established gathering places or ἐκκλησία/ecclesia, the Greek word for "church" in the New Testament. This word ecclesia, however, was used frequently in pre-Christian Greek or Hellenized writings, referring to "assemblies" and "gatherings." The word or one of its cognates/derivatives is used a dozen or more times in the Greek Old Testament or Septuagint, e.g.:

Lev 8:3; Num 20:8; Deut 4:10, 31:12, 28; 1 Chr 13:5; Est 4:16; Ecc 1:1, 2, 12, 7:28, 12:8, 9, 10 ....."

- Pre-Christian Churches of the Mediterranean

^ Please read the full post.

Apollonius, Jesus and Paul: Men or Myths?

Saul of Tarsus – a witness for Jesus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

"even by the end of the first century besides the 4 gospels we have were semi finished, we had others now lost to history."

That's not accurate either.

Quote:

"...With such remarkable declarations of the Church fathers, et al., as well as other cogent arguments, we possess some salient evidence that the gospels of Luke and John represent late second-century works. In fact, all of the canonical gospels seem to emerge at the same time—first receiving their names and number by Irenaeus around 180 AD/CE, and possibly based on one or more of the same texts as Luke, especially an "Ur-Markus" that may have been related to Marcion's Gospel of the Lord. In addition to an "Ur-Markus" upon which the canonical gospels may have been based has also been posited an "Ur-Lukas," which may likewise have "Ur-Markus" at its basis.

"The following may summarize the order of the gospels as they appear in the historical and literary record, beginning in the middle of the second century:

1. Ur-Markus (150)
2. Ur-Lukas (150+)
3. Luke (170)
4. Mark (175)
5. John (178)
6. Matthew (180)

"To reiterate, these late dates represent the time when these specific texts undoubtedly emerge onto the scene. If the canonical gospels as we have them existed anywhere previously, they were unknown, which makes it likely that they were not composed until that time or shortly before, based on earlier texts...."

- Who Was Jesus?, pages 82-83

The Gospel Dates: A 2nd Century Composition?

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

"I started out a myther and argued it for a while, the more educated I became. the less evidence there actually is to support 100% mythology, and plenty for belief in a early paul and a historical charactor the mythology surrounds."

Make it up however you need to, but it's just not accurate.

The Mythicist Position / History of Mythicism

outhouse · 08-10-2012, 12:26 PM

Quote:

These claims are not accurate and are not backed up with credible evidence.

most unbiased scholars follow my view, and there is a excellent reason based on the evidence we are left with.

now if you want to try and perceive the evidence differently, just know its your personal opinion not backed or found credible based on modern scholarships.

and off topic to the OP

Toto · 08-10-2012, 12:29 PM

outhouse has not shared this evidence of the historical Jesus or Paul with the board.

outhouse · 08-10-2012, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

outhouse has not shared this evidence of the historical Jesus or Paul with the board.

I follow the cultural anthropology of Johnathon L Reed, Crossan, Borg, Ehrman, Marvin Meyers ect ect ect

even Doherty finds for a semi accurate dating of Paul.

this isnt a popularity contest within this forum to determine evidence, it only to talk about it, and debate it.

aeebee50 · 08-10-2012, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

outhouse has not shared this evidence of the historical Jesus or Paul with the board.

I follow the cultural anthropology of Johnathon L Reed, Crossan, Borg, Ehrman, Marvin Meyers ect ect ect

even Doherty finds for a semi accurate dating of Paul.

this isnt a popularity contest within this forum to determine evidence, it only to talk about it, and debate it.

I hope I do not get dinged by the board, but I like talking and debating.

Duvduv · 08-10-2012, 03:19 PM

.........you do? Well, not with a very critical eye for context and evidence or logic.........

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

outhouse has not shared this evidence of the historical Jesus or Paul with the board.

I follow the cultural anthropology of Johnathon L Reed, Crossan, Borg, Ehrman, Marvin Meyers ect ect ect

even Doherty finds for a semi accurate dating of Paul.

this isnt a popularity contest within this forum to determine evidence, it only to talk about it, and debate it.

Dave31 · 08-10-2012, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

These claims are not accurate and are not backed up with credible evidence.

most unbiased scholars follow my view, and there is a excellent reason based on the evidence we are left with.

now if you want to try and perceive the evidence differently, just know its your personal opinion not backed or found credible based on modern scholarships.

and off topic to the OP

I just can't agree with you as even biblical scholars who are also professed Christians disagree with you pretty much every step of the way:

Quote:

"Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent upon these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic"

F.F. Bruce, a founder of the modern evangelical movement

- Who Was Jesus? 84

Quote:

"...there are very few sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus beyond the four canonical Gospels. Paul and Josephus offer little more than tidbits. Claims that later apocryphal Gospels and the Nag Hammadi material supply independent and reliable historical information about Jesus are largely fantasy. In the end, the historian is left with the difficult task of sifting through the Four Gospels for historical tradition."

John P. Meier

- Who Was Jesus? 86

* Dr. Meier is a Catholic University New Testament professor, ex-Catholic priest and monsignor

Quote:

"One would naturally expect that the Lord Jesus Christ would be sufficiently important to receive ample notice in the literature of his time, and that extensive biographical material would be available. He was observed by multitudes of people, and his own followers numbered into the hundreds (1 Cor. 15:6), whose witness was still living in the middle of the first century. As a matter of fact, the amount of information concerning him is comparatively meager. Aside from the four Gospels, and a few scattered allusions in the epistles, contemporary history is almost silent concerning him."

Merrill C. Tenney

- Who Was Jesus? 85-86

* Dr. Tenney is a conservative evangelical Christian who was a professor of Theological Studies and the dean of the school of Theology at Wheaton College. Tenney was also one of the original translators of the NASB and NIV editions of the Bible.

Quote:

"The Gospels are neither histories nor biographies, even within the ancient tolerances for those genres."

Dr. John Dominic Crossan

- Who Was Jesus? 24

* Dr. Crossan is a major figure in the fields of biblical archaeology, anthropology and New Testament textual and higher criticism. He is especially vocal in the field of Historical Jesus studies

In over 20 passages throughout the canonical gospels claiming Jesus was famed far and wide not a single one has ever been substantiated with credible evidence.

Quote:

Jesus famed far and wide:

"These "great crowds" and "multitudes," along with Jesus's fame, are repeatedly referred to in the gospels, including at the

Matthew 4:23-25, 5:1, 8:1, 8:18, 9:8, 9:31, 9:33, 9:36, 11:7, 12:15, 13:2, 14:1, 14:13, 14:22, 15:30, 19:2, 21:9, 26:55;

Mark 1:28, 10:1;

Luke: 4:14, 4:37, 5:15, 14:25, etc."

- Who Was Jesus?, page 85

Quote:

"The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth…"

The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia

outhouse · 08-10-2012, 06:12 PM

bud, all you have shown is that you can take credible people out of context to meet your personal agenda

Quote:

"Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent upon these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic"

F.F. Bruce, a founder of the modern evangelical movement

- Who Was Jesus? 84

scanty and problematic is not a absense of evidence

Quote:

"...there are very few sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus beyond the four canonical Gospels. Paul and Josephus offer little more than tidbits. Claims that later apocryphal Gospels and the Nag Hammadi material supply independent and reliable historical information about Jesus are largely fantasy. In the end, the historian is left with the difficult task of sifting through the Four Gospels for historical tradition."

John P. Meier

- Who Was Jesus? 86

* Dr. Meier is a Catholic University New Testament professor, ex-Catholic priest and monsignor

"claiming there are a few sources"

is not a absense of evidence

you do understand not one thing you posted goes against my post

Quote:

"The Gospels are neither histories nor biographies, even within the ancient tolerances for those genres."

Dr. John Dominic Crossan

- Who Was Jesus? 24

* Dr. Crossan is a major figure in the fields of biblical archaeology, anthropology and New Testament textual and higher criticism. He is especially vocal in the field of Historical Jesus studies

and I agree so far with everything you have posted

we all understand its mythology

and mythology has never been completely empty of historical facts

Quote:

Jesus famed far and wide:

"These "great crowds" and "multitudes," along with Jesus's fame, are repeatedly referred to in the gospels, including at the

Matthew 4:23-25, 5:1, 8:1, 8:18, 9:8, 9:31, 9:33, 9:36, 11:7, 12:15, 13:2, 14:1, 14:13, 14:22, 15:30, 19:2, 21:9, 26:55;

Mark 1:28, 10:1;

Luke: 4:14, 4:37, 5:15, 14:25, etc."

- Who Was Jesus?, page 85

your posting childsplay here bud

I understand the roman authors who didnt know jesus, hear him, live by him, decades after his death all wrote mythology to compete with mortal roman emporers claimed to be "sons of god"

theres a reason why they wrote the mythology the way they did to win over the roman population.

jesus failed in judaism and its my opinion had the temple passover incident happen, jesus would have stayed unknown.

Quote:

"The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth…"

The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia

key word some scholars claim for a myth. this amounts to a very very small amount of scholars, with really only Robert Price making a decent case which I surely dont see as credible and doesnt really stand up to the work done by Crossan, Ehrman, or Reed

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

08-10-2012, 11:18 AM	#92
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	You must have forgotten about the other elements that have been discussed here exhaustively and analytically (even amongst various disagreements) not the least of which is the fact that nothing about the alleged first century Jesus and followers is mentioned anywhere in the Talmud, midrashim, etc. Nothing. That's because they did not exist. Indeed, the entire story of Jesus son of Miriam and Joseph originally went back to the tale of Yeshu ben Pandera, who lived in the 1 century BCE under the rule of Jannaeus and his wife Shlomzion Alexandra. However, this does not directly affect the details of historical events from the first to fourth centuries and the contradictions and confusion existing in the church-sanctioned texts and heresiologist writings which we discuss here exhaustively.

08-10-2012, 12:29 PM	#95
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	outhouse has not shared this evidence of the historical Jesus or Paul with the board.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.