Freethought & Rationalism Archive

patcleaver · 01-11-2008, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

Papias'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prester_John

Quote:

[THE writings of Papias in common circulation are five in number, and these are called an Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord. Irenaeus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: "Now testimony is borne to these things in writing by Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, in the fourth of his books; for five books were composed by him." Thus wrote Irenaeus. Moreover, Papias himself, in the introduction to his books, makes it manifest that he was not himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles; but he tells us that he received the truths of our religion from those who were aquainted with them [the apostles] in the following words:]

But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.

Esuibius the liar (c. 330) wrote a book that said Irenaeus (c. 180) the apologist wrote some mysterious document, that nobody else ever heard of, which said that Papias (c. 165) wrote five documents, that nobody else ever heard of, and that that one of these mysterious documents said that Papias had not actually met any eye witnesses, but had met someone named Aristion and someone named presbyter John who said they once met some eye witnesses, but Papias did not say which eye witnesses or what these alleged eye witnesses said.

It is incredibly unlikely that anyone in 165 CE would have met anyone who was an eye witness in Judea in 30 CE. Would you believe me if I claimed that my Dad knew someone who had sex with President Ulysses S Grant's wife in 1877.

I hereby claim that I have a letter that may have been written by a known forger named Easy, that says he has a first-document, that nobody else ever heard of before, written 165 years ago by someone named Ilene, that says that there was a second-document, that nobody ever heard of, written 190 years ago by someone named Pap, that says that Andy and John told him that he talked with some guy (but did not identify who or say exactly what the guy actually said), who claims that in 1703 he met someone named Good Magician that could walk on water. Oh and by the way - the first and second documents have mysteriously disappeared, but I still have an unsigned hand made copy of the letter.

Do you believe me? Why or why not?
Do you believe Easy the forger? Why or why not?
Do you believe Ilene? Why or why not?
Do you believe Pap? Why or why not?
Do you believe Andy and John? Why or Why not?
Do you believe there was someone called Good Magician? Why or Why not?
Do you believe that Good Magician could walk on water? Why or Why not?
Do you think this story is true? Why or why not?
Do you think this is reasonable evidence to believe in Good Magician?
Would you be willing to bet your eternal soul that its true? Why or why not?

Would it help if I have several references to "Good Magician" around that time. The best one says "We saw the Magician".

I believe this is all bullshit.

patcleaver · 01-11-2008, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

That's a low blow, GDon. All of these authors read the original language of the New Testament. Two have PhD's, one is about to get a PhD. All are attempting to make valid arguments about the field, not just prop up an existing faith with whatever arguments are handy.

Ehrman doesn't really belong in that list, but the others certainly do. I probably don't see the word "apologetics" as being as pejorative as yourself, but still: "valid arguments about the field"? "Not propping up existing faith"? Here are parts of Price's and Doherty's review of Acharya's work, and you tell me whether they are valid statements about the field, and not just propping up the Jesus Myth:

...

Note that Acharya speculates that the "commonality of certain religious motifs" around the planet that Doherty is referring to is due to the influence of Atlantis.

...

Both of them mention minor quibbles about Acharya's work, but isn't the above about propping up belief in the Jesus Myth? If they were any other authors, would you have given them the time of day after such reviews?

The level of your hypocrisy is amazing. Your belief in Christianity is far nuttier and far more bazaar than the belief that Atlantis could have been a real place. How can anybody take anything that you say seriously when you have crazy insane beliefs.

patcleaver · 01-11-2008, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Greetings all,

Some time ago I searched the early Christian writings for mentions of "Gospel" - looking for references to written works, and whether author's names(s) were specified.

Here are the some relevant examples :

The Epistle of the Apostles, 140-150CE :

The BOOK which Jesus Christ revealed unto his disciples: and how that Jesus Christ revealed the book for the company (college) of the apostles, the disciples of Jesus Christ, even the book which is for all men. Simon and Cerinthus, the false apostles, concerning whom it is written that no man shall cleave unto them, for there is in them deceit wherewith they bring men to destruction. (The book hath been written) that ye may be not flinch nor be troubled, and depart not from the word of the Gospel which ye have heard. Like as we heard it, we keep it in remembrance and have written it for the whole world.

This is obviously referring to a written Gospel, but gives no author's names.

Apology of Aristides, 138-161CE :

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.

This is obvious evidence of a written work which is specifically named "The Gospel" - but no name is given.

Furthermore, Aristides says this un-named Gospel was fairly NEW in the period 138-161 - clear evidence of the lateness of the Gospels.

Justin Martyr's 1st Apology, 150-160CE :

Ch. 66 : For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels...

Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, 150-160CE, 3 references :

Ch. 100 : For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father;' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'

This is all clear and obvious evidence of written works called Gospels - but no names given.

The Acts of Peter, 150-200CE :

And Peter entered into the dining-hall and saw that the Gospel was being read, and he rolled up the book[/b] and said: Ye men that believe and hope in Christ, learn in what manner the holy Scripture of our Lord ought to be declared: whereof we by his grace wrote that which we could receive, though yet it appear unto you feeble, yet according to our power, even that which can be endured to be borne by (or instilled into) human flesh.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - but no names are given.

The Treatise on the Resurrection, 170-200CE, 1 reference :

What, then, is the resurrection? It is always the disclosure of those who have risen. For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - no names are given.

Hegesippus Fragments, c. 170CE :

With show of reason could it be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - but no names are given.

Iasion

Thanks for the list.

Gospel is an Old English word that meant good news. What was the Greek word/phrase that the word "gospel" was translated from in your references to gospel. Did the Greek just mean book, or good news, or something that specifically indicated a Christian gospel.

I have just seen so much wishful mistranslation - I just want to know if this stuff is verified by someone who I can trust and who reads Greek.

DCHindley · 01-12-2008, 09:49 AM

I'm surprised you didn't know. The English word "Gospel" is a translation of Greek EUAGGELION (pronounced "eu-angelion" and yes the Greek is spelled correctly), which also means "good news." No mistranslation here.

Now if you want to quibble about whether the word EUANGELION, when used in the 4 Gospels is the same as Paul's EUANGELION then that is a matter of interpretation. Personally, I think in the Gospels it means "the good news about Jesus ... [the savior of mankind]," whereas Paul used it to refer to "my good news [that gentiles can enjoy equal share, along with ethnic Jews, of the inheritance promised to Abraham's seed]".

In the first case it refers to Jesus, albeit transformed from a Jewish messiah into a cosmic Savior, while in the latter case it does not refer to Jesus at all. Of course, it would mean having to ignore all the Christ theology laced through Paul's letters by an editor or editors who felt that Paul *should* have been talking about the Jesus Christ of the Gospels, and not simply the faith of gentiles, but since most everybody today either loves or hates the Christ theology so powerfully they just cannot see beyond it.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Gospel is an Old English word that meant good news. What was the Greek word/phrase that the word "gospel" was translated from in your references to gospel. Did the Greek just mean book, or good news, or something that specifically indicated a Christian gospel.

I have just seen so much wishful mistranslation - I just want to know if this stuff is verified by someone who I can trust and who reads Greek.

01-12-2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Gospel is an Old English word that meant good news. What was the Greek word/phrase that the word "gospel" was translated from in your references to gospel. Did the Greek just mean book, or good news, or something that specifically indicated a Christian gospel.

As DCHindley noted,
it's the greek word "euaggelion" (which originally meant good news.) The word "evangelion" is a transcription of it.

The term changes it's meaning in the early centuries - to mean a written life of Jesus.

Their are many uses of this term in early Christian literature - in Paul and early writers we can see it does not mean a written life of Jesus.

The cites I chose are those which clearly indicate a written book called a "gospel". These references suggest the written Gospels became known about mid 2nd century.

Iasion

patcleaver · 01-12-2008, 09:48 PM

Thanks, DCHindley

Thanks, Iasion

No, I do not read Koine Greek or ancient Hebrew.

aa5874 · 01-12-2008, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

.

Now if you want to quibble about whether the word EUANGELION, when used in the 4 Gospels is the same as Paul's EUANGELION then that is a matter of interpretation. Personally, I think in the Gospels it means "the good news about Jesus ... [the savior of mankind]," whereas Paul used it to refer to "my good news [that gentiles can enjoy equal share, along with ethnic Jews, of the inheritance promised to Abraham's seed]".

Eusebius, I think, disagrees with you. He thinks or writes that when "Paul" says, "My gospel" he, "Paul", is talking about the gospel of Luke.

Church History 3.4.8

Quote:

"And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words "according to my gospels"

A suprising indication that "Paul" is "Luke".

schilling.klaus · 01-13-2008, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

This in a nutshell, has been a standard argument of apologists i.e. that the early church (60 - 150 CE) was intimately familiar with the canonical gospels and used them as their authoritative guide to the collective understanding of the historical Jesus (HJ). Furthermore, the early church supposedly held the gospels in high esteem as the writings of first person eyewitnesses who were martyred for there refusal to recant their stories.

of course those apologists spread nothing but humbug.
Neither that early church nor canonical gospels existed before the middle of
seciond century, as proven by Waite.
Especially Justin Martyr is stuck in pre-canonical gospel tradition (Memorabilia) and a yet rudimentary community structure.

Quote:

Having read much of Earl Doherty, Robert M Price & Bart Ehrman as well as Richard Carrier I see a compelling refutation of this idea but I am not sure whether this is due to a desire to refuse or overlook documents which would otherwise affirm the idea that the early 1st century church was unaware of the gospels or even the HJ.

That early first-century church is nothing but apologistic fiction and fraud.
Mainline scholars who aupport it do so by naive belief in forged documents
like 1Clement and Ignatians.

Klaus Schilling

Toto · 01-13-2008, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

... as proven by Waite.
...

Hi Klaus Schilling - let me welcome you to this board.

But please realize that there are many people here with differing levels of expertise. It would help if you explained yourself more, instead of just saying "proven by X." Who is Waite? When did he write? What is the name of the book or paper?

Thanks.

schilling.klaus · 01-13-2008, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

... as proven by Waite.
...

Who is Waite? When did he write? What is the name of the book or paper?

C.B. Waite, History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred (or via: amazon.co.uk), 1900

Klaus Schilling

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

01-12-2008, 09:48 PM	#106
patcleaver Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: New York Posts: 742	Thanks, DCHindley Thanks, Iasion No, I do not read Koine Greek or ancient Hebrew.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.