youngalexander

"sconce me"? Stone the crows, my old mum was a Pom and used to use that. Strueth, haven't hears it in yrs.

Good luck with your endeavours. I cannot wait to see the end result, er, assuming that there will be one ...:wave:

DCHindley

I'll say. The actual insciption, according to the web page referenced, says:

'This man, named after Apollo,
and shining forth Tyana,
extinguished the faults of men.
The tomb in Tyana (received) his body,
but in truth heaven received him
so that he might drive out the pains of men
(or:drive pains from among men).'

Now you've conjued up an inscription to Jesus that does not exist, simply because in your mind it should have.

Apollonius "extinguished the faults of men" by reforming the ancient temple practices, which he felt had become decadent, thus preventing the gods from allowing calamities to fall on the residents of the towns in which these temples existed.

Jesus is supposed to have died as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, but only if they do obesience. Quite a differet thing.

Although Apollonius was considered divine even in hs own time, it was the kind of "divinity" attributed to undeniably human emperors and kings.

Jesus is more of a divine redeemer or savior, an emanination of god himself.

DCH

gurugeorge

Yeah but if he was also a man like Apollonius, wouldn't that simply require even more splendid monuments?

(Btw, that was a cute trick MM, nice one, and a very telling barb )

Chili

No stoning needed Joe because you will have enough trouble explaining how the same historical Jesus can go to hell in Matthew and to heaven in Luke.

I say this because Matthew ends with the great commision that still is around to this very day while Luke ends with the first saint in heaven and we have been adding more ever since (probably to the chagrin of those commissioners).

JoeWallack

JW:
Sounds like you are sconcing me. Okay, I have a radical idea, let's look at the evidence. Fasten your situs lebelts, yea.

My criteria here "Personal nature of evidence" =

Information which refers to Jesus.

Condition = Must be Possible.

Quality Factors:

1) Jesus is Primary subject.

2) Evidence is unique to Jesus.

Not coincidently this is exactly the category of evidence HJs normally use to supposedly demonstrate HJ as we've seen that Paul does not Pass any other Category of evidence that I have. So when in Rome:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Romans_1

3 "concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,"

Criteria please:

Information which refers to Jesus. Yes

Condition = Must be Possible.

Son of God is not. Seed of David is.

Quality Factors:

1) Jesus is Primary subject. Yes

2) Evidence is unique to Jesus. No

As the factors above are Mixed I'd rate this reference as Neutral regarding the category of Personal nature of evidence. I do not see any other good evidence for this Category in Romans. So aa, based on Romans, a very critical Epistle, you may be right. However, I Am pretty sure Paul wrote some other stuff.

And, in case there was any doubt that "Mark" took ideas from Paul and created a Narrative from them:

8:15
"For ye received not the spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father."

9:33
"even as it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence: And he that believeth on him shall not be put to shame."



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

aa5874

I was hoping that you would provide this personal and unique evidence of Jesus from Paul.

There is no mention of the prophecies of the birth of Jesus in the Pauline Epistles. There is no hint whatsoever that "a virgin shall conceive".
Nothing is said about the trip to Egypt, the killing of the innocent or the census of Quirinus. John the Baptist, the baptism of Jesus, the temptation by the Devil, the many miracles, including the raising of Lazarus, the transfiguration, the Sermon on the Mount, the trial, or details of his life after resurrection are not found in the Pauline Epistles whatsoever.

Paul, though, is unique, he used "reverse prophecy" or "revelation after the fact" to claim knowledge of Jesus which was unknown to anyone but himself. And his claim is that Jesus was crucified, died, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

But all these events were carried out in the public view. Hundreds of people, if not thousands, witnessed these occurences, if true according to the Gospels, even the dead was brought back to life to be witnesses. Paul's revelations are not unique at all in any way, the revelations of Paul would be "on the streets" long before he arrived on the scene.

Paul's revelation would only be of practical use if the recipients or readers of his epistles were not aware that Jesus was crucified, died, resurrected or ascended and that Paul himself did not know of the events beforehand, not even anecdotally.

Imagine, for a minute, that it was revealed to me, today, that Martin Luther King Jr was assasinated, and I got that revelation, not from man, but from the Lord. Well, I am a caveman and my readers are my offspring.

Paul destroyed the HJ.

Amaleq13

Paul tells us that his gospel was revealed to him directly by the risen Jesus. He also tells us that his gospel was specifically intended for the gentiles and that it essentially asserted that they did not have to adhere to all the requirements of Judaism (eg food, circumcision) in order to "qualify" for God's promises to the Jews. Their faith in Christ was sufficient.

Paul nowhere claims that the crucifixion, death, or resurrection were revealed to him by the risen Jesus nor does he describe these as unique to his gospel.

aa5874

Galations 1.11-12, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galations 1.15-16, "But when it hath pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
To reveal his son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:"

1 Corinthians 15.16-17, "For I delivered unto you first all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to scriptures.
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third according to the scriptures."

The gospel was revealed to Paul, and the gospel, the good news, is that Jesus died for our sins and was raised on the third day and now sits on the right hand of God.


Nowhere, in the Epistles, does Paul state that he had knowledge of the crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus before his miraculous conversion.
There is nothing unique about Paul's revelation, and before his conversion, it appears he had no personal knowlegde of Jesus or his whereabouts.

Amaleq13

No, you are still wrong. Paul does not refer to the death and resurrection as his revealed gospel but, as your quote clearly shows, belief in those certainly existed prior to his conversion experience.

Paul claims he persecuted the people who believed in the crucified and resurrected Messiah prior to his conversion so one should only require common sense, rather than an explicit statement, to realize he knew what they believed.

I don't know what you mean by this but it is clear that Paul's revealed gospel was, in some way, unlike what the group in Jerusalem was preaching or else he would have had no reason to present it to them.

This is totally irrelevant to our discussion.

mountainman

Dave,

Apollonius and Jesus were both purportedly born c.4BCE
(or close enough so that it does not really matter)

We do not have any epigraphic evidence for Jesus.
Why not?



Arguments for and against an HJ should not need to
discuss "divinity issues" IMO.

Arguments as to "the divinity" or otherwise of either
Apollonius or Jesus do not concern the argument as
to the historicity of these two purported personages.

Ancient history is best served by restricting the
examination to issues of historicity.


Best wishes,



Pete Brown