aa5874

It is in the 2nd century that we have the writings of Justin Martyr "First Apology" and "Dialogue with Trypho", Celsus' "True Discourse", Municius Felix "Octavius", Aristides "Apology", and Lucian's "Peregrinus". Even later we have a MOST SIGNIFICANT book by Tertullian called "On The FLESH of CHRIST" where the author ATTEMPTED to RESOLVE the QUESTION "DID JESUS exist in the FLESH" around the end of the 2nd century.

It is IMPERATIVE that this book be read.

Tertullian claimed that JESUS existed as the SEED of God with a woman as his mother.

"On the FLESH of Christ" Again, whether Doherty is wrong or right has ZERO effect on the ACTUAL WRITTEN evidence from antquity about Jesus Christ.

It is DOCUMENTED that Jesus was NOT of the seed of Man in "On the FLESH of Christ".

Do you REALLY understand what Tertullian is saying?

He is saying that Jesus was MYTH.

mountainman

Thanks for the kind consideration Vivisector, and for the open mind. It's been a long haul to this point, against much opposition and resistance and rhetoric, to actually examine, one by one and in a systematic fashion all the items of evidence which have, in one book or publication after another, promoted the insiduously held assumption that we have (or had) at one time been in possession of "evidence" and "relics" and "archaeology" of the "Early Christians".

Pious forgery has at least appeared on the radar with the Jesus Myth Spectrum of R G Price. It may not be everyone's favorite hobby horse in the BC&H Steeplechase, but it's in there and competing against the HJ Hobby Horse.


Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Hi Apostate Abe,

You need to expand your source research material. On the Gospel of Thomas start with Grant. You will not find the Historical Jesus in the gThomas. What you will find is what the orthodox referred to as the vile, heretical, non canonical Gnostic Jesus.



Best wishes,


Pete

ApostateAbe

Pete, I don't disagree. To rephrase what I have said before, the debate is not about making a case for the historical Jesus. It is a criticism of the proposed probabilistic difficulty based on the claim that "Before Ignatius ... there are no references to Jesus' ministry, his teachings, his miracles, or anything else he might have said or done prior to his death." It is irrelevant whether or not the claims of the gospel of Thomas were historically correct. What matters is merely what they wrote, reflecting what they believed.

mountainman

You appear to be relying here implicitly upon only the early estimated dating of Thomas being before Ignatius, is that correct? Also, is the bolded bit you're quoting from Earl Doherty or somewhere else?

ApostateAbe

I actually think that the gospel of Thomas is more correctly dated to be late, but I don't know the date preferred by Doug Shaver or Earl Doherty. If they prefer to date it late, then that's fine. It can be put to the side.

ApostateAbe

Select the text of some of the quote, press Ctrl-C, Ctrl-F, and Ctrl-V, in that order, and press Enter until you find it.

Doug Shaver

The mainstream consensus is that they were written during the first century. I believe the consensus is mistaken.

Two points.
1. The time he wrote, I believe, was during the second century (see above).
2. We have Edward Everett Hale's word for it that the New York Herald published Philip Nolan's obituary on August 13, 1863.

discordant

It's not exactly "fringe" to maintain that Luke-Acts, Matthew and John are second century works.

With Luke-Acts, everyone is probably aware that Tyson and others place them later than the norm. With Matthew, David C. Sim has expressed his openness to a late date, since dispute over the date of the Ignatian epistles has heightened. And on these readings, John would presumably also be second century.

I can't really see any justification for assuming that all four of the gospels date to the first century.

bacht

Just to point out the obvious: apologists prefer to date the canonical texts as early as possible and the heretics as late as possible. The suggestion that any of the NT texts were aware of or reacting to people like Marcion gives believers the willies.

otoh the versions we have of the gospels and epistles may be 2nd C re-workings of older bits.