Steven Avery

Much more likely than an Aramaic original for Mark is a Latin or Graeco-Latin original, for a Roman audience. Herman Hoskier did a study on that, including looking at the Greek as translation Greek. My Latin speaking friends says it looks that way.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Iasion

Greetings,

Pardon?

Numerous Jewish, pagan and even Christians did argue about and criticise these documents and stories from the begining :


We can see how Christianity was received in the early days by how it was described, such as :
"fables" "lie" "myths" "superstition" "empty rumour"
"alter the originals over and over" "invented"
"base and ignorant creed making fishermen"
"blasphemy" "spurious" "counterfeit" "contradicts"
"refuted because they disagree"

This is not the sign of a new truth being accepted - it is obviously the EXACT OPPOSITE - a wacky new cult, initially mostly ignored, sometimes ridiculed and rejected with dismissive comments.



Jewish responses to Christianity

The Jewish response is just what we would expect of a wacky new cult - initially they ignore it. But late in the 1st century, as more Jews leave for Christianity, the Jews formally BAN the Christians from their synagogues and curse them as "minim". And lets not forget the Gospels arose sometime after the war, the Jews had a LOT more to worry about than refuting some a new cult.

Later, of course, when Christianity is rising to power, and the Jews have recovered from the Roman destructions, they DO try to discredit Jesus with all sorts of horrible stories being told -
* Jesus is a bastard (a mamzer) born from Mary's adultery with a Roman soldier,
* Jesus is a child conceived in the "time of separation" (during menstruation),
* Jesus was a evil magician who tried to lead people astray,

This is not the sign of the Jews accepting Christianity - on the contrary - it's the sign of a new cult which is at first ignored, then ridiculed and attacked when it starts to become a threat.



Variant Christian views

In the formative period of Christianity, the 2nd century, we see all sorts of disagreement about specific Christian claims :

The epistles of John mention other Christians who do not believe in a son of God, and attack Christians who do not believe Jesus came in the flesh.

The epistle of Polycarp also describes those who do not accept that Jesus came in the flesh.

Consider the astonishing case of Minucius Felix - he explicitly rejected the worship of a man on a cross as a Christian belief, he explicitly denied that God could become man. That's a 2nd century church father who explicitly rejected the incarnation and the crucifixion - 2 central beliefs of Christians.

Many other disagreements are expressed in the 2nd century :
* Timothy warning against the fables of genealogies,
* Marcion denied Jesus was born of Mary,
* gnostics such as Basilides and Bardesanes claimed Jesus was a phantom or spiritual being,
* the docetae argue Jesus was an illusion,
* Barnabas denies Christ was "son of David",
* forged letters warning about forgeries and "other christs"

We also see examples of 2nd century Christian writers who discuss Christian beliefs at length but conspicuously FAIL to mention Jesus, as mentioned above -
* Mathetes to Diognetus
* Tatian wrote Address to the Greeks
* Athenagoras of Athens
* Theophilus (of Antioch)


In short - the 2nd century is full of refutations and rebuttals as the varying Christian sub-sects argued about what was "really true" about Jesus.

This is not the sign of a historical event which was not refuted - its a clear sign of the exact opposite - religious mythology being argued over.



Pagan responses to Christianity

Initially, the new cult is largely ignored, but ridiculed by a few writers -
* Tacitus - "a class hated for their abominations", "a most mischievous superstition"
* Pliny - "this mad sect"
* Lucian - "misguided creatures"

This is not the sign of a grand new truth being accepted - it is the sign of a wacky new cult which barely rated a dismissive mention at first.

Later on, when Christianity and the Gospels first rose to prominence, they DID receive detailed rebuttals.

Celsus specifically attacked the Gospels as "fiction" based on myths, and he claimed the Gospels were changed over and over to deflect criticism. Hoffman's reconstruction has quotes such as these :
"Clearly the Christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"

Celsus' attack was so damaging to the church, that they attempted to erase it from history, we only have quotes of it because of angry Christians who answered his critique.

This is not the sign of external agreement on Christian claims - it is demonstrably the exact opposite - a specific attack that the Gospels were FICTION, an attack so damaging the church tried to burn every copy of it.


A few generations later, as the church is consolidating its power, a pagan historian Porphyry wrote another critique of Christian beliefs "Against the Christians", including such criticism such as :

"The evangelists were fiction writers-- not observers or eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. Each of the four contradicts the other in writing his account of the events of his suffering and crucifixion"

"Anyone will recognize that the [gospels] are really fairy tales if he takes the time to read further into this nonsense of a story..."

"Another section in the gospel deserves comment, for it is likewise devoid Of sense and full of implausibility; I mean that absurd story about Jesus sending his apostles across the sea ahead of him after a banquet, then walking across to them 'at the fourth watch of the night'...Those who know the region well tell us that, in fact, there is no 'sea' in the locality but only a tiny lake which springs from a river that flows through the hills of Galilee near Tiberias... Mark seems to be stretching a point to extremities when he writes that Jesus-- after nine hours had passed-- decided in the tenth to walk across to his disciples who had been floating about on the pond for the duration... It is fables like this one that we judge the gospel to be a cleverly woven curtain, each thread of which requires careful scrutiny"


Then, just as Christianity had come to be the state religion, the Roman emperor Julian rejected the faith and wrote his own refutation of Christianity, "Against the Galileans", including comments such as :
".. why do you worship this spurious son of his whom has never been recognised as his own", and "You however, I know not why, foist on him a counterfeit son".

Note this telling criticism of Julian, the educated Roman emperor :
"But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time - the events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius - then you may consider that I speak falsely on all matters"

Here we see the educated Roman emperor Julian explicitly state that Jesus is UNKNOWN TO HISTORY.


Iasion

Steven Avery

Hi Iasion, of course Christianity had a lot of opposition, but you are arguing a whole different point than Vork's "emergent cult" that was the result of some foreign writer's cult-forming group. So I am not going to have two different dialogs in one.

And of course a lot of your arguments are circular, dependent on your own late dates, but I stopped reading when you offerred the Hoffman 'reconstruction' as an evidence.

Sometimes a discussion is simiply not worthwhile.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Vorkosigan

Twisting again. There's several centuries of discussion about the two dozen or so gospels, the numerous letters, etc. That is why your idea that no one ever complained is false. Sorting out true from false was a task that occupied many early minds.

Twisting again. Please note what I said about Mark.

Twisting again. There doesn't seem to be much point in responding to a robotic "either its a conspiracy or truth" poster.

Your explanation is crap, and I am tired of dealing with its simplemindedness.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Both. One does not preclude the other. He had a very literal mind. Just look at his misuse of Zech 9:9.

Vorkosigan

Somebody who performing for others whose Greek was not that great. Or who didn't care. After all, the story is so good it captivated audiences, and spawned imitators. That Mark was meant to be performed one way or another is an idea that has occurred to many, many exegetes.

Vorkosigan

Steven Avery

"A group of authors in an emergent cult created a narrative of the cult's mythical founder."

So Jesus was mythical ? How about Peter and Paul ? One of your compatriots just said that everybody agrees with Paul, how about you ? Or was he one of the writers cult authors ?

"The first of these narratives, the Gospel of Mark, simply told a story. The function of the narrative was largely recruiting and baptismal, and was not intended as history."

So the purpose of the writers cult was to get folks to join the group based around the mythical founder. However at that time it was not a Leninist group, but an idealist group of forgerers.

"the writer of the Mark was the only authentic genius of the lot."

So he was the authentic forger genius, the other authors were inauthentic forgers.

(snip Matthew stuff)

The way I see it, Luke came along last, integrating a version of John, along with the other two Synoptics, into his avowedly "historical" work --

AHHH .. now I see, Lucy invented Luke, John and Acts, and 'she' really parleyed the writers cult into the bigtime.

"proto-Leninist society"

I'm sorry, Vork. At first I thought you really were offerring a theory of origins. Now I see that all this is something of a game ror you. My bad.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

John A. Broussard

And there are times when an argument is so well reasoned that refutation becomes either difficult or impossible. In which event it is best to dismiss it as not worth discussing--as you did.

Very well reasoned, Iasion. I've copied your post and am saving it for future reference.

It's unfortunate that there are no other posters here who can deal with some of the weaknesses that must be present in your argument--or perhaps there are no weaknesses.

Keep up the good work.

Steven Avery

An argument can appear very well-reasaoned by simply (snipping) the context of the earlier discussion, the "emergent cult" theatre, fiction claims of Vork.

A bit of a bait-and-switch, which will always find a few marks.

And :-) I do not debate against "reconstruction" quotes that are are a plague upon modern scholarship since they are so far removed from the actual source. I ran into that on a sacred name site, a quote of Hoffman, where he thought that Celsus said something totally different from his actual quote. Then I read Roger Pearse's excellent article and found the quote.

For somebody on this forum, knowing the tawdry schoalrship involved in Hoffman's reconstructions, to have the chutzpah to offer his quotes, tells me ... "time to move on... rolem, rolem, rolem"

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Vorkosigan

Twisting again. Note that I specifically stated that the Gospel of Mark WAS NOT a forgery. Nor did I ever claim nascent Christianity was a group of forgers.

At the moment, I do not see any way to explain the difference between a long evolution over time and a conspiracy to you. It seems you are unwilling to imagine an alternative to "truth or conspiracy."

Note that I specifically stated that the Gospel of Mark WAS NOT a forgery. The term "authentic" modifies the word "genius".

Again, note that I said the writer of Luke synthesized previous work, not invented it. At the moment, I do not see any way to explain the difference between a long evolution over time and a conspiracy to you. It seems you are unwilling to imagine an alternative to "truth or conspiracy."

"Leninist" refers to a structure of doctrine, cell, political overseer, and centralized organization in which Party doctrine penetrates into every aspect of life. This early Church structure emerged over about two hundred years from the original doctrinal and structural anarchy of the early Church. Leninist organizational techniques and structures are common among institutions of all political and social stripes, from Mormonism to the KMT.

At the moment, I do not see any way to explain the difference between a long evolution over time and a conspiracy to you. It seems you are unwilling to imagine an alternative to "truth or conspiracy."

Vorkosigan