Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 11-17-2010, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godwithus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Do they ever take any time out to think it through?

Their problem is not about when the tales were written.
Even if it were to be conclusively proven that the Jebus story writing had began way back in 34 AD, The Bible's tall tales still wouldn't be one whit more factual.

The movie 'Evan Almighty' was released in 2007, does that mean that gigantic ark actually landed in front of the White House in 2007?
Hey its right there in living color, and with real historical people! so that means it must have happened.

All that is really in any of these old Bible stories, from the tale of Adam and Eve onward, are entertaining tall tales to be told around the campfire, teach children the prevailing ethics of their society, and a convenient tool to manipulate the masses.
Just the ancient and primitive version of mass media, One that was periodically placed under the control of a prevailing government, and used for public political/religious indoctrination purposes.

My Jewish brother, how are you?

The current discussion is not about whether the writings are myths. What is igging me is, how can pro-Israel sentiment find its way into the texts, if written by the antiIsrael Church, which was so beginning with Ignatius of Antioch (ca 50-117 AD).

I am NOT 'Jewish'.

The writings all devolve from a string of familiar earlier writings and traditions, that the readers and hearers would already be quite familiar with.

Like with all sequels to well known popular novels, theater plays, and movies, the story line has to be based upon and accommodated to, and consistent with what preceeded no matter what new plot twists and turns the writers would like to introduce.

This theme is brilliantly portrayed in the Steven King movie Misery where writer Paul Sheldon is captured and forced by his 'number one fan' Annie Wilkes, to write a sequel that brings back to life a character that he had killed off in his last story. Nothing incensed this books 'number one fan' more than when Paul attempted to get by with writing up an unconnected and unbelievable 'hack job' sequel.

These ancient writers were not so stupid as to change or too obviously omit important plot elements that their audiences were long familiar with.

What you are getting in second century church writings is essentially the critics reaction, and societal adjustments to the latest sequels being produced, some more or less maintained a reasonable continuity and were accepted by the intended audiences.
The unconnected, the plot line flawed, or seriously 'out there' hack-jobs, were rejected by the audience, and set aside just like we would do with any piss poor modern sequel.

.

Godwithus · 11-17-2010, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godwithus

It would mean that they are earlier right?

So maybe they were written around 149 CE? :huh:

Things are more complicated that a simple Jewish vs Greek split. For instance, Marcion was a dominant figure in Christianity in the first half of the second century (more or less). He rejected the Jewish God as an inferior god. But he also accepted the validity of Jewish scripture for the Jews.

Some modern scholars see at least some of the pro-Jewish statements in the NT as anti-Marcionite.

No, I think that both the epistles and the gospels were written after 70 CE, at least in their final form.

Quote:

At least 4 of Paul's Epistles are believed by Scholars to have been written about 20 years after Christ.

If you look into the basis for their opinion, it is based primarily on accepting the story in Acts as history, but Acts appears to be more historical fiction than reliable history.

Quote:

So maybe they were written around 149 CE?

Even before the antiIsrael Ignatius of Antioch (ca 50-117 AD)? I dont think so.

Quote:

He rejected the Jewish God as an inferior god. But he also accepted the validity of Jewish scripture for the Jews.

Seriously doubt that he would have written pro-Israel scripture, or quote OT scripture in the NT....if he hated the God of the Jews.

Quote:

Some modern scholars see at least some of the pro-Jewish statements in the NT as anti-Marcionite.

So the Greek Church, that believed Israel was now obsolete, wrote in Romans 11 that Israel remains the Chosen Nation to get at Marcionite? Im sorry but that doesnt even sound remotely plausible. Youve got to come up with something better than that.

Quote:

No, I think that both the epistles and the gospels were written after 70 CE, at least in their final form.

Certainly not by a Church who were antisemitic? How can a Church that hated Israel and Jews write that Salvation comes from the Jews? Or that Israel remains the Chosen nation contradicting their established doctrine that the Church was the "True Israel"?

Doesnt make sense....unless the NT was not written by the Greek Church, but by the original authors, who were Jews.

Godwithus · 11-17-2010, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark 12:1-9

1 Jesus then began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. 2 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3 But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4 Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. 5 He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed.

6 “He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’

7 “But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 8 So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.

9 “What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others

The owner is YHWH. The tenants are the Jews. The vineyard is Israel. The prophets are the servants coming to collect. The son is... well, that one is pretty obvious. The "others" at the end are the non-Jews/Christians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16

14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone 16 in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.

Doesn't get anymore "Replacement Theology" than that.

None of those scriptures says anything about Gentiles replacing Israel. Paul clearly stated that yes, some individual branches will be broken off the tree (Israel) and Gentiles grafted in...but the Tree itself remains. In fact Paul wrote that even though Israel was an enemy of the Gospel, Israel remained the Elect nation destined for Salvation.

A hostile Greek church would not have written that. Certainly wouldnt have written that Israel is the Chosen Nation...that was anathema to them.

Sheshbazzar · 11-17-2010, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godwithus

A hostile Greek church would not have written that. Certainly wouldnt have written that Israel is the Chosen Nation...that was anathema to them.

If they wanted to 'connect' with the 'script' of the OT, they would absolutely have had to accept these integral plot elements of those familiar texts.
There is no way these latter writers could maintain the continuity of story line, while eliminating one of the most well known elements of the original narratives,
that being that Israel is a Chosen Nation, a theme that is repeated over and over and integral to the original scripts.
About the best they could do was include it, and then try to 'write around' that inconvienece. Done all the time in the writing of sequels.

Godwithus · 11-17-2010, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godwithus

A hostile Greek church would not have written that. Certainly wouldnt have written that Israel is the Chosen Nation...that was anathema to them.

If they wanted to 'connect' with the 'script' of the OT, they would have had to accept these integral plot elements of those familiar texts. There is absolutely no way these latter writers could maintain the story line while eliminating one of the most well known elements of the original narratives, that being that Israel is a Chosen Nation, about the best they could do was include it, and then try to 'write around' that inconvienece. Done all the time in writing sequels.

That doesnt stack up. If they believed that the OT writings about Israel was in fact about the Church (Replacement Theology teaches that the OT prophecies about Israel are about the NT Church), or becamse obsolete at the arrival of the Church age....then why would they write that National Jewish Israel remains the Chosen Nation? That contradicts their Replacement Theology big time.

I think it is clear that they are not the authors of the NT. Why hasnt Scholars yet figured this out?

Sheshbazzar · 11-17-2010, 09:37 PM

The folks that cooked up the Johnny-come-lately 'Replacement Theology' idea held by the Orthodox, came along long after the seminal NT writings had already coalesced.
They were stuck with adapting new scripts to texts that the early proto-Christians and the Marcionites had already flooded the market with.

Godwithus · 11-17-2010, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The folks that cooked up the Johnny-come-lately 'Replacement Theology' idea held by the Orthodox, came along long after the NT writings had already coalesced.
They were stuck with minor meddling with texts that the early proto-Christians and the Marcionites had already flooded the market with.

Ignatius of Antioch (ca 50-117 AD) - Taught that those who partake of the Passover are partakers with those who killed Jesus.(4)

Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) - Claimed God’s covenant with Israel was no longer valid and that the Gentiles had replaced the Jews.(5)

So if they came long after the NT writings, that would give the writings a much earlier date. Lets say like AD 40 or something?

Toto · 11-17-2010, 09:50 PM

Ignatius' letters have been heavily edited and interpolated. That phrase could have been added well after 117 CE.

You are trying to pull some flim flam with the dates. You list the birth date for these two early Christians, but they were not born Christians and published towards the end of their lives. In 50 CE, Ignatius was not a Christian and did not know anything. In 100 CE, Justin was a long way from becoming a Christian. These dates have nothing to do with dating their works.

Diogenes the Cynic · 11-17-2010, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godwithus

Question. If the NT were not written by the original authors....

I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that the NT was written by its original authors.

Godwithus · 11-17-2010, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Ignatius' letters have been heavily edited and interpolated. That phrase could have been added well after 117 CE.

You are trying to pull some flim flam with the dates. You list the birth date for these two early Christians, but they were not born Christians and published towards the end of their lives. In 50 CE, Ignatius was not a Christian and did not know anything. In 100 CE, Justin was a long way from becoming a Christian. These dates have nothing to do with dating their works.

So how did Justin become a Christian? Who converted him?

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

11-17-2010, 09:37 PM	#16
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	The folks that cooked up the Johnny-come-lately 'Replacement Theology' idea held by the Orthodox, came along long after the seminal NT writings had already coalesced. They were stuck with adapting new scripts to texts that the early proto-Christians and the Marcionites had already flooded the market with.

11-17-2010, 09:50 PM	#18
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Ignatius' letters have been heavily edited and interpolated. That phrase could have been added well after 117 CE. You are trying to pull some flim flam with the dates. You list the birth date for these two early Christians, but they were not born Christians and published towards the end of their lives. In 50 CE, Ignatius was not a Christian and did not know anything. In 100 CE, Justin was a long way from becoming a Christian. These dates have nothing to do with dating their works.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.