Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-12-2008, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, how could accept opinions from respected scholars that are blatantly erroneous?

I cannot investigate every matter, but I will always reject opinions from anyone when it can be shown that those opinions are in fact mis-leading and erroneous.

For example, I have refused to accept that there are such a thing as "authentic" Pauline Epistles when it is absolutey obvious that there are no KNOWN and CONFIRMED original writings from any author who was known as Paul. In fact, scholars have deduced that more than one person used the name Paul.

Authenticity of the Epistles has been compromised.

The next obvious questions would be "Was there really some-one named Paul, when did he live? When did he write? How is it no-one as early as the 2nd century ever realise that there was at least one fake Paul? Why did not Eusebius in Church History realise that more than one person used the name Paul?

And why would a fake Paul ask Timothy, the buddy of another Paul, to bring his coat and books? Did Timothy carry the cloak and the books to the fake Paul?

2 Timothy 4.13

One explanation is that NO-ONE in the Churches or any of the named persons ever saw these Epistles.

Fair enough. Boards like this are places for us to discuss our pet theories yes?

Any reconstruction has to answer the same questions: who, what, where, when, why, how - if your explanation covers all the known problems then that's great.

If your complaint is that the academy refuses to consider fresh thinking that's a different issue.

Let's not divert from the issue at hand. My position is that I refuse to accept opinions that are blatantly mis-leading and erroneous from any-one whether or not that person is regarded as an expert.

Once scholars have deduced that more than one person have used the name Paul, and that this deduction was unknown or deliberately hidden from the readers for the last 1800 years or so, then authencity just cannot be confirmed unless there are external sources. And there are NONE.

And, by the way, there may be scholars who are evangelists, preachers, and missionaries, or similar to what they perceive Paul to have been.

Doug Shaver · 09-13-2008, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your English is extremely easy to understand.

Yes, for people of ordinary intelligence.

Malachi151 · 09-20-2008, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

The twelve are mentioned by Paul, maybe some kind of council?

"The Twelve" are surely fictional. There is only one mention of "the twelve" in the letters of Paul and its pretty certain to be an interpolation. So, the reality is that Paul never mentioned the twelve.

The Twelve were a literary invention of the author of the work called the Gospel of Mark.

Malachi151 · 09-20-2008, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

I thought Josephus was a rabbi from Jerusalem. Wouldn't he have written rather, in Aramaic?

Greek was the dominant language of the region at the time, even among Jews. That's why they created the Septuagint, because most Jews that could read and write, read and wrote in Greek just as most Jews in America today read and write in English.

Think of Greek as the equivalent of English at the time.

mountainman · 09-20-2008, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

The twelve are mentioned by Paul, maybe some kind of council?

"The Twelve" are surely fictional. There is only one mention of "the twelve" in the letters of Paul and its pretty certain to be an interpolation. So, the reality is that Paul never mentioned the twelve.

The Twelve were a literary invention of the author of the work called the Gospel of Mark.

What then do you people make of "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve (Apostles)" which was found in an earthern jar at Nag Hammadi and radio-carbon dated to 348 CE?

Best wishes,

Pete

Malachi151 · 09-20-2008, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

"The Twelve" are surely fictional. There is only one mention of "the twelve" in the letters of Paul and its pretty certain to be an interpolation. So, the reality is that Paul never mentioned the twelve.

The Twelve were a literary invention of the author of the work called the Gospel of Mark.

What then do you people make of "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve (Apostles)" which was found in an earthern jar at Nag Hammadi and radio-carbon dated to 348 CE?

Best wishes,

Pete

Well, since the Gospels were written long before that I don't make much of it. I think the Gospel of Mark was written around 70 CE, with the Gospel of Matthew written in the late 1st century and Luke and John in the 2nd. Since that writing is from the 4th century its really no mystery...

mountainman · 09-20-2008, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

What then do you people make of "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve (Apostles)" which was found in an earthern jar at Nag Hammadi and radio-carbon dated to 348 CE?

Best wishes,

Pete

Well, since the Gospels were written long before that I don't make much of it.

Am I to interpret this as an argument from authority?
If not, please provide evidence.

Quote:

I think the Gospel of Mark was written around 70 CE, with the Gospel of Matthew written in the late 1st century and Luke and John in the 2nd.

But upon what evidence do you found this belief that your thoughts actually reflect the ancient historical facts of the matter?

Quote:

Since that writing is from the 4th century its really no mystery...

We know NHC 6.1 is from the fourth century. We do not know at the moment precisely which century the canon was authored. Considering this and othr issues, IMO it is therefore very premature to argue that the Nag Hammadi codices are no mystery.

In fact, I think the opposite is the case: these writings are part of a jig-saw puzzle of evidence which is about to shake the world.

Best wishes,

Pete

rlogan · 09-21-2008, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

Jesus mythicists, did John the Baptist, Caiphus, Pilate, Peter, James, Nicodemus, Mary Magdalene, the Twelve, Judas, etc., exist?

Logically, it's entirely possible that Jesus did not exist, based on the evidence we have from the NT. I would imagine that if Jesus did not exist, then Mary and Joseph also did not exist. But then, perhaps Pontius Pilate and Ciaphus, John the Baptist, and Peter and James also did not exist.

Which NT figures do you accept as existing, and which ones do you regard as mythical and non-existent, and why?

You just need to organize your thinking about this.

Logically, if Jesus did not exist then nothing that depends on that existence did either.

So therefore there were no direct disciples. There was no virgin Mary or Joseph.

But to leap to nonexistence of John the Baptist isn't warranted. His existence does not depend at all upon Jesus existing and we have Josephus mentioning him.

It is furthermore pretty unremarkable to have a "Baptizer". There just isn't anything extraordinary to question.

Pilate, or for that matter cities and geographic settings are requirements for any fable that is attempting to situate itself in "reality". You don't question the existence of a city simply because it is mentioned in a novel.

bacht · 09-22-2008, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Logically, if Jesus did not exist then nothing that depends on that existence did either.

So therefore there were no direct disciples.

Doesn't this depend on whether we define Jesus as an earthly prophet or as a heavenly Christ? Couldn't there have been early believers without a "real" teacher on the scene? It's not a great leap from believing in a messiah or two like the DSS.

Lucis · 09-22-2008, 11:53 AM

the 12 represent the 12 signs of the zodiac. many things in the bible can be interpreted astrologically, but it doesn't mean that the stories are entirely fictional.

http://www.usbible.com/astrology/bible_astrology.htm
http://www.usbible.com/Astrology/joh...%27s_stars.htm

they were not mythicists, they were mysticists.

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

09-22-2008, 11:53 AM	#70
Lucis Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Sweden Posts: 666	the 12 represent the 12 signs of the zodiac. many things in the bible can be interpreted astrologically, but it doesn't mean that the stories are entirely fictional. http://www.usbible.com/astrology/bible_astrology.htm http://www.usbible.com/Astrology/joh...%27s_stars.htm they were not mythicists, they were mysticists.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.