Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 07-01-2012, 02:01 PM

Tired of listening to the crickets, I present these questions again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The dated evidence show that Jesus, the disciples and Paul did NOT exist in the 1st century.

Again, this is MY POSITION. The following apologetic sources are compatible with the DATED Texts of antiquity.

Justin Martyr, Aristides, Minucius Felix, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Tatian, and Arnobius.

Interesting....and quite confusing.

Justin Martyr. (circa 100-165 CE) writes about "Jesus", "Christ", "Apostles", the Christians, and the practices and doctrines of Christianity.

Aristides (circa 100-115 CE) writes about "Jesus","Christ", "Apostles", the Christians, and practices and doctrines of Christianity.
While these DATED texts of antiquity might not mention 'Paul', They DO mention Jesus. At least in every translation I'm aware of.

Your POSITION is not clear.

Why would you reference the texts of these 2nd century writers, with their usages of these terms, as being authentic to their era in accounting for the then contemporary Christian beliefs. (if that is your intent)?
And yet reject the same or similar information as being fraudulent when it occurs in Eusebius's writings around a hundred years latter?
Is there some reason why Eusebius is supposed to be unaware of what these earlier writers wrote in the previous century?

I am not trying to argue here, just trying to make some sense out of why, or how you would employ these authors writings to support a claim that Eusebius's writings are fraudulent.

It would make sense if you said that they were also fraudulent latter christian forgeries along with those writings attributed to Eusebius. Is that your POSITION?

You are not at all clear in what it is you are claiming regarding Eusebius, or the writings of these earlier Christians.

Are you claiming that all the works of Eusebius were actually forgeries that were produced by other unkown writers in the 4th, 5th, or 6th or latter centuries?
Or that there really never lived an author Eusebius of Caesarea who wrote during the 4th century? That he was only a Church invention?

What of Aristides? or of Justin Martyr? in your view were they real authors?
DID Aristides NOT write in his 'Apology' about "Jesus" "The Son of God"? and the Christians? and in the 2nd century CE?
And did Justin Martyr NOT write of "Jesus" and the 'Memoirs of the Apostles"? and in the 2nd century CE?

All of the translations I have located certainly contain "Jesus", "Christ" and "Apostles".
Do you have texts that lack these references to "Jesus", "Christ", "Apostles" or the 'Memoirs of the Apostles"???

Or are you claiming that both of these sources and their mentions of "Jesus", "Christ", and the "Apostles" and the "Gospel" are also a latter church fabrications and fraud?
If so, then how on earth do these DOCUMENTED writings of Justin Martyr or of Aristrides support your POSITION?

I really don't know. And after spending many hours trying to figure it out, the only result has been a headache.

You often SHOUT loud, but you are failing to clearly communicate whatever it is that you are trying to say.
Just state when you believe it was that Aristides and Justin Martyr wrote about "Jesus".
Or if you think that they didn't write about "Jesus" and the "Apostles", then just say so.

Just state when you believe the many works of Eusebius were written, and by whom.
(it would even be enough to simply reply; 'not by Eusebius', to make your position clearer.)

Duvduv · 07-01-2012, 02:36 PM

Two things (among others) are rather interesting here in GMatt: the fact that the author felt it was important to mention that some who saw the risen physical Christ doubted it and that GMatt's encounter had to be in Galilee, which is not stated in the other gospels.

I suppose that the doubting was eliminated by GJohn with his addition concerning the spear and nail holes.

aa5874 · 07-01-2012, 03:36 PM

The claim that the resurrected Jesus would go to Galilee to meet the disciples AFTER his resurrection is found in THREE Canonised Gospeles.

1. The short ending gMark 14.28---after I have risen I will go before you into Galilee.

2. The long ending gMark 14.28-- after that I am risen , I will go before you into Galilee.

3. gMatthew 26.32--- after I have risen, I will go before you into Galilee.

Now, we will see that the LATER gLuke CHANGED the story.

gLuke's Jesus said NOTHING about a post-resurrection meeting in Galilee but instead the disciples SAW Jesus in Jerusalem and were ASKED by him to remain in Jerusalem to PREACH the Gospel.

Luke 24

Quote:

....46 and he said to them: Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,

47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48 You are witnesses of these things....

Now, we have very SIGNIFICANT CLUE.

The THREE earliest Gospels claimed the disciples should go to Galilee to SEE Jesus.

The Later gLuke claimed the disciple were in JERUSALEM when they SAW Jesus.

Now where would Paul meet the Apostles in Jerusalem or Galilee???

Galatians 1.

Quote:

....after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas; and I abode with him fifteen days;

19 but another of the apostles saw I not, except James the brother of the Lord....

The Pauline writings are AFTER the short-ending gMark, the Long ending gMark and gMatthew.

The disciples were in Galillee AFTER the resurrection in the earlier Synoptics but in Jerusalem in the Later gLuke.

The story of the post resurrection meeting in Galilee PREDATES the Epistle to the Galatians.

Galatians was COMPOSED AFTER the short ending gMark, the long ending gMark and gMatthew.

jdboy · 07-01-2012, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The claim that the resurrected Jesus would go to Galilee to meet the disciples AFTER his resurrection is found in THREE Canonised Gospeles.

1. The short ending gMark 14.28---after I have risen I will go before you into Galilee.

2. The long ending gMark 14.28-- after that I am risen , I will go before you into Galilee.

3. gMatthew 26.32--- after I have risen, I will go before you into Galilee.

Now, we will see that the LATER gLuke CHANGED the story.

gLuke's Jesus said NOTHING about a post-resurrection meeting in Galilee but instead the disciples SAW Jesus in Jerusalem and were ASKED by him to remain in Jerusalem to PREACH the Gospel.

Luke 24

Quote:

....46 and he said to them: Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,

47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48 You are witnesses of these things....

Now, we have very SIGNIFICANT CLUE.

The THREE earliest Gospels claimed the disciples should go to Galilee to SEE Jesus.

The Later gLuke claimed the disciple were in JERUSALEM when they SAW Jesus.

Now where would Paul meet the Apostles in Jerusalem or Galilee???

Galatians 1.

Quote:

....after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas; and I abode with him fifteen days;

19 but another of the apostles saw I not, except James the brother of the Lord....

The Pauline writings are AFTER the short-ending gMark, the Long ending gMark and gMatthew.

The disciples were in Galillee AFTER the resurrection in the earlier Synoptics but in Jerusalem in the Later gLuke.

The story of the post resurrection meeting in Galilee PREDATES the Epistle to the Galatians.

Galatians was COMPOSED AFTER the short ending gMark, the long ending gMark and gMatthew.

I think Jesus is saying that he will lead them into Galilee. The disciples are following him at the same time into Galilee. How could they meet in Galilee? Jesus gives no specific location for a meeting.
So Luke records them at Jerusalem why is that a problem? The disciples followed him thru Galilee after they meet in Jerusalem.

Ok, matt 28 jesus tells the disciples to meet jesus at a mountain.

Duvduv · 07-01-2012, 04:22 PM

I was looking straight at the verses in chapter 16. The mention of Galilee would fit at 16:14. And there is the possibility since many manuscripts have the extra verses that the ones that don't were simply based on one that lost the last page simply because verse 8 ends so abruptly.

Also, Mark 14:17-20 makes no sense. Jesus doesn't tell them they should go to Galilee, as in GMatt, but simply that he would go before them, as if a verse or two were missing. Then he abruptly turns to Peter to talk about something else. I guess GMatt tried to straighten out all the narrative confusion.

GJohn follows GLuke in not liking Galilee, or rather that the stories they heard did not involve trekking back all the way to Galilee for no good reason when they see Jesus just as easily locally.

Adam · 07-01-2012, 05:31 PM

You meant Mark 14:27-30.

Why do you speak of Mark 16:14, when the better manuscripts stop at 16:8?

As I said in my #610, the verses in Mark and Matthew about Galilee are an editorial addition, thus not found in Luke and John that stay closer to the original source.

You realize John 21 is about Jesus appearing in Galilee, but a longer time after his Resurrection?

Duvduv · 07-01-2012, 06:02 PM

I was just focusing on the Great Commission. John 21 is a different scenario and creates a better narrative where the couple of disciples were just back at their regular daily routines.
However I do notice that the very last verse is a very traditional Jewish expression about the greatness of the righteous., I.e. that they are so great that all the books or the sea could not contains all the stories of their greatness.

angelo · 07-02-2012, 01:34 AM

I think the problem arises that too many people are looking for some history in the N/T. Hey, people, there is no history anywhere near the sources!! They may be mentions of cities and towns, even some historical people and times, but the series " West Wing" is about the president of the USA, a real white House, and many other similar things to the real thing. Does the West Wing series tell of real history?

sotto voce · 07-02-2012, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

I think the problem arises that too many people are looking for some history in the N/T. Hey, people, there is no history anywhere near the sources!! They may be mentions of cities and towns, even some historical people and times, but the series " West Wing" is about the president of the USA, a real white House, and many other similar things to the real thing. Does the West Wing series tell of real history?

Warner Bros made some real money out of it.

Huon · 07-02-2012, 02:44 AM

And Who made some real money from the NT, during centuries ? Jesus Christ ?

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

07-01-2012, 02:36 PM	#612
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Two things (among others) are rather interesting here in GMatt: the fact that the author felt it was important to mention that some who saw the risen physical Christ doubted it and that GMatt's encounter had to be in Galilee, which is not stated in the other gospels. I suppose that the doubting was eliminated by GJohn with his addition concerning the spear and nail holes.

07-01-2012, 04:22 PM	#615
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I was looking straight at the verses in chapter 16. The mention of Galilee would fit at 16:14. And there is the possibility since many manuscripts have the extra verses that the ones that don't were simply based on one that lost the last page simply because verse 8 ends so abruptly. Also, Mark 14:17-20 makes no sense. Jesus doesn't tell them they should go to Galilee, as in GMatt, but simply that he would go before them, as if a verse or two were missing. Then he abruptly turns to Peter to talk about something else. I guess GMatt tried to straighten out all the narrative confusion. GJohn follows GLuke in not liking Galilee, or rather that the stories they heard did not involve trekking back all the way to Galilee for no good reason when they see Jesus just as easily locally.

07-01-2012, 05:31 PM	#616
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	You meant Mark 14:27-30. Why do you speak of Mark 16:14, when the better manuscripts stop at 16:8? As I said in my #610, the verses in Mark and Matthew about Galilee are an editorial addition, thus not found in Luke and John that stay closer to the original source. You realize John 21 is about Jesus appearing in Galilee, but a longer time after his Resurrection?

07-01-2012, 06:02 PM	#617
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I was just focusing on the Great Commission. John 21 is a different scenario and creates a better narrative where the couple of disciples were just back at their regular daily routines. However I do notice that the very last verse is a very traditional Jewish expression about the greatness of the righteous., I.e. that they are so great that all the books or the sea could not contains all the stories of their greatness.

07-02-2012, 01:34 AM	#618
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	I think the problem arises that too many people are looking for some history in the N/T. Hey, people, there is no history anywhere near the sources!! They may be mentions of cities and towns, even some historical people and times, but the series " West Wing" is about the president of the USA, a real white House, and many other similar things to the real thing. Does the West Wing series tell of real history?

07-02-2012, 02:44 AM	#620
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	And Who made some real money from the NT, during centuries ? Jesus Christ ?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.