mountainman

Keep that in mind while examining "Early Christian History".

Seneca has often received attribution for the authorship of the following:

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.".

Gibbon coined his own version as follows:

"The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people,
as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful."

Despots and fascists like Constantine have been known to say ...

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."

ApostateAbe

The last five books Bart Ehrman wrote have made a helluva lot of people mad, each title ballsier than the one before. They were millions of Biblicist Christians. This book will make only the atheists on the Internet mad.

aa5874

If it is possible that the unknown author of gMark made up his story from Hebrew Scripture then it must be also logical and possible that the unknown authors ALSO used Hebrew Scripture.

But, the unknown authors did WRITE that their Jesus was fulfilled prophecies and we can LOCATE the passages in HEBREW Scripture.

1. There is NO birth narrative in gMark and we see that the UNKNOWN author of gMatthew used ISAIAH 7.14 as the basis for his VIRGIN birth. See Matt.1.23

2. There is "NO STAR and MAGI story " in gMark even so, the unknown author of gMatthew used Numbers 24.17 for his STAR story. See Matt. 2.2

3. There is no prophecy that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem in gMark and the UNKNOWN author of gMatthew used MICAH 5.2 for his claim that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. See Matt. 2.6

4. The baby Jesus and his parents did NOT flee to Egypt in gMark but the UNKNOWN author of gMatthew used Hosea 11.1 for his story. See Matt. 2.15

5. There is NO killing of the INNOCENT in gMark and we see that the UNKNOWN author of gMatthew used Jeremiah 31.15. See Matt. 2.18

It is CLEAR that the unknown author of gMatthew did REFER to Hebrew Scripture for the parts of his Jesus story that was NOT found in gMark.

We have PRIMA FACIE evidence that Jesus was NOT at all based on actual historical events but fundamentally from Scripture.

If Jesus was just an ordinary child and was born normally then virtually all in the first 2 chapters of gMatthew would not likely have been based on actual events.

A normal birth of a baby does not require the Magi and a STAR, the fleeing to Egypt, the killing of the innocent and prophecy of his birth place.

blastula

Juststeve, what's the big mystery that people are credulous especially over religion. People today become Christians without knowing whether the story is true. They believe for various sociological and psychological reasons. And people do lie, especially over religion. We can tell from the changes in the gospel stories that Matthew and Luke were lying/rewriting the stories Mark told. Why did early Mormons believe the Smith and the Book of Mormon (another rewrite of the gospels) for no good reason other than his say so?

You seem to be presuming it is rare that people lie and that people rarely believe in something they can't know is true. Modern analogy tells it's not rare. The history of Christianity tells us so as well.

renassault

Indeed there is but I don't think it's the one you're implying. It's that a controversy, one even about such a minor thing as to someone's accusation, can easily be set straight

Toto

It's not that easy.

renassault

This is insane. All three Synoptics had access to Christian traditions that predated them which also originated from Palestine, INCLUDING Matthew and Luke's infancy narratives (so Bultmann). This is evident from the tradition and wording found in Paul in 1 Cor 10-11, so much that Luke's version of the New Covenant in the Last Supper is verbatim like Paul's.

Isaiah 7:14 isn't the only Scripture quoted in his Gospel, but what really shows Matthew didn't invent his infancy narrative out of Scripture is the fact that he talks about prophecies fulfilled in Jesus being a Nazarene yet none state that (plainly of course; and Judges 13:5 doesn't count).

Good speculation, but that's an opinion, not a conclusion. Plus, if it were true, Matthew would have quoted Numbers.

I'm pretty sure that you just quoted the prophecy, and again, nice to know your personal opinion about the origin of MT 1-2.

This is one of the (few) places that scholars would actually agree with you, but, I doubt the Evangelist would make a narrative out of a prophecy which in its historical day did not apply to the Messiah (unlike for example, Daniel 9:27, Is. 53). And as far as its historicity, that would probably require a lot to defend (or attack).

I don't really understand why Mark has to have everything for you to consider it uninvented by the other two Evangelists. It is clear that Mark truncated whatever material he had (e.g. 1:12-13 et al) and the Gospel certainly wasn't meant to contain every early Christian tradition (Papias' 5 volume book being proof enough of that). And as far as the absense of Herod's slaughter, we have a similar absense of the slaughter of infants in Rome recorded by an ancient Roman historian (Cicero I think, but I'm not sure) so that's not evidence of absense.

And? Only shows he was a Semite (and I haven't verified your claim or if it applies only for MT 1-2). And he uses the LXX to quote prophecies not mentioned in Mark for the rest of his Gospel.

Yes, notice the key word if.

Indeed, and quite a spectacular way to survive on Jesus' part too, unless, of course, you are the Son of God. You are also forgetting that LK 1-2 has an infancy narrative and this confirms Matthew's virgin birth as well as that he was born in Bethlehem. That alone proves MT did not invent MT 1-2.

renassault

Your one post was easy enough

blastula

Proves? That's a good one. :notworthy:

Solo

....the problem with that line of argument is that "Jesus who was called Christ (Iesous ho legomenos Christos)" happens to be a Matthean turn of phrase. (1:16, 27:17, 27:22).

Jiri