Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Camio · 01-20-2009, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Chrestos cults existed long before the "Jesus" character was even "born"

Could you elaborate a little bit on this idea please?

Sheshbazzar · 01-20-2009, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Enormous task? given the number of copies?
Care to provide a reasoned estimate of how many "copies" existed in say, 125 AD?
How many have survived from that early?,
How many quotations from these "copies" have survived from that early?
What is your evidence that anyone was making "copies" that early?
What is the information are you basing your estimates on?

I hope you realise that you must be able to answer those very questions if you are of the view that "Jesus" was interpolated in the letters.

How many copies were there when the letters were interpolated?

My answers,

Quote:

How many have survived from that early?,

0

Quote:

How many quotations from these "copies" have survived from that early?

0

Quote:

What is your evidence that anyone was making "copies" that early?

0

Quote:

What is the information are you basing your estimates on?

0
Thus the number of "copies" extant in 125 AD is unknown and unknowable,
there being NO evidence of any kind available on which to make any such an estimate.
Thus rhutchin's claim of an "enormous task given the number of copies that would have existed" is a claim sans any actual evidential basis.

aa5874 · 01-20-2009, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I hope you realise that you must be able to answer those very questions if you are of the view that "Jesus" was interpolated in the letters.

How many copies were there when the letters were interpolated?

My answers,
0
0
0

Quote:

What is the information are you basing your estimates on?

0
Thus the number of "copies" extant in 125 AD is unknown and unknowable,
there being NO evidence of any kind available on which to make any such an estimate.
Thus rhutchin's claim of an "enormous task given the number of copies that would have existed" is a claim sans any actual evidential basis.

But you have just destroyed your own position.

What can be known about the "unknown and the unknoweable" and how can there be evidence that the "unknown and the unknoweable" was interpolated?

Sheshbazzar · 01-20-2009, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Paul consistently uses the term, Jesus Christ, throughout his letters. If Scribes had to 'fix the problem" they had an enormous task given the number of copies that would have existed and the different people who were making copies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

My answers,
0
0
0
0
Thus the number of "copies" extant in 125 AD is unknown and unknowable,
there being NO evidence of any kind available on which to make any such an estimate.
Thus rhutchin's claim of an "enormous task given the number of copies that would have existed" is a claim sans any actual evidential basis.

But you have just destroyed your own position.

What can be known about the "unknown and the unknoweable" and how can there be evidence that the "unknown and the unknoweable" was interpolated?

One can know that rhutchin's above claim is without foundation.

And that the lack of such evidence, speaks strongly against the idea that the religion of Christianity was ever anywhere near to being as popular or widespread as the Gospel stories, Eusebius, and the church would like us to believe that it was.
Clement of Rome wrote about "Lord Jesus Christ" yet never quoted a single line or verse from any book of The New Testement.
Ignatius of Antioch wrote about "Jesus Christ the God." yet also never quoted a single line or verse from any book of The New Testement.
Polycarp of Smyrna, wrote some things similar to what is contained in The New Testament, yet again not a single line or verse is directly quoted from any book of The New Testement.
What is wrong with all of these "early Christian Fathers" that they can write volumes of religious exposition, and yet never even once quote even one single identifiable verse from any of those New Testement books, of which allegedly, there were "enormous" numbers of "copies" in circulation?
If there actually were, why then would these early ecclesiastics never, even once, cite a single verse from any of The New Testement Books in support of their views?

DCHindley · 01-20-2009, 09:46 AM

All ways.

It is usually "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus", but there are 27 occasions in all letters except the pastorals, but including Philemon, where Jesus dos not occur with Christ in the same verse. When Jesus does occur without Christ, the combination is usually "Lord Jesus".

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Analyst

In his writings, did Paul say Jesus (Christ) or Christ? Is it possible that all references to Jesus were interpolated later by scribes 'fixing the error'? IOW, that Paul wrote of a mythical Christ, never identifying him by a name?

aa5874 · 01-20-2009, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Chrestos cults existed long before the "Jesus" character was even "born", the incorporation of a Jewish messiah figure with a specific name is a late addition.
The "crucifixion" stories as fully developed in the latter Gospels were retrojected into the much earlier -authentic- Pauline epistles,
the church then created additional new "Pauline epistles" as vehicles to cover the gaps and to deliver their newly devised new testament gospel and theology.
The chrestos cults provided the bones,
"Paul" provided the innards,
The church added the ligaments and sinews,
that held it all together, and painting a new skin over all,
presented the dead body of "Jesus Christ" to a gullible world.
Yet there never was any body to be found.

This post is your problem. Once you start talking about the "unknown and the unknoweable", all that you have stated about the Epistles cannot be confirmed.

aa5874 · 01-20-2009, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

All ways.

It is usually "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus", but there are 27 occasions in all letters except the pastorals, but including Philemon, where Jesus dos not occur with Christ in the same verse. When Jesus does occur without Christ, the combination is usually "Lord Jesus".

And what did he say about the Lord Jesus?

That he died and rose from the dead. See Romans 4.24.

Sheshbazzar · 01-20-2009, 10:38 AM

So then does this mean that you find rhutchin's assertion that;

Quote:

If Scribes had to 'fix the problem" they had an enormous task given the number of copies that would have existed and the different people who were making copies.

To be a accurate analysis based upon evidence?

Toto · 01-20-2009, 10:38 AM

On the idea that it would have been too difficult to make a change in all existing copies of Paul's letters, see:

Interpolations in the Pauline Letters (or via: amazon.co.uk) by William O. Walker, also on google books, summarized and reviewed here:

Quote:

The idea that Christians suppressed all variant texts of Paul's letters is rejected by some as a conspiracy theory, but Walker points out that Marcion's version is missing. [If Marcion's version of Paul's letters could be suppressed, so could other variant texts.]

...

All we know is that the surviving text is the text promoted and perhaps produced by the winners in the struggles of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The capacity of Christians to suppress manuscripts is shown by the example of Tatian's Diatesseron, which the Syrian episcopate made a determined effort to put an end to, so that no copy has survived except for a single leaf of vellum.

An additional factor supporting the possibility that orthodox Christians successfully eliminated any variant copies of Paul's letters is that the church of 180 was more centralized and united that it had been before or after, so the emerging orthodox leadership was in a position to standardize texts.

For those who reject anything like a conspiracy theory, Robert Price has proposed that scribes would try to err on the side of inclusiveness and always copy the longer version, so as not to lose anything precious. This would lead eventually to the longest versions surviving, with all interpolations.

storytime · 01-20-2009, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Analyst

In his writings, did Paul say Jesus (Christ) or Christ? Is it possible that all references to Jesus were interpolated later by scribes 'fixing the error'? IOW, that Paul wrote of a mythical Christ, never identifying him by a name?

or.. the term "Christ" identified the priesthood as the anointed ones and the name "Jesus" identified the man.

"Ye have been made a kingdom of priests on the earth." Not that Jesus had made them priests, but that that priesthood "anointed" from the beginning had already been established in the separated "anointed" ones, to whom the priesthood belonged from the beginning and convenanted in Levi name, whereof that covenant was established as an everlasting covenant. (Malachi 2:1-9) And also why Jesus told his disciples that the kingdom of God[heaven] was not given to the multitude, and was given to the disciples alone. Evidently the disciples had not known about their already established inheritance rights. A predistined thing.

Paul confuses things in his reference to Melchezedek, before Abraham, circumcision and law. "Christ" identified the many priests as one body of men separated unto God. Whereas the OT uses the term "anointed", the NT uses the term "Christ".

ps. To believe in "Christ" meant to believe in the High Priest words. And Jesus the man was their High Priest.

This is the understanding I conclude from reading the story. Not everyone agrees.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.