Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DoubtingDave · 10-24-2011, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Justin Martyr certainly felt no need to arduously argue for a historical Jesus in his writing entitled the First Apology.
...
Then again, Justin was allegedly writing to the Emperor of Rome who could've defeated his entire argument by simply responding that Jesus never existed.

How could the Emperor know that Jesus never existed?
Indeed - how could ANYONE know that Jesus never existed?

Who would be able to make such a negative claim ?

Only someone who lived in Jerusalem and knew everyone and everything there, and knew of all the events that happened during that period. Although admittedly it WAS a small town - I've seen estimates of 80,000 for Jerusalem in Jesus time.

Many of us would have lived in towns like that - 80,000 is not that small - twice the size of Bunbury or Geraldton.

If there was a claim that a holy man was causing a stir in such a town, especially if he preached fpr 1-3 years - there is indeed a good chance that you would hear about it - if it was true.

Conversely - if you had not heard of him, you may indeed be a little sceptical about him - because you would know of most of the interesting and unusual events and people that took place.

But -
the key piece of information usually overlooked is the TIME GAP.

The Gospels and their stories don't become known, even to CHRISTIANS, until early-mid 2nd century (I think Ignatius was forged around the 130s.)

Jerusalem was razed, Judea was erased, and many Jews were dead.

How could there be anyone left - after a century later, and 2 wars - who would have known everything, and everyone in Jerusalem from a century before ?

There could not.

Which is why HJers focus on the alleged authorship date of the Gospels, and push their date earlier and earlier. Apologists place G.Mark as early as 52.

But if G.Mark really was written that early - why did it take almost a century till any Christians knew about it ?

There is an obvious SILENCE about the Gospels till around Bar Kochbar in the 130s :

50s
Paul - NO Gospel mentions

60s
Hebrews - NO Gospel mentions

80s
Colossians - NO Gospel mentions
1 John - NO Gospel mentions
James - NO Gospel mentions

90s
Ephesians - NO Gospel mentions
2 Thess. - NO Gospel mentions
1 Peter - NO Gospel mentions
1 Clement - NO Gospel mentions
Revelation - NO Gospel mentions

100s
The Didakhe - NO Gospel mentions
Jude - NO Gospel mentions

110s
Barnabas - NO Gospel mentions

120s
2 John - NO Gospel mentions
3 John - NO Gospel mentions
G.Thomas - NO Gospel mentions

130s
Papias - mentions 2 writings, not called Gospels yet
2 Peter - NO Gospel mentions
The Pastorals - NO Gospel mentions
G.Peter - NO Gospel mentions
Ignatius - mentions a Gospel

140s
to Diognetus - NO Gospel mentions
Ep.Apostles - NO Gospel mentions
2 Clement - NO Gospel mentions
Aristides - calls the singular Gospel newly preached

The Gospels were unknown to Christians till around the 130s or so.

AND -
the Gospel STORIES were unknown to Christians similarly.

Christians learned about Jesus from the Gospel stories - not from any historical tradition. There are no claims to have met Jesus 1st hand. No-one insists THEY met Jesus.

Because Jesus started as a character in religious literature. Later mis-understood (no conspiracy) as historical.

K.

This is quite interesting. It often bewilders me why Paul NEVER mentioned the gospels.

Also, can I have a good source to back this up? I trust you, but I can use this for future reference.

dog-on · 10-25-2011, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The names are plucked from Josephus 18.1-3 for historical flavoring.

I suppose we are now in for a math lesson on the 15 years? :facepalm:

Jake

No, Jake, no maths lesson....

I asked no questions regarding the names of historical figures mentioned in the gospel JC account. I asked re a specific gospel date - the 15th year of Tiberius. You have not given me any indication of why this date was of significance to the gospel writer. Earlier you mentioned that you "didn't write that setting of the gospel fictions had no significance." So, I asked about the specific date....

Actually, Jake, I'm not trying to be argumentative here. The dating issue re the gospel JC story is an issue that mythicists have no answer for. The historicists will just say that's the date that JC started his ministry - being about 30 years old. All the mythicists can do is close their eyes and pin that tail on the donkey - ie the date is blind chance; it could have been otherwise. Unless of course you happen to have come across a rational argument for the 15th year of Tiberius in which to set down that story that gLuke was 'concocting'........

I would look to Daniel for the answer to that question Mary.

maryhelena · 10-25-2011, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The names are plucked from Josephus 18.1-3 for historical flavoring.

I suppose we are now in for a math lesson on the 15 years? :facepalm:

Jake

No, Jake, no maths lesson....

I asked no questions regarding the names of historical figures mentioned in the gospel JC account. I asked re a specific gospel date - the 15th year of Tiberius. You have not given me any indication of why this date was of significance to the gospel writer. Earlier you mentioned that you "didn't write that setting of the gospel fictions had no significance." So, I asked about the specific date....

Actually, Jake, I'm not trying to be argumentative here. The dating issue re the gospel JC story is an issue that mythicists have no answer for. The historicists will just say that's the date that JC started his ministry - being about 30 years old. All the mythicists can do is close their eyes and pin that tail on the donkey - ie the date is blind chance; it could have been otherwise. Unless of course you happen to have come across a rational argument for the 15th year of Tiberius in which to set down that story that gLuke was 'concocting'........

I would look to Daniel for the answer to that question Mary.

Ah, but dog-on, once one does that all 'scholarly' centered approaches to the gospel JC story fly out the window......Prophecy, interpretations - anyone's game, chance, luck at hitting the prophetic jackpot - methinks scholars would not want to put their credibility at stake....

Two great studies on Josephus and his role as a Jewish prophet - and, as far as I've seen, no attempt to deal with this element of the written work of Josephus. A Jewish prophet living at the time when christianity supposedly took off - and christian scholars not facing the new scholarly studies/facts about the writing of Josephus. And mythicists seem just as willing to avoid the obvious.

Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writing of Josephus, A Traditio-Historical Analysis (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Robert Karl Gnuse.

Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine:The Evidence from Josephus (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Rebecca Gray

Actually, dog-on, one does not have to resort to intricate interpretations of Daniel for the 15th year of Tiberius. This year was important to gLuke's story because that year was around 70 years from 40 b.c. (gLuke 3.1)Thus, if the end of this 70 year period was deemed to be significant by gLuke - then the start, likewise, would be relevant. Simple really - that's the interpretation gLuke made for his JC storyline. Other interpretations are possible of course - that's the beauty of prophetic predictions - they are a moving drama that follow the real historical action...

jakejonesiv · 10-25-2011, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

If the 15th year of whatever is the end all and be all of Christian chronology, why is it mentioned nowhere but in the third gospel? Why do "mythicists" have to explain something that entirely eluded Paul and Mark?

Jake

Jake, the 'problem' is that it is there....

We can discard it as of no significance - but once we go down that route - it's cherry-picking time....

Hi Mary,

There are a dozen other things peculiar to Luke/Acts that are based on Josephus or a misunderstanding of Josephean material.

You have cherry picked the 15th year of Tiberius. If it is that important to you, it deserves its own thread.

Jake

jakejonesiv · 10-25-2011, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

No, Jake, no maths lesson....

I asked no questions regarding the names of historical figures mentioned in the gospel JC account. I asked re a specific gospel date - the 15th year of Tiberius. You have not given me any indication of why this date was of significance to the gospel writer. Earlier you mentioned that you "didn't write that setting of the gospel fictions had no significance." So, I asked about the specific date....

Actually, Jake, I'm not trying to be argumentative here. The dating issue re the gospel JC story is an issue that mythicists have no answer for. The historicists will just say that's the date that JC started his ministry - being about 30 years old. All the mythicists can do is close their eyes and pin that tail on the donkey - ie the date is blind chance; it could have been otherwise. Unless of course you happen to have come across a rational argument for the 15th year of Tiberius in which to set down that story that gLuke was 'concocting'........

I would look to Daniel for the answer to that question Mary.

Dog-on,

That is a good thought. I seem to remember something like that in Hugh Schonfield's Passover Plot. Schonfeld proposed that seventy weeks equaled 490 years. I have no idea how the math is supposed to work, but somehow we come up with something in the reign of Tiberius.

Jake

aa5874 · 10-25-2011, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Actually, Jake, I'm not trying to be argumentative here. The dating issue re the gospel JC story is an issue that mythicists have no answer for. The historicists will just say that's the date that JC started his ministry - being about 30 years old. All the mythicists can do is close their eyes and pin that tail on the donkey - ie the date is blind chance; it could have been otherwise. Unless of course you happen to have come across a rational argument for the 15th year of Tiberius in which to set down that story that gLuke was 'concocting'........

Actually you are trying to be argumentative because you know there is NOT enough information available to find out why ONLY gLuke contains the statement that Jesus was about to be 30 years old around the 15th year of Tiberius.

You should KNOW that it is completely UNNECESSARY to SPECULATE using UNRELIABLE sources without a single non-apologetic corroborative source.

Not even the other Gospels, although unreliable sources themselves, do not corroborate the author of gLuke.

It is your REFUSAL to accept that gLuke and the Gospels are UNRELIABLE sources where Jesus was the Child of Ghost that you have ISOLATED an unsubstantiated claim in gLuke and is seeking to make an argument for which there is ZERO support.

Just let HJers or the INVENTORS of HJ of Nazareth use the Gospels, Myth fables, for history.

By the way, there is NO Black Hole in Christian History.

There is NO History of early Christian in the 1st century.

The History of the Jesus cult is from the 2nd century.

The first documented OPPOSITION to the Jesus stories was by Marcion and CELSUS mid to late in the 2nd century.

Opposition to and NOISE about Joseph Smith, David Koresh and Jim Jones is documented within a few years not ONE hundred years later.

There can ONLY be a Black Hole if there were early documented evidence of a Jesus cult but there is NONE.

Not even the very Synoptic Sinaiticus gMark show that there was a new religion under the name of Christ.

In Sinaiticus gMark, Jesus did NOT start any new religion under the name of Christ. In fact on the day Jesus died, his disciples had ALREADY ABANDONED him.

There is NO BLACK hole for Christian History.

Christian history is from the 2nd century.

maryhelena · 10-25-2011, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

If the 15th year of whatever is the end all and be all of Christian chronology, why is it mentioned nowhere but in the third gospel? Why do "mythicists" have to explain something that entirely eluded Paul and Mark?

Jake

Jake, the 'problem' is that it is there....

We can discard it as of no significance - but once we go down that route - it's cherry-picking time....

Hi Mary,

There are a dozen other things peculiar to Luke/Acts that are based on Josephus or a misunderstanding of Josephean material.

You have cherry picked the 15th year of Tiberius. If it is that important to you, it deserves its own thread.

Jake

No, Jake, I've not cherry picket the 15th year of Tiberius. I would only be doing that if I rejected all the other time periods that are involved in the gospel JC story - and I don't do that. My aim is to see the broader picture in which all the relevant time periods are allowed their historical space. No cherry-picking at all...

aa5874 · 10-25-2011, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

....No, Jake, I've not cherry picket the 15th year of Tiberius. I would only be doing that if I rejected all the other time periods that are involved in the gospel JC story - and I don't do that. My aim is to see the broader picture in which all the relevant time periods are allowed their historical space. No cherry-picking at all...

Of course you have CHERRY-PICKED the 15th year of Tiberius when you KNOW that gLuke is the Only source that made such a claim.

You KNOW that if Jesus was about to be 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius that he could NOT have been born during the time of King Herod the Great as stated in gMatthew.

King Herod the Great died 4 BCE and gLuke's Child of a Ghost was born 1 BCE-1 CE in order to be about 30 years at the 15th year of Tiberius.

Please, stop CHERRY-PICKING.

gLuke and gMatthew don't add up.

maryhelena · 10-25-2011, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

....No, Jake, I've not cherry picket the 15th year of Tiberius. I would only be doing that if I rejected all the other time periods that are involved in the gospel JC story - and I don't do that. My aim is to see the broader picture in which all the relevant time periods are allowed their historical space. No cherry-picking at all...

Of course you have CHERRY-PICKED the 15th year of Tiberius when you KNOW that gLuke is the Only source that made such a claim.

You KNOW that if Jesus was about to be 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius that he could NOT have been born during the time of King Herod the Great as stated in gMatthew.

King Herod the Great died 4 BCE and gLuke's Child of a Ghost was born 1 BCE-1 CE in order to be about 30 years at the 15th year of Tiberius.

Please, stop CHERRY-PICKING.

gLuke and gMatthew don't add up.

aa5874 - there was no historical gospel JC. gLuke and gMatthew do not add up, ie they do not support a genealogy for a historical figure of JC. So? That does not mean that one can discard the gospel material. It means that other ways, non-historical ways, of 'reading', of interpreting, that material need to be considered.

jakejonesiv · 10-25-2011, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi Mary,

There are a dozen other things peculiar to Luke/Acts that are based on Josephus or a misunderstanding of Josephean material.

You have cherry picked the 15th year of Tiberius. If it is that important to you, it deserves its own thread.

Jake

No, Jake, I've not cherry picket the 15th year of Tiberius. I would only be doing that if I rejected all the other time periods that are involved in the gospel JC story - and I don't do that. My aim is to see the broader picture in which all the relevant time periods are allowed their historical space. No cherry-picking at all...

Hi Mary,

You cherry picked one unique item from Luke. Couldn't you at least have picked something from the Triple Tradition? But I am glad you have a proposed solution. Why don't you start a thread and we will see how if flys!

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.