Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sotto voce · 10-13-2012, 10:42 AM

The Romans bumped off all sorts of trash.

Or claimed to.

Duvduv · 10-13-2012, 05:39 PM

Shesh, although your argument makes sense as to why the contradictions were never reconciled, it is hard for us to be sure that the imperial church officialdom were in a state of conflict or infighting so as to ignore the contradictions and discrepancies because we have no documentary evidence of such a conflict at all.

Particularly because the contradictions exist primarily between portions of Acts and Galatians. However, I suppose it could be argued that just as the contradictions among the gospels were not reconciled by the early officialdom, we cannot expect that they would have done so about "Paul" for whatever reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

That is exactly the problem. You are introducing an unknown character and is making statements of which there is no evidence.

It is not necessary at all to assume any character existed and did things that cannot be found in any sources.

Acts of the Apostles is an extremely significant book because it is Canonised and claimed to be authentic by the Church and its agent.

Written statements are not dumped and ignored merely because they are fiction.

Any written statement whether true or false can be used as evidence.

The written statement of a defendant is not ever dumped because the defendant may have lied.

Let those without evidence assume.

Let us deal ONLY with the evidence, the written statements from antiquity.

I don't 'dump' Acts. As you say, it is evidence___that is, evidence against the claims of christianity.

Acts of the Apostles however is NOT any actual history, nor is it any evidence that a dead Jew continued to carry on conversations from heaven, or that a holy ghost bird ever flew in the window and invaded the disciples bodies, or that the heads of these disciples spouted flames, or that they all magically became proficient in xenoglossia, or that 'Peter', 'Paul' or any other disciples were able to magically raise the dead or perform other miraculous feats.

And then again it has also been your argument that 'Acts of The Apostles' was not even written or known during Justin's life, that Acts is a forged writing produced in the late 2nd century or latter.
If so, then Acts is not any evidence at all for what was really taking place in the 1st century CE.

There were lots of unknown 'characters' in the 1st century and before. These unknown characters are what supplied Justin with that 'christian' material that he writes so much about.

Unless you want to posit and defend that Justin his self was the first originator and inventor of 'Jesus Christ' and of christianity, and that Justin was the actual sole source of everything to do with christianity?

If not, then there must be 'unknown characters' that actually had lived and wrote about 'Jesus Christ' and christianity before Justin composed his works.

It is therefore not much of an assuption that 'unknown characters' did indeed live and write about Jesus Christ before Justin.

Justin even tells us they did, in citing the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' and 'The Acts of Pilate', making it clear that he did not write these texts.
We are left with the FACT that some 'unknown characters' were responsible.

As I am quite familiar with the Hebrew text of the Tanaka, and with the content and the theological trends of pre-christian 1st and 2nd century CE Jewish thought and writings, I have little difficulty in recognizing the thought and the hand of a real life Pharasic Jew named Saul scattered throughout these texts.

Thus my conviction that the christian church of the second century CE had came across some old Jewish writings by the Pharasee Saul, and finding certain things therein favorable to their own theology, co-opted these old JEWISH writings and rewrote them as christian writings.

Certainly this view is, and has to be dependend upon a certain amount of speculation which is as yet unevidenced. I believe that in time, that concrete and dateable archaeological evidence will turn up.
And even if it never does, it will not remove the FACT that what we DO HAVE in Justin, tells us that there WERE earlier 'unknown characters' who WERE resposible for originating that christian material Justin was working with,__
and that evidently neither they, these 'unknown characters', nor Justin were aquainted with 'The Acts of The Apostles' , or any 'Paul' or 'Pauline Epistles', or any 'Gospels' identified as 'Matthew', 'Mark', 'Luke' or 'John'.

Quote:

Let us deal ONLY with the evidence, the written statements from antiquity.

These 'unknown characters' pre-Justin being the real originators of christianity, ARE NOT to be found nor revealed within the content of any 2nd century CE church produced fogeries such as 'The Acts of the Apostles', or other similar 'Paul' promoting church productions.

You are NOT going to (presently) find any remaining concise and accurate statements about what was REALLY going on in the development 1st century christianity.
These factual accounts were, for at least the first 6 centuries of the Common Era, sought out by christian 'authorities' as being 'heretical writings' and destroyed, so as to cover their tracks and to create the false trail of a false and fabricated religious movement.

If you exclude consideration of every writing or bit of evidence from the time -before- Justin Martyr, that does not explicitly name or reference Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ you will never be able to recover how, where, and why this fictional religious character originated. Justin was NOT the beginning.

.

tanya · 10-13-2012, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

It is my belief that these vipers revised and rewrote 'The Memoirs of the Apostles', into the four 'Gospels. (so that under each 'name' a 'see' could be established.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Murdock's article, written as an appropriate, and well done rejoinder to Bart Ehrman's nonsensical best seller, offers some tantalizing clues, but in the end, I still don't have what I seek:
a LINK to the precise Greek text which unequivocally states, ".....whatever, as written in 'The Memoirs of the Apostles'."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Are you objecting that Justin didn't supply you with -the VERSE NUMBERS- of the 'Hebrew sacred texts' he quoted?

No. I am not criticizing Justin Martyr.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

I am keen to encounter the Greek text with an unequivocal declaration that Justin is looking at, or reading from, or quoting from, a text he has seen, touched, and fondled, entitled: "The Memoirs of the Apostles", not memories of the apostles.

Is there a distinction, in Koine Greek, between "Memoirs", and "memories"?

I am not asking Justin to give us anything about Hebrew anything, I am asking you, Shesh, to give us a link to the Greek text, where Justin writes: THE Memoirs of the Apostles, rather than what I think he wrote, i.e. memories of the apostles, Justin's recollection, not a TITLE of a book he is holding in his hand.

aa5874 · 10-13-2012, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I don't 'dump' Acts. As you say, it is evidence___that is, evidence against the claims of christianity.

Acts of the Apostles however is NOT any actual history, nor is it any evidence that a dead Jew continued to carry on conversations from heaven, or that a holy ghost bird ever flew in the window and invaded the disciples bodies, or that the heads of these disciples spouted flames, or that they all magically became proficient in xenoglossia, or that 'Peter', 'Paul' or any other disciples were able to magically raise the dead or perform other miraculous feats.

And then again it has also been your argument that 'Acts of The Apostles' was not even written or known during Justin's life, that Acts is a forged writing produced in the late 2nd century or latter.
If so, then Acts is not any evidence at all for what was really taking place in the 1st century CE.

Just to be clear I have NOT claimed Acts of the Apostles is an historical account.

I am EXPOSING the written statements found in Acts.

The author of Acts did NOT acknowledge any Pauline letters to Churches and did NOT claim the Jesus cult started when Jesus, the Son of a Ghost, was on earth.

The author of Acts claimed the Jerusalem Church wrote letters and gave them to Saul/Paul and his group to deliver.

Acts of the Apostles has ZERO supporting evidence that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches and ZERO supporting evidence for an historical Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are introducing an unknown character and is making statements of which there is no evidence.
It is not necessary at all to assume any character existed and did things that cannot be found in any sources.

Let us deal ONLY with the evidence, the written statements from antiquity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

There were lots of unknown 'characters' in the 1st century and before. These unknown characters are what supplied Justin with that 'christian' material that he writes so much about...

You cannot know what UNKNOWN persons did and when the UNKNOWN was done.

Why do you presume there were UNKNOWN 1st century writers who supplied Justin with Christian material??

Did the Angel Moroni provide Joseph Smith with material from a hundred years earlier?? Did the Golden plates exist 100 year before??

People were merely duped into believing that Joseph Smith got material from some golden plates.

There is NO evidence in any recovered manuscripts including the DSS that there was 1ST century material about a character called Jesus, the Son of a Holy Ghost, the Son of God, Jesus the Creator, Universal Savior, Messiah and Lord.

Justin Martyr simply believed the Memoirs of the Apostles were written by the Apostles themselves in the 1st century. There is no evidence of 1st century Apostles.

The recovered evidence MATCHES my argument. That is exactly what I expected--Nothing from the 1st century about Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

..Unless you want to posit and defend that Justin his self was the first originator and inventor of 'Jesus Christ' and of christianity, and that Justin was the actual sole source of everything to do with christianity?

Justin Martyr wrote c 150 CE so there is a period of 50 years when stories about Jesus could have been composed before coming to Justin.

I cannot go outside the recovered dated evidence. I no longer accept unsubstantiated presumptions.

Why must the Memoirs and Acts of Pilate be composed in the 1st century??

Why could they NOT be written in the 2nd century between c 100 and c 150 CE and people believed they were composed in the 1st century??

Joseph Smith wrote His Bible c 1827-30 CE and claimed he copied the Golden plates which were from 400 CE.

To this day, people may believe the Mormon Bible was derived from 400 CE material.

Right now, I will use the Existing evidence and upgrade or review my argument with NEW Evidence.

Right now, the recovered and dated manuscripts are Exactly what I expected--Nothing was expected from the 1st century.

Justin Martyr wrote NOTHING of an NT Canon and there is no recovered evidence of any 1st century Jesus story or Canonised Gospels.

Sheshbazzar · 10-13-2012, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Are you objecting that Justin didn't supply you with -the VERSE NUMBERS- of the 'Hebrew sacred texts' he quoted?

No. I am not criticizing Justin Martyr.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

It is my belief that these vipers revised and rewrote 'The Memoirs of the Apostles', into the four 'Gospels. (so that under each 'name' a 'see' could be established.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Murdock's article, written as an appropriate, and well done rejoinder to Bart Ehrman's nonsensical best seller, offers some tantalizing clues, but in the end, I still don't have what I seek:
a LINK to the precise Greek text which unequivocally states, ".....whatever, as written in 'The Memoirs of the Apostles'."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Are you objecting that Justin didn't supply you with -the VERSE NUMBERS- of the 'Hebrew sacred texts' he quoted?

No. I am not criticizing Justin Martyr.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

I am keen to encounter the Greek text with an unequivocal declaration that Justin is looking at, or reading from, or quoting from, a text he has seen, touched, and fondled, entitled: "The Memoirs of the Apostles", not memories of the apostles.

Is there a distinction, in Koine Greek, between "Memoirs", and "memories"?

I am not asking Justin to give us anything about Hebrew anything, I am asking you, Shesh, to give us a link to the Greek text, where Justin writes: THE Memoirs of the Apostles, rather than what I think he wrote, i.e. memories of the apostles, Justin's recollection, not a TITLE of a book he is holding in his hand.

You have made your point. I do not claim that the Greek texts indicate the direct object indicator 'THE'.

My writing of 'The Memoirs of the Apostles' is simply a common English construction when referring to this subject and as such will be found employed a hundred thousand times in commentaries on Justin's writings.

Even if it is conceded that it is possible that Justin was referring to multiple writings which he collectively termed as being the 'Memoirs', it still does not remove the fact that in all of his writings Justin never once referred to any 'Memoir Which Is According To Matthew' or 'Gospel Which is According To Matthew', nor ever identified any 'Memoir' or 'Gospel' with the name of any Apostles.

Which it is highly unlikely he would not have done, if in fact these 'Memoirs' had been seperate books known by these names, and he wished to convey to his audience the identity of what book he was speaking of.

Rather obviously neither Justin nor his intended audience were aware of any 'Memoir of Matthew'...'Mark'....'Luke'....or John'.....
That is to say multiple 'Memoirs'.

Duvduv · 10-13-2012, 08:12 PM

Nor apparently was the author of the Apology aware of any distinctions in the story version that we are familiar with in the gospels. The collective notion of "Memoirs of the Apostles" leaves out dealing with differing versions. Imagine also that this writer could not name a single "apostle" whose story of Jesus was important enough for "Justin" to talk about. Not a single time, even if the apostles were named Ben, Jack, Elliot or Tom.

Sheshbazzar · 10-13-2012, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanya

Fine, you don't like my use of the term "old testament", sorry. How about 'Hebrew sacred texts', instead.
Justin quotes from them, throughout his text, without giving a specific reference.

How does this match up with the statement;

Quote:

'Martyr quotes from the Old Testament 314 instances, 197 of which he names the particular book or author, equaling an impressive two-thirds of the total amount. Several of the other 117 instances may not have needed citation, "considering the nature of the passage."

Are you objecting that Justin didn't supply you with -the VERSE NUMBERS- of the 'Hebrew sacred texts' he quoted?

Are you kidding???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Are you objecting that Justin didn't supply you with -the VERSE NUMBERS- of the 'Hebrew sacred texts' he quoted?

No. I am not criticizing Justin Martyr.

It is not nice to 'forget' context Tanya.

You were criticising Justin Martyr's using 'the Old Testament' or.. 'Hebrew sacred texts', ..'Justin quotes from them, throughout his text, without giving a specific reference.'

Which in most cases he most certainly did, within the limitations of texts of that time that were as yet without chapter divisions or verse numbers for him to give as reference. He expected his readers to be familiar with the material, or look it up.

Care to explain what it was that you meant in stating that; 'Justin quotes from them, throughout his text, without giving a specific reference. ?

aa5874 · 10-13-2012, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

It is not nice to 'forget' context Tanya.

You were criticising Justin Martyr's using "the Old Testament' or [B] 'Hebrew sacred texts', ..'Justin quotes from them, throughout his text, without giving a specific reference.
Which it he most certainly did, within the limitations of texts of that time any chapter divisions or verse numbers for him to give as reference.
He expected his readers to be familiar with the material, or look it up.
Care to explain what it was that you meant in stating that; 'Justin quotes from them, throughout his text, without giving a specific reference. ?

Actually Justin mentioned some of the Psalms by chapter. Psalms 46, 98, 44, 95, 21 and 49. See Dialogue with Trypho.

Sheshbazzar · 10-13-2012, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I don't 'dump' Acts. As you say, it is evidence___that is, evidence against the claims of christianity.

Acts of the Apostles however is NOT any actual history, nor is it any evidence that a dead Jew continued to carry on conversations from heaven, or that a holy ghost bird ever flew in the window and invaded the disciples bodies, or that the heads of these disciples spouted flames, or that they all magically became proficient in xenoglossia, or that 'Peter', 'Paul' or any other disciples were able to magically raise the dead or perform other miraculous feats.

And then again it has also been your argument that 'Acts of The Apostles' was not even written or known during Justin's life, that Acts is a forged writing produced in the late 2nd century or latter.
If so, then Acts is not any evidence at all for what was really taking place in the 1st century CE.

Just to be clear I have NOT claimed Acts of the Apostles is an historical account.

I am EXPOSING the written statements found in Acts.

The author of Acts did NOT acknowledge any Pauline letters to Churches and did NOT claim the Jesus cult started when Jesus, the Son of a Ghost, was on earth.

The author of Acts claimed the Jerusalem Church wrote letters and gave them to Saul/Paul and his group to deliver.

Acts of the Apostles has ZERO supporting evidence that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches and ZERO supporting evidence for an historical Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are introducing an unknown character and is making statements of which there is no evidence.
It is not necessary at all to assume any character existed and did things that cannot be found in any sources.

Let us deal ONLY with the evidence, the written statements from antiquity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

There were lots of unknown 'characters' in the 1st century and before. These unknown characters are what supplied Justin with that 'christian' material that he writes so much about...

You cannot know what UNKNOWN persons did and when the UNKNOWN was done.

Why do you presume there were UNKNOWN 1st century writers who supplied Justin with Christian material??

Did the Angel Moroni provide Joseph Smith with material from a hundred years earlier?? Did the Golden plates exist 100 year before??

People were merely duped into believing that Joseph Smith got material from some golden plates.

There is NO evidence in any recovered manuscripts including the DSS that there was 1ST century material about a character called Jesus, the Son of a Holy Ghost, the Son of God, Jesus the Creator, Universal Savior, Messiah and Lord.

Woah! STOP right there. You are going beyond anything I wrote.

First it ought to be obvious -even to you- that if you claim Justin is a credible witness, then Justin recieved the 'Memoirs' and the 'Acts of Pilate' which he references, from some previous 'unknown characters' writings.

Going off on line of bullshit about Moroni and Joseph Smith has nothing at all to contribute to understanding how Justin came by those writings known to him as the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' and 'The Acts of Pilate'.
Are you really seriously attempting to posit that Justin must have recieved these writings from an angel, just like Joseph Smith claims he did?
Justin makes no such claim. Why would you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Justin Martyr simply believed the Memoirs of the Apostles were written by the Apostles themselves in the 1st century. There is no evidence of 1st century Apostles.

I agree with you on that, nor do I believe that there were any 'christian' apostles in the 1st century.
However it is important to understand that the term 'apostle' was common Greek and occurs in writings as far back as 450 BCE (Herodotus 1.21; 5.38) and was employed in translating the LXX (1 K 14:6) and also appears in Jewish intertestamental writings.

So although there may not have been any actual christian 'apostles' (as we have came to understand the terms) in the 1st century, there were men known as or titled as ἀπόστολος apostolos.

It was a small step for unidentifiable 'unknown character(s)', at an unknown time, -but certainly previous to Justin the Martyr,- to make the claim that ὁ Χριστὸς -a likewise ancient term used for hundreds of years BCE, had indeed came, and had appointed certain men as his ἀπόστολος 'apostles'.
By the evidence, Justin did not invent these terms or claims, but only reported and expounded upon what he had been taught by the writings of other 'unknown characters'.
And given the developed theology which Justin drones on and on and on about, these writings called 'Memoirs' must have been around for some considerable time.
No I am NOT outright stating that they were 1st century writings, but certainly within the first quarter of the 2nd century to have allowed time for Justin to have thouroghly studied them and have arrived at such an elaborate theology as he presents in his writings, by 150 CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The recovered evidence MATCHES my argument. That is exactly what I expected--Nothing from the 1st century about Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

..Unless you want to posit and defend that Justin his self was the first originator and inventor of 'Jesus Christ' and of christianity, and that Justin was the actual sole source of everything to do with christianity?

Justin Martyr wrote c 150 CE so there is a period of 50 years when stories about Jesus could have been composed before coming to Justin.

I cannot go outside the recovered dated evidence. I no longer accept unsubstantiated presumptions.

Why must the Memoirs and Acts of Pilate be composed in the 1st century??

I didn't say it was.
But certainly the terms ὁ Χριστὸς and ὁ ἀπόστολος and the name Ἰησοῦ had been floating around for centuries before 'unknown characters' at an unknown time -(but certainly either before or during that 50 year period)- put this, that, and another together into a 'Gospel'.

Quote:

Why could they NOT be written in the 2nd century between c 100 and c 150 CE and people believed they were composed in the 1st century??

Could have. And I never have claimed they weren't.
But you have often miapprehended my statements that the name Ἰησοῦ was known in the 1st century, and was expected to be the name of ὁ Χριστὸς whenever it was that he would arrive.

Justin Martyr wrote NOTHING of an NT Canon and there is no recovered evidence of any 1st century Jesus story or Canonised Gospels.

Of course not. There was no such thing as any official 'canon' at that early date.
Being as Josephus relates the stories of multiple notorious 'Jesus's' among his countrymen of the past, it is obvious that there were some 'Jesus' stories known in the 1st century. And although some of these Jesus's were apparantly quite masochistic and borderline insane, none quite perfectly fits the insanity of the most well known one.

.

aa5874 · 10-14-2012, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Woah! STOP right there. You are going beyond anything I wrote.

First it ought to be obvious -even to you- that if you claim Justin is a credible witness, then Justin recieved the 'Memoirs' and the 'Acts of Pilate' which he references, from some previous 'unknown characters' writings...

Ok, hold it right there. Look at what you claimed. You are claiming that Justin Martyr got his material from unknown writers from the 1st century or before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

...There were lots of unknown 'characters' in the 1st century and before. These unknown characters are what supplied Justin with that 'christian' material that he writes so much about...

You certainly do NOT have any evidence or knowledge of UNKNOWN 1st century writers.

Please name an UNKNOWN 1ST CENTURY writer that supplied Justin with material for the Memoirs and Acts of Pontius Pilate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Going off on line of bullshit about Moroni and Joseph Smith has nothing at all to contribute to understanding how Justin came by those writings known to him as the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' and 'The Acts of Pilate'.
Are you really seriously attempting to posit that Justin must have recieved these writings from an angel, just like Joseph Smith claims he did?
Justin makes no such claim. Why would you?

Please, what you claimed is bullshit is documented to have happened according to Josdeph Smith. He claimed an Angel Moroni provided Golden plates written since the 5th century.

Now, I have not ever claimed Justin wrote the Memoirs. I specifically stated that the Memoirs could have been composed in the 2nd century and that Justin BELIEVED that they were written by the Apostles in the 1st century the same way people BELIEVED Joseph Smith's Bible was copied from 5th century plates.

Did NOT the Pauline writer claim he did NOT receive his Gospel from no human being??

Even People today BELIEVE the Pauline letters to Churches were composed in the 1st century simply because they ASSUME the Pauline writer is truthful.

Based on the recovered dated evidence The Memoirs of the Apostles could have been written any time between 100 CE and 150 CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

....No I am NOT outright stating that they were 1st century writings, but certainly within the first quarter of the 2nd century to have allowed time for Justin to have thouroghly studied them and have arrived at such an elaborate theology as he presents in his writings, by 150 CE...

Again, look at your previous post. You did not mention the 2nd century at all. You actually stated that Justin got his material from unknown of the 1st century or before. You were going the opposite way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

...There were lots of unknown 'characters' in the 1st century and before. These unknown characters are what supplied Justin with that 'christian' material that he writes so much about...

Again, I will not accept presumptions outside the dated recovered manuscripts.

Mt argument will ONLY be reviewed when NEW evidence is found just like a verdict can be overturned with New Evidence.

My argument based on the recovered dated evidence is that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century or later.

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

10-13-2012, 10:42 AM	#251
sotto voce Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: UK Posts: 3,057	The Romans bumped off all sorts of trash. Or claimed to.

10-13-2012, 08:12 PM	#256
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Nor apparently was the author of the Apology aware of any distinctions in the story version that we are familiar with in the gospels. The collective notion of "Memoirs of the Apostles" leaves out dealing with differing versions. Imagine also that this writer could not name a single "apostle" whose story of Jesus was important enough for "Justin" to talk about. Not a single time, even if the apostles were named Ben, Jack, Elliot or Tom.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.