aa5874

You probably have never read any of my posts before you joined the discussion Similar posts were posted already.

No, I have no problem now. Before my investigation, I had a problem. My problems have all disappeared. Jesus, his disciples and Paul are fiction, that is my verdict.

I regard the TF, (AJ 18.3.3) as a blatant forgery, and the word "Christ" to be the same in AJ 20.9.1.

Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius all claimed the Jews expected the Messiah at around 70 CE, and this expectation may have spurred the War.

Well, if it is questionable that the Jesus movement was significant before 70 CE, then this admission sides with my analysis of fiction.

Eusebius in Church History claimed the Jesus movement was known all over the world, while Jesus was alive. This Church father claimed that some Mark, the supposed author of gMark, was in Alexandria preaching about Jesus, getting many converts and establishing Christian Churches all over Alexandria.

This Mark was doing his missionary work in Alexandria while Philo was still alive. Eusebius claimed Philo documented the converts of Mark, but Eusebius made an ernormous blunder, Philo wrote nothing at all about Jesus, his followers, his teachings or Churches established by Mark. ZERO.

Now, since in his extant writings, Philo never wrote anything at all about the Jesus movement, Eusebius, I deduced, knew he was writing fiction to mis-lead and distort history. There were no Jesus movement in Alexandria during the time of Philo, so Eusebius claimed that the Theraputaea or the Essenes were converts of Mark in Alexandria. However, the Esssenes are not at all linked to Jesus, Josephus and Philo never used the word Jesus when talking about the Essenes.

So, to recap:
1. There is no history of Jesus in non-apologetic sources.
2. There are two instances of forgery of Christ in Josephus.
3. Eusebius presented fiction in Church History about the Jesus movement in Alexandria.

All that is known about Jesus is either nothing or fiction.

Well, if the letters are authentic, then I would expect the information in the letters to reflect truly the sentiments of these Christians. If they claimed that they worshipped Jesus, the crucified, then I would expect Pliny to write that these Christians worshipped Jesus who was crucified. But there is no such report. Pliny's letter do not confirm a Jesus movement. My verdict of fiction has not been disturbed.

What you have ignored, and quite loudly, is that Acts and the epistles may have been written after Tacitus and Suetonius. The tentative dates for ACTS approach the middle of the 2nd century and many link the Epistles to Acts to generate a chronology for Paul.

It is more likely to me that the unknown authors of the NT copied information from other known credible writers or historians to make their anonymous writings seem authentic.

The Synoptics were written late and Acts was written after the Synoptics, but the Church fathers gave an erroneous chronolgy for the Synoptics, Acts and the Epistles.

All we have about Jesus is either nothing or fiction.


There is no account of Jesus of Nazareth in the 1st century by any extant non-apologetic writers and you know that apologetics have the propensity to make false claims about the history of Jesus.

No, I have not provided any corroborative evidence, just information or outrageous asssertions from the NT and Church fathers, and it appears to be completely filled with mis-leading and distorted statements.

The development of the Jesus movement does not necessitate an actual human being to be worshipped as a god, Marcion showed convincingly that the Jesus movement could have been initiated only by the worshipping of the god called Jesus, the unbegotten son of the Cosmocrator, the God greater than the God of the Jews.

So, based on Marcion's success, propagating the phantom, the unbegotten son of the Cosmocrator, then Jesus, the son of the God of Moses could be fiction without affecting Christianity in anyway.

Jesus the man is not needed for Christianity to flourish, but Jesus the god is a must. Christians do not worship men, only gods.

Jesus was not a god, he could only be a man, Christians do not worship men, they therefore do not need Jesus the man.
Jesus the man is unknown, he must be fiction.

Doug Shaver

I'm not sure about Colossians, but outside the inerrantist community, the scholarly consensus seems to be solidly against the authenticity of the pastorals.

Of course that doesn't prove anything, but apologists have no problem whatsoever treating the scholarly as practically infallible whenever it agrees with their dogma.

I have no problem disagreeing with authorities whenever I think I have a good reason to. I am not aware of any good reason to question their judgment about which of the Pauline epistles are authentic.

But, the primary point about the references to Luke is that even if there were no doubt that Paul wrote them, they do not in any way support a claim that Paul attests to Luke's authorship of Acts, or any gospel, or any other book.

spamandham

...still waiting

DevilsAdvocate

So, to restate and expand your recap with likely facts and attempting to minimize opinion and analysis these seem to be some possible findings:

1. There is no credible history of Jesus in non-apologetic sources. Possible non-apologetic sources when mentioning Christians regarded them as benign or superstitious and never addressed any details of personality or practices except perhaps with regard to Roman law or policy.

2. Apologetic writers as a whole provide a mixed view of Jesus and seem prone to exagerration or mis-information, but none deny that the character or followers existed in some form.

3. Josephus presents one of the only known ancient non-apologetic sources to name Jesus. There are two mentions of Christ in Josephus. They are possible forgeries. Some scholars would view it as much translators license, but the reference is extant in all known Josephus texts.

4. Jewish apologists from very ancient times have written to deny the status of the Jesus movement. They have alternate accounts to those in the gospels mentioning specific events parallelled in the Gospels and the name Yeshua from the area of Bethlehem residing in Galilee and stirring up trouble.

5. Eusebius presented likely errors or overstatements in Church History about the Jesus movement in Alexandria, and in Church History made the unlikely claim that the Jesus movement was known all over the world, while Jesus was alive. This seems contrary to the canonized accounts, but we have already established that Eusebius was biased at best and perhaps fraudulent in some ways, so this is not reliable.

6. It is likely that the unknown authors of the NT copied information from other known credible writers or historians to make their own accounts. This in fact is stated by the author of Luke/Acts. The reliability of the text is therefore limited to the reliability of the sources, the interpretation of the compiler, and subsequent scribes and translators.

7. Early chronologies are likely erroneous for the Synoptics, Acts, and the Epistles. (what about John?)

8. Representation of the view of Jesus as a god was not universal even in apologetic sources, though it is alluded in both Pliny and Josephus.

DevilsAdvocate

No disagreement there... And all sides like to claim inerrancy and proof based on scholars, scientists, authorities, experts, writings... whenever it suits their purposes, while discounting them at will if they do not. ... Still, I hesitate to accept one view by "scholars" as undisputed, when there are other scholars to argue and other plausible views.

Personally, I see no glaring inconsistencies in the Pauline epistles (not considering Hebrews one). From the structure, the philosophy, the development of thought and argument over the possible timeline, the theology, the world view of an author with the the Jew/Gentile background claimed, the possible use of scribes or colleagues to pen the bulk of the letter according to a senior author's approval (there is internal evidence of this) ... Some do appear to be compiled from 2 or more letters.


The argument can be made, but an argument is not proof. I think it rash to dismiss them as from multiple sources or fabrications when there are other credible possibilities.

DevilsAdvocate

You state this in the view of the Roman Catholic church. So what about the eastern church, Coptics, and others? They would hold that the early church was the true catholic church and the Roman Catholics drifted away and became recognized as apostate by about the 10th century. The eastern churches then became the holders of the documents in the closest to original form, and would claim to have the most original theology.

The gospels and epistles are largely about the philosophical differences between the Jews and what became the christians and did seem to originate in the general region (?)...perhaps as transition documents. Would you hold them as elaborate forgeries to further the political unity under the revised hellenist philosophy? If they are this, why could they not represent the collection of documents about the experiences of individuals in trying to further their views ... even if they are somewhat fantacized through different renditions?

aa5874

If you read Justin Martyr's First Apology and Dialogue with Trypho, you will find passages quoted from the "memoirs of the apostles" to be almost identical to gMatthew (KJV), gLuke and gMark to a lesser extent.

For example, First Apology 15 Compare to Matthew 6.19 I have discovered many passages, over 50 of them, that are almost word for word in the Synoptics that are quoted as "memoirs of the apostles" in Justin's writings, yet he never implied that these memoirs had known authors.

On the other hand, in First Apology and Dialogue, Justin wrote the names of many books of the OT. For example Justin mentioned Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Zephaniah, Micah, Hezekiah, Enoch, Joshua and Amos.

And to further show that Justin likely would have disclosed the authors of the "MEMOIRS", Justin mentioned a book called The Acts of Pontius Pilate that he claimed had information about Pilate with respect to Jesus.

It would appear to me that the "memoirs of the apostles" were anonymous when Justin Martyr quoted from them.

No, is not my position at all that Marcion is a fictional character, I am of the opinion that Marcion's history may have been distorted. My position is that the "memoirs" were anonymous, then the name "Paul" was added sometime after Justin's writings and a fictitious history was assembled called Acts of the Apostles to try to authenticate "Paul".

Tertullian and Eusebius gave erroneous information about the date of writing of the Gospels, and never condemned Acts as fiction, these authors, then in my opinion have the propensity to distort the history of Marcion.

mountainman

There is however a very strange and consistent presentation
of Jesus in the apocrypha, variously as a slave master, a little
child who appears and then says something and then disappears,
as a dispenser of aggressively powerful christian angels, who
perform various acts of terror, from mass murder of Jewish priests,
to the suspension of prostitutes by their hair at city gates (of
course while the Apostles walk by un-molested).

A very very strange god is presented in Jesus by the Apocrypha.
I wonder why that is?

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

DevilsAdvocate

Good point. Word of mouth oral transmission and histories were effective to some extent, but can also result in some pretty wild tales. Truths that were not wanted for public consumption coul dalso be spread and embellished.

Are they any proof that the stories were complete fabrications?

mountainman

We have two sets of stories. The canon - the one's bound by Constantine, and the apocrypha (non canonical) - the one's that were not bound. These two sets of stories have markedly different characteristics, the full nature of which has yet to be analysed coherently and consistently. If the first set is fiction, the second set is romantic fiction. The phrase "mutilated bible" (When referring to the common "BIBLE") refers to presentation of the first set as representative of the whole, which it is certainly not. In short, we need a political theory to sort the two sets out. I have had some ideas on that.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown