Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Zenaphobe · 11-15-2009, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

How exactly is Judas' betrayal contrary to Christian interests? You do know that "Judas" is how you say "Judah" (i.e. "Jew") in Greek, right? Assuming that Paul was writing before the gospels were written, he seems to be unaware of any sort of betrayal. As a matter of fact, none of the epistles written in the first century seem to be aware of any betrayal, much less a betrayal by someone named Judas.

Judas' betrayal works just as easily as a literary/allegorical invention of Mark. It's not very hard to go from "the Jews betrayed Jesus" to "a Jew betrayed Jesus" to "Judas betrayed Jesus".

Actually, based on the Pauline Epistles, it was revealed to someone using the name Paul that Jesus was betrayed even in the night.

1Co 11:23 -

Quote:

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same NIGHT in which he was BETRAYED took bread..

Paul could not have received such information from heaven or a non-human source.

Paul most likely received the information about the betrayal in the night and the Last Supper from an human earthly source.

According to the Church writers Paul was aware of gLuke, and the passage about the betrayal in the night and The Last Supper in 1 Corinthians is similar to a passage in gLuke, where certain words used in 1 Corinthians 11.23-25 are only found in Luke 22.19-20.

The Pauline writers were aware of the betrayal as found in gLuke.

If the writer(s) of 1 Corinthians were aware of gLuke, would that mean that gLuke was written earlier than average dating (80-130) or was I Cor. written later than average dating(50-60)?

I'm going by the dates here- http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html
and confess I don't know how much consensus there is on the dates given.
Thanks.

show_no_mercy · 11-15-2009, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Actually, based on the Pauline Epistles, it was revealed to someone using the name Paul that Jesus was betrayed even in the night.

1Co 11:23 -

Paul could not have received such information from heaven or a non-human source.

Paul most likely received the information about the betrayal in the night and the Last Supper from an human earthly source.

According to the Church writers Paul was aware of gLuke, and the passage about the betrayal in the night and The Last Supper in 1 Corinthians is similar to a passage in gLuke, where certain words used in 1 Corinthians 11.23-25 are only found in Luke 22.19-20.

The Pauline writers were aware of the betrayal as found in gLuke.

If the writer(s) of 1 Corinthians were aware of gLuke, would that mean that gLuke was written earlier than average dating (80-130) or was I Cor. written later than average dating(50-60)?

I'm going by the dates here- http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html
and confess I don't know how much consensus there is on the dates given.
Thanks.

See spin's take on this passage, which I think is a pretty convincing argument that this part is post-Pauline interpolation.

aa5874 · 11-15-2009, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Actually, based on the Pauline Epistles, it was revealed to someone using the name Paul that Jesus was betrayed even in the night.

1Co 11:23 -

Paul could not have received such information from heaven or a non-human source.

Paul most likely received the information about the betrayal in the night and the Last Supper from an human earthly source.

According to the Church writers Paul was aware of gLuke, and the passage about the betrayal in the night and The Last Supper in 1 Corinthians is similar to a passage in gLuke, where certain words used in 1 Corinthians 11.23-25 are only found in Luke 22.19-20.

The Pauline writers were aware of the betrayal as found in gLuke.

If the writer(s) of 1 Corinthians were aware of gLuke, would that mean that gLuke was written earlier than average dating (80-130) or was I Cor. written later than average dating(50-60)?

gLuke was written late, the author implied that others had written about Jesus before him, therefore it logically follows that once Paul was aware of gLuke that he was chronologically after gLuke.

And the author of a Pauline Epistles claimed there were people in Christ before him.

Once gLuke is dated 80-130 CE, then 1 Corinthians should be dated after 80-130 CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

I'm going by the dates here- http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html
and confess I don't know how much consensus there is on the dates given.
Thanks.

I know of no consensus about Jesus and Paul that is cast in stone. In fact, the consensus on Jesus and Paul may be based on faith, not historical information from non-apologetic sources of antiquity.

You may be surprised to learn that Paul is the sole corroborative source for Paul, even though it has been deduced that more than one person used the name Paul to write Epistles.

Zenaphobe · 11-21-2009, 05:21 PM

I've checked back in with the originator of the claims in the OP and he said there were some interesting points made.

He also brought up this quote which I have seen has been used here in the past,

Quote:

"…if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."
Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review, pp. 199–200. 1977

Since this claim was made 32 years ago I asked if any new discoveries have arisen since then to move the debate either way and his reply was that just about all new material bolsters the case for the HJ. I've asked for examples, but does anyone know what he might be referring to?

Thanks.

Toto · 11-21-2009, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

I've checked back in with the originator of the claims in the OP and he said there were some interesting points made.

He also brought up this quote which I have seen has been used here in the past,

Quote:

"…if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."
Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review, pp. 199–200. 1977

Since this claim was made 32 years ago I asked if any new discoveries have arisen since then to move the debate either way and his reply was that just about all new material bolsters the case for the HJ. I've asked for examples, but does anyone know what he might be referring to?

Thanks.

There is no "new material" unless you want to include obvious frauds like the James Ossuary. To the contrary, the tendency in NT scholarship has been to move away from claiming any historical content to the gospels, quite the opposite from his claim.

Doherty addresses that quote here. He points out that Grant wrote before 1980, when it became "increasingly recognized by critical New Testament scholarship that there is little if anything that is reliably identifiable as historical in the Gospels, that virtually everything can be seen as midrash on Old Testament themes and passages."

Your friend should read that link, and also the beginning of Alleged Scholarly Refutations of Jesus Mythicism, where Doherty traces Grant's sources.

Zenaphobe · 11-21-2009, 06:49 PM

Thanks Toto, I knew I could depend on someone here to point me in the right direction.

I really wish this fellow had time to come by and make a go of defending his position. I feel kind of inadequate in my understanding of the MJ/HJ debate.

aa5874 · 11-21-2009, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

I've checked back in with the originator of the claims in the OP and he said there were some interesting points made.

He also brought up this quote which I have seen has been used here in the past,

Quote:

"…if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."
Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review, pp. 199–200. 1977

Since this claim was made 32 years ago I asked if any new discoveries have arisen since then to move the debate either way and his reply was that just about all new material bolsters the case for the HJ. I've asked for examples, but does anyone know what he might be referring to?

Thanks.

But, the quote you presented appears to be filled with erroneous information, there is no abundant of evidence for the historicity of Jesus. In fact, there is no extant non-apologetic source that mentions Jesus of Nazareth.

Please ask for an itemised list of the abundance of evidence for Jesus of Nazareth external of the NT and the Church writers.

The list will come back blank or with forged passages found in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1.

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

11-21-2009, 06:49 PM	#26
Zenaphobe Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: In the NC trailer park Posts: 6,631	Thanks Toto, I knew I could depend on someone here to point me in the right direction. I really wish this fellow had time to come by and make a go of defending his position. I feel kind of inadequate in my understanding of the MJ/HJ debate.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.