Freethought & Rationalism Archive

patcleaver · 05-28-2008, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

The turning of water into wine in the marriage of Cana appears to be conscious paralleling of Jesus Spirit "power" to that of Dionysus.

One of the problems here is that the earliest clear example of Dionysus specifically turning water into wine is found in The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon by the 2nd century novelist Achilles Tatius. It is very possible that Achilles Tatius is here imitating the Gospel of John.

Andrew Criddle

It is much more likely that John copied from Dionysus because the religion of Dionysus was a large religion until the 4th century, and there is no good evidence that Christianity was anything more than a minor cult until the 4th century, and there is no evidence that the changing of water into wine was contained in any of the gospels until the 4th century.

Ben C Smith · 05-28-2008, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

It is much more likely that John copied from Dionysus because the religion of Dionysus was a large religion until the 4th century....

Which has exactly nothing to do with whether the wine miracle was attributed to Dionysus by century I.

Quote:

...and there is no good evidence that Christianity was anything more than a minor cult until the 4th century....

Which again has exactly nothing to do with whether the wine miracle was attributed to Dionysus by century I.

Quote:

...and there is no evidence that the changing of water into wine was contained in any of the gospels until the 4th century.

Does P75 lack this miracle? It dates to century II or III.

Ben.

Toto · 05-28-2008, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Tatian seems to have been using a text similar to our John for his Diatessaron, independently of Irenaeus at around the same time or earlier. I think Irenaeus is rather too late for our present text of John.

However, even if FTSOA our present text of John is late 2nd century, I doubt if the narrative of changing water into wine was added as part of the late stages of redaction.

It is more likely part of a collection of miracles (the supposed Signs Gospel) which goes back to the earliest stages of the composition of John.

Andrew Criddle

or the writer got the story from the same place Achilles Tatius did...

It seems more likely that the author of John took that miracle from the Dionysos legend. Dionysos changed three vats of water to wine, and did it overnight, out of the sight of the general public. Jesus changed twice as many, and did his miracle instantly in plain sight. It would be puzzling for Dionysos to copy Jesus' miracle, but downgrade it.

aa5874 · 05-28-2008, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There are NO primary sources for Jesus as only human.

The so-called early Christian writers have declared that the Jesus of the NT was a God, and this includes the Jesus of gMark and the "Pauls".

Why back up anything that is said, when you can just assert it without evidence?

The NT is there for everyone to read. It contains all the primary information about the God called Jesus.

Matthew 1.18

Quote:

Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Mark 1.1

Quote:

The begininning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Mark 3.11

Quote:

And the unclean spirits whenever they saw him, fell down before him and cried out, saying, You are the Son of God.

Luke 1.35

Quote:

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the Power of the Highest will overshadow you, therefore also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

John 10.30

Quote:

I and my Father are one.

Romans1.1

Quote:

Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle of God.......concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of Holiness and by the ressurection of the dead.

The primary sources all claim Jesus was a God.

thedistillers · 05-28-2008, 08:39 PM

Were the primary sources written in English? I only see English in your post.

Zeichman · 05-28-2008, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

...and there is no evidence that the changing of water into wine was contained in any of the gospels until the 4th century.

Does P75 lack this miracle? It dates to century II or III.

Ben.

I know P66 has it, which dates to the same era. I'm pretty sure that's in p75 as well.

Ben C Smith · 05-28-2008, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The primary sources all claim Jesus was a God.

You yourself just quoted at least one source that does not claim Jesus was (a) God. In the very same post where you made this claim.

Ben.

Brakeu · 05-28-2008, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianrein

We do not have much solid evidence for the existence of Jesus. Many of the stories in the Gospels are obviously not true - like the trial on Passover or the virgin birth - and Jesus' contemporaries are otherwise quite silent on his existence. But one argument for his existence which seems hard to refute is, quite simply, the fact that the Gospels and letters exist and that a whole slew of churches had sprung up by the end of the first century. Within 120 years of Jesus' death, a copy of the Gospel of John (the last to be written) had made it to a provincial town on the Nile in central Egypt (the oldest surviving copy of anything in the New Testament, that I know of). Within 50 years of his death he had whole crowds of followers in Rome. The fact that a completely imaginary person could cause such a massive religious movement to spring up within a few decades of his imaginary death boggles the imagination - it's almost as miraculous as turning water into wine. I am still waiting for an explanation from the "Jesus never existed" people of how, quite simply, the Christian faith spread so quickly and successfully if there was not at least a wandering preacher guy who got executed somewhere in Judea.

(For what it's worth, that's what I suspect Jesus was - a wandering prophet who said a lot of stuff, drew a following, and got killed. Nothing more, but not much less.)

I think it's similar to what happened with Buddha-by the end of his lifetime, he's attracted many thousands of followers, and withen 50 years of his death had spread Buddhism all across the Indian subcontinent to perhaps millions of followers.
Charisma and the promise of some kind of lasting salvation in a divided world attract people powerfully.

aa5874 · 05-28-2008, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The primary sources all claim Jesus was a God.

You yourself just quoted at least one source that does not claim Jesus was (a) God. In the very same post where you made this claim.

Ben.

Yeah. Which one?

The one which claimed Jesus was the offspring of a Holy Ghost?

I think the author wanted his/her readers to beileve that Holy Ghosts can cause Gods to be reproduced when they mate with women who are virgins.

And I did not want to quote the entire book due to time constraints.

aa5874 · 05-28-2008, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianrein

We do not have much solid evidence for the existence of Jesus.

We have NO solid evidence for Jesus as just a human, but as the offspring of the Holy Ghost, in the NT and in the writings of the early church fathers, like Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Clement and Eusebius.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brainrein

Many of the stories in the Gospels are obviously not true - like the trial on Passover or the virgin birth - and Jesus' contemporaries are otherwise quite silent on his existence.

The entire life of Jesus appears not to be true, from his Holy Ghost conception to his Ghost like ascension.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianrein

But one argument for his existence which seems hard to refute is, quite simply, the fact that the Gospels and letters exist and that a whole slew of churches had sprung up by the end of the first century. Within 120 years of Jesus' death, a copy of the Gospel of John (the last to be written) had made it to a provincial town on the Nile in central Egypt (the oldest surviving copy of anything in the New Testament, that I know of). Within 50 years of his death he had whole crowds of followers in Rome. The fact that a completely imaginary person could cause such a massive religious movement to spring up within a few decades of his imaginary death boggles the imagination - it's almost as miraculous as turning water into wine. I am still waiting for an explanation from the "Jesus never existed" people of how, quite simply, the Christian faith spread so quickly and successfully if there was not at least a wandering preacher guy who got executed somewhere in Judea.

There is Joseph Smith who started a religion at around 1830 CE using Jesus Christ as their Saviour and now there over 10 million followers of Mormonism.

None of the followers of Mormonism ever saw Jesus Christ physically alive. Believers, as the name implies, only require belief to become followers of Jesus.

There are the Seventh Day Adventists whose religion was started about the 1830 also believing in Jesus Christ. None of the Seventh Day Adventists saw Jesus physically alive, yet there are millions of believers today.

All the Religions that are the offshoot of Protestanism never encountered a living Jesus, yet there are hundreds of millions of believers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianrein

(For what it's worth, that's what I suspect Jesus was - a wandering prophet who said a lot of stuff, drew a following, and got killed. Nothing more, but not much less.)

There is no evidence for your suspicion.

And where do you suspect Jesus wandered?
In Egypt?

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

05-28-2008, 08:39 PM	#385
thedistillers Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 586	Were the primary sources written in English? I only see English in your post.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.