kcdad

Do you not understand that your assertions are irrational, of no real value, or unsubstantiated once you cannot show the basis or the sources of antiquity on which your claim was made?

Your claims are made based on a set of documents known to be edited by the Roman Church, redacted and amended by the same Imperial Organization. You fire random out of context verses as if they were shotgun pellets aiming at nothing and hoping to hit everything.
The truth is, there is no unity to that particular collection of writings, despite the Church's insistence that there is, and to try and argue conflicts between texts indicates the whole is false is a straw man . Of course the whole if false. There is no "whole" anymore than to suggest every book in your city's library must agree on everything.

All of the commentaries on that "whole" become rather inconsequential when you realize that they are arguing, as you are, that the whole is a whole. Of course they can't agree on anything... how could they?

One must take a critical approach and realize that there are other ways to view ancient writings, rather then as divine hand me down "How to" books.

Loomis

Your observations have not gone unnoticed.

aa5874

You are just parroting what I write without presenting any sources or historical information.

You have not pointed out a single out-of-context verse.

You are just making blind unsubstantiated claims.


Please point out the precise information about Jesus that is true or is historical in the NT and the parts about Jesus that were edited, redacted and amended by the Roman Church.

If there is no unity in the collection of writings why have you claimed to rely on Mark.

You have exposed your weak logics and reasoning.

It has been deduced that canonical Mark has been manipulated.

You have destroyed your own arguments by claiming to RELY on Mark.

Loomis

Cool! Please entertain this:

In Romans 10:9-13 Paul quotes Joel 2:32 LXX and tells his readers, “Whoever calls on the name of the lord will be saved” and assures them, “There is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all.” Paul’s claim requires the word ‘Lord’ to be original to Joel 2:32 - but it isn’t. In the original Hebrew Joel 2:32 is telling his readers to call on the proper name ‘Yahweh’.

Now if you substitute ‘Yahweh’ into Romans 10:9-13 then Paul’s statement becomes meaningless, incoherent, and absurd. It only makes sense with the word ‘Lord’.







Think about it.








Because if Paul knew that Joel 2:32 was talking about the proper name ‘Yahweh’ then that means that Paul was a fraud and a charlatan in Romans 10:9-13. But if Paul did not know that Joel 2:32 was talking about the proper name ‘Yahweh’ then that means that Paul was a fraud and a charlatan in Philippians 3:5 when he claimed that he ‘came from the people of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin’ and was a ‘Hebrew of Hebrews’.



Am I making any sense?

Either way Paul’s credibility is shot.

grog225

First, let me say that I was astonished that you might give "aa" some credance, so because of that I am motivated to complete a response to him.

Second, what do you mean by Paul's crediblity? I don't think Paul is a saint. He is motivated by self-interest. He apparently is being accused of wrongdoing in some ways, he even says that "to the Jew, I appear as a Jew". Yes, Paul could be a charlatan. No doubt about it. I have no problems with that. My purpose in reading Paul is to excavate what he attests are his beliefs about Jesus Christ. Might he present different pictures of that? might he lie to make his message more agreeable to one congregation vs. another? Absolutely. We have to consider all those points. However, he would have to present those points against a background of historical reality or he would not have any credibility with the congregations themselves. And from that we might be able to excavate what "Christian" beliefs were at the time of Paul.

aa doesn't like it when I say that my observations are tenuous. But, note, I am being honest about that. The quality of the evidence is such that we can only make tenuous claims about what first century Christians believed. I only tenuously by a thread hold Paul's writings to be authentic (some of them) and from the first century. If that could be proved not to be true, well, I'd have to rethink my beliefs.

Now, here is a point to what "aa" said: He claims I can't accept Paul because there is no early attestation. But at the same time, he claims authority for the Gospels and Acts, even claiming that they are written by eyewitnesses, yet there is no attestation for Acts until 180 and the Gospels until mid-second century. So he has a fatal inconsistency in his thinking. So his critique of my use of Paul is simply opportunistic, with no consistency behind it. The proof of Paul is that the letters exist. Absent an argument against the letters, we accept them. If lack of attestation removes them from consideration, the same is true of much of NT material.

Now all that being said, my position is that Paul fits into a developing picture, an evolution of thought, that became known as 'Christian'. We can find the precursors to Christian beliefs in the works of, for example, Philo of Alexandria. We also have extant Jewish works from around the advent of this era, such as the Wisdom of Solomon, that, too, show an evolution of the idea of the "Son of God" subjected to a shameful death. 1 Cor 2 fits very nicely into the beliefs of the author of the Wisdom of Solomon Chapter 2:

[12] Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our education.
[13] He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord.
[14] He was made to reprove our thoughts.
[15] He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, his ways are of another fashion.
[16] We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father.
[17] Let us see if his words be true: and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him.
[18] For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies.
[19] Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience.
[20] Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected.
[21] Such things they did imagine, and were deceived: for their own wickedness hath blinded them.
[22] As for the mysteries of God, they kn ew them not: neither hoped they for the wages of righteousness, nor discerned a reward for blameless souls.
[23] For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.
[24] Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it.


Compare:

1 Cor2:6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

My point here is not whether or not Paul is to be trusted, but is he articulating a Jesus-belief that fits into an evolutionary scenario. And he does. Whether the author is Paul or not, this is evidence of a Jesus-belief that supports the hyopthesis that the idea of "Jesus Christ" emerged out of the mix of Jewish platonism and greek paganism (I lean more toward the former, with gnosticism being the basis for Christianity).

grog225

Which Church writers? The author himself makes no such claim. Why wouldn't the author claim that if it were the case? And, if you are going to discount the writings of Paul based on an argument from silence, how can you claim authenticity of Acts, written by an eyewitness, when there is absolutely no indication that this work existed prior to 180 CE? Seems entirely gratuitous to me.

No, I don't. You are correct about that. Paul himself does not indicate when he was writing, as far as I know. And there are reasons to believe that the Pauline material is all fabricated. I do grant that. However, we can't prove that, so without good cause, I accept Paul's letters as having been written by Paul (but tenuously, as I have said, because I am being HONEST about the state of the evidence).

I'd say fully 100 years, since it is apparent that Justin Martyr doesn't know it. But this seems to be a non-sequiter. Why would your premise demand the conclusion?

You fail to really hold a consistent position. I do think that Acts was written after mid-second century. I don't find that disturbing to my point of view. I'm not sure why any of it is "disturbing" unless you have some sort of emotional attachment to a particular position, which I do not.

Well, my tenuous hypothesis would be because they were trying to establish themselves as the authentic Church of Christ. They were creating the foundation myths to sustain an institution.

?? Were you not arguing earlier that Acts must be accepted as a TRUE BIOGRAPHY?

It makes it difficult to argue with you, when your position shifts from one moment to the next. (And you, Loomis, think there is a credible position in here somewhere? I really fail to see it)

Perhaps, again this is an argument from silence. My position would be that the Gospels were written to establish a biography for their godman. To position him on earth contra those who claimed him to be either a spirit/ghost/phantam or the Christianity of the more logos/wisdom variety.



Ok, I grant you that. But so what? If your position is that these were fabricated then it makes no difference. But so he did. But this raises a good point. Traditional views are that Paul converted in the years immediately following the crucifixion, as early as 2 or 3 years after. What "church of god" existed then? Either Christianity had emerged much earlier (for it to already be called a church) or Paul is referring to something else.




Yes! you are right about that. However, Paul did have occasion (see Galatians 4). My point here is that Mary and Pilate are not attested to until the second century (and my position is that the gospels are all second century, or nearly anyway).

My position is that the Risen Christ who was revealed was the only Christ at the time of "the Pauline writers". They had no concept of any of the gospel story. We even have second century Christian writers who apparently either don't know the gospel story or discount (see Theophilis, Minucius Felix, for example)

Of course not. That isn't my argument. My argument is that the writers present fundamentally different characters.

an event that has no external support outside religiously inspired material. In fact, even within that genre of Christian writing, the idea that Jesus Christ was crucified by Pilate in Jerusalem emerges later, not earlier.

That is impossible. You are asking me to show a negative. If Paul did not hold such a belief, you would expect him to not mention it. He does not mention it. However, Romans 13, to me, falsifies the idea that Paul thinks Jesus was crucified by the Romans. 1 Corinthians 2:8, tells me that Paul believes Jesus was crucified by the elemental spirits who rule the evil material world. He also seems to believe that this was kept secret by God until such a time that he revealed it to mankind through the Spirit and the Risen Christ who appeared to chosen apostles such as Paul (this is a repeated theme in Paul, but certainly is best expressed in 1 Cor 2, in my opinion).

Absurd question. My position is that the idea that Jesus was crucified on earth under Pilate did not exist at the time of Paul's writing (or the Pauline writers, whatever). I also believe that the idea that Jesus was assassinated in Dallas, Texas by a mob inspired conspiracy did not exist. I cannot find the Pauline writers denying either.

I don't hold that position at all.


Why? Because I made the point of Joshua and Jesus being the same name? lol? You missed the point.

This is an instance that I believe has been demonstrated to be an interpolation. Acceptance of that point of view plays a role in how I've come to view this material. That was why I referred you to Birger Pearson, but clearly, you have no recourse to scholarly material. Any criteria for interpolation fits this particular passage. Most of all, 1 Thess 2:14-15 contradicts Paul's point of view repeated elsewhere numerous times.


Well.hmm. Ok. According to Tertullian, the first mention of any Gospel at all, the first instance of a biography of the life of Jesus Christ was Marcion's use of a version of the Gospel of Luke. Marcion's gospel was just called the Gospel of the Lord (not by Luke). Attached to that Gospel were the first collection of Paul's letters that we know of. Now, of course, Tertullain doesn't say "this was the first gospel", he just says that Marcion used a flawed Gospel. But we know of no gospel being used before Marcion. Tertullian could be wrong, but then his extensive quotes from Marcion's gospel must have either been made up by him or there was some sort of forgery available to Tertullian at that time.

Lol. You have such a limited understanding of what I am saying. I do not regard Paul's words as facts. And why would Marcion's use of Paul's works change the credibility of them any more than anyone else's? Someone collected them, if they were indeed collected and not manufactured. Anyone who collected them would have an interest in them. Anyone who had an interest in them could have altered them.

Well, I do. Until you can prove otherwise, I accept Paul as the author of at least 4 and probably 7 of the writings attributed to him.

Yes. Acts was written after Antiquities because of the demonstrable reliance of the former on the latter. I have not argued that Marcion may have written the Pauline material. I don't believe he did. I do believe the Pauline material passed through Marcion's hands and was used by him. Knox and Tyson have argued, persuasively in my mind, that Marcion held materials that were added to by later Christians, both to the Gospel of Luke and to the letters (see Harnack's reconstruction of Galatians, based on Tertullians excerpts). What Marcion did to them, we can't really know because we have nothing from before Marcion.

kcdad

Because Mark stands as the primary source for the others.

Sorry you can't follow it.
Let me make it a little more clear for you.

I rely on Mark to be more authoritative than those texts drawn from it.
I believe Mark to be less manipulated than the others.

aa5874

You appear not to understand the difference between authenticity and reporting [b]exactly what is found written in Acts, the Pauline writings or the writings from the Church.

The post-ascension activities of the Apostles and Saul/Paul are found in Acts of the Apostles. Even if you believe Acts is fiction there is no external non-apologetic historical source for the apostles and Saul/Paul.

Now, the time of writing of a document is not related to its veracity and I DID NOT claim that the author Acts was an eyewitness. It is the Church writers who claimed that the author of Acts was a close companion of Saul/Paul and traveled with him.

Now according to the Church writers some Luke, a pysician, wrote Acts of the Apostles.

This is a writer using the name Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" And this is a Pauline writer in Colossians 4:14 - And this is Eusebius on Luke, the author of Acts of the Apostles in Church History 2. The source for Saul/Paul is the NT and the Church writings. You would have had no idea what the supposed Saul/Paul did or said unless you read those writings.

Likewise, you would have had no idea what Homer's Achilles did or said unless you read the writings of Homer.

In the canonical Acts of the Apostles, Saul/Paul's Jesus is the same Jesus of the Gospels who was crucified on earth, died was raised the third day and ascended through the clouds.

In the canonical Pauline Epistles, a writer claimed that Jesus was crucified, killed by the Jews, and raised from the dead on the third day.

In the canonical Gospels, Jesus was crucified because of the Jews, died and was raised on the third day and ascended through the clouds.

It must be patently obvious that the NT is about the same Jesus.

From where did you get such information? There are no historical sources that mention that Christ was crucified without a body under Pilate. The Pauline writer claimed it was revealed to him that Jesus was betrayed in the night and supped presumably with his disciples.

The Pauline writer appear to have knowledge of the Jesus story.

He claimed he persecuted the FAITH that he now PREACHED.

Now,Theophilus appear not to even believe in Jesus of the NT and his writings are not part of the NT CANON. And Caecilius in Minucius Felix's Octavius was aware of the Jesus story.

This Caecilius in Minucius Felix "Octavius" 9
So, why don't you believe that Jesus was assasinated in Dallas when you believe events that are not found in the NT or Church writings?

The NT is about an entity called Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, who was crucified on earth in Judea during the days of Pilate and the reign of Tiberius, was raised from the dead on the third day and ascended through the clouds.

Saul/Paul met Jesus after he had already ascended through the clouds after he was blinded to reality by a bright light. Saul/Paul then began to preach about the very Christ he persecuted.



No. it is you who must show that Paul wrote AT LEAST four. You have no idea who wrote any of the Epistles with the name Paul. All that is known or deduced so far is that one person may have written most of the Epistles.

aa5874

Well, since you claim gMark stands as the primary source and that you RELY on Mark, let us see what is in gMark.

In gMark 1.10, the Spirit like a dove descended upon Jesus and the heavens began to talk.

Mark 1.13--Jesus is tempted by the Devil in the wilderness with wild beasts and angels.

Mark 1.23-25--Unclean Spirits recognise Jesus as the Holy one of God.

Mark 1.40-42--Jesus instantly heals a leper by simply talking.

Mark 2. 1-11---Jesus instantly heals a man with paralysis with words.

Mark 3.1-7--Jesus instantly healed one with a withered hand by words.

Mark 4.37-41--Jesus talks to a storm at sea and it becomes calm.

Mark 5.1-16--Jesus drowns 2000 pigs by request of devils.

Mark 5.22-33--Jesus instantly heals a woman with "gyno" problems by a mere touch of his garment.

Mark 5.35-43---Jesus bring a dead girl back to life just by saying "arise".

Mark 6.34-44--Jesus feeds 5000 men with 5 loaves and 2 fish.

Mark 6.48-50--Jesus walks on water and the disciples saw him.

Mark 7.32-34--Jesus uses spit to make someone talk better.

Mark 8.1-21--Jesus feeds 4000 men with 7 loaves.

Mark 8. 22-26--Jesus uses spit to make the blind see.

Mark 9.2---Jesus transfigures and two dead prophets come to life.

Mark 9.7---A cloud talks to Jesus as a God.

Mark 9.17-29--Jesus instantly heals a dumb, deaf epileptic.

Mark 10.46-52--Jesus instantly heals the blind.

Mark 16-6---Jesus is RISEN.

Mark 16.19 ---Jesus ascends to heaven and sits on the right hand of God.


Once you admit that you rely on Mark, then you RELY on fiction.

Once you admit that Mark is the primary source for the others, then the others are primarily fiction.

Well, Mark has the least chapters of the Gospels so there were less chapters to manipulate.

Please tell me what is authoritative about Mark when it is not even likely that an author named Mark existed in the 1st century who was a disciple of Peter. Peter was a fictitious character in the Jesus story.

The Canonical Gospel according to Mark may have been invented by the Roman Church.

The "Memoirs of the Apostles" in the writings of Justin Martyr may have predated the Gospel according to Mark who was an invented disciple of the invented Peter, the first bishop of Rome.

This is Eusebius on how gMark was written in "Church History" 3.39 In effect, the Mark you RELY on may have been manipulated, or as you said, " edited by the Roman Church, redacted and amended by the same Imperial Organization".

ALL OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK is from PETER, the 1st BISHOP OF ROME, the same IMPERIAL ORGANISATION.

kcdad

Yeah yeah and George Washington had wooden teeth, threw a silver dollar across the Delaware River, and chopped down a cherry tree, and Davey Crockett killed himself a bear when he was only three... we have been through all this.

Yes, Mark was edited as well, however Peter was not the Bishop of Rome, he was killed there by the Romans. WHY would it be important to call Peter the First Bishop of Rome??? CUI BONO?