Yuri Kuchinsky

Fine, this gives us something definite to work with...

Of course you realise that, since Pliny was persecuting Christians in some far-away corner of the empire already in 112 CE, this means that we need to look for the origins of this cult much earlier.

So where did this cult originate then? Do you agree that it started in Israel?

That's quite a telling admission... Does anyone else of the mythicists know?

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Peter,

Your opinion depends on a particular interpretation of what Tacitus said. Moreover, we cannot simply assume that Peter and Paul died in this particular persecution.

So what if they didn't die in this particular persecution? You'll also need to account for this possibility, as well.

Best,

Yuri.

Toto

No - the cult is more likely to have started in the Jewish diaspora in the Roman Empire. But I think that fact is lost to history and will never be established to anyone's satisfaction.

Telling? Why?

Yuri Kuchinsky

Wow, NOGO, I'm impressed!

Or maybe it was just designed as a means to discredit the original disciples? (By later editors?)

Hmm... interesting.

I'm not playing any games. This is a serious discussion.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, that's yet another telling admission...

I find these admissions to be quite telling because there seems to be quite a strange disconnect between what the mythicists admit not to know, and what they claim to know with certainty. On the one hand, they seem to admit that they don't know many of the very important particulars of how Christianity originated, but, on the other, they know for sure there was no HJ.

Yours,

Yuri.

Amaleq13

There is no "disconnect" between acknowledging the lack of credible/reliable evidence and concluding that a Mythical Jesus better explains what is known.

Honest proponents of a Historical Jesus should be just as willing to admit the lack of credible/reliable evidence. There would also be no "disconnect" between that admission and their opinion that a Historical Jesus better explains what is known.

That someone finds it surprising or novel that a mythicist recognizes the lack of credible/reliable evidence suggests that the individual is insufficiently familiar with the actual arguments put forth by Doherty and others to criticize them. Establishing that the evidence is not as credible or reliable as some HJ proponents argue/assume is a common feature of just about any mythicist claim. In fact, it is hard to understand how someone could be unaware of the ubiquitous nature of this "admission" even if they had a only superficial familiarity with any particular mythicist argument.

Actually, even a passing familiarity with Wells should be sufficient to establish that any argument against the traditional Christian "story of Jesus" involves an "admission" that credible/reliable evidence is at a premium.

andrewcriddle

In Galatians 1:18 to 2:14 in our existing manuscripts, the train of thought makes more sense if Peter and Cephas are two names for the same person.

(I'm aware that the references to Peter in Galatians 2:7-8 have been suggested to be interpolations but that's another matter.)

Andrew Criddle

Peter Kirby

I'm telling you what my hypothesis is. If you are telling me that the evidence is insufficient to establish a hypothesis on the deaths of Kephas and Paul, then what problem is that for me? How would that then establish anything? (On the other hand, if you are telling me that there is better evidence establishing the time and manner of their deaths, what is that evidence?)

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Amaleq13

The specific claim I was addressing was:

"The name Cephas was originally given by Jesus to Simon Peter"

There is no support for this claim to be found in Paul's letters.

Peter Kirby

It's relevant. These are the only two verses in the letters of Paul on which manuscripts agree that the name "Peter" was used.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby