Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 03-06-2013, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

3. Mark 15

Quote:

39......... Truly this man was the Son of God.

Not to make a major point of it, but the context of this verse strongly suggests that the statement made by the centurion here, was intended to be understood as the final expression of disgust and contempt.
Quite the extreme opposite of the wonder-struck amazed admiration that is commonly read into this verse.

The words in the short gMark were written by an author and I cannot assume it was really spoken by a centurion when the story is complete fiction.

The miracles and activities of Jesus in the short gMark require a claim that he was non-human.

When Jesus was baptized by John in the short gMark there was a voice from the heavens which acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God.

Mark 1

Quote:

11 And there was a voice from the heavens: Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.

It is clear that the author implies that his Jesus character was the Son of God.

At the transfiguration, again the AUTHOR claimed there was a voice from the clouds.

Mark 9

Quote:

7 And there came a cloud overshadowing them; and there came a voice from the cloud: This is my beloved Son, hear him.

Surely, we can see that the AUTHOR is claiming that his Jesus is the Son of God.

It was the AUTHOR that wrote the story and used his characters to propagate his OWN agenda.

Once Jesus is claimed to be the Son of God then the stories of the miracles and activities of the Jesus are completely plausible in antiquity.

The short gMark has nothing about Salvation and Remission of Sins by crucifixion and the resurrection.

All the authors of the Entire Canon Manipulated the short Mark Jesus story including the Pauline writers.

andrewcriddle · 03-06-2013, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Where are the posters who constantly assert that the Pauline writings were composed before c 70 CE??

Are they all dead??

Now, that we have a thread where those who support the "Scholarly" opinion that the Pauline letters were BEFORE c 70 CE can present their assumed strong "EVIDENCE" they have all VANISHED.

For hundreds of years it has been assumed without a shred of corroboration that the Pauline letters were composed before c 68 CE but there was NEVER EVER any evidence at all.

Early Pauline letters are complete PROPAGANDA coming from apologetic sources and those who have no intention of presenting the actual evidence against the history of the Church.

It is clear to me that apologetics must, must, must declare that the Pauline letters were composed Before the death of Nero to maintain the Bogus chronology of the Jesus cult of Christians.

However, we have the recovered dated manuscripts and writings attributed to Philo, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Lucian, Municius Felix, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Hippolytus, Origen, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Jerome, Ephrem the Syrian, Julian the Emperor, Arnobius, the short gMark, the long gMark, gMatthew, Revelation, Acts of the Apostles and the Muratorian Canon.

The Pauline letters are historically bogus and were composed NO earlier than the mid/late 2nd century or later.

Effectively, the Pauline letters do NOT represent the history of the Jesus cult of Christians at all.

Hi aa

I haven't responded much in this thread because the OP seems to be based on two independent premises both of which I find unlikely.

a/ That the Pauline letters are all fictional and therefore cannot be dated on internal evidence.
b/ That the standard dates of a number of early sources who have knowledge of Paul's writings are seriously wrong. E.G. that Clement and Ignatius are not only later than generally thought, (which at least in the case of Ignatius is IMO likely), but are contemporary to (or later than) Justin, which IMO is definitely unlikely.

If this had been a thread specifically on say the dating of 1 Clement then I might have responded more.

Andrew Criddle

tanya · 03-06-2013, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Not to make a major point of it, but the context of this verse strongly suggests that the statement made by the centurion here, was intended to be understood as the final expression of disgust and contempt.
Quite the extreme opposite of the wonder-struck amazed admiration that is commonly read into this verse.

I too, do not wish to make a "major point of it", but, in my opinion, you err here, Shesh. The author did not copy to papyrus the tape recorded comments of the Roman Soldier, (if he had, then your argument could be correct, or not, depending on information we lack about the soldier's true feelings), but rather wrote a story, a fable, a work of fiction, Shesh, as you know better than most other forum members, and accordingly, it is not proper to act as though you were reading some accurate historical account of what the soldier had said, so that it could be interpreted as either admiration, or contempt, by those sitting in the cold church, listening to the narrator read the gospel.

tanya · 03-06-2013, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Criddle

If this had been a thread specifically on say the dating of 1 Clement then I might have responded more.

gosh, Andrew, that sounds very interesting and worthwhile, and, in my opinion, entirely relevant to this EXCELLENT thread, so please, don't hold back, let us in on the secrets!!!!

Cheers, Andrew,

andrewcriddle · 03-06-2013, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Criddle

If this had been a thread specifically on say the dating of 1 Clement then I might have responded more.

gosh, Andrew, that sounds very interesting and worthwhile, and, in my opinion, entirely relevant to this EXCELLENT thread, so please, don't hold back, let us in on the secrets!!!!

Cheers, Andrew,

Hi tanya

One argument for dating Clement is as follows.

1 Clement is itself anonymous but the attribution to Clement is ancient and widespread eg Dionysius of Corinth writing c 170 CE (Eusebius Church History book 4 chapter 23). Irenaeus gives a list of bishops of Rome of which Clement is third and Eleutherus (who almost certainly died in 189) is twelth. There was an earlier (probably similar) list by Hegesippus. Eusebius gives dates and lengths of office for these bishops which may or may not be reliable, (dates probably based on Julius Africanus). However on general probabilities one would expect an average length of office of at least eight years. This implies that Clement wrote 1 Clement no later than the death of Hadrian.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 03-06-2013, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Where are the posters who constantly assert that the Pauline writings were composed before c 70 CE??

Are they all dead??

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Hi aa

I haven't responded much in this thread because the OP seems to be based on two independent premises both of which I find unlikely.

a/ That the Pauline letters are all fictional and therefore cannot be dated on internal evidence.
b/ That the standard dates of a number of early sources who have knowledge of Paul's writings are seriously wrong. E.G. that Clement and Ignatius are not only later than generally thought, (which at least in the case of Ignatius is IMO likely), but are contemporary to (or later than) Justin, which IMO is definitely unlikely.

If this had been a thread specifically on say the dating of 1 Clement then I might have responded more.

Andrew Criddle

The OP is NOT at all based on two independent premises. The OP is merely entitled "Dating Paul" and consists of writings that either mentioned Paul and the Pauline letters or did NOT.

In any event, you did EXACTLY what I expected.

You provided NO evidence whatsoever to support early Pauline letters before c 70 CE.

There is a massive amount of evidence to suggest that the Pauline were composed at least AFTER the mid 2nd century.

1. Philo did NOT mention any Jew called Saul/Paul or mentioned the Jesus cult up to c 50 CE.

2. Josephus did NOT mention any Jew called Paul or the Jesus cult up to c 96 CE.

3. Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius did NOT acknowledge any character called Jesus the Messianic ruler up to 115 CE or that Jews and the People of the Roman Empire worship a resurrected Messianic ruler as stated in the Pauline letters.

4. The Pauline writer was aware of Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 composed c 93 CE.

5. Apologetic sources ADMIT that Paul was aware of gLuke composed AFTER c 70 CE.

6. The author of the Muratorian Canon admitted that the Pauline letters were composed AFTER Revelation.

7. The author of Acts wrote NOTHING of the Pauline letters.

8. The Pauline theology is far advanced of all the books of the Canon.

9. The earliest Canonised story of Jesus show that there was NO Jesus cult up to at least c 70 CE.

10. Justin Martyr up to the mid 2nd century did NOT use any of the Pauline writings for his theology.

jakejonesiv · 03-06-2013, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

3. Mark 15

Not to make a major point of it, but the context of this verse strongly suggests that the statement made by the centurion here, was intended to be understood as the final expression of disgust and contempt.
Quite the extreme opposite of the wonder-struck amazed admiration that is commonly read into this verse.

That is a good possibility.

jakejonesiv · 03-06-2013, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Shesh, I think the point is more significant than this case, i.e. whether one must accept uncritically the claims of church spokesmen and consider this equivalent to the sought after empirical evidence. A most extreme example would be those who build novel theories. about a historical Jesus such as Hugh Schonfeld based on conventional beliefs that a historical Jesus existed in the first century. But in our case we can let it go at this point. I am not interested in falling into bickering over it. I like your contributions and prefer focusing on that.

I enjoyed very much this debate between Duvduv and Sheshbazzar.

Jake

aa5874 · 03-06-2013, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

...One argument for dating Clement is as follows.

1 Clement is itself anonymous but the attribution to Clement is ancient and widespread eg Dionysius of Corinth writing c 170 CE (Eusebius Church History book 4 chapter 23). Irenaeus gives a list of bishops of Rome of which Clement is third and Eleutherus (who almost certainly died in 189) is twelth. There was an earlier (probably similar) list by Hegesippus. Eusebius gives dates and lengths of office for these bishops which may or may not be reliable, (dates probably based on Julius Africanus). However on general probabilities one would expect an average length of office of at least eight years. This implies that Clement wrote 1 Clement no later than the death of Hadrian.

Andrew Criddle

This thread is about "Dating Paul".

By the way, 1 Clement is the product of a fraud of the Roman Church.

There are at least Five different versions of the time period for the Bishopric of Clement in Rome and other Bishops of Rome before and after Clement
.
1. Irenaeus--Clement was Third c 95 CE??.

2. Tertullian--Clement was First c 68 CE??.

3. The Liber Pontificalis --Clement was Second c 78 CE??

4. Rufinus--Clement was THIRD c 68 CE??

5. Augustine--Clement was Second c 78 CE??

It is virtually impossible that the Church records of Clement and other bishops could have been in so much disarray.

The Bishops of Rome and the Clement letter were fabricated.

It was the Church of Rome that fraudulently composed the Clement letter well after the 1st century.

aa5874 · 03-06-2013, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

3. Mark 15

Not to make a major point of it, but the context of this verse strongly suggests that the statement made by the centurion here, was intended to be understood as the final expression of disgust and contempt.
Quite the extreme opposite of the wonder-struck amazed admiration that is commonly read into this verse.

That is a good possibility.

That is NOT a good possibility because there is NO evidence that the centurion did actually exist and said the words or that gMark is an historical account.

There is NO contempt in the statement "Truly this man was the Son of God"

There were Voices from heaven and the clouds that implied Jesus was the Son of God. See Mark 1 and Mark 9. Was there contempt in the voices from heaven???

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.