Sheshbazzar

Thanks for the links in #177 Pete. I carefully read all of the material.

I noted that in your 'An alternative theory of the history of Christianity' you quote Joseph Wheless;

What do you think of Wheless's opinion on the year of Origen's birth?

Do you believe that Joseph Wheless simply 'accepted what has ALREADY been claimed by the Church',
and was just another ignorant sucker who was mindlessly taken in by the Church's claims?

Duvduv

Shesh, you can lambaste me, but you know there is no way of empirically proving the second century provenance, which is why people prefer to to accept the claims of the church writers. And it has nothing to do with erudition.

Sheshbazzar

Wrong Duvduv. For scholars that are familiar with the material, rather than ignoramus's blowing hot air, the texts empirically prove their provenance.

Of course the Joe Blow ignoramus's despising any real scholarship would never know whether the texts were empirically proven or not.
Not ever bothering to even closely study the documents that he is judging from the position of his very opinionated yet profound lack of knowledge.
You are right in that there is no way of empirically proving their provnance ...to the ignorant.

And by the way. What we are talking about is the 3rd century text of Origen, who quotes from the 2nd century text of Celsus for his argument. There are no known 2nd century texts of Celsus. The later Church deliberately destroyed them all. And if they could have got their hands on Origen, it wouldn't have been a pretty sight.

I do not enjoy 'lambasting' you Duduv, and I'd much rather it had not came to this, as I have long respected you as one of the better quality participants in this Forum, and do recall giving you muliple reps. And hope the occasion for such again arises in the future.



.

maryhelena

Interesting comment below from Joseph Hoffmann:

my bolding


The amazon page 40 disappeared after a few mins viewing....

I found the ebook/nook for pc book on Barnes and Noble - signed up with all my details - only to be told they don't sell to billing addresses outside the US...

amazon don't have the ebook.

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.

semiopen

The bolded part is extraordinary.

Rabbi_Tarfon

The wiki has nothing about the virgin birth. There is also probably some issue about whether he actually said or wrote anything about the Christians.

Jesus_in_the_Talmud

It is close to outrageous for Hoffman to use "undoubtedly" - but maybe I'm missing something.

Jesus in the Talmud (or via: amazon.co.uk)

might be the best book on Jewish anti-Jesus polemics - at least I bought it.

aa5874

Where is the supporting sources for Hoffman's assertions?? There is NONE.

Over and over again we see those like Hoffman who argue for an historical Jesus do NOT ever provide any sources for their unsubstantiated claims.

There is NONE, ZERO, NIL sources that could have known a human father of Jesus when the story of Jesus is complete fiction and invented in the 2nd century.

The story of Jesus is only Plausible and believable when it is claimed he was the Son of God.

As the Son of God Jesus can do anything at any time.

As the son of a man the Jesus story would be highly questionable.

In the earliest Canonised story of Jesus it is claimed God is the Father of Jesus.

1. Mark 3 2. Mark 5 3. Mark 15 All the miracles of Jesus in the Entire Canon requires the claim that he was a God--Not a man.

aa5874

The earliest stories about Jesus called the Synoptics have effectively exposed that the Pauline letters and Acts of the Apostles are historically bogus and were composed extremely late--well after the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

In the early Jesus stories there is NO Jesus cult of Christians.

The Jesus of the short gMark is NOT known by the populace as Christ.

In fact, in gMark, the Populace regarded Jesus as a Jewish prophet like Isaiah or even as John the Baptist and the Jesus character used Hebrew Scripture or the Septuagint.

Essentially, Jesus was NOT teaching a new religion but the very Jewish teachings from the Jewish Canon.

The short gMark Jesus did NOT advocate anywhere that Jewish Scriptures be abolished or that the Jews were longer required to obey the Laws of the God of Moses.

Up to the day Jesus died in the short gMark there was NO Jew who was called a Christian of the Jesus and NO Jew that publicly claimed Jesus was the Christ.

The gMark story is about the Rejection of a character called Jesus as the Son of God by the Jews, and being abandoned by his own Jewish disciples and even by God until the resurrection.

This is EXTREMELY important.

All stories about Jesus as a Savior and a Sacrifice for Remission of Sins for all mankind are LATER Inventions.

All the books of the Canon are AFTER the short gMark.

In the short gMark story, Jesus forgave the Sins of ONLY ONE man.

Mark 2 That is it. One Man had his sins forgiven by Jesus.

In private, Jesus would BOAST to his disciples that he wanted the Populace to Remain in Sin.

Listen to the Markan Jesus as he ARROGANTLY BOASTS of his secret sinister plan--No Forgiveness of Sins for the Populace..

Mark 4 In the earliest Canonised story Jesus was NOT a Savior--Jesus did NOT come to SAVE--Jesus came to Confuse the Populace that they would NOT understand him and Remain in Sin.

Now, the Pauline letters teach that Jesus was a Savior and that without the crucifixion and resurrection that there would be NO remission of Sins.

The Pauline teachings that Jesus was a Universal Savior by Sacrifice and the Resurrection for Remission of Sins were INVENTED after the Canonised short gMark story.

The short gMark story was manipulated by all authors of the Canon and their manipulations are DOCUMENTED in the very Canon of the Church itself.

Dave31

Interesting thread and a good debate too, Jake Jones IV. I would like to know if the list in the origin post has been verified and confirmed or finished yet?

Earl Doherty says: "the first attestation to Acts comes around 175 in Irenaeus"

Jesus Tradition in the Acts of the Apostles
https://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/06...thicism-pt-17/

I'd like to hear what Earl Doherty has to say about the list:

A case can be made that Paul didn't exist i.e. he was just another mythical figure serving a purpose.

Apollonius, Jesus and Paul: Men or Myths?

Does Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians reveal a 'historical' Jesus?

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.