Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-07-2012, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Christians and HJers TODAY show EXACTLY how the Jesus cult most likely started--they simply BELIEVED what was WRITTEN although they had NO proof or corroboration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

aa - there may be many twists and turns in the NT JC story. However, I'm not prepared to discredit the writers of that story - that they were using a crucifixion of a man - albeit in the gospel story, a symbolic or figurative man - upon which to base a salvation theology....

I cannot deal with IMAGINARY twists and turns.

We have EXISTING Codices DATED by paleography to the 4th century and we have P 46 [Pauline writings] DATED by paleography from mid 2nd-3rd century.

I have USED those writings to show that the authors of the short-ending gMark, the long-ending gMark amd gMatthew do NOT know of the Pauline letters with the gospel of UNIVERSAL Salvation by the resurrection.

In fact, the authors of gMatthew and the long-ending gMark claimed that the Resurrected Jesus said people MUST be BAPTIZED to obtain Salvation. So we see that the authors of gMatthew and lgMark, after having copied virtually ALL of gMark word-for-word, are totally unaware of Salvation by the resurrection.

Examine gMatthew
gMatthew 28.19

Quote:

Go ye therefore and teach all nations BAPTIZING them in the name of the father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.....

Examine the long-ending gMark

Mark 16.15-16

Quote:

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is BAPTIZED shall be saved.

Now examine the words of a Pauline writer.

Romans 10:9 KJV

Quote:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

In long-ending gMark and gMatthew the disciples were commissioned to BAPTIZE but a Pauline writer claimed he was NOT called to baptize.

1 Corinthians 1:17 KJV

Quote:

For Christ sent me not to baptize , but to preach the gospel : not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect

The Pauline letters are AFTER the Jesus stories were known and written and the Pauline writer attempted to CHANGE them.

The entire Canon is a compilation of books COMPOSED AFTER the Fall of the Temple or after c 70 CE.

I use the WRITTEN statements in apologetic sources JUST AS they were found written in ANY version.

The Pauline writers are frauds. They manipulated the earliest Jesus stories to INVENT their own history sometime AFTER the writings of Justin Martyr.

No Scholar, No Historian, No Amateur can contradict my theory using any credible source of antiquity. My position is CLEAR--the Pauline writers were FRAUDS

Toto · 04-07-2012, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

..

false

plenty of evidence for a JtB

Your source? (I notice you are making a lot of blanket assertions of fact, without supporting documentation.)

I hope it's not the fake archaeology that has discovered his baptismal font, or the several religious institutions that claim to have his severed head or other body parts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Several different locations claim to possess the severed head of John the Baptist. Among them: Umayyad Mosque in Damascus;^[65] San Silvestro in Capite in Rome;^[66] and the Residenz Museum in Munich, Germany (official residence of the Wittelsbach rulers of Bavaria from 1385 to 1918).^[66] Further heads, no longer available, were once held by the Knights Templar at Amiens Cathedral in France (brought home by Wallon de Sarton from the Fourth Crusade in Constantinople), at Antioch in Turkey (fate uncertain), and the parish church at Tenterden in Kent, where it was preserved up until the Reformation.

The saint's right hand, with which he baptised Jesus, is claimed to be in: the Serbian Orthodox Cetinje monastery in Montenegro; Topkapi Palace in Istanbul;^[66] and also in the Romanian skete of the Forerunner on Mount Athos. The saint's left hand is allegedly preserved in the Armenian Apostolic Church of St. John at Chinsurah, West Bengal, where each year on "Chinsurah Day" in January it blesses the Armenians of Calcutta.^[67] A crypt and relics said to be John's and mentioned in 11th and 16th century manuscripts, were discovered in 1969 during restoration of the Church of St. Macarius at the Monastery of Saint Macarius the Great in Scetes, Egypt;^[68] Additional relics are claimed to reside in Gandzasar Monastery's Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, in Nagorno Karabakh;

outhouse · 04-07-2012, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

..

false

plenty of evidence for a JtB

Your source? (I notice you are making a lot of blanket assertions of fact, without supporting documentation.)

I hope it's not the fake archaeology that has discovered his baptismal font, or the several religious institutions that claim to have his severed head or other body parts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Several different locations claim to possess the severed head of John the Baptist. Among them: Umayyad Mosque in Damascus;^[65] San Silvestro in Capite in Rome;^[66] and the Residenz Museum in Munich, Germany (official residence of the Wittelsbach rulers of Bavaria from 1385 to 1918).^[66] Further heads, no longer available, were once held by the Knights Templar at Amiens Cathedral in France (brought home by Wallon de Sarton from the Fourth Crusade in Constantinople), at Antioch in Turkey (fate uncertain), and the parish church at Tenterden in Kent, where it was preserved up until the Reformation.

The saint's right hand, with which he baptised Jesus, is claimed to be in: the Serbian Orthodox Cetinje monastery in Montenegro; Topkapi Palace in Istanbul;^[66] and also in the Romanian skete of the Forerunner on Mount Athos. The saint's left hand is allegedly preserved in the Armenian Apostolic Church of St. John at Chinsurah, West Bengal, where each year on "Chinsurah Day" in January it blesses the Armenians of Calcutta.^[67] A crypt and relics said to be John's and mentioned in 11th and 16th century manuscripts, were discovered in 1969 during restoration of the Church of St. Macarius at the Monastery of Saint Macarius the Great in Scetes, Egypt;^[68] Additional relics are claimed to reside in Gandzasar Monastery's Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, in Nagorno Karabakh;

I could care less for the dogmatic relics.

and the last thing I follow is fake archeology

im more into anthropology, physical and cultural

ANY chance you could show me, a valid position that JtB historicity is even in dispute??????

Toto · 04-07-2012, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

...

ANY chance you could show me, a valid position that JtB historicity is even in dispute??????

Just look at the evidence. There are two sources for "John the Baptist" - the gospels and Josephus. The gospels are not reliable sources of history, and give a different picture of John than Josephus does, so eliminate them.

If Josephus is reliable, then John's historicity is established. Historians used to treat Josephus as a reliable source, until they started examining his works more closely. It is now recognized that there are passages in Josephus that are pure propaganda, or fanciful, or just plain wrong. The details of Josephus' account of John in particular don't quite hang together. (There have been previous discussion here.)

So it is possible, maybe probable, that there was a historical John the Baptist, but the conclusion must be tentative. Your statement "plenty of evidence for a JtB" is just plain wrong. And your attitude is not helpful.

outhouse · 04-07-2012, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

...

ANY chance you could show me, a valid position that JtB historicity is even in dispute??????

Just look at the evidence. There are two sources for "John the Baptist" - the gospels and Josephus. The gospels are not reliable sources of history, and give a different picture of John than Josephus does, so eliminate them.

If Josephus is reliable, then John's historicity is established. Historians used to treat Josephus as a reliable source, until they started examining his works more closely. It is now recognized that there are passages in Josephus that are pure propaganda, or fanciful, or just plain wrong. The details of Josephus' account of John in particular don't quite hang together. (There have been previous discussion here.)

So it is possible, maybe probable, that there was a historical John the Baptist, but the conclusion must be tentative. Your statement "plenty of evidence for a JtB" is just plain wrong. And your attitude is not helpful.

my attitude is dealing with the facts at hand. And that is that JtB historicity is not in dispute.

The evidence is overwhelming, you cannot discount the gospels as being empty of historical facts. To do so would only discredit ones credibility regarding historical studies.

again I ask, do you have any "credible" sources, that would show JtB historicity is in question.

outhouse · 04-07-2012, 12:37 PM

Quote:

If Josephus is reliable, then John's historicity is established.

this is going at historical studies backwards and you know it.

Not everything Josephus writes is accurate, and what is and is not is done on a case by case basis.

Toto · 04-07-2012, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

If Josephus is reliable, then John's historicity is established.

this is going at historical studies backwards and you know it.

Not everything Josephus writes is accurate, and what is and is not is done on a case by case basis.

This is a discussion board. It is not a place that welcomes dogmatic assertions.

If you admit that not everything that Josephus wrote is accurate, you have to admit that the evidence for John the Baptist is not overwhelming, even if you think it comes down on the side of historicity.

Have you actually examined the passage in Josephus that discussed John? Have you read the arguments that it is an interpolation, or otherwise wrong?

Here's a start:
John in Josephus

Here's one argument against the historicity of the gospel portrait of John:
Austin Cline

Here's a discussion of the historicity of John in Josephus: Vridar

Read all this and come back to discuss.

outhouse · 04-07-2012, 12:59 PM

Quote:

This is a discussion board. It is not a place that welcomes dogmatic assertions.

since when is the "all" of modern scholarships, dogmatic assertions??

attacking that is one thing, if it was that shady and corrupt, you should be able to find plenty of real scholars, that think JtB has no historicity.

Now with all that said, Josephus isnt needed a bit for John's historicity.

Again I ask, do you have even one credible scholar that claims JtB has no historicity??

I will read you links though, and thank you for giving me something to read. I absorb this stuff.

outhouse · 04-07-2012, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Here's a start:
John in Josephus

great read and good info.

Quote:

Here's one argument against the historicity of the gospel portrait of John:
Austin Cline

another good opinion

I hope you dont mistake me for following biblical JtB as written. I dont. their is fiction surrounding biblical charactors no matter how much historicity they have

Quote:

Here's a discussion of the historicity of John in Josephus: Vridar

good read despite it being from a mythologist and not a historian or valid scholar.

He still had good information.

Nothing in the fist two discredit JtB, only what was written about him which im fully aware.

the last is still a good take, but just not accurate on the histoical side, and over reaching mythology into things we know are not true.

Like the rising and dieing sun god. That he is just sorely mistaken.

tanya · 04-07-2012, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

What would falsify Mythicism?
....
Paul, Mark, John, M, L, Thomas, Q.

How does Mark refute the mythical character of jesus? Here is Mark 1:1:

αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιησου χριστου υιου του θεου

Since Paul claims to have never met Jesus, how does he repudiate the idea that Christianity is based upon a mythical Jesus?

To the best of my knowledge, M, L, and Q do not exist. How does one employ a non-extant bit of evidence to oppose any idea?

Where else in human history, does one cite something that does not exist to refute a thesis?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.