bacht

Ah, have you explained this idea in other threads? I'd like to hear more s'il vous plait

Any idea of geographical origin, if not Palestine?

Roger Pearse

I wondered what you had imagined that I was saying, but you were in too much of a hurry to attack me to actually say it! I'm not sure whether I hold that view or not, in fact, which appears to be a distortion of what I said; my post was certainly not on that topic.

I don't mean to be rude, but I think we have to consider the recipient when we write posts like these, if we want to be understood.

Firstly, if we find some position that we disagree with, let's state clearly and explicitly what we imagine that position is. Presuming agreement produces confusion.

Secondly, let us state explicitly whatever it is that we believe to be the case instead.

Thirdly, we should offer some form of evidence as to why we believe our own statement to be correct, and why this also indicates that the poster was mistaken.

This is particularly necessary when, as in this case, someone is objecting to two words in a stray sentence at the end of a post on some other topic.

The absence of these meant that I wasn't able to address your post, because I wasn't really all that sure what you were trying to say. Would you really want me to guess what you are trying to say?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

OK.



Well that page is a couple of years dated.

Best wishes,


Pete

Amaleq13

The focus of my response has been clear from the outset, Roger. It is difficult to see how you could genuinely be confused and wasting space with unnecessary lectures on discussion protocol certainly don't make that seem more credible.

Yes, I'm sure you posed it as a question because you honestly aren't sure it is true. You suggested the view "might be a standard belief of secular NT studies" and have been presented evidence directly contrary to the notion.

You're welcome.

mountainman

The point remains then that the mainstream position is yet to make any form of commentary on the external characteristics of the texts that comprise the full and complete set of new testament literature. The Nag Hammadi Codices are now published over three decades and date according to the C14 to 348 CE. Some of these texts appear "early christian". Where is the discussion of the external and political events surrounding the formation of the canon and the non-canonical new testament texts (and their heresies?).

Best wishes,


Pete

Johnny Skeptic

But the Bible indicates that if people do not agree with the texts, they will go to hell.

If people should not try to decide whether they agree with ancient texts, what should they try to decide about them?

How do you suggest that people study ancient history without bias? Are you suggesting that most conservative Christian pastors do not have bias regarding the Bible?

spamandham

I don't want to get too much into that, as it is after all, wild eyed speculation. But I read the first canonical Gospel, Mark, as an attempt to explain pre-existing Christian beliefs of unknown origin. If Mark really was written in the late first century, then it may well be the type of 'biography' such as was common for philsophical traditions at the time. These basically amounted to inventing stories to explain pre-existing traditions.

*IF* that's the case for Mark, then it suggests no-one knew the origin of those traditions, which further suggests the traditions were quite old - at least 100 years or more.

spamandham

Doesn't it? You might not like the answer, and really neither do I, but it's plausible.

The answer is that Christianity was relatively obscure until Constantine's "conversion". At that point, huge numbers of copies were penned. None of the originals have survived that we know of, but by sheer luck due to the large numbers of copies made in the 4th century, a few copies have survived.

bacht

Okay. I can accept that John's mystical Christ/Logos may have come from Alexandria for example. As far as I know the NT is the only place where any mention of pre-Revolt Christians occurs, so who knows?

aa5874

But, you are using assumptions or speculations to set up pre-existing traditions.

The opposite of your assumptions mat be true, that there were no pre-existing traditions.

So, IF I read the first canonical Markan Gospels as the original story of Jesus, and IF it is the case it was written late 1st century, and IF there were no pre-existing traditions, then the Jesus stories were started late in the 1st century.