spamandham

Sure, and other works too. This shows that these ideas were forming independent of any historical Jesus, long before he was a twinkle in Paul's eye. This doesn't mean there necessarily was no HJ, but it does take some wind out of the conjecture.

I agree with the first part, but the second part I am undecided.

spamandham

Evidence is merely evidence. The same evidence that proves innocence also proves guilt, depending on the force of argument applied.

You are arguing that the evidence is best interpreted as fantasy/fiction. I don't disagree with that, but at the same time, why is it invalid to argue that it is best interpreted as highly decorated biography? That's the real question here....which interpretation of the evidence provides better explanatory power?

spin

Shame you don't seem to know what you are doing. Making silly analogies only reflects badly on you. You've dipped out of dealing with the historical problem of Robin Hood. You've cited Arthur in order to show you don't know anything about the historical research in the field. You've ignored evidence, no matter how tenuous, that does indicate that there was a Jesus. It's a process that seems like brain is being used like an old person's car: don't use it too much or you'll wear it out.

Time for the ignore list to get added to.


spin

Sheshbazzar

....

Doug Shaver

Already asked and answered, in this thread.
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....11#post6548511

Doug Shaver

Already asked and answered, in this thread.
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....11#post6548511

Sheshbazzar

הנה אל ישועתי אבטח ולא אפחד כי־עזי וזמרת יה יהוה ויהי־לי לישועה׃
והנה יהי השמ יה יהוה המושיע יה־הושוע׃

יהוה is not a man, and neither is the 'Saviour'.
Never has been, and never will be.
Anthropomorphism was and is only a convention, one that does not presume to accurately describe ha'Elohim יהוה.
Ignorant and foolish men receive and interpret anthropomorphism's literally, and proceed to manufacture tall tales according to the deceits of their own hearts.
These are they, false teachers and false prophets whom from the beginning, lacking in understanding, with their vain stories have brought shame upon The Holy Name.
The error of their ways, and their trespass against haShem will be revealed, and will become manifest to all. The Name יהוה will be vindicated.

mountainman

You've missed the point stephan. We do not have any "early manuscript evidence" for Irenaeus until some very late century. The earliest greek NT codices conjectured to be mid to late 4th century, contain the abbreviated Jesus code, not the name. The earliest greek NT papryi fragments (perhaps 2nd or 3rd or 4th century) also make reference to the abbreviated Jesus code, not the name. Even the recently discovered Coptic Nag Hammadi Codices (of the mid 4th century) use reference to the abbreviated Jesus code, not the name.

The point is that the oldest evidence from the Greek manuscripts themselves do not make reference to the name, but only the coded abbreviation, of J_S. This may be a significant fact.

stephan huller

I am not an apologist for the Catholic tradition but your argument is fundamentally flawed. There are fragments of Irenaeus that have been dated to an earlier period. But all of this is a sidebar. If you were just saying that it is strange that so much evidence comes from the fourth century no one could disagree with you. But you infer from this fact that Christianity was 'invented' in the fourth century. This is so crazy I don't even known what to tell you.

The point however is that we were discussing the name Jesus and I have just pointed out something that contradicts your claims about the nomen sacrum. Irenaeus argues that Christianity and the name Jesus is only properly understood in an Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew) context. Why would a fourth century conspiracy have introduced that concept into the writings? Iesous was the 'official name' of Jesus in the period. I know of no other Church Father who introduces yeshu as the proper name of Jesus. This would lead any reasonable person to conclude that Irenaeus knows something earlier - something Palestinian - as the basis to his Christian beliefs and probably from Polycarp.

But you won't see that because you are just too busy manufacturing dogma.

stephan huller

And just to make it again clear. Judaism had very little manuscript evidence for the Second Commonwealth period before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls. Very little meaningful information survives to tell us about the shape of the Samaritan religion before Marqe and the manuscript evidence much, much later than that.

Why is there so little information from the first, second and third centuries IN ALL THE PALESTINIAN RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS? Because the Roman state was kicking their ass. That's the reason. The Samaritans report favorable conditions - even a golden age - in the first century CE. But Commodus was bad for the Samaritans and the tradition suffered greatly under Decius too.

One could argue with knowledge of the shape of later orthodoxies which would eventually define each tradition as a whole - they were all 'finding their way' with the Roman state.

To live in a world where we only date a religion to the time of the earliest manuscripts is ridiculous.