jjramsey

Ok, let me get this straight. If two different writers tell largely similar stories about Mr. X but partially conflict, then this "surely means" (to use your words) that these two writers are really discussing two different personages who happen to both be called Mr. X, in spite of the overall similarities of the writers' stories.

Paging Mr. Occam ... :huh:

jgibson000

Interesting thesis. But let's look at where it gets us when we use your criterion for judging as flawed (i.e., contradictory accounts of a given individual's life) a postition on the existence of other individuals in the ancient world..

Plutarch records several anonymous and absolutely contradictory accounts of the birth of a person named Alexander, the son of Philip of Macedon. So by your logic there must have been at least two or three different Alexanders.

Plato's accounts of Socrates teaching, the methods he employed while teaching, and his defense speech in front of an Athenian court differs radically from those given us by Xenephon and Aristotle. So there must have been at least three Socrates in Athens before 399 BCE.

And as A.N. Sherwin White notes, we have four primary sources for the life and deeds of Tiberius Caesar -- the Annals of Tacitus and the biography of Suetonius, both written some eighty or ninety years later after Tiberius died, the brief contemporary record of Velleius Paterculus, and the third-century history of Cassius Dio -- which disagree amongst themselves in the wildest possible fashion, both in major matters of political action or motive and in specific details of minor events.

So by your own logic, we must say that there were four Roman emperors known as Tiberius.

Leaving aside the question of why it is important or relevant to do (none of the DSS do), don't Paul's epistles do this?

How could a dead person give his name or the date of his own death?

Who is the "they" you refer to here. And does the NT actually do this, let alone continuously? Can you point out some of the passages that you have in mind?

Jeffrey Gibson

aa5874

Fictional accounts cannot be claimed to be true, regardless of the similarities. Each unknown author have a person named Jesus Christ carrying out fictional events at different times. Nothing about this person or persons can be verified. If you assume that these fictional accounts refer to the same person then you have made a fatal error.

If one unknown author writes a fictional story about X, and another unknown author copies that fiction of X with interpolations and then claim the story is true, both stories would be similar, but now it may be regarded as true. And if a third and fourth unknown author copies that story, now assumed to be true, we now have all similar stories of fiction assumed to be true. But the unknown authors of the NT make a horrendous claim; If you do not believe their story, you will burn in Hell.

If you read a story of unknown authorship, where the main characters are not known, the events appear to be fictional and at the end of the book there is a little note, 'Believe this story or burn in Hell!', what would you do?

The unknown author of Matthew introduces a person named Jesus Christ by false prophesies, with events that are fictional, the unknown authors of Mark, Luke, John and the epistles of Saulus/Paulus repeat the fiction, is the story is now true?

It is futile and a waste of precious time looking for an historic Jesus, there is none. The message of the unknown authors is clear. Believe our story or burn in Hell

jgibson000

But you beg the question in assuming that they are fictional accounts.

They do? Could you please cite a NT text where I can find this claim?

Can you point me to any NT book has this specific note at the end of it?

Umm, didn't Paul write before the Gospels were written? Can it be that you think the present canonical order of the NT books represents the actual chronological order in which the NT books were written?


I'd very much like to see some concrete evidence that this really is their message. Would you please provide it for us?

Or is this just another of your "every great religious founder" produced writings containing great doctrinal detail for their followers" claims -- that is, one you can't substantiate?

Jeffrey Gibson

Solo

Mark 11.6 (cf Mt 11.24, Lk 10.12)

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Jiri

jgibson000

the A man wrote

I replied:

And now Jiri writes:

Leaving aside the matter that nothing like this appears at Mk 11:6 or anywhere else in Mark for that matter -- and that this is hardly an exact quote of either Matt 11:24 or Luke 10:12, I have to ask:

How is this statement from Jesus about the consequences of the non repentance (refusal to adopt the pattern of faithfulness to the God of Israel that Jesus called Israel to accept) of Capernaum (and Bethsaida and Chorazin) in any way the same thing as a notice by a NT author that "if you do not believe their story, you will burn in Hell?

Jeffrey Gibson

aa5874

Your fatal flaw is that you equate the unknown authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the epistles to Plutarch. Athough no-one can vouch for these unknown persons' identity or authenticity, although no-one knows of any other writings of these ghost authors, some say these faceless, nameless authors are comparable to Plutarch. I completely reject that.

Again, you have compounded your error, you have put Plato, Xenephon and Aristotle on the same plane as ghost writers who have no real names, no other literary works, and have contradicted themselves continuously.

I have never made any statement on Tiberius Caesar, I have never made any finding or examined any writing of any historian to conclude there are 4 Roman Emperors. It is not prudent to introduce other characters and then make assumptions about my logic.

So, does Tacitus, Suetonius, Velleius Paterculus and the history of Cassius Dio carry the same weight as those unknown authors who cannot be verified to be even real persons.

Jeffrey, if I were to give you a book with no known author, no date of writing, and that book was similar to the writings of the unknown authors of Matthew, Mark,Luke or John, would that book be authentic?

I have not assumed Jesus Christ is fictitious, I have concluded that Jesus Christ is fictious. These facts cause me to come to such a decision.

• The authors of the NT are un-named individuals.
• No-one can ascertain if the authors are one and the same person.
• No-one can vouch for the veracity of the authors.
• The unknown author named Matthew falsely claim that prophecies are in the OT about a character named Jesus Christ.
  • the unknown authors of Mark, Luke, John and the epistles also make similar false prophetic claims.
  • All the miraculous acts of Jesus Christ, with the raising of the dead, are entirely fictious.
  • All the words of Jesus Christ relating to miracles, raising the dead and about prophecies in the OT are entirely false.
  • All the events surrounding large crowds witnessing miracles are false. No-one was healed, no-one was raised from the dead. no ghosts were cast out of any one. Jesus in fact did nothing
  • Jesus Christ carried out every single mis-interpretation of the OT.
  • No-one can say with any certainty when Jesus Christ was born, not even the unknown authors.
  • The Jesus Christ of Matthew cannot be the Jesus Christ of Luke.
  • No-one knows when any of the persons named Jesus Christ died.

The list is very long.
If the so-called prophecies, virgin birth, miraculous acts, crucifixtion, ressurection and ascension were removed from the NT, there would be no Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ was fabricated to be believed to be real.

aa5874

Jgibson000, this is written by the unknown author of Mark ch 16:15-16, and it relates to the story of the so-called Jesus Christ, it reads as follows: ' 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; but he that that believeth not shall be damned.

The unknown author of John 3:16 states, 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

John 3:36 also states, 'He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him'.

John 11:25-26, 'Jesus said unto her, 'I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Those passages are some of the horrendous claims made by the unknown authors of the NT, but before I close, let's look at the craftiness of the unknown authors in 2 John 1:7, For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an anti-christ.

These unknown entities have become the sole authorities on Jesus Christ and no one dare to doubt them. They threaten their readers anonymously with harsh and unusual punishment. The NT is unprecedented.

Dr. Jeffrey Gibson, in all your studies and research, have you ever come across any book that rivals the absurdity of the NT?

dongiovanni1976x

I never made the assertion that early Christians appropriated a Jewish leader, therefore I need not provide any evidence for my analogous remark about the possibility of Mormons being right. When you suggested that it is possible that, “James was a Jewish figure appropriated by the early Christians” you are making an unsupported speculative claim. Since you prefaced this claim with “it is entirely possible” I simply compared it to other claims that are possible as well. I certainly will concede that it was a comparison made in jest and that I lack the kind of hard evidence to refute your speculative claim so I should have chosen something a little more plausible to make my point: that speculative possibilities are a dime a dozen- we need good reasons to believe them.
I only asked this because of my conversation yesterday with Boston University professor, Paula Fredriksen, author of, From Jesus to Christ, who said: I think it can be read that way, but it is not necessary because as you pointed out (by ref. Peter Kirby's site),where Doherty makes a good point by stating that the same phrase tou legomenou Christou was used in, “Matthew [1:16, 27:17] and John [4:25] where it obviously cannot have such a connotation.” Referencing Peter Kirby’s work again he quotes Theissen & Merz who seem to sum it up the best, “The formulation tou legomenou Christou (who is called Christ) implies neither assent nor doubt (cf. Matt 1.16)” Very good article, thank you for pointing it out to me.
Are you suggesting that the Jesus associated with James preceding this Jesus, Son of Damneus are one and the same?


1. Re: Hegesippus’ account of James death and whether it sounds like Josephus: Josephus recounts that the high priesthood changed hands from Ismael to Cabi and then to Ananus. His account of James is primarily used to demonstrate the character of Ananus. James and his companions are “delivered” to be stoned and this in no way contradicts the elaboration of Hegesippus’ account dated eight decades later. I assume you would take Josephus’ account as the more accurate of the two given Hegesippus’ motives and his flowerly portrayal of James never drinking and only wearing the finest linens etc…
2. Does Josephus indicate that James was a Christian in any sense, other than the awkward reference to the Christ? Your use of the adjective “awkward” here implies that you already discount it as inauthentic in the same fashion Doherty accuses people like Dr. Fredriksen of translating legomenos as “so-called” The fact that I view this passage as authentic would obviously imply that this James is “Christian” insofar as he is the brother of the one called the Christ and I back this up with Paul (Gal 1:19) who met him and likewise claimed he was his brother.
3. Is the James in Mark at all consistent with this James? The James in Hegesippus or Josephus? The common link is that the fraternal consistency. Hegesippus’ elaborate tale need not be of much concern…all we need address is the the relationship between the James mentioned in Antiquities, Galatians and Mark- which all are in agreement on this issue and the burden of proof for claiming any putative interpolations is upon the one who wants to make this claim.
If the earliest MS we have dates from the 10th century what makes you think that this is not a possibility?
(I apologize...I should have said proto-orthodox sect of christianity...the connotation of "Catholic" seems to IMPLY a much later date) Regardless, the Protoevangelium of James certainly gives evidence of an early belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary and this work is dated well before the 4th century- in fact it is dated in the 2nd century in which you imply any interpolations would have occurred. (140-170 CE) Peter Kirby says a major development found in the Protevangelium, according to Hock is:

dongiovanni1976x

I think I was being over zealous here. Galatians is lumped in the category as “undisputed works” by Paul in Bart Ehrman’s New Testament book…I am wrong here to imply that "a" VERSE IN THAT WORK is “undisputed”. Though I will add that it is generally agreed to be authentic.