Radorth

Re Intensity

I gave the quote before. Try to keep up or buy a Concordance.

Like yours above? But yes we Christians are held to a higher standard and should set a better example. I must mind my tongue, but you could have discerned without the quote repeated again because Peter made no "sermon on the mount." That was Jesus. IMO, if you were sincere, you could have easily looked it up under "mount" and found it under Peter's epsitles.

This is a rather glittering generality. True of course, but not universally. Would you have us believe the first Christians went through those early persecutions to attract donations?

Egads.

Radorth

MortalWombat

Have you noticed that Doherty isn't the only one that dates Acts to the second century, but also others such as John Knox, J.T. Townsend, Burton Mack, and J.C O'Neill? It's not like he just picked a number out of thin air all by himself.

MOJO-JOJO

Do you think Elvis is really dead??

Layman

Well, although you tried not to, you have answered my question. The answer is NO, you did not read my discussion of Doherty's dating of Acts, because I'm perfectly aware that it's based almost entirely on John Knox's theory. Indeed, most of my posts were directly attacking the "Knox Theory."

And you might also have noticed (but apparently did not) that I've cited J.C. O'Neill as well. Although O'Neil dates act to the early second-century, he attacks Knox's dating of Acts to the early second-century and his reconstruction of the Marcionite controversey.

Family Man

And you miss my point. The Early Christians had no clue that Constantine was going to convert. The only way that could have happened is if they promoted their religion -- which explains the gospels. As as many of the HJ scholars admit, they weren't above making stuff up, exaggerating, and engaging in rather blatant propaganda. Hence, Intensity's point of their "lies" is perfectly valid. Their persecution is quite beside the point, and probably a byproduct of their propaganda efforts.

Hint: no one here is questioning the faith or the courage of the early Christians. Just their honesty.

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Layman
I also asked you if you had noticed that my main point about bringing these examples up was to show that we lack nonChristian references to other prominent Christians who actually had more impact in their lifetimes -- such as Paul, Peter and James. Did you get that point?

I answered by saying that Paul, Peter and James did not have mythical archetypes - unlike Jesus - who can be mapped to Osiris, Dionysus, Mythras etc. You were too busy lecturing me about how unqualified I was to comment on a matter of this significance. You get to decide who is and isn't qualified to participate remember? - you expert "layman"!.

So that is a "NO," from you. You do not believe that John the Baptist existed?

What I beleive isn't of significance. What is significant is that Josephus does not clearly state who were the parents of JBap - he is a shadowy character compared to many other characters (Herod for example) who he clearly traces their lineage. Meaning he could have got inadequate info on JBap - rumours.

Mark (and the Gospels) tells us JBap's story was characterised by miracles (foetuses jumping and so on), "virgin" birth, even resurrection etc.

I have no reason to beleive JBap was a historical character, unless you provide some historical evidence.

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Steven Carr

Well, was better than being at Medina!

Paul complains about people peddling the word of God for money. So there was money in it. We know that.

Even Paul got presents, and Peter and his wife made a living out of it.

Paul even solicits donations for people in Jerusalem, and informs us that the Christian leaders compromised their beliefs 'to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ'.

So early Christians avoided persecution and got money.

Steven Carr

Ted Hoffman

Radorth,
This is a rather glittering generality. True of course, but not universally. Would you have us believe the first Christians went through those early persecutions to attract donations?

Steven Carr has handled this above.

I should add that the apostles were so greedy in Acts 5 for example that Peter could not even allow Ananias to keep a part of the money he got after selling his own piece of land. The apostles wanted EVERYTHING. They ruthlessly milked people CLEAN and DRY.

In Acts 5:3 And in 1 Corinthians 16:
The rest of your post does not merit a response.

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Layman

Actually, no, you did not. My point is that arguments about "such and such fails to mention Jesus" are not very persuasive when other leading religious figures who had much bigger and longer lasting ministries were also overlooked.

I did not say you were not "qualified" to comment, I've just noticed you do not know what you are talking about most times.

I agree with that very much.

Ah. I see. If a persons' lineage cannot be traced, they probably did not exist. What is Paul's lineage? How about Peter's? Or Clement of Rome? Or James, the leader of the Jerusalem Church?

John the Baptist was born of a virgin? That's in Mark? Mark has John the Baptist leaping in the womb? What's the reference for that? And John the Baptist was resurrected? I thought he stayed dead. Please give me a cite for that as well from Mark.

Basically what you are saying is that if someone somehwere down the line attributes miraculous circumstances to a person's life, then that person did not exist.

The evidence -- accepted by everyone but you and a few hardcore Jesus-Mythers -- is pretty strong. John the Baptist is mentioned by three sources: Mark, Q, and Josephus. The fact that Mark and Josephus actually disagree about the nature of his baptism indicates they are not relying on a common source.

And please site for me the mirculous circumstances Josephus attributes to John the Baptist's life?