Iasion

Greetings all,

I have updated my visual cross-reference table of Christian sources to include apocrypha and fragments - which makes a total of 64 authors or documents, comprised of 180 files, totalling 20Mbytes.

Table is here:
<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Table.html" target="_blank">http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Table.html</a>

home page is here:
<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/index.html" target="_blank">http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/index.html</a>

I have also adjusted the dates a little to try to get an accurate sequence, partly from the Fathers' series and/or traditional dates, and also considering Peter Kirby, Earl Doherty and Bernard Muller et al.

I hope this cross-reference table will be interesting, perhaps even useful, to those who are studying the early history of Christianity, as it shows at a glance what writer used what term, and when.

Comments and criticism welcome:
quentinj@iinet.net.au

Quentin David Jones

lpetrich

I hope that Iasion is reading followups to his messages, because I have a few comments. I think that his early-Christian-history timeline is very interesting -- it's interesting to see what aspects of Jesus Christ that different EC's refer to. One thing it illustrates very clearly is that later and later writers have more and more details about JC, which suggests that JC had been a myth in the making over the 1st and 2nd centuries CE.

Which is why I continue to support the hypothesis that Jesus Christ had been a myth.

aikido7

I have a difference of opinion:

As time went by, the bare details of Jesus' historicity were mythologized. Using the paradigm of availablity and knowledge of the Hebrew texts in the first generation after the crucifixion, today's awareness of Markan priority and taking into account Q and the Gospel of Thomas, one can now watch how each community "fashioned" a living Christ which would speak uniquely to its members.

The parabler became the parable.

[ April 14, 2002: Message edited by: aikido7 ]</p>

Iasion

Greetings all,

thanks for your comments Ipetrich [ 8^)&gt;

Yes, the lack of references in the early days shows how the myth grew over time.


Aikido:
But for the first CENTURY or so after Jesus' alleged life - there is NO real historical Jesus known to anyone at all!

No Christians for a century after his alleged times show any knowledge of Jesus' virgin birth and baptism, nor Bethlehem nor Nazareth, nor Mary nor Joseph, nor Pilate, nor Judas.

Paul has some vague spiritual references to the 'crucifixion' etc. but shows NO knowledge what so ever that a recent Jesus gave any teachings - in fact Paul wrote in ways which allow for NO recent Jesus on Earth.

In short,
Jesus of Nazareth was unknown to the first century - his story only comes to light early-mid 2nd century, the Gospels and their contents are essentially unknown until mid 2nd century.

Jesus was a spiritual being - not a real person.

Quentin David Jones

aikido7

<strong>Greetings all,

...But for the first CENTURY or so after Jesus' alleged life - there is NO real historical Jesus known to anyone at all!</strong>

Anyone at ALL?

<strong>No Christians for a century after his alleged times show any knowledge of Jesus' virgin birth and baptism, nor Bethlehem nor Nazareth, nor Mary nor Joseph, nor Pilate, nor Judas.</strong>

Which specific Christians did not? (Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are trying to communicate here)

<strong>Paul has some vague spiritual references to the 'crucifixion' etc. but shows NO knowledge what so ever that a recent Jesus gave any teachings - in fact Paul wrote in ways which allow for NO recent Jesus on Earth.</strong>

Admittedly, Paul seems more concerned with the meaning of Jesus rather than documenting his words and deeds--although there is some discussion somewhere of Jesus' teachings on divorce. That's just Paul. Remember that there is a hidden subtext throughout his authentic letters and in Luke/Acts about a major rift between Paul and the Jerusalem church of Peter and John, the brother of Jesus.

<strong>In short,
Jesus of Nazareth was unknown to the first century - his story only comes to light early-mid 2nd century, the Gospels and their contents are essentially unknown until mid 2nd century.</strong>

The gap between "unknown" and "essentially unknown" speaks scholarly volumes if your point of view can be given any validity. There is a mountain of evidence for both points of view.

<strong>Jesus was a spiritual being - not a real person.</strong>

How about both/and? There was Jesus and Christ--"fully man and fully God" as the creeds go. And, as a result, we have this muddled mess before us to contruct our little arguments out of. It's fun for me and I hope I always remain curious and learn something new....

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: aikido7 ]</p>