Toto

You're sounding touchy, Vinnie. The question is why there is no early attestation for a name for Jesus' mother, but the name shows up in later documents. The usual explanation is "oral tradition." A more likely explanation is "someone made it up." (After all, if Jesus were a real person, he would probably have been identified as "Jesus bar Joseph" or something like that - right? Jews of that time were big on lineage.)

But we'll never actually know, unless a new cache of documents are found.

I don't waste my time with Turkel, so I don't know how this compares.

Ted Hoffman

So Vinnie, now that we know Ignatius' epistles were forged after his death (by your tacit admission) - when do you think they were forged? In the 1st Century? Certainly not!

Your colossal collection of datums and strata etc etc is naive and incorrect because it assumes authenticity of the documents it purports to date. Like I said - its like a rocking chair - keeps you busy but takes you nowhere.
Its very easy to confuse canon apologetics with serious criticism or the historical method. Think again!

Thanks Toto for the links - very exhilarating! . I just told someone to check in case I have developed wings.

Paul does not mention Mary's name because there was no known Mary at the time Paul was writing. Christ Logos is what Paul had in mind. Deal with it!

Vinnie

I didn't say the letters of Ignatius were forged and the argument that Paul's failure to mention Mary means there was no known Mary is just plain stupid. I'm not bothering with it.

There is no first stratum reference but there doesn't need to be anyways. Mark's family reference is bolstered by the fact that we know at least one part was right (brother named James which receives triple independent attestation). Mary is mentioned in several independent 1c docs anyways as far as I know.

I only wonder if Doherty would support this specific argument?

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

Then you need to refute the arguments against forgery of the Ignatian corpus as outlined in the link Toto provided.
You can't just argue without countering arguments that refute what you are propounding.

Saying its stupid doesn't make it stupid dear Vinnie. I understand your frustration but you are gonna have to do better than label ideas. Demonstrate that its stupid. Otherwise, it remains stupid to stupidly say something is stupid without explaining how and why.

Demonstrate the "independence" and be clear on what you are claiming.

What are these three documents and are they authentic? How do you know they are independent?

Which argument? That Ignatian corpus is forged? Or the dating of the epistles?

Iasion

Greetings Vinnie et al,

Considering Paul explains his view of Iesous Cristos in detail and at length, his NOT mentioning her is fairly good evidence that there was originally no Mary in the story.


But these references are actually late, suspect and not clearly independent. Few here would agree that "we KNOW" its right.


No.
The first to mention Mary is Ignatius.

This silence extends to the vast majority of the Gospel stories - NOT ONE SINGLE early Christian writer mentions any of :

* Joseph and Mary, Bethlehem or Nazareth
* the birth stories, the Magi, the Star
* the flight to Egypt, the presentation in the Temple
* John the Baptist or the baptism in the Jordan
* Pilate, Herod, Lazarus, Nicodemus
* miracles of Jesus
* the cleansing of the temple
* the trumphal entry
* the passion of Jesus
* the Sermon on the Mount
* the transfiguration
* the trial of Jesus
* the twelve disciples
* Calvary, 2 thieves
* the empty tomb !!
* etc...
until early-mid 2nd century when the Gospels arise.

Surely the only reasonable explanation for this is that these elements were UNKNOWN to the early Christians.

Because, once the Gospels DO come to light, whole libraries are produced ad nauseum discussing these very stories.

How do you explain the fact that the CENTRAL EVENT of Christianity - the empty tomb - was unknown to Christians until nearly a CENTURY after it occurred?

Not to mention 2nd century Christians such as Minucius Felix and Tatian's (?) Address and Theophilus and Athenagoras who describe a Christianity without a Jesus Christ !

Even Paul argues at length about the resurrection, without once mentioning the empty tomb or the details surrounding the events - further evidence that he was not referring to any earthly event.

Iasion

Ted Hoffman

Whenever Vinnie starts being evasive and vague and starts belting words like "stupid" as a response, you know he is stumped.

fundamental spawn

Sometimes I think we (agnostics) allow ourselves to be drawn into arguments with Christians far, far too technical.

I agree with an MTV standup comic I heard recently: "I don't know a whole lot about the Bible, except there are stories in there about a whole lot of weird stuff."

The elaborate "historical Jesus" theories don't really matter. Nobody can be born (naturally) of a virgin, or walk on water, or manipulate the weather, or rise from the dead."

It is AMAZING that these things aren't simply taken prima facia here in the 21st century. I am truly amazed there is still a fundamental Church ..... no that is not an argument for God, it's an indicator of where man is in his evolution.

Vinnie

Despite your pitied efforts, you don't have nearly enough knowledge in the field to come close to stumping me on any relevant issues

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

Sure you are so knowledgeable except this time you cant refute the arguments for the forgery of Ignatian epistles.

Its evidence of your immeasurable knowledge and expertise in this field. You must be very proud of yourself

godfry n. glad

Vinnie -

Rather than engage in this puerile exchange with IM, why don't you impress us with your measured and enlightening response to Iasion's most recent post?

godfry n. glad