Yuri Kuchinsky

So here we see a Christian apologist who still "is not persuaded" that Peter didn't really write these letters... But is there any way in which he might be persuaded? I don't think so.

So this is how things generally are in NT studies today. Anyone can believe in anything, as long as it's still in some sort of a vague agreement with the "received views". And if someone starts to challenge these "received views", then both the "liberals" and the "conservatives" start to dump together on that offending party.

Yours,

Yuri.

Radorth

The facts there, whatever they are, do not relieve Doherty of the burden of proof for such novel claims, nor do they relieve him of the need to take up the implications of his assertions which is only fair in this case. The skeptics have no option but to deny his claims are extraordinary, or supply convincing proof of their validity.

(Or talk about Peter and Marcion)

Radorth

Iasion

Greetings all,

In other words, your lengthy multiple raves about Earl's "conspiracy" theories were totally, 100% WRONG - we await your apology.


But that's not what happened Radorth - it appears you are unable to understand straight forward arguments in plain English.

Its not about a conspiracy, its not about a great lie - please try and understand the issues (of course there WERE many lies in the early record, but that is NOT the main issue at all).

Earl's argument (and mine) is that the early Christians believed in a spiritual Iesous Christos - they did NOT believe in a conspiracy or big LIE about a historical Jesus.

Later Christians came to believe that Jesus WAS historical (perhaps some Christians DID know it was a lie - but MOST simply got it WRONG).


Again you betray TOTAL IGNORANCE of the issues - these stories were MYTHS, not lies. By your reasoning Homer was a liar too, heck - that makes Tolkein a liar, and everybody who every wrote a story or mythical allegory a liar. You seem totally ignorant how myth and allegory works.


Exactly - you are WRONG (again) about Earl arguing they are liars - we await your apology.


You repeatedly get the argument WRONG and argue against strawmen of your own imagination. It appears you not even READ Earl's work at all, as you keep getting his arguments wrong.


Also, you ignore the key issues I have raised about early sceptics arguing the Gospels were MYTHS, that they were FALSE history. You said you would be "impressed" by evidence of early whistle-blowers, then just ignored the evidence that I adduced.


Earl provides much evidence in detail and at length - perhaps when you have actually READ his work you will be able to argue the issues without sounding like a faithful Christian apologist who is upset to have his faith challenged.


Who did Earl slander?
What is you evidence?


Quentin David Jones

Iasion

Greetings RD,

Fair comment - this is the view I have formed from my reading - most commentators generally assume it was based more-or-less on some real argument (I'll get some refs if you want).

Are you aware of any arguments that the Dialogue is false?

Quentin David Jones

Iasion

Greetings Layman,

Well, fair enough - 1 point does not make a compelling case, no.

But this is apparently from a prominent Jew (if it WAS Tarphon, he was a major figure) who argues that Jesus was unknown - part of a consistent pattern that the historical Jesus was unknown to contemporaries.

And importantly, this dates from the period when the Gospels were arising - i.e. just as the Gospels were spreading, many sceptics argued they were FALSE history.


Well, I date the Gospels to the early 2nd century base on the evidence:[*] No mention or quote or knowledge of Gospels in 1st C.
[*] First knowledge of Gospel stories - maybe Barnabas? or Ignatius? early 2nd C. (I agree Ignatius was forged in the 130s)
[*] First MENTION of Gospel-like writings : Papias c.135
[*] First use of the formal "the Gospel(s)" : perhaps Aristides in c.130 ? or Polycarp.
[*] First proto-Gospel : Marcion's c.140
[*] First clear quotes from Gospels : Justin c.150
[*] First naming of Gospels: Irenaeus c. 185


The evidence supports the view that the Gospels arose in the early 2nd century - roughly 130.


Quentin David Jones

Radorth

You misunderstand what I said, not that you could have spent more than 30 seconds trying to understand. I'm saying that ED himself says there was a conspiracy to invent facts, make up stories, and mislead people. He is using "conspiracy of silence" in regards his theory. I'm talking about a "conspiracy to invent a fleshly being." He does not talk about that much. I'm saying he needs to. Got it now?

Yes Homer would be a liar if he is knowingly doing what the ED (and others here) claim the Gospel writers didconstructing careful and elaborate pieces of symbolism, and story lines will be crafted, details invented, sources altered, to create that theological or educational statement.

No good historian believes Homer anyway, so your analogy is silly. But I suppose Durant is a moron in you book. You're saying the Gospel fabricators wrote such a thing innocently? How old are you anyway?

And of course the skeptics haven't begun to answer me and Bede's questions about the gory details, which it is patently obvious would please no one.

How about many 2-3rd century Christians and apologists? What did they believe? Were they "later Christians"? Who made up the stories?

Radorth

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

Not at all. At issue is the second sentence of the following excerpt:
Again, one sentence out of 142 chapters of a copy of a 'reconstructed' discussion purportedly representative of a dialogue held some twenty years earlier. I have no idea how many sentences are in these 142 chapters, but for anyone (much less "most commentators") to suggest that a particular sentence is "a reasonable representation" of something actually said by someone who was only "possibly Rabbi Tarphon" seems a remarkable stretch.

Again, what possible course of analysis could support such a conclusion?

Note, by the way, that this sentence, be it fact or fiction, need not be read as questioning the historicity of Jesus the man but, only, as challenging the 'invention' of Jesus as anointed King of the Jews based on some "groundless report" of the resurrection. Even given a wholly inaccessible best case scenario, the sentence appears to have little value.

Family Man

It's amazing how if one questions the veracity of biblical stories how the hyperbole about "lying" and "conspiracies" comes out, as if the Early Christians weren't human and were incapable of lying or making stuff up.



The HJ scholars I've read readily admit that many of the gospel stories are fiction. E.P. Sanders, for example, states quite explicitly that many of the stories were made up, not in the sense that they were deliberate lies, but rather that the Early Christians interpreted dreams and visions as the truth. He also rejects the birth narratives and the walking on water as being ahistorical. If a Christian scholar like Sanders can conclude from the evidence that the gospel writers were including events that never happened in their narratives, why is it so terrible for skeptics to do the same?

In short, Radoth, my position is quite mainstream. I'm not even a Jesus Myther.

And I don't expect I'll be saying anymore on this subject. I don't enjoy discussions where one party (Radoth) is being completely irresponsible.

Iasion

Greetings again,

No he doesn't.
As Peter pointed out - the title "Conspiracy of Silence" is irony.
Earl does NOT claim a conspiracy - you clearly have still not read Earl's work and/or cannot understand the argument.


Thats exactly what myth-makers do - Homer included. You are unable to understand the difference between myth and lies.


Tell that to Heinrich Schlieman
in fact Homer WAS history for many centuries, nowadays we realise its mostly myth, like the Gospels, which many historians regard as myth - the analogy is fine - e.g. the List of Ships was both considered a historical nugget, and yet also known to vary to meet local ears - just like the Gospels.


The original Gospels were written as MYTH - a STORY about an archetypal spiritual hero - just like modern authors may write a new episode about Luke Skywalker, or just like ancients added a new episode to, say, the story of Hercules. They were NOT written as history - they were written as MYTH and later re-made into history - a crucial point which you still dodn't grasp after repeated explanation.


So,
from your posts we see :[*] you do not understand the actual issues,[*] you haven't any background knowledge of the subject[*] you rave irrationally about alleged "conspiracies" etc.[*] you don't answer the questions and issues raised[*] you resort to personal attack


I'm sure readers will understand when I waste no more time with this person's posts.

Quentin David Jones

Iasion

Greetings RD,

One man's gold is another's garbage?

Well, its "value" to the argument is subjective, and I'll allow that it is not a strong piece of evidence.

But,
I think its probable that :[*] Justin was real and really wrote that book[*] Justin based his book (at least partly) on actual Jewish criticism he had heard of.

Thus,
I conclude from this that:[*] it is possible or even probable that some Jews in the 130s had doubted Jesus existence.


It is just one of a number of arguments - put together as a whole, the various questions and doubts raised in the list of writings I adduced before make for a fair case that the Gospels were seen as myth, not history, by several people from various groups and generations.

Which is part of the larger case that Jesus of Nazareth never existed in history.

Quentin David Jones