Radorth

So ah, now we have to believe Titus was written in 130 as well as Acts?

Tell you what. Prove it, and I will start to believe in this big conspiracy cooked up during the ongoing Roman persecutions. And while you're at it, tell us what the early fathers, gospel inventers and myth-mongers gained from all this, will you? It will help me take certain leaps of faith which appear to be required for you own theories.

Fair enough? Best I can do.

I wouldn't burn a witch on the evidence I've seen so far.

Radorth

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Radorth

Yes, if he hadn't said "...our hands have handled"

Sorry my faith in your interpretations has to with that.

But you just said there were no early references in the epistles, right? So we are back to square one, whether Mark, the "Q" source and the "slavish" copies made by Luke and Matthew are accurate?

I see I'll never get this. Far as I can tell, Doherty has us going in circles.

And as far as I'm concerned Doherty may not say there was a huge conspiracy, but the implication is obvious. Even two apostles or early fathers getting together and agreeing to lie about an important truth is a "big" conspiracy. And it's one hell of a miracle that nobody said anything, that there is no record of them doing any such thing, such as the confession of one of many apostate Christians. Saying they burned such records only implies a much larger conspiracy involving more and more people.

It's a can of worms, but Doherty apparently can't be fully bothered with that right now.

Radorth

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Amen-Moses

Wait a minute, what the hell happened there?

I argue that Josephus talks in detail about all the cults EXCEPT christianity when it is inconceivable that he could not of heard of it and you take that as evidence of an historical Jesus?

Am I going stark raving mad or did you just take a negative and turn it into a positive!

Amen-Moses

Layman

I'm not sure where you are coming from. I was responding to your claim that Josephus could have learned about Christianity from Christians because he lived in Judea from 37 CE to 64 CE.

Radorth

In order to fully appreciate ED's theory, I am obliged to take the following by faith in what "scholars" inherently free of "confessional" bias say:

1. Peter's epistles were forged later, but Pauls' epistles are substantially reliable and therefore useful in proving Jesus did not exist.

2 "our hands have handled" cannot possibly be an earthly reference.

3. Reference to "the Lord's brother" has no special meaning because we are all brothers of Jesus, even though the phrase is used for no other particular person anywhere in any epistle.

4. Since Acts contains so many references to Jesus, it must have been written later and there are unnamed "huge discrepancies" between the epistles and Acts.

5. The Gospels were "slavishly" copied from one another, although other skeptics point out thousands of discrepancies and Luke is much longer than Mark. The added length is explained by Doherty as nothing more than gratuitous insertions to promote Luke's private beliefs. Identical passages are the result of copying. Divergent passages prove the story cannot be believed, and even John is now seen by more unnamed "scholars" as the result of copying.

6. We should ignore the internal evidence for dating Acts, and forget ED's own question: "How could the author leave out such an important event?" (Such as the death of Paul) We are apparently obliged to assign a late date for Acts based on the works of one or two skeptical scholars, and forget ED's own reasoning. (One suspects another conspiracy not committed by Christians, but such skepticism and credulity on the part of Christians is written off as simple close-mindedness).

7. Any scholar which uses the term "He" is an unworthy opponent for ED. (No alternate term is suggested although a neutral term like "the mythical Jesus" would probably be acceptable).

8. The work of skeptical historians and scholars like Klausner, Durant and Schonfield is old news because it does not allow for more "logical" conclusions.

9. Josephus would have written far more about a real Jesus, even though he was uniformly anxious not to PO Romans or Jews, and Christians were considered the scum of the earth. And what he did write can't be believed anyway. Two other Romans historians mention the persecution of a large number of Christians in the 60's, but these references can be easily written off by "scholars" as well.

10. The more negative sayings in the Gospels which once impressed historians and which make Jesus look anti-gentile and incapable of working miracles in some places were apparently just inserted for show. the whole story was made up to match some fake pro-gentile Pauline story being spread about which brought nothing but persecution on any of the conspirators.

11. Applying Occum's Razor to the Gospels and agreeing there is an "essentially historic" core to them is simply outdated, and hundreds of scholars and historians were mistaken to do so, even though they include many skeptics.

12. We are assured that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but that ED is not really making an extraordinary claim, so the rule does not apply to him.

Sorry fellas, I just don't think my faith in humankind is up to it.

Radorth

(Edited #7. Sorry about the poor wording)

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Layman,
Or are you claiming that Paul, Peter, James, and John the Baptist did not exist on this basis either?
JBap was a mythical character - "virgin" birth (Elizabeth was too old just like Manoahs wife when she bore Samson, and Sarah when she bore Isaac), Herod looking for him to murder him etc, and Salome's demand for his head was straight out of myth. Don't you know JBap leaped from Elizabeths womb to Mary's then Mary became pregnant?

Paul, Peter and James are not shaped on any known mythical figures, so they don't have to have been myths. They didn't come to die for mankind did they, why the hell should we seek evidence for their existence?

Remember, Jesus myth positions are two pronged:

1. Preponderant lack of any reliable historical evidence.

2. ABE - Jesus was a mythical figure and Doherty has provided "proof of concept".

The second point explains why we have the first one. Its a tightly-knit case.

I am shocked that Radorth can mention Peters sermon on the mount as being of ANY value.
Dasyd ministries(a Jewish site) says:
Thanks to midrash and active imaginations.

"There are huge discrepancies between Acts and what Paul tells us in his letters."

They are discrepancies - remember the 500 that saw Jesus?

Tell you what. Prove it, and I will start to believe in this big conspiracy cooked up during the ongoing Roman persecutions. And while you're at it, tell us what the early fathers, gospel inventers and myth-mongers gained from all this, will you? It will help me take certain leaps of faith which appear to be required for you own theories.

Fair enough? Best I can do.

Not fair enough.

It is not necessary to know their motives. You might as well explain to us what the the ancient mesopotamians gained for writing Astra Hasis, Enuma Elish etc.

There is a huge gap between the time when the events allegedly took place that bereaves them of any historical credibility or accuracy.

And even then, the accuracy and the authenticity of whatever was narrated was NOT of prime importance. Read Richard Carriers, "of Cooks and Quacks in the Roman empire first century".

The stories could have circulated without being questioned. Those were gullible times.

Religion brought power and wealth, they had every reason to lie. Those who did not beleive the lie lacked faith and needed exorcism, prayers etc.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Layman

Ummm. Did you even notice the rest of my post? I was pointing out that these figures also lack any nonChristain references, despite the fact that their ministries where 10 time as long and reached far more people and places than Jesus.

So you think John the Baptist did not exist? Was Josephus taken in by this hoax or is his reference to John the Baptist an interpolation?

Ted Hoffman

Does Josephus quote his source for the info? or did he suck it out of the air?

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Layman

Geeze Int. Can you please bring yourself to answer someone else's question? Just this once?

And if you don't know whether Josephus quotes his source or not for the John the Baptist reference perhaps you are simply to ignorant to hold an opinion on the matter of its validity.

Radorth

Huh? I was talking about Peter's reference in his epistle to his experience with Jesus. No sermon mentioned.

Kindly read my post and the Bible before reponding next time.

Radorth