Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-06-2013, 10:03 PM

We had two recent threads on the dating of the Pauline letters. Please do not pursue that topic here.

aa5874 · 06-06-2013, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

We had two recent threads on the dating of the Pauline letters. Please do not pursue that topic here.

You are the one who made a fallacious unsubstantiated claim. I must defend myself against your constant unwarranted unfair attacks.

You youself admitted that you do not accept the conventional wisdom of dating the Pauline letters.

I do not accept the long held presumptions that the Pauline Corpus was composed before the Jesus story was known.

Now, I am dealing with the OP.

It is well known in the Scholarly world that the date of the Pauline Corpus is related to the argument of the HJ of Nazareth argument.

If there were NO Paul, No Pauline letters and No Pauline Churches in the 1st century and None before c 70 CE then it would be extremely difficult to argue for an HJ.

In "Did Jesus Exist?" Bart Ehrman refers to the Pauline Corpus in his HJ of Nazareth argument and specifically addressed Galatians 1.18-20.

See pages 144-156-"Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman.

Frank Zindler is absolutely right--Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" is filled with logical fallacies.

1. In Galatians--the Pauline writer claimed Jesus was God's Son. See Galatians 4.4.

It is clear that the Pauline claims about Jesus are completely compatible with the Gospels and virtually all apologetic sources regardless of when they were composed.

ONLY God through the Holy Ghost was identified as the Father of Jesus in the Canon and Apologetic writers who used the Pauline Corpus.

It does not matter who the apostle James was--Jesus was God's Son made of a woman--a quickening spirit, equal to God and was the Creator who was raised from the dead--A Myth.

By the way, there is no known Apostle James as the Lord's brother in the Gospels.

Galatians 1.18-19 was unknown to the Four Canonised Gospels composed AFTER c 70 CE.

Galatians was most like likely composed AFTER Antiquities of the Jews 20.09.1 or after c 93 CE.

Ehrman seems to have forgotten that even if Jesus was described as human that he could be a product of Mythology like Romulus and Remus or Adam and Eve.

aa5874 · 06-07-2013, 09:06 AM

In "Did Jesus Exist?" Ehrman claims the Pauline Corpus was early and composed before c 70 CE however it can be easily shown that the Pauline Corpus was unknown in the time of Celsus, the author of "True Discourse", composed around c 177 CE.

In 1 Cor. 15 it is claimed by the Pauline writer that the resurrected Jesus appeared to Cephas, the Twelve, Over 500 persons, James and Paul himself.

Celsus did not know of the Pauline post-resurrection visit of OVER 500 persons.

"Against Celsus" 2.70

Quote:

We have answered, also, in the preceding pages, this objection, that “while he was in the body, and no one believed upon him, he preached to all without intermission; but when he might have produced a powerful belief in himself after rising from the dead, he showed himself secretly only to one woman, and to his own boon companions.”...

And later in the same book and chapter Celsus claimed ONLY one saw the resurrected Jesus.

Against Celsus 2.70

Quote:

For having said, a little before, that Jesus had appeared secretly to one woman and His own boon companions, he immediately subjoins: “While undergoing his punishment he was seen by all men, but after his resurrection by one, whereas the opposite ought to have happened.”

Celsus only knew of post-resurrection stories found in the Gospels--Not the Pauline Corpus.

The Pauline Corpus post-resurrection story was unknown to Celsus in "True Discourse" composed around c 177 CE.

The Pauline writers were not contemporaries of Pilate, Tiberius and King Aretas.

The Pauline writers are POST c 177 CE or AFTER "True Discourse".

The Pauline Corpus is worthless in the argument for an Historical Jesus of Nazareth.

aa5874 · 06-07-2013, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Who identified Irenaeus as the broken link in the theory that "Paul" wrote before Mark? aa5874 taught me.

If he has one unpersuasive argument, in my opinion, it is his ostensibly excessive reliance upon Justin Martyr, whose sole extant ancient manuscript is corrupted. However, even that "weakness" supports his perspective, i.e. Justin makes no mention of "Paul".

Can you please identify the corrupted parts of the sole extant manuscripts of Justin?

The writings attributed to Justin Martyr massively and substantially contradict those attributed to Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Ignatius, Polycarp, the authors of the Pauline Corpus, the author of Acts of the Apostles, Clement of Rome, Optatius, Eusebius, Jerome, Chrysostom and others.

Are you claiming that Justin's writings were corrupted to contradict the teachings and history of the Jesus cult as found in "Church History"?

May I remind you that writings attributed to Justin Martyr only recognised one book found in the Canon, the Apocalypse of John.

What really is the corruption in the writings attributed to Justin when he used the Septuagint [or a similar source] and not the Pauline Corpus to show where the teachings of the Jesus cult were derived?

It is extremely difficult to show that writings attributed to Justin were corrupted and were corrupted to contradict the teachings and history of the Church itself.

I would be extremely delighted for you to point out the corruption of writings attributed to Justin Martyr.

Now, in "Did Jesus Exist"? by Bart Ehrman [the historical argument for HJ of Nazareth] it is claimed the Pauline writer did or most likely existed in the 1st century, since at least c 36 CE, and preached about Jesus who was raised from the dead.

However, in the Pauline Corpus it is not confirmed or claimed that the Pauline Jesus [God's Son] lived in or was born in Nazareth.

If the Pauline letters were first, as Ehrman argued, then Jesus of Nazareth is a late invention in the Gospels.

Secondly, No city of Nazareth has ever been found.

Ehrman's HJ of Nazareth is without corroboration from the very start.

Ehrman's argument for an HJ of Nazareth is the weakest of weak arguments and is completely unsubstantiated and must be derived from admitted problematic sources filled with discrepancies and contradictions.

aa5874 · 06-08-2013, 09:42 AM

Frank Zindler is absolutely right--Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" is filled with logical fallacies and unsubstantiated assertions.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

As soon as Ehrman admitted the Gospels are riddled with historical problems and that they relate to event that almost certainnly did not happen then he MUST resort to logical fallacies.

It is completely illogical by Ehrman to argue the Gospels are among the best attested books while simultaneously admitting that it is not really known what the Gospels originally contained and at the same time exposing that the Gospels are riddled with events that most likely did not happen.

These are the words of Ehrman at page 182 of "Did Jesus Exist?".

Quote:

It is absolutely true, in my judgment, that the New Testament accounts of Jesus are filled with discrepancies and contradictions in matters both large and small.

Illogically, Ehrman relied directly on the New Testament for the history of his Jesus of Nazareth WITHOUT any corroborative evidence from antiquity outside of the very NT corrupted sources and those who used them.

DCHindley · 06-08-2013, 10:58 AM

Aa, your whole argument here seems confused.

Why would you cite two 2nd century authors (Irenaeus & Aristides) as the earliest witnesses to a written gospel, but then attack the credibility of one of them?

You say Irenaeus' Against Heresies "claimed Jesus was crucified 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius."

This would date the crucifixion to 47-49 CE (counted from Tiberius' 15th year, which could be counted from the date of his co-regency with Augustus, 27 CE, or from his sole rule upon Augustus' death, 29 CE) which is clearly at variance with the account of Josephus, that Pilate was removed in late 36 or early 37 CE.

However, what Irenaeus actually says in 2.22.4-6 is that Jesus was just shy of 30 yrs old in the 15th year of Tiberius, and was at least 40 yrs old at the time of his death.

Irenaeus had assumed that the 15th year of Tiberius is to be counted from his co-regency with Augustus to the end of Pilate's governance, a period of roughly 10 years.

It does not appear that you have proposed a well thought out and effective argument.

And you want to apply a rule that you cannot speculate on the dates of composition of the various Gospels any earlier than the 1st witness to their existence, but this is not how historians work, or else we can't know much of anything about ancient literature, classical or Christian, that precedes the fall of the Roman empire in 1000 CE, when most of the earliest surviving manuscripts date to.

With the new BC&H rules being applied as we speak since early March 2013, you are going to have to do better than this if you expect to continue posting on this board, as your irrational appearing posts may be reported as attempts to derail or impede threads.
DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

MrMacson, it is important to make a distinction between the drafting of the individual gospels (when they were first written) and the formation of the canon (compilation into a set of holy scriptures). The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) are widely thought to be written before 90 CE, owing to the existence of the imminent apocalyptic prophecies of Jesus found within them without apology, in contrast to the gospels of John and Thomas and other later Christian writings.

There is no supporting evidence for the presumptions of Scholars. We can no longer accept unsubstantiated thoughts.

The first source to mention the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark and Luke claimed Jesus was crucified 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius--See "Against Heresies" 2.22.

All you have are unsubstantiated thoughts and no supporting evidence.

In the writings of the Jesus cult it is claimed Paul was alive after gLuke was written.

We know how the Jesus story most likely in the 2nd century.

It is found in the 2ND century writings of Aristides "Apology".

[U]ARISTIDES' Apology

Quote:

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time ago was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.

This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished.

But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness.

And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they have become famous.

There was never any historical Jesus just 2nd century myth fables about a God that came down from heaven called Jesus Christ.

stephan huller · 06-08-2013, 11:05 AM

But in all fairness Irenaeus says the Passion under Claudius in Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. And the wording in Against Heresies is "almost fifty" with specific reference to it being the proper age if a "magister" - the original Greek is of course lost

aa5874 · 06-08-2013, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Aa, your whole argument here seems confused.

Why would you cite two 2nd century authors (Irenaeus & Aristides) as the earliest witnesses to a written gospel, but then attack the credibility of one of them?

You say Irenaeus' Against Heresies "claimed Jesus was crucified 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius."

This would date the crucifixion to 47-49 CE (counted from Tiberius' 15th year, which could be counted from the date of his co-regency with Augustus, 27 CE, or from his sole rule upon Augustus' death, 29 CE) which is clearly at variance with the account of Josephus, that Pilate was removed in late 36 or early 37 CE.

However, what Irenaeus actually says in 2.22.4-6 is that Jesus was just shy of 30 yrs old in the 15th year of Tiberius, and was at least 40 yrs old at the time of his death.

Irenaeus had assumed that the 15th year of Tiberius is to be counted from his co-regency with Augustus to the end of Pilate's governance, a period of roughly 10 years.

It does not appear that you have proposed a well thought out and effective argument.

And you want to apply a rule that you cannot speculate on the dates of composition of the various Gospels any earlier than the 1st witness to their existence, but this is not how historians work, or else we can't know much of anything about ancient literature, classical or Christian, that precedes the fall of the Roman empire in 1000 CE, when most of the earliest surviving manuscripts date to.

With the new BC&H rules being applied as we speak, you are going to have to do better than this if you expect to continue posting on this board.

The rules apply to you. You have presented no evidence from antiquity at all in your response to my posts.

You openly violate the rules.

You know the rules. Present your evidence from antiquity because I am tired of your rhetoric and double standard.

Where are your sources from antiquity that support you? I need to see them.

It is utterly erroneous that in Against Heresies 2.22 that Jesus died at about 40 years--absolute nonsense.

You should be aware that I have "Against Heresies" 2.22 in front of me

Against Heresies 2.22

Quote:

For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years............... He did not then wont much of being fifty years old;(6) and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year.

For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year....

It is there in "Against Heresies 2.22 that Jesus died around the 50th year.

aa5874 · 06-08-2013, 03:35 PM

We have hundreds of texts from antiquity about a character called Jesus Christ and perhaps far more texts than any other character in the ancient world so it can EASILY be determined about when the Jesus story was fabricated.

It was a piece of cake just time consuming to show that the Jesus story and the Pauline writers were not from the 1st century but from the 2nd century or later.

"Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman is virtually worthless since he admitted his sources are riddled with discrepancies, contradictions, and events that most likely did not happen.

One very significant writing is "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen.

It is said that Celsus was a late 2nd century writer who was the first known to have written against the Christians in "True Discourse".

Origen claimed or implied Celsu wrote Nothing of PAUL and this appears to be confirmed in the post-resurrection visits stated by Celsus.

Celsus did NOT know that over 500 PEOPLE was visited by the resurrected Jesus up to c 177 CE.

Against Celsus 1

Quote:

...And I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ.

Aristides, Justin Martyr, Municius Felix, and Arnobius forgot too!!

We also can deduce that Celsus did not know any Gospels called according Matthew, Mark, Luke and gJohn.

Anyone who is familiar with the Four Canonised Gospels will readily see massive discrepancies and contradictions between each although the story line is similar.

The same applies to Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus--there are major problems between accounts of Saul/Paul in Acts and the Pauline Corpus.

Celsus did not address the discrepancies beteeen the Gospels, and between Acts and the Pauline Corpus.

Now, there is a writing attributed to Macarius Magnes entitled "Apocritus" written against the Christians and it will be seen that Macarius Magnes did call by name the supposed Four authors of the Gospels including Acts of the Apostles and Paul.

See http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ma...pocriticus.htm

Quote:

......So if Paul is in pretence at one time a Jew, at another a Roman, at one time without law, and at another a Greek, and whenever he wishes is a stranger and an enemy to each thing, by stealing into each, he has made each useless, robbing each of its scope by his flattery.

We conclude then that he is a liar and manifestly brought up in an atmosphere of lying.200 And it is beside the point for him to say : "I speak the truth in Christ, I lie not" (Rom. ix. 1). For the man who has just now conformed to the law, and to-day to the Gospel, is rightly regarded as knavish and hollow both in private and in public life.

Macarius Magnes identified discrepancies in Acts and the Pauline Corpus and declared Paul was a Liar.

On the other hand, Celsus wrote of no dicrepancies between Acts and the Pauline Corpus.

Macarius Magnes wrote of the discrepancies and contradictions in the Passion of Jesus in gLuke, gMatthew and gJohn.

Apocritus

Quote:

But he with bitterness, and with very grim look, bent forward and declared to us yet more savagely that the Evangelists were inventors and not historians of the events concerning Jesus.

For each of them wrote an account of the Passion which was not harmonious but as contradictory as could be.

For one records that, when he was crucified, a certain man filled a sponge with vinegar and brought it to him (Mark xv. 36). But another says in a different way, "When they had come to the place Golgotha, they gave him to drink wine mingled with gall, and when he had tasted it, he would not drink" (Matt. xxvii. 33). And a little further, "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying, Eloim, Eloim, lama sabachthani ? That is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" This is Matthew (v. 46).

And another says, "Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar. Having therefore bound a vessel89 full of the vinegar with a reed, they offered it to his mouth. When therefore he had taken the vinegar, Jesus said, It is finished, and having bowed his head, he gave up the ghost" (John xix. 29).

But another says, "And he cried out with a loud voice and said, Father, into thy hands I will commend90 my spirit." This happens to be Luke (Luke xxiii. 46).

From this out-of-date and contradictory record, one can receive it as the statement of the suffering, not of one man, but of many.

For if one says "Into thy hands I will commend my spirit," and another " It is finished," and another "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?" and another " My God, my God, why didst thou reproach me ?" 91 it is plain that this is a discordant invention, and either points to many who were crucified, or one who died hard and did not give a clear view of his passion to those who were present.

But if these men were not able to tell the manner of his death in a truthful way, and simply repeated it by rote, neither did they leave any clear record concerning the rest of the narrative.

Macarius Magnes showed that he was aware of the discrepancies and contradictions of the Four Gospels but NOT Celsus.

It was expected that Celsus would have done like Macarius and identified the authors of the Gospels, along with the problems associated with Acts and the Pauline Corpus.

Celsus only mentioned the Gospels without ever naming any specific authors.

"Against Celsus" attributed to Origen confirms that the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus were unknown up to c 177 CE.

Minimalist · 06-08-2013, 06:51 PM

Quote:

though he may have gone out on a limb among the mythicists himself with his theory that Nazareth didn't exist.

It is important to specify WHEN Nazareth existed. It exists now...but the question is, did it exist at the end of the first millenium BC. Evidence for that is sparse.... at best.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-06-2013, 10:03 PM	#21
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	We had two recent threads on the dating of the Pauline letters. Please do not pursue that topic here.

06-08-2013, 11:05 AM	#27
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But in all fairness Irenaeus says the Passion under Claudius in Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. And the wording in Against Heresies is "almost fifty" with specific reference to it being the proper age if a "magister" - the original Greek is of course lost

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.