Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
06-15-2013, 04:17 PM | #181 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
[u]Wars of the Jews 6.5.4 Quote:
|
||
06-15-2013, 04:22 PM | #182 | |
Contributor
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Babble Belt
Posts: 20,748
|
Quote:
Any serious scholar of first-century Judaism will tell you that the NT is a Jewish text. This includes Orthodox Jews who reject the message of the NT as well as secular scholars who have no dog in the fight. |
|
06-15-2013, 04:31 PM | #183 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
Eusebius contradicts you. It is claimed that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew language FIRST. Eusebius Church History 3.24. 6. Quote:
|
||
06-15-2013, 04:54 PM | #184 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
Quote:
There are no Jewish writers of antiquity who claimed to be members of a Jesus cult or was in contact with any one named Jesus of Nazareth or worshiped a man as a God who abolished Jewish Law since c 30 CE. The Jesus story that he was the Son of God, born of a Ghost and was God the Creator is NOT from the Jews and is confirmed in the very story that the Sanhedrin found Jesus gulity of death for BLASPHEMY and the people demanded that he be Crucified. Virtually all the literature recovered about Jesus from the 2nd century -4th century was found in Egypt or was bought in Egypt. There is virtually no trace of Jesus of Nazareth in Judea. No Jewish writer mentioned Nazareth or that Jesus did did anything in Nazareth. The Dead Sea Scrolls show ZERO trace of Jesus of Nazareth and his so-called disciples. The early Jesus story was fabricated by Non-Jews using the Septuagint or some similar source AFTER c 70 CE. |
||
06-15-2013, 05:06 PM | #185 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,619
|
Quote:
Professor Sciffman evaluation of the changes made in the Amidah circa 80 AD Lawrence H. Schiffman, Who was a Jew?, Ktav Publishing House Inc.,Hoboken , New Jersey,1985 ISBN 0881250546 In pages 51 to 67 he discusses Judaism with early Christianity. In pages 60-61 he writes: Quote:
Also: Quote:
And Quote:
|
||||
06-15-2013, 07:12 PM | #186 | ||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
|
Quote:
Quote:
One support for the claim that Paul was the first to preach about someone named "Jesus" that is made commonly here in this forum is his statement earlier in the chapter that he got his gospel 'from no man'. But, to derive that claim from his statement is an enormous stretch. Paul says he stayed with Cephas for 15 days, one of the 3 pillars in Jerusalem. And, in 1 Cor he again mentions Cephas as having been a fellow-worker in Christ among the Corinthians. Of course Cephas had heard of Jesus. What was Paul's gospel? Very simple: Salvation to ALL men through faith in the resurrection of Jesus, the Jewish Messiah. Gal 3:28 Quote:
Paul even says that the gospel revealed to him pertained to the Gentiles: Quote:
Paul gives us NO reason to conclude anything other than this: The message of salvation to Jews through a resurrected Jewish Messiah was the SAME gospel Cephas believed, James believed, John believed, and all of the believers he persecuted in Judea who had the 'same faith' believed. This in my view is what the text most clearly supports. If you believe Galatians is legit, then prior to Paul there were Jewish Christians throughout Judea who believed Jesus was their Messiah who had died and been resurrected, and their leaders resided in Jerusalem. |
||||||||
06-15-2013, 08:05 PM | #187 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 393
|
Where are you getting this information? Scholars who think that -- at the very least -- gMark, gLuke, Acts, gJohn, 1 & 2 Peter, and the Pastorals are somehow "Jewish texts" are in a very distinct minority.
|
06-15-2013, 08:19 PM | #188 |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
The attempt to place Paul as the first to start the Jesus cult is hopelessly flawed. There is an abundance of evidence from antiquity which tend to establish the Pauline writings are extremely late.
1. If Jesus Christ did exist then it would be more likely that he Jesus started the cult. 2. If Jesus Christ was non-historical and was just a fiction character then the Pauline Corpus is NOT credible. 3. If People had visions of Jesus--the Pauline writer claimed he was LAST after OVER 500 people. 4. If the Jesus cult was PERSECUTED by Paul then the Jesus cult STARTED WITHOUT Paul. 5. By the time Paul wrote to Romans their Faith was already known throughout the WHOLE WORLD. 6. No Pauline letter have been recovered and dated to any time before c 70 CE. 7. The Pauline Corpus contains letters that were deduced to have been composed after c 70 CE. 8. There is NO corroboration for Pauline letters before at least c 59-63 CE in the Canon itself. 9. Apolgetic source claimed the Pauline letters were composed AFTER Revelation. 10. Apologetic sources knew of the story of Jesus but did not acknowledge PAUL. |
06-15-2013, 09:55 PM | #189 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
|
Quote:
Knowledge/truth is bound or tied into the whole while mere opinion is loosed when truth is seen. This is how and why the scraps were bigger that the 2 fishes used to feed the 5000 etc., which also is not a physical meal. |
|
06-15-2013, 11:17 PM | #190 | ||||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
|
Quote:
In one sense, 'Paul' can be credited with christian origins i.e. with the gentile outreach, but to cut off the source of 'Paul's developing theological, or philosophical, thinking (as some mythicists seem to want to do) is to cut 'Paul' off from the faith he once persecuted; the faith that preceded him. Whether one runs with the idea that the faith that preceded 'Paul' was based upon a historical Jesus figure (whatever gospel variant) or whether 'Paul' himself was part of the NT story of early christian origins - the fundamental premise is the same - 'Paul' is a late arrival on the scene. It is irrelevant how one dates the NT manuscripts. It is the story the manuscripts contain that is primary. As to that story - one either views it as an account of a real flesh and blood Jesus figure (of whatever gospel variant) - or one views the NT story as a story of early christian origins. The first option is a closed book - it does not, it cannot, take one close to early christian origins. Yes, it's a plausible option, a simple option. But it's an option that fails to satisfy inquiring minds.....too many questions are left unanswered. The second option presents possibilities for advancing the search, for advancing understanding, for early christian origins. Quote:
That's the NT story - whether read literally or whether read allegorically, mythologically, philosophically or as prophetic, salvation, history. What cannot be done with this NT story is to read it back to front. That's the way to creating nonsense - and allowing the JC historicists a field day for heaping scorn upon the ahistoricist/mythicist position. |
||||||||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|