MrMacSon

Try this http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle.html
.

aa5874

I am not interested in flawed opinion.

I MUST, MUST, MUST deal with sources of antiquity. I MUST, MUST, MUST see the evidence from antiquity. My methodology, to examine the evidence from antiquity, is practiced at every level on an investigation in or out the Courts.

When I investigate any matter I review the EVIDENCE--NOT opinion.

As soon as you examine the evidence from antiquity you will EASILY solve the Jesus puzzle.

It was absolutely IMPERATIVE that I read and Philo, Plutarch, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, Lucian, Cassius Dio, Jullian the Emperor, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Minucius Felix, Arnobius, Lactantius, the Canonised NT, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Chrysostom, Ephraim the Syrian, Augustine of Hippo, Optatus, Rufinus and others.


Bart Ehrman's HJ of Nazareth argument is hopelessly flawed, extremely weak and filled with logical fallacies.

By the way, based on the ABUNDANCE of evidence from antiquity, the Jesus character is a Myth invented sometime in the 2nd century using Jewish, Roman and Greek Mythology and the writings of Josephus.

Jaybees

Are you fluent in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Aramaic, etc? If not, how can you trust the modern language translations are accurate renditions of the originals?

James The Least

According to Ehrman, Christians could invent and/or forge hundreds of documents in the early centuries, but there's no way they could invent the seven authentic Pauline epistles (or "Paul" himself). No, those must be the real deal. The letters are self-authenticating.

aa5874

Do the Judges in the Supreme Court know ALL languages and Dialects?

Please name the scholars who are fluent in all ANCIENT languages and dialects.

How do jurors trust the translations of a court appointed translator?

Jurors re-construct the past sometimes with the help of court-appointed translators.

In fact, we would expect chaos if each juror was allowed to personally translate statements in foreign languages and dialects.

There is NO requirement or standard that requires that all persons who are even historians to know every ancient language and dialect ever spoken by mankind.

By the way, I do not accept the personal translations of people here who are NOT Professional Trained Translators.

Now, if you do not trust modern translators who do you trust?

Sheshbazzar

Regarding faulty translations of ancient documents, a mistranslated word or phrase here or there rarely will have a significant impact upon the interpretation or sense of the overall corpus of material.
One does not need personal expertise in multiple ancient languages to get the drift of arguments and to judge how accurate or faulty generally held conclusions may be.
aa5874 and moutainman have proven particularly adept at locating the holes and flaws in conventionally accepted interpretations.

Solo

I happen to think that the seven letters of Paul's "corpus" are largely genuine. There is a big problem with postulating the whole Pauline collection to have been forged. If there was no authentic Paul who would decide what was "Paulinist" teaching and what was not ? How would the church and the heretics determine which teachings were Paul's and which were not ? The answer is that the authentic core presents a set of ideas and a style of discourse which appear to be unique. The style was later imitated in the pseudo-Paulines, Pastorals and interpolations in the core which were to align the original Paul's teaching to the developing theology and the canon of the church.

Paul has presented himself as someone who was specifically chosen by God to proclaim his son. If the emerging church credited similar revelations of Christ after Paul's death (and some sects actually were doing just that) it would have been overrun by conflicting claims of authenticity. But it seems that most of the Christian strands soon adopted a tactic to acknowledge only the early apostolic revelations and testimonies as genuine, and therefore, some of the later creativity was done in the name of the founding figures. Since the new faith has evolved largely around Paul's teachings, it is not surprising that most of the forged material bore his name.

Best,
Jiri

Sheshbazzar

The writer of Acts professes to relate details of Paul's ministry. Yet the writer of Acts shows no awareness at all of any such Pauline writings, nor ever cites any of Paul's peculiar beliefs, claims, or 'Epistles'.
The only writings the writer of Acts ever connects with Paul are those that Paul received from the elders of the Jerusalem church, and as a courier passed on.

The accounts of Paul in Acts, and those in the 'Pauline Epistles' do not jibe. This strongly suggest that at the time of the writing of Acts, there were no such 'Pauline Epistles' known, all being latter produced forgeries.

Toto

The writer of Acts makes many references to events of the epistles, but reshapes them to his or her own theological preferences. This indicates that the letters of Paul were well known and needed to be countered or subverted, and that Paul needed to be tamed and brought into conformity with the non-Pauline faction of the church (sometimes called the "proto-orthodox.")

We have been over this issue many times before. Christian apologists try to use the correspondences between the letters and Acts to show that there was some underlying independent source of information for both, but this does not fly.

Sheshbazzar

Yes, while true it is a commonly claimed 'explanation' that the writer of Acts 'reshapes (Paul) to his or her own theological preferences.' It is a premise that is without proof.
I'd posit based on the evidence, that it was the forged 'Pauline Epistles' that subverted, reshaped, and 'updated' the original teachings and ministry of Paul to bring conformity with latter evolved orthodox views.
It is much easier to add to and supplement known and accepted information than to counter it. The argument favors expansion of the Pauline character and teachings via means of forged 'Pauline Epistles' rather than a diminishment of Paul and established Pauline writings via the writing of Acts. ...And that is what has been found. forged 'Pauline Epistles' identified one after another.

Does this indicate I believe or accept the account as given in Acts? By no means, only that I am persuaded the fiction of Acts preceded the additional fictions called the 'Epistles of Paul', with none of it being any factual accounting or history.




.