The Historical Jesus II

[JaysonR]

Question: is the thread still running an assumption that all Christian groups were aware of all Christian groups and that there was only one consecutive lineage of Christianity?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Question: is the thread still running an assumption that all Christian groups were aware of all Christian groups and that there was only one consecutive lineage of Christianity?

Don't spoil the fun and go skeptic

 

[Craig B]

Again, you write logical fallacious arguments. The existing versions of Pauline Corpus in the versions of the New Testament were compiled from Multiple Codices of which some are from the MIDDLE AGES.

But we know THAT the Pauline Corpus was composed prior to the middle AGES; which proves my point that the date of a given manuscript is later than the date of composition of the work.

It does not logically follow that because there is mention of Aretas in ONE letter under the name of Paul that he [Paul] was a figure of history in the time of Aretas or that letters under the name of Paul were actually composed c 50-60 CE.

No of course IT doesn't logically follow, but it is good evidence, whereas saying Paul wrote in the middle AGES is utter balderdash FROM the point of view not only of logic, but of sanity itself.

The letters under the name of Paul are NOT from a UNITARY source so it is extremely logically fallacious to use ONE letter dated to the 2nd century or later to date ALL letters to 50-60 CE.

Some are probably by Paul. These are called "authentic". Others are definitely not by Paul. This matter has been studied and reasonable conclusions have been drawn. But of course one can always argue THAT the entire NT is a collection of forged hoaxes perpetrated by a PACK of liars hundreds of years later, and they were off THEIR nut. The manuscripts may have been dated to, as you say, the second century, or the fourth, or THE middle ages and, for that matter, examples are still being printed on modern presses even as I write this. But these are copies of an earlier original. Internal evidence tells us that the events related by Paul and in Acts occurred in the mid first century.

The EXISTING manuscripts and Codices of the Pauline Corpus ALSO mention Aretas in ONE letter but that letter is STILL dated to the 2nd century or later.

The earliest extant copies are thus dated. dejudge, you are so repetitive in this error of confusing manuscript and content that I'm BECOMING concerned about your ability to understand ancient writings. Have you forgotten that Caesar's GALLIC War is datable by your method to the ninth century AD (earliest extant manuscript) but to the first century BC (internal evidence provided by the text, DESCRIBING Gaul and Britain as they were at the earlier date)? Now, which of these is correct?

The author of Acts mentions Paul, Gallio, and the standing Temple but Acts of the Apostles is STILL DATED AFTER c 70 CE.

Yes, the author of Acts, who was probably also the author of gLuke, is relating EVENTS, not necessarily accurately, that occurred some time previously. Paul too, describes events that happened earlier in his life. So he's WRITING about past events too, not ALWAYS accurately. But he was most certainly not WRITING in the Middle Ages or in the second CENTURY or later. The state of things in the churches to which he was writing had changed in later times, and Paul KNOWS nothing of this. He addresses congregations, and not monarchical bishops, for example. We've been through all this, dejudge.

The author of Acts mentioned Paul OVER 120 times and did NOT acknowledge that Paul wrote letters to Churches.

That's a preposterous argument dejudge.

Based on the massive amount of INTERNAL EVIDENCE in the Pauline Corpus, the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Revelation, Apologetics, and even non Christian writings the Pauline Corpus was INVENTED AFTER the stories of Jesus were ALREADY written and known in the Roman Empire.

Since you regard the ENTIRE nt as a forgery concocted by packs of nut cases and liars HUNDREDS of years after the first century, how did stories of JESUS become known about at all?

 

[dejudge]

Again, you write logical fallacious arguments. The existing versions of Pauline Corpus in the versions of the New Testament were compiled from Multiple Codices of which some are from the MIDDLE AGES.

But we know THAT the Pauline Corpus was composed prior to the middle AGES; which proves my point that the date of a given
manuscript is later than the date of composition of the work.

We know that you are using writings under the name of Paul which were compiled from the MIDDLE AGES and fallaciously claiming that they were written c 50-60 CE.

You cannot prove the Pauline Corpus or any part of it was composed c 50-60 CE because ONE letter mentions Aretas.

It does not logically follow that because there is mention of Aretas in ONE letter under the name of Paul that he [Paul] was a figure of history in the time of Aretas or that letters under the name of Paul were actually composed c 50-60 CE.

No of course IT doesn't logically follow, but it is good evidence, whereas saying Paul wrote in the middle AGES is utter balderdash FROM the point of view not only of logic, but of sanity itself.

No, No, No!! Your logically fallacious argument that since a single letter mentioned Aretas that letters to Churches were actually written by a character called Paul since c 50-60 CE IS utter balderash.

All the EXISTING letters with the name Paul were written Anonymously and some were written in the MIDDLE AGES.

You are ACTIVELY using the ANONYMOUS letters compiled from manuscripts of the MIDDLE AGES and fallaciously claiming they were probably written by your Paul.

Your Paul, the AUDITORY hallucinator, did NOT write any of the EXISTING letters if he lived and died since pre 70 CE.

The letters under the name of Paul are NOT from a UNITARY source so it is extremely logically fallacious to use ONE letter dated to the 2nd century or later to date ALL letters to 50-60 CE.

Some are probably by Paul. These are called "authentic". Others are definitely not by Paul. This matter has been studied and reasonable conclusions have been drawn. But of course one can always argue THAT the entire NT is a collection of forged hoaxes perpetrated by a PACK of liars hundreds of years later, and they were off THEIR nut. The manuscripts may have been dated to, as you say, the second century, or the fourth, or THE middle ages and, for that matter, examples are still being printed on modern presses even as I write this. But these are copies of an earlier original. Internal evidence tells us that the events related by Paul and in Acts occurred in the mid first century.

Again, you write fiction and logically fallacious arguments. You have ZERO evidence that your Paul, the Auditory hallucinator, wrote any letters to Churches. You have ZERO EVIDENCE of an historical Paul.

The author of Acts mentioned a character called Paul OVER 120 TIMES and did NOT MENTION that he wrote letters to Churches.

It was the complete OPPOSITE.

The CHURCH wrote letters and gave them to PAUL.

The EXISTING manuscripts and Codices of the Pauline Corpus ALSO mention Aretas in ONE letter but that letter is STILL dated to the 2nd century or later.

The earliest extant copies are thus dated. dejudge, you are so repetitive in this error of confusing manuscript and content that I'm BECOMING concerned about your ability to understand ancient writings. Have you forgotten that Caesar's GALLIC War is datable by your method to the ninth century AD (earliest extant manuscript) but to the first century BC (internal evidence provided by the text, DESCRIBING Gaul and Britain as they were at the earlier date)? Now, which of these is correct?

Again, you have ZERO evidence of an historical Paul and ZERO evidence that your Paul actually wrote letters to Churches so the mention of Aretas in a single letter dated to the 2nd century or later is NOT EVIDENCE the letters under the name of Paul were composed c 50-60 CE.

The author of Acts mentions Paul, Gallio, and the standing Temple but Acts of the Apostles is STILL DATED AFTER c 70 CE.

Yes, the author of Acts, who was probably also the author of gLuke, is relating EVENTS, not necessarily accurately, that occurred some time previously. Paul too, describes events that happened earlier in his life. So he's WRITING about past events too, not ALWAYS accurately. But he was most certainly not WRITING in the Middle Ages or in the second CENTURY or later. The state of things in the churches to which he was writing had changed in later times, and Paul KNOWS nothing of this. He addresses congregations, and not monarchical bishops, for example. We've been through all this, dejudge.

We have been through your logically fallacious arguments many times. You have ZERO evidence of an historical Paul.

In the NT itself, NO author corroborated that Paul wrote letters to Churches since c 50-60 CE.

You have been propagating the unevidenced propaganda that your Paul wrote letters c 50-60 CE USING writings of those "BIGOTS" of the Middle Ages to justify their Ghost stories of Jesus.

The author of Acts mentioned Paul OVER 120 times and did NOT acknowledge that Paul wrote letters to Churches.

That's a preposterous argument dejudge.

You don't know the difference between an argument and FACTS.

It is a FACT that a character called Paul is mentioned in Acts of the Apostle over 120 times but there is ZERO acknowledgment that he [Paul] wrote letters to Churches.

You have ZERO corroboration for your baseless propaganda that letters under the name of Paul were composed c 50-60 CE.

Based on the massive amount of INTERNAL EVIDENCE in the Pauline Corpus, the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Revelation, Apologetics, and even non Christian writings the Pauline Corpus was INVENTED AFTER the stories of Jesus were ALREADY written and known in the Roman Empire.

Since you regard the ENTIRE nt as a forgery concocted by packs of nut cases and liars HUNDREDS of years after the first century, how did stories of JESUS become known about at all?

Again, you write fiction. Bart Ehrman in "Did Jesus Exist?" stated that the Gospels were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and that many so-called plausible events of Jesus in the NT did NOT or most likely did not happen.

Bart Ehrman even admitted that 18 books of the NT are either forgeries or falsely attributed and that the NT is riddled with discrepancies, historical problems, and contradictions.

The stories of Jesus are ALL from the 2nd century or later and people of antiquity BELIEVED the stories were true.

After all, it was the same Romans and people of the Roman Empire who believed mythology was history who accepted the fiction/myth fables as history

 

[Craig B]

Again, you write fiction. Bart Ehrman in "Did Jesus Exist?" stated that the Gospels were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and that many so-called plausible events of Jesus in the NT did NOT or most likely did not happen.

Bart Ehrman even admitted that 18 books of the NT are either forgeries or falsely attributed and that the NT is riddled with discrepancies, historical problems, and contradictions.

The stories of Jesus are ALL from the 2nd century or later and people of antiquity BELIEVED the stories were true.

After all, it was the same Romans and people of the Roman Empire who believed mythology was history who accepted the fiction/myth fables as history

dejudge it is very silly to cite Bart Ehrman about this cos Bart Ehrman does believe Jesus existed. You know the title of his BOOK is a question: did Jesus exist? What was Ehrman's answer to his own question? Was it No? Was it Maybe? No, it was Yes, Jesus did exist!

When Ehrman said that, Richard Carrier got very cross and started to write nasty things about Bart Ehrman, which you can READ in Carrier's blog. Here's how the nasty things start.

Yesterday Bart Ehrman posted a brief article at the Huffington Post (Did Jesus Exist?) that essentially trashtalks all mythicists (those who argue Jesus Christ never actually existed but was a mythical person, as opposed to historicists, who argue the contrary), indiscriminately, with a litany of blatant factual errors and logical fallacies. This is either the worst writing he has ever done, or there are far more serious flaws in his book than I imagined.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667

 

[maximara]

You write known FICTION-total propaganda.

Over a hundred years ago Scholars have not ONLY rejected the authenticity of ALL letters under the name of Paul but have also REJECTED the character called Paul as a figure of history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_criticism

It is called the radical school for a reason. As the very article you link to states "radical criticism was almost forgotten until it was unearthed by the Journal of Higher Criticism in the United States"

The idea didn't get traction for over half a century and even today is relegated to a very small sub part of the Christ Myth theory whole.

Even Joseph Wheless who saw forgeries galore accepted the seven letters of Paul as genuine.

As I have repeatedly pointed out proposing Paul was a fictional creation doesn't really bring anything to the table and helps lend credence to the idea that the Christ Myth theory is being proposed by the kind of crazies that believe there was no Holocaust or Moon Landing.

As I asked a while ago (and never got an intelligent answer to) what is so important about Paul that he has to be a fictional creation?

Paul gives no real details about the Jesus he talks about, admits that his message comes not from human beings but from visions, and even warns against other Jesuses with other Gospels.

 

[dejudge]

Again, you write fiction. Bart Ehrman in "Did Jesus Exist?" stated that the Gospels were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and that many so-called plausible events of Jesus in the NT did NOT or most likely did not happen.

Bart Ehrman even admitted that 18 books of the NT are either forgeries or falsely attributed and that the NT is riddled with discrepancies, historical problems, and contradictions.

The stories of Jesus are ALL from the 2nd century or later and people of antiquity BELIEVED the stories were true.

After all, it was the same Romans and people of the Roman Empire who believed mythology was history who accepted the fiction/myth fables as history.

dejudge it is very silly to cite Bart Ehrman about this cos Bart Ehrman does believe Jesus existed. You know the title of his BOOK is a question: did Jesus exist? What was Ehrman's answer to his own question? Was it No? Was it Maybe? No, it was Yes, Jesus did exist!

Again, you write logically fallacious arguments. Ehrman BELIEVES the Bible is a GREAT book.

I have exposed that even those who argue for an historical admit the NT is NOT credible and is riddled with fiction, forgeries, false attribution and events that did NOT and could NOT HAVE HAPPENED.

Bart Ehrman arguments are just as logically fallacious as yours since he DISCREDITS the very Bible which is his fundamental source for his HJ argument.

When Ehrman said that, Richard Carrier got very cross and started to write nasty things about Bart Ehrman, which you can READ in Carrier's blog. Here's how the nasty things start. http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667

Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" contains "nasty things" about people whom he called "mythicists".

Bart Ehrman's HJ argument is really a "nasty thing"--NO evidence and riddled with logical fallacies.

You yourself have said "nasty things" about Apologetic writers of antiquity.

Have you forgotten that you claimed they were BIGOTS who made up things to justify their Ghost stories?

Have you forgotten that you said "nasty things" about your Paul, that he had Auditory hallucinations and may have been off his NUT in reality?

You say "nasty things about Paul and Apologetics but still rely on their 2nd century or later Bible stories of Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

Again, you write logically fallacious arguments. Ehrman BELIEVES the Bible is a GREAT book.

In a previous post you stated

Bart Ehrman in "Did Jesus Exist?" stated that the Gospels were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and that many so-called plausible events of Jesus in the NT did NOT or most likely did not happen.

Bart Ehrman even admitted that 18 books of the NT are either forgeries or falsely attributed and that the NT is riddled with discrepancies, historical problems, and contradictions.

This is a "great book"? Full of events that did not HAPPEN, forgeries, discrepancies, contradictions ... If that is a "great book", WHAT on earth would be a "bad book"?

 

[JaysonR]

Don't spoil the fun and go skeptic

oops, crap...sorry.

 

[dejudge]

It is called the radical school for a reason. As the very article you link to states "radical criticism was almost forgotten until it was unearthed by the Journal of Higher Criticism in the United States"

Your statement is of no real value when we are dealing with evidence from antiquity for Jesus and Paul.

There is ZERO historical evidence of antiquity of an historical Jesus and Paul.

Calling someone a radical has NO negative effect on the evidence.

The idea didn't get traction for over half a century and even today is relegated to a very small sub part of the Christ Myth theory whole.

Your statement has no real value when we are dealing with the evidence from antiquity for Jesus and Paul.

Even Joseph Wheless who saw forgeries galore accepted the seven letters of Paul as genuine.

Scholars have already argued that the ALL of the Pauline Corpus are NOT authentic and that Paul was NOT a figure of history based on the existing internal evidence in the hundreds of manuscripts.

Joseph Wheless and YOU cannot and are unable to present any evidence from antiquity for Jesus, Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

As I have repeatedly pointed out proposing Paul was a fictional creation doesn't really bring anything to the table and helps lend credence to the idea that the Christ Myth theory is being proposed by the kind of crazies that believe there was no Holocaust or Moon Landing.

Your statement has no real value when we are dealing with evidence from antiquity.

You do not have any evidence of an historical Paul and NO evidence whatsoever that any letter under the name of Paul was actually composed c 50-60 CE.

The argument that Paul was NOT a figure of history is based on the existing evidence from antiquity.

I am delighted you mention Lunar Landings [Moon Landings] because there are some who argue that Jesus was crucified in the Sub-Lunar and was never claimed to be on earth.

May I remind you that NOT even the Bible, a major source of fiction, states Jesus was crucified in the Sub-Lunar.

As I asked a while ago (and never got an intelligent answer to) what is so important about Paul that he has to be a fictional creation?

It is most amusing that you yourself cannot answer any questions about the historicity of Paul and the time of composition of the letters under the name of Paul.

You admit Acts of the Apostles is an historical train wreck so there is no evidence to show that Paul was NOT a fictional creation. Acts does not mention any Pauline letters.

Acts of the Apostles itself is a fictional creation.

Amazingly, the authors of the Pauline Corpus not only wrote fiction but they themselves particpated in events that did NOT and could not have happened.

Paul gives no real details about the Jesus he talks about, admits that his message comes not from human beings but from visions, and even warns against other Jesuses with other Gospels.

Your statement is in error. The Pauline Corpus gives us details about the resurrected Jesus.

You are engaged in propaganda.

1. The parents of Jesus are God and a woman in Galatians.

2. Jesus was GOD'S OWN SON in Romans.

3. Jesus was the Lord from heaven in Corinthians.

4. Jesus was EQUAL to God in Philippians.

5. Jesus was seen of OVER 500 persons at once after the resurrection in Corinthians.

6. Jesus was KILLED by the Jews in 1 Thessalonians.

7. Jesus will meet the dead in Christ in the AIR.

8. Jesus had supper BEFORE he was delivered up.

The PAuline Jesus was GOD INCARNATE.

 

[JaysonR]

Without raising question to time, I think it is safe ground to state that IF the Pauline texts are PERIOD accuracte, that such does not PROVE Paul's historicity.
Even IF they were written in 50 CE, this does not REQUIRE Paule as real.

 

[dejudge]

Again, you write logically fallacious arguments. Ehrman BELIEVES the Bible is a GREAT book.

In a previous post you stated

Bart Ehrman in "Did Jesus Exist?" stated that the Gospels were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and that many so-called plausible events of Jesus in the NT did NOT or most likely did not happen.

Bart Ehrman even admitted that 18 books of the NT are either forgeries or falsely attributed and that the NT is riddled with discrepancies, historical problems, and contradictions.

[

This is a "great book"? Full of events that did not HAPPEN, forgeries, discrepancies, contradictions ... If that is a "great book", WHAT on earth would be a "bad book"?

I am merely exposing the logical fallacious arguments of Bart Ehrman. He discredits the NT but still think the Bible is a GREAT SET of BOOKS.

Please, read PAGE 56 of Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?".

Bart Ehrman even declared that he LOVES the Bible in the same page 56.

 

[dejudge]

The discovery of the short version and long version of gMark is one of the most significant findings.

The differences in the short gMark and long gMark provide the evidence of what was LATER added or changed to the Jesus story.

The long gMark also shows us that the Jesus story in the Pauline Corpus is a LATER version than the short gMark.

It can be easily seen that any account of Jesus that is found in the short gMark and the Pauline Corpus that the Pauline Corpus will MATCH or be in agreement with the LATER version.

The most significant difference is the ADDITION of the Post-Resurrection visit and Commission to preah the Gospel in the Long gMark.

The Pauline Corpus is in agreement with the LATER long gMark that the resurrected Jesus visited the disciples.

1. The short gMark's Jesus story was composed BEFORE the POST-resurrection visits were invented.

2. The short gMark's Jesus story was composed BEFORE the Great Commission to preach the Gospel was fabricated.

3. The short gMark's Jesus story was composed BEFORE the Long gMark.

4. The short gMark's Jesus story was composed BEFORE the Pauline Corpus.



However, there is more evidence that the short gMark was composed BEFORE the Pauline Corpus when we compare the short gMark, the LATER Long gMark and the Pauline Corpus.

In the Sinaiticus short gMark it is claimed that Jesus would Resurrect AFTER THREE DAYS



Sinaiticus short gMark 9.31........AFTER THREE DAYS [μετα τρεις ημερας]

Sinaiticus short gMark 10.34.......AFTER THREE DAYS.[μετα τρεις ημερας]


In the LATER LONG gMARK the story is ALTERED--Jesus would resurrect on the THIRD DAY.

Alexandrinus LONG gMark 9.31...... the THIRD DAY [τη τριτη ημερα]
]
Alexandrinus LONG gMark 10.34...... the THIRD DAY [τη τριτη ημερα]

Which version will be found in the Pauline Corpus---the LATE changes or the early version?

The Pauline Corpus has the LATER ALTERATION.


Papyrus 46 1 Cor. 15.....the THIRD DAY [τη ημερα τη τριτη]

Sinaiticus 1 Cor. 15.4 ....the THIRD DAY [τη ημερα τη τριτη]

Alexandrinus 1 Cor.15.4...the THIRD DAY [τη ημερα τη τριτη]


But wait, there is more!!!

What will we find in gLuke which is the LAST Synoptic version of the Jesus story?

"After THREE DAYS" or the LATER version "the THIRD DAY"?


Sinaiticus gLuke 9.22.....the THIRD DAY [τη τριτη ημερα]

Alexandrinus gLuke 9.22....the THIRD DAY [τη τριτη ημερα]

The claim in the Pauline Corpus that Jesus resurrected on the THIRD DAY is a LATER version of the Jesus story which was UNKNOWN to the author of the short gMark.

The Pauline Corpus Jesus story was fabricated AFTER the version found in the short gMark.


Sinaiticus short gMark 9.31........,.......AFTER THREE DAYS [μετα τρεις ημερας]

Sinaiticus gLuke 9.22....................the THIRD DAY [τη τριτη ημερα]

Alexandrinus LONG gMark 9.31...... the THIRD DAY [τη τριτη ημερα]

Sinaiticus 1 Cor. 15.4 ..................the THIRD DAY [τη ημερα τη τριτη]

The Pauline Jesus story is the LAST and LATEST version in the NT Canon.

 

[Craig B]

The Pauline Jesus story is the LAST and LATEST version in the NT Canon.

Are you trying to tell us that the whole of the NT with the EXCEPTION of the Pauline epistles WAS in the possession of James and John and Peter before Paul EVEN joined the Jesus movement? Then hundreds of years later the EPISTLES were forged by people who were a pack of insane liars, and they WERE added to the NT canon.

That SEEMS very strange!

 

[JaysonR]

I don't think dejudge holds a position that James, John, or Peter are verified historical figures, so I don't think he holds that the NT was in possession by any of them.
I think dejudge holds that the canonical Gospel texts were written prior to the Pauline texts, but (and I could be mistaken) I don't think he holds that this indicates anything about the figures in the texts' being real.

As far as I understand, and I could be incorrect, dejudge's position is that the conincal Gospel texts came first, then the Pauline texts, but even though the Pauline texts did exist in some form prior to the Middle Ages, that the majority of our current translations depend on manuscripts from the Middle Ages for rendering the Pauline texts and that we lack Papyri of the complete Pauline corpus.

From this perspective, it could be phrased that the Pauline corpus was created in the Middle Ages as far as we're receiving in our age.

At the very least, I would agree that there is a layer of obfuscation related to all of this; though I'm not certain what it offers conclusively in regards to dating when the texts were originally written - but I believe that is somewhat his point - that "we" can't tell what the "original" Pauline corpus was or if such a thing existed conceptually (as opposed to individual texts not united in corpus by adherent's) until much later than the 2nd c CE because we don't have a complete Papyri set of the Pauline corpus, nor do we have a physical Papyri Pauline SET; they are all separate items not guaranteed to have been combined until a much later tradition decided to combine them (and even then, really...it wasn't physically combined because "Bible" wasn't a physically united structure until quite a late date - most had small volumes with a couple texts copied into them and that's about it).


For what it's worth; I have a hard time fully agreeing with the idea of the Pauline texts existing prior to the canonical Gospels.
It creates a very odd sequence of doctrinal evolution.
We would then go from a very cosmic and grand Jesus of Paul which is very sympathetic to modern Christians even if they didn't ever have the canonical Gospels ever existing, and then someone would revert out to a lesser and more mundane Jesus in Mark, then add a Danielic, and very different terminological, Jesus (from either Mark or Paul) in Matthew, then a more philosophically arranged Jesus of Luke, and finally a more near-but-not-quite Pauline Jesus of John.

That's an odd twisting of cultural evolution.

The Pauline Jesus is far more cosmic and grand than at least half of the Gospel texts (that doesn't mean their Jesus is incapable of being understood as cosmic or grand, just not AS much as the Pauline Jesus - except for possibly John, which is considered the LAST Gospel text chronologically).

From a perspective of cultural evolution of doctrinal growth over time, it makes quite a bit more sense to work from something like Mark/Matthew, Luke, John, Pauline texts.

 

[maximara]

For what it's worth; I have a hard time fully agreeing with the idea of the Pauline texts existing prior to the canonical Gospels.
It creates a very odd sequence of doctrinal evolution.
We would then go from a very cosmic and grand Jesus of Paul which is very sympathetic to modern Christians even if they didn't ever have the canonical Gospels ever existing, and then someone would revert out to a lesser and more mundane Jesus in Mark, then add a Danielic, and very different terminological, Jesus (from either Mark or Paul) in Matthew, then a more philosophically arranged Jesus of Luke, and finally a more near-but-not-quite Pauline Jesus of John.

That's an odd twisting of cultural evolution.

Actually that fits Euhemerism to a 'T'. Zeus, Osiris, Heracles and many others started out as "very cosmic and grand" but were later were relegated to real people that were exaggerated into gods.

As I said before these are only four of the some 30+ Gospels known to have existed by the late 3rd century. We also know that some of those Gospels added to the Jesus story to the point that things got ridiculous with Jesus supposedly performing miracles like some human Pez dispenser.

For what ever reason one sect took what would become Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John and proclaimed they were the four main Gospels. I strongly suspect these four Gospels came from four other sects; even Irenaeus acknowledges these Gospels came from different regions as he tries to explain how they are the four "true" Gospels (and IMHO does a really crappy job)

 

[JaysonR]

They absolutely came from, not just one sect, but likely multiple sects adhering to the same single text (keeping in mind that it wasn't uncommon to only have one categorical text during this time in your area; "Bible" wasn't an achievement yet), so I fully agree that I overlooked the possibility of selective sample bias there.

The Pauline texts are odd, though.
I haven't yet a real good reason, since you corrected my thinking on that, but I still feel like it has a more refined cultural definition of the concepts than the other texts.

If Paul was before and the Gospels second; it would almost appear to me as if we're looking at very clear indications of transmission between two very different cultural regions and that the Gospels would be a representation of the receiving cultural regions to attempt to mimic the former in the ways their cultural region can relate to and be interested in....like when Japan takes Western genre music...like Baby Metal...the same...but definitely different in rendering than the one (Western Metal) sent out that they (Japan) received (or, how they understood what they received).

That's now what you have me thinking about; pondering the implications of such events and what that would look like and what can we learn from that perspective in application to the texts themselves.

Thanks for the cool things to think about!
Cheers!

 

[dejudge]

....For what ever reason one sect took what would become Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John and proclaimed they were the four main Gospels. I strongly suspect these four Gospels came from four other sects; even Irenaeus acknowledges these Gospels came from different regions as he tries to explain how they are the four "true" Gospels (and IMHO does a really crappy job)

The writing called "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus is not credible.

Virtually everything about the NT authorship, dating and chronology have been REJECTED by NT Scholars.

In "Against Heresies" it is claimed Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels.

Scholars today admit the Gospels are either forgeries or falsely attributed.

In "Against Heresies" it is claimed that all 13 letters under the name of Paul were composed by him.

Scholars today REJECT "Against Heresies" and admit the Pauline Corpus is a product of MULTIPLE Anonymous authors.

It is clear to me based on the existing evidence that "Against Heresies" is a product of deception.

The authors of the Gospels and Pauline Corpus were fabricated in "Against Heresies" to give PRIMACY [falsely] to the teachings of the Jesus cult.

How is it possible that the author of "Against Heresies" got everything wrong? Irenaeus was supposedly a Presbyter and then Bishop of the Church of Lyons but still claimed Jesus was crucified ABOUT 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius OR AROUND c 49 CE.

The Gospel of the HERETICS PRECEDED the Gospel of the Jesus cult.

It was the Jesus cult of Christians who were the REAL Heretics.

The author of "Against Heresies" introduced ALL FAKE 1st century authors to argue [falsely] that the Jesus cult predated the Heretics.

Bart Ehrman in "Did Jesus Exist?" admits that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did NOT compose the Gospels and were NOT eyewitnesses.

If the Jesus cult and Gospel did ACTUALLY predate the Heretics then there would have been NO good reason to introduce ALL FAKE 1ST century pre 70 CE authors in "Against Heresies".

 

[maximara]

They absolutely came from, not just one sect, but likely multiple sects adhering to the same single text (keeping in mind that it wasn't uncommon to only have one categorical text during this time in your area; "Bible" wasn't an achievement yet), so I fully agree that I overlooked the possibility of selective sample bias there.

Surprising as that was something I mentioned a while ago.

The primary evidence before Carrier's c 120 CE cutoff date is very sparse. As Carrier states after this date "the quantity of bogus literature about Jesus and early Christianity exploded to an immense scope, making the task of sorting truth from fiction effectively impossible"

As I have said there is nothing to really show the Gospels as we have them existed before c 130 CE - no Church Father so much as quotes from them and what little we do have are sentences nuggets. It isn't until c 180 CE that we get our first lengthy quotes and claims that in c140 of a "mangled" form of Luke being written.

What we have that for all practical purposes that falls before that c 120 CE date is Paul's seven letters, a supposed letter of Clement of Rome, and the writings of Ignatius and that is basically it.

Furthermore as I have mentioned before the Christians were very selective about what they preserved via copying. Works that would have helped support the existence of Jesus or the events in Acts are either missing entirely or key time periods of them are missing.

 

[dejudge]

The primary evidence before Carrier's c 120 CE cutoff date is very sparse. As Carrier states after this date "the quantity of bogus literature about Jesus and early Christianity exploded to an immense scope, making the task of sorting truth from fiction effectively impossible".

Please say that again!!! I can't hear you!! Speak a little louder!!!

The primary evidence before Carrier's c 120 CE cutoff date is very sparse. As Carrier states after this date "the quantity of bogus literature about Jesus and early Christianity exploded to an immense scope, making the task of sorting truth from fiction effectively impossible".

All the EXISTING manuscripts of Jesus and Paul are dated AFTER c 120 CE which is time period when the quantity of BOGUS literature exploded to an IMMENSE Scope.

The Existing Pauline Corpus is dated to 175-225 CE and is a part of the IMMENSE QUANTITY of bogus literature about Jesus, Paul and early Christianity.

The Pauline Corpus is a compilation of MULTIPLE ANONYMOUS authors posing as Paul and the stories of Jesus are FICTION.

The stories of Jesus and Paul in the Pauline Corpus are historically worthless.

As I have said there is nothing to really show the Gospels as we have them existed before c 130 CE - no Church Father so much as quotes from them and what little we do have are sentences nuggets. It isn't until c 180 CE that we get our first lengthy quotes and claims that in c140 of a "mangled" form of Luke being written.

The EXISTING manuscripts of the Gospels are dated to 175 CE or later and are part of the IMMENSE quantity of Bogus literature of Jesus and the disciples.

All the Gospels are forgeries or falsely attributed and the stories of Jesus are fiction.

The stories of Jesus and the disciples in the Gospels are historically worthless.

What we have that for all practical purposes that falls before that c 120 CE date is Paul's seven letters, a supposed letter of Clement of Rome, and the writings of Ignatius and that is basically it.

No, No, No!!! You basically write FICTION. You write FALLACIES. You mis-represent the facts.

There is NO actual Christian literature that falls before c 120 CE.

You very well know that ALL EXISTING manuscripts with the Pauline Corpus, the Anonymous letter attributed to Clement and letters attributed to Ignatius are dated NO earlier than c 175 CE.

You very well know that manuscripts dated to 175 CE or later cannot be accepted as historically credible when they are from the time period when there was an IMMENSE quantity of bogus literature.

The EXISTING manuscripts with the Anonymous letter attributed to Clement and the Existing Epistles of Ignatius are historically useless.

Furthermore as I have mentioned before the Christians were very selective about what they preserved via copying. Works that would have helped support the existence of Jesus or the events in Acts are either missing entirely or key time periods of them are missing.

Christian writings of antiquity do claim Jesus existed but NOT as a mere human being.

Christian writings of antiquity were specifically written to argue that Jesus EXISTED as GOD of GOD.

Christian writings contain the story that Jesus was born AFTER his mother was found by a Ghost and that Jesu was KILLED or caused to be KILLED by the Jews.

All Christian writer claimed Jesus EXISTED either as the LORD from heaven, the Son of a Ghost, the Transfiguring Sea water walking Son of God, or God from the beginning.

Jesus and Paul are MYTH/FICTION characters in EXISTING manuscripts and Codices.