The Historical Jesus II

[Brainache]

Except it is not clear after Julius Caesar accidentally burning in 48 BCE in just what shape the Great Library was in.

In fact, the very article you link to above says "It flourished under the patronage of the Ptolemaic dynasty and functioned as a major center of scholarship from its construction in the 3rd century BC until the Roman conquest of Egypt in 30 BC."

This implies that the Great Library stopped being a major center of scholarship in 30 BCE some 60 years before Jesus ministry supposedly was.

And later on the article states "Although the various component parts of the physical library were destroyed, in fact the centres of academic excellence had already moved to various capital cities."

While these points are unreferenced and therefore must be viewed with great skepticism with regards to accuracy they do suggest that by the time of Jesus the Great Library had long ceased to be the hub it had once been.

In fact, in our modern world two libraries sit at the level the Great Library at its height once did: The British Library at 170 million works, and the Library of Congress at 158 million works.

The next library on the list (New York Public Library) is roughly a third of those at 53.1 million.

How many of the books in those modern libraries are hand-written?

The great Library remained a centre of learning at least until the time of Hypatia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia

Hypatia (/haɪˈpeɪʃə/ hy-pay-shə; Greek: Ὑπατία Hypatía) (born c. AD 350 – 370; died 415[1][2]) was a Greek Alexandrian Neoplatonist philosopher in Egypt.[3] As head of the Platonist school at Alexandria, she taught philosophy and astronomy.[4][5][6][7]

As a Neoplatonist philosopher, she belonged to the mathematic tradition of the Academy of Athens, as represented by Eudoxus of Cnidus;[8] she was of the intellectual school of the 3rd century thinker Plotinus, which encouraged logic and mathematical study in place of empirical enquiry and strongly encouraged law in place of nature.[3] For followers of Plotinus the life of reason had as its ultimate goal mystical union with the divine.[9]

According to contemporary sources, Hypatia was murdered by a Christian mob after being accused of exacerbating a conflict between two prominent figures in Alexandria: the governor Orestes and the Bishop of Alexandria.[10] Kathleen Wider proposes that the murder of Hypatia marked the end of Classical antiquity,[11] and Stephen Greenblatt observes that her murder "effectively marked the downfall of Alexandrian intellectual life".[12] On the other hand, Christian Wildberg notes that Hellenistic philosophy continued to flourish in the 5th and 6th centuries, and perhaps until the age of Justinian.[13]

 

[dejudge]

Who is claiming that Jesus was worshipped as a god during his lifetime?

You are using the Bible to argue that James the Apostle was the brother of the Lord Jesus.

In the Bible the Lord Jesus was worshiped as a God.

In the Bible Paul the liar and con-man was arguing that Jesus was the LORD from heaven whose parents was God and a woman and worshiped Jesus as a God during his lifetime.

You don't know people who use the Bible argue that Jesus was God of God and was worshiped as a God during his lifetime.

It has already been deuced that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not the authors the Gospels and that writings under the name of Paul were really from multiple sources.

So what?

So your Egyptian Hoax forgery story is nonsense. The author of "Against Heresies" fabricated FAKE authors like Paul the Jew.

You must have just invented that Egyptian fake hoax forgers story because in the manuscripts which have survived it is claimed the JEWS KILLED Jesus or caused Jesus to be killed .

In the stories of Jesus, the Roman Governor, Pilate found NO fault with Jesus and even offered a prisonner exchange.

But my point was about your argument that the stories were invented in Egypt to explain the fall of the Jewish temple. The Jewish temple was destroyed during the Roman suppression of the Jewish Revolt ca. 70 CE. So your argument makes no sense.

You have no point at all. All existings manuscripts of the Jesus story are dated AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple, after c70 CE.

I will not entertain imaginary manuscripts and imaginary dates.

It was the very Christian writers themselves who claimed the Jewish Temple Fell because the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

1. Aristides in "Apology" claimed the Jews killed Jesus .

2. Justin Martyr in "Dialogue with Trypho claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

3. Tertullian in "Answer to the Jews" claimed the JEWS KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

4. Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus born of a Ghost.

5. Origen in "Against Celsus" claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus born of a Ghost.

6. Hippolytus in "Against the Jews" claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

7. Lactantius in "How the Persecutors died" claimed it was written that the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

8. The author of Acts claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

9. A Pauline writer claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

10. Chrysostom in "Against the Jews" claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

In and out the Bible it was claimed that the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God --not the Romans.

Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Eusebius, Chrysostom and others also claimed the Jewish Temple fell because the Jews killed the Lord Jesus.

..Why would these Egyptians care? Why would they invent a Jesus who died 40 years before the revolt?

Jesus was a fiction/myth character in the Bible so it is impossible that he actually died 40 years before the revolt.

I can't believe people in the 21st century still believe the myth fables, the monstrous tales, in the Bible of Jesus are really historical accounts

Now, your questions are irrelevant because Egyptians did teach stories about Jesus before the author of "Against Heresies" fabricated his FAKE authors of the Gospels and Pauline Corpus.

You are not familiar with the evidence from antiquity. You don't know that the stories of Jesus by Egyptian SAGES most likely PREDATED the Corrupted and Remodeled version of the Jesus stories in the Bible.



Please read "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

Please read "Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to

The SAGES of Egypt taught Cerinthus and Basilides stories of Jesus.


Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies

But a certain Cerinthus, himself being disciplined in the teaching of the Egyptians..... And he supposed that Jesus was not generated from a virgin, but that he was born son of Joseph and Mary, just in a manner similar with the rest of men....... It was, however, (the opinion of Cerinthus,) that ultimately Christ departed from Jesus, and that Jesus suffered and rose again; whereas that Christ, being spiritual, remained beyond the possibility of suffering.

Refutation of All Heresies

For in this manner (Basilides) says that the entire Sonship..... was divided into its component elements, according to the manner in which also the distinction of natures had taken place in Jesus.

These, then, are the legends which likewise Basilides details after his sojourn in Egypt; and being instructed by the (sages of this country) in so great a system of wisdom, (the heretic) produced fruits of this description..

Why did the author of "Against Heresies" have to fabricate ALL FAKE authors of the Gospels and Pauline Epistles to [falsely] argue that the Jesus story of the Church of Rome had PRIMACY?

The Jesus stories of the Egyptian Sages PREDATED the stories of the Church of Rome.

 

[Brainache]

When are they going to stop saying things like this?:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...f9a-45de-9639-b7922855bfdb_story.html?hpid=z1

Archaeologists find possible site of Jesus’s trial in Jerusalem

JERUSALEM — It started 15 years ago with plans to expand the Tower of David Museum. But the story took a strange turn when archaeologists started peeling away layers under the floor in an old abandoned building adjacent to the museum in Jerusalem’s Old City.

They knew it had been used as a prison when the Ottoman Turks and then the British ruled these parts. But, as they carefully dug down, they eventually uncovered something extraordinary: the suspected remains of the palace where one of the more famous scenes of the New Testament may have taken place — the trial of Jesus...

They find what might be a part of Herod's Palace and suddenly it's the spot where Pilate tried Jesus...

Makes money for someone, I guess...

 

[dejudge]

dejudge is claiming it, and he has claimed it millions of times. There seems to be no point in telling him that it is not so, and that Jews do not worship Jesus as a god, and never have done, because I have tried in vain to convince dejudge of this simple fact.

You are using the very same Bible where it is claimed Jesus was worshiped as a God during his lifetime.

You are using Galatians 1.19 to argue that the very Jesus, the LORD from heaven, who was worshiped as a God in the Bible was really a man.

The authors of the Jesus stories in the Bible argued that Jesus was worshiped as a God during his lifetime.

Paul, the auditory hallucinator, worshiped Jesus as a God in the Pauline Corpus and argued that Jesus was God Creator from the beginning.

In the Pauline Corpus, Paul was a JEW.

 

[Brainache]

You are using the Bible to argue that James the Apostle was the brother of the Lord Jesus.

In the Bible the Lord Jesus was worshiped as a God.

Not in his own lifetime he wasn't.

In the Bible Paul the liar and con-man was arguing that Jesus was the LORD from heaven whose parents was God and a woman and worshiped Jesus as a God during his lifetime.

Yes, a lying conman claimed to have met Jesus after he died. via a "vision". Not worshipped him as a god while Jesus was alive.

You don't know people who use the Bible argue that Jesus was God of God and was worshiped as a God during his lifetime.

People use the bible to say all sorts of crazy things. I'm interested in finding out what really happened in those days, so I take the gospel stories with a grain of salt.

So your Egyptian Hoax forgery story is nonsense. The author of "Against Heresies" fabricated FAKE authors like Paul the Jew.

Nonsense. These arguments of yours just don't follow from their premises.

You have no point at all. All existings manuscripts of the Jesus story are dated AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple, after c70 CE.

I will not entertain imaginary manuscripts and imaginary dates.

Only because you don't understand how History is actually studied by Professionals.

It was the very Christian writers themselves who claimed the Jewish Temple Fell because the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

1. Aristides in "Apology" claimed the Jews killed Jesus .

2. Justin Martyr in "Dialogue with Trypho claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

3. Tertullian in "Answer to the Jews" claimed the JEWS KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

4. Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus born of a Ghost.

5. Origen in "Against Celsus" claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus born of a Ghost.

6. Hippolytus in "Against the Jews" claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

7. Lactantius in "How the Persecutors died" claimed it was written that the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

8. The author of Acts claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

9. A Pauline writer claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

10. Chrysostom in "Against the Jews" claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

In and out the Bible it was claimed that the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God --not the Romans.

Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Eusebius, Chrysostom and others also claimed the Jewish Temple fell because the Jews killed the Lord Jesus.

And you believe them? What do non-Christian sources say? Try Josephus for a start...

Jesus was a fiction/myth character in the Bible so it is impossible that he actually died 40 years before the revolt.

I can't believe people in the 21st century still believe the myth fables, the monstrous tales, in the Bible of Jesus are really historical accounts

Now, your questions are irrelevant because Egyptians did teach stories about Jesus before the author of "Against Heresies" fabricated his FAKE authors of the Gospels and Pauline Corpus.

You are not familiar with the evidence from antiquity. You don't know that the stories of Jesus by Egyptian SAGES most likely PREDATED the Corrupted and Remodeled version of the Jesus stories in the Bible.



Please read "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

Please read "Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to

The SAGES of Egypt taught Cerinthus and Basilides stories of Jesus.


Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies

Refutation of All Heresies

Why did the author of "Against Heresies" have to fabricate ALL FAKE authors of the Gospels and Pauline Epistles to [falsely] argue that the Jesus story of the Church of Rome had PRIMACY?

The Jesus stories of the Egyptian Sages PREDATED the stories of the Church of Rome.

Your arguments are confused and self-contradictory, you should try to fix that.

 

[dejudge]

You are using the Bible to argue that James the Apostle was the brother of the Lord Jesus.

In the Bible the Lord Jesus was worshiped as a God.

Not in his own lifetime he wasn't.

Your statement is extremely bizarre.

Who would worship a dead body as a God when in the very story the character called Jesus claimed he would resurrect?

Jesus of Nazareth was worshiped as a God when he was alive in the NT.

In fact, it is claimed in the NT that Paul and OVER 500 persons was seen of the Resurrected Jesus.

In the Bible Jesus was GOD so it is absurd to suggest that Jesus was dead when he was worshiped as a God.

In the Bible Paul the liar and con-man was arguing that Jesus was the LORD from heaven whose parents was God and a woman and worshiped Jesus as a God during his lifetime.[/quote[

;quote=Brainache]Yes, a lying conman claimed to have met Jesus after he died. via a "vision". Not worshipped him as a god while Jesus was alive.

No, No, No!!! You made up that story. The Pauline writer claimed he was a WITNESS that God raised Jesus from the dead.

You put forward the most absurd notion that the Canonised Pauline Corpus are heretical writings.

You don't know people who use the Bible argue that Jesus was God of God and was worshiped as a God during his lifetime.

People use the bible to say all sorts of crazy things. I'm interested in finding out what really happened in those days, so I take the gospel stories with a grain of salt.

Yes!!! You use the Bible to say that Paul was a liar, a con-man and an Herodian and that Pauline Corpus are heretical writings that contradict the teachings of the Church.

You discredit the Bible and the turn around and use the same discredited source.

Paul lied when he said he met the Lord's brother in Jerusalem.

James the Apostle was NOT the Lord's brother.

Paul lied when he claimed the Son of God [the Lord from heaven] died.

The Son of God--the Lord from heaven must first live before he can die.

Why do you use the words of a liar and a conman in the Bible as history?

So your Egyptian Hoax forgery story is nonsense. The author of "Against Heresies" fabricated FAKE authors like Paul the Jew.

Nonsense. These arguments of yours just don't follow from their premises.

Your post is applicable to you. Your invented Egyptian Hoax forgery story is nonsense and illogically derived.

You very well know that Scholars admit Pauline Corpus is riddled with FAKE Pauls.

It was the author of "Against Heresies" who introduced ALL FAKE authors of the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus.

You have no point at all. All existings manuscripts of the Jesus story are dated AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple, after c70 CE.

I will not entertain imaginary manuscripts and imaginary dates.

Only because you don't understand how History is actually studied by Professionals.

You have no idea how history is done. That is precisely why you use the sources that you have discredited as credible history WITHOUT external corroboration.

It was the very Christian writers themselves who claimed the Jewish Temple Fell because the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

1. Aristides in "Apology" claimed the Jews killed Jesus .

2. Justin Martyr in "Dialogue with Trypho claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

3. Tertullian in "Answer to the Jews" claimed the JEWS KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

4. Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus born of a Ghost.

5. Origen in "Against Celsus" claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus born of a Ghost.

6. Hippolytus in "Against the Jews" claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

7. Lactantius in "How the Persecutors died" claimed it was written that the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

8. The author of Acts claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

9. A Pauline writer claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

10. Chrysostom in "Against the Jews" claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

In and out the Bible it was claimed that the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God --not the Romans.

Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Eusebius, Chrysostom and others also claimed the Jewish Temple fell because the Jews killed the Lord Jesus.

And you believe them? What do non-Christian sources say? Try Josephus for a start...

You don't know how history is done.

I have simply exposed your fabricated story that the Romans killed Jesus.

I simply shown you that Christians of antiquity claimed the JEWS KILLED Jesus.

Where do you get your story that the Romans killed Jesus?

From your imagination.

=dejudge]Jesus was a fiction/myth character in the Bible so it is impossible that he actually died 40 years before the revolt.

I can't believe people in the 21st century still believe the myth fables, the monstrous tales, in the Bible of Jesus are really historical accounts

Now, your questions are irrelevant because Egyptians did teach stories about Jesus before the author of "Against Heresies" fabricated his FAKE authors of the Gospels and Pauline Corpus.

You are not familiar with the evidence from antiquity. You don't know that the stories of Jesus by Egyptian SAGES most likely PREDATED the Corrupted and Remodeled version of the Jesus stories in the Bible.


Please read "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

Please read "Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to

The SAGES of Egypt taught Cerinthus and Basilides stories of Jesus.


Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies

Refutation of All Heresies

Why did the author of "Against Heresies" have to fabricate ALL FAKE authors of the Gospels and Pauline Epistles to [falsely] argue that the Jesus story of the Church of Rome had PRIMACY?

The Jesus stories of the Egyptian Sages PREDATED the stories of the Church of Rome.

Your arguments are confused and self-contradictory, you should try to fix that.

Your statement is an established fallacy. You had NO idea that Egyptian Sages did write stories of Jesus and that those stories most likely PREDATED the FAKE authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul.

Your HJ arguments are baseless. You use the Discredited Christian Bible as a credible historical source and do so without corroboration.

You put forward a most absurd notion that the Canonised Pauline Corpus are really known heretical writings which are NOT in agreement with the very Church who Canonised the letters.


Plus, the HJ argument is inherently contradictory. The Bible, the primary source for the HJ argument, is an established discredited source of mythology/fiction.

 

[Brainache]

Your statement is extremely bizarre.

Who would worship a dead body as a God when in the very story the character called Jesus claimed he would resurrect?

Jesus of Nazareth was worshiped as a God when he was alive in the NT.

No. He was followed as a Teacher or Prophet in the NT.

In fact, it is claimed in the NT that Paul and OVER 500 persons was seen of the Resurrected Jesus.

In the Bible Jesus was GOD so it is absurd to suggest that Jesus was dead when he was worshiped as a God.

You think it is absurd to claim that Jesus was dead after his execution?

No, No, No!!! You made up that story. The Pauline writer claimed he was a WITNESS that God raised Jesus from the dead.

You put forward the most absurd notion that the Canonised Pauline Corpus are heretical writings.

No, I claimed that there were various sects in early Christianity who believed different things. Centuries later these writings were canonised by various committees. There are many contradictory passages as a result. You should know this by now.

Yes!!! You use the Bible to say that Paul was a liar, a con-man and an Herodian and that Pauline Corpus are heretical writings that contradict the teachings of the Church.

Sure Paul contradicts James in his own letters. He fights with Peter too. Matthew contradicts Luke in places too... This should not be news to you.

You discredit the Bible and the turn around and use the same discredited source.

The bible is not a single unified source. Again, something you should be aware of by now.

Paul lied when he said he met the Lord's brother in Jerusalem.

James the Apostle was NOT the Lord's brother.

Paul lied when he claimed the Son of God [the Lord from heaven] died.

The Son of God--the Lord from heaven must first live before he can die.

Why do you use the words of a liar and a conman in the Bible as history?

Is this supposed to make sense?

Your post is applicable to you. Your invented Egyptian Hoax forgery story is nonsense and illogically derived.

It's your story and I agree that it is illogical nonsense.

You very well know that Scholars admit Pauline Corpus is riddled with FAKE Pauls.

It was the author of "Against Heresies" who introduced ALL FAKE authors of the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus.

This is just bizarre.

You have no idea how history is done. That is precisely why you use the sources that you have discredited as credible history WITHOUT external corroboration.

What corroboration do you have for your Hoax Forger nonsense?

You don't know how history is done.

I take that as a compliment in this context.

I have simply exposed your fabricated story that the Romans killed Jesus.

I simply shown you that Christians of antiquity claimed the JEWS KILLED Jesus.

Where do you get your story that the Romans killed Jesus?

From your imagination.

I was talking about the destruction of the temple by the Romans under Titus and Vespasian in the revolt in 70 CE, 40 years after the supposed death of Jesus.

Your statement is an established fallacy. You had NO idea that Egyptian Sages did write stories of Jesus and that those stories most likely PREDATED the FAKE authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul.

It was a question. Who were these Egyptians and why were they so concerned about the Jewish revolt?

Your HJ arguments are baseless. You use the Discredited Christian Bible as a credible historical source and do so without corroboration.

You put forward a most absurd notion that the Canonised Pauline Corpus are really known heretical writings which are NOT in agreement with the very Church who Canonised the letters.


Plus, the HJ argument is inherently contradictory. The Bible, the primary source for the HJ argument, is an established discredited source of mythology/fiction.

And your posts are just a farrago of nonsense and I'm done replying to them.

 

[Craig B]

You are using the Bible to argue that James the Apostle was the brother of the Lord Jesus.

Yes. More than that: in Galatians 1:19, Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 we ARE TOLD that Jesus had a brother called James. Whether he WAS an Apostle or not, "the Bible" says that Jesus had a brother James. By introducing the word Apostle you are INTRODUCING an unnecessary qualification. For you don't believe Jesus had a brother at all, Apostle or not. So your WORDING is dishonest. We've been through this, dejudge.

... And your posts are just a farrago of nonsense and I'm done replying to them.

I think that Brainache is right to stop responding to the nonsense.

 

[maximara]

How many of the books in those modern libraries are hand-written?

The great Library remained a centre of learning at least until the time of Hypatia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia

There is nothing in the passage you quote that even suggests the Great Library still existed in Hypatia's time (d 415 CE)

From the Library of Alexandria article you previously cited:

"Possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria include a fire set by Julius Caesar in 48 BC, an attack by Aurelian in the AD 270s, and the decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in AD 391.

After the main library was fully destroyed, ancient scholars used a "daughter library" in a temple known as the Serapeum, located in another part of the city. According to Socrates of Constantinople, Coptic Pope Theophilus destroyed the Serapeum in AD 391."

Please note all these dates are BEFORE Hypatia was killed.

Note the following:

"[W]hen the enemy endeavored to cut off his communication by sea, he was forced to divert that danger by setting fire to his own ships, which, after burning the docks, thence spread on and destroyed the great library-Plutarch (46 – 120 CE), Life of Caesar

The pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus in the 4th century supports this account.

Socrates of Constantinople (380-439) wrote that the Serapeum along with all other pagan temples were destroyed in 391 CE (Socrates; Roberts, Alexander; Donaldson, James (1885), "Socrates: Book V: Chapter 16", in Philip Schaff et al., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, II II)

So there was no library to speak of by the time Hypatia died. If there was anything during her life time it was likely the Serapeum which had been destroyed some 20 years previously.

The destruction account of 642 CE is doubted as they are all from centuries later and the writers all have clear political motivations

 

[IanS]

Yes. More than that: in Galatians 1:19, Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 we ARE TOLD that Jesus had a brother called James. Whether he WAS an Apostle or not, "the Bible" says that Jesus had a brother James. By introducing the word Apostle you are INTRODUCING an unnecessary qualification. For you don't believe Jesus had a brother at all, Apostle or not. So your WORDING is dishonest. We've been through this, dejudge.
I think that Brainache is right to stop responding to the nonsense.

Iirc that sentence in both Mark and in Mathew is an identical word-for-word copy saying something like "Isn't this the carpenters son? And are not his brothers and sisters X, Y, Z?" (we can easily look it up to get the various exact translations).

But the word-for-word nature shows those two sources were copying or quoting from something else. Those copyist authors of Mathew and Mark were not the originators of that story about the brothers and sisters of a carpenters son ... those authors themselves, who are actually all anonymous, had never met Jesus and could have no idea what sisters or father Jesus ever had ... they were writing about an earlier (now dead) messiah/deity who none of them had ever known except through religious legend extracted from the OT.

On top of which, those are quotes from much later extant copies of the gospels. Perhaps you can tell us the date of those existing copies that include that quote "Is this not the carpenters son....etc"? Because the earliest more-or-less complete and more-or-less fully readable copies, which are afaik the ones that have been used to produce what everyone is using as the detailed story of Jesus in the gospels, apparently date from 4th-6th century and later (mostly 6th century and later).

So what you really mean when you say that Mark and Mathew both "TELL" us that Jesus had human brothers, is that several hundred years after Jesus was supposed to have lived, anonymous copyists Christian writers in g-Mark and g-Mathew both used the same word-for-word sentence which they had clearly copied from elsewhere ... and that comes in gospels which, as I have said before, have been shown in books like that of Randel Helms (Gospel Fictions) to have quite certainly been obtaining their Jesus stories from much earlier writing of divine messiah prophecies in their Old Testament.

In other words - you are trying to tell us that 4th-6th century anonymous copies of g-Mark and g-Mathew can be relied upon as truth about Jesus and his brothers, when these two authors were giving a word-for-word copy of the same sentence, and when the copies were written centuries later by unknown people who had never met Jesus, and where they were obtaining their Jesus beliefs from interpreting passages in ancient OT scripture.

 

[Craig B]

Perhaps you can tell us the date of those existing copies that include that quote "Is this not the carpenters son....etc"?

Of course I can. It's in Mt 13:55, and it took me about twenty seconds to look it up.

p103 (=Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 4403) contains Mt 13:55-57; 14:3-5 (2nd to 3rd century)

http://www.biblequery.org/mtmss.htm Can you not find simple things like that on the internet?

Because the earliest more-or-less complete and more-or-less fully readable copies, which are afaik the ones that have been used to produce what everyone is using as the detailed story of Jesus in the gospels, apparently date from 4th-6th century and later (mostly 6th century and later).

So what you really mean when you say that Mark and Mathew both "TELL" us that Jesus had human brothers, is that several hundred years after Jesus was supposed to have lived, anonymous copyists Christian writers in g-Mark and g-Mathew both used the same word-for-word sentence which they had clearly copied from elsewhere ... and that comes in gospels which, as I have said before, have been shown in books like that of Randel Helms (Gospel Fictions) to have quite certainly been obtaining their Jesus stories from much earlier writing of divine messiah prophecies in their Old Testament.

In other words - you are trying to tell us that 4th-6th century anonymous copies of g-Mark and g-Mathew can be relied upon as truth about Jesus and his brothers, when these two authors were giving a word-for-word copy of the same sentence, and when the copies were written centuries later by unknown people who had never met Jesus, and where they were obtaining their Jesus beliefs from interpreting passages in ancient OT scripture.

I'm not telling anyone any such thing. If you had been interested enough to find the earliest ms you wouldn't be writing rubbish like that either. Give yourself a break.

Oh, by the way. It's from Egypt. Woo! The place where papyrus manuscripts, even if thrown on rubbish heaps like this one, don't crumble away so quickly!

 

[IanS]

Of course I can. It's in Mt 13:55, and it took me about twenty seconds to look it up. http://www.biblequery.org/mtmss.htm Can you not find simple things like that on the internet? I'm not telling anyone any such thing. If you had been interested enough to find the earliest ms you wouldn't be writing rubbish like that either. Give yourself a break.

Oh, by the way. It's from Egypt. Woo! The place where papyrus manuscripts, even if thrown on rubbish heaps like this one, don't crumble away so quickly!

Why bother with such an arrogant and argumentative response. It's of no help at all, and especially when you constantly complain of being offended by the slightest disagreement anyone makes with your posts.

But your link is to a vast long list of single line entries. Please be more specific and tell us where in that long list the link gives the actual entry in question (I'm not doubting it's there, I'm just declining the job of searching through it all on your behalf).

 

[maximara]

Why bother with such an arrogant and argumentative response. It's of no help at all, and especially when you constantly complain of being offended by the slightest disagreement anyone makes with your posts.

But your link is to a vast long list of single line entries. Please be more specific and tell us where in that long list the link gives the actual entry in question (I'm not doubting it's there, I'm just declining the job of searching through it all on your behalf).

Well a little searching to see if Irenaeus mentioned this phrase in Against Heresies (setting c 180 CE as the upper limit on this) didn't pan out but it did get me this:


"The contradictions and textual variations regarding whether Jesus was the son of David or not, and what this link meant, can be seen also outside the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke. They reflect awareness of the conflict between making Jesus of Davidic descent and his virginal conception. For instance, the clause “the carpenter, the son of Mary” in Mark 6:3 appears in different versions in some copies. In several old manuscripts, including the oldest available manuscript, it reads “the son of the carpenter and Mary,” and a few others have it as “son of Mary and Joseph” Miller (2003:213). Matthew also has a different version: “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother named Mary?” (Matt. 13:55). Jesus was repeatedly linked to David not because Joseph was known to be his father, but because the awaited Messiah was believed to be Davidic (p. 234)."


If we accept Irenaeus' work as the upper limit as to when the Gospels in some form existed then something with a 2nd to 3rd century range isn't going to cut it. IMHO need something definitively dated before 180 CE to be of any use.

 

[dejudge]

Your statement is extremely bizarre.

Who would worship a dead body as a God when in the very story the character called Jesus claimed he would resurrect?

Jesus of Nazareth was worshiped as a God when he was alive in the NT.

No. He was followed as a Teacher or Prophet in the NT.

What nonsense. The NT Canon is in agreement with the teachings of the Church that Jesus was God Incarnate

Jesus was the Lord from heaven a Transfiguring water walking Son of a God born of a Ghost and God Creator in the NT.

In fact, it is claimed in the NT that Paul and OVER 500 persons was seen of the Resurrected Jesus.

In the Bible Jesus was GOD so it is absurd to suggest that Jesus was dead when he was worshiped as a God.

You think it is absurd to claim that Jesus was dead after his execution?

It is completely absurd to use the Bible as you do to argue that Jesus the Son of God was dead when he was worshiped as a God.

The very Gospel, the very Good News, is that Jesus the Son of God did resurrect AFTER he was killed.

No, No, No!!! You made up that story. The Pauline writer claimed he was a WITNESS that God raised Jesus from the dead.

You put forward the most absurd notion that the Canonised Pauline Corpus are heretical writings.

No, I claimed that there were various sects in early Christianity who believed different things. Centuries later these writings were canonised by various committees. There are many contradictory passages as a result. You should know this by now.

Again, you are using the Bible as an Heretical source which is completely absurd. You call Paul a Liar and Con man and at the same time accepts his claims WITHOUT corroboration.

We know there were Multiple Christian Sects based on "Against Heresies", "Refutation of All Heresies", "Against Celsus", "Dialogue with Trypho", and "Prescription Against the Heretics".

We know it is claimed Jesus was worshiped as a God when he was ALIVE in those manuscripts.

You have NO manuscripts where the dead body of Jesus is worshiped as a God.

Yes!!! You use the Bible to say that Paul was a liar, a con-man and an Herodian and that Pauline Corpus are heretical writings that contradict the teachings of the Church.

Sure Paul contradicts James in his own letters. He fights with Peter too. Matthew contradicts Luke in places too... This should not be news to you.

You have contradicted yourself. The existing Canonised Pauline Corpus could NOT be Paul's own letters if he was an Heretic and actually argued that Jesus was a mere man with a human father.

It must be news to you that the Pauline Corpus, gMatthew and gLuke are in Agreement that Jesus was the Son of God and a Woman.

It must be news to you that the Pauline Corpus, gMatthew and gLuke are in agreement that Jesus, the Son of God was ALIVE when he was worshiped as God.

You discredit the Bible and the turn around and use the same discredited source.

The bible is not a single unified source. Again, something you should be aware of by now.

The Canon of the Church was "UNIFIED" [HARMONISED]. You use the "UNIFIED" version of the Canon where Jesus is the Lord from heaven, God's Own Son, a Transfiguring Water walking Son of a Ghost, and God Creator who was raised from the dead.

Christians of antiquity used the Bible, especially the Pauline Corpus, gMatthew and gLuke, to argue AGAINST an historical Jesus [ a mere man with a human father].

Paul lied when he said he met the Lord's brother in Jerusalem.

James the Apostle was NOT the Lord's brother.

Paul lied when he claimed the Son of God [the Lord from heaven] died.

The Son of God--the Lord from heaven must first live before he can die.

Why do you use the words of a liar and a conman in the Bible as history?

Is this supposed to make sense?

You are actively using the Bible as an historical source and never realised that the Bible does not make sense.

A Pauline writer claimed the Lord Jesus was the Lord from heaven, the Son of God and a woman and that he was a WITNESS that God raised Jesus from the dead.

You are using the Bible when it does not make any sense historically.

Is it supposed to make sense to use Galatians 1.19 to argue that the LORD Jesus from heaven was really a man?

Your statement is an established fallacy. You had NO idea that Egyptian Sages did write stories of Jesus and that those stories most likely PREDATED the FAKE authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul.

It's your story and I agree that it is illogical nonsense.

You have been writing so much nonsense that you have completely forgotten that you are the one who introduced the illogical nonsense about Egyptian Hoax Forgers.

You don't even remember that Bart Ehrman exposed that the NT Canon is riddled with Fiction, forgeries and false attribution.

You very well know that Scholars admit Pauline Corpus is riddled with FAKE Pauls.

It was the author of "Against Heresies" who introduced ALL FAKE authors of the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus.

This is just bizarre.

You are not familiar with Scholarship.

Examine "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman.

Bart Ehrman contradicts the author of "Against Heresies" and admitted that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did NOT write Gospels and admitted the Gospels and the NT are riddled with fiction, forgeries or false attribution.

Bart Ehrman also admitted that writings under the name of Paul are products of multiple authors.

It is extremely bizarre that you are actively using an established discredited source with supposed writings of a known liar to argue that Jesus was a mere man with a human father.

You have no idea how history is done. That is precisely why you use the sources that you have discredited as credible history WITHOUT external corroboration.

What corroboration do you have for your Hoax Forger nonsense?

You have been writing so much illogically derived nonsense that you have completely forgotten that you are the one who introduced "your Egyptian Hoax Forgers".

What corroboration do you have for your Fabricated "Egyptian Hoax Forgers"?

I have simply exposed your fabricated story that the Romans killed Jesus.

I simply shown you that Christians of antiquity claimed the JEWS KILLED Jesus.

Where do you get your story that the Romans killed Jesus?

From your imagination.

I was talking about the destruction of the temple by the Romans under Titus and Vespasian in the revolt in 70 CE, 40 years after the supposed death of Jesus.

I am talking about what is written by Christian writers of antiquity. Christian writer of antiquity claimed the Jewish Temple Fell because the JEWS KILLED the Son of God.

All the EXISTING stories of Jesus were composed AFTER the Temple Fell c 70 CE.

1. The Jewish Temple Fell c 70 CE.

2. A story was made up that the Jewish Temple Fell because the JEWS KILLED the Son of their own God.

3. People who believed the story were called Christians.

The Jesus story and cult was INITIATED AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

Your statement is an established fallacy. You had NO idea that Egyptian Sages did write stories of Jesus and that those stories most likely PREDATED the FAKE authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul.

It was a question. Who were these Egyptians and why were they so concerned about the Jewish revolt?

Your questions are really irrelevant. Speculation is useless at this time. We know what is written.

It is documented that Egyptian Sages did teach stories of Jesus.

Now that it has been discovered that the author of "Against Heresies" introduced ALL FAKE pre 70 CE authors of the Gospels and Pauline Corpus it is more likely that the stories of Jesus by the Egyptian SAGES predated the Jesus stories of the Church of Rome.

The real Heretic was the Catholic Church.

The stories of Jesus in the Gospels and Pauline Corpus are CORRUPTED and Remodeled versions of the Jesus stories from EGYPTIAN SAGES.

Your HJ arguments are baseless. You use the Discredited Christian Bible as a credible historical source and do so without corroboration.

You put forward a most absurd notion that the Canonised Pauline Corpus are really known heretical writings which are NOT in agreement with the very Church who Canonised the letters.


Plus, the HJ argument is inherently contradictory. The Bible, the primary source for the HJ argument, is an established discredited source of mythology/fiction.

And your posts are just a farrago of nonsense and I'm done replying to them.

You must respond to my posts. It is virtually impossible for you not to do so.

 

[Craig B]

But your link is to a vast long list of single line entries. Please be more specific and tell us where in that long list the link gives the actual entry in question (I'm not doubting it's there, I'm just declining the job of searching through it all on your behalf).

Clue. The P numbers are in arithmetical order. But if you decline the job of looking for the earliest ms of Matt 13:55, that's fine by me. However, your argument was founded on your incorrect estimate of the date of that ms.

As I say, it's all up to you and if you can't be bothered looking for the relevant entry in the list, OK.

 

[Craig B]

You must respond to my posts. It is virtually impossible for you not to do so.

That's an interesting idea. But you may find out that it isn't accurate.

 

[Belz...]

Your statement qualifies as probably the most bizarre or naive in this thread.

And that says a lot since you label EVERY statement by anyone who isn't you as bizarre, naive, fallacious, etc.

 

[Belz...]

The argument for an historical Jesus of Nazareth is probably the very worst kind of argument known to mankind.

Worse than social darwinism and trinitarianism ?

No hyperbole there. Nope.

Do you really believe that your writing style, which has convinced zero people so far despite you being absolutely right about everything (so you say) is the best way to have a discussion ?

 

[IanS]

Clue. The P numbers are in arithmetical order. But if you decline the job of looking for the earliest ms of Matt 13:55, that's fine by me. However, your argument was founded on your incorrect estimate of the date of that ms.

As I say, it's all up to you and if you can't be bothered looking for the relevant entry in the list, OK.

No, the argument was not founded on any such thing. What I said to you (without checking the exact words) was that you are trying to claim Jesus must have been real because in the bible it says in g-Mark and g-Mathew that he has named brothers and sisters ... but those gospels were not written by anyone who was alive at the time to have ever themselves met anyone claimed to be a brother or sister of Jesus, were they!

That is the point (as you very well know).

To repeat - the point, or in fact several points are -

1. the gospels which you use as your evidence were written long after Jesus and any "brothers and sisters" and died ... by anonymous authors who could never have met any such people.

2. the passages you claimed as evidence written centuries later in anonymous copies of g-Mark and g-Mathew, are word-for-word almost identical in both gospels and were clearly copied from somewhere else entirely.

3. as Randel helms book shows (Gospel fictions), the writers of both g-Mark and g-Mathew were certainly obtaining their Jesus stories merely by reading the OT to see whatever prophecies they could re-fashion in the guise of Jesus the "Christ".

4. You are trying to argue that there is written evidence to show Jesus was known to have human brothers and sisters, but your source is a wholly discredited bible of the supernatural from which you are relying upon copies made centuries later by anonymous Christian fanatics who had never known any such people as Jesus and his brothers!

 

[Craig B]

What I said to you (without checking the exact words) was that you are trying to claim Jesus must have been real because in the bible it says in g-Mark and g-Mathew that he has named brothers and sisters ...

What I wrote, in response to dejudge, was

... in Galatians 1:19, Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 we ARE TOLD that Jesus had a brother called James. Whether he WAS an Apostle or not, "the Bible" says that Jesus had a brother James.

I wrote that such passages exist. If I said that proves "Jesus must have been real" you will refer me to the place where I say that (if you can be bothered to look it up, I mean).