Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,213
What was considered fiction or history 2,000 years ago is vastly different from how either is viewed today.
The Historical Jesus III
- Thread starter IanS
- Start date
- Status
What was considered fiction or history 2,000 years ago is vastly different from how either is viewed today.
What a bizarre "strawman" statement!!!
Do you also have unimpeachable evidence for Jesus the Transfiguring Water walker, Satan and the angels?
Satan and the angels were in the company of Jesus of Nazareth the Transfiguring Water Walker in the time of Pontius Pilate.
Last edited:
What bizarre nonsense!! I never claimed the authors of the Pauline Corpus were in Lugdunum.
Which Paul are you talking about?
The PAULINE Corpus is the product of an ANONYMOUS GROUP--NOT a single person.
maximara found my sentence here, amusing at best, incomprehensible at worst. I have to agree, it is ambiguous. Let me try again, to explain what I had been attempting to ask the forum.
I sought to elaborate Irenaeus' role in reinforcing the notion that Paul had appeared AFTER the gospels; I had cited a passage from 1 Timothy, which is almost an exact copy of a passage found in Luke, discussing "scripture".
I realize that some, perhaps including maximara, identify 1 Timothy as having been authored by someone else, not Paul. But, there are authorities who maintain the contrary point of view:
maximara replied, without however, addressing my main point, i.e. whether or not this particular quote provides persuasive evidence that "Paul" wrote his epistles AFTER Mark's gospel. Instead he raised, what I consider, very interesting points (I tried and failed to find that list of authors, at the link provided....)
I had asked about the Muslims because I think simplest is best. For me, the simplest explanation is that Paul's letters were written mid to late second century, ten or twenty years, after Mark's gospel, which I suppose appeared on the scene about 150 CE. What do the Muslims argue, in contesting Christian revision of orthodox Jewish doctrine? Do they highlight Paul? Do they explain when he lived and wrote? When do they assert creation of Mark's gospel? Does the Islamic world share the belief of the Christians, that Paul's epistles preceded the gospels? Does the Islamic literature point to an authority earlier than Irenaeus, as evidence that Paul's writings had played a significant role in the evolution of Christianity, prior to the appearance of the gospels?
I sought to elaborate Irenaeus' role in reinforcing the notion that Paul had appeared AFTER the gospels; I had cited a passage from 1 Timothy, which is almost an exact copy of a passage found in Luke, discussing "scripture".
I realize that some, perhaps including maximara, identify 1 Timothy as having been authored by someone else, not Paul. But, there are authorities who maintain the contrary point of view:
[url=http://biblehub.com/1_timothy/1-4.htm]Pulpit Commentary[/url] said:
waters said:
maximara replied, without however, addressing my main point, i.e. whether or not this particular quote provides persuasive evidence that "Paul" wrote his epistles AFTER Mark's gospel. Instead he raised, what I consider, very interesting points (I tried and failed to find that list of authors, at the link provided....)
Simply: how do you know that Justin quoted 2 Thessalonians, and not the other way around? Isn't 2 Thessalonians another highly contested letter, in terms of authorship?maximara said:
The very fact that we have Greek manuscripts of the NT Canon then it can be easily shown that the Pauline Corpus is a LATE invention AFTER the Jesus story was ALREADY known and composed.
It is easily deduced that the conception and birth narratives in gMatthew and gLuke are LATER additions to the Jesus story.
Well, it can also be easily deduced that the POST-Resurrection narratives in the Pauline Corpus were LATER additions to the Jesus story.
In the Pauline Corpus, it is claimed OVER 500 persons was seen of the Resurrected Jesus which is UNKNOWN by all authors of the NT.
The post-Resurrection visits by Jesus was a LATER addition to the story of Jesus and is CONFIRMED when one examines the version of gMark in the Sinaiticus Codex and the version of gMark in the Alexandrinus Codex.
The Pauline Corpus is the very LAST version of the Jesus story in the Canon.
Even Christians sources ADMIT the Pauline writer KNEW of gLuke and that the letters to Churches were composed AFTER the Apocalypse of John [Revelation]
See Origen's Commentary on Matthew.
See Church History 6.
See the Muratorian Canon.
There is simply no CONTEMPORARY evidence from antiquity that Jesus and Paul in the NT
were figures of history.
The Pauline Corpus appear to have been written by a GROUP no earlier than c 180 CE or no earlier than "True Discourse" attributed to Celsus c 175 CE.
It is easily deduced that the conception and birth narratives in gMatthew and gLuke are LATER additions to the Jesus story.
Well, it can also be easily deduced that the POST-Resurrection narratives in the Pauline Corpus were LATER additions to the Jesus story.
In the Pauline Corpus, it is claimed OVER 500 persons was seen of the Resurrected Jesus which is UNKNOWN by all authors of the NT.
The post-Resurrection visits by Jesus was a LATER addition to the story of Jesus and is CONFIRMED when one examines the version of gMark in the Sinaiticus Codex and the version of gMark in the Alexandrinus Codex.
The Pauline Corpus is the very LAST version of the Jesus story in the Canon.
Even Christians sources ADMIT the Pauline writer KNEW of gLuke and that the letters to Churches were composed AFTER the Apocalypse of John [Revelation]
See Origen's Commentary on Matthew.
See Church History 6.
See the Muratorian Canon.
There is simply no CONTEMPORARY evidence from antiquity that Jesus and Paul in the NT
were figures of history.
The Pauline Corpus appear to have been written by a GROUP no earlier than c 180 CE or no earlier than "True Discourse" attributed to Celsus c 175 CE.
This Paul.
What on earth is the point of continually arguing for page after page about whether Paul's letters were written before or after any gospels?
Because whatever their date, there is no evidence in those letters of anyone claiming ever to have met a human Jesus.
And if no known people ever claimed to have met Jesus, then at the very best any reference to Jesus could be nothing more than hearsay.
And since nobody was ever named as the quoted source for ANY mention of Jesus in Paul's letters (except for Yahweh and "scripture"), that hearsay belief in the letters is also anonymous un-evidenced hearsay.
It was also hearsay which in the very little that Paul said about Jesus, claimed the impossible for him.
So those letters are certainly not evidence of anyone ever knowing a human Jesus, no matter what date they were written.
That does not “prove” Jesus never existed. And I’m not suggesting it proves any such thing. But what it does show is that Paul’s letters are not credible evidence of a human Jesus ever known to anyone ... and that is actually the point of this thread.
Because whatever their date, there is no evidence in those letters of anyone claiming ever to have met a human Jesus.
And if no known people ever claimed to have met Jesus, then at the very best any reference to Jesus could be nothing more than hearsay.
And since nobody was ever named as the quoted source for ANY mention of Jesus in Paul's letters (except for Yahweh and "scripture"), that hearsay belief in the letters is also anonymous un-evidenced hearsay.
It was also hearsay which in the very little that Paul said about Jesus, claimed the impossible for him.
So those letters are certainly not evidence of anyone ever knowing a human Jesus, no matter what date they were written.
That does not “prove” Jesus never existed. And I’m not suggesting it proves any such thing. But what it does show is that Paul’s letters are not credible evidence of a human Jesus ever known to anyone ... and that is actually the point of this thread.
The Pauline Corpus does not prove Jesus existed.
The Pauline Corpus does not prove there was a Jesus cult of Christians in the time of Aretas.
The Pauline Corpus are useless in the HJ argument.
Nevertheless Pontius Pilate existed, and we even have an inscription in his name. Clue. PP is not described in the gospels as either an angel or as Satan. But some of the things stated about him in the text are improbable.
It was not the Christian Bible which provided the historical data for Pontius Pilate.
CLUE. The Christian Bible is a major source of fiction, discrepancies, contradiction, historical problems and improbabilities.
The Christian Bible claims Jesus the TRANSFIGURING WATER Walker [the TRUE Son of God] was on trial under Pontius Pilate.
Such a trial could NOT have happened as described.
The stories of Jesus are sources of PERJURY and historical garbage.
This is a new development in your thinking, that I am watching with interest. Not only are they a forgery; the Christian scriptures are even perjury! Thus, they exist within the realm not merely of error but of crime.
Walter Ego
Illuminator
Paul says he met with Simon Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, or do you need a reliable, contemporaneous first-person account from someone who actually met JC in the flesh before you would entertain the idea that he existed?
And, as I've asked before, do you hold this same standard for other historical characters from the ancient world?
Last edited:
Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.
It was known since at least the 4th century that writers under the name of Paul were LIARS.
"Against Hierocles"
The Apocritus
The Christian Bible Jesus stories are products of LIARS.
The very same Pauline Corpus says Jesus was the Lord from heaven, God's Own Son and that Jesus was God Creator.
Christian writers who made references to the Pauline Corpus ADMITTED their Jesus was Born of a Ghost and God of God.
Do you hold this same standard for other MYTH characters in the ancient world?
Jesus, Satan and Angels were together during the Temptation in gMark.
You are now calling the New Testament "perjury" dejudge. It is a criminal document.
Walter Ego
Illuminator
IMHO DJ is either a poe or an Xian fundie trying to discredit atheists... or both. JC is more "really real" than he is.
Then you didn't look very hard in 1869 Biblical notes and queries.
On page 19 begins Patristic Testimony to the Canon of the Scripture which lists each NT book of the bible and which lists the people that either referenced or quoted that book:
"Paul Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was written AD 53
Is is quoted or referred to by Clement AD 60-100; Ignatius 40-107; Polycarp 108-166; more clearly by Irenaeus, 100-190; Tertullian, 160-220; Clement of Alexandria, 150-220; Marcion, 140; Muratori, 180 & c."
Of course given the age of this I did cross check some of these which is how I was able to get more precise references of 'Justin Martyr's Dial. p. 336 D seems to reference Second Epistle to The Thessalonians and Irenseus refers to it in Adv. Hcer. 3, 7, 2'.
The 'traditional' dates for Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are currently c70, c80, c90, and c100 respectively though Luke could be as young as the 110s and John in the 140s.
As I have mentioned there is no reference to any of our Gospels (not even a sentence) by Church Fathers until the 130s (supposed references before that date are supposed quotes of an earlier Church Father such as is the case with Papias...NONE of his actual work survives) and yet as the sampling above shows we do have references to Paul before that date.
Searching around I found a reference to this:
Rodney Werline (1999). The Transformation of Pauline Arguments in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho. Harvard Theological Review, 92, pp 79-93. doi:10.1017/S0017816000017867.
Here is what the abstract says:
"In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin extensively quotes the Jewish scriptures and includes several citations of logia of Jesus. Furthermore, while explicit citations from Paul are peculiarly absent from the text, Justin, writing from Rome, certainly knows Paul's writings in detail and uses them. Indeed, it seems that the Dialogue provides a perfect occasion for him to employ Paul because in it he addresses the relationship between Judaism and the church, a central topic in both Romans and Galatians. Besides the appearance of Pauline quotations, several of Justin's arguments directly rely on Paul's thinking. For example, Justin probably has Galatians 3 before him as he composes Dialogue 95–96. Oskar Skarsaune's analysis of Justin's writing also indicates that Romans is one of Justin's preferred sources for quotations of the Jewish scriptures; that is, he sometimes quotes the Jewish scriptures as they appear in Paul rather the LXX. He draws especially from the Jewish scriptures quoted in Romans 2–4 and 9–11 because the chapters examine the problem of Torah and the Jews' rejection of the gospel, also two important issues in the Dialogue."
So the claim Justin Martyr did not cite or know Paul is...not accurate.
Sadly as I have pointed out before our list of possible 1st century Christian works are the letters that became the seven epistles Paul, a supposed letter of Clement of Rome, and the writings of Ignatius. Not much to work with.
Last edited:
The Synoptics, especially Mark, are also possible, although Mt and Lk barely so. Wiki suggests this possibility also for Revelation - again, barely.
You asked me that before. And I answered you immediately, and in detail. Do you not read replies when you ask for them?
I don't think Paul's letters do say that. Please quote where any of the supposedly genuine letters of "Paul" say that anyone he met claimed to be the "brother of Jesus".
If you are going to try to re-run the same argument about one single never again repeated 10 word half-sentence saying "other apostles saw I none, save James, the Lords brother", then please be aware that we have been over those few words at least 100 times before in this thread (literally over 100 times!), and in great detail, and there are numerous reasons why it is extremely unwise to assume those few words meant that Paul believed this person "James" to be a family brother of a normal human person known as "Jesus".
I am not going to spell all that out for you again for the 138th time. Please go back and check all of the very obvious reasons why that particular ultra-brief never again repeated one-time remark in one particular letter, is very doubtful as a reference to any real human Jesus who was ever claimed to be the human family brother of anyone.
Walter Ego
Illuminator
- Status