The Historical Jesus III

[Leumas]

I hope Leumas will not be too cross with you!

I am saying that the consensus, absent bias, is in favour of HJ. You can argue that those who propose it are biased liars and charlatans if you want. Who can gainsay you if you call people mere liars and frauds?

False Dichotomy much? Is there no other choice but totally honest or outright liars and frauds?

But to say that stating something different from your opinion is the most wrong thing that it is possible for a human to say, is simply preposterous.

I am glad you said that.... because it describes EXACTLY what you have been doing

Saying that people who disagree with you and point out your sophistry need LOBOTOMIES.

...But if that's what he's got in his subconscious he needs a visit from Dr Freud. Or a lobotomy.

Saying that people who disagree with you must have a psychological condition so severe that the induced irrationality is the only reason they point out your illogical fallacies.

... You very evidently have a "thing" about this, which inhibits you from rational consideration of the subject.

And then even calling it a MASS DELUSION.

but I see it's now a folie à deux, for you have been joined by an approving commentator! Leumas

 

[Leumas]

Leumas can't think of any reason why this statement

"Mr X Is a carpenter"

is more likely to be authentic than this one

"Mr X created the universe and can walk on water".

But I can think of such reasons, and I would advise Leumas to think about this very hard and maybe he'll guess correctly what they might be.

But you are presenting a completely false choice. Because nobody is being asked to choose only either A or B.

Nobody here (or anywhere else, except perhaps for the most deluded Christians in churches all over the world) has ever suggested that Jesus/God actually created the universe and/or actually walked on water.
And as far as Jesus being a carpenter is concerned, that is only possible if he actually existed! And as has been explained to you (many times), as a matter of indisputable fact, there is actually no evidence of the existence of a human Jesus ever known to anyone at all. None. Zero.

But if you want to know what truly is, as you put it "most likely", then it's extremely likely as a matter of indisputable factual evidence that what the biblical authors wrote about Jesus was packed with untrue fiction, and that their Jesus beliefs came from what had been written centuries before as messiah properties in the OT. That is extremely likely. In fact Paul in particular insistently and repeatedly stresses to his readers that "scripture" was indeed the source of his Jesus beliefs.

In fact, Paul gives no other source at all except for repeatedly citing scripture as his source. And of course, as Randel Helms has shown, the gospel writers were certainly using the OT as a source for their Jesus stories.

Well said!

But there is that other little matter of him totally misrepresenting what I said and disingenuously and purposely ignoring what I have said to him over and over again in NUMEROUS other posts and threads already:

...
But even if it were, how does one know that "there are reasons for supposing this bit of a gospel material is more likely to be authentic than other material" and that it perhaps perchance has a possible kernel of a grain of a hint of a "core truth"?

Why accept that part to hedge one's bets on but not the part that he was delusional and claimed to be the son of god and that he will sit on God's right hand side in heaven?

Why accept that bit as attesting to him having been a carpenter (by assuming that a carpenter's son must also have been a carpenter) while the other bit is rejected as an attestation to him having been a BLASPHEMING DELUDED MORON?

Cherry picking and wishful thinking compounded with utterly preposterous ILLOGIC.

...

What amazing ILLOGIC would make one think that a fairy tale full of magic and demons had it right when it said that the deluded moron protagonist of the tall tale is a son of a carpenter but it was just fabrication when it said that he thought he was the son of god?????

It is not as if thinking oneself to be the son of a god is an impossible miracle or magical thing that can be rejected.
Jesus according to gMark claimed to be the son of god... this is totally possible and it indicates that he was a deluded blasphemer and not an observant Jewish preacher.... so why reject that information and yet argue tooth and nail that he was a carpenter and call anyone who points out the illogic of doing that as a crazy person in need of lobotomy by a dead psychiatrist?

Mark 14:61-64

• 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
• 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
• 14:63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
• 14:64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

....

But that does not make him an "observant Jewish preacher" does it.

... he is also depicted as an observant Jew... There seems here to be a core of material identifying him as a Jewish preacher.

Can you explain how a blaspheming deluded man who thought that he was the son of god and that he will sit on the right hand side of god in heaven could be considered as an "observant Jewish preacher"

Can you explain why you reject the verses below from ALL THREE gospels (not counting gJohn which you have decided to CHERRY PICK out entirely) while YOU KEEP HARPING ON ABOUT THE CARPENTER stuff being true?

There are reasons for supposing that some gospel material is more likely to be authentic than other material.

Do you have "reasons for supposing that the gospel material below is less likely to be authentic" than the carpenter stuff you love so much... that is other than bare assertions and wishful thinking and special pleading and appeal to biased authority?

Why are you hedging your bets and suppositions and wishful thinking on the carpenter bit in gMark but not the BLASPHEMER bits in the very same gospel?

There is nothing magical about a guy being deluded to the point of claiming to be the son of god... it is not a magical event or a miracle for a delusional man to claim he is the son of god.
So you cannot apply that criterion here....ALL THREE gospels (in addition to gJohn which you cherry pick out) report that Jesus is a BLASPHEMER who was so deluded to think that he can forgive sins and is the son of God.
Do you have any rational logical reason to reject those verses while you HOLD TENACIOUSLY to the reality of the carpenter verses?

The carpenter verses are only in Matthew (carpenter's son) and Mark (carpenter) and they are contradictory while the blaspheming stuff is THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT.... why so much betting on those two contradictory verses to be true while verses attested to by the entire NT you reject as false?
Why do you not consider the following verses as part of the "core truth"... is it just utter wishful thinking and special pleading on top of piles of other illogical fallacies?

Matthew 16:15-19

• 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
• 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
• 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
• 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
• 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Mark 14:61-64

• 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
• 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
• 14:63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
• 14:64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

Matthew 26:63-66

• 26:63 But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
• 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
• 26:65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
• 26:66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

Luke 22:69-71

• 22:69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
• 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
• 22:71 And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

Matthew 11:20-27

• 11:20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
• 11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
• ....
• 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
• 11:26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
• 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Mark 2:5- 12

• 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
• 2:6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
• 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
• ...
• 2:11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
• 2:12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

Matthew 9:2-7

• 9:2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
• 9:3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
• ...
• 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
• 9:7 And he arose, and departed to his house.

​

 

[Leumas]

The "strong conciseness" of belief in Jesus that you are citing from that Wiki quote, is a consensus amongst overwhelmingly religious Christian bible scholars and theologians!

And which he deliberately and disingenuously failed to give a proper link to.

Well are biblical NT scholars likely to be neutral in their beliefs about Jesus, or not?

And if you say they are likely to be neutral and unbiased, then are you also going to deny that virtually all of them (if not perhaps every last one of them) entered that profession precisely and entirely because of their pre-existing bias and total lack of neutrality as highly committed Christian believers in God, Jesus and the bible?

Because that background and that very specific and devoutly religious personal faith interest, is certainly about as far as it's possible to be from ever being unbiased neutral practitioners in this field.

A few, such as Bart Ehrman, may have lost a great deal of their original religious faith. But afaik, there is no reason to think that the vast majority of New Testament bible scholars remain anything other than practicing Christians (espescially in the USA where afaik, most bible studies courses are taught).
...

And for some weird unfathomable reasons none of them are currently occupying ivory-tower chairs where they are trying to wriggle the many volumes of the 1001 nights so as to wring out of them by any sophistry they can wrangle a drop of "core truths" with which they can confirm that

...there remains a strong consensus in historical-critical biblical Arabian Nights scholarship that a historical Jesus Sinbad and Ali Baba did live in that area and in that time period.

Somehow for some reason that escapes me there are not numerous UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENTS dedicated to researching the historicity of Ganesh and Kali by trying to find the historical real flesh and blood man and woman who lived in the Indus Valley long ago upon whom the current fables are based.

...But are you saying that bible scholars and theologians, people who entered that profession almost always entirely and completely because of their deeply devout belief in Jesus, god and the bible, are not likely to be biased in their beliefs about Jesus & Christianity?

Because if you are you trying to claim that the background and the personal history of bible scholars is impartial and neutral on the subject of Jesus and Christianity, then you demonstrably as wrong as it's possible ever to be.

...
And as Hector Avalos said in the YouTube films that I linked here several times before (and as he probably repeats in his book The End Of Biblical Studies) - even for those few like Bart Ehrman who begin to seriously question their faith, there is a very obvious reason why they are not likely to admit, even to themselves, that Jesus was perhaps never a real person after all. And that is because their career and their livelihood (and that of their families), depends on them keeping their job of lecturing all about Jesus and the bible!
....

And what bases do they have to consider what Matthew et al said was any more or less truthful than the numerous other so called apocryphal writings about what Jesus supposedly said and did?

Could it be that they believe in the Canonical flimflam as opposed to the other poppycock only because they were born in a culture that has been bamboozled and hoodwinked for millennia, ever since their ancestors were forced by the edge of the sword to swallow the crap story or else swallow boiling molten lead?

Maybe if they applied some REAL unbiased skepticism and logic, they would have been able to realize that the Canonical writings (much like all the other Jesus Fables written by Christians) are just MYTHS no different from the ones their ancestors had to abandon by force from their own crap religious fabrications previously enforced on them by their own kinfolk shysters and hucksters and mountebanks and replaced by the ones imported from Judea via Roman Imperialism via Conquistadores via Colonialism via Slavery via Evangelism.

If only they could remove the heavy dark pall of social and cultural inculcation and indoctrination that they have had to live under ever since childhood, they would realize that the Canonical Jesus MYTHS along with the non-canonical ones are just a load of claptrap like any other fables from any time before or after and from any culture far and near.

 

[Leumas]

...
... And that is because their career and their livelihood (and that of their families), depends on them keeping their job of lecturing all about Jesus and the bible!....

I wonder if one day there would be so many "scholars" and their trusting fans arguing over if there is a "core truth" in my tall tale in this post.

I wonder if they would consider that at the very least the "core truth" is that I did in fact visit England last year if not traveled by rocket taxi cab and fire place flumes and not met a long dead writer and imaginary detective?

Would they still DEFEND that "core truth" so TENACIOUSLY and belligerently and call people crazy in need of lobotomies if they deny it and point to the lack of evidence at all that I have even traveled to England let alone did the possible things that I could have realistically done after they cherry pick them from among all the other hogwash in my tall tale?

I wonder if they would be so irrationally and illogically bellicose towards people who point out the fact that there are no records of me travelling on any airlines or ocean cruisers or private means and no immigration records or hotel records or credit card records or any kind of records and not even a single public surveillance system has caught the slightest glimpse of me anywhere in England.

Would they despite all that adamantly maintain that I indeed was in England because it was totally possible that I did go there and that there was nothing supernatural about me being there and that there is a guy who centuries later claimed to have seen the diaries of some guy who himself was born decades later but may have had a photoshopped picture of Oxford that I may have taken?

...
Here Craig.... tell me which parts of this account of my visit to England are true... is there a "core truth" in there somewhere?

When I was in London last year I took a rocket powered Taxi Cab and he took me from London to Oxford in 5 minutes and while I was in Oxford I climbed to the top of the Bodleian and flew all the way to Pembroke College and landed in their Quad and then I had dinner in their dining hall with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes and afterwards I used the fire place there to go to Windsor where I met Queen Elizabeth for breakfast.
Here are my snapshots... unfortunately I have no picture of the Queen, I ran out of FILM!​

Also mysteriously the pictures I took of Doyle and Holmes seem to never appear except on my computer... weird huh?
...

Let me show you the PROCESS of CHERRY PICKING and illogic that you are utilizing but applied to my TALL TALE.

• London is a real city.
• Taxi Cabs are real things in London.
• The Bodleian is a real tall building in Oxford.
• Pembroke College is real.
• The Dining Hall in Pembroke is real.
• Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is real.
• Windsor Castle is real.
• The Queen does very often reside in Windsor for a fact.

So it seems there are OODLES of REAL FACTS in the above story.

OK... we cannot really accept a rocket powered cab nor that someone can travel by fire place flumes also it is very unlikely that a normal person can in fact be granted a breakfast in Windsor with the Queen.

So let's see what the "core truth" of the story must have been.

When I was in London last year I took a rocket powered Taxi Cab and he took me from a train from Paddington train station London to Oxford in 5 130 minutes and while I was in Oxford I climbed to the top of the Bodleian and flew in a helicopter all the way to Pembroke College and landed on their Quad and then I had dinner in their dining hall with actors who acted the parts of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes in well known TV shows and afterwards I used the fire place there to go to Windsor where I met Queen Elizabeth for breakfast.​

There you are... it can be SUPPOSED that that is more likely to be the truthful real story.

Now any NORMAL person might miss all the ILLOGIC of the SUPPOSITIONS and CHERRY PICKING and AMENDMENTS that were made to the tall tale to make the fable fit reality according to the wishful thinking of the NEW FABRICATORS of the NEW TALL TALE.

However, intelligent logical reasonable people who are not DESPERATE to construe some ACCEPTABLE factual story out of what is OBVIOUSLY A LOAD OF CLAPTRAP might just say

The story is obviously a pile of hogwash.

It is doubtful that you were even in England at all last year.

It is a waste of time to even listen to your laughably fabricated tomfoolery.​

Could the "core truth" be that I went to England last year ?

Why do you EVEN CARE? My story is pure and utter poppycock regardless of any possible supposed likely tortuously construed "core lies or truths"!

 

[maximara]

Neither the gospel of Mark nor any of the canonical gospels are of any use as evidence of Jesus, or as evidence that the writer actually knew anything at all about anyone being the brother of Jesus, because in the only known extant copies the anonymous authors were writing centuries after any brothers of Jesus had long since all died.

Very true. Also we don't know what editing what we do have got between when it was first written and our oldest copies.

What we have are the four gospels that one particular sect of Christianity said were "genuine" and fragments of other Gospels that they dismissed as "heretical"

Then you have something like The Gospel of Thomas which reminds one of the sayings of Confucius which makes you wonder just how was such a Gospel used.

 

[maximara]

There is course some actual earlier evidence of where any idea of a brother "James" actually came from. And that is the evidence in Paul's letter known as P46 circa.200 AD. That is the earliest, original, primary source for any mention of James as a "Jesus lords brother".

We really need to mention that circa in this case means 'a 100 year range with this year supposedly the midpoint'.

So p46 could be as young as 250 CE or as old as 150 CE with no idea exactly where in that range it is...all we do know is there is 95% chance it is somewhere in that range. (Griffin, Bruce W. (1996), "The Paleographical Dating of P-46" with 2005 email)

Also it looks like Paleographic dating follows the same 68–95–99.7 rule that C14 dating does with 50 year range being the 68% and 100 years the 95%. This means the 99.7% would be a staggering 150 year range.

I say supposedly because as with Rylands Library Papyrus P52 we sometime get circas that are the youngest date possible rather then the midpoint. For example, P52's circa should be 200 CE NOT the 125 CE often given ( Nongbr, Brent (2005) "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel." Harvard Theological Review 98:24-52.)

The reality is Paleographic dating just not fine enough to definitive state if one work predates another and given how some of the dates have been mucked with (P52 case in point) we can't even trust the circas we are being given are actual midpoints.

As the Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ page over at rationalwiki states "A good rule of thumb here is if either a paleographic or C14 date doesn't have at least the range be distrustful of it."

 

[dejudge]

As the Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ page over at rationalwiki states "A good rule of thumb here is if either a paleographic or C14 date doesn't have at least the range be distrustful of it."

The assumed ridiculous c 50-60 CE range for the Pauline Corpus cannot be trusted.

It is most absurd and unacceptable for so-called Scholars to use Acts of the Apostles to date the Pauline Corpus especially when the author of Acts does not even make mention of or refer to a single verse of a supposed Pauline letter.

The earliest existing manuscripts of Acts are dated hundreds of years AFTER the time of King Aretas.

In addition, it is not even known which Papyri or manuscript was examined and dated to c 50-60 CE.

Papyri 46 [manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus] are dated to the 2nd-3rd century.

It must be most obvious that the existing manuscripts with myth/fiction Jesus stories are FAR TOO LATE to be used as contemporary evidence of an historical Jesus.

 

[maximara]

The assumed ridiculous c 50-60 CE range for the Pauline Corpus cannot be trusted.

As has REPEATEDLY explained that date is derived via OTHER means ie historical criticism. In fact, it is historical criticism and NOT either C14 or paleography that gives us this date range.

For example the Codex Sinaiticus' range is 325–360 CE because of internal clues that set both the terminus post quem and terminus ad quem. The seven Epistles that have the same author have the same kind of clues which point to the c 50-60 CE range being effectively correct.

 

[Mcreal]

As has REPEATEDLY explained that date is derived via OTHER means ie. historical criticism. In fact, it is historical criticism and NOT either C14 or paleography that gives us this date range.

What is "historical criticism"? Done by who?

For example the Codex Sinaiticus' range is 325–360 CE because of internal clues that set both the terminus post quem and terminus ad quem. The seven Epistles that have the same author have the same kind of clues which point to the c 50-60 CE range being effectively correct.

"internal clues"? In a bound accumulation of books?

 

[Craig B]

What is "historical criticism"? Done by who?

Eh?

"internal clues"? In a bound accumulation of books?

If you open the binding you can read the pages and then historically criticise to your heart's content.

 

[dejudge]

As has REPEATEDLY explained that date is derived via OTHER means ie historical criticism. In fact, it is historical criticism and NOT either C14 or paleography that gives us this date range.

Your statement is simply nonsense.

You cannot and is incapable of identifying which manuscripts are dated to the ridiculous c 50-60 CE dates.

Papyri 46 is dated to the 2nd-3rd century based on INTERNAL EVIDENCE.

There is NO Papyri about characters called Paul and Jesus dated to c 50-60 CE by any known paleographer or C-14.

[QUOTE="Craig B]For example the Codex Sinaiticus' range is 325–360 CE because of internal clues that set both the terminus post quem and terminus ad quem. The seven Epistles that have the same author have the same kind of clues which point to the c 50-60 CE range being effectively correct.[/QUOTE]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

You forgot that you absurdly claimed that STRATIGRAPHY [the study of rocks] was a better method to date ancient writings.

Again, please identify the Gregory-Alland number of the manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus that have been dated to c 50-60 CE and identify the Paleographer/Paleographers?

You cannot do so.

Please, help us stop the propaganda and Chinese Whispers.

The absurd claim that Pauline letters were composed c 50-60 CE is based DIRECTLY on the fiction/myth fables called Acts of the Apostles.

 

[Leumas]

If you open the binding you can read the pages and then historically criticise to your heart's content.

Why you do not do that for 1001 Arabian Nights?

Wasn't Caliph Whatshisname a real Caliph of Baghdad? So why you are not so interested in the real historicity of Aladdin albeit without the Genie in the lamp?

Was there a real boy in Baghdad who got cheated by a huckstering peddler?

Who was this real boy? For sure he must have been born in Baghdad and for sure he was orphaned and for sure he must have been used by a sly brigand to go down an old TOMB of some long forgotten king so as to rob the funerary riches and for sure Aladdin must have most likely managed to get the gold for himself and perhaps he or his mother or years later people attributed the riches to a Genie instead of just saying it was a discovered tomb and implicating him as a tomb robber.

Could it have been a real rags to riches story about a real guy who really existed but then people just built fantastical tales about him and how he got rich with the help of a Genie in lamp?

I do not see you opening the 1001 Arabian Nights to try to cherry pick and bare assert and wishfully sift through it for a "core truth" about Ali Baba or Aladdin or Sinbad?

Could they not have been

One Thousand and One Nights

The tales vary widely: they include historical tales, love stories, tragedies, comedies, poems, burlesques and various forms of erotica. Numerous stories depict jinns, ghouls, apes,[6] sorcerers, magicians, and legendary places, which are often intermingled with real people and geography, not always rationally; common protagonists include the historical Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid, his Grand Vizier, Jafar al-Barmaki, and the famous poet Abu Nuwas, despite the fact that these figures lived some 200 years after the fall of the Sassanid Empire in which the frame tale of Scheherazade is set. Sometimes a character in Scheherazade's tale will begin telling other characters a story of his own, and that story may have another one told within it, resulting in a richly layered narrative texture.

The different versions have different individually detailed endings (in some Scheherazade asks for a pardon, in some the king sees their children and decides not to execute his wife, in some other things happen that make the king distracted) but they all end with the king giving his wife a pardon and sparing her life.

The narrator's standards for what constitutes a cliffhanger seem broader than in modern literature. While in many cases a story is cut off with the hero in danger of losing his life or another kind of deep trouble, in some parts of the full text Scheherazade stops her narration in the middle of an exposition of abstract philosophical principles or complex points of Islamic philosophy, and in one case during a detailed description of human anatomy according to Galen—and in all these cases turns out to be justified in her belief that the king's curiosity about the sequel would buy her another day of life.

​

[imgw=230]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Robida_-_Aladin_illustration_page1.jpeg[/imgw][imgw=300]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Transfigurationbloch.jpg[/imgw]

 

[dejudge]

The claim that letters in the Pauline Corpus were composed c 50-60 CE is based on propaganda and fiction accounts in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus.

It is completely illogical to assume the veracity of accounts in Acts of the Apostles and Pauline Corpus WITHOUT external corroboration.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus are well established sources of fiction, forgeries and false attribution.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus are compilation of Ghost stories about Satan, Angels, God, Jesus [the Lord God from heaven] who resurrected and ASCENDED in a cloud.

The claim that Paul was in Damascus in the time of King Aretas is no different than the claim that Satan was in the company of Jesus in Jerusalem at the Jewish Temple in the time of Pontius Pilate.

 

[Elagabalus]

What is "historical criticism"? Done by who?


"internal clues"? In a bound accumulation of books?

Knowing maximara like I do, I believe it would be Richard Carrier providing the criticism.

 

[Leumas]

The claim that letters in the Pauline Corpus were composed c 50-60 CE is based on propaganda and fiction accounts in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus.

It is completely illogical to assume the veracity of accounts in Acts of the Apostles and Pauline Corpus WITHOUT external corroboration.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus are well established sources of fiction, forgeries and false attribution.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus are compilation of Ghost stories about Satan, Angels, God, Jesus [the Lord God from heaven] who resurrected and ASCENDED in a cloud.

The claim that Paul was in Damascus in the time of King Aretas is no different than the claim that Satan was in the company of Jesus in Jerusalem at the Jewish Temple in the time of Pontius Pilate.

Not to mention that Paul's account of his own experiences as related in his epistles contradict the accounts in Acts on top of Acts contradicting itself to boot.

Consider the details of Paul's actions as related in Acts 9 and compare them to Galatians 1.

In Acts he meets Jesus on the way to Damascus and is blinded and then cured after three days and told what he had to do by Ananias and the disciples who were there in Damascus and then had to escape because the Jews there wanted to kill him and then he went to Jerusalem.

In Galatians he contradicts that and says that he never received any information from anyone and never met any disciples and conferred with no one of flesh and blood but instead after he was told what to do by the specter of Jesus himself (no blinding) he went and spent time in Arabia and then back to Damascus and then THREE YEARS LATER he went to Jerusalem.

Also even Acts contradicts its very own self by giving us THREE different accounts of what happened to Paul during his hallucination of Jesus.

Compare Acts 9 with Acts 22 and Acts 26 and see how they contradict on very important points of details and two of the accounts are supposedly told by Paul himself and these two contradict each other.

For instance, was Paul blinded? He himself says no in one account and yes in another.

Did Jesus tell him what his mission iwa during the incident? In two of the accounts we are told that he was only told to go to Damascus to get his instructions and in one of Paul's own accounts he contradicts himself and tells us that Jesus told him in details what his mission was.

And that is in addition to small details of whether there were men with him or not and whether they did hear Jesus or not and whether they saw the light or not. Also if the men saw the blinding light that was so blinding why were they not blinded too?

Many contradictory small and major details that point to a [/b]Telltale Testimonial To Tall Tales (T⁵)[/B].

 

[maximara]

What is "historical criticism"? Done by who?

Historical criticism (also known as higher criticism) is the determination of a text's original meaning in its original historical context making it a proto-historical anthropology.

As for who does it it has been done by everybody from apologists to mythers.

It was historical criticism that showed the 13 epistles credited as being Paul's were in fact by several authors and only seven of those writings could be said to be the work of one author.

It was historical criticism that showed the Testimonium Flavianum was a partial if not total forgery likely done in the 4th century.

It was historical criticism that the birth stories of Matthew and Luke were totally FUBARed in relation to each other and that Luke's birth narrative had isn't own set of issues.

Basically every issue regarding the New Testament account of Jesus being historical that has ever come out has come out of historical criticism.

"internal clues"? In a bound accumulation of books?

The "internal clues" are in the oldest copies of the works we have. For example, since 2 Cor. 11:32 mentions Aretas we know that if that incident actually happened (yes I know but for the moment go with it ) then it had to be sometime before 40 CE when the king died. Now Paul is writing as if this event was some time ago so that sets a rough earliest date for this thing.

Another part of the "internal clues" is overall grammar, syntax, meter, and rhythm. Compare the novels the 19th century to those of today of any genre you like and you will see this difference.

 

[Craig B]

If you open the binding you can read the pages and then historically criticise to your heart's content.

Why you do not do that for 1001 Arabian Nights?

Why don't I do it for the German Railway Timetable? Why don't I do it for Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens, or The Tale of Jemima Puddle-Duck by Beatrix Potter? Because the seven Pauline Epistles - which is what are currently being discussed - do not belong to the same written genre as the Arabian Nights, any more than they resemble the various other works I have mentioned.

 

[dejudge]

Historical criticism (also known as higher criticism) is the determination of a text's original meaning in its original historical context making it a proto-historical anthropology.

As for who does it it has been done by everybody from apologists to mythers.

It was historical criticism that showed the 13 epistles credited as being Paul's were in fact by several authors and only seven of those writings could be said to be the work of one author.

Your statement makes very little sense.

Wasn't it "historical criticism" that demonstrated ALL the letters of the Pauline Corpus are forgeries or false attribution and that Paul was NOT a figure of history?

You have forgotten than Scholars have already stated that the Pauline Corpus are all forgeries or false attribution and that Paul is not a figure of history.


[quote="maximara]It was historical criticism that showed the Testimonium Flavianum was a partial if not total forgery likely done in the 4th century.[/quote]

It was historical criticism that showed all the Pauline Corpus were forgeries or false attribution.

It was historical criticism that the birth stories of Matthew and Luke were totally FUBARed in relation to each other and that Luke's birth narrative had isn't own set of issues.

It was historical criticism which showed that gMatthew and gLuke are forgeries or false attribution.

Basically every issue regarding the New Testament account of Jesus being historical that has ever come out has come out of historical criticism.

Historical criticism has shown that virtually all of the NT writings are forgeries or false attribution.

The "internal clues" are in the oldest copies of the works we have. For example, since 2 Cor. 11:32 mentions Aretas we know that if that incident actually happened (yes I know but for the moment go with it ) then it had to be sometime before 40 CE when the king died. Now Paul is writing as if this event was some time ago so that sets a rough earliest date for this thing.

You don't know what you are talking about. You have NO idea how historical criticism is done.

The claim that Paul was in Damascus in the time of King Aretas cannot be ASSUMED to be true especially when the Pauline Corpus is riddled with KNOWN established fiction and events which could not and did not happen.

Another part of the "internal clues" is overall grammar, syntax, meter, and rhythm. Compare the novels the 19th century to those of today of any genre you like and you will see this difference.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Paleographers have examined every single letter, every single line and every passage of manuscripts with stories of Jesus and Paul and have dated them to the 2nd century or later.

You cannot identify which manuscript or Codex with stories of Jesus and Paul which were dated to c 50-60 CE using your "internal clues".

Is it Papyri 46?

Papyri 46 is dated to the 2nd century or later.

Is it Papyri 75?

Papyri 75 is dated to the 2nd century or later.

Is it the Sinaiticus Codex?

The Sinaiticus Codex is dated to the 4th century.

There is simply NO manuscript with stories of Jesus and Paul with "internal clues" to date them to the ridiculously narrow range and date of c 50-60 CE.

Please, help us stop the propaganda and Chinese whispers promoted by people who BELIEVE the Christian Bible is history.

The letters of the Pauline Corpus are historically bogus and riddled with ANACHRONISMS based on INTERNAL EVIDENCE and historical criticism.

Over 1600 years ago it was observed that the Pauline Corpus was a pack of lies and that Paul was a Liar.

 

[IanS]

Why don't I do it for the German Railway Timetable? Why don't I do it for Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens, or The Tale of Jemima Puddle-Duck by Beatrix Potter? Because the seven Pauline Epistles - which is what are currently being discussed - do not belong to the same written genre as the Arabian Nights, any more than they resemble the various other works I have mentioned.

In the seven Pauline letters that you are talking about, the author says that although he had never met any living person named Jesus, he saw him in the skies after he was dead, and the dead person in the sky spoke to him, thus convincing Paul that this airborne spirit must have been the son of God. And you think that is more credible than fictional stories of Alice in Wonderland?

How did Paul get that belief in the talking heavenly spirit of Christ, do you think? Is there any clue in those letters as to how "Paul" came to believe he had "witnessed" a heavenly spirit of a talking Christ?

I mean - I don't suppose the letters actually explain how he ever came by that belief, such as actually telling the readers that it was something he knew to be confirmed in the ancient writing of messianic scriptures? Did he ever mention anything like that?

Why is it that out of 13 or 14 letters, half of them are considered fakes written by other anonymous people, whilst the remaining 6 or 7 are claimed by bible scholars to be genuinely written by Paul himself? What is it about the "genuine" letters that differentiates them from the "fake" ones? Do you know?

 

[tsig]

In the seven Pauline letters that you are talking about, the author says that although he had never met any living person named Jesus, he saw him in the skies after he was dead, and the dead person in the sky spoke to him, thus convincing Paul that this airborne spirit must have been the son of God. And you think that is more credible than fictional stories of Alice in Wonderland?

How did Paul get that belief in the talking heavenly spirit of Christ, do you think? Is there any clue in those letters as to how "Paul" came to believe he had "witnessed" a heavenly spirit of a talking Christ?

I mean - I don't suppose the letters actually explain how he ever came by that belief, such as actually telling the readers that it was something he knew to be confirmed in the ancient writing of messianic scriptures? Did he ever mention anything like that?

Why is it that out of 13 or 14 letters, half of them are considered fakes written by other anonymous people, whilst the remaining 6 or 7 are claimed by bible scholars to be genuinely written by Paul himself? What is it about the "genuine" letters that differentiates them from the "fake" ones? Do you know?

The real ones are straight from the mind of god to the hand of Paul, the others, not so much.