ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags historical jesus , jesus

Reply
Old 30th June 2020, 02:33 AM   #2081
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,062
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No. IanS is of the opinion that you need to provide evidence for a real Jesus rather than the mythical Jesus (we all agree there is overwhelming evidence for that Jesus) and that there is pretty much zilch evidence from any time around when your real Jesus is meant to have lived (according to the evidence for the mythical Jesus).
Not quite “zilch evidence”. There is the evidence that the Jesus story began around the time when the real Jesus is meant to have lived. So, why then? Who or what was the catalyst? It is reasonable to assert that it was precipitated by an actual individual with the magic bits added later as the story grew and was embellished.
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.

Last edited by Tassman; 30th June 2020 at 02:36 AM.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 03:15 AM   #2082
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,223
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Not quite “zilch evidence”. There is the evidence that the Jesus story began around the time when the real Jesus is meant to have lived. So, why then? Who or what was the catalyst?
You do realise that this is putting the cart before the horse and is quite circular? You are saying that you believe the mythical Jesus origin story contains the date of the existence of the real Jesus? Why should that part be correct if all the rest isn't? Plus of course that date is in fact a speculation in itself - it is not contained in or rather is not consistent in the mythical Jesus's stories.

Roger mentioned above about ignoring the "mundane" in the stories of the mythical Jesus, problem is that when you remove the supernatural from the mythical Jesus the mundane bits we are left with are either unevidenced or now known to be historically inaccurate or just completely wrong and made up.




Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
It is reasonable to assert that it was precipitated by an actual individual with the magic bits added later as the story grew and was embellished.
And it is reasonable to assert that the religion we now call Christianity arose like many other religions (that we have pretty much accurate records and accounts to look at).

This always gets back to one thing - lack of evidence for a real Jesus, a shedload of evidence for a mythical Jesus.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 04:17 AM   #2083
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 519
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
That passage Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 does not refer to Jesus of Nazareth.

The Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was alive in the time of Albinus c 64 CE and was the son of Damneus.

Jesus the son of Damneus was called Christ because he was a High Priest.

High Priest were called Christ by Jews.

The word Christ simply means "anointed".

High Priest were anointed with oil when installed.

Jesus of Nazareth would not ever be called the Christ [the anointed] by Jews since he was never a High Priest or King of the Jews.

Jesus of Nazareth had no human father.
Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Ghost and never ever had any history.
You know that Jesus was called Christ by Christians right? And no, he was not referring to Jesus of Damneus, overwise he would have called him that. He is clearly saying "Jesus called Christ" brother of James to distinguish him from Jesus Damneus.

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Since you quoted Wikipedia. The passage is not authentic so has no credibility. Assumptions about its original content is worthless.
Nice anti-intellectualism.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 04:23 AM   #2084
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 519
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You do realise that this is putting the cart before the horse and is quite circular? You are saying that you believe the mythical Jesus origin story contains the date of the existence of the real Jesus? Why should that part be correct if all the rest isn't? Plus of course that date is in fact a speculation in itself - it is not contained in or rather is not consistent in the mythical Jesus's stories.
How about the fact that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate who we know served as governor of Judea from 26-36 AD?

Last edited by Jerrymander; 30th June 2020 at 04:25 AM.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 04:33 AM   #2085
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 519
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No. IanS is of the opinion that you need to provide evidence for a real Jesus rather than the mythical Jesus (we all agree there is overwhelming evidence for that Jesus) and that there is pretty much zilch evidence from any time around when your real Jesus is meant to have lived (according to the evidence for the mythical Jesus).
*cough* Paul *cough*

And supernatural things being attributed to a person does not make that person non-historical.

Last edited by Jerrymander; 30th June 2020 at 04:37 AM.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 04:49 AM   #2086
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,223
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
How about the fact that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate who we know served as governor of Judea from 26-36 AD?
"fact"?

Please point me to the evidence this happened.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 04:50 AM   #2087
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,223
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
*cough* Paul *cough*
Sorry no idea what you are suggesting.



Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
And supernatural things being attributed to a person does not make that person non-historical.
Second time you've brought this idea up - again I've no idea why, it has nothing to do with anything people asking for evidence have said or implied.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 05:15 AM   #2088
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 519
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
"fact"?

Please point me to the evidence this happened.
Mistake. I meant that the Gospels state that Jesus was killed by Pilate and we know when he ruled. You disputed that the gospels contain a date when Jesus lived.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 05:19 AM   #2089
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,223
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
Mistake. I meant that the Gospels state that Jesus was killed by Pilate and we know when he ruled. You disputed that the gospels contain a date when Jesus lived.

No I didn't. What I said was "You are saying that you believe the mythical Jesus origin story contains the date of the existence of the real Jesus?".
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 05:22 AM   #2090
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 519
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Second time you've brought this idea up - again I've no idea why, it has nothing to do with anything people asking for evidence have said or implied.
You said "(we all agree there is overwhelming evidence for that [mythical] Jesus)" Which is of course begging the question. I pointed out that supernatural elements does not make someone mythological or non-historical.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 05:29 AM   #2091
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 519
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No I didn't. What I said was "You are saying that you believe the mythical Jesus origin story contains the date of the existence of the real Jesus?".
Why do do you have bring up the birth narratives? Also they do try to date Jesus' birth to the Reign of Augustus and King Herod.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 05:36 AM   #2092
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,223
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
You said "(we all agree there is overwhelming evidence for that [mythical] Jesus)" Which is of course begging the question. I pointed out that supernatural elements does not make someone mythological or non-historical.
Didn't think it was begging the question. Perhaps my wording isn't helping?

I see it as there are two current claims for a character called Jesus.

The first and the one I think we all agree did not and does not exist is the Jesus that the various religions we label as "Christian" say existed and claim exists today. This is the "mythic" Jesus. Perhaps better if I used the term "religious Jesus" to label that character?

The second one is that there was an actual flesh and blood, no superpowers whatsoever person called Jesus that came up with a new religion and gained some followers and that is what started the religions that became to be known as "Christianity", this is the character that is usually referred to as "historical Jesus" and the further claim is that this character was hyped up by his believers over the centuries to become the religious Jesus.

So we have two quite different claims, we have the claims about the religious Jesus that we all know did not exist and another different claim that there was a historical Jesus.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 05:37 AM   #2093
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,223
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
You said "(we all agree there is overwhelming evidence for that [mythical] Jesus)" Which is of course begging the question. I pointed out that supernatural elements does not make someone mythological or non-historical.
That's not begging the question - please see my post above.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 05:38 AM   #2094
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,223
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
Why do do you have bring up the birth narratives? Also they do try to date Jesus' birth to the Reign of Augustus and King Herod.
I haven't.....
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 05:50 AM   #2095
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,022
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
You so show us as sect a Christianity that claimed that.

I don't know why you bother posting silly things like that. Do you really think that people cannot easily see that you are just preaching about Jesus and the bible and not making any genuine objective defence of HJ belief at all.

Look, I will tell you what I believe ... and it's not up to you to put all manner of false words in my mouth.

I do not (as you just claimed) "believe that Jesus was originally just a heavenly figure who did not live on earth" ... for a start I don't believe there are ANY "heavenly figures"! I do not believe there is any "figure" of Jesus "in heaven"!

And I have no idea whether or not the biblical Jesus was ever a real person living in 1st century Judea.

What I say about it is only this -

1 there is really no evidence of a real human Jesus

2 all sources very probably originate only from the biblical writing/preaching

3 what is said in that biblical writing/preaching is not remotely credible

4 the fact that bible scholars (they are not "historians") insist that the gospels and letters contain such good evidence as to make Jesus a "certainty" is not only blatantly untrue but also makes them (bible scholars) extremely suspicious in their motives and their objectivity really not fit to be hired as university academics.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 06:00 AM   #2096
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,344
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Didn't think it was begging the question. Perhaps my wording isn't helping?

I see it as there are two current claims for a character called Jesus.

The first and the one I think we all agree did not and does not exist is the Jesus that the various religions we label as "Christian" say existed and claim exists today. This is the "mythic" Jesus. Perhaps better if I used the term "religious Jesus" to label that character?

The second one is that there was an actual flesh and blood, no superpowers whatsoever person called Jesus that came up with a new religion and gained some followers and that is what started the religions that became to be known as "Christianity", this is the character that is usually referred to as "historical Jesus" and the further claim is that this character was hyped up by his believers over the centuries to become the religious Jesus.

So we have two quite different claims, we have the claims about the religious Jesus that we all know did not exist and another different claim that there was a historical Jesus.
I have a slight nitpick with your second point. The "actual flesh and blood, no superpowers whatsoever person called Jesus" didn't start a new religion, Paul did that. AFAICT Jesus (the HJ that all the experts talk about) was all about a stricter, more fundamentalist observance of all of the Jewish laws. The "New Covenant" was a re-affirmation of obedience to every single one of those arcane Old Testament laws.

The version of Jesus that got hyped up over the years was Paul's gentile-friendly Jesus who spoke to him from the sky. Mainly because the "Jewish Christians" - The Ebionites - were largely destroyed during the various uprisings against Rome when the whole of Jerusalem was raised to the ground.

You seem to think that Historians are unable to glean any useful information from a close critical analysis of NT texts. I think Historians will say otherwise.
Brainache is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 06:04 AM   #2097
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,022
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Not quite “zilch evidence”. There is the evidence that the Jesus story began around the time when the real Jesus is meant to have lived. So, why then? Who or what was the catalyst? It is reasonable to assert that it was precipitated by an actual individual with the magic bits added later as the story grew and was embellished.
Crikey, the reading comprehension and level of objective reasoning has really sunk to an all time low with this thread ...

... how do you know that quote "the Jesus story began around the time when the real Jesus is meant to have lived" ? ... the biblical writing is your source for all that was ever said about Jesus, and it's that same biblical source that is telling you when he lived!! ... all your information is coming always from the bible!
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 06:06 AM   #2098
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,344
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
...
4 the fact that bible scholars (they are not "historians") insist that the gospels and letters contain such good evidence as to make Jesus a "certainty" is not only blatantly untrue but also makes them (bible scholars) extremely suspicious in their motives and their objectivity really not fit to be hired as university academics.
So as soon as an actual Historian applies the same techniques they would use for any other ancient material to this subject they become "Bible Scholars", their motives are suspect and their objectivity goes out the window... got it. Even the Jewish ones? Oy...
Brainache is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 06:28 AM   #2099
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,632
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
There is the evidence that the Jesus story began around the time when the real Jesus is meant to have lived. So, why then? Who or what was the catalyst?
It's slightly more complicated, more interesting, worse for one version of a historical-Jesus case, and better for another version of a historical-Jesus case, than that.

The only details that ever made anybody think Jesus was born around 1 and preaching around 30-33 are the Census in one of his infancy narratives and the name "Pilat". And we already know the bit about the Census is wrong because that didn't work the way the Bible says it did, wasn't ordered by who the Bible says ordered it, and serves an obvious purpose of enabling the author to say he was from two different places in order to claim he satisfied two different origin requirements. And based on other sources' descriptions of Pilat, he wouldn't have acted the way the guy in the Bible does.

So, if we take the Census and the name "Pilat" off the table, when would we think the story was supposed to have happened, based on the remaining clues?

Historical-Jesus debates tend to lump the whole mid-00s together as one era, an era in which many Jews were thinking about all-out rebellion against Rome, a few leaders were trying to get one started while mixing the concept of that rebellion with Jewish theology, and Rome was squashing those movements and crucifying their leaders. The word for some other guys getting executed along with Jesus is often translated into English as "robbers" but elsewhere refers to rebels, not just thieves. Jesus himself is said to be thrown in with "the other {robbers/rebels}", and we all know that the "rebel" profile fits him while "thief" does not. But there are no secular sources saying that's what the setting was like in the early 30s. They say it was like that in the 50s and 60s. Before that, there's a period in which there no signs of Jewish rebelliousness or of the Romans going around crucifying people, because the people they would end up crucifying, the rebels, weren't "a thing" yet.

But it's more specific than just the general mood of the place & time. There are a handful of events that are mentioned in both the Bible and secular sources that are weirdly coincidental if they're supposed to have happened decades apart but make perfect sense as just one event being reported in both places. For example, Paul mentions a bout of social unrest which was kicked off by a guy named Stephanus getting attacked by a mob (I think that might even be what he says somehow inspired him to go around "oppressing" certain people). Josephus also mentions similar unrest in response to a Stephanus getting attacked by a mob. But Josephus puts it in the 50s or 60s (I'm not sure when exactly), and conventional Christian dating would need it to be in the 30s. And there are a few others like that. And during that same period, there was also another Herod as "king", and a different guy in Pilat's job whose style better fits the style of the guy in the Bible. And that era is not just the time when wandering preachers in general were around, but includes a specific one Josephus never names, called "the Egyptian", whose story sounds like a secular description of Jesus without the name

In short, pretty much everything else about the story says it needs to be set two or three decades later than most people currently think. That's when everything else lines up between the Bible and secular sources, except for the Census that we know the Bible gets wrong and the name "Pilat". If the Census hadn't been thrown in and the Roman guy's name hadn't been changed to Pilat, nobody would ever have doubted that the story happened in the 50s/60s and Jesus was "the Egyptian".
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 06:32 AM   #2100
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 519
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Crikey, the reading comprehension and level of objective reasoning has really sunk to an all time low with this thread ...

... how do you know that quote "the Jesus story began around the time when the real Jesus is meant to have lived" ? ... the biblical writing is your source for all that was ever said about Jesus, and it's that same biblical source that is telling you when he lived!! ... all your information is coming always from the bible!
Ever heard of a guy named Paul? Writing in the 50s, a few decades after Pilate?
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 06:36 AM   #2101
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,223
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
I have a slight nitpick with your second point. The "actual flesh and blood, no superpowers whatsoever person called Jesus" didn't start a new religion, Paul did that. AFAICT Jesus (the HJ that all the experts talk about) was all about a stricter, more fundamentalist observance of all of the Jewish laws. The "New Covenant" was a re-affirmation of obedience to every single one of those arcane Old Testament laws.

The version of Jesus that got hyped up over the years was Paul's gentile-friendly Jesus who spoke to him from the sky. Mainly because the "Jewish Christians" - The Ebionites - were largely destroyed during the various uprisings against Rome when the whole of Jerusalem was raised to the ground.

You seem to think that Historians are unable to glean any useful information from a close critical analysis of NT texts. I think Historians will say otherwise.
Never said nor implied that.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 06:45 AM   #2102
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,022
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
Ever heard of a guy named Paul? Writing in the 50s, a few decades after Pilate?
In the supposed 6 or 7 original letters ... what did Paul say about Pilate?
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 06:52 AM   #2103
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,223
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
I have a slight nitpick with your second point. The "actual flesh and blood, no superpowers whatsoever person called Jesus" didn't start a new religion, Paul did that. AFAICT Jesus (the HJ that all the experts talk about) was all about a stricter, more fundamentalist observance of all of the Jewish laws. The "New Covenant" was a re-affirmation of obedience to every single one of those arcane Old Testament laws.

The version of Jesus that got hyped up over the years was Paul's gentile-friendly Jesus who spoke to him from the sky. Mainly because the "Jewish Christians" - The Ebionites - were largely destroyed during the various uprisings against Rome when the whole of Jerusalem was raised to the ground.

...snip....
Not going to really disagree with you regarding "Paul", I've posted before that I consider Paul to have been the originator of Christianity, the Hubbard, the Smith character, but over the past few years I've learnt a lot about the problems with a historical Paul.... so even that may not be as well evidenced as I once believed.

But can we set this aside as it really isn't needed to talk about the historical Jesus , that would still be a "real" person Paul used to kick start Christianity.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 07:52 AM   #2104
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,886
Ah, interesting stuff, thanks Delvo.

I wish people would stop derailing into who’s more fanatical/unskeptical than whom. Amount of interesting that is to read: zero.

And for the record I really did mean, unconnected to anything that supposedly happened. I wasn’t trying to cryptically refer to Paul. But by now someone must have, in the ‘this would make a great novel’ sense, written an actual fictional OT/history based someone-making-up-a-messiah character, like a serious ‘Life of Brian’ vs ‘Davinci Code’ Dan Brown kind of thing.

I don’t imagine such a messiah maker character in history would have been after money but rather the challenge itself.

Even sourcing everything to OT and Jewish traditions but in a way that actual Jewish scholars would generally scoff at reminds me of the way that one 90’s anime borrowed all kinds of Christian and Jewish imagery just purely for flair, not to appeal to people who knew about that mythology but rather to lend a sense of depth to appeal to people who knew next to nothing about it.

As for the historical version, I’d have to get dejudge to chime in on his picture of who thought what in early Christianity up to and through ‘Paul’ but it sounds a lot like whenever the Pauline stuff got popular it turned Christianity in the direction of the modern version (or it was turning that way and Paul was created to reinforce it, either way).

What are you guys referring to with arguments among pillars and circumscision and stuff? Sources?
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 08:38 AM   #2105
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,504
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
You know that Jesus was called Christ by Christians right? And no, he was not referring to Jesus of Damneus, overwise he would have called him that. He is clearly saying "Jesus called Christ" brother of James to distinguish him from Jesus Damneus.
The Son of the Ghost was called Christ in the NT fables.

People calling the son of a Ghost Christ does not make the Ghost a figure of history.

Jesus, the son of the Ghost called Christ is fiction character.


It is documented that Jesus the son of Damneus was High Priest c 63 CE.

It is also documented in Christian writings that the Jews called their High Priests and Kings the Christ [THE ANOINTED]

Examine Church History attributed to Eusebius.

Eusebius' Church History 1.3.
Quote:
7. And not only those who were honored with the high priesthood, and who for the sake of the symbol were anointed with especially prepared oil, were adorned with the name of Christ among the Hebrews, but also the kings whom the prophets anointed...
King David was called the Christ [ANOINTED] hundreds of years before the fables that the Son of the Ghost was born of a Virgin.

Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
Nice anti-intellectualism.
Since you quoted Wikipedia:

Quote:
Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form...
The passage in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 is a forgery in its present form.
dejudge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 08:53 AM   #2106
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,022
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
Mistake. I meant that the Gospels state that Jesus was killed by Pilate and we know when he ruled. You disputed that the gospels contain a date when Jesus lived.

Just for other more objective participants here (if not for Jerrymander) - if people agree with biblical scholars who say that Paul's letters pre-dated the bible, and if 20 to 50 years later gospel writers knew the contents of those letters, then it would be quite easy for them to use Paul's letters deduce that Jesus had died around 33AD (because in the letters, it is implied that Paul's vision was shortly after about 33AD) ...

... on that basis it would be very easy for the gospel writers to decide that Jesus had died at the time when Pilate was the Roman governor of that area.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 09:14 AM   #2107
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,022
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
Ah, interesting stuff, thanks Delvo.

I wish people would stop derailing into who’s more fanatical/unskeptical than whom. Amount of interesting that is to read: zero.

And for the record I really did mean, unconnected to anything that supposedly happened. I wasn’t trying to cryptically refer to Paul. But by now someone must have, in the ‘this would make a great novel’ sense, written an actual fictional OT/history based someone-making-up-a-messiah character, like a serious ‘Life of Brian’ vs ‘Davinci Code’ Dan Brown kind of thing.

I don’t imagine such a messiah maker character in history would have been after money but rather the challenge itself.

Even sourcing everything to OT and Jewish traditions but in a way that actual Jewish scholars would generally scoff at reminds me of the way that one 90’s anime borrowed all kinds of Christian and Jewish imagery just purely for flair, not to appeal to people who knew about that mythology but rather to lend a sense of depth to appeal to people who knew next to nothing about it.

As for the historical version, I’d have to get dejudge to chime in on his picture of who thought what in early Christianity up to and through ‘Paul’ but it sounds a lot like whenever the Pauline stuff got popular it turned Christianity in the direction of the modern version (or it was turning that way and Paul was created to reinforce it, either way).

What are you guys referring to with arguments among pillars and circumscision and stuff? Sources?

It's from one of Paul's letters - the "Pillars" are the leaders of the Church at Jerusalem (iirc where that meeting took place) - Paul says he went there about 3 years after his vision, and then again about 15 years after that vision. He apparently went to discuss with the church leaders (the "Pillars" of that church), his own wish to preach the message of "Christ Risen" to the uncircumcised Gentiles in the region ... whereas previously the church Pillars had apparently only preached their gospel to circumcised Jews.

IIRC, without looking it up again - there was no real argument (they agreed with Paul), but either in that description or in another letter Paul says that he learned nothing of the gospel or the religion from any of the Pillars, because he said that the gospel which he preached, i.e. his gospel of "Christ Risen" "came from no Man" and "nor was I taught it by anyone" ... instead he is adamant that it all came to him as a revelation from God whereupon he suddenly realised the true prophecy of the Christ in the words that he found in ancient "scripture" ... Paul often qualified what he preached by saying it was "according to scripture".
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 09:40 AM   #2108
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,504
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Not going to really disagree with you regarding "Paul", I've posted before that I consider Paul to have been the originator of Christianity, the Hubbard, the Smith character, but over the past few years I've learnt a lot about the problems with a historical Paul.... so even that may not be as well evidenced as I once believed.
The character called Paul in the NT could not have been the originator of the Jesus cult form of Christianity.

All stories about Paul in and out the Epistles claimed he persecuted believers in the resurrected Christ.

In Acts 7, Saul/Paul was present at the killing of Stephen who preached about Christ who was raised from the dead.

There is no story anywhere, in or out the NT, where the character called Paul was the originator of the Christian cult.

The invented conversion of Saul/Paul occurred after the Gospel of the resurrected and ascended Jesus was already known and circulated in the Roman Empire.

All writers of antiquity, Christian or not, place the Pauline character after the story of the resurrected Jesus.

There is no historical evidence anywhere of Paul in the 1st century and no story anywhere, fiction or forgery, that Paul is the originator of the Jesus cult of Christians.

Paul the originator of Christianity is a baseless claim completely unsupported by any source of antiquity, historical or not.

Without the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles it is virtually impossible to derive a chronology for Paul and the Epistles.

What is clear is that the so-called Paul attempted to deceive his audience into believing he got information directly from his resurrected Jesus but a close examination would show that the Pauline character was most likely quoting, copying or paraphrasing the very Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
But can we set this aside as it really isn't needed to talk about the historical Jesus , that would still be a "real" person Paul used to kick start Christianity.
Which source of antiquity would one use to show that Paul, real or not, kickstarted Christianity?

Christian writers claimed a character called Peter was preaching about the resurrected Jesus in ROME c 43 CE about 20 years before the supposed Paul arrived there as a prisoner c 63 CE.

Jerome's De Viris Illustribus
Quote:
Simon Peter the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion — the believers in circumcision, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia — pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero.
The supposed Pauline writer attempted to destroy the Jesus cult.

Galatians 1:13
Quote:
For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it
The so-called Paul KICKED the Jesus cult from the start.

Acts 9:5
Quote:
And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
The Pauline character started kicking the Jesus cult out of existence before he was blinded by a bright light.

Last edited by dejudge; 30th June 2020 at 09:46 AM.
dejudge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 09:42 AM   #2109
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,886
Thanks!

I’m still a little in the dark about what the history is supposed to look like if the Pauline stuff is as it’s claimed from something like ad 50, vs if it’s much later. Dejudge, I’m interested in your thoughts, if you have a post or a resource you could link? Like, where and when are these ideas coming from and how are they getting worked into the pool of ideas that later canon will be chosen out of?

Every time I look through an early apologetic that’s trying to explain We Follow This Jesus Christ Our Lord person I find two things: ‘don’t look at those other wrong Christians over there, we are different’ and ‘our apostles looked at the OT books and that’s why we believe our stuff is right.’ But they’re all still in the weeds about whether there’s supposed to be resurrection or not and all these other major tenets of modern Christianity.

Assuming it was added much later when the resurrection was already part of the lore, what was the point of the Pauline stuff, what kind of things were its author/s trying to achieve?

Last edited by Lithrael; 30th June 2020 at 09:47 AM.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 10:49 AM   #2110
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,022
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
Thanks!

I’m still a little in the dark about what the history is supposed to look like if the Pauline stuff is as it’s claimed from something like ad 50, vs if it’s much later. Dejudge, I’m interested in your thoughts, if you have a post or a resource you could link? Like, where and when are these ideas coming from and how are they getting worked into the pool of ideas that later canon will be chosen out of?

Every time I look through an early apologetic that’s trying to explain We Follow This Jesus Christ Our Lord person I find two things: ‘don’t look at those other wrong Christians over there, we are different’ and ‘our apostles looked at the OT books and that’s why we believe our stuff is right.’ But they’re all still in the weeds about whether there’s supposed to be resurrection or not and all these other major tenets of modern Christianity.

Assuming it was added much later when the resurrection was already part of the lore, what was the point of the Pauline stuff, what kind of things were its author/s trying to achieve?

I don't really know anything or have any view on whether or not Paul's letters were originally written around 50 to 60AD, or whether as dejudge says they are much later than that. The earliest copies that actually exist are said to date to about 200AD in a papyrus form known as P46.

One interesting "fact" about P46, and in fact all the gospels as well, is that all copies and fragments that we have, were found not anywhere near Judea, but in Egypt! P46 itself (which contains most of the 13 letters) was apparently found somewhere near Cairo, but exactly where seems to be unknown. A huge amount of both NT gospels and OT "books" were also found at a place called Oxyrhynchus which is about 160 miles south of Cairo.

Here's a Wiki link to the Oxyrhnchus papyri -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyrhynchus_Papyri

And here's a Wiki link discussing P46 (i.e. Paul's Letters)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 12:17 PM   #2111
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,344
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
It's from one of Paul's letters - the "Pillars" are the leaders of the Church at Jerusalem (iirc where that meeting took place) - Paul says he went there about 3 years after his vision, and then again about 15 years after that vision. He apparently went to discuss with the church leaders (the "Pillars" of that church), his own wish to preach the message of "Christ Risen" to the uncircumcised Gentiles in the region ... whereas previously the church Pillars had apparently only preached their gospel to circumcised Jews.

IIRC, without looking it up again - there was no real argument (they agreed with Paul), but either in that description or in another letter Paul says that he learned nothing of the gospel or the religion from any of the Pillars, because he said that the gospel which he preached, i.e. his gospel of "Christ Risen" "came from no Man" and "nor was I taught it by anyone" ... instead he is adamant that it all came to him as a revelation from God whereupon he suddenly realised the true prophecy of the Christ in the words that he found in ancient "scripture" ... Paul often qualified what he preached by saying it was "according to scripture".
There is also an incident in one of Paul's letters where he talks about "Some from James" who tried to force Paul's followers to circumcise themselves. Paul says he wishes those guys would cut themselves instead... Them's fightin' words...
Brainache is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 12:39 PM   #2112
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,886
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Here's a Wiki link to the Oxyrhnchus papyri -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyrhynchus_Papyri

And here's a Wiki link discussing P46 (i.e. Paul's Letters)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46
Thanks!! It’s really fascinating to see where and when we’ve found some of this stuff! I appreciate the hand-holding, this stuff is hard to dive into.

Quote:
Since 1898, academics have puzzled together and transcribed over 5,000 documents from what were originally hundreds of boxes of papyrus fragments the size of large cornflakes.
Oof! I can’t decide if I’d love or hate trying to do that!

Last edited by Lithrael; 30th June 2020 at 12:42 PM.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 02:32 PM   #2113
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,504
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Just for other more objective participants here (if not for Jerrymander) - if people agree with biblical scholars who say that Paul's letters pre-dated the bible, and if 20 to 50 years later gospel writers knew the contents of those letters, then it would be quite easy for them to use Paul's letters deduce that Jesus had died around 33AD (because in the letters, it is implied that Paul's vision was shortly after about 33AD) …
It is virtually impossible to use only the so-called Pauline Epistles to date any event with respect to the Lord Jesus, the disciples/apostles and the Pauline writers.

Nowhere in all the so-called Pauline Epistles is it stated that the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified under Pilate.

Nowhere in all the so-called Pauline Epistles is it stated when the Lord Jesus was revealed to the Pauline writer.

Nowhere in all the so-called Pauline Epistles is it stated when the Pauline writer met Peter and the Lord's brother.

The so-called Pauline Epistles are extremely vague and chronologically incoherent if not used in conjunction with the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
... on that basis it would be very easy for the gospel writers to decide that Jesus had died at the time when Pilate was the Roman governor of that area.
So the people whom the Pauline writer claimed he persecuted would have to wait for the supposed Paul to first get converted and then wait for him to get some visions and then wait until he wrote letters to the Churches to find out when their resurrected Jesus was crucified??

Please, the Gospels and Acts were already written before all the Pauline Epistles and the Pauline writer were fabricated.
dejudge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 02:35 PM   #2114
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,504
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
*cough* Paul *cough*

And supernatural things being attributed to a person does not make that person non-historical.
And, the non-supernatural things attributed to a character does not make that person a figure of history.
dejudge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 03:03 PM   #2115
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,283
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
It is virtually impossible to use only the so-called Pauline Epistles to date any event with respect to the Lord Jesus, the disciples/apostles and the Pauline writers.

Nowhere in all the so-called Pauline Epistles is it stated that the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified under Pilate.

Nowhere in all the so-called Pauline Epistles is it stated when the Lord Jesus was revealed to the Pauline writer.

Nowhere in all the so-called Pauline Epistles is it stated when the Pauline writer met Peter and the Lord's brother.

The so-called Pauline Epistles are extremely vague and chronologically incoherent if not used in conjunction with the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

So the people whom the Pauline writer claimed he persecuted would have to wait for the supposed Paul to first get converted and then wait for him to get some visions and then wait until he wrote letters to the Churches to find out when their resurrected Jesus was crucified??

Please, the Gospels and Acts were already written before all the Pauline Epistles and the Pauline writer were fabricated.
Nope, not according to most biblical scholars. Some of Paul's letters are dated as early as 50AD and the earliest Gospel was Mark which they date to about 70AD. Acts is considered by a number of scholars to be a forgery and is dated to 90AD.

Consider it like the Star Wars canon. That the events in the stories of 1, 2 and 3 predate the events in 4, 5 and 6 tell us absolutely nothing about when any of it was written. The same is true with the New Testament.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 30th June 2020 at 03:04 PM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 03:39 PM   #2116
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,120
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
The only details that ever made anybody think Jesus was born around 1 and preaching around 30-33 are the Census in one of his infancy narratives and the name "Pilat".
Actually, Jesus's birth is usually put at around 4 BCE, mainly because of the references to Herod the Great who died around that time. Also, the Gospel of Luke has Jesus "about 30 years" around "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar", which puts his birth at around 1 BCE.

So it's actually the census which is out of whack to those dates, being around 6 CE. Removing the census removes some confusion with the dates. "A man who has one watch knows the time, a man who has two watches is never sure."

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Jesus himself is said to be thrown in with "the other {robbers/rebels}", and we all know that the "rebel" profile fits him while "thief" does not. But there are no secular sources saying that's what the setting was like in the early 30s. They say it was like that in the 50s and 60s. Before that, there's a period in which there no signs of Jewish rebelliousness or of the Romans going around crucifying people, because the people they would end up crucifying, the rebels, weren't "a thing" yet.
But that's not the case at all. There were rebels throughout that area and time, starting with Judas the Galilean from around 6 CE. Josephus reports his sons were executed by the Romans around 46 CE.

There were messiah-types like Theudas around that time as well, leading people in (very short) holy revolt against Roman rule. Jesus is often lumped in with them. Not saying you're an atheist or mythicist, Delvo, but I believe the quote by some atheists on the topic used to be "figures like Jesus were a dime a dozen in those days!" Maybe the mythicists now use "Jesus was so unique to the time he didn't exist"???

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
For example, Paul mentions a bout of social unrest which was kicked off by a guy named Stephanus getting attacked by a mob (I think that might even be what he says somehow inspired him to go around "oppressing" certain people). Josephus also mentions similar unrest in response to a Stephanus getting attacked by a mob. But Josephus puts it in the 50s or 60s (I'm not sure when exactly), and conventional Christian dating would need it to be in the 30s.
The story comes from Acts of the Apostles, probably written in the Second Century CE. It's not taken seriously as a work of solid history. If Acts and Josephus are referring to the same person, then you are right of course. But it would be put down as legend-making rather than history-changing, and wouldn't cause anyone to need to re-guess the dates of early Christianity.

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
In short, pretty much everything else about the story says it needs to be set two or three decades later than most people currently think. That's when everything else lines up between the Bible and secular sources, except for the Census that we know the Bible gets wrong and the name "Pilat". If the Census hadn't been thrown in and the Roman guy's name hadn't been changed to Pilat, nobody would ever have doubted that the story happened in the 50s/60s and Jesus was "the Egyptian".
I think it's possible that the historical Jesus lived either earlier or later than supposed, and it deserves consideration. I agree with the thrust of your statements (though not on how the census was used as a birth-date selector). I've been nitpicky above, on order to help with accuracy of the data.

Last edited by GDon; 30th June 2020 at 03:49 PM.
GDon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 04:22 PM   #2117
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 519
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
And, the non-supernatural things attributed to a character does not make that person a figure of history.
Never said they did. But go ahead and play your rhetorical games.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 05:13 PM   #2118
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,120
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Consider it like the Star Wars canon. That the events in the stories of 1, 2 and 3 predate the events in 4, 5 and 6 tell us absolutely nothing about when any of it was written. The same is true with the New Testament.
That's not entirely true, fortunately. There are internal markers that suggest dates for when texts were written, and external markers, like references to that early text, which provides a range for possible start and end dates. But those ranges are often quite wide, usually decades and sometimes even centuries.

There is the problem that all we have today are mostly copies of copies of copies. Did Julius Caesar really exist? We don't have any writings by him, only copies of copies of copies. We don't have writings by anyone who met him. Only copies of copies of copies. Who knows who changed them, maybe even originated them? Statues? Coins? Well, we have statues and coins showing Jupiter.

What might be significant in the case of the HJ/MJ debate though, is that mythicists like Dr Richard Carrier and Earl Doherty are generally satisfied to use the dates of texts that modern scholarship has decided on. Both sides of the debate date Paul's letters to the 50s, the Gospels late First Century/early Second Century, and the other letters to the same period. The idea that Paul wrote in the Second Century is a fringe view on both sides. It's enough common ground to debate on the merits of the HJ/MJ case.
GDon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 11:18 PM   #2119
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,504
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
Thanks!

I’m still a little in the dark about what the history is supposed to look like if the Pauline stuff is as it’s claimed from something like ad 50, vs if it’s much later. Dejudge, I’m interested in your thoughts, if you have a post or a resource you could link? Like, where and when are these ideas coming from and how are they getting worked into the pool of ideas that later canon will be chosen out of?
In order to make an argument for or against an HJ and early Pauline writings one must be familiar with existing writings of antiquity.

There are many, many writings of antiquity that must first be examined.

This is a partial list:

The works of Philo, Josephus, Pliny the Elder, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, the short gMark, the long gMark, Lucian, Plutarch, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Arnobius, Lactantius, Severus, Eusebius, Julian, Jerome, Chrysostom, Ephraem, and the Christian Bible.

Now, examine any version of the Epistle to the Romans and tell me where it is shown that the Epistle was written c 57 CE as suggested by so-called Scholars.

Read every chapter, every verse and every word in the Epistle to the Romans and you will never ever find anything at all to show it was written c57 CE- absolutely nothing.

Now, examine any version of Acts of the Apostles and tell me where it is shown that an Epistle to the Romans was written by Saul/Paul c 57 CE as suggested by so-called Scholars.

Read every chapter, every verse and every word and you will never ever find anything at all to show an Epistle to the Romans was by written Saul/Paul c 57 CE --absolutely nothing.

How then did so-called Scholars get their c 57 CE date for the Epistles to the Romans??

They simply made it up.

There are many writings of antiquity which show that the so-called Pauline Epistles were late and had no influence at all on the early Jesus cult and that the character Paul was not known in the Roman Empire.

Now, a close examination of the Epistles to the Romans would show that it was written after the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

Look at Romans 11.

Quote:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
The author is writings about events which already occurred.

When was it said that the severity of God fell on the Jews in Christian writings ?

When was it said that the Jews were cut-off from their God?

It was after the destruction of the Jewish Temple and the fall of Jerusalem c 70 CE.

Now, if the author of the Epistle to the Romans is the same as the Epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians and Thessalonians then the Pauline character wrote and lived after c 70 CE.

Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
Every time I look through an early apologetic that’s trying to explain We Follow This Jesus Christ Our Lord person I find two things: ‘don’t look at those other wrong Christians over there, we are different’ and ‘our apostles looked at the OT books and that’s why we believe our stuff is right.’ But they’re all still in the weeds about whether there’s supposed to be resurrection or not and all these other major tenets of modern Christianity.
Which early apologetic writer appears to be confused about the resurrection of their Jesus?

Is it the author of gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, the Pauline Epistles, the Catholic Epistles, Revelation, Hebrews, or Ignatius, Aristides, Justin, Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Jerome.....??

I can't find any early apologetic writer who is confused about whether or not there was a resurrection.

After all, apologetic writers claimed their Jesus taught his disciples that he would be killed and resurrect on the third day.

Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
Assuming it was added much later when the resurrection was already part of the lore, what was the point of the Pauline stuff, what kind of things were its author/s trying to achieve?
The author was trying to achieve the same thing as those who falsely attributed the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

The NT writings were falsely attributed to supposed witnesses of Jesus and the apostles to claim primacy over the heretics.

Examine Tertullian's "Prescription Against the Heretics"

Quote:
But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say:

Let them produce the original records of their churches;

let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, — a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles....
The NT authors were fabricated as those who existed in the time of the apostles or were supposed to be apostles themselves to claim primacy over the heretics.

Last edited by dejudge; 30th June 2020 at 11:22 PM.
dejudge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 11:34 PM   #2120
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,504
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Nope, not according to most biblical scholars. Some of Paul's letters are dated as early as 50AD and the earliest Gospel was Mark which they date to about 70AD. Acts is considered by a number of scholars to be a forgery and is dated to 90AD.
There is nothing anywhere to support the claim that Epistles were written as early as 50 CE.

You don't know the difference between opinion and actual evidence.

Plenty Scholars suggest that Pauline Epistles were written since 50 CE but there has never been any evidence anywhere to support such a suggestion.


Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Consider it like the Star Wars canon. That the events in the stories of 1, 2 and 3 predate the events in 4, 5 and 6 tell us absolutely nothing about when any of it was written. The same is true with the New Testament.
Ok, there is nothing in the Epistles that can tell us when they were written.

The c 50 CE dates for Pauline Epistles are all baseless assumption by Scholars.
dejudge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:43 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.