Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-07-2016, 06:55 AM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 06:52 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 06:40 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You're the one who lacks any evidential support for your suggestion that it was a later addition to the texts.

The passages lack all the hallmarks of later scribal additions, no copies of the text in which those passages are written differently. In fact Nazareth as a hometown of Jesus is indicated in all four Gospel, and the same is true for all four of them.

You suggest that all four of these texts were edited to replace "the nazarene" passages. Which is false, because all four Gospels speak of Jesus as the Nazarene as well, not to mention Acts.

Your suggestion of a later addition to the texts is a ridiculous of a suggestion as it comes. The textual evidence here proves otherwise.

All the evidence points to the passages being original. There is no evidence whatsoever in support of it being a later addition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How about you go back and correct your grammar in the previous two posts so that everyone can understand you? I will reply to you then. If English is your second language, you really should get someone who can write it to correct your posts before you put them out.


Ah huh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 07:23 AM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2016 07:34 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 06:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-07-2016 05:45 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "So are you gonna argue that the Nazareth passage was likely a later addition to these text, not part of the original writings? Like Mark Fulton suggests?"

Excuse me! This is exactly what I wrote...

""Mark" was probably first penned in the 70's. It finished being rewritten in the fourth century. Nazareth didn't exist in the 70's."

I don't know at what point(s) in time "Nazareth" was added to the Gospels. I do know it was in John's gospel in the early 3rd century, when Origen mentions it a few times.

Once again, you have not read carefully, but just assumed, what someone else (me) thinks.


But you claims Nazareth as a place was a latter addition to the texts. In fact suggest it was added to the text to erase references to "the Nazarene".

Even though you have no support for this whatsoever, no indication in any copies of the text to suggest this was later added.

You suggest that someone/s were thorough enough to edit all four gospels to edit in Nazareth as a place, thorough enough to ensure that no copies of the these texts were ever to be found were those portions are absent, or written differently, but apparently not thorough enough to remove "the Nazarene" passages in any single Gospel, or the book of Acts at all.

That's critical thinking for you huh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


"But you claims Nazareth as a place was a latter addition to the texts. In fact suggest it was added to the text to erase references to "the Nazarene".


No. I didn't actually write that. It could have been a later addition, but I don't know. Nazareth the place may have been in a first version.

"You suggest that someone/s were thorough enough to edit all four gospels to edit in Nazareth as a place, thorough enough to ensure that no copies of the these texts were ever to be found were those portions are absent, or written differently, but apparently not thorough enough to remove "the Nazarene" passages in any single Gospel, or the book of Acts at all."


See my answer above.

Also, I'm not sure that you are aware that there are no surviving copies of the gospels from the first three centuries. Your point about unaltered copies never being found is therefore nonsensical... there are no copies to be found full stop.

Also, I find no distinction between the gospel authors writing "the Nazarene" or "from Nazareth." They were trying to make out that Jeebus was from Nazareth in both cases.
Interestingly, the author of Acts slips up when Paul was accused of being a member of the "Nazarene sect." Oops! A Jewish sect would not be named after an obscure place (like Nazareth was supposed to be.)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 07:32 AM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2016 07:36 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 06:40 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-07-2016 06:21 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You are really, really slow on the uptake.
1. You have no proof " Mark" was written in 70 CE
2. You have no proof "Nazareth" was in any original version of Mark
3. It has just been explained you, a few times, that the gospels are not history, they are faith documents. It was a time when facts were hard to check. It would not have mattered to the authors of Mark whether an actual place called Nazareth did or didn't exist.

You're the one who lacks any evidential support for your suggestion that it was a later addition to the texts.

The passages lack all the hallmarks of later scribal additions, no copies of the text in which those passages are written differently. In fact Nazareth as a hometown of Jesus is indicated in all four Gospel, and the same is true for all four of them.

You suggest that all four of these texts were edited to replace "the nazarene" passages. Which is false, because all four Gospels speak of Jesus as the Nazarene as well, not to mention Acts.

Your suggestion of a later addition to the texts is a ridiculous of a suggestion as it comes. The textual evidence here proves otherwise.

All the evidence points to the passages being original. There is no evidence whatsoever in support of it being a later addition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"You're the one who lacks any evidential support for your suggestion that it was a later addition to the texts."

I said it may have been an addition...I don't know about that, and neither do you.

"You suggest that all four of these texts were edited to replace "the nazarene" passages."

I understood your incorrect assertion the first time...you repeating it twice doesn't make it correct.

"Your suggestion of a later addition to the texts is a ridiculous of a suggestion as it comes. The textual evidence here proves otherwise."

A fourth repeat...by now you're going backwards.

"There is no evidence whatsoever in support of it being a later addition."


The fifth repeat turns you into a ranting bore.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 08:27 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
So Mark, have you ever read the proceedings of the Council Of Nicea ?
https://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea1.txt
There are some who claim there was a vote taken there, to "deify" Jesus. and 'combine (at Constantine's command) two brothers into one Jesus.


"By the early third century, it became well noted that a problem was occurring . politics! In 251AD, the number of Presbyter's (roving orator or priest) writings had increased dramatically and bitter arguments raged between opposing factions about their conflicting stories. According to Presbyter Albius Theodoret (circa 255), there were "more than two hundred" variant gospels in use in his time. In 313, groups of Presbyters and Biscops (Bishops) violently clashed over the variations in their writings and "altar was set against altar" in competing for an audience and territory.

When Emperor Constantine conquered the East in 324, he sent his Spanish religious advisor, Osius of Cordoba, to Alexandria with letters to several Biscops exhorting them to make peace among their own. But the mission failed and Constantine, probably at the suggestions of Osius, then issued a decree commanding all Presbyters and their subordinates "be mounted on asses, mules and horses belonging to the public and travel to the city of Nicaea" in the Roman province of Bithymia, the country of Asia. The Presbyters were instructed by the Emperor to bring with them the manuscripts from which they orated to the rabble (that's us!) "wrapped and bound in leather".

Constantine saw in this developing system of belief the opportunity to make a combined state religion and protect it by law. The first general church council was thus convened and the year was 325.

On 21 June, the day of the Summer Solstice, (and under those cult conditions) a total of 2048 "presbyters, deacons, sub-deacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered at Nicaea to decide what Christianity really was, what it would be, what writings were to be used and who was to be it's God.

Ancient church evidence established that a new 'god' was to be approved by the Roman Emperor and an earlier attempt (circa 210) to deify either Judas Khrestus or his twin brother Rabbi Jesus (or somebody else) had been 'declined'. Therefore, as late as 325, the Christian religion did not have an official god.

After a long and bitter debate, a vote was finally taken and it was with a majority show of hands that Judas Khrestus and Rabbi Jesus both became God (161votes for and 157 votes against). The Emperor effectively joined elements of the two individual life stories of the twin brothers into a singular creation. The doctrine of the Celtic / British church of the west was democratically attached to the Presbyters stories of the east.

A deification ceremony was then performed 'Apotheosis'. Thus the deified ones were then called 'saviours' and looked upon as gods. Temples, altars, and images with attributes of divinity were then erected and public holidays proclaimed on their birthdays.

Following the original example set by the deification of Caesar, their funerals were dramatized as the scene of their resurrection and immortality. All these godly attributes passed as a legal right to Emperor Constantine's new deity, Jesus Christ.

The Emperor then instructed Bishop Eusebius to compile a uniform collection of new writings "bound together as one" using the stories from the large collection of Presbyters as his reference source. Eusebius was to arrange for the production of "fifty sumptuous copies ... to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in the art". This was the first mention of finished copies of a Christian 'New Testament' in the history of mankind."


http://www.rense.com/general66/hide.htm

So what do you think of this ? I'm looking to see if I can verify that Theodoret knew about 200 + gospels.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
23-07-2016, 09:46 AM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2016 09:58 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 09:46 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  According to my research, none of the following key players in the written annals of Christianity mentioned a place called Nazareth. (I may be wrong about this and am happy to be corrected.)


1. St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. c.110 CE)

2. Polycarp, (70–155 CE) the Greek bishop of Smyrna, (modern Izmir, in Turkey) was the leading second century figure in Roman Asia by virtue of his intermediary position between the apostolic and patristic (referring to the Church Fathers) ages

3. Papias (70–163 CE) was bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia. (Modern central Turkey.) He was, according to Irenæus,
“... a companion of Polycarp.”
Papias did not claim to know Jesus’ disciples (as with Polycarp, it would have been extremely unlikely that any of them would still have been alive in Papias’ time.) It is claimed by Eusebius of Caesaria (c. 320 CE) that Papias talked to people who knew the authors Mark and Matthew. Papias could not have done so, as these authors’ names are only first mentioned elsewhere c.180 CE, long after Papias was dead.

4. Marcion (110–160 CE) was a key figure in Christianity’s history.

5. Valentinus (100–160 CE) was the best known and, for a time, the most successful early Christian Gnostic theologian.

Not sure how any of this is relevant.

We have Justin mentioning Nazareth circa AD 140 (perhaps earlier) from quotes that so obviously came from a Gospel attributed to Luke, which means this gospel (named or unnamed) must have been in existence for quite some time before AD 140.

Marcion of Sinope published the earliest extant fixed collection of New Testament books. Marcion's teaching was condemned as heresy in the year 144, which means he had been teaching his version for many years previously. Now here's the thing ...

The Gospel of Marcion, called by its adherents the Gospel of the Lord, is based upon the Gospel of Luke. Church Fathers wrote, and the majority of modern scholars agree, that Marcion edited Luke to fit his own theology, Marcionism. The late 2nd -century writer Tertullian noted that Marcion, "expunged from the Gospel of Luke all the things that oppose his view... but retained those things that accord with his opinion".

So we know that the Gospel of Luke was known as "The Gospel of Luke" long before Marcion was excommunicated in circa AD 144. According to Irenaeus and Tertullian, Marcion was a student of Credo, and Tertullian adds that Cerdo received only the Gospel of St. Luke.

So now we can go back even further, because Cerdo started out as a follower of Simon Magus. He taught at about the same time as Valentinus and preceded Marcion.

So here we have Marcion (AD 140) being a student of Cerdo (AD 130), and Credo being a student of Simon Magus (1st century). We can see a pattern here regarding the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts in which Simon Magus is mentioned quite prominently.

With all this evidence combined, it is very reasonable to reach the proper conclusion that both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were named and in wide distribution at the very least the beginning of the 2nd century, and probably long before that.

This is simply following a chain of evidence concerning Luke, and since it is obvious that Justin quoted from Luke in Dialog with Trypho, and mentions Nazareth is one of these quotes, and then we have Marcion only using a version of Luke which he created from what he learned from Cerdo who was a follower of Simon Magus, we can reasonably go back to the turn of the 1st century with this.

There's just too much evidence to eliminate Nazareth, or to even say the Gospels (Luke in particular) were not named before AD 140. Both existed long before AD 140, obviously.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 09:55 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 09:46 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  With all this evidence combined, it is very reasonable to reach the proper conclusion that both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were named and in wide distribution at the very least the beginning of the 2nd century, and probably long before that.

So .... there is a "proper conclusion" you already knew you should reach.

"Long before that" ... ???
Your exaggerations are hilarious.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
23-07-2016, 10:02 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 09:46 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  We have Justin mentioning Nazareth circa AD 140 (perhaps earlier) from quotes that so obviously came from a Gospel attributed to Luke, which means this gospel (named or unnamed) must have been in existence for quite some time before AD 140.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that the writings which became the Gospels are accurately (or closely so) dated to the mid-late first century.

On the other hand, I feel the need to point out that your logic here does not follow.

The quotes which "obviously came from a Gospel attributed to Luke" does not necessarily mean it "must have been in existence for quite some time before AD 140".

It only means that these phrases were common to the culture of that religion, and may have been thus included in the writings that became Gospel, long after the tales (perhaps in writing, or perhaps part of a liturgy) were circulating. I agree that it does imply that there were writings from which he was working, but it doesn't necessarily follow that these were from a completed document which would later be called Luke.

Also-- why use "AD 140", for "In the Year of Our Lord", if you claim to be secular and a scholar? Even Christian scholars use the "Common Era" designation in their academic writings. It would be written 140 C.E.

I only see Anno Domini used by fundamentalists.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
23-07-2016, 10:34 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 10:02 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The quotes which "obviously came from a Gospel attributed to Luke" does not necessarily mean it "must have been in existence for quite some time before AD 140".

It only means that these phrases were common to the culture of that religion, and may have been thus included in the writings that became Gospel, long after the tales (perhaps in writing, or perhaps part of a liturgy) were circulating. I agree that it does imply that there were writings from which he was working, but it doesn't necessarily follow that these were from a completed document which would later be called Luke.

Actually it does. In Against Marcion, Book IV we see the following:

"Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process."

The above demonstrates that at the time of Marcion, Luke was an author.

And now this ...

"For if the Gospel, said to be Luke's which is current among us- we shall see whether it be also current with Marcion- is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism,"

The above demonstrates that Tertullian clearly states that Marcion argued that Luke's gospel was interpolated. So obviously one cannot interpolate something that has not been previously written down.

This is excellent evidence that the Gospel of Luke existed in written form long before Marcion butchered it, since his statements in his Antitheses state that the reason for creating his own version was that the "Luke" in existence had been interpolated.

Quote:Also-- why use "AD 140", for "In the Year of Our Lord", if you claim to be secular and a scholar? Even Christian scholars use the "Common Era" designation in their academic writings. It would be written 140 C.E.

Other than your desperate need to throw in an ad hom, does it make any difference to the point?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 10:44 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 09:55 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 09:46 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  With all this evidence combined, it is very reasonable to reach the proper conclusion that both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were named and in wide distribution at the very least the beginning of the 2nd century, and probably long before that.

So .... there is a "proper conclusion" you already knew you should reach.

"Long before that" ... ???
Your exaggerations are hilarious.

I see you are attacking the man, and not the points the man made.

Your ad hominems are hilarious.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 10:56 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 10:44 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 09:55 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So .... there is a "proper conclusion" you already knew you should reach.

"Long before that" ... ???
Your exaggerations are hilarious.

I see you are attacking the man, and not the points the man made.

Your ad hominems are hilarious.

Big Grin

The statement is VERY strange.
Proper historians never talk about "proper conclusions".

It's not an attack.
It's an observation.
You said it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: