Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-07-2016, 07:42 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 07:34 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 07:21 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  You know, the one where people supposedly conspired to interpolate all instances in Paul's letters where we see him mentioning Jesus being crucified, and James being his brother et al. Yeah, that one.


Aside from the fact that in classical Arabic Isu means "Jesus" exactly the same as Isa means Jesus in modern Arabic.

You can learn more from the Muslims HERE



You don't understand Gnosticism. Yes, they believed a flesh and blood man named Jesus existed and was crucified. They believed he rose from the dead. They believed he was a god.

But Gnosticism gives primacy to the spirit over the flesh. They don't care about "Jesus the Son of Man." They care about "Jesus the Son of God,' who was a spirit.

They split him in 2.

This is so boring. Do you have any real proof other than what ancient men believed?

Real proof of what?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 07:48 PM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2016 08:12 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 06:01 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  but the ones they canonized were the ones they all agreed upon as being the oldest and most widely accepted. And those ones are the ones that have come down to us.

You have no evidence that "oldest" was one of the criteria, or that they had any way of determining that, hundreds of years later, when the canon was voted on. Widely accepted meant they passed the non-unanimous vote for canonization. The voters had no clue what happened that long before. The criteria for the canon was "4" ... because there are 4 winds, and 4 pillars upon which the Earth stands. Facepalm
They voted on the ones that most accorded with what their FAITH had developed into.

Your pontificating here is not helping you.

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, 08:12 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 07:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 06:01 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  but the ones they canonized were the ones they all agreed upon as being the oldest and most widely accepted. And those ones are the ones that have come down to us.

You have no evidence that "oldest" was one of the criteria, or that they had any way of determining that, hundreds of years later. Widely accepted meant they passed the non-unanimous vote for canonization. The voters had no clue what happened that long before. The criteria for the canon was "4" ... because there are 4 winds, and 4 pillars upon which the Earth stands. Facepalm

Your pontificating here is not helping you.

While there was plenty of discussion in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the "major" writings were accepted by almost all Christian authorities by the middle of the second century.

By 200 the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included the four gospels and argued against objections to them.

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would formally become the New Testament canon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 08:27 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 08:12 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  While there was plenty of discussion in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the "major" writings were accepted by almost all Christian authorities by the middle of the second century.

By 200 the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included the four gospels and argued against objections to them.

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would formally become the New Testament canon.

So, after the Council of Nicea, in 325, wherein they decided on the Creed and started using the term canon? It is hardly surprising that they were endeavoring to do so, given Constantine's order that copies of the Bible be made, when they did not yet have a formally recognized New Testament canon.

It is hardly surprising that 300 years into the history of this religion, they would have had a chance to make, collect, and modify thousands of documents, some of which they would prefer as they fit their version of orthodoxy... they were, after all, waging endless wars against heresies in an effort to establish The One True Church™. It is hardly surprising that the Orthodoxy of the Catholic Church was in good form, by then, given that it was formally accepted, what, 20 years after Athansius?

In your place, I would have offered up as evidence the use by Irenaeus in the late 2nd century of several (21, I think) of the fragments of scripture and scripture passages that would become the canonized New Testament, at least to show that people were aware of these books by 150+ years after Jesus.

"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, 08:37 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 08:27 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 08:12 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  While there was plenty of discussion in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the "major" writings were accepted by almost all Christian authorities by the middle of the second century.

By 200 the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included the four gospels and argued against objections to them.

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would formally become the New Testament canon.

So, after the Council of Nicea, in 325, wherein they decided on the Creed and started using the term canon? It is hardly surprising that they were endeavoring to do so, given Constantine's order that copies of the Bible be made, when they did not yet have a formally recognized New Testament canon.

It is hardly surprising that 300 years into the history of this religion, they would have had a chance to make, collect, and modify thousands of documents, some of which they would prefer as they fit their version of orthodoxy... they were, after all, waging endless wars against heresies in an effort to establish The One True Church™. It is hardly surprising that the Orthodoxy of the Catholic Church was in good form, by then, given that it was formally accepted, what, 20 years after Athansius?

In your place, I would have offered up as evidence the use by Irenaeus in the late 2nd century of several (21, I think) of the fragments of scripture and scripture passages that would become the canonized New Testament, at least to show that people were aware of these books by 150+ years after Jesus.

But then we have the Muratorian fragment

The text of the list itself is traditionally dated to about 170 because its author refers to Pius I, bishop of Rome (142—157), as recent:

"But Hermas wrote The Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time.

The unidentified author accepts four Gospels, the last two of which are Luke and John, but the names of the first two at the beginning of the list are missing. Also accepted by the author are the "Acts of all Apostles" and 13 of the Pauline Epistles (the Epistle to the Hebrews is not mentioned in the fragment). The author considers spurious the letters claiming to have Paul as author that are ostensibly addressed to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians. Of these he says they are "forged in Paul's name to [further] the heresy of Marcion.""
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 08:45 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 08:37 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 08:27 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  So, after the Council of Nicea, in 325, wherein they decided on the Creed and started using the term canon? It is hardly surprising that they were endeavoring to do so, given Constantine's order that copies of the Bible be made, when they did not yet have a formally recognized New Testament canon.

It is hardly surprising that 300 years into the history of this religion, they would have had a chance to make, collect, and modify thousands of documents, some of which they would prefer as they fit their version of orthodoxy... they were, after all, waging endless wars against heresies in an effort to establish The One True Church™. It is hardly surprising that the Orthodoxy of the Catholic Church was in good form, by then, given that it was formally accepted, what, 20 years after Athansius?

In your place, I would have offered up as evidence the use by Irenaeus in the late 2nd century of several (21, I think) of the fragments of scripture and scripture passages that would become the canonized New Testament, at least to show that people were aware of these books by 150+ years after Jesus.

But then we have the Muratorian fragment

The text of the list itself is traditionally dated to about 170 because its author refers to Pius I, bishop of Rome (142—157), as recent:

"But Hermas wrote The Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time.

The unidentified author accepts four Gospels, the last two of which are Luke and John, but the names of the first two at the beginning of the list are missing. Also accepted by the author are the "Acts of all Apostles" and 13 of the Pauline Epistles (the Epistle to the Hebrews is not mentioned in the fragment). The author considers spurious the letters claiming to have Paul as author that are ostensibly addressed to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians. Of these he says they are "forged in Paul's name to [further] the heresy of Marcion.""

I'm aware. The dating is due to the reference to Pius and his brother.

We also know that many of the "Pauline" epistles are not actually written by Paul. It seems to be a cottage industry, faking scriptures and sniffing out which ones were real and which were part of someone else's agenda. As near as I can tell, the Muratorian fragment shows that the sub-sect of orthodox Christians who would become the Catholic Church were already gaining power and momentum by this point, and that this fragment was written largely for the purpose of establishing this legend of which I have been speaking-- Luke, the surgeon, of whom he speaks as if this was really the author.

"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
23-07-2016, 08:54 PM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2016 09:16 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 08:45 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 08:37 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  But then we have the Muratorian fragment

The text of the list itself is traditionally dated to about 170 because its author refers to Pius I, bishop of Rome (142—157), as recent:

"But Hermas wrote The Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time.

The unidentified author accepts four Gospels, the last two of which are Luke and John, but the names of the first two at the beginning of the list are missing. Also accepted by the author are the "Acts of all Apostles" and 13 of the Pauline Epistles (the Epistle to the Hebrews is not mentioned in the fragment). The author considers spurious the letters claiming to have Paul as author that are ostensibly addressed to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians. Of these he says they are "forged in Paul's name to [further] the heresy of Marcion.""

I'm aware. The dating is due to the reference to Pius and his brother.

We also know that many of the "Pauline" epistles are not actually written by Paul. It seems to be a cottage industry, faking scriptures and sniffing out which ones were real and which were part of someone else's agenda. As near as I can tell, the Muratorian fragment shows that the sub-sect of orthodox Christians who would become the Catholic Church were already gaining power and momentum by this point, and that this fragment was written largely for the purpose of establishing this legend of which I have been speaking-- Luke, the surgeon, of whom he speaks as if this was really the author.

Oh I agree.

I suspect that 1st and 2nd Peter were authored by Paul for 1 of 2 reasons:

1. Peter couldn't write, so Paul did it for him while Peter told him what to basically say, as Paul added his typical flair to it.

2. Paul did it without Peter's knowledge in an effort to make it appear that Peter was supporting him.

Here is some evidence to support it. The first thing you will notice is that each verse below is the opening verse in each letter. The exact same type of salutation is used for both Paul's letters and Peter's.

Quote:1Pe :1 - 3 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect sojourners of the Dispersion of Pontus, of Galatia, of Cappadocia, of Asia, and of Bithynia ... May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

Compare to ...

Col 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, to the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colosse. Grace to you

Quote:2Pe 1:1 - 3 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of our God and our Savior Jesus Christ ... Grace and peace be multiplied to you

Compare to ...

Tit_1:1 -4 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ (according to the faith of God's elect, in the acknowledging of the truth which is according to godliness ... Grace mercy and peace from God

In addition to that, Peter gives Paul a shout-out:

2Pe_3:15 And think of the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation as our beloved brother Paul also has written to you according to the wisdom given to him.

Or perhaps I should say ...Paul promotes himself as if Peter did it.

Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GoingUp's post
23-07-2016, 09:18 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 07:03 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 06:08 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "we have no reason whatsoever to think Tertullian made anything up..."[/i]

Really! Please explain the following...

Tertullian was a teller of tall tales. He asserted,

“I know it that the corpse of a dead Christian, at the first breath of the prayer made by the priest, on occasion of its own funeral, removed its hands from its sides, into the usual posture of a supplicant; and when the service was ended, restored them again to their former situation.” (De anima chapter 51.)

He denounced the sin of going to the theatre:

“We have the case of the woman—the Lord Himself is witness—who went to the theater, and came back possessed. In the outcasting (exorcism), accordingly, when the unclean creature was upbraided with having dared to attack a believer, he firmly replied: ‘And in truth I did most righteously, for I found her in my domain” (De Spectaulis.)

He believed the hyena could change its sex every year (De Pallio, Chapter 3,) eclipses and comets were signs of god’s anger (To scapula, Chapter 3) and volcanoes were openings into hell (De Penitentia, 12.)

He advised Christians not to think critically, but to employ blind faith. To him, all kinds of rational thinking became superfluous compared to holy writings:

“For philosophy is the material of the world’s wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and dispensation of God. Indeed heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy… What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to do with the Church? What have heretics to do with Christians? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart. Away with all attempts to produce a Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic Christianity! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after receiving the gospel! When we believe, we desire no further belief. For this is our first article of faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.” (De Praescriptione, Chapter vii.)

He claimed, without evidence, that Pilate converted to Christianity:

“All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time Tiberius” (The Apology, Chapter 21.)

He wrote:

“The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed because men must needs be ashamed of it. And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed because it is absurd. And He was buried, and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible. But how will all this be true in Him, if He was not Himself true--if He really had not in Himself that which might be crucified, might die, might be buried, and might rise again?” (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.v.html).

He obviously preferred faith to reason, and disliked complexity. In the same work he called Aristotle “wretched” and disparaged the tentative investigative nature of Greek science as

“self-stultifying…ever handling questions but never settling them.” This attitude was the antithesis of rational thought. Compare this to what his contemporary Celsus said:

“For why is it an evil to have been educated, and to have studied the best opinions, and to have both the reality and appearance of wisdom? What hindrance does this offer to the knowledge of God? Why should it not rather be an assistance, and a means by which one might be better able to arrive at the truth?” (Excerpts from Contra Celsus by Origen, book 3 Chapter 59.) Celsus realized early Christians were irrational.

Tertullian lacked common sense, was a lazy thinker, justified his own ignorance using religion, and thought he could just invent facts to advertise an agenda.

So ... another conspiracy theory? This one hatched up by Tertullian? Really? This is all so fantastic that I simply have to ask:

Has Hollywood called you yet?

Laugh out load

Mark, there are some pretty smart people here. They may not say anything against you to your face, but you can be certain they see in you what I am seeing.

All ... so ... fucking ... weird.

You are an empty vessel making a lot of noise. What's this "conspiracy theory" (x2) you are on about? Stop imagining you have people who agree with you here...they can speak for themselves. Are you going to discuss the history, or just your emotional response to me?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 09:28 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 09:18 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 07:03 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  So ... another conspiracy theory? This one hatched up by Tertullian? Really? This is all so fantastic that I simply have to ask:

Has Hollywood called you yet?

Laugh out load

Mark, there are some pretty smart people here. They may not say anything against you to your face, but you can be certain they see in you what I am seeing.

All ... so ... fucking ... weird.

You are an empty vessel making a lot of noise. What's this "conspiracy theory" (x2) you are on about? Stop imagining you have people who agree with you here...they can speak for themselves. Are you going to discuss the history, or just your emotional response to me?

I don't have to imagine that people are agreeing with me. All I know is that some people here are very smart, and if I can see how bogus your POV is, they most certainly can also.

Discuss the history with you? How is that possible when you so obviously have no respect for actual history? You don't even want to recognize that Tertullian literally tells us that Marcion named the Gospel of Luke in his Antithesis sometime before CE 140 when the text states it explicitly.

You don't want actual ancient history, Mark. You are denying it at every turn in favor of what you want it to be.

By all appearances, you have a strong hatred of Christianity and take that hatred to a level that tries to fruitlessly bury the history of Christianity, while the rest of us prefer to use the actual history of it to expose it for what it truly is.

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 09:29 PM
interpolated.
(23-07-2016 07:21 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 06:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "It's how Marcionites referred to Jesus Christ. It is the Syrian (Arabic) language. Even today, Arabic speaking Muslims say "Isa" and not Jesus or Yeshua.

Has nothing to do with your conspiracy theory regarding Paul.
"

What "conspiracy theory" that is "mine" are you referring to?

You know, the one where people supposedly conspired to interpolate all instances in Paul's letters where we see him mentioning Jesus being crucified, and James being his brother et al. Yeah, that one.

Quote:I can find no connection between "Isu" and "Jesus."

Aside from the fact that in classical Arabic Isu means "Jesus" exactly the same as Isa means Jesus in modern Arabic.

You can learn more from the Muslims HERE


Quote: Marcion and his disciples did not believe in an historical Jesus. If you think they did, please provide a link to a scholar who agrees with you.

You don't understand Gnosticism. Yes, they believed a flesh and blood man named Jesus existed and was crucified. They believed he rose from the dead. They believed he was a god.

But Gnosticism gives primacy to the spirit over the flesh. They don't care about "Jesus the Son of Man." They care about "Jesus the Son of God,' who was a spirit.

They split him in 2.

"You know, the one where people supposedly conspired to interpolate all instances in Paul's letters where we see him mentioning Jesus being crucified, and James being his brother et al. Yeah, that one."

Once again, you're making up stuff about me. You cannot quote me once when I said that Paul's mention of the crucifixion was interpolated (in fact I said the very opposite) Nor can you quote me once saying that Paul's mention of James was interpolated...in fact I said the very opposite.

"You don't understand Gnosticism."

It is debatable whether Marcion was a Gnostic.

Yes, they believed a flesh and blood man named Jesus existed and was crucified.


Marcion did not believe this. Check your facts.

"They split him in 2."

Who is "they?"
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: