Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-07-2016, 09:40 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 09:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 09:18 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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

In other words...what you are saying about me is this...

"you are biased because you hate Christianity, so I'm not going to discuss any of the history. You love conspiracy theories, but I'm not going to tell you what they are. Because I disagree with you, everyone else does. I know what you think, and what you write, so you must be mistaken about yourself. I don't have to to prove I know what you think. I'm going to ignore all your posts about history...it's much easier to write ad hominems about you."

You have not addressed my ideas in a professional way once...because you're not up to it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 09:45 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 08:12 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 07:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

"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."

This is blatantly incorrect. Who are you referring to by "all the Christian authorities?" What do you mean by "in the early church?" What church?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 09:49 PM (This post was last modified: 24-07-2016 04:50 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 09:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 09:18 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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


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

Oh the irony!

Read my posts. I'm discussing the history. You're discussing me.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 10:19 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 09:45 PM)Mark Fulton 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.

"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."

This is blatantly incorrect. Who are you referring to by "all the Christian authorities?" What do you mean by "in the early church?" What church?

The Christian church. You know, all the churches in various cities that Paul wrote all his letters to, and who Clement wrote to, and who other letter writers wrote to.

You know, the one Paul says existed at least by CE 50.

You know the one that Clement wrote to around CE 90, to the Corinthians.

You know, the one Justin was telling Trypho about around CE 140.

You know, the author of the Muratorian fragment that is dated around CE 170 and listed 4 Gospels, naming Luke and John, Paul Letters ext.

You know, the one Irenaeus keeps harping about around CE 175.

You know, Irenaeus listed the 4 gospel authors around CE 175.

You know, the one Tertullian won't shut up about around CE 200.

And if you have read closely, you will see a consistent chain of evidence demonstrating not only the existence of the early church, but the names of those who were involved, the formation of the canon, the naming of books in the early canon, and all of this done in an acceptable neat time-line showing HISTORY as it progressed.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 11:19 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 10:19 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 09:45 PM)Mark Fulton 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."

This is blatantly incorrect. Who are you referring to by "all the Christian authorities?" What do you mean by "in the early church?" What church?

The Christian church. You know, all the churches in various cities that Paul wrote all his letters to, and who Clement wrote to, and who other letter writers wrote to.

You know, the one Paul says existed at least by CE 50.

You know the one that Clement wrote to around CE 90, to the Corinthians.

You know, the one Justin was telling Trypho about around CE 140.

You know, the author of the Muratorian fragment that is dated around CE 170 and listed 4 Gospels, naming Luke and John, Paul Letters ext.

You know, the one Irenaeus keeps harping about around CE 175.

You know, Irenaeus listed the 4 gospel authors around CE 175.

You know, the one Tertullian won't shut up about around CE 200.

And if you have read closely, you will see a consistent chain of evidence demonstrating not only the existence of the early church, but the names of those who were involved, the formation of the canon, the naming of books in the early canon, and all of this done in an acceptable neat time-line showing HISTORY as it progressed.

Drinking Beverage

Oh. I see you are referring to what became the Roman Catholic church...the ones who wrote the history.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
23-07-2016, 11:27 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 08:54 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 08:45 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  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

Nice to see you discussing some facts.

"Peter" obviously didn't write the epistle of Peter...so I agree with you.

Who then wrote it? Short answer is no one knows. It is remarkable that the real identity of nearly all the authors of the NT are unknown. I suspect that is deliberate.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 11:34 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 11:19 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Oh. I see you are referring to what became the Roman Catholic church...the ones who wrote the history.

It is nice to see him finally showing the history he studied.

The winners write the history. Ask the Carthaginians.

Oh wait! Gasp

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
24-07-2016, 05:12 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 11:34 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 11:19 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Oh. I see you are referring to what became the Roman Catholic church...the ones who wrote the history.

It is nice to see him finally showing the history he studied.

The winners write the history. Ask the Carthaginians.

Oh wait! Gasp

You're referencing Robert Heinlein again, Banjo. Smile

That's really what this whole conversation boils down to... we're trying to un-ass the actual history, versus what the "orthodoxy" sect that would become the Catholic Church tried so hard to make it out to be, while silencing anything that challenged their version. Paul and his followers set out to change the direction of the religion, early on, and succeeded wildly. Others continued that trend. The question whose answer must be teased out of the sparse details is, "What really happened?"

Call it a "conspiracy theory" if one wishes to call it that, but it's pretty clear that groups with a strong agenda were at work in shaping the direction of the myriad churches and sub-sects that sprang up. As the group that would one day become the Holy See emerged as the dominant one (perhaps right off the bat), it coalesced into a set of "official facts" (not truths) which have gained a presuppositionalist momentum that fundamentalists today still promote-- almost word-for-word in the tone that is in the Muratorian fragment, assigning false authorship for the purpose of building a "this is the original stuff" legend that scholarship can reveal as not entirely correct, to put it nicely.

"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
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
24-07-2016, 07:22 AM (This post was last modified: 24-07-2016 07:28 AM by Tomasia.)
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 12:24 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 11:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I mean how the fuck else would folks in the first century have known of a town that wouldn't come to exist till a few centuries after them

Mark's position is that all 4 gospels and Acts are complete works of fiction that depict absolutely nothing of historical value at all. Therefore, according to him, Nazareth was an imaginary town in the Gospels, and later Christians conspired to create a real town and name it Nazareth to make it appear like it had always existed. Then, we are expected to believe that nobody noticed this invented town and said anything about it such as, "Hey, look at those fucking Christians! They actually created a town and called it Nazareth in an effort to make it look like the Nazareth that is in the Gospel actually existed!"

If that position isn't fucking weird, I don't know what is.

Consider

But, aside from all the evidence, the problem with his logic is obvious.

Despite the literary evidence demonstrating that Nazareth was mentioned as place of existence as early as CE 130, Mark also tries to make the claim that the written gospels didn't exist until nearly the middle of the 2nd century.

So the question is this:

How could early Christians invent a town called Nazareth as early as CE 130 to make it jibe with a written gospel record that didn't supposedly exist until CE 150?

Also, since we know the written Gospel of Luke existed long before CE 130 as per previous posts with evidence, and we know it mentions Nazareth, this just makes this conspiracy theory of his concerning Nazareth all the more bizarre.

No offense to anyone who thinks that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century, but I find anyone who subscribes to that view as to be kind of ... weird. It requires you to bend over backwards with really weird conspiracy theories that have no evidence for them at all, and also to defy all reason and logic, and then deny the existence of all available evidence.

People, I don't care what anybody says, but this is just too fucking weird for me. It's giving me the creeps.


Mark Fulton's position is that the early Christians had a severe schism with a supposed Nazarene sect, which Jesus was a part of. And these Christians edited half verses in the Gospels that had "the the Nazarene" in it, so that Jesus's association with that sect could be erased.

And how did they do that? By changing those verses to make it about a town called Nazareth that didn't come to exist till about the forth century, a town founded and inhabited by the same sect these later Christians were trying to dissociate themselves with.

Okay perhaps he won't say this is his positions, he'll say this "may have" been the case. Primarily because his thesis, and a shitty book he wrote on this, is dependent on it.

It should also be noted that Mark's not a mythicist, he holds to a very Jewish historical Jesus, who was a part of the Nazarene sect, which James and others were a part of. He's just hear defending certain mythicist positions not because he actually subscribes to any of em, but because no one really gives much credence to cockamamie views, like his whole take on Nazareth outlined above.

"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
24-07-2016, 07:40 AM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 04:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 11:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  In fact there's likely not a single verse or portion of the Gospels, which we can be more sure about being a part of the original writing than than the Nazareth passages. They appear in all four of the Gospels.

No they don't.
Matthew 2:23 (mistakenly, ALONE) said "and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene", and as far as Matthew was concerned, that served precisely a messianic purpose.

Your remarks here seem disconnected from the portion you quoted of mine.

But, yes Matthew unlike the other gospel writers tried to sell Jesus's hometown of Nazareth, as part of messianic prophecies that apparently no one other than himself knew about.

Quote:Guess you blew that one. In all respects.
For some who claims not to care about a Jesus, you sure sound desperate.

lol, I have no need to be desperate history and scholarship are on my side, you're the ones attempting to put lipstick on the fringe, not me. You're the ones constantly having to lie in support of them. It's your lying for atheism that reeks of desperation. I'm just having fun slapping the nonsense around a bit.








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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: