Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-07-2016, 07:12 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-07-2016 04:05 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 02:46 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  brother and disciples! He was angry and frustrated that they’d been undermining him, and he didn’t hold back his vindictive retort. Paul and them obviously weren’t preaching the same message! (as claimed in Acts.)

Here’s the historical reality. Devout Jews (such as the Nazarenes) despised Paul and rejected his ramblings. The idea that their mysterious, perfect, one and only God could be incarnated in a Christ was unthinkable to them. They couldn’t imagine that their God could die, or that a Christ’s death somehow addressed man’s sins. For them the kingdom of God promised in scripture never was in a hypothetical heaven, but was to be on earth in the here and now. Their messiah wasn’t some savior of souls, but a leader of the Jews who was to herald in a glorious age in which Israel triumphed and pagans recognized the glory of their god, Yahweh. He was to build the temple, (Ezek. 37:26–28) gather all Jews back to Israel, (Isa. 43:5–6) and, importantly, bring an end to Roman rule. He was supposed to end all exploitation, corruption, famine, disease, and war. Paul’s fictional Christ had done none of this!

Apparently you don’t even read the passage in Galatians you quoted for support.

Paul in Galatians, indicated that they added nothing “to the Good news” as he preached it. That they recognized that he had “been commissioned to preach” it. That they shook hands with him as a “sign of partnership”. He indicated what their disagreement was about, that it was about whether pagan converts where to be circumcised and the fact that Peter, and Jame’s crew refused to eat with the pagan converts because they weren’t circumcised.

You on the other claim that they disagreed on the incarnation, on Christ’s death as an atonement for sin, on Christ divinity, in regards to Christ not being a savior of souls, etc… which is all unsupported nonsense, They had no such disagreement. Paul mentions no such disagreements between them. Nor do the church fathers in regards to the beliefs of the Nazarenes. Paul indicates this when pointing out that they shared the same Gospel, with nothing added to it, that they were in partnership, that their disagreement revolved around the question of circumcision.

A difference reiterated by the disputes with Nazarenes as indicated by the church fathers.

This is all that can be inferred from our available sources. If we are to distrust Paul, and church fathers here in expressing what some of the jewish christians and the Nazarenes believed, then you’re left entirely empty handed in claiming what the Nazarenes, the early Jewish Christians like James believed.

So quit you bloviating. You have no evidence in support of your views, in fact all the evidence we have contradicts your claims about the contentions between them. When are you going to admit this? Rather than avoiding this basic point that’s been repeated to you numerous times already.

Your claims about the relationship between Paul and the early disciples, are the equivalent of an atheists version of a Chick Tract, piles and piles of unsupported sensational nonsense.

This is how he did it...

Paul the Salesman
I think Paul was a salesman with an ambitious agenda. He hoped to sell his interpretation of Judaism to the Roman world. He had a plan to undermine those dangerous messianic Nazarene beliefs that roused rebellion against Roman rule.
He wrote to various groups scattered throughout the Empire, and desperately insisted they believe only his theology. He was so obsessed with snaring converts that little else in his life mattered. In Romans 15:16, he wrote that Gentiles were an offering he would bring to God.

“…that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.”

Most of the people he wrote to were Gentiles (pagans) associated with Jewish synagogues, (“God-fearing Gentiles”) although he wrote to some Jews in the Diaspora too. From Paul’s perspective, his patrons were in desperate need of direction and an authoritative, charismatic leader to look up to. He considered himself just the man. He thought he knew how to win the hearts, minds, and souls of people, as he imagined himself as one of the few God fearers (i.e. Jews) who understood Gentile cultures.

Paul’s theology probably had a long and carefully thought out gestation. He knew that to appeal to his customers he needed a product very different to traditional Judaism, which required obedience to cumbersome dictates, and was too anti-Roman. The Jews believed men had to be circumcised, a painful and embarrassing procedure, not easy to sell to an adult man. They worshipped Yahweh, who is portrayed in Jewish scripture as a thunderous and violent pro-Jewish anti-Gentile God, and would bow to no one but him. They had to eat kosher food, could marry only Jewish women, and weren’t allowed to work on the Sabbath. Jews regarded Jewish heritage and history as superior to others, and all Jews were expected to take part in the fasts and feasts celebrating the ancient epic of Israel. Many Jews thought they were one day going to be the masters of the world, and they had chips on their shoulders that right now it was Rome, not them, that was in charge. Their messianic dreams were a threat to Roman rule. Paul knew that Gentiles found all this inconvenient, irksome and out of touch with reality, so he labeled these Jewish rules and beliefs as a type of “slavery.” He had to jettison the old rules, so he did, by reinventing Judaism so that it was more to the Gentile world’s liking.

According to Paul, there was now no need for circumcision or to stop work on the Sabbath. The dietary kosher rules were out; bacon was on the breakfast menu, with shellfish salad for lunch. He made the extraordinary claim that to obey the Roman government was to obey God. He downplayed the importance of the Jewish temple, and replaced the Jews’ hope for a political messiah of their own with Christ, the spiritual savior of all mankind. He declared Yahweh was such a decent deity he’d sent his own precious son, the Christ, to earth. The “kingdom of God,” according to Paul, became a place in heaven, not in Israel. He alleged Gentiles were descendants of Abraham too, and that the centuries-old Jewish Law was a “curse,” and a type of “slavery.” All that was now required was faith in his claims about Christ. Voilà! The Christ myth and Christian theology were born. Paul was one of history’s first examples of an ambitious cult leader who, when the rules of the established religion were no longer convenient, simply invented new ones to suit himself. He replaced what he called the “old covenant” of the Jews with his entirely fabricated “new covenant.” He was trying to reinvent Judaism and dampen down Jewish messianic dreams, bending over backwards to infiltrate the old religion with Gentiles and pro-Roman ideas. He had no idea he was creating an almost entirely new faith, yet that’s precisely what his writings helped do many years later.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 07:31 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Justin Martyr, writing over a century after "paul" supposedly brought this happy horseshit to the "gentiles" never heard of anyone named "paul." But he DID know of Marcion.

This is inconceivable if there were any truth to the xtian bullshit story at all.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 08:07 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-07-2016 07:12 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  This is how he did it...

Paul the Salesman
I think Paul was a salesman with an ambitious agenda. He hoped to sell his interpretation of Judaism to the Roman world. He had a plan to undermine those dangerous messianic Nazarene beliefs that roused rebellion against Roman rule.

Only if by dangerous Nazarene beliefs, you mean the belief that gentile christian converts, should be circumcised and follow the Jewish law.

But I'm sure that's not what you have in mind. What you have in mind is a variety of Nazarene beliefs, that you've just been making up as you go along, that you have not a single shred of evidence for, and which the actual evidence contradicts.

"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
28-07-2016, 08:26 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-07-2016 07:07 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
Quote:How did you arrive at this conclusion? I see Paul becoming involved shortly after Jesus' crucifixion.

Sorry, I can't remember exactly. I think the dates are uncertain, and this is pretty much a consensus amongst the historians I have read.

Okay.

Quote:
Quote:]Are you using the Gospel records to come to this conclusion?

No. I happily admit I am just using common sense ie I'm reading between the lines based on probable facts about Jesus.

But from where are you getting these "probable facts?"

Quote:
Quote:And perhaps this statement was known by Paul, and understood by Paul in the manner by which I have explained, and which is the very reason why Paul preached such a similar message to the Gentiles.

I don't think Paul knew anything "Jesus" said or did. I don't think Paul's "Christ" was the Jesus we think we know. If Paul did know of a Jesus, it was a failed insurrectionist from a decade or so earlier... the dead brother of James.

Wouldn't this be the same James who was the brother of your concept of Yeshua?

Quote:
Quote:These are just 4 verses, there are many more. What do you think of this?

I think the multiple editors of Acts were careless and sloppy. They did not respect their readers enough to even pretend there was one author, let alone name him and demonstrate he was a legitimate commentator. We don't know who wrote Acts, and we don't know when it was first written... my guess is early second century, but I'm guessing just the same as everyone else.

1. What do you think are the tell-tale signs of multiple editors of Acts?

2. In earlier discussions here we showed how both Irenaeus (C.E 175) and Tertullian (C.E. 205) specifically states that Marcion butchered the Gospel of Luke sometime before C.E. 140, explaining how Marcion only considered the Gospel of Luke and Paul as actually having the closest approximation of whatever truth early Christians adhered to.

Theses statements strongly indicate that the Gospel of Luke was well known as the Gospel of Luke sometime before C.E 140.

Since modern scholarship considers that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are authored by the same person, I also find it very reasonable that the Acts of the Apostles was, at one time, actually a part of the Gospel of Luke, as if it was just one big Gospel.

My point here is that we have 1st person narrative existing all through the Acts of the Apostles beginning from Act_16:11 until near the end at Act_28:16. Listed below are all the verses in order:

Quote:Act_16:11 Then having set sail from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis;
Act_16:12 and from there to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, a colony. And we continued spending time in that city some days.
Act_16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was usually made. And we sat down and spoke to the women who came together there.
Act_16:16 And as we went to prayer, it happened that a certain girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much gain by divining.
Act_16:17 The same followed Paul and us and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the Most High God, who are announcing to us the way of salvation.
Act_20:5 Going before, these waited for us at Troas.
Act_20:6 And after the days of Unleavened Bread, we sailed away from Philippi and came to them at Troas in five days, where we stayed seven days.
Act_20:13 And going ahead onto the ship, we sailed to Assos, there intending to take in Paul; for so he had appointed, intending himself to go on foot.
Act_20:14 And when he met with us at Assos, we took him in and came to Mitylene.
Act_20:15 And we sailed from there and came the next day across from Chios. And the next day we arrived at Samos, and we stayed at Trogyllium. And the next day we came to Miletus.
Act_21:2 And finding a ship sailing over to Phoenicia, going on board, we set sail.
Act_21:3 And sighting Cyprus, and leaving it on the left, we sailed into Syria, and came down to Tyre. For the ship was to unload its cargo there.
Act_21:4 And finding disciples, we stayed there seven days; who said to Paul through the Spirit that he should not go up to Jerusalem.
Act_21:5 But when it was time to finish the days, going out, we traveled on. And they with all the women and children went with us as far as outside the city. And we kneeled down on the shore and prayed.
Act_21:6 And giving parting greetings to one another, we went up into the ship; and they returned to their own things.
Act_21:7 And finishing the voyage from Tyre, we came to Ptolemais. And greeting the brothers, we stayed with them one day.
Act_21:8 And the next day those around him going out, Paul came to Caesarea. And entering the house of Philip the evangelist, he being of the seven, we stayed with him.
Act_21:10 And as we stayed more days, a certain prophet from Judea named Agabus came down.
Act_21:11 And coming to us, and taking Paul's belt, and binding his hands and feet, he said, The Holy Spirit says these things: So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man whose belt this is, and will deliver him into the hands of the nations.
Act_21:12 And when we heard these things, both we and those of the place begged him not to go up to Jerusalem.
Act_21:14 And he not being persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.
Act_21:15 And after those days, making ready, we went up to Jerusalem.
Act_21:16 Also some of the disciples from Caesarea went with us, bringing Mnason, a certain Cypriot, an old disciple with whom we were to lodge.
Act_21:17 And we being in Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly.
Act_27:1 And when it was determined that we should sail to Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other prisoners to one named Julius, a centurion of Augustus' cohort.
Act_27:2 And boarding a ship of Adramyttium, which was about to sail alongside Asian places, we set sail, Aristarchus, a Macedonian from Thessalonica, being with us.
Act_27:3 And on the next day we were landed at Sidon. And Julius treated Paul courteously and gave him liberty to go to his friends to receive care.
Act_27:4 And setting sail from there, we sailed close to Cyprus, because the winds were contrary.
Act_27:5 And sailing over the sea against Cilicia and Pamphylia, we came to Myra of Lycia.
Act_27:6 And there the centurion found a ship of Alexandria sailing to Italy, and he put us on it.
Act_27:7 And sailing slowly many days and with difficulty, coming abreast of Cnidus; the wind not allowing us; we sailed close to Crete, across from Salmone.
Act_27:8 And coasting along with difficulty, we came to a place named Fair Havens, near which was a city, Lasea.
Act_27:15 And the ship being seized, and not being able to beat against the wind, giving way we were borne along.
Act_27:16 And running under an islet being called Clauda, we hardly were able to become masters of the boat;
Act_27:19 And on the third day we threw out the ship's tackle with our hands.
Act_27:20 And neither sun nor stars appearing in many days, and no small tempest pressing hard, now all hope that we would be saved was taken away.
Act_27:26 But we must fall on a certain island.
Act_27:27 But when the fourteenth night came, we being carried about in the Adriatic Sea, about midnight the sailors thought that they drew near some country.
Act_27:29 And fearing that we would fall on rocks, and casting four anchors out of the stern, they wished day to come.
Act_27:37 And we were, all the souls in the ship, two hundred and seventy-six.
Act_28:2 And the foreigners showed us not the common kindness. For they kindled a fire and welcomed all of us, because of the rain coming on, and because of the cold.
Act_28:7 In the quarters about that place were lands to the chief of the island, whose name was Publius. Welcoming us, he lodged us courteously three days.
Act_28:10 They also honored us with many honors. And on our setting sail, they laid on the things of our needs.
Act_28:11 And after three months we sailed in a ship of Alexandria which had wintered in the island, an Alexandrian with an ensign, The Twin Brothers.
Act_28:12 And landing at Syracuse, we stayed three days.
Act_28:13 Going around from there we arrived at Rhegium. And after one day a south wind coming on, we came to Puteoli on the second,
Act_28:14 where finding brothers, we were asked to stay seven days. And so we went toward Rome.
Act_28:15 And the brothers from there hearing of us, they came to meet us as far as the market-place of Appius, and Three Taverns. Seeing them, thanking God, Paul took courage.
Act_28:16 And when we came into Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the camp commander. But Paul was allowed to dwell by himself, with a soldier guarding him.

What I am saying here is in direct response to your assertion of multiple authors.

When we look at the Gospel of Luke and then chapters 1 - 16 in the Book of Acts, we see consistent writing from a person who wasn't there, but who was writing according to what he had investigated and determined as events that had occurred previous to him coming on the scene around Chapter 16 of Acts.

But as soon as Paul began to travel, this writer- as evidenced by the consistent 1st person narrative through most of the rest of Acts from Chapter 16 - 28 - does not show any signs of any other writer.

This suggests to me that it is the exact same writer all the way through from the beginning of the Gospel of Luke until the end of the Book of Acts. My three points of observation are these:

1. From the beginning of Luke until the 16th chapter of Acts, the writer is writing what he believes to be an accurate representation of the life of Jesus Christ, and the Acts of the Apostles. He would have learned this from his investigations, as this section of Luke and Chapters 1 - 16 of Acts shows absolutely no sign of a 1st person narrative.

2. From Chapter 16 - 28 of Acts, we see this writer writing in the 1st person and in hind-sight of his travels with Paul. This indicates that this writer traveled with Paul pretty much every where that Paul evangelized.

3. This writer does not write anything about Paul's death, which indicates that this writer either had left Paul before the event of Paul's death and therefore wasn't there to write about it, or this writer had written this account before Paul died and therefore couldn't write about something that hadn't happened yet.

If this story had been interpolated sometime later by another writer, the death of Paul should reasonably be added to the ending.

But the one undeniable thing about this writer is that he entered the scene in his own right as part of the story in Chapter 16 of Acts, and he stays consistent right to the very end, demonstrating with 50 verses from Chapters 16 - 28 that he was writing a 1st person narrative of his travels with Paul the Apostle.

And this appears to be written evidence of a 1st century contemporary of both Paul the Apostle and Jesus of Nazareth.

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 09:05 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-07-2016 04:05 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 02:46 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  brother and disciples! He was angry and frustrated that they’d been undermining him, and he didn’t hold back his vindictive retort. Paul and them obviously weren’t preaching the same message! (as claimed in Acts.)

Here’s the historical reality. Devout Jews (such as the Nazarenes) despised Paul and rejected his ramblings. The idea that their mysterious, perfect, one and only God could be incarnated in a Christ was unthinkable to them. They couldn’t imagine that their God could die, or that a Christ’s death somehow addressed man’s sins. For them the kingdom of God promised in scripture never was in a hypothetical heaven, but was to be on earth in the here and now. Their messiah wasn’t some savior of souls, but a leader of the Jews who was to herald in a glorious age in which Israel triumphed and pagans recognized the glory of their god, Yahweh. He was to build the temple, (Ezek. 37:26–28) gather all Jews back to Israel, (Isa. 43:5–6) and, importantly, bring an end to Roman rule. He was supposed to end all exploitation, corruption, famine, disease, and war. Paul’s fictional Christ had done none of this!

Apparently you don’t even read the passage in Galatians you quoted for support.

Paul in Galatians, indicated that they added nothing “to the Good news” as he preached it. That they recognized that he had “been commissioned to preach” it. That they shook hands with him as a “sign of partnership”. He indicated what their disagreement was about, that it was about whether pagan converts where to be circumcised and the fact that Peter, and Jame’s crew refused to eat with the pagan converts because they weren’t circumcised.

You on the other claim that they disagreed on the incarnation, on Christ’s death as an atonement for sin, on Christ divinity, in regards to Christ not being a savior of souls, etc… which is all unsupported nonsense, They had no such disagreement. Paul mentions no such disagreements between them. Nor do the church fathers in regards to the beliefs of the Nazarenes. Paul indicates this when pointing out that they shared the same Gospel, with nothing added to it, that they were in partnership, that their disagreement revolved around the question of circumcision.

A difference reiterated by the disputes with Nazarenes as indicated by the church fathers.

This is all that can be inferred from our available sources. If we are to distrust Paul, and church fathers here in expressing what some of the jewish christians and the Nazarenes believed, then you’re left entirely empty handed in claiming what the Nazarenes, the early Jewish Christians like James believed.

So quit you bloviating. You have no evidence in support of your views, in fact all the evidence we have contradicts your claims about the contentions between them. When are you going to admit this? Rather than avoiding this basic point that’s been repeated to you numerous times already.

Your claims about the relationship between Paul and the early disciples, are the equivalent of an atheists version of a Chick Tract, piles and piles of unsupported sensational nonsense.

You on the other claim that they disagreed on the incarnation, on Christ’s death as an atonement for sin, on Christ divinity, in regards to Christ not being a savior of souls, etc… which is all unsupported nonsense, They had no such disagreement.


Really?

Please explain the lack of one iota of Paul's proto Christianity in James' letter...

James’ Letter (The Epistle of James)

Many Christians aren’t aware that Yeshua’s brother may have his very own letter in the bible. Yet it’s there, tucked inconspicuously under the thirteen letters attributed to Paul. The Catholic Encyclopedia claims there’s no doubt who the author was:

“Internal evidence (contents of the Epistle, its style, address, date, and place of composition) points unmistakably to James, the Lord’s brother, the Bishop of Jerusalem, as the author; he exactly, and he alone, fulfils the conditions required in the writer of the Epistle.” Yet it’s surprising that the authors acknowledge James was Jesus’ brother here, when it’s denied elsewhere in the same publication by calling him Jesus’ cousin. They call James a bishop, thereby implying he was a Christian, which he most definitely wasn’t. There’s never been a Jewish bishop. Nor did bishops exist anywhere until (at earliest) the 90’s CE, thirty years after James died.

I don’t think we can be sure Yeshua’s brother wrote James’ letter, but even if he didn’t, it’s from an early Jewish source, so one probably close to Yeshua. Many scholars date it to about 60 CE, (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/james.html) although the Catholic Encyclopedia states “about A.D. 47.”

The letter is addressed to the twelve Jewish tribes of the dispersion, so was to be distributed outside Jerusalem. It has a mildly authoritarian tone, as one would expect from a leader. The author doesn’t mention the word “church.” The communities he wrote to (outside Jerusalem) worshipped in synagogues, not churches:

“Now suppose a man comes into your synagogue…” (James 2:2, NJB.)

James says nothing about his (now) famous brother’s exploits. He doesn’t mention Jesus’ divinity, miracles, sacrificial death or resurrection. Let’s imagine ourselves in James’ sandals. If you thought your brother, or your close associate, was a miracle working son of God, and you knew he’d risen from the dead, there wouldn’t be much else worth talking about! All your letters would be laced with excited expletives about supernatural events. James’ letter isn’t, because he didn’t believe bullshit about Jesus.

He was a pious Jew. A central theme of the letter is that it’s important to obey “the Law.”

“You see, if a man keeps the whole of the Law, except for one small point at which he fails, he is still guilty of breaking it all” (James 2:10 JB.)

“But the man who looks steadily at the perfect law of freedom and makes that his habit - not listening and then forgetting, but actively putting it into practice - will be happy in all that he does” (James 1:25 JB.) He was referring to the Jewish Law, which the Jerusalem bible admits in a footnote. This is the opposite of Paul’s proposition that salvation is secured by releasing oneself from obedience to the Law, an admission also admitted in another footnote.

James wrote that faith was pointless without good works:

“Take the case, my brothers, of someone who has never done a single good act but claims that he has faith. Will that faith save him? If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on, and one of you says to them, ‘I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plenty’, without giving them these bare necessities of life, then what good is that? Faith is like that: if good works do not go with it, it is quite dead” (James 2:14–17, NJB.) He emphasized the importance of action:

“If there are any wise or learned men among you, let them show it by their good lives, with humility and wisdom in their actions” (James 3:13, NJB.) It’s obvious James had heard Paul’s preaching about faith, and quite rightly rebutted it as nonsense.

Consider the following:

“Remember this, my dear brothers, be quick to listen but slow to speak and slow to rouse your temper, God’s righteousness is never served by man’s anger.” (James 1:19–20, NJB.) James was cut from a different cloth to the self righteous, often angry Paul, a man who rarely listened to others.

James wrote

“Above all, my brothers, do not swear by heaven or by earth, or use any oaths at all. If you mean ‘yes,’ you must say ‘yes;’ if you mean ‘no,’ say ‘no’. Otherwise you make yourselves liable to judgment” (James 5:12, NJB.) This is refreshingly real, although one might hope to hear something a little more profound from the brother of the son of God!

The author of James believed in Jewish scripture. He didn’t tolerate hypocrisy. He had some socialist ideals, which one would expect from a pious Essene. Yeshua may have believed something similar.

There’s nothing to suggest an anti-Roman stance, but the letter may have been edited. It’s also possible James knew that if any anti-Roman literature found its way into the government’s hands he’d suffer the same fate as John and Yeshua.

James’ letter only just made it into the canon. In the fourth century, its status was disputed. Augustine and Jerome accepted it very reluctantly, so probably others couldn’t ignore the connection with Yeshua.

Martin Luther thought the letter had little doctrinal value because it so blatantly contradicted Paul’s teachings. Paul was Luther’s hero. He called James’ letter “an Epistle of straw.” (http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_ canon.htm). He clearly had a very limited understanding of the real history. Modern readers have the benefit of another 500 years of scholarship.

References:
Tabor, J. 2006 “The Jesus Dynasty”. Harper Collins. London.
Eisenman, Robert H. “James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls”
http://www.thenazareneway.com/james_the_..._jesus.htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/siljampe.htm
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/james.html
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2009/0...ebionites/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej_Z3sTZ6PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 09:13 PM (This post was last modified: 28-07-2016 09:27 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-07-2016 07:31 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Justin Martyr, writing over a century after "paul" supposedly brought this happy horseshit to the "gentiles" never heard of anyone named "paul." But he DID know of Marcion.

This is inconceivable if there were any truth to the xtian bullshit story at all.

Let me guess where this is going ... hmmmm ... oh! I got it!

Paul the Apostle Didn't Exist!

Right??? Right??? I ask you, am I right????


Facepalm

In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin extensively quotes the Jewish scriptures and includes several citations of logia of Jesus.

Furthermore, while explicit citations from Paul are peculiarly absent from the text, Justin, writing from Rome, certainly knows Paul's writings in detail and uses them. Indeed, it seems that the Dialogue provides a perfect occasion for him to employ Paul because in it he addresses the relationship between Judaism and the church, a central topic in both Romans and Galatians.

Besides the appearance of Pauline quotations, several of Justin's arguments directly rely on Paul's thinking. For example, Justin probably has Galatians 3 before him as he composes Dialogue 95–96.

Oskar Skarsaune's analysis of Justin's writing also indicates that Romans is one of Justin's preferred sources for quotations of the Jewish scriptures; that is, he sometimes quotes the Jewish scriptures as they appear in Paul rather the LXX. He draws especially from the Jewish scriptures quoted in Romans 2–4 and 9–11 because the chapters examine the problem of Torah and the Jews' rejection of the gospel, also two important issues in the Dialogue.

Source: Cambridge

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 09:36 PM (This post was last modified: 29-07-2016 06:37 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-07-2016 08:26 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 07:07 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Sorry, I can't remember exactly. I think the dates are uncertain, and this is pretty much a consensus amongst the historians I have read.

Okay.

Quote:No. I happily admit I am just using common sense ie I'm reading between the lines based on probable facts about Jesus.

But from where are you getting these "probable facts?"

Quote:I don't think Paul knew anything "Jesus" said or did. I don't think Paul's "Christ" was the Jesus we think we know. If Paul did know of a Jesus, it was a failed insurrectionist from a decade or so earlier... the dead brother of James.

Wouldn't this be the same James who was the brother of your concept of Yeshua?

Quote:I think the multiple editors of Acts were careless and sloppy. They did not respect their readers enough to even pretend there was one author, let alone name him and demonstrate he was a legitimate commentator. We don't know who wrote Acts, and we don't know when it was first written... my guess is early second century, but I'm guessing just the same as everyone else.

1. What do you think are the tell-tale signs of multiple editors of Acts?

2. In earlier discussions here we showed how both Irenaeus (C.E 175) and Tertullian (C.E. 205) specifically states that Marcion butchered the Gospel of Luke sometime before C.E. 140, explaining how Marcion only considered the Gospel of Luke and Paul as actually having the closest approximation of whatever truth early Christians adhered to.

Theses statements strongly indicate that the Gospel of Luke was well known as the Gospel of Luke sometime before C.E 140.

Since modern scholarship considers that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are authored by the same person, I also find it very reasonable that the Acts of the Apostles was, at one time, actually a part of the Gospel of Luke, as if it was just one big Gospel.

My point here is that we have 1st person narrative existing all through the Acts of the Apostles beginning from Act_16:11 until near the end at Act_28:16. Listed below are all the verses in order:

Quote:Act_16:11 Then having set sail from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis;
Act_16:12 and from there to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, a colony. And we continued spending time in that city some days.
Act_16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was usually made. And we sat down and spoke to the women who came together there.
Act_16:16 And as we went to prayer, it happened that a certain girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much gain by divining.
Act_16:17 The same followed Paul and us and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the Most High God, who are announcing to us the way of salvation.
Act_20:5 Going before, these waited for us at Troas.
Act_20:6 And after the days of Unleavened Bread, we sailed away from Philippi and came to them at Troas in five days, where we stayed seven days.
Act_20:13 And going ahead onto the ship, we sailed to Assos, there intending to take in Paul; for so he had appointed, intending himself to go on foot.
Act_20:14 And when he met with us at Assos, we took him in and came to Mitylene.
Act_20:15 And we sailed from there and came the next day across from Chios. And the next day we arrived at Samos, and we stayed at Trogyllium. And the next day we came to Miletus.
Act_21:2 And finding a ship sailing over to Phoenicia, going on board, we set sail.
Act_21:3 And sighting Cyprus, and leaving it on the left, we sailed into Syria, and came down to Tyre. For the ship was to unload its cargo there.
Act_21:4 And finding disciples, we stayed there seven days; who said to Paul through the Spirit that he should not go up to Jerusalem.
Act_21:5 But when it was time to finish the days, going out, we traveled on. And they with all the women and children went with us as far as outside the city. And we kneeled down on the shore and prayed.
Act_21:6 And giving parting greetings to one another, we went up into the ship; and they returned to their own things.
Act_21:7 And finishing the voyage from Tyre, we came to Ptolemais. And greeting the brothers, we stayed with them one day.
Act_21:8 And the next day those around him going out, Paul came to Caesarea. And entering the house of Philip the evangelist, he being of the seven, we stayed with him.
Act_21:10 And as we stayed more days, a certain prophet from Judea named Agabus came down.
Act_21:11 And coming to us, and taking Paul's belt, and binding his hands and feet, he said, The Holy Spirit says these things: So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man whose belt this is, and will deliver him into the hands of the nations.
Act_21:12 And when we heard these things, both we and those of the place begged him not to go up to Jerusalem.
Act_21:14 And he not being persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.
Act_21:15 And after those days, making ready, we went up to Jerusalem.
Act_21:16 Also some of the disciples from Caesarea went with us, bringing Mnason, a certain Cypriot, an old disciple with whom we were to lodge.
Act_21:17 And we being in Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly.
Act_27:1 And when it was determined that we should sail to Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other prisoners to one named Julius, a centurion of Augustus' cohort.
Act_27:2 And boarding a ship of Adramyttium, which was about to sail alongside Asian places, we set sail, Aristarchus, a Macedonian from Thessalonica, being with us.
Act_27:3 And on the next day we were landed at Sidon. And Julius treated Paul courteously and gave him liberty to go to his friends to receive care.
Act_27:4 And setting sail from there, we sailed close to Cyprus, because the winds were contrary.
Act_27:5 And sailing over the sea against Cilicia and Pamphylia, we came to Myra of Lycia.
Act_27:6 And there the centurion found a ship of Alexandria sailing to Italy, and he put us on it.
Act_27:7 And sailing slowly many days and with difficulty, coming abreast of Cnidus; the wind not allowing us; we sailed close to Crete, across from Salmone.
Act_27:8 And coasting along with difficulty, we came to a place named Fair Havens, near which was a city, Lasea.
Act_27:15 And the ship being seized, and not being able to beat against the wind, giving way we were borne along.
Act_27:16 And running under an islet being called Clauda, we hardly were able to become masters of the boat;
Act_27:19 And on the third day we threw out the ship's tackle with our hands.
Act_27:20 And neither sun nor stars appearing in many days, and no small tempest pressing hard, now all hope that we would be saved was taken away.
Act_27:26 But we must fall on a certain island.
Act_27:27 But when the fourteenth night came, we being carried about in the Adriatic Sea, about midnight the sailors thought that they drew near some country.
Act_27:29 And fearing that we would fall on rocks, and casting four anchors out of the stern, they wished day to come.
Act_27:37 And we were, all the souls in the ship, two hundred and seventy-six.
Act_28:2 And the foreigners showed us not the common kindness. For they kindled a fire and welcomed all of us, because of the rain coming on, and because of the cold.
Act_28:7 In the quarters about that place were lands to the chief of the island, whose name was Publius. Welcoming us, he lodged us courteously three days.
Act_28:10 They also honored us with many honors. And on our setting sail, they laid on the things of our needs.
Act_28:11 And after three months we sailed in a ship of Alexandria which had wintered in the island, an Alexandrian with an ensign, The Twin Brothers.
Act_28:12 And landing at Syracuse, we stayed three days.
Act_28:13 Going around from there we arrived at Rhegium. And after one day a south wind coming on, we came to Puteoli on the second,
Act_28:14 where finding brothers, we were asked to stay seven days. And so we went toward Rome.
Act_28:15 And the brothers from there hearing of us, they came to meet us as far as the market-place of Appius, and Three Taverns. Seeing them, thanking God, Paul took courage.
Act_28:16 And when we came into Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the camp commander. But Paul was allowed to dwell by himself, with a soldier guarding him.

What I am saying here is in direct response to your assertion of multiple authors.

When we look at the Gospel of Luke and then chapters 1 - 16 in the Book of Acts, we see consistent writing from a person who wasn't there, but who was writing according to what he had investigated and determined as events that had occurred previous to him coming on the scene around Chapter 16 of Acts.

But as soon as Paul began to travel, this writer- as evidenced by the consistent 1st person narrative through most of the rest of Acts from Chapter 16 - 28 - does not show any signs of any other writer.

This suggests to me that it is the exact same writer all the way through from the beginning of the Gospel of Luke until the end of the Book of Acts. My three points of observation are these:

1. From the beginning of Luke until the 16th chapter of Acts, the writer is writing what he believes to be an accurate representation of the life of Jesus Christ, and the Acts of the Apostles. He would have learned this from his investigations, as this section of Luke and Chapters 1 - 16 of Acts shows absolutely no sign of a 1st person narrative.

2. From Chapter 16 - 28 of Acts, we see this writer writing in the 1st person and in hind-sight of his travels with Paul. This indicates that this writer traveled with Paul pretty much every where that Paul evangelized.

3. This writer does not write anything about Paul's death, which indicates that this writer either had left Paul before the event of Paul's death and therefore wasn't there to write about it, or this writer had written this account before Paul died and therefore couldn't write about something that hadn't happened yet.

If this story had been interpolated sometime later by another writer, the death of Paul should reasonably be added to the ending.

But the one undeniable thing about this writer is that he entered the scene in his own right as part of the story in Chapter 16 of Acts, and he stays consistent right to the very end, demonstrating with 50 verses from Chapters 16 - 28 that he was writing a 1st person narrative of his travels with Paul the Apostle.

And this appears to be written evidence of a 1st century contemporary of both Paul the Apostle and Jesus of Nazareth.

Consider

But from where are you getting these "probable facts?"

It would be nice to give you a one paragraph answer, but that is not possible. I believe Jesus, if he ever existed, was a fundamentalist xenophobic Jew. I have arrived at that conclusion after years of studying the history. Sorry... I don't want to hog all the space on this forum so I'm not gonna post pages here.

Wouldn't this be the same James who was the brother of your concept of Yeshua?


Yes.

1. What do you think are the tell-tale signs of multiple editors of Acts?

The first thing to realise is that all of these epistles and letters have been edited and interpolated. That is just what they did in those days. There were no qualms about historical integrity. Everything was rewritten right up until the early fourth century. It's still going on today actually. We cannot be sure who the original authors of anything written in the new Testament were. Some people believe that Acts was written by the same author who wrote some of Luke. Everybody is just having educated guesses. As you point out, all of a sudden one of the authors starts talking in the first person... This is a typical example of carelessness. In most writings from the times we know who the authors were... but not with the new Testament... because overzealous Christians were so careless with the truth, and it suited them to not have to make difficult explanations as to the sources of their Writings.

"3. This writer does not write anything about Paul's death, which indicates that this writer either had left Paul before the event of Paul's death and therefore wasn't there to write about it, or this writer had written this account [i]before Paul died and therefore couldn't write about something that hadn't happened yet."[/i]

Well... I think Paul was a Roman government employee used to promote propaganda to undermine the Jews. He was taken back to Rome because the propaganda was not working, and it was obvious that a war with the Jews was on the horizon in A.D. 66. Paul was no longer needed ...the time for talk was over.... the government had to use the military. Paul became redundant, and he was probably put out to pasture somewhere safe, which is why we never hear any more of him. All the nonsense about him being put to death in Rome is stuff made up by the Church Fathers many years down the track. Just the same as they made up stuff about Peter becoming a pope in Rome.


"And this appears to be written evidence of a 1st century contemporary of both Paul the Apostle and Jesus of Nazareth."

Definitely not.

If you knew Jesus of Nazareth, you write "I knew Jesus of Nazareth," "my name is XXXX and how I knew Jesus of Nazareth was because YYYY." Noone ever wrote any such words. You don't need to cloak your writing with veiled references, and you're not afraid to admit who you are.

PS BTW, it is really nice discussing this stuff with you without there being an antagonistic tone. I hope I don't come across that way. Let's try to keep it up!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 10:00 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-07-2016 09:36 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
Quote:"And this appears to be written evidence of a 1st century contemporary of both Paul the Apostle and Jesus of Nazareth."

Definitely not.

If you knew Jesus of Nazareth, you write "I knew Jesus of Nazareth," "my name is XXXX and how I knew Jesus of Nazareth was because YYYY." Noone ever wrote any such words. You don't need to cloak your writing with veiled references, and you're not afraid to admit who you are.

You misunderstand.

Being contemporary of someone by no means also means they know the person. All it means is that they lived during the same period of time.

Here are some definitions:

adjective

1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time:

2. of about the same age or date:

3. of the present time; modern:


noun, plural contemporaries.

4. a person belonging to the same time or period with another or others.

5. a person of the same age as another
.

Again, it has nothing to do with whether or not the author of Luke-Acts ever met Jesus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 10:45 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-07-2016 10:00 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 09:36 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Definitely not.

If you knew Jesus of Nazareth, you write "I knew Jesus of Nazareth," "my name is XXXX and how I knew Jesus of Nazareth was because YYYY." Noone ever wrote any such words. You don't need to cloak your writing with veiled references, and you're not afraid to admit who you are.

You misunderstand.

Being contemporary of someone by no means also means they know the person. All it means is that they lived during the same period of time.

Here are some definitions:

adjective

1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time:

2. of about the same age or date:

3. of the present time; modern:


noun, plural contemporaries.

4. a person belonging to the same time or period with another or others.

5. a person of the same age as another
.

Again, it has nothing to do with whether or not the author of Luke-Acts ever met Jesus.

Ok.

But... I've never come across any convincing evidence that proto Luke the gospel was in existence prior to about 90 CE. In fact I've never been entirely sure why so many commentators date Luke to about as early as this.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 09:04 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-07-2016 10:45 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 10:00 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  You misunderstand.

Being contemporary of someone by no means also means they know the person. All it means is that they lived during the same period of time.

Here are some definitions:

adjective

1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time:

2. of about the same age or date:

3. of the present time; modern:


noun, plural contemporaries.

4. a person belonging to the same time or period with another or others.

5. a person of the same age as another
.

Again, it has nothing to do with whether or not the author of Luke-Acts ever met Jesus.

Ok.

But... I've never come across any convincing evidence that proto Luke the gospel was in existence prior to about 90 CE. In fact I've never been entirely sure why so many commentators date Luke to about as early as this.

Let's examine this. The following is a statement from Wiki:

"Most experts date the composition of the combined work to around 80-90 AD, although some suggest 90-110, and there is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century."

I find the two reasons for a late dating of Luke as listed above as to be very poor reasons.

Firstly, as per previous discussions here we demonstrated that the Gospel of Luke was most probably in existence as the Gospel of Luke before Marcion butchered it, otherwise both Irenaeus and Tertullian would not have Marcion saying that he had altered the Gospel of Luke, and also saying how different Marcion's version was from the version that was widely known as being the official Gospel of Luke.

Therefore, this can be taken as historical evidence to contest the assertion that Marcion's butchered version is what we currently have, or that some of it crept into what we currently have.

Regardless if Marcion butchered it or not, the fact that Marcion names it as the Gospel of Luke pre CE 140 demonstrates it was indeed known as the Gospel of Luke long before that.

The Gospel of Luke came before the Book of Acts, as the author of Acts states, "Act 1:1  The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, which is an obvious statement regarding the Gospel of Luke.

Now the author of Luke, speaking to Theophilus, says something quite revealing at the beginning of his Gospel:

Luk 1:2  Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

He prefaces his Gospel with an explanation to Theophilus that us he had gathered information regarding Jesus from eyewitnesses contemporary to the time of Jesus. This again indicates that the author of this Gospel of was actually a contemporary.

When we add this evidence to the evidence of a 1st person narrative in Acts, we then have two distinct references to this author being a contemporary of both Jesus and Paul.

Now, because this author is writing of things that happened in the past- as evidenced by his preface in Luke and his story in Acts that leads right up to the time he and Paul were in Rome, the earliest possible date would have to be around CE 63, since he doesn't mention Paul's death.

But let's, for the sake of argument, assign a date closer to CE 70, despite the fact that he doesn't mention Paul's death which should be expected. The reason I would assign this date is because this author would have to be an adult at the time he began traveling with Paul sometime in either the late CE 30s, or early 40s.

If we assign a reasonable young age of 25 years old when this author began traveling with Paul, we could place his date of birth around CE 15. This would then allow us to reason that when he wrote Luke-Acts he would be about 55 years old in AD 70.

But if we date the manuscript to CE 110, it places him at 95 years old, which is about 25 years older than the average life expectancy in those days, and far too old to travel and get this information from the eyewitnesses he says he interviewed. Even we place a date at CE 90, we still have an old man of 75 years old.

Therefore, the textual evidence indicates to me that this author wrote Luke-Acts sometime in the late CE 60s to CE 70.

Remember, this evidence comes from his preface in Luke in which he claims to have interviewed contemporaries of Jesus, and also from Acts where he is seen using a 1st person narrative contemporary to the time of both Paul and Jesus.

If he wrote this in hind-sight- which obviously he did- some 30 - 40 years after his first travels with Paul had taken place, then his 1st person narrative would be based upon his memories from the beginning of his travels with Paul some 30+ years previous. This is plenty of time for his memories to be somewhat faded, which could explain some of the differences between his statements in Acts and Paul's letters. However, this author, at the very least, writes the Book of Acts concerning him and Paul and maintains the general gist of what happened with him and Paul when compared to Paul's letters.

When people look for contradictions between Acts and Paul, are they actually using the proper historical outlook, or are they merely trying to find a means of disputing the authenticity of the work?

This is a big question, because if people have an agenda, then they will only see this the way they want to see it. If they want to question authenticity just because they don't like it, sure they can make the choice to dispute it with the various contradictions.

But if they want to see history, they will not see it through the eyes of either a believer or disbeliever, but rather through the eyes of an unbiased secular historian.

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: