If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-11-2014, 03:40 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/papias.html

According to ancient tradition, the four canonical Gospels were written by the Apostle Levi Matthew, the evangelist John Mark, the physician Luke, and the Apostle John

In their place, modern scholars have substituted a range of wild and conflicting speculations about how and why the Gospels came to be written. In the context of this cacophony of opinion, it may be edifying to become familiar with the earliest known traditions of the authorship of the four Gospels. These traditions were recorded by such early Church Fathers as Papias of Hierapolis (c.80-c.160 A.D.), Irenaeus of Lyons (c.140-c.200 A.D.), and Eusebius Pamphilii (c.260-339 A.D.). Toward the end of the first century, Papias collected many important oral traditions about Jesus, the Twelve Apostles, and the disciples of the Apostles, and published them circa 100 A.D. in a book entitled An Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord. Sadly, this book is now lost, except for a few fascinating and indispensable fragments, most of them preserved in the writings of Irenaeus and Eusebius. Among these precious fragments are facts concerning the authorship and composition of the four canonical Gospels. Papias' testimony is of the greatest weight and the highest authority, because he received his information from men and women who had known Jesus personally, or else had known those who knew Jesus. As Papias wrote (quoted by Eusebius),



``. . . But I shall not hesitate to furnish you, along with my explanations, with all that in days gone by I carefully learned from the Presbyters and have carefully recalled, for I can guarantee its truth. Unlike most people, I felt at home not with those who appeal to commandments from other sources, but with those who appeal to commandments given by the Lord unto faith, and coming to us from Truth itself. Whenever anyone came who had been a follower of the Presbyters, I inquired into the words of the Presbyters: what Andrew or Peter said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other disciple of the Lord; and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not imagine that things out of books would help me as much as the utterances of a living and abiding voice.''



Eusebius was the first to insist that Papias was referring to two separate Johns, both Jewish disciples of Jesus Christ, one an Apostle and the other merely a Presbyter. However, except for the name ``Aristion,'' Papias here classifies every one of the names that he lists-and the first seven names are obviously those of Apostles-as Presbyters. Also, the author of the three epistles attributed to John the Apostle (and there can be little doubt that the same individual who wrote the epistles of John also wrote the Gospel of John) identifies himself as ``the Presbyter.'' There is simply no clear and undisputed evidence that Presbyter John, as a distinct individual from the Apostle John, ever existed. The most likely interpretation of Papias' words is that of Irenaeus, who referred to Papias as someone



``. . . who had listened to John and was later a companion of Polycarp, . . . .''



Polycarp of Smyrna was himself said by Irenaeus and other early Christian writers to have been a disciple of the Apostle John, and only with great difficulty can these statements be explained away or reinterpreted. Considering all the available evidence, there can be no reasonable doubt that Papias and Polycarp both spoke face-to-face with the Apostle John. In fact, Papias' language can be interpreted to mean that the Apostle John was still alive at the time that Papias wrote his volume. At any rate John was certainly alive when Papias began to collect his fascinating oral traditions. (And as for Papias' other living witness, Aristion, a rare Armenian manuscript of the Gospels copied in the year 986 A.D. attributes the Longer Ending of the Gospel of Mark, chapter 16, verses 9-20, to ``Presbyter Aristion.'' That could well mean that the information found in those verses of Mark had been collected by Papias, who said that he interviewed Aristion, a man who was taught by Jesus Himself.)

The weight of the evidence indicates that the traditions regarding the authorship and composition of the four Gospels are traceable right back to the very eyewitnesses of Jesus and the Apostles. Consequently, these traditions are the necessary starting point for the development of hypotheses regarding the composition of the four canonical Gospels. Whenever the fields of biblical scholarship and textual criticism slight these traditions, they also forsake sound, balanced historical principles.

With these things in mind, here are the earliest avaliable traditions about the authorship of the four canonical Gospels:



MATTHEW: Probably relying on Papias, Irenaeus writes: ``Matthew published a written Gospel for the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and laying the foundations of the Church.'' Eusebius quotes Papias as writing that ``Matthew compiled the Oracles [of Jesus] in the Hebrew language, and everyone translated them as well as he could.'' In addition to this quotation from Papias, Eusebius also wrote the following about Matthew (probably depending upon Papias as his main source): ``Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews; and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue, so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote.''



MARK: Again, Irenaeus writes: ``After their passing [presumably the deaths of Peter, Paul, and Matthew], Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter.'' 2 Eusebius quotes Papias as writing, ``This, too, the Presbyter [John] says: `Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord's sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter's. Peter would adapt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord's sayings, so Mark was quite justified in writing down some things just as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only-to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it.''' Eusebius also writes (admittedly depending in part upon Papias), ``So brightly shone the light of true religion on the minds of Peter's hearers that, not satisfied with a single hearing or with the oral teaching of the divine message, they resorted to appeals of every kind to induce Mark (whose Gospel we have), as he was a follower of Peter, to leave them in writing a summary of the instruction they had received by word of mouth, nor did they let him go til they had persuaded him, and thus became responsible for the writing of what is known as the Gospel according to Mark. It is said that, on learning by revelation of the Spirit what had happened, the Apostle [Peter] was delighted at their enthusiasm and authorised the reading of the book in the churches. Clement quoted this story in Outlines Book VI, and his statement is confirmed by Bishop Papias of Hierapolis, who also points out that Mark is mentioned by Peter in his first epistle, which he is said to have composed in Rome itself, as he himself indicates when he speaks of the city figuratively as Babylon (I Peter 5:13).''



LUKE: Irenaeus, who may well have been relying in part on Papias, writes: ``Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him [i.e., Paul].'' In the Canon Muratorianus, circa 170 A.D., we find the following (possibly derived from Papias): ``The third book of the Gospel, that according to Luke: the physician Luke after Christ's arising, since Paul had taken him with him as an expert in the Way, composed it in his own name according to [Paul's] thinking. Yet neither did he himself see the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to determine it, so he begins to tell the story from the birth of John.''



JOHN: Irenaeus writes: ``Lastly John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leaned back on His breast, once more set forth the Gospel, while residing at Ephesus in Asia.'' Eusebius writes: ``When Mark and Luke had published their Gospels, John, we are told, who hitherto had relied entirely on the spoken word, finally took to writing for the following reason. The three Gospels already written were in general circulation and copies had come into John's hands. He welcomed them, we are told, and confirmed their accuracy, but remarked that the narrative only lacked the story of what Christ had done first of all at the beginning of His mission.'' To that we may compare the story in the Canon Muratorianus, circa 170 A.D. (possibly taken from Papias): ``The fourth of the Gospels, that of John, one of the disciples: When his fellow-disciples and bishops urged him, he said, `Fast with me from today for three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us relate to one another. In the same night [i.e., after the fast] it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that, while all were to go over it, John in his own name should write everything down. . . .'' (cf. John 14:26)





SOURCES:




1. Eusebius-The History of the Church From Christ to Constantine , translated by G.A. Williamson, revised and edited by Andrew Louth, Penguin Books, 1965, 1989.





2. The History of Primitive Christianity, Hans Conzelmann, 1973.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 03:41 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(06-11-2014 03:37 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 03:35 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  " These traditions were recorded by such early Church Fathers as Papias of Hierapolis (c.80-c.160 A.D.), Irenaeus of Lyons (c.140-c.200 A.D.), and Eusebius Pamphilii (c.260-339 A.D.). Toward the end of the first century, Papias collected many important oral traditions about Jesus, the Twelve Apostles, and the disciples of the Apostles, and published them circa 100 A.D. in a book entitled An Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord. "

lol, notice their birth dates, notice the word "traditions" that means stories, passed down. Ever play the telephone game? Oral tradition passed down does not evidence make, especially if it was written down by people who were not even alive when it happened.
You didn't read it moron

They. Iraneus and Eusebius had the manuscript evidence from the 1st century LaughatLaughatLaughat

tsk tsk, you really suck at this

Philo of Alexandria
The early years of the Roman Republic is one of the most historically documented times in history. One of the writers alive during the time of Jesus was Philo-Judaeus (sometimes known as Philo of Alexandria).
Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ’s miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion happened with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness and resurrection of the dead took place – when Christ himself rose from the dead and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These amazing marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were all unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.
Philo might be considered the investigative reporter of his day. He was there on location during the early first century, talking with people who should have remembered or at least heard the stories, observed, taking notes, documenting. He reported nothing about Jesus.


Justus of Tiberius
There was also a historian named Justus of Tiberius who was a native of Galilee, the homeland of Jesus. He wrote a history covering the time when Christ supposedly lived. This history is now lost, but a ninth century Christian scholar named Photius had read it and wrote: “he [Justus] makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or other wonderful works that he did.”

.......................................

Why there are no records of Jesus Christ

It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life.

This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:
"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels."
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)

This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:
"We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century."
(Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)

There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence:
the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable"

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
06-11-2014, 03:42 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 11:52 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 11:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  What rule do you imagine I'm breaking? Consider

Youre not addressing the topic moron, and trying to derail the OP's thread

Not a violation of any rule.

I see that you have read the rules here with as much understanding as you appear to read anything else.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-11-2014, 03:44 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
http://books.google.ca/books/about/An_In...sQknxV-xQC
Wiki :
"The Gospel According to Mark (Greek: τὸ κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον, to kata Markon euangelion), the second book of the New Testament, is one of the four canonical gospels and the three synoptic gospels. It was traditionally thought to be an epitome (summary) of Matthew, which accounts for its place as the second gospel in the Bible, but most contemporary scholars now regard it as the earliest of the gospels.[1][2] Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.[3]"

The #3 referred to is the work above.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-11-2014, 03:45 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
Rolleyes

next he will be rolling out the Flavius "evidence"

Here, let me cut you off at the pass...educate you before you look like even more of an idiot in front of your fellow delusional "friends".

Christian apologetic fan’s most popular non-Christian writer that mentions Jesus is Flavius Josephus. Although he was born in 37 CE and could not have been a contemporary of Jesus, he lived close enough to the time to be considered a valuable secondhand source. Josephus was a highly respected and much quoted Roman historian. He died sometime after the year 100 and his two major tomes were ‘The antiquities of the Jews’ and ‘the wars of the Jews’. Antiquities was written sometime after the year 90 CE. In book 18, chapter 3, this paragraph is encountered:

“now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, and condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and 10,000 other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
This does appear to give historical confirmation for the existence of Jesus. But is it authentic? Most scholars, including most fundamentalist scholars, admit that at least some parts of this paragraph cannot be authentic. Many are convinced that the entire paragraph is a complete forgery, an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time. There are at least seven solid reasons for this:

1) The paragraph is absent from early copies of the works of Josephus. For example, it does not appear in Origen’s second century version of Josephus, in ‘Origen Contra Celsum’, where Origen fiercely defended Christianity against the heretical views of Celsus. Origen quoted freely from Josephus to prove his points, but never once used this paragraph, which would have been the ultimate ace up his sleeve.

In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear at all until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Emperor Constantine. Bishop Eusebius, a close ally of the Emperor, was instrumental in crystallizing and defining the version of Christianity was to become Orthodox, and he is the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus. Eusebius once wrote that it was a permissible “medicine” for historians to create fictions – prompting historian Jacob Burckhardt to call Eusebius “the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity.”

The fact that Josephus – Jesus paragraph shows up at this point in history – at a time when interpolations and revisions were quite common and when the Emperor was eager to demolish gnostic Christianity and replace it with literalistic Christianity – makes the passage quite dubious. Many scholars believe that Eusebius was the forger and interpolator of the paragraph on Jesus that magically appears in the works of Josephus.

2) Josephus would not have called Jesus “the Christ” or “the truth.” Whoever wrote these phrases was a believing Christian. Josephus was a messianic Jew, and if he truly believed Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah (the Christ), he certainly would have given more than a passing reference to him. Josephus never converted to Christianity. Origen reported that Josephus was “not believing in Jesus as the Christ.”

3) The passage is out of context. Book 18 (containing the interval of 32 years from the banishment of Archelus to the departure from Babylon) starts with Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 CE and talks about various Jewish sexts at the time, including the Essenes and a sect of Judas the Galilean, which he devotes three times more space than to Jesus. He discusses at great depth the local history in great detail. But oddly this single paragraph can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter or the way it flows.… Almost as if it was added after the fact, which of course it was.

4) The phrase “to this day” shows that this is a later interpolation. There was no “tribe of Christians” during Josephus time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

5) In all of Josephus voluminuous works, there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere outside of this tiny paragraph. He relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus. He lists the activities of many other self-proclaimed Messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the magician and the Egyptian Jew Messiah, but is mute about the life of one whom he claims (if he had actually wrote it) is the answer to this messianic hopes.

6) The paragraph mentions that the “divine prophets” foretold the life Jesus, but Josephus neglects to mention who these prophets were or what they said. In no other place does Josephus connect any Hebrew prediction with the life of Jesus. If Jesus truly had been the fulfillment of divine prophecy, as Christians believe, Josephus would’ve been the one learned enough to document it.

7) The hyperbolic language of the paragraph is uncharacteristic of a careful historian: “… As the divine prophets had foretold these and 10,000 other wonderful things concerning him…” This sounds more like sectarian propaganda – in other words, more like the new testament – than objective reporting. It is very unlike Josephus.

Christians should be careful when they refer to Josephus as historical confirmation for Jesus. If we remove the forged paragraph, as we should, the works of Josephus become evidence against historicity. Josephus was a native of Judea and a contemporary of the apostles. He was governor of Galilee for a time, the province in which Jesus allegedly lived and taught. He transversed every part of this province and visited the places where but a generation before Christ performed his prodigies. He resided in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said to have wrought his first miracle. He mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important event that occurred there during the first 70 years of the Christian era. But Christ was of so little consequence and his deeds too trivial to merit a line from this historian’s pen.

Smartass

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 03:46 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(06-11-2014 03:44 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  http://books.google.ca/books/about/An_In...sQknxV-xQC
Wiki :
"The Gospel According to Mark (Greek: τὸ κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον, to kata Markon euangelion), the second book of the New Testament, is one of the four canonical gospels and the three synoptic gospels. It was traditionally thought to be an epitome (summary) of Matthew, which accounts for its place as the second gospel in the Bible, but most contemporary scholars now regard it as the earliest of the gospels.[1][2] Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.[3]"

The #3 referred to is the work above.

Yup the works of "mark" were first, then the other two copied off of, and expounded on that group effort. Lies on top of lies.

Next he will be claiming jesus walked on water Laugh out load

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 03:47 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
If they actually knew who wrote the gospels they would not be claiming tradition, but actual authorship with reference.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like wazzel's post
06-11-2014, 03:49 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(06-11-2014 03:39 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 03:37 PM)pablo Wrote:  Amateur, trying to contort what I said to suit you.
Your dishonesty is exceeded only by your self importance.

So YOU DO believe its entirely possible that Mark wrote that gospel??

As possible as anyone else who was alive at the time.
So, you're saying it's entirely possible it wasn't written by Mark?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 03:54 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
I walk on water every time it rains. Not so difficult

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 03:55 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
The point our little misguided troll keeps missing is, it doesn't mater what someone wrote down 60-150 years later based on myth and stories. No one AT THE TIME wrote them down, and that is called the ERA OF SILENCE. If a man was doing these miraculous works, it would have been recorded. ZERO exists, Xtian or contemporary..

So when we consider that during times of miraculous events, no one AT THE TIME thought they were significant enough to even write down, it kind of of makes a thinking person contemplate the validity of a story told and written down based on myth and hearsay 60-150 years later..For example;

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Luke 23:44-48 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Unfortunately, there is not one shred of evidence that this happened...zero, all of the royal scribes, historians, philosophers, and literate people who wrote down and recorded EVERYTHING of any significance, failed to note the whole earth going dark mid-day for three hours...an eclipse lasts about 7.5 mins max, so it wasn’t that....nothing, .....zero. Never happened.

Another example:

Matthew 27:51-53
King James Version (KJV)
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Again…no one thought a zombie invasion was worthy of writing down…seems rather odd.

Because it NEVER happpened. Only children believe in fairy tales, jesus is wolfy's santa claus Laugh out load

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: