| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
11 Oct 2006 04:59:27 PM |
| Object: |
Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
There has been much discussion about whether Jesus was an historical
figure or not. I have seen a few people who believe( are convicted )
that Jesus was made up in the 2nd or 3rd centuries. Anyway,
considering we have framents of the NT from around 125AD, I think this
is not reasonable. Also, we have the letter of Clement who lived in
Rome until about 100AD to the Corinthians. It clearly shows that the
story of Jesus Christ started before the 2nd century. Think about it,
before 100AD there were Christian churches in Rome and Corinth. These
are just two small examples. Consequently, the NT must have been
around easily in the middle to late first century. By the way, the
letter we do have from Clement is dated around 95AD.
He quotes Jesus and talks about the death of Jesus. He also quotes
part of the sermon on the mount from the Synoptic Gospels. I am not
planning to read more. He is drier than your average fundamental
preacher.
There you have it. There are existings writings from the first century
with validate the NT. This nonsense of a vast conspiracy and writing
of the NT in the 2nd or 3rd century is not true.
I am putting on my absestos underwear readying for the flames.
Jimmy Boy
.
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
12 Oct 2006 11:00:58 AM |
|
|
<jim_hallerud@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160603967.319872.40860@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
There has been much discussion about whether Jesus was an historical
figure or not. I have seen a few people who believe( are convicted )
Convicted? How long of a prison sentence did they get?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
12 Oct 2006 06:03:07 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:00:58 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <4p76u2Fhc1l2U1@individual.net>
<jim_hallerud@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160603967.319872.40860@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
There has been much discussion about whether Jesus was an historical
figure or not. I have seen a few people who believe( are convicted )
Convicted? How long of a prison sentence did they get?
Not long enough.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
11 Oct 2006 08:23:39 PM |
|
|
<jim_hallerud@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160603967.319872.40860@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
There has been much discussion about whether Jesus was an historical
figure or not. I have seen a few people who believe( are convicted )
that Jesus was made up in the 2nd or 3rd centuries. Anyway,
considering we have framents of the NT from around 125AD, I think this
is not reasonable. Also, we have the letter of Clement who lived in
Rome until about 100AD to the Corinthians. It clearly shows that the
story of Jesus Christ started before the 2nd century. Think about it,
before 100AD there were Christian churches in Rome and Corinth. These
are just two small examples. Consequently, the NT must have been
around easily in the middle to late first century. By the way, the
letter we do have from Clement is dated around 95AD.
He quotes Jesus and talks about the death of Jesus. He also quotes
part of the sermon on the mount from the Synoptic Gospels. I am not
planning to read more. He is drier than your average fundamental
preacher.
There you have it. There are existings writings from the first century
with validate the NT. This nonsense of a vast conspiracy and writing
of the NT in the 2nd or 3rd century is not true.
I am putting on my absestos underwear readying for the flames.
Jimmy Boy
Who cares whether or not Jesus was a truly 'real' historical figure? The
Church made him into something that he wasn't if he existed at all. But more
importantly, practically everything said about him is a bunch of ca-ca
anyway. So why do you persist in defending the indefensible? Remember: Not
*one* theist in the history of all of mankind has *ever* proven a 'God'
exists -- let alone one that 'HE is divided into three distinct, independent
figures who, nevertheless remain 'one'. Tell me that you Jesus people aren't
as nuts as they come.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
11 Oct 2006 06:32:56 PM |
|
|
wrote:
There has been much discussion about whether Jesus was an historical
figure or not. I have seen a few people who believe( are convicted )
that Jesus was made up in the 2nd or 3rd centuries. Anyway,
considering we have framents of the NT from around 125AD, I think this
is not reasonable.
Why not? First fragments from the early 2nd century fits with the
assertion that there was most probably no historic Jesus of Nazaret. Of
course there were several other Jesuses because this was a common name.
Also, we have the letter of Clement who lived in
Rome until about 100AD to the Corinthians. It clearly shows that the
story of Jesus Christ started before the 2nd century. Think about it,
before 100AD there were Christian churches in Rome and Corinth.
The evidence shows that Christianity was started by hellenized Jews. It
began as a mystery cult with influences from Mithraism and Egyptian
beliefs and customs. The first Christians did not yet believe in a real
human Jesus but only in a heavenly Christ as a mythical figure.
These are just two small examples. Consequently, the NT must have been
around easily in the middle to late first century.
"The" NT did not yet exist. There existed several writings. Most of
them are now regarded as apocryph and non-canon. The first attempt to
form a canon was the collection of Marcion around 150. The NT as a
canon is a result of a church council in 325 in Nicea.
By the way, the letter we do have from Clement is dated around 95AD.
Quite late, that is over 60 years after the supposed crucifixion of
Jesus.
He quotes Jesus and talks about the death of Jesus. He also quotes
part of the sermon on the mount from the Synoptic Gospels. I am not
planning to read more. He is drier than your average fundamental preacher.
There you have it. There are existings writings from the first century
with validate the NT.
It doesn't validate the NT. It proves only that at 95 there existed a
belief in an earthly Jesus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
12 Oct 2006 10:09:40 AM |
|
|
wrote:
jim_hallerud@yahoo.com wrote:
There has been much discussion about whether Jesus was an historical
figure or not. I have seen a few people who believe( are convicted )
that Jesus was made up in the 2nd or 3rd centuries. Anyway,
considering we have framents of the NT from around 125AD, I think this
is not reasonable.
Why not? First fragments from the early 2nd century fits with the
assertion that there was most probably no historic Jesus of Nazaret.
Does it? You say this, of course, based on a knowledge of first extant
fragments for other first century works? When, one wonders, do we have
the first extant fragments of Vergil?
Of course there were several other Jesuses because this was a common name.
Just as any reference to George Bush cannot possibly mean the US
president, since the name is common?
Also, we have the letter of Clement who lived in
Rome until about 100AD to the Corinthians. It clearly shows that the
story of Jesus Christ started before the 2nd century. Think about it,
before 100AD there were Christian churches in Rome and Corinth.
The evidence shows that Christianity was started by hellenized Jews.
True.
It began as a mystery cult with influences from Mithraism and Egyptian
beliefs and customs.
No evidence for this exists; the evidence to the contrary is
overwhelming. The cult of Mithras may not have existed before around
50 AD, for instance.
The first Christians did not yet believe in a real
human Jesus but only in a heavenly Christ as a mythical figure.
Only very gullible atheists believe this, in view of the rather large
volume of evidence to the contrary and no evidence for this
proposition, tho.
These are just two small examples. Consequently, the NT must have been
around easily in the middle to late first century.
"The" NT did not yet exist. There existed several writings. Most of
them are now regarded as apocryph and non-canon. The first attempt to
form a canon was the collection of Marcion around 150. The NT as a
canon is a result of a church council in 325 in Nicea.
This is all very confused and misleading or plain wrong. Nicaea had
nothing to do with the canon.
By the way, the letter we do have from Clement is dated around 95AD.
Quite late, that is over 60 years after the supposed crucifixion of
Jesus.
So?
He quotes Jesus and talks about the death of Jesus. He also quotes
part of the sermon on the mount from the Synoptic Gospels. I am not
planning to read more. He is drier than your average fundamental preacher.
There you have it. There are existings writings from the first century
with validate the NT.
It doesn't validate the NT. It proves only that at 95 there existed a
belief in an earthly Jesus.
<smile> The last evasion of the desperate. You have texts, you have
people who knew those involved, you have eyewitnesses, and apparently
none of that is enough for one excuse or another.
Instead you live in conformity to a set of period values which were set
by people you do not know for their own purposes. I really suggest
that you look at your own position before repeating all this nonsense,
created purely to deceive people like yourself.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
12 Oct 2006 12:31:28 PM |
|
|
wrote:
usenet_trash@yahoo.de wrote:
jim_hallerud@yahoo.com wrote:
There has been much discussion about whether Jesus was an historical
figure or not. I have seen a few people who believe( are convicted )
that Jesus was made up in the 2nd or 3rd centuries. Anyway,
considering we have framents of the NT from around 125AD, I think this
is not reasonable.
Why not? First fragments from the early 2nd century fits with the
assertion that there was most probably no historic Jesus of Nazaret.
Does it? You say this, of course, based on a knowledge of first extant
fragments for other first century works? When, one wonders, do we have
the first extant fragments of Vergil?
Vergil is not only known from hagiographic scriptures but also from
secular literature. Jesus ist only known thru hagiographies by
followers of this particular faith.
The evidence shows that Christianity was started by hellenized Jews.
True.
It began as a mystery cult with influences from Mithraism and Egyptian
beliefs and customs.
No evidence for this exists; the evidence to the contrary is
overwhelming. The cult of Mithras may not have existed before around
50 AD, for instance.
There is evidence of this. The theology of Mithraism was centred upon
the dying/rising Mithra. He was born in a stable (or cave) by a virgin
on the 25th of December. He held a last supper with 12 of his
followers, died, and was resurrected. The Mithraists believed in
heaven, hell, judgement day and resurrection of the dead with the
second coming of Mithras. The day of the sun was the day of Mithras -
Sunday. They baptised new members of the cult. They celebrated
eucharist with bread and wine. The highest priest of Mithraism was
called "Papa" and his clothes were a red phrygian cap, a red coat, a
ring and a pastoral staff.
The Egyptian link comes from the belief in the trinity. It has its
roots in the trinity of Osiris, Isis and Horus. Indeed, you can see
this when you compare portraits or sculptures showing Mary with child
vs. Isis and Horus.
The first Christians did not yet believe in a real
human Jesus but only in a heavenly Christ as a mythical figure.
Only very gullible atheists believe this, in view of the rather large
volume of evidence to the contrary and no evidence for this proposition, tho.
Which evidence do you mean? There are letters from early Christians who
do not speak about Jesus but only from a risen Christ or a Logos. The
Jesus part is only found in later letters. Indeed, the earliest Gospels
have no information about birth or life of Jesus but only what he
supposedly said.
"The" NT did not yet exist. There existed several writings. Most of
them are now regarded as apocryph and non-canon. The first attempt to
form a canon was the collection of Marcion around 150. The NT as a
canon is a result of a church council in 325 in Nicea.
This is all very confused and misleading or plain wrong. Nicaea had
nothing to do with the canon.
In Nicaea the canon was fixed. Of course they used the most popular
writings. The Jews did the same when they fixed their canon in 135.
They did not want to include Ecclesiastes at first, but it was so
popular that they did.
By the way, the letter we do have from Clement is dated around 95AD.
Quite late, that is over 60 years after the supposed crucifixion of
Jesus.
So?
If there were a real crucifixion of a real Jesus there would exist
secular documents from that time.
It doesn't validate the NT. It proves only that at 95 there existed a
belief in an earthly Jesus.
<smile> The last evasion of the desperate. You have texts, you have
people who knew those involved, you have eyewitnesses, and apparently
none of that is enough for one excuse or another.
We have no eyewitnesses, and no one knew somebody involved. It is
possible to be a Christian and believe only in a heavenly Christ.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
13 Oct 2006 04:52:14 PM |
|
|
wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
wrote:
jim_hallerud@yahoo.com wrote:
There has been much discussion about whether Jesus was an historical
figure or not. I have seen a few people who believe( are convicted )
that Jesus was made up in the 2nd or 3rd centuries. Anyway,
considering we have framents of the NT from around 125AD, I think this
is not reasonable.
Why not? First fragments from the early 2nd century fits with the
assertion that there was most probably no historic Jesus of Nazaret.
Does it? You say this, of course, based on a knowledge of first extant
fragments for other first century works? When, one wonders, do we have
the first extant fragments of Vergil?
Vergil is not only known from hagiographic scriptures but also from
secular literature....
Change of subject, surely? What manuscripts exist of Vergil? <hint>
The point is that you've strayed (no doubt unwittingly) into something
that is actually an area of specialised scholarship. The earliest
manuscripts of nearly all texts are 900 years plus after the
composition of the work. Papyri do rather better, for a few works; but
even so, hundreds of years are nothing. Unless we are prepared to
assert that fragments dated from 125 are from the autograph of a work,
or a close copy -- and "while this is possible, it must be admitted
that it is the reverse of probable" (papyrologist H.I.Bell, soon after
that discovery) -- we have to allow time for copies to circulate,
travel around the ancient world, make their way up the Nile, and
someone be interested to get them copied. Such processes are more
likely than not to take several decades. At least it pushes the last
conceivable date of composition back into the 4th quarter of the 1st
century, which is in fact the traditional date. It would be perfectly
reasonable to push it 40-50 years, by comparison with other fragmenta.
The evidence shows that Christianity was started by hellenized Jews.
True.
It began as a mystery cult with influences from Mithraism and Egyptian
beliefs and customs.
No evidence for this exists; the evidence to the contrary is
overwhelming. The cult of Mithras may not have existed before around
50 AD, for instance.
There is evidence of this.
I'm afraid that you've been taken in by the hearsay that is circulated
on the internet. Sometime ago I got interested enough in Mithras to
search out the ancient sources, and to read three of the books most
commonly cited; Franz Cumont (both the volume of conclusions and the
two volume French collection of data), David Ulansey and Manfred
Clauss. Few of the myths being eagerly repeated online have any
foundation in that ancient data.
Here are some notes on the data:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras
For instance:
The theology of Mithraism was centred upon the dying/rising Mithra.
Yet we have no text describing a 'theology of Mithraism', so we can
reasonably ask just what data justifies such a statement, clearly
intended to assert something about a pagan deity not recorded in
antiquity. As far as we can tell the cult of Mithras was a mystery
religion, part of paganism. The Romans had no system of theology by
which they agreed to believe in Jupiter; the same may have been true of
Mithras (or not, for all we know).
He was born in a stable (or cave) by a virgin on the 25th of December.
He was born from a ROCK! He is described as "rock-born" in the
sources. There is no shred of connection between him and 25 Dec. The
latter seems to be a confusion between Mithras and the late Roman
official sun cult of Sol Invictus (for which there *is* a demonstrable
link).
He held a last supper with 12 of his followers, died, and was resurrected.
Nope. He was a god! The "12 followers" idea comes from a carved
relief, in which Mithras is surrounded by 12 symbols. The little man
somewhere who composed the above idea didn't recognise the ... signs of
the zodiac!
The Mithraists believed in heaven, hell, judgement day and resurrection of
the dead with the second coming of Mithras.
Nope.
The day of the sun was the day of Mithras - Sunday.
I know of no data to support this either.
They baptised new members of the cult. They celebrated
eucharist with bread and wine. The highest priest of Mithraism was
called "Papa" and his clothes were a red phrygian cap, a red coat, a
ring and a pastoral staff.
Nope. (There are strands of fact in this, but far more
misrepresentation. I can't write an essay here).
The Egyptian link comes from the belief in the trinity. It has its
roots in the trinity of Osiris, Isis and Horus. Indeed, you can see
this when you compare portraits or sculptures showing Mary with child
vs. Isis and Horus.
I'm afraid that no link is documented by any ancient observer, and in
view of the hostility of the Christians to paganism, the very idea
seems absurd. The logic used is a classic fallacy, which we see best
in Atlantis cultists. These argue that pyramids in Egypt and pyramids
in Mexico prove that Atlantis must have existed in between as a source.
That men will build pyramids because they happen naturally by piling
bricks on one another is conveniently forgotten. Loose parallels exist
between all sorts of things.
The first Christians did not yet believe in a real
human Jesus but only in a heavenly Christ as a mythical figure.
Only very gullible atheists believe this, in view of the rather large
volume of evidence to the contrary and no evidence for this proposition, tho.
Which evidence do you mean? There are letters from early Christians who
do not speak about Jesus but only from a risen Christ or a Logos.
You are repeating the idea invented by Earl Doherty. I'm afraid that
Doherty, to support his thesis, has to disregard the vast majority of
early Christian literature, and then assert that in what remains, the
absence of the material he has suppressed proves that the early
Christians did not believe in this! Such games with words belong to
polemic, not scholarship.
The Jesus part is only found in later letters. Indeed, the earliest Gospels
have no information about birth or life of Jesus but only what he
supposedly said.
The earliest gospels are the four in the New Testament. Any earlier
texts are merely hypothetical reconstructions, you know! We can only
discuss things in texts that actually exist, surely?
"The" NT did not yet exist. There existed several writings. Most of
them are now regarded as apocryph and non-canon. The first attempt to
form a canon was the collection of Marcion around 150. The NT as a
canon is a result of a church council in 325 in Nicea.
This is all very confused and misleading or plain wrong. Nicaea had
nothing to do with the canon.
In Nicaea the canon was fixed.
Nope: it's a myth. The doings of the Council of Nicaea is another
topic that I took the time to investigate, and to look up every ancient
source from the time and a century after.
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
By the way, the letter we do have from Clement is dated around 95AD.
Quite late, that is over 60 years after the supposed crucifixion of
Jesus.
So?
If there were a real crucifixion of a real Jesus there would exist
secular documents from that time.
Why not run this idea past your history teacher? (Rather than me making
assertions which, fairly, you might query). We might start by
considering what pagan documents from the first century exist
altogether, and on what first century history is based. The reign of
Tiberius, for instance, is mainly documented by Tacitus, Suetonius and
Cassius Dio.
It doesn't validate the NT. It proves only that at 95 there existed a
belief in an earthly Jesus.
<smile> The last evasion of the desperate. You have texts, you have
people who knew those involved, you have eyewitnesses, and apparently
none of that is enough for one excuse or another.
We have no eyewitnesses,
The evidence is otherwise. Such a statement is only possible by
systematic debunking of the data. I'm afraid we all know the value of
the results of such a process nowadays.
and no one knew somebody involved.
Ditto.
It is possible to be a Christian and believe only in a heavenly Christ.
Since the Christians think otherwise, I suggest that we should agree
with them.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
13 Oct 2006 07:20:08 PM |
|
|
wrote:
usenet_trash@yahoo.de wrote:
Why not? First fragments from the early 2nd century fits with the
assertion that there was most probably no historic Jesus of Nazaret.
Does it? You say this, of course, based on a knowledge of first extant
fragments for other first century works? When, one wonders, do we have
the first extant fragments of Vergil?
Vergil is not only known from hagiographic scriptures but also from
secular literature....
Change of subject, surely? What manuscripts exist of Vergil? <hint>
No change of subject. I did not say that the fact that the first
fragments are from the 2nd century are prove in itself. I only said
that this evidence is compatible with the assertion that there was no
historic Jesus of Nazaret.
The point is that you've strayed (no doubt unwittingly) into something
that is actually an area of specialised scholarship. The earliest
manuscripts of nearly all texts are 900 years plus after the
composition of the work. Papyri do rather better, for a few works; but
even so, hundreds of years are nothing. Unless we are prepared to
assert that fragments dated from 125 are from the autograph of a work,
or a close copy -- and "while this is possible, it must be admitted
that it is the reverse of probable" (papyrologist H.I.Bell, soon after
that discovery) -- we have to allow time for copies to circulate,
travel around the ancient world, make their way up the Nile, and
someone be interested to get them copied. Such processes are more
likely than not to take several decades. At least it pushes the last
conceivable date of composition back into the 4th quarter of the 1st
century, which is in fact the traditional date. It would be perfectly
reasonable to push it 40-50 years, by comparison with other fragmenta.
The main difference between the evidence concerning Vergil and Jesus is
that one is found in secular literature and the other in fictional
literature. Fictional literature does not necessarily have to be bad,
but it should be clear that it was written to point something out and
not to describe actual events. Like Aesop's fables.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
14 Oct 2006 03:16:13 AM |
|
|
wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
wrote:
Why not? First fragments from the early 2nd century fits with the
assertion that there was most probably no historic Jesus of Nazaret.
Does it? You say this, of course, based on a knowledge of first extant
fragments for other first century works? When, one wonders, do we have
the first extant fragments of Vergil?
Vergil is not only known from hagiographic scriptures but also from
secular literature....
Change of subject, surely? What manuscripts exist of Vergil? <hint>
No change of subject. I did not say that the fact that the first
fragments are from the 2nd century are prove in itself. I only said
that this evidence is compatible with the assertion that there was no
historic Jesus of Nazaret.
Not very; but this is a different assertion to the one that I
understood you to be making, so I won't beat on about it.
The point is that you've strayed (no doubt unwittingly) into something
that is actually an area of specialised scholarship. The earliest
manuscripts of nearly all texts are 900 years plus after the
composition of the work. Papyri do rather better, for a few works; but
even so, hundreds of years are nothing. Unless we are prepared to
assert that fragments dated from 125 are from the autograph of a work,
or a close copy -- and "while this is possible, it must be admitted
that it is the reverse of probable" (papyrologist H.I.Bell, soon after
that discovery) -- we have to allow time for copies to circulate,
travel around the ancient world, make their way up the Nile, and
someone be interested to get them copied. Such processes are more
likely than not to take several decades. At least it pushes the last
conceivable date of composition back into the 4th quarter of the 1st
century, which is in fact the traditional date. It would be perfectly
reasonable to push it 40-50 years, by comparison with other fragmenta.
The main difference between the evidence concerning Vergil and Jesus is
that one is found in secular literature and the other in fictional
literature. Fictional literature does not necessarily have to be bad,
but it should be clear that it was written to point something out and
not to describe actual events. Like Aesop's fables.
If I believe this, then I am interested to learn that you imagine that
books of fiction are printed in some other manner than books of
"secular literature". Calling the Aeneid -- about a demigod! --
"secular literature" is quite funny too. Making yet more assertions
which you don't know to be true on top of the ones that I have already
dealt with seems a curious thing to do.
But I don't want to pillory you. Just be more sceptical of stuff that
sounds convenient. (Which all of us must do, actually, I'm sure you
would agree).
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
14 Oct 2006 11:12:34 AM |
|
|
wrote:
usenet_trash@yahoo.de wrote:
The main difference between the evidence concerning Vergil and Jesus is
that one is found in secular literature and the other in fictional
literature. Fictional literature does not necessarily have to be bad,
but it should be clear that it was written to point something out and
not to describe actual events. Like Aesop's fables.
If I believe this, then I am interested to learn that you imagine that
books of fiction are printed in some other manner than books of
"secular literature". Calling the Aeneid -- about a demigod! --
"secular literature" is quite funny too.
No, different. The person Vergil is mentioned in secular literature, is
he not? This historical person writes plays to stage it in theatres. So
there is a difference between Aeneas and Vergil. The gospel of Jesus is
partly based on plays by Seneca.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
14 Oct 2006 02:47:06 PM |
|
|
wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
wrote:
The main difference between the evidence concerning Vergil and Jesus is
that one is found in secular literature and the other in fictional
literature. Fictional literature does not necessarily have to be bad,
but it should be clear that it was written to point something out and
not to describe actual events. Like Aesop's fables.
If I believe this, then I am interested to learn that you imagine that
books of fiction are printed in some other manner than books of
"secular literature". Calling the Aeneid -- about a demigod! --
"secular literature" is quite funny too.
No, different. The person Vergil is mentioned in secular literature, is
he not? This historical person writes plays to stage it in theatres. So
there is a difference between Aeneas and Vergil. The gospel of Jesus is
partly based on plays by Seneca.
Friend, you're reading the wrong books and imbibing some dreadful
nonsense. You need not believe me; but you can find out for yourself.
Be sceptical of anything written with a political or religious agenda
to peddle, and especially those which you find congenial. At the
moment your reading is actually making you more ignorant than you
started, which is a terrible thing. I don't mean to be rude. I simply
can't think of a way to respond that doesn't sound rude or insulting.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
14 Oct 2006 02:52:31 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1160855226.878948.193090
@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
Be sceptical of anything written with a political or religious agenda
to peddle, and especially those which you find congenial.
Follow your own advise. Be skeptical of the Bible.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep
under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread.
- Anatole France (1844-1924)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
16 Oct 2006 06:13:20 AM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in news:1160855226.878948.193090
@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
Be sceptical of anything written with a political or religious agenda
to peddle, and especially those which you find congenial.
Follow your own advise. Be skeptical of the Bible.
I was. But it turned out to be true, in fact. Now I'm sceptical of
the Powers That Be that fed me such nonsense in the first place. Can
you even state the set of beliefs that you live by? If not -- and most
people cannot -- then shouldn't we be very sceptical indeed about
these.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
17 Oct 2006 10:20:36 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
wrote in news:1160855226.878948.193090
@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
Be sceptical of anything written with a political or religious agenda
to peddle, and especially those which you find congenial.
Follow your own advise. Be skeptical of the Bible.
I was. But it turned out to be true, in fact.
I think this is a fallacy. In your experience it turned out to be true
that there exist things which are not yet properly explained by today's
science. Therefore you turned to the predominant religion in your
country. This does not necessarily have to be wrong but one still have
to remain cautious.
Religious assertions often hinder proper examination of the paranormal
or perinormal phenomenons because of dogmatism.
http://www.noetic.org/publications/review/issue61/r61_Grossman.html
Now I'm sceptical of the Powers That Be that fed me such nonsense in the first place.
Can you even state the set of beliefs that you live by? If not -- and most
people cannot -- then shouldn't we be very sceptical indeed about these.
I agree.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
14 Oct 2006 03:26:20 PM |
|
|
wrote:
usenet_trash@yahoo.de wrote:
wrote:
If I believe this, then I am interested to learn that you imagine that
books of fiction are printed in some other manner than books of
"secular literature". Calling the Aeneid -- about a demigod! --
"secular literature" is quite funny too.
No, different. The person Vergil is mentioned in secular literature, is
he not? This historical person writes plays to stage it in theatres. So
there is a difference between Aeneas and Vergil. The gospel of Jesus is
partly based on plays by Seneca.
Friend, you're reading the wrong books and imbibing some dreadful
nonsense. You need not believe me; but you can find out for yourself.
That is the point. Everybody has to find out for oneself what is true
and trustworthy, depending on the available evidence. You can not be
sure that those claims are nonsense, and I cannot be sure either. What
if it is true? When it is true then surely it cannot be in conflict
with the rest of reality. When it is wrong then the evidence will point
it out sooner or later.
Be sceptical of anything written with a political or religious agenda
to peddle, and especially those which you find congenial.
True.
This advice is also true when it comes to the Bible or the Quran.
At the moment your reading is actually making you more ignorant than you
started, which is a terrible thing. I don't mean to be rude. I simply
can't think of a way to respond that doesn't sound rude or insulting.
How do you know? When something is true it will come out sooner or
later. When something is wrong it will also come out sooner or later.
The only reason I can think of to remain a literalist Christian or
Muslim is fear of hell. But this can be refuted easily: Would a god of
unconditional love eternally torture that what he/she/it loves? Can't
be, it is completely illogical. And what is against logic is against
truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
16 Oct 2006 06:11:21 AM |
|
|
wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
If I believe this, then I am interested to learn that you imagine that
books of fiction are printed in some other manner than books of
"secular literature". Calling the Aeneid -- about a demigod! --
"secular literature" is quite funny too.
No, different. The person Vergil is mentioned in secular literature, is
he not? This historical person writes plays to stage it in theatres. So
there is a difference between Aeneas and Vergil. The gospel of Jesus is
partly based on plays by Seneca.
Friend, you're reading the wrong books and imbibing some dreadful
nonsense. You need not believe me; but you can find out for yourself.
That is the point. Everybody has to find out for oneself what is true
and trustworthy, depending on the available evidence.
Agreed.
You can not be sure that those claims are nonsense, and I cannot be
sure either.
Well, I myself *can* -- because the transmission of texts through
manuscripts is one of my hobbies, so I have done the legwork. Some
notes:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts
At the moment your reading is actually making you more ignorant than you
started, which is a terrible thing. I don't mean to be rude. I simply
can't think of a way to respond that doesn't sound rude or insulting.
How do you know?
Education.
The only reason I can think of to remain a literalist Christian or
Muslim is fear of hell.
The question that you should ask instead, tho, is "why become something
which has no easy name, but consists merely of conformity to some
ad-hoc subset of the values and ideas of our time. Those values and
ideas are in constant change, and change altogether every 30-40 years.
The people who decide what they must be are those who control the media
agenda in our time and country. To conform to the menu that they offer
is unwise. Nothing can be said for so doing. Yet everyone does it.
Repeating establishment anti-Christian jeers is a bit futile, unless
you know that you can trust the establishment.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
16 Oct 2006 05:41:57 PM |
|
|
wrote:
usenet_trash@yahoo.de wrote:
The only reason I can think of to remain a literalist Christian or
Muslim is fear of hell. But this can be refuted easily: Would a god of
unconditional love eternally torture that what he/she/it loves? Can't
be, it is completely illogical. And what is against logic is against truth.
The question that you should ask instead, tho, is "why become something
which has no easy name, but consists merely of conformity to some
ad-hoc subset of the values and ideas of our time.
I do not see it as ad-hoc values and ideas but as very old and well
tried values and ideas.
Those values and ideas are in constant change, and change altogether every 30-40 years.
That was and is always the case, even for literalist Christians or
Muslims (maybe except for those who live very separated from the rest
of the world like the Amish or some clans in Northern Pakistan).
The people who decide what they must be are those who control the media
agenda in our time and country. To conform to the menu that they offer
is unwise. Nothing can be said for so doing. Yet everyone does it.
Those who get their main information from mainstream press, TV and
radio are most probably like you said. But nobody can control the
internet so it doesn't apply to those who use its vast resources with
an open mind.
Repeating establishment anti-Christian jeers is a bit futile, unless
you know that you can trust the establishment.
I trust scientific methods (but not necessarily every result of
research).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
14 Oct 2006 03:59:02 PM |
|
|
Salutations!
I want to respond one point that connects Jesus to some vague Mithratic
belief:
He [Mithra] held a last supper with 12 of his followers, died, and was resurrected.
As far as my reading goes, Mithra was merely surrounded by twelve
symbols (hat-tip to Mr. Pearse for the point). Anyhow, is it at least
plausible to insist that Jesus' followers represented the twelve
tribes of Israel? It certainly is coherent and does not involve a
Mithratic leap-of-faith.
Further, the final supper before the crucifixion was the Passover meal.
In Jewish law (that is, the Jerusalem-centered law) it is rigorously
prescribed that the Passover celebration was to be celebrated in the
temple courtyard; Passover consisted of a public sacrifice. Only in
northern Israel/Galilee proper was the meal to be celebrated in the
home. The bread, wine, and the 'dipping of the hands in the dish'
(Mark 14:20; Matt 26:23) commemorate the Semitic tradition of eating
the sacrificial bull from a bowl. See W. Atallah's "Un rituel de
serment chez les Arabes: al-yamin al-ghamus" (A ritual oath among the
Arabs: the dipping of the right hand), Arabica, 20 (1973). Why should
we assume that the gospel accounts of the last supper are "copies" of
Mithratic narratives when there is an entirely coherent Jewish
interpretation?
To avoid being accused of hypocrisy, let me say that this is just a
hypothetical picture. Though, it illustrates that a "Mithratic"
Jesus is hardly an exclusive conclusion.
Best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
14 Oct 2006 11:26:27 AM |
|
|
On 14 Oct 2006 09:12:34 -0700, wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
wrote:
The main difference between the evidence concerning Vergil and Jesus is
that one is found in secular literature and the other in fictional
literature. Fictional literature does not necessarily have to be bad,
but it should be clear that it was written to point something out and
not to describe actual events. Like Aesop's fables.
If I believe this, then I am interested to learn that you imagine that
books of fiction are printed in some other manner than books of
"secular literature". Calling the Aeneid -- about a demigod! --
"secular literature" is quite funny too.
No, different. The person Vergil is mentioned in secular literature, is
he not? This historical person writes plays to stage it in theatres. So
there is a difference between Aeneas and Vergil. The gospel of Jesus is
partly based on plays by Seneca.
Pearse is being dishonest yet again because it is not a valid
comparison. He should either compare Virgil and the anonymous authors
of the gospels, or Jesus and Aeneas.
Even though some of the loonies throw a hissy fit when it is pointed
out, Virgil is (a) a conclusion from the historical process, and (b)
nobody pretends that we should believe Aeneas existed and be supremely
important because Virgil's writings say so. Whereas Jesus is a
presupposition for religious reasons whose believers are looking for
anything they can rationalise as "proof" rather than keeping their
beliefs to themselves.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
14 Oct 2006 02:53:39 PM |
|
|
On 13 Oct 2006 17:20:08 -0700, wrote:
No change of subject. I did not say that the fact that the first
fragments are from the 2nd century are prove in itself. I only said
that this evidence is compatible with the assertion that there was no
historic Jesus of Nazaret.
The fact that no city, town or village named Nazareth existed in the
early first century is pretty good proof that no one was born there in
the early first century. It would be like kind of like claiming that
Christopher Columbus was born in New York City.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
12 Oct 2006 01:19:10 PM |
|
|
On 12 Oct 2006 10:31:28 -0700, wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
wrote:
jim_hallerud@yahoo.com wrote:
There has been much discussion about whether Jesus was an historical
figure or not. I have seen a few people who believe( are convicted )
that Jesus was made up in the 2nd or 3rd centuries. Anyway,
considering we have framents of the NT from around 125AD, I think this
is not reasonable.
Why not? First fragments from the early 2nd century fits with the
assertion that there was most probably no historic Jesus of Nazaret.
Does it? You say this, of course, based on a knowledge of first extant
fragments for other first century works? When, one wonders, do we have
the first extant fragments of Vergil?
Vergil is not only known from hagiographic scriptures but also from
secular literature. Jesus ist only known thru hagiographies by
followers of this particular faith.
It was yet another dishonest comparison.
Virgil is a conclusion from historical evidence, not a belief looking
for evidence and finding none.
A better comparison would be between Jesus and Aeneas. Or are we to
assume Aeneas was real because Virgil writes about him?
Or maybe the only valid conclusion is that the anonymous authors later
known as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John existed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
12 Oct 2006 02:06:33 PM |
|
|
Arguing over the meaning and validity of copies of claimed documents from
2,000 years ago does not prove or substantiate the actual existence of ANY
GOD.
Why has this 'claimed' god not communicate with us over the past 2,000 years
and cleared up all the confusion and contradictions? Could it be that he is
merely the creation of ancient man's imagination?
<roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1160665780.119969.303070@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
usenet_trash@yahoo.de wrote:
jim_hallerud@yahoo.com wrote:
There has been much discussion about whether Jesus was an historical
figure or not. I have seen a few people who believe( are convicted )
that Jesus was made up in the 2nd or 3rd centuries. Anyway,
considering we have framents of the NT from around 125AD, I think this
is not reasonable.
Why not? First fragments from the early 2nd century fits with the
assertion that there was most probably no historic Jesus of Nazaret.
Does it? You say this, of course, based on a knowledge of first extant
fragments for other first century works? When, one wonders, do we have
the first extant fragments of Vergil?
Of course there were several other Jesuses because this was a common name.
Just as any reference to George Bush cannot possibly mean the US
president, since the name is common?
Also, we have the letter of Clement who lived in
Rome until about 100AD to the Corinthians. It clearly shows that the
story of Jesus Christ started before the 2nd century. Think about it,
before 100AD there were Christian churches in Rome and Corinth.
The evidence shows that Christianity was started by hellenized Jews.
True.
It began as a mystery cult with influences from Mithraism and Egyptian
beliefs and customs.
No evidence for this exists; the evidence to the contrary is
overwhelming. The cult of Mithras may not have existed before around
50 AD, for instance.
The first Christians did not yet believe in a real
human Jesus but only in a heavenly Christ as a mythical figure.
Only very gullible atheists believe this, in view of the rather large
volume of evidence to the contrary and no evidence for this
proposition, tho.
These are just two small examples. Consequently, the NT must have been
around easily in the middle to late first century.
"The" NT did not yet exist. There existed several writings. Most of
them are now regarded as apocryph and non-canon. The first attempt to
form a canon was the collection of Marcion around 150. The NT as a
canon is a result of a church council in 325 in Nicea.
This is all very confused and misleading or plain wrong. Nicaea had
nothing to do with the canon.
By the way, the letter we do have from Clement is dated around 95AD.
Quite late, that is over 60 years after the supposed crucifixion of
Jesus.
So?
He quotes Jesus and talks about the death of Jesus. He also quotes
part of the sermon on the mount from the Synoptic Gospels. I am not
planning to read more. He is drier than your average fundamental
preacher.
There you have it. There are existings writings from the first century
with validate the NT.
It doesn't validate the NT. It proves only that at 95 there existed a
belief in an earthly Jesus.
<smile> The last evasion of the desperate. You have texts, you have
people who knew those involved, you have eyewitnesses, and apparently
none of that is enough for one excuse or another.
Instead you live in conformity to a set of period values which were set
by people you do not know for their own purposes. I really suggest
that you look at your own position before repeating all this nonsense,
created purely to deceive people like yourself.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
13 Oct 2006 04:57:30 PM |
|
|
Bill M wrote:
Arguing over the meaning and validity of copies of claimed documents from
2,000 years ago does not prove or substantiate the actual existence of ANY
GOD.
Those desperate to deny the God whom they find inconvenient are
extraordinarily ready to pronounce dogmatically about ancient texts and
the transmission of texts, however. Their ignorance gets in the way,
of course, and their obscurantism makes them ridiculous -- although
they could have read educated atheists who knew better -- but neither
seems to stop them.
I feel that people should argue for their beliefs on their own merits.
Listening to atheists droning excuses about why they reject God (and
so, what they never dare say, they live in conformity to societal
values that happen to be in fashion) is tedious to the intelligent.
Why has this 'claimed' god not communicate with us over the past 2,000 years
and cleared up all the confusion and contradictions?
A look at your posts, and your response to them suggests that you
couldn't recognise a communication unless it was stapled into your
forehead. None of these excuses justify your irrational way of life.
Nor will the standard attempt -- which will follow -- to evade any
discussion of the philosophy on whose behalf you proselytise, but which
you are unable or ashamed to discuss.
It won't do.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
14 Oct 2006 07:02:38 PM |
|
|
wrote:
There has been much discussion about whether Jesus was an historical
figure or not. I have seen a few people who believe( are convicted )
that Jesus was made up in the 2nd or 3rd centuries. Anyway,
considering we have framents of the NT from around 125AD, I think this
is not reasonable. Also, we have the letter of Clement who lived in
Rome until about 100AD to the Corinthians. It clearly shows that the
story of Jesus Christ started before the 2nd century. Think about it,
before 100AD there were Christian churches in Rome and Corinth. These
are just two small examples. Consequently, the NT must have been
around easily in the middle to late first century. By the way, the
letter we do have from Clement is dated around 95AD.
He quotes Jesus and talks about the death of Jesus. He also quotes
part of the sermon on the mount from the Synoptic Gospels. I am not
planning to read more. He is drier than your average fundamental
preacher.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html
90-140AD is a more reasonable range
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
17 Oct 2006 07:15:43 PM |
|
|
wrote:
There has been much discussion about whether Jesus was an historical
figure or not. I have seen a few people who believe( are convicted )
that Jesus was made up in the 2nd or 3rd centuries. Anyway,
considering we have framents of the NT from around 125AD, I think this
is not reasonable. Also, we have the letter of Clement who lived in
Rome until about 100AD to the Corinthians. It clearly shows that the
story of Jesus Christ started before the 2nd century. Think about it,
before 100AD there were Christian churches in Rome and Corinth. These
are just two small examples. Consequently, the NT must have been
around easily in the middle to late first century. By the way, the
letter we do have from Clement is dated around 95AD.
He quotes Jesus and talks about the death of Jesus. He also quotes
part of the sermon on the mount from the Synoptic Gospels. I am not
planning to read more. He is drier than your average fundamental
preacher.
There you have it. There are existings writings from the first century
with validate the NT. This nonsense of a vast conspiracy and writing
of the NT in the 2nd or 3rd century is not true.
I am putting on my absestos underwear readying for the flames.
Jimmy Boy
This is why we have been telling you fucking SOLA SCRIPTURA
crowd that the way you use the Bible is very dangerous and
anti-intellectual
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
17 Oct 2006 07:53:16 PM |
|
|
wrote:
jim_hallerud@yahoo.com wrote:
There has been much discussion about whether Jesus was an historical
figure or not. I have seen a few people who believe( are convicted )
that Jesus was made up in the 2nd or 3rd centuries. Anyway,
considering we have framents of the NT from around 125AD, I think this
is not reasonable. Also, we have the letter of Clement who lived in
Rome until about 100AD to the Corinthians. It clearly shows that the
story of Jesus Christ started before the 2nd century. Think about it,
before 100AD there were Christian churches in Rome and Corinth. These
are just two small examples. Consequently, the NT must have been
around easily in the middle to late first century. By the way, the
letter we do have from Clement is dated around 95AD.
He quotes Jesus and talks about the death of Jesus. He also quotes
part of the sermon on the mount from the Synoptic Gospels. I am not
planning to read more. He is drier than your average fundamental
preacher.
There you have it. There are existings writings from the first century
with validate the NT. This nonsense of a vast conspiracy and writing
of the NT in the 2nd or 3rd century is not true.
I am putting on my absestos underwear readying for the flames.
Jimmy Boy
This is why we have been telling you fucking SOLA SCRIPTURA
crowd that the way you use the Bible is very dangerous and
anti-intellectual.
Atheists in their ignorance will use that Sola Scriptura in reverse
to
question the truthness of the doctrine of the Bible. Yet the Bible
specially the NT was not compiled to convert anytbody but was
compiled
for the already converted folks. The purpose was just LUTIRGY...
Anyway It is not too late to recant your false doctrine and learn
the
proper way to study the Scriptures keeping in mind that
ORAL TRADITION preceded the written materials as attested
in the first paragraph of Luke's letter to Theophi.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
11 Oct 2006 09:22:42 PM |
|
|
In article <1160603967.319872.40860@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
jim_hallerud@yahoo.com says...
There has been much discussion about whether Jesus was an historical
figure or not. I have seen a few people who believe( are convicted )
"Convicted" is a very clumsy, silly usage above when "convinced"
would work better. Try not to talk like a moron and people might
not treat you like one.
that Jesus was made up in the 2nd or 3rd centuries.
Have you actually looked at what they said then? Many do not claim
that there were no stories about Jesus before then. But he wasn't
considered "God incarnate" before then. He might have just been
considered a normal man or a preacher, since Jesus/Yeshua/Yehoshua
would have been a very common name.
Anyway,
considering we have framents of the NT from around 125AD, I think this
is not reasonable.
That's because you didn't understand the argument. The argument was
that he was not considered a magical, god-being. He might have been
regarded as a minor huckster/prophet or have been a composite of
several rabbis and holy men.
Also, we have the letter of Clement who lived in
Rome until about 100AD to the Corinthians.
Some have argued that the Jesus stories go back as far as 100 BC.
The pharisees and others had been teaching doctrines similar to
Jesus far before he came on the scene.
It clearly shows that the
story of Jesus Christ
OK, again, I have to say, are you really so stupid that you don't
know that Christ is not the last name of Jesus. You might wish to
call him "the Christ" or more properly "a Christ", since there were
many so-called "messiahs" pretending to that title throughout
history. But there's no reason to call him Jesus Christ. Jesus
would be sufficient and if you must, add the "so-called Christ" bit.
started before the 2nd century. Think about it,
before 100AD there were Christian churches in Rome and Corinth.
There were pagan churches anyway which could have been converted
after the fact. However, the fact that someone writes a document in
the 100's claiming that there is a congregation in a certain place
is hardly proof that the claim is accurate.
These
are just two small examples. Consequently, the NT must have been
around easily in the middle to late first century.
Again, you don't know much. At best, part of the so-called New
Testament would have been available, say in the form of certain
Pauline letters, in the middle first century. But other books would
not have been completed until much later. And those are only the
ones that made it into canon.
By the way, the
letter we do have from Clement is dated around 95AD.
He quotes Jesus and talks about the death of Jesus.
That doesn't make him supernatural.
He also quotes
part of the sermon on the mount from the Synoptic Gospels.
That doesn't make him supernatural, either.
--
"Faith, indeed, has up to the present not been
able to move real mountains ... But it can put
mountains where there are none." -- Nietzsche
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
11 Oct 2006 10:00:32 PM |
|
|
On 11 Oct 2006 14:59:27 -0700, wrote:
There has been much discussion about whether Jesus was an historical
figure or not.
Change 'historical' to 'mythological' and you're there. Writing
about something 300 years after it happened is *****. In case you
didn't know, 'jesus' was a popular name back then. Like Brown or
Smith.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
11 Oct 2006 05:14:13 PM |
|
|
On 11 Oct 2006 14:59:27 -0700, wrote:
There has been much discussion about whether Jesus was an historical
figure or not. I have seen a few people who believe( are convicted )
that Jesus was made up in the 2nd or 3rd centuries. Anyway,
Nobody "believes" that. They have zero reason to imagine he existed
because you have no (do you understand what that word means?) evidence
outside the Christian tradition, apart from some stuff that has
obviously been tampered with.
Please try to be more honest next time.
Especially when you have been repeatedly told this.
considering we have framents of the NT from around 125AD, I think this
is not reasonable. Also, we have the letter of Clement who lived in
Rome until about 100AD to the Corinthians. It clearly shows that the
story of Jesus Christ started before the 2nd century. Think about it,
before 100AD there were Christian churches in Rome and Corinth. These
are just two small examples. Consequently, the NT must have been
around easily in the middle to late first century. By the way, the
letter we do have from Clement is dated around 95AD.
The story started. That's all.
He quotes Jesus and talks about the death of Jesus. He also quotes
part of the sermon on the mount from the Synoptic Gospels. I am not
planning to read more. He is drier than your average fundamental
preacher.
There you have it. There are existings writings from the first century
with validate the NT. This nonsense of a vast conspiracy and writing
of the NT in the 2nd or 3rd century is not true.
The "nonsense of a vast conspiracy theory" is your dishonest
fabrication.
All we're saying is that you have no evidence.
There is nothing close to contemporary. No secular corroboration that
shows that the beliefs were real. No Roman records, and they were
meticulous about keeping them. Not even of the execution. Nothing.
Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
I am putting on my absestos underwear readying for the flames.
Jimmy Boy
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating the New Testament ( Jesus in History ) |
11 Oct 2006 06:00:17 PM |
|
|
There is nothing close to contemporary. No secular corroboration that
shows that the beliefs were real. No Roman records, and they were
meticulous about keeping them. Not even of the execution. Nothing.
Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
I am putting on my absestos underwear readying for the flames.
There also are the letters of Pilny the Younger who was born in 60 or
61AD. He is a Roman who mentions the Christians. Consequently,
Christians or believers in Jesus were present in Rome before 100AD.
This is also evidence.
Jimmy Boy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
