Historical Jesus

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Historical Jesus

#42201  Postby dejuror » Apr 01, 2017 11:40 pm

Writings attributed to Justin Martyr and Celsus support the argument that Marcion knew nothing of the Pauline epistles and that he [Marcion] preached or wrote nothing about Jesus.

Justin was a contemporary of Marcion and the writings attributed to him specifically state that Marcion preached about ANOTHER GOD and ANOTHER SON.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

Firtst Apology XXVI
And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator.

And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works.



And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son.

And this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us......


The writing attributed to Celsus "True Discourse" also confirms that Paul and the Jesus story in Pauline letters were unknown up to at least the last quarter of the 2nd century.

The writing "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen admits that Celsus wrote nothing of Paul.

http://newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm

Against Celsus 1.63
And I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4678

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus

#42202  Postby tanya » Apr 03, 2017 5:45 pm

:clap: very well written, thanks dejuror.
tanya
 
Posts: 281

France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42203  Postby duvduv » Apr 06, 2017 6:00 pm

It's conceivable that the creators of the NT books were not always on the same page, and that the work was farmed out to different freelancers who worked under Eusebius. Indeed Against Celsus sounds like it was written by some "undergraduate" because there are so many gaps in it it definitely sounds fictitious. How could someone argue to the Emperor on behalf of an authentic beleaguered community without giving a detailed description of its history,communities, and leaders?! And good old Justin Martyr doesn't even provide any information about his Old Man and his connection to Christianity way back in the second century. And how could he not discuss in detail the books that had allegedly been written in the prior century? Eusebius needed a general editor to make sure that everything made sense. But maybe it was intended that way to give the religion an odd air of authenticity by having it not appear that it was totally uniform in terms of the experience of its first adherents...... Good old Eusebius....!!
duvduv
 
Posts: 445

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42204  Postby Leucius Charinus » Apr 08, 2017 4:25 am

Image

RE: Eusebius

    Ever since Jacob Burckhardt dismissed him as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity," Eusebius has been an inviting target for students of the Constantinian era. At one time or another they have characterized him as:

    ◾ a political propagandist [1],
    ◾ a good courtier [2],
    ◾ the shrewd and worldly adviser of the Emperor Constantine [3],
    ◾ the great publicist of the first Christian emperor,[4]
    ◾ the first in a long succession of ecclesiastical politicians, [5]
    ◾ the herald of Byzantinism, [6]
    ◾ a political theologian, [7]
    ◾ a political metaphysician [8], and
    ◾ a caesaropapist. [9]

    [1] Erik Peterson, Der Monotheismus als politisches Problem (Munich, 1951 ), p. 91;
    [2] Henri Grégoire, "L'authenticité et l'historicité de la Vita Constantini attribuée ê Eusèbe de Césarée," Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres, 39 ( 1953 ): 462-479, quoted in T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass., 1981 ), p. 401;
    [3] Arnaldo Momigliano, "Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century," in The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, ed. A. Momigliano (Oxford, 1963 ), p. 85;
    [4] Robert Markus, "The Roman Empire in Early Christian Historiography," The Downside Review 81 ( 1963 ): 343;
    [5] Charles N. Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture (1940; reprint, Oxford, 1966 ), p. 183;
    [6] Hendrik Berkhof, Die Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea (Amsterdam, 1939 ), pp. 21-22;
    [7] Hans Eger, "Kaiser und Kirche in der Geschichtstheologie Eusebs von Cäsarea", Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 38 ( 1939 ): 115;
    [8] Per Beskow, Rex Gloriae. The Kingship of Christ in the Early Church (Uppsala, 1962 ), p. 318;
    [9] J. M. Sansterre, "Eusèbe de Césarée et la naissance de la théorie 'césaropapiste,'" Byzantion 42 ( 1972 ): 593


    It is obvious that these are not, in the main, neutral descriptions. Much traditional scholarship, sometimes with barely sup- pressed disdain, has regarded Eusebius as one who risked his orthodoxy and perhaps his character because of his zeal for the Constantinian establishment. Scholars have often observed, for example, that his literary works in defense of the new order depict Constantine and his reign in eschatological terms that rival and even supplant the Incarnation and Parousia in salvation history.

    To be sure, this assessment relies on abundant documentation: in the Life of Constantine and in the Tricennial Oration, delivered on the thirtieth anniversary of Constantine's reign, as well as in other books, Eusebius gave an enthusiastic Christian endorsement

    . Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius:
    Reassessing the First "Court Theologian"

    --- MICHAEL J. HOLLERICH
    Assistant professor of religious studies
    in Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, California.


"Dear Old Eusebius"

He wrote in the early fourth century a thesis in the field of ancient history.
The thesis concerned the rise of the nation of the Christians and the Universal Christian Church.
These claimed Eusebius, were the followers of Jesus Christ and the Twelve Apostolic Boneheads,

For his literary thesis he was paid in gold by the Emperor Constantine.
But his thesis was never peer reviewed.

It could be complete bullshit.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 595

Print view this post


Re: Historical Jesus

#42206  Postby proudfootz » Apr 14, 2017 8:39 pm

Interesting series from Vridar about claims that GLuke rewrote GMatthew from a Pauline perspective:

http://vridar.org/2017/04/12/the-gospel ... rts-study/

This is based on studies from the 19th century, calling into question the notion that doubts about the 'gospel accounts' is merely a current fad among New Atheists.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 8890

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42207  Postby duvduv » Apr 16, 2017 3:50 pm

Does one have to be an atheist to question the origins of the books of the NT? Of course there is no evidence that a Luke or a GLuke etc. ever even existed in the 1st or even 2nd century. But the new regime of Constantine did have the means, motive and opportunity to create the new religion.
duvduv
 
Posts: 445

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus

#42208  Postby dejuror » Apr 16, 2017 5:55 pm

duvduv wrote:Does one have to be an atheist to question the origins of the books of the NT? Of course there is no evidence that a Luke or a GLuke etc. ever even existed in the 1st or even 2nd century. But the new regime of Constantine did have the means, motive and opportunity to create the new religion.


Manuscripts of gLuke [Papyri 4 and Papyri 75] are dated by Paleography to the late 2nd to early 3rd century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

The abundance of evidence show that stories of Jesus were already written at least a hundred years before the Roman Catholic Religion which was initiated in the 4th century.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4678

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42209  Postby Leucius Charinus » Apr 17, 2017 6:25 am

dejuror wrote:
duvduv wrote:Does one have to be an atheist to question the origins of the books of the NT? Of course there is no evidence that a Luke or a GLuke etc. ever even existed in the 1st or even 2nd century. But the new regime of Constantine did have the means, motive and opportunity to create the new religion.


Manuscripts of gLuke [Papyri 4 and Papyri 75] are dated by Paleography to the late 2nd to early 3rd century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

The abundance of evidence show that stories of Jesus were already written at least a hundred years before the Roman Catholic Religion which was initiated in the 4th century.


The papyri evidence derives from about a dozen or more rubbish dumps surrounding the city of Oxyrhynchus, a city which went a massive population explosion of "monks" in the mid 4th century.

    OXYRHYNCHUS
    Historia Monachorum


    "The city is so full of monasteries
    that the very walls resounded
    with the voices of monks.
    Other monasteries encircled it outside,
    so that the outer city forms
    another town alongside the inner.
    Monks outnumbered the secular citizens.

In the mid 4th century we may naturally expect that these "monks" were practicing writing bits and pieces out of the Greek New Testament Bible and throwing stuff on to the mid 4th century rubbish dumps. We may also naturally expect that with such a large amount of "monks" (male and female) practicing writing the NT Bible there would be a great variety of handwriting styles and skills, and that at least some of them would be archaic.

It follows that manuscripts of the NT dated by Paleography to the 2nd & 3rd centuries may in fact be manuscripts written upon in the 4th century at which time the NT Bible became the source of inspiration for the entire Roman empire. Palaeography is not as accurate a dating methodology as has sometimes been advertised, as recent articles have argued. For example:

    The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Some Observations on the Date and Provenance of P.Bodmer II (P66)
    By Brent Nongbri, Macquarie University [2014]

    Abstract

    Palaeographic estimates of the date of P.Bodmer II, the well-preserved Greek papyrus codex of the Gospel of John, have ranged from the early second century to the first half of the third century. There are, however, equally con- vincing palaeographic parallels among papyri securely dated to as late as the fourth century. This article surveys the palaeographic evidence and argues that the range of possible dates assigned to P.Bodmer II on the basis of palaeography needs to be broadened to include the fourth century. Furthermore, a serious con- sideration of a date at the later end of that broadened spectrum of palaeographic possibilities helps to explain both the place of P.Bodmer lI in relation to other Bodmer papyri and several aspects of the codicology of P.Bodmer II.

    http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_071.htm


Consequently it is not necessarily true that that stories of Jesus were already written (according to palaeography) at least a hundred years before the Roman Catholic Religion of the 4th century.

These NT manuscript palaeographic dating estimates may in fact be perceived as a form of pareidolia or confirmation bias.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 595

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42210  Postby dejuror » Apr 18, 2017 3:53 am

Leucius Charinus wrote:......It follows that manuscripts of the NT dated by Paleography to the 2nd & 3rd centuries may in fact be manuscripts written upon in the 4th century at which time the NT Bible became the source of inspiration for the entire Roman empire. Palaeography is not as accurate a dating methodology as has sometimes been advertised, as recent articles have argued.......


NT Manuscripts dated to the 2nd &3rd century may in fact be from those very centuries.

It must not be forgotten that dating by Paleography was not initiated just to date NT manuscripts. Paleography is the accepted method used to date ancient writings [christian and non-christian] throughout the whole world.

Carbon dating does not date the written texts but the material on which the text is written and in addition carbon dating and Paleography have very wide date ranges.


Leucius Charinus wrote:......Consequently it is not necessarily true that that stories of Jesus were already written (according to palaeography) at least a hundred years before the Roman Catholic Religion of the 4th century.

These NT manuscript palaeographic dating estimates may in fact be perceived as a form of pareidolia or confirmation bias.


It is also not necessarily true that the stories of Jesus were started in the 4th century by the Roman Church.

By means of Paleography [the universally accepted method of dating ancient manuscripts] texts with Jesus stories have been dated long before the 4th century therefore the argument that Jesus cults or believers of the Jesus stories predated the 4th century Roman Church cannot be overturned presently.

Based on the abundance of evidence, I argue that the 4th century Roman Church hijacked the so-called Christian religion and invented their false history of the Church.

For example, writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and even Eusebius of Caesarea were corrupted in whole or in part by the Roman Church or their agents.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4678

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42211  Postby tanya » Apr 18, 2017 10:06 am

dejuror wrote:For example, writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and even Eusebius of Caesarea were corrupted in whole or in part by the Roman Church or their agents.


1. But not those writings of Philo of Alexandria, or Lucian of Samosata ???

2. "corrupted" implies possession of an original copy against which the extant (presumably mutilated) version can be compared. Do we possess today, among the various texts excavated from desert sands, an original copy of any document quilled 1800 years earlier?

Did the former Greek military commander and historian Arrian of Nicomedia (92-175 CE) confirm, repudiate, or even mention the military exploits, Roman empire infrastructure, or political machinations of the first century CE as detailed by Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius? How did Arrian's texts survive unscathed ? How do we confirm their pristine composition?
tanya
 
Posts: 281

France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42212  Postby dejuror » Apr 19, 2017 2:19 pm

dejuror wrote:For example, writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and even Eusebius of Caesarea were corrupted in whole or in part by the Roman Church or their agents.


tanya wrote:1. But not those writings of Philo of Alexandria, or Lucian of Samosata ???


We have examples of corrupted texts in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 attributed to Josephus and Annals 15.44 attributed to Tacitus and there is no such mutilation in the writings attributed to Philo and Lucian.

Examine the writings attributed to Philo and Lucian and there is found not a single mention of Jesus, Christ, Jesus Christ, the twelve disciples, Saul/Paul, bishops of the Church or Gospels attributed to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/fowl/index.htm


tanya wrote:2. "corrupted" implies possession of an original copy against which the extant (presumably mutilated) version can be compared. Do we possess today, among the various texts excavated from desert sands, an original copy of any document quilled 1800 years earlier?



We have no original copy of "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 yet the passage is regarded as a forgery almost universally.

We also have no original copy of "Church History" attributed to Eusebius that we can compare the extant version but we can examine what is written in the supposed copies.


In "Church History" the author makes references to the forgery called the "TF" Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and other writings that are now considered or contain forgeries or false attribution.

The author of "Church History" [under the supposed name of Eusebius] has [inadvertently] listed writings that were manipulated or corrupted.

This is a partial list of the corrupted writings in "Church History"---Josephus, Irenaeus, Clement, Ignatius, Tertullian and Origen.

It can be easily shown that writings attributed to Josephus, Irenaeus, Clement, Ignatius, Tertullian and Origen were manipulated when writings attributed to Justin, Celsus, Municius Felix, Philo, Lucian, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ephraem the Syrian are examined.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4678

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42213  Postby Leucius Charinus » Apr 22, 2017 1:07 am

dejuror wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:......It follows that manuscripts of the NT dated by Paleography to the 2nd & 3rd centuries may in fact be manuscripts written upon in the 4th century at which time the NT Bible became the source of inspiration for the entire Roman empire. Palaeography is not as accurate a dating methodology as has sometimes been advertised, as recent articles have argued.......


NT Manuscripts dated to the 2nd &3rd century may in fact be from those very centuries.

It must not be forgotten that dating by Paleography was not initiated just to date NT manuscripts. Paleography is the accepted method used to date ancient writings [christian and non-christian] throughout the whole world.

Carbon dating does not date the written texts but the material on which the text is written and in addition carbon dating and Paleography have very wide date ranges.


These very wide date ranges are rarely completely specified. For example you wrote above:

"Manuscripts of gLuke [Papyri 4 and Papyri 75] are dated by Paleography to the late 2nd to early 3rd century."

Is this an appropriately estimated date range? The fact is that I have provided reasoned arguments by which these same palaeographical date ranges must also be inclusive of the 4th century. Additionally I have presented one extremely relevant item of evidence that no one seems to have had addressed, including the Biblical Scholars and academics studying the papyri from the Oxyrhynchus rubbish dumps. The bulk of these rubbish dumps were commissioned in the 4th century when the population of the city went through the roof and another city - of "monks" - was expanded outside the city walls.

How is this not relevant to the dating of Oxyrhychus papyri?
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 595

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42214  Postby dejuror » Apr 22, 2017 6:53 am

Leucius Charinus wrote:

These very wide date ranges are rarely completely specified. For example you wrote above:

"Manuscripts of gLuke [Papyri 4 and Papyri 75] are dated by Paleography to the late 2nd to early 3rd century."

Is this an appropriately estimated date range? The fact is that I have provided reasoned arguments by which these same palaeographical date ranges must also be inclusive of the 4th century. Additionally I have presented one extremely relevant item of evidence that no one seems to have had addressed, including the Biblical Scholars and academics studying the papyri from the Oxyrhynchus rubbish dumps. The bulk of these rubbish dumps were commissioned in the 4th century when the population of the city went through the roof and another city - of "monks" - was expanded outside the city walls.

How is this not relevant to the dating of Oxyrhychus papyri?


The flaw with your argument is that you must reject all writings dated by Paleography before the 4th century when dating by Paleography is universally accepted.

Now,even with a very wide date range for Paleograhic dating NT manuscripts are not dated to the 1st century and this is extremely significant.

Christian writers claimed Justin Martyr wrote in the 2nd century during the reign of Antoninus [c138-160]. Examine the writings attributed to Justin and it is found that there is no mention of gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, Saul/Paul and the Epistles.

The writings attributed to Justin appear to corroborate the late dating of NT manuscripts by Paleography, that is, the NT books were not composed before c 138-160 CE.

Christian writers claimed Celsus wrote against the Christians sometime in the 2nd century c 175 CE. Examine excerpts from "True Discourse" attributed to Celsus.

Again, there is no mention in excerpts of "True Discourse" of gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, Saul/Paul and the Epistles.

It would appear that both Justin and Celsus knew stories of Jesus and the disciples but had zero knowledge of NT manuscripts.

If it is assumed that it was the 4th century Roman Church who invented all the Jesus stories and NT Manuscripts then it makes no sense to invent writings attributed to Christian and non-Christian which do not make mention of gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, Saul/Paul and the Epistles.

During and after the 4th century virtually all Christian writers knew NT manuscripts however before the 4th century many Christian writers have no reference at all to Gospel authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or Epistles written by Peter, Paul, James, John and Jude.

The writings attributed to Philo, Josephus, Pliny the Elder, Tacitus, Suetonius Pliny the younger and the Dead Sea Scrolls support the argument that there was no story or cult based on a character called Jesus or a Jew called Paul in the 1st century.

The writings attributed to Aristides, Justin, Celsus, Tatian, Municius Felix, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Lucian, Arnobius support the argument that Gospel authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or Epistles written by Peter, Paul, James, John and Jude were late inventions as late as the 3rd century.

My argument is that the 4th century Roman Church or its agents hijacked the pre-existing Jesus stories and cults and then invented their own history.

The 4th century Roman Church or its agents invented bogus lists of bishops of Rome and other places. There is no historical evidence of any person called Bishop of the Roman Church before the 4th century.

All writings with a lists of bishops of Rome and other cities supposedly since the 1st century attributed to writers before the start of the 4th century Roman Church are most likely forgeries/false attribution or corrupted.


Writings attributed to Ignatius, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Clement and Hippolytus are forgeries/false attribution or corrupted writings in whole or in part. These writings contain bogus lists of bishops of Rome and other cities since the 1st century.

All writings before c 362 CE or before Julian's Against the Galileans which claimed Josephus, Tacitus or Suetonius wrote about Jesus are forgeries/false attribution or corrupted since Julian knew of no well-known writer who wrote of Jesus and Paul.

Examine the words in "Against the Galileans" attributed to Julian Emperor of Rome 361-363 CE

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_1_text.htm


But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.



In other words, 'Church History' itself attributed to Eusebius appears to be corrupted, that is, parts of "Church History" appear to have been written after the supposed Eusebius was dead.

The forgery called the "TF" found in Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 and "Church History" 1.11.7-9 were most likely fabricated after c 361-363 CE.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4678

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42215  Postby Leucius Charinus » Apr 25, 2017 6:13 am

dejuror wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:

These very wide date ranges are rarely completely specified. For example you wrote above:

"Manuscripts of gLuke [Papyri 4 and Papyri 75] are dated by Paleography to the late 2nd to early 3rd century."

Is this an appropriately estimated date range? The fact is that I have provided reasoned arguments by which these same palaeographical date ranges must also be inclusive of the 4th century. Additionally I have presented one extremely relevant item of evidence that no one seems to have had addressed, including the Biblical Scholars and academics studying the papyri from the Oxyrhynchus rubbish dumps. The bulk of these rubbish dumps were commissioned in the 4th century when the population of the city went through the roof and another city - of "monks" - was expanded outside the city walls.

How is this not relevant to the dating of Oxyrhychus papyri?


The flaw with your argument is that you must reject all writings dated by Paleography before the 4th century when dating by Paleography is universally accepted.


But you have just admitted that palaeographical dating estimates are to be universally associated with error bounds, and I have supplied various articles suggesting that it is quite within reason to associate palaeographic dates in the 2nd or 3rd centuries with error bounds that include the 4th century.

Consequently it is not a flawed argument to point out that the Christian writings dated by Paleography before the 4th century may in fact, when a more reasonable error bound is universally applied, be Christian writings from the 4th century.

Additionally you have not responded to the historical evidence that suggests the rubbish dumps of Oxyrhychus were commissioned in the 4th century when a second city - of "monks" - formed outside the old city walls.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 595

Print view this post

Previous

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: Google [Bot] and 7 guests