Carcano
Valued Senior Member
You cited one yourself when you referenced Paul saying that Jesus died for him. Divine beings dont die, only earthly men die.
How did a Jewish Rabbi (Jesus Christ) end up to be "son" of God?
- Thread starter Picture
- Start date
So anyway,
on the the 2nd century...
The Gnostics
On one side we see the Gnostics, the Docetae, or various groups that saw Jesus as a non physical being :
Marcion,
in mid 2nd century, claimed Jesus was a phantom or spiritual entity, and not born of Mary :
“Marcion, I suppose, took sound words in a wrong sense, when he rejected His birth from Mary...”
“...they deny ... His humanity, and teach that His appearances to those who saw Him as man were illusory, inasmuch as He did not bear with Him true manhood, but was rather a kind of phantom manifestation. Of this class are, for example, Marcion...”
Basilides,
in mid 2nd century, denied Jesus was really crucified, and the physical resurrection :
"Christ sent, not by this maker of the world, but by the above-named Abraxas; and to have come in a phantasm, and been destitute of the substance of flesh...
Bardesanes,
in mid 2nd century, denied that Christ was physical :
"...[Bardesanes] assert that the body of the Saviour was spiritual"
Celsus
in late 2nd C. also called Jesus a “shadow” (according to Origen) :
“Whereas our Jesus, who appeared to the members of His own troop--for I will take the word that Celsus employs--did really appear, and Celsus makes a false accusation against the Gospel in saying that what appeared was a shadow. “
And on the other we see :
The Literalists
The other faction insisted Jesus DID come in the flesh :
2 John
warns against those who don't
"acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh".
Polycarp's
epistle refers to those who do not agree Jesus came in the flesh :
"For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist"
And the very odd letters of Ignatius which insist Jesus truly was born of virgin etc. in a way that suggest many people did NOT believe that.
Along with many huge books called "Against Heresies" which listed all the errors of their opponents.
Finally, consider the odd group of
Christians who didn't believe in Jesus.
In mid 2nd century, there is a small group of Christian writers who did not seem to believe in Jesus of Nazareth at all :
Mathetes Epistle to Diognetus -
responded to 'close and careful inquiries' about the beliefs of Christians - it preaches in Neo-Platonic tones of the Logos, his Son, but no time, place, or identity for this incarnation are provided.
The name Jesus never appears.
Minucius Felix
wrote his Octavius - the words 'Jesus' or 'Christ' are never used (though 'Christian' is used many times) - he knows of no occasion of raising from the dead, and has this remarkable statement of the false calumnies attributed to Christians:
"he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?" -
Felix here explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion along with other horrible accusations.
Tatian wrote Address to the Greeks -
Esoteric Christianity at its finest - neither Christ nor Jesus not Son is mentioned anywhere - the Logos is the emphasis. In Ch.21, Tatian compared Christianity with pagan mythology and wrote: “Compare you own stories with our narratives. Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the grounds that we too tell stories”.
Athenagoras of Athens
wrote a detailed esoteric Christian treatise On The Resurrection Of The Dead arguing that resurrection is possible (in a non-fleshly body), but without once mentioning the resurrection of Jesus, or even using the words Jesus or Christ ! He also composed In Defense of the Christians - no Jesus nor Christ is mentioned, but the Logos is directly equated with the Son of God.
Theophilus (of Antioch)
wrote a lengthy work "To Autolycus" with no Christ, no Jesus, no Logos mentioned.
So,
the 2nd century has several Christian factions :
* Gnostics who think Jesus is a spiritual being of some sort
* Literalist who think Jesus was a historical man
* other who don't mention Jesus at all
One faction eventually won.
The literalists.
The rest is history.
Iasion
on the the 2nd century...
The Gnostics
On one side we see the Gnostics, the Docetae, or various groups that saw Jesus as a non physical being :
Marcion,
in mid 2nd century, claimed Jesus was a phantom or spiritual entity, and not born of Mary :
“Marcion, I suppose, took sound words in a wrong sense, when he rejected His birth from Mary...”
“...they deny ... His humanity, and teach that His appearances to those who saw Him as man were illusory, inasmuch as He did not bear with Him true manhood, but was rather a kind of phantom manifestation. Of this class are, for example, Marcion...”
Basilides,
in mid 2nd century, denied Jesus was really crucified, and the physical resurrection :
"Christ sent, not by this maker of the world, but by the above-named Abraxas; and to have come in a phantasm, and been destitute of the substance of flesh...
Bardesanes,
in mid 2nd century, denied that Christ was physical :
"...[Bardesanes] assert
Celsus
in late 2nd C. also called Jesus a “shadow” (according to Origen) :
“Whereas our Jesus, who appeared to the members of His own troop--for I will take the word that Celsus employs--did really appear, and Celsus makes a false accusation against the Gospel in saying that what appeared was a shadow. “
And on the other we see :
The Literalists
The other faction insisted Jesus DID come in the flesh :
2 John
warns against those who don't
"acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh".
Polycarp's
epistle refers to those who do not agree Jesus came in the flesh :
"For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist"
And the very odd letters of Ignatius which insist Jesus truly was born of virgin etc. in a way that suggest many people did NOT believe that.
Along with many huge books called "Against Heresies" which listed all the errors of their opponents.
Finally, consider the odd group of
Christians who didn't believe in Jesus.
In mid 2nd century, there is a small group of Christian writers who did not seem to believe in Jesus of Nazareth at all :
Mathetes Epistle to Diognetus -
responded to 'close and careful inquiries' about the beliefs of Christians - it preaches in Neo-Platonic tones of the Logos, his Son, but no time, place, or identity for this incarnation are provided.
The name Jesus never appears.
Minucius Felix
wrote his Octavius - the words 'Jesus' or 'Christ' are never used (though 'Christian' is used many times) - he knows of no occasion of raising from the dead, and has this remarkable statement of the false calumnies attributed to Christians:
"he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?" -
Felix here explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion along with other horrible accusations.
Tatian wrote Address to the Greeks -
Esoteric Christianity at its finest - neither Christ nor Jesus not Son is mentioned anywhere - the Logos is the emphasis. In Ch.21, Tatian compared Christianity with pagan mythology and wrote: “Compare you own stories with our narratives. Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the grounds that we too tell stories”.
Athenagoras of Athens
wrote a detailed esoteric Christian treatise On The Resurrection Of The Dead arguing that resurrection is possible (in a non-fleshly body), but without once mentioning the resurrection of Jesus, or even using the words Jesus or Christ ! He also composed In Defense of the Christians - no Jesus nor Christ is mentioned, but the Logos is directly equated with the Son of God.
Theophilus (of Antioch)
wrote a lengthy work "To Autolycus" with no Christ, no Jesus, no Logos mentioned.
So,
the 2nd century has several Christian factions :
* Gnostics who think Jesus is a spiritual being of some sort
* Literalist who think Jesus was a historical man
* other who don't mention Jesus at all
One faction eventually won.
The literalists.
The rest is history.
Iasion
The 2nd century also saw the gradual development of the Gospels and their titles :
Here is a chronology which helps to show how the Gospels grew from 1 single anonymous book into 4 named books (after the phase when "Gospel" just meant "the good news" i.e. "our teachings".)
This is a selection of references, there are quite a few more that flesh out this sequence, but these ones show the picture quite well.
The Epistle of the Apostles, 140-150CE :
The BOOK which Jesus Christ revealed unto his disciples: and how that Jesus Christ revealed the book for the company (college) of the apostles, the disciples of Jesus Christ, even the book which is for all men. Simon and Cerinthus, the false apostles, concerning whom it is written that no man shall cleave unto them, for there is in them deceit wherewith they bring men to destruction. (The book hath been written) that ye may be not flinch nor be troubled, and depart not from the word of the Gospel which ye have heard. Like as we heard it, we keep it in remembrance and have written it for the whole world.
See the word "book" ?
See the phrase "we .. have written it for the whole world" ?
This is obviously referring to a written Gospel, but gives NO NAMES.
Apology of Aristides, 138-161CE :
And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.
See the words "if you will READ there-in" ?
See the words "in the Gospel AS IT IS CALLED" ?
This is obvious evidence of a singular written work which is specifically named "The Gospel" - NO NAME given.
Furthermore, Aristides says this un-named Gospel was fairly NEW in the period 138-161 - clear evidence of the lateness of the Gospels.
Justin Martyr's 1st Apology, 150-160CE :
Ch. 66 : For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels...
See the word "composed" ?
See the words "called Gospels" ?
Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, 150-160CE, 3 references :
Ch. 100 : For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father;' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'
See the words "in the Gospel it is WRITTEN" ?
This is all clear and obvious evidence of written works called Gospels - NO NAMES given.
The Acts of Peter, 150-200CE :
And Peter entered into the dining-hall and saw that the Gospel was being read, and he rolled up the book[/b] and said: Ye men that believe and hope in Christ, learn in what manner the holy Scripture of our Lord ought to be declared: whereof we by his grace wrote that which we could receive, though yet it appear unto you feeble, yet according to our power, even that which can be endured to be borne by (or instilled into) human flesh.
See the words : "being read" ?
See the words : "rolled up the BOOK" ?
(This book being a scroll.)
This is obvious evidence of a WRITTEN Gospel - NO NAMES given.
The Treatise on the Resurrection, 170-200CE, 1 reference :
What, then, is the resurrection? It is always the disclosure of those who have risen. For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion.
See the words : " reading in the Gospel" ?
This is obvious evidence of a WRITTEN Gospel - NO NAME given.
Hegesippus Fragments, c. 170CE :
With show of reason could it be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father.
See the words : "the Scripture of the Gospels" ?
This is obvious evidence of a WRITTEN Gospel - NO NAMES given.
Sometime in the 170s it seems that Tatian collected the four MSS he inherited from Justin - called the memoirs of the apostles or "Gospels" into the "diaTessaron" ((a harmony) of Four)
Finally,
in the 180s, Irenaeus named the four accepted Gospels and gave reasons (bizarre ones) that there should be four.
In other words, the sequence went like so :
These anonymous works were only named one and a half centuries after the alleged events they describe.
They are myths, not history.
Iasion
Here is a chronology which helps to show how the Gospels grew from 1 single anonymous book into 4 named books (after the phase when "Gospel" just meant "the good news" i.e. "our teachings".)
This is a selection of references, there are quite a few more that flesh out this sequence, but these ones show the picture quite well.
The Epistle of the Apostles, 140-150CE :
The BOOK which Jesus Christ revealed unto his disciples: and how that Jesus Christ revealed the book for the company (college) of the apostles, the disciples of Jesus Christ, even the book which is for all men. Simon and Cerinthus, the false apostles, concerning whom it is written that no man shall cleave unto them, for there is in them deceit wherewith they bring men to destruction. (The book hath been written) that ye may be not flinch nor be troubled, and depart not from the word of the Gospel which ye have heard. Like as we heard it, we keep it in remembrance and have written it for the whole world.
See the word "book" ?
See the phrase "we .. have written it for the whole world" ?
This is obviously referring to a written Gospel, but gives NO NAMES.
Apology of Aristides, 138-161CE :
And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.
See the words "if you will READ there-in" ?
See the words "in the Gospel AS IT IS CALLED" ?
This is obvious evidence of a singular written work which is specifically named "The Gospel" - NO NAME given.
Furthermore, Aristides says this un-named Gospel was fairly NEW in the period 138-161 - clear evidence of the lateness of the Gospels.
Justin Martyr's 1st Apology, 150-160CE :
Ch. 66 : For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels...
See the word "composed" ?
See the words "called Gospels" ?
Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, 150-160CE, 3 references :
Ch. 100 : For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father;' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'
See the words "in the Gospel it is WRITTEN" ?
This is all clear and obvious evidence of written works called Gospels - NO NAMES given.
The Acts of Peter, 150-200CE :
And Peter entered into the dining-hall and saw that the Gospel was being read, and he rolled up the book[/b] and said: Ye men that believe and hope in Christ, learn in what manner the holy Scripture of our Lord ought to be declared: whereof we by his grace wrote that which we could receive, though yet it appear unto you feeble, yet according to our power, even that which can be endured to be borne by (or instilled into) human flesh.
See the words : "being read" ?
See the words : "rolled up the BOOK" ?
(This book being a scroll.)
This is obvious evidence of a WRITTEN Gospel - NO NAMES given.
The Treatise on the Resurrection, 170-200CE, 1 reference :
What, then, is the resurrection? It is always the disclosure of those who have risen. For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion.
See the words : " reading in the Gospel" ?
This is obvious evidence of a WRITTEN Gospel - NO NAME given.
Hegesippus Fragments, c. 170CE :
With show of reason could it be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father.
See the words : "the Scripture of the Gospels" ?
This is obvious evidence of a WRITTEN Gospel - NO NAMES given.
Sometime in the 170s it seems that Tatian collected the four MSS he inherited from Justin - called the memoirs of the apostles or "Gospels" into the "diaTessaron" ((a harmony) of Four)
Finally,
in the 180s, Irenaeus named the four accepted Gospels and gave reasons (bizarre ones) that there should be four.
In other words, the sequence went like so :
- 1st century - no Gospels known or mentioned
- early 2nd C. - some writings mentioned
- mid 2nd C. - some writings called "Gospels" mentioned
- later 2nd C. - Gospels collected into Four.
- late 2nd C. - Gospels finally named.
These anonymous works were only named one and a half centuries after the alleged events they describe.
They are myths, not history.
Iasion
Oh please ...
Greek myths and many other myth cycles are full of divine beings that die.
Such as, say, Attis.
Therefore, according to your argument, Attis was real.
What nonsense.
Iasion
Greetings,
It MAY have existed.
But no Christian shows any knowledge of it until mid 2nd C.
Why would that be ?
What period?
Paul is the first Christian writing.
There is nothing in Paul about any historical Jesus of Nazareth.
The early NT epistles are the same - no historical Jesus of Nazareth.
TWO DOZEN writings is a "few"?
Pardon?
The first TWO DOZEN books written by Christians do NOT mention any historical Jesus.
The next several DOZEN books are mostly arguments about whether Jesus came in the flesh or not.
Finally, those who say he did, won the argument.
After that, all the books agree he did. (Because the books that said he didn't were burned.)
What a surprise !
Iasion
It MAY have existed.
But no Christian shows any knowledge of it until mid 2nd C.
Why would that be ?
What period?
Paul is the first Christian writing.
There is nothing in Paul about any historical Jesus of Nazareth.
The early NT epistles are the same - no historical Jesus of Nazareth.
TWO DOZEN writings is a "few"?
Pardon?
The first TWO DOZEN books written by Christians do NOT mention any historical Jesus.
The next several DOZEN books are mostly arguments about whether Jesus came in the flesh or not.
Finally, those who say he did, won the argument.
After that, all the books agree he did. (Because the books that said he didn't were burned.)
What a surprise !
Iasion
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Well theres existence vs. non-existence on the one hand, and divine vs. human on the other.
Just because Christians viewed Jesus as divine (and human) doesnt nessecarily mean Jesus didnt exist as a living breathing human being...that walks and talks.
Paul writes in the very first chapter of Romans that Jesus "was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh"....descended from King David in other words, as was required of a Jewish messiah.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
I dont see two dozen (non-gospel) books in your chart, if you discount the writings of Paul, which were written either prior to Mark or around the same time.
Last edited:
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
There was no Gnostic Christianity at the time of Paul. It wasnt established in the literature until the 2-3rd century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
*************
M*W: No, those are two separate issues.
*************
M*W: Can you prove that Paul existed? Can you prove that Paul wrote what the bible says he wrote? I think not, but please prove me wrong!
*************
M*W: The gospels were written long after Paul's epistles. In fact, Paul's epistles influenced the gospels. Although I believe Paul didn't exist as the person the epistles claimed him to be, I believe he didn't exist at all nor did his epistles.
rjr6:
Says who exactly?
My statement reflected on the problems of using one source to validate itself and to take everything as true from that one source because that one source says it's true - and to that you come along and tell me he was a carpenter? I don't get it.
"Modest people"? The very first biblical mention of him is him being born to a virgin woman impregnated by god. None of that could lead us to the conclusion that jesus would belong in the category of "modest people" - whether this demi god took the role of carpenter, rabbi or Sky TV installation man. Further to which, it evades the point which is that just because this book says he was a carpenter, a son of god, a god himself, a miracle maker or anything else is not justification to say that the story is true in any way whatsoever. It cannot be considered an 'historical account'.
A compilation of stories, yes.
But to ascertain truth you cannot rely upon one story and consider it true because it says it is.
Maybe you misunderstood the statement of mine that you quoted. Here it is again:
"And there are far more times when these people must be questioned for giving over all reason for the sake of a story written by person or persons that you have never met, have no knowledge of about stories that you cannot in any way support, substantiate or corroborate - and your only claim comes from the basis that this one source says this, that and this. We know this must be true because this says so which is shown to be true because the next page says it is. It is ludicrous."
In there you'll find I dont mention anything about historical inconsistencies. What I was getting at is that any person with the ability to reason must understand that you cannot accept a story as true on the basis that it says it is. You cannot use one page of that story to validate another page.
Not that I ever used that 'line of reasoning' but hey, what can ya do..
Says who exactly?
My statement reflected on the problems of using one source to validate itself and to take everything as true from that one source because that one source says it's true - and to that you come along and tell me he was a carpenter? I don't get it.
"Modest people"? The very first biblical mention of him is him being born to a virgin woman impregnated by god. None of that could lead us to the conclusion that jesus would belong in the category of "modest people" - whether this demi god took the role of carpenter, rabbi or Sky TV installation man. Further to which, it evades the point which is that just because this book says he was a carpenter, a son of god, a god himself, a miracle maker or anything else is not justification to say that the story is true in any way whatsoever. It cannot be considered an 'historical account'.
A compilation of stories, yes.
But to ascertain truth you cannot rely upon one story and consider it true because it says it is.
Maybe you misunderstood the statement of mine that you quoted. Here it is again:
"And there are far more times when these people must be questioned for giving over all reason for the sake of a story written by person or persons that you have never met, have no knowledge of about stories that you cannot in any way support, substantiate or corroborate - and your only claim comes from the basis that this one source says this, that and this. We know this must be true because this says so which is shown to be true because the next page says it is. It is ludicrous."
In there you'll find I dont mention anything about historical inconsistencies. What I was getting at is that any person with the ability to reason must understand that you cannot accept a story as true on the basis that it says it is. You cannot use one page of that story to validate another page.
Not that I ever used that 'line of reasoning' but hey, what can ya do..
But you couldn't even see the chart had "Mark" in it, when it clearly did.
There IS about two dozen, my chart shows them, and I listed them above - but you can't see them either ?
Perhaps you should open your eyes and try reading that way.
And for some reason you want to exclude the writings of Paul - just to bring the count down it seems.
Iasion
I linked to a detailed essay which showed why I consider Paul a Gnostic.
You ignored that too.
Why bother posting?
For those who read with their eyes open, unlike Carcano,
here are some details about Paul and the Gnosis :
Most interesting indeed is the picture which emerges from the Gnostics - many of whom regard Paul as the founding Gnostic. Indeed, the first book from the Jung Codex is called The Prayer of the Apostle Paul, and Paul is cited often as a key founding Gnostic Father. These Gnostic books are full of Pauline exegesis, and also have much in common with the major pagan mystical work of the times, the Corpus Hermeticum.
Tertullian and Irenaeus, and the recently revealed Nag Hammadi Library, are the main sources of the Gnostic's viewpoint, which shows:
- The Valentinians claim their secret tradition is based on Paul's own Gnostic teaching '' they say that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas... a disciple of Paul ''- noting Paul's key phrase '' we speak wisdom among the telioi ''
- The Naassenes and Valentinians revere Paul as the Apostle who was a Gnostic Initiate. The Gnostic Library of Nag Hammadi contains key works attributed to Paul (e.g. Prayer of the Apostle Paul), many citing or alluding to him (The Epistle to Rheginos, Tripartite Tractate, Gospel of Philip, The Interpretation of the Gnosis)
- Ptolemy, Heracleon and Theodotus revere Paul as '' the apostle ''
- The Gnostics accuse the Anti-Gnostics of being unaware of the secret tradition, and of using the sources un-critically (i.e. not testing as Paul enjoined).
- Furthermore the Gnostics claim their opponents read the surface literal meaning of the teachings, without understanding the deeper meaning, which they understand through Paul's Gnosis and their initiation there-in.
- And they say they are following Paul's example when they offer gnosis to the initiates ''
- they also defend their libertarian approach by pointing to Paul's freedom from the law as expressed by 1 Cor 6:12e.g.
So, the Gnostics make a clear argument for a Gnostic Paul, and for the literalist Christians having missed the whole point - and the Gnostics were right at the centre of the Christian movement, only later are they seen as outsiders, e.g. Valentinus, (who claimed to have been personally initiated by one Theudas, an initiate of the Apostle Paul), was perhaps considered for Pope - many Christians followed Valentinus in his time.
Iasion
Wrong.
Early Christians saw Christ as a divine being, not a historical person.
I showed this with a great deal of evidnce, you ignored it.
I linked to a page which gave a detailed explanation of this.
You ignored it, like you ignored essentially all my evidence.
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp08.htm
I am sure readers will understand if I don't waste any more time on a long obsolete single-shot rifle.
Iasion
Greetings all,
Here is the list of earliest Christian writings
50s -
1 Thessalonians
1 Corinthians
2. Corinthians
Galatians
Romans
Phillipians
Philemon
70s
Hebrews
80s
Colossians
1 John
James
90s
Ephesians
2 Thessalonians
1 Peter
1 Clement
p.Egerton
Revelation
100s
Didakhe
Oxyrhynchus 124
Jude
110s
Barnabas
120s
2 John
3 John
Apocalypse of Peter
Secret Book of James
Preaching of Peter
130s
2 Peter
Timothy
1 Titus
2 Titus
Gospel of Peter
Shepherd of Hermas
That's the first 32 books of Christian writers, in order of writing as best we can determine.
That's well over two dozen of the earliest books with no clear mention of any historical Jesus.
Then, LATER, the Gospel stories arise.
After that, nearly EVERY Christian writing is full of the details of the life of Jesus.
And, knowledge of Jesus exactly follows knowledge of the Gospels.
In other words, no Christian, indeed no person at all, ever met any historical Jesus and recorded it.
No,
all we know about Jesus comes FROM the Gospels - anonymous myths.
I encourage readers to look at this chart (not like Carcano did - with his eyes closed) :
http://qdj.50megs.com/Table.html
Iasion
Last edited by a moderator:
So, in other words, Jesus allegedly died for the sins of mankind but not before he supposedly traveled the countryside performing magic; he was completely forgotten about for 70 - 100 years; and suddenly was remembered about again.
Nothing at all suspicious about this.
Nothing at all suspicious about this.
When he was born of a virgin -- Easy enuff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis
Actually Christ's supernatural existence was announced by angelic beings to both Joseph the father, and Mary the mother on separate occassions (when Jesus was conceived). King Herod got wind of it and wanted all children killed below the age of two in the town of Bethlehem. This is according to the bible, which is a dogmatic document either one accepts or rejects as devinely inspired revelation.
One of the most remarkable proofs of the christ account is the total absense of a counter-proof by the Jewish faith. If this was indeed a false account, if Christ was indeed a myth, then why didn't the jewish leaders put a fateful end to this new "blasphemous religion" that threatened their religious/political legacy. They sealed the tomb, but the truth got out.
Last edited:
Lots of great literary heroes prior to Jesus were born of virgins. Krishna, Mithras, Quetzalcoatl, Dionysus, Hertha, etc.
It makes sense that, if you're going to create a hero myth, you want to use familiar and accepted motifs.
It makes sense that, if you're going to create a hero myth, you want to use familiar and accepted motifs.
Greetings,
And WHEN did the first Christian mention the virgin birth?
Not until about 140 or so (epistle of the Apostles) or 150s (Justin.)
So,
how come none of the early Christians writers knew about the virgin birth?
The first FORTY books or so written by Christians over a period of more than a CENTURY - makes NO MENTION what-so-ever of the virgin birth.
Why is that?
Because the myth only formed long after any alleged events.
(By the way "Devine" is a wrestler, the correct word is "divine".)
Iasion
Greetings,
You must be joking?
The Temple was destroyed, Jerusalem was razed to the ground, the Jews were dispersed and very many killed, and Judea was erased from the map.
Then, centuries later, the Jews DO respond to the legends of Jesus.
The Talmud records all sorts of negative stuff about Jesus, including that he :
Iasion
And WHEN did the first Christian mention the virgin birth?
Not until about 140 or so (epistle of the Apostles) or 150s (Justin.)
So,
how come none of the early Christians writers knew about the virgin birth?
The first FORTY books or so written by Christians over a period of more than a CENTURY - makes NO MENTION what-so-ever of the virgin birth.
Why is that?
Because the myth only formed long after any alleged events.
(By the way "Devine" is a wrestler, the correct word is "divine".)
Iasion
Greetings,
You must be joking?
The Temple was destroyed, Jerusalem was razed to the ground, the Jews were dispersed and very many killed, and Judea was erased from the map.
Then, centuries later, the Jews DO respond to the legends of Jesus.
The Talmud records all sorts of negative stuff about Jesus, including that he :
- was a black magician
- stole magic from Egypt
- was a bastard son of a Roman soldier Pantera
- was conceived during menstruation
- had 5 disciples
- was stoned to death in Lydda
- and hung on a tree
Iasion
Last edited by a moderator:
Nope, I'm not kidding. They had their chance, and so did atheists. Looks like your side failed. I guess atheism just doesn't excite anybody.
Actually Isaiah mentioned it first in the OT.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Last edited by a moderator:
So, you agree that Jesus :
* was a black magician
* stole magic from Egypt
* was a bastard son of a Roman soldier Pantera
* was conceived during menstruation
* had 5 disciples
* was stoned to death in Lydda
* and hung on a tree
Hmm?
What "side" ?
I am not an atheist.
You seem to think this is something like a football game.
You just preach for your side, but ignore all the evidence that shows you are wrong.
Iasion
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
It has nothing to do with bringing the count down, it has to do with the fact that Paul wrote prior to Mark, or around same time...so its not surprising that this gospel wouldnt be mentioned.
And even if that wasnt the case, it certainly wouldnt prove that the gospel of Mark didnt exist.
So without the writings of Paul there are very few non-gospel texts included on your chart.
Wrong again.
Isaiah has a story about a MAIDEN ('almah', not a virgin 'bethulah') who will not give birth until after King Ahaz enemies' are beaten.
Sure enough, the King's enemies are beaten, then his wife does give birth, as predicted to Ahaz. There is nothing what-so-ever in the story to suggest it is prophecy.
Christians falsely translate the Hebrew and lift this passage totally out of context to try and make a case. My guess is Woody has never ever read this story in full - he just copied that tiny out-of-context phrase from other Christians.
If Woody ever did read the whole story in Isaiah he would see the story ends with the child BORN - no prophecy there at all.
I encourage readers to actually READ the whole story, from several translations :
It does NOT say "virgin" in modern translations.
It is NOT a prophecy.
It is NOTHING to do with Jesus.
It is a totally false and dishonest reading of the OT.
(Note that Woody conspicuously avoids the actual issue I raised - why the first FORTY books of Christians have NO MENTION of the virgin birth story. Because it's obvious why - it was added to the myths much later.)
Iasion