Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-25-2019 5:15 AM
22 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (2 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,386 Year: 15,422/19,786 Month: 2,145/3,058 Week: 3/516 Day: 3/31 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
107108109110111
112
Author Topic:   Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12699
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1666 of 1677 (848386)
02-04-2019 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1662 by AZPaul3
02-03-2019 3:17 PM


Im a lover not a fighter
AZPaul3 writes:

I hope this starts a fight.


Here at EvC we are all too punchdrunk to do any real damage. Seems we are now merely regurgitating old arguments that we never either settle or concede.

Which reminds me...I had to work yesterday so I need to go to YouTube and view the 2019 super bowl commercials. Shows me the ideology of corporate America writ large.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1662 by AZPaul3, posted 02-03-2019 3:17 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1668 by AZPaul3, posted 02-04-2019 9:48 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6499
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1667 of 1677 (848387)
02-04-2019 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1665 by Thugpreacha
02-04-2019 8:41 AM


Re: Reinventing The Wheel
I don't care about the beliefs. I care about the historical facts. I find it very interesting that people put so much credence in a book of unknown provenance, questionable authors and no corroborating historical evidence to back up it's central premise. Paul(whoever he was) was speaking of a celestial Jesus, that is obvious. I think he, and the group he was speaking for would be very surprised and dismayed by the whole gospel rigmarole that has been pinned to the mystery cult of Jesus that they were advocating.
A very good peer-reviewed but readable book on this subject is Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt

As I have been saying since I first started on this forum, if anyone can present me with independent, contemporary, corroborating evidence for the historical existence of the Jesus Christ character, I would consider it. The only evidence presented is based upon the bible itself. There is non evidence. As I have no belief in the supernatural, I cannot accept it on faith alone. There needs to be verifiable evidence. Someone show it. I will consider it.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1665 by Thugpreacha, posted 02-04-2019 8:41 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4432
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1668 of 1677 (848388)
02-04-2019 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1666 by Thugpreacha
02-04-2019 8:50 AM


Re: Im a lover not a fighter
Seems we are now merely regurgitating old arguments that we never either settle or concede.

But if we try hard there could be a good fight.

... view the 2019 super bowl commercials.

Some funny, some innovative, some with social messages.

Best impact: Washington Post: Democracy Dies in Darkness


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1666 by Thugpreacha, posted 02-04-2019 8:50 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1670 by Theodoric, posted 02-04-2019 9:58 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6499
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1669 of 1677 (848389)
02-04-2019 9:57 AM


Quick lesson in posting replies
The purpose of this site is to have vigorous, honest debate. There is a small subset that like to use if for proselytizing, bullying, shaming and to make themselves feel good about themselves.
I find those that knowingly engage in logical fallacies the most irritating. We have a prime example on this thread. This is the text from the first post of mine LNA responded to.
Theodoric writes:

The fact is there is no independent corroborating historical evidence of the existence of a Jesus Christ outside of the bible. All future mentions of this character are tied the gospels. Nowhere else in the historical record does this person exist. The character is as much a myth as Prester John and William Tell.
Even Paul does not seem to have known anything about a historical Jesus. Then again why would he know anything about the gospels as his writings(or maybe more accurately, the writings attributed to him) were written decades before the gospels.
If a document is to be accepted as legitimate historically, then the provenance of the document must be verified. Not only can the provenance of the gospels not be verified, there is no evidence of who even authored them. The conflicts and inconsistencies between them show that nothing in them can be relied on as being factual.

If you look at his reponses they are riddled with strawman arguments. He has attempted to shift the argument completely off of my the post he originally replied to. At times has even misrepresented what I have posted. He follows with a gish gallop of information that is not pertinent to the argument at hand.
If you want to have a successful, informative debate with someone, stick to the subject and drop the logical fallacies.

Here is my favorite link for a quick tutorial on logical fallacies.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Now back to my original point on this thread.
The fact is there is no contemporary, independent corroborating historical evidence of the existence of a Jesus Christ outside of the bible.
If there is someone should present it. You can quit wasting your time LNA. What you have presented is neither contemporary or independent. If you want to start a thread on the vileness of the mythicists, you should do that. I want to talk real facts and evidence.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


Replies to this message:
 Message 1672 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-04-2019 11:09 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6499
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1670 of 1677 (848390)
02-04-2019 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1668 by AZPaul3
02-04-2019 9:48 AM


Re: Im a lover not a fighter
If the post really cared they would have spent the millions hiring journalists.
Just my cynical self.
It was a good ad.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1668 by AZPaul3, posted 02-04-2019 9:48 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17168
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1671 of 1677 (848393)
02-04-2019 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1665 by Thugpreacha
02-04-2019 8:41 AM


Re: Reinventing The Wheel
Phat writes:

Kapyong seems to have been quite a character.


A couple of weeks ago, I came across Kapyong on another forum. I thought I remembered the name and the topic was similar.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1665 by Thugpreacha, posted 02-04-2019 8:41 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1520
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 1672 of 1677 (848416)
02-04-2019 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1669 by Theodoric
02-04-2019 9:57 AM


Theodoric's "Quick lesson in posting replies" = no actual evidence counts
Theodoric states:
quote:

Now back to my original point on this thread.
The fact is there is no contemporary, independent corroborating historical evidence of the existence of a Jesus Christ outside of the bible.
If there is someone should present it. You can quit wasting your time LNA. What you have presented is neither contemporary or independent. If you want to start a thread on the vileness of the mythicists, you should do that. I want to talk real facts and evidence.

Carrier, Doherty, Wells, Price all have different ways of dismissing Paul's reference, in Galatians 4:4 to Jesus being "born of a woman". (the poster you referenced, kept making the point that Mary and Joseph, as well as Nazareth, aren't mentioned in any letters of Paul)

Price says Paul never existed, so that takes care of that.

The various theories involved later Christian textual tampering (Roman Catholic tampering is even specified by one Christ Myther), or claiming it is a pure allegory with no actual intention of historical implication.

CHRIST MYTHER GALATIANS 4:4 CONCLUSION:

The evidence does not count.

(I am guilty of a "logical fallacy" if I say that the lack of mention of the virgin birth in Paul's letters solidifies accepting the Galatians 4:4 text as original, so I better not dare to use more evidence that does not count)

NOW THE (non-Biblical) HISTORICAL EVIDENCE.

It should be pointed out that the actual evidence doesn't count: it never does to Christ Mythers.

Sticking with Mary:

Here is first century (or slightly after 100) evidence (that does not count).

quote:

Between Heaven and Hell: The Historical Jesus
By Dean R. Eyerly

p.66

Mary, mother of Jesus, was born in the city of Sepphoris, which is nestled in the hills four miles southeast of Nazareth. Mary's parents, Joachim and Anna, were direct descendents of King David, with bloodline ties to the priestly lineage descended from Aaron as recorded in the early second century gospel called the Protoevangelium of James as well as in the third century Bodmer Papyrus.

p.67

The name Panthera itself appears toward the end of the first century when prominent rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus related the teaching told to him by a Galilean follower of Jesus named Jacob of Sikhnin from the city of Sepphoris, [Christian] teaching in the name of Jesus son of Panteri" as found in the Palestinian Tosephta, Babylonian Talmud, and Midrash.


Paul mentions a female mother (not that it counts as evidence, but it was written around the mid to late 50s), but I suppose Mary was invented later (in the Gospels like Mark and Matthew from 65-90).The Gospel text only "counts" as evidence, to Christ Mythers, in that its shows us that Paul was speaking of a cosmic Jesus because he never heard of Mary (in fact, Christ Mythers say he never heard of a female mother period).

The second century pagan philosopher Celsus said Mary, mother of Jesus, was seduced by a Pantera.

Schiffman is a leading scholar of Judaism and the period around the time of Jesus.

quote:

Who was a Jew?: Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish Christian ...
By Lawrence H. Schiffman

[Tractate Hullin 2:24]

p.71

Once I was walking in the street of Sepphoris. I chanced upon Jacob of Kefar Sikhnin, and he said a word of minut in the name of Yeshua ben Pantira (Jesus), and it gave me pleasure ... I was arrested on charges of minut

....

p.72

Rabbi Eliezer is arrested for minut. From the continuation of the story it is certain that he was accused of Jewish Christianity during the rule of Trajan by the Roman authorities who were at the time persecuting Jewish Christians. Indeed, this event must have occured in 109 C.E. at the same time as the crucifixion of the Bishop of Jerusalem reported by Eusebius.

An examination of the legal details of the story leads to the conclusion that the setting of the trial as it appears here is historical.


The Jewish Christians rejected the virgin birth.

Here is the orthodox apologist Irenaeus, writing 180:

quote:

Adversus Haereses (Book I, Chapter 26)

Those who are called Ebionites ... They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.

Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 21)

God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] "Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son," Isaiah 7:14 as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God.

Adversus Haereses (Book V, Chapter 1)

Vain also are the Ebionites, who do not receive by faith into their soul the union of God and man, but who remain in the old leaven of [the natural] birth, and who do not choose to understand that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, and the power of the Most High did overshadow her.


(ignoring Josephus for now)

The extra-Biblical, non-Christian evidence seems to indicate that sometime between 85 and 110, there were Jewish Christian followers of Jesus who felt Jesus had a natural earthly birth. And they lived in the Galilee. They might not have been influenced by the written Gospels (at least not like the ones we know of today) either. It seems that early Jewish Christians possibly identified Jesus with Pantera, as opposed to (Mary's legitimate husband) Joseph. Though the illegitimate Jesus might have eventually become swept away in favor of a legitimate birth to Mary with her husband Joseph.

Theodoric will get mad at any historical evidence that he does not like.

Theodoric:

quote:

If you look at his reponses they are riddled with strawman arguments. He has attempted to shift the argument completely off of my the post he originally replied to. At times has even misrepresented what I have posted. He follows with a gish gallop of information that is not pertinent to the argument at hand.
If you want to have a successful, informative debate with someone, stick to the subject and drop the logical fallacies.

Actually, this type of information is "pertinent" to the issue.

You just want it swept under the rug and dismissed out of hand.

You want to promote this "cosmic Jesus" theory, which suggests that Paul and all of the early Christians did not imagine an earthly Jesus (unless you say they were outright fraudulent and were just out to collect money for themselves?).

You dismiss evidence. Every text Christ Mythers don't like was "tampered with by Christians".

The truth to what I just said it so obvious. How else could you object to such MINOR Biblical passages (Galatians 4:4) or historical citations (like Josephus' Antiquities Book 20 "brother of Jesus called Christ), as if they were somehow controversial? You have to think that there was some big issue/debate, in the first several centuries of our era, about Jesus being historical to even entertain such notions. Otherwise, there is very little text critical reason to even raise a doubt.

The rabbinical literature will be dismissed out of hand too. Even though the historical background to the situation, of Jewish Christians still identifying Jesus as a son of Panthera, during the severing of ties with their non-Christian Jewish brethren, seems highly likely to be solid as a rock (in fact the entire T. Hullin 2:24 story seems like IT WAS AN ACTUAL EVENT).

The fact that the Rabbinical Jewish community severed ties, around 80 A.D., to Jewish Christians that believed Jesus had a natural birth, indicates a much longer relationship previously. One that stretches back BEFORE the writing of earliest Gospel (Mark) the Jesus Mythers like to claim was an invention to "make Jesus human".

It is hard to read Mark without feeling that Jesus' family didn't see him as some GOD-MAN (a Gospel that lacks the virgin birth but has his small town seem to be lacking any big expectations of his theological activities), and the Jesus Mythers say it was a novelty to oppose the early Christian view that Jesus (Paul's and every other early Christian's Jesus) was some unhistorical or ahistorical cosmic creature.

All of the references in the EvC link, of Theodoric, were using links to and arguments from the Christ Mythers (Doherty, Price, Carrier). They will endlessly dismiss - previously uncontroversial - lines in Biblical texts and early non-Christian historical works. Why? To fit their theories.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1669 by Theodoric, posted 02-04-2019 9:57 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1520
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1673 of 1677 (848861)
02-16-2019 9:48 PM


(Post #1) Response to Kapyong in closed thread.
First his post 70

quote:

Notably Paul, (like all the 1st century writings), show NO mention of a historical Jesus of Nazareth as found in the Gospels - there is no 1st century mention of any of these major elements of the Gospel story -
* Joseph and Mary and Bethlehem and Nazareth,
* the birth stories, the Magi, the Star, the flight to Egypt,
* Herod and the massacre of the infants,
* John the Baptist or the baptism in the Jordan,
* the trial before Pilate (and Herod?),
* the raising of Lazarus or any miracles of Jesus,
* the cleansing of the temple, the trumphal entry,
* the Sermon on the Mount or any teachings by Jesus,
* the passion of Jesus, or the transfiguration,
* Peter the rock and "the keys",
* the denial by Peter, or betrayal by Judas,
* the empty tomb !!
None of those key events or actors are mentioned even once by 1st century Christian writers.


Several issues (2 concerns for sure)

(concern one is his basic claim about the first century texts)

(He is wrong when he mentions "the Sermon on the Mount or any teachings by Jesus")

There are three texts of interest.

1 Barnabas

2 1 Clement (aka Clement of Rome)

3 Didache

(also Ignatius)

CLEMENT OF ROME'S EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS (1 CLEMENT)

1 Clement was traditionally dated to 95, and it probably is, ironically, LATE FIRST CENTURY, because of the scarce (and complicated) Jesus quotes.

Helmut Koester is, ironically, the only scholar who states that every quote of Jesus is from ORAL TRADITION, and not the written Gospel of Matthew. One disputed verse in 1 Clement is the QUOTE of Sermon On The Mount material.

Here is the Loeb Classical Library quotation. (then I will get to Koester)

quote:

THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY
(Ed. J. HENDERSON)

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS I
LCL 24

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS I CLEMENT, II CLEMENT, IGNATIUS , POLYCARP, DIDACHE

EDITED AND TRANSLATED
BY
BART D. EHRMAN

HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS
CAMBRIDGE,MASSACHUSETTS
LONDON, ENGLAND
2003

Copyright 2003 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY is a registered trademark of the President and Fellows of Harvard College

pp.32-34

We should especially remember the words the Lord Jesus spoke when teaching about gentleness and patience. 2. For he said: "Show mercy, that you may be shown mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven you. As you do, so it will be [32] done to you; as you give, so it will be given to you; as you judge, so you will be judged; as you show kindness, so will kindness be shown to you; the amount you dispense will be the amount you receive." 3. Let us strengthen one an­ other in this commandment and these demands, so that we may forge ahead, obedient to his words (which are well suited for holiness) and humble-minded. For the holy word says, 4. "Upon whom will I look, but upon the one who is meek and mild and who trembles at my sayings?" [33]

....

33 Matt 5:7; 6:14-15; 7:1-2, 12; Luke 6:31, 3 6 - 3 8 . 34 Isa 66:2.


Now the dating issues.

quote:

The Second Century
A Journal of Early Christian Studies
WINTER 1992
Volume 9 Number 4

p.197
The Gospel of Matthew in the Second Century
Arthur J. Bellinzoni

p.201
1 Clement was probably written in Rome sometime between 90-100. Koester dates it in 96-97. [7]
….
[7] Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, Volume II, History and Literature of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982) 288.
….
p.201
Massaux identifies direct influence of Matthew on 1 Clement in six passages…
p.202
….
Koester argues that only two sayings of Jesus are found in 1 Clement (1 Clem. 13:1-2; 46:7-8)…
….
Koester finds no literary relationship between this passage and Mt. 5:7, for the passage in 1 Clem. 13:2 is shorter and more precise than the synoptic parallels and seems earlier, like a first step in the development of the saying. He suggests that 1 Clem. 13:2 can be traced back to a stage in the tradition that lies behind our synoptic gospels. Koester also argues that the saying in 1 Clem. 46:8 shows no knowledge of the form found in the synoptic gospels, but rather reproduces a variant of the text that shows a special relationship with what he calls “the Q-form” of this logion, handed down in Mt. 18:6-7 and Lk. 17:1-2.
The result of Koester’s investigation is to conclude that 1 Clement never refers to a written gospel. Even if he did use one, it never functioned for [p.203] him with the authority of scripture. The only authority that 1 Clement recognized apart from the Old Testament is “What the Lord said.”
….
p.202
…Kohler (pp.60-66) adopts a position close to that of Massaux. With respect to 1 Clement, Kohler identifies as passages that are probably dependent on Matthew: 1 Clem. 16.17; 24.5; and 46.8.
……………


Steve Mason said this:

quote:

Early Christian Reader

p.694
Relation to Other Early Christian Texts
The author assembles example after example of proper respect for leadership and authority. The main source of his examples is the Septuagint, from which he often quotes long passages. Although he is at home in the Septuagint, and quotes from it far more extensively than any other first-century Christian author, the author is heavily influenced by the new Christian writings of the first century as well.

....

p.695

He explicitly refers to Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, and cites it often-an effective strategy….He knows Paul’s Letter to the Romans (as might be expected of someone writing from Rome). Somewhat more surprisingly, he knows Ephesians and perhaps 1 Peter. But Hebrews seems to have informed Clement’s language the most.
….
Further, Clement uses synoptic like material about Jesus. This raises questions about the spread and impact of the Synoptic Gospels themselves and the continuing influence of oral tradition on the early church. Oral tradition, rather than the written Synoptics, may be the source of most of Clement’s Jesus material.
….
p.701
….
13:2 Citations by Clement are often very loose. Here it is difficult to determine whether Clement was quoting a written gospel (Matt. 5:7; 6:14; 7:1-2; Luke 6:31, 36-38) or oral tradition.


Clement of Rome seems to be a first-century Christian author.

Even Koester says so.

Ulrich Luz is one of the leading scholars in the world.

quote:

Ulrich Luz Matthew 1-7
Continental Commentary
p.46
2. THE SOURCES

The two-source hypothesis is the basis for this commentary. To question this hypothesis is to refute a large part of the post-1945 redaction-critical research in the Synoptics, a truly daring undertaking which seems to me to be neither necessary nor possible.

The Sayings Source (Q)

We make the following assumptions concerning the Sayings Source: it was a written document: that seems to be certain… But it circulated in different recensions, whereby QMt is closer to the “common” form than the version of the Sayings Source used by Luke, which was most likely enlarged substantially. …The so-called “final redaction” of Q has to be distinguished fundamentally from the redaction of the Synoptics. …Paleographically one might assume: the collection of Q material was a rather large notebook, bound together [p.47] with strings on the margin. It permitted an insertion of new leaves at any time. The Gospel of Mark, however, was a solidly bound codex and therefore a literary work which for this reason continued to be handed down even after its expansion by Matthew.
….

p.47
In my opinion, there is only one problem that poses serious difficulties for the two-source [p.48] hypothesis. It consists in the minor agreements between Matthew and Luke. They are numerous and in many places not even “minor.” But it is my view that the minor agreements do not necessitate a basic revision of the two-source hypothesis. …we should also seriously consider that there could have been slightly differing versions of Mark. …It seems to me that Matthew and Luke made use of a recension of Mark which in a number of points is secondary to our Mark.
….
p.92

At least, the Gospel of Matthew was most definitely used there [Antioch] shortly after 100 by Ignatius.
….
p.92
So much is disputed that I must limit myself to presenting my view as a thesis, [p.93] which is closer to Massaux than to Koester. In the Didache the Matthew redaction is presupposed without doubt. … Unfortunately, the Didache cannot be dated precisely.

While Ignatius is not primarily influenced by the Gospel of Matthew, there are indications he knew it, for there are passages which presuppose the Matthean redaction (Smyrn. 1:1 = Matt. 3:15, cf. Phld. 3:1 =Matt. 15:13). Polycarp certainly knew Matthew in his (2d) letter(Pol. 2:3 = Matt. 7:1f.; 5:3,6,10; Pol. 7:2 = Matt. 6:13; 26:41). But since the date is uncertain, we can only safely say that Matthew was perhaps known in Smyrna c. 115. It is conceivable to me that there are contacts between Barnabas and Matthew…The same applies to 1 Clement (cf. especially 1 Clem. 24:5 with Matt. 13:3-9 and 1 Clem. 46:6-8 with Matt. 18:6f.).Thus it is possible that Matthew was known in Rome before 100...


Probably dates before 100.

quote:

The Identity of the New Testament Text
Revised Edition
Pickering

p.100

Clement of Rome, whose first letter to the Corinthians is usually dated about 96 A.D., made liberal use of Scripture, appealing to its authority, and used New Testament material right alongside Old Testament material. Clement quoted Ps. 118:18 and Heb. 12:6 side by side as “the holy word” (56:3-4). He ascribes 1 Corinthians to the “blessed Paul the apostle” and says of it, “with true inspiration he wrote to you” (47:1-3). He clearly quotes from Hebrews, 1 Corinthians and Romans and possibly from Matthew, Acts, Titus, James, and 1 Peter. Here is the bishop of Rome, before the close of the first century, writing an official letter to the church at Corinth wherein a selection of New Testament books are recognized and declared by Episcopal authority to be Scripture, including Hebrews.


Probably before 100.

Either Clement of Rome ( 1 Clement) was just starting to quote Matthew or he was still drawing on oral Jesus teachings.

Perhaps there were sayings documents in Greek taken from the Gospel of the Hebrews?

We know that the Rabbinical literature has references, and ARAMAIC QUOTES of Sermon On The Mount teachings and it was called EVANGELION (Gospel!)

The fact that it is DIFFICULT to see if the Sermon On The Mount QUOTATION is from Matthew or not is further evidence that I Clement is late first-century.

(The letters of Paul were beginning to be quoted too)

BARNABAS

quote:

The Identity of the New Testament Text
Revised Edition
Pickering

The Epistle of Barnabas, variously dated from A.D. 70 to 135, says in 4:14, “let us be careful lest, as it is written, it should be found with us that ‘many are called but few are chosen.’” The reference seems to be Matt. 22:14 (or 20:16) and the phrase “as it is written” may fairly be taken as a technical expression referring to Scripture. In 5:9 there is a quote from Matt. 9:13 (or Mark 2:17 or Luke 5:32). In 13:7 there is a loose quote from Rom. 4:11-12, which words are put in God’s mouth. Similarly, in 15:4 we find:

Note, children, what “he ended in six days” means.
It meansthis: that the Lord will make an end of everything in six thousand years, for a day with Him means a thousand years. And He Himself is my witness, saying: “Behold, the day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years.”

The author, whoever he was, is clearly claiming divine authority for this quote which appears to be from 2 Pet 3:8. In other words, 2 Peter is here regarded to be Scripture, as well as Matthew and Romans. Barnabas also has possible allusions to [102] 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter.


The scholarly journal on Masseaux and Koester:

quote:

The Second Century
A Journal of Early Christian Studies
WINTER 1992
Volume 9 Number 4

p.209
The Epistle of Barnabas
….
Massaux dates Barnabas at the same time as 1 Clement, i.e. at the end of the first century. …in his Introduction Koester dates Barnabas about 100. The truth of the matter is that we know nothing about the author of Barnabas, its place of writing, or its time of composition.


Steve Mason

quote:

Early Christian Reader
Steve Mason

p.655

Since 16:3-5 presupposes that the temple is in ruins, Barnabas was most probably written sometime between Titus’s destruction of the temple in 70 C.E. and Hadrians building of a Roman temple on the site in about 135 C.E. Barnabas 4.4-5 [p.656] and 16.1-5 do not provide enough clues to narrow the time frame further. The letter uses traditions from several generations.

p.657

Barnabas 4.14 appears to quote Matt. 22:14. Otherwise, there is no clear evidence that the author knew any NT writings. Even in the case of Barn. 4.14, Helmut Koester has argued that the author may be quoting a saying of Jesus (or an unknown pre-Christian source), which he has mistakenly attributed to Jewish scripture. Like other early church writings, Barnabas appears not to be dependent on written gospels but to stand near them in a living oral tradition.


The fact that Gospels aren't being quoted in loads means it could be early.

Koester and Masseaux both date it 100.

DIDACHE

The leading journal shows us the views of Koester and Masseaux

quote:

The Second Century

p.204

Didache
Based on what he assumes is Didache’s use of the “Two Ways” tradition in The Epistle of Barnabas, Massaux argues that the Didache should be dated sometime after 150. In his Synoptische Uberlieferung, Koester seems to agree on a relatively later dating for the Didache, although in his Introduction he located the writing in Syria sometime toward the end of the first century.
….
[ Synoptische Uberlieferung is a 1957 work by Koester Introduction is 1982]

p.205
Koester’s conclusions with respect to the Didache are quite different. He acknowledges that Did. 1:3ff contains sayings that go back to Matthew and Luke, but they are not the result of a direct use of the written gospels but come rather from ready-made sayings collections. …It appears that the compiler of the Didache knew a written gospel, but he apparently did not use it himself. …Koester continues by arguing that the Didache establishes the existence of the synoptic gospels, but certainly not their value as authoritative sources of what the Lord said and what his community was ordered to do. …Koester argues that the Didache establishes that written gospels came into use in the first half of the second century, but certainly as sources among many others without special authority to be used for the production of collections of sayings of the Lord.
….


The critical scholar Koester says the Didache is evidence for written Gospels.

Koester dates the Didache before 100!

quote:

The Identity of the New Testament Text
Revised Edition
Pickering

p.103

Two other early works, the Didache and the letter to Diognetus, employ New Testament writings as being authoritative but without expressly calling them Scripture.
The Didache apparently quotes from Matthew, Luke, 1 Corinthians, Hebrews, and 1 Peter and has possible allusions to Acts, Romans, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Revelation.
The letter to Diognetus quotes from Acts, 1 and 2 Corinthians while alluding to Mark, John, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, and 1 John.


Loeb

quote:

THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY
(Ed. J. HENDERSON)
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS I
LCL 24

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS I CLEMENT, II CLEMENT, IGNATIUS , POLYCARP, DIDACHE

EDITED AND TRANSLATED
BY
BART D. EHRMAN

p.410

As to the date of the Didachist himself, opinions again vary, but most would put the time of his composition sometime around the year 100, possibly a decade or so later.

....

p. 416

The teaching of the Lord through the twelve apostles to the Gentiles [Or: nations]. 1 There are two paths, one of life and one of death, and the difference between the two paths is great. 2. This then is the path of life. First, love the God who made you, and second, your neighbor as yourself. And whatever you do not want to happen to you, do not do to another. 3. This is the teaching relating to these matters: Bless those who curse you, pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you. For why is it so great to love those who love you? Do the Gentiles not do this as well? But you should love those who hate you —then you will 1

Matt 22:37-39; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; Deut 6:5; Lev 19:18. 2Cf. Matt 7:12; Luke 6:31. 3 Cf. Matt 5:44, 46-47; Luke 6:28, 3 2 - 3 3 , 35.

....

p.418

have no enemy. 4. Abstain from fleshly passions. If anyone slaps your right cheek, turn the other to him as well, and you will be perfect. I f anyone compels you to go one mile, go with him two. I f anyone takes your cloak, give him your shirt as well. If anyone seizes what is yours, do not ask for it back, for you will not be able to get it. 5. Give to everyone who asks, and do not ask for anything back. For the Father wants everyone to be given something from the gracious gifts he himself provides. How fortunate is the one who gives according to the commandment, for he is without fault. Woe to the one who receives. For if anyone receives because he is in need, he is without fault. But the one who receives without a need will have to testify why he received what he did, and for what purpose. And he will be thrown in prison and interrogated about what he did; and he will not get out until he pays back every last cent. 6. For it has also been said concerning this: "Let your gift to charity sweat in your hands until you know to whom to give it." 5

2 And now the second commandment of the teaching. 2. Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not engage in pederasty, do not engage in sexual immorality. Do not steal, do not practice magic, do not use enchanted potions, do not abort a fetus or kill a child that is born.

....

4 1 Pet 2:11. 5 Matt 5:39. 6 Matt 5:48. 7 Matt 4:41, 40; Luke 6:29-30. 8 Luke 6:30. 9 c f . Matt 5:26; Luke 12:59. Source unknown. The following passage elabo­rates Exod 20:13-17; cf. Matt 19:18; 5:33. 1 0

....

p.427

DIDACHE 8

7 But with respect to baptism, baptize as follows. Having said all these things in advance, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. 2. But if you do not have running water, baptize in some other water. And if you cannot baptize in cold water, use warm. 3. But if you have neither, pour water on the head three times in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. 4. But both the one baptizing and the one being baptized should fast before the baptism, along with some others if they can. But command the one being baptized to fast one or two days in advance. 16

And do not keep your fasts with the hypocrites. For they fast on Monday and Thursday; but you should fast on Wednesday and Friday. 2. Nor should you pray like the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in his gospel, you should pray as follows: "Our Father in heaven, may your name be kept holy, may your kingdom come, may your will be done on earth as in heaven. Give us today our daily bread [Or: the bread that we need; or: our bread for tomorrow]. And forgive us our debt, as we forgive our debtors. And do not bring us into temptation but deliver us from the evil one [Or: from evil]. For the power and 18

16 Matt 28:19. 18 Cf. Matt 6:5. 9


Will continue later

But there are 3 texts that Koester dates before 100 A.D.

Ignatius is dated slightly after, but has important Jesus stories from Matthew.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 1676 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2019 10:53 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1520
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1674 of 1677 (848862)
02-16-2019 11:07 PM


(Post #2) Response to Kapyong in closed thread.
Ignatius, the Orthodox European Bishop of Smyrna is seen by many Jesus Myth followers to have been a fictional character.

I don't think he was, and the reason is that his quotations (from his 107-108 CE or 115-117 CE letters) seem to fit in with what we would expect from the period.

Written Gospels were being increasingly used. (But it is STILL, in 110 A.D., a challenge for scholars to know what exactly was quoted: Oral bits, pre-Gospel material, or the extant Greek Gospels)

The Pastoral Letters were probably already written, but it is still difficult to know if they are alluded to.

quote:

Loeb

p.296

TO THE SMYRNEANS

1 I give glory to Jesus Christ, the God who has made you so wise. For I know that you have been made complete in a faith that cannot be moved—as if you were nailed to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ in both flesh and spirit—and that you have been established in love by the blood of Christ. For you are fully convinced about our Lord, that he was truly from the family of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born from a virgin, and baptized by John that all righteous­ness might be fulfilled by him. 2. In the time of Pontius Pilate and the tetrarch Herod, he was truly nailed for us in the flesh—we ourselves come from the fruit of his di­vinely blessed suffering—so that through his resurrection he might eternally lift up the standard for his holy and faithful ones, whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of his church. 25

2 For he suffered all these things for our sake, that we might be saved; and he truly suffered, just as he also truly raised himself—not as some unbelievers say, that he suffered only in appearance. They are the ones who are only an ap­pearance; and it will happen to them just as they think, since they are without bodies, like the daimons.

25 Cf. Matt 3:15.

....

p.298

3 For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection. 2. And when he came to those who were with Peter, he said to them, "Reach out, touch me and see that I am not a bodiless daimon." And immediately they touched him and believed, having been intermixed with his flesh and spirit. For this reason they also despised death, for they were found to be beyond death. 3. And after his resurrection he ate and drank with them as a fleshly being, even though he was spiritually united with the Father. 26

4 I am advising you about these things, beloved, even though I know that you already agree. But I am guarding you ahead of time from the wild beasts in human form. Not only should you refrain from welcoming such people, if possible you should not even meet with them. Instead pray for them that they might somehow repent, though even this is difficult. But Jesus Christ, our true life, has authority over this. 2. For if these things were accomplished by our Lord only in appearance, I also am in chains only in ap­pearance. But why then have I handed myself over to death, to fire, to the sword, to wild beasts? But to be near the sword is to be near God, to be in the presence of the wild beasts is to be in the presence of God—so long as it is

26 Cf. Luke 24:39.


Then the journal that covered the debate between Masseaux and Koester

quote:

The Second Century
A Journal of Early Christian Studies
WINTER 1992
Volume 9 Number 4
p.193

p.206
Ignatius of Antioch
The letters of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in Syria, were written sometime between 110-117 (the last years of Trajan’s reign)…

p.207

Koester’s analysis of many of these same texts yields quite different results. According to him, there is no citation drawn positively from the synoptic gospels. The similarity between Smyrn 1:1 and Mt. 3:13ff. Is, in his judgment, probably best accounted for not on the basis of a familiarity with the text of Matthew, but rather because the seemingly Matthean turn of the phrase in the context of Jesus’ baptism (“in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him”) may be the result of an Antiochian rather than a peculiarly Matthean “revision.”


Steve Mason:

quote:

Early Christian Reader

p.718

Although the letters themselves offer no clue about their date, and it is not possible to tie Ignatius to a specific persecution, most agree that they were written in the first or second decade of the second century. Eusebius places Ignatius’s martyrdom at 107-108 C.E., in the tenth year of the reign of the emperor Trajan, and the legendary accounts of the martyrdom of Ignatius agree.
….
Ignatius’s arrest was tied to Emperor Trajan’s visit to Antioch during an expedition against the Parthians. Such expeditions are dated to 107 and 116, with dispute about further engagements.
….


quote:

The Identity of the New Testament Text
Revised Edition
Pickering

p.101

The seven letters of Ignatius (c. 110 A.D.) contain probable allusions to Matthew, John, Romans, 1 Corinthians and Ephesians (in his own letter to the Ephesians Ignatius says they are all mentioned in “all the epistles of Paul”-a bit of hyperbole, but he was clearly aware of the Pauline corpus), and possible allusions to Luke, Acts, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus, but very few are clear quotations and even they are not identified as such.


Here was the introcuction to the Bellinzoni article that I have been quoting from The Second Century.

It shows that the views of Masseaux, which see the early Christian non-Biblical texts strongly showing evidence of quoting WRITTEN GOSPELS, are generally supported by the leading scholars.

Koester has radical views (seeing almost everything as referencing oral Pre-Gospel traditions and such type of MATERIAL)

quote:

The Second Century
A Journal of Early Christian Studies
WINTER 1992
Volume 9 Number 4
p.193
Preface
William R. Farmer
…Bellinzoni, a student of Helmut Koester at Harvard University…is presently engaged in editing the English translation of Edouard Massaux’s Influence de l’Evangile de saint Matthieu. Sur la literature chretienne avant saint Irenee, 1950. Reprinted with additional bibliographical entries, and with a new “Preface” by Frans Neirynck, Massaux’s work re-emerged in 1986 to present a critical challenge to Koester’s 1957 Synoptische Uberlieferung bei den apostolischen Vatern. Bellinzoni’s English edition of Massaux’s work is based on the original French text reprinted in 1986, but also includes the updated bibliographical material and the new “Preface” by Neirynck from the second printing. More important, however, the English edition includes certain “Addenda” prepared by Bellinzoni himself, in addition to his own “Preface to the English Translation.” Both the new “Preface” by Neirynck and Bellinzoni’s “Preface to the English Translation,” juxtapose the work of Koester to that of Massaux. This sets the terms for a forthcoming critical debate that overshadows all contemporary discussion of the topic, “The Gospel of Matthew in the Second Century.”
….

p.194
The English edition of Massaux’s work, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature Before Saint Irenaeus, is being published by Mercer University Press in three separate volumes. The first volume, containing Bellinzoni’s “Preface” and three of his “Addenda” did not appear until 1991.

….

Bellinzoni’s “Addenda seem to present prima facie evidence to support Massaux against Koester. In my opinion, it is a sign of Bellinzoni’s scholarly objectivity that he would voluntarily bring forth these “Addenda” when we realize that he believed that his teacher’s work, … “supersedes” that of Massaux precisely in the case of the writers most centrally concerned in the debate, i.e., the Apostolic Fathers, including 1 Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius. Bellinzoni’s “Addenda” clearly appear to work against this conclusion, and that must be borne in mind as we shape the agenda for future discussion.

Bellinzoni’s “Addenda” summarize the findings of Koester, Wolf-Dietrich Kohler, and Biblia Patristica regarding the use of Matthew by 1 Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius. (See Added Note below). The results underscore Professor Ulrich Luz’s judgment set forth in Das Evangelium nach Matthaus, 1985, pp. 75-76, that the relevant evidence supports conclusions that are nearer to those of Massaux than to those of Koester. Frans Neirynck, in his new “Preface” to Massaux, 1986, cites the relevant passage from Luz as well as texts from Wolf-Dietrich Kohler (a student of Luz) and Klaus Wengst, both of whom reach conclusions nearer to those of Massaux than Koester. …

….

p.195

Added Note

See Wolf-Dietrich Kohler, Die Rezeption des Mattausevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenaus, WUNT 2/24 (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1987), and Biblia Patristica: Index des Citations et Allusions bibliques dans la literature patristique, des origines a Clement d’Alexandrie etTertullien, Vol. I (Paris, 1975) 223-93. Bellinzoni’s “Addenda” are found on pp. 58, 83-84, and 121-122 of The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature Before Saint Irenaeus, Book I, The First Ecclesiastical Writers, by Edouard Massaux, translated by Norman J. Beval and Susan Hecht, edited with an introduction and addenda by Arthus J. Bellinzoni (Louvain: Peeters and Macon: Mercer University Press, 1990). Based on the data reported in these addenda, my summary observations are three in number: (1) Against Koester’s conclusion that “I Clement never refers to a written Gospel, Kohler and Biblia Patristica agree in finding several possible allusions and three possible citations of Matthew”, but Massaux’s use of “demonstrate” for the degree of proof rendered by his three passages in support of literary dependence is stronger than the [p.196] findings of Kohler and Biblia Patristica will support. (2) In relation to Koester’s conclusion, “that Barnabas used the Gospel of Matthew simply cannot be proved,” Kohler and Biblia Patristica agree in finding several possible illusions and as many as three quite possible citations of Matthew by Barnabas. Their findings agree with Massaux that there is evidence for literary dependence at certain points, one of which turns on The Source question. (3) In relation to Koester’s conclusion that “There is no positive citation of Matthew (by Ignatius), Kohler’s and Biblia Patristica’s findings agree in showing that there is “probable” evidence of citation. Other writings treated by Koester, including 2 Clement and Polycarp, are treated by Massaux in Vol. II of the English edition, which is due to appear in July, 1992. The Didache, another book treated by Koester, is treated by Massaux in Vol. III of the English edition. This is to appear in September, 1992.

….

p.195

It is within the context of this on-going critical discussion that Bellinzoni’s paper ad the responces by Everding, Nardoni, and Farkasfalvy take on a certain relevance, more apparent today perhaps than at the time of the Symposium itself. The issues have been given a certain prominence by subsequent public announcements made to the media by representatives of the “Jesus Seminar” and the “Claremont ’Q’ Project,” Professors Robert Funk and James Robinson, respectively. On the one hand, if Koester’s conclusions are more probably correct, the whole critical movement of Walter Bauer, James Robinson, Helmut Koester, the “Jesus Seminar,” and the “Claremont ’Q’ Project” is lent significant credibility. On the other hand, if Massaux’s conclusions are more probably correct, this influential movement is correspondingly denied a significant measure of credibility, and a very different picture of Christian origins begins to take shape.

A careful reading of this set of papers will set to underscore the somewhat chaotic and frustrating state of much of contemporary critical work on the Gospel of Matthew and its influence on the shaping of early Christianity… …on-going scholarly research and its publication by responsible peer-reviewed journals and university-related presses, is a sine qua non for all responsible parties interested in the advance of this scholarly discussion.

….


Here is one of the Masseaux-leaning scholars:

quote:

Ulrich Luz
Matthew 1-7
Continental Commentary

p.46
2. THE SOURCES

The two-source hypothesis is the basis for this commentary. To question this hypothesis is to refute a large part of the post-1945 redaction-critical research in the Synoptics, a truly daring undertaking which seems to me to be neither necessary nor possible.

The Sayings Source (Q)

We make the following assumptions concerning the Sayings Source: it was a written document: that seems to be certain… But it circulated in different recensions, whereby QMt is closer to the “common” form than the version of the Sayings Source used by Luke, which was most likely enlarged substantially. …The so-called “final redaction” of Q has to be distinguished fundamentally from the redaction of the Synoptics. …Paleographically one might assume: the collection of Q material was a rather large notebook, bound together [p.47] with strings on the margin. It permitted an insertion of new leaves at any time. The Gospel of Mark, however, was a solidly bound codex and therefore a literary work which for this reason continued to be handed down even after its expansion by Matthew.

….

p.47

In my opinion, there is only one problem that poses serious difficulties for the two-source [p.48] hypothesis. It consists in the minor agreements between Matthew and Luke. They are numerous and in many places not even “minor.” But it is my view that the minor agreements do not necessitate a basic revision of the two-source hypothesis. …we should also seriously consider that there could have been slightly differing versions of Mark. …It seems to me that Matthew and Luke made use of a recension of Mark which in a number of points is secondary to our Mark.
….

p.92

At least, the Gospel of Matthew was most definitely used there [Antioch-mlm] shortly after 100 by Ignatius.
….
p.92
So much is disputed that I must limit myself to presenting my view as a thesis, [p.93] which is closer to Massaux than to Koester. In the Didache the Matthew redaction is presupposed without doubt. … Unfortunately, the Didache cannot be dated precisely.

While Ignatius is not primarily influenced by the Gospel of Matthew, there are indications he knew it, for there are passages which presuppose the Matthean redaction (Smyrn. 1:1 = Matt. 3:15, cf. Phld. 3:1 =Matt. 15:13). Polycarp certainly knew Matthew in his (2d) letter(Pol. 2:3 = Matt. 7:1f.; 5:3,6,10; Pol. 7:2 = Matt. 6:13; 26:41). But since the date is uncertain, we can only safely say that Matthew was perhaps known in Smyrna c. 115. It is conceivable to me that there are contacts between Barnabas and Matthew…The same applies to 1 Clement (cf. especially 1 Clem. 24:5 with Matt. 13:3-9 and 1 Clem. 46:6-8 with Matt. 18:6f.).Thus it is possible that Matthew was known in Rome before 100...


This is certainly not a 1st century text.

(I Clement probably dates around 95)

Clement of Rome's authentic (I Clement) Epistle to the Corinthians has Sermon on the Mount material (in Greek).

Rabbinical Jewish writings have ARAMAIC text called EVANGELION (Gospel) which talks about an actual book with Sermon on the Mount quotations (Matthew 5:17-18), and it seems to refer to an incident around 80 A.D. (based on the important Jewish characters in the episode)

Kapyong is wrong to say there are no documents from the first century.

Ignatius' quotations fit in with the standard scholarly construction of the development of the textual radiation.

(And the increasing number of Pauline Epistle quotes and/or allusions, as seen from the modest collection in 1 Clement to the much larger references in Ignatius, tells us much more)

(The Early Church Fathers evidence is solid proof that Paul's Letters were written a good chunk of time earlier than the Gospels, because they were clearly available in collections to be quoted, though, AGAIN, Clement did not have a whole lot in his first century time & place.)


    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1520
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1675 of 1677 (848863)
02-16-2019 11:48 PM


(Post #3) Response to Kapyong in closed thread.
I will quote from post 183.

quote:

The Gospels were originally anonymous, we have no idea who really wrote them.

G.Mark was first - it was written probably in Rome by someone who had never even been to Palestine.

G.Luke and G.Matthew copied G.Mark wholesale - hardly the act of an eye-witness.


Glad to see that the Greek Matthew is seen to be partly based on Mark.

So a multi-step process can help us date the Gospels.

1 Clement, Didache, and Barnabas could all three date before 100 (most would say only Clement Of Rome dates before 100), and between the three of them, we can say Matthew was quoted 100 A.D.

(Ignatius might be relevant if the earlier 107 dates is correct, but it is not too important here)

So (Greek) Matthew existed by 90, if a 100 CE text quoted it.

But the (Greek) Matthew existing requires Mark to be earlier

Mark existed by 80 then.

But the 100 A.D. Christian documents had larger numbers of Epistles of Paul quotations, so the Epistles clearly existed earlier than written Gospels (especially Greek Matthew, but also Mark)

Additionally, Paul knows of no written Greek Gospels, as Kapyong will powerfully tell us.

In fact, there doesn't seem to be any real interest in Paul's part on any pre-Gospel (soon to be in Mark) Markan material that circulated decades before the actual Gospel of Mark. He just didn't accept the (during his time) traditions that would eventually lead to the Mark Gospel.

(Kapyong and Jesus Mythers will say there were no HUMAN Jesus traditions during the time of Paul's life anyway)

Paul could not have written later than the 70s, based on the external (non-Biblical)evidence alone.

Clearly earlier than Mark which was written no later than 80.

Paul died from 65 to 68 according to tradition, and when one reads his letters, it is obvious he wrote them over a span of time, not all at once.

Paul references James, "brother", of Jesus ("The Lord") in Galatians.

Here is scholarship on the Josephus Antiquities Book XX "brother of Jesus called Christ:

quote:

The New Complete Works of Josephus
Translated by William Whiston
Commentary by Paul L. Maier
(1999 Kregel: Grand Rapids, MI)
p.662
Josephus’s second reference to Jesus in connection with the death of his half-brother James (20:200) shows no tampering whatever and is present in all Josephus manuscripts. Had there been [p.663] Christian interpolation, more material would doubtless have been presented than this brief, passing notice. James would likely have been wreathed in laudatory language and styled “the brother of the Lord,” as the New Testament defines him rather than, as Josephus, “the brother of Jesus.” Nor could the New Testament have served as Josephus’s source since it provides no detail on James’s death. For Josephus to further define Jesus as the one “who was called the Christos” was both credible and necessary in view of the twenty other Jesuses he cites in his works. In fact, the very high priest who succeeded Ananus, who instigated the death of James, was Jesus, son of Damneus.

Accordingly, most scholars now concur with ranking Josephus authority Louis H. Feldman in his notation in the Loeb edition of Josephus: “…few have doubted the genuineness of this passage [20:200] on James” (Louis H. Feldman, tr., Josephus, IX [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965], 496)


So we have a non-Biblical passage that helps us connect the dots.

We don't even need Paul's letters to see James (brother of Jesus) likely existed during the middle-third part of the first century.

We don't need Paul's letters to see Jesus existed as a man.

But Paul tells us be was born of a woman, Galatians 4:4.

Here is Kapyong's special pleading

From post 183:

quote:

Consider the famous passage "born of woman".

Now,
HOW MANY humans have been "born of woman" ?
i.e. HOW MANY humans were NOT "born of woman".

Obviously, every single human being in history was "born of woman".

So,
to describve someone as "born of woman" is like saying :
"he breathed air" - its OBVIOUS.

So,
the only reason someone would say Christ was "born of woman" would be if this would NOT be a natural conclusion - i.e. Paul cannot be referring to a normal human being.

Paul is reffering to a being like found in the Ascension of Isaiah, or someone like Attis, or Osiris - a SPIRITUAL BEING.


This bizarre (especially when reading Paul's entire text and other texts) logic is not only the most extreme special pleading one can find, it is not even original.

quote:

And Doherty certainly could emphasize even more than he already does how bizarre it is for Paul to say "born of a woman" about someone everyone already took for granted had parents. Are we to imagine that this was in doubt, so that Paul had to remind his parishioners of the obvious fact that men have mothers? In light of this, and the fact that Paul himself provides support for the alternative Doherty offers, Doherty's reading still fits the facts at least as well as a historicist reading. But he hasn't made the case for this that he could have.

https://infidels.org/...ern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html


Jesus seems to have been seen as a pre-existing angel (perhaps even divine to the point of being equal with God) by Paul.

Why would Paul not mention that he was born a human?

But, if it is so unlikely that Paul would (according to the plain reading of the text) say a human was born of a human mother (in the same text he had a "brother" named James), then let's consider ourselves fortunate he did the "unlikely" act of telling us so.

Paul said Jesus was "born of a woman" so that proves he was not actually a human born from a female human?

It at least is not odd.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6499
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1676 of 1677 (848872)
02-17-2019 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1673 by LamarkNewAge
02-16-2019 9:48 PM


Re: (Post #1) Response to Kapyong in closed thread.
Clement does not mention anything historical of Jesus and does not mention the Sermon on the Mount story. He shows no knowledge of the gospels.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1673 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-16-2019 9:48 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1677 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2019 9:55 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6499
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1677 of 1677 (848903)
02-18-2019 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1676 by Theodoric
02-17-2019 10:53 AM


Clement I may be much earlier
As Clement shows no awareness of any of the gospel fables and mentions that Paul and Peter are recently deceased, there is a possibility that it is much earlier than 95 CE. Some scholars, for example Carrier, give it a possible date as early as 60 CE. That does not help the historicity of the Jesus character though. Clement says nothing that supports that he thought Jesus was a flesh and blood human. We also have the problem of actual attribution to Clement and who he actually was other than church tradition and conflicting accounts.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1676 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2019 10:53 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
107108109110111
112
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019