Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

  • Thread starter Codebreaker@bigsecret.com
  • Start date
On 16 Feb 2007 11:34:31 -0800, in alt.atheism
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
<1171654471.205453.30150@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 16, 1:52 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
>wrote:
>> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>> > On Feb 15, 2:01 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>>
>> >>>On Feb 14, 11:20 am, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>"codebrea...@bigsecret.com" <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote innews:1171458165.012872.319100@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >>>>>On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>On 13 Feb 2007 20:59:03 -0800, "Snowman" <jkel...@zoomnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>On Feb 12, 3:06 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
>> >>>>>>>--
>> >>>>>>>Try showing that site to an actual historian.
>> >>>>>>>See how hard you get laughed at.
>>
>> >>>>>>Try finding a real historian who can provide any evidence outside the
>> >>>>>>Christian tradition to corroborate Christian claims of an historic
>> >>>>>>Jesus.
>>
>> >>>>>There would not be Christians without Christ/Messiah
>>
>> >>>>There would be no Christians without the religion, which is a BELIEF in
>> >>>>Christ/Messiah myth.
>>
>> >>>>>And since it is prophecised that in this world Christ
>> >>>>>would be born, then Christ was born in the form of Jesus.
>>
>> >>>>Circular argument. See if you can find evidence of an historic Jesus
>> >>>>outside of the bible or the religion.
>>
>> >>>I don't think this is what evidence means. It is like asking
>> >>>If we can find a record of Darwin of evolution outside the
>> >>>Origin of the species by Darwin...
>> >>>Yours is indeed a circular reasoning.
>>
>> >>===>That is STUPID!
>>
>> >>We know Darwin WROTE that book, we have his PICTURES,
>> >>even pictures of his father and sister.
>>
>> > YOU KNOW IT FROM WHO? NOT FROM DARWIN HIMSELF.
>> > You have his picture? How do you know If it is Darwin?
>> > Did you meet him in person before.
>> > You see again, somewhere you decide to trust someone who
>> > reported who Darwin was and wrote. We all depend
>> > on hearsay
>>
>> ===>What inane questions you hide behind!
>> Only an idiot would think there is any comparison between
>> evidence for Darwin and evidence for "Jesus". -- L.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Of course there is no comparison at all

We agree on that.

>Christ was foretold, Darwin not

There is no evidence that He was foretold.

>Christ resurrected, Darwin not

There is no evidence that He resurrected.

>Christ ascended in heaven, Darwin not

There is no evidence that He ascended.

>Christ open the gate of after life, Darwin can't even help himself

There no evidence for any afterlife.

>Christ will come again to judge Darwin, Darwin won't judge nobody

There is no evidence that there will be a judgement.

>The last word belong to Christ and not to Darwin

There is no evidence that any of your claims are related to reality.
 
codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> On Feb 15, 1:57 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> wrote:
>
>>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>On 13 Feb 2007 20:59:03 -0800, "Snowman" <jkel...@zoomnet.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Feb 12, 3:06 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
>>>>>--
>>>>>Try showing that site to an actual historian.
>>>>>See how hard you get laughed at.
>>
>>>>Try finding a real historian who can provide any evidence outside the
>>>>Christian tradition to corroborate Christian claims of an historic
>>>>Jesus.
>>
>>> There would not be Christians without Christ/Messiah
>>> And since it is prophecised that in this world Christ
>>> would be born,
>>
>>===>NOWHERE is any such thing "prophecised". -- L.
>>
>>then Christ was born in the form of Jesus.
>
>
> You are such a prentious little asshole...
> Are you a Scibe versed in Moses Law? No
> Are you a Doctor of the Law? No
> Now you may think that anybody who can read and write
> should give his opnion on what the Law of Moses says
> and that opinion should become authoritative, it ain't so,
> Otherwise the whole Israel should turn into the
> land of lawyers and Scribes.
> The same way people are trained to explain the American
> Constitution, the same way there were people in Israel
> trained to read the Law of Moses and interprete it.
> You are not ONE of them, so why should I care about
> your PRIVATE OPINION.
> You are not a good Historian either, otherwise you would
> have baked your opinion up with something authorritative from the
> distant
> past. I went back 2000 years in time and quoted what
> Paul said about Deuteronomy 18:15 and how it applied to
> Jesus,


===>So, what?
Rabbi Akiba declared it was Bar Kochba!
Flavius Josephus dclared it was the Roman Emperor Vespasian!

In fact there never was and never will be any such person.

Your attempted historicizing is just pure nonsense.
Ridiculous.

I also quoted the Qur'an to support my opinion.

===>The Qur'an?

===>In fact Muslims claim that passage refers to MOHAMMED!
"From amongst their brethren" refers to the Ishmaelites.

You pile one laughable argumant on top of another.

> Apparently If you were a good historian you should do the same.
> Go back to first Century Jerusalem and quote a Scribe or
> a doctor of the Mosaic Law who ever said that Deuteronomy
> 18:15 never was about a Messiah/Christ, therefore the Apostle
> cheated.

===>That is very easy.
"The traditional Jewish interpretation is that
While, on the surface, Deuteronomy 18:9-22 might appear to be speaking
about a prophet, in reality it concerns the establishment of the Office
of the Prophet, a position filled by 50 Jewish prophets after Moses.
The Office of the Prophet is established via the expression "all that I
shall command him". If, for the sake of argument, one were to assume
that the prophet being described here is to be only one special future
prophet, then it follows that all prophets who came after Moses, except
for Moses and this particular prophet, were false prophets. And, one
must not ignore the warning found in Deuteronomy 18:20 concerning the
fate of a false prophet. This is, of course, absurd
 
totally discreditiung himself,
codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

[SNIPALOT]
>
>
> How do you decide this is credible and this is not?
> Just because something meets your fantazy does not make it credible.

That is EXACTLY what "codebreaker" is doing, but unfortunately
he's too blinded by doctrinal prejudice to begin to think and
realize he's talking about himself and his kind.

However, he must be warned:

THINKING CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR FAITH! -- L.
 
codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> On Feb 15, 8:12 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> wrote:
>
>>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 15, 2:01 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Feb 14, 11:20 am, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>"codebrea...@bigsecret.com" <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote innews:1171458165.012872.319100@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>>>>>On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>On 13 Feb 2007 20:59:03 -0800, "Snowman" <jkel...@zoomnet.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>On Feb 12, 3:06 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
>>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>>Try showing that site to an actual historian.
>>>>>>>>>See how hard you get laughed at.
>>
>>>>>>>>Try finding a real historian who can provide any evidence outside the
>>>>>>>>Christian tradition to corroborate Christian claims of an historic
>>>>>>>>Jesus.
>>
>>>>>>>There would not be Christians without Christ/Messiah
>>
>>>>>>There would be no Christians without the religion, which is a BELIEF in
>>>>>>Christ/Messiah myth.
>>
>>>>>>>And since it is prophecised that in this world Christ
>>>>>>>would be born, then Christ was born in the form of Jesus.
>>
>>>>>>Circular argument. See if you can find evidence of an historic Jesus
>>>>>>outside of the bible or the religion.
>>
>>>>>I don't think this is what evidence means. It is like asking
>>>>>If we can find a record of Darwin of evolution outside the
>>>>>Origin of the species by Darwin...
>>>>>Yours is indeed a circular reasoning.
>>
>>>>===>That is STUPID!
>>
>>>>We know Darwin WROTE that book, we have his PICTURES,
>>>>even pictures of his father and sister.
>>
>>>>The stories (Gospels) about "Christ" are pure fiction
>>>>written by some unknown Christian authors. -- L.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>Let us wait 2000 years later and see If his books, his sisters, father
>>>existence would not be questioned.
>>
>>===>What an inane response!
>
>
> Hey Historian, post your source from a first century Jerusalem
> authority
> who ever questioned Jesus existence.

===>No one in the first century ever heard of the "Jesus"
character of Gospel fiction.

> The Talmud did not question it. It had interest in doing so.
> The Jewish Council of Jamnia did not question it.
> It had interst in doing so.

===>They only made fun of the ridiculous claims of
the Pauline Christos Cult.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing"
"we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles
foolishness"

In fact it was pure craziness to all thinking, intelligent, educated
people since the first century!

THINKING CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR FAITH! -- L.
 
codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> On Feb 15, 8:19 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> wrote:
>
>>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 15, 1:57 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>On 13 Feb 2007 20:59:03 -0800, "Snowman" <jkel...@zoomnet.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>On Feb 12, 3:06 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>Try showing that site to an actual historian.
>>>>>>>See how hard you get laughed at.
>>
>>>>>>Try finding a real historian who can provide any evidence outside the
>>>>>>Christian tradition to corroborate Christian claims of an historic
>>>>>>Jesus.
>>
>>>>> There would not be Christians without Christ/Messiah
>>>>> And since it is prophecised that in this world Christ
>>>>> would be born,
>>
>>>>===>NOWHERE is any such thing "prophecised". -- L.
>>
>>>>then Christ was born in the form of Jesus.
>>
>>>I will believe that If the Jewish Council Of Jamnia claimed it.
>>>They are the gardiens and authority on this Jewish Scriptures.
>>>And since their goal was to stop the spread of Christianity,
>>>the system of belief grounded on Christ/Messiah, since their
>>>agenda was to stop it, "Moses never said such thing"
>>>would have been easier for them.
>>
>>===>Is it that much easier for you to just LIE than to tell
>>us WHERE "it is prophecised that in this world Christ
>>would be born"? -- L.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> You are not a good historian. You take your opinion as history.
> I quoted text from first century Christians. You quoted nothing
> to support your view.
> What is the official opinion of the children of Israel
> on Jesus?
> If you say he was a prophet. My question is this?
> Why do you think they accepted a list of prophets
> like a Isaiah, Jeremy, Daniel, Habbakuk, Zakkariah and j'en passe
> and even compiled their books into a canonical writing, yet rejected
> Jesus?

===>Because ther was no such person. -- L.
 
codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> On Feb 15, 10:16 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>Why do you think they accepted a list of prophets
>>>like a Isaiah, Jeremy, Daniel, Habbakuk, Zakkariah and j'en passe
>>>and even compiled their books into a canonical writing, yet rejected
>>>Jesus?
>>>What rational explanation can you come up with?
>>
>>He didn't exist.
>
>
> How do you insult someone who never existed.
> Read the Talmud in its pages where Jesus and his mother are
> mentioned. It is even stupid to get angry at something which
> not real.

===>The Pauline Christos Cult was ridiculed.
"we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles
foolishness".
And that was before they began to claim there was a real PERSON who
was that "Christos". -- L.
 
Jeckyl wrote:

>>You are such a prentious little asshole...
>
>
> Charming.
>
>
>>The same way people are trained to explain the American
>>Constitution, the same way there were people in Israel
>>trained to read the Law of Moses and interprete it.
>>You are not ONE of them, so why should I care about
>>your PRIVATE OPINION.
>
>
> So are you saying that the Jewish faith recognises Jesus as the messiah ?
>
>
>>You are not a good Historian either
>
>
> You ceratinly aren't .. you've not given one single bit of historial
> evidence. Only hearsay from people who never new jesus when he was
> supposedly alive.
>
>
>>Go back to first Century Jerusalem and quote a Scribe or
>>a doctor of the Mosaic Law who ever said that Deuteronomy
>>18:15 never was about a Messiah/Christ
>
>
> Whether or not the Jews where expecting a promised messiah is beside the
> point. The issue is whether jesus was that messiah. The old testament and
> jewish scripture do not say that.
>
>
>>Do you think that being historian mean reading the works
>>by some Historians?
>>Being historian means being able to investigate and find the cause
>>and effect.
>
>
> Exactly .. obviosuly not something you have done, otherwise you would cite
> the credible contemporary evidence of Jesus existence.
>
>
>>Hey it looks like History does not support your viewpoint.
>
>
> It certainly does not support yours.
>
>
>>JESUS IS THE CHRIST, NO JESUS, NO CHRIST
>
>
> Shame that.
>
===>In fact the Gospel writers invented "Jesus" to strengthen
the Pauline claims about "Christ".

It is as if some new sect decided it was Don Quixote.
No Don Quixote, No Christ. -- L.
 
Jeckyl wrote:

>>None of the Apostles contemporaries ever question Jesus existence.
>
>
> That shows a lack of critical thinking on their part.
>
> Of course, they didn't have the standard of historical evidence we have now,
> nor the tools to research it. So one really can't blame them for accepting
> what was told to them.
>
===>Thsoe "Apostles" are ALSO fictional characters, just like
the main protagonist "Jesus". -- L.
 
codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> On Feb 16, 1:52 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> wrote:
>
>>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 15, 2:01 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Feb 14, 11:20 am, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>"codebrea...@bigsecret.com" <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote innews:1171458165.012872.319100@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>>>>>On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>On 13 Feb 2007 20:59:03 -0800, "Snowman" <jkel...@zoomnet.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>On Feb 12, 3:06 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
>>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>>Try showing that site to an actual historian.
>>>>>>>>>See how hard you get laughed at.
>>
>>>>>>>>Try finding a real historian who can provide any evidence outside the
>>>>>>>>Christian tradition to corroborate Christian claims of an historic
>>>>>>>>Jesus.
>>
>>>>>>>There would not be Christians without Christ/Messiah
>>
>>>>>>There would be no Christians without the religion, which is a BELIEF in
>>>>>>Christ/Messiah myth.
>>
>>>>>>>And since it is prophecised that in this world Christ
>>>>>>>would be born, then Christ was born in the form of Jesus.
>>
>>>>>>Circular argument. See if you can find evidence of an historic Jesus
>>>>>>outside of the bible or the religion.
>>
>>>>>I don't think this is what evidence means. It is like asking
>>>>>If we can find a record of Darwin of evolution outside the
>>>>>Origin of the species by Darwin...
>>>>>Yours is indeed a circular reasoning.
>>
>>>>===>That is STUPID!
>>
>>>>We know Darwin WROTE that book, we have his PICTURES,
>>>>even pictures of his father and sister.
>>
>>>YOU KNOW IT FROM WHO? NOT FROM DARWIN HIMSELF.
>>>You have his picture? How do you know If it is Darwin?
>>>Did you meet him in person before.
>>>You see again, somewhere you decide to trust someone who
>>>reported who Darwin was and wrote. We all depend
>>>on hearsay
>>
>>===>What inane questions you hide behind!
>>Only an idiot would think there is any comparison between
>>evidence for Darwin and evidence for "Jesus". -- L.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Of course there is no comparison at all
> Christ was foretold, Darwin not
> Christ resurrected, Darwin not
> Christ ascended in heaven, Darwin not
> Christ open the gate of after life, Darwin can't even help himself
> Christ will come again to judge Darwin, Darwin won't judge nobody
> The last word belong to Christ and not to Darwin

===>EXACTLY.
CHRIST is Fantasy/FICTION.
DARWIN not.

Thanks for the list. -- L.
>
>
 
> How do you know it is his? Someone claimed it
> How do you know it is ORIGINAL ? Someone told you so
> You had no way to know
> and this take us back to where we were. It take a trust
> in someone no matter what to believe something. We all depends
> on hearsay.
> Don't get confused. Hearsay can be done in writing.
> The claim that something is written down therefore it is not
> a hearsay is bogus. Now If you can believe all that Hoopla
> about Darwin, why do you demand a different standard for Jesus
> and his trusted apostles?

Your lack of knowledge on what constitutes historical evidence is appalling,
and your ramblings here are a nonsense. You think that trying to discredit
viable evidence for Darwin somehow makes up for the lack of credible
contemporary historical evidence for Jesus. . On the contrary, it highlights
it, and makes you look foolish in the process.
 
>> > Did you ever meet Darwin in person? No
>> > Where you there when he was writing? No
>> That doesn't matter .. its not required to be credibel historical
>> evidence.
> So why you keep claiming that since Luke never met Jesus therefore
> His report is not reliable

Exactly.

One doesn't personally have to have met every historical figure, but one
does require evidence form those who had met him, or were contemporary with
him and wrote about him, or evidence in the forms of artifacts or works
written by that person.

Nothing like that exists for Jesus.
 
>> Its called doing research. You shoul try it sometime. There is credible
> "Searching when you know nothing is like trying to sort weed from
> scratch when you don't even know what the scratch is made of."

Ok .. so then research would be pointless for you.
 
> Christ was foretold, Darwin not

A crist was foretold.. There is nothing to suggest that that is jesus (if he
existed)

> Christ resurrected, Darwin not

What does that have to do with whether he existed .. irrelevant

> Christ ascended in heaven, Darwin not

What does that have to do with whether he existed .. irrelevant

> Christ open the gate of after life, Darwin can't even help himself

What does that have to do with whether he existed .. irrelevant

> Christ will come again to judge Darwin, Darwin won't judge nobody

What does that have to do with whether he existed .. irrelevant

> The last word belong to Christ and not to Darwin

What does that have to do with whether he existed .. irrelevant

Look like your floundering to find any relevant arguments at all, and
instead resort ot religious dogma as some sort of proof.
 
> ===>Thsoe "Apostles" are ALSO fictional characters, just like
> the main protagonist "Jesus". -- L.

I must disagree there .. there is real historical evidence for the existence
of the apostles, just as there is for John the Baptist.

One may not agree with their teaching, or claim that they had no basis in
fact, but claiming those particular figures did not exist is not justified.

To do so gives a point of attack to people like codebreaker who will then
start quoting evidence for the existence of the apostles, and then conclude
(illogically) that if you were wrong about the Apostle, you were wrong about
Jesus. I don't think you want to give him any more ammunition for his
baseless claims.
 
Jeckyl wrote:
>>===>Thsoe "Apostles" are ALSO fictional characters, just like
>>the main protagonist "Jesus". -- L.
>
>
> I must disagree there .. there is real historical evidence for the existence
> of the apostles, just as there is for John the Baptist.

===>Really?
Would you please cite some reference to your "evidence"??? -- L.
 
>> I must disagree there .. there is real historical evidence for the
>> existence of the apostles, just as there is for John the Baptist.
> ===>Really?
> Would you please cite some reference to your "evidence"??? -- L.

I'll see if I can find some for you. But I don't have time now .. spent
enough time on this newsgroup for today :0

If I don't reply in the next day or two, please post again to remind me.
 
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote
> Jeckyl wrote:
>>>===>Thsoe "Apostles" are ALSO fictional characters, just like the main
>>>protagonist "Jesus". -- L.
>>
>>
>> I must disagree there .. there is real historical evidence for
>> the existence of the apostles, just as there is for John the
>> Baptist.
>
> ===>Really?
> Would you please cite some reference to your "evidence"???
> -- L.

Early Christianity was not big enough to draw the attention of many people,
so we shouldn't expect much historical evidence for any of the apostle.
After Acts 1, most of the apostles are never heard of again anyway.

The letters of Paul appear to be historically accurate, therefore we can
safely assume that he lived. Those letters confirm the existence of an
early church in Jerusalem, and in Galatians 1:18 Paul says that he went to
Jerusalem "to visit Cephas and get information from him." From further
references in 1 Colossians 9:10 and 15:5 it is reasonable to assume that
"Cephas" is a reference to the apostle Peter.

Unfortunately, we can't do better than that. Papias is often cited, but
historically, he is unreliable.

--Wax
 
After serious contemplation, on or about Saturday 17 February 2007 3:15
am weatherwax perhaps from weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:

>
> "Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote
>> Jeckyl wrote:
>>>>===>Thsoe "Apostles" are ALSO fictional characters, just like the
>>>>main protagonist "Jesus". -- L.
>>>
>>>
>>> I must disagree there .. there is real historical evidence for
>>> the existence of the apostles, just as there is for John the
>>> Baptist.
>>
>> ===>Really?
>> Would you please cite some reference to your "evidence"???
>> -- L.
>
> Early Christianity was not big enough to draw the attention of many
> people, so we shouldn't expect much historical evidence for any of the
> apostle. After Acts 1, most of the apostles are never heard of again
> anyway.
>
> The letters of Paul appear to be historically accurate,
>

History in Paul's letters is virtually nonexistant.

> therefore we
> can
> safely assume that he lived.

You are assuming too much. There is no evidence that Paul existed. And
there is only one part of a sentence in the whole of the letters
considered authentic Pauline that even begins to place Paul timewise
and that phrase is considered to be a later interpolation by many
mainstream scholars. For all we know "Paul" wrote in the first half of
the second century CE and could well have been a school of scribes
rather than one man. There is no reason other than wishful thinking
and faith to place any of the Gospels any earlier than 135 CE with Acts
following later. Besides Acts basically contradicts what Paul says
about himself and most readers are reading his Epistles in light of
Acts, a total fabrication like the gospels.

> Those letters confirm the existence of
> an early church in Jerusalem, and in Galatians 1:18 Paul says that he
> went to
> Jerusalem "to visit Cephas and get information from him."

Like the gospels Paul's epistles have nothing (save one phrase
considered to be an interpolation) with which to date Paul's writing.
And remember when Paul said he was all things to all men, he was as
much proclaiming he was capable of lying if he thought the situation
called for it.

> From
> further references in 1 Colossians 9:10 and 15:5 it is reasonable to
> assume that "Cephas" is a reference to the apostle Peter.
>

No it is not. If you read Paul's Epistles carefully Peter and Cephas
are two totally different people.

> Unfortunately, we can't do better than that. Papias is often cited,
> but historically, he is unreliable.

The situation is worse than that. Again there is no real evidence that
Papias existed and we certainly have no idea what he said or wrote.
The only thing we have are copies of some very small fragments of what
Eusebius (more than a century later) said that Papias supposedly wrote.
Remember Eusebius invented much of earlier church history with the idea
that lies that are faith promoting are ok. We have absolutely nothing
of the voluminous writings of Papias which because he was as important
as he was is very puzzling that scribes did not bother to recopy his
works. One very good reason for that could well be that most of what
Papias wrote did not agree with what later became orthodox
Christianity.


>
> --Wax

--
Later,
Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
 
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:15:10 GMT, "weatherwax"
<weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote
>> Jeckyl wrote:
>>>>===>Thsoe "Apostles" are ALSO fictional characters, just like the main
>>>>protagonist "Jesus". -- L.
>>>
>>>
>>> I must disagree there .. there is real historical evidence for
>>> the existence of the apostles, just as there is for John the
>>> Baptist.
>>
>> ===>Really?
>> Would you please cite some reference to your "evidence"???
>> -- L.

They talk about its existence, but never provide it. The conclusion is
obvious.

>Early Christianity was not big enough to draw the attention of many people,
>so we shouldn't expect much historical evidence for any of the apostle.
>After Acts 1, most of the apostles are never heard of again anyway.
>
>The letters of Paul appear to be historically accurate, therefore we can
>safely assume that he lived. Those letters confirm the existence of an
>early church in Jerusalem, and in Galatians 1:18 Paul says that he went to
>Jerusalem "to visit Cephas and get information from him." From further
>references in 1 Colossians 9:10 and 15:5 it is reasonable to assume that
>"Cephas" is a reference to the apostle Peter.

And his Christ is an ethereal, spiritual one. He knows nothing of an
historical Jesus let alone the Jesus of the gospels.

>Unfortunately, we can't do better than that. Papias is often cited, but
>historically, he is unreliable.
>
>--Wax
>
 
>> The letters of Paul appear to be historically accurate,
> History in Paul's letters is virtually nonexistant.

That's not the same thing :)

Anyway.. the point is that with Paul we have letters which one cannot deny
were written by someone, and that someone claims to be Paul. I think it is
fair to conclude that the person who wrote the letters existed (whether or
not his name really was Paul or Saul or whatever).

However, in the case of Jesus, we have no writings or artefacts at all.
 

Similar threads

DaMan
What I know about the iPad 3
Replies
0
Views
123
DaMan
DaMan
DaMan
A month with the iPhone 4S
Replies
0
Views
126
DaMan
DaMan
timesjoke
Birds of a feather
Replies
0
Views
161
timesjoke
timesjoke
DaMan
Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 review
Replies
0
Views
212
DaMan
DaMan
R
Do Many Jews Believe They Collectively Are The Messiah?
Replies
3
Views
18
Carl
C
Back
Top