did jesus exist?

[dogsgod]

the truth comes out

and thats exactly what the vast majority of scolars agree upon.

there is NO reality of christianity and the historical jesus

I agree. There are too many different Christianities involved in the first few centuries making it extremely difficult to show how they all funnel back down to one single founder. I think it a pointless endeavor and that scholarship would be better served by accepting the differences.

 

[Oberon]

That's a stupid argument and you know it. It's as if you are suggesting that an historical Jesus can't be revealed due to language barriers, he's only known to those that read German or Greek.

How is that suprising? Why do you think classicists learn greek, latin, german, french, and often italian? Why do you think biblical scholars usually also read hebrew and aramaic? You are dealing with a person who lived 2000 years ago, texts written in one language (greek), about a person who lived in a culture with a different language and textual tradition (hebraic), which was ruled by a culture speaking and writing a language of its own (latin). So yes, proper understanding of the historical Jesus requires being able to read texts written in other languages. And expertise involves being able to read other experts' arguments, but many of these are written in other languages.

You, for example, take Q as a given. You claim you've read it, although there isn't necessarily much agreement on what Q is exactly. More importantly, the very existence of Q was only discovered because experts were intimately familiar with the greek and were hashing out issues with other experts in order to build and defend this hypothesis. By accepting Q, you stand on the shoulders of the same experts whose work you reject as insignificant.

I've read plenty from scholars that read the texts and they don't come to the same conclusions as you so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

They do, at least as far as Jesus' historicity is concerned.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You, for example, take Q as a given.

.... and imbibe it with more historical authority that other portions of the Gospels...

 

[dogsgod]

.... and imbibe it with more historical authority that other portions of the Gospels...

Not entirely, but I'm not stupid enough to view the gospel story and Acts as reliable history.

 

[outhouse]

acts is not reliable history, far from it. I believe most scholars are in agreement with this fact.

 

[Oberon]

acts is not reliable history, far from it. I believe most scholars are in agreement with this fact.

Ancient history as a whole is not usually very reliable. Most scholars would certainly argue that acts qualifies as ancient history though.

 

[dogsgod]

Ancient history as a whole is not usually very reliable. Most scholars would certainly argue that acts qualifies as ancient history though.

Try reading it one day and then come back and tell us that it qualifies as ancient history.

 

[outhouse]

Paul tells his readers in Galatians 1:16 that it was God who revealed his Son to him, not Jesus who revealed himself.

is this wrong?

 

[Oberon]

Try reading it one day and then come back and tell us that it qualifies as ancient history.

Try reading ancient history by other authors of the ancient world, so that you have something to compare acts to.

 

[outhouse]

When we allow Paul to speak for himself, rather than impose upon him the narrative world of the evangelists, we find a consistent picture throughout the letters. The governing force in his life’s work, as it is with all the competing apostles who roam the byways of the empire preaching the divine Christ, is the power of God’s Spirit, manifested through revelation and a study of scripture. No historical man who had recently begun the movement hovers in the background of Paul’s thought. His gospel comes from God, and its subject matter is the Christ, the intermediary Son who is the hallmark of the religious philosophy of the age. Everything Paul has to say about his Christ Jesus (including his features “according to the flesh&#8221 comes from scripture, that window onto the higher spiritual world of God and his workings

 

[Oberon]

Paul tells his readers in Galatians 1:16 that it was God who revealed his Son to him, not Jesus who revealed himself.

is this wrong?

Paul never met Jesus. Paul is talking about his experience with Jesus, which was through revelation because he never met the man.

 

[dogsgod]

Try reading ancient history by other authors of the ancient world, so that you have something to compare acts to.

To begin with, it is generally admitted that after the capture of Troy, whilst the rest of the Trojans were massacred, against two of them--Aeneas and Antenor--the Achivi refused to exercise the rights of war, partly owing to old ties of hospitality, and partly because these men had always been in favour of making peace and surrendering Helen. Their subsequent fortunes were different. Antenor sailed into the furthest part of the Adriatic, accompanied by a number of Enetians who had been driven from Paphlagonia by a revolution and after losing their king Pylaemenes before Troy were looking for a settlement and a leader. The combined force of Enetians and Trojans defeated the Euganei, who dwelt between the sea and the Alps and occupied their land. The place where they disembarked was called Troy, and the name was extended to the surrounding district; the whole nation were called Veneti. Similar misfortunes led to Aeneas becoming a wanderer but the Fates were preparing a higher destiny for him. He first visited Macedonia, then was carried down to Sicily in quest of a settlement; from Sicily he directed his course to the Laurentian territory. Here, too, the name of Troy is found, and here the Trojans disembarked, and as their almost infinite wanderings had left them nothing but their arms and their ships, they began to plunder the neighbourhood. The Aborigines, who occupied the country, with their king Latinus at their head came hastily together from the city and the country districts to repel the inroads of the strangers by force of arms.
From this point there is a twofold tradition. According to the one, Latinus was defeated in battle, and made peace with Aeneas, and subsequently a family alliance. According to the other, whilst the two armies were standing ready to engage and waiting for the signal, Latinus advanced in front of his lines and invited the leader of the strangers to a conference.
- Livy; History of Rome, 30 BCE

"Whether these things are actually true or not is debatable, but there is no debate about the fact that Livy was writing a history that he believed to be factual and straight forward, not metaphorical or allegorical."





And now for something completely different, a scene from Acts:


5So Peter was kept in prison, but the church was earnestly praying to God for him.

6The night before Herod was to bring him to trial, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries stood guard at the entrance. 7Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. "Quick, get up!" he said, and the chains fell off Peter's wrists.

8Then the angel said to him, "Put on your clothes and sandals." And Peter did so. "Wrap your cloak around you and follow me," the angel told him. 9Peter followed him out of the prison, but he had no idea that what the angel was doing was really happening; he thought he was seeing a vision. 10They passed the first and second guards and came to the iron gate leading to the city. It opened for them by itself, and they went through it. When they had walked the length of one street, suddenly the angel left him.

11Then Peter came to himself and said, "Now I know without a doubt that the Lord sent his angel and rescued me from Herod's clutches and from everything the Jewish people were anticipating."


​

Do you see the difference Oberon?

 

[Oberon]

Do you see the difference Oberon?

Well, as Livy is the only historian of the ancient world, it can't possibly be that there aren't plenty of examples of myth and magic in other histories besides acts...oh wait. there are. Even in livy. Try reading Diogenes Laertius or Philostratus, or anything from the entire genre of mirabilia when it fused with natural and historical accounts. Heck, even careful writers like Pliny in his naturalis historia reports on fantastic rumors and myths like the hippopodes. We can find all over greek and roman literature accounts of the fantastic, from discriptions in Aelian of the gods inflaming the passions of mares, to Pausanias discussion on the powers of an andros magou (sorcerer), to Porphyry's talk of goetes (magicians) controlling the souls of the dead, and on and on. From Herodotus onward, to be sure not all histories were as theological or mythic as acts, but some were more so (or at least less accurate) and magic and myth ran through virtually all of them to different degrees.

 

[Oberon]

Everything Paul has to say about his Christ Jesus (including his features “according to the flesh”) comes from scripture, that window onto the higher spiritual world of God and his workings

Where does in scripture is the teaching on divorce Paul says comes from Jesus?

For teachings on divorce (which correspond to Q in Matt 19:6,9/Lk 16:18): 1 Cor. 7:10 tois gegamekosin paraggello, ouk alla ho kurios/ to those having been married I command, not I but the Lord...

contrasted with 1 Cor. 7:12 tois de loipois lego ego ouch ho kurios/ to the rest I say, I not the Lord...
He also states distinguishes his teachings from Jesus again in 1 Cor. 7:25- peri de ton parthenon epitagen kyriou ouk echo/ concerning the unmarried/maidens i have no command from the Lord.

 

[dogsgod]

Where does in scripture is the teaching on divorce Paul says comes from Jesus?

He clearly states that what he says about Jesus and Jesus' features comes from scripture. Maybe you should have your eyes checked.

 

[Oberon]

He clearly states that what he says about Jesus and Jesus' features comes from scripture. Maybe you should have your eyes checked.

What does this have to do with where in scripture Paul got Jesus' teaching on divorce?

 

[dogsgod]

Well, as Livy is the only historian of the ancient world, it can't possibly be that there aren't plenty of examples of myth and magic in other histories besides acts...oh wait. there are. Even in livy. Try reading Diogenes Laertius or Philostratus, or anything from the entire genre of mirabilia when it fused with natural and historical accounts. Heck, even careful writers like Pliny in his naturalis historia reports on fantastic rumors and myths like the hippopodes. We can find all over greek and roman literature accounts of the fantastic, from discriptions in Aelian of the gods inflaming the passions of mares, to Pausanias discussion on the powers of an andros magou (sorcerer), to Porphyry's talk of goetes (magicians) controlling the soals of the dead, and on and on. From Herodotus onward, to be sure not all histories were as theological or mythic as acts, but some were more so (or at least less accurate) and magic and myth ran through virtually all of them to different degrees.

There was definitely such a thing as a formal history at the time Acts was written. Here's another good example:

About the same time the emperor enrolled in the ranks of the patricians such senators as were of the oldest families, and such as had had distinguished ancestors. There were now but scanty relics of the Greater Houses of Romulus and of the Lesser Houses of Lucius Brutus, as they had been called, and those too were exhausted which the Dictator Caesar by the Cassian and the emperor Augustus by the Saenian law had chosen into their place. These acts, as being welcome to the State, were undertaken with hearty gladness by the imperial censor. Anxiously considering how he was to rid the Senate of men of notorious infamy, he preferred a gentle method, recently devised, to one which accorded with the sternness of antiquity, and advised each to examine his own case and seek the privilege of laying aside his rank. Permission, he said, would be readily obtained. He would publish in the same list those who had been expelled and those who had been allowed to retire, that by this confounding together of the decision of the censors and the modesty of voluntary resignation the disgrace might be softened. By Tacitus

Written 109 C.E.

 

[dogsgod]

What does this have to do with where in scripture Paul got Jesus' teaching on divorce?

That's what I would like to know. Why do you bring it up?

 

[Oberon]

There was definitely such a thing as a formal history at the time Acts was written.

You can quote examples until you are blue in the face. I just gave you several of my own. Formal history existed on a continuum. Some historians were pretty good even by today's standards. Others were not. In fact, your good friend Carrier, who is fine with thinking of the gospels as biographies, thinks the whole genre of biography in the greco-roman world was basically a fail as far as historical value is concerned.

 

[dogsgod]

You can quote examples until you are blue in the face. I just gave you several of my own. Formal history existed on a continuum. Some historians were pretty good even by today's standards. Others were not. In fact, your good friend Carrier, who is fine with thinking of the gospels as biographies, thinks the whole genre of biography in the greco-roman world was basically a fail as far as historical value is concerned.

Stop with the red herrings already and admit it, Acts is not a reliable history.