Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I cannot dispute your assertion. With little to nothing in the way of documentation in that era all we have are "It's possible" "It's conceivable" and "Maybe". The epistles were in the hands of Christian clergy for at least 150 years before fragments start showing up. Scribes were making changes in the margins all the time. We have no idea what sorts of alterations were being made to them. So it's possible Paul wrote them in the 50's and it's possible the name "Aretas" was scribbled in by a scribe in 120 CE or 130 CE or 140 CE or pick you date. We simply don't know.
This is just arguing it could be an interpolation. Do you have any evidence it was an interpolation? Do you have a reason why they would add Aretas to the story?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
My research on the Essenes turned up the "Pierced Messiah" text. They existed until the 1st century--that's up to 99 CE, long after the destruction of the temple--so again, who knows?
Josephus reports the Essenes being killed by the Romans around 70 AD, happy that the world was ending. Very few would have survived after that time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Don't we? Paul quotes the OT all the time.
I was referring to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. None of the texts I mentioned talk about that very important event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Maybe not reference to the the Temple, but as I said anything could have been done to these epistles before copies start showing up in the 4th century. They could have been and probably were edited at will to get the doctrine to exactly what the church leaders wanted them to say about Jesus. We simply don't know one way or the other.
Yes, parts were probably dropped to remove parts that the winning group of Christians did not like, but this would more probably have happened in the early second century AD, when there were not too many copies to compare.
And we also have earlier manuscripts such as P 46, from the 3rd century, possibly earlier. I have no checked what differences there are, but I have not seen anyone suggest there are many differences to what we have now.
This is just arguing it could be an interpolation. Do you have any evidence it was an interpolation? Do you have a reason why they would add Aretas to the story?
Nope, not a single reason that would stand to strict secular Biblical archeology standards--just a knowledge of their readiness to phony up the texts to suit their own needs as I pointed out before:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and bishop of Constantinople
"Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...
For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ...
And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
– Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.
Note that. John is telling his compadres in dishonesty:
"Look how advantageous deceit is to fooling people into believing Jesus was real. It's good management of what little we have to show he was on earth and not just a ghost. It demonstrates our cleverness and skill at pulling the wool over people' eyes.
It enables us to find new ways to lie to people when the old ways have been uncovered.
And it covers over the lies we tell when people are clever enough to figure out we have been perjuring ourselves like there's no tomorrow.
And very often it becomes necessary to deceive people when they start figuring out this whole Jesus-thing is one giant sham...."
I mean just this quote from JohnC alone should get people wise to exactly how corrupt the Church has been in spreading fraudulent information about Jesus.
How the Christians can't see this when they have it right under their noses from their own church leaders' mouths trumpeting the virtues of deceiving people is completely beyond me. But Mink and the others will find some way to whitewash their cunning and make it look like a virtue instead of a vice, you can absolutely bet on the line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Josephus reports the Essenes being killed by the Romans around 70 AD, happy that the world was ending. Very few would have survived after that time.
We don't know. Maybe enough were still left by the end of the century to help get the theory off the ground. Other forces pushing this adopting of Jesus as a one-time sacrifice were at play during this time. All we know is that eventually the annual sacrifice was dropped and Jesus as a one-time sacrifice to replace the Temple sacrifices was eventually adopted by the Christianity hierarchy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
I was referring to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. None of the texts I mentioned talk about that very important event.
Just the Hebrews text I quoted which lays it out in spades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Yes, parts were probably dropped to remove parts that the winning group of Christians did not like, but this would more probably have happened in the early second century AD, when there were not too many copies to compare.
And we also have earlier manuscripts such as P 46, from the 3rd century, possibly earlier. I have no checked what differences there are, but I have not seen anyone suggest there are many differences to what we have now.
Well, we have scribes inventing a completely new story of Jesus saving the woman in adultery and inserting it into John as late as the 5th or 6th centuries since neither the Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus contain the story and that is in the 4th century. And then look at the ending of Mark. Additions of major hunks of New Testament material were being done several centuries after the original gospels would have been written. That to me is a giant red flag that all sorts of shenanigans were being co-opted by unscrupulous churchmen all throughout the early centuries of the Church.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 10-31-2022 at 02:21 PM..
Nope, not a single reason that would stand to strict secular Biblical archeology standards--just a knowledge of their readiness to phony up the texts to suit their own needs as I pointed out before:
Note that. John is telling his compadres in dishonesty:
"Look how advantageous deceit is to fooling people into believing Jesus was real. It's good management of what little we have to show he was on earth and not just a ghost. It demonstrates our cleverness and skill at pulling the wool over people' eyes.
It enables us to find new ways to lie to people when the old ways have been uncovered.
And it covers over the lies we tell when people are clever enough to figure out we have been perjuring ourselves like there's no tomorrow.
And very often it becomes necessary to deceive people when they start figuring out this whole Jesus-thing is one giant sham...."
I mean just this quote from JohnC alone should get people wise to exactly how corrupt the Church has been in spreading fraudulent information about Jesus.
How the Christians can't see this when they have it right under their noses from their own church leaders' mouths trumpeting the virtues of deceiving people is completely beyond me. But Mink and the others will find some way to whitewash their cunning and make it look like a virtue instead of a vice, you can absolutely bet on the line.
We don't know. Maybe enough were still left by the end of the century to help get the theory off the ground. Other forces pushing this adopting of Jesus as a one-time sacrifice were at play during this time. All we know is that eventually the annual sacrifice was dropped and Jesus as a one-time sacrifice to replace the Temple sacrifices was eventually adopted by the Christianity hierarchy.
Just the Hebrews text I quoted which lays it out in spades.
Well, we have scribes inventing a completely new story of Jesus saving the woman in adultery and inserting it into John as late as the 5th or 6th centuries since neither the Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus contain the story and that is in the 4th century. And then look at the ending of Mark. Additions of major hunks of New Testament material were being done several centuries after the original gospels would have been written. That to me is a giant red flag that all sorts of shenanigans were being co-opted by unscrupulous churchmen all throughout the early centuries of the Church.
None....and that is NONE of this matters...except to the miserable & obsessed Anti Christians.
The Character of Jesus Christ is what He is to the world...and that's the most epic, prolific, influential, and inspirational figure in the history of humankind.
And it has been that way for over a thousand years.
The amount of people that embrace Jesus Christ and are inspired by Him grows every day...in numbers & percentage of World Population.
You like FACTS & TRUTH so much...get hip to that Fact & Truth.
Nope, not a single reason that would stand to strict secular Biblical archeology standards--just a knowledge of their readiness to phony up the texts to suit their own needs as I pointed out before:
Note that. John is telling his compadres in dishonesty:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and bishop of Constantinople
"Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...
For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ...
And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
– Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.
"Look how advantageous deceit is to fooling people into believing Jesus was real. It's good management of what little we have to show he was on earth and not just a ghost. It demonstrates our cleverness and skill at pulling the wool over people' eyes.
It enables us to find new ways to lie to people when the old ways have been uncovered.
And it covers over the lies we tell when people are clever enough to figure out we have been perjuring ourselves like there's no tomorrow.
And very often it becomes necessary to deceive people when they start figuring out this whole Jesus-thing is one giant sham...."
I mean just this quote from JohnC alone should get people wise to exactly how corrupt the Church has been in spreading fraudulent information about Jesus.
How the Christians can't see this when they have it right under their noses from their own church leaders' mouths trumpeting the virtues of deceiving people is completely beyond me. But Mink and the others will find some way to whitewash their cunning and make it look like a virtue instead of a vice, you can absolutely bet on the line.
Oh geez...
Have you actually read Chrysostom's Treatise? Probably not. And because you probably didn't, you,-- and the anti-Christian website you pulled this off of-- are completely misrepresenting what John C. was talking about.
Just to enlighten you...
Chrysostom had a friend named Basil. Chrysostom and Basil agreed to be ordained as priests. But when it came time for ordination, Chrysostom hid himself...pretty much abandoning Basil.
Basil was ordained. Chrysostom wasn't...at least, not then. Basil believed that Chrysostom betrayed him by lying to him. In this portion of the Treatise, Chrysostom tried to defend his deceit to his friend by trying to convince him that in this case (I'm paraphrasing) his deceit was 'good' because it was for Basil's benefit.
His words have NOTHING to do with trying to fool people into believing that Jesus was/wasn't real.
Do your homework, thrill.
Quote:
We don't know. Maybe enough were still left by the end of the century to help get the theory off the ground. Other forces pushing this adopting of Jesus as a one-time sacrifice were at play during this time. All we know is that eventually the annual sacrifice was dropped and Jesus as a one-time sacrifice to replace the Temple sacrifices was eventually adopted by the Christianity hierarchy.
Just the Hebrews text I quoted which lays it out in spades.
Well, we have scribes inventing a completely new story of Jesus saving the woman in adultery and inserting it into John as late as the 5th or 6th centuries since neither the Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus contain the story and that is in the 4th century. And then look at the ending of Mark. Additions of major hunks of New Testament material were being done several centuries after the original gospels would have been written. That to me is a giant red flag that all sorts of shenanigans were being co-opted by unscrupulous churchmen all throughout the early centuries of the Church.
Never heard back from Derek on that one. Not surprising. I guess even he is starting to get the message.
Well there is a lack of secular historical evidence, not disputing that.
It’s not like having Caesars head on some old Roman coins or something.
However the New Testament has enough factual information, and credible witnesses, to suggest it is not just storytelling.
Some of the Old Testament I would agree is more metaphorical, but that is a different argument and debate.
The basic problem IMO is the difference between the methodology and standards of historians, and that of scientists. All historians care about is the "least unlikely" explanation for which no contrary evidence currently can be found. This is fine when we are arguing about some nuanced aspect of a historical figure concerning which there are multiple independent sources, including both supporters and detractors. When it comes to Jesus, you have a perfect storm however: there is very little else but his own fan fiction to go by -- accounts that are clearly fabulist and not entirely self-consistent -- and you have a third of the planet at least culturally invested in the unexamined notion that these accounts are in any way factual. As a historian, your salary may directly or indirectly depend on people who assume some degree of truth to these accounts.
Science really can't say much about all this other than that it is impossible to raise the dead and walk on water, so many aspects of the Jesus mythos are embellishments of reality at best, perhaps well-intentioned campfire stories.
The question Thrill has chosen to take up is whether some part of all this is real, and the necessary if insufficient basis for Christianity is that Jesus existed in history, so he's trying to go after that. I would argue that we can't know this with any certainty based on the available evidence, and anyway it is irrelevant to the alleged claims of god on man today. If Jesus, The Miracle-Working God-Man, was, or was "based on" a singular, real, historical person, is irrelevant because THAT miracle-working Jesus simply did not exist and ALL evidence points away from it, given an understanding of what "evidence" actually entails.
As to the notion that this works in reverse -- that strikes me as "apples and oranges". If we can't disprove Historical Jesus then we can't prove him either, but that is a separate question from whether Christianity is some sort of evidence from the opposite direction, from THIS end of history. If we could point to Christians and say in some truly unique way, "behold, how they love one another" (and here I must simply say, LOL) then we could perhaps begin to argue backwards, showing how Christianity has elevated civilization, made life better for billions, how Christian theocracies are models of human rights and dignity, and how secular democracies are cesspools of human suffering. Then we might start to think, hm, there might be something to all this, and maybe this Jesus fellow even actually DID exist.
But alas, the track record of Christianity is checkered at best. It has built soaring cathedrals (with generations of commoner labor) and it has also given us the Inquisition. It has been generally opposed to scientific progress and knowledge (heliocentrism, Gallileo, you name it, right up to modern Young Earth Creationism). There is zero evidence that the marriage of church and state has improved the rule of law, human rights, or freedom of conscience. Quite the opposite.
That's not to deny that individual Christians and particular churches provide true belonging and refuge and support for people. It's just to suggest that good people will do good things, despite a fundamentally bad ideology.
Well there is a lack of secular historical evidence, not disputing that.
It’s not like having Caesars head on some old Roman coins or something.
However the New Testament has enough factual information, and credible witnesses, to suggest it is not just storytelling.
Some of the Old Testament I would agree is more metaphorical, but that is a different argument and debate.
The lack of historical evidence is not the troubling thing for me, Derek when all is taken into consideration. Truthfully, knowing what I know, I'm not surprised in the least that there is no historical evidence for Jesus. What is really troubling to me about this entire thing is the Christian god's attitude to this whole affair. As I said, Yahweh went to all the trouble to lay out a plan of redemption that was so vast it would affect literally every human who ever lived and that's 100+ BILLION people.....so far. After waiting literally millions of years while humans evolved to a point they were ready to receive Jesus....Yahweh goes and recalls Jesus to heaven after his salvific work is complete....and doesn't leave a scrap of secular evidence behind to satisfy the non-religious that Jesus was a real person. I mean I have heard of humans sabotaging their own efforts to bring themselves to ruin but I would never have expected it of a god. Put another way Yahweh left behind only enough to satisfy the Christians. He never gave a moment's thought to how a non-Christian, which currently comprises 2/3's of the world population, would react to the scant evidence of Jesus that we find upon investigating him. Perhaps this is how Yahweh wanted it. Perhaps the Calvinists are right--Jesus came to save only a select few who could believe in the gospels, like yourself, and me, mordant, Learn Me, eddie gein, Harry and the rest of us atheists he consigned to the fires of hell. That's what it looks like to me.
The lack of historical evidence is not the troubling thing for me, Derek when all is taken into consideration. Truthfully, knowing what I know, I'm not surprised in the least that there is no historical evidence for Jesus. What is really troubling to me about this entire thing is the Christian god's attitude to this whole affair. As I said, Yahweh went to all the trouble to lay out a plan of redemption that was so vast it would affect literally every human who ever lived and that's 100+ BILLION people.....so far. After waiting literally millions of years while humans evolved to a point they were ready to receive Jesus....Yahweh goes and recalls Jesus to heaven after his salvific work is complete....and doesn't leave a scrap of secular evidence behind to satisfy the non-religious that Jesus was a real person. I mean I have heard of humans sabotaging their own efforts to bring themselves to ruin but I would never have expected it of a god. Put another way Yahweh left behind only enough to satisfy the Christians. He never gave a moment's thought to how a non-Christian, which currently comprises 2/3's of the world population, would react to the scant evidence of Jesus that we find upon investigating him. Perhaps this is how Yahweh wanted it. Perhaps the Calvinists are right--Jesus came to save only a select few who could believe in the gospels, like yourself, and me, mordant, Learn Me, eddie gein, Harry and the rest of us atheists he consigned to the fires of hell. That's what it looks like to me.
As usual...you attempt to use your much lower thoughts to attempt to critique the Omnimax Powered God that knows everything and can do anything...and created the entire Universe.
The God that has thoughts and ways that are higher than yours...and you are not to assess or critique using your inferior understanding, but simply defer to Him----That's what the Bible you so incessantly dissect and analyze says, anyway.
So...you should just go with what you noted above that I bolded ^^^^and base what you do on the assumption that is exactly how it is.
The lack of historical evidence is not the troubling thing for me, Derek when all is taken into consideration. Truthfully, knowing what I know, I'm not surprised in the least that there is no historical evidence for Jesus. What is really troubling to me about this entire thing is the Christian god's attitude to this whole affair. As I said, Yahweh went to all the trouble to lay out a plan of redemption that was so vast it would affect literally every human who ever lived and that's 100+ BILLION people.....so far. After waiting literally millions of years while humans evolved to a point they were ready to receive Jesus....Yahweh goes and recalls Jesus to heaven after his salvific work is complete....and doesn't leave a scrap of secular evidence behind to satisfy the non-religious that Jesus was a real person. I mean I have heard of humans sabotaging their own efforts to bring themselves to ruin but I would never have expected it of a god. Put another way Yahweh left behind only enough to satisfy the Christians. He never gave a moment's thought to how a non-Christian, which currently comprises 2/3's of the world population, would react to the scant evidence of Jesus that we find upon investigating him. Perhaps this is how Yahweh wanted it. Perhaps the Calvinists are right--Jesus came to save only a select few who could believe in the gospels, like yourself, and me, mordant, Learn Me, eddie gein, Harry and the rest of us atheists he consigned to the fires of hell. That's what it looks like to me.
The problem isn't the evidence, thrill. It's how one looks at the evidence.
Do you really believe that the non-believer who comes to believe, has been presented with different evidence? With MORE evidence? With "secret" evidence?
I'm sure you know of several people both online and IRL who at one time didn't believe...
...and something changed their mind, and not necessarily through some mystical experience.
The problem isn't the evidence, thrill. It's how one looks at the evidence.
Do you really believe that the non-believer who comes to believe, has been presented with different evidence? With MORE evidence? With "secret" evidence?
I'm sure you know of several people both online and IRL who at one time didn't believe...
...and something changed their mind, and not necessarily through some mystical experience.
So, why not ask them what changed their mind?
What about those of us who went from "belief" to "non belief".
Something changed OUR minds...
The idea that Thrill is going "Jesus is a total myth" and didn't exist at all really is not the issue. Sure, Jesus could have been some random mortal human. But the claim that he is the Son of God can be substantiated ONLY if he returns.
All this stuff about thousands of people seeing him after he allegedly rose from the dead is meaningless.
The idea that the apostles got martyred because they saw the risen Jesus and refused unbelief is not proof either. Many people die for a cause. They don't need to see zombies to die for their cause.
And ironically, you brought up all this stuff about Jesus and "meekness" and his "message" in another post. Perhaps Jesus message of "meekness" and non violence et al. resonated with the apostles and they were willing to die for that...just like he did.
In the end, every believer on this thread and every nonbeliever will die a natural death. And Jesus will not have returned. And the argument we have going on this thread will be perpetuated by the next generation of believers and skeptics. And thene they will all die and we will go through this again with the next generation.
It's a tradition going back 2000 years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's good management of what little we have to show he was on earth and not just a ghost. It demonstrates our cleverness and skill at pulling the wool over people' eyes. 
