Originally posted by DarfiusWhere's the "peer reviewed scholarly essay" that says there was a Resurrection? The site has over 60 footnotes to source materials. And you STILL have refused to discuss a single point raised in it; so since you refuse to debate, you shouldn't be in a Debate forum.
The site presents stuff as Gospel. Where is the corroboration? Where is the peer reviewed scholarly essay? I don't see it, so the site fails to withstand my criteria to be considered.
Originally posted by DarfiusYes, we DO know it was invented because there is no mention of
You do not know the tradition was invented. At best, it was 50-50 for invented or fact.
It makes sense you wouldn't doubt the Gospel of Thomas' veracity, since in it, Jesus makes no claims of divinity. Atheists tend to believe that which makes them most comfortable.
the Mark-Peter connection until the 4th century, where Eusebius
quotes a lost text by Papias, from the 2nd century. This is the
same Papias who believes that there is a 'Secret Gospel of Mark.'
Why are you going to believe this heretic who has non-Canonical
Scripture texts in his corpus?
As for St Luke's supposed discipleship of St Paul, the first time
this is ever discussed is around 180 CE by St Irenaeus.
Take a peek at this site before you continue to believe the mythology
around the Bible (I'm not saying 'in the Bible' but about it).
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/matthewluke.html
As for claims about Jesus's divinity, what claims do St Mark make?
St Thomas 61:3 reads:
Jesus said to [Salome], 'I am the one who comes from what is whole.
I was granted from the things of my Father.'
St Thomas 82:1-2 reads: 'Whoever is near me is near the fire, and
whoever is far from me is far from the Father's domain.'
Nemesio
Originally posted by frogstompThere's a good explanation of the passage at the site Ivanhoe gave: http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/question.htm
There's a problem with using Josephus as a confirmation source.
In his first book Josephus recorded the two offensive acts of Pilate, i.e. the bringing of Caesar's ensign into Jerusalem and the using the locals treasury to fund the local viaduct .
It's not until his second book that "the Christ" reference is added, a reference that reads ...[text shortened]... ty as important as " Pilate killed the Messiah"
So why wasn't it in the first book?
It concludes, based on recently discovered texts and an independently existing Arabic translation, that the passage is mostly genuine (Josephus' work) but that some words and phrases were added and some deleted to make it appear that Josephus accepted that Jesus was a Messiah and God when he almost certainly did not write that. The arguments and facts presented on the site are very compelling and would explain why Josephus would consider the two acts of Pilate mentioned as far more grevious than executing Jesus. Of course, Josephus is writing 60 years at least after Jesus' alleged life and is relying on secondary source materials; thus the passage isn't very compelling evidence that Jesus actually existed although it can be said to be at least SOME evidence apart from the Gospels.
Originally posted by NemesioI believe the heretic because he only confirms what was tradition[/] in the early Christian church.
Yes, we DO know it was invented because there is no mention of
the Mark-Peter connection until the 4th century, where Eusebius
quotes a lost text by Papias, from the 2nd century. This is the
same Papias who believes that there is a 'Secret Gospel of Mark.'
Why are you going to believe this heretic who has non-Canonical
Scripture texts in his corpus ...[text shortened]... me is near the fire, and
whoever is far from me is far from the Father's domain.'
Nemesio
The gospel of Thomas was written in Greek in Syria around 140 AD, so it clearly wasn't written by Thomas.
Also, the gospel says some things that are simply contradictory to what Jesus does in the Gospels. "Split wood; I am there. Lift up a stone, and you will find me there." "For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven." This is in line with Gnostic thinking, that only men are worthy of heaven. Keep in mind that the canonizing council that excluded Thomas did so because that was the [b]consensus of Christians everywhere. The council merely confirmed what was popular Christian consensus.
Originally posted by no1marauderThat leaves us really without a valid translation , doesnt it?
There's a good explanation of the passage at the site Ivanhoe gave: http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/question.htm
It concludes, based on recently discovered texts and an independently existing Arabic translation, that the passage is mostly genuine (Josephus' work) but that some words and phrases were added and some deleted to make it ...[text shortened]... us actually existed although it can be said to be at least SOME evidence apart from the Gospels.
How does anybody know the arabic translation is correct?
Does a copy in Josephus' language exist.. how about a Latin one?
Originally posted by frogstompTry this: http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testhist.htm
That leaves us really without a valid translation , doesnt it?
How does anybody know the arabic translation is correct?
Does a copy in Josephus' language exist.. how about a Latin one?
If you go to the Home page of the site above, there's more information on the controversy but apparently the suspect phrases are in all surviving copies of Josephus except the Arabic one. This, of course, would be consistent with an early Christian copyist adding them. They also do not match some of his linguist preferences, as pointed out on the site (he always refers to the the Jews in the 3rd person, but Jesus is described as a great man "among us" leading to the conclusion that he was using another source document).
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderi just read that site.
Try this: http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testhist.htm
If you go to the Home page of the site above, there's more information on the controversy but apparently the suspect phrases are in all surviving copies of Josep ...[text shortened]... ding to the conclusion that he was using another source document).
There's more plots and sub-plots than than a soap opera.
Does it occur the anybody that the arabic text might have had some redactions.
That maybe Christians added or non-Christians deleted ,, even both might be true or neither.
In any case it's flawed as a historical document.
edit fixed a typo
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Cite a source where it says that Luke travelled to Jesus' tomb and looked in to see there was no body. You are once more projecting what you believe somebody would do in place of what the evidence says they did. This is irrational.
Luke 1:1-4
2 edits
Originally posted by DarfiusThat's it? You are pathetically grasping at straws. You said proof that would stand up in a court of law, do you think that passage would be an acceptable answer to the question "Did you, Luke, go to Jesus' supposed tomb and look inside?" in a court of law? If you do, you are sadly mistaken.
[b/] 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myse ...[text shortened]... w the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Luke 1:1-4
Originally posted by DarfiusThanks for the laugh. If you ever do go to a court of law make sure you get a lawyer who doesn't share your beliefs about the court system or you'll wind up getting hammered. I'm done with you since you won't debate the issue and intend to ignore your further preaching and non sequiturs; if Ivanhoe or somebody rational wants to debate the subject of this thread I'll be around tomorrow.
I would think "everything" means everything, wouldn't you? If anyone is grasping at straws here, it is you, sir.
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd thus you eloquently avoid my question as to why Luke would lie. Well done.
Thanks for the laugh. If you ever do go to a court of law make sure you get a lawyer who doesn't share your beliefs about the court system or you'll wind up getting hammered. I'm done with you since you won't debate the issue and intend to ignore your further preaching and non sequiturs; if Ivanhoe or somebody rational wants to debate the subject of this thread I'll be around tomorrow.
Is this the thread you mentioned No1. You want me to save you ?
I can see why you asked me. You got yourself in a lot of trouble here.
I'll tell you a secret, No1: Most serious scholars don't doubt the historicity, the real existence, of an actual human being called Jesus Christ, who was born, lived and died in the first half of the first century.
How about accepting this fact and continue your quest from there, huh ? .... you haven't got all eternity to find out the Truth, No1. ... just a lifetime ... so, let's get on with it, shall we ?