Did Paul report meeting Jesus' brother?

[+Liquid Gardens]

22 hours ago, eight bits said:

If so, that's a face-to-face relationship with a living Jesus, and just as much a problem for mythicists as some kind of literal kin.

The Uncertainist link mentions Paul meeting two other apostles and the 'James brother of our lord' passage is right next to Paul meeting Peter, which I assume is the Peter.  If I'm understanding your point above, the James passage is just as much a problem for mythicists whether its literal kin or not, the key point is it's a face-to-face relationship, whether a brother or a disciple.  So then it seems that this is just another example of evidence we already have; this is just, at the least, a third source, James 'the brother' plus two apostles?  I'm not that familiar with the source material so I'm likely missing aspects of this or that I don't have the knowledge of.  Is Paul meeting James potentially a better connection that Paul meeting Peter?  I haven't really thought about it, but what are the primary criticisms against the idea that Paul establishes Jesus' existence through Peter?

I had thought that James being a literal brother would potentially provide a better connection if true, ergo the article specifically on the James reference.  I think I've read things from you or davros maybe referring to the idea that Paul's Jesus was more I think the word was 'celestial' or something, which I thought meant either the possibility that Paul's Jesus wasn't flesh and blood or maybe he became divine after his life. It's just stored in my brain as 'don't assume you know exactly what Paul is referring to when he refers to Jesus', given my ignorance.  I may be totally misremembering those mentions here and if not I'm almost definitely misinterpreting what that 'celestial' reference specifically means. 

Anyway, again from my position of ignorance of the details, it seems to me that there may be some criticisms why Paul->Peter->Jesus is something to be skeptical of from the historicist position that may not apply as much to a literal brother James, but I'm not very sure of that.  It seems that one criticism may be along the lines of Peter being too invested in the religious aspects to trust as a source for a historical Jesus, which may apply to James also, but James has the non-religious relationship of kin also.  Which may make the James relationship carry more sway than the Peter one.  However if the top criticism of Paul is that overall part of what he wrote is mythological, or that he may have tried to write truthfully but was using bad information, then I do see how the kin relationship is not that relevant.

 

[eight bits]

6 hours ago, Ellapennella said:

So, what exactly are you looking for? 

Discussion. So far, so good, eh?

 

6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I think she may be thinking of the story of John the Baptist.

Could be; @Stubbly_Dooright did mention the age of 100, though. That's in Genesis 17:17:

Quote

Then Abraham fell on his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, “Will a child be born to him who is one hundred years old? Will Sarah, who is ninety years old, give birth?”

In Luke, Zacharias and Elizabeth are just well along in years, without any specific number.

It's an interesting angle, though. Any brother of Jesus is also a cousin of John the Baptist (if Luke is right). That has possibilities

 

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Is Paul meeting James potentially a better connection that Paul meeting Peter?  I haven't really thought about it, but what are the primary criticisms against the idea that Paul establishes Jesus' existence through Peter?

Yes. Paul never says that Peter had any relationship with the living Jesus. In contrast, James has two shots at having had a relationship based on the brother phrase: kin or disciple of some sort.

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I think I've read things from you or davros maybe referring to the idea that Paul's Jesus was more I think the word was 'celestial' or something, which I thought meant either the possibility that Paul's Jesus wasn't flesh and blood or maybe he became divine after his life.

Yes, Paul's Jesus is definitely resident in the celestial realm (call it heaven?) at the time Paul is writing. The problem is where Jesus was before that. Paul says so little about Jesus' life, and the little he says is so open to interpretation, that some people (including davros, but lots of mythicists agree) think that Paul's Jesus was always a celestial being and never came to Earth.

The alternate reading of Paul is that Jesus lived a quiet devout natural life, was killed anyway for some reason, and God was so pleased with Jesus that he raised him from the dead and promoted him to something like Assistant God.

Either way, he's coming soon (whether coming back or coming for the first time is what's in dispute).

The other issue you raise (if I'm reading you correctly) is who'd be the source of information about Jesus' life that comes to us via the Gospels. There's no real reason to think that either Peter or James played any such role. There's a tradition that Peter was the source for Mark, but there's no real evidence for that. James is sometimes associated with the canonical epistle of that name, but there's not much reason to think that, either.

 

[SHaYap]

I believe too many researchers and personal searchers has this blind spot at skipping over the age of the disciples , they are not all of the same age group, only Judas was believed to be about the same age. The rest numbers more that are older who joined as part of the movement later ... to me that holds the key to which James / Mary is being spoken of, and to that effect ... which Jesus

I couldn't find the backups to dig up the sources (must have lost them a long time ago) but I vaguely remember it had to do with the Nag Hammadi Library

~

[Davros of Skaro]

14 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

The Uncertainist link mentions Paul meeting two other apostles and the 'James brother of our lord' passage is right next to Paul meeting Peter, which I assume is the Peter.  If I'm understanding your point above, the James passage is just as much a problem for mythicists whether its literal kin or not, the key point is it's a face-to-face relationship, whether a brother or a disciple.  So then it seems that this is just another example of evidence we already have; this is just, at the least, a third source, James 'the brother' plus two apostles?  I'm not that familiar with the source material so I'm likely missing aspects of this or that I don't have the knowledge of.  Is Paul meeting James potentially a better connection that Paul meeting Peter?  I haven't really thought about it, but what are the primary criticisms against the idea that Paul establishes Jesus' existence through Peter?

The point is to Paul anyone baptized in Christ becomes part of a spiritual family. Paul does not say specifically what kind of brother James is, and it could be a cultic title of hierarchy (the Church in Galatia would know)? Inference for blood familial is from the Gospels, but the first one being Mark is a highly symbolic parable which the others copy, and embellish. 

These Apostles/Pillars could be just imagining this Jesus entirely rather than a shared ministry as depicted in the Gospels?

Quote

I had thought that James being a literal brother would potentially provide a better connection if true, ergo the article specifically on the James reference.  I think I've read things from you or davros maybe referring to the idea that Paul's Jesus was more I think the word was 'celestial' or something, which I thought meant either the possibility that Paul's Jesus wasn't flesh and blood or maybe he became divine after his life. It's just stored in my brain as 'don't assume you know exactly what Paul is referring to when he refers to Jesus', given my ignorance.  I may be totally misremembering those mentions here and if not I'm almost definitely misinterpreting what that 'celestial' reference specifically means. 

There's many mythicist positions from crank, to plausible. The one I talk about is one put forward by Earl Doherty, and refined by Dr. Richard Carrier which is the celestial Jesus. This is where Jesus being a preexisting archangel puts on Davidic flesh, tricks Satan/Death, gets killed, resurrected by God, and made intermediary for mortals to bypass Torah Law (a stumbling block for the Jews as part of God's plan to include other nations for salvation). This Jesus character is hidden throughout OT scripture, and his atonement takes place in outer space (Heavenly realms). The thing is everything Paul talks about that's cited for historicity has an explanation out of verses from OT scripture, or theology derived from said scripture (even "born of a woman, born under the Law" has roots in scripture). That's it in a nutshell for a very complex theology, but maybe that's why Mark was written (to either weed out the spirituality undiscerned, or include the simple minded)? 

The Pauline Epistles are the earliest evidences for an historical Jesus. But it can be for a Jesus that's purely of the imagination by those hungry for prophecy fulfilment which was so far a fail?

8 hours ago, third_eye said:

I couldn't find the backups to dig up the sources (must have lost them a long time ago) but I vaguely remember it had to do with the Nag Hammadi Library

~

Don't go full Nag! Nobody goes full Nag! Except Nagheads of course...

@eight bits

Great article. Thanks.

By itself I personally give the passage a 50/50 for historicity/ahistoricity. I do not think the passage is an interpolation. If only Paul said something along the lines of James telling him how Jesus, and him used to put dead snakes in women's baskets, or something as children.... LOL!

What do you give the passage? 

[+Liquid Gardens]

Thanks 8 and davros.  I was partly trying to reconcile the connection to Peter, but there's a key point that I was aware of but was not figuring into my equation: I was trying to answer who Peter was to Paul and how it jibes with the gospels, but I was overlooking that the gospels came after Paul's writing.  If I've got this right since Paul is the earliest evidence for a historical Jesus it's I think then the earliest evidence of Peter also, so there was no 'gospel' where Peter is hanging with a historical Jesus at the time of Paul's writing to reconcile with (that we're aware of, of course).  Under the mythicist position I guess I wonder if the theory is that Peter also believed solely in a celestial Jesus, but that might be hair-splitting and not that relevant, and I'm pretty sure not elaborated in Paul's text anyway.

[SHaYap]

1 hour ago, MERRY DMAS said:

Don't go full Nag! Nobody goes full Nag! Except Nagheads of course...

If you want to put it all in that manner of a shell ,then I should say that everything were Nagheads in Jerusalem and not Roman sanctioned before Holy seeped from Holiness outside the Holy of the Holies

Quote

 

~

Who was Athanasius and Why Was He Important?

 

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/.../who-was-athanasius-and-why-was-he-important...

May 9, 2016 - Athanasius was born in the city of Alexandria sometime in the 290s. ... of the bishop of Alexandria—a man conveniently named Alexander.

~

Synod of Hippo - Wikipedia

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo

The Synod of Hippo refers to the synod of 393 which was hosted in Hippo Regius in northern ... Shepherd, Massey Jr. (1961), "The Formation and Influence of Antiochene Liturgy", Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Dumbarton Oaks, 15: 23+25–44, ...

 

~

Councils of Carthage - OrthodoxWiki

 

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Councils_of_Carthage

Feb 21, 2013 - The Councils of Carthage were a series of councils held in north Africa in the city of Carthage by the Church of Africa during the third through ...

 

~

 

 

Edited February 22, 2019 by third_eye
addendum

[Davros of Skaro]

58 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Thanks 8 and davros.  I was partly trying to reconcile the connection to Peter, but there's a key point that I was aware of but was not figuring into my equation: I was trying to answer who Peter was to Paul and how it jibes with the gospels, but I was overlooking that the gospels came after Paul's writing.  If I've got this right since Paul is the earliest evidence for a historical Jesus it's I think then the earliest evidence of Peter also, so there was no 'gospel' where Peter is hanging with a historical Jesus at the time of Paul's writing to reconcile with (that we're aware of, of course). 

These are the approximate scholarly dates for the nonpseudographical Pauline Epistles, considered Pauline influenced Hebrews, and the canonical Gospels?

First Thessalonians (ca. 50 CE)

 

Galatians (ca. 53 CE)

 

First Corinthians (ca. 53–54 CE)

 

Philippians (ca. 55 CE)

 

Second Corinthians (ca. 55–56 CE)

 

Romans (ca. 57 CE) 

 

Hebrews (ca. 60-*100? CE *The author refers to the tabernacle and its operations in the present tense: Heb. 7:8; 8:3-5; 9:6-7, 8-9, 13; 10:1-3; 13:10 (see also 9:25; 10:11-12). The use of the present tense may imply that the Temple is still in existence at the time of writing, thereby placing the likely date of the Letter to the Hebrews before 70 CE (Roman sacking of Judea)?

 

Canonical Gospels & Acts (*68-150? CE *Dating these works precisely is problematic)

 

The other Epistles are considered forgeries, and we do not have actual writings from Peter, James, and the others.

 

I believe there was a Paul, and the people/places he mentions. Except Jesus is very weird in how Paul refers to him (bio details/referring to OT instead of what Jesus did in flesh). But Paul was grasping for Apostleship being late to the party.

 

What was that party?

58 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Under the mythicist position I guess I wonder if the theory is that Peter also believed solely in a celestial Jesus, but that might be hair-splitting and not that relevant, and I'm pretty sure not elaborated in Paul's text anyway.

We don't know for sure what they actually believed, but I can show you a Jesus tricking Satan, and getting crucified in the OT. But you need to think like a 1st century BCE-CE Jew looking for prophecy fulfilment where none was in sight on Earth.

@third_eye

You do realise that Nag Hammadi was an heretical forgery factory? Right?

[eight bits]

11 hours ago, third_eye said:

I believe too many researchers and personal searchers has this blind spot at skipping over the age of the disciples , they are not all of the same age group,

Mark is the earliest we hear about any disciples, and there do appear to be two aga strata: Peter is married and owns a house and Levi (the same character as Matthew elsewhere, the tax collector) has a job and his own place. The other two prominent loyal disciples, brothers James and John, were working for their father when Jesus recruited them; they could easily be schoolboy-age (in our terms, not so different from the age that one might begin religious studies in that culture). James and John also ask the stupidest question (a real distinction in Mark) about someday being seated with Jesus in some throne room, which comes across as immature.

All of the Twelve (including Judas) are presumably young-ish, since they live rough through much of the story and like it. Since they are paired off when they go on their training missions, even a young boy, paired with an older companion, would make a feasible preaching partnership. Jesus may occupy a third and the oldest stratum: at least in Mark, he seems to take vacations. That's why he's p***ed off at the pagan woman who wants an excorcism for her daughter: he's off the clock and she wants him to work.

Whether or not Mark has anything to do with history? He doesn't say. Tells a good story, though

 

3 hours ago, MERRY DMAS said:

What do you give the passage? 

About the same as you; a little tilted to historicist 55-45. Of course that's dramatically less than Guild Historicists like McGrath (who so enjoys tilting with Carrier) and Ehrman (who, I predict, will one day be a mythicist ... you heard it here first!). To hear them tell it, the game is over at Galatians 1:19, while at 50-50 or nearly so, the game has just begun.

 

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

If I've got this right since Paul is the earliest evidence for a historical Jesus it's I think then the earliest evidence of Peter also, so there was no 'gospel' where Peter is hanging with a historical Jesus at the time of Paul's writing to reconcile with (that we're aware of, of course). 

Yes, and no explanation of who or what brought Peter, James and John (the reputed pillars) together for Paul first to persecute them (or who paid for that), then later to turn into a contribution-bundler for them (but calls them hypocrites when writing to the people he's hitting up for money to send to them).

Historicist or mythicist, Paul's letters raise more questions than they answer.

 

 

Edited February 22, 2019 by eight bits

[SHaYap]

1 hour ago, MERRY DMAS said:

You do realise that Nag Hammadi was an heretical forgery factory? Right?

Why and how so ?

Because it does not fit into your prophecies ?

~

[Davros of Skaro]

58 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Why and how so ?

They left in a hurry. Stuffed pots with their dirty deeds in the middle of forging (putting Pagan sayings in Jesus's mouth), and buried it (the heresy cops were closing in).

58 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Because it does not fit into your prophecies ?

~

I don't know what you're talking about. It's just a late hot mess.

[docyabut2]

yep, Paul might have taken Jesus`s cousin, John Mark that could have written  the two gospels.  but Paul never met Jesus, he was a Christian killer, but in hearing Jesus`s trial and  resurrection, he went on to Rome to support Jesus.    

Edited February 22, 2019 by docyabut2

[docyabut2]

Quote

 John Mark was Jesus`s cousin. Jesus heal his leg at a very young age twelve, and he wrote the first letter of Jesus  at seventeen , that was lost and never wrote again until he was in his fifties.   

 

[Will Due]

5 hours ago, eight bits said:

That's why he's p***ed off at the pagan woman who wants an excorcism for her daughter: he's off the clock and she wants him to work.

 

Work off the clock? 

Which union local did he belong to?

 

 

[SHaYap]

10 hours ago, MERRY DMAS said:

They left in a hurry. Stuffed pots with their dirty deeds in the middle of forging (putting Pagan sayings in Jesus's mouth), and buried it (the heresy cops were closing in).

Now that's an indicator of an imagination running wild in the penned up biased thoughts. Which Jesus and which mouth was forged and who made who the hunters of heresy I wonder.

~

10 hours ago, MERRY DMAS said:

I don't know what you're talking about. It's just a late hot mess.

~

[Habitat]

Amusing to watch grown men argue about the details of some bloke's life they think probably didn't even exist.

[Davros of Skaro]

25 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Now that's an indicator of an imagination running wild in the penned up biased thoughts. Which Jesus and which mouth was forged and who made who the hunters of heresy I wonder.

~

~

Maybe instead of using the word "library" in the description? It should instead be referred as;

Nag Hammadi Heretical Forgery Mill Hurry Up Ditch the Evidence in the Sand the Cops are Coming Stash

The "library" in the name gives it way too much prestige. 

[Guyver]

On 2/21/2019 at 4:55 AM, Ellapennella said:

I'm confused as to what some of you are looking for.  Are you looking for Jesus or are you looking to disprove Jesus?

How could either be accomplished?  It can’t be proven that the Jesus of the Bible actually existed, and if you try to find Jesus now, wouldn’t you just be finding a belief in your own mind inspired by religion?

[eight bits]

3 hours ago, Guyver said:

How could either be accomplished?  It can’t be proven that the Jesus of the Bible actually existed, and if you try to find Jesus now, wouldn’t you just be finding a belief in your own mind inspired by religion?

That's a very fine summation of the situation, IMO.

 

3 hours ago, Habitat said:

Amusing to watch grown men argue about the details of some bloke's life they think probably didn't even exist.

I suppose it depends on what you think you're watching.

You can look at uncertain reasoning from the "question answering" perspective, and that level of understanding surely has its place. "Did Jesus exist and cause the first 'Christian' churches?," inquiring minds want to know. OK, but there is another perspective, "the accounting for evidence" perspective. Regardless of the answer to the question "Did Jesus exist and cause the first 'Christian' churches?," ancient artifacts certainly do exist. Ancient manuscripts in this case, then art and architecture after a while. Where'd they come from? Who made them? For what purpose(s) did they make them? To what purpose(s) did other people apply them?

Now it could be that the best possible accounting for the evidence includes the proposition "Jesus existed and caused the first 'Christian' churches." Then again, maybe not.

If all somebody cares about is whether or not Jesus existed and caused a religion to sprout, then probably that person will be amused by anything at all done by people who don't care as much, or only care if the "details" of Jesus' "life" make some difference to their ability to explain the evidence.

The attempt to address the evidence seriously is only about 250 years +/- old. Even in that short time, what we see is a "Jesus of the gaps," analogous to the "God of the gaps" problem for divine-interventionist religion generally. We're down to the paradox that in order for Jesus really to have done anything at all, he couldn't have done very much.

You find that amusing? Great. Whatever floats your boat, Habbie.

 

Edited February 23, 2019 by eight bits

[SHaYap]

2 hours ago, MERRY DMAS said:

Maybe instead of using the word "library" in the description? It should instead be referred as;

Nag Hammadi Heretical Forgery Mill Hurry Up Ditch the Evidence in the Sand the Cops are Coming Stash

The "library" in the name gives it way too much prestige. 

Nothing at all to do with prestige actually, the collective of the finds and findings itself is sufficient enough for it to be a corpus of qualitative research, considerable enough to be a 'Library' regardless of the refutations, where it may be, or contrary opinions. As for what it all means, scholastic or theological, it is a collection of old manuscripts, the relevance of what it contains will always be open to interpretations. 
 

Quote

 

Writing in the Name of God 
Why the Bible's Authors Are Not 
Who We Think They Are 

Bart d. ehrman 

~

....

Truth in the History of Christianity 

ONE COULD ARGUE THAT the obsession with truth in parts 
of evangelical Christianity today was matched by the commit- 
ment to truth in the earliest years of Christianity. This is one of 
the features of Christianity that made it distinctive among the re- 
ligions of antiquity. 

Most people today don't realize that ancient religions were al- 
most never interested in "true beliefs." Pagan religions— by which 
I mean the polytheistic religions of the vast majority of people in 
the ancient world, who were neither Jewish nor Christian— did 
not have creeds that had to be recited, beliefs that had to be af- 
firmed, or scriptures that had to be accepted as conveying divine 
truth. Truth was of interest to philosophers, but not to practition- 
ers of religion (unless they were also interested in philosophy). 
As strange as this may seem to us today, ancient religions didn't 
require you to believe one thing or another. Religion was all 
about the proper practices: sacrifices to the gods, for example, 
and set prayers. Moreover, because religion was not particularly 
concerned with what you believed about the gods and because all 
of these religions allowed, even encouraged, the worship of many 
gods, there was very little sense that if one of the religions was 
right, the others were wrong. They could all be right! There were 
many gods and many ways to worship the gods, not a single path 
to the divine. 

 

~

• Archive Org LINK

 

 

[Davros of Skaro]

16 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Nothing at all to do with prestige actually, the collective of the finds and findings itself is sufficient enough for it to be a corpus of qualitative research, considerable enough to be a 'Library' regardless of the refutations, where it may be, or contrary opinions. As for what it all means, scholastic or theological, it is a collection of old manuscripts, the relevance of what it contains will always be open to interpretations. 
 

 

You know what was part of the stash?

Plato's Republic;

Noble Lie

3. Myth as a means of persuasion

"For Plato we should live according to what reason is able to deduce from what we regard as reliable evidence. This is what real philosophers, like Socrates, do. But the non-philosophers are reluctant to ground their lives on logic and arguments. They have to be persuaded. One means of persuasion is myth. Myth inculcates beliefs. It is efficient in making the less philosophically inclined, as well as children (cf. Republic 377a ff.), believe noble things.

In the Republic the Noble Lie is supposed to make the citizens of Callipolis care more for their city. Schofield (2009) argues that the guards, having to do philosophy from their youth, may eventually find philosophizing “more attractive than doing their patriotic duty” (115). Philosophy, claims Schofield, provides the guards with knowledge, not with love and devotion for their city. The Noble Lie is supposed to engender in them devotion for their city and instill in them the belief that they should “invest their best energies into promoting what they judge to be the city’s best interests” (113). The preambles to a number of laws in the Laws that are meant to be taken as exhortations to the laws in question and that contain elements of traditional mythology (see 790c3, 812a2, 841c6) may also be taken as “noble lies”.

Plato’s eschatological myths are not complete lies. There is some truth in them. In the Phaedo the statement “The soul is immortal” is presented as following logically from various premises Socrates and his interlocutors consider acceptable (cf. 106b–107a). After the final argument for immortality (102a–107b), Cebes admits that he has no further objections to, nor doubts about, Socrates’ arguments. But Simmias confesses that he still retains some doubt (107a–b), and then Socrates tells them an eschatological myth. The myth does not provide evidence that the soul is immortal. It assumes that the soul is immortal and so it may be said that it is not entirely false. The myth also claims that there is justice in the afterlife and Socrates hopes that the myth will convince one to believe that the soul is immortal and that there is justice in the afterlife. “I think”, says Socrates, that “it is fitting for a man to risk the belief—for the risk is a noble one—that this, or something like this, is true about our souls and their dwelling places” (114d–e). (Edmonds (2004) offers a interesting analysis of the final myth of Phaedo, Aristophanes’ Frogs and the funerary gold leaves, or “tablets”, that have been found in Greek tombs). At the end of the myth of Er (the eschatological myth of the Republic) Socrates says that the myth “would save us, if we were persuaded by it” (621b). Myth represents a sort of back-up: if one fails to be persuaded by arguments to change one’s life, one may still be persuaded by a good myth. Myth, as it is claimed in the Laws, may be needed to “charm” one “into agreement” (903b) when philosophy fails to do so."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-myths/

You're just going to get corn stuck between your teeth from that late date steaming pile.

[Habitat]

34 minutes ago, eight bits said:

We're down to the paradox that in order for Jesus really to have done anything at all, he couldn't have done very much.

Try as I might, I am not seeing what you are wanting to convey, with that. Anyone who can, is welcome to interpret it !

[SHaYap]

1 hour ago, MERRY DMAS said:

You're just going to get corn stuck between your teeth from that late date steaming pile.

Not quite sure if you are saying that this collection of codices is a hoax or alluding that the modern studies / research is unreliable. Just because Plato's Republic is part of the finds it makes it all a purposed effort of a Noble Lie to you ?
 

Quote

 

~

Plato's Republic extract at Nag Hammadi (NHC 6.5): Purposeful ...

 

https://historum.com › Forums › History Periods › Ancient History

Sep 12, 2013 - In the (Coptic) Nag Hammadi Codices (at 6.5) is an extract of Plato's Republic. ... NHC 6.5 - Comparing Plato' Republic in the Nag Hammadi coptic to the .... exception of the 1st tractate) contains Non Christian Gnostic texts.

 

~

Was the "mistranslation" of Plato's Republic at Nag Hammadi (6.5 ...

 

talkrational.org › ... › Discussion › History, Anthropological Sciences and Humanities

Mar 5, 2009 - Was the "mistranslation" of Plato's Republic at Nag Hammadi (6.5) purposeful? History ... see that the text of Plato contains many fewer variants

 

~

Plato's Republic at Nag Hammadi: a comparison to the original ...

 

talkrational.org › ... › Discussion › Theology, Hagiography and Creeds

Mar 3, 2009 - mountainman's Avatar. Join Date: Sep 2008. Posts: 781. mountainman. Default Plato's Republic at Nag Hammadi: a comparison to the original ...

 

~

 

Maybe you as a detractor is expecting too much of the scribes to at least google check before trying to commit such attempts at forgery all those years ago.

Anyways, it is a commentary on The Republic, which just means they studied or at least had knowledge of Plato's works. Something that was heavily suppressed at the time.

~

[eight bits]

5 hours ago, Habitat said:

Try as I might, I am not seeing what you are wanting to convey, with that. Anyone who can, is welcome to interpret it !

On the assumption that you aren't simply trolling as you so often are, it means that If Jesus did mighty deeds, then more literate people would have been expected to notice.

For example, Josephus is a very difficult case. He's born shortly after Pilate left Judea. His family business is religion. Sometime during his late childhood there was a regional famine. The adult Josephus writes about the famine in Antiquities (book 20, 2.5 and 5,2). And what, just 15 years or so earlier, there had been a man who fed thousands at a sitting starting with food scraps, and Josephus writes not one word about him in this connection? Not even that there had been stories about such a man circulating among the hungry masses, whether Josephus believed those stories or not, even though he'd have professionally noticed the parallel to the Elijah-Elisha myths prevalent among those hungry people?

Exorcism? Josephus writes about that, too (Antiquities 8.2.5). He relates a showmanship-heavy exorcist he saw personally to Solomon's legendary expertise in the matter - nothing about the recent elegant master exorcist whose tales he'd heard in his youth? You know who I mean, the one people were saying was a descendant of Solomon (Matthew 1:6-7) or his older brother Nathan (Luke 3:31).

An eerie one is in Josephus' autobiography, Life (1.2 8) http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/autobiog.html

Quote

Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the High Priests, and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law.

Nothing about the older priests exclaiming, "Jesus, Joe, you're as good as that kid years ago whom Pilate ended up killing!"

Jesus didn't make an impression. His followers didn't make an impression, although they were active in Josephus' vicinity and workplace (and presumably of interest to law enforcement) throughout Josephus' formative years into active adulthood. But nothing.

That is possible, Habbie, but only if Jesus was flying way under the radar, and his followers did likewise for three decades running. We're down to the paradox that in order for Jesus really to have done anything at all, he couldn't have done very much.

 

Edited February 23, 2019 by eight bits

[Will Due]

3 minutes ago, eight bits said:

On the assumption that you aren't simply trolling as you so often are, it means that If Jesus did mighty deeds, then more literate people would have been expected to notice.

For example, Josephus is a very difficult case. He's born shortly after Pilate left Judea. His family business is religion. Sometime during his late childhood there was a regional famine. The adult Josephus writes about the famine in Antiquities (book 20, 2.5 and 5,2). And what, just 15 years or so earlier, there had been a man who fed thousands at a sitting starting with food scraps, and Josephus writes not one word about him in this connection? Not even that there had been stories about such a man circulating among the hungry masses, whether Josephus believed those stories or not, even though he'd have professionally noticed the parallel to the Elijah-Elisha myths prevalent among those hungry people?

Exorcism? Josephus writes about that, too (Antiquities 8.2.5). He relates a showmanship-heavy exorcist he saw personally to Solomon's legendary expertise in the matter - nothing about the recent elegant master exorcist whose tales he'd heard in his youth?

An eerie one is in Josephus autobiography, Life (1.2 8) http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/autobiog.html

Nothing about the older priests exclaiming, "Jesus, Joe, you're as good as that kid years ago whom Pilate ended up killing!"

Jesus didn't make an impression. His followers didn't make an impression, although they were active (and presumably of interest to law enforcement) throughout Josephus' formative years into active adulthood. But nothing.

That is possible, Habbie, but only if Jesus was flying way under the radar, and his followers did likewise for three decades running. We're down to the paradox that in order for Jesus really to have done anything at all, he couldn't have done very much.

 

 

But 8, Joe was a devout Jew right? From a prominent religious Jewish family right? 

During the time Jesus taught the gospel of the kingdom and certainly immediately following his crucifixion, amongst the upper strata of the families who controlled the rulership of the Jewish religion, there was a high degree of need to dismiss all things Jesus, was there not? Even today it still goes on.

Considering that, it would not have been strange that Josephus didn't hear much about the feeding of his hungry followers or any other astonishingly good thing Jesus did that indicated God's true nature. Things that stood out in contrast to the erroneous ideas about God they all had and still have today. The things the Jewish leaders of those days would rather have preferred to ignore. And certainly not talk about with their children.

 

 

[ellapenella]

On 2/21/2019 at 7:46 PM, eight bits said:

Discussion. So far, so good, eh?

meh