The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote: And what evidence do you have for this and is it reliable?


.
Because our best witnesses to history of this period says he hunted them down.

Its not disputed with any credibility.

So then we ask YOU who would Paul be hunting them down? Who is paying for this and why? Now were getting into the first century context of the movement and politics.

So the evidence is the political context, do you understand this period in depth, or just a vague outline?

In the topic “The Simontic problem Marks Negative Casting of Peter” (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=262&start=40) page 5 onwards I debate with Bernard Muller and provide some evidence that Mark expected his readers to understand that the disciples saw the resurrected Jesus.
Cephas as I understand the word is Aramaic for Peter and so from Paul’s letters it seems he is known by an Aramaic nickname.


None of this can be used with any plausibility tied to the Galilean movement.


The gospels do portray the disciples as leaving Jesus to his fate, but they also portray them as seeing the resurrected Jesus and in at least two of them as having a major role after this.
So what.

They were rhetorically creating divinity to equal the Emperors divinity as "son of god" MOTIVE we don't ignore the communities motives when they wrote these text.

Paul clearly has Cephas and James having influence within some of the Christian groups outside Palestine.
Yes but Pauls community who co wrote his epistles also had MOTIVES. That were clearly expressed. And we know it was customary to create pseudepigraphal text. This was a known common rhetorical procedure.

Also we don’t know how much dispute there was between Sadducees and Pharisees and between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians or between Hellenised Jews and more traditional Jew
s


False.

We have a buttload of information here. The Sadducees were hated, not up for debate. And we have the temple falling for political reasons only.

YOUR ignoring the fact these were oppressed people.
Your last point is an assumption based on the cleansing of the Temple being historical,


False again.

I believe there was trouble in the temple, but how what where and why are guesses and I do not claim "cleansing" that is an apologetic title I have no faith in.

Our main source is Acts where Luke is not interesting in recording disputes but in showing how united the early church was.
Who cares?

The early followers were not united in any way. The movement was wide and diverse, and there was no center of origin.


I don’t accept that Nazareth existed during Jesus’ lifetime.


That is a personal problem based on lack of study.


It would literally be ignorant to think a city like Sepphoris would not spring up agrarian satellite villages, due to a labor force and agrarian needs required to feed the city of 10,000-20,000 ish.

Were there was a water supply, you would have had peasants and workers that were within a 2 hour walk from the city. It would be about impossible that no one used this GOOD water supply.

There is a reason why people have settled there off and on for thousands of years. With the rebuilding of Sepphoris its a certainty.


Capernaum doesn’t seem to have revolted in 66 CE and so might be seen as Hellenistic.


False.

It was a small village made out of crude fieldstone, and thought by most NOT to be Hellenistic as there is no evidence.

Some debate its poverty status, but either way it does no have anything in common with our Hellenistic cities.


Capernaum doesn’t seem to have revolted in 66 CE .
False.

There is a lack of evidence for this, that does not place ANY certainty that they did not revolt. It was a small village and so we expect there to be no evidence of such either way.

Do you have any evidence about land ownership in Galilee and Judea in the first century CE?


Are you seriously going to deny Antipas ruling Galilee?

You should read some of Johnathon Reeds work and how he defines Tekton based on archeology.
I am not sure the term “perverted” should be used, modified or changed would be better
If you don't call another culture perverting after changing another culture religious belief by plagiarized their traditions, well its a personal problem.
Mesopotamian and Iranian culture modified and changed the religion of the Jews
Because they mowed them over, murdered them and took over their cultures driving them out of their homeland after destroying their civilization. :facepalm:

In fact the whole history of the religion of the Jews until about 300 CE is about reformation and it didn’t stop there which is why there are different varieties today.
Do you sanitize all history that way?


These people were displaces peasants in origin, who were beat down and destroyed every time they looked like a threat to the powers that be. Their history is that of pee3ling their selves off the bottom of war boots and rebuilding from fractured pieces.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by Michael BG »

outhouse wrote: And knowing early on they were hunted down possibly being seen as a threat to the temple, they kept their practice on the down low.
Michael BG wrote:And what evidence do you have for this and is it reliable?
Because our best witnesses to history of this period says he hunted them down.

Its not disputed with any credibility.

So then we ask YOU who would Paul be hunting them down? Who is paying for this and why? Now were getting into the first century context of the movement and politics.

So the evidence is the political context, do you understand this period in depth, or just a vague outline?
When I ask for evidence I was expecting you to state who said Christians were persecuted. I was not expecting a general well everyone believes this so it must be true.
There is Gal 1:13-14

[13] For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it;
[14] and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.

So Paul is saying that he tried to destroy the belief in the resurrected Jesus among Jews by pursuing members of this community. This does not mean he tried to have anyone killed. It is generally accepted that the Jewish authorities did not have the power to sentence people to death.

Please can you let me know the other places Paul talks of his pursuing the community of Christ?

Timothy Barnes according to Wikipedia states “Actual persecution … was local, sporadic, almost random,” and then states that “Tertullian wrote that no Christian blood was shed in Africa prior to 180.” There seems to be no evidence “early on they were hunted down possibly being seen as a threat to the temple”. I stated “I don’t see any evidence that early Christians generally were in fear for their lives. I see that as a Christian myth. A few times some action is taken against some of the most outspoken Christians such as Stephen and maybe James son of Zebedee.”
outhouse wrote: The earliest gospel ignores this resurrection almost completely, this is a later tradition.

None of the movement can be tracked back to any Galilean or real follower.
Michael BG wrote:In the topic “The Simontic problem Marks Negative Casting of Peter” (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=262&start=40) page 5 onwards I debate with Bernard Muller and provide some evidence that Mark expected his readers to understand that the disciples saw the resurrected Jesus.
Cephas as I understand the word is Aramaic for Peter and so from Paul’s letters it seems he is known by an Aramaic nickname.


None of this can be used with any plausibility tied to the Galilean movement.
Your statement above does not address the debate between Bernard and myself about Mark expecting his readers to understand that the resurrected Jesus was seen by the disciples in Galilee. You have not provided a case against the historicity of Jesus having disciples called Peter, John and James who came from Galilee.
outhouse wrote:
Paul clearly has Cephas and James having influence within some of the Christian groups outside Palestine.
Yes but Pauls community who co wrote his epistles also had MOTIVES. That were clearly expressed. And we know it was customary to create pseudepigraphal text. This was a known common rhetorical procedure.
You are not going to convince me of this without providing a case for seeing these and the other references I gave as interpolations.
outhouse wrote:
Also we don’t know how much dispute there was between Sadducees and Pharisees and between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians or between Hellenised Jews and more traditional Jew


False.

We have a buttload of information here. The Sadducees were hated, not up for debate. And we have the temple falling for political reasons only.
I am not ignoring anything, because you haven’t presented anything. Please let me know what information you think there is, because earlier you wrote there wasn’t any reliable evidence?
outhouse wrote:
Your last point is an assumption based on the cleansing of the Temple being historical,


False again.

I believe there was trouble in the temple, but how what where and why are guesses and I do not claim "cleansing" that is an apologetic title I have no faith in.
You haven’t presented how you deal with the cleansing of the Temple and how you judge some of it historical and some theological, but you clearly accept something as historical even if you want to dispute how I describe the way it is presented in the gospels.
outhouse wrote: The early followers were not united in any way. The movement was wide and diverse, and there was no center of origin.
I am happy we can agree that the “Jesus Christ” movement was diverse.
outhouse wrote:
I don’t accept that Nazareth existed during Jesus’ lifetime.


That is a personal problem based on lack of study.
I do wonder why you don’t wish to provide some evidence that Nazareth existed in 36 CE, but I know you can’t provide any evidence it was a city (which is what you called it) even in 66 CE.
outhouse wrote: It would literally be ignorant to think a city like Sepphoris would not spring up agrarian satellite villages, due to a labor force and agrarian needs required to feed the city of 10,000-20,000 ish.

Were there was a water supply, you would have had peasants and workers that were within a 2 hour walk from the city. It would be about impossible that no one used this GOOD water supply.

There is a reason why people have settled there off and on for thousands of years. With the rebuilding of Sepphoris its a certainty.
What has this to do with the extent of the Hellenisation of Galilee under Seleucid Empire for over 200 years? Or how it continued after the Roman conquest of 63 BCE?
outhouse wrote:
Capernaum doesn’t seem to have revolted in 66 CE and so might be seen as Hellenistic.


False.
There is a lack of evidence for this, that does not place ANY certainty that they did not revolt. It was a small village and so we expect there to be no evidence of such either way.

It was a small village made out of crude fieldstone, and thought by most NOT to be Hellenistic as there is no evidence.

Some debate its poverty status, but either way it does no have anything in common with our Hellenistic cities.

There is a lack of evidence for this, that does not place ANY certainty that they did not revolt. It was a small village and so we expect there to be no evidence of such either way.
We can agree there is very little evidence, but there is no evidence that Capernaum did revolt and therefore it is quite possible that the reason for this was because it was Hellenistic in some way.
outhouse wrote:
Do you have any evidence about land ownership in Galilee and Judea in the first century CE?


Are you seriously going to deny Antipas ruling Galilee?

You should read some of Johnathon Reeds work and how he defines Tekton based on archeology.
Again I ask for evidence and you provide none. A few quotes including how these opinions are arrived out I image would be enough for a rational debate.
outhouse wrote:
In fact the whole history of the religion of the Jews until about 300 CE is about reformation and it didn’t stop there which is why there are different varieties today.
Do you sanitize all history that way?
The history of the religion of the Jews is one of adaption and change. If this was not true, Jews today would be worshiping a tribal god and would not have their religious writings.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by Giuseppe »

I am confirmed in my suspicions already reading today the first chapter of Miller's recent book on Christ's Resurrection.

The figure of the fool Christian apologist who insists that the resurrection is historical, basing on the historical Gospels, never existed in the ancient world. It's all modern invention.

Justin recognized that the Gospels were fairy tales as pagan ones. He insists that they are divinely inspired (and therefore ''true'') only accusing the other tales of being inspired by demons.

The only exception, according to the author, for reasons he will explain later in Chapter 4, is Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. This leads me personally to suspect that Michael_BG may have reason to consider 1 cor 15 as interpolation. However I still have to get to the chapter 4 of the book to know what Miller does think about.

The author criticizes the (faith-based) neutrality of the academy when it does not wish to express himself on the question whether the legend (''miracles'', etc) originated the cult, or if the cult originated the legend.

If he is not able to give an answer at the end of the book, I think I would be greatly disappointed.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote: When I ask for evidence I was expecting you to state who said Christians were persecuted.

.
First Christians did not exist in this time.


Second its not my fault you don't know or just refuse the evidence out of lack of study. The NT is full of evidence.


Its all in the text, maybe you should read the NT before debating it?


We all understand the persecution contains rhetorical mythology and has been overblown.


You have no idea what sectarian conflict even implies in context do you?


Why do you ignore that before the temple fell, those in power were worried about it???? Do you not understand Pilate and Caiaphas life were on he line to keep peace and keep the money flowing????????????

No value in peace to you huh?
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote: I do wonder why you don’t wish to provide some evidence that Nazareth existed in 36 CE, but I know you can’t provide any evidence it was a city (which is what you called it) even in 66 CE.

.
There is evidence. The fact people wrote about it, probably in the first century is evidence.

Evidence from 36ce is non sequitur.

Even Carrier has stated in the past he believes the village was there.


VILLAGE not city.


No credible scholar really questions its village status, only quacks have fought against it based on lies and misrepresentation of evidence. Such as Rene Salm.

I will explain the obvious, study is still being done and should be to fill in the pieces of the puzzle. But as it stands Nazareth has first century historicity whether you question it or not.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by Michael BG »

Giuseppe wrote:I am confirmed in my suspicions already reading today the first chapter of Miller's recent book on Christ's Resurrection.

The figure of the fool Christian apologist who insists that the resurrection is historical, basing on the historical Gospels, never existed in the ancient world. It's all modern invention.

Justin recognized that the Gospels were fairy tales as pagan ones. He insists that they are divinely inspired (and therefore ''true'') only accusing the other tales of being inspired by demons.

The only exception, according to the author, for reasons he will explain later in Chapter 4, is Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. This leads me personally to suspect that Michael_BG may have reason to consider 1 cor 15 as interpolation. However I still have to get to the chapter 4 of the book to know what Miller does think about.

The author criticizes the (faith-based) neutrality of the academy when it does not wish to express himself on the question whether the legend (''miracles'', etc) originated the cult, or if the cult originated the legend.

If he is not able to give an answer at the end of the book, I think I would be greatly disappointed.
Do you mean Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity by Richard C. Miller?

Some scholars consider what type of story the resurrection appearance stories can be classified as. Therefore hopefully Miller will address that and he might even agree with them that they share features similar to angelic appearance stories. For me the reason Christianity exists is because unlike other Jewish Messianic figures, Jesus’ followers believed that they saw the resurrected Jesus. Their belief has to be seen as historical or they have based their religion on a lie.
outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote: When I ask for evidence I was expecting you to state who said Christians were persecuted.
First Christians did not exist in this time.

Second its not my fault you don't know or just refuse the evidence out of lack of study. The NT is full of evidence.

Its all in the text, maybe you should read the NT before debating it?

We all understand the persecution contains rhetorical mythology and has been overblown.

You have no idea what sectarian conflict even implies in context do you?

Why do you ignore that before the temple fell, those in power were worried about it???? Do you not understand Pilate and Caiaphas life were on he line to keep peace and keep the money flowing????????????

No value in peace to you huh?
I know that I know some things others do not know. I also know that others know some things I don’t know. But I don’t try to assign blame or fault for this.

I know that you have asked others for evidence, so I don’t understand why you have a problem with me doing the same. Why are blaming me for not knowing the New Testament like an Evangelical Christian?

I don’t understand how you can write:
The NT is full of evidence.
This makes you sound like an evangelical Christian and the New Testament should be totally accepted without any critical assessment. But I don’t think that is your position.

It was you who wrote:
outhouse wrote:And knowing early on they were hunted down possibly being seen as a threat to the temple, they kept their practice on the down low.
You still haven’t posted any evidence for your opinion. You have failed to consider HERE the historicity of any of your theoretical evidence.

I can see that the Roman Empire wanted to raise money from those lands it conquered. I don’t see the situation as any different in Jerusalem than say Athens or Corinth (which the Romans destroyed in 146 BCE).

I don’t see any evidence that Pilate or Caiaphas had their lives threatened. Do you see any evidence? All I see is that they were removed from office.

You wrote:
outhouse wrote: I hold very little historicity to this Jerusalem sect other then then they were Hellenist like those of the Diaspora
I am still interested in you presenting the case for this opinion and refuting the counter evidence I provided in a rational manner.
Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by Adam »

The last thing I would want to do, Michael,
Is defend our "outhouse" from the charge of generally blowing off his competition by cavalier trumpetings of what he "knows" to be true based on his readings into the sociology and archaeology of ancient Palestine. Yes, he is guilty as charged. He basically refuses to back up his ukases with proof or even much evidence. But he himself will admit that memorization of all the details of who said what when in which books/articles and how well it was received and whether we should still stand on that particular--well, you get my drift. I don't have great command of all that either, so I don't demand that all others meet the highest standards on what they choose to present here before the world. Even great thinkers like Stephan Huller (what is his Secret that he hides behind his Alias? By the way, Stephan, I just received your book The Real Messiah I bought new from Alibris, your 2011 paperback edition) post all kinds of kooky ideas here that they don't even pretend to know how to defend. (I take a middle road myself. I present the kookiest of ideas--that there are seven written eyewitness accounts of Jesus as sources within the four gospels-- but only what I have taken the time to research for evidence.)
What I am saying is that "outhouse" fires ideas at us that he does know are supported by academic scholars, but he has no intention of spending any time documenting any of this. The problem is also that many of his ideas are right, many are wrong, but he gives you NOTHING to help you tell the difference. He is as convinced he is right when he is wrong as he is convinced when he is right. As long as you keep in mind that he is a slave to fashion, take what he says as truly representing what many academics do think, whether THEY are right or wrong. He is a help to keeping in mind what THEY think we should think, but he is not very helpful in discerning whether what THEY think is right or wrong.
How about it, Cool fellow? I'm planning to be near Auburn November 8th, if you want to get down and Dirty after Lutheran 9:00 church services are over. (Oh, this is an aside to outhouse and the restaurant Dirty Dingus McGee.)
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote: . Why are blaming me for not knowing the New Testament like an Evangelical Christian?


.
Do you think historians are ignorant of the text?
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by outhouse »

Adam wrote: What I am saying is that "outhouse" fires ideas at us that he does know are supported by academic scholars, but he has no intention of spending any time documenting any of this.
I cannot teach you what I have learned from lectures from some of the finest professors on these topics. Nor can I source them as a student.


I often admit when I stray the beaten academic path. I also often admit when a topic is highly debated such as the socioeconomic status of Aramaic Galilean villages.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by outhouse »

Michael BG wrote:This makes you sound like an evangelical Christian and the New Testament should be totally accepted without any critical assessment.

.
Mike I have nothing against you.

But this statement makes you look completely ignorant to modern scholarship.


No where have I ever stated we accept anything in the NT blindly.


It is a fact he NT is our main source of evidence for these time periods. And only with study and criticism can we determine and evaluate the evidence.


Evidence can hold great value and evidence can hold little to none. But it is still evidence. Scholars determine the value of said evidence. We often see a middle of the road and those far right and left in interpretation. Don't blame me because you admit to far left or right.

You still haven’t posted any evidence for your opinion.
Yes I have Paul is excellent evidence which holds historicity here. As it stands regardless of what I post, Early Christians were persecuted. To what extent is what is being studied.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Chri ... man_Empire

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

Early Christians suffered sporadic persecution as the result of local pagan populations putting pressure on the imperial authorities to take action against the Christians in their midst, who were thought to bring misfortune by their refusal to honour the gods.[7][8] Persecution was on the rise in Asia Minor towards the end of the 1st century,[9] and in 111 AD the emperor Trajan issued regulations about the conduct of trials of Christians under the Roman governor of the area.[10] The first action taken against Christians by the order of an emperor occurred half a century earlier under Nero after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD.[8]
Post Reply