Critically Questioning Our Sources

[Duvduv]

The first issue is that the historical narrative for a first or second Christianity is based on the claims of the Church historians/apologists.
But it cannot be empirically proven, and must either be accepted ON FAITH or questioned critically in terms of context and content.
Most people are not interested in the latter and will not admit to the fact that they accept the narrative - and variations on the theme of that narrative - of the Church on FAITH.
Plain and simple.

[Peter Kirby]

Writing in big bold letters doesn't help you.

I don't really care what "most people" do or are interested in.

Critically questioning our sources is what this forum is about. Quit your cryin' and get on with it.

[stephan happy huller]

Most people are not interested in the latter and will not admit to the fact that they accept the narrative - and variations on the theme of that narrative - of the Church on FAITH.
Plain and simple.

I think the other forum forced me to be too nice to you two fucking nitwits. Very few people at this forum take things based on faith. You keep saying this same point over and over again. I think you have a stereotypical view of Gentiles undoubtedly cultivated by your traditional religious upbringing. In fact, it is you who bring forward a 'faith based' notion of a conspiracy developed in the fourth century. There is no evidence for your repeatedly claims whatsoever and yet you continue believe in something that has no basis in fact.

And let me ask you this - because this is an apples to apples comparison with respect to early Christianity. What evidence is there for a Frankist Jewish community as recently as a century ago? What about the Sabbateans in Izmir? Here is his house http://www.zeek.net/706photo/ What's it been? Four hundred years? Now that they have a hostile government in Turkey guess what will happen to this piece of archaeology? Bye bye.

I guess they never existed. It was a Gentile conspiracy that gave birth to this underground tradition - a traditional a lot like early Christianity.

[Duvduv]

Peter, besides enlarging the font what did I say that was wrong?
As far as Huller is concerned, can anyone translate what he was trying to say besides hurling personal insults instead of making substantive comments on the points made?
Andwhat do Frankists and Sabbateans have to do with all this?

[Bernard Muller]

to Duduv,

The first issue is that the historical narrative for a first or second Christianity is based on the claims of the Church historians/apologists.

I am not one of those Church historians/apologists, and I can tell you some of the earliest critical Christian texts can be approximately dated through the internal and external evidence.

it must ... be ...questioned critically in terms of context and content

You said it. That's where internal & external evidence come into play.

Some examples below:
About Mark's gospel: http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p44.htm
About Matthew's gospel: http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p61.htm
About (some) of Paul's epistles:
a) Through Mark's gospel: http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p70.htm
b) Through 1 Clement: http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p56.htm

From this webpage of mine http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html (consult it to see how I arrived to the conclusions shown on the graphics), here are two graphics:




If you do not agree, the onus is on you to prove that all Christian texts which I dated in the 1st & 2nd century, were actually written not before the 3rd century.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

what did I say that was wrong?

There's a certain truthiness to what you said. I wasn't calling you out as wrong.

Here's the thing. This forum accepts the necessity of critical questioning as something natural, as a matter of course.

It's like going into a right-wing political forum and complaining about how everyone just bows down to Marx, or going into a left-wing political forum and complaining about how everyone just bows down to Rand, or going into an atheistic philosophy forum and complaining how everyone just bows down to Aquinas... or coming here and complaining how everyone just bows down to the Church Fathers. That may fly elsewhere, but it doesn't fly here.

[Peter Kirby]

If you do not agree, the onus is on you to prove that all Christian texts which I dated in the 1st & 2nd century, were actually written not before the 3rd century.

That's not how it works. There are thousands of possible specific combinations that could be claimed to represent the datings of these texts. Making a nice chart, as much as it may be backed by the evidence as you see it, does not privilege that particular combination of ideas when it comes to the burden of proof. If someone wants to claim that these texts, or some of them, come from before the 3rd century--as much as I'd already agree with them--the onus is on them to explain why someone should reasonably agree with them. Assertions require evidence.

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Peter,

That's not how it works. There are thousands of possible specific combinations that could be claimed to represent the datings of these texts.

And what would be the other specific combinations?
I think that's rather missing from the ones who put the start of Christianity in the 2nd century (except for Detering attempting to do just that), or the 3rd century, or the fourth century.

Making a nice chart, as much as it may be backed by the evidence as you see it, does not privilege that particular combination of ideas when it comes to the burden of proof.

Well I am still waiting for some other similar charts (with justifications) showing the sequencing and interactions in the case of Christianity starting in the 2nd, or 3rd or 4th century.

If someone wants to claim that these texts, or some of them, come from before the 3rd century--as much as I'd already agree with them--the onus is on them to explain why someone should reasonably agree with them. Assertions require evidence.

That's what I did for many of these texts, through internal and external evidence. Now the onus is on those who think these texts were written later.

Cordially, Bernard