Is the denial of Peter Mythicist evidence ?

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,
Act 25:19 "But had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive."
"one Jesus, which was dead" (not a superstition: humans do die) does not mean Festus not knowing that.
However Festus might not be aware of the superstition claimed by Paul that Jesus was alive (in heaven).

Did you read the conclusions of the Jesus seminar? According to them, you should not use Acts to make your point.
Even the more moderate Tabor would dispel the whole passage as highly suspect for any authenticity.

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

Did you read the conclusions of the Jesus seminar? According to them, you should not use Acts to make your point.

It wasn't the Jesus seminar that looked at Acts, Bernard, it was a separate Acts Seminar, https://www.westarinstitute.org/project ... -apostles/

As for your point on authenticity, Bernard, none of it is authentic: it's all smoke n mirrors Bernard. That''s the point of the Acts Seminar, of James Tabor, and even you occasionally make that point -

Comment: According to Paul, his first revelation came from God. According to 'Acts', Paul had that revelation from the heavenly Jesus, not God, as known through three different versions of the same alleged event.
There is a conflict between the two first versions: in one, Paul's companions hear the voice; in the other, they do not hear it!

3. With so much differences (sometimes conflict) between the different accounts of the same events ...

http://historical-jesus.info/75.html

but you then dumb down to appeal to incredulity, "There is no way "Luke" could have afforded to make the drastic changes & embellishments if Paul's letters were readily available in the community (probable exception: Philippians)."

eta: Luke was an attempt to reconcile disparate accounts.

[Bernard Muller]

to MrMacSon,

It wasn't the Jesus seminar that looked at Acts, Bernard, it was a separate Acts Seminar, https://www.westarinstitute.org/project ... -apostles/

Yes I made a mistake. I meant Acts seminar.

As for your point on authenticity, Bernard, none of it is authentic: it's all smoke n mirrors Bernard. That''s the point of the Acts Seminar, of James Tabor, and even you occasionally make that point -
Comment: According to Paul, his first revelation came from God. According to 'Acts', Paul had that revelation from the heavenly Jesus, not God, as known through three different versions of the same alleged event.
There is a conflict between the two first versions: in one, Paul's companions hear the voice; in the other, they do not hear it!

3. With so much differences (sometimes conflict) between the different accounts of the same events ...

In that case, I would follow Tabor's advice and go with Paul's version (except Paul's revelation was either propaganda or coming from his tormented mind).

If you keep the criteria: There are conflicts in the NT (and they are many), so the whole NT has to be thrashed away, then witnessing the different and conflicting many mythicist renditions about the beginning of Christianity, you should also thrashed them all, including your own.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to MrMacSon,

but you then dumb down to appeal to incredulity, "There is no way "Luke" could have afforded to make the drastic changes & embellishments if Paul's letters were readily available in the community (probable exception: Philippians)."

Luke was an attempt to reconcile disparate accounts.

And how do you know that?

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

In that case, I would follow Tabor's advice and go with Paul's version (except Paul's revelation was either propaganda or coming from his tormented mind).

Do you see that that highlights your problem, Bernard?

If you keep the criteria: There are conflicts in the NT (and they are many), so the whole NT has to be thrashed away ...

The issue isn't just 'conflicts' in the NT though, is it Bernard?


This -

If you keep the criteria: There are conflicts in the NT (and they are many), so the whole NT has to be thrashed away, then witnessing the different and conflicting many mythicist renditions about the beginning of Christianity, you should also thrashed them all, including your own.

Cordially, Bernard

- is illogical -it's a non-sequitur - and it's petty, Bernard.

It's especially Petty with your sign-off, ''Cordially, Bernard".

The bottom line, Bernard, is many people are beginning to see that the beginning of Christianity is not what it has seemed or what it has been portrayed as.

(and you are more off-beam than most).

[MrMacSon]

sealion.jpg (5.18 KiB) Viewed 3564 times

[Bernard Muller]

to MrMacSon,

Do you see that that highlights your problem, Bernard?

I did not say Paul is not a propagandist or even liar, when he told about revelations from above But besides Paul's alleged revelation from God, the account of Paul is certainly more realistic than Acts version.
This is what I wrote in http://historical-jesus.info/":
"For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? ..." (Ro3:7 KJV)
"Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast." (2Co11:18)
"I must go on boasting. ... I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord." (2Co12:1)

The issue isn't just 'conflicts' in the NT though, is it Bernard?

Can you explained that rather than going through mysterious innuendos (as for your picture of seals, even if I don't see any connection)?

The bottom line, Bernard, is many people are beginning to see that the beginning of Christianity is not what it has seemed or what it has been portrayed as.

Well, I am among these people, because I certainly found "the beginning of Christianity is not what it has seemed or what it has been portrayed as". My studies reject many important & critical points made by "historicists" and follow a well researched path throughout. And not going along with, but commonly accepted, false notions. From http://historical-jesus.info/author.html:

n) Reject ill-substantiated assumptions, even if they are widely "swallowed" (beware of "studies" which accept them, either unannounced ("transparent") or with a short introduction!).

Furthermore, I do not think many people have become mythicists (even if it is the impression given in this forum).
It does look mythicist books just sell much or even are readily available in brick & mortar libraries. (however there are many books in display from exalted Christians or Christian apologists).

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

Did you read the conclusions of the Jesus seminar? According to them, you should not use Acts to make your point.
Even the more moderate Tabor would dispel the whole passage as highly suspect for any authenticity.

apart the fact that I expected Stephen Goranson appeal to Acts Seminar as answer, I wonder about a very strange methodological principle: when late propaganda is useful to make mythicist points, you exorcize it as not authentic.

When the same historicist invokes the Gospels (!) to interpret "correctly" Paul's nebulous claims, he ignores too much easily that the Gospels have the same credibility of Acts in terms of fictional claims et similia.

Mysteries of the faith.

[StephenGoranson]

a) Giuseppe wrote, (above, Dec. 5), “Frankly, Stephen, I may recognize my error about the interpretation given above on the denial of Peter,…” Thank you, G.; that is helpful.

b) G. referred to “facts” attested relative to Acts 25:19. When Festus was newly arrived in Judaea (in the year 59 or 60 or so?) did he know about all earlier crucifixions in Judaea? Maybe, maybe not. If he did, then he knew that the human Jesus of Nazareth has been crucified many years before. A human man.

[Giuseppe]

When Festus was newly arrived in Judaea (in the year 59 or 60 or so?) did he know about all earlier crucifixions in Judaea? Maybe, maybe not. If he did, then he knew that the human Jesus of Nazareth has been crucified many years before. A human man.

Good point. So Festus didn't know nothing because he was newly arrived in Judaea. But Agrippa was not 'newly arrived':

Acts 26:2-3

2 I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews:
3 Especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently.

• Precisely king Agrippa, to which Festus has just revealed his ignorance about “a dead man named Jesus” and the way he died, just him, «expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews», is totally unable to inform alone Festus about the identity of this Jesus.

• But Agrippa II was in Rome, when the presumed Jesus of Nazareth was crucified by Pilate. Therefore, if he was "expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews", then the meaning of that description is that Agrippa II knew perfectly the words of the Prophets. Also Paul confirms later that he is alluding to knowledge of the Prophets:
  
  
  “I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable. 26 The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in secret. 27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.”
  
  (Acts 25:25-27)

• Hence, Paul is saying that the revelation given by YHWH to his Prophets was "not done in secret".

• Even before Agrippa, Paul didn't mention Pilate, to inform both Agrippa and Festus about the fate of the presumed Jesus of Nazareth.

• In all the chapters from 21 to 26 in Acts, with 5 discourses by Paul, there is no mention of Pilate at all.

Hence I stand by my own claim:

• Festus ignored who was Jesus

• Agrippa ignored who was Jesus

• Paul ignored that Jesus was crucified by Pilate.