The Jesus Wars Go Thermonuclear

[Secret Alias]

The question is, how is being agnostic about the existence or non-existence of Jesus not the best choice, being indifferent to the whole question and instead focus on the origins of (a) the Marcionite angel Eesu and (b) the Jesus born from a virgin in Justin. These are the earliest forms of the Jesus myth. Both are myths. The synoptic Jesus (with the artificially planted gospel of Mark and its 'mysterious Jesus' who just appears without much in the way of background or explanation) comes later and should be ignored. Mark's Jesus cannot be first. There isn't enough in Mark to found a religion. It's only artificially constructed.

[outhouse]

Does this question even get asked by the bright minds or do they - as I suppose - trust that somehow these 'underground texts' came down to us faithfully preserved?

The most educated people in the field, the brightest, have answered this. If you think radical changes took place, you need more evidence then the obvious tradition changes Irenaeus is talking about.


being our current text only represent a fraction of what once was, and us already knowing multiple traditions existed for many text in the first century like Daniel. Looking at Daniel as an example, the different versions are not far off.

Look at all the lost gospels we already know about, imagine how many there were before popularity and orthodoxy set in, your stating the obvious here, and its not evidence the popular text had great changes.


And another note. Once these were blindly attributed to early followers, its unlikely they changed at all less the grammatical copy errors.

ALL THE CHRISTIAN TEXTS besides my texts were faulty and corrupted by individuals with self-interests which crept into their versions of the Holy Scriptures?

In context is he not talking about the popular text he found valuable?

this is evidence he himself found the popular text so valuable he would not change it, and is bitching about other competing traditions here.

[outhouse]

Seriously this pretense of 'the latest version' of these Christian scriptures were flawless and perfect is so dumb it only demonstrates the stupidity of those who promulgate such notions.


.'

No Stephen

You don't get to claim those who think differently then you are stupid. It doesn't work that way.

Lets not forget your the minority here going against the grain. That is a positive so don't take it negatively. But it does mean you have to do a better job of making your case and insults are a sign of weakness and frustration that your ideas are ignored.

If Christianity was until Irenaeus an underground religion with copies of works surviving and multiplying in private collections how on earth do we determine what the true fucking texts are - of Paul for instance?

We look at evidence in context Stephen.

Example, how many people do we have claiming the poplar text was being perverted ?

"All text" is to vague in a multi cultural sea of different early traditions floating around. If you want to make a point find better evidence.

Another point I will add is were pretty sure we have Pauls 7 ish epistles sermons. And we see pretty clearly the pseudepigrapha. And this is despite these works being a community effort with multiple authors involved, that does give the text some uneven flows in places.

This certainly means we have the most corrupt not the least corrupt of the texts.

Meaningless Stephan. How is it we easily the end of mark was changed, but don't find ANY large changes in the bulk of the text?

We have a track record of how religious communities preserve and change text that is important, and most remain fairly similar here. And the more popular the less changes that take place even in different cultures.

Look at the nag hamadi collection verses the current bible. Plenty of changes but still very similar to the current form.

the historical reality is that Irenaeus just edited a version of the scriptures - like Ezra - 'according to the Holy Spirit' and then deposited this edition in a public library

NO Stephan.

There is no evidence he redacted anything.

Not only that in his time the popular text had completely covered the diaspora, and not one complaint from anyone else that his version was different. Or any different versions for that matter.

There is also no evidence of specific changes that match later theological changes, like we see in pseudepigrapha.

That's the collection which came down to us

There is no evidence for this beyond imagination.

his audience are mostly made up of New Prophesy movement people who believe any bullshit if it is 'according to the Holy Spirit.'

No Stephan.

There were may traditions on this subject in oral tradition in these illiterate cultures, people were repeating these traditions orally and textually, and one person that late in the game changes nothing. He could not. It was WAY to widespread and well know by his time.

[outhouse]

The question is, how is being agnostic about the existence or non-existence of Jesus not the best choice,.

Because all the evidence in context points to a martyred Galilean at Passover, who took over Johns movement, who's actions in the temple before crucifixion were perceived as selfless and this generated mythology and theology FOUND valuable in Hellenistic circles that LONG wanted to divorce cultural Judaism.


NO OTHER hypothesis exist that is not laughable.

AND this one makes complete 100% sense with no mental hurdles to jump, what so ever. It is inline 100% anthropologically speaking as well as reasonable and probable.

[Bernard Muller]

to Stephan,

There is no earlier Catholic user of Paul than Irenaeus.

So, according to you, the authors of 'Acts', the three Pastorals, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Clement, Ignatian 'to the Ephesians', Epistula Apostolorum, Polycarp's epistle, 2 Peter were not Catholic users of Paul OR or they wrote after Irenaeus?

Cordially, Bernard

[Secret Alias]

If you had read my post, what I am saying is that Irenaeus is the first known 'person' (i.e. a historical man) who speaks to us directly. The rest of these sources - whatever form they originally took - have come to us THROUGH Irenaeus. That can't be disputed. Why? Because it is mirrored by our knowledge of the heretics. Everyone gets their information about 'good' as well as 'evil' - orthodoxy/heresy - from the same source.

[Secret Alias]

So, according to you, the authors of 'Acts', the three Pastorals, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Clement, Ignatian 'to the Ephesians', Epistula Apostolorum, Polycarp's epistle, 2 Peter were not Catholic users of Paul OR or they wrote after Irenaeus?

I am saying Irenaeus is our source for these texts. Epiphanius for instances mentions a Hebrew text of Acts used by a particular 'Jewish Christian' sect. I doubt very much this text of Acts had a Paul section given what Epiphanius says about the Jewish Christians hating Paul. Universal falsification of texts, not just the Marcionite ones. Cerinthus represents the original text of Revelations. Universal falsifications of texts.

[Secret Alias]

There is no point engaging outhouse.

[outhouse]

The rest of these sources - whatever form they originally took - have come to us THROUGH Irenaeus

.

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.


Irenaeus, is not the map, or the origin of the map. He is a road.


A road in CONTEXT that was combatting Gnostic traditions, and ALL of your hypothesis of him changing Christian text when he is in CONTEXT addressing Gnostics, leaves you with no evidence at all in support of your personal opinion.


While a valuable historical source, does not mean we are blind to the first 170 years of text.


Irenaeus pointed to Scripture as a proof of orthodox Christianity against heresies, classifying as Scripture not only the Old Testament but most of the books now known as the New Testament,[2] while excluding many works, a large number by Gnostics, that flourished in the 2nd century and claimed scriptural authority

[outhouse]

There is no point engaging outhouse.

That right, because you cannot get around logic and reason, with your personal fantasy.


Your missing an extreme amount of knowledge here, so your painting a incomplete mental picture that goes against the conclusion of educated evidence.


You have a load of puzzle pieces here, more then most for these later figures in the movement. I just view you as force fitting pieces that don't fall in to place as they should when putting a puzzle together.

Your puzzle does not look like the picture the evidence paints.