Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[chelseacarlton]

Unbelievably apt

Yeh,so lucky the Ialians,Greeks,Spaniards etc are propping up the EU
Just lol

 

[chelseacarlton]

Complete domination. Christianity didn't just put up Feast Days in completion with the Pagans .. they stole their feasts and made them their own .. complete humiliation and domination by the superior religion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Thievery will be repaid in good time.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Being of German descent,I was made aware by my atheist father that the christians stole the idea of Éostre from pagan rituals celebrating the goddess of the same name or Ôstara.
Adopted by the christians sometime in the 8th century it is thought,known as one of the dawn goddesses or literally shine or daughter of heaven.
Anyhoo,enjoy another one of your clearly plagiarised celebrations from superior pagan ritualisations,this one from the blood of my forebears.

I love how I've been asked several times to show that many of christianity's rituals or stories are plagiarised by earlier pagan/ancient civilisations,yet I give one of the most relevant to their belief in christ boy and all I get as a response is the above.
Cornered defiant rodents!
Laugh out loud you rip off artists,your beliefs are fake news sfellow sfellow chuckle chuckle
Pats himself on the back and toasts a hot cross bun and pours oneself a glass of Chardonnay

 

[Roylion]

Roylion what are your thoughts on the christ character?

There's a total lack of contemporary historical corroboration for the events pertaining to the life of Jesus presented in the Gospels, which themselves were not contemporary. The Christ character may be an embellishment on a number of different characters who left an historical trace. There are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, but there is no certainty as to which Jesus might have been the 'Jesus Christ' of the Gospels and the later books of the New Testament.

 

[Bennett.]

There's a total lack of contemporary historical corroboration for the events pertaining to the life of Jesus presented in the Gospels, which themselves were not contemporary. The Christ character may be an embellishment on a number of different characters who left an historical trace. There are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, but there is no certainty as to which Jesus might have been the 'Jesus Christ' of the Gospels and the later books of the New Testament.

again with the 'may' 'could' and other non committal terms!
Stay true to form Roy!

How much contemporary stuff is there of Alexander?
I guess he's a mish-mash of other Alexes?

Alexander the ok?
Alexander the pretty decent?

 

[Bennett.]

I love how I've been asked several times to show that many of christianity's rituals or stories are plagiarised by earlier pagan/ancient civilisations,yet I give one of the most relevant to their belief in christ boy and all I get as a response is the above.
Cornered defiant rodents!
Laugh out loud you rip off artists,your beliefs are fake news sfellow sfellow chuckle chuckle
Pats himself on the back and toasts a hot cross bun and pours oneself a glass of Chardonnay

yeah, real hard hitting evidences you have there

 

[Roylion]

again with the 'may' 'could' and other non committal terms!
Stay true to form Roy!

Given the time that has elapsed between then and now, little in ancient history is absolute. Surely that's not difficult to understand. I've emphasised it often enough.

There's a total lack of contemporary historical corroboration for the events pertaining to the life of Jesus presented in the Gospels, which themselves were not contemporary. Do you disagree with that notion. If so, how and why?

How much contemporary stuff is there of Alexander?
I guess he's a mish-mash of other Alexes?

Alexander the ok?
Alexander the pretty decent?

Contemporary evidence of an individual that we know as Alexander the Great? There's quite a lot.

We have the remains of members of his family, which we know from a number of archaeological remains did exist, including accroding to archaeological consensus the remains of his father Philip II. We have treaties, and even a letter from Alexander to the people of Chios, engraved in stone, dated at 332-334 BC, still in existance. http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/Chios/Alexander.html

We also have contemporary coins struck with the likeness of Alexander dating from around 322 BC. There are other coins where Alexander is represented as Heracles (that were issued by Alexander in 325 BC.)

We have the Decree of Phillippi which was an inscription discovered in a Byzantine basilica and published in 1984 The inscription, in two columns says

“ ..whatever land given by Philip, to be cultivated by the Thracians, as well the land Alexander gave them....whatever land given by Philip around Siris and Daineros to be possessed by Philippi, the wood at Dysorum not to be sold by anybody, until the delegation of Alexander come back, the swamps belong to Philippi till the bridge "

Then there is the Babylonian Astronomical Diary, a day-by-day (in other words contemporaneous with the events it describes) account of celestial phenomena, written by the officials of the Esagila temple complex. One tablet mentions the Battle of Gaugemala. Another says "Alexander, king of the world, came into Babylon..."

Another of the tablets (pictured below) records the death of Alexander the Great

 

[Bennett.]

so how does letters written no more than 20 years after Christ's death not, in historical terms, equal as close to contemporary as to be negligible?

 

[Roylion]

so how does letters written no more than 20 years after Christ's death not, in historical terms, equal as close to contemporary as to be negligible?

We've gone through all this before.

Paul did not include a narrative of the life of Jesus in his letters, which were primarily written as religious documents rather than historical chronicles at a time. From what we can gather he never met a Jesus who of course is considered his contempary. Paul's Jesus may have existed a good number of decades before, perhaps as early as the reign of Alexander Janneus, King of Judea from 103 to 76 BC where a 'Yeshu' is mentioned as a student of Rabbi Joshua ben Perachiah who took refuge in Egypt.

As I said, there's a total lack of contemporary historical corroboration for the events pertaining to the life of Jesus presented in the Gospels, which themselves were not contemporary.

You'd think someone like the writer Philo Judaeus, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who was a contemporary of the alleged events would have mentioned something about the "extraordinary" events outlined in the Gospels. Philo was a Jewish aristocrat and leader of the large Jewish community of Alexandria, we know that Philo had intimate connections with the Herodian royal house of Judea (mentioned extensively in the Gospels and Acts). He also made regular pilgrimages to Jerusalem: Philo, On Providence 2.64.) Philo's brother, Alexander the "alabarch" (chief tax official), was one of the richest men in the east, in charge of collecting levies on imports into Roman Egypt. Alexander's great wealth financed the silver and gold sheathing which adorned the doors of the Temple. Alexander also loaned a fortune to Herod Agrippa I . One of Alexander's sons, and Philo's nephews, Marcus, was married to Berenice, daughter of Herod Agrippa, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea (who was mentioned in Acts).

Yet Philo says not a word about 'Jesus', Christianity nor any of the events described in the New Testament. In all his work, Philo makes not a single reference to his supposed contemporary "Jesus Christ", the godman who supposedly was travelling up and down the Levant, exorcising demons, raising the dead and causing an earthquake, the rending of the veil in the Temple, darkness and resurrection of "saints" (as reported in Matthew) at his death. These are 'extraordinary' events that not one writer including contemporary writers such as Philo or a Temple priest or a Roman writer and so on bothered to record.

Below is an example of what Philo did write on a certain madman called Carabbas in "Flaccus VI" written between AD 38 - 47. Note a few similarities with Matthew 27:26-29.

"(36) There was a certain madman named Carabbas ... this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths;
(37) and they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him;
(38) and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state.
(39) Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris! (Lord); and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that Agrippa was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign..."

 

[Bennett.]

We've gone through all this before.

Paul did not include a narrative of the life of Jesus in his letters, which were primarily written as religious documents rather than historical chronicles at a time. From what we can gather he never met a Jesus who of course is considered his contempary. Paul's Jesus may have existed a good number of decades before, perhaps as early as the reign of Aleander Janneus, King of Judea from 103 to 76 BC where a Yeshu is mentioned as a student of Rabbi Joshua ben Perachiah who took refuge in Egypt.

As I said, there's a total lack of contemporary historical corroboration for the events pertaining to the life of Jesus presented in the Gospels, which themselves were not contemporary.

You'd think someone like the writer Philo Judaeus, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who was a contemporary of the alleged events would have mentioned something about the "extraordinary" events outlined in the Gospels. Philo was a Jewish aristocrat and leader of the large Jewish community of Alexandria, we know that Philo had intimate connections with the Herodian royal house of Judea (mentioned extensively in the Gospels and Acts). He also made regular pilgrimages to Jerusalem: Philo, On Providence 2.64.) Philo's brother, Alexander the "alabarch" (chief tax official), was one of the richest men in the east, in charge of collecting levies on imports into Roman Egypt. Alexander's great wealth financed the silver and gold sheathing which adorned the doors of the Temple. Alexander also loaned a fortune to Herod Agrippa I . One of Alexander's sons, and Philo's nephews, Marcus, was married to Berenice, daughter of Herod Agrippa, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea (who was mentioned in Acts).

Yet Philo says not a word about 'Jesus', Christianity nor any of the events described in the New Testament. In all his work, Philo makes not a single reference to his supposed contemporary "Jesus Christ", the godman who supposedly was travelling up and down the Levant, exorcising demons, raising the dead and causing an earthquake, the rending of the veil in the Temple, darkness and resurrection of "saints" (as reported in Matthew) at his death. This are extraordinaty' events that not one writer including conteporary writers such as Philo or a Temple priest or a Roman writer and so on bothered to record.

Below is an example of what Philo did write on a certain madman called Carabbas in "Flaccus VI" written between AD 38 - 47. Note a few similarities with Matthew 27:26-29.

"(36) There was a certain madman named Carabbas ... this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths;
(37) and they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him;
(38) and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state.
(39) Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris! (Lord); and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that Agrippa was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign..."

you're taking a very liberal look at things if you are now using what people DIDN'T write as a proof.
You are basing an idea on what YOU think should have been written?

If they were trying to squash this belief system, don't you think it is reasonable that they may not have mentioned it much?
Paul may not have needed to write a narrative - that was the job of other people. Paul spent time with Peter who, guess what, spent a minute of two with Jesus, so you are now suggesting that because Paul did not write a narrative that it is some sort of proofing text, or lack thereof?

 

[Boston tiger]

"To repeat a challenge I've put out on social media several times before, I will eat a page of my Bible if someone can find me just one full Professor of Ancient History, Classics, or New Testament in an accredited university somewhere in the world (there are thousands of names to choose from) who thinks Jesus never lived."

Dr John Dickson is the founding director of the Centre for Public Christianity. He teaches the Historical Jesus at the University of Sydney and is an Honorary Fellow of the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie University.

Anyone know how this went ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Jackaaa]

Is it that hard to think that there was a bloke running when they said he was ..sticking it up the Pharisees and in the process attracting some hard core followers?

True there is no birth certificate but there was a lot heavy stuff going around at that time that we can't find contemporary accounts for.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Roylion]

you're taking a very liberal look at things if you are now using what people DIDN'T write as a proof.

Did I say 'PROOF'? All I said there is a lack of contemparary evidence. Feel free to believe what you will, based on what we have.

You are basing an idea on what YOU think should have been written?

If the Jesus of the Gospels is true then yes. If we actually take the gospels at face value, we get political scandals; a massacre; an empire-wide census and taxation; Heavenly hosts of angels and a miraculous star announcing Jesus' birth; prophets declaring Jesus the new messiah; the holy spirit descending from heaven upon him while the voice of God announces Jesus is his son; multitudes following Jesus and spreading news of his teaching and miracles throughout Judea, the Galilee, and beyond the Jordan as far as Syria and the Decapolis; Jesus' healing members of the households of the highest ranks of society, including temple leaders, Roman centurions, and royal officials; the prophets Moses and Elijah appear from heaven to speak with him; the entire city of Jerusalem acclaiming Jesus as the messiah, multiple trials before the entire Sanhedrin and many onlookers, the Tetrarch Herod Antipas and his war council, and the Roman governor, who engages with a huge crowd wildly clamoring for Jesus’ death before releasing a notorious rebel; crowds attending his scourging, his humiliating march up to Golgotha, listening to him give a speech, and his long, excruciating execution; followed by hours of supernatural darkness covering “all the land,” earthquakes in Jerusalem, the miraculous tearing of the temple curtain, a mass resurrection of famous saints who emerge from their supernaturally-opened graves en masse and wander the streets of Jerusalem, “appearing to many,” Jesus’ return from the grave and multiple appearances to his followers (for a day, or a week, or forty days, depending on who’s telling the story) before ascending to Heaven in front of many witnesses.

Philo of course doesn't mention any of that.But he does mention Carabbas.

If they were trying to squash this belief system, don't you think it is reasonable that they may not have mentioned it much?

Who's trying to quash the belief system? Philo, who died about AD 50.

Paul may not have needed to write a narrative - that was the job of other people.

Like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

Paul spent time with Peter who, guess what, spent a minute of two with Jesus,

Was that the dispute between Peter and Paul as outlined in Galatians or the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem?

so you are now suggesting that because Paul did not write a narrative that it is some sort of proofing text, or lack thereof?

I've suggested no more than there's a total lack of contemporary historical corroboration for the events pertaining to the life of Jesus presented in the Gospels, which themselves were not contemporary.

 

[M Malice]

"To repeat a challenge I've put out on social media several times before, I will eat a page of my Bible if someone can find me just one full Professor of Ancient History, Classics, or New Testament in an accredited university somewhere in the world (there are thousands of names to choose from) who thinks Jesus never lived."

Dr John Dickson is the founding director of the Centre for Public Christianity. He teaches the Historical Jesus at the University of Sydney and is an Honorary Fellow of the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie University.

Anyone know how this went ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

there probably was a Jesus BT, (Jesus was a pretty common name at the time) and he may have been a carpenter. no evidence though of feeding multitudes with a loaf of bread and a fish though or raising from the dead or healing the sick or restoring the sight of the blind etc. etc....

his so called accomplishments are just embellished fairy tales IMO, used to control the masses and it has unbelievably snowballed over the centuries.

 

[Boston tiger]

Did I say 'PROOF'? All I said there is a lack of contemparary evidence. Feel free to believe what you will, based on what we have.



If the Jesus of the Gospels is true then yes. If we actually take the gospels at face value, we get political scandals; a massacre; an empire-wide census and taxation; Heavenly hosts of angels and a miraculous star announcing Jesus' birth; prophets declaring Jesus the new messiah; the holy spirit descending from heaven upon him while the voice of God announces Jesus is his son; multitudes following Jesus and spreading news of his teaching and miracles throughout Judea, the Galilee, and beyond the Jordan as far as Syria and the Decapolis; Jesus' healing members of the households of the highest ranks of society, including temple leaders, Roman centurions, and royal officials; the prophets Moses and Elijah appear from heaven to speak with him; the entire city of Jerusalem acclaiming Jesus as the messiah, multiple trials before the entire Sanhedrin and many onlookers, the Tetrarch Herod Antipas and his war council, and the Roman governor, who engages with a huge crowd wildly clamoring for Jesus’ death before releasing a notorious rebel; crowds attending his scourging, his humiliating march up to Golgotha, listening to him give a speech, and his long, excruciating execution; followed by hours of supernatural darkness covering “all the land,” earthquakes in Jerusalem, the miraculous tearing of the temple curtain, a mass resurrection of famous saints who emerge from their supernaturally-opened graves en masse and wander the streets of Jerusalem, “appearing to many,” Jesus’ return from the grave and multiple appearances to his followers (for a day, or a week, or forty days, depending on who’s telling the story) before ascending to Heaven in front of many witnesses.

Philo of course doesn't mention any of that.But he does mention Carabbas.



Who's trying to quash the belief system? Philo, who died about AD 50.



Like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?



Was that the dispute between Peter and Paul as outlined in Galatians or the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem?



I've suggested no more than there's a total lack of contemporary historical corroboration for the events pertaining to the life of Jesus presented in the Gospels, which themselves were not contemporary.

Are you saying there is no contemporary accounts written when Jesus was alive? Is that it ?
Or are you saying Jesus didn't exist because there are no contemporary accounts of his life ?

Just not sure what your position is


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Boston tiger]

there probably was a Jesus BT, (Jesus was a pretty common name at the time) and he may have been a carpenter. no evidence though of feeding multitudes with a loaf of bread and a fish though or raising from the dead or healing the sick or restoring the sight of the blind etc. etc....

his so called accomplishments are just embellished fairy tales IMO, used to control the masses and it has unbelievably snowballed over the centuries.

Yes but take the miracles out you can still have a hero of sorts sticking it up the establishment. Jesus and his clashes with the Pharisees are t something to be brushed over.That isn't a stretch and if you knew about the apostolic tradition of Christianity you would see this idea of a mythical Jesus changing to a real Jesus as near as impossible as you could get.

It's a bit like reading the Bible as proof of God.. it s not why it was written and as with the New Testament .. it wasn't written to prove of Jesus's existence.

But hey as Roylion points out there are no contemporary records of Jesus but whoopee ding.

Would you go to your death over a story you made up eg apostles etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Roylion]

Are you saying there is no contemporary accounts written when Jesus was alive? Is that it ?

Yep.

Or are you saying Jesus didn't exist because there are no contemporary accounts of his life?

No, I am not saying that. There's no conclusive evidence that a figure called Jesus who may or may not have done some teaching, did not exist in the 1st century AD.

As I said, I've suggested no more than there's a total lack of contemporary historical corroboration for the events pertaining to the life of Jesus presented in the Gospels, which themselves were not contemporary.

If we actually take the gospels at face value, we get political scandals; a massacre; an empire-wide census and taxation; Heavenly hosts of angels and a miraculous star announcing Jesus' birth; prophets declaring Jesus the new messiah; the holy spirit descending from heaven upon him while the voice of God announces Jesus is his son; multitudes following Jesus and spreading news of his teaching and miracles throughout Judea, the Galilee, and beyond the Jordan as far as Syria and the Decapolis; Jesus' healing members of the households of the highest ranks of society, including temple leaders, Roman centurions, and royal officials; the prophets Moses and Elijah appear from heaven to speak with him; the entire city of Jerusalem acclaiming Jesus as the messiah, multiple trials before the entire Sanhedrin and many onlookers, the Tetrarch Herod Antipas and his war council, and the Roman governor, who engages with a huge crowd wildly clamoring for Jesus’ death before releasing a notorious rebel; crowds attending his scourging, his humiliating march up to Golgotha, listening to him give a speech, and his long, excruciating execution; followed by hours of supernatural darkness covering "all the land," earthquakes in Jerusalem, the miraculous tearing of the temple curtain, a mass resurrection of famous saints who emerge from their supernaturally-opened graves en masse and wander the streets of Jerusalem, "appearing to many," Jesus’ return from the grave and multiple appearances to his followers (for a day, or a week, or forty days, depending on who’s telling the story) before ascending to Heaven in front of many witnesses.

There's no contemporary historical corroboration for any of those specific events mentioned above.

 

[M Malice]

Yes but take the miracles out you can still have a hero of sorts sticking it up the establishment. Jesus and his clashes with the Pharisees are t something to be brushed over.That isn't a stretch and if you knew about the apostolic tradition of Christianity you would see this idea of a mythical Jesus changing to a real Jesus as near as impossible as you could get.

It's a bit like reading the Bible as proof of God.. it s not why it was written and as with the New Testament .. it wasn't written to prove of Jesus's existence.

But hey as Roylion points out there are no contemporary records of Jesus but whoopee ding.

Would you go to your death over a story you made up eg apostles etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

i can't jump to such a huge conclusion that the existence of a living breathing resurrecting Jesus would naturally extrapolate into ie. the existence of an omnipresent, judgmental creator. when it is based on virtually zero evidence. the miracles were probably brought into the story to encourage followers, the hoards aren't going to join the flock if he is just a naughty boy and not the messiah. would be like worshiping the likes of Joel Osteen or William Lane Craig today, not going to happen without miracles.

 

[Boston tiger]

Yep.



No, I am not saying that. There's no conclusive evidence that a figure called Jesus who may or may not have done some teaching, did not exist in the 1st century AD.

As I said, I've suggested no more than there's a total lack of contemporary historical corroboration for the events pertaining to the life of Jesus presented in the Gospels, which themselves were not contemporary.

If we actually take the gospels at face value, we get political scandals; a massacre; an empire-wide census and taxation; Heavenly hosts of angels and a miraculous star announcing Jesus' birth; prophets declaring Jesus the new messiah; the holy spirit descending from heaven upon him while the voice of God announces Jesus is his son; multitudes following Jesus and spreading news of his teaching and miracles throughout Judea, the Galilee, and beyond the Jordan as far as Syria and the Decapolis; Jesus' healing members of the households of the highest ranks of society, including temple leaders, Roman centurions, and royal officials; the prophets Moses and Elijah appear from heaven to speak with him; the entire city of Jerusalem acclaiming Jesus as the messiah, multiple trials before the entire Sanhedrin and many onlookers, the Tetrarch Herod Antipas and his war council, and the Roman governor, who engages with a huge crowd wildly clamoring for Jesus’ death before releasing a notorious rebel; crowds attending his scourging, his humiliating march up to Golgotha, listening to him give a speech, and his long, excruciating execution; followed by hours of supernatural darkness covering "all the land," earthquakes in Jerusalem, the miraculous tearing of the temple curtain, a mass resurrection of famous saints who emerge from their supernaturally-opened graves en masse and wander the streets of Jerusalem, "appearing to many," Jesus’ return from the grave and multiple appearances to his followers (for a day, or a week, or forty days, depending on who’s telling the story) before ascending to Heaven in front of many witnesses.

There's no contemporary historical corroboration for any of those specific events mentioned above.

We get that it's that I'm trying to get rid of the fringe who have a mythical Jesus.

I have no problem with historians saying the exploits of the Gospels are not true historical accounts of his actions.

Here's an answer you asked about before I think about Peter and Paul and just in case I've started with the definition of Gospel for you ..not mine but a standard definition

"
Simply put, Gospel means good news, happy message. In the time of Christ and the Apostles, the Gospel is the good news of universal Redemption contained in the preaching of Christ. Very soon, however, already in the first generation of Christians, the term indicated the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John which contain the story of that announcement."


On Peter, Paul and Hypocrisy

In their effort to deny the primacy of Peter and the doctrine of papal infallibility, many non-Catholics point to Paul’s rebuke of Peter over the issue of eating with Gentiles as recorded in the Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
In this passage, we see that Paul opposed Peter for not practicing what he preached. Although Peter may have been wrong to draw back from eating with the Gentile believers, we must note that is apparently James, and not Peter, who was the leader of the “circumcision group” in Jerusalem. Thus, those who assert that it was James, and not Peter, who was the real leader of the Church must answer for this error. However, Peter’s actions do not constitute formal teaching, and the doctrine of infallibility does not apply to Peter’s private opinions or behavior. Therefore, this passage does nothing to disprove either Peter’s primacy or the doctrine of papal infallibility. Peter, like his successors, was not above reproach nor impeccable.

However, it must also be noted that Paul was not above taking prudent measures out of fear of those who held to the tradition of circumcision, either. One such measure is found in the following passage:
Acts 16:1-3
1He came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek. 2The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Paul wrote that “circumcision means nothing” (1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 6:15). Moreover, in the same letter in which Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy and boasted of having opposed Peter to his face, he writes the following:
Galatians 5:2-3
2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
Imagine how Timothy must have felt when he first heard these words. He had let himself be circumcised by the very man who condemned the practice. Was Christ of no value to Timothy at all as a result of being circumcised?

This was not the only time that Paul had acted out of fear of the Jews. Later in the book of Acts, we find the following:
Acts 21:17-26
17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality." 26The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.
Clearly, the brothers in Jerusalem were concerned that some harm might come to Paul from those who knew that Paul taught against circumcision. Paul agreed to purify himself according to Jewish customs and to pay the expenses of those who were purified along with him rather than openly admit that circumcision was of no value. Was this a wise course of action? Assuredly as subsequent events indicate.

However, it cannot be denied that Paul was preaching one thing (at least in private to Gentile Christians) while practicing another—the very thing he accused Peter of doing.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Norwood1878]

so how does letters written no more than 20 years after Christ's death not, in historical terms, equal as close to contemporary as to be negligible?

20 years? Do tell.

 

[Boston tiger]

i can't jump to such a huge conclusion that the existence of a living breathing resurrecting Jesus would naturally extrapolate into ie. the existence of an omnipresent, judgmental creator. when it is based on virtually zero evidence. the miracles were probably brought into the story to encourage followers, the hoards aren't going to join the flock if he is just a naughty boy and not the messiah. would be like worshiping the likes of Joel Osteen or William Lane Craig today, not going to happen without miracles.

It's a funny thing but people today still swear they feel the Holy Spirit just as the apostles did after he died.

I would say with out that (sense ) it wouldnt not matter how many miracles you think were attributed to Jesus people wouldn't buy into it.

Likewise Pagans must have been getting something out of their bussiness but the continue slaughtering and sacrifice must have started to get on everyone's ****.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Total Power]

Haha love it when Roy smacks everyone in history here

 

[Jackaaa]

Haha love it when Roy smacks everyone in history here

You must be pretty ignorant then because the history of the Gospels is a given.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Total Power]

You must be pretty ignorant then because the history of the Gospels is a given.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Yes anyone who disagrees with your worldview is ignorant

Its not a given , read Roy's post above.

 

[Jackaaa]

Yep.



No, I am not saying that. There's no conclusive evidence that a figure called Jesus who may or may not have done some teaching, did not exist in the 1st century AD.

As I said, I've suggested no more than there's a total lack of contemporary historical corroboration for the events pertaining to the life of Jesus presented in the Gospels, which themselves were not contemporary.

If we actually take the gospels at face value, we get political scandals; a massacre; an empire-wide census and taxation; Heavenly hosts of angels and a miraculous star announcing Jesus' birth; prophets declaring Jesus the new messiah; the holy spirit descending from heaven upon him while the voice of God announces Jesus is his son; multitudes following Jesus and spreading news of his teaching and miracles throughout Judea, the Galilee, and beyond the Jordan as far as Syria and the Decapolis; Jesus' healing members of the households of the highest ranks of society, including temple leaders, Roman centurions, and royal officials; the prophets Moses and Elijah appear from heaven to speak with him; the entire city of Jerusalem acclaiming Jesus as the messiah, multiple trials before the entire Sanhedrin and many onlookers, the Tetrarch Herod Antipas and his war council, and the Roman governor, who engages with a huge crowd wildly clamoring for Jesus’ death before releasing a notorious rebel; crowds attending his scourging, his humiliating march up to Golgotha, listening to him give a speech, and his long, excruciating execution; followed by hours of supernatural darkness covering "all the land," earthquakes in Jerusalem, the miraculous tearing of the temple curtain, a mass resurrection of famous saints who emerge from their supernaturally-opened graves en masse and wander the streets of Jerusalem, "appearing to many," Jesus’ return from the grave and multiple appearances to his followers (for a day, or a week, or forty days, depending on who’s telling the story) before ascending to Heaven in front of many witnesses.

There's no contemporary historical corroboration for any of those specific events mentioned above.

Would you call Paul's letters claiming Peter knew Jesus as contemporary writing s indicating that some people knew Jesus?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro