HISTORICAL METHOD and the Question of Christian Origins

Logicman said:

Why don't you document all that "choosing" that you claim went on? I'd like to see you document the first and second-century meetings and people who did all that? Include the dates and places. You need to be specific or it's just a bunch of hooey that you're belching out.

Click to expand...

Why are you asking, no - demanding, that other do the work you are unable to perform?


The ever so little problem for you is that there are NO records supporting your beliefs about the origins of your faith. That 'ever so little problem' is why people today have begun questioning long-accepted beliefs.

By the way, there was no choosing in the first century, such picks only began in the second century, when there were more than 40 "gospels", and weren't finalised until the seventh century at the Council of Constantinople but even then it wasn't until the 16th Century that the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Protestant religions firmly established the canonical text accepted today.

Irenaeus in Against Heresies chose only 20 books for his 'accepted' texts: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalonians, Second Thessalonians, First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon, First John, and Revelation

Tertullian didn't like Hebrews, First Peter, Second John, Jude, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Clement of Alexandria thought of, Hebrews, Second John, Jude, First and Second Epistles of Clement (of Rome), Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and Revelation of Peter, as holding matters of interest but he didn't seem them as 'scriptural'.

Logicman said:

Well, the resurrection in the Gospels was not of heaven, because Christ appeared physically to his disciples, ate fish with them, and asked Thomas to put his finger in Jesus' wounds.

In addition, we have the earliest mention of the resurrection in a first-century epistle.

Earliest Mention of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ « The Righter Report

"While the word “received” (a rabbinical term) can also be used in the New Testament of receiving a message or body of instruction or doctrine (1 Cor.11:23; 15:1, 3; Gal. 1:9, 12 [2x], Col 2:6; 1 Thess 2:13; 4:1; 2 Thess 3:6), it also means means “to receive from another.” This entails that Paul received this information from someone else at an even earlier date. 1 Corinthians is dated 50-55 A.D. Since Jesus was crucified in 30-33 A.D. the letter is only 20-25 years after the death of Jesus. But the actual creed here in 1 Cor. 15 was received by Paul much earlier than 55 A.D.

As Scholar Gary Habermas notes: “Even critical scholars usually agree that it has an exceptionally early origin.” Ulrich Wilckens declares that this creed “indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.” (8) Joachim Jeremias calls it “the earliest tradition of all.” (9) Even the non-Christian scholar Gerd Ludemann says that “I do insist that the discovery of pre-Pauline confessional foundations is one of the great achievements in the New Testament scholarship.”

Click to expand...

Ulrich Wilckens, German papyrologist (1862-1944), Joachim Jeremias (1900-1979) German theologian and professor New Testament studies. Don't you find it interesting that Righter uses the present tense when quoting two dead guys?

Gary Habermas, despite his PhD, is not a scholar as ALL of his work is based upon the belief that the Gospels and Epistles are history.

Mr Righter is no scholar and has zero support from secular scholars of the period examined.

I'd like to know just which "critical scholars usually agree that it has an exceptionally early origin.”

Somerville said:

Ulrich Wilckens, German papyrologist (1862-1944), Joachim Jeremias (1900-1979) German theologian and professor New Testament studies. Don't you find it interesting that Righter uses the present tense when quoting two dead guys?

Gary Habermas, despite his PhD, is not a scholar as ALL of his work is based upon the belief that the Gospels and Epistles are history.

Mr Righter is no scholar and has zero support from secular scholars of the period examined.

I'd like to know just which "critical scholars usually agree that it has an exceptionally early origin.”

Click to expand...

That source , although depended upon quite heavily, is an opinion page that does not provide support for it's claims.

Somerville said:

Why are you asking, no - demanding, that other do the work you are unable to perform?

Click to expand...

They make the claim, they need to back it up.

Somerville said:

The ever so little problem for you is that there are NO records supporting your beliefs about the origins of your faith. That 'ever so little problem' is why people today have begun questioning long-accepted beliefs.

By the way, there was no choosing in the first century, such picks only began in the second century, when there were more than 40 "gospels", and weren't finalised until the seventh century at the Council of Constantinople but even then it wasn't until the 16th Century that the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Protestant religions firmly established the canonical text accepted today.

Irenaeus in Against Heresies chose only 20 books for his 'accepted' texts: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalonians, Second Thessalonians, First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon, First John, and Revelation

Tertullian didn't like Hebrews, First Peter, Second John, Jude, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Clement of Alexandria thought of, Hebrews, Second John, Jude, First and Second Epistles of Clement (of Rome), Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and Revelation of Peter, as holding matters of interest but he didn't seem them as 'scriptural'.

Click to expand...

It's the Resurrection, Somerville. You can't get away from it, though you try. It's the fly in your ointment, the rain on your parade, and the Achilles Heel of every skeptic who has ever lived. It's documented in multiple, independent, first-century writings.

Jesus is Lord!

Somerville said:

Ulrich Wilckens, German papyrologist (1862-1944), Joachim Jeremias (1900-1979) German theologian and professor New Testament studies. Don't you find it interesting that Righter uses the present tense when quoting two dead guys?

Gary Habermas, despite his PhD, is not a scholar as ALL of his work is based upon the belief that the Gospels and Epistles are history.

Mr Righter is no scholar and has zero support from secular scholars of the period examined.

I'd like to know just which "critical scholars usually agree that it has an exceptionally early origin.”

Click to expand...

Save it for someone who buys into your folly.

Logicman said:

They make the claim, they need to back it up.



It's the Resurrection, Somerville. You can't get away from it, though you try. It's the fly in your ointment, the rain on your parade, and the Achilles Heel of every skeptic who has ever lived. It's documented in multiple, independent, first-century writings.

Jesus is Lord!

Click to expand...

The core of your problem. It is NOT documented in multiple, independent, first-century writings.

Please, tell us why there are zero non-Christian writings which support the various actions seen in the New Testaments.

Logicman said:

Why don't you document all that "choosing" that you claim went on? I'd like to see you document the first and second-century meetings and people who did all that? Include the dates and places. You need to be specific or it's just a bunch of hooey that you're belching out.

Click to expand...

I already provided links to you before, and you know it. There were plenty of different stories to choose from, the Bible was assembled out of that.

Do you have any proof of the Ressurection outside of the bible? You don't. It's why you react this way when simple facts like, the Bible was assembled centuries after the fact out of a collection of possible entries.

How were the books of the Bible selected and compiled, and how were the decisions made as to what would be distributed as the Word of God?

over three thousand books were candidates for inclusion in the New Testament canon alone

Click to expand...

The History of the Bible

The assemblage of the New Testament is a very interesting process and a highly complex one. It can, however, by summarized relatively simply as follows.

Various Christians wrote books explaining the history of the Christian Church (including Gospels about the life of Christ and more general histories such as the Acts of the Apostles) and letters addressed to specific communities and persons (such as the letters of Saint Paul) and also what are best considered to be “open letters” (such as Hebrews). There were hundreds of different documents circulating around, all of them purporting to the authentic Christian teaching and accurate history and doctrine.

However, many of these documents were not what they claimed to be – they were forgeries not written by the people whose names they bore, or were heretical documents advancing novel notions about Christ. Some of these documents have survived today – examples are the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas. Neither of these documents were written by their alleged authors – they are late forgeries designed to cash in on the success and popularity of Christianity.

Out of all these hundreds of documents – many of them forgeries – the current 27 book New Testament appeared. This process took a long time – roughly 300 years went by from the writing of the last book of the New Testament (Revelation) until the list was finalized.

Click to expand...

So we know the Bible was put together much later, after the fact, there were a lot of stories to choose from.

So again, do you have any proof outside the Bible? The answer is no, you don't. We all know this, and this is why you rally so hard against anyone pointing this out. Resurrection is busted.

Ikari said:

I already provided links to you before, and you know it. There were plenty of different stories to choose from, the Bible was assembled out of that.

Do you have any proof of the Ressurection outside of the bible? You don't. It's why you react this way when simple facts like, the Bible was assembled centuries after the fact out of a collection of possible entries.

How were the books of the Bible selected and compiled, and how were the decisions made as to what would be distributed as the Word of God?

The History of the Bible

So we know the Bible was put together much later, after the fact, there were a lot of stories to choose from.

So again, do you have any proof outside the Bible? The answer is no, you don't. We all know this, and this is why you rally so hard against anyone pointing this out. Resurrection is busted.

Click to expand...

I looked at your links. Neither one was specific or answered the questions I posed, so try again:

Why don't you document all that "choosing" that you claim went on? I'd like to see you document the first and second-century meetings and people who did all that? Include the dates and places.

Logicman said:

I looked at your links. Neither one was specific or answered the questions I posed, so try again:

Why don't you document all that "choosing" that you claim went on? I'd like to see you document the first and second-century meetings and people who did all that? Include the dates and places.

Click to expand...

Give me outside proof of the Resurrection.

I gave you links to Christian sites talking about the assembly of the Bible. You just try to be as obtuse as possible because there is no proof of the resurrection outside the bible. But we know the Bible was put together much later and that it was selected from many possible entries.

The Resurrection is busted, less you have some proof outside of the bible. Do you? No...no you don't.

Ikari said:

Give me outside proof of the Resurrection.

I gave you links to Christian sites talking about the assembly of the Bible. You just try to be as obtuse as possible because there is no proof of the resurrection outside the bible. But we know the Bible was put together much later and that it was selected from many possible entries.

The Resurrection is busted, less you have some proof outside of the bible. Do you? No...no you don't.

Click to expand...

You're the one who made the claim about all the changes. If the NT didn't exist in the first place how could it have been changed?

So please document one resurrection passage that meant something different before it was allegedly 'changed'? And when was it changed and by whom?

Somerville said:

The core of your problem. It is NOT documented in multiple, independent, first-century writings.

Click to expand...

It most certainly is. It's (the resurrection) in all four Gospels and various epistles.

Logicman said:

You're the one who made the claim about all the changes. If the NT didn't exist in the first place how could it have been changed?

So please document one resurrection passage that meant something different before it was allegedly 'changed'? And when was it changed and by whom?

Click to expand...

I said that it was assembled much later from a larger selection. My links state just that. In fact the Catholic one states the bible as we know it was finished in the 5th century.

So please, give a source outside of the Bible that supports the Resurrection.

My statement:

Somerville said:

The core of your problem. It is NOT documented in multiple, independent, first-century writings.

Please, tell us why there are zero non-Christian writings which support the various actions seen in the New Testaments.

Click to expand...

followed by the same reply he has posted multiple times. A reply that shows the rational reader, the commenter really doesn't have a response to the question.

Logicman said:

It most certainly is. It's (the resurrection) in all four Gospels and various epistles.

Click to expand...

Your "independent" testimonies were chosen, and edited before and after their designation as canonical, to supply support for the claims of the early Church fathers.

Why are there no secular Roman reports supporting the claims about bizarre eclipses, the slaughter of infants, wandering stars and zombies walking the streets of Jerusalem?

Ikari said:

I said that it was assembled much later from a larger selection. My links state just that. In fact the Catholic one states the bible as we know it was finished in the 5th century.

So please, give a source outside of the Bible that supports the Resurrection.

Click to expand...

Read "The Historical Jesus," by scholar Gary Habermas. You can start with Clement of Rome who wrote about it. That's circa 90-125 AD.

To learn what's going on you'll need to start expanding your reading list.

Somerville said:

My statement: followed by the same reply he has posted multiple times. A reply that shows the rational reader, the commenter really doesn't have a response to the question.



Your "independent" testimonies were chosen, and edited before and after their designation as canonical, to supply support for the claims of the early Church fathers.

Why are there no secular Roman reports supporting the claims about bizarre eclipses, the slaughter of infants, wandering stars and zombies walking the streets of Jerusalem?

Click to expand...

There's no documented editing of the resurrection, Somerville. At least nothing that you can document, where the resurrection was something else before it was allegedly changed. It was always the resurrection. The sooner you quit being in denial of that the better off you'll be.

Logicman said:

Read "The Historical Jesus," by scholar Gary Habermas. You can start with Clement of Rome who wrote about it. That's circa 90-125 AD.

To learn what's going on you'll need to start expanding your reading list.

Click to expand...

Have you ever read the one extant letter of Clement, who was the third or maybe fourth Pope in Rome - (Jerome had a little disagreement with others who wrote about the period)? If you haven't, there are three translations to be found at Early Christian Writings.

For some reason, I don't have much faith in the reliability of a person who believed the Phoenix was a real creature.

CHAPTER 25 -- THE PHOENIX AN EMBLEM OF OUR RESURRECTION.

Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.

Click to expand...

Then there is Clement's ( or whoever actually wrote the words ) view that Christ was to soon return

CHAPTER 23 -- BE HUMBLE, AND BELIEVE THAT CHRIST WILL COME AGAIN.
(. . .)
You perceive how in a little time the fruit of a tree comes to maturity. Of a truth, soon and suddenly shall His will be accomplished, as the Scripture also bears witness, saying, "Speedily will He come, and will not tarry;" and, "The Lord shall suddenly come to His temple, even the Holy One, for whom you look."

Click to expand...

The failure of the 'speedy' return has been a problem for Believers since the beginning of the church.

Another problem in calling upon this early church father to support the claims, in 1 Clement, there are ZERO mentions of the Gospels and the only Scriptures he quotes are passages to be found in the Septuagint

Logicman said:

There's no documented editing of the resurrection, Somerville. At least nothing that you can document, where the resurrection was something else before it was allegedly changed. It was always the resurrection. The sooner you quit being in denial of that the better off you'll be.

Click to expand...

Why are there no secular Roman reports supporting the claims about bizarre eclipses, the slaughter of infants, wandering stars and zombies walking the streets of Jerusalem?

Let us dwell upon possibilities

1: There was no resurrection as described in the Gospels. This is supported by the lack of secular reports of an eclipse or zombies walking about. We also have conflicting accounts of what exactly took place following the supposed resurrection. Yes, I know the Believers like to merge the stories to make them all True but when read side by side, it seems as if the authors all had different ideas and 'memories' of events which were supposedly crucial to the founding of the church.
2: The Jesus person wasn't dead when removed from the cross. Later appearances to the disciples were Jesus showing up in person
3: If there was a resurrection, the events described as taking place at the time of the crucifixion and those at the "empty tomb", were added to the earliest claims for 'verification' and thus add more evidence for the fictional creations that we know today.
4: If there was a crucifixion, the stories told in the Gospels were nothing more than a result of planning by an inside group which had decided to create a new creature - one who was human and god at the same time. They did this by setting up a stage play for the gullible
5: There was no Jesus and all that we read about Him in the New Testament is fiction written by those men who were looking at the oppression of the Jewish people under Roman rule and wished to provide some hope that things would get better - some day.

Logicman said:

Read "The Historical Jesus," by scholar Gary Habermas. You can start with Clement of Rome who wrote about it. That's circa 90-125 AD.

To learn what's going on you'll need to start expanding your reading list.

Click to expand...

So pretty much, no, you have nothing.

Somerville said:

Have you ever read the one extant letter of Clement, who was the third or maybe fourth Pope in Rome - (Jerome had a little disagreement with others who wrote about the period)? If you haven't, there are three translations to be found at Early Christian Writings.

For some reason, I don't have much faith in the reliability of a person who believed the Phoenix was a real creature.

Then there is Clement's ( or whoever actually wrote the words ) view that Christ was to soon return
The failure of the 'speedy' return has been a problem for Believers since the beginning of the church.

Another problem in calling upon this early church father to support the claims, in 1 Clement, there are ZERO mentions of the Gospels and the only Scriptures he quotes are passages to be found in the Septuagint

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. Everybody's screwed in the head except you and your liberal buddies. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all imposters and were smoking ragweed. Paul didn't know what the hell he was talking about either. Neither did Peter, Jude, or anyone else in the New Testament. The rabbis who said Isaiah 53 was Messianic were all screwed in the head too, as is anyone who brings them up. The women at the tomb who saw Jesus were deluded, as were all of the disciples, the men on the road to Emmaus, the 500 who saw the resurrected Jesus, all the conservative scholars whose dating and arguments you don't like, pretty much all the churches who worship the resurrected Christ, and anyone who shows up around here who doesn't kow-tow to your revisionist history. They're all screwed in the head, or are liars, charlatans, or madmen. But you, Somerville, have it all nailed down.

Sure, Somerville. You and your buddies here have a nice day. Say hello to the pink unicorn for me.

Logicman said:

Yeah, I know. Everybody's screwed in the head except you and your liberal buddies. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all imposters and were smoking ragweed. Paul didn't know what the hell he was talking about either. Neither did Peter, Jude, or anyone else in the New Testament. The rabbis who said Isaiah 53 was Messianic were all screwed in the head too, as is anyone who brings them up. The women at the tomb who saw Jesus were deluded, as were all of the disciples, the men on the road to Emmaus, the 500 who saw the resurrected Jesus, all the conservative scholars whose dating and arguments you don't like, pretty much all the churches who worship the resurrected Christ, and anyone who shows up around here who doesn't kow-tow to your revisionist history. They're all screwed in the head, or are liars, charlatans, or madmen. But you, Somerville, have it all nailed down.

Sure, Somerville. You and your buddies here have a nice day. Say hello to the pink unicorn for me.

Click to expand...

Here is a sincere question or three. Why does it matter? Isn't the message most important? If tomorrow it was somehow determined conclusively that Jesus was no more and no less the son/daughter of God than you or anyone else is, would that deminish the importance of the lessons that Jesus taught?

If you believe what Jesus taught what then is truth and what is Jesus? Can the goodness and love of/in the teachings of Christ be so fragile as to depend on the dearth of verifiable facts concerning the life of Jesus?

Logicman said:

Yeah, I know. Everybody's screwed in the head except you and your liberal buddies. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all imposters and were smoking ragweed. Paul didn't know what the hell he was talking about either. Neither did Peter, Jude, or anyone else in the New Testament. The rabbis who said Isaiah 53 was Messianic were all screwed in the head too, as is anyone who brings them up. The women at the tomb who saw Jesus were deluded, as were all of the disciples, the men on the road to Emmaus, the 500 who saw the resurrected Jesus, all the conservative scholars whose dating and arguments you don't like, pretty much all the churches who worship the resurrected Christ, and anyone who shows up around here who doesn't kow-tow to your revisionist history. They're all screwed in the head, or are liars, charlatans, or madmen. But you, Somerville, have it all nailed down.

Sure, Somerville. You and your buddies here have a nice day. Say hello to the pink unicorn for me.

Click to expand...

Ever so cute - denigration of points made against your views without supplying a single bit of new support or corroboration.


The books, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written by those whose names are found there today. This is verifiable if you were to take the time to actually read some scholarly, not apologetic works.

The difference comes in how one reads the words attributed to some guy named Paul, which today are only found in seven of the "Pauline epistles" -- Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Galatians, Philippians and 1 Thessalonians There is more debate on the authorship of Colossians, 2 Thessalonians and Ephesians while the general opinion of those who know a few things about the creation of the canon are sure that 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are pseudonymous writings. One of those 'liberal' academic types who support this division of the Epistles is Fr. Raymond E. Brown, a member of the Vatican's Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission. "Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible," Paulist Press, (1990)

Paul knew what he was writing about but what you read today is not exactly what was originally written. The modern interpretations of the words are also not quite was intended for its first and second century readers.

Rabbis who saw the coming of a Messiah prophesied in Isaiah weren't speaking of the man known as Jesus. Their beliefs focused upon a new king who could unite the Jewish people and expel the Roman pagans from the homeland.

Which women at the tomb were deluded? We do have a bit of a problem with concordance of the tales told - which by the way weren't even known to those who called themselves Christian in the first century. There is some discussion even over the term Christian as some early writings use the adjective Nasoreans for the early groups.

It is not "conservative scholars" with which I disagree but those who claim to be scholars when they are little more than apologists.

Risky Thicket said:

Here is a sincere question or three. Why does it matter? Isn't the message most important? If tomorrow it was somehow determined conclusively that Jesus was no more and no less the son/daughter of God than you or anyone else is, would that deminish the importance of the lessons that Jesus taught?

If you believe what Jesus taught what then is truth and what is Jesus? Can the goodness and love of/in the teachings of Christ be so fragile as to depend on the dearth of verifiable facts concerning the life of Jesus?

Click to expand...

There are some who call themselves Christian who do believe the Christ of the New Testament is a mythological being but still see the teachings as being moral and worth following. One well known mythicist scholar is the Irish Roman Catholic priest Thomas L. Brodie, who wrote Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery in which he explains how he came to disbelieve in an historical personage while still believing in Christ.

Somerville said:

There are some who call themselves Christian who do believe the Christ of the New Testament is a mythological being but still see the teachings as being moral and worth following. One well known mythicist scholar is the Irish Roman Catholic priest Thomas L. Brodie, who wrote Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery in which he explains how he came to disbelieve in an historical personage while still believing in Christ.

Click to expand...

I have heard of Brodie and the book, but I know next to nothing about either. I'm going to put the book on my reading list. In my early Christian youth I began to question which was more important, the message or the vehicle. Couldn't the message be universal? Truth doesn't care who tells it.

Logicman said:

Yeah, I know. Everybody's screwed in the head except you and your liberal buddies. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all imposters and were smoking ragweed. Paul didn't know what the hell he was talking about either. Neither did Peter, Jude, or anyone else in the New Testament. The rabbis who said Isaiah 53 was Messianic were all screwed in the head too, as is anyone who brings them up. The women at the tomb who saw Jesus were deluded, as were all of the disciples, the men on the road to Emmaus, the 500 who saw the resurrected Jesus, all the conservative scholars whose dating and arguments you don't like, pretty much all the churches who worship the resurrected Christ, and anyone who shows up around here who doesn't kow-tow to your revisionist history. They're all screwed in the head, or are liars, charlatans, or madmen. But you, Somerville, have it all nailed down.

Sure, Somerville. You and your buddies here have a nice day. Say hello to the pink unicorn for me.

Click to expand...

Funny how the only places you can show that Rabbi's claim Isaiah 53 is Messianic is via Christian apologetic web sites, and you can't show what they wrote in context from their original writings.

RAMOSS said:

Funny how the only places you can show that Rabbi's claim Isaiah 53 is Messianic is via Christian apologetic web sites, and you can't show what they wrote in context from their original writings.

Click to expand...

Well, do you think modern day Jews, antichrists, atheists and agnostics will promote or defend it? Where O where have you been, Ramoss?