conspiracy theory

achilles12604 · Post by **achilles12604** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 8:32 pm

I was giving some thought to the athiest viewpoint here. I was considering in my mind if my religious bias had blinded me to something obvious. Was this theory more likely than my current one? After reading my following post please tell me :

1) If this theory fits better than the theory that it is more or less true and accurate.
2) WHY one theory is better than the other.
3) What other theories could be possible?
4) Why those theories should be considered.

The theory: The earliest Christians, Paul, James, and the apostles at the least, perhaps more unnamed men, made up Christianity or borrowed ideas from other religions to make up their own. Then they pushed it as truth onto the unknowing masses and gathered a following.

For this theory to be truth, first there must be a why.

Why would these men want to construct a religion of their own which would be considered totally evil by most of the people they were reaching at first? In addition to this, their new religion would be directly against their current beliefs, against the beliefs of their families and society, and would have the end result of excommunicating them from their friends and support structure.

What reason could so many men have for creating something completely out of nothing, which would be so devestating to themselves, physically, financially, and socially?

To this atheists have replied, "How do you know that this is what happened? How can you proove that the early christian's suffered?"

To answer this one simply needs to read Jewish writings or Roman historians. Pliny the younger wrote that every time he discovered Christians, he tourtured and murdered them. Not some of the time. EVERY TIME. The Jewish Pharasee's like Saul, before he converted, were imprisoning Christians. To the Jews, these believers were a mutation of their beliefs. The Talmud has some very strong words about the Christian's. Josephus writes of them being stoned. If any athiest wishes to present the case that Christian's were not persecuted, they must first deal with history.

The next step for validating the conspiracy theory, after determining why these men would have done this, is to see if the facts fit. In other words, does history point to a conspiracy, or truth?

Extra-biblical writings of Jesus :

At first this subject seems to point in great favor of the conspiracy theory. Outside of the bible and writings of the conspirators, there is little support. However, when certain things are taken into consideration, this becomes less and less of a problem. For example, almost all of the writings of this time period were about rulers, wars, conquering countries and other such important things. So should we have expected to see a great deal of writing about a poor man from a really small town in a clountry being ruled by a foreign power? Not really. In fact we should have NOTHING written about him ever. Especially since he never existed.

But we do. We have the writings of a contemporary historian, Josephus. Although his writings are universally thought to have been altered by later Christians, the core of one passage concerning Jesus is thought to be genuine and a second passage is thought to be entirely genuine by most scholars. In addition to this we have Jewish Historians (writers of the Talmud) who by reviewing history determined that a man named Jesus was a magician and was killed by authorities by hanging on a tree.

This is very impressive for a poor tradesman, and this is assuming he even existed. The conspiracy theory doesn't even allow for a man named Jesus at all. Remember that the theory is that these men constructed all of their ideas from other ancient religions. Hence Jesus should have never even formed much less have been refered to by outside sources. This does not boad well for a conspiracy.

The audience :

This is a bigger problem for the conspiracy than the few extra-biblical references. This is because if it was a conspiracy, then the authors spreading these lies should have been shouted down by the masses. Especially since these lies would have been spread within the lifetimes of those men and women who would have known them to be false. After all today you can not convince someone that a building was knocked down by a terrorist if it did not really happen. Those people knew that there was no Jesus or if there were, that he never did anything even close to what these liars claimed.

This is what we should see if it was a consipiracy. However, this is not what we see happened. Instead, this very town where the supposed events happened (but they never did if it was a conspiracy), became the center and brain for the most quickly advancing and totally overcoming religion ever on earth. The Christians (Jewish converts) from Jerusalem, who would have known if these had been wild lies, were so convinced that they faced the aforementioned persecutions to spread the word further.

These men would have known for a fact, that this conspiracy was a bunch of lies. The authorities would have known they were lies and called them just that. But what does history say they called these events? Magic. Demon work. Perhaps the greatest blow to the conspiracy theory is the fact that the enemies of this movement did not say that the conspirators were lying. They explained away the events instead. This leaves us with the understanding that SOMETHING happened which needed to be explained.

The normal athiest answer to this problem is that there is no first hand accounts of the authorities reaction. They do not have any real answer to the masses which converted but should not have believed anything because nothing ever happened. To this, we can reply Josephus commented on the authorities being involved with the later Christian movements and their reactions to the men involved. They called witchcraft, demons and executed those involved. But they never said the most obvious statement if it were all a big conspiracy, "Nothing ever happened."

Later accounts from the Talmud concure with Josephus on this point. They explain him away, but do not deny the Christian movement.

So far we have looked at why the conspirators would have invented a lie which would have brought them nothing but pain, poverty and hardship for both themselves and their families. We looked at the writings of the time and recognized that if this were truely a conspiracy, there shouldn't be ANYTHING extra, yet it is there. We looked at the audience and recognized that the audience SHOULD have ignored the liars because they obviously had nothing to go on. The conspirators were claiming some REALLY OUTRAGEOUS and more importantly, easily disprovable things. They should have been out before they even began. Yet this didn't happen.

Based on just these three points, I suggest that the conspiracy theory is a flop. It is certainly not the most plausible theory if it is even possible. And that is a big if.

achilles12604 · Post by **achilles12604** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:06 am

Point by point.

Lotan wrote:

achilles12604 wrote:
"James Gang" seems to be a theory of excuse created by you.

It must also be a "theory of excuse created by" Paul and the author of Acts then, as they both mention it.

I'm refering to the teachings you suggested, not the men or their position in the church. As I asked in my prior post, please show that James taught things about Jesus which directly contradicts the teachings of Paul. Refer to my exact points above.

Lotan :

Achilles: Your theory of JG knowing some secret writings and deeds of Jesus, and that all of their writings were totally destroyed thus creating a conspiracy for the currently accepted view of Jesus, is unsupported, logically unsound and totally opinion.

What "secret writings and deeds" are you talking about? The NT tells us that Peter and James, at least, accompanied JC on his earthly mission. If anyone knew what went on during that mission, they did. The NT also tells us that they settled in Jerusalem after Jesus' death and ran their own ministry until the Fall of Jerusalem, which Josephus describes in vivd detail. The only part of the story that is not attested is the presence (or not) of writings among the Jerusalem 'Christians'. I offered no opinion, but merely asked yours...

I was refering to once again thier "different" teachings. Once again I have no problem with James existing and leading the church. I am questioning your theory that thier teachings were fundamentally different than those of Paul.

Lotan wrote after a bit of prior explaination :

Whether they wrote down their beliefs or not is immaterial to the argument that their beliefs differed significantly from those of Paul, as we shall see.

OK!! Hot dog! Now we get to it. show me how their beliefs differed. This is the main discussion. Lets see what you have to offer showing a "significant difference" in their teachings. Lets try and focus on the points we are debating over.

Once again they are

1) Jesus was the Christ, God's messiah

2) That Jesus died and thus our sins were forgiven

3) That Jesus rose from the dead

4) That faith in Jesus and following him was the way to salvation

5) Worship of Jesus was acceptable.

OK you promised to show us how their teachings are "significantly different."

Lotan :

It's not unreasonable (IMV) to surmise that the Jerusalem 'Christians' possessed their own documents, but I'm not claiming that they did, nor am I claiming to know what these documents might have contained if it was shown that they did exist. I'm only allowing for the possibility that these documents would have pre-dated Paul's letters, as the Jerusalem church itself did. Thats all.

Not a good start. They probably had documents which were destroyed and these documents which we don't have, we have no idea what was on them.

Not a good way to start convincing anyone of the "significant differences" in their beliefs. Lets try some more.

Lotan wrote:

No, the NT claims that the apostles remained in Jerusalem after Jesus death. Im just pointing it out. Do you think that James and Peter did not know "the truth and the real Jesus"?

Nope. In fact if your review, this was one of my major premises. They did know the real Jesus. And the apostles did not stay in Jerusalem forever. Or are you suggesting they never left again.

Lotan wrote:

achilles12604 wrote:
1) You have no documentation supporting this by your own admission.

I admitted no such thing! The NT (especially Acts and Pauls epistles) documents the existence of the Jerusalem Christians quite well.

Ok we agree. Anything to support your claim that James and Peter did not believe any of the above things? I'll call them my "5 Christian points" from now one just so we are clear.

Lotan wrote:

achilles12604 wrote:
2) Christians who were alive and present believed my version of things by the time Paul's writings occured (and probably earlier based on the creeds I mentioned)

"Christians who were alive and present" where?
If by your "version of things" you mean Pauls version of things, then of course they did. But if you pick up a newspaper, youll see that people believe all sorts of things. So what? What is important is what the earliest tradition, that is Jesus original followers, who actually knew him while he was alive believed, not latecomers who never met him, even if they are as early as Paul. I dont think you understand that.

You know . . . you keep on saying this but you havn't shown it very well. Remember you promised to show everyone that James and Peter believed things which were "significantly different" than the teachings of Paul. Also remember that we are discussing the "5 Christian points" specifically. Please keep your promise to everyone. So far you havn't offered any evidence that their teachins were "significantly different" on these 5 points.

Lotan:

You're really, really funny

Thanks. My Girlfriend thinks so too. Or at least see tells me so.

Lotan:

Achilles: So your claim that it was written before Paul's letters is not even accepted by the most anti-Jesus, liberal scholars I can find.
What claim?

I still think that you're making the same mistake, by assuming that the oldest extant documents reflect the earliest beliefs. This is an 'apples and oranges' sort of logical error.

Um . . . Your claim that Thomas (or at least portions of it) was written before Paul's letters.

Here let me see if I can find your exact words so I wont be putting words into your mouth. . . . Hmmm . . .

Besides, Paul's writings may not even be the earliest that we have- the gospel of Thomas (or at least portions of it) might actually be just as early, if not even earlier.

I do not think you really wish to argue that the entire Gospel is Before Paul's letters. If you do then please lets figure that one out. So this leaves us with portions of Thomas gospel.

Which Portions? What came from Q and what didn't? What does Q actually say? Are the "lost sayings of Jesus" including the Gnostic portions of Thomas, or the non-Gnostic portions? Please explain which parts of Thomas Gospel are Pre-Paul and why you think so. I am not saying that small (very small) sections may be before Pauls' writings in fact I think I pointed out that there were creeds which were used by Paul.

Lotan Wrote:

Oh, all right

Your argument (all of it) re: 'miracles' fails because by conflating the beliefs and interpretations of the miracle claims made by Pauline Christians with those of the actual eyewitnesses to Jesus ministry you are begging the question.

This is true only if those beliefs can be shown to be different.

You promised to show everyone that these teachings were in fact "significantly different". I expect some sort of litterature, archeological find or something to prove these 5 Christian points were not held by James and Peter. Please . . . you promised.

It probably would be. Thats why Im not doing that. I never said (I seem to be using that phrase a lot, lately) that there was "no evidence at all". The NT describes the different views of Paul and the Jerusalem church regarding Torah observance quite well, as do some of the early 'church Fathers'

Granted. These point have nothing to do with the 5 central Christian points I am baseing my arguement around and on which you promised to show "significant differences" between beliefs. Showing that they were having trouble deciding what food to eat has absolutly nothing to do with Jesus rising from the dead. Please show us . . .

Lotan:
Josephus mentions Stephen? Which Josephus is that?

OOPS. My mistake about Stephen. I was thinking of something else. Oh well I am entitle to an error.

Lotan:

So yeah, James got killed, but Ananus, the high priest and from a powerful line of high priests was deposed because of it. And especially pertinent to our discussion is Josephus mention of "those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws", that is the most Torah-observant citizens, "disliked what was done"! I cant imagine anyone making a fuss about the murder of some lowlife heretic. Apparently James was pretty well connected too.

Ok. You are leaving out the part about James being killed by an angry mob. Apparently there were more than a couple people high up who didn't like him. There was at least a "Mob", or did you forget that part?

My point was simply that he was killed for reasons which revolved around what he was teaching. If the church had begun to grow, it is no wonder he had a fan club. If James was following his own teachings about showing faith through actions, then it would make sense that the poor (most of the city) loved him very much and wouldn't take kindly to his death.

So we have James being ordered to be killed by a authorities because of his teaching against the Torah. He was beat to death by an angry mob showing that there was more than a couple people who didn't like whatever he was teaching. Then a good number of people from the city expelled the leader because they ordered a man who helped and loved them a lot to be killed.

This does nothing to show that his teachings were "significantly different" than those of Paul and in fact because his teachings were against the Torah and enough to anger an entire mob of people, the teachings were probably a lot closer to Paul's than the Essens, who's teachings would not be offensive at all considering their close adherence to the Jewish teachings and their care in denying the deity of Jesus.

Lotan:

Oh drat!
Explain the ongoing existence of the Jerusalem church then. They werent in hiding. James worshipped at the Temple regularly. They even brought Paul there for a bath! After James death, his brother Simeon took his place as leader.
(Just for fun, would you explain why the early Christian fathers writings about who was killed are not suspect? Were they Vulcans?)

The ongoing existence of the church . . .

First I wonder if you bring this up because perhaps you assume that EVERY Jew wanted to kill Christians and that they would inevitably act on those wishes at every opportunity. If this is the case then you have some to learn about racism.

I would imagine that Jerusalem at that time would be a lot like LA after Rodney king. A lot of the blacks hated anyone white but they did necessarily try to kill them. However some did. Now imagine if the whites were the minority. Again they wouldn't all be killed, but there would have been a great deal of persecution, much like you see throughout history of almost any minority. The Chinese in Cali, the Blacks in the Pre-civil war south, the Christians in China . . . ooh, now there's a possible example which fits really well. Are all Christians in china killed? No. Were a lot killed? Yea. Were the rest persecuted? Yes.

As for the early fathers, well I guess they could have been Vulcans. I tend to think they were humans without a reason to lie in their letters however.

They were writing letters to other christians. If someone was killed in a certain place in a certain way and they wished to tell others about it, they would have written it in their letters right? What is suspicious about that?

What conspiracy?
I dont deny that Christians have been persecuted, even if the accounts have been somewhat exaggerated. What matters to this discussion is which Christians were persecuted and where and when.

True. James - Killed by the Jews for his teachings (not all the Jews. Happy?)

Stephen - Stoned by the Jews for his teachings (Acts and early fathers writings (not Josephus, my mistake))

Other apostles . . . http://www.gotquestions.org/apostles-die.html

I once again assert that we do not know for sure about anyone but James and Paul. However, considering the persecutions of the christians, these renditions of their deaths are not far fetched.

Lotan (I skipped down a little)

Unless you dont believe that Paul had originally persecuted Christians and had never heard of them or about them. Besides you havent shown that his gospel was the same as that of James & Peter.

And you havn't kept your promise to show that they were significantly different. I have given a decent amount of reasons why it is more likely that they were teaching the same things. You have promised to show that they were teaching a "significantly different" Gospel but so far, you havn't given us any reason to think this.

Will you please keep your promise and show us exactly why we should know that James and Peter's Gospels concerning the central facts of Christianity were different?

Please?

Lotan:

achilles12604 wrote:
Peter was a Jew.

I thought he was a Christian!

Tell this to the Jew for Jesus group.

Every once in a while I can tell when you arn't serious.

Lotan:

I really love this. You'll see why.

You wrote:

"Council of Jerusalem
Held in 51 AD. All living Apostles participated, and Saint Peter presided. The Council decreed that circumcision, dietary regulations, and various requirements of Mosaic law did not apply to Gentile converts. This is vehemently opposed by Judaizers who argued that observance of Mosiac Law was necessary for salvation."

Lets see

51 AD would be about 20 years since Jesus death, and by Pauls account 17 years into his ministry (please correct me if Im wrong). So after all that time, the Council decides that gentiles, not Jews, need not follow the Torah. And this is the group that you would have us believe is spouting heresies! By your own argument they wouldnt have lived til 51 AD if they had!

Ok lets look at your evidence.

First you should support your claim that

Except that those earliest Christians were devout Judahists.

Now we get to the biggest with your evidence here.

1) You pointed out that Peter was leading this council

2) You pointed out that Peter knew the original Jesus

3) You pointed out that the majority of the people in the council were alive during Jesus lifetime (51AD)

4) You also pointed out that Most of the council held that Salvation came through Jesus and not the law. The minority opinion was that the law was needed.

Are you trying to support my point? This is good evidence that most of the people who knew the live Jesus believed in Salvation through him and not the Law. Thanks. . . Really.

Lotan:

achilles12604 wrote:
After citing a source with no author and only two sources for their information, both from other anti-christian sites you wrote:

Please spare me any speeches about sources, and just deal with the content, if thats possible

Nice! Really nice!

Ok everyone. LOTAN has decreed that any and all evidence is now valid without any reason to believe it. Bring out University U! Lets here from Brigham Young University and its scholars! Come out UFO believers and your secret documented files! In fact lets use Hollywood as a source as well. Captain Kirk, what is your opinion about the beliefs of Paul and James?

Spock - I know you have an opinion on this matter. Lets check in with Silvester Stalone and Arnold. Gentlemen, based on your respective strengths we are going to have you wrestle to decide if Paul was telling the truth. This is my source now.

Common Lotan. You know sources need to be credible. Just because I can point out obvious and grevious errors in several of your cites doesn't mean we should just accept them anyway! This same thing was said by Cather when I pointed out errors in his sources. Common guys, this is supposed to be scholarly debate, not a free for all. That means, back up your sources!

Lotan:

achilles12604 wrote:
Most of the Ebonites connection to James is hyothesized through such litterature as Apocryphon of James
First Apocalpyse of James Second Apocalypse of James
Gospel of the Egyptians
from http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JD ... urces.html.

Missing File - 404 Error Page

Sorry, but we could not locate the file you requested.
Too bad. Id like to know how you came to the conclusion that "most" of the Ebionites connection to James is through apocrypha. Is it based on one opinion only?

How about removing the period and trying?

Ok here I'll help . . .

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JD ... urces.html

Is that ok now?

Lotan:

From the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

"Recent scholars have plausibly maintained that the term did not originally designate any heretical sect, but merely the orthodox Jewish Christians of Palestine who continued to observe the Mosaic Law. These, ceasing to be in touch with the bulk of the Christian world, would gradually have drifted away from the standard of orthodoxy and become formal heretics." (emphasis mine)

Ok and here are some pieces you left out.

Their doctrines are similarly described by Hippolytus (Philos., VIII, xxii, X, xviii) and Tertullian (De carne Chr., xiv, 18), but their observance of the Law seems no longer so prominent a feature of their system as in the account given by Irenaeus. Origen is the first (C. Cels., V, lxi) to mark a distinction between two classes of Ebionites, a distinction which Eusebius also gives (Hist. Eccl., III, xxvii).

Thier viewpoint was not consistent over time.

This, however, is obviously not the historic origin of the name. Other writers, such as Tertullian (De Praescr., xxxiii; De Carne Chr., xiv, 18), Hippolytus (cfr. Pseudo-Tert., Adv. Haer., III, as reflecting Hippolytus's lost "Syntagma"), and Epiphanius (Haeres., xxx) derive the name of the sect from a certain Ebion, its supposed founder. Epiphanius even mentions the place of his birth, a hamlet called Cochabe in the district of Bashan, and relates that he travelled through Asia and even came to Rome.

This religion possibly had its own founder, not Jesus. Hence a sect, not pure Christians. Much like JW or LDS today.

The word Ebionites, or rather, more correctly, Ebionans (Ebionaioi), is a transliteration of an Aramean word meaning "poor men". It first occurs in Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2, but without designation of meaning. Origen (C. Celsum, II, i; De Princ., IV, i, 22) and Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III, xxvii) refer the name of these sectaries either to the poverty of their understanding, or to the poverty of the Law to which they clung, or to the poor opinions they held concerning Christ

This seems to tell us that they held to the poverty teachings of Jesus. Either that or their view of him was poor which actually hurts your case because then they are not much different that the Jews of the day.

Some Ebionites accept, but others reject, the virginal birth of Christ, though all reject His pre-existence and His Divinity. Those who accepted the virginal birth seem to have had more exalted views concerning Christ and, besides observing the Sabbath, to have kept the Sunday as a memorial of His Resurrection.

This one is very interesting because it shows that while they denied Jesus deity (probably because they were still clinging to their Die-hard Jewish beliefs) They did accept his resurrection. Your very own source points out that your primary people of suspicion concerning the teachings of the early christians, still held to thier belief of the ressurection.

This doesn't go well with your theory that James and Paul are totally different on this point does it?

Also please note that ALL of their connection with James is based on writings which came well into the Gnostic period. On the other hand, James is mentioned and praised by Paul and other leaders. This seems strange if his teachings were "significantly different".

You may have outlined the beliefs of a small group of Jews who liked some of the teachings of Jesus but were not willing to be convinced of everything. You dismissed the facts that a significantly larger group of men who also knew Jesus personally held with traditionaly beliefs, that the ebonites were probably founded by another man, and that even these men who denied the deity of Jesus still accepted and believed in his ressurection.

Well at least you provided evidence that SOMEONE disagreed with the early apostles from and early time. This is better than I thought you would do. I learned something.

I still think it is funny that these guys accepted Jesus resurrection though.

Lotan wrote:

achilles12604 wrote:
Outside of these books, there is no evidence that James had anything to do with the Essenes.

I dont recall claiming that he did, and you havent shown that he did not.

So that I don't put words into your mouth here is a quote from you. . .

Paul came to this conclusion (was he the first?), but the best evidence is that the Ebionites (followers of the James gang) did not.

Now do you recall making this claim?

Ok enough for tonight. I am tired and we can spar more later.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:40 am

achilles12604 wrote:
Also The Jews did not kill James. It was done by the High Priest when the Roman governor. was away and the Jews complained about James death and then they got ride of the High Priest. Get your details right.
He was killed by a mob stoning him. Yes or no?

This mob was Jewish. Yes or no?

The order to kill James was given by the head of Jewish authorities. Yes or no?

As for details, that is rich coming from someone who dates Luke to 150 AD, cites cources that say the Gospels are dependent on Jospehus, and claim that even poor sources should be used.

Your track record is a little lacking to be telling me to check my details.

from wikepedi

According to a passage in Josephus's Jewish Antiquities, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" met his death after the death of the procurator Porcius Festus, yet before Clodius Albinus took office (Antiquities 20,9) which has thus been dated to 62. The High Priest Ananus ben Ananus took advantage of this lack of imperial oversight to assemble a Sanhedrin who condemned James "on the charge of breaking the law," then had him executed by stoning. Josephus reports that Ananus' act was widely viewed as little more than judicial murder, and offended a number of "those who were considered the most fair-minded people in the City, and strict in their observance of the Law," who went as far as meeting Albinus as he entered the province to petition him about the matter. In response, King Agrippa replaced Ananus with Jesus, the son of Damneus.
[

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:42 am

achilles12604 wrote:I'm refering to the teachings you suggested, not the men or their position in the church.

I don't recall mentioning any "teachings". Can you be more specific?

achilles12604 wrote:As I asked in my prior post, please show that James taught things about Jesus which directly contradicts the teachings of Paul.

I think I've already done that. The Jerusalem 'Christians' continued Torah observance while Paul's gentile followers did not.

achilles12604 wrote:Refer to my exact points above.

Again you'll need to be more specific. If you're referring to the numbered list of beliefs, then I see no need to answer them directly. Would you like me to speculate?

achilles12604 wrote:I was refering to once again thier "different" teachings. Once again I have no problem with James existing and leading the church. I am questioning your theory that thier teachings were fundamentally different than those of Paul.

Thank you, but it's not my theory. Both Acts and the Pauline epistles make it clear that Paul had different ideas about Jesus than the Jerusalem 'Christians' did. This is evident even in spite of the apologetic bias of those sources.

achilles12604 wrote:OK!! Hot dog! Now we get to it. show me how their beliefs differed. This is the main discussion. Lets see what you have to offer showing a "significant difference" in their teachings. Lets try and focus on the points we are debating over.

Once again they are

1) Jesus was the Christ, God's messiah

2) That Jesus died and thus our sins were forgiven

3) That Jesus rose from the dead

4) That faith in Jesus and following him was the way to salvation

5) Worship of Jesus was acceptable.

OK you promised to show us how their teachings are "significantly different."

You are like a broken record. These are not "the points we are debating". I would need to speculate in order to address the beliefs of the earliest tradition (did I mention that there is probably an even earlier one?) regarding these issues, but I would rather not. Instead I will assert that their beliefs regarding these issues fit within the acceptable range of second temple Judahism at the time. That is, they were not heretical, or at least not seriously so. You may speculate on that basis to your heart's content.

achilles12604 wrote:They probably had documents which were destroyed and these documents which we don't have, we have no idea what was on them.

I agree on both counts.

achilles12604 wrote:Not a good way to start convincing anyone of the "significant differences" in their beliefs.

I've already told you that my intention re the possibility of pre-Pauline writings wasn't an attempt to "start convincing anyone" of anything, so get over it.

achilles12604 wrote:They did know the real Jesus. And the apostles did not stay in Jerusalem forever. Or are you suggesting they never left again.

We know that Peter did, at least, even though Jesus told them not to leave (Acts 1:4). The Jerusalem church was in business until the war, if that's what you mean.

achilles12604 wrote:Ok we agree. Anything to support your claim that James and Peter did not believe any of the above things? I'll call them my "5 Christian points" from now one just so we are clear.

Your "5 Christian points" are imv an attempt to set unrealistic goalposts, and are irrelevant to this discussion. The beliefs of the Jerusalem 'Christians' regarding these points (and any others) fell within the acceptable bounds of second temple Judahism. It could not have been otherwise, according to your own argument. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

achilles12604 wrote:You know . . . you keep on saying this but you havn't shown it very well. Remember you promised to show everyone that James and Peter believed things which were "significantly different" than the teachings of Paul. Also remember that we are discussing the "5 Christian points" specifically. Please keep your promise to everyone. So far you havn't offered any evidence that their teachins were "significantly different" on these 5 points.

Over and over and over...

Please try to understand. You are absolutely right about this 'conspiracy theory'. The apostles would not have died for what they believed was a lie. Well, they didn't die. They remained in Jerusalem, the heart of Judea, in the very shadow of the temple of YHWH for decades after Jesus' death. They were highly visible members of their community. This could not be the case if they were heretics. It would be impossible. If they went about the streets of Jerusalem preaching the "5 Christian points" as you understand them, they would have been toast. Obviously they did not. In support of this conclusion (although support isn't necessary) is the fact that both Paul's epistles and Acts describe them as being strict adherents of the Torah. In addition, patristic and apocryphal sources paint the same picture, as does Josephus. Add to that Paul's admission that he received his gospel by revelation and not from "any man".
Unless you can somehow show that Paul was an advocate of Torah observance (goodluck with that one!) then I am completely justified in my conclusion that the beliefs of the Jerusalem church were "significantly different" than were those of Paul.

achilles12604 wrote:I do not think you really wish to argue that the entire Gospel is Before Paul's letters. If you do then please lets figure that one out. So this leaves us with portions of Thomas gospel.

Which Portions? What came from Q and what didn't? What does Q actually say? Are the "lost sayings of Jesus" including the Gnostic portions of Thomas, or the non-Gnostic portions? Please explain which parts of Thomas Gospel are Pre-Paul and why you think so. I am not saying that small (very small) sections may be before Pauls' writings in fact I think I pointed out that there were creeds which were used by Paul.

That's all that I was trying to say. There is reason to believe that some of Jesus' original sayings and parables are recorded in gThomas. This is the even earlier tradition (Galilean) that I referred to earlier. It's not really relevant to this discussion except to counter your assertion that "Paul's writings are the earliest and also reflect the earliest traditions". We don't necessarily need to possess earlier writings to know that they existed.

achilles12604 wrote:You promised to show everyone that these teachings were in fact "significantly different". I expect some sort of litterature, archeological find or something to prove these 5 Christian points were not held by James and Peter. Please . . . you promised.

One of my kids is 10 years old too.

achilles12604 wrote:Granted. These point have nothing to do with the 5 central Christian points I am baseing my arguement around and on which you promised to show "significant differences" between beliefs. Showing that they were having trouble deciding what food to eat has absolutly nothing to do with Jesus rising from the dead.

Sure it does. Only a heretic would claim that Jesus rose physically.

achilles12604 wrote:OOPS. My mistake about Stephen. I was thinking of something else. Oh well I am entitle to an error.

You're entitled to many errors.

achilles12604 wrote:You are leaving out the part about James being killed by an angry mob.

No, you are adding "the part about James being killed by an angry mob". It's not in the Bible or in Josephus. Maybe you're entitled to another error?

achilles12604 wrote:There was at least a "Mob", or did you forget that part?

Silly me!

Where exactly did you get that idea?

achilles12604 wrote:My point was simply that he was killed for reasons which revolved around what he was teaching.

Great! Now all you need is some sort of evidence for that claim.

achilles12604 wrote:If James was following his own teachings about showing faith through actions, then it would make sense that the poor (most of the city) loved him very much and wouldn't take kindly to his death.

OK...so what?

achilles12604 wrote:So we have James being ordered to be killed by a authorities because of his teaching against the Torah.

Unsupported assertion. Evidence please.

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence.

achilles12604 wrote:He was beat to death by an angry mob showing that there was more than a couple people who didn't like whatever he was teaching.

Are you reading this in the Bible?

That's two unsupported assertions strung together...

achilles12604 wrote:Then a good number of people from the city expelled the leader because they ordered a man who helped and loved them a lot to be killed.

Another 'mob'? Are you referring to "the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws", the ones who informed Albinus that "it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent"? Odd allies for a heretic.

achilles12604 wrote:This does nothing to show that his teachings were "significantly different" than those of Paul and in fact because his teachings were against the Torah and enough to anger an entire mob of people...

Why should it? It's your fantasy...

achilles12604 wrote:...the teachings were probably a lot closer to Paul's than the Essens, who's teachings would not be offensive at all considering their close adherence to the Jewish teachings and their care in denying the deity of Jesus.

Um, OK I guess...:confused2:What are you talking about?

achilles12604 wrote:First I wonder if you bring this up because perhaps you assume that EVERY Jew wanted to kill Christians and that they would inevitably act on those wishes at every opportunity. If this is the case then you have some to learn about racism.

Man, you're out there!
I don't assume that ANY Jews wanted to kill the Jerusalem 'Christians'. That's your argument (angry mobs & such) isn't it? The Jerusalem 'Christians' were themselves (Torah observant) Jews.

achilles12604 wrote:I would imagine that Jerusalem at that time would be a lot like LA after Rodney king. A lot of the blacks hated anyone white but they did necessarily try to kill them. However some did. Now imagine if the whites were the minority. Again they wouldn't all be killed, but there would have been a great deal of persecution, much like you see throughout history of almost any minority. The Chinese in Cali, the Blacks in the Pre-civil war south, the Christians in China . . . ooh, now there's a possible example which fits really well. Are all Christians in china killed? No. Were a lot killed? Yea. Were the rest persecuted? Yes.

I'm going to try and forget that I ever read that, OK?

achilles12604 wrote:As for the early fathers, well I guess they could have been Vulcans. I tend to think they were humans without a reason to lie in their letters however.

So they would agree with each other about everything then? Not. The 'church fathers' had motives and biases just like everyone else.

achilles12604 wrote:They were writing letters to other christians. If someone was killed in a certain place in a certain way and they wished to tell others about it, they would have written it in their letters right? What is suspicious about that?

Besides the alleged deaths occurring centuries earlier? I don't know...

achilles12604 wrote:True. James - Killed by the Jews for his teachings (not all the Jews. Happy?)

Please provide evidence that James was killed "for his teachings". Otherwise it's mere invention.

achilles12604 wrote:Stephen - Stoned by the Jews for his teachings (Acts and early fathers writings (not Josephus, my mistake))

Actually, just Acts. Anything later is commentary.
So we have a whopping two alleged 'martyrs', only one of whom is claimed to have been killed for their beliefs, while the rest of the Jerusalem congregation was unmolested for 40 years.

achilles12604 wrote:Other apostles . . . http://www.gotquestions.org/apostles-die.html

I once again assert that we do not know for sure about anyone but James and Paul. However, considering the persecutions of the christians, these renditions of their deaths are not far fetched.

I'm glad that you didn't include Stephen, because I doubt that the account of his death (and life for that matter) is more than invention. At least you acknowledge that the alleged deaths of the others apostles are legendary (as are their lives in many cases, imv).

achilles12604 wrote:And you havn't kept your promise to show that they were significantly different.

Sure I have. You just haven't faced the implications.

achilles12604 wrote:I have given a decent amount of reasons why it is more likely that they were teaching the same things.

I must have missed that.

achilles12604 wrote:You have promised to show that they were teaching a "significantly different" Gospel but so far, you havn't given us any reason to think this.

Of course I have. If they had been preaching the gospel as you understand it, they would have been killed as heretics. All available evidence says they were not.

achilles12604 wrote:Will you please keep your promise and show us exactly why we should know that James and Peter's Gospels concerning the central facts of Christianity were different?

I can only present the argument. I can't guarantee that you will understand it.

achilles12604 wrote:Are you trying to support my point? This is good evidence that most of the people who knew the live Jesus believed in Salvation through him and not the Law. Thanks. . . Really.

Not at all. The exceptions are for gentiles only, and the implication is that prior to this there were no exceptions for anybody, least of all Jews.

achilles12604 wrote:Ok everyone. LOTAN has decreed that any and all evidence is now valid without any reason to believe it.

No, I just quoted an argument from a source that you didn't like and which I admitted was biased. You might disagree with that argument, but you have as yet provided a lot of complaints but no refutation. I wasn't using that source as a source of evidence and you know it.

achilles12604 wrote:How about removing the period and trying?

Ok here I'll help . . .

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JD ... urces.html

Is that ok now?

Awesome! Thanks achilles!

Now I can see how completely and utterly misleading this was...

achilles12604 wrote:Most of the Ebonites connection to James is hyothesized through such litterature as Apocryphon of James
First Apocalpyse of James Second Apocalypse of James
Gospel of the Egyptians

"Most"??? Dr. Tabor lists 10 "Basic Primary Sources on James the Just". You chose 1.

achilles12604 wrote:Ok and here are some pieces you left out.

Their doctrines are similarly described by Hippolytus (Philos., VIII, xxii, X, xviii) and Tertullian (De carne Chr., xiv, 18), but their observance of the Law seems no longer so prominent a feature of their system as in the account given by Irenaeus. Origen is the first (C. Cels., V, lxi) to mark a distinction between two classes of Ebionites, a distinction which Eusebius also gives (Hist. Eccl., III, xxvii).

I'm well aware that there are distinctions to be made between the pre-war Ebionites and the post-war group of the same name. Were they even related? They claim to be. Whether the practices of this later group precisely matched those of the earlier group is irrelevant anyway, and they could perhaps be excused for not following the Torah completely because they had no temple in which to practice.

achilles12604 wrote:Thier viewpoint was not consistent over time.

This, however, is obviously not the historic origin of the name. Other writers, such as Tertullian (De Praescr., xxxiii; De Carne Chr., xiv, 18), Hippolytus (cfr. Pseudo-Tert., Adv. Haer., III, as reflecting Hippolytus's lost "Syntagma"), and Epiphanius (Haeres., xxx) derive the name of the sect from a certain Ebion, its supposed founder. Epiphanius even mentions the place of his birth, a hamlet called Cochabe in the district of Bashan, and relates that he travelled through Asia and even came to Rome.

Myth-making in action! Cool, isn't it?

achilles12604 wrote:This religion possibly had its own founder, not Jesus.

Yes, and monkeys will 'possibly' fly out of my butt. Hb: ebion: poor. Hb: ebionim: the poor. Of course those early 'fathers' ccould be right, and the other early 'fathers' completely wrong!

achilles12604 wrote:This seems to tell us that they held to the poverty teachings of Jesus. Either that or their view of him was poor which actually hurts your case because then they are not much different that the Jews of the day.

Or maybe Origen just didn't like them.

achilles12604 wrote:This one is very interesting because it shows that while they denied Jesus deity (probably because they were still clinging to their Die-hard Jewish beliefs) They did accept his resurrection. Your very own source points out that your primary people of suspicion concerning the teachings of the early christians, still held to thier belief of the ressurection.

That's OK. How do you suppose they defined 'resurrection'? The way that you do? How would you know?

achilles12604 wrote:This doesn't go well with your theory that James and Paul are totally different on this point does it?

It fits quite well, because there is no reason to believe that either James or Paul saw the resurrection as anything other than a spiritual event.

achilles12604 wrote:Also please note that ALL of their connection with James is based on writings which came well into the Gnostic period.

And yet the gnostic -Ebionites were a distinct group.

achilles12604 wrote:On the other hand, James is mentioned and praised by Paul and other leaders. This seems strange if his teachings were "significantly different".

Paul wouldn't have much choice but to praise James if he wanted the 'authentic' seal of approval. On the other hand he gripes about "the Jews" and "Judaizers" and basically has an inferiority complex because he's not one of the original apostles.

achilles12604 wrote:You dismissed the facts that a significantly larger group of men who also knew Jesus personally held with traditionaly beliefs, that the ebonites were probably founded by another man, and that even these men who denied the deity of Jesus still accepted and believed in his ressurection.

I dismissed no 'facts'.
-"a significantly larger group of men who also knew Jesus personally held with traditionaly beliefs"? Says who? The evangelists?

That's not a 'fact', it's revisionism.
-"that the ebonites were probably founded by another man" Probably? You might need to look at the evidence a little more. Besides, even though the beliefs of the Ebionites support my case, they are not critical to it.
-"even these men who denied the deity of Jesus still accepted and believed in his ressurection." If you put it in the proper terms even I can believe that Jesus was 'resurrected'! So what? (Actually, I'm not really giving the Jerusalem church enough credit. I don't doubt that they believed in the resurrection as a result of visions of the risen Jesus)

achilles12604 wrote:Well at least you provided evidence that SOMEONE disagreed with the early apostles from and early time. This is better than I thought you would do. I learned something.

No you didn't. You still think that the original apostles believed what you do.

achilles12604 wrote:I still think it is funny that these guys accepted Jesus resurrection though.

Why? Christianity was founded upon it.

achilles12604 wrote:Outside of these books, there is no evidence that James had anything to do with the Essenes.
Lotan wrote:I dont recall claiming that he did, and you havent shown that he did not.
achilles12604 wrote:So that I don't put words into your mouth here is a quote from you. . .
Lotan wrote:Paul came to this conclusion (was he the first?), but the best evidence is that the Ebionites (followers of the James gang) did not.
achilles12604 wrote:Now do you recall making this claim?

Let's see...'Ebionites'/'Essenes'.....'Essenes'/'Ebionites'.....

I think this is another one of those errors that you're entitled to.

achilles12604 wrote:Ok enough for tonight. I am tired and we can spar more later.

Yes. It might be helpful if you resist the urge to repeat the same points over and over.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:36 pm

achilles12604:

I'm refering to the teachings you suggested, not the men or their position in the church. As I asked in my prior post, please show that James taught things about Jesus which directly contradicts the teachings of Paul. Refer to my exact points above.

We only have Pauls word on it and he says they teach a different Jesus and a different gospel. Now considering that Paul seems to equate God with Jesus even though he says he was born of flesh and flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God he must have been teaching something different then those from James, Barnabas and Peter when they withdrew. Now the epistle of James is questionable, as you cannot tell us for sure which James except from tradition, but given its emphases on works I would think it at least follows James and the Ebonite teaching that are opposed to Paul. You have no exact points.

So we have James being ordered to be killed by a authorities because of his teaching against the Torah. He was beat to death by an angry mob showing that there was more than a couple people who didn't like whatever he was teaching. Then a good number of people from the city expelled the leader because they ordered a man who helped and loved them a lot to be killed.

There is no evidence that James ever taught against the Torah. In fact he lived it. According to the early church fathers he was tossed down from the temple and club to death. That is hardly a Mob and I dont have a lot of confidence in Acts. Luke creates even the speeches as was done in Greek writings and Josephus.
I doubt they thought Jesus was God. It sounds like the visions or inventions of Paul the Hellenistic Jew from Tarsus. Messiah sure but that is not against the Law except maybe Roman law. You have no reason to believe any of the gospels or Acts are valid historically give their conflicting accounts of the most important things.
Don't worry your pretty little head I got more coming.

Easyrider · Post by **Easyrider** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:40 pm

Cathar1950 wrote:achilles12604:
I'm refering to the teachings you suggested, not the men or their position in the church. As I asked in my prior post, please show that James taught things about Jesus which directly contradicts the teachings of Paul. Refer to my exact points above.

We only have Pauls word on it and he says they teach a different Jesus and a different gospel. Now considering that Paul seems to equate God with Jesus even though he says he was born of flesh and flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God he must have been teaching something different then those from James, Barnabas and Peter when they withdrew. Now the epistle of James is questionable, as you cannot tell us for sure which James except from tradition, but given its emphases on works I would think it at least follows James and the Ebonite teaching that are opposed to Paul. You have no exact points.

So we have James being ordered to be killed by a authorities because of his teaching against the Torah. He was beat to death by an angry mob showing that there was more than a couple people who didn't like whatever he was teaching. Then a good number of people from the city expelled the leader because they ordered a man who helped and loved them a lot to be killed.

There is no evidence that James ever taught against the Torah. In fact he lived it. According to the early church fathers he was tossed down from the temple and club to death. That is hardly a Mob and I dont have a lot of confidence in Acts. Luke creates even the speeches as was done in Greek writings and Josephus.
I doubt they thought Jesus was God. It sounds like the visions or inventions of Paul the Hellenistic Jew from Tarsus. Messiah sure but that is not against the Law except maybe Roman law. You have no reason to believe any of the gospels or Acts are valid historically give their conflicting accounts of the most important things.
Don't worry your pretty little head I got more coming.

Hope it's better than what you've presented so far. Just more theories...

What was that you once said? Something like, "Sources don't have to be legitimate to be credible?"

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:41 pm

Hope it's better than what you've presented so far. Just more theories...

What was that you once said? Something like, "Sources don't have to be legitimate to be credible?"

I don't see you presenting anything others then dogma and the company line.
You don't even have a theory.
What I meant by sources being credible or non-credible is that even a nut can reason and be right.
If some one on goofy.blog.com rights something using good references and makes a good argument then saying it is not a credible source is a form of argument ad hominem . When you used Ramsey to say Luke was reliable you did not show why he thought it was reliable, you just used it as if that settled the dispute. Others and I disagree.

Is Luke a Reliable Historian?
That historical errors exists in Luke-Acts cannot be denied. Many of the mistakes have been treated in detail elsewhere in this website. Here we only give a summary of these and provide links to the appropriate pages for the reader.
There are numerous places in Luke-Acts where the details given contradict known historical facts:
- According to Luke 1:5, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. Yet the reason given for Joseph and Mary's presence in Bethlehem was the "worldwide census" ordered by Quirinius (Luke 2:1). The problem is well known to historians. Herod the Great died in 4 BCE, while the census order by Quirinius has been accurately dated to 6 CE, a full ten years after the death of Herod! Attempts by fundamentalists to harmonize these account have met with failure.
- According to Luke 3:2 and Acts 4:6, Annas was the high priest during the ministry of Jesus. Yet we know from Josephus' Antiquities 18:2:1-2 that Annas (or Ananus) was appointed high priest after the census (6 CE) and was deposed soon after Tiberius became Caesar (c 15 CE). After describing the appointment of three successive high priests in slightly more than two years, Josephus mentioned that Joseph Caiaphas was made high priest (c 18 CE). Caiphas was finally deposed by the proconsul Vitellius (Antiquities 18:4:3) around CE 36. Thus during the entire ministry of Jesus, it was Caiaphas not Annas who was the high priest. This is further corroborated by John 18:13 which states that Caiphas, who was the son-in-law of Annas, was the high priest. [1]
- In Acts 21:38, Luke had the Roman tribune make the remark connecting Paul with an Egyptian who led 4,000 men of the sicarii into the desert. These three elements are historically unrelated as the accounts in Josephus (Antiquities 20:8:5-6,10) and Jewish War 2:13:3-5) make clear.
- In Acts 5:36-37, Luke put into the mouth of Gamaliel a gross anachronism. He had the revolt of Judas the Galilean (datable to 6 CE) after, the revolt by Theudas (which happened around 44-46 CE). Furthermore the speech by Gamaliel is set in the early thirties (between 30-33 CE, since Paul has not yet converted-Acts 8:1). This means that Luke had Gamaliel making a remark about a revolt (by Theudas) that, at that time had yet to occur! There are detailed reasons why it is Luke and not Josephus that made these the errors.
- Acts 11:28 mentioned a severe "worldwide famine" during the reign of Claudius. While there was a famine in Judea around 46-48 CE during the reign of Claudius, there was no worldwide famine as such. Furthermore, Acts 11:29-30 mentioned that the congregation in Antioch was able to send aid to help. This would be impossible, for if the famine was "worldwide", the congregation in Antioch would have been affected as well! Thus in generalising a local phenomena, Luke had contradicted historical facts. [2]
Apart from contradicting secular history, the account in Acts also contradicts the genuine epistles of Paul in many places. Since Paul was obviously an eye witness to his own life, here again we have instances of errors commited by Luke. [3] :
- Acts mentioned five trips to Jerusalem by Paul while the Pauline epistles only presupposed three such trips. (Acts 9, 11, 15, 18:22, 21 versus Galatians 1:18, 2:1 and the (planned) visit to Jerusalem in Romans 15:25) [We provide a more detailed analysis of this elsewhere.]
- In Acts 7:58, 8:3, the yet to be converted Saul was said to be in Jerusalem and took an active part in the murder (or execution-depending on how you view it) of Stephen. Yet Paul in Galatians 1:22 said that when he visited Jerusalem for the first time three years after his conversion, he was "still unknown by sight to the Churches of Judea". If Paul did take part in Stephen's murder/execution, than at least some of the early Christians would have already seen Paul in Jerusalem before his conversion. Thus the linking of Paul with the death of Stephen in Acts is definitely unhistorical.
- Acts 10:1 -11:18 stated that the mission to the Gentiles was started by Peter, yet in Galatians 2:1-10 Paul is called to defend his mission to the Gentiles against the "three pillars" (James, John and Peter). Why would he have to defend a mission to the Gentiles when Peter had already started it?
It is therefore proven that historical mistakes and anachronisms exist in Luke-Acts. With this we can safely discard the fundamentalist myth of Luke being a very reliable historian.

Historical Errors in Luke
Thirdly when Luke got his historical facts wrong or confused, he seems to have committed them in the way that reminds one of a reader conflating information from something he had read in the past:
- The case of the Egyptian prophet is revealing. This is how the story goes in Acts. Here the story is weaved into a narrative of Paul's mission. Paul, after being rescued by the Roman garrison from a mob of angry Jews (Acts 21:27-32), spoke to them in Greek, wherein the Roman tribune asked of him:
Acts 21:38 You know Greek? Aren't you, then, the Egyptian who stirred up trouble some time ago and led four thousand men of the sicarii out into the desert?
- That Luke had a mistake here is obvious. Josephus was the first person, as far as we now, to use the term sicarii [a word borrowed from Latin for short daggers: sicae] as a technical term to describe a Jewish revolutionary group. The terms fits aptly the description of them by Josephus (see next paragraph), i.e. as assassins. You would not expect these people to follow a prophet into the wilderness! Luke on the other hand betrays a very confused use of the word and him placing the sicarii in the desert indicates he knows of their name but not exactly who these people were. Thus it is obvious that Luke had erroneously used the term that he borrowed from somewhere.
- Now let us look at Josephus' accounts (in both Antiquities and Jewish War). In Antiquities 20:8:5, Josephus describes the men of the sicarii (whom he named as such in Antiquities 2:8:10) as being men who carry very short, easily concealable, daggers who mingled with the crowds during festivals and stabbed their opponents in broad daylight. Then following this, as a separate account, in Antiquities 20:8:6, Josephus mentioned some "impostors and deceivers" who persuaded the multitude to follow them into the desert. Then he described, again as a separate account immediately following this (Antiquities 20:8:6), the unnamed Egyptian who "led the multitude" to the Mount of Olives.
- So too in his Jewish War we find the same sequence of events, again describing them as separate incidents with different people. In War 2:13:3-5, the sicarii, the mob being led out into the desert and the case of the Egyptian prophet were described in quick succession. Josephus was careful not to conflate these three accounts as one, for he mentioned that the sicarii were guerillas, while the Egyptian was a "false prophet".
- In Luke's narratives in Acts, all these three accounts have been conflated into one. It was the Egyptian who led the Sicarii out into the desert! This can easily be explained by the postulate that Luke had read Josephus some time in the past and simply confused the three separate accounts as one. It is not easily explainable any other way. For instance, if Luke did not know Josephus, it would require the occurence of a large number of simultaneous coincidences for this to happen: he would some how have to link the Egyptian with the sicarii and then connect the Egyptian with the desert. The idea that Josephus copied Luke would be even more absurd. This would require that Luke first used a term (sicarii) he did not fully understand in a context that was completely wrong and then for someone like Josephus who knew about sicarii to use an obviously erroneous and highly abbreviated passage as his source.[3]
- Another historical mistake by Luke always betrays his source. This time it is in a speech he attributed to the Pharisee Gamaliel:
Acts 5:36-37 For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was killed, and all who followed him dispersed and disappeared. After him Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and got people to follow him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered.
- By referring to the census, Luke was obviously alluding to the events in 6 CE and he had event this following the revolt by Theudas. Yet Josephus described the events of Theudas within the procuratorship of Fadus. Now Fadus was procurator in the years 44-46 CE, i.e. four decades after the revolt by Judas the Galilean. Yet Luke had Theudas' revolt happening before that of Judas the Galilean.
- The explanation that there was another Theudas before Judas the Galilean is weak. For there is no historical attestation to one Theudas that preceded Judas the Galilean. Furthermore to have two revolutionaries with the same name doing the exact same things would make for an uncanny co-incidence. It is more likely that Luke simply had his dates confused.
- Furthermore we find in Antiquities 20:5:1-2 the probable source of Luke's mistaken sequence of events. In it Josephus first described the incident with Theudas under Fadus. Then in describing the exploits of Fadus' successor, Tiberius Alexander, he mentioned that the latter had slain the sons of Judas the Galilean. He went on to explain that these were the sons of Judas the Galilean who caused the revolt under Quirinius.
- Thus we can easily see how someone who may have read Josephus some time in the past had confused the sequence of events from memory and had Judas following Theudas; following the sequence of writing but not the chronological one.[4]
Back to the top
Similarities in Unique Vocabulary
The similarities in usage of certain words in Josephus and Luke could not be attirbuted to chance. Some examples:
- During Roman times, Judaism were increasingly being seen as a "superstition" or a "religion" by outsiders. The Romans held philosophy to be a higher ideal than superstition or religion. One of the main themes of Josephus' works was a monumental attempt to redefine Judaism in philosophical terms familiar to the Romans. Thus he used the word schools (haireseis, the singular form is hairesis) to describes the various factions within Judaism; presenting them as philosophical schools rather than sects. Thus the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes were presented as various schools within Judaism.(Antiquities 18:1:2-5). It is important to note that we do not know of any contemperaneous authors that used this term for the various Jewish sects. Josephus nomenclature was thus, original and unique.
Yet Luke used the very same term haireseis to describe the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Acts 5:17, 15:5 and 26:5). In Acts 5:17, Jesus followers were opposed by the "school of the Sadducees". In Acts 15:5 it was some believers who were from the "school of the Pharisees" who insisted that new converts be circumcised. Unlike Josephus, who weaved the term within the context of aim of presenting these sects as respectable philosophical schools, Luke's use of the term is nonchalant as though it was self evidently appropriate.
The point then is this, Luke used the term heireseis to describe the various sects within Judaism as though it was already a term already being used, not as one who invented it. Yet apart from Luke, the terminology was unique to Josephus.
- Furthermore in Acts 26:5, Luke had Paul call the Pharisees, the "most precise school" among the Jews. Yet this word "precision" is also one of Josephus' key terms in describing the Pharisees (Jewish War 1:5:2, 2:8:14, Antiquities 17:2:4, Life of Josephus 38)
Again, outside of Luke-Acts, the description of the Pharisees as the most "precise school" is unique to Josephus. Josephus' use of this, again is easily understandable, in view of his overall aim. Luke's use is, as above, like one who has borrowed the term from elsewhere.
So, Steve Mason, associate Professor of Humanities at York University, Ontario asks: "If Luke did not know of Josephus' work, how did this language suggest itself to him?"[5]
Back to the top
References
1. Schonfield, The Passover Plot: p245-246
2. Mason, Josephus and the New Testament: p205-210
3. ibid: p211-213
4. ibid: p208-211
5. ibid: p214-223
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/lukehistory.html

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:42 pm

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/lukejosephus.html
The Reliance of Luke-Acts on the Writings of Flavius Josephus
We have alluded in many places in this website the reliance of Luke-Acts on the works of Flavius Josephus. Here we try to give the reasons why this is a very likely possibility.
That there is some sort of a relationship can easily be seen by anyone familiar with the two authors' works. For instance, we find some historical references in Luke that could have been taken from the writings of Flavius Josephus. Luke's references to the census by Quirinius (Luke 2:1-3) and to the massacre of the Jews by Pilate (Luke 13:1) was given in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews (18:1 & 18:3:2).
So the next question is this: how goes this "relationship"? Did Luke rely (either "copied" or "remembered") on Josephus? Or did Josephus copy Luke? Or could the relationship be explained by simply the authors sharing a similar cultural milieu and having access to similar sources? There are some compelling reasons for believing that Luke was "familiar" with Josephus' works. The reasons are as follows:
- Many details of the gospel of Luke have uncanny parallels in Josephus' works.
- Luke hit upon the exact same names of people Josephus used in his narratives. Since the names given by Josephus were merely examples (i.e. they were not that outstanding), someone with access to a different source would have come up with a list of different names.
- The manner in which historical errors were made in Luke-Acts betrays his source as Josephus.
- Perhaps more importantly, the similarities in uncommon vocabulary between Josephus and Luke, form the final proof of latter's dependence on the former.
All these cannot be explained by Josephus having copied Luke, or that they both shared similar sources. The conclusion that Luke used the works of Josephus (Jewish War, Antiquities of the Jews and the autobiographical The Life of Flavius Josephus) means that Luke's literary works (the gospel and the Acts of the Apostles) must be written later than Josephus. Josephus completed his autobiography (the latest of his three work mentioned here) circa 95 CE. This means that the earliest date possible for the composition of Luke's gospel is 95 CE.
Uncanny Parallels
Many of the the "details" in the gospel of Luke have parallels in Josephus's works:
- We have already seen one on the story of Jesus's childhood, the only such account in the canonical gospels which closely parallels Josephus' story of his own childhood in his The Life of Flavius Josephus.
- In Luke 9:52-53, an incident is told in which the Samaritans stopped Jesus and his Galilean followers from entering the village because Jesus was with an entourage heading for Jerusalem. This incident parallels very closely the incident in Antiquities 20:6:1 where Josephus relates how some Galileans on the way to Jerusalem were refused entry into a Samaritan village by its inhabitants.
- Another instance is in Luke 7:1-10 which tells of Jesus healing the centurion's servant. Luke also added that the centurion was a friend of the Jews (Luke 7:4). The centurion reminds one of the story in Josephus' Jewish War 2:10:4 in which the Roman legate of Syria was a friend of the Jews. When emperor Gauis wanted to place his statue at the Temple, the legate explained his predicament to the Jews, "For I am under authority, as well as you." This quote is very similar to the one Luke put in the mouth of the centurion: "For I myself am a man under authority.." (Luke 7:8)
It is easier to explain that Luke utilized these events from the various books of Josephus than to imagine it the other way round, that Josephus utilized one book (Luke's gospel) and "remembered" to put bits and pieces of it into his various writings.[1]
Back to the top
Reference to Same Names
We find that Luke hit upon the exact same persons that Josephus tied to certain events.
- Josephus, in his description of the Roman census under Quirinius in 6 CE, tied the revolt following this to a unified group of revolutionaries under Judas the Galilean (Antiquities 18:1:1-6, Jewish War 2:8:1). That he did this is in line with his whole strategy of trying to exonorate most Jews from the blame of the revolt of 70CE. In other words he wanted to show that the revolts were a result of the agitation of some groups within Palestine and not a spontaneous ethnic uprising. As part of this, Josephus presented the census in 6 CE and the revolt following it as a watershed event and in many ways a precursor to the revolt six decades later. Yet modern studies have thrown doubts on this version of events; there were many different revolutionary movements in first century CE Palestine, ranging from peasant to (probably) even aristocratic ones. Thus it was Josephus who put emphasis on the census and the revolt following it by Judas the Galilean, another historian with a different axe to grind would not have placed similar emphasis on this census or on one person.
We have already seen that Luke made some historical guffaws in his tying Jesus' nativity to the census in Quirinius. Over here we only need to point out that Luke, too, placed much emphasis on the census (Luke 2:1-3), as the watershed event during the birth of Jesus (it was in Luke's gospel, the reason, why Joseph and Mary had to go to Bethleham). Furthermore, in the sequel to the gospel of Luke, he alluded to the very same name Josephus had used when referring to the revolt after the census: Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37).
- Josephus mentioned that there were many "deceivers and imposters" who led the Jewish people into revolt. He gave, as examples, three personalities: Judas the Galilean, who appeared circa 6 CE as we have seen above; Theudas, who led a group of revolutionaries (circa 44-46 CE), tried to miraculously part the Jordan river and was beheaded by the Roman governor Fadus (Antiquities 20:5:1); and an unnamed Egyptian prophet, who wanted to bring down the walls of Jerusalem by a miracle, who had his followers killed by the soldiers of Felix, the Roman procurator from 52-59 CE.
Interestingly, of all the names of the "many deceivers and impostors", these are the very three names Luke used in his narratives in Acts (Acts 5:36-37 and Acts 21:38). These strongly suggests again that Josephus' works were Luke's only sources for that period.[2]
Note too that in these cases, it is Josephus that had the fuller accounts. Luke's narratives normally had no more than one or two sentences. As is the normal rule, the copier normally abreviates his source, not the other way round.

achilles12604 · Post by **achilles12604** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:46 am

Once again Cathar has chosen a very atheist source which once again claims Luke was written after Josephus.

OK. I have googled this and researched it as best as I am going to at 1203 in the morning. Here is what I found.

Christian Sources:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1226 - Most scholars believe 80. Possibly as early as 62

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/luke/intro.htm - Around 80 AD

http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm - around 63 AD

http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=233 - 60-65 AD

http://www.ibs.org/niv/studybible/luke.php - 70-80

http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Iss ... ospels.htm - 70-90 AD

http://people.ucsc.edu/~mgrivich/TheGos ... ndActs.htm - 65-75 AD

Non-christian/atheist sources:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/l ... pter6.html - This author dates Luke to the second century but only after showing that they did not evaluate all the facts because they are convinced Luke purposefully deleated things he did not want (lying to history). Without much proof, this accusation shows their bias in bright colors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel - 85AD

http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/bible1.htm - 80-90AD

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospel ... dating.htm - 80-85

http://www.answers.com/topic/gospel - 85 AD

http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Luke.htm - 80-130 AD

http://www.answers.com/topic/dating-the-bible - 80-90 AD

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Dating_the_Bible - 80-90AD

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossa ... f_luke.htm = 80 AD

http://www.conservativethink.com/conservativedating/ - 80-90 AD

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... spels.html - 80-90 AD

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/relstud/fa ... %20Luke%22 - 85AD

OK thats 9 pages off of Google and now I am getting poker sites!

Now, you will note please that all but 1 of the ATHEIST sources puts Luke well before Josephus writings.

I would also note that each and every SINGLE one of these sites has their dating in reference to Mark being around 70AD. WHY did they date Mark to 70AD? Because he includes prophesy about the fall of Jerusalem and everyone knows that Prophecy CANT happen so he must have been writing afterwards.

Now if that isn't beggin the question I don't know what is.

Premise one - We know God does not exist and therefore prophecy is a bunch of junk.

Premise two - Because Mark wrote about things like the Fall of Jerusalem.

Conclusion - Since we KNOW that we are right already about God's non-existence and that Prophecy is therefore junk, we also KNOW that Mark must have been writing after these events.

Textbook, begging the question. And even then, they all still refute you Cathar.

Like I said before people who advance this Josephus before Luke theory, show themselves to be much more interested in spreading what they WANT TO BE TRUE and much less interested in facts.

I submit that some people here fit this description. -ahem-

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:01 am

achilles12604 wrote:Once again Cathar has chosen a very atheist source which once again claims Luke was written after Josephus.

Do you expect that he would find that on the CARM site then?

The Early Christian Writings site gives the range of dates for gLuke as 80-130. If anyone has evidence that ECW is an "atheist" site, let them please present it, and then provide further evidence as to why that should even matter.

Linked from the ECW gLuke page is this article by that well known and beloved historian (and atheist) Richard Carrier. Here is the conclusion...

"Luke and Josephus (2000)

Conclusion
Luke almost certainly knew and drew upon the works of Josephus (or else an amazing series of coincidences remains in want of an explanation), and therefore Luke and Acts were written at the end of the 1st century, or perhaps the beginning of the 2nd. This also results in the realization that almost every famous person, institution, place or event mentioned in L that can be checked against other sources is also found in Josephus, so that efforts to prove the veracity of L by appealing to these checks is cut short by the fact that he appears to have gotten all this information from Josephus, and simply cut-and-pasted it into his own "history" in order to give his story an air of authenticity and realism. He could thus, for all we know, have been writing historical fiction--using real characters and places, and putting them in fictional situations, all dressed up as history--history with a message, and an apologetic purpose. We thus cannot really know what in L is true or false with regard to the origins of Christianity or the actions of early Christians, since these particular details are the most prone to manipulation for didactic, symbolic, politico-ecclesiastical and apologetic reasons, and have very little if any external corroboration (and no external corroboration from a non-Christian)."

I would suggest that interested parties read the entire article.

Since this is a debating site and not a whining site, I would also suggest that those who feel that this theory is erroneous should occupy themselves with the business of providing evidence to the contrary, rather than wasting everyone's time by posting childish ad hominem arguments such as...

Like I said before people who advance this Josephus before Luke theory, show themselves to be much more interested in spreading what they WANT TO BE TRUE and much less interested in facts.

I submit that some people here fit this description. -ahem-

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:56 am

Lotan wrote:
achilles12604 wrote:Once again Cathar has chosen a very atheist source which once again claims Luke was written after Josephus.
Do you expect that he would find that on the CARM site then?

The Early Christian Writings site gives the range of dates for gLuke as 80-130. If anyone has evidence that ECW is an "atheist" site, let them please present it, and then provide further evidence as to why that should even matter.

Linked from the ECW gLuke page is this article by that well known and beloved historian (and atheist) Richard Carrier. Here is the conclusion...

"Luke and Josephus (2000)

Conclusion
Luke almost certainly knew and drew upon the works of Josephus (or else an amazing series of coincidences remains in want of an explanation), and therefore Luke and Acts were written at the end of the 1st century, or perhaps the beginning of the 2nd. This also results in the realization that almost every famous person, institution, place or event mentioned in L that can be checked against other sources is also found in Josephus, so that efforts to prove the veracity of L by appealing to these checks is cut short by the fact that he appears to have gotten all this information from Josephus, and simply cut-and-pasted it into his own "history" in order to give his story an air of authenticity and realism. He could thus, for all we know, have been writing historical fiction--using real characters and places, and putting them in fictional situations, all dressed up as history--history with a message, and an apologetic purpose. We thus cannot really know what in L is true or false with regard to the origins of Christianity or the actions of early Christians, since these particular details are the most prone to manipulation for didactic, symbolic, politico-ecclesiastical and apologetic reasons, and have very little if any external corroboration (and no external corroboration from a non-Christian)."

I would suggest that interested parties read the entire article.

Since this is a debating site and not a whining site, I would also suggest that those who feel that this theory is erroneous should occupy themselves with the business of providing evidence to the contrary, rather than wasting everyone's time by posting childish ad hominem arguments such as...

Like I said before people who advance this Josephus before Luke theory, show themselves to be much more interested in spreading what they WANT TO BE TRUE and much less interested in facts.

I submit that some people here fit this description. -ahem-

There is an alternative.. abeit unlikely. Josephus could have drawn on Luke. Richard Carriers arguements do show a pattern though. It isn't 'cast in stone', but the arguements do make sense.