TC,

So, do you consider conspiracy theorists as a rule to be exercising proper methodology? What other conspiracies do you believe in besides this one?


This is going from one extreme to another. Whenever I debate fundamentalists I am often amazed how you are either with them in believing in the stories of the bible, or you are somehow unable to believe anything the bible says at all. Were you a fundamentalist? If so, it would explain why it is that your shift was to the other extreme of the spectrum. As the reasoning often goes: of course the bible must be entirely made up if it is wrong on one issue. I've seen this numerous, numerous times. One of my former colleagues was a fundamentalist and then became a Jesus mythist such as yourself. The change happened almost instantly. There was no longterm progression of thought from being fundamentalist to start doubting certain biblical texts to the point of doubting all biblical texts. The change happened by looking for a new fundamentalism, and they found it in the Jesus mythist camp.

My argument is that we just ought to look at physical evidence and not be swayed by fundamentalist or conspiracist thinking. What's so bad about that?

I suppose I don't look at the issue "as a rule". I tend to look at each case and attempt to decide for myself whether I consider myself to buy into it or not. For example, the 9/11 conspiracy. At first, I was moved by some of the arguments, and was tending to agree. But, after further reviewing the subject, I decided it was a bit too much to swallow. I work for the government, and I had a bit of an insider's view on certain points regarding air traffic. Plus, I just didn't think this administration had the resources to pull something like that off, so I decided against it. Now, this did reinforce my conception at the level of incompetence of this administration, but such incompetence would preclude such a masterminded plot.

So let me ask you, is every radical theory you are not a believer in, by default, a conspiracy theory? It seems a bit egotistical to me.


No, I really never considered myself a fundamentalist, in fact, for most of my life, I considered myself a nominal Christian. When I first encountered the debate, I thought they were a bunch of cooks as well. In fact, my objections were pretty much yours, but only superficially so. I never studied the subject one way or the other. As I read the arguments, my first goal was to find the evidence to refute it. As I began that process, the arguments I read against it did not seem as compelling as the arguments for it, and that is when I suppose I casted my lot.

Now, I am well aware it is the minority position. I am also well aware that most people who study the NT are not really engaged in the historicity issue, so their acceptance of that position is done in part so they can go on to study whatever specialty grabs them. If someone in the field says "Jesus lived/died...and we know this because this/that" and my specialty doesn't really have interest in contesting that, then I get chalked up to this "majority/universal position". I am more than willing to discuss the physical evidence, hence the formal debates. What I find more often than not, is that the majority opinion would prefer to win by dismissal or avoidance than actual debate/collaborative work, which is exemplified by your perceived attitude in the whole matter. I'm sorry if this is not as evident to you as it is to me.

-TC

And, once again, I go back to your unfamiliarity with Gnostic philosophy. You see, Gnosticism has some similarities to other philosophies of the time, such as Neo-platonism. The difference being the very dualistic characterization of Spirit contrasted against the "wholeness" of say, Plotinus. However, in both models, "Spirit" is seen as increasing knowledge of the One, with distinctions that merge into the next level. But, where we have distinctions which are separated by a level, the lower level cannot know the higher level, but only dimly perceive the intermediate level between them. Thus, what they "know" or "perceive", is the level right above them.

In the Gnostic scheme, the levels in question are: Archon - Demiurge - Pleroema, where the Pleroema represents the true light spiritual world. The Demiurge is the false creator god. Whether via disobedience, jealousy, or ignorance, the Demiurge believes he is the true Creator and begins to create this materialistic prison to trap "sparks of the divine". The Demiurge is therefore the creator of the Archons, who are the rulers of "this world". They are often associated with astrotheological proxies (the days of the year, the number of heavenly bodies, etc).

The Archons believe they are working for the True God, because all they can know is the Demiurge, as his sphere of control blocks them from knowledge of the Pleroema. So, the Archons are ignorant of where the divine spark truly originates. So they act in ignorance against the True God because they believe the Demiurge is the Creator, and they do his bidding.

So, you see, it is not because I do not understand the reference from Paul. It is rather, that you are lacking in understanding of Gnostic philosophy. Please understand, I am not defending Gnostic philosophy, I much prefer the Neo-platonist interpretation, which, I might add, seems to also be the position of many of the early Church Fathers, with Christianity being the belief in a carnalized Logos. But, before you poo-poo any idea that Paul may have been a Gnostic, one might ask why the Gnostics revered Paul so much? If we are to believe the anti-Gnostic diatribes interpolated to Paul, this admiration would seem ill placed.

-TC

So, let's look at the evidence. The first is the claim Ignatius quotes from the Acts of the Apostles in Mag. 5:1

On the surface, this would seem like strong evidence, that is, of course, until we delve into the subject a bit deeper. We have no extant copies of Ignatius, and he is first "discovered" by that most fortunate "discoverer" of Church history, Eusebius. Everyone remember Eusebius, right? He's also the discoverer of the Josephus quote we are having our formal debate on. My, he is the Indiana jones of his day, isn't he?

Despite claims that we should be able to trust the epistles ascribed to him, it ought to be noted it is not "universally" agreed as to the authenticity of these epistles. In fact, the Protestants pretty much reject all of them, as some of the things he says give a natural bias to the primacy of the Catholics. In any case, almost all sources claim his works suffer from "some interpolations".

If we are to buy the ones "most authorities" claim as authentic, we still have another problem as they have recension, that is, long and short versions. This is a nicer way of saying they have "mostly original" and "added on" versions. Further, some scholars have noted that the "mostly original" versions are at least "gnostic compatible", whereas the added on versions contain more anti-gnostic polemics.

Taking this into account, one has to come to their own conclusion on their genuineness. I, as you might have guessed, consider them forgeries, products of a man who showed no hesitation to lie for the new faith at a time when we have confirmation the gospels were in circulation, as opposed to the claim this figure, shrouded in mystery, quotes from gospels that are not mentioned in his time period.

Let's look at some so-called "facts" concerning our good bishop, Ignatius.

Born: c. 50 CE
Died: between 98-117 CE (now that is taking a long time to die!)
Occupation: 3rd Bishop of Antioch (the Catholic Encyclopedia notes "if we include St. Peter"). Why "if"?

So, we don't know exactly when he was born, exactly when he died, or if he had a conception of how many predecessors to his office he had. We have to rely on the truthful pen of Eusebius and his scribes. They wouldn't have any reason to make it up as they go along, now would they?

So, let's talk about "Acts".

It should be noted, once again before we start, we have no mention of this work (The Acts of the Apostles) until the end of the second century, no extant copies until the third.

The text itself is in a pure form of Greek, which means it must have referenced its "Scriptures" from the Greek Old Testament, not the Hebrew version, which indicates a Hellenized Jew more than an orthodox member. The speeches have been professionally written from a single mind, they do not appear as directly quoting different minds, indicating this is not a first century eyewitness recording.

The whole intent of Acts is to act as this bridge between the Gospels and the beginnings of the Christian movement. Why these "we" references should seem so significant, I cannot fathom. A fiction writer cannot insert himself into his own story? Perhaps there is something more I am missing in this objection. Perhaps you could elaborate for me.

No, it seems that Acts is taken from a variety of different sources, most notably a rehash of Josephus, the writings of Aristedes, and a bit of Apollonius of Tyana. This would explain the confliction with the Pauline Epistles. The intent of Acts is to bridge the newly created Gospels and then go back to "doctor" the older epistles. The variation demonstrates the length of time between them, not their contemporary status. Paul is already an influential writer among the early Christians, including the Gnostics. But the writers of the gospels are anti-gnostic. So they have to massage "Paul" into their view of him. With little actual history provided by Paul, the writers of Acts have almost free range in how to incorporate him.

There is no reference to Luke (or any of the Gospels) or Acts until the last half of the second century. There are no extant copies until the third century.

-TC

Hi TC,

I hope you are feeling better.


Eusebius didn't discover Ignatius's epistles, it was Polycarp, a contemporary whom Ignatius wrote to ("Epistle to Polycarp") and whom Polycarp confirms that he wrote to him ("Epistle of Philippians"). Irenaeus is a disciple of Polycarp, and he confirms that Polycarp did indeed write an epistle to the Phillippians:


The fact that Eusebius also confirms both letters speaks to their authenticity. In addition, Lucian of Samosata in 167 CE in his letter "The Passing of Peregrinus" shows the same very unique Greek phrase as Ignatius's letter to Smyma (which has been accepted by most scholars as evidence that Pereginus had knowledge of Ignatius's epistles since the reference to "couriers of God" is very unique in literature). Btw, very few scholars doubt the authenticity of Ignatius's epistles. Here is Ehrman:




It doesn't remove the reference to Acts and Luke by Ignatius.


We have Ignatius. And, as Ehrman stated, it is beyond reasonable doubt that Ignatius wrote the authentic epistles attributed to him. TC, you just don't want to accept scholarship when it is against you in unison, will you?


On what basis do you make this argument? This is ancient practice.