Freethought Nation

presented by Acharya S and TruthBeKnown.com, online since 1995

It is currently Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:35 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


hello

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:06 pm 
Offline
Jesus

Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:02 pm
Posts: 11
There is something interesting in John 5:1-9.
Now the pool by the Sheep Gate was very close to the temple mount. As you read this passage you can see that it actually has an air of paganism. The people are healed not because they are good or have faith but because they get into the water first when the water is stirred.
It is hard to imagine a pagan enterprise so close to the temple when the Jews were strong. They would be sure to protest.

But after 135CE, the Jews were decimated. The Roman Emperor Hadrian, built a temple to Asclepius, the Greek God of healing, on that site after 135CE towards the end of his reign. Asclepius had 5 daughters, hence 5 porches.

It is hard to find out about this on the internet because the Christians have buried the reference with their websites.
But this dates John's Gospel to some time after 135CE.

stuart shepherd

_________________
stuart shepherd
stuartshepherd@earthlink.net


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:09 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
Interestingly, I was just doing some research on the sanctuary of Aesclepius/Serapis at Jerusalem. I am curious as to your sources and argument that John is discussing this Hadrianic building. I found mention of it in a book called The Holy Land: An Oxford Archaeological Guide from Earliest Times to 1700 by Murphy-O'Connor.

I also found the following quote attributed to Dr. James Charlesworth's from the Bible Review of Feb. 1993. I got this quote from a website, but I would prefer to see an original scan - if anyone can get that to me, please do!

Quote:
For example, in John 5:2 the author [supposedly the apostle John] describes a monumental pool with "five porticoes" inside the Sheep Gate of Jerusalem where the sick came to be healed: the pool, we are told, is called Bethesda. No other ancient writer - no author or editor of the Old Testament, the Pseudepigrapha, not even Josephus - mentions such a significant pool in Jerusalem. Moreover, no known ancient building was a pentagon, which was apparently what John was describing with five porticoes. It seemed that the author of John could not have been a Jew who knew Jerusalem. Archaeologists, however, decided to dig precisely where the author of John claimed a pool was set aside for healing. Their excavations revealed an ancient pool with porticoes (open areas with large columns) and with shrines dedicated to the Greek god of healing, Asclepius.... The author of John knew more about Jerusalem than we thought.


What this fact would mean, of course, is that the gospel of John - or at least the pericope at John 5 - could not have been written until after the construction of this building, which is claimed to have been during Hadrian's era, c. 135 CE. The argument is sound (although not absolute) that it is unlikely that the Jewish priesthood would have allowed the construction of a pagan sanctuary before the destruction of Judea in that year. The fact that this massive and obvious building was not mentioned by Josephus some decades earlier is further indication it was not there - in writing about all things Jewish, it would be surprising if Josephus would not feel the need to write about something that would be considered an abomination to pious Jews.

The evidence mounts as to the late dating of the gospels... And the fictional nature of Christ, who, in this case, appears to be blatantly founded upon the long-haired and bearded Asclepius - called SAVIOR, centuries before the Christian era. Then there's that little episode with the letter stating that Hadrian claimed the Christians were followers of Serapis...


stuart shepherd wrote:
There is something interesting in John 5:1-9.
Now the pool by the Sheep Gate was very close to the temple mount. As you read this passage you can see that it actually has an air of paganism. The people are healed not because they are good or have faith but because they get into the water first when the water is stirred.
It is hard to imagine a pagan enterprise so close to the temple when the Jews were strong. They would be sure to protest.

But after 135CE, the Jews were decimated. The Roman Emperor Hadrian, built a temple to Asclepius, the Greek God of healing, on that site after 135CE towards the end of his reign. Asclepius had 5 daughters, hence 5 porches.

It is hard to find out about this on the internet because the Christians have buried the reference with their websites.
But this dates John's Gospel to some time after 135CE.

stuart shepherd

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:33 am 
Offline
Jesus

Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:02 pm
Posts: 11
Acharya wrote:
Interestingly, I was just doing some research on the sanctuary of Aesclepius/Serapis at Jerusalem. I am curious as to your sources and argument that John is discussing this Hadrianic building. I found mention of it in a book called The Holy Land: An Oxford Archaeological Guide from Earliest Times to 1700 by Murphy-O'Connor.

I also found the following quote attributed to Dr. James Charlesworth's from the Bible Review of Feb. 1993. I got this quote from a website, but I would prefer to see an original scan - if anyone can get that to me, please do!

Quote:
For example, in John 5:2 the author [supposedly the apostle John] describes a monumental pool with "five porticoes" inside the Sheep Gate of Jerusalem where the sick came to be healed: the pool, we are told, is called Bethesda. No other ancient writer - no author or editor of the Old Testament, the Pseudepigrapha, not even Josephus - mentions such a significant pool in Jerusalem. Moreover, no known ancient building was a pentagon, which was apparently what John was describing with five porticoes. It seemed that the author of John could not have been a Jew who knew Jerusalem. Archaeologists, however, decided to dig precisely where the author of John claimed a pool was set aside for healing. Their excavations revealed an ancient pool with porticoes (open areas with large columns) and with shrines dedicated to the Greek god of healing, Asclepius.... The author of John knew more about Jerusalem than we thought.


What this fact would mean, of course, is that the gospel of John - or at least the pericope at John 5 - could not have been written until after the construction of this building, which is claimed to have been during Hadrian's era, c. 135 CE. The argument is sound (although not absolute) that it is unlikely that the Jewish priesthood would have allowed the construction of a pagan sanctuary before the destruction of Judea in that year. The fact that this massive and obvious building was not mentioned by Josephus some decades earlier is further indication it was not there - in writing about all things Jewish, it would be surprising if Josephus would not feel the need to write about something that would be considered an abomination to pious Jews.

The evidence mounts as to the late dating of the gospels... And the fictional nature of Christ, who, in this case, appears to be blatantly founded upon the long-haired and bearded Asclepius - called SAVIOR, centuries before the Christian era. Then there's that little episode with the letter stating that Hadrian claimed the Christians were followers of Serapis...


stuart shepherd wrote:
There is something interesting in John 5:1-9.
Now the pool by the Sheep Gate was very close to the temple mount. As you read this passage you can see that it actually has an air of paganism. The people are healed not because they are good or have faith but because they get into the water first when the water is stirred.
It is hard to imagine a pagan enterprise so close to the temple when the Jews were strong. They would be sure to protest.

But after 135CE, the Jews were decimated. The Roman Emperor Hadrian, built a temple to Asclepius, the Greek God of healing, on that site after 135CE towards the end of his reign. Asclepius had 5 daughters, hence 5 porches.

It is hard to find out about this on the internet because the Christians have buried the reference with their websites.
But this dates John's Gospel to some time after 135CE.

stuart shepherd


I first saw something about this in Biblical Archeological Review, many years ago when I was a Christian. The last time I moved I discarded all my BARs. After I saw it in BAR I read about it on the internet, but I didn't bookmark it. Since then I have looked for it on the internet but couldn't find it. The Christians have buried it with a million websites.

There is something else to date the gospels to a late date. Get a red letter edition of the NT and flip through. There are very few red letters and only one Jesus quote from the gospels 1Corinthians 11. Why?...The gospels hadn't been written yet and 1Cor 11 was copied into the synoptics. Look in the Ante-Niceane Fathers. Early writings have no gospel quotes. After somewhere around 135-140 give or take, the writings literally explode with quotes from the gospels.

In 1905 the School of Theology at Oxford did a study on this. I found the website once, but they charged to look so I never saw there report. If you look and find it and pay and copy it, I would like to see it free, of course.

stuart shepherd

_________________
stuart shepherd
stuartshepherd@earthlink.net


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:04 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
Thanks for the info about the red-letter Bible. I did not know that, but it sounds very useful.

So, BAR had an article, as did Bible Review. I'd love to get a scan of either or both.

Of course, I know well about the early Church fathers, as I've been writing about their lack of evidence for years, in both Christ Con and Suns of God. You might wish to read my books. In Suns of God I went into greater detail, especially as concerns Justin Martyr, who did not quote from the canonical gospels, as is widely claimed. The best demonstration of these facts regarding the early Church fathers before the end of the second century is the extraordinary work Supernatural Religion. In this text, the author Cassels examines in great detail all of the writings of the early Church fathers to the point where they actually do mention the canonical gospels. Cassels includes the pertinent quotes from the original Greek or Latin, and he demonstrates that any such "references" in the fathers prior to the end of the second century are NOT direct quotes and do NOT give any indication that these individuals knew anything about the canonical gospels. An excerpt from the relevant chapter in my book SOG may be found at "The 'Historical' Jesus?"

Again, you may wish to read not only the rest of this thread, in which I discuss other evidence of the late dating of the gospels, but also my online articles and my books, including my ebook Who Was Jesus?

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:46 am 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:59 pm
Posts: 1
I'm glad to see that the paper edition of your new book is comming along.

Funny, just tonight I was reading "History of...to Year 200", which I had never heard of until I read Suns of God.

Anyway, I remember that Joseph Wheless, in Forgery in Christianity, makes an EXTREMELY DETAILED and well documented argument for late dating (c. 180 CE) of the gospels.

I don't remember the exact details, but he puts them between Book II and Book III of Irenaeus' "Against Heresies". Also, the section containing the argument is quite edited and modified in the second editon, which is the one used for the big yellow Kessinger reprint. I prefer the way he made the case in the first edition, but either way it's great info and I think it would be worth looking into for research for your book.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:32 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
NAO, those are some good points. Acharya used Joseph Wheless a lot in "Christ Conspiracy".

Acharya's ebook "Who Was Jesus?", includes commentary on the work of the following top Christian apologists and scholars and many more:

John Ankerberg
Craig L. Blomberg
F.F. Bruce
William Lane Craig
John Dominic Crossan
Bart Ehrman
Norman Geisler
Gary Habermas
Josh McDowell
John P. Meier
Bruce M. Metzger
J.P. Moreland
Lee Strobel
Ben Witherington
Edwin Yamauchi

"Who Was Jesus?" is specifically designed for Christians and uses mainly Christian texts and authorities. The final hard-copy edition (coming in October?) will contain a foreword by Dr. Robert Price among some slight changes, no doubt, from the expanded ebook version.

Acharya S
http://www.truthbeknown.com
http://www.stellaraudiobooks.com

For the short edition of the ebook (39 pages 8.5 by 11):
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/whowasjesus.html

The full version is nearly finished and I will let you know when it's out - which will be any time as it will be available for a limited time as a full version ebook (around 180 pages 8.5 x 11) until the hard copy is out (around 300 pages 5 x 8).

I've seen the sneak preview of the full version and it is one of the very best books ever written on the subject. It demonstrates the absurdity of the apologist arguments from the very beginning in the creation of Christianity through to today. You will want your Christian friends and family to read this one.

Quote:
"Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent upon these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic"
~ F.F. Bruce, "New Testament History" founder of the modern evangelical movement

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:05 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
Venerable Bede's "Commentary on Luke 1:1"

In my quest to verify the assertions regarding who were the "many" referred to by Luke in his prologue as having attempted before him to write the gospel story, I was able to dig up the original Latin of theologian Venerable Bede's In Evangelium Lucae Expositio:

Quote:
Denique nonnulli Thomae, alii Bartholomaei, quidam Matthiae, aliqui etiam duodecim apostolorum titulo reperiuntur falso sua scripta praenotasse: sed et Basilides atque Apelles, quorum unus trecenos sexaginta quinque coelos, alter duos invicem contrarios deos inter alia nefanda dogmatizabant, evangelia sui nominis errore foeda reliquisse.

I was unable to find a translation of this passage from The Complete Works of the Venerable Bede, ed. by Rev. J.A. Giles, London, 1844, p. 263.

I myself am unable to quickly and easily translate this passage at the moment. (My Latin is, alas, not as proficient as my Greek...) If anyone would like to join a Latin forum and ask for assistance with this passage, we would certainly appreciate it. If anyone needs more of the passage, putting it into context, I have hyperlinked the book above.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:47 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:32 am
Posts: 1988
Location: U.S.A.
I know someone who knows Latin. If I can get a hold of him, maybe he will translate it.

In the meantime, here is a poor translation from an online translator (I hate them personally, but it was my son's idea):

"At last some Thomae alii Bartholomaei , a certain person Matthiae , some as yet twelve apostolorum to call reperiuntur falso her writer praenotasse : but and Public law building and Apelles , of which one trecenos sixty five coelos , the second two reciprocally contrary deos among other abominable dogmatizabant , the gospel himself by name error fouly reliquisse"

_________________
Mriana

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. ~ Gandhi

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~ Thomas A. Edison


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:38 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:22 pm
Posts: 31
Acharya wrote:
What this fact would mean, of course, is that the gospel of John - or at least the pericope at John 5 - could not have been written until after the construction of this building, which is claimed to have been during Hadrian's era, c. 135 CE.


How do you know this building was constructed after 135CE?

_________________
Knowledge is Power


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:23 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Quote:
Leroy "How do you know this building was constructed after 135CE?"

Your answer may be found in Who Was Jesus? pages 231-232. The evidence demonstrates they were built after 135CE. There was no mention of the 5 porches until after 135CE. Therefore, John's gospel must have been written sometime AFTER 135CE.

Also, see Acharya's 1st comment on this page of the thread above.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:49 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:22 pm
Posts: 31
Are you saying that the lack of evidence (other authors didn't mention the pool) means that the pool couldn't have existed? Is it possible that people simply didn't normally talk about the pool in everyday conversation?

On a related question, and I know you guys hate Wikipedia, but the author claims that the pool was carved out in the 8th century BC. How could they be off by 1000 years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pool_of_Bethesda

_________________
Knowledge is Power


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:00 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Leroy, are you sure that you're understanding what the conversation is about here - John 5:2 describes a pool with "five porticoes" (RSV) or "five porches" (KJV).

We know the pool is claimed to have existed before however, the archaeological evidence combined with other corroborating evidence demonstrates that those 5 porches didn't exist before 135CE. That was new construction towards the end of Hadrian's era, c. 135 CE. If that is accurate then, this means that the gospel of John was written after 135CE.

You've already been given the citation to the archaeology on this issue, all you have to do is just read it. You may also want to re-read this page starting from the very top too - that should help make the discussion here more clear.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 3:57 pm 
Offline
Hercules

Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:16 pm
Posts: 92
Acharya wrote:

Luke (170)
Mark (175)
John (178)
Matthew (180)

Without going into the detailed arguments made by Waite in his superior work, I have found no reason to disagree with these dates, as they are solidly based on the evidence as it stands even today.


I admire your work Acharya, I have been watching your videos, would love to do lunch.
Hopefully you will understand my work...few do.
But you have the background to follow along.

Lets pretend the 4 Evangelists were 'archetypes' vital to the narrative.
Representing something quite profound.

What were the 4 Evangelist know by in the Old Testament?
Can we link them to the following?
Judah’s animal was a lion, Reuben’s a man, Ephraim’s an ox and Dan’s an eagle.

Where do we find these four animal representations as the 4 Evangelists?
Many many places.
One of my favorite places where this vital information was embedded was CARD X of the archetypal Tarot.

The source of the Tarot is still undecided, I believe it could be used as a Visual Aid to accompany the Written and Oral Traditions of the Torah.

Visual, Written and Oral Traditions, to help pass on wisdom and knowledge?
Silly concept eh?

But it is when we seek to find the Persian representation of the 4 Evangelists or the 4 Tribes of Judah, Reuben, Ephraim and Dan that we hit gold.
The Persian 4 Royal Stars allow us to take the archetypal 4 Evangelists to another more profound meaning...

As you know Acharya those four animals are also associated with Ezekiels four beasts or the four living creatures found in Revelations.
Am I suggesting I can interpret the madman's Ezekiels visions?

Yes of course I am.
The one that counts.
http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/2008/0 ... 4-gospels/
And the complete story goes to the first person perceptive enough to realize this could very well be an invitation to a free lunch....

namaste

Raphael


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:30 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Quote:
Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates

ABSTRACT

"The date of the earliest New Testament papyri is nearly always based on palaeographical criteria. A consensus among papyrologists, palaeographers and New Testament scholars is presented in the edition of NESTLE–ALAND, 1994. In the last twenty years several New Testament scholars (THIEDE, COMFORT–BARRETT, 1999, 2001 and JAROŠ, 2006) have argued for an earlier date of most of these texts. The present article analyzes the date of the earliest New Testament papyri on the basis of comparative palaeography and a clear distinction between different types of literary scripts. There are no first-century New Testament papyri and only very few papyri can be attributed to the (second half of the) second century. It is only in the third and fourth centuries that New Testament manuscripts become more common, but here too the dates proposed by COMFORT–BARRETT, 1999, 2001, and JAROŠ, 2006 are often too early."

Larry Hurtado: The Dating of NT Manuscripts: An Important Recent Analysis

The below comes from the List of New Testament Papyri thread:

Take note that the earliest New Testament fragment so far is the Rylands fragment or P52 dated to a wishful thinking 125ce.

Quote:
"... The presumed dating of P52 to the first half of the second century has been called "sensational" and seems untenable. One significant argument against the early dating of P52 is that the fragment was part of a codex, or book, rather than a scroll, and there are few examples of such books in existence at such an early date. Moreover, in a fairly recent paleographical study published in the Archiv für Papyrusforschung 35 (1989), German scholar Andreas Schmidt suggested a date for P52 of 170 AD/CE +/- 25 years."

- Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ (2007), page 68/69

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 2:21 am 
Offline
Thor
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:28 am
Posts: 22
While I find the actual dating of these favorite four gospels of interest I do not see any rational reason for ignoring the dating of the other 30-40 gospels which were rejected. So far as I can find there is no record of the reason(s) for selecting the four nor for rejecting all but one of the others. There is plenty of BS argumentation but nothing recording rejected because or accepted because nor even when they became official or unofficial.

Some fruitcake who wrote about good things coming in fours is the foundation for selecting four but nothing about why those four. If nothing else shows the early Christians were uneducated simpletons it is accepting this as a reason for four. The fact that it is still given as reference without mention of contents does not suggest any increase in average IQ over the centuries.

The only reason for rejecting a gospel is the one that fell from the sky after a thunderstorm. It was rejected because the local bishop said he would ride over and beat the crap out of the priest who "found" it if he didn't renounce the whole thing.

Anyway that is all I have found on the subject. Therefore I can find no reason not to consider all the gospels rather than just the four official ones. I have not gone into the other gospels but given how many more there may be dating information which can be inferred or maybe even stated about them.

Consider because there is no mention which four even with the nonsense reasons for only four any that might have been around in that time frame could have been among the four the (idiot) apologist had in mind. Thus the earliest date which actually names the four official gospels is the only time after which addressing the official four is acceptable.

Anyway, bottom line, there is possibly a lot more useful material if all the gospels are considered and not just the official four.

_________________
http://www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group