Freethought Nation

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

It is currently Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:20 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


hello

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:58 am 
Offline
Dionysus

Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:56 pm
Posts: 280
When Murdock gives the argument about Irenaeus being the earliest Church father to quote from the four Gospels. A contention was brought up about Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians where he supposedly quotes from the four Gospels. There is an article given to me by Bob Thiel that he creates references to the Gospel's.

His first reference did not contain adequate quotation from the Gospels. His second reference though did very much which refers to this:

"Blessed are the poor, and those that are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20; Matthew 5:3,10).

Here are the verses from the Codex Sinaticus Online:

Mathew 6:3,10: Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs in the kingdom of the heavens. Blessed are they that are persecuted for righteousness' sake; for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens.

Luke 6:20: And he lifted up his eyes upon his disciples and said: Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

I was wondering what the other side of this argument might be since D. M. Murdock is of the Mythacist camp; and if she had any responses about the Letter of Polycarp.

Here is the article that I received:
Code:
http://www.cogwriter.com/polycarpletter.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:54 pm 
Offline
Bast

Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:12 pm
Posts: 147
I do not specifically know what your question is to Acharya but if you intend to offer Polycarp's letter as evidence of a historical Jesus, I do think you offer anything revealing.

A good deal of what Polycarp states has been stated since the beginning of time, and the author of the articles puny attempt to link a line in Polycarp's letter as proof that Isaiah's hero was Jesus. As if "fear your god" and "patiently endure" were only Jewish maxims.

A great deal of his letter is paralleled in some of the fragments released from the Dead Sea Scrolls,

Over the poor His spirit will hover and will renew the faithful with His power.
And He will glorify the pious on the throne of the eternal Kingdom.
He who liberates the captives, restores sight to the blind, straightens the b[ent]
And f[or] ever I will cleav[ve to the h]opeful and in His mercy . . .
And the fr[uit . . .] will not be delayed for anyone.
And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been as [He . . .]
For He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news
to the poor
. . .He will lead the uprooted and knowledge . . . and smoke (?)
(Michael O. Wise, translation)

Where is this seen in the books of Moses?


This is no doubt the beliefs of the Essenes. Philo calls the Therapeutae, who were some of the earliest Christians, the Essenes of Egypt. Socially they were recluses but politically they were evasive and compromising; and so we see them latch on to Serapis as a paragon of virtue to be adored by native Egyptians, and the larger world. Serapis is associated with a naked boy, who was compromised from Horus, and we see that the gospel authors include Jesus' secret relation to a naked boy.

When Asoka's missionaries set to propagandize Ptolemy's settlements they were well aware that Buddhism could only thrive if it was attached to existing religious beliefs, much like they knew Buddhism borrowed earlier religious terminologies. This can also be seen within the Therapeutaes as they were originally a sun cult and.after their introduction to Buddhism, from the 12-Theras (who adopted the language of the 12fold suncult(dvadasamasako sanvaccharo & Aditya-bandhu)knew of the Sun, the only part of the Buddhist monastic code that they did not follow was the time for eating, because as they knew the Buddha, or his mythic modification, he was the sun, and hence they did not want to eat in his face. The Therapeutae, like the Buddhists, kept their open hands in a sling up to their solarplex (See Philo). Jesus' use of "the right hand" has little to do with any OT text rather again this is all traceable to Buddhism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:54 pm 
Offline
Jesus

Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:25 pm
Posts: 15
What Dan!!?? Jesus being involved in a naked boy!!?? Why do so many creeps think that Jesus was gay or a gay friend!!?? These types of thoughts come from perverse and sick devils who can't see anything as being sacred or holy or righteous because they are so perverse and wicked in the head !!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:18 pm 
Offline
Bast

Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:12 pm
Posts: 147
Wow slow down, I did not say anything about """Jesus being involved in a naked boy"" I do not know what you are thinking about,to read about Jesus relationship with the naked boy I suggest you read the so called gospel of Mark (not secret)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:29 pm 
Offline
Dionysus

Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:56 pm
Posts: 280
Oh no, I'm not trying to offer it as evidence, it was offered to me as evidence against her claim that the Church earliest Church father quotes from the four Gospels is Irenaeus is false. I actually did look at some of the verses for which he supposed quotes, and their are only two for which he directly does, the others either seemingly referencing to it, or not even using the exact words. I'll look into it a bit more, but wanted to know what Murdock had to say about this claim since it's probably one she is familiar with.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:43 pm 
Offline
Jesus

Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:25 pm
Posts: 15
When they came to apprehend Jesus; one of the young men that were with Jesus was stripped of his robe and he was naked !! In those days; nakedness wasn't as bad as it is now!! When Peter and John and James and the disciples were fishing and saw Jesus on the shore; they hollered, It is the Lord. And they were naked and put on their coats and clothes and jumped in the water to meet him. At least Peter did. So I am sorry that I misunderstood you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:27 pm 
Offline
Bast

Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:12 pm
Posts: 147
Read up on a reconstructed Q, or source to the gospel slogans, including the Gnostic gospels which Polycarp and Paul seem to reference. Besides Iraneus himself says that there is nothing new about Christianity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:39 pm 
Offline
Jesus

Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:25 pm
Posts: 15
Sorry Dan!! But there was absolutely no Christanity until Christ died and rose again!! Before then; if you were a good and righteous person; you went to paradise. And paradise was good; but heaven is a lot better. And after Jesus died and rose again; He went down into paradise that was in the center of the Earth and took all of the righteous out of paradise and took them to heaven with Him. And the wicked people went to sheol which is also in the center of the Earth; but it is horrible and they are tormented and on fire.

And when people die now; the good people go straight to heaven; and the wicked and unbelievers will be sucked straight down into the center of the Earth where the demons will be tormenting them for their wicked pleasures. Not to mention the fires what will also be scorching them!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:54 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Thanks for bringing that up Voice of Reason...we were just talking about creating a thread on this issue regarding Polycarp the other day, which we obviously never got around to.
Quote:
Voice of Reason "Murdock gives the argument about Irenaeus being the earliest Church father to quote from the four Gospels"

That's not completely accurate. She says that Irenaeus was the first, according to the historical & literary records to mention all four canonical Gospels by the titles Mark, Matthew, Luke & John all together. Irenaeus remains the first person we are aware of in the historical & literary records that mentioned all four Gospels by those titles in "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus in 180ce. This is just what the evidence shows. There are so many false claims of quoting from the Gospels (wishful thinking) that's it's difficult to keep up. There is an explanation for that though.

Here's a quote from WWJ:
Quote:
Irenaeus, "Father of the Catholic Canon."

"...In addition to the issues already discussed in support of the later dates is the important fact that the four canonical gospels were not mentioned or named as such by anyone until the time of Church father Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (c. 120/140-c. 200/203 AD/CE). In Against All Heresies (III, 11.8), written around 180 AD/CE, Irenaeus is the first to name the canonical gospels and give reasons for their inclusion and number in the New Testament:

"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sits upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit."

These remarks by Irenaeus represent the first mention of all four canonical gospels together. In fact, prior to the end of the second century, there is no clear evidence of the existence of the canonical gospels as we have them..."

- Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ, page 64

About 20 pages later she says:
Quote:
The Canon: A Second-Century Composition

"...With such remarkable declarations of the Church fathers, et al., as well as other cogent arguments, we possess some salient evidence that the gospels of Luke and John represent late second-century works. In fact, all of the canonical gospels seem to emerge at the same time—first receiving their names and number by Irenaeus around 180 AD/CE, and possibly based on one or more of the same texts as Luke, especially an "Ur-Markus" that may have been related to Marcion's Gospel of the Lord. In addition to an "Ur-Markus" upon which the canonical gospels may have been based has also been posited an "Ur-Lukas," which may likewise have "Ur-Markus" at its basis.

"The following may summarize the order of the gospels as they appear in the historical and literary record, beginning in the middle of the second century:

1. Ur-Markus (150)
2. Ur-Lukas (150+)
3. Luke (170)
4. Mark (175)
5. John (178)
6. Matthew (180)

"To reiterate, these late dates represent the time when these specific texts undoubtedly emerge onto the scene. If the canonical gospels as we have them existed anywhere previously, they were unknown, which makes it likely that they were not composed until that time or shortly before, based on earlier texts...."

- WWJ, page 82

Now, hear from a couple New Testament scholars who are also professed Christians:
Quote:
"The gospels are in fact anonymous"

- Dr. Craig L. Blomberg

- WWJ (60)

Quote:
"The Gospels are neither histories nor biographies, even within the ancient tolerances for those genres."

- Dr. John Dominic Crossan

- WWJ (24)

There are several problems with Polycarp and they won't all be covered in just this one post. Let me start off with this quote ... On page 108 of, The Gospel of Jesus by The Jesus Seminar Director & founder Robert W. Funk:
Quote:
"The Jesus Seminar concludes that approximately 85% of the words and actions of Jesus as reported in the New Testament are not authentic -- he never said or did most of those things."

At the end of the day, to assume or claim that Polycarp was quoting from the four canonical Gospels is wishful thinking let alone all 27 books in the New Testament. That claim just doesn't hold water. Bob Thiel's article certainly provides the Christian apologist view but failed to produce any counter argument material at all. Bob Thiel has shown no interest in any counter arguments whatsoever (apparently, that is a requirement in NT scholarship).

Bob Thiel, Ph.D

"...he alludes to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1,2,&3 John, Jude, and Revelation—which is to say, all of the 27 books of the New Testament."
Quote:
He "ALLUDES to," which is to say, that these scholars are INFERRING that he is talking about these texts. There is absolutely no hard evidence that he is discussing these exact texts. In fact, there is no hard evidence that these texts even existed before the end of the second century.

We can find ALLUSIONS to biblical sayings in a wide variety of texts, including the Iliad by Homer, which predates Christianity by almost a thousand years. Allusions are useless in proving the existence of these texts.

Moreover, we don't possess any real hard evidence that Polycarp himself even existed. Even if we suppose that he did - and we have only these late second century citations of him - the conclusion that he "heavily relied on the New Testament" is a stretch at best.

If we were to investigate each one of these supposed allusions to the New Testament, we would probably find that many of them are from the OLD Testament - the so-called "prophecies," which are in reality parts of the BLUEPRINT used to create Christianity. Also, we could probably find them in other SOURCE texts that were used by the creators of the New Testament, such as the Jewish apocrypha and the Hermetic texts, etc.

In reality, despite all the wishful thinking of conservative Christian scholars and writers, the fact will remain that the canonical gospels do not clearly emerge in the historical/ literary record until after the Marcionite New Testament around the middle of the second century"

- Acharya S

Follow up with these:

The Pre-Nicene New Testament by Dr. Robert Price, there's a chapter on page 471 titled, The Epistle to the Philippians. Here's a review by Acharya

Jesus Neither God nor Man by Earl Doherty

"Against Polycarp" by Stephen H. Huller

"The Real Father of the Catholic Church. His name was Polycarp of Smyrna. After a heated debate with Marcion over coffee and cigarettes, this Second Century Bishop decided that an Orthodoxy needed to be invented in order to combat the Marcionites and their Gnostic cousins that were on the rise. He began conjuring up an Apostolic tradition and history, forge numerous epistles and gospels in order to co-opt John and Paul, and proclaimed wild dogmas that even shocked the early Catholic Church power players. On the other hand, Polycarp was a mystic, a keen theologian, believed in secret traditions, and is possibly the founder of the Valentinians. Yet in the end his machinations would become the foundation for the might of the Catholic Church when it became an ally to the Roman Empire. Perhaps our most controversial show up to date on a very enigmatic figure that changed history for almost two thousand years."
Quote:
"Polycarp was a lunatic, plain and simple. He was a delusional para-suicidal crusader."

"In any event, the more I studied matters it became clear that most people couldn't distinguish between Irenaeus' claims about the 'beloved disciple of the beloved disciple' and the real Polycarp. This shouldn't be at all surprising as Irenaeus is our only real source for any information about a person of this name. Yet even with this situation there are still enough scraps of information about 'the real Polycarp' from the existing writings of Irenaeus which allow us to see that Irenaeus rather than Polycarp is the final editor of the canon..."

Here's Huller's blog
http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/searc ... t+Polycarp

The First Edition of the New Testament by Dr. David Trobisch (a professed Christian) reviewed by Dr. Price

Forgery in Christianity by Joseph Wheless, page 172

Acharya mentions Polycarp in Christ Conspiracy pages 65, 318 and in Suns of God, 412.

I hope that this post was helpful. There's so much more to discuss but this post will have to do for now.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:03 pm 
Offline
Bast

Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:12 pm
Posts: 147
Slow down, I hope they have patience in your heaven. I stated that an early chirch father claimed that there was nothing new to Christinsanity.

you wrote;

""And after Jesus died and rose again""

You mean as Jesus pretended to die? Unless you want to go around changing the meaning to words, as we use the word 'die' it means a permanent state. Besides Jesus says he will sleep for 3 days in the belly of the earth, which I take to mean hell, but which you may take to mean heaven (do you mean Eden in middle earth?)? Seems Kind of funny to have the hell-dwellers at the same location as those in your paradise.

I know this forum covers religious debate but your last post seems like a sermon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:50 am 
Offline
Dionysus

Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:56 pm
Posts: 280
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Thanks for bringing that up Voice of Reason...we were just talking about creating a thread on this issue regarding Polycarp the other day, which we obviously never got around to.
Quote:
Voice of Reason "Murdock gives the argument about Irenaeus being the earliest Church father to quote from the four Gospels"

That's not accurate. She says that Irenaeus was the first, according to the historical & literary records to mention all four canonical Gospels by the titles Mark, Matthew, Luke & John all together. Irenaeus remains the first person we are aware of in the historical & literary records that mentioned all four Gospels by those titles in "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus in 180ce. This is just what the evidence shows. There are so many false claims of quoting from the Gospels (wishful thinking) that's it's difficult to keep up. There is an explanation for that though.

Here's a quote from WWJ:
Quote:
Irenaeus, "Father of the Catholic Canon."

"...In addition to the issues already discussed in support of the later dates is the important fact that the four canonical gospels were not mentioned or named as such by anyone until the time of Church father Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (c. 120/140-c. 200/203 AD/CE). In Against All Heresies (III, 11.8), written around 180 AD/CE, Irenaeus is the first to name the canonical gospels and give reasons for their inclusion and number in the New Testament:

"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sits upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit."

These remarks by Irenaeus represent the first mention of all four canonical gospels together. In fact, prior to the end of the second century, there is no clear evidence of the existence of the canonical gospels as we have them..."

- Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ, page 64

About 20 pages later she says:
Quote:
The Canon: A Second-Century Composition

"...With such remarkable declarations of the Church fathers, et al., as well as other cogent arguments, we possess some salient evidence that the gospels of Luke and John represent late second-century works. In fact, all of the canonical gospels seem to emerge at the same time—first receiving their names and number by Irenaeus around 180 AD/CE, and possibly based on one or more of the same texts as Luke, especially an "Ur-Markus" that may have been related to Marcion's Gospel of the Lord. In addition to an "Ur-Markus" upon which the canonical gospels may have been based has also been posited an "Ur-Lukas," which may likewise have "Ur-Markus" at its basis.

"The following may summarize the order of the gospels as they appear in the historical and literary record, beginning in the middle of the second century:

1. Ur-Markus (150)
2. Ur-Lukas (150+)
3. Luke (170)
4. Mark (175)
5. John (178)
6. Matthew (180)

"To reiterate, these late dates represent the time when these specific texts undoubtedly emerge onto the scene. If the canonical gospels as we have them existed anywhere previously, they were unknown, which makes it likely that they were not composed until that time or shortly before, based on earlier texts...."

- WWJ, page 82

Now, hear from a couple New Testament scholars who are also professed Christians:
Quote:
"The gospels are in fact anonymous"

- Dr. Craig L. Blomberg

- WWJ (60)

Quote:
"The Gospels are neither histories nor biographies, even within the ancient tolerances for those genres."

- Dr. John Dominic Crossan

- WWJ (24)

There are several problems with Polycarp and they won't all be covered in just this one post. Let me start off with this quote ... On page 108 of, The Gospel of Jesus by The Jesus Seminar Director & founder Robert W. Funk:
Quote:
"The Jesus Seminar concludes that approximately 85% of the words and actions of Jesus as reported in the New Testament are not authentic -- he never said or did most of those things."

At the end of the day, to assume or claim that Polycarp was quoting from the four canonical Gospels is wishful thinking let alone all 27 books in the New Testament. That claim just doesn't hold water. Bob Thiel's article certainly provides the Christian apologist view but failed to produce any counter argument material at all. Bob Thiel has shown no interest in any counter arguments whatsoever (apparently, that is a requirement in NT scholarship).

Bob Thiel, Ph.D

"...he alludes to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1,2,&3 John, Jude, and Revelation—which is to say, all of the 27 books of the New Testament."
Quote:
He "ALLUDES to," which is to say, that these scholars are INFERRING that he is talking about these texts. There is absolutely no hard evidence that he is discussing these exact texts. In fact, there is no hard evidence that these texts even existed before the end of the second century.

We can find ALLUSIONS to biblical sayings in a wide variety of texts, including the Iliad by Homer, which predates Christianity by almost a thousand years. Allusions are useless in proving the existence of these texts.

Moreover, we don't possess any real hard evidence that Polycarp himself even existed. Even if we suppose that he did - and we have only these late second century citations of him - the conclusion that he "heavily relied on the New Testament" is a stretch at best.

If we were to investigate each one of these supposed allusions to the New Testament, we would probably find that many of them are from the OLD Testament - the so-called "prophecies," which are in reality parts of the BLUEPRINT used to create Christianity. Also, we could probably find them in other SOURCE texts that were used by the creators of the New Testament, such as the Jewish apocrypha and the Hermetic texts, etc.

In reality, despite all the wishful thinking of conservative Christian scholars and writers, the fact will remain that the canonical gospels do not clearly emerge in the historical/ literary record until after the Marcionite New Testament around the middle of the second century"

- Acharya S

Follow up with these:

The Pre-Nicene New Testament by Dr. Robert Price, there's a chapter on page 471 titled, The Epistle to the Philippians. Here's a review by Acharya

Jesus Neither God nor Man by Earl Doherty

"Against Polycarp" by Stephen H. Huller

"The Real Father of the Catholic Church. His name was Polycarp of Smyrna. After a heated debate with Marcion over coffee and cigarettes, this Second Century Bishop decided that an Orthodoxy needed to be invented in order to combat the Marcionites and their Gnostic cousins that were on the rise. He began conjuring up an Apostolic tradition and history, forge numerous epistles and gospels in order to co-opt John and Paul, and proclaimed wild dogmas that even shocked the early Catholic Church power players. On the other hand, Polycarp was a mystic, a keen theologian, believed in secret traditions, and is possibly the founder of the Valentinians. Yet in the end his machinations would become the foundation for the might of the Catholic Church when it became an ally to the Roman Empire. Perhaps our most controversial show up to date on a very enigmatic figure that changed history for almost two thousand years."
Quote:
"Polycarp was a lunatic, plain and simple. He was a delusional para-suicidal crusader."

"In any event, the more I studied matters it became clear that most people couldn't distinguish between Irenaeus' claims about the 'beloved disciple of the beloved disciple' and the real Polycarp. This shouldn't be at all surprising as Irenaeus is our only real source for any information about a person of this name. Yet even with this situation there are still enough scraps of information about 'the real Polycarp' from the existing writings of Irenaeus which allow us to see that Irenaeus rather than Polycarp is the final editor of the canon..."

Here's Huller's blog
http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/searc ... t+Polycarp

The First Edition of the New Testament by Dr. David Trobisch (a professed Christian) reviewed by Dr. Price

Forgery in Christianity by Joseph Wheless, page 172

Acharya mentions Polycarp in Christ Conspiracy pages 65, 318 and in Suns of God, 412.

I hope that this post was helpful. There's so much more to discuss but this post will have to do for now.


I guess I misunderstood her argument then. But glad I could get a thread going for you guy's! :D Thanks for the information by the way.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

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