Apostel Luke didn’t write the 3rd Gospel or Acts so any claim about Peter hanging out with Mary…well a copy of a copy of a copy.
I usually agree that there is a core to the legend but started to lean towards con recently. Paul meets the ministry in an area full of weird cults. That is all we really have. And when you look at the first Gospel 5 sources only one would have been original and then. A small claim that Peter or James could have just come up on their own. Especially given it had a lot of the structure already found in the minor prophets.
Markan Jesus, without the modified endings, was just a slightly altered version of Jeremiah. Anyone can do this, chatgpt can do this.
Part of the reason why I would ask Paul exactly what he heard and talked about during the meeting. Because if con is right finding holes should be trivial.
Paul meets the ministry in an area full of weird cults. That’s all we have…A small claim that Peter or James could have just come up on their own.
Far too simplistic. Why would either set about a forgery that results in their untimely death? (Acts 12) Or if you think the writer of Acts faked James’ death what would be the point of that when he was a prominent leader of the Jerusalem church? Same goes for the early church tradition of Peter’s martyrdom. The details of course may be embellished, but it’s substantially more reliable to conclude that both James and Peter were at least killed early.
Paul writes about learning from the community at Jerusalem that its leaders were “Peter, James and John” (Gal 2). Were all three in on the forgery?
Paul also writes of the terrible living conditions all apostles lived under (1 Cor 4:9-13). If we take Paul as at least genuine in his delusion, we have to also explain why he reports the Jerusalem church leaders enduring similar suffering.
The simplest explaination is that they were at least personally convinced of the truth of what they were doing. Convinced and wrong. But them being forgerers themselves makes no sense and has even less evidence that that various other scenarios.
Yeah sorry about calling him an apostle. Only made the same mistake about 9 times this year alone. Not sure why I keep thinking that.
Why would either set about a forgery that results in their untimely death?
Assuming they knew that would happen. Why does anyone do any crime knowing that it could ruin their life?
We’re all three in on the forgery?
Maybe? Not exactly a lot of job prospects there.
Paul also writes of the terrible living conditions all apostles lived under (1 Cor 4:9-13). If we take Paul as at least genuine in his delusion, we have to also explain why he reports the Jerusalem church leaders enduring similar suffering.
And? The vast majority of criminals I have had to deal with in my life aren’t doing very well. For every Bernie Madoff there are thousands of street level dealers getting attacked.
The simplest explaination is that they were at least personally convinced of the truth of what they were doing. Convinced and wrong. But them being forgerers themselves makes no sense and has even less evidence that that various other scenarios.
Your argument depends on people being homo economis. Yeah sorry about calling him an apostle. Only made the same mistake about 9 times this year alone. Not sure why I keep thinking that.
Why would either set about a forgery that results in their untimely death?
Assuming they knew that would happen. Why does anyone do any crime knowing that it could ruin their life?
We’re all three in on the forgery?
Maybe? Not exactly a lot of job prospects there.
Paul also writes of the terrible living conditions all apostles lived under (1 Cor 4:9-13). If we take Paul as at least genuine in his delusion, we have to also explain why he reports the Jerusalem church leaders enduring similar suffering.
And? The vast majority of criminals I have had to deal with in my life aren’t doing very well. For every Bernie Madoff there are thousands of street level dealers getting attacked.
The simplest explaination is that they were at least personally convinced of the truth of what they were doing. Convinced and wrong. But them being forgerers themselves makes no sense and has even less evidence that that various other scenarios.
Your argument depends on people being homo economis.
it was perfectly obvious to everyone that a) pissing off the jews (Yahweh’s Son loves me) and b) pissing off the romans (Caesar answers to someone greater) was going to end with violence being done to them. everyone was familiar with Caesar’s enemies being executed via crucifixion and the gospels (regardless of who you think wrote them) assume everyone is familiar with the Jews summarily executing blasphemers by stoning
the “apostles as forgers” theory assumes the following without being able to show any of it:
Peter, James, and John collude to write a fiction that all know will give the Romans and Jews cause to execute them - why?
They start a literary tradition in which they are dumb, hot-headed imbeciles with faltering faith - why?
They live in poverty and suffering, taking care of the poor and the permanently disabled, for something they know to be a lie - as documented by an independent witness Paul - why?
Why would forgers invent entirely an entirely selfless doctrine that they know to be founded on nothing - no riches, no multiple wives, no permission to wage war etc
Why would forgers invent really unhelpful details such as Jesus’ baptism, temple clearance, carrying of swords at his arrest, his crucifixion. When these render the basic gospel unbelievable to Jews and Greeks. A crucified Messiah? Actually physically crucified by the Roman state? was a nonsense. Why not invent a spiritual priest who sacrifices in the heavenly temple and renders the earthly one obsolete? (like is seen in Hebrews) Why involve any physical details whatsoever? Why invent embarrassment, shame and humiliation at cost to ones self? How on earth to keep this conspiracy pact together in the face of persecution, physical violence and death? And for what motivation?
Apostolic forgery is a nonsense really
It is far far simpler to allow that Jesus of Nazareth had a physical historical reality. That he preached a spiritual Torah, self-denial, and ideals controversial to both Jews and Greeks (because these are among the least likely things to have been invented). That he was popular with crowds and was crucified after causing a riot at the temple at Passover. His subsequent followers became convinced they had experienced him resurrected. Everything else easily follows from that. People who wrote, did so believing what they were writing. People Paul met (and persecuted) believed what they said. Peter and James believed what they said, to the point of being martyred.
None of this requires any spiritual belief. It’s purely naturalistic.
You are combining the argument from embarrassment with your older argument from poverty.
The argument from poverty doesn’t work because it assumes that humans get what they want. As I stated the vast majority of criminals are not successful people. Gallie was poor, a rural backwater of a backwater of an open air prison. James and Peter could do some preaching and make just enough off the suckers to keep going. They did flee Jerusalem which says enough. Literally couldn’t convince people to believe what they had personally witnessed? No one remembers the king of the Jews being killed right during this major holiday? If someone died on the field of the next Superbowl would you remember that?
No. Far more likely they left John the Baptist, setup shop in Jerusalem. We’re told to get lost. Fleed back to Gallie and tried again. Later on Paul comes along and wtf he is taking this seriously.
The argument from embarrassment also doesn’t work because Jews had plenty of leaders who were killed for what they did. Jeremiah and Samson for example. In fact a dead leader killed can be a source of strength. Almost all of religion is telling people that weakness is strength and who is more weak than someone dead? Someone who didn’t even manage to die of old age. Someone who was killed.
Also I never said Paul didn’t buy into it, I think he did. If nothing else the Eucharist. This ritual that must have boiled the blood of every monotheistic person who heard about it.
It’s easy to let your imagination run to whatever it likes. What you’re not doing it showing how your idea reasonably links into the text and traditions that we have from the era.
Can you cite any academic sources that support what you’re saying?
I leave you with (secular) Bart Ehrman:
“He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence.” B. Ehrman, 2011
Apostel Luke didn’t write the 3rd Gospel or Acts so any claim about Peter hanging out with Mary…well a copy of a copy of a copy.
I usually agree that there is a core to the legend but started to lean towards con recently. Paul meets the ministry in an area full of weird cults. That is all we really have. And when you look at the first Gospel 5 sources only one would have been original and then. A small claim that Peter or James could have just come up on their own. Especially given it had a lot of the structure already found in the minor prophets.
Markan Jesus, without the modified endings, was just a slightly altered version of Jeremiah. Anyone can do this, chatgpt can do this.
Part of the reason why I would ask Paul exactly what he heard and talked about during the meeting. Because if con is right finding holes should be trivial.
Luke wasn’t an apostle
Far too simplistic. Why would either set about a forgery that results in their untimely death? (Acts 12) Or if you think the writer of Acts faked James’ death what would be the point of that when he was a prominent leader of the Jerusalem church? Same goes for the early church tradition of Peter’s martyrdom. The details of course may be embellished, but it’s substantially more reliable to conclude that both James and Peter were at least killed early.
Paul writes about learning from the community at Jerusalem that its leaders were “Peter, James and John” (Gal 2). Were all three in on the forgery?
Paul also writes of the terrible living conditions all apostles lived under (1 Cor 4:9-13). If we take Paul as at least genuine in his delusion, we have to also explain why he reports the Jerusalem church leaders enduring similar suffering.
The simplest explaination is that they were at least personally convinced of the truth of what they were doing. Convinced and wrong. But them being forgerers themselves makes no sense and has even less evidence that that various other scenarios.
Yeah sorry about calling him an apostle. Only made the same mistake about 9 times this year alone. Not sure why I keep thinking that.
Assuming they knew that would happen. Why does anyone do any crime knowing that it could ruin their life?
Maybe? Not exactly a lot of job prospects there.
And? The vast majority of criminals I have had to deal with in my life aren’t doing very well. For every Bernie Madoff there are thousands of street level dealers getting attacked.
Your argument depends on people being homo economis. Yeah sorry about calling him an apostle. Only made the same mistake about 9 times this year alone. Not sure why I keep thinking that.
Assuming they knew that would happen. Why does anyone do any crime knowing that it could ruin their life?
Maybe? Not exactly a lot of job prospects there.
And? The vast majority of criminals I have had to deal with in my life aren’t doing very well. For every Bernie Madoff there are thousands of street level dealers getting attacked.
Your argument depends on people being homo economis.
it was perfectly obvious to everyone that a) pissing off the jews (Yahweh’s Son loves me) and b) pissing off the romans (Caesar answers to someone greater) was going to end with violence being done to them. everyone was familiar with Caesar’s enemies being executed via crucifixion and the gospels (regardless of who you think wrote them) assume everyone is familiar with the Jews summarily executing blasphemers by stoning
the “apostles as forgers” theory assumes the following without being able to show any of it:
Peter, James, and John collude to write a fiction that all know will give the Romans and Jews cause to execute them - why?
They start a literary tradition in which they are dumb, hot-headed imbeciles with faltering faith - why?
They live in poverty and suffering, taking care of the poor and the permanently disabled, for something they know to be a lie - as documented by an independent witness Paul - why?
Why would forgers invent entirely an entirely selfless doctrine that they know to be founded on nothing - no riches, no multiple wives, no permission to wage war etc
Why would forgers invent really unhelpful details such as Jesus’ baptism, temple clearance, carrying of swords at his arrest, his crucifixion. When these render the basic gospel unbelievable to Jews and Greeks. A crucified Messiah? Actually physically crucified by the Roman state? was a nonsense. Why not invent a spiritual priest who sacrifices in the heavenly temple and renders the earthly one obsolete? (like is seen in Hebrews) Why involve any physical details whatsoever? Why invent embarrassment, shame and humiliation at cost to ones self? How on earth to keep this conspiracy pact together in the face of persecution, physical violence and death? And for what motivation?
Apostolic forgery is a nonsense really
It is far far simpler to allow that Jesus of Nazareth had a physical historical reality. That he preached a spiritual Torah, self-denial, and ideals controversial to both Jews and Greeks (because these are among the least likely things to have been invented). That he was popular with crowds and was crucified after causing a riot at the temple at Passover. His subsequent followers became convinced they had experienced him resurrected. Everything else easily follows from that. People who wrote, did so believing what they were writing. People Paul met (and persecuted) believed what they said. Peter and James believed what they said, to the point of being martyred.
None of this requires any spiritual belief. It’s purely naturalistic.
You are combining the argument from embarrassment with your older argument from poverty.
The argument from poverty doesn’t work because it assumes that humans get what they want. As I stated the vast majority of criminals are not successful people. Gallie was poor, a rural backwater of a backwater of an open air prison. James and Peter could do some preaching and make just enough off the suckers to keep going. They did flee Jerusalem which says enough. Literally couldn’t convince people to believe what they had personally witnessed? No one remembers the king of the Jews being killed right during this major holiday? If someone died on the field of the next Superbowl would you remember that?
No. Far more likely they left John the Baptist, setup shop in Jerusalem. We’re told to get lost. Fleed back to Gallie and tried again. Later on Paul comes along and wtf he is taking this seriously.
The argument from embarrassment also doesn’t work because Jews had plenty of leaders who were killed for what they did. Jeremiah and Samson for example. In fact a dead leader killed can be a source of strength. Almost all of religion is telling people that weakness is strength and who is more weak than someone dead? Someone who didn’t even manage to die of old age. Someone who was killed.
Also I never said Paul didn’t buy into it, I think he did. If nothing else the Eucharist. This ritual that must have boiled the blood of every monotheistic person who heard about it.
It’s easy to let your imagination run to whatever it likes. What you’re not doing it showing how your idea reasonably links into the text and traditions that we have from the era.
Can you cite any academic sources that support what you’re saying?
I leave you with (secular) Bart Ehrman:
I see. So because a famous person said X it must be X. Statements accuracy is based on whom uttered them and not what the evidence shows.
Can you cite a single Christian authority that support what you are claiming? That Jesus was not supernatural and no one saw a physical resurrection.
Are you new at this? This is too obvious a strawman…
See the 1st century Ebionites
Not interested in discussing with you any further
New to this? What pointing out logical fallacies. Not really no. Maybe don’t make them.