Where did the Jesus myth come from?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

He's not saying fig trees are mythical. His point is the NT passage in question seems to be a rewriting of Hosea. So that's just another chunk of the gospels whose historicity is very questionable.

[Lion IRC]

*sigh* Do you even know what begging the question is?

You keep on asserting that a question is being begged...yet I dont know what question that is?

...This whole debate over the gentile mission in this thread started because I argued that instances of Jesus being involved with gentiles or saying to the apostles to witness to "all nations" we're not authentic because they're anachronistic. What was the evidence for their anachronicity? The fact that Jesus' followers and apostles act like they never knew Jesus said those things.

I do not accept your assertion that Jesus' followers and apostles act like they never knew Jesus said those things.
You can keep trying to persuade me if you want.
But you dont get to quote scripture at me to make YOUR argument while at the same time telling me that I cant quote scripture at you.

...This essentially means that anything Jesus says or does involving gentiles has to be inauthentic....

This is what I mean about selective use of scripture. Why is the scripture that I quote ''inauthentic'' but the scripture YOU quote valid?

...And now you're using passages from the gospels to prove that Jesus authorized gentile missions when these are the passages precisely in question over authenticity!

I am going to keep quoting scriptures about the universality of the Gospel message and the need to spread it to all nations.

If you wish to save us both of us wasting each others time, just go ahead and assert that NOTHING Jesus is reported to have said justifies taking the Good News to all the ends of the earth.

...You're assuming the passages are authentic to prove they're authentic!

No. I am NOT. And this is very important.
All I am doing is showing you verses and asking whether YOU think they are authentic. I think they are ALL authentic. You are the one who makes the claim that some arent - not me.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

*sigh* Do you even know what begging the question is?

You keep on asserting that a question is being begged...yet I dont know what question that is?

I'll get to your other points soon after I stop laughing.

[Lion IRC]

teaearlgreyhot,

Why shouldnt someone argue the opposite of you and claim that the universality scriptures, (which vastly outnumber the one single ambiguous example used as the basis for your claim,) are in fact the ''authentic'' ones. And that the real controversy rests with verses added later to try and disssuade AGAINST evangelizing the gentiles (rest of the world.)

Isnt that a more logical claim if you are going to assert that fabricated additions were made for some ulterior motive?

If you're gonna do conspiracy theories, the one about the authorities trying to stop the growing Church is more interesting.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

teaearlgreyhot,

Why shouldnt someone argue the opposite of you and claim that the universality scriptures, (which vastly outnumber the one single ambiguous example used as the basis for your claim,) are in fact the ''authentic'' ones. And that the real controversy rests with verses added later to try and disssuade AGAINST evangelizing the gentiles (rest of the world.)

Isnt that a more logical claim if you are going to assert that fabricated additions were made for some ulterior motive?

If you're gonna do conspiracy theories, the one about the authorities trying to stop the growing Church is more interesting.

Ok, first thing I want to point out is that you're conceding that your holy scriptures may contain fabrications. Congratulations! Making progress!

And no, you're little upside-down theory doesn't work. Supposing that Christianity first started out as for everyone, then some little group popped within Christianity after Jesus died and said "Hey, Jews only!" then it's strange that Acts portrays Peter as being in such of group. And it still doesn't explain why Peter and the group seemingly forgot what Jesus taught in the gospels. And it's not possible to read the verses of Acts as they are there to dissuade preaching to gentiles. They show preaching to gentiles in a positive light!

[Lion IRC]

teaearlgreyhot,

Why shouldnt someone argue the opposite of you and claim that the universality scriptures, (which vastly outnumber the one single ambiguous example used as the basis for your claim,) are in fact the ''authentic'' ones. And that the real controversy rests with verses added later to try and disssuade AGAINST evangelizing the gentiles (rest of the world.)

Isnt that a more logical claim if you are going to assert that fabricated additions were made for some ulterior motive?

If you're gonna do conspiracy theories, the one about the authorities trying to stop the growing Church is more interesting.

Ok, first thing I want to point out is that you're conceding that your holy scriptures may contain fabrications. Congratulations! Making progress!...

Please post in quotation marks with red font highlight which part of my posts ''concedes'' that.

I said;
If you're gonna do conspiracy theories..
Why shouldnt someone argue the opposite of you..
Isnt that a more logical claim if you are going to assert that fabricated additions...

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Ok, first thing I want to point out is that you're conceding that your holy scriptures may contain fabrications. Congratulations! Making progress!...

Please post in quotation marks with red font highlight which part of my posts ''concedes'' that.

I said;
If you're gonna do conspiracy theories..
Why shouldnt someone argue the opposite of you..
Isnt that a more logical claim if you are going to assert that fabricated additions...

It seemed to be implied, since really all you did was commit the fallacy of moving the goal posts.

[Lion IRC]

teaearlgreyhot,

Why shouldnt someone argue the opposite of you and claim that the universality scriptures, (which vastly outnumber the one single ambiguous example used as the basis for your claim,) are in fact the ''authentic'' ones. And that the real controversy rests with verses added later to try and disssuade AGAINST evangelizing the gentiles (rest of the world.)

Isnt that a more logical claim if you are going to assert that fabricated additions were made for some ulterior motive?

If you're gonna do conspiracy theories, the one about the authorities trying to stop the growing Church is more interesting.

Ok, first thing I want to point out is that you're conceding that your holy scriptures may contain fabrications. Congratulations! Making progress!

And no, you're little upside-down theory doesn't work. Supposing that Christianity first started out as for everyone, then some little group popped within Christianity after Jesus died and said "Hey, Jews only!" then it's strange that Acts portrays Peter as being in such of group. And it still doesn't explain why Peter and the group seemingly forgot what Jesus taught in the gospels. And it's not possible to read the verses of Acts as they are there to dissuade preaching to gentiles. They show preaching to gentiles in a positive light!

Acts shows preaching to the Gentiles in a positive light.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John show preaching to the Gentiles in a positive light.

HOORAY!

We are in agreement.

I'm glad we had this chat.

[FallentoReason]

Mark 11
Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14 He said to it, 'May no one ever eat fruit from you again.

And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple

"My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations"?
But you have made it a den of robbers.'

they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots.

Hosea 9
when I saw your fathers, it was like seeing the early fruit on the fig tree.

Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house

Ephraim is blighted, their root is withered, they yield no fruit.

@ Lion

Sorry, but it seems like one of your examples isn't genuine history. Mark loves his allegories and clearly we see here that he was alluding to Hosea 9.

Since when are fig trees mythical? People living in Jesus' time would have seen them everywhere. Quoting Hosea to me is interesting and nice and thanks. But I dont accept that the appearence of the word fig in the OT somehow means they cant mention it in the New Testament.

I understand the point you are trying to make. But I dont accept it

There's too many parallels for the two chunks to not be related. As I've said, either the characters in the NT carried OTs and used them as a script OR Mark used the OT as the basis for his work.

I know they live in a hellenized world where theatre is most likely very popular, but I doubt the NT was a life-sized play that was scripted. That would almost make it the first episode of Punk'd ever!

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...

Acts shows preaching to the Gentiles in a positive light.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John show preaching to the Gentiles in a positive light.

HOORAY!

We are in agreement.

I'm glad we had this chat.

Nope, your apologetic nightmare isn't over yet. Assuming your upside down theory is correct, if there was some group trying to fabricate an anti-gentile message into the gospel, then Peter would have had a vision informing him not to preach to gentiles. But the vision was informing him that it was ok to preach to gentiles thus it was in a positive light.