For those attending the seminar: ‘How Can I Be Sure About My Faith’ on Wednesday the 10 of February.
We will be looking at two matters:
1. How can a Christian be sure that the religion of Christianity is genuine?
2. How can a Christian be sure that his faith in Christianity is genuine?
We will assess these two questions from three angles:
• The personal angle (I): which elements (evidence) in me and my life provide evidence that what I believe in is genuine?
• The personal angle (2): What evidence in me and my life provides evidence that my faith is genuine?
• The angle of apologetics: Which external elements (historical, scientific, philosophical) are available that confirm that your faith is based upon what is genuine?
My only requirement is that you think these matters through until Wednesday.
God bless
Hogan
10 comments:
Sorry Yahya,
I did reply to your questions here, but then I delated our entire dialogue. I guess it is best to leave this thread for the issues related to the seminar only and those who participate; that is if they intend to comment.
But let me just say that the seminar will not be in London; I hope to be sceduled for a seminar in London in April or May.
God bless
Quote: "A blog that investigates the earliest form of Christianity: the historical Jesus"
"Historical Jesus"?!?
Just using this contra-historical oxymoron (demonstrated by the eminent late Oxford historian, James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) exposes your Christian-blinkered agenda--dependent upon 4th-century, gentile, Hellenist sources.
While scholars debate the provenance of the original accounts upon which the earliest extant (4th century, even fragments are post-135 C.E.), Roman gentile, Hellenist-redacted versions were based, there is not one fragment, not even one letter of the NT that derives DIRECTLY from the 1st-century Pharisee Jews who followed the Pharisee Ribi Yehoshua.
Historians like Parkes, et al., have demonstrated incontestably that 4th-century Roman Christianity was the 180° polar antithesis of 1st-century Judaism of ALL Pharisee Ribis. The earliest (post-135 C.E.) true Christians were viciously antinomian (ANTI-Torah), claiming to supersede and displace Torah, Judaism and ("spiritual) Israel and Jews. In soberest terms, ORIGINAL Christianity was anti-Torah from the start while DSS (viz., 4Q MMT) and ALL other Judaic documentation PROVE that ALL 1st-century Pharisees were PRO-Torah.
There is a mountain of historical Judaic information Christians have refused to deal with, at: www.netzarim.co.il (see, especially, their History Museum pages beginning with "30-99 C.E.").
Original Christianity = ANTI-Torah. Ribi Yehoshua and his Netzarim, like all other Pharisees, were PRO-Torah. Intractable contradiction.
Building a Roman image from Hellenist hearsay accounts, decades after the death of the 1st-century Pharisee Ribi, and after a forcible ouster, by Hellenist Roman gentiles, of his original Jewish followers (135 C.E., documented by Eusebius), based on writings of a Hellenist Jew excised as an apostate by the original Jewish followers (documented by Eusebius) is circular reasoning through gentile-Roman Hellenist lenses.
What the historical Pharisee Ribi taught is found not in the hearsay accounts of post-135 C.E. Hellenist Romans but, rather, in the Judaic descriptions of Pharisees and Pharisee Ribis of the period... in Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT (see Prof. Elisha Qimron), inter alia.
The question is, now that you've been informed, will you follow the authentic historical Pharisee Ribi? Or continue following the post-135 C.E. Roman-redacted antithesis—an idol?
Anders,
This thread was not meant for general commenting, as I clarified to Yahya, but ok.
Before I refute your arguments, let me just clarify a number of points related to your comments:
The problem with your approach here is your failure to differentiate between history and theory and between reality and conjecture; all I see here are assumptions.
So you have read a book and the scholar made a number of assumptions---big deal I have read many books on the matter and been exposed to a number of assumptions, assumptions which change every decade.
What I would expect from you if you intend to propagate your opinion effectively, is for you to provide evidence from early data, or more correctly early Christian data; data that confirms explicitly that the Greek converts to Christianity opposed the Jewish Christian community in their doctrine and writings to the point that they simply redacted and fabricated the entire Christian faith.
There were certainly Greek Christians who abhored the fact that Jewish Christian practiced the Law (I will agree with that), yet there was not a mutual consent about this matter; yet this does not suggest that reform of scriptural redaction to place in the third and fourth century---and that is what you need to prove by historical data, not modern theories.
According to early data, Jewish Christianity was wiped out by Jewish persecution and vanished almost entirely in the second century destruction of Jerusalem. Up to that time there was a Jewish-Christian succession of bishops in Jerusalem. Beyond that the Greek Christians were left behind. Yet many of them including Origin still studied and held on to Hebrew language.
Anders wrote:
Quote: "A blog that investigates the earliest form of Christianity: the historical Jesus"
"Historical Jesus"?!?
Just using this contra-historical oxymoron (demonstrated by the eminent late Oxford historian, James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) exposes your Christian-blinkered agenda--dependent upon 4th-century, gentile, Hellenist sources.
Hogan replies:
Frankly I could not care less about James Parkes’ opinion. As I have already pointed out these theories and opinions change frequently rendering the scholarly quotes redundant after 2 or 3 decades. If I have learned anything through seven years of academic studies in theology and church history, it is: never to base my conclusions upon the opinions of a scholar, late eminent or not.
Furthermore, you state that this is a conflict between church and synagogue, you need to clarify your meaning of church here. A Church signified originally a simple Christian gathering, people who typically met in homes, much like synagogues. Do a study of this in the New Testament writings. The Jewish and Christian gathering obviously broke up due to the Christian focus on Jesus Christ. There were indeed a number of Pharisees who were Christians and true the early Christians were mainly Jews. Even in the middle to the end of first century Jerusalem Christianity remained a centre for Christianity. Note here that the early church fathers, such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Papias and Polycarp among others were connected to this early generation of Christianity, and their writings depict the views of the generation that knew the apostles and connected themselves with Jerusalem. Hence Christianity in Rome, Antioch and Asia Minor and indeed Alexandria were indeed separated from the Jewish synagogue but connected to the apostolic Christian synagogue of the first century which followed and transmitted the words and narrative of Jesus. This completely debunks your assumptions.
Hence that the Christianity I follow is a 4th century Hellenist religion is utter bogus.
You state elsewhere that fragments of the New Testament are dated not before but after 135 AD, in fact a significant part of the New Testament dates earlier than the third century, we have fragments of all the gospels dating the second century. The Jerusalem church was established until early second century, and the majority of Christian successors still operating in the early second century were disciples of Jesus’ own disciples, and those functioning as successors by the end of second century were disciples of the apostolic disciples.
Based upon the methods of succession and transmission these controlled the Jesus tradition and narrative mutually. The third link in succession lasting until late second century included a number of church leaders and exponents who were disciples of these apostolic disciples who had been trained by Jesus’ own Jewish apostles.
Frankly I don’t see how your claim that: I follow a 4th century Christianity fits the picture of the early data. Unless you can back up your claim with actual historical data rather than late 19-20 century conjecture.
Anders wrote:
While scholars debate the provenance of the original accounts upon which the earliest extant (4th century, even fragments are post-135 C.E.), Roman gentile, Hellenist-redacted versions were based, there is not one fragment, not even one letter of the NT that derives DIRECTLY from the 1st-century Pharisee Jews who followed the Pharisee Ribi Yehoshua.
Hogan replies:
In what sense did Romans or Greek redact early Jewish Christianity? How can you prove this?
Again I urge you to bring up evidences from early historical data. That fragements of the gospels are dated 135 and beyond (I guess you refer to John Rylands’ John’s Gospel, which actually could be dated much earlier, according to some even 100 AD) does not support your case the slightest. On the contrary, possessing a number of fragments and manuscripts from the second century and even early third century from different locations and in their correlation with the rest of the early historical date proves that the NT information remained intact since the apostles.
That no fragement derives directly from Jesus is true, but the transmission does! You seem to mis the full picture here.
But then again the Gospels urge us to approach the disciples of Jesus for the information rather than Jesus himself.
Furthermore, since you are so hot on direct links, can you provide me a fragment that derives directly from the earliest Talmudic rabbies? Or can you show me a Mosaic fragment that derives directly from the Moses? I assume you are Jewish (otherwise do correct me), but if you approach here is valid then you have to be consistant and reject your belief in Moses, the Mosaich Law and the Talmudic writings.
Anders wrote:
Historians like Parkes, et al., have demonstrated incontestably that 4th-century Roman Christianity was the 180° polar antithesis of 1st-century Judaism of ALL Pharisee Ribis.
Hogan replies:
But how are you or Parkes going to prove this? In Rome, Clement of Rome the disciple of Peter (a Jew and an apostle of Jesus) writes a letter that is still existant today and which I have read several times.
In Antioch we have Ignatius (a disicple of both John and Peter and possibly Paul), writing seven letters, which are also existant today.
In Alexandria there were successors who had been trained by Mark the disciple of Peter, who were alive until 120 AD. Mind that Mark’s Gospel is recognised as work written around 65 AD; the earliest data however dates it approximately 45 AD, while 60-65 is conjecture.
All these individuals and their writings from the first century and earliest second century are consistent with the fact that the Christianity promoted by third and fourth century Christianity was compatible with Jewish
Christianity conveyed by the very disciples of Jesus in the first century.
Anders wrote:
The earliest (post-135 C.E.) true Christians were viciously antinomian (ANTI-Torah), claiming to supersede and displace Torah, Judaism and ("spiritual) Israel and Jews. In soberest terms, ORIGINAL Christianity was anti-Torah from the start while DSS (viz., 4Q MMT) and ALL other Judaic documentation PROVE that ALL 1st-century Pharisees were PRO-Torah.
There is a mountain of historical Judaic information Christians have refused to deal with, at: www.netzarim.co.il (see, especially, their History Museum pages beginning with "30-99 C.E.").
Original Christianity = ANTI-Torah. Ribi Yehoshua and his Netzarim, like all other Pharisees, were PRO-Torah. Intractable contradiction.
Hogan replies:
You are completely off the road, do me a favour and read e.g. Mark’s Gospel, Jesus is certainly pro-Torah but anti- Talmud, in book of Acts the Jewish Christians are pro-Torah but recognise that the Torah is for Jews only.
Paul who often speaks against salvation through the Mosaic Law actually holds to the same view as Jesus and the Jerusalem Christians according to Romans 6-8.
Christians in the second century and onward did not hate the Torah but did not recognise the Torah as applicable to the church or as a means to salvation, some of them did recognise however that Jews were ok to abide by it.
Anders wrote:
Building a Roman image from Hellenist hearsay accounts, decades after the death of the 1st-century Pharisee Ribi, and after a forcible ouster, by Hellenist Roman gentiles, of his original Jewish followers (135 C.E., documented by Eusebius), based on writings of a Hellenist Jew excised as an apostate by the original Jewish followers (documented by Eusebius) is circular reasoning through gentile-Roman Hellenist lenses.
Hogan replies:
No, comparing and looking at the ancient data is not circular reasoning its doing history.
If we apply your reasoning here we would have to reject all history.
That early Christian writings confirm each other does not indicate circular reasoning but that early Christians mutually knew and agreed about their information.
Anders wrote:
What the historical Pharisee Ribi taught is found not in the hearsay accounts of post-135 C.E. Hellenist Romans but, rather, in the Judaic descriptions of Pharisees and Pharisee Ribis of the period... in Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT (see Prof. Elisha Qimron), inter alia.
Hogan replies:
You need to clarify this, which Rabbi, and why should I be concerned abou the particular scroll?
Anders wrote:
The question is, now that you've been informed, will you follow the authentic historical Pharisee Ribi? Or continue following the post-135 C.E. Roman-redacted antithesis—an idol?
Hogan replies:
Historically seen, what I follow is authentic, the stuff you present here is utter conjecture.
I challenge you to bring up similar data that I could bring up, and from the same era of history and present it as evidence against my position.
If you could, then of course you would claim that you were not resorting to circular reasoning (and contradict yourself), but if I can then of course it is circular reasoning (according to you); you will find that this will complicate matters for you.
You are letting you religious or philosphical preference and assumption effect your judgement of history and reality versus theory and conjecture.
So I will wait for your evidence, but then again when you bring up the evidence, it will be unvalid and circular reasoning anyway based upon your approach.
So I am sorry but I am slightly confused about your methodology.
Post a Comment