Jayb,

<<OzSpen: When the Gospel was proclaimed after Jesus' death and resurrection,I think you better do some reading up on History>>.

It's too late to tell me I need to read up on history. I've taught Church history and its place in secular history - at the college level. I have a university PhD in NT, with emphasis on the historical Jesus.

You argue from silence when you don't know my background.

<<The Gospels weren't written until about 100 years after the death of Yeshua (Jesus) None of the people who wrote the Gospels had any direct contact with Yeshua>>.

That is false. John is described as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (John 21:20).

Your claim of no Gospel written before AD 100 is challenged. Dr Paul Barnett is a visiting fellow in ancient history at Macquarie University, Sydney. His research indicates that:

** 'by the late fifties a number of written texts - Mark, Q and L (and others?) - were in existence.... We do not know precisely when these traditions reached written form' (Paul Barnett 1999. Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity, InterVarsity Press, pp 380).

** The infamous John A T Robinson of 'Honest to God' fame has published some magnificent research on 'Redating the New Testament'.

After the research, he concluded that all NT books were written before AD 70. They began with the Book of James (ca. 47-48) and concluded with the Book of Revelation (ca. late 68-70). That challenges your historical-critical belief that the Gospels weren't written until after AD 100.

<<All the branches of Christianity established by the Apostles were eliminated by the Pauline branch after the Nicene Council by the Pauline Bishops>>.

That's your hypothesis that needs to be verified or falsified through research.

<<I guess you gotta be a Southern Baptist, Ay.>>

Again you argue from lack of knowledge.

OzSpey: I have a university PhD in NT, with emphasis on the historical Jesus.

Not worth the paper it's written on.

OzSpen: That is false. John is described as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (John 21:20).

That doesn't mean that that John wrote the Gospel. The Gospel of John is recognised as being three different people. Likely to have bee written between 90 & 120 AD.

OzSpen: Your claim of no Gospel written before AD 100 is challenged. Dr Paul Barnett is a visiting fellow in ancient history at Macquarie University, Sydney. His research indicates that:

** The infamous John A T Robinson of 'Honest to God' fame has published some magnificent research on 'Redating the New Testament'.

His research favours the narrative he wishes to teach. It doesn't mean that he's right. I suppose he says that Constantine Converted to Christianity long before he died. Which is BS. He was forcibly converted an hour before he died.

It was John of Patmos who wrote Revelations from an earlier Zoastrian story from Persia. Not John the Disciple.

Yep that's easy enough to do. Actually I've put the Post on hers many times before.

Early Christian Churches set up by the Disciples:

Manacurism
Montanism.
Marcionism
Arianism.
Docetism.
Trinitarianism.
Nestorianism.
Syriac
Donatists
& a few others.

After the 1st Nicene Council the Pauline Bishops issued a Law that all the bishops must abide by the new Rules those that didn't were killed. In fact they behaved just like the old Roman Emperors.

JayB,

<<His [J A T Robinson] research favours the narrative he wishes to teach. It doesn't mean that he's right.>>

False again. That would make him a dishonest researcher. NO peer-reviewed book would be accepted on your basis.

He pursued his research with an historical method that could be tested to verify or falsify the hypothesis.

By the way, your response to Robinson is exactly what you have done in your response to my post - you have given us the narrative you wish to post on OO. It doesn't mean you are correct.

<<It was John of Patmos who wrote Revelations from an earlier Zoastrian (sic) story from Persia. Not John the Disciple.>>

Wrong again. By the way, John wrote 'the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him' (1:1), not 'Revelations'.

As for reinventing a Zoroastrian story, that's your view and of those you follow. John stated exactly to whom he wrote: 'John to the seven churches that are in Asia' (1:4). It was NOT a regurgitated Zoroastrian story at all.

As for my PhD in NT, you wrote: <<Not worth the paper it's written on>>. Mate, it was a 480pp research dissertation. Do you denigrate my 5 years of research because my theological conclusions on OO do not agree with your ideology?

There are too many errors of fact and the need for challenge of your presuppositions in your last post to engage with you further on this post and topic.

OzSpen,

Just a question.

Have you read the book - "Jesus The Man," by Barbara Thiering?

Barbara Thiering claims that the Gospels were written
deliberately in a form containing two levels of meaning: the
surface level provides a simplified and often symbolic
description designed to satisfy those who needed the supernatural
as an element of their faith; and the second level, concealed
within, depicts the actual events and their real significance.

The surface stories and parables of the New Testament provide
one account - yet the real history of the life of Jesus is to be
found beneath.

Barbara Thiering developed her interest in religion with a
masters degree in theology, followed by a PhD in 1973. She began
teaching at the University of Sydney in 1967. Joining the
School of Divinity in 1976, and lectured in Old Testament,
and Hebrew Theology. Her studies led to the Dead Sea Scrolls and
a 20 year research project which has produced remarkable
findings. She has been a Member of the University of Sydney Board
of Studies in Divinity, 1973 to 1991.

Foxy,

<<Have you read the book - "Jesus The Man," by Barbara Thiering?>>

<<Barbara Thiering claims that the Gospels were written
deliberately in a form containing two levels of meaning: the
surface level provides a simplified and often symbolic
description designed to satisfy those who needed the supernatural
as an element of their faith; and the second level, concealed>>

Of course I've read Barbara Thiering.

Her world and life view included:

<<Dr Thiering has this one bad. To claim, as she did, that much of Christianity is false and misguided (including belief in the resurrection and divinity of Christ) and yet still call herself a ‘Christian’, shows the disease in an advanced stage. No longer able (or willing) to believe in a divine, resurrected Jesus, she is obliged to come up with an alternative explanation.>> (Tony Payne: <http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/1990/05/the-riddle-of-barbara-thiering/>)

Thiering adopted the "pesher" technique (pronounced "paysher") in which she claimed it was possible to uncover the hidden meaning of the Gospels,

This was an invention by Thiering to allow her to impose her own meaning on the text. It is similar to what postmodern deconstructionists do today. They do not consider the intent of the original author to direct the meaning of the text. Try applying a "pesher" method to Captain Cook's journals or the next rates' notice you get from your local council.

OzSpen,

While I appreciate your giving me the link from Tony Payne's
"Matthias Media," an Evangelical Christian Publisher. I find
that the critique of Barbara Thiering's book is
hardly an objective one.

I believe that the views of innovative thinkers add value to
every society. Only by questioning traditional beliefs can those
beliefs be either reaffirmed or modified. That the connections
between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospels have been either
downplayed or totally rejected by some people does nothing to
invalidate Thiering's reasoning. Of course there is no doubt
that some will find difficulty in accepting her reasoning,
despite its meticulous documentation, because what is being
examined is a matter of faith as much as scholarly hypothesis.
But to many, who have read the book, Jesus emerges from her
investigations as greater than he appeared before.

Anyway, I am sure that in the future young researchers, if they
are not biased by religious faith will study her work. Whatever
religious conclusions are reached by individuals, what will
remain unimpeachable is the quality of Thiering's scholarship.
With the background of her research presented in fine detail,
her hypothesis deserves the serious attention of all those
interested in a concept fundamental to western civilisation,
the origins of Christianity.