It is currently Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:28 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:59 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
While researching for the hard-copy edition of my book Who Was Jesus? I turned again to the great work by Charles Waite, History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred.

In his History, Waite makes some very interesting statements regarding the appearance of the gospels in the historical record. I've spent much time trying to track down the originals of these comments by Christian authorities that demonstrate a LATE second-century date for the gospels. I've been able to verify the quote by Epiphanius in the original Greek. I've discovered that Jerome's Preface to his Commentary on Matthew has been expunged in the online translations to omit the pertinent data. The others I have not found online.

The significance of these comments by these Christian authors is profound because it shows that fairly early Church fathers (in the case of Origen, Epiphanius and Jerome) were convinced that Luke used a variety of second century texts in the composition of his gospel. In the prologue of Luke's gospel, the evangelist writes that many had attempted to write the narrative (diegesis) of Christ's life and that he used their efforts in composing his own. The Church fathers, of course, were keen on discerning the texts Luke was referring to. Little did they know how explosive would be their commentaries, as they squarely set the composition of Luke's gospel to the last quarter of the second century! Do we have a "smoking gun" here?

Following are the testimonials, as given by Charles Waite. As I say, I have validated Epiphanius, finding it online in the original Greek. The others, I suspect, are accurate as well, and I further suspect that Jerome's very important commentary is not published in English for the very reason that it discloses too much that is uncomfortable for mainstream Christendom, which seeks against evidence and reason to place the composition of the gospels to as close to the purported events as is possible.

I am making this post here for a variety of reasons, not the least of which for some other poor soul like me who may spend hours or days spinning wheels trying to find these references online.

[Update: See the next page for a discussion of Origen's quote, which freethinkaluva was able to find! :shock: ]

Quote:
From Charles Waite, History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred, pp. 385-386:

It is an opinion quite generally entertained, that several gospels are referred to in Luke, which are known to have been written in the second century.

Origen considered that the gospel of the Egyptians and the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, (of the Hebrews) were among the number. [Homily in Luc. I.I.]

Jerome extends the list as follows:

"The evangelist Luke declares that there were many who wrote the gospels, when he says, 'forasmuch as many,' etc. (c. 1, v. 1), which being published by various authors, gave rise to several heresies. They were such as that according to the Egyptians, and Thomas, and Matthias, and Bartholomew, that of the Twelve Apostles, and Basilides, and Apelles, and others which it would be tedious to enumerate."--[Hieron, Praef. in Comm. in Matth.]

The Gospel of Basilides was written about A.D. 125, and that of Apelles, about 160. Of course, then, according to Jerome, Luke was after 160.

Epiphanius says, in expounding Luke, 1.1,

"Saying: 'Forasmuch as many have taken in hand,' by which he would intimate that there have been many undertakers of the like work. Among them, I suppose, were Cerinthus, Merinthus, and others." (See also Epi. Haer. 51. 7.)

Cerinthus flourished and wrote about A.D. 145, which Epiphanius thinks was before Luke.

Venerable Bede (A.D. 734) agrees with Jerome, that the Gospels of Basilides and Apelles were among those referred to in Luke. [Bede's Works, London, 1844, vol. 10, p. 273.]

Jones includes the Gospel of Marcion. [Jones, vol. 3, Vindication, p. 26]

All these writers, in thus dating the Gospel of Luke subsequent to those here named, impliedly renounce the theory of its apostolic origin.

The original Epiphanius quote I was able to track down to Migne's publication, which has a Latin translation next to it:

Quote:
Latin: Quoniam quidem multi conati sunt (u nonnullos, qui id conatic fuerant, indicaret, Cerinthum videlicet, Merinthum, et alios).

Greek: Epeidhper polloi epeceirhsan ina tinaV men epiceirhtaV deixh fhmi de touV peri Khrinqon, kai Mhrinqon, kai touV allouV

http://www.christianhospitality.org/tex ... 3-0972.pdf
(The link will not work for some reason, so you will need to cut and paste the URL.)

The Latin was a bit illegible in the scanned PDF file, so some of the letters are off. I confess I am not as proficient in Latin as I am in Greek. Unfortunately, I do not see a feature in the phpBB that allows for Greek font. Nevertheless, Waite's translation of this passage is accurate. Hence, in Epiphanius we have a fourth century Church father opining that one of the "many" whose texts Luke used was the Gnostic "heretic" Cerinthus, who is typically dated to the middle of the second century. Sleazy apologists - who will remain unnamed - will no doubt assert an earlier date for Cerinthus in order to maintain their slippery position.

Finding the Jerome passage in the original Latin has proved to be a challenge, as I do not have easy access to a decent library, and there seems to be nothing online. As can be seen from this edition of the Preface to Jerome's Commentary on Matthew at CCEL, the editor has seen fit to sanitize the very material in question:

Quote:
Jerome begins by distinguishing the Canonical from the Apocryphal Gospels, quoting the words of St. Luke, that many had taken in hand to write the life of Christ.

It appears that the "Jones" Waite discusses refers to Rev. Jeremiah Jones (1726).

In any event, we apparently have some fairly early commentary on Luke that places the composition of that gospel squarely at the end of the second century - and that assertion is precisely what I attempted to demonstrate in The Christ Conspiracy, using this important research of Waite's.

After the evidence is closely scrutinized (such as P52, Justin Martyr, etc.), the fact will remain that the canonical gospels do not appear concretely in the historical record until the end of the second century.

Here's another thread on this same topic in the Who Was Jesus section: The Gospel Dates: A 2nd Century Composition?

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:27 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
I should add that in The Christ Conspiracy, I have followed along the lines of this timeline, with Luke most definitely using Marcion's Gospel of the Lord as one of these source texts, as suggested also by Waite, Jones, et al.

The dates for the composition of the gospels given by Charles Waite are as follows:

Luke (170)
Mark (175)
John (178)
Matthew (180)

Without going into the detailed arguments made by Waite in his superior work, I have found no reason to disagree with these dates, as they are solidly based on the evidence as it stands even today.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: The Rylands Papyrus
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:29 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
There is a small scrap of papyrus that constitutes the only "concrete" archaeological evidence (as opposed to textual) that the canonical gospels as we have them existed prior to the second century.

In Who Was Jesus? I go into some detail concerning this scrap, the provenance of which nobody knows. Let us just say that it is certainly not concrete evidence at all.

In this regard, I have found an interesting rant called The Rylands Papyrus Fraud that I think merits sharing. I surely concur with this writer's assessment of the "NT academic hucksters!"

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: The Testimony of Papias
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:33 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Since the Church father Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, is one of the earliest sources apologists point to for an early date for the gospels, I thought I'd provide this little sneak preview of the pertinent section in the upcoming hard-copy edition of my book Who Was Jesus?

This is only a DRAFT of this section from my chapter "Jesus Outside of the Bible," so bear with me. Of course, the final will possess all the necessary footnotes. In that chapter there will be some very juicy data regarding the late dating of the gospel of Luke in particular - this particular info also may constitute a "smoking gun." Just a little appetite whetting...

Church Father Papias

Christian apologetics for the early gospel dates rely on the very slimmest of evidence, including a very late third-hand testimony of a late second-hand testimony that "Mark" had written a narrative, supposedly based on the experiences of Peter as related by the apostle himself. In the fourth century, Church historian Eusebius quoted Bishop Papias of Hierapolis (c. 70?-c. 155? AD/CE) as referring to the "presbyter John" and stating:

Quote:
This, too, the presbyter used to say. "Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord's sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of His followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter's. Peter used to adapt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord's sayings, so that Mark was quite justified in writing down some things just as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only - to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it.


Regarding the bishop of Hierapolis, the Catholic Encyclopedia says, "Of Papias's life nothing is known." In other words, we do not even know who this person is that Eusebius is allegedly quoting regarding these purported earlier texts. According to Eusebius - in disagreement with Irenaeus, who suggested Papias had known the apostle John - Papias had no direct acquaintance with any of the apostles:

Quote:
…Papias himself in the preface to his work makes it clear that he was never a hearer or eyewitness of the holy apostles, and tells us that he learnt the essentials of the faith from their former pupils.


The assumption that the "presbyter John" with whom Papias apparently had a relationship was the same as the apostle John is evidently incorrect. Papias himself remarked that he received his knowledge second-hand, even about the apostle John, when he stated:

Quote:
And whenever anyone came who had been a follower of the presbyters, I inquired into the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other disciple of the Lord, were still saying.


As the bishop indicates, he was in communication with none of the other apostles or direct disciples of the Lord. Indeed, even where Papias is discussing what the apostles said, for the most part he is merely passing along what he had heard from their former followers. What exactly is meant by "former pupils?" Such a statement implies that these individuals were either no longer followers or were deceased. If these individuals Papias is relying on were not even Christ's followers at that time, why should we trust their words? Many of Papias's remarks, according to Eusebius, involved miracles, such as the raising of the dead, which stretch the credulity. Are we supposed merely to take Papias's word on what else he was told by these "former followers?" Moreover, even Eusebius does not think highly of Papias, remarking, "For he seems to have been a man of very small intelligence, to judge from his books."

It should be noted moreover that Papias specifically states the evangelist Mark had not heard Jesus or been one of his followers; yet, numerous apologists have asserted that Mark was possibly one of the 70/72 disciples of Jesus when he was alive and on Earth.

Regarding Papias's discussion of the "Gospel of Matthew," a purported collection of Jesus's sayings in "Hebrew" or, rather, Aramaic, Tenney remarks:

Quote:
The testimony of Papias has been frequently rejected, since no trace of an Aramaic original has survived and the language of the Gospel bears no marks of being a Greek translation.


Nevertheless, Papias's remarks about a book of sayings in Aramaic by Matthew may well refer to a text extant in his time, which was used by the evangelists. Indeed, in some early Christian texts, there appear sayings that parallel those found in the gospels, but, again, these isolated logia could easily be from earlier source texts used by the evangelists as well. In "The Use of the Logia of Matthew in the Gospel of Mark," Charles A. Briggs states:

Quote:
The Logia of the apostle Matthew, written in the Hebrew language, according to the testimony of Papias, in the citation of Eusebius, was one of the most important sources of the Gospels. Certainly a considerable portion of the Sayings of Jesus given in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke came from this source. It is still in dispute, however, whether the Logia of Matthew was used by the Gospels of Mark and John.


Modern scholars have struck upon a sayings gospel called "Q" for the German term Quelle, meaning "source." In New Testament Documents, Christian scholar F.F. Bruce naturally posits that Q is in fact based on the Matthaean logia, or sayings found in the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew. It would be reasonable to suggest that such a text or texts were used by both the evangelists and early Christian writers; thus, the existence of sayings in early Christian texts that parallel those found in the canonical gospels does not prove the existence of the latter at the time the former were composed.

Despite all these factors, Papias is one of the only pieces of evidence Christian apologetics can offer as to the dating of the gospels - but his testimony concerning these writings coming from Mark and Matthew is not only second-hand but also too late to possess any value as concerns the earliest of the gospels dates. Moreover, Papias only speaks about a "narrative by Mark," which by no means conclusively refers to the canonical Mark as we have it.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:35 am 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:13 am
Posts: 2
Hi Acharya,
Thanks for your blog texts which I read through.
I have a query to make here. Assuming the Christian Jesus to have been a pastiche of many previous divine heroes and therefore not a physical historical person, then why are we not hearing more of the compositors of the scenario which was destined to become the religion we know. I refer here to the Piso family that other writers consider pivotal to the production of the New Testament. Once having assimilated the role of the Piso family we are no longer in Kansas picking over theology but in the realm of 'agenda politics' and a mega mind control operation, which dovetails with the 'Great Work of Ages' which has been dictating the 'Hidden Agenda' for millenia. This would take an interested researcher on to the establishment of Islam as a project of the Vatican. It would also dampen the tendency for the kettle to call the pot black when diatribing against the negative aspects of that religion which started 700 years later than the Christ production and may be seen to be going through similar horrors that Christianity is famed for having gone through, such as the Inquisition and a lot more in every part of Europe through several centuries.
Only asking for your feedback and not seeking in any way to be contentious, Peter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:18 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Hi Peter -

Thanks for the query. I've been aware of the Piso theory for many years, but I disagree almost entirely with it, except that such a wealthy and influential family may have had a hand in funding all sorts of movements, including a fledging Jewish one to create a fictitious messiah. I do not at all subscribe to the theory that Roman interests were best served to create a Jewish messiah who would then be considered the God of the cosmos, such that the Romans would bow down before him, overthrowing their own well-entrenched religious system, including the worship of the emperor, etc. This scenario is about as conceivable as the American senate creating a tale of miracles around a Mexican man, deeming him God and overthrowing their established religious institutions to worship him.

In The Christ Conspiracy and Suns of God, I do in fact go into greater detail as to how this fiction came about to dominate the Roman world: To wit, it was the concerted effort of a multinational cabal/brotherhood that was headquartered at Alexandria and Rome and had outposts at Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus and all the places where "Paul" traveled, as well as at Samothrace and so on.

As I say the Piso family involvement, if any, would be largely as funders of such a multinational effort that extended around the Mediterranean and beyond.

If you are interested in further information on the ancient brotherhoods, I highly recommend the chapter in my book Suns of God called "The Mysterious Brotherhood."

shinypeter3 wrote:
Hi Acharya,
Thanks for your blog texts which I read through.
I have a query to make here. Assuming the Christian Jesus to have been a pastiche of many previous divine heroes and therefore not a physical historical person, then why are we not hearing more of the compositors of the scenario which was destined to become the religion we know. I refer here to the Piso family that other writers consider pivotal to the production of the New Testament. Once having assimilated the role of the Piso family we are no longer in Kansas picking over theology but in the realm of 'agenda politics' and a mega mind control operation, which dovetails with the 'Great Work of Ages' which has been dictating the 'Hidden Agenda' for millenia. This would take an interested researcher on to the establishment of Islam as a project of the Vatican. It would also dampen the tendency for the kettle to call the pot black when diatribing against the negative aspects of that religion which started 700 years later than the Christ production and may be seen to be going through similar horrors that Christianity is famed for having gone through, such as the Inquisition and a lot more in every part of Europe through several centuries.
Only asking for your feedback and not seeking in any way to be contentious, Peter.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:29 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:07 pm
Posts: 1
Hello Acharya! I thank you for being so willing to explain your research to the general public!

Speaking of Paul...

What is a reliable date for the original letters of Paul? I'm having trouble locating a date that is also accompanied by a coherent supporting argument.

I ask because in a recent debate someone has claimed that the letters of Paul can be dated as early as 50AD and no later than 70AD. This is obviously wrong, and I am wondering, what's the best argument for their first appearance in the literary and archaeological record?

Peace

Drac


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:58 pm 
Offline
Persephone

Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:26 pm
Posts: 340
Yes Peter is a Freemason code word it would seem ... and Mark? hmmm.
Maybe you've discovered? I'll review Suns of God... Matthew is from Egyptian.... and so we have our Canon. Wow. thanks for the amazing detective work on Papias.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:05 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
I appreciate the kudos and question. A complicated issue, to say the least. I would need a volume to explore the origins and dates of the so-called Pauline epistles.

My impression after years of research is that Paul is likely a composite character made up of both mythical and historical figures, including Orpheus, the Sauls of the OT and Josephus, and Apollonius of Tyana. I am wondering whether or not the "genuine" Pauline epistles, which Marcion found at Antioch and put into his New Testament - the first NT, by the way - were not originally letters of Apollonius. These stubs were then edited and interpolated by Marcion and others.

I would have to do a serious study as to when exactly what parts of these letters show up in the literary/historical record, i.e., in which of the Church fathers' writings they first appear. And so on. Needless to say, I am very skeptical as to the story as we have received it. Obviously, I concur with the assessment that the Pastorals and Hebrews were not written by "Paul," as I likewise suggest that the others weren't either, but at least by someone possibly nicknamed "Pol" (Apollonius).

I have not entirely unraveled this mystery yet, but take a look at these comparisons of Apollonius, Jesus and Paul. See also the thread on this forum "Did St. Paul Exist?"

In the meantime, I suspect you will not get very far with the people you are debating, because it is obvious they are convinced the tale is true (e.g., as in Acts). They are working from the a priori assumption that the story is factual; hence, the dates are set for when they believe Paul lived.

I further suspect that there is no record of these epistles before the end of the first century and possibly later. In reality, we don't possess much Christian evidence before the alleged time Clement of Rome. The linked article from the Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, discusses Clement's purported knowledge of the Epistle to the Corinthians.

Perhaps a more detailed study (and, likely, a debunking of these early dates) will be forthcoming in the future...

draconem wrote:
Hello Acharya! I thank you for being so willing to explain your research to the general public!

Speaking of Paul...

What is a reliable date for the original letters of Paul? I'm having trouble locating a date that is also accompanied by a coherent supporting argument.

I ask because in a recent debate someone has claimed that the letters of Paul can be dated as early as 50AD and no later than 70AD. This is obviously wrong, and I am wondering, what's the best argument for their first appearance in the literary and archaeological record?

Peace

Drac

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:19 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
You're welcome! I do so enjoy this work. You should hear me sitting here reading the Greek aloud...

You mean "Peter" as in ROCK, as in the substance masons build with? Or "Peter" as in "cock?" Interesting that Mithras was also the "rock-born," with the epithet "Peter" in Greek.

"Mark," well, that's also the most popular name of the Roman Empire, so that's a toughie.

Massey thought "Matthew" could be traceable to the Egyptian "Matiu." Verifying such an assertion would require some further research. My impression is that the gospel is highly "Indianized," using Indian source texts. Independent research by Dr. Lindtner and others tends to confirm this assessment. John, on the other hand, is clearly Egyptian, with patent Egyptian mythology that is not found in the other gospels. E.g., the raising of "Lazarus/Eleazar" - an important pericope bizarrely omitted from the synoptics - certainly corresponds to the resurrection of OSIRIS, or "El-Ausar," "El-Azarus," etc. And so on... A fascinating study in itself. Oh yes, the side-wounding, also found ONLY in John, has its equivalent in the myth of Odin, for one.

drew hempel wrote:
Yes Peter is a Freemason code word it would seem ... and Mark? hmmm.
Maybe you've discovered? I'll review Suns of God... Matthew is from Egyptian.... and so we have our Canon. Wow. thanks for the amazing detective work on Papias.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:18 am 
Offline
Apollo
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:02 am
Posts: 353
Location: Bharathavarsham
Acharya wrote:
Massey thought "Matthew" could be traceable to the Egyptian "Matiu." Verifying such an assertion would require some further research. My impression is that the gospel is highly "Indianized," using Indian source texts. Independent research by Dr. Lindtner and others tends to confirm this assessment. John, on the other hand, is clearly Egyptian, with patent Egyptian mythology that is not found in the other gospels.


Maybe you can consider the possibility that the name Mathew itself is the Sanskrit Madhava. Madhava would mean a descendant of Madhu, an ancestor of Krishna, who purportedly migrated and conquered areas south and west of present day Pakistani-Punjab .

(Sanskrit words ending with the 'va' sound normally tend to become 'ew' in western languages. e.g. Deva > Deus, Nava > New etc)

_________________
Janani Janmabhoomishcha Swargadapi Gareeyasi - Being near to your mother in your motherland is better than being in paradise

Ekavarnam yatha dugdham binnavarnasu dhenushu | tataiva dharmavaichitryam tatvam ekam param smritam ||
Just as milk is of only one colour though obtained from cows of different colours so also the peculiarities of different religious thoughts lead to the same one ultimate truth - Mahabharatha


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Matthew is Indian?
PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:47 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Well hi there, Balu! How nice to see you here.

Needless to say, you have provided fascinating data worthy of follow up. It has long been my conviction that the gospel of Matthew used Indian texts and stories, especially since it contains the Herodian slaughter of the infant. Matthew's gospel has a decidedly Indian flavor. If these late dates are correct, and I have no reason to believe they are not, Matthew would be the latest of the gospels and could easily have been cobbled together based on either the other synoptics or common source texts, plus Indian material.

Massey tended to dismiss the Indian influence on the Christian religion, saying there was no need to "crane one's neck" to look that far and emphasizing the Egyptian role. However, I do not believe at all that we can ignore what seem to me to be stories about Krishna in Matthew's gospel in particular and in other non-canonical texts such as the Gospel of the Infancy of Thomas. In The Christ Conspiracy and Suns of God, I have provided some evidence of an Indian presence and influence in the Roman Empire of certain significance. You have given me another important piece of the puzzle - the pieces have been sliding into place VERY beautifully. (When I was in nursery school, I was the "puzzle doer," as the teachers used to give me all the puzzles to put together at the end of the day. A very elderly teacher of mine reminded me of this fact at my mother's funeral... :D )

Since Biblethumpers love to translate the Bible into every language known to mankind, it would not surprise me if there were a Sanskrit rendition - what is the name of Matthew therein? Surely there are Hindi and Punjabi translations, how is Matthew render in those? What about Pali?

Of course, the word in the Greek "Textus Receptus" (the basis of the King James version) is "Matthaios," not "Matthew," but that begs the questions as to how it became "Matthew" in English and so on. According to Strong's "Matthaios" means "gift of Jehovah," which is in reality "gift of God," what does "Madhava" mean?

balu wrote:
Acharya wrote:
Massey thought "Matthew" could be traceable to the Egyptian "Matiu." Verifying such an assertion would require some further research. My impression is that the gospel is highly "Indianized," using Indian source texts. Independent research by Dr. Lindtner and others tends to confirm this assessment. John, on the other hand, is clearly Egyptian, with patent Egyptian mythology that is not found in the other gospels.


Maybe you can consider the possibility that the name Mathew itself is the Sanskrit Madhava. Madhava would mean a descendant of Madhu, an ancestor of Krishna, who purportedly migrated and conquered areas south and west of present day Pakistani-Punjab .

(Sanskrit words ending with the 'va' sound normally tend to become 'ew' in western languages. e.g. Deva > Deus, Nava > New etc)

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:29 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Here's what Burton Wolfe had to say...

Quote:
"Acharya has information leading her to believe the New Testament is from the late 2nd Century

Why this issue is so critically important

In a recent newsletter Acharya S, author of The Christ Conspiracy:The Greatest Story Ever Sold, states that there are sufficient indications in ancient literature to conclude that the New Testament scriptures were not written until late in the Second Century. Her newsletter posting follows publication of my e-book The Case Against 'Jesus' containing a section challenging "Christian" claims that there is part of the Gospel According to John dated circa 125 A.D., which in turn followed British biblical scholar G. A. Wells's evidence that the scriptures could not have been written until nearly the end of the First Century.

If I insult the intelligence of any of you who realize how important this issue is, please forgive me, but I have to point out why it is so critical to "Christian" belief because so few persons understand it.

For around 1700 years "Christians" have been claiming that the New Testament scriptures provide eyewitness testimony to the existence of "Jesus" via writings attributed to men bearing the preposterously Anglicized names Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and Saul/Paul. Outside of the fact that scriptures cannot be used to support that contention because scriptures do not comprise historical fact, there is the problem of maintaining such a stance if the scriptures were not written well into the Second Century, since "Jesus" and the "apostles" would all have been long dead by then and thus the alleged "testifiants" could not be writing about events they saw and could not be quoting the words of "Jesus" alleged in the New Testament to be direct quotations from "him."

Acharya may be onto something vitally important, and if she turns out to be correct, then maybe I should have stated bluntly in my book that the purported 125 A.D. evidence is just another in a 1700-year-long string of "Christian" fraud. The purported "evidence" consists of three words penned on Papyrus that are supposed to be from The Gospel According to John and that are dated circa 125 A.D. There is grossly insufficient evidence that 125 A.D. is a credible date for the three words, and in any event there is no conceivable way to prove that a mere three untitled words come from The Gospel According to John.

Consequently, the entire case of whether or not "Jesus" actually existed rests on circumstantial evidence, not eyewitness testimony; and that is just as well because, for reasons I have explained in my book, circumstantial evidence is more reliable than eyewitness testimony unless the evidence is fabricated. In my book I support my circumstantial evidence by means that are irrefutable, while I demolish as entirely fraudulent the purported circumstantial evidence alleged by hundreds if not thousands of "Christian" quacks over the centuries."

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 7:24 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:16 am
Posts: 7
I tried to send 2 replys but used a bad word. I can't imagine what it is.
Did you get them? Sorry for the problems. This is definitely not my bag.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:33 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Good golly, Paul, I'm sorry that happened. Because of spamming, we've set up a list of words that seem to catch only some people's posts but not others. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find a volunteer who knows phpBB well enough to fix all the difficulties. :cry:
Paul Donohue wrote:
I tried to send 2 replys but used a bad word. I can't imagine what it is.
Did you get them? Sorry for the problems. This is definitely not my bag.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests


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:  
Truth Be Known | Stellar House Publishing
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Live Support