Historical Jesus

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Historical Jesus

#38761  Postby proudfootz » Apr 28, 2015 9:41 pm

RealityRules wrote:
Stein wrote:
So you can't give any example of a non-apologetical referencing Jesus the rabbi as mere fiction. Surprise -- not!

O.K., next: Can anyone else here provide a contemporary non-apologetical that avers Jesus the rabbi to be pure myth in contrast to Antiqs. 20 and Annals 15?

Stein

The ol' argument from ignorance / argument-from-silence-of-silenced-2nd-century-'heretics irrational argument.

Jeezus, opposing works wouldn't have been destroyed, eh Stein?

Those good christians would have looked after everrry0ne, huh? No crucifying heretics, huh?


You notice these non-historians dishonestly tip-toe away from early christian apologists admitting their stories are the same as the pagan myths?

Everyone in the 2nd century knew that the Jesus stories were the same old shit rebranded - it takes modern bullshitters to deny what was obvious to pagan and christian alike when these stories began circulating.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11041

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#38762  Postby MS2 » Apr 28, 2015 9:49 pm

Oldskeptic wrote:
dejuror wrote:

Jesus called the Christ in Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was ALIVE in the time of Albinus.


Are you ever going to get tired of telling this lie?

dejuror wrote:

Tacitus' Annals with Christus is a forgery fabricated AFTER the writing of "Church History" or no earlier than the end of the 4th century.


This is how to do a Christian forgery:

Josephus 18:3.3:

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.


Not:

Tacitus 15:44

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.


We have and know about Christian forgeries, they are, in part, how authentic passages can be determined. Christian forgeries are favorable towards Jesus, authentic passages are negative, neutral passages are judged by their context within the whole passage.

No no. The Christian forgeries are those texts that could be said in any way to support HJ. If they look like a Christian wouldn't have produced them, that's just because the Christian who produced them was particularly clever and sophisticated, as well as being especially two-faced. On the other hand, those texts which support the miraculous Jesus, they were produced by the particularly stupid, credulous Christians. About the latter, don't worry yourself that the Myth Jesus folk tell us the gospel writers were highly sophisticated writers, deliberately producing fiction, in order apparently to deliberately historicise a figure they knew to be mythical. Whatever you do, don't worry yourself if these positions are irreconcilable!
Mark
MS2
 
Posts: 1647
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#38763  Postby proudfootz » Apr 28, 2015 9:50 pm

Free wrote:
dejuror wrote:
Free wrote:

I am still bending over in laughter at how poor the myther arguments actually are. For example, when dejuror attempted to argue that the Josephus text of "Jesus, who was called Christ" in Antiquities of the Jews actually referred to Jesus, son of Damneus, he was absolutely clueless that he was claiming that Jesus, son of Damneus, was Jesus Christ; claiming that Jesus Christ existed.


You are not familiar with the meaning of the word "Christ". We are laughing at your folly. You have very little knowledge of the word Greek word meaning "Anointed" and very little understanding of Jewish tradition.

You don't even know that MANY persons were called CHRIST [Anointed] by JEWS long before the Myth fables called Gospels were composed.

You don't even know that Jewish Kings and High Priest were called Christ [Anointed] AFTER they were PHYSICALLY ANOINTED with OIL in Jewish tradition.

Church History 1.3. 7.
And not only those who were honored with the high priesthood, and who for the sake of the symbol were anointed with especially prepared oil, were adorned with the name of Christ among the Hebrews, but also the kings whom the prophets anointed under the influence of the divine Spirit, and thus constituted, as it were, typical Christs.


Examine the Chronicon Paschal-- Jewish Anointed Leaders were called CHRIST.

Until Jannaeus, who was also called Alexander, there were annointed leaders; but with him the succession of high priests who led the nation came to an end. They were called Christs by the prophets.


There were at least three persons called Jesus the CHRIST who were ANOINTED as High Priest in Jewish history.

Your son of a Rapist would NOT be called the Christ by Jews.

Your Jesus was NOT the Christ so you are really wasting time.

Your HJ is Fiction.


But ... you believe that Jesus, son of Damneus, was Jesus Christ, right?

I mean, when Josephus says "James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ," and you then say THAT Jesus is actually referring to Jesus, son of Damneus, then you are saying that Jesus, son of Damneus, is Jesus Christ.

So now you must admit that Jesus Christ existed.

Is there room in your mouth for your other foot, myther?


So now your argument that the son of Damneus is the guy the gospel myths are based on?

:lol: :drunk: :happydance: :maraca: :banana: :rofl: :party: :lol: :drunk: :happydance: :maraca: :banana: :rofl: :party: :lol: :drunk: :happydance: :maraca: :banana: :rofl: :party: :lol: :drunk: :happydance: :maraca: :banana: :rofl: :party: :lol: :drunk: :happydance: :maraca: :banana: :rofl: :party:

You just inserted the whole clowncar of the bible scholar consensus in your mouth.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11041

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#38764  Postby Free » Apr 28, 2015 9:55 pm

RealityRules wrote:
dejuror wrote:
Free wrote:I am still bending over in laughter at how poor the myther arguments actually are. For example, when dejuror attempted to argue that the Josephus text of "Jesus, who was called Christ" in Antiquities of the Jews actually referred to Jesus, son of Damneus, he was absolutely clueless that he was claiming that Jesus, son of Damneus, was Jesus Christ; claiming that Jesus Christ existed.

You are not familiar with the meaning of the word "Christ". We are laughing at your folly. You have very little knowledge of the word Greek word meaning "Anointed" and very little understanding of Jewish tradition.

You don't even know that MANY persons were called CHRIST [Anointed] by JEWS long before the Myth fables called Gospels were composed.

You don't even know that Jewish Kings and High Priest were called Christ [Anointed] AFTER they were PHYSICALLY ANOINTED with OIL in Jewish tradition.

Church History 1.3. 7.
And not only those who were honored with the high priesthood, and who for the sake of the symbol were anointed with especially prepared oil, were adorned with the name of Christ among the Hebrews, but also the kings whom the prophets anointed under the influence of the divine Spirit, and thus constituted, as it were, typical Christs.


Examine the Chronicon Paschal-- Jewish Anointed Leaders were called CHRIST.

Until Jannaeus, who was also called Alexander, there were annointed leaders; but with him the succession of high priests who led the nation came to an end. They were called Christs by the prophets.


There were at least three persons called Jesus the CHRIST who were ANOINTED as High Priest in Jewish history.

Your son of a Rapist would NOT be called the Christ by Jews.

Your Jesus was NOT the Christ so you are really wasting time.

Your HJ is Fiction.
Free wrote:But ... you believe that Jesus, son of Damneus, was Jesus Christ, right?

I mean, when Josephus says "James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ," and you then say THAT Jesus is actually referring to Jesus, son of Damneus, then you are saying that Jesus, son of Damneus, is Jesus Christ.

So now you must admit that Jesus Christ existed.

Is there room in your mouth for your other foot, myther?

Utter misrepresentation, Free-with-nonsense.

That fact that some think "the Antiquities 20 ref to Christ is a reference to a High Priest called Jesus in the same passage" does not mean they think that other Jesus (Jesus ben Damneus) was Jesus the Christ of Nazareth.

You have been told numerous times christ was used as a term for priest.

Moreover, it seems you are trying to aver that Jesus ben Damneus is Jesus the Christ; so it is up to you to further that case.


If Christ was indeed used as a term applicable to a high priest, as you assert, then please find me one example of one person not named Jesus who was explicitly entitled as "Christ.

Examples:

Annus Christ
James Christ
Simon Christ

To prove your point you must supply this evidence, or you do not have a point whatsoever and therefore your assertions are unproven, unsupported, and utterly stupid.

Show me the money, myther!!!

:dance:

And oh yeah ... the myther camp now totally endorses that Jesus, son of Damneus was Jesus Christ. Comedy Gold!!

:clap: :clap: :clap:
Free
 
Posts: 438

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#38765  Postby Free » Apr 28, 2015 9:56 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Free wrote:
dejuror wrote:
Free wrote:

I am still bending over in laughter at how poor the myther arguments actually are. For example, when dejuror attempted to argue that the Josephus text of "Jesus, who was called Christ" in Antiquities of the Jews actually referred to Jesus, son of Damneus, he was absolutely clueless that he was claiming that Jesus, son of Damneus, was Jesus Christ; claiming that Jesus Christ existed.


You are not familiar with the meaning of the word "Christ". We are laughing at your folly. You have very little knowledge of the word Greek word meaning "Anointed" and very little understanding of Jewish tradition.

You don't even know that MANY persons were called CHRIST [Anointed] by JEWS long before the Myth fables called Gospels were composed.

You don't even know that Jewish Kings and High Priest were called Christ [Anointed] AFTER they were PHYSICALLY ANOINTED with OIL in Jewish tradition.

Church History 1.3. 7.
And not only those who were honored with the high priesthood, and who for the sake of the symbol were anointed with especially prepared oil, were adorned with the name of Christ among the Hebrews, but also the kings whom the prophets anointed under the influence of the divine Spirit, and thus constituted, as it were, typical Christs.


Examine the Chronicon Paschal-- Jewish Anointed Leaders were called CHRIST.

Until Jannaeus, who was also called Alexander, there were annointed leaders; but with him the succession of high priests who led the nation came to an end. They were called Christs by the prophets.


There were at least three persons called Jesus the CHRIST who were ANOINTED as High Priest in Jewish history.

Your son of a Rapist would NOT be called the Christ by Jews.

Your Jesus was NOT the Christ so you are really wasting time.

Your HJ is Fiction.


But ... you believe that Jesus, son of Damneus, was Jesus Christ, right?

I mean, when Josephus says "James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ," and you then say THAT Jesus is actually referring to Jesus, son of Damneus, then you are saying that Jesus, son of Damneus, is Jesus Christ.

So now you must admit that Jesus Christ existed.

Is there room in your mouth for your other foot, myther?


So now your argument that the son of Damneus is the guy the gospel myths are based on?


It's not my argument.

The myther position now wholeheartedly endorses that Jesus, son of Damneus, was Jesus Christ.

:crazy: :lol: :crazy: :lol:
Free
 
Posts: 438

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#38766  Postby proudfootz » Apr 28, 2015 9:59 pm

Free wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Free wrote:
dejuror wrote:

You are not familiar with the meaning of the word "Christ". We are laughing at your folly. You have very little knowledge of the word Greek word meaning "Anointed" and very little understanding of Jewish tradition.

You don't even know that MANY persons were called CHRIST [Anointed] by JEWS long before the Myth fables called Gospels were composed.

You don't even know that Jewish Kings and High Priest were called Christ [Anointed] AFTER they were PHYSICALLY ANOINTED with OIL in Jewish tradition.

Church History 1.3. 7.

Examine the Chronicon Paschal-- Jewish Anointed Leaders were called CHRIST.



There were at least three persons called Jesus the CHRIST who were ANOINTED as High Priest in Jewish history.

Your son of a Rapist would NOT be called the Christ by Jews.

Your Jesus was NOT the Christ so you are really wasting time.

Your HJ is Fiction.


But ... you believe that Jesus, son of Damneus, was Jesus Christ, right?

I mean, when Josephus says "James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ," and you then say THAT Jesus is actually referring to Jesus, son of Damneus, then you are saying that Jesus, son of Damneus, is Jesus Christ.

So now you must admit that Jesus Christ existed.

Is there room in your mouth for your other foot, myther?


So now your argument that the son of Damneus is the guy the gospel myths are based on?


It's not my argument.

The myther position now wholeheartedly endorses that Jesus, son of Damneus, was Jesus Christ.

:crazy: :lol: :crazy: :lol:


Only in your imagination. :crazy:

You keep getting into fights with these strawmwn you make up - and you're having a hard time beating them, too!

:popcorn:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11041

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#38767  Postby RealityRules » Apr 28, 2015 10:09 pm

Free wrote:
If Christ was indeed used as a term applicable to a high priest, as you assert, then please find me one example of one person not named Jesus who was explicitly entitled as "Christ.

Examples:

Annus Christ
James Christ
Simon Christ

To prove your point you must supply this evidence, or you do not have a point whatsoever and therefore your assertions are unproven, unsupported, and utterly stupid.

Show me the money, myther!!!

:dance:

And oh yeah ... the myther camp now totally endorses that Jesus, son of Damneus was Jesus Christ. Comedy Gold!!

:clap: :clap: :clap:

You have issues, don't you? cognition .... etc
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2998

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#38768  Postby proudfootz » Apr 28, 2015 10:22 pm

MS2 wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:
dejuror wrote:

Jesus called the Christ in Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was ALIVE in the time of Albinus.


Are you ever going to get tired of telling this lie?

dejuror wrote:

Tacitus' Annals with Christus is a forgery fabricated AFTER the writing of "Church History" or no earlier than the end of the 4th century.


This is how to do a Christian forgery:

Josephus 18:3.3:

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.


Not:

Tacitus 15:44

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.


We have and know about Christian forgeries, they are, in part, how authentic passages can be determined. Christian forgeries are favorable towards Jesus, authentic passages are negative, neutral passages are judged by their context within the whole passage.

No no. The Christian forgeries are those texts that could be said in any way to support HJ. If they look like a Christian wouldn't have produced them, that's just because the Christian who produced them was particularly clever and sophisticated, as well as being especially two-faced. On the other hand, those texts which support the miraculous Jesus, they were produced by the particularly stupid, credulous Christians. About the latter, don't worry yourself that the Myth Jesus folk tell us the gospel writers were highly sophisticated writers, deliberately producing fiction, in order apparently to deliberately historicise a figure they knew to be mythical. Whatever you do, don't worry yourself if these positions are irreconcilable!


It's a pity you weren't reading this thread when these issues were thoroughly discussed earlier. :coffee:

Here, for example, are some reasons why a skeptical person might treat the Tacitus passage with caution before leaping uncritically onto the 'Jesus must be real' bandwagon...

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p1081922

While you might not agree with these arguments, they are considerably more subtle than your strawman version of skeptical arguments.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11041

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#38769  Postby Free » Apr 28, 2015 10:52 pm

RealityRules wrote:
Free wrote:
If Christ was indeed used as a term applicable to a high priest, as you assert, then please find me one example of one person not named Jesus who was explicitly entitled as "Christ.

Examples:

Annus Christ
James Christ
Simon Christ

To prove your point you must supply this evidence, or you do not have a point whatsoever and therefore your assertions are unproven, unsupported, and utterly stupid.

Show me the money, myther!!!

:dance:

And oh yeah ... the myther camp now totally endorses that Jesus, son of Damneus was Jesus Christ. Comedy Gold!!

:clap: :clap: :clap:

You have issues, don't you? cognition .... etc


Well now, just answer this one question:

Do you really believe that the text in Josephus regarding, "Jesus, who was called Christ" refers to Jesus, son of Damneus?

Simple question. Yes or no?
Free
 
Posts: 438

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#38770  Postby Free » Apr 28, 2015 10:56 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Free wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Free wrote:

But ... you believe that Jesus, son of Damneus, was Jesus Christ, right?

I mean, when Josephus says "James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ," and you then say THAT Jesus is actually referring to Jesus, son of Damneus, then you are saying that Jesus, son of Damneus, is Jesus Christ.

So now you must admit that Jesus Christ existed.

Is there room in your mouth for your other foot, myther?


So now your argument that the son of Damneus is the guy the gospel myths are based on?


It's not my argument.

The myther position now wholeheartedly endorses that Jesus, son of Damneus, was Jesus Christ.

:crazy: :lol: :crazy: :lol:


Only in your imagination. :crazy:

You keep getting into fights with these strawmwn you make up - and you're having a hard time beating them, too!

:popcorn:


How is it a strawman when mythers on this forum have stated ad nausium that the text in Antiquities of the Jews which says "Jesus, who was called Christ," refers to Jesus, son of Damneus?

Explain your reasoning, if you are capable of reasoning well enough to explain your reasoning.

:lol:
Free
 
Posts: 438

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#38771  Postby proudfootz » Apr 28, 2015 11:21 pm

Free wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Free wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

So now your argument that the son of Damneus is the guy the gospel myths are based on?


It's not my argument.

The myther position now wholeheartedly endorses that Jesus, son of Damneus, was Jesus Christ.

:crazy: :lol: :crazy: :lol:


Only in your imagination. :crazy:

You keep getting into fights with these strawmwn you make up - and you're having a hard time beating them, too!

:popcorn:


How is it a strawman when mythers on this forum have stated ad nausium that the text in Antiquities of the Jews which says "Jesus, who was called Christ," refers to Jesus, son of Damneus?

Explain your reasoning, if you are capable of reasoning well enough to explain your reasoning.

:lol:


Perfectly capable of reasoning, sadly some of my interlocutors have trouble translating into whatever their mode of thought is.

There is no one 'myther' position on the Josephus mentions, any more than there is any one 'real Jesus' position on them.

Anyone who's studied the topic would be aware of that.

Which prompts the question - how is it you are unaware of the multiple hypotheses regarding Josephus among adherents to both camps?

:scratch:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11041

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#38772  Postby MS2 » Apr 28, 2015 11:22 pm

proudfootz wrote:
MS2 wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:
dejuror wrote:

Jesus called the Christ in Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was ALIVE in the time of Albinus.


Are you ever going to get tired of telling this lie?

dejuror wrote:

Tacitus' Annals with Christus is a forgery fabricated AFTER the writing of "Church History" or no earlier than the end of the 4th century.


This is how to do a Christian forgery:

Josephus 18:3.3:

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.


Not:

Tacitus 15:44

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.


We have and know about Christian forgeries, they are, in part, how authentic passages can be determined. Christian forgeries are favorable towards Jesus, authentic passages are negative, neutral passages are judged by their context within the whole passage.

No no. The Christian forgeries are those texts that could be said in any way to support HJ. If they look like a Christian wouldn't have produced them, that's just because the Christian who produced them was particularly clever and sophisticated, as well as being especially two-faced. On the other hand, those texts which support the miraculous Jesus, they were produced by the particularly stupid, credulous Christians. About the latter, don't worry yourself that the Myth Jesus folk tell us the gospel writers were highly sophisticated writers, deliberately producing fiction, in order apparently to deliberately historicise a figure they knew to be mythical. Whatever you do, don't worry yourself if these positions are irreconcilable!


It's a pity you weren't reading this thread when these issues were thoroughly discussed earlier. :coffee:

Here, for example, are some reasons why a skeptical person might treat the Tacitus passage with caution before leaping uncritically onto the 'Jesus must be real' bandwagon...

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p1081922

While you might not agree with these arguments, they are considerably more subtle than your strawman version of skeptical arguments.

Actually I was reading the thread back then, and his arguments were as spun then as they are now. Nice of you to link to that post though, because it precisely illustrates my point. Not that I would have expected you to notice that.
Mark
MS2
 
Posts: 1647
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#38773  Postby RealityRules » Apr 28, 2015 11:22 pm

RealityRules wrote:
Free wrote:If Christ was indeed used as a term applicable to a high priest, as you assert, then please find me one example of one person not named Jesus who was explicitly entitled as "Christ.

Examples:
    Annus Christ
    James Christ
    Simon Christ
To prove your point you must supply this evidence, or you do not have a point whatsoever and therefore your assertions are unproven, unsupported, and utterly stupid.

Show me the money, myther!!!

And oh yeah ... the myther camp now totally endorses that Jesus, son of Damneus was Jesus Christ. Comedy Gold!!

You have issues, don't you? cognition .... etc
Free wrote:Well now, just answer this one question:

Do you really believe that the text in Josephus regarding, "Jesus, who was called Christ" refers to Jesus, son of Damneus?

Simple question. Yes or no?

Probably Not (one can usually or generally only ascribe probabilities to these ancient text and their contexts).

As you will be aware, Free, but probably won't honestly acknowledge; I have posted a reasonable amount on this thread about Antiquities 20, and other non-canonical texts.

It is a weird segment in a passage (ie. AJ 20.9.1) that is mostly about Ananus/Ananias, and Albinus (and a few others including, at the end, Jesus ben Damneus as the replacement for Ananus/Ananias).


It seems to be related to similar segments in passages in

    Origen's Commentary on Matthew 10.17
    Origen's Against Celsus 1.47
    Origen's Against Celsus 2.13
    Eusebiuss Ecclesiastical History 2.23.22.
"Scholars such as Steve Mason think that the reference derives from Origen misreading Josephus. It is possible to see how this has happened, especially under the influence of Christian traditions according to which the death of James was the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem ..... This suggestion is just that much stronger if it is accepted ... that the text attributed to Hegesippus, with the account of the fall of Jerusalem following the death of James, may have previously circulated under the name of Josephus." http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... #reference


I tend to think something happened around the writings of Origen, or shortly after (eg. under the administration of Pamphilus of Caesrarea or Eusebius).

St. Jerome (De Vir. Ill., lxxv) says that Pamphilus "transcribed the greater part of the works of Origen with his own hand", and that "these are still preserved in the library of Cæsarea." He himself was a possessor of "twenty-five volumes of commentaries of Origen", copied out by Pamphilus, which he looked upon as a most precious relic of the martyr.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11436b.htm
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2998

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#38774  Postby Oldskeptic » Apr 28, 2015 11:43 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Stein wrote:
IanS wrote:
Stein wrote:


No, it's completely relevant, because it would be evidence that Jesus was recognized as mythical at the time. It's both relevant and important because we already have Josephus and Tacitus testifying to individuals who personally knew Jesus the rabbi. So if you really want to shoot those two down, then go ahead, but then you have to show a contemporary text that avers Jesus the rabbi to be pure myth instead. You have no such text, do you? Tell me you do........ <crickets>

Now, we don't have any text testifying to individuals who personally knew Hercules, or Odysseus, or Moses, or Noah, or Jason, or Achilles, or Romulus, or Adam, or Gilgamesh, or Abraham, or Osiris -- or God. This is why we can make an assumption that all these guys are mythical. We can't make that assumption with Jesus unless we can contrast Josephus and Tacitus with similar NON-canonical texts that peg Jesus the rabbi as purely mythical. Ain't no such texts. So no responsible modern historian sees any way of jettisoning Jesus the rabbi from history without a tin foil hat.

Stein


No it's not at all relevant. We don’t need any such early non-Christian texts expressing doubts about the existence of Jesus. That's completely unnecessary, and the demand for that is a total 100% red herring. The fact of the matter is that now in the 21st century we are quite sure, as a matter of scientific “proof”, that the biblical descriptions of Jesus are most definitely untrue fiction.

Are you really so silly as to believe that all the miracles and supernatural claims that fill the biblical stories of Jesus, are anything other than scientifically established as physically impossible fiction?


You know fucking well that's a straw man. Joseph's' Antiqs. 20 does NOT reference any of that woo, nor does Tacitus's Annals 15. You also know fucking well from the post I just referenced on page 1735 (http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... s#p1864721) that I restrict myself entirely to a highly restricted and consistent set of textual strata, whose consistent textual markers coincidentally (?!) mesh with coordinates around an entirely human rabbi, whose countercultural ideas simply got him nailed, period.

Once and for all, we are not talking here about "biblical descriptions". We are talking about Antiqs. 20 and Annals 15. And Antiqs. 20 and Annals 15 are a damn sight different from ANYTHING we have for Hercules, or Odysseus, or Moses, or Noah, or Jason, or Achilles, or Romulus, or Adam, or Gilgamesh, or Abraham, or Osiris -- or God.

And now, enough red herrings. The truth is you cannot come up with any texts contemporary to Antiqs. 20 and Annals 15 that contrast with those two. So you're pedaling furiously trying to get away from giving the answer to my question: The answer is, there are NO non-canonicals referencing Jesus the rabbi as mythical. Aw, poor baby.

Cry me a river.

Stein


Can you at least not lie like this when defending your 'real Jesus'?

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."


That's 18:3.3 not 20. Can you point to where anyone has claimed 18:3.3 was authentic? In fact I've already used it as an example of what a Christian forgery looks like.

Josephus that we have says Jesus was the miracle-working Messiah - hardly an entirely human rabbi who got himself nailed for his shopworn ideas.


When you have an actual Christian forgery you can't recognize it? Everything is a forgery or an addition unless you guys like what it says or think it supports your belief.

Another fail from the would-be historians.


What fail? Free speaks of Josephus 20 and you bring up 18 apparently not knowing that 18:3.3 is thought by almost no one to be anywhere near authentic.

Why do you insist on playing this dishonest game? :coffee:


The question is why do you?
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#38775  Postby RealityRules » Apr 28, 2015 11:44 pm


Translation of Pamphilus’ Defence of Origen.

Written at Pinetum a.d. 397.

While Rufinus was staying at Pinetum, a Christian named Macarius2780 sought his advice and assistance. He was engaged in a controversy with the Mathematici, a class of men who had deserted the scientific studies from which they took their name, and had turned to astrology and a belief in Fatalism. Macarius, having heard of Origen’s greatness in the region of Christian speculation, earnestly desired some knowledge of his writings: but was unable to attain it through ignorance of Greek. He declared to Rufinus that he had had a dream in which he saw a ship laden with Eastern merchandize arriving in Italy, and that it was declared to him that this ship would contain the means of attaining the knowledge he desired. The coming of Rufinus seemed to him the fulfilment of his dream, and he earnestly besought him to impart to him some of the treasures of his Greek learning, and especially to translate for him Origen’s great speculative work, the Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν, that is On First Principles.2781 Rufinus hesitated, knowing that there was a strong prejudice against Origen, and that he was looked on, especially in the West, as a heretic, though his writings were little known there. He yielded, however, to the solicitations of Macarius: but to guard against the imputation of heresy, he undertook three preliminary works. First, he translated the Apology of the Martyr Pamphilus for Origen; secondly, he wrote a short treatise on the Adulteration by heretics of the works of Origen; and, thirdly, in translating the Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν he prefixed to it an elaborate Preface in justification of his course in translating the work. All these documents became the subject of vehement controversy which found its expression in the letter of Jerome to his friends at Rome, and the Apologies of Rufinus and Jerome translated in this volume.

The Apology of Pamphilus for Origen forms the sixth book of a work undertaken by him in connexion with Eusebius of Cæsarea, the Church Historian. Pamphilus was a great collector of books, and a learned man, but Eusebius was the chief writer. Pamphilus was put to death in the last persecution, that under Galerius; and Eusebius having at a later time fallen under suspicion of Arianism, it was attempted by those who disliked Origen, to dissociate Pamphilus from all connexion with the work. There seems however no reason to doubt, notwithstanding Jerome’s violent protestations, that Pamphilus was associated with Eusebius throughout the work, and that he actually wrote the sixth book. The translation of this Apology was made first, and sent out with a Preface which runs as follows:

You have been moved by your desire to know the truth, Macarius, who are “a man greatly beloved,”2782 to make a request of me, which will bring you the blessing attached to the knowledge of the truth; but it will win for me the greatest indignation on the part of those who consider themselves aggrieved whenever any one does not think evil of Origen. It is true that it is not my opinion about him that you have asked for, but that of the holy martyr Pamphilus; and you have requested to have the book which he is said to have written in his defence in Greek translated for you into Latin: nevertheless I do not doubt that there will be some who will think themselves aggrieved if I say anything in his defence even in the words of another man. I beg them to do nothing in the spirit of presumption and of prejudice; and, since we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, not to refuse to hear the truth spoken, lest haply they should do wrong through ignorance. Let them consider that to wound the consciences of their weaker brethren by false accusations is to sin against Christ; and therefore let them not lend their ears to the accusers, nor seek an account of another man’s faith from a third party, especially when an opportunity is given them for gaining personal and direct knowledge, and the substance and quality of each man’s faith is to be known by his own confession. For so the Scripture says:2783 “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation”: and:2784 “By his words shall each man be justified, and by his word shall he be condemned.” The opinions of Origen in the various parts of Scripture are clearly set forth in the present work: as to the cause of our finding certain places in which he contradicts himself, an explanation will be offered in the short document subjoined.2785 But as for myself, I hold that which has been handed down to us from the holy fathers, namely, that the Holy Trinity is coeternal, and of a single nature, virtue and substance; that the Son of God in these last times has been made man, has suffered for our transgressions and rose again from the dead in the very flesh in which he suffered, and thereby imparted the hope of the resurrection to the whole race of mankind. When we speak of the resurrection of the flesh, we do so, not with any subterfuges, as is slanderously reported by certain persons; we believe that it is this very flesh in which we are now living which will rise again, not one kind of flesh instead of another, nor another body than the body of this flesh. When we speak of the body rising we do so in the words of the apostle; for he himself made use of this word: and when we speak of the flesh, our confession is that of the Creed. It is an absurd invention of maliciousness to think that the human body is different from the flesh. However, whether we speak of that which is to rise, according to the common faith, as the flesh, or, according to the Apostle, as the body, this we must believe, that according to the clear statement of the Apostle, that which shall rise shall rise in power and in glory; it will rise an incorruptible and a spiritual body: for “corruption cannot inherit incorruption.” We must maintain this preëminence of the body, or flesh, which is to be: but, with this proviso, we must hold that the resurrection of the flesh is perfect and entire; we must on the one hand maintain the identity of the flesh, while on the other we must not detract from the dignity and glory of the incorruptible and spiritual body. For so the Scripture speaks. This is what is preached by the reverend Bishop John at Jerusalem; this we with him both confess and hold. If any one either believes or teaches otherwise, or insinuates that we believe differently from the exposition of our faith, let him be anathema. Let this then be taken as a record of our belief by any who desire to know it. Whatever we read and whatever we do is in accordance with this account of our faith; we follow the words of the Apostle,2786 “proving all things, holding fast that which is good, avoiding every form of evil.”2787 “And as many as walk by this rule, peace be upon them and upon the Israel of God.”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.vi.v.html

& see Apology for Origen; On the Falsification of the Books of Origen By Pamphilus (Presbyter of Caesarea).
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2998

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#38776  Postby RealityRules » Apr 28, 2015 11:53 pm

Rufinus’s Epilogue to Pamphilus the Martyr’s Apology for Origen

otherwise

The Book Concerning the Adulteration of the Works of Origen.

————————————

Addressed to Macarius at Pinetum a.d. 397.

————————————

The next work was sent out at the same time with Pamphilus’ Apology. Rufinus believed that Origen’s works had been adulterated by heretics so as to turn his assertions into support of their own opinions. He therefore, in his translation of the Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν, altered many things which had a heterodox meaning as found in the ordinary mss. of Origen, so as to make the work consistent with itself and with the orthodox views expressed in other parts of Origen’s writings. How far this process was legitimate or honest must be judged from a perusal of the controversy which followed; but it should be borne in mind, first, that the standard of literary exactness and conscientiousness was not the same in those days as in ours; secondly, that when everything depended on copyists there was room for infinite variations in the copies, whether through negligence, ignorance or fraud; thirdly, that the principles adopted by Rufinus were precisely those acknowledged by his great opponent Jerome, in his Treatise De Optimo Genere Interpretandi, and his Letter to Vigilantius (Letters lxvi and lxi).

My object in the translation from Greek into Latin of the holy martyr Pamphilus’ Apology for Origen, which I have given in the preceding volume according to my ability and the requirements of the matter, is this: I wish you to know through full information that the rule of faith which has been set forth above in his writings is that which we must embrace and hold; for it is clearly shown that the Catholic opinion is contained in them all ....

... Can we believe that in the same work and in the same book, and even sometimes, as I have said, in the following paragraph, a man could have forgotten his own views? For example that, when he had said just before that no passage in all the Scripture could be found in which the Holy Spirit was spoken of as made or created, he could have immediately added that the Holy Spirit had been made along with the rest of the creatures? or again, that the same man who clearly states that the Father and the Son are of one substance, or as it is called in Greek Homoousion, could in the next sentence say that He was of another substance, and was a created being, when he had but a little before described him as born of the very nature of God the Father? ....

... Since, then, Origen in his letter complains with his own voice that he has suffered such things at the hands of the heretics who wished him ill, and similar things have happened in the case of many other orthodox men among both the dead and the living, and since in the cases adduced, men’s writings are proved to have been tampered with in a similar way: what determined obstinacy is this, which refuses to admit the same excuse when the case is the same, and, when the circumstances are parallel, assigns to one party the allowance due to respect, but to another infamy due to a criminal. The truth must be told, and must not lie hid at this point; for it is impossible for any man really to judge so unjustly as to form different opinions on cases which are similar. The fact is that the prompters of Origen’s accusers are men who make long controversial discourses in the churches,2799 and even write books the whole matter of which is borrowed from him, and who wish to deter men of simple mind from reading him, for fear that their plagiarisms should become widely known, though, indeed, their appropriations would be no reproach to them if they were not ungrateful to their master ...

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.vi.vi.html
Last edited by RealityRules on Apr 29, 2015 12:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2998

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#38777  Postby proudfootz » Apr 29, 2015 12:03 am

Oldskeptic wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Stein wrote:
IanS wrote:

No it's not at all relevant. We don’t need any such early non-Christian texts expressing doubts about the existence of Jesus. That's completely unnecessary, and the demand for that is a total 100% red herring. The fact of the matter is that now in the 21st century we are quite sure, as a matter of scientific “proof”, that the biblical descriptions of Jesus are most definitely untrue fiction.

Are you really so silly as to believe that all the miracles and supernatural claims that fill the biblical stories of Jesus, are anything other than scientifically established as physically impossible fiction?


You know fucking well that's a straw man. Joseph's' Antiqs. 20 does NOT reference any of that woo, nor does Tacitus's Annals 15. You also know fucking well from the post I just referenced on page 1735 (http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... s#p1864721) that I restrict myself entirely to a highly restricted and consistent set of textual strata, whose consistent textual markers coincidentally (?!) mesh with coordinates around an entirely human rabbi, whose countercultural ideas simply got him nailed, period.

Once and for all, we are not talking here about "biblical descriptions". We are talking about Antiqs. 20 and Annals 15. And Antiqs. 20 and Annals 15 are a damn sight different from ANYTHING we have for Hercules, or Odysseus, or Moses, or Noah, or Jason, or Achilles, or Romulus, or Adam, or Gilgamesh, or Abraham, or Osiris -- or God.

And now, enough red herrings. The truth is you cannot come up with any texts contemporary to Antiqs. 20 and Annals 15 that contrast with those two. So you're pedaling furiously trying to get away from giving the answer to my question: The answer is, there are NO non-canonicals referencing Jesus the rabbi as mythical. Aw, poor baby.

Cry me a river.

Stein


Can you at least not lie like this when defending your 'real Jesus'?

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."


That's 18:3.3 not 20. Can you point to where anyone has claimed 18:3.3 was authentic? In fact I've already used it as an example of what a Christian forgery looks like.


I'm just pointing up the fact that Stein is cherry picking his 'evidence' from josephus.

Glad to see you're willing to admit to christians tampering with texts when it suits you. :thumbup:

Josephus that we have says Jesus was the miracle-working Messiah - hardly an entirely human rabbi who got himself nailed for his shopworn ideas.


When you have an actual Christian forgery you can't recognize it? Everything is a forgery or an addition unless you guys like what it says or think it supports your belief.


I'm afraid my point is a bit too subtle - let me spell it out a bit for your benefit.

Why is Stein using a text tampered with by christians for his 'independent evidence' of the existence of a human Jesus?

You do know the verse he quotes comes from the same book, right?

Or were christians incapable of turning pages? :lol:

Hilarious that everything is a forgery or an addition when it supports your belief. :whistle:

Another fail from the would-be historians.


What fail? Free speaks of Josephus 20 and you bring up 18 apparently not knowing that 18:3.3 is thought by almost no one to be anywhere near authentic.


I bring up this in the spirit of pointing out the dishonest cherry picking of Free, Stein, and other non-historians in their posts.

Why do you insist on playing this dishonest game? :coffee:


The question is why do you?


I don't - I skewer dishonesty. Even that of the revered O'Neill who's treated like some sort of tin god among non-historians who shill for the 'real Jesus'.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11041

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#38778  Postby Oldskeptic » Apr 29, 2015 12:11 am

dejuror wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:

Please, just go and get familiar with writings of antiquity instead of repeating the "Free" fiction story.


Oldskeptic wrote:More dishonesty. I didn't repeat the story, I showed you where it came from.


Again, the passage does NOT state that Jesus was born after Mary was RAPED by Panthera.

You are talking about dishonesty but seem to have forgotten what the word means.

Against Celsus 1
But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that "when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera...


Surely, you understand the difference between 'adultery' and 'rape'.

The "FREE" Rape story of Mary was NOT derived from "Against Celsus".

This is found in a writing attributed to Julian.

Against the Galileans
It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth...


The stories of Jesus were VAMPED by men who were Liars.

Against Hierocles

And this point is also worth noticing, that whereas the tales of Jesus have been vamped up by Peter and Paul and a few others of the kind,--men who were liars and devoid of education and wizards


Jesus of Nazareth was a myth/fiction character from the beginning.


More Cherry picking:

Against Hierocles from here:

You proclaim Jesus a god on account of a few progidies recorded by their evangelists, yet we have writers of more education than yours and with more care for truth, who relate solid judgement, do not make him a god on account of them, only regard him as a man found pleasing to the gods.


That comes from just above your cherry picked sentence.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#38779  Postby Oldskeptic » Apr 29, 2015 1:34 am

proudfootz wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:
IanS wrote:But thirdly - it is totally irrelevant whether or not people in the 1st century said they believed the biblical Jesus stories to be myth. The only relevant factor is what we know now in the 21st century. And now we certainly do know that the biblical descriptions of Jesus are impossible fiction.


Who here has presented biblical descriptions as evidence for a living Jesus? I've only seen scripture used by mythers to support their belief by claiming Paul said this or Paul never said that. The miracles are used to discredit a source that is not being used as a source here except by mythers. As I've said before, scripture makes the claim, the evidence is outside of scripture.


Upthread somebody approvingly quoted that O'Neill guy whose only positive arguments for his 'real Jesus' were quotes cherry picked from the bible. And other pretend historians applauded that garbage post.


When someone claims that Paul only spoke of Jesus as a heavenly being how do you suppose someone else should go about showing that this is not true? I wouldn't call rebutting someone's supposed evidence, using the source they introduced a positive argument.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#38780  Postby RealityRules » Apr 29, 2015 1:49 am

Oldskeptic wrote:When someone claims that Paul only spoke of Jesus as a heavenly being how do you suppose someone else should go about showing that this is not true? I wouldn't call rebutting someone's supposed evidence, using the source they introduced a positive argument.

Given the Pauline texts were likely doctored in the 200yrs from their alleged 1st appearance to their final drafts, and nothing else supports them except perhaps similar Docetic-like theological texts, the Pauline's hardy overall support a non-heavenly Christ.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2998

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 13 guests