Stein wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Stein wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Which text?

Which text?! "James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ" which is Origen's direct quote from Antiquities in yet ANOTHER Origen commentary, words that you've conveniently ignored here, even though Iskander previously referenced this other Origen commentary already, on the page immediately preceding this one. That's which text!

Stein

That's not a direct quote - the word order is different. Even Origen doesn't make that claim.

For Pete's sake, we've been around this mulberry bush dozens of times already -- and you know damn well we have.

Which doesn't give you much excuse for lying about it.

A blatant ad hom, and you know it. "The brother of Jesus called Christ" IS the word order in both Antiquities and Origen, and you very well know it.

Stein

James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ

the brother of Jesus, called Christ, James by name

Stein wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Stein wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Which text?

Which text?! "James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ" which is Origen's direct quote from Antiquities in yet ANOTHER Origen commentary, words that you've conveniently ignored here, even though Iskander previously referenced this other Origen commentary already, on the page immediately preceding this one. That's which text!

Stein

That's not a direct quote - the word order is different. Even Origen doesn't make that claim.

For Pete's sake, we've been around this mulberry bush dozens of times already -- and you know damn well we have.

Which doesn't give you much excuse for lying about it.

And furthermore, to dismiss academe's majority professional consensus on the correspondence of Origen/Antiqs. wording as "lying"(!!!!), merely because it opposes YOUR

m i n o r i t y

take on this, is sheer thought-control Fascism, and you know THAT very well too.



Stein

iskander wrote:The Standard of the Inquisition , with Psalm 73:22 !




http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/21073.htm

proudfootz wrote:

RealityRules wrote:So, what is the significance of Origen?

The significance of Origen seems to be that he mentions both Josephus and James:

And in such a way among the people did this James shine for his justice that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Judaic Antiquities in twenty books, wishing to demonstrate the cause why the people suffered such great things that even the temple was razed down, said that these things came to pass against them in accordance with the ire of God on account of the things which were dared by them against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wondrous thing is that, although he did not accept our Jesus to be Christ, he yet testified that the justice of James was not at all small; and he says that even the people supposed they had suffered these things on account of James.

Of course, in current versions of Josephus, there is no such material.

1. There is no 'James the Just' to be found anywhere in Antiquities
2. Josephus doesn't blame the suffering of Judea on the death of anyone named James
3. Josephus does not talk about anyone named James being particularly just

CONCLUSION: Either Origen is mistaken somehow, or the text of Josephus we have today is hopelessly corrupt. Or both.

For in the eighteenth volume of the Judaic Antiquities Josephus testifies to John as having been a baptist and promised cleansing to those who were baptized. But he himself, though not believing in Jesus as Christ, in seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these things happening to the people, since they killed the prophecied Christ, even says, being unwillingly not far from the truth, that these things befell the Jews as vengeance for James the just, who was a brother of Jesus who is called Christ, since they killed him who was most just. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he saw this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood or of their common upbringing as on account of his ethics and speech. If, therefore, he says that the things surrounding the desolation of Jerusalem befell the Jews on account of James, how is it not more reasonable to say that it happened on account of Jesus the Christ?

Again, what Origen seems to attribute to Josephus is not found in today's versions.

1. Josephus doesn't blame fall of Jerusalem on anyone named James
2. The phrase 'James the Just' does not appear in Josephus anywhere
3. Therefore, Josephus never says 'James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus'

Again - either Origen is wrong, or current text of Josephus is totally corrupted. Or both.

Either way, useless for historians.

If anyone wants to use Origen as a 'witness' to Josephus mentioning James the Just, brother of Jesus Christ will have to accept that the versions of Josephus's Antiquities we have today are utterly corrupted.

You can now plainly see why anyone would prefer to simply make a vague reference to 'Origen' rather than make any detailed examination of Origen. The writings of Origen are evidence that Josephus has been corrupted.

And the wondrous thing is that, although he did not accept our Jesus to be Christ, he yet testified that *the justice* of James was not at all small ...

james1v wrote:

iskander wrote:The Standard of the Inquisition , with Psalm 73:22 !




http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/21073.htm

It looks a bit "Clansmanish".

BULLA CONTRA ERRORES MARTINI LUTHERI ET SEQUACIUM
Leo Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei
Ad perpetuam rei memoriam.
Vorwort. Der Papst ruft Gott, den Heiligen Petrus und den Heiligen Paulus und alle anderen Heiligen gegen die neuen Feinde der Kirche an.
Exsurge, Domine, et judica causam tuam...

RealityRules wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

RealityRules wrote:So, what is the significance of Origen?

The significance of Origen seems to be that he mentions both Josephus and James:

And in such a way among the people did this James shine for his justice that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Judaic Antiquities in twenty books, wishing to demonstrate the cause why the people suffered such great things that even the temple was razed down, said that these things came to pass against them in accordance with the ire of God on account of the things which were dared by them against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wondrous thing is that, although he did not accept our Jesus to be Christ, he yet testified that the justice of James was not at all small; and he says that even the people supposed they had suffered these things on account of James.

Of course, in current versions of Josephus, there is no such material.

1. There is no 'James the Just' to be found anywhere in Antiquities
2. Josephus doesn't blame the suffering of Judea on the death of anyone named James
3. Josephus does not talk about anyone named James being particularly just

CONCLUSION: Either Origen is mistaken somehow, or the text of Josephus we have today is hopelessly corrupt. Or both.

For in the eighteenth volume of the Judaic Antiquities Josephus testifies to John as having been a baptist and promised cleansing to those who were baptized. But he himself, though not believing in Jesus as Christ, in seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these things happening to the people, since they killed the prophecied Christ, even says, being unwillingly not far from the truth, that these things befell the Jews as vengeance for James the just, who was a brother of Jesus who is called Christ, since they killed him who was most just. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he saw this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood or of their common upbringing as on account of his ethics and speech. If, therefore, he says that the things surrounding the desolation of Jerusalem befell the Jews on account of James, how is it not more reasonable to say that it happened on account of Jesus the Christ?

Again, what Origen seems to attribute to Josephus is not found in today's versions.

1. Josephus doesn't blame fall of Jerusalem on anyone named James
2. The phrase 'James the Just' does not appear in Josephus anywhere
3. Therefore, Josephus never says 'James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus'

Again - either Origen is wrong, or current text of Josephus is totally corrupted. Or both.

Either way, useless for historians.

If anyone wants to use Origen as a 'witness' to Josephus mentioning James the Just, brother of Jesus Christ will have to accept that the versions of Josephus's Antiquities we have today are utterly corrupted.

You can now plainly see why anyone would prefer to simply make a vague reference to 'Origen' rather than make any detailed examination of Origen. The writings of Origen are evidence that Josephus has been corrupted.

Cheers.

I wonder if both those passages of Origen and Antiquities 20 were corrupted / interpolated by the same person/s.

One interesting aspect is

And the wondrous thing is that, although he did not accept our Jesus to be Christ, he yet testified that *the justice* of James was not at all small ...

One would need to read these passages in the original (Greek?) and 'interpret' their meaning from that.

The significant issue is that "the Just" description is a post NT construct, or at least an exta NT construct, anyway.

"Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ,--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure."

"this James" ... "regarded .... as a brother of the Lord"

i.e. James & Jesus are portrayed as having a theological 'brotherhood' - 'of/under the Lord'.

I presume "(of the death)" is a later 'clarification' (lol).

the question makes it an added hypothetical

a. the churches are 'witnesses' to Jesus' *divinity*

b. "composed of those who have been 'convened from a flood of sins', and *who have joined themselves to the Creator*"

ie. this is reflecting belief in a deity not a man.

RealityRules wrote:Moreover, from Origen, Against Celsus 1.47.

"Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ,--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure."

1. "Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as *a brother of the Lord*, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as *because of his virtue and doctrine*."

"this James" ... "regarded .... as a brother of the Lord"

i.e. James & Jesus are portrayed as having a theological 'brotherhood' - 'of/under the Lord'.

2. a question is posed -

"how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ (?)"

I presume "(of the death)" is a later 'clarification' (lol).

the question makes it an added hypothetical

3. "... of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure."

a. the churches are 'witnesses' to Jesus' *divinity*

b. "composed of those who have been 'convened from a flood of sins', and *who have joined themselves to the Creator*"

ie. this is reflecting belief in a deity not a man.

Origen, who also transcribed the Hebrew Bible, or major parts of it, is more a commentator than 'a Father'.

The real "Fathers" were Origen's successors: Pamphilus and Eusebius (of Pamphilus) ...

.

iskander wrote:

Stein wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Stein wrote:

Which text?! "James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ" which is Origen's direct quote from Antiquities in yet ANOTHER Origen commentary, words that you've conveniently ignored here, even though Iskander previously referenced this other Origen commentary already, on the page immediately preceding this one. That's which text!

Stein

That's not a direct quote - the word order is different. Even Origen doesn't make that claim.

For Pete's sake, we've been around this mulberry bush dozens of times already -- and you know damn well we have.

Which doesn't give you much excuse for lying about it.

And furthermore, to dismiss academe's majority professional consensus on the correspondence of Origen/Antiqs. wording as "lying"(!!!!), merely because it opposes YOUR

m i n o r i t y

take on this, is sheer thought-control Fascism, and you know THAT very well too.



Stein

Stein, The story of Jesus is a malignant invention and the ugly redeeming murder attributed to a specific group of people is a sinister invention .

iskander wrote:

What Josephus and Tacitus wrote is of no importance , because a literary invention would still be written about if that invention had any believers.

Stein wrote:

iskander wrote:

Stein wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

That's not a direct quote - the word order is different. Even Origen doesn't make that claim.

For Pete's sake, we've been around this mulberry bush dozens of times already -- and you know damn well we have.

Which doesn't give you much excuse for lying about it.

And furthermore, to dismiss academe's majority professional consensus on the correspondence of Origen/Antiqs. wording as "lying"(!!!!), merely because it opposes YOUR

m i n o r i t y

take on this, is sheer thought-control Fascism, and you know THAT very well too.



Stein

Stein, The story of Jesus is a malignant invention and the ugly redeeming murder attributed to a specific group of people is a sinister invention .

To confound the bio of Jesus with the notion of a "redeeming murder" is to confound the historical rabbi with the woo that barnacled itself via the orthodox Christian kool-aid. But that is a typical ploy in this thread from many a myther with the purpose of scurrilously and unscrupulously imputing fundie beliefs to all HJ-ers here who are mostly atheists. A disgusting scurrilous game of the mythers, of course, to which the mods have often been oblivious, even though it's a flagrant violation of 1.2.m. But I should stop being so surprised by it, since I've seen this ploy played out on various fora that have been duly spammed and trolled by the myther bots.

Did you know, BTW, that even some traditional Christians don't buy into the "redeeming murder" scenario? The Eastern Orthodox are a case in point, who largely view the "redeeming murder" notion as a mere bogus Western accretion, along with the canonization of post-patristic phonies like Augustine, etc. Didn't know that, did you? I suppose nuances like that are of no interest to mythers who wallow in made up conspiracies and are brainwashed into swallowing whole their ignorant monolithic narrative.

iskander wrote:

What Josephus and Tacitus wrote is of no importance , because a literary invention would still be written about if that invention had any believers.

What Antiquities 20 and Annals 15 show is of central importance, since they are two independent non-apologetic sources, the first of which is a contemporary witness to a blood relative with nothing magic or supernatural about him at all. Duh.

You know, it's interesting. You were coming off as an HJer for a while there. Well, well, learn something new every day.

What's especially curious is that you've gone into some detail on Jesus's _disappointments_ at the end of his life as if inconvenient truths interfered with a pat literary invention --

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2236527

--You even say that the early church proactively made a man into a god --

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2240007

-- Not sure what game you've been playing here. But if you are trying to creep some people out, then congratulations.

Stein

4) Man's Fall and its Consequence
In spite of God's prohibition, man chose to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis). Being "good by nature" man had to also become "good by choice." Unfortunately, it did not happen that way. Following the "snake's" advice (the devil's, that is), man also tried to do what the fallen angels did: to "become a god without God." Man's imperfection and innocence, or, better, naiveté, and his relative pride, cultivated by the "accuser," became the cause of man's fall from God's communion, due to his disobedience and rejection of God. Man put his purpose in himself, instead of putting it in God. Man's free will is responsible for his own decline.

The consequences of this revolt against God, which the West calls "original" and the East "ancestral" (propatorikon) sin, are that man lost his original innocence; the image of God in him was tarnished, and even became distorted; man's reason was obscured, his will weakened, the desires and passions of the flesh grew wild; man suffered separation from God, the author and source of life. He put himself in an inauthentic kind of existence, close to death. The Fathers speak of "spiritual death" which is the cause of the physical one, and which may lead to the "eschatological," eternal death: for "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6: 23).

This state of fall, of inauthentic life close to death, this status of "spiritual death" continues to be transmitted to all of man's progeny, even those who are born of Christian parents. The personal guilt of the first man belongs to him exclusively. However, the results of his sin are transmitted to the entire human race. A personal commitment through an engagement of one's personal free will is required, in order for things to turn around.


Christ, who requires this personal commitment, made this change possible through His coming and His work upon earth.


5) The case of Mary, the Mother of God
Does the Mother of God, Virgin Mary, participate in the "ancestral sin?" The question does not make much sense for the Orthodox, for it is obvious that Mary, being part of the common human race issued of the first man (Adam), automatically participates in the fallen status and in the "spiritual death" introduced by the sin of the first man.

The Fathers of the Church speculate on Luke 1:35, concluding that Mary was purified by the Holy Spirit the day of Annunciation, in order for her to become the "worthy Mother of God." However, even after she gave birth to the Son of God, Mary was not exempted of less serious ("venial") sins. St. John Chrysostom attributes to Mary the sin of vanity, in the context of the first miracle of Christ in Cana of Galilee...

Stein wrote:

iskander wrote:

Stein wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

That's not a direct quote - the word order is different. Even Origen doesn't make that claim.

For Pete's sake, we've been around this mulberry bush dozens of times already -- and you know damn well we have.

Which doesn't give you much excuse for lying about it.

And furthermore, to dismiss academe's majority professional consensus on the correspondence of Origen/Antiqs. wording as "lying"(!!!!), merely because it opposes YOUR

m i n o r i t y

take on this, is sheer thought-control Fascism, and you know THAT very well too.



Stein

Stein, The story of Jesus is a malignant invention and the ugly redeeming murder attributed to a specific group of people is a sinister invention .

To confound the bio of Jesus with the notion of a "redeeming murder" is to confound the historical rabbi with the woo that barnacled itself via the orthodox Christian kool-aid. But that is a typical ploy in this thread from many a myther with the purpose of scurrilously and unscrupulously imputing fundie beliefs to all HJ-ers here who are mostly atheists. A disgusting scurrilous game of the mythers, of course, to which the mods have often been oblivious, even though it's a flagrant violation of 1.2.m. But I should stop being so surprised by it, since I've seen this ploy played out on various fora that have been duly spammed and trolled by the myther bots.

Did you know, BTW, that even some traditional Christians don't buy into the "redeeming murder" scenario? The Eastern Orthodox are a case in point, who largely view the "redeeming murder" notion as a mere bogus Western accretion, along with the canonization of post-patristic phonies like Augustine, etc. Didn't know that, did you? I suppose nuances like that are of no interest to mythers who wallow in made up conspiracies and are brainwashed into swallowing whole their ignorant monolithic narrative.

iskander wrote:

What Josephus and Tacitus wrote is of no importance , because a literary invention would still be written about if that invention had any believers.

What Antiquities 20 and Annals 15 show is of central importance, since they are two independent non-apologetic sources, the first of which is a contemporary witness to a blood relative with nothing magic or supernatural about him at all. Duh.

You know, it's interesting. You were coming off as an HJer for a while there. Well, well, learn something new every day.

What's especially curious is that you've gone into some detail on Jesus's _disappointments_ at the end of his life as if inconvenient truths interfered with a pat literary invention --

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2236527

--You even say that the early church proactively made a man into a god --

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2240007

-- Not sure what game you've been playing here. But if you are trying to creep some people out, then congratulations.

Stein

Stewart and Watt, while acknowledging that they have not yet succeeded in definitively finding out whether Bunyan actually lived or was wholly mythical, noted that some of the older lumberjacks they interviewed claimed to have known him or members of his crew, and in northern Minnesota, the supposed location of his grave was actually pointed out.[4] In this regard, it should be noted that Bunyan's extreme gigantism was a later invention, and that early stories either do not mention it or, as in the Stewart and Watt paper, refer to him as being about seven feet tall.

iskander wrote:

Stein wrote:
-- Not sure what game you've been playing here. But if you are trying to creep some people out, then congratulations.

Stein

Ok.

proudfootz wrote:

iskander wrote:

Stein wrote:
-- Not sure what game you've been playing here. But if you are trying to creep some people out, then congratulations.

Stein

Ok.

You see, for Stein, everything is partisan. If you were on his team you could say any outrageous thing and get applauded for it.

But Heaven help you if you're not on the 'right team'.