Posted: Jul 23, 2015 1:30 pm
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
Ok.