I presume the trilemma being referred to is that Jesus (and other prophets at other times) were either lying, mad or what they claimed to be.

This is such a silly and simplistic response to dubious information.

If you have ever been the subject of a rumour, you would know that information has a way of generating itself when passed between people. Information gets distorted, changed, misrepresented, often without any attempt to do so on the part of the people telling the story.

So, it is most likely that *none* of the three is true. A story passed from mouth to mouth over many years has gradually changed, with small details moving further nad further from the truth. Jesus never said what he has been quoted as saying, therefore he is *none* of the trilemma options.


[This message has been edited by TheCandle (edited May 03, 2001).]

This is probably a pretty good theory, but since we do not have any primary sources, nor witnesses (was Panthera interviewed? Did anyone bring up his name while he or Mary was still alive?), why do you attach credibility to this story? Or do you? It is hard to tell from your post.

I guess I am asking for some consistency LP in your reasoning. Since you reject the Gospels as being late, and not primary sources, even though they are at least a hundred years closer to the events than is Celsus (and 300 closer than the Talmud), why do you think it is worth considering this obviously Jewish apologetic source? Are 200-400 year old speculations by Jews somehow more reliable than the Gospels? How did you determine this?

I find your double standard to be difficult to explain.

Nomad

Nomad:
Hi rodahi
I'm still trying to see what evidence the Jews actually had. What is it? I understand your faith in your source, but I would like to know what kind of evidence you actually have to back it up.

Claiming that the Jews believed something approximately 200 years after the fact hardly serves as evidence now does it? After all, the Christians have testimony of what they believed less than 100 years after the fact and you reject it. Where are their witnesses? Who are they? Who examined them?

Why are you so credulous?

Why won't you offer us actual evidence rodahi?

Nomad

I quoted my source. Why are you afraid of quoting yours, Nomad? Are you concerned that everyone will see the absurdities contained in Matthew's and Luke's stories?

rodahi

I'm not afraid of anything on this thread rodahi. but if your evidence is...

"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."
Contra Celsus, I.XXXII

...then how could you be so gullible as to fall for such obvious hearsay evidence? I thought you prided yourself in your critical thinking ability. Why do you trust Celsus' sources, especially given his obvious hatred for Christians? Did he interview anyone? Did he cross check them against other witnesses and sources? Or did he accept them as uncritically as you have here?

Just curious.

Nomad

In response to Nomad's request for consistency, I hope that he will read my comments more carefully. I had been claiming that the Roman-soldier story had been *invented* in response to the virgin-birth story.

Thanks for the clarification LP. I was suspecting that you didn't believe the story. I assume that means that you do not know who Jesus' father was, am I right?

Nomad

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
I quoted my source. Why are you afraid of quoting yours, Nomad? Are you concerned that everyone will see the absurdities contained in Matthew's and Luke's stories?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: I'm not afraid of anything on this thread rodahi.

Then quote YOUR evidence, Nomad. I challenge you to do so.

Nomad: but if your evidence is...

"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."
Contra Celsus, I.XXXII

...then how could you be so gullible as to fall for such obvious hearsay evidence?

Because there are no absurd claims made, Nomad.

Nomad: I thought you prided yourself in your critical thinking ability.

I don't pride myself on anything, Nomad.

Nomad: Why do you trust Celsus' sources, especially given his obvious hatred for Christians?

Without using circular reasoning, prove your claim that Celsus had "hatred for Christians."

Nomad: Did he interview anyone? Did he cross check them against other witnesses and sources? Or did he accept them as uncritically as you have here?

I see no good reason to disbelieve him. He made no absurd claims.

rodahi

I don't think anyone is claiming to know who Jesus' father was. We are merely discussing the evidence.

rodahi

I have challenged Nomad to quote the source that makes him think Jesus was conceived and born in any way other than the natural way.

So far, he has dodged my challenge.

rodahi

Also, about the story that JC's father was a Roman soldier named Panthera (Pantera, Pandira), I've seen the theory that "Panthera" is a pun on "parthenos", the Greek word for "virgin". It would be something like devnet's discussion of the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah ("sons of wickedness"). However, "Panthera" is not an obviously wicked name; one can easily imagine a solider willing to call himself that.

And I'm not willing to speculate on who JC's father had been.