Cege

That Schoenborn can certainly turn a phrase.

Chris Weimer

Where's the logic? If something is both 100% real, and 100% imaginary, then you still have the 100% real part left over.

Chris Weimer

Are you kidding me? Have you seen what this aa guy claims? Have you looked through the "the historicity of Jesus the Christ" thread? Especially the recent posts? Even other mythicists are laughing.

Moreover, why do you care?

Chris Weimer

A human, a dead one.

Chris Weimer

The internet doesn't translate sarcasm well. But frankly, and I mean no offense by it, I just can't see the reason for the sarcasm. Who were you attacking?

mountainman

Translation = Become acquainted with a history and a philosophy
of religion in which the key figure is to be assumed as an unexamined
postulate, in the face of a virtual void of evidence.

Translation = The HISTORICAL JESUS is to be treated as
the central and unexamined hypothesis in everything that
follows; and no correspondence will be entered into with
those who seek the historical traces of either a MYTHICAL
JESUS, or indeed -- heaven forbid! -- a FICTIONAL JESUS.

So then, my dear friend, you find worthy
of no little admiration the parallel which,
embellished with many marvels, this author
has drawn between the man of Tyana
arid our own Saviour and teacher.

In ancient times, 362 CE to be more precise, Jesus has been
portayed as the leading figure in "the fabrication of the Galilaeans,
a fiction of men composed by wickedness". In more explicit text
this same author, knicknamed "Bull-burner", had the following to say:

As for Constantine, he could not discover among the gods
the model of his own career, but when he caught sight of
Pleasure, who was not far off, he ran to her. She received
him tenderly and embraced him, then after dressing him in
raiment of many colours and otherwise making him beautiful,
she led him away to Incontinence.

There too he found Jesus, who had taken up his abode with
her and cried aloud to all comers:

"He that is a seducer, he that is a murderer,
he that is sacrilegious and infamous,
let him approach without fear!
For with this water will I wash him
and will straightway make him clean.

And though he should be guilty
of those same sins a second time,
let him but smite his breast and beat his head
and I will make him clean again."

To him Constantine came gladly, when he had conducted his
sons forth from the assembly of the gods. But the avenging
deities none the less punished both him and them for their
impiety, and extracted the penalty for the shedding of the
blood of their kindred, [96] until Zeus granted them a respite
for the sake of Claudius and Constantius.

If the Pope is interested in truth then he should
know how Benito Musolini regarded the matter:
"Invention is more useful than truth".

Moreover he should know that there was a nexus in the
historical development and purported evolution of "the tribe
of christians" in the fouth century at which time it is puported
that "the new and strange Roman religion" was embraced by
the supreme imperial mafia thug and malevolent dictator "Bullneck",
who himself is now regarded as "one of the eminent christian
theologians, and proseytisers" of his times. At this time the
new and strange Roman religious order was brought into a form
of general accepted historical focus, perhaps for the first time.

On 28 October 312 the Christians
suddenly and unexpectedly
found themselves victorious.
The victory was

a miracle -

though opinions differed
as to the nature of the sign
vouchsafed to Constantine.

The winners became conscious of their victory
in a mood of resentment and vengeance.
A voice shrill with implacable hatred
announced to the world
the victory of the Milvian Bridge:
Lactatius' De mortibus persecutorum.

In this horrible pamphlet by the author of De ira dei
there is something of the violence of the
prophets without the redeeming sense of tragedy
that inspired Nahum's song for the the fall of
Nineveh.

---- Arnaldo Momigliano
Pagan and Christian Historiography
in the Fourth Century A.D. (1959/60)

and again further ...

If there were men who recommended
tolerance and peaceful coexistence
of Christians and pagans,
they were rapidly crowded out.

The Christians were ready
to take over the Roman empire,
as Eusebius made clear
in the introduction of the Preparatio evangelica
where he emphasises the correlation
between pax romana and the Christian message:
the thought indeed was not even new.

The Christians were also determined
to make impossible a return to the conditions
of inferiority and persecution for the Church.
The problems and conflicts inside the Church
which all this implied
may be left aside for the moment.

“The revolution of the fourth century,
carrying with it a new historiography
will not be understood if we underrate
the determination, almost the fierceness,
with which the Christians appreciated and exploited

the miracle

that had transformed Constantine
into a supporter, a protector, and later a legislator
of the Christian church.”

One fact is eloquent enough. All the pioneer works
in the field of Christian historiography are earlier
than what we may call their opposite numbers in
pagan historiography."

END QUOTAGE — Arnaldo Momigliano

Interested students of history should seek the reasons
why one of the the foremost ancient historians of the
last century twice describes the appearance of the
new and strange Roman religion in the fouth century
as a miracle.

Hint. Hint.

SwoleMan

The Pope. I had the killings and imprisonments of dissenters by historical Popes in mind.

rob117

Yes, it's important not to think bad thoughts...

All of us here know this is the essence of Christianity, but you rarely ever see Christians come out and say it. And the pope, of all people.:wave:

aa5874

This is unbelievable. Jesus was human and he is dead. Chris Weimer says so and it's true. Unbelievable!

Spitfire

But do keep in mind that if any person had mocked any secular ruler the way Galileo had parodied Urban VIII, the former would certainly not have died of old age, as Galileo did.

And, on the off chance that anyone cares what any actual Catholics think of this, I'd say it's just more confusing double-speak from Benedict XVI, promoting his own political agenda by dressing it up as orthodoxy Else why repeat what has already been stated in no uncertain terms in many other Catholic works throughout history?