Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 08-13-2007, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Here is a list of Pagan Writers who wrote at or within a century of the time that Jesus is said to have lived;Arrian, Petronius, Seneca, Dion Pruseus, Pliny the Elder, Appian Juvenal, Theon of Smyrna, Martial Plutarch, Apollonius, Pausanias, V. Flaccus, Floras Lucius, Quintilian, Favorinus, Lucanus, Damis Silius Italicus, Aulus Gellius, Statius, Ptolemy, Dio Chrysostom, Hermogeons, Lysias, Valerius Maximus. And I'm sure I left some out. Not one of these Pagan writers refers to Jesus. Yet their writings are enough to fill a library. The only Roman writers to mention anything of interest are Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus, who were writing at the beginning of the second century. Up to one hundred years after the supposed events took place. You have to admit that is more than enough time for a myth to evolve.

I fail to see how this is probative of your apparent point.

Whether Jesus is mythic in nature or is historical, there is no reason to believe that the origins of Christianity in the first half of the 1st century would be of any interest to any of these pagan writers.

Why would they bother to note the punishment of a minor criminal in a backwater of the Empire?

What we do know is that once Christianity is mentioned, the historicity of Jesus is either explicitly asserted or presumed. There is no mention of a mythicist sect of Christianity by any author, Christian or nonChristian.

A mythical Christ means a non-existent Christ. It is not likely to have a sect worship an entity believed to be non-existent.

Early Christianity, based on Irenaeus, had many sects, but there were two prominent beliefs, those who believed Christ was a god-man born through the Holy Ghost and Mary, and those who believed he was a god who came down from heaven only appearing to be human.

And in any event, Christians believe that Christ was a figure of history that walked the earth did miracles, was resurrected and went to heaven regardless of his physique.

Jayhawker Soule · 08-14-2007, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

But your comfort with that assertion is solely a function of your reliance on the words 'credible' and 'confirms'. It's a self-serving, faith based statement. Furthermore, if you do not systematically apply the same criteria to all other historical figures, it strikes me as a wholly disingenuous one.

I used the same criteria to assess that Apollo and Jupiter were mythical figures.

Sorry, I would have thought better of you.

Jayhawker Soule · 08-14-2007, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

So a Jerusalem sect of Torah observant Jews in Jerusalem based itself on a 'Mystery Religions' inspired myth roughly 2 decades in the making? Perhaps we should call it a mythette ...

I suggest you visit the site I posted.

Been there, done that. Thanks for sharing. May I ask your views on both Acts and Josephus?

angelo · 08-14-2007, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Been there, done that. Thanks for sharing. May I ask your views on both Acts and Josephus?

Acts was fabricated as a tool against Gnostiticism, confirming the historicity of the disciples and legitimtizing the bishops who claimed to maintain their lineage.
Acts does not inspire confidence as a reliable record of events. It reads more like a drugstore paperback. It it is full of adventure fantasies.

Josephus was a Jewish historian who visited Rome in 64 aged 26. During the campaign in Galilee, in 67 he defected to the Romans. His ''Jewish War'' was published in Rome c,95. His books were later interpolated to include glowing references to Jesus. No serious scholar today attributes Josephus writing about Jesus as legitimate. And who the hell am I to question their views. I agree with them.

Roger Pearse · 08-14-2007, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

No serious scholar today attributes Josephus writing about Jesus as legitimate.

On what do you base this statement?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Doug Shaver · 08-14-2007, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, if you regard Acts as fiction, then which Paul are you refering to, the author of Timothy or the author of Galations?

There was only one Paul, and he didn't write the epistles to Timothy.

aa5874 · 08-14-2007, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, if you regard Acts as fiction, then which Paul are you refering to, the author of Timothy or the author of Galations?

There was only one Paul, and he didn't write the epistles to Timothy.

But the author of Timothy clearly called himself Paul and seemed to write someone called Timothy. Now the author of Corinthians also called himself Paul and also knew someone called Timothy.

I just cannot understand how you could claim with any degree of certainty that there was only one Paul when there are many possible scenarios.

Timothy1.1-2,"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, which is our hope; Unto Timothy, my son in faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

2 Corinthians 1.1-2, "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in Achaia: Grace be to you and peace from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Jayhawker Soule · 08-14-2007, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Quote:

Been there, done that. Thanks for sharing. May I ask your views on both Acts and Josephus?

Acts was fabricated as a tool against Gnostiticism, confirming the historicity of the disciples and legitimtizing the bishops who claimed to maintain their lineage.

Speaking of 'fabricated' ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

No serious scholar today attributes Josephus writing about Jesus as legitimate.

That was a rather silly statement, angelo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

And who the hell am I ...

I believe you answered that with the following understatement:

"I don't claim to be an expert, I'm far from it."

Yet you continue to shamelessly pawn off dogma as fact.

Minimalist · 08-14-2007, 07:04 PM

Hang in there, Angelo. Others agree with you.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

Quote:

As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:

"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."

So well understood was this fact of forgery that these numerous authorities did not spend their precious time and space rehashing the arguments against the TF's authenticity. Nevertheless, in the past few decades apologists of questionable integrity and credibility have glommed onto the TF, because this short and dubious passage represents the most "concrete" secular, non-biblical reference to a man who purportedly shook up the world. In spite of the past debunking, the debate is currently confined to those who think the TF was original to Josephus but was Christianized, and those who credulously and self-servingly accept it as "genuine" in its entirety.

Toto · 08-14-2007, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Hang in there, Angelo. Others agree with you.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

Quote:

As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:

...

truthbeknown is Achara S, who is more polemical than careful with her sources. Gordon Stein is deceased; this quote of his has been brought up before, and he is wrong, in that some intellectually respectable sources have taken the position that the TF contains a core amount of text about Jesus, that was enhanced by later Christian scribes. I think that these scholars are wrong, but you cannot accuse them of "questionable integrity and credibility."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.