Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 12-10-2010, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

...

Would you care to respond to my last reply to you, #116 (& #117), taking in the trend that Ken Olson shows in Agapius of removing the miraculous?

spin

JoeWallack · 12-10-2010, 09:49 AM

JW:
Here is a summary of my argument that Eusebius is in some way, the "discoverer" of the TF:

Quote:

Discovery
It's generally agreed that Eusebius is the first known reference to the TF about 200 years after it would have been written. My related thread Say It Ain't So Joe. Testimonium Flavium. Will Eusebius Be Convicted In Civil Court? demonstrates:

1 - Probably most, if not all, Church Fathers would have heard of/been familiar with Josephus as he was the official historian of 1st century Israel where they thought Jesus was from.

2 - For Church Fathers with a minimum of extant writings, most refer to/quote from Josephus and he is actually the most referred to non-Christian author of the early Church.

3 - If Josephus had mentioned Gospel Jesus it would have been noted in these two hundred years.

4 - After Eusebius some major Church authors still don't refer to the TF. Presumably because their copies don't have it.

5 - Eusebius appears to have discovered the TF during his career.

6 - The Scriptorium at Caesarea (They Shoot Sources, Don't They?).

Language

1 - Ken Olson has demonstrated that the language is Eusebian.

2 - Others, including spin here, have demonstrated that the language is not Josephan.

Credibility

1 - Eusebius has a general credibility problem regarding sources. We have numerous instances where the problem is somewhere in between creating/editing/hiding the source:

Was Eusebius A Truth Challenged Advocate For Jesus? - The Argument Resurrected

Authority

Last and least, authority confesses to us that the TF is not original.

Other lesser categories are placement and variation which both are evidence for forgery but are relatively minor arguments compared to the above.

The main criticism of Eusebius is that he uncritically accepts sources that promote Christianity. He is an Advocate for Christianity and not a Judge. My own specific guess as to the Origin of the TF is Eusebius' take on Origen's related commentary:

Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book X)

Quote:

17. The Brethren of Jesus.

And the saying, " Whence has this man this wisdom[1]," Matthew 13:54 indicates clearly that there was a great and surpassing wisdom in the words of Jesus worthy of the saying, "lo, a greater than Solomon is here." Matthew 12:42 And He was wont to do greater miracles[3] than those wrought through Elijah and Elisha, and at a still earlier date through Moses and Joshua the son of Nun.[7] And they spoke, wondering, (not knowing that He was the son of a virgin, or not believing it even if it was told to them, but supposing that He was the son of Joseph the carpenter,) "is not this the carpenter's son?" Matthew 13:55 And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, "Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?" Matthew 13:55-56 They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James," that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you," Luke 1:35 might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity. And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." Galatians 1:19 And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ,[5] he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James. And Jude, who wrote a letter of few lines, it is true, but filled with the healthful words of heavenly grace, said in the preface, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James." Jude 1 With regard to Joseph and Simon we have nothing to tell; but the saying, "And His sisters are they not all with us," Matthew 13:56 seems to me to signify something of this nature— they mind our things, not those of Jesus, and have no unusual portion of surpassing wisdom as Jesus has. And perhaps by these things is indicated a new doubt concerning Him, that Jesus was not a man[2] but something diviner, inasmuch as He was, as they supposed, the son of Joseph and Mary, and the brother of four, and of the others— the women— as well, and yet had nothing like to any one of His kindred, and had not from education and teaching come to such a height of wisdom and power. For they also say elsewhere, "How knows this man letters having never learned?[4]" John 7:15 which is similar to what is here said. Only, though they say these things and are so perplexed and astonished, they did not believe, but were offended in Him; as if they had been mastered in the eyes of their mind by the powers which, in the time of the passion, He was about to lead in triumph on the cross.[6]

Now looking at the TF:

Testimonium Flavianum

Quote:

3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man[1],

if it be lawful to call him a man;[2]

for he was a doer of wonderful works,[3]

a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.[4]

He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.

He was [the] Christ.[5]

And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day;[6]

as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.[7]

And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Note that most of the basic assertians in the TF have related counterparts in Origen's commentary. My guess is that due to Origen's invocation of Josephus:

Quote:

Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ,[5] he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James

Eusebius takes literary license to assume that there is an implication that per Origen Josephus wrote directly about Jesus and that Origen's surrounding information was fair game as to what to include.

Note that this also helps explain why Jerome has "thought to be" instead of "was" the Christ. Original Eusebius also had "thought to be" because that was the implication from Origen.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

jgreen44 · 12-10-2010, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, why are you claiming that Tacitus mentioned Jesus when he did not? Tacitus did not even claim "Christus" was from Nazareth.

My belief is that the mention of Christus in Annals is a later interpolation. If I seemed to claim that the mention of Christus in Annals is authentic, I was only doing so for the sake of argument. And the argument was or is: If the Christus reference existed in Annals during the composition of On the Flesh of Christ, then it should have been employed in the argument against the Marcionites.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Have you read "On the FLESH of Christ"?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Roman and Jewish records that Jesus was a man who was PUBLICLY crucified after a PUBLIC trial would have helped "Tertullian" PROVE Jesus had FLESH since MARCION'S SON OF GOD could have ONLY been an ILLUSION which could NOT be seen by the ENEMIES, OPPONENTS and SKEPTICS of Jesus.

Please direct me to the passage of "On the flesh of Christ" wherein "Tertullian" explains that Marcion's Son of God could not be seen by his enemies. I hope such a passage exists because I do want "Tertullian" to have a valid reason to use the Christus reference in Annals against the Marcionites.

boneyard bill · 12-10-2010, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Any known evidence that Jesus was just a mere man DESTROYS "Tertullian".

Once Marcion and the Marcionites KNEW of evidence, KNEW of Roman and Jewish records that Jesus was just a man with a human father "Tertullian's argument is DESTROYED.

Marcion and the Marcionites would have been able to PROVE or SHOW that Jesus believers and "Tertullian" were worshiping a KNOWN man as a God in the very same way as HJers are ATTEMPTING to do today.

Once Jesus did ACTUALLY exist he could have ONLY been human and he would have had EARTHLY parents, and extended earthly family, friends, and acquaintances. Jesus would have probably gone to the synagogues or places of worship of Jews during his time.

It is OBVIOUS that Marcion and the Marcionites had NO actual historical records that Jesus was just a man, NO actual historical records that Jesus was PUBLICLY crucified after a PUBLIC trial in the presence of Jews and Romans and had NOT identified any actual human who KNEW Jesus as a mere man.

All the so-called Heretics of Antiquity would have used any known historical records that Jesus was a man AGAINST the BELIEVERS who claimed Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and the CREATOR who was equal to God.

Not one known heretic used any Roman and Jewish records that Jesus was ONLY a man against Jesus believers or "Tertullian".

There were NO Roman and Jewish records that Jesus was just a man.

Jesus of the NT was KNOWN or ALWAYS believed to be a God by Jesus believers.

And if Jesus did exist he would have been KNOWN to be a man by people living in Galilee from the TAXING of Cyrenius to about the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius when he was PUBLICLY crucified in Jerusalem.

But Tertullian and the Marcionites do not claim that Jesus did not walk on earth, was not born of woman, did not appear to be crucified, and did not appear to suffer. He would have been indistinguishable from a human to other humans. It's like the Catholic Church claims regarding the Eurcharist. The "accidents" of the host are ordinary bread and wine but the "substance" is the blood and body of Christ. Personally, I am not able to find the blood and body of Christ is the host and the wine. Neither is anyone else because the transubstantiation does affect the appearance of these things.

Jesus would have appeared to be a man to other men. It is only in the resurrection that you find proof that he was not a man.

aa5874 · 12-10-2010, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneyard bill

But Tertullian and the Marcionites do not claim that Jesus did not walk on earth, was not born of woman, did not appear to be crucified, and did not appear to suffer.....

I am getting tired of people who don't want to read the "On the Flesh of Christ"

MARCION did DENY the NATIVITY of his Son of God and DENIED the resurrection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneyard bill

He would have been indistinguishable from a human to other humans. It's like the Catholic Church claims regarding the Eurcharist. The "accidents" of the host are ordinary bread and wine but the "substance" is the blood and body of Christ. Personally, I am not able to find the blood and body of Christ is the host and the wine. Neither is anyone else because the transubstantiation does affect the appearance of these things.

So how would you EXPECT the Roman soldiers, Pilate, the Sanhedrin and Jews to see Jesus through the transubstantiation?

You see ordinary bread and wine?

Well, how come no-one saw the ordinary Jesus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneyard bill

Jesus would have appeared to be a man to other men. It is only in the resurrection that you find proof that he was not a man.

You mean Jesus was a REAL GHOST at around the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

jgreen44 · 12-11-2010, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I am getting tired of people who don't want to read the "On the Flesh of Christ"

I am getting tired of people who make claims about what is written in "On the Flesh of Christ" without citing actual passages from the book. Please direct me to the passage you mentioned from "On the flesh of Christ", the one explaining that Marcion's Son of God could not be seen by his enemies.

angelo · 12-12-2010, 12:47 AM

None of the authors of any material in all of the whole N/T ever met, or knew of anyone who did ever meet a flesh and blood Jesus of Nazareth. We have Paul who cites meeting the brother of Jeebus and Cephas plus other apostles, but nowhere have we an eyewitness who actually met a flesh and blood character who left us any evidence. At best, we have second hand stories in the case of Paul who it must be acknowledged could have had a mental illness because of his seeing and hearing disembodied voices and a bright light. Symptoms of schizophrenia. And from this a case for a historical Jeebus can be made? Far from it in my humble opinion.
Many HJ'rs use the writings of Tacitus, or Josephus to bolster their case. All I see is a case of hearsay. These people were writing what had by then already become a tradition.
Then to top it all, all these accounts were translated, copied and re-written by christians centuries later.
The case for a HJ is at best no more probable than a case for a historical Robin Hood.

aa5874 · 12-12-2010, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen44

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I am getting tired of people who don't want to read the "On the Flesh of Christ"

I am getting tired of people who make claims about what is written in "On the Flesh of Christ" without citing actual passages from the book. Please direct me to the passage you mentioned from "On the flesh of Christ", the one explaining that Marcion's Son of God could not be seen by his enemies.

WHO CAN SEE PHANTOMS ON EARTH? If JESUS DID EXIST HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A PHANTOM.

If MARCION'S ENEMIES SAW his son of God and knew his son of God had a HUMAN mother named Mary that was ACTUALLY born during the TAXING of Cyrenius and was living in Galilee of Judea for about 30 years and was PUBLICLY crucified then it would be OBVIOUS that his ENEMIES would have known that his Son of God was NOT a PHANTOM.

Now, in all the writings that I have read I can't find any source which claimed MARCION'S ENEMIES SAW the PHANTOM .

And further MARCION LIVED about 100 years AFTER his Phantom Son of ANOTHER GOD was supposed to be on earth.

Who would you expect to SEE the PHANTOM c6-33 CE and claimed it was MARCION'S Phantom Son of ANOTHER GOD even before MARCION EXISTED and made the claim c150 CE?

Are you implying that people can see PHANTOMS a hundred years in ADVANCE?

I hope not.

aa5874 · 12-12-2010, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

...The case for a HJ is at best no more probable than a case for a historical Robin Hood.

Well, that is being quite optimistic.

At least Robin Hood was described as a man, but there is ZERO description of the ASSUMED HJ the SMALL TOWN preacher man anywhere in EXTANT antiquity.

The case for HJ is as good as the case for the UNKNOWN from Nazareth who did NOTHING there at any known time.

jgreen44 · 12-12-2010, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

WHO CAN SEE PHANTOMS ON EARTH? If JESUS DID EXIST HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A PHANTOM.

phan·tom also fan·tom (fntm)
n.
1.
a. Something apparently seen, heard, or sensed, but having no physical reality; a ghost or an apparition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, in all the writings that I have read I can't find any source which claimed MARCION'S ENEMIES SAW the PHANTOM .

So the invisible Jesus only "appeared" to be crucified?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And further MARCION LIVED about 100 years AFTER his Phantom Son of ANOTHER GOD was supposed to be on earth.

And yet Marcion developed a theology of Christ. What was wrong with that guy?

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

12-12-2010, 12:47 AM	#137
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	None of the authors of any material in all of the whole N/T ever met, or knew of anyone who did ever meet a flesh and blood Jesus of Nazareth. We have Paul who cites meeting the brother of Jeebus and Cephas plus other apostles, but nowhere have we an eyewitness who actually met a flesh and blood character who left us any evidence. At best, we have second hand stories in the case of Paul who it must be acknowledged could have had a mental illness because of his seeing and hearing disembodied voices and a bright light. Symptoms of schizophrenia. And from this a case for a historical Jeebus can be made? Far from it in my humble opinion. Many HJ'rs use the writings of Tacitus, or Josephus to bolster their case. All I see is a case of hearsay. These people were writing what had by then already become a tradition. Then to top it all, all these accounts were translated, copied and re-written by christians centuries later. The case for a HJ is at best no more probable than a case for a historical Robin Hood.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.