Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 01-15-2009, 07:05 AM

JW:
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=John_21

Quote:

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written.

JW:
More evidence that "John's" Jesus was fiftyIsh. A longer career would be needed to support the large amount of things claimed to be done by Jesus.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Chili · 01-15-2009, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
More evidence that "John's" Jesus was fiftyIsh. A longer career would be needed to support the large amount of things claimed to be done by Jesus.

But if you are bipolar you don't have to think and can talk twice as fast. Ths would be something like glossolalic racing with Pure Reason flowing over the adamsapple that is useless after he moved to the upper room, which I think is where Israel is at.

angelo · 01-15-2009, 11:06 PM

It's a miracle. This thread has risen from the grave. It died in November and rescuiated in January 09.
The age of Jeebus at his death is irrelevant, and means nothing as he was the word that 'God' used to create the cosmos.
From a scientific point of view it means he is eternal, no beginning, or end.
And therefore balderdash.
No one has yet discovered that he actually existed outside of the babble.
Like all myths, he probably never existed.

JoeWallack · 01-24-2009, 09:54 AM

JW:
The following are the key points for the argument that "John's" Jesus was close to fifty when he died:

1) John_8:57

Quote:

The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

The implication from this verse is that Jesus was close to fifty at the time.

2) Irenaues claimed, primarily based on "John", that Jesus was an old man when he died.

3) There is some textual variation for "forty" instead of "fifty" indicating the Church realized that "fifty" was a contradiction with "Luke".

4) John omits evidence from the Synoptics that would support Jesus being fiftyish in Pilate's time:

"Luke's" statement that Jesus was about thirty at the start of the Ministry.

The infancy narratives which have Jesus born thirty something years before Pilate.

In 7:5 "John" omits the mention of Jesus' sisters being included in Jesus' family going to look for Jesus. The implication is that they were grown and had their own families.

5) "John's" Jesus has three Passovers compared to one for the Synoptics.

6) John 2 might be a subtle reference to Jesus being forty-six.

Quote:

2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

2:20 The Jews therefore said, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days?

2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

2:22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he spake this; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

7) In Chapter 6 "John" refers to Jesus' father. In Chapter 7 "John" has Jesus' brothers go to Jerusalem but not Jesus' father. The implication is that Jesus' father is too old to travel.

8) John 21:25 claims that Jesus did a huge amount of deeds which would support a long career,

The argument for John's Jesus being about fifty falls into two main categories:

1) All of the related implications in "John" support an older Jesus.

2) All of the supposed support for a younger Jesus in the Synoptics is exorcised.

I've outlined the argument at ErancyWiki John 8:57 if anyone wants to add to it or try and defend against the contradiction with the age of "Luke's" Jesus.

Another huge problem for HJ, even larger than the birth dating contradiction where "Matthew" and "Luke" contradict each other on the dating of Jesus' birth by at least 10 years ( Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth by Richard Carrier). The dating contradiction for Jesus' age at death is closer to 20 years where presumably, compared to Jesus' supposed birth dating, supposed witness should have been much closer to the supposed event. The potential argument for MJ is much better than Doherty has made so far. The Death dating error would make a good bookend for Richard Carrier to go along with the Birth Dating error.

Joseph

IMMORTALITY, n.

A toy which people cry for,
And on their knees apply for,
Dispute, contend and lie for,
And if allowed
Would be right proud
Eternally to die for.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

angelo · 01-24-2009, 11:17 PM

In not so many words. The age of Jeebus cannot be established by the scriptural writings.
They are a mish mash of jumbled word salad.
Joseph Smith had more credibility, and boy, that's saying something.

Seitsuman · 01-25-2009, 01:34 PM

I think a lot can be infered from the fact that only two of the canonical gospels even try to give a background history. For some reason Matthew has always been taken as authoritative but it is Luke that makes sense.

To dispose of Matthew - very likely there were astrologers and ambassadors hanging around Herod the Great when he was dying. He'd killed most of his heirs off (no doubt the origin of massacre of the innocents) and the Herod family was ensconced throughout Roman Asia. Augustus was getting on too, also with no obvious successors. It was entirely feasible that Rome would revert back to civil war and the East could throw it out. What did Herod the Great intend for his successors? There's no Roman census near Herod's death and if there had been it would have been nothing to do with him! He ran a satellite state, not a province.

Luke has Herod of Judea and Jesus on the road in his 30th year. Herod the Great ruled a lot more than Judea! However he split the kingdom into four (the Tetrarchs) and was succeeded in Judea by a little known Herod Archelaus in 4BC. His rule was so bad that Judea had him deposed in 6CE for direct Roman rule. So Rome must have held a census (not least because arbitrary taxation was one of the complaints against him).

Luke gives a credible Jesus conceived while Herod is on the throne but born following his removal. Thirty years later puts him on the road in 36. This is the last date Pilate can crucify him, since in Summer that year he returned to Rome in disgrace. If events actually happened, it is quite feasible that Pilate hedged his bets as far as he could to cover all eventualities - yes the man was crucified but in such a way as to give a good chance of survival just in case Tiberius didn't approve. Pilate was up to his eyes in the brown stuff and probably only survived because he contrived to arrive the day Tiberius died and he was friendly with Caligula (not a healthy position it's true but better than the one he was in with Tiberius).

I'm not sure that John is interested in assuming a historical figure at all. He has the Eternal Messiah walking thee Earth like any pagan deity. And that is a point: the idea of divine incarnation might sound miraculous to a modern monotheistic world but it certainly did not then. Half the Caesars were divine, most Eastern kings were. Whether Jesus existed historically or not it would be exceptional if followers did not deify him. It is more like rural India than anything modern.

JoeWallack · 08-15-2009, 07:30 AM

JW:
Dr. Carrier mentioned that in his upcoming book on the historicity of that guy from the Christian Bible who's name escapes me at the moment but I think starts with a "J" or "Y" he may mention the Christian traditions supporting Jesus being executed under

Claudius who ruled from 41-54.

I've inventoried the contradiction between "Luke" saying Jesus was thirtyIsh when he died and "John" saying Jesus was fiftyIsh at ErrancyWiki:

Luke 3:23

Most Christian commentators I've seen address the issue state that there is an implication from Irenaeus that Jesus died under Claudius based on Against Heresies

Book II Chapter XXII 4

Quote:

"4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master,145 He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged146 by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had147 appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself-all, I say, who through Him are born again to God148 -infants,149 and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be "the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence,"150 the Prince of life,151 existing before all, and going before all.152

5. They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord," maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,"153 when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men, ] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years,154 and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth andfiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.155 And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.156 Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?

6. But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad," they answered Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? "157 Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, "Thou art not yet forty years old." For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age.For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being158 of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old;159 and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? "He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year, unless indeed, among their Aeons, there be so long years assigned to those who sit in their ranks with Bythus in the Pleroma; of which beings Homer the poet, too, has spoken, doubtless being inspired by the Mother of their [system of] error:-"

Irenaeus' much less popular work The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching though explicitly claims that Jesus died under Claudius:

The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching

Quote:

74. And again David (says) thus concerning the sufferings of Christ: Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people imagine vain things? Kings rose up on the earth, and princes were gathered together, against the Lord and his Anointed. (Cf. Acts iv 25 ff.) For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, 248, came together and condemned Him to be crucified. For Herod feared, as though He were to be an earthly king, lest he should be expelled by Him from the kingdom. But Pilate was constrained by Herod and the Jews that were with him against his will to deliver Him to death: (for they threatened him) if he should not rather do this. 249, than act contrary to Ceasar, by letting go a man who was called a king."

248 Pilate was procurator of Judea for ten years (27-37). Claudius did not become emperor until A.D. 42. The statement here made is therefore inconsistent with the chronology of history: but it agrees with the view, expressed in II, xxxiii. 2 ff., that our Lord reached tatem seniorem , that is, an age between 40 and 50: a view which is largely based on John viii. 57: "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" For these words seemed to Irenaeus to show that He could not have been much less than fifty at the time when they were spoken. See C. H. Turner's art. Chronology in Hastings' Dict. of the Bible .

249 The Armenian is here uncertain.

Note that the Gospels never state which emperor Jesus died under which apparently gave Irenaeus the Lycense to choose Claudius.

Comically, Irenaeus, one of the few known Christians to claim a specific chain of witnesses back to Jesus says that Jesus was an old man when he was crucified.

Christianity commonly claims that Jesus was about 33 when he died. Yet Irenaeus, who appears to have potentially better evidence than any other known Christian on the subject, claims that Jesus was about 50 when he died or a difference of at least 15 years. What makes Irenaeus' claim here especially funny is that assuming he is right, and the subsequent Church decided to retain his assertian here, presumably because they thought he might be, Paul would have been teaching about the significance of Jesus' death while Jesus was still alive!

What other traditions are there that Jesus died under Claudius (come on Andrew, I know you know)?

Everyone is welcome to answer except for James Snapp Jr.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

angelo · 08-16-2009, 04:01 AM

What if jesus never existed? What if it's all a carryover from the Horus myths?

www.jesusneverexisted.com

andrewcriddle · 08-16-2009, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

What other traditions are there that Jesus died under Claudius (come on Andrew, I know you know)?

Everyone is welcome to answer except for James Snapp Jr.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Hi Joe

AFAIK Irenaeus is out on a limb here. (One could of course use this as evidence that Irenaeus did not have access to at least the later books of Josephus' Antiquities. These would have prevented him from misdating Pontius Pilate in this way.)

Andrew Criddle

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

01-15-2009, 11:06 PM	#73
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	It's a miracle. This thread has risen from the grave. It died in November and rescuiated in January 09. The age of Jeebus at his death is irrelevant, and means nothing as he was the word that 'God' used to create the cosmos. From a scientific point of view it means he is eternal, no beginning, or end. And therefore balderdash. No one has yet discovered that he actually existed outside of the babble. Like all myths, he probably never existed.

01-24-2009, 11:17 PM	#75
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	In not so many words. The age of Jeebus cannot be established by the scriptural writings. They are a mish mash of jumbled word salad. Joseph Smith had more credibility, and boy, that's saying something.

01-25-2009, 01:34 PM	#76
Seitsuman Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 37	I think a lot can be infered from the fact that only two of the canonical gospels even try to give a background history. For some reason Matthew has always been taken as authoritative but it is Luke that makes sense. To dispose of Matthew - very likely there were astrologers and ambassadors hanging around Herod the Great when he was dying. He'd killed most of his heirs off (no doubt the origin of massacre of the innocents) and the Herod family was ensconced throughout Roman Asia. Augustus was getting on too, also with no obvious successors. It was entirely feasible that Rome would revert back to civil war and the East could throw it out. What did Herod the Great intend for his successors? There's no Roman census near Herod's death and if there had been it would have been nothing to do with him! He ran a satellite state, not a province. Luke has Herod of Judea and Jesus on the road in his 30th year. Herod the Great ruled a lot more than Judea! However he split the kingdom into four (the Tetrarchs) and was succeeded in Judea by a little known Herod Archelaus in 4BC. His rule was so bad that Judea had him deposed in 6CE for direct Roman rule. So Rome must have held a census (not least because arbitrary taxation was one of the complaints against him). Luke gives a credible Jesus conceived while Herod is on the throne but born following his removal. Thirty years later puts him on the road in 36. This is the last date Pilate can crucify him, since in Summer that year he returned to Rome in disgrace. If events actually happened, it is quite feasible that Pilate hedged his bets as far as he could to cover all eventualities - yes the man was crucified but in such a way as to give a good chance of survival just in case Tiberius didn't approve. Pilate was up to his eyes in the brown stuff and probably only survived because he contrived to arrive the day Tiberius died and he was friendly with Caligula (not a healthy position it's true but better than the one he was in with Tiberius). I'm not sure that John is interested in assuming a historical figure at all. He has the Eternal Messiah walking thee Earth like any pagan deity. And that is a point: the idea of divine incarnation might sound miraculous to a modern monotheistic world but it certainly did not then. Half the Caesars were divine, most Eastern kings were. Whether Jesus existed historically or not it would be exceptional if followers did not deify him. It is more like rural India than anything modern.

08-16-2009, 04:01 AM	#78
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	What if jesus never existed? What if it's all a carryover from the Horus myths? www.jesusneverexisted.com

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.