Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 12-29-2010, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

How do you discover the historical realities without interpreting the documents that allegedly report the realities?

You take out a history book......the NT documents reflect 'salvation' interpretations of historical realities. First comes the history book...

You believe that a few un-educated first century Galilean peasants could read history books?

No, but I think you can....and who is talking about un-educated first century Galilean peasants anyway - certainly not me...

aa5874 · 12-30-2010, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

...aa5874, I don't believe there was a historical gospel Jesus of Nazareth. This figure is myth; a literary creation.
I do believe that historical figures have contributed 'color', for want of a better word, to the creation of the gospel Jesus....

It is ALREADY accepted that people can BELIEVE whatever they want. I am into or looking for EVIDENCE of Antiquity, credible historical sources of Antiquity that can support your BELIEF and I can't find any.

The claim that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a donkey rider has more support than Jesus was based on a human being. Not even the Church claimed Jesus was the seed of man or was the story of some known mere man.

There were many CHRISTIANS cults that worshiped MYTHS that were NOT even claimed to be human at all. Marcion's Phantom Son of God was claimed to be PURELY DIVINE without a SINGLE drop of human blood in his APPARENT body and was WHOLLY FABRICATED.

There was ZERO theological or historical benefit for the Jesus cult if it was known that Jesus was just a mere man or that the Jesus story was based on a mere man.

The Jesus story was BASED on an CATASTROPHIC EVENT, the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE. The abomination of desolation was in place and The DAY of Judgement was NEXT.

In the Gospels, the Fall of the Temple is the ONLY event that the supposed Jesus CORRECTLY predicted.

The Fall of the Temple appeared to have signified the BEGINNING of the End and all the author is claiming is that God sent his Son Jesus to warn the Jews about the Day of Judgement and the Jews REJECTED his Son hence God caused his OWN Temple to be destroyed and would very SHORTLY bring JUDGMENT on the ENTIRE world.

The Jesus story is SIMPLY a response or explanation to the Fall of the Temple by some UNKNOWN apocalyptic writer or cult leader.

The EVIDENCE is right there in gMark 13.24-27, gMatthew 24.29-31 and Luke 21. 20-28.

Doug Shaver · 12-30-2010, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

How do you discover the historical realities without interpreting the documents that allegedly report the realities?

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

You take out a history book......the NT documents reflect 'salvation' interpretations of historical realities. First comes the history book...

Been there, done that. Every conventional history book I've ever read that mentions early Christianity just parrots what the church has been saying ever since Eusebius's time, except they usually avoid any comments about all the supernatural garbage.

Doug Shaver · 12-30-2010, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Using this site to advertise your book, and telling people they have to buy it, isnt very impressive.

Asking him to reproduce the book on this site so that you don't have to buy it isn't very impressive, either.

David Deas · 12-30-2010, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

As for Maryhelena, as she and others here may know from past experience, she and I simply don't think on the same wavelength, and debate with her I have long since regarded as pointless. How anyone can declare that Paul woujld never find himself required to discuss, appeal to, take into account things his Jesus allegedly did, could have done, the circumstances of his presumed life, when he is out on the proselytizing hustings talking about a human being who had supposedly been on earth, regardless of what he had turned that human being into, is beyond me.

Using this site to advertise your book, and telling people they have to buy it, isnt very impressive.

What a pathetic comment.

judge · 12-30-2010, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Using this site to advertise your book, and telling people they have to buy it, isnt very impressive.

Asking him to reproduce the book on this site so that you don't have to buy it isn't very impressive, either.

If the book had some real value, then I myself would be inclined to buy it. I buy a lot of book.
Sadly all Earl ever seems to do in my experience here is dodge, and give the impression that his book is dud except to his fan club.

If Earl were willing to deliver something apart from the vague sort of nonsesne he provides in this thread then it might provoke my interest a bit more.
Presumably if you thought his book was not a dud you wouldnt be re3acting the way you are...
So tell us, what do you find so good about it?

And ..er..Im not asking him to reproduce the book, just to participate in a discussion forum (which is what this place is) to the point where one can get some idea of whether is book is completely hopeless (which I suspect), or has some merit.

judge · 12-30-2010, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Deas

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Using this site to advertise your book, and telling people they have to buy it, isnt very impressive.

What a pathetic comment.

Ooh dear, someone else from the Earl Doherty fanclub is upset.
Think you might be able to string more than one sentence together, David, and tell us what is so good about Earl's book?

maryhelena · 12-30-2010, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

How do you discover the historical realities without interpreting the documents that allegedly report the realities?

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

You take out a history book......the NT documents reflect 'salvation' interpretations of historical realities. First comes the history book...

Been there, done that. Every conventional history book I've ever read that mentions early Christianity just parrots what the church has been saying ever since Eusebius's time, except they usually avoid any comments about all the supernatural garbage.

But its not what history books might say about early Christianity or the gospel Jesus that is of any real importance - its Jewish history, particularly the Hasmonean and Herodian history of the relevant time period from 40 bc when Herod was made King in Rome and Antigonus was King/High Priest in Jerusalem.

When I first realized (nearly 30 years ago....)that the gospel Jesus was a mythological creation ie removed the mythological clothes and realized the Jesus 'emperor' is naked underneath it all - a phantom of imagination not historical reality - I reached for a history book in an attempt to look at the relevant history of the period.

The history book I bought was 'Israelite & Judaean History', by Hayes and Miller, 1977.
Israelite & Judaean History (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Sure, it does give a nod to the gospel figure:

Quote:

page 641 and 642

"Jesus was probably born in or near Nazareth...Nothing firm can be said of him until he was about thirty....To present the shape of the career of Jesus is a matter of forming the most probable hypothesis to cover those facts which can be reasonably entertained after radical synoptic criticism. It seems that Jesus believed himself entrusted by God with the reformation of his people for the task of converting the world, that he believed it necessary to win back those who lived among Gentiles in the north in his own Galilee, in southern Syria, in the Decapolis, and in the territory of Philip. He ranged widely over these areas from a headquarters at Capernaum on the north side of the Lake of Galilee,.....His morality was traditional but his intellectual grasp of its basis was original unconventional. More articulate than other Galilean religious figures, he had the extra-ordinary gift both for the poetic expression of his interpretation of his nation's wisdom and for facing men and women with their own crises. Supremely in history his impact challenged both humble individuals and well established authority, the latter disturbed....by his apparent willingness to associate with Rome and its agents."

Reading this brought to mind what Josephus had to say regarding a historical figure, Philip the Tetrarch; ruler of an area that the gospel Jesus figure is very interested in 'working'.

Quote:

"About this time it was that Philip, Herod's brother departed this life, in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius, after he had been tetrarch of Trachonitis, and Gaulonitis, and of the nation of the Bataneans also, thirty-seven years. He had shewn himself a person of moderation and quietness in the conduct of his life and government; he constantly lived in that country which was subject to him, he used to make his progress with a few chosen friends; his tribunal also, on which he sat in judgement, followed him in his progress; and when any one met him who wanted his assistance, he made no delay, but had his tribunal sat down immediately, wheresoever he happened to be, and sat down upon it, and heard his complaint; he there ordered the guilty that were convicted to be punished, and absolved those that had been accused unjustly. He died at Julias; and when he was carried to that monument which he had already erected for himself beforehand, he was buried with great pomp. His principality Tiberius took (or he left no sons behind him) and added it to the province of Syria, but gave orders that the tributes which arose from it should be collected, and laid up in his tetrarchy."

(Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews. Book XV111,ch.1V,par.6)

The gospel Jesus figure a Johnny come lately? Someone else was doing the rounds in Philip's territory - Philip himself...(Philip, according to how one reads Josephus - supposedly died in 34 ce).

Josephus tells us that Philip renamed the village of Bethsaida to Bethsaida Julius. There was some debate over when this was done, but it's now settled:

Quote:

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20769141
Titre du document / Document title

The Foundation of Bethsaida-Julias by Philip the Tetrarch
Auteur(s) / Author(s)

KOKKINOS Nikos (1) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) University College London, ROYAUME-UNI

Résumé / Abstract
Josephus (Ant. 18.27) explicitly names Julia 'the daughter' of Augustus, distinguished from Livia/Julia 'the wife', as the person to whom the town of Bethsaida was dedicated. This must have taken place by 2 BCE when Julia was banished, denounced for multiple adulteries. The numismatist A. Kindler suggested that Josephus may be wrong and that Livia/Julia the wife would lie behind this dedication dated to 30/31 CE. Following Kindler, the archaeologists and theologians currently operating at etTell-identified by them as the site of Bethsaida-Julias-have produced many papers accusing Josephus of error. Reviewing the evidence, it is clear that the original suggestion should have never been made. By taking this opportunity, a problem of wider significance is underlined: the difference between the titles 'Augusta' and 'Sebaste' in west and east. Many documents attributed a priori to Livia, based only on the presence of her adopted name, could belong to Julia.

History tells us that Bethsaida Julius was up and running with its new name during the time of the gospel story timeline; the gospel of John tells us that the early disciples came from there...but the gospel story goes with the old name...(Julia Augusta died in 29 ce. - the 15th year of Tiberius 29/30 ce)

Quote:

Hayes and Miller:'Israelite & Judaean History'.

page 636

Philip......was remarkable among Herodians for his popularity and benevolence as a ruler. His reign being peaceful, there is less to report of him; but he to was a builder, and a straightforward supporter of the Roman empire. He rebuilt ancient Paneas (Banian), giving it the name of Caesarea. During his reign it was suitably distinguished from the Roman provincial capital on the coast by the addition of Philippi and under that double name it became famous as the place where Simon Peter, most prominent of the disciples, ventured the title of Messiah for Jesus, who according to the oldest tradition, rejected it.

No indications of history within the gospel storyline - or is history being used to color the gospel portrait of its non-historical Jesus figure? Is real history being interpreted as 'salvation' history, re-written as pseudo-history, within the pages of the gospel Jesus story?

(and no, Philip the Tetrarch is not the gospel Jesus - the gospel Jesus figure was crucified, Philip was not crucified - the gospel Jesus figure is a composite figure - allowing for other historical figures to have a piece of the gospel action.....)

my bolding

angelo · 12-31-2010, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

You believe that a few un-educated first century Galilean peasants could read history books?

No, but I think you can....and who is talking about un-educated first century Galilean peasants anyway - certainly not me...

They are the ones responsible/wrote/composed the gospels. Even if literate, the authors were at best a superstitious lot still living in a three tiered universe.

maryhelena · 12-31-2010, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

You believe that a few un-educated first century Galilean peasants could read history books?

No, but I think you can....and who is talking about un-educated first century Galilean peasants anyway - certainly not me...

They are the ones responsible/wrote/composed the gospels. Even if literate, the authors were at best a superstitious lot still living in a three tiered universe.

...so the gospel storyline goes......and

igsfly:

The historical realities regarding the origins of early Jewish/Christianity might well be something entirely different...

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.