Amaleq13

Of course. Is that all you meant? I thought you were suggesting a specific goal the author had in mind.

schilling.klaus

no, Jesus is the Son of a Greater God than that of Moses.

Klaus Schilling

schilling.klaus

Justin Martyr did that.

no, Mark's gospel is an even later patchwork

over half a century after that

Klaus Schilling

mountainman

JUSTIN MARTYR: (c. 100-165): Saint, Martyr, a foremost
Christian Apologist. A Gentile ex-Pagan of Samaria, turned
Christian, and supposed to have suffered martyrdom in the reign of
Marcus Aurelius, in whose name he forged a very preposterous
rescript. His principal works, in Greek, are his two Apologies, the
first addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, whose reply he also
forged; the second to "the sacred Senate" of Rome; his Dialogue
with Trypho the Jew, and his Hortatory Address to the Greeks. He
describes himself and fellow Christian Fathers as "we who formerly
used magical arts." (I Apol. ch. xiv.) The burden of his arguments
is Pagan "analogies" of Christianity, the contents of many of his
chapters being indicated by their captions, as "The Demons Imitate
Christian Doctrine," and "Heathen Analogies to Christian Doctrine,"
in chapters xiv and xv of his First Apology, and elsewhere. His
whole faith in Christ and in Christianity, he declares, is
confirmed by these heathen precedents and analogies: "Be well
assured, then, Trypho, that I am established in the knowledge of
and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is
called the Devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just
as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false
prophets in Elijah's days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of
Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter's) intercourse with Semele, and
that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that
being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended
to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I
not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced
by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? ... And when he [the
devil] brings forward AEsculapius as the raiser of the dead and
healer of all diseases, may I not say in this matter likewise he
has imitated the prophecies about Christ? ... And when I hear that
Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving
serpent counterfeited this also." (Dial, with Trypho, ch. lxix;
ANF. i, 233.)

Father Justin accepts the heathen gods as genuine divine
beings; but says they are only wicked demons who lead men astray;
and he says that these "evil demons, effecting apparitions of
themselves, both defiled women and corrupted boys." (I Apol. ch. v,
eh. liv, passim.) The devils "having heard it proclaimed through
the prophets that the Christ was to come, ... they put forward many
to be called the sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they
would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were
said in regard to Christ were more marvelous tales, like the things
which were said by the poets. The devils, accordingly, when they
heard these prophetic words, said that Bacchus was the son of
Jupiter, and gave out that he was the discoverer of the vine"; and
so through many twaddling chapters, repeating the argument with
respect to Bellerophon and his horse Pegasus, of Perseus, of
Hercules, of AEsculapius, etc., as "analogies" prophetic of
baptism, sacraments, the eucharist, resurrection, etc., etc. The
Pagan myths and miracles are true; therefore like fables of the
Christ are worthy of belief: "And when we say also that the Word,
who is the first-born of God, was produced without sexual union,
and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified. and rose
again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from
what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.
... But as we have said above, wicked devils perpetrated these
things. And if we assert that the Word of God was born in a
peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as
said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury
is the angelic word [Logos] of God. ... And if we even affirm that
He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept
of Perseus. And in what we say that he made whole the lame, the
paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very
similar to the deeds said to have been done by AEsculapius." (I
Apol., chs. xxi, xxii; ANF. i, 170; cf. Add. ad Grace. ch. lxix;
Ib. 233.)

Father Justin also retails to the Emperor the old fable of
Simon Magus and his magical miracles at Rome, and attributes it all
to the work of the devils. For "the evil spirits, not being
satisfied with saying, before Christ's appearance, that those who
were said to be sons of Jupiter were born of him, but after he
appeared, ... and when they learned how He had been foretold by the
prophets, put forward again other men, the Samaritans Simon and
Menander, who did many mighty works by magic; ... and so greatly
astonished the sacred Senate and people of the Romans that he was
considered a god, and honored with a statue; ...

which statue was
erected in the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this
inscription in the language of Rome: 'Simoni Deo Sancto -- To Simon
the holy God" (I Apol. chs. xxvi, lvi; ANF. i, 171, 182; cf. Iren.
Adv. Haer. ch. xxiii; ANF. i, 347-8; Euseb. HE. II, 13.) We have
seen this much embroidered "tradition" myth exploded, and the
statue discovered and deciphered, it being a simple private pious
monument to a Pagan god!

Father Justin in many chapters cites and appeals for Christian
proofs to "The Testimony of the Sibyl," of Homer, of Sophocles, of
Pythagoras, of Plato. (Add. ad Grace. chs. 18-20; ANF. i, 279-280.)
Of the Sibyl, so often quoted: "And you may in part learn the right
religion from the ancient Sibyl, who by some kind of potent
inspiration teaches you, through her oracular predictions, truths
which seem to be much akin to the teachings of the prophets. ... Ye
men of Greece, ... do ye henceforth give heed to the words of the
Sibyl, ... predicting, as she does in a clear and patent manner,
the advent of our Savior Jesus Christ," quoting long verses of
Christian-forged nonsense. (Ib. chs. 37-38; ANF. i, 288-289.)




-- extracted from Joseph Wheless,
"FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY", 1930


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

spin

What's this Roman crucifixion stuff? There is little particularly Roman about it. The Persians did it. The Greeks did it. The Jews did it. And finally the Romans did it as well. Crucifixion was well known before the 1st c. CE.


spin

mountainman

And after.

spamandham

The point being, that if someone wanted to construct an allegorical story of the suffering of 1st (/2nd?) century Jewish people under Rome, culminating in the destruction of the Temple under Rome, and they wished to use Isaiah 53 for a good portion of it, it would make a good bit of sense to have the main character crucified by Rome - thus paralleling the humiliations described in Isaiah 53 in a contemporarily significant way (Roman crucifixion). The entire passion looks to be constructed from scriptures, yet so many people just discount all that while keeping the part about an executed cult leader.

IMHO, to assume the entire story allegorical makes for a simpler explanation of how a crucified man came to be worshiped as a god, than does the idea that the execution of a cult leader came to be seen as a bizzare kind of perfect sacrifice thus allowing the cult to not only survive his death, but to even thrive because of it. It seems to me the latter approach is a hell of a stretch.

Amaleq13

That's what the stories say and that's also who history indicates would most likely have been responsible for a crucified a Jew in Jerusalem.

Why should anyone else be considered?

aa5874

In order to maintain the claim that Christianity, followers of the doctrine and of Jesus of Nazareth, predated 70 CE, one must show within reason that there was an actual person called Jesus of Nazareth and that he had real followers and was or believed to be resurrected.

So, far no-one has been able to show that there was an actual person called Jesus of Nazareth, with thousands of real followers who was or believed to be resurrected during the days of Tiberius.

No extant Jewish writings of the 1st century contain any refutations to the supposed bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, also there are no Jewish extant writings that question the idea that Jesus was the son of God or the Messiah, all these refutations and denials of Jesus of Nazareth occurred in the 2nd century.

In "Dialogue with Trypho" by Justin Martyr, written about the middle 2nd century, Trypho the Jew refuted and denied that the Christ had already come and the resurrection of the body. And even Justin Martyr conceded that the Jews as a whole did not accept Jesus as the Christ and was not even aware that this figure was already come.

It would appear to me that Jesus of Nazareth was fabricated sometime after 70CE, since all refutations and objections to this figure occurred in the 2nd by extant Jewish writers.

neilgodfrey

There is another suspect when we move outside the canonical version. Gospel of Peter and Justin speak of Herod -- and the Jews -- being the ones responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus -- "under Pilate".

Obviously this does not sit with our understanding of history, but then we come back to the question of how much accurate historical knowledge we can presume in second century writers. Justin, for example, conflates the Roman invasions of the 60's b.c.e and c.e. and places this conflation within days of the death of Jesus -- all in the time of Herod and Pilate.


Neil Godfrey