Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-20-2009, 09:02 AM

ph2ter's post has been given its own thread here

LogicandReason · 02-20-2009, 09:18 AM

Now that we've hashed through so much speculation as to Jesus being a man, legend or myth, let's discuss more of the myth-making in terms of mythical events.

Mark 6:45-52 is just a whopper! Jesus walks out to a boat full of disciples in the middle of the night, during a storm. This is pure mythology!

Let's try to analyze the purpose of a deity behaving in such a way. as if it were even possible. Does he simply do this to save the disciples? Why not save us all from storms? Does he do this to build their faith? In the story previous to this event, Jesus feeds 5000 with 3 loaves and 2 fish (another mythological story). The passage I'm examining says that they were still not convinced after this 'miracle.' Are these guys 'dullards?'

Of course when Matthew tells the story, we see the legend grow before our eyes, as he had Peter leave the boat to walk to Jesus. Please! Matthew, written to the Jewish Christians, is always trying to make Peter the important number 2.

One has to question the lack of the Leviathan in this story...I guess they didn't borrow everything from the OT.

aa5874 · 02-20-2009, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Matthew, written to the Jewish Christians, is always trying to make Peter the important number 2.

I hope you realise that there may have been a difference between Jewish "Christians" and "Jesus believers."

It would appear that Jewish "Christians" may have not believed in the myth called Jesus.

Jews may have been referred to as the "anointed ones" transliterated as "christians" before the stories about the myth called Jesus was ever written.

The word "christ" means "anointed" or some derivative of the word "to anoint."

Theophilus of Antioch (Roberts- Donaldson translation) XII.--MEANING OF THE NAME CHRISTIAN.

Quote:

And about your laughing at me and calling me "Christian," you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first caulked [anointed]? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God?

Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.

There is no reference at all to Jesus Christ, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, with respect to being called a Christian.

LogicandReason · 02-20-2009, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Matthew, written to the Jewish Christians, is always trying to make Peter the important number 2.

I hope you realise that there may have been a difference between Jewish "Christians" and "Jesus believers."

It would appear that Jewish "Christians" may have not believed in the myth called Jesus.

Jews may have been referred to as the "anointed ones" transliterated as "christians" before the stories about the myth called Jesus was ever written.

The word "christ" means "anointed" or some derivative of the word "to anoint."

Theophilus of Antioch (Roberts- Donaldson translation) XII.--MEANING OF THE NAME CHRISTIAN.

Quote:

And about your laughing at me and calling me "Christian," you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first caulked [anointed]? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God?

Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.

There is no reference at all to Jesus Christ, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, with respect to being called a Christian.

Interesting stuff aa

I really started studying this at a deeper level a year ago and I find it interesting to see how diverse the early 'Christians' were.

fatpie42 · 02-20-2009, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Quote:

There is no reference at all to Jesus Christ, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, with respect to being called a Christian.

Interesting stuff aa

I really started studying this at a deeper level a year ago and I find it interesting to see how diverse the early 'Christians' were.

It seems that the next section after that (chapter 13) he goes on to talk about resurrection without reference to Jesus too! In fact, when asked how he can believe in the resurrection without any reason to believe it can happen he refers to Hercules and Æsculapius, but not Jesus... :constern01:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02041.htm

angelo · 02-20-2009, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

No historians of the time mention Jesus. Suetonius (65-135) does not. Pliny the Younger only mentions Christians (Paulists) with no comment of Jesus himself. Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time. Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (The Testimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud). He once mentions a Jesus, but gives no information other than that he is a brother of a James. Jesus was not an unusual name, either. Justus, another Jewish historian who lived in Tiberias (near Kapernaum, a place Jesus frequented) did not mention Jesus nor any of his miracles. It is only in the evidence of later writers, writing about earlier times, that we find a Jesus. What is more surprising (Jesus could simply have been unknown to local historians) is that academics note that the gospels themselves do not allude to first-hand historical sources, either!

Also, see www.jesusneverexisted.com

It is completely erroneous and mis-leading to claim Tacitus mentioned a Jesus. It is just not true at all. The word "Jesus" is nowhere in the Tacitus' "Annals".

Why are you repeating such a ridiculous claim when the translation of Annals 15.44 show the word CHRISTUS?

Look at the passage as translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb. 1942.

Tacitus Annals 15,44

Quote:

:
..... Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.....

No "Jesus" is in Tacitus' Annals.

True. But everyone knows what is meant is Jesus who later in the end of the century was called the Christ by most.

aa5874 · 02-21-2009, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

No "Jesus" is in Tacitus' Annals.

True. But everyone knows what is meant is Jesus who later in the end of the century was called the Christ by most.

But, your statement even now does not appear to be true, since no church writer ever used Annals 15.44 to show that Jesus did exist. Eusebius used forged passages in Antiquities of the Jews to falsely claim Jesus existed.

It is clear then that it was not known that "Christus" meant Jesus, if the passage was not a forgery, too.

andrewcriddle · 02-21-2009, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, your statement even now does not appear to be true, since no church writer ever used Annals 15.44 to show that Jesus did exist. Eusebius used forged passages in Antiquities of the Jews to falsely claim Jesus existed.

I don't think Eusebius uses the TF from the Antiquities as part of an argument for the existence of Jesus. His opponents did not dispute that Jesus had existed. Eusebius does use the TF as part of an argument about the chronology of Jesus' life but that is another matter.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 02-21-2009, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, your statement even now does not appear to be true, since no church writer ever used Annals 15.44 to show that Jesus did exist. Eusebius used forged passages in Antiquities of the Jews to falsely claim Jesus existed.

I don't think Eusebius uses the TF from the Antiquities as part of an argument for the existence of Jesus. His opponents did not dispute that Jesus had existed. Eusebius does use the TF as part of an argument about the chronology of Jesus' life but that is another matter.

Andrew Criddle

You don't know what you are talking about. Complete nonsense.

I am getting tired of these ridiculous statements.

In Church History Eusebius wrote about Marcion, the heretic.

Marcion's Jesus contradicted the existence of Jesus of the NT.

Marcion's Jesus had no earthly mother or father.

Marcion's Jesus had no brothers or sisters.

Marcion's Jesus was not crucified.

Marcion's Jesus did not die.

Marcion's Jesus was not resurrected.

It should be obvious that Eusebius used the forged passage of Antiquities of the Jews to try to show that Jesus of the NT did exist contrary to the beliefs of others.

andrewcriddle · 02-21-2009, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You don't know what you are talking about. Complete nonsense.

I am getting tired of these ridiculous statements.

In Church History Eusebius wrote about Marcion, the heretic.

Marcion's Jesus contradicted the existence of Jesus of the NT.

Marcion's Jesus had no earthly mother or father.

Marcion's Jesus had no brothers or sisters.

Marcion's Jesus was not crucified.

Marcion's Jesus did not die.

Marcion's Jesus was not resurrected.

It should be obvious that Eusebius used the forged passage of Antiquities of the Jews to try to show that Jesus of the NT did exist contrary to the beliefs of others.

The last part of Marcion's Gospel is online here Gospel of Marcion 6 Marcion's Jesus was crucified, died and rose again.

Andrew Criddle

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

02-20-2009, 09:02 AM	#191
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	ph2ter's post has been given its own thread here

02-20-2009, 09:18 AM	#192
LogicandReason Regular Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 212	Now that we've hashed through so much speculation as to Jesus being a man, legend or myth, let's discuss more of the myth-making in terms of mythical events. Mark 6:45-52 is just a whopper! Jesus walks out to a boat full of disciples in the middle of the night, during a storm. This is pure mythology! Let's try to analyze the purpose of a deity behaving in such a way. as if it were even possible. Does he simply do this to save the disciples? Why not save us all from storms? Does he do this to build their faith? In the story previous to this event, Jesus feeds 5000 with 3 loaves and 2 fish (another mythological story). The passage I'm examining says that they were still not convinced after this 'miracle.' Are these guys 'dullards?' Of course when Matthew tells the story, we see the legend grow before our eyes, as he had Peter leave the boat to walk to Jesus. Please! Matthew, written to the Jewish Christians, is always trying to make Peter the important number 2. One has to question the lack of the Leviathan in this story...I guess they didn't borrow everything from the OT.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.