Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 08-05-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedistillers

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Alas, Toto, you what they say about people who "assume?"

Try to do history without "assuming" anything. You will not go very far. You'll be stuck at where aa5874 is.

Some people keep babbling we cannot recover anything about Jesus, because they want certainties. They want everything to be labelled as either true or false. But history is not a rigid discipline like math.

You are making complete erroneous and mis-leading assumptions about me. You have NOT shown that I have assumed anything without supporting evidence.

You MUST identify where I have made assumptioms without evidence or information.

Please do so now or cease from babbling nonsense.

figuer · 08-05-2008, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

the fact of Christianity is evidence.

Is the fact that millions of people worshipped the Olympian gods "evidence" that they were "real?"

Yes, of course... but:

- Do not confuse evidence towards something having a historical basis with evidence towards it being real.

- Do not confuse evidence with proof.

Littlejohn · 08-05-2008, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The tendency of Jesus to change his identity is also provided in a number of non canonical gospels and acts, such as:

This means that are you converted at historical Jesus? ..

Quote:

Acts of John

The author also relates that Jesus was constantly changing shape, appearing sometimes as a small boy, sometimes as a beautiful man; sometimes bald-headed with a long beard, sometimes as a youth with a pubescent beard (§ 87-89)

Acts of Thomas

The author presents Jesus as a slave master who sells his apostle Thomas to a travelling indian merchant in the market place as a slave. Jesus also appears quite separately as a master physician.

"Acts of Andrew and Matthias"

Jesus appears TWICE in the form of a beautiful young child.

"Acts of Peter and Andrew"

Quote:
And Jesus appeared in the form of a little child
and greeted them, and told them to go to the city
of the barbarians, and promised to be with them,
and left them.

The tendency of Jesus to change his identity appears to be well recorded by the non canonical corpus of new testament literature

Excellent Pete!

As you see, my suggestions to seek they begin to give their fruit!

All best

Littlejohn

PS: It is likely, perhaps, that some of the most attentive and acute among readers of the forum, thanks to my information, have begun to intuit something. I want to note, however, that most of what I place here in the forum Infidels.org I have already posted it in Italian forums. There are now over 10 years since I started posting on the forums. Everything I suggest has the pure purpose of stimulating your search so that you can, little by little, get yourself to discover the truth that in some respects is extremely fascinating! It's then absolutely ruled out any use for commercial purposes ... About the structure of the New Testament, I always thought that behind the invention of the Catholic-Christian worship there was also the "zampino" (little leg) of an expert writer for the greek theatre (or greek-roman).
.

aa5874 · 08-05-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Jesus of WHERE? Did you write Nazareth? Now, which book or source are you using to support your claim that there was a person called Jesus who was in a city called Nazareth during the time of Tiberius?

I hope you realise that nothing in the NT with respect to Jesus that can be verified to be true, not even his NAME.

"..Jesus of WHERE?.."..Of Nazareth!

Have been found some remains of the settlement of Nazareth. It was a modest village and NOT a small town, as counterfeiters have make to believe to tens and tens of generations of faithful. Also at the site were also found ancient "tanks" or pools. What, the latter, which did "shout" the counterfeiter apologists for evidence that Nazareth was a city inhabited predominantly by the Romans, as the discovery of tanks did mistakenly think (it was known, in fact, that one of the first buildings that the Romans did, in their urban settlements, were the public baths)

The discovery of these tanks was extremely important for me, because this has confirmed the intuition that I had while I was reading the works of Hippolytus.

"..Did you write Nazareth?.."

Yes, I am writing Nazareth, although, almost certainly, not this was the original name, which, however, was a little different. Please, note that the Nazarenes were not deriving their name from Nazareth, but it was exactly the opposite. I want to say that Nazareth was to be called so, as inhabited by Nazarenes and NOT vice versa.

"..Now, which book or source are you using to support your claim that there was a person called Jesus who was in a city called Nazareth during the time of Tiberius?.."

Regarding Jesus, testimonies of its existence are even redundants: whether those known now from various sources (New Testament, patristics, gnostics, apocrypha, manicheans, pagans, rabbinicals and mandaeans) and those that one would could know if the true historic profile of Jesus was revealed. (this is an extremely complex aspect, which has allowed to the Catholic clergy to take up the deception until to our days)

The name "Jesus" (from the greek "Ihsous" and NOT by the hebraic "Yehoshuah") was not quite a name, but rather an attribute, and he had become known by such indicative only in the area where this attribute was associated with his figure.

Until when Jesus resided in Palestine, he was not at all called "Jesus", but, up to a certain point, with his real registered name, then with "artistic" names(*). He became "Jesus" in the Roman province of Asia Minor. In Rome this pseudo name was completely unknown, until he remained alive. As regards Nazareth, it is valid what has been said above.

Quote:

I hope you realise that nothing in the NT with respect to Jesus that can be verified to be true, not even his NAME.

This is your conviction and I respect it. I have said many times that I am not writing to convince someone about "my" truth, but only to provide "ideas" for research, accompanied, whenever it is possible, even from useful data.

Again, I hope you realise that ALL you have said about YOUR Jesus cannot be verified to be true.

For example, you say Jesus was really called by another name, just tell me what book or source can verify or corroborate your claim.

Minimalist · 08-05-2008, 07:10 PM

Quote:

- Do not confuse evidence towards something having a historical basis with evidence towards it being real.

- Do not confuse evidence with proof.

If a supposition is made that someone or something has a "historical basis" that would have to mean it is real. If it is imagined it is not "reality" but "fantasy"...or worse, outright fraud.

I never confuse evidence for proof. I'd just like to see some evidence that is not canonical in nature and hasn't been forged by Christians.

mountainman · 08-05-2008, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by figuer

It is surprising that some insist in denying that there is evidence regarding a historical Jesus.

And what citation in the field of ancient history represents in these people's minds such evidence? We have a table. Feel free to place some evidence upon it which is securely dated, that we can all believe.

Over.

Quote:

The Bible is evidence, the fact of Christianity is evidence.

The Hebrew Bible has its own chronology. The New Testament has a separate chronology which is --- I think the correct term is --- rather imprecise and conjectured to have arisen from a number of different centuries.

The New Testament is not evidence by itself unless it has a date, and we need some evidence about this date. This is history not philosophy. My position is that we have no external evidence (inclusive of the known C14 citations) that the the new testament was not first written as late as 312 CE.

Now if you know of any evidence that the new testament was around before this time in ancient history, what is it?

Over.

Best wishes,

Pete

spamandham · 08-05-2008, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

What used by scholars who have gone before us and, unfortunately, even those modern, is a wrong path and it is demonstrates by the fact that even today, about 19 centuries after the founding of Catholic-Christian cult, yet no one is managed to reveal the mysteries that lie-low behind its birth.
.

...certainly not for a lack of trying! Serious questioning of the party line has been going on for well over 100 years, and still all we have are new and conflicting theories about the 'real' Jesus every other year.

Was there a historical Jesus? I don't think we'll ever know unless some future dig finds something conclusive. If we can't even be sure there was a historical Jesus, it seems silly to claim we can know who he was.

Can we really hope to understand the culture that produced the Jesus fiction/myth/legend, if we do not even attempt to tackle the question "is there a historical core"?

Littlejohn · 08-06-2008, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, I hope you realise that ALL you have said about YOUR Jesus cannot be verified to be true.

For example, you say Jesus was really called by another name, just tell me what book or source can verify or corroborate your claim.

I am preparing a reply message to you. It is rather long and therefore I will take time, even given that then it should be translated into English.

I believe that such message will affect many, as well as to you (at least I think)

Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn · 08-06-2008, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

What used by scholars who have gone before us and, unfortunately, even those modern, is a wrong path and it is demonstrates by the fact that even today, about 19 centuries after the founding of Catholic-Christian cult, yet no one is managed to reveal the mysteries that lie-low behind its birth.
.

...certainly not for a lack of trying! Serious questioning of the party line has been going on for well over 100 years, and still all we have are new and conflicting theories about the 'real' Jesus every other year.

Was there a historical Jesus? I don't think we'll ever know unless some future dig finds something conclusive. If we can't even be sure there was a historical Jesus, it seems silly to claim we can know who he was.

Can we really hope to understand the culture that produced the Jesus fiction/myth/legend, if we do not even attempt to tackle the question "is there a historical core"?

"..Serious questioning of the party line has been going on for well over 100 years.."

What would (or they would) this "party line"?... I have already said, that you believe it or not, that the profile of historical Jesus of history, is totally different from that artificially constructed by the clergy forger and that the gospels we return! If this "party line" does not differ markedly from that of the clergy, then that is another incorrect "party line "!... Of course, given my point of view, namely the point of view of one who believes that he has understood more than 90% of what you need to understand about the origins of Catholic worship.

They are not necessary others archaeological finds, to affirm that there was indeed a historical Jesus. Mountainman to deny the historicity of Jesus arrives to say that was it an invention of Emperor Constantine. Since there were not only Christians "Orthodox", such as Catholics, but also many gnostic sects, strong and bloody conflict with the Orthodox, to witness the historicity of Jesus, he arrives to say that men of Constantine, such as Eusebius of Caesarea, came to invent the gnostic world and the diatribes that saw them at the proud opposition to Catholics ... Frankly I hope that you do not do the same!

I am preparing a reply message to "aa5874" I think that the issues dealt with will give an answer also to your question about the historicity of Jesus the nazarene.

"..If we can't even be sure there was a historical Jesus, it seems silly to claim we can know who he was.."

Maybe it will be silly for you. But for me, since I've spent the last 11 years and beyond my life in researches at the edge of "madness", is not silly at all to affirm the historicity of Jesus!

Greetings

Littlejohn

PS: a prayer, unless I ask you even too: when you quote about my message, can you return immediately under the same quoting, but it correct under your way (and that of the others, of course!) of to devise the grammar and syntax English? .. Thanks!
.

figuer · 08-06-2008, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Feel free to place some evidence upon it which is securely dated, that we can all believe.

Now if you know of any evidence that the new testament was around before this time in ancient history, what is it?

Your position is extraneous to my stated point. You are asking for further evidence to back up the reliability of the Bible. I did not claim that the Bible was sufficient evidence by itself, or proof of a historical Jesus, I simply stated the obvious fact that it is a piece of evidence in that particular case.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.