Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 07-05-2012, 06:11 AM

This thread is exceedingly silly.

Solo · 07-05-2012, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

As soon as we take Paul from the 1st century everything is RESOLVED.

This reminds of me the old saw in which a Newfie (the proverbial simple Newfoundlander) figured that if Quebec is allowed to separate from Canada, it would save six hours of travel on a car trip from St. John's to Ottawa.

Best,
Jiri

EarlDoherty · 07-05-2012, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legion

Whether or not Inowlocki is correct, and Eusebius actually used the TF not to claim that Jesus was the Messiah but for other reasons, the most relevant point is what Eusebius was refuting in the passage you refer to. He wasn't using Josephus to say anything about Jesus' historicity, but to refute the Acta Pilati.

From Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, p.551-2:

Quote:

In the Demonstratio Evangelica (Bk. III, 4-5) Olson points out that “Eusebius promises to refute those who either deny that Jesus worked any miracles at all, or that if he did, it was by wizardry and deception.” Immediately thereafter, he produces a passage by Josephus which in its opening sentences declares Jesus to have been “a maker of wonderful works” (paradoxōn ergōn poiētēs)....

...Olson finds further marks of Eusebius in the Testimonium line that “even though Pilate condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him did not cease (to do so).” He points out that “this is Eusebius’ central argument in D.E. III, 5.” There Eusebius suggests that if Jesus were really a deceiver, or charlatan, surely his followers would have abandoned him after his ignominious death, and not remained faithful to him and his message. It seems quite a coincidence that in conjunction with saying this, Eusebius produces a Josephan text which also records the very fact that Jesus’ followers remained faithful. Besides, such an implied laudatory comment on the movement in the Testimonium, because of its very nature, would be unlikely on the pen of Josephus.

The line about Jesus rising on the third day as the prophets had foretold, while admitted by scholars to be a Christian insertion into whatever Josephus might have written, also fits closely with Eusebius’ agenda and argumentation in the Demonstratio. He has been arguing that “ancient prophecy, specifically Jewish prophecy, had indicated who Jesus would be and what he would do. His miracles are not to be set aside as based on magic but are to be accepted as predicted by the prophets.” We ought to marvel at the convenience with which so many elements of the Testimonium have served Eusebius’ arguments.

Earl Doherty

stephan huller · 07-05-2012, 10:05 AM

good point. i of course lack the discipline to read a book that has over 500 pages to make a point. but point well taken

tanya · 07-05-2012, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

As some argue that Jesus must have existed because no ancient source denies his existence, we may argue that the Blemmyae must have existed because no ancient source denies their existence.

Thank you Jay, very well done. This is an excellent rejoinder. Should be a sticky!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

The mythicist position is not that early Christians argued that Jesus did not exist, or that anyone was arguing that.

Perfect. Well done. Exactly right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thief of fire

Why wouldn't they have argued it with those who did believe jesus was a man on earth. If both groups co-exsisted then they would have debated it.

Well, certainly, they may well have done so....
We obviously don't know what they thought, taught, or sought.

What we do know, is that there is today, in existence, several different versions of the Greek new testament, and contained within many (if not all) of those different versions, is the notion that Jesus was the son of God.

The mythicist position focuses on this FACT. This we know, for we can read. What was believed, two thousand years ago, or, for that matter, two minutes ago, is not easily deduced.

The mythicist argument is very simple. The evidence (the Greek gospels, all of the different versions) points to an attempt to describe a person of mythical, supernatural dimension.

BY definition therefore, this is a genre of writing, in the domain of myth, not engineering, not physics, not art history, not linguistics, but rather, LITERATURE. FICTION. Make believe. Not true. Think of Jack and the BeanStalk.

aa5874 · 07-05-2012, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

As some argue that Jesus must have existed because no ancient source denies his existence, we may argue that the Blemmyae must have existed because no ancient source denies their existence.

Thank you Jay, very well done. This is an excellent rejoinder. Should be a sticky!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

The mythicist position is not that early Christians argued that Jesus did not exist, or that anyone was arguing that.

Perfect. Well done. Exactly right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thief of fire

Why wouldn't they have argued it with those who did believe jesus was a man on earth. If both groups co-exsisted then they would have debated it.

Well, certainly, they may well have done so....
We obviously don't know what they thought, taught, or sought.

What we do know, is that there is today, in existence, several different versions of the Greek new testament, and contained within many (if not all) of those different versions, is the notion that Jesus was the son of God.

The mythicist position focuses on this FACT. This we know, for we can read. What was believed, two thousand years ago, or, for that matter, two minutes ago, is not easily deduced.

The mythicist argument is very simple. The evidence (the Greek gospels, all of the different versions) points to an attempt to describe a person of mythical, supernatural dimension.

BY definition therefore, this is a genre of writing, in the domain of myth, not engineering, not physics, not art history, not linguistics, but rather, LITERATURE. FICTION. Make believe. Not true. Think of Jack and the BeanStalk.

The Myth argument is that Jesus of the NT had NO real existence whether or not he was described as the Son of a Ghost or the Son of God or Mary.

There is NO need for any ambiguity.

Jesus in the NT had NO real existence.

Satan in the NT had NO real existence.

The disciples in the NT had NO real existence.

Mary the mother of the Son of the Ghost had NO real existence.

James, the Lord's brother, had NO real existence.

People of antiquity AFTER HAVING read a Jesus story BELIEVED Jesus existed just the same way HJers READ the Bible and BELIEVE Jesus existed.

All we have are MODERN day BELIEVERS who like the Ancient BELIEVERS accept what is Believed to be Plausible.

Jesus as the Son of a Ghost MUST have been BELIEVED to be Plausible or else it would NOT have been written in the Bible.

aa5874 · 07-05-2012, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

As soon as we take Paul from the 1st century everything is RESOLVED.

This reminds of me the old saw in which a Newfie (the proverbial simple Newfoundlander) figured that if Quebec is allowed to separate from Canada, it would save six hours of travel on a car trip from St. John's to Ottawa.

Best,
Jiri

Well, your statement reminds of those who do not want to resolve this matter but continue to speculate their own history.

We have DATED Texts of antiquity and NONE about Jesus and Paul are from the 1st century.

Why are people Terrified to use ACTUAL DATED EVIDENCE???

The Paul/Seneca letters that should have placed before c 70 CE have turned out to be Forgeries.

Why do people STILL IMAGINE that the Pauline writings were early when there is NO evidence.

Why are people that claim they do NOT trust Acts use the very same ADMITTED fiction source for their SOLE history of Paul when Acts did NOT even claim Paul wrote any letters???

Remarkable, the same people who do NOT even know when Acts was written or its historical accuracy are using the same ADMITTED fiction source to date the voyage of Paul.

This is UNACCEPTABLE at any level.

mountainman · 07-05-2012, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

From Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, p.552:

Quote:

We ought to marvel at the convenience with which so many elements of the Testimonium have served Eusebius’ arguments.

The existence of Jesus also served Eusebius's arguments.

The answer to the question why no ancient critics claimed that Jesus never existed before Eusebius asserted Jesus existed is trivial.

However the answer to the question why no ancient critics claimed that Jesus never existed from Nicaea onwards, must somehow involve and take into account the words of Arius of Alexandria and the Arian controversy which ensued unabated from Nicaea for centuries and centuries.

We only know about the Arian controversy through the writings of the 4th and 5th century heresiologists. Is it not therefore quite reasonable to be critically skeptical of the assumption that we know what this Arian controversy actually was?

The open question therefore resolves to how the words of Arius (cited on the earliest Nicaean Creeds) are related to both the theological and historical existence of this Jesus character.

Why is it ridiculous to suggest that Arius's five sophisms may relate to a fictional Jesus character?

LegionOnomaMoi · 07-06-2012, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legion

Whether or not Inowlocki is correct, and Eusebius actually used the TF not to claim that Jesus was the Messiah but for other reasons, the most relevant point is what Eusebius was refuting in the passage you refer to. He wasn't using Josephus to say anything about Jesus' historicity, but to refute the Acta Pilati.

From Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, p.551-2:

Quote:

In the Demonstratio Evangelica (Bk. III, 4-5) Olson points out that “Eusebius promises to refute those who either deny that Jesus worked any miracles at all, or that if he did, it was by wizardry and deception.” Immediately thereafter, he produces a passage by Josephus which in its opening sentences declares Jesus to have been “a maker of wonderful works” (paradoxōn ergōn poiētēs)....

...Olson finds further marks of Eusebius in the Testimonium line that “even though Pilate condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him did not cease (to do so).” He points out that “this is Eusebius’ central argument in D.E. III, 5.” There Eusebius suggests that if Jesus were really a deceiver, or charlatan, surely his followers would have abandoned him after his ignominious death, and not remained faithful to him and his message. It seems quite a coincidence that in conjunction with saying this, Eusebius produces a Josephan text which also records the very fact that Jesus’ followers remained faithful. Besides, such an implied laudatory comment on the movement in the Testimonium, because of its very nature, would be unlikely on the pen of Josephus.

The line about Jesus rising on the third day as the prophets had foretold, while admitted by scholars to be a Christian insertion into whatever Josephus might have written, also fits closely with Eusebius’ agenda and argumentation in the Demonstratio. He has been arguing that “ancient prophecy, specifically Jewish prophecy, had indicated who Jesus would be and what he would do. His miracles are not to be set aside as based on magic but are to be accepted as predicted by the prophets.” We ought to marvel at the convenience with which so many elements of the Testimonium have served Eusebius’ arguments.

Earl Doherty

You've either misunderstood the context as this thread was split from another, or misunderstood what I said. I was only dealing with Maryhelena's misunderstanding of Eusebius' Hist. Eccl. 1.9.3. Not his Demonstratio. Only the line about a "forgery" of a "report" and what Eusebius was referring to here, as this was what Maryhelena was dealing with.

EarlDoherty · 07-06-2012, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legion

You've either misunderstood the context as this thread was split from another, or misunderstood what I said. I was only dealing with Maryhelena's misunderstanding of Eusebius' Hist. Eccl. 1.9.3. Not his Demonstratio. Only the line about a "forgery" of a "report" and what Eusebius was referring to here, as this was what Maryhelena was dealing with.

Yes, but you seemed to be implying that Eusebius had no other reason to forge the TF, once the need to counter Maximinus' Acts of Pilate is set aside. The Demonstratio demonstrates that he had quite a few reasons.

Earl Doherty

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

07-05-2012, 06:11 AM	#21
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	This thread is exceedingly silly.

07-05-2012, 10:05 AM	#24
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	good point. i of course lack the discipline to read a book that has over 500 pages to make a point. but point well taken

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.