Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 12-11-2005, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I see more in that comment by Photius than that. He says, "Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of his life, or the miracles performed by Him."

This from an 8th C author suggests (at least to me) that Christ was generally ignored by Jewish literature. Something to keep in mind when examining Jewish literature for references to Christ.

We're saying the same thing. I am just pithier than you.

Quote:

The question is "how likely is it that Justus would have mentioned Christ if he had been historical"? I think there is enough there to show that the conclusion "Justus should probably have mentioned such a Christ" is not supportable.

I don't agree, Don. It looks very supportable to me. "But you're from Galilee? Surely you must have heard of...."

Vorkosigan

12-11-2005, 04:19 AM

Greetings,

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

And I do very much appreciate your quickness to update the web site.

No problem :-)
Great to live in the internet age and not the papyrus MSS one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Now that we see that his writing is referred to as a very limited

Very limited?
You mean his comment about omission?

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

done by someone apparently not real spiritually inclined, done from what might be called a secular/worldly Jewish perspective,

Not spiritually inclined?
Where does it say that?
What does it mean to the argument?

Iasion

12-11-2005, 04:24 AM

Greetings rlogan,

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

I think it pretty telling that Iasion was so reasonable about including the full quote when this was brought to his attention, and moreover sought full discussion on the matter. This is something you sure do not see much of in the apologetics crowd.

Thank you :-)
Of course people may argue about interpretation and meaning, but I do try to get the facts right.

Iasion

12-11-2005, 05:04 AM

Greetings Vorkosigan,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

I wish I'd got to this conversation sooner.

Me too

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Photius says that Justus omits much that is important. The comment is meaningless and cannot be used to make any judgments on whether a comment about Jesus would be expected, because we do not know what Photius considers important and we do not know what kind of information was included.

Yes, I agree.
Photius is saying Justus left out what he, Photius, thought important - so his comment about not mentioning Jesus (3 items about Jesus no less) implies surprise that Justus omitted the important subject Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Photius thinks the tale of Jesus was important enough to be included, and blames Justus' ethnicity for the problem, a good example of bigotry imputing its own problem to others.

Indeed yes.
I originally snipped out that comment because it added little information, just polemic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Iasion's list of reasons remains valid. Justus was from Galilee, and lived until the end of the first century, when Christianity had already been rolling along for a half-century.

Indeed.
According to some, Christianity was a large movement by late 1st century.

Iasion

Steven Avery · 12-11-2005, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Because some other Jewish writers DO mention Jesus.

Like Josephus :-)

Steven Avery · 12-11-2005, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Spunk and empassionment? I thought it was rude and insulting, and full of strawmen and ad hominem attacks.

Iasion, I understand you were stung (you picked up this list idea from somebody else and tried to refine it, if I understand the dynamic), and I joined the critique of Roger's 'nothing of the kind', but simply put Roger highlighted a very dubious laundry-list methodology in a consistent scholarship fashion. Since I was focusing on the substance of the debate, I would be the first to acknowledge that I didn't look try to analyze it from the personal respect viewpoint. It is hard to sound ultra-repectful when you are discussing an argument that you feel is simply gerry-rigged and unsubstantive and biased. All that being said, I join others in appreciating your adding the context, in a Glenn Miller or Roger Pearse type of scholarship fashion. (albeit perhaps not so quickly Jason or JPH). Now if you can only lean on Farrell Till to correct that humoungous virgin birth faux pas that is still up on "Internet Infidels" we might really be getting somewhere.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery · 12-11-2005, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

This from an 8th C author suggests (at least to me) that Christ was generally ignored by Jewish literature. Something to keep in mind when examining Jewish literature for references to Christ.

Here is my preliminary review of what we know about today.

Early authors - pre-100 AD
Josephus - yes (James quote disputed mostly by mythicists)
Philo - no
Justus - no

200-1000 AD
Talmud - many references, albeit in veiled fashion
Toldet Yeshu - Jesus defacto subject, 100% negative representation, more
for internal 'teaching'
Midrash - no
Some Karaite discussion, not sure Saadia Gaon

1000-1500 AD
Often historical in rabbinical age, such as Rambam.
Sometimes mentioned as the Nazarene.
Age of disputations.

It would be nice to see a paper that really discusses this more, "Jewish historical representations and references to Jesus 30 AD to 1500 AD" and I would be happy to hear additions and corrections.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery · 12-11-2005, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

It looks very supportable to me. "But you're from Galilee? Surely you must have heard of...."

Justus hearing about Jesus and including him in a concise chronologies of Kings of Israel, (even more especially if he looked upon him as an executed blasphemer, rather than the King of the Jews) are really two different items. Lets put the apples and oranges in separate baskets :-)

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery · 12-11-2005, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

I have no idea out of what left field this comment comes from.

The word 'expect' in your original discussion.

Steven Avery · 12-11-2005, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Not spiritually inclined? Where does it say that? What does it mean to the argument?

"Justus himself, according to Josephus, was one of the most abandoned of men, a slave to vice and greed." Simply an indicator of less likelihood of being interested in a Sannhedrin/Roman executed Messianic claimant.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.