Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yalla · 07-19-2010, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craigart14

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

I bought my RSV at a second hand bookshop for $1.
It has the convenience of having footnotes.
Some are about manuscript variations but most show how particular verses/pericopes from the NT are 'related' in some way to the Hebrew Bible.
Some are direct quotes, correctly or incorrectly recorded, nearly all [all?] from the LXX which is passing strange, and many noting close parallels in wording or sense to material from the Hebrew Bible.
Lots of them.
Lots and lots.
Several per page, for the gospels dozens for each of the 4.
And, as a well known TV commercial here says, "that's not all'.
Dig a little, pay attention to parallels cited by various authors and it is plain that the reason why there are not hundreds [?] of allusions to the H. Bible noted for each of the gospels and the others is simply lack of space on the page.

Clearly the major source for the NT is the Hebrew Bible.

I don't find it strange that so many quotes come from the LXX. The NT was mostly written by Greek speakers in Greek. They would have turned to the Septuagint for material.

There is a pretty recent book (can't remember the title or author at the moment) that shows a lot of parallels between the Gospel of Mark and the Odyssey, which also would have been familiar to NT writers.

Craig

The strange thing about having so many quotes from the LXX is that they are not quoting the Hebrew or Aramaic versions which were standard in Judea/Galilee and which therefore would be the natural source for a story set in that locale starring local characters speaking the local language which was Aramaic.
If the character Jesus quoted from the Greek LXX, as he is portrayed in the gospels, his audience would have responded 'Huh, what is this bloke yakking on about?'

PhilosopherJay · 07-20-2010, 02:44 PM

Hi Mountainman,

Thanks for the article you posted.
Early Christian Archaeology: A State of the Field [.PDF]
Kim Bowes, Cornell University

If we take it seriously, we have to conclude that there were far fewer Christians before Constantine than most previous scholars have imagined. This would also explain the small number of counter writings on Christianity from Greco-Roman sources and the lack of cited numbers in Christian writings. Christianies were simply small cult groups meeting outdoors and in private houses until around the late Third-Early Fourth Century. I would suggest that in a typical Eastern Empire big city of 100,000, between 150 and 300 C.E., we might find perhaps 4 or 5 different Christian sects, each with their own house Church of 20-100 people. Paranoid of retaliation by their neighbors, these house churches would have remained secretive and opposed to public displays of their ideas.

This type of sudden explosion or jump in Christian communities in the early Fourth century would be consistent with other groups that create revolutions. For example, in 1766, one would have found only a few hundred British colonist in America who seriously entertained the idea of separating from Britain. By 1776, that number had grown to hundreds of thousands.
The number of communists in Russia stayed steady at a few hundred from 1880-1914. The number rapidly grew between 1914 and 1917 to become millions.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Let's assume for the moment there was a secret Christian society that operated in "house-churches" (unrelated to the Mithraic Mysteries and its possible associations with the army), that met routinely to be read the enlighted passages of the new testament canonical books and the LXX. If they were uneducated they would have been read to. The reader would be have to be preserving and reading from codices or scrolls, the originals of which we might expect to find in archaeological remains.

To the uneducated, the coded abbreviated name of Jesus which appeared in these written writings being read out to them may have been one of the great mysteries of the world. Why do we not see these special symbols in the archaelogy? They are codes - symbols - and if we are to assume this scenario of the early christian secret society, then these codes were extremely powerful. Only "A Duly Qualified Reader" would know what they meant, and their meaning would have inspired the entiure cult, surely. So why dont we see an explosion of these special unique nomina sacra codes in the 1st or 2nd or 3rd centuries? For example, why do we not see in the archaeoloogy the coded form of "JesuS" (ie: "JS") appearing by itself earlier? If people believed in their gods and worshipped them throught their lives, why would they not commemorate the name or the symbol of their god in their day-to-day living and at their funeral?

Thanks for the possible scenario.
I dig african art and the djembe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Peter,

This is a very good question. Where are the temples/churches, statues and shrines to Jesus before the Fourth century? Even in the literature of the Church fathers, one searches in vain for such descriptions. For example, in Justin Martyr, we just have him saying, "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place..." He never describes that place or who built it, so we have to assume it is someone's house.

Houses were small in those days, so it is hard to accept that more than 50 or 100 people could have belonged to a single house church. Since a slave or poor person could not host a house church, we have to assume that the growth of the Church in any one area was dependent on finding wealthy men or women who had large houses and would allow them to be used as churches for Sunday services.

The advantage of the House Church for the wealthy Christian Patron would be obvious. You would have an enormous source of information on your neighbors and fellow citizens. The converted Christian slaves could be used as spys and conduits to allow you to gather intelligence and influence your neighbors' decisions. For the wealthy Christian, it was like having your own private C.I.A. to secretly control your town or city. For the non-Christian with Christian slaves or poor relatives, it meant having an enemy living in the middle of your very home.

If actual architectural structures had been built, the wealthy Christian matrons and patrons would lost this advantage. The slaves and poor Christians would not feel an obligation to the house masters, but only to the priest who operated the church building. This, of course, happened in the Fourth Century.

So, we may propose that the Christians did not build Churches till the Fourth Century because the Wealthy Christians who ran the House Churches found it to their economic and social advantage to maintain those secretive House Churches. From around the year 150 when Christianity separated from Judaism to around circa 300 when it became a major political force, it used the house-church structure to create a web-like network of devout and devoted believers throughout the Roman empire that undermined the Roman empire, spread misinformation and panic and cause its eventual collapse.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

mountainman · 07-20-2010, 09:40 PM

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Thanks for reminding me about this article - it is quite extensive.
I enjoyed reading through it once again ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Mountainman,

Thanks for the article you posted.
Early Christian Archaeology: A State of the Field [.PDF]
Kim Bowes, Cornell University

If we take it seriously, we have to conclude that there were far fewer Christians before Constantine than most previous scholars have imagined. This would also explain the small number of counter writings on Christianity from Greco-Roman sources and the lack of cited numbers in Christian writings. Christianies were simply small cult groups meeting outdoors and in private houses until around the late Third-Early Fourth Century. I would suggest that in a typical Eastern Empire big city of 100,000, between 150 and 300 C.E., we might find perhaps 4 or 5 different Christian sects, each with their own house Church of 20-100 people. Paranoid of retaliation by their neighbors, these house churches would have remained secretive and opposed to public displays of their ideas.

The article, at least to me anyway, appears to stress the very weak evidence for these house-church's, and in summary of the Dura-Europos discovery the author writes at p.7

In other words, Dura Europos is emerging
not as the tip of a domus ecclesiae iceberg,
but as an unicum.

.... .... may tell us
what it meant to do religion
on the edges of the empire.

That is the Dura-Europos "house-church" is a unique example or specimen which has been debated here before in relation to its shall we say "Murals" and "Art Work". There do not appear to be any firm second starters for these monumental items, in the cities of the Roman Empire which are purportedly "assumed" to have had a representative "Christian population".

I think that your work on the churches mentioned by Eusebius in three separate cities substantiates that there appear to be many vagueries in the literary accounts. Nonetheless, such literary accounts have been the basis of all prior "early christian demographics" on account of the "Great Archaeological Silence over the hypothesis of the historical Jesus.

The question that needs to be addressed is are we looking at a boundary event rather than a slow evolution of christian ideas and history? This simple question perhaps must address the question of the hypothesis of the historical jesus in a negative sense.

In another thread Albert Schweitzer was cited:

Moreover, in the case of Jesus, the theoretical reservations are even greater because all the reports about him go back to the one source of tradition, early Christianity itself, and there are no data available in Jewish or Gentile secular history which could be used as controls. Thus the degree of certainty cannot even be raised so high as positive probability.

. . . Seen from a purely logical viewpoint, whether Jesus existed or did not exist must always remain hypothetical.

Since the hypothesis that Jesus existed has been the unassumed postulate to date, it seems logical to me at least to suggest that the converse hypothesis -- that Jesus did not exist -- needs to be considered.

Quote:

This type of sudden explosion or jump in Christian communities in the early Fourth century would be consistent with other groups that create revolutions. For example, in 1766, one would have found only a few hundred British colonist in America who seriously entertained the idea of separating from Britain. By 1776, that number had grown to hundreds of thousands.
The number of communists in Russia stayed steady at a few hundred from 1880-1914. The number rapidly grew between 1914 and 1917 to become millions.

The realities of these political revolutions Philosopher Jay are the subject of the world's historians. In terms of the "Christian revolution" I have not seen a better summary than that of Arnaldo Momigliano ....

“The revolution of the fourth century,
carrying with it a new historiography <<<<=====[ Eusebian ]===
will not be understood if we underrate
the determination, almost the fierceness,
with which the Christians
appreciated and exploited

"the miracle"

that had transformed Constantine
into a supporter, a protector,
and later a legislator
of the Christian church.”

— Arnaldo Momigliano (1908-1987),
Pagan and Christian Historiography
in the Fourth Century A.D; (1960)

darstec · 07-22-2010, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Mountainman,

Thanks for the article you posted.
Early Christian Archaeology: A State of the Field [.PDF]
Kim Bowes, Cornell University

If we take it seriously, we have to conclude that there were far fewer Christians before Constantine than most previous scholars have imagined. This would also explain the small number of counter writings on Christianity from Greco-Roman sources and the lack of cited numbers in Christian writings. Christianies were simply small cult groups meeting outdoors and in private houses until around the late Third-Early Fourth Century. I would suggest that in a typical Eastern Empire big city of 100,000, between 150 and 300 C.E., we might find perhaps 4 or 5 different Christian sects, each with their own house Church of 20-100 people. Paranoid of retaliation by their neighbors, these house churches would have remained secretive and opposed to public displays of their ideas.

This type of sudden explosion or jump in Christian communities in the early Fourth century would be consistent with other groups that create revolutions. For example, in 1766, one would have found only a few hundred British colonist in America who seriously entertained the idea of separating from Britain. By 1776, that number had grown to hundreds of thousands.
The number of communists in Russia stayed steady at a few hundred from 1880-1914. The number rapidly grew between 1914 and 1917 to become millions.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Let's assume for the moment there was a secret Christian society that operated in "house-churches" (unrelated to the Mithraic Mysteries and its possible associations with the army), that met routinely to be read the enlighted passages of the new testament canonical books and the LXX. If they were uneducated they would have been read to. The reader would be have to be preserving and reading from codices or scrolls, the originals of which we might expect to find in archaeological remains.

To the uneducated, the coded abbreviated name of Jesus which appeared in these written writings being read out to them may have been one of the great mysteries of the world. Why do we not see these special symbols in the archaelogy? They are codes - symbols - and if we are to assume this scenario of the early christian secret society, then these codes were extremely powerful. Only "A Duly Qualified Reader" would know what they meant, and their meaning would have inspired the entiure cult, surely. So why dont we see an explosion of these special unique nomina sacra codes in the 1st or 2nd or 3rd centuries? For example, why do we not see in the archaeoloogy the coded form of "JesuS" (ie: "JS") appearing by itself earlier? If people believed in their gods and worshipped them throught their lives, why would they not commemorate the name or the symbol of their god in their day-to-day living and at their funeral?

Thanks for the possible scenario.
I dig african art and the djembe.

I would compare early christianities with the myriad of small New Age groups in the 1970s and 1980s. There were hundreds of such groups in any major city meeting in various homes and meeting rooms/auditoriums. Each believed many different things. Even the members themselves picked from the myriad of belief within the group. Astral project. esp and auras were talked about with many members saying they could see auras etc. Privately members would admit they really couldn't see what every one else saw but did not want to be the odd man out. There were Rosacrutians, Theosophists, Spiritualists, Deli Lamas, yogis, Sufi, Magi. witches, wizards etc. supposedly mixed in the groups. They borrowed to some degree from Christianity and all other religions.

Some were sane people on some spiritual quest after conventional religion failed them. Others were not so sane or had mental problems which added to their personal, anecdotal experiences. And then there were also a few individuals who capitalized on all of this. Some of them managed to grab money from establishment type institutions including the government and even the military.

This is not dissimilar to what the various early Christianity movements would have like, even up to Constantine's era. He simply found a way to gain power and/or money out of it just like some modern day innovators.

aa5874 · 07-22-2010, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Mountainman,

Thanks for the article you posted.
Early Christian Archaeology: A State of the Field [.PDF]
Kim Bowes, Cornell University

If we take it seriously, we have to conclude that there were far fewer Christians before Constantine than most previous scholars have imagined. This would also explain the small number of counter writings on Christianity from Greco-Roman sources and the lack of cited numbers in Christian writings. Christianies were simply small cult groups meeting outdoors and in private houses until around the late Third-Early Fourth Century. I would suggest that in a typical Eastern Empire big city of 100,000, between 150 and 300 C.E., we might find perhaps 4 or 5 different Christian sects, each with their own house Church of 20-100 people. Paranoid of retaliation by their neighbors, these house churches would have remained secretive and opposed to public displays of their ideas.

This type of sudden explosion or jump in Christian communities in the early Fourth century would be consistent with other groups that create revolutions. For example, in 1766, one would have found only a few hundred British colonist in America who seriously entertained the idea of separating from Britain. By 1776, that number had grown to hundreds of thousands.
The number of communists in Russia stayed steady at a few hundred from 1880-1914. The number rapidly grew between 1914 and 1917 to become millions.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

I would compare early christianities with the myriad of small New Age groups in the 1970s and 1980s. There were hundreds of such groups in any major city meeting in various homes and meeting rooms/auditoriums. Each believed many different things. Even the members themselves picked from the myriad of belief within the group. Astral project. esp and auras were talked about with many members saying they could see auras etc. Privately members would admit they really couldn't see what every one else saw but did not want to be the odd man out. There were Rosacrutians, Theosophists, Spiritualists, Deli Lamas, yogis, Sufi, Magi. witches, wizards etc. supposedly mixed in the groups. They borrowed to some degree from Christianity and all other religions.

Some were sane people on some spiritual quest after conventional religion failed them. Others were not so sane or had mental problems which added to their personal, anecdotal experiences. And then there were also a few individuals who capitalized on all of this. Some of them managed to grab money from establishment type institutions including the government and even the military.

This is not dissimilar to what the various early Christianity movements would have like, even up to Constantine's era. He simply found a way to gain power and/or money out of it just like some modern day innovators.

But, there was a major difference to early Jesus cults and modern day cults in countries where there is "freedom of religion."

Based on "Origen" in "Against Celsus" it would appear Jesus cults were operating in secret, contrary to the LAW, to avoid persecution or "wanton hatred and abuse".

It does not appear that there was any government money for Jesus cults during the time of Justin to Origen. And it would appear that members of the Jesus cults were not even employed by the government since perhaps they may be fear being asked to worship the Emperor as a God to maintain employment.

"Against Celsus" 1.1

Quote:

The first point which Celsus brings forward, in his desire to throw discredit upon Christianity, is, that the Christians entered into secret associations with each other contrary to law, saying, that "of associations some are public, and that these are in accordance with the laws; others, again, secret, and maintained in violation of the laws"....

mountainman · 07-22-2010, 05:08 PM

Hi Darstec and Philosopher Jay,

There still remains the very real problem of the "Great Archaeological Silence" of this hypothetical community of prototype new age christians before the "peace of Constantine". Evidence will exist to the archaeologists of the future of the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s "new age groups". They had their symbolisms, their pamphlets, their epigraphy, their art, their murals and grafitti, their sculpture and etchings and frescoes, their funeral customs, their plays and books and movies and their commemoritive coins. They certainly had their trinkets and beads.

In stark contrast we find nothing which to the observant eye may be called an unambiguous archaeological relic which substantiates the existence of a "christian-like" presence until the 4th century, at which time the signature of the facts and the evidence for what was to become "New Age Christianity" suffers a massive boundary event, impacting at the (War) Council of Nicaea c.325 CE.

When you say that Constantine "simply found a way to gain power and/or money out of it just like some modern day innovators" I think you may be making an understatement on the basis of underestimating the impact that Constantine in fact may have made on the cultural landscape. Like Chairman Mao, Constantine's military conquests were cemented together with a "Little Red Book", while his opponents had two choices.

Stick Around

(1) The rich and influential saw the immediate benefits of Constantine's Christian tax exemption policies and thus the western and very barbarian warlord secured and appointed many new Christian Bishops 324 to 337 CE.

Get Lost

(2) The Graeco-Roman priesthood however, themselves very much part of the ante pacem milieu of religions, held the custodial practices of the vast pagan temple networks of antiquity. Constantine made them utterly redundant overnight. His prefered religion was to be supreme! This entire class suffered prohibition of livelihood with effect from 324 CE, chief and high profile temples were purposefully destroyed (as examples), and Constantine's preferred religion of Christianity was heralded in not by peace, but by conquest and the sword. Throw-back Draconian monotheistic laws were immediately enforced, executions were happening at the drop of a hat to family and innocents (we must not presume enemies were spared) - Constantine's rule is described as "Neronian". [Remember how Nero brought the Olympic Games forward, competed in all the events and won?] The other choice was to run, run fast and as far away as possible, like the Dalai Lama (from Mao) and Pachomius and Arius of Alexandria (from the Lord God Caesar Constantine).

All decades have seen the ravages of war ... we have seen this.
And we should not remain silent about these facts of historical methodology.

We might be wise to accept - as one of the most primitive Historical Facts
in the history of "Early Christian Origins" - that Constantine was at war.

On the assumption that Eusebius' report is reliable and accurate, it may be argued that in 324 Constantine established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, and that he carried through a systematic and coherent reformation, at least in the eastern provinces which he conquered in 324 as a professed Christian in a Christian crusade against the last of the persecutor.

Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice
T. D. Barnes, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 69-72

See also the way Arnaldo Momigliano describes these events in the rule of Constantine as "miraculous events". Just how miraculous was the meteoric rise of Christianity?

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Mountainman,

Thanks for the article you posted.
Early Christian Archaeology: A State of the Field [.PDF]
Kim Bowes, Cornell University

If we take it seriously, we have to conclude that there were far fewer Christians before Constantine than most previous scholars have imagined. This would also explain the small number of counter writings on Christianity from Greco-Roman sources and the lack of cited numbers in Christian writings. Christianies were simply small cult groups meeting outdoors and in private houses until around the late Third-Early Fourth Century. I would suggest that in a typical Eastern Empire big city of 100,000, between 150 and 300 C.E., we might find perhaps 4 or 5 different Christian sects, each with their own house Church of 20-100 people. Paranoid of retaliation by their neighbors, these house churches would have remained secretive and opposed to public displays of their ideas.

This type of sudden explosion or jump in Christian communities in the early Fourth century would be consistent with other groups that create revolutions. For example, in 1766, one would have found only a few hundred British colonist in America who seriously entertained the idea of separating from Britain. By 1776, that number had grown to hundreds of thousands.
The number of communists in Russia stayed steady at a few hundred from 1880-1914. The number rapidly grew between 1914 and 1917 to become millions.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

I would compare early christianities with the myriad of small New Age groups in the 1970s and 1980s. There were hundreds of such groups in any major city meeting in various homes and meeting rooms/auditoriums. Each believed many different things. Even the members themselves picked from the myriad of belief within the group. Astral project. esp and auras were talked about with many members saying they could see auras etc. Privately members would admit they really couldn't see what every one else saw but did not want to be the odd man out. There were Rosacrutians, Theosophists, Spiritualists, Deli Lamas, yogis, Sufi, Magi. witches, wizards etc. supposedly mixed in the groups. They borrowed to some degree from Christianity and all other religions.

Some were sane people on some spiritual quest after conventional religion failed them. Others were not so sane or had mental problems which added to their personal, anecdotal experiences. And then there were also a few individuals who capitalized on all of this. Some of them managed to grab money from establishment type institutions including the government and even the military.

This is not dissimilar to what the various early Christianity movements would have like, even up to Constantine's era. He simply found a way to gain power and/or money out of it just like some modern day innovators.

Ron L. Connie?

Littlejohn · 07-23-2010, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanHopkins

Dear Little John,

Thanks for helping to make this site interesting!

You wrote;

"Because of this 'fictitious' character (Jesus), as you call it, the Jews of the diaspora have suffered persecution by all sorts for over 15 centuries on the part of 'devout' Christians. They were tortured, massacred, burned alive, etc.., because of the fact that were considered 'God-killers'. And yet NONE of these Jews has EVER complained of being persecuted for a 'fictional' character ... Do not you think this deserves a study based on a reflection a bit 'more rational' ?...."

-That is real smart, piss off those who want to kill you for so called killing their hero by claiming that their hero never existed?
.

"..Dear Little John..."

Little John?.... I thought Littlejohn .... However you went very close to the truth, since I'm about 178 cm tall and weighing 104 kg!

Unfortunately your post is too 'stuffed' of slang and I have limitations in understanding this. I remain difficult, in fact, go beyond literature English. However, if I understand it, I seem that here you have misunderstood what I meant. In fact, does NOT be I to argue that Jesus never exist, but those that 'attack' me!...

"..Besides if they questioned the historicity of Jesus, next David, Daniel, Solomon, etc.. soon fall from the historical record... "

The first part of the sentence is clear to me, but I did not understand what you mean by ".. soon fall from the historical record.". If I can not understand the concept of what you meant in, I can not consistently respond to your opinion ... sorry

Quote:

You wrote;

"If still today the official scholarship does not take any account about the assumption of a fictitious Jesus, not historic, there must be a reason."

-True scholarship should take all things into account, furthermore I am both impressed amd disgusted by your faith in what you call "official scholarship". Paul says that ALL governments are founded on God's authority (not the first idiot to claim this, nor the last (Jefferson)), you must think the same of "official scholarship"?

"..I am both impressed amd disgusted by your faith in what you call "official scholarship".."

Carryover below what has written the 'newentry' Trae:

Quote:

..the scholarly community is in almost unanimous agreement that there was a historical Jesus. even the liberal critics of the jesus seminar (second quest for the historical Jesus) agree that Jesus existed. gary habermas has all but shut the door on any doubt.
.

It seems to me, therefore, that I am not the alone in thinking that the 'official' erudition (or whatever you want to call it) does not take into account the view of non-historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, since this argument collide by objective data of fact, as I had indicated also.

Consider without value the very important and fundamental rabbinic evidence, about the historicity of a character named variously as Yeshu ha-notzri, Yeshua ben Stada, Yeshu ben Pandera (see Celsus), Yeshua the 'child of prostitute', the Yeshu 'mamtzer' (illegitimate son), the Yeshu the hung (talui), the Yeshu 'such and such' (peloni), etc.. it means totally align itself with the positions supported by the forger clergy!

It is no coincidence, in fact, that the 'foxlike' clergy much of more prefers that you talks about a Jesus never existed (argument virtually rejected by almost all believers and therefore completely harmless to the catholic clergy), rather we talking about a historical Jesus, but totally different from the 'commercialized' one by the forger fathers over 19 centuries ago! ...

Frankly I can not understand what there is disgusting try to make 'emerge out' the historical truth about Jesus of Nazareth! .. This is a sentiment that could be considered 'justifiable' on the part of the clergy, but not for those who, in one way or another, attempts to demonstrate that there was invention underlying the creation of worship catholic-christian!

"..you must think the same of "official scholarship"?.."

For me the "official scholarship" is neither Paul nor Jefferson, but the majority of scholars who agree on so many aspects of the exegesis.

In my country, Italy, a 'such', named Luigi Cascioli (now sadly deceased), has sued the Catholic Church, on the charges of 'exploiting of the popular credulity', because, according to him, Jesus of Nazareth never existed. After a lengthy processual procedure, which lasted a number of years, during which the Cascioli is also directed to the Europeen Court of Justice, at the end the final ruling issued by the courts gave the wrong to Cascioli, belying of fact his thesis about the non-historicity of Jesus.

There are few doubts about the fact that judges of the court, almost certainly incompetent to assess it, have turned to experts from diverse backgrounds. Now I have to infer it, according to the way you see things, that those judges generate 'disgust' for having rejected the thesis of the non-historicity of Jesus supported by Cascioli...

Quote:

You wrote:
". If we find in the Talmud of the Jews reported that Yeshu ben Pandera (see Celsus) was executed on FRIDAY ', the eve of hebrew Pesach, by stoning, there must be a reason"

-you must admit getting stoned to death is the best way to go!

By the way, did someone claim that the Jesus figure first appeared when the Catholic church was established? If not, I think your last comment is misdirecte
.

"...you must admit getting stoned to death is the best way to go!..."

I do not understand what you really want to say that ... sorry ..

"...If not, I think your last comment is misdirecte..."

People to which I have meant respond, argued just that. Since not yet know well what is your position on this, it was not to you that I was responding..

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.