dragoon

Thanks for that most amusing and entertaining post aa5874.

It is all this exuberant and incredibly elaborate crap showing that nobody that ever wrote about the Jesus person knew or knows a damn thing about this alleged person.

I feel I am in excellent company when I also claim to know nothing with any certainty about the reality of a person, now called Jesus, who lived c. -7 to ~30 CE. Of course, this is why I find it so amazing and idiotic when "christians" claim to "know" and "have a friend in" Jesus as their "personal savior." How in the hell can any reasonable person make such silly claims?


ETA:
For all the huge amount that has been said and written during these last 2,000 years, this is what it pretty much boils down to.
Myth it may be, but (IMHO) all myths have a core of truth embedded (many times deeply embedded) in them and many are loosely based on something that actually happened. The facts are irretrievably lost in time although sometimes they can be researched as Schliemann did with Troy and the Trojan War.

aa5874

The exuberant and incredible elaborate CRAP comes from the Church writers and the authors of the NT.

Now, how in the world can you say that nobody wrote about Jesus the person when you cannot establish that Jesus of the NT did exist?

All we have have is exuberant and incredibly elaborate CRAP.

So, why after thinking christians are idiotic, do you assume Jesus lived from around 7-30 CE?

I cannot find any credible source external of the Church to show that Jesus of the NT did exist. It must be reasonable to consider Jesus a myth as described until evidence can be found.


ETA:
We can only deal with what is found or extant. Every conclusion ever made in the wotld can be overturned with new information. The world was considered flat until it was shown otherwise. The world is considered round until evidence can some other shape.

What is believed to be lost or may not be lost but was never there in the first place is irrelevant.

We hae CRAP about Jesus.

Jesus was CRAP, FICTION, MYTH until we can find evidence that is not CRAP.

dragoon

I know that this is tongue-in-cheek, but I'll respond anyway.

If you can not establish whether or not a person exists, you can not write about that person, only about what you conjecture about the "person of" your construct.

As you well know, the church fathers were writing about a person not of their personal acquaintance, but an idealized fictitious construct. An artificial construct, regardless of how elaborate, is not a "person," I'm sure you will agree. They may have written about "the person of Jesus" but they were certainly NOT writing about Jesus as any kind of real person - how could they?

Now, having said that, I think it is reasonable to assume that this fictitious "person of Jesus" was probably based on one or more real persons as are most myths.

Absolutely!
IMHO, that is why all these bible societies and others are so frantically searching for any tiny archeological evidence. This is why they glomm onto any thing that, like Troy, makes their myths more than unadulterated crap. Well, they have the shroud and an ossuary or two, but so far the scientific consensus is that they have nothing more than crap.

dragoon

Oh, I forgot to respond to this:
Well, I think it is likely that somebody or some persons, upon whom the christian myths are based, lived roughly within that time frame. Naturally this doesn't mean that I think the Jesus of the NT lived then because that "person" can not be identified as a real person.

Here's my reasoning for agreeing with that time frame:
These myths, as are most myths, likely have a real person or persons at their core, but somebody who is lost in time,
the genesis of these myths are centered about 30 AD,
the first writings were not too many decades after that time,
a person who was an adult (given the life expectancy of that time) would likely have been born somewhere at or close to 7 BCE.

While I am led to think that christian beliefs are idiotic, that doesn't necessary extend to the persons themselves.

aa5874

Josephus did not write anything about Jesus of the NT. Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 are forgeries.

Chaucer

That's not what you first said. You said Josephus never mentions Jesus, period. It was misleading <edit>.

Chaucer

aa5874

But, can't you understand English?

1.Josephus did not write anything about Jesus of the NT.

2.Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 are forgeries.

3.Now, Josephus never mentioned Jesus of the NT.

Please point out the <misleading information>

rlogan

A number of us who have been around for a while have positions that are so second-nature from having argued them out at length, we do wax informal with the others here who know us.

I would be one who states casually that Josephus doesn't mention Jesus, and those who know me would be understanding that to mean the TF is an obvious complete forgery and the James passage was probably interpolated.

Chaucer

You cannot make a blanket statement that Josephus never mentions Jesus of Nazareth without saying that IN YOUR OPINION Antiq. 18 and 20 are forgeries. You didn't do that until I called you on it. It was obvious you had no such intention of doing that. And you still haven't apologized for perpetrating <misleading information> with no footnoting until challenged, based only on that sweeping assumption that both 18 and 20 are forgeries, which is a MINORITY assumption when it comes to 20.

Chaucer

spin

Your analysis here is childish and ridiculous. You first said:

To say point blank that there is no Josephan mention of a Jesus the Messiah at all, as if that's a fact, is ONE BIG LIE!

This is one interpretation and it has been proven to be a bad interpretation by later comments from aa5784:

Josephus did not write anything about Jesus of the NT. Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 are forgeries.

You might not agree with aa5784's assertion, but you have no justification to say something so blatantly offensive as:

That's not what you first said. You said Josephus never mentions Jesus, period. It was misleading <edit>

What he first said and what he later said were consistent. You are gravely mischievous in your comment. <edit>If not, I advocate that you be suspended from this forum.

I have aa5784 on ignore because I perceive there is little hope for communication with him. Instead of insulting him like you have and maliciously breaking forum etiquette, just do the same.


spin