angelo

I don't agree with that statement. How can you take seriously any story with so much contradiction, or ambiguity,? you can not. You may search for a shred of evidence of the historicity or otherwise of the story. But where do you begin? Of course contradictory fabricated stories can be made for historical figures. But I don't think so in the case of the Jesus story.

andrewcriddle

IMHO the phrase as it stands is ambiguous, and this might well be a reason for Origen to avoid citing it.

The fact that Josephus uses the phrase elsewhere in a positive way might be evidence as to what Josephus himself meant in the TF, (assuming basic authenticity). I'm doubtful as to whether it is evidence as to how Origen or Celsus would interpret the phrase.

Andrew Criddle

Chris Weimer

Is there a particular reason why you've singled out the Jesus story?

Doug Shaver

Roger's point was not clear to me . . . but I'll move on and he can clarify if it becomes relevant. I'll take it as stipulated that the extant TF is not entirely authentic. The question then becomes whether we are justified in believing that any of it is authentic.

It seems to me that the only strong argument for the supposition that some of it is authentic is that some of it refers to Jesus in language that a Christian would not use. Am I correct on that point? Or is there some additional evidence supporting that supposition?

angelo

Here is a list of Pagan Writers who wrote at or within a century of the time that Jesus is said to have lived;Arrian, Petronius, Seneca, Dion Pruseus, Pliny the Elder, Appian Juvenal, Theon of Smyrna, Martial Plutarch, Apollonius, Pausanias, V. Flaccus, Floras Lucius, Quintilian, Favorinus, Lucanus, Damis Silius Italicus, Aulus Gellius, Statius, Ptolemy, Dio Chrysostom, Hermogeons, Lysias, Valerius Maximus. And I'm sure I left some out. Not one of these Pagan writers refers to Jesus. Yet their writings are enough to fill a library. The only Roman writers to mention anything of interest are Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus, who were writing at the beginning of the second century. Up to one hundred years after the supposed events took place. You have to admit that is more than enough time for a myth to evolve.

Jayhawker Soule

At issue is whether your's is an informed or faith-based belief.

Roger Pearse

You've left out the source that you're repeating verbatim (with spelling mistakes) here, as well. <hint>

Not pillorying you, but believe me, you don't want to take responsibility for this nonsense; and I can see at once that you don't know anything yourself about these people.

Arguments of this kind have no validity, unless we know that they 'must' have mentioned him.

Ask yourself why on earth Juvenal not mentioning Jesus is significant. Or Martial.

But I thought that a century was OK -- at least, your post quoted people rather later! <hint>

Does the same apply to their description of the policies of Tiberius?

Seriously, this list was torn to shreds ages ago online. Have a look for the remains using google.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

angelo

The source is a book by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy ''The Jesus Mysteries''.
[1999-2003]. Also the writings of John Shelby Spong. {Bishop of Newark, retired] The point I'm trying to make is, why do all these writers fail to mention a historical man, or man-god called Jesus? I see a trend in all the mythology, from Moses right to a cult of Jesus thousands of years later. None existed.

Jayhawker Soule

Angelo, please tell me who led the Qumran community and show me where 'these writers' refer to him.

Roger Pearse

I'll let others comment on this.

Have a look at the contents of each writer. See what he talks about. Then ask just how we know objectively that this author would 'have' to have written about Jesus.

People write books for their own purposes, not to oblige us. Jesus of Nazareth was not an important man in his own life, and most of the literature you mention is by people who have other things to talk about, live in Rome, and have no reason to mention some guy living at the far end of the empire, even if they had heard of him.

The whole argument is fraudulent, because 99% of all ancient literature is lost. To argue that people living in Rome don't talk about someone is only significant if they must do so, and that person was a central figure in Roman society. Even then silence can be accidental. This is why arguments from silence mean nothing. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as the archaeologists say. We have to write history from what people do say, and not usually from what they do not.

But we've certainly been over this many many times in this forum. I hope this brief note helps.

All the best,

Roger Pearse