Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 05-02-2013, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

He even goes as far as to say that Jesus wasn't the founder of Christianity, because Jesus' ideology had little in common with the religion that followed.

No wonder all this oral tradition about what Jesus had said and done spread so far, so fast that writers like Paul could take it for granted.

After all, if someone's ideology has little in common with your religion, we can take for granted that you know all about that person's life and deeds.

aa5874 · 05-03-2013, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

He even goes as far as to say that Jesus wasn't the founder of Christianity, because Jesus' ideology had little in common with the religion that followed.

No wonder all this oral tradition about what Jesus had said and done spread so far, so fast that writers like Paul could take it for granted.

After all, if someone's ideology has little in common with your religion, we can take for granted that you know all about that person's life and deeds.

There is zero evidence that there was a Jesus cult that had spread fast before the Fall of the Temple. In fact, the Pauline letters are without corroboration in the very Canon of the Jesus cult.

The author of Acts who supposedly knew of Paul wrote nothing of Pauline letters and wrote nothing of his revealed Gospel and claimed that it was Ananias who was sent by the resurrected Jesus to confer with the blinded Paul.

The writings of Aristides, and Justin Martyr to the Emperors of Rome suggest that the Roman Emperor, Senate and People were not yet aware of the teachings of the Jesus cult 100 years after the supposed Paul.

If the Pauline letters and the Jesus cult were well established in Rome for over a hundred years then it simply did not make sense for Justin and Aristides to have written Apologies to the Emperors explaining the fundamental beliefs of the Jesus cult c 135-150 CE.

Up to the mid to late 2nd century the Jesus cult was just beginning to develop in Rome--not 100 years earlier.

Stringbean · 05-04-2013, 11:19 AM

This is an interesting article. A little old but....

http://www.ancientworldreview.com/20...cult-cons.html

aa5874 · 05-04-2013, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

This is an interesting article. A little old but....

http://www.ancientworldreview.com/20...cult-cons.html

It is complete propaganda that the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius mentioned Jesus of Nazareth.

No writer of antiquity mentioned Jesus of Nazareth except apologetics.

Stringbean · 05-04-2013, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

This is an interesting article. A little old but....

http://www.ancientworldreview.com/20...cult-cons.html

It is complete propaganda that the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius mentioned Jesus of Nazareth.

No writer of antiquity mentioned Jesus of Nazareth except apologetics.

Hey. Won't get no argument out of me. I agree 100%.

Toto · 05-04-2013, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is complete propaganda that the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius mentioned Jesus of Nazareth.

No writer of antiquity mentioned Jesus of Nazareth except apologetics.

Hey. Won't get no argument out of me. I agree 100%.

Once again, aa5874 attacks someone who agrees with him.

The article is actually very balanced:

Quote:

As for Jesus himself, the only independent documentary evidence that he even existed consists of a handful of references in Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger. Most of these references, however, are about Christians as a group, so they don't really support the existence of a historical Jesus. As far as I can tell, the only direct references to Jesus are found in "Jewish Antiquities" by Josephus--an unreliable source, to say the least--but as usual the references are obscure and their authenticity has been challenged. When it comes to ancient sources, you can't take anything for granted. Classical writers weren't very reliable to begin with and the church wasn't above forging references, gospels, apocalypses, epistles and martyr stories in order to market their new religion. ...

aa5874 · 05-04-2013, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is complete propaganda that the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius mentioned Jesus of Nazareth.

No writer of antiquity mentioned Jesus of Nazareth except apologetics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Hey. Won't get no argument out of me. I agree 100%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Once again, aa5874 attacks someone who agrees with him.

I did not attack Stringbean. I am tired of your nonsense.

I disagreed with the article.

I find it completely absurd that when people disagree that it is characterised as an attack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The article is actually very balanced:

Quote:

As for Jesus himself, the only independent documentary evidence that he even existed consists of a handful of references in Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger. Most of these references, however, are about Christians as a group, so they don't really support the existence of a historical Jesus. As far as I can tell, the only direct references to Jesus are found in "Jewish Antiquities" by Josephus--an unreliable source, to say the least--but as usual the references are obscure and their authenticity has been challenged. When it comes to ancient sources, you can't take anything for granted. Classical writers weren't very reliable to begin with and the church wasn't above forging references, gospels, apocalypses, epistles and martyr stories in order to market their new religion. ...

Again, there is no "handful of references in Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger" to Jesus.

1. Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the younger do not mention Jesus of Nazareth.

2. The mention of Jesus in the TF [AJ 18.3.3] is a forgery.

3. The Jesus called the Anointed in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is NOT Jesus of Nazareth.

Stringbean · 05-04-2013, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is complete propaganda that the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius mentioned Jesus of Nazareth.

No writer of antiquity mentioned Jesus of Nazareth except apologetics.

I did not attack Stringbean. I am tired of your nonsense.

I disagreed with the article.

I find it completely absurd that when people disagree that it is characterised as an attack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The article is actually very balanced:

Again, there is no "handful of references in Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger" to Jesus.

1. Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the younger do not mention Jesus of Nazareth.

2. The mention of Jesus in the TF [AJ 18.3.3] is a forgery.

3. The Jesus called the Anointed in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is NOT Jesus of Nazareth.

Quote:

I did not attack Stringbean.

No worries. I did not take it as an attack.:wave:

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

05-04-2013, 11:19 AM	#73
Stringbean Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Southern United States Posts: 149	This is an interesting article. A little old but.... http://www.ancientworldreview.com/20...cult-cons.html

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.