Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Juststeve · 12-07-2010, 09:56 AM

Chaucer:

Don't limit your argument to non-scriptural references. The fact that scripture describes Jesus as having brothers and sisters is strong evidence against those who think someone with an agenda was writing fiction, at least if the agenda included a mother who was a perpetual virgin.

Steve

Toto · 12-07-2010, 09:58 AM

The game would be up if we had some evidence of a male relative of Jesus, that had not passed through the hands of Christian scribes, as Josephus has.

Chaucer, your passion for this excedes that of any "agenda driven fanatic." I don't know why.

Toto · 12-07-2010, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Chaucer:

Don't limit your argument to non-scriptural references. The fact that scripture describes Jesus as having brothers and sisters is strong evidence against those who think someone with an agenda was writing fiction, at least if the agenda included a mother who was a perpetual virgin.

Steve

The theological agenda for some of these earlier Christians was to show that Jesus came in the flesh. The doctrine of perpetual virginity came later.

bacht · 12-07-2010, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Bottom line: only agenda-driven fanatics ignore the plain signs that Jesus was only a simple human who also had a close relative or two, thank you.

Maybe early Christians were led by people who claimed to be Jesus' relatives, even if they weren't.

jgreen44 · 12-07-2010, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

"Tertullian" should have USED the "TF" Antiquities 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 on the Macionites and DESTROY the PHANTOM. "Tertullian" should have USED "Annals" 15.44 against the Marcionites.

How would citing Josephus on Jesus have been an effective argument against the Docetists? The Docetists believed that while Jesus' human body was an illusion, he still appeared to have an actual physical body and appeared to physically die on the cross. Therefore anybody who was around Jesus would have believed that Jesus was a real flesh and blood person despite the illusion.

andrewcriddle · 12-07-2010, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The point about Nero opening his gardens twice is interesting, but Nero's use of the gardens for disaster relief seems to have been a short term measure. (Maybe only while fear of renewed fire was still an issue.)

That doesn't make too much sense to me. Rome needed to be rebuilt to provide accommodation for all those who'd lost their dwellings, including all those lodging in his gardens. I can see those temporary shelters in use for quite a while, wouldn't you as well?

spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Nero's gardens are mentioned several times in the acount of Piso's conspiracy at the end of A.15, with the clear implication that they are Nero's private property with admission only by permission or compulsion.

(If this implies that the measures against the Christians occurred a number of months after the fire then this is IMO likely in any case.)

I'll quote the relevant passages from the account of the conspiracy of Piso which happened the year after the Fire of Rome.

Tacitus/annals.xv

Quote:

At last they decided to carry out their design on that day of the circus games, which is celebrated in honour of Ceres, as the emperor, who seldom went out, and shut himself up in his house or gardens, used to go to the entertainments of the circus, and access to him was the easier from his keen enjoyment of the spectacle.

Quote:

Accordingly at daybreak Milichus went to the Servilian gardens, and, finding the doors shut against him, said again and again that he was the bearer of important and alarming news

Quote:

In long succession, troops of prisoners in chains were dragged along and stood at the gates of his gardens. When they entered to plead their cause, a smile of joy on any of the conspirators, a casual conversation, a sudden meeting, or the fact of having entered a banquet or a public show in company, was construed into a crime

This indicates that by the time of Piso's conspiracy these gardens have ceased to be normally open to the public.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 12-07-2010, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen44

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

"Tertullian" should have USED the "TF" Antiquities 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 on the Macionites and DESTROY the PHANTOM. "Tertullian" should have USED "Annals" 15.44 against the Marcionites.

How would citing Josephus on Jesus have been an effective argument against the Docetists? The Docetists believed that while Jesus' human body was an illusion, he still appeared to have an actual physical body and appeared to physically die on the cross. Therefore anybody who was around Jesus would have believed that Jesus was a real flesh and blood person despite the illusion.

Don't you do any research at all? Marcion's Son of God could not be crucified. It had NO FLESH. IT could NOT BE FASTENED to a cross.

Based on Justin Martyr Marcion's God was NOT the God of the Jews and the Son of God of Marcion was ANOTHER Son of that other God.

There was NO NEED for MARCION'S Son of God to born in Bethlehem and to grow up in NAZARETH for almost 30 years before he was baptized by John.

"First Apology" LVIII]

Quote:

...And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son.

And this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us...

Marcion preached ANOTHER God and another Son. Marcion's Son of God was NOT born of a woman, it could only been believed to have existed. It was not necessary for Marcion's son of God or his supposed father to be REGISTERED in the TAXING of Cyrenius.

Marcion's Son of God was BELIEVED to be WHOLLY Spiritual or Divine.

But, it was the Jesus Cult believers who claimed their Son of God was born of a virgin without a human father and was the offspring of the Holy Ghost who actually LIVED in Nazareth from either shortly AFTER the death of Herod, or the Taxing of Cyrenius to about the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius until he was PUBLICLY crucified in Jerusalem.

Once Marcion or the Marcionites KNEW that Jesus was actually a mere man with a human father and NOT the supposed Son of the God of the Jews then they could show that the Jesus cult was based on DECEPTION and LIES.

It is OBVIOUS that Marcion and the Marcionites did NOT KNOW or could NOT show that Jesus was just a man or had no records to show that Jesus was just a man.

aa5874 · 12-07-2010, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Toto:

I was merely observing that the Catholics choose not to give the word its most natural construction because to do so would run contrary to their superstition about Mary. If memory serves the notion that Mary was a perpetual virgin arose long after Jesus was described in various places as having brothers, sisters, brothers and sisters or a brother. It seems to have been natural to write about him in that way. Then dogma intervened and the Catholics had a lot of explaining to do.

Steve

If Jesus did exist as human then based on the NT that he would have died around the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius, c33 CE, AFTER a public crucifixion and it would have ALREADY been know that the Pauline writers were LIARS and DECEIVERS when they claimed Jesus was raised from the dead after the third day and was the CREATOR of heaven and earth and had the ability to save mankind from sin.

LONG BEFORE the Catholics, there was NO BENEFIT for Jesus to have been known to be a man. A mere man has NO benefit whatsoever for the salvation of mankind, and claiming an actual mere Jewish man was a God was Blasphemy in Judea and punishable by death.

It is FAR more likely that Jesus was a MYTH fable written AFTER the Fall of the Temple and well away from Judea.

fta · 12-07-2010, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Catholics say that "brother" here means half brother (Joseph's son by a previous wife) and that the term could even mean "cousin."

Yeah, but what about Josephus who was writing for Gentile readers? Does he typically use adelphos to mean "brother" or "cousin", or both?

Toto · 12-07-2010, 02:31 PM

More than you probably want to know about adelphos

Quote:

The following extract from the article αδελφος by Hans Freiherr von Soden is reproduced from the English edition of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), vol. 1, pp. 145-6.

In a more general sense αδελφος in the NT denotes "fellow-Christians" or "Christian brothers." Many instances may be given from all parts of the NT; there are some 30 in Acts and 130 in Paul. The usage plainly derives from Jewish religious custom. The old Israelite lament הוֹי אָחִי (Jer. 22:18) seems to contain a regular spontaneous address to fellow-Israelites. In Judaism, too, αδελφος means a co-religionist, who historically is identical with a compatriot. Yet the latter as such is also called רֵעַ = πλησιον, and in Rabbinic writings this is sometimes explicitly distinguished from אָח = αδελφος. There can be no doubt, however, that αδελφος is one of the religious titles of the people of Israel taken over by the Christian community.

The Jewish usage is itself attested in the NT, not merely in OT quotations (Ac. 3:22; 7:37; Hb. 2:12; 7:5), but also directly (Mt. 5:22 f. , 47; 7:3 ff. and par.; 18:15 ff. and par.; Ac. 7:23 ff.; R. 9:3; Hb. 7:5). In accordance with this the apostles, like the synagogue preachers, address Jews as αδελφοι in Acts (2:29; 3:17; 7:2; 13:15, 26, 38; 22:1; 23:1 ff.; 28:17; cf. R. 9:3), and are themselves addressed in the same way (2:37); the usual form ανδρες αδελφοι is a rendering of the Jewish אַחֵינוּ. In Mk. 3:33 ff. and par.; Mt. 25:40; 28:10; Jn. 20:17 Jesus calls His hearers or disciples His brethren, and He also uses the same term to describe the relations of the disciples to one another (Mt. 23:8; Lk. 22:32). As an address αδελφος does not, of course, occur on the lips of Jesus, and it may be asked whether there is some significance in this. Christians are certainly to see themselves as His brethren or people (R. 8:29; Hb. 2:11 ff.). The specific relationship of brothers is that of love (1 Jn. 2 f.). αγαπητος or ηγαπημενος is thus the most common name for them, though occasionally we have πιστος (Col. 4:9; 1 Tm. 6:2; 1 Pt. 5:12), αγιος (only in Hb. 3:1), or the two together (Col. 1:2). Paul refers sharply to an ονομαζομενος αδελφος in 1 C. 5:11.

According to instances found in Josephus Bell., 2, 122 , the more general sense of αδελφος is also found among the Essenes; indeed, it was common outside the Jewish and Christian world. Plato uses it for compatriots ... (Menex. , 239a); Xenophon for friends ... (An., VII, 2, 25) ... (38); Plotinus calls all the things in the world αδελφοι (Enn., II, 9, 18, p. 211, 7 ff., Volckmann). It is often used for members of a religious society, both in the papyri and inscriptions and also in literature; e.g., Vett. Val., IV, 11, p. 172, 31 ...

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

12-07-2010, 09:56 AM	#71
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Chaucer: Don't limit your argument to non-scriptural references. The fact that scripture describes Jesus as having brothers and sisters is strong evidence against those who think someone with an agenda was writing fiction, at least if the agenda included a mother who was a perpetual virgin. Steve

12-07-2010, 09:58 AM	#72
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The game would be up if we had some evidence of a male relative of Jesus, that had not passed through the hands of Christian scribes, as Josephus has. Chaucer, your passion for this excedes that of any "agenda driven fanatic." I don't know why.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.