Doug Shaver

I would indeed be very surprised to learn that other historical figures are in the same situation.

OK, let's do that. Show me where anyone in ancient times

1. alleged that Alexander was a god incarnate
2. alleged that Alexander had been raised from the dead; and
3. had nothing else to say about anything Alexander did or said during his lifetime.

If you can't make that work for Alexander, then find someone else about whom all three statements are true.

Doug Shaver

It is not claimed that Jesus was just an executed rebel. It is claimed that his followers came to believe that he was God incarnate. That makes a difference in what we should expect his followers to have written about him.

And the problem is not that they wrote nothing. The problem is that they did write some stuff, but it makes no mention of his life. The earliest writings about Jesus say nothing about anything he said or anything he did during the time he was allegedly conducting his ministry.

aa5874

One issue at a time.

You have not presented any information at all showing that the false messiahs as found in Josephus asked their followers to worship them or their images as Gods.


You need to provide information to support your statement in order to show that it is logical.

GakuseiDon

Dave, you know I haven't said that that was the point.

I'll let the reader decide whether Acharya is interpreting Tertullian and Justin correctly. I urge any Acharya supporters watching this thread to ask Acharya about this, if they think my analysis has something to it.

Dave, in your last post I think you screwed up Justin's comment. Since we are both claiming that we are interpreting Justin correctly, it would be good to clear this up. You wrote (my emphasis):

"Yes, it WAS "put symbolically," so the pre-Christian Pagans, who most assuredly did have gods on crosses, recognized that this motif was not literal but symbolic".

But Justin is saying the opposite. He wrote that

"But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically".

So:
* You are writing that it was put symbolically, so the pre-Christian pagans (who had gods on crosses) recognized this symbolism.
* Justin is writing that it was put symbolically, so the pre-Christian pagans (who DIDN'T have gods on crosses) DIDN'T recognize the symbolism.

Do you agree with my interpretation on this point?

Then, let's confirm what she wrote. This is from the link you gave us (my bolding):
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/sk...zeitgeist.html

"... the point is not what shape the "real" Jesus was allegedly placed on, as detailed by Callahan, but that the classic imagery of a god on a crucifix or in cruciform with arms outstretched existed in pre-Christian times..."

"Hence, Tertullian attested that the Romans bore images of not only a man but also gods on crosses..."

"An interested scholar might inquire which of these "sons of Jupiter" was crucified? And would it not be a very strange coincidence that the Jewish godman just happened to be likewise hung on a cross?..."

"... anyone trying to create a new religion would be negligent in ignoring the cross--and not only the cross but also an image of a man/god upon it."

This is what you wrote in this thread:

"... pre-Christian Pagans, who most assuredly did have gods on crosses..."

"... any which way you cut it, the god, goddess or divine being on a cross or in cruciform certainly DID exist long before the Christian era, and Justin obviously knew that fact."

Do you agree that Acharya is claiming that the imagery of a god on a crucifix existed in pre-Christian times?

My point with the Doughboy "cruciform" figure: It shows that such figures in "cruciform" can be found easily. I imagine that it's a universal sign of greeting and respect. I would be surprised if there weren't such figures of gods with arms outstretched. (I'd still be interested in seeing such representations though.)

Finding a god affixed to a cross -- for any reason -- would be more interesting. What is the evidence for that?

fatpie42

I just don't understand why you are asking for that. If they are messiahs then certainly they are believed to have divine power from God just like was believed of the prophets. Some messiahs claimed that they would be able to make walls collapse or part the sea when the time came.

No, none of them asked their followers to worship them. In that respect they were just like the Jesus found in the gospels and just like the view of Jesus proposed by Paul.

Moses and Elijah in the Tanakh ought to be adequate proof. They were believed to have divine power, but they were not believed to be gods.

Solo

Theology of what religion would that be, fatpie ?

Thank you for your effort to make a thoughtful comment.

Jiri

Solo

...which I am sure you will graciously concede is irrelevant to the point just made.

Jiri

aa5874

You are the one who made specific statements about false messiahs in Josephus.

Where in Josephus were false messiahs treated as divine?

The false messiahs were like Paul's Jesus? Where in Josephus?

This is Paul's Jesus as proposed in Romans 1.1-4 Now, surely these are not the false messiahs in Josephus?

Amaleq13

Why do you keep pretending you understand logic when that is clearly not the case? :banghead:

Logically, Philo's statement can only be argued to represent the view of Philo and those who chose him to represent them. Not all Jews. Understand?

That is the flawed assumption you are making. Philo's view cannot be assumed to represent the view of all Jews. It is his personal view and, arguably, that of the people who chose him as their representative. He wasn't chosen by all the Jews, right?

It is absolutely clear that there was no single, monolithic way that "Jewish tradition" was interpreted.

This is, of course, setting aside the other fundamentally flawed assumption of your position (ie that early Christians were expected to worship a man as God). See the Carrier article you won't read.

Amaleq13

He doesn't understand the logic of the burden of proof.