Freethought & Rationalism Archive

teamonger · 10-23-2008, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Just reading Josephus will put this question to bed for any critical reader. The passage following the famous Christ reference is: "About the same time another sad calamity put the Jews in disorder". This infers that Josephus is discussing tragedies (which in fact the whole section this is interpolated into is all about Romans killing Jews).

After the discussion on this thread, I went back and purchased some of Eusebius' works. It is astounding how much Eusebius references the writings of Josephus. One can quickly deduce the possibility of the gospel writers doing the same.

Yes, Josephus was discussing tragedies.. which lends weight to the TF being originally a negative account about Jesus, which some scribe couldn't resist doctoring up.

Gospel writers using Josephus? In what way? Mark and Matthew were probably too early, in any case.
t

teamonger · 10-23-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Hmm, not sure how the clearly legendary birth narrative has to do with validating the Josephus passage.
t

Jesus of the NT was clearly a legendary figure, for sure, as you have inadvertently admitted. Jesus having a mother, brothers and sisters is really irrelevant, they cannot erase his clearly legendary origin.

All the Church writers from Ignatius to Eusebius directly or indirectly rejected that Jesus was only human, and regarded as heretics, anyone who claimed Jesus was not of the Holy Ghost and the virgin called Mary.

You know the birth of Jesus is based on Isaiah 7.14 and was not regarded as legendary by the Church.

This is Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho 43

Quote:

Now, it is evident to all, that in the race of Abraham according to the flesh, no one has been born of a virgin, or is said to be born [of a virgin] save this our Christ.

So if Jesus was human only and had a human brother called James, then the entire NT and all the early Church writings are fundamentally fiction and have no credibilty whatsoever.

The birth narratives were independent late rationalizations for Jesus' origins in Galilee, with theological glosses based on ignorant readings of the OT. They are irrelevant to, and independent from, the main synoptic story which never refers to them in any way.
t

teamonger · 10-23-2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Reasonable to consider, perhaps, but hardly to conclude based on an argument from silence. Especially when there are plausible reasons for the silence: believers who thought the world was about to end would not be thinking about writing books.

Anyway, Paul was certainly not silent, and reports established movements. His visits to Jerusalem show that he wrote at least before the Jewish War or destruction of the Temple.
t

What we know about Paul's life and movements is only what later NT redactors wanted us to know. Using the epistles and Acts as historical evidence is problematic, since we know they were revised or invented by later non-witnesses with a Catholic agenda in mind.

The Catholic apologists wanted us to believe that someone like Paul existed and preached before 70 CE. We can't automatically assume that this is true.

To claim that Paul's doings as encounterd in his epistles were fabrications is also problematic. Acts is another matter, but there's no reason there couldn't be some valid history in there. I think Acts evolved for quite awhile.
t

LogicandReason · 10-23-2008, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Just reading Josephus will put this question to bed for any critical reader. The passage following the famous Christ reference is: "About the same time another sad calamity put the Jews in disorder". This infers that Josephus is discussing tragedies (which in fact the whole section this is interpolated into is all about Romans killing Jews).

After the discussion on this thread, I went back and purchased some of Eusebius' works. It is astounding how much Eusebius references the writings of Josephus. One can quickly deduce the possibility of the gospel writers doing the same.

Yes, Josephus was discussing tragedies.. which lends weight to the TF being originally a negative account about Jesus, which some scribe couldn't resist doctoring up.

Gospel writers using Josephus? In what way? Mark and Matthew were probably too early, in any case.
t

Luke's attempts to date HJ against history.

LogicandReason · 10-23-2008, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

What we know about Paul's life and movements is only what later NT redactors wanted us to know. Using the epistles and Acts as historical evidence is problematic, since we know they were revised or invented by later non-witnesses with a Catholic agenda in mind.

The Catholic apologists wanted us to believe that someone like Paul existed and preached before 70 CE. We can't automatically assume that this is true.

To claim that Paul's doings as encounterd in his epistles were fabrications is also problematic. Acts is another matter, but there's no reason there couldn't be some valid history in there. I think Acts evolved for quite awhile.
t

We know the original writer known as Paul had a flair for the embellishment in 1 Cor 15...500 people saw the resurrected Jesus and no account of that in the Gospels?

I'm trying hard to imagine the main corpus of Paul written later and just can't get there due to the Jerusalem references in Gal 1 and 2. I like that Paul creates texture between the Asia Minor Church and Cosmic Jesus Christ versus the Jesus Movement of Jerusalem...it makes the Gospels problematic.

aa5874 · 10-23-2008, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Jesus of the NT was clearly a legendary figure, for sure, as you have inadvertently admitted. Jesus having a mother, brothers and sisters is really irrelevant, they cannot erase his clearly legendary origin.

All the Church writers from Ignatius to Eusebius directly or indirectly rejected that Jesus was only human, and regarded as heretics, anyone who claimed Jesus was not of the Holy Ghost and the virgin called Mary.

You know the birth of Jesus is based on Isaiah 7.14 and was not regarded as legendary by the Church.

This is Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho 43

So if Jesus was human only and had a human brother called James, then the entire NT and all the early Church writings are fundamentally fiction and have no credibilty whatsoever.

The birth narratives were independent late rationalizations for Jesus' origins in Galilee, with theological glosses based on ignorant readings of the OT. They are irrelevant to, and independent from, the main synoptic story which never refers to them in any way.
t

No way. The birth narrartives are not independent at all. The conception and birth were written with the express purpose of proving or showing that Jesus was indeed the son of the God of the Jews conceived through his Holy Ghost.

The birth narratives according to the NT and Church writers are fundamental to the origins of Jesus. The authors used Isaiah 7.14 as prophecy which is claimed to have been fulfilled.

The birth narratives are used to eliminate any thoughts or belief that Jesus was just human.

Jesus was a God, his mother was the witness.

Amaleq13 · 10-23-2008, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The birth narrartives are not independent at all....The birth narratives according to the NT and Church writers are fundamental to the origins of Jesus.

The author(s) of Mark and, possibly more importantly, John deny this assertion by their failure to include such a "fundamental" reference.

teamonger · 10-23-2008, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

The birth narratives were independent late rationalizations for Jesus' origins in Galilee, with theological glosses based on ignorant readings of the OT. They are irrelevant to, and independent from, the main synoptic story which never refers to them in any way.
t

No way. The birth narrartives are not independent at all. The conception and birth were written with the express purpose of proving or showing that Jesus was indeed the son of the God of the Jews conceived through his Holy Ghost.

The birth narratives according to the NT and Church writers are fundamental to the origins of Jesus. The authors used Isaiah 7.14 as prophecy which is claimed to have been fulfilled.

The birth narratives are used to eliminate any thoughts or belief that Jesus was just human.

Jesus was a God, his mother was the witness.

The birth narratives are quite independent, and two gospel writers know nothing about them. The are especially independent of each other, having almost no features in common except what they set out to "prove" about Jesus' origins. They are clearly the products of two different communities, each coping with questions from potential converts, "who was this Jesus? A Galilean Messiah? hahahaha!" We evidence of such questions in the gospels.

The birth narratives provided "answers", and yes, attempted to "prove" Jesus to be superhuman, and descended of David at the same time. But notice, nothing at all in the birth narratives gets referred to later in the story. They were mythologizing add-ons.

t

LogicandReason · 10-23-2008, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The birth narrartives are not independent at all....The birth narratives according to the NT and Church writers are fundamental to the origins of Jesus.

The author(s) of Mark and, possibly more importantly, John deny this assertion by their failure to include such a "fundamental" reference.

John's "Logos" never seems very earthly. Is there any doubt this "John" community was gnostic?

LogicandReason · 10-23-2008, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

No way. The birth narrartives are not independent at all. The conception and birth were written with the express purpose of proving or showing that Jesus was indeed the son of the God of the Jews conceived through his Holy Ghost.

The birth narratives according to the NT and Church writers are fundamental to the origins of Jesus. The authors used Isaiah 7.14 as prophecy which is claimed to have been fulfilled.

The birth narratives are used to eliminate any thoughts or belief that Jesus was just human.

Jesus was a God, his mother was the witness.

The birth narratives are quite independent, and two gospel writers know nothing about them. The are especially independent of each other, having almost no features in common except what they set out to "prove" about Jesus' origins. They are clearly the products of two different communities, each coping with questions from potential converts, "who was this Jesus? A Galilean Messiah? hahahaha!" We evidence of such questions in the gospels.

The birth narratives provided "answers", and yes, attempted to "prove" Jesus to be superhuman, and descended of David at the same time. But notice, nothing at all in the birth narratives gets referred to later in the story. They were mythologizing add-ons.

t

Certainly the birth narratives are just more effort to tie HJ to the OT and probably to answer questions as to his birth. One wonders if a mere astrological event, or memory of one, started a rumor about a Messiah.

Looking at the Roman history and world history of the 1st century, it's hard to imagine that only one major religion resulted from these brutal, capricious times.No Rome, No Constantine, No Christianity IMHO. It suffers the Mithra fate.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.