Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Frank · 03-29-2011, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

The only valid reason I can think of to read the work of a Nazi, is if I was an officer in an army who was trying to defeat the fucker. Since I'm not then I won't

Pure ad hominem. You won't read the arguments because of the man.

I've just taken a quick dip and I think there is material worth consideration (especially when at least one point in his summary of Hochart is an idea I've had regarding Nero as apocalyptic bad guy, a post Jewish War development).

It is an ad hom fallacy (I concede), but I'm comfortable with committing the ocassional fallacy (sometimes, rarely, but sometimes, there's other overriding considerations). Nevertheless, has anyone mentioned the essay by Gordon Stein (who was a scholar and who takes the position that there are reasons to find problems with the Tacitus reference)?

His essay is here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ein/jesus.html

While I do have serious problems with some of Stein's conclusions, at least he's a scholar (with a PhD), who has the benefit of not having been a Nazi

Also, Nero as an apolalyptic figure is I think a pretty widespread idea (that's been around for a while)?

spin · 03-29-2011, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

There's nothing you're saying, which if true, wouldn't have been apparent to a scholar working 30 years ago. Who's conclusions are you citing? Are they your own? If so, are you fluent in Latin, or is this your take from an English translation? If you are citing someone else, then what are their qualifications? On what basis do you conclude that this reference doesn't match Taticus' writing style, when most (if not all) the historians who have commented on this, disagree with this assessment? So far I see a list of five bare assertions.

What is apparent requires focus. It might be apparent to you that doctors need to wash their hands, but it wasn't before

Ignaz Semmelweis's crusading. The work is mine from both translation and original text. The "list of five bare assertions" is material from the blog article you've already claimed to have read. If you'd like to argue against the five issues, you may reread the blog and deal with them substantively.

Toto · 03-29-2011, 07:07 PM

Arthur_Drews

Quote:

Drews ultimately embraced a form of Germanic Neopaganism and was instrumental in early attempts during the Nazi era to unite the various German pagan organizations into a unified body.[5] It was in this period that Drews wrote Deutsche Religion, a book that has been described as a "[w]ork on the ‘new’ German religion that mixes faith and Nazi mysticism."[6]

Drews died on 19 July 1935 in Illenau bei Bühl, Baden at the age of 70.

more here

Quote:

Also, though not being a member of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP), Drews showed affinities to a 'German religion' project, similar to that of Goebbels, which made him appear as a Nazi.

On the other hand, Drews spoke against the growing antisemitism during the Weimarian Republic. As a scholar, Drews had always been objective and honest.

Drews was literate in many languages. He was temporarily a friend of Albert Schweitzer, the famous theologian and physician.

So I think it is ok to read Drews. You won't be contaminated.

Frank · 03-29-2011, 07:11 PM

.[2] Albert Schweitzer dedicated a chapter to Drews's thesis in his Life of Jesus (1913) and Nikolai Berdyaev observed that Drews, "in his capacity as a religious anti-Semite", argued against the historical existence of Jesus "for the religious life of Aryanism."[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_...che_and_Nazism

Seems pretty contaminating

Frank · 03-29-2011, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

There's nothing you're saying, which if true, wouldn't have been apparent to a scholar working 30 years ago. Who's conclusions are you citing? Are they your own? If so, are you fluent in Latin, or is this your take from an English translation? If you are citing someone else, then what are their qualifications? On what basis do you conclude that this reference doesn't match Taticus' writing style, when most (if not all) the historians who have commented on this, disagree with this assessment? So far I see a list of five bare assertions.

What is apparent requires focus. It might be apparent to you that doctors need to wash their hands, but it wasn't before

Ignaz Semmelweis's crusading. The work is mine from both translation and original text. The "list of five bare assertions" is material from the blog article you've already claimed to have read. If you'd like to argue against the five issues, you may reread the blog and deal with them substantively.

I'll tell you what dude, if you spent all that time translating this old work to prove your point ... then you got me beat (I'm not willing to learn Latin, study the Annals of Tacitus, beyond the cursory review I did in an undergraduate Roman history class about a decade ago, study all the ancillary subjects required, like the history of literature, writing styles during different periods, and so on).

Law school was enough torture (the last thing I need is another hard to market college degree)

spin · 03-29-2011, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Pure ad hominem. You won't read the arguments because of the man.

I've just taken a quick dip and I think there is material worth consideration (especially when at least one point in his summary of Hochart is an idea I've had regarding Nero as apocalyptic bad guy, a post Jewish War development).

It is an ad hom fallacy (I concede), but I'm comfortable with committing the ocassional fallacy (sometimes, rarely, but sometimes, there's other overriding considerations). Nevertheless, has anyone mentioned the essay by Gordon Stein (who was a scholar and who takes the position that there are reasons to find problems with the Tacitus reference)?

His essay is here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ein/jesus.html

While I do have serious problems with some of Stein's conclusions, at least he's a scholar (with a PhD), who has the benefit of not having been a Nazi

You point to someone who says very little on the passage. What's the point? :huh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Also, Nero as an apolalyptic figure is I think a pretty widespread idea (that's been around for a while)?

It explains why Nero.

Suetonius gives no indication of the christians crackling crispily into the night now found in A.15.44, but someone has inserted a brief reference to christians into a list of acts under Nero concerning public order where it is inappropriate.

Nero is the archetypal bad guy who persecuted Jews with the war. That was later apparently transferred onto the christians by inheritance.

spin · 03-29-2011, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

What is apparent requires focus. It might be apparent to you that doctors need to wash their hands, but it wasn't before

Ignaz Semmelweis's crusading. The work is mine from both translation and original text. The "list of five bare assertions" is material from the blog article you've already claimed to have read. If you'd like to argue against the five issues, you may reread the blog and deal with them substantively.

I'll tell you what dude, if you spent all that time translating this old work to prove your point ... then you got me beat (I'm not willing to learn Latin, study the Annals of Tacitus, beyond the cursory review I did in an undergraduate Roman history class about a decade ago, study all the ancillary subjects required, like the history of literature, writing styles during different periods, and so on).

Law school was enough torture (the last thing I need is another very hard to market college degree)

So, you're not going to weigh up at any level the merits of the five issues that are on the table. Hmmm. :huh:

Frank · 03-29-2011, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

I'll tell you what dude, if you spent all that time translating this old work to prove your point ... then you got me beat (I'm not willing to learn Latin, study the Annals of Tacitus, beyond the cursory review I did in an undergraduate Roman history class about a decade ago, study all the ancillary subjects required, like the history of literature, writing styles during different periods, and so on).

Law school was enough torture (the last thing I need is another very hard to market college degree)

So, you're not going to weigh up at any level the merits of the five issues that are on the table. Hmmm. :huh:

Fuck it ... I'll presume you have a good point. It's all bullshit anyway (so who cares). I gotta get cracking on this c++ program anyway.

aa5874 · 03-29-2011, 07:40 PM

No Church writer used Tacitus Annals with Christus not even Eusebius. If Tacitus Annals with Christus was known then it would have been used to prove Jesus did exist like HJers ATTEMPT TO DO today.

And, again it has been shown as RECENTLY as 2008, with use of ultra-violet light that the word "Chrestianos" was manipulated.

Quote:

.....In 1950, at Harald Fuchs' request, Dr. Teresa Lodi, the director of the Laurentian Library, examined the features of this item of the manuscript; she concluded that there are still signs of an 'e' being erased, by removal of the upper and lower horizontal portions, and distortion of the remainder into an 'i'.[9]

In 2008, Dr. Ida Giovanna Rao, the new head of the Laurentian Library's manuscript office, repeated Lodi's study, and concluded that it is likely that the 'i' is a correction of some earlier character (like an e), the change being made an extremely subtle one.

Later the same year, it was discovered that under ultraviolet light, an 'e' is clearly visible in the space, meaning that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latinized Greek word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word χρηστός (chrestos), meaning 'good, useful'.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

There is PROOF that Annals 15.44 was manipulated.

There are FIVE factors that show Tacitus Annals with Christus is a forgery.

1. No Church writer for hundreds of years made mention of such a significant piece of information about Jesus in Annals.

2. Sulpitius Severus in "Sacred History" 2.29 did NOT mention the passage with "Christus".

3. Tacitus wrote that the Jews EXPECTED a Messianic ruler or rulers at around 70 CE not at the time of Pilate.

4. Ultra violet liight has shown that the letter "E" has been manuipulated.

5. In the NT, Jesus WARNED his disciples not to tell anyone he was CHRIST.

This is Tacitus "Histories" 5

Quote:

...in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming from Judaea, were to acquire universal empire.

These mysterious prophecies had pointed to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, with the usual blindness of ambition, had interpreted these mighty destinies of themselves, and could not be brought even by disasters to believe the truth...

Tacitus wrote about the History of the Jews in "Histories" 5 and wrote NOTHING about any Messianic character called "Christus".

And, now look at what Tacitus wrote about the state of affairs in Judea when Tiberius was Emperor.

Tacitus' "Histories" 5

Quote:

...Under Tiberius all was quiet. But when the Jews were ordered by Caligula to set up his statue in the temple, they preferred the alternative of war. The death of the Emperor put an end to the disturbance....

ALL was quiet with the JEWS under Tiberius.

Tacitus' Annals with Christus is a forgery since not even in the NT stories did Jesus even call himself Christus.

Mt 16:20 -

Quote:

Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Pilate did NOT even know who Jesus was and where he was from in Luke 23.

mountainman · 03-29-2011, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Did you read the chapter of Drew's book that I referenced?
The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus/Part 2/Section 2 ............... T A C I T U S
We are dealing with ancient history Frank.
Stay with the OP.
Read the page and get back to me.

Best wishes

Pete

The only valid reason I can think of to read the work of a Nazi, is if I was an officer in an army who was trying to defeat the fucker. Since I'm not then I won't

Feel free to bullet point whatever relevant thing this old dead Nazi may have said, which you think can add to this discussion (but otherwise, as a general rule, I do not read Nazi garbage). Yes I may be censoring myself, but it's a matter of efficiency. We can only read so much in one lifetime, so why divert precious time to reading anything generated by a Nazi (it's mind pollution, and I try not to litter)?

Hi Fred,

The New Testament was first "WIDELY PUBLISHED" by a fascist military supremacist who's actions and words were just as, if not more lamentable, than those of Hitler. Constantine the Great - Fascist. Does this fact alter your attitude in any manner? The 4th century, often referred to as an age of imperial christian intolerance and persecution, also witnessed many acts of fascism in the name of the imperial christian state.

Best wishes,

Pete

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

03-29-2011, 07:11 PM	#54
Frank Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: New York Posts: 2,977	.[2] Albert Schweitzer dedicated a chapter to Drews's thesis in his Life of Jesus (1913) and Nikolai Berdyaev observed that Drews, "in his capacity as a religious anti-Semite", argued against the historical existence of Jesus "for the religious life of Aryanism."[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_...che_and_Nazism Seems pretty contaminating

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.