Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 10-05-2007, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The historians recognised Philip, king of Macedon, as the father of Alexander the great, not a god, as it was rumored.

The conquests of Alexander the great are written by historians. Flavius Josephus wrote about Alexander the great, son of Philip, King of Macedon on his visit to Jerusalem and about wars conducted by him.

Antiquities of the Jews book 11.8, "About this time it was that Philip, King of Macedon, was treacherously assaulted and slain at Egae by Pausanias, the son of Cerastes, who was derived from the family of Oreste, and his son Alexander succeeded him in the kingdom.........

I cannot find any historian of antiquity that wrote anything about Achilles, the son of the goddess, with respect to the wars he fought and of his victories or defeat.

And Alexander the great was born July 20, 356 and died June 10 323 BCE, I cannot find any information about the date of birth or death of the son of the goddess, Achilles.

So people who are not recorded by historians never existed?

Do you know the names, characteristics or attributes of anyone who existed that you have never read or heard about?

If the historicity of a person is being investigated, then it is necessary for some historical facts to be obtained in order to come to a reasonable finding.

This basic criteria, when applied to figures like Apollo, Hercules, Achilles, the angel Gabriel and Jesus the son of the Ghost, easily demonstrates their mythology due to lack of historical corroboration.

Chris Weimer · 10-05-2007, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Yes, this is true. The point of the analogy, in my opinion, is not to make a mythicist case for Alexander, but to expose the double standard in Jesus mythicism.

Layman makes a devastating refutation of Doherty's claim that he believes Jesus was a myth because the earliest Christians came up with parallels and used the OT to create stories about Jesus being born in Bethlehem, being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver etc.

Wait a minute! That isn't Doherty's thesis at all.

How strange! Layman attacked a strawman.

Who said it was Doherty's thesis? Doherty does not own the title "Mythicist", and the most prominent mythicists don't agree with Doherty (like Wells).

Steven Carr · 10-05-2007, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Who said it was Doherty's thesis? Doherty does not own the title "Mythicist", and the most prominent mythicists don't agree with Doherty (like Wells).

And Wells also doesn't claim that Jesus never existed, because there are parallels between the OT and NT

spin · 10-05-2007, 12:15 PM

When the silly double standards thing tried to raise its head in the past, I asked people to deal meaningfully with the Alexander coins. At the moment the coins are sufficient evidence for anyone to start with if they have any good faith in a complaint about differential treatment. Who produced the Alexander coins in mints in Egypt and Mesopotamia as well as Macedonia and various places in between coincident with the Greek occupation of these places and the fall of Persia? Who produced the Philip coins previously and the Philip Arridaeus coins afterwards? Why were Alexander's alone spread across what was the Persian empire matching what later writers describe as his anabasis and those before and after were of much more limited scope?

The lack of a cogent analysis of the coins still says that this is nothing more than apologetics. It is so lacking in solidity that massive shots of the equivalent of viagra wouldn't get it up and performing.

And Hercules would have been a better comparison than Achilles with Alexander. Alexander himself encouraged it.

spin

Chris Weimer · 10-05-2007, 01:06 PM

Spin again produces a red herring. The question is whether literary imitation is a negative point against Jesus, which so many here assume it is, not about coins. But spin of course wriggles out of the bind and derails the topic of conversation.

Chris Weimer · 10-05-2007, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Who said it was Doherty's thesis? Doherty does not own the title "Mythicist", and the most prominent mythicists don't agree with Doherty (like Wells).

And Wells also doesn't claim that Jesus never existed, because there are parallels between the OT and NT

What's your point? Some do.

French Prometheus · 10-05-2007, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And Hercules would have been a better comparison than Achilles with Alexander. Alexander himself encouraged it.

That's correct. Actually, Alexander's coins often depict him as Hercules (with a lion's skin on his head) or show Herculean symbols (like a club).

Gamera · 10-05-2007, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tammuz

[

Quote:

No, they didn't claim decent from Alexander. However, Ptolemy and Seleucus (and possibly other Diadochi kings as well) were generals in Alexander's army. Alexander had one child from Roxana, his Bactrian wife (and later widow), but both of them were eventually murdered during the power struggle between his generals. So there was, as far as I know, none who claimed decent from Alexander. I think the man himseld was buried in Alexandria in Egypt (there were many Alexandrias in the territory conquered by Alexander.

And you know that based on . . . .?

(texts that were written 1000 years after the fact)

See the problem?

Quote:

But as you see, at least one group (the Zoroastrians) didn't like this Alexander because he had destroyed Persepolis. However, two groups - Greeks and Macedonians - liked him. And in the wake of Alexander's conquests, Macedonians were fully accepted as fellow Greeks. In fact, both groups needed each other now.

The Alexander narrative retrojected an "explanation" of what happened, when in fact other causes resulted in this situation.

Quote:

I see.

To declare Alexander the Great to be mythical is like declaring Arminius to be mythical. And I haven't seen that done by anyone.

No, it's like claiming Jesus was mythical. The case for an historical Jesus is pretty good.

Gamera · 10-05-2007, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Double standard? Have you read this thread? How many times do people need to explain the greater quantity and quality of evidence for Alexander?

The MSS are neither superior in quality or quantity. The only mss we have mentioning the historical Alexander are 1000 years after the fact. That's a long time for a lot of mythologizing to take place.

The Mss supporting the historical Jesus are in the case of P54 less than an hundred years (perhaps) from the event. And the full body of numerous mss asserting the historicity of Jesus is only a few hundred years after the fact.

Few historical characters in antiquity have this kind of mss support.

In addition, we have this thing called Christianity that overwhelmed the known world in a rather short time, and it seems to accord with the historical Jesus in these text.

Nothing like this exists for Alexander (or Socrates or Pericles for that matter)

Gamera · 10-05-2007, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus_fr

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And Hercules would have been a better comparison than Achilles with Alexander. Alexander himself encouraged it.

That's correct. Actually, Alexander's coins often depict him as Hercules (with a lion's skin on his head) or show Herculean symbols (like a club).

Clear evidence that Hercules was an historical figure.

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

10-05-2007, 12:15 PM	#54
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	When the silly double standards thing tried to raise its head in the past, I asked people to deal meaningfully with the Alexander coins. At the moment the coins are sufficient evidence for anyone to start with if they have any good faith in a complaint about differential treatment. Who produced the Alexander coins in mints in Egypt and Mesopotamia as well as Macedonia and various places in between coincident with the Greek occupation of these places and the fall of Persia? Who produced the Philip coins previously and the Philip Arridaeus coins afterwards? Why were Alexander's alone spread across what was the Persian empire matching what later writers describe as his anabasis and those before and after were of much more limited scope? The lack of a cogent analysis of the coins still says that this is nothing more than apologetics. It is so lacking in solidity that massive shots of the equivalent of viagra wouldn't get it up and performing. And Hercules would have been a better comparison than Achilles with Alexander. Alexander himself encouraged it. spin

10-05-2007, 01:06 PM	#55
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Spin again produces a red herring. The question is whether literary imitation is a negative point against Jesus, which so many here assume it is, not about coins. But spin of course wriggles out of the bind and derails the topic of conversation.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.