Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tristan Scott · 07-03-2009, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

I am no scholar & I am open to correction for my possible misunderstandings but I smell a rat & I think his name is Fabricatio Fictitious.

-evan

What proof do you have that there was a strong oral tradition of Jesus? You are asking others for proof but you provide only what you believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triston Scott

Do I think it's possible that Jesus was a complete fabrication? Sure it's possible. Do I think that his not being mentioned by name by Roman writers prove it? No. Proving the non-existence of anyone 2000 years ago is pure folly. It's simply impossible. Anyone with a thread of logic knows that the lack of proof for existence is not proof of non-existence.

You seem to be confusing "proof" with "position".

People maintain or hold a "position" based on the information that they have. No position can be 100% fool-proof when dealing with indirect evidence or information provided by secondary sources.

Now, anyone with a thread of logic knows that ALL THINGS THAT ARE DEEMED NON-EXISTENT HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF THEIR EXISTENCE.

It therefore follows logically that Jesus of the NT can be deemed to have been non-existent since, like all NON-things, there is no corroborative evidence for Jesus.

It is not folly, but logical and reasonable, to deem or maintain the position that Homer's Achilles, the offspring of a sea-goddess, is a myth, the same can be done to Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God.

This is a non-sequiter. I have not argued any of the things that you seem to be claiming I am arguing. My ONLY argument with your position is that it proves absolutely nothing, it is not a revelation, it has always been common knowledge that there was nothing contemporary written about Jesus (I have also noted several times that Pliny was not a contemporary of Jesus either, a little insignificant fact that seems to have eluded you and others.)

Bolding your stance does not make it any more significant, nor does it make it proof.

Again, for the third and last time, I do not argue that the Jesus, as depicted in the Bible is an actual true person, as you say, born of the holy ghost. I am saying that Pliny's and Tacitus' lack of mention of the guy, has little to do with my disbelief.

Also if you want to go on thinking that you can prove a negative with lack of evidence for a positive go ahead, but you are wrong.

ynquirer · 07-03-2009, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Josephus' "Testimonium Flavium" is not a credible reference & almost certainly represents a Christian interpolation form the 4th C CE. This question has been beaten to death but cannot be used as incontrovertible evidence for the Jesus of the Gospels.

If you are interested in an exhaustive discussion of this question see:

http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp16.htm

-evan

You link to a one-sided discussion of the topic, which rather than anything else reveals the agenda of the writer.

You ought not to ignore scholarly, more balanced references such as Alice Whealey’s Josephus on Jesus. The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times.

Tristan Scott · 07-03-2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

Quote:

Tristan Scott: I am not arguing that the Jesus as depicted in the NT is a fabrication, however I don't believe it is a complete fabrication, and I've stated why, and that is because there was a strong oral tradition that has been found in independent, albeit religious, sources.

I'm not convinced that there was a "strong oral tradition". The early 2nd C CE writers claiming to be Christian seem to be unaware of even the most basic of Gospel Jesus details (even the canonical epistles of Paul are devoid of these details.) One would expect that with a strong oral tradition, there would be multiple, possibly embellished or widely disparate accounts but if there was a singular beginning event or life behind it at least some detail. What we find has this embryonic spiritualized flavor in the early phase with a concretized history in the late accounts. This does not sound like a strong oral gospel tradition to me.

Doesn't sound like it to me either. By the way, I never said anything about a strong oral gospel tradition did I. I don't think there would be any such thing. An oral tradition would be things like teachings, sayings and parables, not personal histories.

Quote:

Tristan Scott: Do I think it's possible that Jesus was a complete fabrication? Sure it's possible. Do I think that his not being mentioned by name by Roman writers prove it? No. Proving the non-existence of anyone 2000 years ago is pure folly. It's simply impossible. Anyone with a thread of logic knows that the lack of proof for existence is not proof of non-existence.

Quote:

Efeffa: True but to make the assertion that there was an historical person of Jesus with the gospel details...

I never made such an assertion.

Toto · 07-03-2009, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Josephus' "Testimonium Flavium" is not a credible reference & almost certainly represents a Christian interpolation form the 4th C CE. This question has been beaten to death but cannot be used as incontrovertible evidence for the Jesus of the Gospels.

If you are interested in an exhaustive discussion of this question see:

http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp16.htm

-evan

You link to a one-sided discussion of the topic, which rather than anything else reveals the agenda of the writer.

You ought not to ignore scholarly, more balanced references such as Alice Whealey’s Josephus on Jesus. The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times (or via: amazon.co.uk).

This is the most balanced reference:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

Or you can read Steve Mason's exhaustive discussion in Josephus and the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk).

The final result has to be that the passage in Antiquities is not credible. Once you admit that it has been tampered with, you can't rely on it for information.

Kapyong · 07-03-2009, 04:58 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Scott

(which writers contemporary to Pliny mentioned Jesus the 1st century teacher)
Probably all of the gospel writers.
Clement of Rome.
Polycarp.
The writer(s) of the Didache,
hell, most of the writings pertaining to Jesus were written contemporary to Pliny.

Hang on !

Clement didn't write anything about Jesus being a 1st century teacher.
He just gives a couple of SAYINGS of Jesus.

Polycarp didn't write anything about Jesus being a 1st century teacher either.
He invokes Jesus a few times, mentions he was raised from the dead - but no historical details.

The Didakhe doesn't mention Jesus was a 1st century teacher either.
It invokes Jesus' name a few times - but no historical details at all.

K.

aa5874 · 07-03-2009, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

The contagion of the christiani stopping sacrificing and attending temples had spread far and wide but was easily curable.

It is clear that it was the christian superstition that was spreading in the cities, villages and farms. And it is also clear that Pliny had problems with the numbers so he hastened to write to Trajan for advice.

Pliny to Trajan

Quote:

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved....

Pliny had not yet found a solution to the problem. [b]He was doing an investigation and stopped abruptly to get advice because of the magnitude of people involved with the christian superstition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cliverdule

And btw, I do not think this is my interpretation - I think this is the generally accpted view - aa - you thinking the xiani were sacrificing is mistaken - please explain why the worshippers of the true gods had abandoned sacrificing and why Pliny wanted to stop the xiani sacrificing!

Are you claiming that generally accepted interpretations can never be wrong or that no generally accepted interpretation of any matter has ever been found to be in error?

As I have pointed out, Tacitus in Annals 15.44 claimed the christian superstition originated in Judaea. People of Judaea did practise animal sacrifice to their God.

aa5874 · 07-03-2009, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Scott

This is a non-sequiter. I have not argued any of the things that you seem to be claiming I am arguing. My ONLY argument with your position is that it proves absolutely nothing, it is not a revelation, it has always been common knowledge that there was nothing contemporary written about Jesus (I have also noted several times that Pliny was not a contemporary of Jesus either, a little insignificant fact that seems to have eluded you and others.)

How did you prove Pliny was NOT a contemporary of Jesus? How did you prove that negative?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Scott

Bolding your stance does not make it any more significant, nor does it make it proof.

How can you prove that anything you say is true?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Scott

Again, for the third and last time, I do not argue that the Jesus, as depicted in the Bible is an actual true person, as you say, born of the holy ghost. I am saying that Pliny's and Tacitus' lack of mention of the guy, has little to do with my disbelief.

Well, I try and use all the information I can find to come to a conclusion. I have no obligation to accept your belief.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Scott

Also if you want to go on thinking that you can prove a negative with lack of evidence for a positive go ahead, but you are wrong.

You claimed that Pliny was NOT a contemporary of Jesus, please prove that negative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Scott

...I have also noted several times that Pliny was not a contemporary of Jesus...

Archaeopath · 07-03-2009, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Scott

This is a non-sequiter. I have not argued any of the things that you seem to be claiming I am arguing. My ONLY argument with your position is that it proves absolutely nothing, it is not a revelation, it has always been common knowledge that there was nothing contemporary written about Jesus (I have also noted several times that Pliny was not a contemporary of Jesus either, a little insignificant fact that seems to have eluded you and others.)

How did you prove Pliny was NOT a contemporary of Jesus? How did you prove that negative?

Pliny the Younger: 61-112 AD
Jesus: c 4 BC-30 AD

Am I missing something here? :huh:

aa5874 · 07-03-2009, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaeopath

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

How did you prove Pliny was NOT a contemporary of Jesus? How did you prove that negative?

Pliny the Younger: 61-112 AD
Jesus: c 4 BC-30 AD

Am I missing something here? :huh:

The proof is missing.

Archaeopath · 07-03-2009, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaeopath

Pliny the Younger: 61-112 AD
Jesus: c 4 BC-30 AD

Am I missing something here? :huh:

The proof is missing.

Proof of which part? The dates for Jesus or the dates for Pliny?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.