Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 11-16-2011, 12:36 AM

Caligula called himself the brother of Jupiter.

If only he had called himself the brother of the Lord Jupiter, this would have been overwhelming evidence for the historical existence of the Lord Jupiter, on a scale that it would be approaching creationism to deny.

Just ask Bart Ehrman, or wait for his new book. Somebody who styles himself the brother of the Lord clearly has a historical brother known as the Lord.

It is a smoking gun which blows mythicism out of the water.

But Caligula omitted any claim that Jupiter was the Lord. Hence there is no smoking gun pointing to the historical existence of Jupiter. Hence Jupiter is a myth and Jesus isn't.

You lose again , mythicists.

fatpie42 · 11-16-2011, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Caligula called himself the brother of Jupiter.

If only he had called himself the brother of the Lord Jupiter, this would have been overwhelming evidence for the historical existence of the Lord Jupiter, on a scale that it would be approaching creationism to deny.

Just ask Bart Ehrman, or wait for his new book. Somebody who styles himself the brother of the Lord clearly has a historical brother known as the Lord.

It is a smoking gun which blows mythicism out of the water.

But Caligula omitted any claim that Jupiter was the Lord. Hence there is no smoking gun pointing to the historical existence of Jupiter. Hence Jupiter is a myth and Jesus isn't.

You lose again , mythicists.

This is satirical parody right?

Poe's law. You forgot the winking smiley.

Toto · 11-16-2011, 09:53 AM

Josephus

Quote:

NOW this Caius (2) did not demonstrate his madness in offering injuries only to the Jews at Jerusalem, or to those that dwelt in the neighborhood; but suffered it to extend itself through all the earth and sea, so far as was in subjection to the Romans, and filled it with ten thousand mischiefs; so many indeed in number as no former history relates. But Rome itself felt the most dismal effects of what he did, while he deemed that not to be any way more honorable than the rest of the cities; but he pulled and hauled its other citizens, but especially the senate, and particularly the nobility, and such as had been dignified by illustrious ancestors; he also had ten thousand devices against such of the equestrian order, as it was styled, who were esteemed by the citizens equal in dignity and wealth with the senators, because out of them the senators were themselves chosen; these he treated after all ignominious manner, and removed them out of his way, while they were at once slain, and their wealth plundered, because he slew men generally in order to seize on their riches. He also asserted his own divinity, and insisted on greater honors to be paid him by his subjects than are due to mankind. He also frequented that temple of Jupiter which they style the Capitol, which is with them the most holy of all their temples, and had boldness enough to call himself the brother of Jupiter. And other pranks he did like a madman;

Caligula called himself the brother of the supreme Roman God; this was a sign of his madness.

Could Paul have been making the same sort of dig at James?

stephan huller · 11-16-2011, 10:17 AM

But would someone writing in the middle of the second century have developed something in imitation of a first century Emperor? The earliest evidence for the existence of family of Jesus is Hegesippus's Hypomnemata written in 147 CE.

aa5874 · 11-16-2011, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Josephus

Quote:

NOW this Caius (2) did not demonstrate his madness in offering injuries only to the Jews at Jerusalem, or to those that dwelt in the neighborhood; but suffered it to extend itself through all the earth and sea, so far as was in subjection to the Romans, and filled it with ten thousand mischiefs; so many indeed in number as no former history relates. But Rome itself felt the most dismal effects of what he did, while he deemed that not to be any way more honorable than the rest of the cities; but he pulled and hauled its other citizens, but especially the senate, and particularly the nobility, and such as had been dignified by illustrious ancestors; he also had ten thousand devices against such of the equestrian order, as it was styled, who were esteemed by the citizens equal in dignity and wealth with the senators, because out of them the senators were themselves chosen; these he treated after all ignominious manner, and removed them out of his way, while they were at once slain, and their wealth plundered, because he slew men generally in order to seize on their riches. He also asserted his own divinity, and insisted on greater honors to be paid him by his subjects than are due to mankind. He also frequented that temple of Jupiter which they style the Capitol, which is with them the most holy of all their temples, and had boldness enough to call himself the brother of Jupiter. And other pranks he did like a madman;

Caligula called himself the brother of the supreme Roman God; this was a sign of his madness.

Could Paul have been making the same sort of dig at James?

The Pauline writings are a PACK of LIES.

The Pauline writer claimed Jesus was NOT a man, that he did NOT get his gospel from man, that he WITNESSED the resurrected Jesus and that he was a FALSE witness if the dead rise NOT.

See Galatians 1.1-12 and 1 Cor.15.15

The dead rise not.

The Pauline writer is a LIAR. He was not mad. He simply LIED for the Glory of God.

stephan huller · 11-16-2011, 10:54 AM

I think a better line of inquiry with respect to “James” is to start with his original Aramaic name Jacob and wonder if there is something of the central Jewish myth of the twin sons of Isaac at work here. There seems to be three layers to the myth in early Christianity

1. Jesus and his “twin” Judas (there really is no disciple “Thomas”)
2. Jesus and his “brother” Jacob
3. John (who was called Mark?) and his brother Jacob

It must be conceded that (1) was very old and influential in Syria. (2) seems to be associated with so-called “Jewish-Christians” and (3) is found as early as canonical Mark (cf Mark 10:35 - 45).

How does the traditions relate to one another? My guess is that (1) is the oldest and that (2) and (3) are develops of (1). The core idea is that baptism was adoption by the Father AND by implication being made a “brother” of Jesus. Judas was the first “brother” and the Markan tradition substituted Mark in Judas's place and developed the first narrative gospel to reinforce this.

Where does “James” fit in? My guess is that either (a) some Christians identified Jesus as Esau or (b) a double of John (= Mark) was developed among the “poor in understanding” (= the Ebionites) to distinguish themselves from the secret Mark tradition. It is amazing to see how many times Epiphanius makes reference to a “gospel secret” involving “James”. The tradition seems to be an imitation for one involving his “brother” Mark, the Markan tradition only ripping off and original Judas tradition still “alive” in Islamic pseudepigrapha

11-16-2011, 12:36 AM	#1
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	The Smoking Gun - The Brother of the Lord Caligula called himself the brother of Jupiter. If only he had called himself the brother of the Lord Jupiter, this would have been overwhelming evidence for the historical existence of the Lord Jupiter, on a scale that it would be approaching creationism to deny. Just ask Bart Ehrman, or wait for his new book. Somebody who styles himself the brother of the Lord clearly has a historical brother known as the Lord. It is a smoking gun which blows mythicism out of the water. But Caligula omitted any claim that Jupiter was the Lord. Hence there is no smoking gun pointing to the historical existence of Jupiter. Hence Jupiter is a myth and Jesus isn't. You lose again , mythicists.

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

11-16-2011, 10:17 AM	#4
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But would someone writing in the middle of the second century have developed something in imitation of a first century Emperor? The earliest evidence for the existence of family of Jesus is Hegesippus's Hypomnemata written in 147 CE.

11-16-2011, 10:54 AM	#6
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I think a better line of inquiry with respect to “James” is to start with his original Aramaic name Jacob and wonder if there is something of the central Jewish myth of the twin sons of Isaac at work here. There seems to be three layers to the myth in early Christianity 1. Jesus and his “twin” Judas (there really is no disciple “Thomas”) 2. Jesus and his “brother” Jacob 3. John (who was called Mark?) and his brother Jacob It must be conceded that (1) was very old and influential in Syria. (2) seems to be associated with so-called “Jewish-Christians” and (3) is found as early as canonical Mark (cf Mark 10:35 - 45). How does the traditions relate to one another? My guess is that (1) is the oldest and that (2) and (3) are develops of (1). The core idea is that baptism was adoption by the Father AND by implication being made a “brother” of Jesus. Judas was the first “brother” and the Markan tradition substituted Mark in Judas's place and developed the first narrative gospel to reinforce this. Where does “James” fit in? My guess is that either (a) some Christians identified Jesus as Esau or (b) a double of John (= Mark) was developed among the “poor in understanding” (= the Ebionites) to distinguish themselves from the secret Mark tradition. It is amazing to see how many times Epiphanius makes reference to a “gospel secret” involving “James”. The tradition seems to be an imitation for one involving his “brother” Mark, the Markan tradition only ripping off and original Judas tradition still “alive” in Islamic pseudepigrapha

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.