Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-16-2009, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

An eclipse of the sun cannot occur at the Passover or at the 14th day of the Lunar calender.

An eclipse is virtually impossible at the Passover since the earth would be between the sun and the moon.

For an eclipse, the moon must be between the sun and the earth.

And further an eclipse cannot lasts for more than a few minutes, not even 15 minutes.

Does the Gospels state that an eclipse happened sometime during a crucifiction event? From what I've read so far the gospels merely state that "darkness" (skotos) occurred--not an eclipse.

You mean the sun was magically exintiguished for 3 hours and then re-kindled?

Opinion · 02-17-2009, 07:22 AM

IIRC there are some historical texts outside the New Testament on Jesus. There are some arguments on them but they are there.

aa5874 · 02-17-2009, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opinion

IIRC there are some historical texts outside the New Testament on Jesus. There are some arguments on them but they are there.

The word "Jesus Christ" is found only in forged passages of Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1. And even if genuine, described Jesus Christ as a mythical figure where he rose from the dead.

And further no church writer, before Eusebius in the 4th century, used those passages to claim Jesus did exist and was Christ.

Justin Martyr writing in the 2nd century, although aware of the writings of Josephus, and in particular Antiquities of the Jews, did not mention the TF.

Earlier in Wars of the Jews, 6.5.4, the very Josephus thought that it might have been Vespasian who was the predicted ruler or Messiah.

LogicandReason · 02-17-2009, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

My wording was a little confusing, so let me see if I can rephrase. Peter is attested by the gospels to be one of the disciples of Jesus. If Jesus was a myth, then we would expect that Peter was also a myth.

Abe...there are far more possibilities than that. Mark wrote from oral traditions and the other synoptics are dependent on Mark. Paul mentions a Church leader named Peter (Cephas) in Gal and 1 Cor and we can assume this man is historical. Paul calls him an 'apostle before me' but never a disciple of Jesus. Mark infers the known Peter into the Gospel story...or the oral tradition came to him that way. You would have to ask yourself why Paul never mentions that Peter was a disciple (nor does Peter in his supposed epistles)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

But Peter existed as surely as Paul, because Paul was associated with Peter.

This is a bad syllogism Abe. You are saying that: A man named Paul knew a man named Peter, the Gospels say that Peter is a disciple of Jesus, therefore the Peter that Paul references must be the Gospel Jesus. He can simply be a Christian leader in Jerusalem who was later written into the Gospel story. We can only speculate as he is not known outside biblical polemics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

That fulfills an expectation of HJ, but MJ must accomodate for it ad hoc.

Accomplished above

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Perhaps Peter was real and he was woven into the story? Sure, you can accommodate anything. But, given that the expectations of HJ are fulfilled and the expectations of MJ are not, then HJ comes out with more probability.

The only thing HJ is known to fulfill are the so-called prophecies of him from the OT. But if he is constructed from the OT, how hard can that be? It's all pure speculation, HJ or MJ....we will never prove this issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The greatest division between the apostle Peter and the apostle Paul was that Peter wanted to restrict the church to Jews and Paul wanted to extend the congregation to gentiles.

This reflects a larger and older dispute between religious Jews and the Hellene Jews of the Diaspora. This begins in the middle of the 2nd century BCE. Christians are a sectarian branch off of Judaism. The Paul/Peter conflicts are a construct of that ongoing conflict.

This is why HJ is written into Mark...to settle theology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Given MJ, we may otherwise expect the greatest division to be, "Hey, you never really knew Jesus, did you Peter?" Evidence like that would be smoking gun. But we don't have that.

Paul nor Peter either one mention Peter's relationship to and earthly Jesus in the Epistles...if they were rivals, Peter would have quote Jesus for authority. When will you HJ people read Paul? He tells you where Jesus is constructed from in 1 Cor 15:3-4. Notice the older 'Christology.'

Opinion · 02-18-2009, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opinion

IIRC there are some historical texts outside the New Testament on Jesus. There are some arguments on them but they are there.

The word "Jesus Christ" is found only in forged passages of Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1. And even if genuine, described Jesus Christ as a mythical figure where he rose from the dead.

And further no church writer, before Eusebius in the 4th century, used those passages to claim Jesus did exist and was Christ.

Justin Martyr writing in the 2nd century, although aware of the writings of Josephus, and in particular Antiquities of the Jews, did not mention the TF.

Earlier in Wars of the Jews, 6.5.4, the very Josephus thought that it might have been Vespasian who was the predicted ruler or Messiah.

Well Josephus did call Jesus the so called Christ. But he does reference him to exist at least. Actually IIRC he references Jesus twice and also Jesus brother James he mentions as well.

LogicandReason · 02-18-2009, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

There is no collaborative evidence to the Gospel earthquake or darkness claims. It seems improbable that the entire rest of the world missed these phenomenons.

According to this extrabiblical source below these phenomenons were noted elsewhere.. . In the following passage Eusebius quotes Phlegon as stating the following:

Quote:

Indeed Phlegon, who is an excellent calculator of olympiads, also writes about this, in his 13th book writing thus:

"However in the fourth year of the 202nd olympiad, an eclipse of the sun happened, greater and more excellent than any that had happened before it; at the sixth hour, day turned into dark night, so that the stars were seen in the sky, and an earthquake in Bithynia toppled many buildings of the city of Nicaea." These things the aforementioned man (says).
http://rbedrosian.com/jerome_chronicle_03_part2.htm

So the non-bias Eusebius has the only copy of this document? There is not one extant from history. Maybe people like Jerome and Eusebius helped Phlegon? Without Christian reference, how exactly do we know this guy?

aa5874 · 02-18-2009, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opinion

Well Josephus did call Jesus the so called Christ. But he does reference him to exist at least. Actually IIRC he references Jesus twice and also Jesus brother James he mentions as well.

I hope you did see that the passage in Josephus claimed he was raised from the dead after three days.

So, he does reference him to be a ghost at least.

And, you know the brother of a ghost as well?

Quote:

.....And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day....

I am sure you will admit that all or part of the "TF" is fiction.

Opinion · 02-18-2009, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opinion

Well Josephus did call Jesus the so called Christ. But he does reference him to exist at least. Actually IIRC he references Jesus twice and also Jesus brother James he mentions as well.

I hope you did see that the passage in Josephus claimed he was raised from the dead after three days.

So, he does reference him to be a ghost at least.

And, you know the brother of a ghost as well?

Quote:

.....And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day....

I am sure you will admit that all or part of the "TF" is fiction.

Well a lot of christians today believe he did rise despite not being there and witnessing it. Whether he did or not is a huge debate...... no lie about that. But he is referenced to existing, which is the point and his brother James.

Tacitus also mentions Christians: "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"

Again there's debate on the passage but its there outside of the new testament.

LogicandReason · 02-18-2009, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opinion

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The word "Jesus Christ" is found only in forged passages of Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1. And even if genuine, described Jesus Christ as a mythical figure where he rose from the dead.

And further no church writer, before Eusebius in the 4th century, used those passages to claim Jesus did exist and was Christ.

Justin Martyr writing in the 2nd century, although aware of the writings of Josephus, and in particular Antiquities of the Jews, did not mention the TF.

Earlier in Wars of the Jews, 6.5.4, the very Josephus thought that it might have been Vespasian who was the predicted ruler or Messiah.

Well Josephus did call Jesus the so called Christ. But he does reference him to exist at least. Actually IIRC he references Jesus twice and also Jesus brother James he mentions as well.

People need to read all 93,000 lines of Josephus' Wars and Antiquities before citing his work. 'Christians' not religious Pharisees refer to Jesus as 'Christ.' The lines, all 12 of them, are later redaction.

LogicandReason · 02-18-2009, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opinion

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I hope you did see that the passage in Josephus claimed he was raised from the dead after three days.

So, he does reference him to be a ghost at least.

And, you know the brother of a ghost as well?

I am sure you will admit that all or part of the "TF" is fiction.

Well a lot of christians today believe he did rise despite not being there and witnessing it. Whether he did or not is a huge debate...... no lie about that. But he is referenced to existing, which is the point and his brother James.

Tacitus also mentions Christians: "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"

Again there's debate on the passage but its there outside of the new testament.

Tacitus calls Christ the founder of Christinity. This passage from Tacitus is a discussion of Nero, not Jesus. He parrots the Christian assertion that their savior was killed during the time of Pilate. Notice this 'historical anchor' is not attached to the Christology when Paul was writing in the mid-50's.

This passage was written in Rome about the same time Ignatius was being martyred and spewing these same 'facts.' Calling a person by title is not a historical reference. It is using a root to infer a relationship. How much other of Tacitus' work are we quoting?

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

02-17-2009, 07:22 AM	#132
Opinion Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: United States Posts: 88	IIRC there are some historical texts outside the New Testament on Jesus. There are some arguments on them but they are there.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.