Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-28-2010, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

No opponent to Christianity ever questioned Jesus’ historicity prior to the fourth century. That Jesus did not exist was a last resort, desperate trench dug in by pagans after Constantine declared the Christian faith to be the official religion of the Empire. Eusebius was therefore the first to feel a necessity to counter the argument on the grounds of testimonies issued by non-Christian witnesses. ...

Actually, no opponent of Christianity questioned Jesus' historicity until after the Enlightenment. The early opponents of Christianity felt that it was sufficient to point out the absurdities of the gospel narrative.

Eusebius was not concerned with countering these critics. His purpose was to counter the heretics who questioned the nature of Christ - whether he was not really human, but an angel/aspect of god/spirit who only took the form of a human. It was important to the orthodox church that Jesus be fully human and fully god at the same time, as a matter of theology. It was also important to prove that Jesus passed his authority to his followers who founded the Catholic Church.

Quote:

It is noticeable that the Rabbis did not even question Jesus as a wonder maker. The issue for them, according to several passages of the Talmud and the whole of Toldot Yeshu, was whether his wonders were God-caused or an effect of black magic. And why do you think they thought that Jesus did make wonders? Because Josephus said he did.

Or more likely because Christians claimed that he did. They had no independent evidence of Jesus' miracles.

show_no_mercy · 01-28-2010, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

It is noticeable that the Rabbis did not even question Jesus as a wonder maker. The issue for them, according to several passages of the Talmud and the whole of Toldot Yeshu, was whether his wonders were God-caused or an effect of black magic. And why do you think they thought that Jesus did make wonders? Because Josephus said he did.

Why do you think the author(s) of the Toledot Jesu were citing Josephus and not the gospels? Why would the author(s) of the TJ have the entire scenario taking place prior to the Roman era if they were citing Josephus?

Photius says that Jewish writers contemporary to Josephus describing the history of the Jews had a "common fault" of never mentioning Jesus or his miracles. And he was aware of Antiquities; in his summary of Antiquities he never mentions the TF.

PhilosopherJay · 01-28-2010, 02:54 PM

Hi ynquirer,

Can you cite these paragraphs or chapters that contain these invectives against the Jewish leadership? I don't recall them offhand. What is the "misconception" you refer to in your second proposition?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi ynquirer,

What in "War of the Jews" precisely makes you suspect that Josephus wrote the TF?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

1) War of the Jews is a serious invective against the Jewish leadership for having drawn the people into the nightmare of the destruction of the Temple.

2) Josephus wrote Antiquities of the Jews after WJ as an explanation of how the Jewish revolt was prepared by misconception of the prevalent leadership – the Pharisees – since long before the revolt itself.

3) Chapter 3 of book 18 without the TF looks like a disclaimer – as you yourself said – rather than a diatribe; that is inconsistent with the message of WJ and the purpose of AJ.

4) Chapter 3 of the book 18 with the TF looks like a scatological as well as political argument: it is not that Jesus’ death caused the prohibition of Judaism in Rome – the immediate cause was misconduct by the priests of Isis (in paragrah 4) – but bigotry of the ‘principal men among us’ (in paragraph 3) helps explain that Pilate was quite right in fighting their intolerance (in paragraphs 1and 2), while such intolerance (not specifically Jesus' crucifixion, which passed unnoticed) impressed negatively Tiberius and the Romans in Rome and paved the way for paragraph 5.

aa5874 · 01-28-2010, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

No opponent to Christianity ever questioned Jesus’ historicity prior to the fourth century. That Jesus did not exist was a last resort, desperate trench dug in by pagans after Constantine declared the Christian faith to be the official religion of the Empire.

But, Marcion questioned that Jesus was human since the 2nd century.

It must be noted that opponents to Jesus the God/man may have also believed in other Greek/Roman Gods.

The historicity of Gods are meaningless or cannot be proven. Jesus was a God/man according to the Church writers including some writer with name Tertullian.

Now, there is a writing attributed to some Tertullian that clearly state that the Divine or Spiritual nature of Jesus was without disagreement, it was his reality or "Flesh" that was questioned. And there were many questions.

This is a writing attributed to some Tertullian in "On the Flesh of Christ" where the author himself asked "Did Jesus actually exist in the Flesh?"

"On the Flesh of Christ"

Quote:

Let us examine our Lord's bodily substance, for about His spiritual nature all are agreed.

It is His flesh that is in question.

Its verity and quality are the points in dispute.

Did it ever exist?

Whence was it derived?

And of what kind was it?

See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0315.htm

The existence of Jesus is being questioned by opponents of Jesus Christ.

spamandham · 01-28-2010, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

So we have two incredible, unprecedented news stories that by some very strange, unexplained circumstances were for the most part only of interest to Bible writers. Not likely.

If the gospel writers were not news reporters, but were instead writing origins stories filled with fantasy that they themselves invented (or got from a 3rd party or recycled from other legends/myths), then there is nothing unusual with the idea that Josephus failed to record the miracles whereas the gospels did.

ynquirer · 01-29-2010, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Actually, no opponent of Christianity questioned Jesus' historicity until after the Enlightenment.

Emperor Julian did.

Quote:

Or more likely because Christians claimed that he did. They had no independent evidence of Jesus' miracles.

Do you mean to imply that the Jews believed Jesus to be a wonder maker simply because the Christians said he was though no Jewish historian recorded any such wonders? Hhmmm...

ynquirer · 01-29-2010, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Why do you think the author(s) of the Toledot Jesu were citing Josephus and not the gospels? Why would the author(s) of the TJ have the entire scenario taking place prior to the Roman era if they were citing Josephus?

Toldot Yeshu quite closely followed the gospel of Luke. Yet, the relevant question is not which narrative the Jewish critics followed to show that Jesus/Yeshu performed black magic, but rather why they gave such a narrative any credibility.

Quote:

Photius says that Jewish writers contemporary to Josephus describing the history of the Jews had a "common fault" of never mentioning Jesus or his miracles. And he was aware of Antiquities; in his summary of Antiquities he never mentions the TF.

Justus of Tiberias is the only one of those Jewish historians whose name has reached the present day, courtesy of a Christian writer. Josephus speaks of Justus in not very favourable terms, indeed. Not the least fraction of Justus’ writings has survived. Maybe the Jews did not give them much credibility?

ynquirer · 01-29-2010, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi ynquirer,

Can you cite these paragraphs or chapters that contain these invectives against the Jewish leadership? I don't recall them offhand. What is the "misconception" you refer to in your second proposition?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Josephus’ defeatist speech before the walls of Jerusalem, WJ 5.9.4.

ynquirer · 01-29-2010, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

No opponent to Christianity ever questioned Jesus’ historicity prior to the fourth century. That Jesus did not exist was a last resort, desperate trench dug in by pagans after Constantine declared the Christian faith to be the official religion of the Empire.

But, Marcion questioned that Jesus was human since the 2nd century.

Marcion is irrelevant to my argument. He purported to be a Christian. It was a domestic quarrel. The counterargument was more or less based on the NT, which was useless to refute the fourth-century pagan opinion that Julian chose to side with.

show_no_mercy · 01-29-2010, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Why do you think the author(s) of the Toledot Jesu were citing Josephus and not the gospels? Why would the author(s) of the TJ have the entire scenario taking place prior to the Roman era if they were citing Josephus?

Toldot Yeshu quite closely followed the gospel of Luke. Yet, the relevant question is not which narrative the Jewish critics followed to show that Jesus/Yeshu performed black magic, but rather why they gave such a narrative any credibility.

Why wouldn't they give it any credibility? Did the writer of Exodus try to deny the magical claims of the Pharaoh vis Moses' miraculous claims? Did any Christians deny the magical claims of Simon the Magician? I don't think there were very many common people skeptical of claims of the ability to do magic - they just assigned them to evil or unscrupulous sources.

It's really a post-Enlightenment phenomenon to be completely skeptical of miracles; you're projecting modern skepticism deep into pre-Enlightenment mentality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Photius says that Jewish writers contemporary to Josephus describing the history of the Jews had a "common fault" of never mentioning Jesus or his miracles. And he was aware of Antiquities; in his summary of Antiquities he never mentions the TF.

Justus of Tiberias is the only one of those Jewish historians whose name has reached the present day, courtesy of a Christian writer. Josephus speaks of Justus in not very favourable terms, indeed. Not the least fraction of Justus’ writings has survived. Maybe the Jews did not give them much credibility?

Photius says that it was a common fault of Jews writing around the time of Justus and Josephus to not mention the coming of Jesus or his miraculous deeds. How is this reconciled with the TF?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.