Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 05-03-2009, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

:banghead:

My pet theory that you are a fundamentalist Christian who posts as a skeptic in order to make skeptics look bad has yet to be toppled; in fact, it is looking better all the time.

Ben.

The original comment is a gem. The word "christ" is modern English in form, while Tacitus wrote in Latin, so obviously "christ" isn't in a Latin text. The literal truism is stunning if not banal.

It's a bit like saying that the word "head" isn't in a Latin text which uses "caput", notwithstanding the fact that the two words are cognates (they've come into two languages from the same parent language source) whose meanings overlap greatly (ie they usually mean the same thing).

I can only repeat Ben C's cogent comment:

:banghead:

spin

Dear me, the headbangers are out on force in this thread.

In his "The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus", Arthur Drews, summarises the case in the following manner ....

For our part we can only regard
any attempt to prove the existence of an historical Jesus
by these supposed profane witnesses as a sign of intellectual
unscrupulousness or lamentable superficiality.

Here is the text.

We are left with the summary of Drews'
position in that he classifies the attempts
of the HJ apologists as either intellectually
unscrupulous or lamentably superficial.

The glove fits better every century.

Jesus Christ is a Roman fiction character promoted by a Roman Emperor.
The new testament canon is a Roman fiction book published by a Roman emperor.
The new testament apocrypha are Hellenistic romance stories written in reaction
to the Roman Emperor's fiction book by clever gnostic Hellenistic academics
after the council of Nicaea. In a nutshell such IMO is "the history of christian
origins".

arnoldo · 05-03-2009, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

. . .
Dear me, the headbangers are out on force in this thread.

In his "The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus", Arthur Drews, summarises the case in the following manner ....

For our part we can only regard
any attempt to prove the existence of an historical Jesus
by these supposed profane witnesses as a sign of intellectual
unscrupulousness or lamentable superficiality.

Here is the text.

We are left with the summary of Drews'
position in that he classifies the attempts
of the HJ apologists as either intellectually
unscrupulous or lamentably superficial.

I actually agree with that quote when read in context.

Quote:

Then there are the innumerable fragments of the cross pointing to the drama of Golgotha, the innumerable holy nails, the vinegar-sponge, the veil of Veronica, the shroud in which the Saviour was wrapped, the swaddling-clothes of the infant Jesus, and, last but not least, the holy prepuce. There are indeed plenty of " historical documents " for those who wish to believe. They must be sought, however, not in literature, but in churches and chapels and other "holy places," where they prove their authen- ticity by the " blessing " which flows from them into the Church's coffers. But we will be content with our survey of profane witnesses. The improper use that has hitherto been made by theologians of these witnesses entails a careful examination. For our part we can only regard any attempt to prove the existence of an historical Jesus by these supposed profane witnesses as a sign of intellectual unscrupulousness or lamentable superficiality.
http://www.archive.org/stream/witness

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Jesus Christ is a Roman fiction character promoted by a Roman Emperor. . . In a nutshell such IMO is "the history of christian origins".

From the mouth of babes. . . :angel:

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.