Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chaucer · 07-23-2009, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Nevertheless, yours is another deflection. Quibbling on "called" won't change the issue that this one is the one recognizable by the term "christ" and it needs no explanation. That means that it's a valid moniker.

It's no more valid or invalid than "Gipper" (see above).

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And do you think that Josephus, who claims to be of priestly descent and who has just repackaged most of Jewish literature for Greek speakers, would leave unexplained a reference as important as the christ?

Yes -- especially since it wasn't that important to his readers.

Cheers,

Chaucer

Chaucer · 07-23-2009, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

I did not take anyones side. I did not say there was or was not sufficient evidence for an historical Jesus. Try again.
I am just a bit wary of you when you claim to see the truth and claim your opponents don't because they are not being honest.

You really belong in a church (or a cult) saying that.

Sorry, my understanding was that anyone calling themselves a christian is of the opinion that their Jesus was in this world at a specific point in history.

spin

Does Judge actually call himself a Christian? -- I honestly don't know, thanks.

Chaucer

show_no_mercy · 07-23-2009, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Please provide a reference to this peer reviewed research.

One's already been cited, although in a partly negative way: Bart Ehrman.

Chaucer

A popular book isn't peer review. If that were the case, then Intelligent Design would also be able to claim "peer review".

Chaucer · 07-23-2009, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

One's already been cited, although in a partly negative way: Bart Ehrman.

Chaucer

A popular book isn't peer review. If that were the case, then Intelligent Design would also be able to claim "peer review".

I refer you to the Acknowledgments page for "Misquoting Jesus" at

http://books.google.com/books?id=kXd...esult&resnum=4

Chaucer

Chaucer · 07-23-2009, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by physicalist

What exactly is the appeal of bashing people that doubt the historicity of Jesus? Even if there was a guy named Jesus, so what? What's the prize? How does it change anything?

If you read the OP you will see it is not really about bashing people who doubt the historicy of Jesus (although there may have been a jibe or two).
The concern is that if jesus mythicists are prepared to use questionable methods to proselytise, and repeat questionable things ad nauseum, as if true, and receive a warm welcome for doing so,then what is to stop us allowing this continuing to happen in a wider scope?

What is amazing is the reception the OP got here, on a forum supposedly dedicated to freethinking and rationalism.

Thank you. I sometimes wonder if some people here really value atheism as much as mythicism! Hence, your prior reference to a cult mentality seems occasionally apt.

Best,

Chaucer

show_no_mercy · 07-23-2009, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And do you think that Josephus, who claims to be of priestly descent and who has just repackaged most of Jewish literature for Greek speakers, would leave unexplained a reference as important as the christ?

Yes -- especially since it wasn't that important to his readers.

How could the definition of "christ" not be important to his readers - the Romans? This is almost an unfathomable comment.

Josephus' "Jewish War" is all about "Christs". The entire reason that he's writing "Antiquities" is because of the concept of "Christ". Josephus' position as a Roman lackey is because of the concept of "Christ". Josephus thought that Vespasian was that "christ".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josephus, War of the Jews 6.5.4

What more than all else incited them [the Jews] to the [1st Roman] war was an ambiguous oracle ... found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world. This they understood to mean someone of their own race, and many of their wise men went astray in their interpretation of it. The oracle, however, in reality signified the sovereignty of Vespasian who was proclaimed Emperor on Jewish soil"

Why didn't Josephus say "oh yeah, by the way - the name of this proclaimed emperor who would be ruler of the world in the oracle is called 'christ'". Like I wrote before, it's incredibly suspicious that the only times that Josephus uses the word "christ" is when he just so happens to be witnessing for Christian beliefs.

The Romans should have been extremely wary of any Jew who would be called a christ - since that would mean another war with the Jews.

Toto · 07-23-2009, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

A popular book isn't peer review. If that were the case, then Intelligent Design would also be able to claim "peer review".

I refer you to the Acknowledgments page for "Misquoting Jesus" at

http://books.google.com/books?id=kXd...esult&resnum=4

Chaucer

Asking your friends and your wife for comments is not peer review.

And Ehrman never actually confronts the question of the existence of Jesus - only the question of what sort of person he was, assuming that the gospels contain some historical core. You will find that is the methodology for most liberal Christians and post-Christians and academics. They may start with an admission as to the weakness of the evidence, but then make the strategic decision to just procede as if there must have been someone like Jesus at the start of Christianity.

Chaucer · 07-23-2009, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Yes -- especially since it wasn't that important to his readers.

How could the definition of "christ" not be important to his readers - the Romans? This is almost an unfathomable comment.

In your opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Josephus' "Jewish War" is all about "Christs". The entire reason that he's writing "Antiquities" is because of the concept of "Christ". Josephus' position as a Roman lackey is because of the concept of "Christ". Josephus thought that Vespasian was that "christ".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josephus, War of the Jews 6.5.4

What more than all else incited them [the Jews] to the [1st Roman] war was an ambiguous oracle ... found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world. This they understood to mean someone of their own race, and many of their wise men went astray in their interpretation of it. The oracle, however, in reality signified the sovereignty of Vespasian who was proclaimed Emperor on Jewish soil"

You make a grand pronouncement of why Antiq. was written and then you cite Wars here instead!

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Why didn't Josephus say "oh yeah, by the way - the name of this proclaimed emperor who would be ruler of the world in the oracle is called 'christ'". Like I wrote before, it's incredibly suspicious that the only times that Josephus uses the word "christ" is when he just so happens to be witnessing for Christian beliefs.

In your opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

The Romans should have been extremely wary of any Jew who would be called a christ - since that would mean another war with the Jews.

Hardly, if the one Josephus cites is already dead!

Chaucer

Chaucer · 07-23-2009, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

I refer you to the Acknowledgments page for "Misquoting Jesus" at

http://books.google.com/books?id=kXd...esult&resnum=4

Chaucer

Asking your friends and your wife for comments is not peer review.

Don't mislead the readers here. Those "friends" are from academic institutions like Cornell, Bethel and Loyola Marymount. I strongly advise readers here to look up the cited URL and read the Acknowls. for themselves!

Chaucer

Toto · 07-23-2009, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

If you read the OP you will see it is not really about bashing people who doubt the historicy of Jesus (although there may have been a jibe or two).
The concern is that if jesus mythicists are prepared to use questionable methods to proselytise, and repeat questionable things ad nauseum, as if true, and receive a warm welcome for doing so,then what is to stop us allowing this continuing to happen in a wider scope?

What is amazing is the reception the OP got here, on a forum supposedly dedicated to freethinking and rationalism.

Thank you. I sometimes wonder if some people here really value atheism as much as mythicism! Hence, your prior reference to a cult mentality seems occasionally apt.

Best,

Chaucer

The OP contained more than a jibe. It contained defamation and a rather unseemly emotional meltdown.

Claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is afflicted with a cult mentality is a bit silly. This forum has been debating the evidence on this question from a variety of viewpoints for years. There is no cult leader and nothing to be gained.

judge has failed to convince anyone here of his own theories of Aramaic priority. That's not because we are all part of a Hellenistic Cult.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.