Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 01-02-2008, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I've gone over this several times here. Firstly, your question shows that you don't understand Christian or even Jewish theology.

Much of the Jewish scripture is preoccupied with prophecies that the Jewish god would destroy the Jews and turn his favor over to the Gentiles.

The claims of Christianity are the these prophecies are being fulfilled and that indeed by the act of killing Jesus the Jews had done the deed that resulted in God brining his wrath to destroy the Jews and become the God of the Gentiles.

The Romans were obsessed with prophecy. The early Roman apologists and church elite were likewise obsessed with prophecy, and they focused on this subject extensively, and they created a number of "proofs" to demonstrate that this was the first case in history as they knew it of solid proof that major prophecies had been fulfilled, and that these prophecies proved that this must be the one true religion. They argued that it was proven beyond doubt that the Jewish scriptures were prophetic, and that furthermore, not only did this prove that Christianity was the true religion, but also that the Romans would be able to decipher the Jewish scritpures and use them to predict the future to help them gain more power by knowing the events of the world before they happened.

I'm not kidding, this is a MAJOR aspect of the appeal of Christianity to the Roman elite.

But what was all of this prophecy business based on? Well, the problem of course is that the concept of Jesus and the stories of Jesus in the Gospels, are all based on the Jewish scriptures in the first place, such that Paul's description of Jesus is simply a regurgitation of the messianic scriptures, and the Gospels are constructed simply of stories that use the Hebrew scriptures as their source material, thus, yes, events in the Gospels are directly portrayed as fulfillments of the Hebrew prophecies, but the problem is that such "fulfillments" are merely a product of the author, not reality.

Having been raised a Christian allows me to know the Christian mindset of a universal god as understood by all of Christianity. Now being an atheist allows me to stand back and examine the bible story independently.

You really need to re-read the old and new testaments, for no where does it say that God would destroy his people [the Jews] and replace his people with another[Gentiles]. How do you explain that Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep in the house of Israel? You do realize this means the 12 tribal sons of Jacob, don't you? Were any Gentiles named as tribes of Israel? Many many people were excluded and for a reason. Maybe you'd like to investigate as to the reason why?

I thought the main concern of the "fathers" in Rome was to prove a corpse was raised from the dead. Isn't this the foundation principle? What good is Christianity without a resurrected Christ figure? What good is Christianity if Christians are not raised from their dead corpses? What happens to the Jewish myth should Matthew 11:5 be taken into account, and the dead are seen as already raised-up while Jesus was still alive? I mean, this is what Jesus told John. So why do Christians not believe it? After all, "it's in the bible".

The claims of Christianity, as you know, should be challenged. Far to long has this bible story gone unchecked.

Try reading Hosea:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=9&version=31

See also:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=6&version=31

And also:

See also Isaiah:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1;&version=31;

Quote:

Isaiah 56:
5 I will give, in my house and within my walls,
a monument and a name better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off.

6 And to the foreigners who cling to the Lord,
to serve him, to love the name of the Lord,
so that they may be his male and female slaves,
and as all who keep my sabbaths so as not not profane them,
and hold fast my covenant—
7 I will bring to my holy mountain,
and make them joyful in my house of prayer;
their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house shall be called a house of prayer
for all nations.
8 said the Lord, who gathers the dispersed of Israel,
for I will gather to him a gathering

9 All you wild animals that live in the fields,
all you wild animals of the forest, come here; eat!
10 Observe that all have become totally blind,
they have not learned how to think;
they are all silent dogs;
they will not able to bark;
dreaming in bed,loving to slumber.
11 The dogs are shameless in their soul;
not knowing satisfaction.
They are evil, not knowing understanding,
The have followed their own ways,
each in the same manner.

There are other examples as well.

As for the understanding of this by the Church fathers:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eu...e_03_book1.htm

Quote:

Grant then, dear friend, my request, and labor with rue henceforward in your prayers in my effort to present the Proof of the Gospel from the prophecies extant among the Hebrews from the earliest times. ... I propose to show, by quotations from them, how they forestalled events that came to the light long ages after their time, the actual circumstances of the Saviour's own presentment of the Gospel.... It shall be my task to prove that they saw that which was not present as present, and that which as yet was not in existence as actually existing; and not only this, but that they foretold in writing the events of the future for posterity, so that by their help others can even now know what is coming....

The most ancient Hebrew oracles present all these things definitely about One Who would come in the last times, and Who would undergo such sufferings among men, and they clearly tell the source of their foreknowledge. They bear witness to the Resurrection from the dead of the Being Whom they revealed, His appearance to His disciples, His gift of the Holy Spirit to them, His return to heaven, His establishment as King on His Father's throne and His glorious second Advent yet to be at the consummation of the age. In addition to all this you can hear the wailings and lamentations of each of the prophets, wailing and lamenting characteristically over the calamities which will overtake the Jewish people because of their impiety to Him Who had been foretold. {6} How their kingdom, that had continued from the days of a remote ancestry to their own, would be utterly destroyed after their sin against Christ; how their fathers' Laws would be abrogated, they themselves deprived of their ancient worship, robbed of the independence of their forefathers, and made slaves of their enemies, instead of free men; how their royal metropolis would be burned with fire, their venerable and holy altar undergo the flames and extreme desolation, their city be inhabited no longer by its old possessors but by races of other stock,6 while they would be dispersed among the Gentiles through the whole world, with never a hope of any cessation of evil, or breathing-space from troubles. And it is plain even to the blind, that what they saw and foretold is fulfilled in actual facts from the very day the Jews laid godless hands on Christ, and drew down on themselves the beginning of the train of sorrows.

See also the ending of this section:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar..._history.htm#3

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-02-2008, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

They didn't? Can you tell me what the nature and extent of your familiarity is with Greco Roman cultural and philosophical history that allows you to say this so confidently and apodictically?

Umm, there's Anaxagoras, Strato, Epicurus, Lucretius, Euhemerus, Theodorus of Cyrne, Prodicus, Lucian, and (probably -- on this see Jonathan Barnes, The Presocratic Philosophers (or via: amazon.co.uk)) Democritus, Xenophanes. and Leucippus.

Better tell that to Thucydides or to Lucian whose essay on "How to Write History" I take it you are not familiar with.

Jeffrey

Yes, I am of course familiar with these figures. None of them engaged in a systematic forensic investigation to disprove the existence of various heroes such as Hercules, etc.

Why would they if they didn't believe these people existed?

Besides that the issue for which I adduced Thucydides and Lucian was your claim that "there simply was no means of or sense of verifiability or historical rigor as we know it today."

Quote:

Feel free to prove me wrong, but I know of no example of someone, for instance, taking the story of Hercules and dissecting it and showing that he couldn't have been a certain place at a certain time, etc.

I take it then that you are not familiar with Eratosthenes or with Polybius who do just that with respect to Odysseus's journeys?

Jeffrey

lpetrich · 01-02-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The heretics such as Marcion found it advantageous to pretend that the crucifixion was merely in seeming, or that someone else was crucified -- which no modern feels the need to do.

Why do you think that Marcion and the Docetics were "pretending"? Was he any more "pretending" than (say) the authors of the Koran, who make the same claim?

Quote:

The allegation that Jesus never existed was only invented ca. 1700 by people desperate to find excuses not to believe in Christianity.

Please justify both of those claims.

Quote:

It remains a lunatic fringe position even today.

I guess it's easier to laugh at something than to analyze it. And even if there was a historical Jesus Christ, would you accept being disappointed if you went back in time in a time machine and found out what he was really like?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Are you quite sure that even the Jesus Seminar -- an anti-Christian project in conception and execution, as we all know -- were denying the existence of Jesus of Nazareth?

How is the Jesus Seminar "anti-Christian"?

Toto · 01-02-2008, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Feel free to prove me wrong, but I know of no example of someone, for instance, taking the story of Hercules and dissecting it and showing that he couldn't have been a certain place at a certain time, etc.

I take it then that you are not familiar with Eratosthenes or with Polybius who do just that with respect to Odysseus's journeys?

Jeffrey

That's sort of what Polybius did.

From a not necessarily reliable source

Quote:

Eratosthenes takes a cynical view, regarding Homer as an entertainer, not an educator: "You will find the scene of the wanderings of Odysseus when you find the cobbler who sewed up the bag of the winds."[11] This does not mean that he refuses any and all identifications. He conjectures that Hesiod's information about the wanderings (see below on Hesiod) came from historical inquiries that Hesiod had made.[12] ...

The 2nd century BCE historian Polybius discusses the wanderings in book 34 of his history. He refutes Apollodorus' idea that the wanderings were in the Atlantic on the basis of Odyssey 9.82, where Odysseus says that he sailed for nine days from Cape Malea in the Peloponnese to the land of the lotus-eaters: it would take much longer than nine days to reach the Atlantic. He accepts the standard identifications around Sicily, and is the earliest source to identify Scylla and Charybdis explicitly with the Strait of Messina.[14] He also identifies the land of the lotus-eaters as the island of Djerba (ancient Meninx), off the coast of Tunisia.[15] Polybius is the most euhemerist source to this date: he justifies the description of Aeolus in the Odyssey as "king of the winds" on the grounds that Aeolus "taught navigators how to steer a course in the regions of the Strait of Messina, whose waters are ... difficult to navigate", and insists that the mythical elements in the wanderings are insignificant in comparison to the historical core.[16]

There is an interesting note on Greek historiography here, which does not answer the question in this thread, but does emphasize how complex it is.

Malachi151 · 01-02-2008, 06:43 PM

I remain unconvinced, though I can also understand Gibson's opposition. I think the points are simply more subtle.

The point is really this. Is there any precedent for the type of examination that would have been required to show that Jesus never existed?

There is really nothing in the literature about Jesus one way or the other until the 2nd century.

#1) Why would anyone even have suspected that Jesus had never existed at that time?

What reason would people have had to question his existence after the Gospels had been published?

#2) Had they chosen to do so, how would they have gone about it? I can't really think of anything that would have sufficed that is among the tools used at the time.

100 years after the fact, what was anyone to do?

If I recall correctly, even Lucan passed off supernatural events as facts. I am thinking particularly here about Romulus, whose existence he also didn't doubt that I recall.

I'm trying to consider a Roman in the late 1st century, early 2nd century, hearing about a Jewish guy who was killed by Pilate that is now being worshiped as a god, and I'm trying to imagine by what circumstance someone would doubt this occurrence. It seems that in the Romans eyes the acceptance of this story would do more to undermine the godhood of Jesus than anything else.

Was there doubt about the ancient stories? Yes. Was there philosophical denouncement of the existence of the gods? Yes. Was there a pattern of verifying and substantiating claims about miracle workers? Not that I have seen. Likewise, these Romans really didn't understand the concept of the Jewish messiah either, and thus wouldn't have had the cultural background challenge the story.

The Euhemerist accounts don't really challenge the historical basis of the ancient myths either anyway, they challenge the mythical basis. In the Euhemerist view, the gods were all real, they just weren't gods. Euhemerists humanized the gods and de-mythologized the myths, basically as the HJs do today. The Euhemerist, which includes Eratosthenes and Polybius, rejected the fantastic elements and left the believable parts, thus this isn't really a model for challenging the existence of Jesus.

mens_sana · 01-02-2008, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Also, Herod Antipas had no jurisdiction in Judea (he was only a tetrarch in Galilee) and had no authority to order a public execution there at all, much less a crucifixion (which he coudn't have done even in his own jurisdiction).

There is nothing behind this speculation other than my imagination — but I have sometimes wondered if Antipas, already annoyed by the late Baptist's preaching, might not have thought of Jesus as being a like annoyance. Perhaps Antipas got on the horn to Pilate, one ruler to another, with the suggestion that Pilate take care of his little problem for him, should the opportunity come up. Antipas is then rid of a thorn in his side. The deed is done in someone else's territory — and no one is throwing stones at Antipas' villa. As I said, just a fun idea, if a bit on the "cynical" side.

aa5874 · 01-02-2008, 09:44 PM

Roman emperors didn't have to argue that Jesus didn't exist, they just had to make an edict or a decree that forbids the worship of Jesus, destroy all places of worship, confiscate the property of those who violate the decree or imprison and kill offenders.

If the Emperor say its Apollo , then the Romans say Apollo is it, if they say Jesus then its Jesus. No argument.

Diogenes the Cynic · 01-02-2008, 11:04 PM

My thoughts regarding the OP's question (which has some definitional probems since "Romans" and "Christians" were not exactly mutually exclusive. Paul himself was both a Christian and a Roman citizen) are that any Roman authorities who thought Christianity was becoming a nuisance would not have regarded debunking their specific beliefs as very important. The Romans pretty ecumenical and didn't really care what anyone believed as long as they payed some token tribute to the state temples (which was more about showing loyalty to the Emperor than it was about religion).

Christians were unpopular largely because they not only refused to acknowledge or sacrifice to the state gods, they actively derided those gods, or any other god but their own, and they were perceived as obnoxious, unpatriotic, disloyal, proselytizing fanatics who wouldn't even fight for their country or show some basic respect to the trappings of the state. They weren't hated for their "faith" (which no one gave a damn about), but for their behavior, their disrespect for tradition, country and the gods and their insufferable self-righteousness. Their historical claims and beliefs about Jesus weren't the problem, their actions and attitudes were.

Beyond that, most Roman authorities (be it the Emperor or be it local governors), if they ever bothered to even find out what Christians believed about their "Christ" would probably not have found any reason to doubt that the "disease" (as Tacitus called it and which was probably fairly representative of how Roman aristocracy would have described it) was actually founded by a crucified criminal in a backwater city in the Syrian province. Even if they had wanted to disprove that criminal's historicity, there was no feasible way to do so probably even within a few decades after the crucifixion and certainly not after 70.

Furthermore, Roman authorities would not have seen christians as peers or democratic adversaries who they had any obligation to argue with. Why bother arguing theology when you can just beat the shit out of them or kill them instead? Brute force is a much easier and more effective way to get people in line than attempting to perform a forensic historical examination of the historical claims of a cult of fantical slaves and lowlifes who aren't going to listen to you anyway. The notion that some prefect or governor or the Emperor himself would feel any need to factually rebut anything shows anachronistic thinking, in my opinion. Whatever the Emperor said was true because he said it and that was the end of it, as far as they were concerned.

Sheshbazzar · 01-02-2008, 11:40 PM

Nice, clear, and concise analysis Diogenes.

:thumbs:

DrZoidberg · 01-02-2008, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What you describe sounds like Joseph Hoffman on "The Jesus Project." The Jesus Project is not the same as the Jesus Seminar, although in some senses it is an attempt to continue the work of the Jesus Seminar with some of the same participants. I have been trying to find out the status of the JP.

ok, so I got all the names wrong. he he. But my history teacher always told me that it was the big picture that was important. Thanks for covering my ass and setting me straight.

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

01-02-2008, 06:43 PM	#65
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	I remain unconvinced, though I can also understand Gibson's opposition. I think the points are simply more subtle. The point is really this. Is there any precedent for the type of examination that would have been required to show that Jesus never existed? There is really nothing in the literature about Jesus one way or the other until the 2nd century. #1) Why would anyone even have suspected that Jesus had never existed at that time? What reason would people have had to question his existence after the Gospels had been published? #2) Had they chosen to do so, how would they have gone about it? I can't really think of anything that would have sufficed that is among the tools used at the time. 100 years after the fact, what was anyone to do? If I recall correctly, even Lucan passed off supernatural events as facts. I am thinking particularly here about Romulus, whose existence he also didn't doubt that I recall. I'm trying to consider a Roman in the late 1st century, early 2nd century, hearing about a Jewish guy who was killed by Pilate that is now being worshiped as a god, and I'm trying to imagine by what circumstance someone would doubt this occurrence. It seems that in the Romans eyes the acceptance of this story would do more to undermine the godhood of Jesus than anything else. Was there doubt about the ancient stories? Yes. Was there philosophical denouncement of the existence of the gods? Yes. Was there a pattern of verifying and substantiating claims about miracle workers? Not that I have seen. Likewise, these Romans really didn't understand the concept of the Jewish messiah either, and thus wouldn't have had the cultural background challenge the story. The Euhemerist accounts don't really challenge the historical basis of the ancient myths either anyway, they challenge the mythical basis. In the Euhemerist view, the gods were all real, they just weren't gods. Euhemerists humanized the gods and de-mythologized the myths, basically as the HJs do today. The Euhemerist, which includes Eratosthenes and Polybius, rejected the fantastic elements and left the believable parts, thus this isn't really a model for challenging the existence of Jesus.

01-02-2008, 09:44 PM	#67
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Roman emperors didn't have to argue that Jesus didn't exist, they just had to make an edict or a decree that forbids the worship of Jesus, destroy all places of worship, confiscate the property of those who violate the decree or imprison and kill offenders. If the Emperor say its Apollo , then the Romans say Apollo is it, if they say Jesus then its Jesus. No argument.

01-02-2008, 11:04 PM	#68
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	My thoughts regarding the OP's question (which has some definitional probems since "Romans" and "Christians" were not exactly mutually exclusive. Paul himself was both a Christian and a Roman citizen) are that any Roman authorities who thought Christianity was becoming a nuisance would not have regarded debunking their specific beliefs as very important. The Romans pretty ecumenical and didn't really care what anyone believed as long as they payed some token tribute to the state temples (which was more about showing loyalty to the Emperor than it was about religion). Christians were unpopular largely because they not only refused to acknowledge or sacrifice to the state gods, they actively derided those gods, or any other god but their own, and they were perceived as obnoxious, unpatriotic, disloyal, proselytizing fanatics who wouldn't even fight for their country or show some basic respect to the trappings of the state. They weren't hated for their "faith" (which no one gave a damn about), but for their behavior, their disrespect for tradition, country and the gods and their insufferable self-righteousness. Their historical claims and beliefs about Jesus weren't the problem, their actions and attitudes were. Beyond that, most Roman authorities (be it the Emperor or be it local governors), if they ever bothered to even find out what Christians believed about their "Christ" would probably not have found any reason to doubt that the "disease" (as Tacitus called it and which was probably fairly representative of how Roman aristocracy would have described it) was actually founded by a crucified criminal in a backwater city in the Syrian province. Even if they had wanted to disprove that criminal's historicity, there was no feasible way to do so probably even within a few decades after the crucifixion and certainly not after 70. Furthermore, Roman authorities would not have seen christians as peers or democratic adversaries who they had any obligation to argue with. Why bother arguing theology when you can just beat the shit out of them or kill them instead? Brute force is a much easier and more effective way to get people in line than attempting to perform a forensic historical examination of the historical claims of a cult of fantical slaves and lowlifes who aren't going to listen to you anyway. The notion that some prefect or governor or the Emperor himself would feel any need to factually rebut anything shows anachronistic thinking, in my opinion. Whatever the Emperor said was true because he said it and that was the end of it, as far as they were concerned.

01-02-2008, 11:40 PM	#69
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Nice, clear, and concise analysis Diogenes. :thumbs:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.