Freethought & Rationalism Archive

quoting · 07-16-2007, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBT

The myth probably grew around a charismatic preacher going by the name of Yeshuah Ben Joseph. Apparently there was no shortage of itinerant prophets getting around at that time....Simon Magus, etc...

The only evidence for the existence Jesus is within the gospels. Outside sources there is Josephus, which many scholars admit was added on by the earlier Christians to strengthen their tale. There is a large amount of history written about events in Jesus's time in Palestine. But not a word of any historical figure named Jesus.

Actually scholars think that some parts of Josephus was added, but not all of it. So actually Josuphus did mention Jesus

Toto · 07-16-2007, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quoting

...
Actually scholars think that some parts of Josephus was added, but not all of it. So actually Josuphus did mention Jesus

Scholars are not unanimous on this issue. In any case, it is clear that Christians have tampered with Josephus, so it is impossible to know for sure how the text originally read.

aa5874 · 07-16-2007, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quoting

Actually scholars think that some parts of Josephus was added, but not all of it. So actually Josuphus did mention Jesus

These are some of the persons called Jesus by Josephus.

Jesus the son of Gamala- The life of Flavius Josephus
Jesus the son of Sapphias- War. 2.21.4
Jesus the son of Damneus- Ant. 20.9.4
Jesus the son of Gamaliel- The Life of Flavius Josephus
Jesus the son of Gamalas- War. 4.3.9
Jesus the son of Saphat- War. 3.9.7
Jesus the son of Thebuthus- War. 6.8.3
Jesus the high priest- War. 4.4.3

And I may have missed a few.

Jesus the son of Sapphias is an interesting character, he was the leader of a "seditious tumult of mariners and poor people. See 'The life of Flavius Josephus' for more.

And, by the way, the interpolation in Ant. 18.3.3, the TF, is extremely ambiguous. This Jesus is not even introduced as the son of anyone and there is nothing specific, except 'he did wonderful things'. As far as I know, killing Roman soldiers was a 'wonderful thing' for a Jew to do in the first century.

DBT · 07-17-2007, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBT

The myth probably grew around a charismatic preacher going by the name of Yeshuah Ben Joseph. Apparently there was no shortage of itinerant prophets getting around at that time....Simon Magus, etc...

The only evidence for the existence Jesus is within the gospels. Outside sources there is Josephus, which many scholars admit was added on by the earlier Christians to strengthen their tale. There is a large amount of history written about events in Jesus's time in Palestine. But not a word of any historical figure named Jesus.

The only reason I think the the Christ myth may have been based on a real person is that St Paul was a contemporary to jesus, and though he doesn't say much about the man, it does seem to suggest that word of mouth was already at work.

spamandham · 07-17-2007, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBT

The only reason I think the the Christ myth may have been based on a real person is that St Paul was a contemporary to jesus, ....

What makes you think Paul was a contemporary of Jesus?

funinspace · 07-17-2007, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quoting

I'd like to know why you think Jesus didnt exist? No historical evidence (which the writings outside the NT are considered forgeries for some reason) and if you do believe he existed why do you not believe he is the son of God?

I'm in the camp, that there's a tiny kernel of the "real" Yeshua in your canon. As to why not, I've answered that here before:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...56&postcount=7

TTFN,
FiS

mountainman · 07-17-2007, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

Quote:

I'd like to know why you think Jesus didnt exist? No historical evidence (which the writings outside the NT are considered forgeries for some reason) and if you do believe he existed why do you not believe he is the son of God?

Pete, that is a very direct question. Several of them too.

What I mean is that they kind of address side issues.

Ok it all depends on the intent of the OP. What is important?

To me as an atheist the important thing is to find a solution to the current situation.

Theists use religion as a powerful political strategy to get voters. They talk about values as if atheists have no values.
To me that is an abuse. State and religion should be held separate.

So for me the important question from a theist to an atheist would be.

What in atheist opinion is bad with religious faith and what could you accept to live with. What would or how could a friendly co-existence look like between us who have faith and you atheists who personally don't support such faith in God.

or

Given that scientists find if likely that the propensity for getting converted to a faith will be with us for a very long time, hundreds of years coming generations, how are we to organize a friendly co-existence?

or

What in atheists opinion goes on in the brain of a theist when they believe in God? What is it that make the theist vulnerable to such faith while the atheist seems to have no such needs. Is it just random good luck on the atheist part or hard work to not fall for the temptation.

These are all good questions. I am all for trying to determine
the path of peace between different conceptions of the one
and the same reality.

Good questions are those where you can exchange "the theist"
and "the atheist" and the question is still valuable and valid. This
engenders two-way communication, in some instances. In your
questions (above) the participants can be exchanged. I think
this is a good sign. (ie: there are no loaded political shotguns).

Thanks wordy.

Pete

DBT · 07-17-2007, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBT

The only reason I think the the Christ myth may have been based on a real person is that St Paul was a contemporary to jesus, ....

What makes you think Paul was a contemporary of Jesus?

Well, close enough to the very foundation of Christianity to suggest that the process of word of mouth myth building had already begun...

Quote;
"St. Paul the Apostle (born ca. 10, died ca. 67) (שאול התרסי in Hebrew), the "Apostle to the Gentiles" (Romans 11:13, Galatians 2:8) was, together with Saint Peter, the most notable of Early Christian missionaries."

spamandham · 07-18-2007, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBT

Well, close enough to the very foundation of Christianity to suggest that the process of word of mouth myth building had already begun...

I agree that Paul is probably a contemporary of the early Christian church, but what in his writings, leads you to believe that his Jesus is a recent historical figure? I'm not aware of anything that Paul writes that places the earthly Jesus in his own time period.

aa5874 · 07-18-2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBT

Well, close enough to the very foundation of Christianity to suggest that the process of word of mouth myth building had already begun...

I agree that Paul is probably a contemporary of the early Christian church, but what in his writings, leads you to believe that his Jesus is a recent historical figure? I'm not aware of anything that Paul writes that places the earthly Jesus in his own time period.

And that means he could have been a 'contemporary' of the 'phantom' called the Christ. It must be remembered that the Christ was a spirit before he became flesh, according to the NT.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.