Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 07-10-2012, 05:38 PM

Justin = nothing known about him. Church says he wrote in 2nd century. No evidence.
Hegessipus = unknown, writings "lost," quoted by Eusebius.
Irenaeus= nothing known about him except texts in his name. A bishop in....Lyon??!!

How comforting.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Hegessipus = 2nd century
Justin = 2nd century
Irenaeus = late 2nd century

stephan huller · 07-10-2012, 06:15 PM

How do you explain the error?

Duvduv · 07-10-2012, 06:17 PM

Which error??

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

How do you explain the error?

stephan huller · 07-10-2012, 07:04 PM

Im sorry I made the mistake of assuming people actually read the op.

Littlejohn · 07-10-2012, 09:32 PM

Sorry...No post..

aa5874 · 07-10-2012, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Justin = nothing known about him. Church says he wrote in 2nd century. No evidence.
Hegessipus = unknown, writings "lost," quoted by Eusebius.
Irenaeus= nothing known about him except texts in his name. A bishop in....Lyon??!!

How comforting.....

Well, Eusebius--nothing.

Jeome --nothing

Chrysostom--nothing.

Ephraim--nothing

Sulpitius Severus --nothing.

Clement of Alexandria--nothing.

Theophilus of antioch--nothing.

Athenagoras--nothing

Papias--nothing.

Polycarp--nothing

Arnobius--nothing.

Tertullian-nothing.

Irenaeus--nothing.

John the Baptist--nothing.

The disciples--nothing.

Jesus--nothing.

Paul--nothing.

If YOU have NOTHING why are you arguing???

Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.

Please, what really is your point???

Duvduv · 07-11-2012, 04:10 AM

Now AA, there is a lot of interesting stuff there. But it's not our fault if they were inadvertently or intentionally attributed to the second century. What is so sacred about Christianity emerging according to traditional church claims or according to academic modifications, instead of the 4th and 5th centuries?
Heck, your own views of second century forgeries puts you in league with heretics!

Tenorikuma · 07-11-2012, 05:01 AM

It seems pretty clear that Matthew and Luke (especially Luke) are dependent on Josephus, so that has to be taken into account.

Vorkosigan · 07-11-2012, 06:37 AM

Stephen the error is not clear. Can you explain what you mean?

stephan huller · 07-11-2012, 02:09 PM

Mike, here are the relevant passages.

History:

Quote:

The kings were either dead, or reduced to insignificance, when Claudius entrusted the province of Judæa to the Roman Knights or to his own freedmen, one of whom, Antonius Felix, indulging in every kind of barbarity and lust, exercised the power of a king in the spirit of a slave. He had married Drusilla, the granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra, and so was the grandson-in-law, as Claudius was the grandson, of Antony. (Drusilla Cleopatrae et Antonii nepte in matrimonium accepts, ut eiusdem Antonii Felix progener, Claudius nepos esse) [Tac. Hist, 5.9]

Misunderstanding written 147 CE:

Quote:

While Felix was procurator of Judea, he saw this Drusilla (= daughter of Agrippa), and fell in love with her; for she did indeed exceed all other women in beauty; and he sent to her a person whose name was Simon one of his friends; a Jew he was, and by birth a Cypriot, and one who pretended to be a magician, and endeavored to persuade her to forsake her present husband, and marry him" [Antiq. 20.7.2].

Bullshit based on misunderstanding written later in the second century:

Quote:

Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess. He sent for Paul and listened to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus. [Acts 24:24]

The historical Josephus would have known Drusilla Agrippa (if she existed). The misunderstanding is deliberately introduced by a Christian (notice Simon Magus). The story makes its way into Acts because Acts used Josephus (a century old argument now settled).

There is no way out of this situation. Antiquities (itself an unlikely composition of a barbaric Jew to imitate Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities) mistook what was written in Tacitus. Acts developed and supported Josephus's claim about the improper identity of Drusilla. The text was not written by Josephus. Acts was also necessarily written after 147 CE when the chronicle of Josephus (Hegesippus) was originally composed.

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

07-10-2012, 06:15 PM	#12
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	How do you explain the error?

07-10-2012, 07:04 PM	#14
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Im sorry I made the mistake of assuming people actually read the op.

07-10-2012, 09:32 PM	#15
Littlejohn Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Italy Posts: 708	Sorry...No post..

07-11-2012, 04:10 AM	#17
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Now AA, there is a lot of interesting stuff there. But it's not our fault if they were inadvertently or intentionally attributed to the second century. What is so sacred about Christianity emerging according to traditional church claims or according to academic modifications, instead of the 4th and 5th centuries? Heck, your own views of second century forgeries puts you in league with heretics!

07-11-2012, 05:01 AM	#18
Tenorikuma Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Japan Posts: 156	It seems pretty clear that Matthew and Luke (especially Luke) are dependent on Josephus, so that has to be taken into account.

07-11-2012, 06:37 AM	#19
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Stephen the error is not clear. Can you explain what you mean?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.