Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RAFH · 01-18-2007, 10:41 PM

Some evidence that would do significant damage to the JC myth would be the validated personal journals of Pilate and perhaps Herod or other notables such as the High Priest, each of which is complete through their lives, at least those periods identified in xian bible as relevant and not a single mention of the prosecution and execution of JC and other significant and crucial events mentioned in the xian bible but mentioning other prosecutions and executions and significant events. Also, a listing of all executions in Judea during the period 20 CE through 50 CE which does not include any mention of JC.

There is in the xian bible mention of numerous events which would certainly have been noticed and recorded by the Jews and the Romans and perhaps other cultures in the region. There is nothing. That is itself does not invalidate the claims of the xian bible, but it certainly does remove support from the claims. When one looks for things that should be there and does a reasonable and exhaustive search for such and finds nothing, it tends to support hypotheses the things do not exist.

One can not absolutely disprove the existence anything. There may well be an invisible pink unicorn, there may be a nice little teapot in orbit around the sun between the orbits of Mars and Earth, it could be Merkel Wiseman was faking it as god and its all a scam. It would be virtually impossible to conclusively disprove their existence. There's a minimum of 35 million miles between the two orbits, that's a lot of space for a teapot to hide in plain sight. Even with the most powerful telescope, it would be virtually impossible to see the teapot at more than 10,000 miles, which means you'd have to have in orbit between Mars and Earth some 3500 Hubbles and they'd still take at least a couple of years to cover that entire area. Even then they might miss it. And that's something that could exist.

The Evil One · 01-19-2007, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ideologist

You say that John the Baptist's endorsement is notable,

As one factor among many. I could have listed a dozen (as indicated by the "etc. etc.") There are many events in the gospel account that would have been very noticeable, unique, noteworthy events. Jesus-as-portrayed would have been a very noteworthy individual.

Quote:

yet in Josephus even John the Baptist (who does seem to have been a very significant figure, as if not more significant to most people by the Gospels' account) receives a relatively short paragraph mention.

Which is a heck of a lot more than Jesus gets.

Quote:

The fact is, scale can be exaggerated quite easily. It's unlikely that the numbers at the Battle of Agincourt were anywhere near as lopsided as has been recounted, but that's no reason to believe that the Battle never occurred.

Of course not. there is substantial physical evidence. It might well, however, be good reason to doubt other details in the accounts that give those dodgy numbers.

Quote:

Scale is, in all likelihood, the most frequently exaggerated thing in ancient histories. But the difference between 1200 and 12000 people is not so significant as to make the entire narrative completely unreliable.
[...]
This depends on whether the important thing about Jesus was "he had huge numbers of followers woo" or "he lived in Judaea and was crucified." I think it's entirely reasonable to believe that the latter is the more important thing; if specific events were exaggerated it does not necessarily destroy the basic integrity of the narrative.

This is very convenient for you, I can see: the elements of the story that are clearly not true turn out, by amazing happenstance, to be the elements of the story that are unimportant to the "basic integrity of the narrative".

aa5874 · 01-20-2007, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

What would be the nail in the coffin for Jesus historicity?

A denial by the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church of the historicity of Jesus the Christ!

Malachi 151, with regards to the three sects mentioned in the writings of Josephus, the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes, there appears to be corroboration by Philo Judaeus and Pliny the elder of these sects.

And it is interesting to note that all three writers never mention a leader of the Essenes, they describe the sect as highly devotional to God and hard working, fasting regularly, caring nothing about personal wealth and sharing everything with one another.

Now, the teachings of Jesus the Christ, was radical, his teaching was in direct opposition to the Jewish orthodoxy, whether Pharisee, Sadducee or Essene, it was simple but highly controversial, Believe in me, no need for circumcision, no need for the Sabbath, for I am sent by God, that is message of the Messiah.

If we accept Josephus, Pliny the elder and Philo that there was a popular, highly respected sect, even Herod and others thought highly of the Essenes devotion to God, the Essenes, which doctrine does not incorporate the new radicalism of Jesus the Christ, why is it that no mention is made of this sect anyhere in the NT?

The NT mentions the Pharisees and Sadduces almost 100 times, the Epicureans and the Stoicks, yet the entire NT does not make a single reference to, or has any conversion of a disciple or follower of the Essenes to Christianity, no confrontation or discourse of The Essenes with regards to the teachings of Jesus the Christ, though the Essenes were well known throught the region, with thousands of devout members, are totally unknown in the NT, bearing in mind that this sect also abided by the Mosaic laws of the Sabbath and circumcision and would be affected negatively by the teachings of the new radical Jesus the Christ.

From the NT perspective there are no Essenes, this sect that have a communal system, yet very strangely, the followers of the Christ are described as Essenes in Acts 2:44-45, 'And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
And sold their possesions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

This passage gives credence to the fabrication of the followers of Jesus the Christ based on the already existing sect of the Essenes, since contemporary historians are aware of the Essenes and the NT models the early followers of the Christ, silently, as Essenes.

PhilosopherJay · 01-20-2007, 02:13 PM

This is a good point. The tribe spoken about in the TF are not the Jews or the Samaritans, but are connected to both.

In the book The Evolution of Christs and Christianities, I have suggested that the TF originally referred to Simon Magus. It was the "tribe of Simonians" that still existed in Josephus' time even after their miracle-worker founder was executed.

Eusebius notes (E.H. 2:13.4):

And nearly all the Samaritans and a few even of other nations confess and worship him as the first God...(6)...they fall down before pictures and images of Simon himself and of the above-mentioned Helena who was with him; and they venture to worship them with incense and sacrifices and libations.

Josephus would have considered the sect of Simonians to be Samaritan and thus to fall outside of Judaism. That is why he does not mention them with the three philosophies of Judaism.

Note that Eusebius tells us that Simon the Samaritan was in Rome stirring up trouble (E.H. 2:13.1):

the enemy of man's salvation contrived a plan for seizing the imperial city for himself. He conducted thither the above-mentioned Simon, aided him in his deceitful arts, led many of the inhabitants of Rome astray, and thus brought them into his own power.

Compare to Josephus 18:3.5
5. There was a man who was a Jew, but had been driven away from his own country by an accusation laid against. him for transgressing their laws, and by the fear he was under of punishment for the same; but in all respects a wicked man. He, then living at Rome, professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses. He procuredalso three other men, entirely of the same character with himself, to be his partners. These men persuaded Fulvia, a woman of great dignity, and one that had embraced the Jewish religion, to send purple and gold to the temple at Jerusalem; and when they had gotten them, they employed them for their own uses, and spent the money themselves, on which account it was that they at first required it of her. Whereupon Tiberius, who had been informed of the thing by Saturninus, the husband of Fulvia, who desired inquiry might be made about it, ordered all
the Jews to be banished out of Rome;

and note carefully the beginning of the next paragraph (18:4.1):

1. BUT the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains,

Note that the text of the first paragraph has Josephus saying "a man who was a jew" and "their laws". We would expect to find Josephus saying "our laws" at this point. Is Josephus not a Jew too? Why use the term "their"? If the original sentence was "a man who was a Samaritan," it would explain the use of the term "their" in the phrase "their laws."

It would also explain why Josephus would say at the beginning of the very next paragraph, "The nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults." If the idea that a Samaritan had caused the Jews to be expelled from Rome was inherent in the first paragraph, then there is a natural parallel with the idea that the Samaritans, who really deserved punishment for what Simon had done in Rome, did end up getting into trouble on account of the Samaritan Simon. The two paragraphs only really make sense, if we assume the man in the first paragraph was a Samaritan and not a Jew. The point that Josephus is making is that this evil Samaritan ended up hurting the Jews in Rome, but the Samaritans themeselves did not escape being hurt by this evil Samaritan man.

While Eusebius has hidden the name of the Samaritan-linked Man in Rome in Josephus, he has, it seems, blurted it out in his own works.

This proof points to the literary nature of Jesus Christ who developed out of the John the Baptist/Christ and Simon Magus literature of the first century.

While this proof is not unambiguous, it is highly suggestive and can be seen as part of a pattern of evidence that fits together quite coherently as I hope to demonstrate in the future.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Josephus’ silence on Christians in his autobiography when he speaks of “the sects among us” is interesting, but no proof against Jesus‘ historicity.

In Autobiography 2 the wording is tôn par’hêmin haireseôn, which means: “the sects that divide us.” Haireseis stands for “sect.” The word is used again in the same paragraph: têi Phairesaiôn hairesei, as meaning “the sect of the Pharisees.” Together with these, the Sadducees, the Essens and one Banous are specifically mentioned. Certainly, not the Christians.

There is, however, no place in Autobiography 2 for the Christians, as the writer quite clearly says - in the TF - that the Christians were a “tribe” (phulon), not a “sect.”

Josephus makes use of the word phulon most frequently in reference to the Twelve Tribes of Israel. After the ten tribes that inhabited the northern kingdom were taken to Niniveh, and subsequently disappeared forever, the remaining tribes of Judah and Benjamin suffered captivity in Babylon to be finally freed by King Cyrus of Persia. From then onward, together with them in Palestine were the Samaritans, who are said to be apechthanomenoi têi te Iouda phulêi kai têi Beniamitidi, that is, “hated by the tribe of Judah and that of Benjamin” (AJ 11.4.3).

Later on, the Samaritans are said to consist tôn apostatôn Ioudaiôn êthnous, that is, “of apostates from the Jewish nation” (AJ 11.8.6). (While Iuoda phulê means the tribe of Judah, Ioudaiôn ethnos means the nation of the Jews, which had together the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.) Now, when asked by Alexander the Great whether they were Jews, the Samaritans answered they were Hebrews. When asked again, they answered they were not Jews.

According to this geopolitical framework, the Samaritans were Hebrews though not Jews. Josephus never says that the Samaritans were a “tribe.” He hesitates as to whether the Samaritans were a tribe, when he opposes them to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin in AJ 11.4.3, or a nation, when he opposes them to the whole nation of the Jews in AJ 11.8.6. In any case, the Hebrews included both the Jews and the Samaritans.

On the other hand, the Christians are said to be a “tribe.” They, of course, fell short of being a nation that could compare with either the Jews or the Samaritans. Yet, it is clear enough that they compared with the tribes of Judah and Benjamin and even to the Samaritans - in the opposition of the latter to the former two; in a sense, the Christians might be said by Josephus to be apostates of the Jews likewise the Samaritans were. Therefore, the Christians are deemed to be Hebrews, but neither Jews nor Samaritans.

As a conclusion, there is no room for the Christians to be mentioned in Autobiography 2, exactly for the same reason as there is no room for the Samaritans to be mentioned either. Never did Josephus disclose the least desire to break with Judaism - divided into Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and minor sects. When he speaks of “the sects that divide us,” us clearly implies the Jews.

spin · 01-21-2007, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Note that the text of the first paragraph has Josephus saying "a man who was a jew" and "their laws". We would expect to find Josephus saying "our laws" at this point.

You should not depend on Whiston's translation. The word "their" is from the hand of Whiston and not in the source.

spin

Amaleq13 · 01-21-2007, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You should not depend on Whiston's translation. The word "their" is from the hand of Whiston and not in the source.

What translation do you recommend?

Or do you recommend any?

RAFH · 01-21-2007, 12:42 PM

Nothing can irrefutably disprove a fantasy. Its a fantasy. It cannot be disproved because there is no 'proof' to deny or invalidate. Only an unsupported claim.

Can anyone irrefutably disprove my invisible friend who is a 3000' long magical fire-breathing dragon does not exist? You can't see him because you do not believe in him. If you don't see him and what he does its because you don't really believe in him. Until you can see him and what he does, you can't really believe in him. And that's too bad because he will make you very, very happy.

spin · 01-21-2007, 03:16 PM

It just says that he'd fled from the accusation of having broken certain laws

(fugas men ths autou kathgoria te parabasewn nomwn tinwn)

I think tinos here acts as an indefinite qualifier, eg "some, certain, any..."

Whiston's "their" seems unaccountable.

spin

PhilosopherJay · 01-21-2007, 05:42 PM

Hi Spin

According to the Perseus look-up tool

nomwn: masc gen pl
tinwn: gen pl enclitic indeclform

I may be wrong about this, but being in the genitive, I believe Whiston had no choice but to translate the phrase nomwn tinwn as "their laws".

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It just says that he'd fled from the accusation of having broken certain laws

(fugas men ths autou kathgoria te parabasewn nomwn tinwn)

I think tinos here acts as an indefinite qualifier, eg "some, certain, any..."

Whiston's "their" seems unaccountable.

spin

nomwn

Ben C Smith · 01-21-2007, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Spin

According to the Perseus look-up tool

nomwn: masc gen pl
tinwn: gen pl enclitic indeclform

I may be wrong about this, but being in the genitive, I believe Whiston had no choice but to translate the phrase nomwn tinwn as "their laws".

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Hi, Jay. From the department of things spin thought he would never hear me say... spin is correct.

Here is the Greek and a fairly literal translation of my own:

Ην ανηρ Ιουδαιος, φυγας μεν της αυτου κατηγορια τε παραβασεων νομων τινων και δεει τιμωριας της επ αυτοις....

There was a Jewish man, a fugitive of his own [land] by an accusation of the overstepping of certain laws and by fear of vengeance for the same....

The word τινων is in the genitive case because it serves as an adjective here, modifying νομων, which is an objective genitive after παραβασεων. It is the grammar of the phrase that requires the genitive here, not any desire to insert the possessive their (Greek αυτων).

Ben.

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

01-18-2007, 10:41 PM	#61
RAFH Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Kahaluu, Hawaii Posts: 6,400	Some evidence that would do significant damage to the JC myth would be the validated personal journals of Pilate and perhaps Herod or other notables such as the High Priest, each of which is complete through their lives, at least those periods identified in xian bible as relevant and not a single mention of the prosecution and execution of JC and other significant and crucial events mentioned in the xian bible but mentioning other prosecutions and executions and significant events. Also, a listing of all executions in Judea during the period 20 CE through 50 CE which does not include any mention of JC. There is in the xian bible mention of numerous events which would certainly have been noticed and recorded by the Jews and the Romans and perhaps other cultures in the region. There is nothing. That is itself does not invalidate the claims of the xian bible, but it certainly does remove support from the claims. When one looks for things that should be there and does a reasonable and exhaustive search for such and finds nothing, it tends to support hypotheses the things do not exist. One can not absolutely disprove the existence anything. There may well be an invisible pink unicorn, there may be a nice little teapot in orbit around the sun between the orbits of Mars and Earth, it could be Merkel Wiseman was faking it as god and its all a scam. It would be virtually impossible to conclusively disprove their existence. There's a minimum of 35 million miles between the two orbits, that's a lot of space for a teapot to hide in plain sight. Even with the most powerful telescope, it would be virtually impossible to see the teapot at more than 10,000 miles, which means you'd have to have in orbit between Mars and Earth some 3500 Hubbles and they'd still take at least a couple of years to cover that entire area. Even then they might miss it. And that's something that could exist.

01-21-2007, 12:42 PM	#67
RAFH Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Kahaluu, Hawaii Posts: 6,400	Nothing can irrefutably disprove a fantasy. Its a fantasy. It cannot be disproved because there is no 'proof' to deny or invalidate. Only an unsupported claim. Can anyone irrefutably disprove my invisible friend who is a 3000' long magical fire-breathing dragon does not exist? You can't see him because you do not believe in him. If you don't see him and what he does its because you don't really believe in him. Until you can see him and what he does, you can't really believe in him. And that's too bad because he will make you very, very happy.

01-21-2007, 03:16 PM	#68
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	It just says that he'd fled from the accusation of having broken certain laws (fugas men ths autou kathgoria te parabasewn nomwn tinwn) I think tinos here acts as an indefinite qualifier, eg "some, certain, any..." Whiston's "their" seems unaccountable. spin

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.