Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-09-2007, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Asclepias of Mendes, as quoted by Suetonius.

Ben.

Can you quote the passages by Asclepias of Mendes that declare Ausgustus was truly the son of a snake and verified by the mother of Augustus? I need to read them, urgently.

Toto · 04-09-2007, 06:16 PM

K. C. Hanson

Quote:

Page 55
Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars 2.4.1-7:
....

I have read the following story in the books of Asclepias of Mendes entitled Theologoumena. When Atia had come in the middle of the night to the solemn service of Apollo, she had her litter set down in the temple and fell asleep, while the rest of the matrons also slept. All of a sudden, a serpent glided up to her and shortly went away. When she awoke, she purified herself, as if after the embraces of her husband, and at once there appeared on her body a mark in colors like a serpent, and she could never get rid of it; so she stopped going to the public baths. In the tenth month after that Augustus was born and was, therefore, regarded as the son of Apollo. [KCH]

jgibson000 · 04-09-2007, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Can you quote the passages by Asclepias of Mendes that declare Ausgustus was truly the son of a snake and verified by the mother of Augustus? I need to read them, urgently.

Auctor est Iulius Marathus, ante paucos quam nasceretur menses prodigium Romae factum publice, quo denuntiabatur, regem p(opulo) R(omano) naturam parturire; senatum exterritum censuisse, ne quis illo anno genitus educaretur; eos qui grauidas uxores haberent, quod ad se quisque spem traheret, curasse ne senatus consultum ad aerarium deferretur.

In Asclepiadis Mendetis Theologumenon libris lego, Atiam, cum ad sollemne Apollinis sacrum media nocte uenisset, posita in templo lectica, dum ceterae matronae dormirent, obdormisse; draconem repente irrepsisse ad eam pauloque post egressum; illam expergefactam quasi a concubitu mariti purificasse se; et statim in corpore eius extitisse maculam uelut picti draconis nec potuisse umquam exigi, adeo ut mox publicis balineis perpetuo abstinuerit; Augustum natum mense decimo et ob hoc Apollinis filium existimatum. eadem Atia, prius quam pareret, somniauit intestina sua ferri ad sidera explicarique per omnem terrarum et caeli ambitum. somniauit et pater Octauius utero Atiae iubar solis exortum.

See also the epigram by Domitius Marsus (Epigr. Bob. 39f. [Munari])

ante omnes alias felix tamen hoc ego dicor / sive hominem femina peperi sive deum (43/42 BCE)

noted in G. Binder, Aeneas und Augustus. Interpretationen zum 8. Buch der Aeneis (Meisenheim am Glan [Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 38] 1971), 252-253.

JG

Doug Shaver · 04-09-2007, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

if I told you a miracle occured and I know that no miracle actually happened, do I believe in miracles? Do I want to deceive you? What am I really doing?

None of that is relevant to my point. Try to stay on topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If I told you 'Jo Clo' raised 'Lacamus' from the dead, which part of the story is true?

That is a simple statement, not a story. It is therefore irrelevant to my point.

aa5874 · 04-09-2007, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

Auctor est Iulius Marathus, ante paucos quam nasceretur menses prodigium Romae factum publice, quo denuntiabatur, regem p(opulo) R(omano) naturam parturire; senatum exterritum censuisse, ne quis illo anno genitus educaretur; eos qui grauidas uxores haberent, quod ad se quisque spem traheret, curasse ne senatus consultum ad aerarium deferretur.

In Asclepiadis Mendetis Theologumenon libris lego, Atiam, cum ad sollemne Apollinis sacrum media nocte uenisset, posita in templo lectica, dum ceterae matronae dormirent, obdormisse; draconem repente irrepsisse ad eam pauloque post egressum; illam expergefactam quasi a concubitu mariti purificasse se; et statim in corpore eius extitisse maculam uelut picti draconis nec potuisse umquam exigi, adeo ut mox publicis balineis perpetuo abstinuerit; Augustum natum mense decimo et ob hoc Apollinis filium existimatum. eadem Atia, prius quam pareret, somniauit intestina sua ferri ad sidera explicarique per omnem terrarum et caeli ambitum. somniauit et pater Octauius utero Atiae iubar solis exortum.

See also the epigram by Domitius Marsus (Epigr. Bob. 39f. [Munari])

ante omnes alias felix tamen hoc ego dicor / sive hominem femina peperi sive deum (43/42 BCE)

noted in G. Binder, Aeneas und Augustus. Interpretationen zum 8. Buch der Aeneis (Meisenheim am Glan [Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 38] 1971), 252-253.

JG

Did you get your questions answered?

Quote:

Does anyone here know the date of composition of Asclepias of Mendes' Theologumena? Besides Asclepias is there any other attestation to the story he tells (so Suetonius, Twelve Caesars, 94.4) of Attia's conception of Octavian by Apollo that is independent of his testimony?

aa5874 · 04-09-2007, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

K. C. Hanson

Who is Asclepias of Mendes, is he an historian? The story of Atia is unconfirmed by her or her husband. It is not a virgin birth, it is a dream. And in any event, Suetonius, the historian, wrote that the father of Augustus was Gauis Octavius not Apollo nor a snake.

Lives of the Caesars by Suetonius section III,

Quote:

His father Gauis Octavius was for the beginning of his life a man of wealth and repute.....

Lives of the Caesars by Suetonius section IV,

Quote:

While returning from Macedonia, before he could declare himself a candidate for consulship, he died suddenly, survived by three children, an elder Octavia by Ancharia, and by Atia a younger Octavia and Augustus...

Augustus can be placed in history by historians in the century which he lived, although deified.

The unknown deity Jesus was historicised, not by historians, but by believers.

aa5874 · 04-09-2007, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Actually, that sort of thing happens quite commonly. The mere fact that a story about some person contains a falsehood does not at all imply that the person the story is about could not have been a real person. And, just because the falsehood happens to be about a miracle makes no difference. The only thing that means is that the person telling the story believes in miracles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If I told you a miracle occured and I know that no miracle actually happened, do I believe in miracles? Do I want to deceive you? What am I really doing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doud Shaver

None of that is relevant to my point. Try to stay on topic.

I don't know how to respond, I am at a loss for words.

J-D · 04-09-2007, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Since you don't accept the historicity of Jesus you probably look at the whole NT with those glasses. So that was not my question.

Do you have any difficultly with the Herodians and Pharisees aligning against a man perceived to be a threat, e.g. to ask him a trick question ? That was the actual claim here of historical incredulity. Please try to answer to point.

Really ? As an example, the triumphal entry, the people saying Hosanna to Jesus, perceiving Him to be the Messiah, while the Temple officials were not far away, would not be trouble in Temple City ?

Yes, I do too, at Gethsemane. What else do you "know" ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

You don't seem to have responded to what I said in this post.

J-D · 04-09-2007, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

In order of expectation:

1) C14 citation on a papyrus fragment that has been deemed
by the paleographical tradition to be from the prenice epoch.
There are supposedly plently of these, and the C14 sample
technology of today does not need a great deal of material,
and some of the fragments contain "blank spaces". To date,
AFAIK there is not one unambiguously prenicene C14 citation
on a NT-related papyrus fragment, ms or binding.

2) Inscriptions - Probably related to a burial site, tombstone,
perhaps a sarcophagus, perhaps etched writings on an ossary,
or some private papers of an individual mentioning "christianity"
that are independent of the "Eusebian derived tradition".

3) Archeological relics - the small cross is not found before
the fourth century (AFAIK), but perhaps someone identified the
importance of this symbol (and actually used it) before Helena.

Why would you expect to find these things?

J-D · 04-09-2007, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Can you give me the name of a real person who was actually born through the Holy Ghost and a female human being?

Of course not.

There is no 'Holy Ghost', and hence it is impossible for anbody to be born through, by, from, or, or to the Holy Ghost.

We are in agreement on this.

Did you think I made an assertion to the contrary? If so, you are utterly mistaken.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If you cannot, then you must accept that no known person has ever been known to have done or carried out events on earth without a physical body.
That is a physical impossibility.

Contrary to what you seem to think, this position is a logically separate one. But, as it happens, I agree with it also. Did you think I made an assertion to the contrary? If so, you are utterly mistaken.

Are you interested at all in my position? If not, why are you posting to a discussion board?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Jesus the Christ could not have been born, according to the explanation given in the NT.

I think what you meant to say is: 'Jesus the Christ could not have been born according to the explanation given in the NT.' By adding an erroneous comma you have altered the meaning of the sentence to something quite different (and, as it happens, false).

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The virgin birth is a biological impossibilty.

Yes, this is what you meant to say. And it's absolutely true. I agree with you totally. Did you think I made an assertion to the contrary? If so, you are utterly mistaken.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Jesus the Christ is a physical and biological impossibility.

It follows logically that the character called Jesus the Christ did not exist as a real person. His existence is false.
It follows, logically that statements of his baptism are false.
It follows logically that statements of his temptation are false.
It follows logically that statements of the miraculous events are false.
It follows logically that statements of his trial are false.
It follows logically that statements of his crucifixion are false.
It follows logically that statements of his burial are false.
It follows logically that statements of his resurrection are false.
It follows logically that statements of his ascension are false.

And this is where you go off the logical rails.

From the statement 'Jesus was never born in the manner described in the Christian Scriptures', it does not necessarily follow logically that 'Jesus was never born'. Such an argument would be fallacious.

From the statement 'There never was a person who was born in the manner attributed to Jesus in the Christian Scriptures', it does necessarily logically follow that 'There never was a person who was born in the manner attributed to Jesus in the Christian Scriptures and who was baptised in the manner attributed to Jesus in the Christian Scriptures', but it does not necessarily logically follow that 'There never was a person who was baptised in the manner attributed to Jesus in the Christian Scriptures'. Such an argument would be fallacious.

And so on down the line for all your other assertions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Mary asked an angel, a fictional character, to explain the conception in Luke 1:34-35, "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

And angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God'.

The biological and physical impossibility is confirmed in Matthew1:8, "Now, the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

These two statements, as written in Matthew and Luke, are fallacies, the authors of Mark, John and others of NT consistently and fundamentally maintain the fallacies.

Where do other Scriptural authors maintain the accounts of the birth of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke? I don't know of any such references. Is it possible that you are mistaken on this particular point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There are no other credible extra-biblical accounts of the Birth of Jesus the Christ.

As it happens, there are extra-biblical accounts of the birth of Jesus. Whether they are historically credible I do not know, but they are not biologically impossible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The birth of Jesus the Christ, as maintained by the authors of the NT, is a biological and a physical impossisbility. It is impossile for Jesus the Christ to have lived, based on the reports in the NT.
Everything said about Jesus the Christ in the NT is false.

If you can prove that Jesus the Christ lived as the son of a ghost, I will review my position.

Why are you challenging me to prove an assertion I never made and which I don't believe? That makes no sense to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The historicity of Jesus the Christ is baseless, without merit whatsoever.

You keep repeating the assertion that 'the historicity of Jesus the Christ is baseless' in precisely those words. This makes me think that the exact form of words of your assertion is important to you. Why is that? Are you trying to make your exact position clear, and distinct from other possible positions, in some way that I'm not picking up on?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.