Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steve Weiss · 07-07-2011, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

That there was no such person as a biblical Jesus is a certainty since none of the miracles attributed to him happened. When someone tells tall tales and passes it off as the truth that is fraud and deception constructed in order to gain power.

That there may have been a human being, as opposed to an alleged man-god, making anti-social and unsubstantiated claims, so what? There is virtually no evidence to support the existence of such a person.

The OP you quoted explains why it is a well-established fact that James, the brother of Jesus, existed. If James, the brother of Jesus, existed, then Jesus (the regular human being) existed.

"So what?" There are a lot of people with anti-religious agendas who are interested in rewriting Jesus the human being out of the history. Many others among us care about accurate history independent of ideology, the same as an accurate understanding of other models of origins, and we take the debates of history seriously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

People in the era of an alleged Jesus were ignorant and superstititious, and there were many competing mythologies, Christianity being the survivor since it gained official sponsorship of the Roman state. Theocracy served the interests of church and state, and dissent was hazardous to one's health. It suited the powers that be to adopt the Jesus myth and enforce conformity to it; the truth be damned. It wasn't theology that triumphed but politics.

The Roman state adoption of Christianity did not happen until the 4th century, and Christianity had to become considerably large and influential before it became a political tool instead of a hindrance to the Roman state. Christianity's theology, morality and its apologetic arguments were all powerful tools to getting Christianity to such a size.

There are many reasons why Christianity emerged as the most popular religious myth of its time. One factor was its touting to the ill-educated of the miracle work done by its man-god. Christianity is a clever synthesis of many belief systems that eventually got the ear of the right people in power and their official stamp of approval. One could just as easily ask why Buddhism was successful in India and later died out there to re-emerge in other Eastern cultures. Why did Hinduism succeed where it did and other religious sects win out in other cultures in the competition for the support of the masses? Their success had nothing to do with their proof of legitimacy and historical bona fidies. Once momentum gets started the herd mentality takes over and the verity of beliefs gets ignored.

As to the morality of Christianity, I can see no value in it since it, like all religions, preaches self-sacrifice, faith and supernaturalism as its fundamentals. The deity portrayed in the bible is certainly no paragon of virtue or moral exemplar. Religious apologists are masters of deceit and manipulation. No morality points for them. Since reason is rejected by religionists only violence is utilised to compel conformity, and this is exactly what happened once Christianity, the designated version of it that is, became the only legal religion in the Roman Empire. Those versions that were not endorsed by the state church were purged, and religious wars in Europe after the Reformation took millions of lives. "Kill them all; god will know his own."

ApostateAbe · 07-07-2011, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

That's blatantly begging the question: In the very OP you quote here, there is explicit reference made to the consistently normal human status of Jesus the preacher in Antiq. XX, in Pliny, Surtonius, Tacitus, etc. This is a consistent body of evidence throughout a number of pagan sources that sticks to a strictly human preacher who got nailed.

Now Chaucer, there is no reason to exaggerate. There is no "normal human status of Jesus the preacher" in Pliny, there we have a report of Christians worshiping Jesus as god. And it's not even clear that Suetonius is talking about Jesus, and I can't see how you can see anything in that passage about his "normal human status" as a "preacher", other than maybe Suetonius thinking that Jesus was active in the 5th decade in Rome :Cheeky:

Good points. The accounts of Tacitus and Josephus would be the "normal human" model of the historical Jesus. Pliny and Suetonius attest to Christ as a more ambiguous object of cult worship and adherence (could be human, could be god), but it seems especially likely that they were all referring to "Jesus Christ," not some other "Christ," given how all of the evidence seems to fit together.

Steve Weiss · 07-07-2011, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

That there was no such person as a biblical Jesus is a certainty since none of the miracles attributed to him happened. When someone tells tall tales and passes it off as the truth that is fraud and deception constructed in order to gain power.

That there may have been a human being, as opposed to an alleged man-god, making anti-social and unsubstantiated claims, so what? There is virtually no evidence to support the existence of such a person.

The OP you quoted explains why it is a well-established fact that James, the brother of Jesus, existed. If James, the brother of Jesus, existed, then Jesus (the regular human being) existed.

"So what?" There are a lot of people with anti-religious agendas who are interested in rewriting Jesus the human being out of the history. Many others among us care about accurate history independent of ideology, the same as an accurate understanding of other models of origins, and we take the debates of history seriously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

People in the era of an alleged Jesus were ignorant and superstititious, and there were many competing mythologies, Christianity being the survivor since it gained official sponsorship of the Roman state. Theocracy served the interests of church and state, and dissent was hazardous to one's health. It suited the powers that be to adopt the Jesus myth and enforce conformity to it; the truth be damned. It wasn't theology that triumphed but politics.

The Roman state adoption of Christianity did not happen until the 4th century, and Christianity had to become considerably large and influential before it became a political tool instead of a hindrance to the Roman state. Christianity's theology, morality and its apologetic arguments were all powerful tools to getting Christianity to such a size.

There are very few well-established facts in antiquity. If James existed why does that prove that Jesus did? Because he was the brother of someone for whom we have no credible, substantial evidence? To say that James was the brother Jesus is begging the guestion big time. One cannot assume that there was a Jesus so that James could be his brother.

ApostateAbe · 07-07-2011, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The OP you quoted explains why it is a well-established fact that James, the brother of Jesus, existed. If James, the brother of Jesus, existed, then Jesus (the regular human being) existed.

"So what?" There are a lot of people with anti-religious agendas who are interested in rewriting Jesus the human being out of the history. Many others among us care about accurate history independent of ideology, the same as an accurate understanding of other models of origins, and we take the debates of history seriously.

The Roman state adoption of Christianity did not happen until the 4th century, and Christianity had to become considerably large and influential before it became a political tool instead of a hindrance to the Roman state. Christianity's theology, morality and its apologetic arguments were all powerful tools to getting Christianity to such a size.

There are very few well-established facts in antiquity. If James existed why does that prove that Jesus did? Because he was the brother of someone for whom we have no credible, substantial evidence? To say that James was the brother Jesus is begging the guestion big time. One cannot assume that there was a Jesus so that James could be his brother.

If it is an established fact that Person A's brother existed, then it directly follows that it is an established fact that Person A existed. Do you know of any exceptions to that general rule?

dog-on · 07-07-2011, 08:57 AM

Person A was not actually the brother of Person A's brother.

aa5874 · 07-07-2011, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...too obscure for Philo to write about in his own time. Those arguments from silence need to be put in proper perspective. Philo is the only writer exactly contemporary to Jesus whose writings still exist, and he doesn't write about John the Baptist, either. Though the cult of John the Baptist certainly grew sizably enough to get a notice from Josephus. I know that I bring up that point very frequently, and it is difficult to explain why it keeps getting ignored....

You have presented an "argument from silence" or a false dichotomy.

You are suggesting that Jesus was existed and was known because Philo did not write about John the Baptist and that Josephus wrote about John.

Well, Philo wrote about a Mad Man called Carabbas why would he NOT write about the supposed EXPECTED and PROPHESIED Messiah of the Jews called Jesus Christ?

The existence, non-existence or mention of John the Baptist by any writer of antiquity is NOT related in any way to the existence or popularity of Jesus Christ.

Now, in the NT, Jesus was the EXPECTED and PROPHESIED Messiah of the Jews based primarily on Hebrew Scripture.

It was the JEWS that expected a Prophesied Messiah.

The writings of Jewish writers Philo and Josephus completely destroy the claim that the expected and prophesied Messiah called Jesus did live in the first century.

The Jews EXPECTED the PROPHESIED Messianic ruler at around 70 CE.

Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus all CONFIRMED that the JEWS did expect the prophesied Messianic ruler at around 70 CE and that was a fundamental reason for the Jewish War against the Romans.

The very Jewish War is a TESTIMONY against Jesus Christ.

Reality Check

Please listen to Josephus.

Wars of the Jews [.5.4

Quote:

....."But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth."

The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination....

Reality Check

Listen to Suetonius.

Life of Vespasian

Quote:

... There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judaea to rule the world.

This prediction.............the people of Judaea took to themselves.....

Reality Check.

Listen to Tacitus.

Histories 5

Quote:

...in most there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming from Judaea, were to acquire universal empire.

These mysterious prophecies had pointed to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people...........had interpreted these mighty destinies of themselves.......

The very JEWISH War is evidence AGAINST the character called Jesus Christ.

Even in the NT, the Jews knew NOTHING of Jesus called Christ.

Even in the NT, Jesus CONCEALED his identity.

Reality Check.

Matthew 16:20 -

Quote:

Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

ApostateAbe you are wasting your time.

Reality Check.

NOT even in the NT did the Jews call Jesus the Christ and Josephus himself with the Jews FOUGHT against the Romans expecting the prophesied Messianic rulers at around 70 CE

"Antiquities of Jews" 20.9.1 is a blatant forgery.

Reality Check

Even in the NT, the Jews did NOT know that the Christ lived among them.

Toto · 07-07-2011, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Elaborating on Toto's point, James was a JEWISH RABBI, ultraconservative, who NEVER washed, wore only linen, never cut his hair, never drank etoh, and never ate animal flesh.

Does that sound, Abe, like someone who would be likely to praise the itinerant heretic Jesus of Capernaum, who, in defiance of Jewish law, claimed to have been the long awaited Messiah, a man sent to conquer the Romans, but who was executed like a common criminal?

There is a lot that I do not know about what you are saying. (1) Where you are getting all of those details about James? (2) Who is Jesus of Capernaum? Maybe after I have the answers to those questions then I will be able to figure out why those two characters don't belong together. Sorry for troubling you.

avi is taking that first description from Hegesippus, who describes James as a high priest who entered into the inner sanctum of the Temple. If you are going to accept ancient manuscripts at face value, why not accept Hegesippus?

The Gospels describe Jesus' hometown as Capernum, so assume that Jesus of Capernum is gospel Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

How did Mary's family come to include a Jewish rabbi as leader in the innermost sanctum of the Temple?

avi

Toto seemed to have the same assumption, and I inquire the same clarification from you: where are you getting that thing about James being part of the "innermost sanctum of the Temple"? Can the evidence not be sufficiently explained by James being a leader of an outsider Jewish cult?

If you don't like the idea that James could have been close to the leadership of the Temple, just explain why he was important enough to be executed by Ananus and mentioned by Josephus, although Josephus doesn't see fit to mention any outsider cult. What Josephus describes sounds more like one faction of the Temple leadership removing its opposition.

Robert Eisenman wrote a very thick book about James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls (or via: amazon.co.uk). He attempted to uncover the person of James, who he assumed had been written out of history by Christians.

ApostateAbe · 07-07-2011, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Person A was not actually the brother of Person A's brother.

That would be the only alternative. In this case, it is the established fact that the brother of Person A existed. There is no way out.

dog-on · 07-07-2011, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Person A was not actually the brother of Person A's brother.

That would be the only alternative. In this case, it is the established fact that the brother of Person A existed. There is no way out.

It is established fact that you think that this is an established fact, other than that, not so much...

Toto · 07-07-2011, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
If it is an established fact that Person A's brother existed, then it directly follows that it is an established fact that Person A existed. Do you know of any exceptions to that general rule?

Person A is God and the brother is named Ahija (aka the brother of God)

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

07-07-2011, 08:57 AM	#45
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Person A was not actually the brother of Person A's brother.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.