Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 12-20-2007, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

I was just trying to gather primary evidence
and was not looking for interpretations yet.
I actually considered explicitly requesting that
mountainman refrain from his usual assertions,
but I wrongly thought it would not be necessary.

The primary evidence includes all postulates concerning
that evidence, and a little dot point that Doug Shaver
left off his list of postulates -- namely that the documents
tendered by Eusebius are "above boards" (ie: non-fiction)
is to be somewhere factored in your gathering process.

You and Ben should study Philosopher Jay's response.
It demonstrates clearly an example of Ben's question:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Are you suggesting that the claims people make
to the effect that Jesus died in AD 30 are not based
on the NT??? On what do people base these claims if
not the NT?

Try substituting the name of Jesus instead of Spiderman,
and the name of Eusebius instead of the author, and
you will hopefully understand the trinity of your own
question marks.

The fact of the matter is that we do not yet know
for sure which of the two postulates

(1) The NT is a quasi-history, or

(2) The NT is a fabrication and a fiction,

is true.

Some people ride their hobby horses over the ground
upon which the shadow of the truth of the first postulate
falls, while others ride their horses elsewhere.

Just because a whole mob of people share the faith
in the postulate that the NT is not fiction, does not
make the NT a non-fiction story.

Anyway, if you are interested in the sources in Eusebius
you need to at least get to Book 1, Chapter 5...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Chapter V. The Time of His Appearance Among Men.

1 And now, after this necessary introduction to our proposed history of the Church, we can enter, so to speak, upon our journey, beginning with the appearance of our Saviour in the flesh. And we invoke God, the Father of the Word, and him, of whom we have been speaking, Jesus Christ himself our Saviour and Lord, the heavenly Word of God, as our aid and fellow-laborer in the narration of the truth.

2 It was in the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus and the twenty-eighth after the subjugation of Egypt and the death of Antony and Cleopatra, with whom the dynasty of the Ptolemies in Egypt came to an end, that our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea, according to the prophecies which had been uttered concerning him. His birth took place during the first census, while Cyrenius was governor of Syria.

3 Flavius Josephus, the most celebrated of Hebrew historians, also mentions this census, which was taken during Cyrenius' term of office. In the same connection he gives an account of the uprising of the Galileans, which took place at that time, of which also Luke, among our writers, has made mention in the Acts, in the following words: "After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away a multitude after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed."

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

dog-on · 12-20-2007, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Sure, but of course that is absolutely irrelavent as to whether or not Paul's James (if we hold to the standard dating model for Galatians) and Josephus' James the Just where, in fact , the same guy....

When did this become the topic? My option B, the one you chose, was:

The discussion was about whether or not later Christians (the many above) regarded their James the just as the James in Galatians 1.19; now you appear to be discussing whether the James in Josephus is the same as the James in Galatians 1.19. You have changed subjects. Which is fine, but next time please let me know. Thanks.

My bad, didn't mean to pull the change-up on you. I actually had in mind the original dating question and how this would stack up as evidence...

Quote:

So... you and I now appear to agree that later Christians identified, at least so far as we can tell from their writings, their James the just figure with the James in Galatians 1.19. Is that correct?

You are correct.

Quote:

If not, which Christians do you have in mind as denying the connection?

If so, which James do you think the Josephus reference (interpolated or not) is referring to? And I notice that you wrote:

Quote:

James the Just

James the brother of Jesus ben Damneaus (sp?)

Quote:

Please cite the passage you have in mind where Josephus calls James the just so that I can tell what you have in mind... and how you are reading one of the Alexandrian fathers.

Ben.

The James referenced by Josephus in AotJ chapter 19 (whom Josephus does not refer to as "the Just", to my knowledge) is tied by Eusebius, referencing some lost writings by Clement and Heggesippus (sp?), to the name James (of Acts fame), traditionally known as the Just.

Since I believe that the ,"brother of the so-called Christ", reference in Josephus is not original to the text and that the James in Josephus' reference was a Jew (brother of the named high-priest) and not a Christian, I do not put much faith into the possibility that Joe's James and Luke's/Paul's James are one and the same James.

Ben C Smith · 12-20-2007, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

I was just trying to gather primary evidence
and was not looking for interpretations yet.
I actually considered explicitly requesting that
mountainman refrain from his usual assertions,
but I wrongly thought it would not be necessary.

You and Ben should study Philosopher Jay's response.
It demonstrates clearly an example of Ben's question:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

Are you suggesting that the claims people make
to the effect that Jesus died in AD 30 are not based
on the NT??? On what do people base these claims if
not the NT?

Try substituting the name of Jesus instead of Spiderman,
and the name of Eusebius instead of the author, and
you will hopefully understand the trinity of your own
question marks.

Jesus instead of Spiderman? Do you mean Spiderman instead of Jesus? If so, my statement becomes:

Quote:

Are you suggesting that the claims people make to the effect that Spiderman was born in 1947 are not based on the comic books??? On what do people base these claims if not the comic books?

(However, I did not understand the part about substituting the name of Eusebius for the author, since I did not actually talk about the author.)

This is still an appropriate question. If someone were to take Peter Parker to be an historical character (whether correctly or incorrectly), and were to claim that he was born in 1947, it is fair to wonder what information the claimant might have besides the comic books.

Likewise, if someone were to take Jesus to be an historical character (whether correctly or incorrectly; and the people making certain claims in the OP are certainly taking Jesus to be historical, right?), and were to claim that he died in about AD 30, it is fair to wonder what information the claimant might have besides the NT.

Squiz was asking where people who take the NT at least to some extent as serious history get their claim that Jesus died in about AD 30. So my question still stands to you: Where do those people get such claims if not from the NT?

Ben.

andrewcriddle · 12-21-2007, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

What about Paul's letters? Is there anything there that would help to date his ministry?

Only in the most general of terms.
.................................................. ............................
These are (some of) the indicators apart from Acts.

Ben.

Also Philippians 4:22

Quote:

All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar's household.

probably requires a date after the establishment of the imperial bureaucracy (Caesar's or Augustus' household) sometime after Octavius took the title Augustus in 27 BCE

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith · 12-21-2007, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Only in the most general of terms.
.................................................. ............................
These are (some of) the indicators apart from Acts.

Ben.

Also Philippians 4:22

Quote:

All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar's household.

probably requires a date after the establishment of the imperial bureaucracy (Caesar's or Augustus' household) sometime after Octavius took the title Augustus in 27 BCE

Andrew Criddle

I had forgotten that one. Thanks! I really should compile these in a brief list and post them on my Paul page....

Ben.

JoeWallack · 12-21-2007, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

One often hears that Christ died at the age of 33 at about 30 AD, that Paul was operating about 10 years later, etc. etc.

Could someone please fill me in on what each of these claims is based on?

JW:
The Jesus info above is based on a Conflaithion of the Gospels:

1) "Matthew" Jesus born c. 4 BCE.

2) "Luke" Jesus 30 at start of Ministry.

3) "John" Jesus' Ministry is 3 years.

The interesting part though is that the above was not intended by it's Authors to be complimentary but Contradictory:

1) "Mark" is interested in following Paul who has no interest in Jesus' human history. No birth, father, education, age. All that's important is when Jesus received God's Spirit.

2) "Matthew" moves "Mark's" Jesus towards having a human history. Associates Jesus' birth with the Historical and significant Herod the Great c. 4 BCE.

3) "Luke" improves the Historicity. Research (Josephus) shows that there was no historical massacre of the infants. Associates Jesus' birth with the historical Census of Qurenius c. 6 CE.

4) "John" improves the Historicity. "Mark's" theme that Jesus' audience was not ultimately convinced by all of Jesus' miracles is a problem. "John" expands the Ministry to at least 3 years to give his Jesus more time to convince with miracles. Note that in the recent Thread here:

According To "John" About How Old Was Jesus When He Died?

it was demonstrated that based only on "John" Jesus would have been close to 50. This is consistent with the Theme of "John" that Jesus' miracles were an important part of his act (by giving him more time to do them) as opposed to the original Gospel "Mark" where the Theme is that the miracles were unimportant compared to the Passion. On a comical note, Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons"), probably the most important Church Father as far as identifying the Canonical Gospels, believed based on "John" (surprise) that Jesus was close to 50 when he died which was c. 40s CE. Therefore, per Irenaeus' information here Paul would have been preaching about the significance of Jesus' death while Jesus was still alive! This could potentially though explain a lot about "Revelation".

Randel Helms latest, The Bible Against Itself (or via: amazon.co.uk), has some great examples of parts of the Bible Specifically Reacting to and Contradicting previous parts of the Bible.

Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

mountainman · 12-21-2007, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Squiz was asking where people who take the NT at least to some extent as serious history get their claim that Jesus died in about AD 30. So my question still stands to you: Where do those people get such claims if not from the NT?

From Arius of Alexandria, the author of NHC 6.1,
Emperor Julian, the antics of Cyril, the Bazaar of
Heractlitis (Nestorius), etc.

Before he was born he was not

Arius 325 CE.

See the disclaimer clause on the Nicaean
creed of Socrates Scholasticus.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Ben C Smith · 12-21-2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Squiz was asking where people who take the NT at least to some extent as serious history get their claim that Jesus died in about AD 30. So my question still stands to you: Where do those people get such claims if not from the NT?

From Arius of Alexandria, the author of NHC 6.1,
Emperor Julian, the antics of Cyril, the Bazaar of
Heractlitis (Nestorius), etc.

Before he was born he was not

Arius 325 CE.

See the disclaimer clause on the Nicaean
creed of Socrates Scholasticus.

Let me repost the OP for reference:

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

One often hears that Christ died at the age of 33 at about 30 AD, that Paul was operating about 10 years later, etc. etc.

Could someone please fill me in on what each of these claims is based on?

So it is your position that, when one often hears that Christ died in about the year 30, the people saying this are actually using Arius and company, not the NT?

Will you please give examples of these people who often say that Christ died in about the year 30 and who are getting this from Arius and company, not from the NT?

Ben.

Julian · 12-21-2007, 11:24 AM

I am fairly annoyed at the remarkably unhelpful quality of the replies in this thread. The OP asks an interesting and legitimate question and somehow this gives everybody a license to peddle their irrelevant pet theories. I tried to give a reasonable answer (not my best or most comprehensive post ever but sincere in trying to provide a direction, at least), given my time limitations and so forth, and then Ben provided an even better one. Andrew and Joe also chimed in with useful information. The OP asked what the various time estimates were based on, not whether or not you consider them to be factual.

If someone asks a question then common coutesy should compel other posters to provide useful answers to the best of their ability or to lurk and read. In short, the OP asked good questions and most of you provided truly pointless and irrelevant replies. Next time you want to ignore a question and push your, in this case non-relevant, views, start a thread of your own.

Of course, we don't factually know what the dates are. It is, however, entirely possible to summarize upon what evidence (however and whenever it came to be and whether or not you agree with its validity) it is based. If you cannot supply any information that would help the poster then why would you feel the need to reply to it?

Julian

mountainman · 12-21-2007, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Let me repost the OP for reference:

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

One often hears that Christ died at the age of 33 at about 30 AD, that Paul was operating about 10 years later, etc. etc.

Could someone please fill me in on what each of these claims is based on?

So it is your position that, when one often hears that Christ died in about the year 30, the people saying this are actually using Arius and company, not the NT?

Will you please give examples of these people who often say that Christ died in about the year 30 and who are getting this from Arius and company, not from the NT?

Constantine and Eusebius started the rumor that
Christ lived and died in the first century by fabricating
and publishing a fiction story called "Constantine's Bible"
sometime c.331 CE.

The political and historical truth of the matter however
is expressed by Arius: Jesus Christ is a fiction who
never lived... before he was born he was not.

Best wishes

Pete Brown

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

12-21-2007, 11:24 AM	#39
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	I am fairly annoyed at the remarkably unhelpful quality of the replies in this thread. The OP asks an interesting and legitimate question and somehow this gives everybody a license to peddle their irrelevant pet theories. I tried to give a reasonable answer (not my best or most comprehensive post ever but sincere in trying to provide a direction, at least), given my time limitations and so forth, and then Ben provided an even better one. Andrew and Joe also chimed in with useful information. The OP asked what the various time estimates were based on, not whether or not you consider them to be factual. If someone asks a question then common coutesy should compel other posters to provide useful answers to the best of their ability or to lurk and read. In short, the OP asked good questions and most of you provided truly pointless and irrelevant replies. Next time you want to ignore a question and push your, in this case non-relevant, views, start a thread of your own. Of course, we don't factually know what the dates are. It is, however, entirely possible to summarize upon what evidence (however and whenever it came to be and whether or not you agree with its validity) it is based. If you cannot supply any information that would help the poster then why would you feel the need to reply to it? Julian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.