FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-28-2012, 09:42 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMacSon View Post
HJers fail miserably with rhetorical questions like this, about a story that is likely all - or almost all - fiction.
its not fiction if the author's believed it to be true.
Ha; the 'appeal-to-belief' fallacy.

Quote:
Can you prove its all fiction
We're not talking about all: as you acknowledge .....
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
yes we all know there is a difference between biblical jesus and real jesus
although there is no extra-biblical evidence for actions of a 'real Jesus'
MrMacSon is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 09:53 PM   #22
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Josephus and Tacitus are extra-Biblical evidence. For that matter, the Gospel of Thomas and 1 Clement are extra-Biblical evidence.
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 10:51 PM   #23
jdl
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auckland
Posts: 85
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Josephus and Tacitus are extra-Biblical evidence. For that matter, the Gospel of Thomas and 1 Clement are extra-Biblical evidence.
1 Clement is thoroughly dependent on the NT. It's "extra-biblical" only in the sense that it's not in the canon.

Joseph
jdl is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 10:54 PM   #24
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Hi Philosopher Jay,

I think the thread comparing the historicity of Jesus to that of the Loch Ness Monster has been at least equalled in this post.

I do not have much time at the moment to check all these facts about Dracula. One thing I would be interested in finding out however, if your research has happened to cover it, is whether anyone has found the "One True Stake" with which Dracula was impaled.


Best wishes



Pete






Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Simply calling it fiction does not make it unequivopcally so or end all arguments.

It's a step in what may be the right direction.


Quote:
It's not fiction that the earliest Christian literature advocates a belief in a crucified Messiah,
The earliest Christian literature was "found in the archives" by Eusebius who was the earliest official Christian heresiologist and pseudo-historian. The history of Eusebius may be fictional as well.
mountainman is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 11:03 PM   #25
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Josephus and Tacitus are extra-Biblical evidence.

Josephus was most likely hacked by Eusebius in the 4th century.
Tacitus was probably hacked in the 15th century.
There are negative aspects to this evidence.


Quote:
For that matter, the Gospel of Thomas and 1 Clement are extra-Biblical evidence.
So are the Clementine and Ignatian forgeries and the letter Jesus to Agbar and the letter exchange between "Dear Paul" and Seneca.


And despite hypotheses to the contrary by the planets most revered biblical scholars, the Gospel of Thomas is not necessarily attested before the 4th century. Eusebius cites Hippolytus (155-235), Refutation of all Heresies, v. 1-6., as mentioning something similar to the received text, and cites Origen as mentioning some text of Thomas. Eusebius cites saying (No. 2 in the gThomas) as quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Miscellenies ii. 45. 5; v. 96.3), as coming from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. There is certainly some ambiguity here.

See specifically Two Gnostic Gospels, by Robert M. Grant, Journal of Biblical Literature > Vol. 79, No. 1, Mar., 1960
On the Gospel of Thomas:

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRANT

"... a carefully selected announcement of basic Gnostic doctrines. His monotonous repetition of the phrase "Jesus said", does not prove that his gospel is Christian ....[...]... the environment in which Thomas did his work is almost certainly Gnostic. Indeed, if we make a point-by-point comparison between Thomas and the Naassenes described in the fifth book of Hippolytus's "Refutation", we may well conclude that his gospel not only was used by them but was also composed in support of their doctrines. ......It is important as a witness to the development of Gnostic Christology, not to the teaching of the historical Jesus.

Also see The Naming of the Naassenes: Hippolytus, Refutatio V. 6-10 as Hieros Logos, by Mark J. Edwards, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 112, (1996) (pp. 74-80)


Quote:
Originally Posted by EDWARDS

"Were Gnostics in antiquity ever pagan? It has generally been assumed that they do not belong to the history of Classical religion, but some at least belong to the history of its explanation. I shall argue here that a text, which in its present form can be treated as the earliest extant document of Gnostic Christianity, began as an exposition of the Eleusinian mysteries. I shall not infer that our author was a pagan; since, indeed, the gnosis he taught was not so much a revelation as an instrument for interpreting all previous revelations, I shall not attempt to show that he worshipped any gods at all.

[Concludes ...]

"The gnosis of the earliest Gnostics, therefore, would appear to be: not a mystery, but a studious collocation of the mysteries; a philological discipline which aims to be the master, not the servant, of philosophy; a parliament of symbols which does not proclaim a new code of belief."
mountainman is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 11:18 PM   #26
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Josephus and Tacitus are extra-Biblical evidence. For that matter, the Gospel of Thomas and 1 Clement are extra-Biblical evidence.
Your claim is erroneous. Not even Skeptics or Apolgetics used Josephus and Tacitus as evidence for Jesus for hundreds of years.

We know when they were forged.

The writings of Josephus was supposedly written in the 1st century yet No aplogetic sources used Antiquities of the Jews until the 3rd century and NOT one Skeptic ever used Josephus to PROVE Jesus was human as HJers are doing today.

When Christians writers like the authors of gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, and Tertullian, Justin, Irenaeus were Claiming Jesus had NO human father and was Born of the Holy Ghost and was God the Creator NO SKEPTIC at ALL for antiquity EVER used Josephus and Tacitus--None.

For possibly a THOUSAND years or more after Josephus and Tacitus, NO SKEPTIC argued against the Holy Ghost birth of Jesus using Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 and Tacitus Annals 15,44--NONE.

Only recently have Skeptics started to use them. Why ONLY recently??? Did NOT the Skeptics of a THOUSAND years After Josephus and Tacitus have Antiquities of the Jews and Annals???

They had NOTHING.

If Skeptics had those forgeries they would have DESTROYED all claims that Jesus was DIVINE.

Celsus would have been DELIGHTED if Antiquities and Annals were already forged by the time he wrote "True Discourse". Celsus would have EXPOSED that Jesus wa NOT the Son of a Holy Ghost but was human.

Please name the first Skeptic or non-apologetic source that mentioned Antiquities or Annals with a character called Jesus.


If Josephus and Tacitus did ever claim Jesus was a Man then the Church writers would have had to ATTACK them and called them LIARS PRECISELY the same way Origen called CELSUS a Liar for claiming Jesus was Historical-just a man.

Antiquities 20.9.1, 18.3.3 and Tacitus Annal 15.44 are BLATANT forgeries and were NOT available to SKEPTICS at all like people of today.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-29-2012, 05:04 AM   #27
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Josephus and Tacitus are extra-Biblical evidence.

Josephus was most likely hacked by Eusebius in the 4th century.
Tacitus was probably hacked in the 15th century.
There are negative aspects to this evidence.
The moon landings were all staged, too.
sotto voce is offline  
Old 04-29-2012, 06:28 AM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay View Post
Hi Andrew,

Good point. Thanks.

I do think that poor Elizabeth Bathory was a victim of a political witchhunt. I doubt that she could have killed dozens or hundreds of young women without intervention from the authorities. I think it is more probable that she killed only several women or she was entirely innocent and framed in a witch hunt.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin


Hi Jay

I agree she probably only killed a few women, probably without premeditation, when she let ill-treatment get out of hand.

Her reputation for, (mostly non-lethal), cruelty allowed her to be framed as a mass killer. That doesn't really make her innocent though.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 04-29-2012, 09:13 AM   #29
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: NW United States
Posts: 155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Josephus and Tacitus are extra-Biblical evidence. For that matter, the Gospel of Thomas and 1 Clement are extra-Biblical evidence.
Your claim is erroneous. Not even Skeptics or Apolgetics used Josephus and Tacitus as evidence for Jesus for hundreds of years.

We know when they were forged.

The writings of Josephus was supposedly written in the 1st century yet No aplogetic sources used Antiquities of the Jews until the 3rd century and NOT one Skeptic ever used Josephus to PROVE Jesus was human as HJers are doing today.

When Christians writers like the authors of gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, and Tertullian, Justin, Irenaeus were Claiming Jesus had NO human father and was Born of the Holy Ghost and was God the Creator NO SKEPTIC at ALL for antiquity EVER used Josephus and Tacitus--None.

For possibly a THOUSAND years or more after Josephus and Tacitus, NO SKEPTIC argued against the Holy Ghost birth of Jesus using Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 and Tacitus Annals 15,44--NONE.

Only recently have Skeptics started to use them. Why ONLY recently??? Did NOT the Skeptics of a THOUSAND years After Josephus and Tacitus have Antiquities of the Jews and Annals???

They had NOTHING.

If Skeptics had those forgeries they would have DESTROYED all claims that Jesus was DIVINE.

Celsus would have been DELIGHTED if Antiquities and Annals were already forged by the time he wrote "True Discourse". Celsus would have EXPOSED that Jesus wa NOT the Son of a Holy Ghost but was human.

Please name the first Skeptic or non-apologetic source that mentioned Antiquities or Annals with a character called Jesus.


If Josephus and Tacitus did ever claim Jesus was a Man then the Church writers would have had to ATTACK them and called them LIARS PRECISELY the same way Origen called CELSUS a Liar for claiming Jesus was Historical-just a man.

Antiquities 20.9.1, 18.3.3 and Tacitus Annal 15.44 are BLATANT forgeries and were NOT available to SKEPTICS at all like people of today.
What? Now you're saying that the forgeries in Josephus destroy the divine
jesus. How?
jdboy is offline  
Old 04-29-2012, 02:12 PM   #30
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdboy View Post
What? Now you're saying that the forgeries in Josephus destroy the divine
jesus. How?
Your question has caught me by surprise. I am taken aback. I am astonished.

Please if Jesus did actually exist he could ONLY BE HUMAN.

This is so basic that I am extremely worried.

Please, when CELSUS argued Jesus was a man Origen claimed CELSUS invented LIES SIMPLY because he refused to accept that Jesus was the Son of a Holy Ghost

If Josephus had claimed Jesus was a man then OBVIOUSLY the very Church writers would have to DENOUNCE Josephus as a LIAR.

Origen "Against Celsus" utterly destroys all claims that Josephus wrote about a human Jesus.

Please, examine the words of Origen.

Against Celsus 1
Quote:
It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood.
If Josephus claim Jesus was a man born of a man and a woman then he would have INVENTED a Falsehood and Called a LIAR

There are NO arguments against Josephus by Apologetic sources where he is called a LIAR for claiming Jesus was an ordinary man for 1800 years and counting.

And for hundreds upon hundreds of years NO SKEPTIC used Josephus to show Jesus NOT Divine.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:24 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.