spin

You are talking utter rubbish. We see performances like this from the worst bible literalists. You've had plenty of opportunity to recover from your blunder. In this case, the brain has been burgled.

This is you indirectly calling me what you called aa5874. Off to ignore you go. Not for exactly the same reason. You should know better. You join the ranks of arnoldo, mountainman and aa5874. Such a shame.


spin

Chaucer

And this and your past arguments with posters like Trendkill show very clearly that you're a plain mythicist and that's all. Agnostic my foot!

Chaucer

aa5874

The word "Nazareth" is nort even in the forgeries. Examine Antiquities of the Jews.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3
Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 There is no mention whatsoever of Nazareth anywhere in the forged passages.

It is now confirmed that whoever wrote AJ 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 did not mention that their Jesus was from Nazareth.

IamJoseph

Probably. What with the chaos of calendars in that times. However the Gospels does take SUNday and many of its premises from the Greeks & Romans, even those which are unconnectable with the Hebrew bible. Who's seen a painting of Jesus looking like a Judean Jew!

spin

I think both are relevant to the date. Things like this are usually overdetermined. Organized christianity, once it had gained its preferred status tended to expunge traces of other popular religions by usurping their traditions in order to shift focus onto christianity and show the victory of christianity over those religions.

Obviously Sol Invictus/Mithras had a birthday celebrated on 25th Dec. The birthday of Jesus was not something given relevance by early christians, but because it was relevant to Mithraists, the easiest way to invalidate the Mithra connection was to take over the day. It's purely politics and arguments about various people being born on the same day are simply irrelevant to the origins of the religion.

Just as obviously the day cannot really have been just the pagan celebration. There is in fact a good logical reason for later christianity celebrating the birthday of Jesus on Dec 25: he was conceived at Easter and Xmas is after all nine months later. So it is obvious, isn't it?

This is a skeptical argument that should be put out to pasture. It has nothing at all to do with origins.


spin

Toto

Fraud implies some intent to deceive. You don't know what his intent is.

If you consider yourself a skeptic, you should challenge incorrect claims with facts and arguments, not emotional outbursts.

It also helps if you put yourself in the position of the person you consider to be wrong, which you will not be able to do if you demonize your opposition.

Roger Pearse

Sol Invictus and Mithras are not the same deity. Anyone who can find any trace whatever in the ancient record of an association of 25 Dec. with Mithras should produce it; but I looked long and hard, and the idea seems to be a myth.

The idea that 25 Dec. was the "birthday" of Sol Invictus is probably a misconception. Our total information on this is the statement in part 6 of the "Chronography of 354" -- a calendar of state festivals -- for this day, "Natalis Invicti." Invicti probably is Sol Invictus. But Natalis is probably not "birthday" but "anniversary of foundation of temple". There are natalis given for other deities in the calendar, which likewise have no defined birthday.

The vagueness of the evidence for all this will be apparent, and should lead us to avoid making very positive statements.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Surely this passage is considered as authentic by practically all the scholars, and always has been, Emil Schurer aside? The passage may be a later interpolation; but to assert the consensus position as fact is hardly "incompetent."

If you wish to deny the consensus of the academy, the responsibility would seem to be yours; it can hardly be anyone else's responsibility to prove things incessantly. The content of this paragraph suggests that the intense emotional problem is your own.

Very emotional indeed. But in the absence of any rational arguments, assertion doesn't fly.

spin

We've come a way from the time of Schuerer but bible academics don't seem to have profited from the intervening time. You know that I don't think anything of arguments based on authority. When people have a priori commitments, as is often the case (you can understand this but not like its implications), they will conclude as indicated by the foretold outcome.

The academy needs to have earnt respect. (Just think of the University of New Age Science.) When history is not a priority in the academy, their results won't be of any historical weight. What do you want here? I've said many times that history is not democratic.

The academy works on the notion that it can arbitrarily save some of the TF. Flyspecks on the buttered bread. Cut off the bits you can't stomach, but you'll probably end up with the taste of fly specks.

I have pointed out on AJ 20:200:

1. the discourse structure -- the inversion putting Jesus first -- reflects a previous recent mention of Jesus, which isn't there and has been discounted by the fact that this Jesus still needs qualification;
2. the reference to the brother is not usual in Jewish nomenclature;
3. Josephus has eschewed use of the term messiah, and the term only occurs in the two places that mention Jesus, (one use of which is almost universally considered to be bogus); and
4. we must look with suspicion on a passage that reflects views of another passage which is considered to be corrupt.

It is natural that you will appeal to a group of academics who by their context will tend towards apologetics whether consciously or not.

This effort was not for your benefit, but for someone who I thought could know better than his acceptance of a passage he would not defend.

This assertion of yours neatly ignores the fact that the subject has been analyzed frequently here and your only input was the argument from authority. (There is nothing wrong with going back and dealing with the material yourself. Pretend that those voices are not telling what the answer is supposed to be.)

I've laid out four points above regarding the difficulties of the James comment in AJ 20.200 that came to mind while responding to you. If you feel you can deal with them yourself based on philology, linguistics or history, I will read what you have to say.


spin

show_no_mercy

So everyone who doubts the authenticity of AJ 20.9.1 is a 100% mythicist? I fail to see the logic there.