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 11-21-2010, 12:42 AM   #101
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by maryhelena View Post
.....A nobody - no-way.......
Of course, the gospel Jesus figure is a nobody in the sense that this figure is not historical. However, there are elements in the storyline that do suggest that a historical figure has been used, seen as significant, seen as relevant - and that this historical figure was most certainty not a nobody...
And that is EXACTLY what you cannot show. I am really surprised that would claim there are elements in the storyline that there was a SIGNIFICANT historical figure behind the gospel Jesus and cannot produce any evidence whatsoever to support the claim.
<snip>

The actual EVIDENCE suggests that no historical figure was NEEDED to fabricate the Jesus figure just Hebrew Scripture.
Big difference between "NEEDED" and reality, between "fabricate" and historical realities. Big difference between the fabricated gospel Jesus figure and the historical realities of the time period in which that gospel Jesus storyline has been set. Yes, interpretations, evaluations, of historical realities (by all accounts a great Jewish pastime.....) required that the Hebrew Scriptures be used - no need to jettison an already established template for further elaborations re pseudo-historical storytelling.

No real Jesus, no historical gospel Jesus, underneath the figurative or symbolic gospel Jesus - only historical realities of the 70 years between 40/37 bc and 30/33 ce. Historical realities that Jewish Christian thinkers might well have had reason to consider relevant in the furtherance of their ideas re theological/salvation developments...
maryhelena is offline  
Old 11-21-2010, 12:35 PM   #102
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,779
Default

Gday,

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
The argument is that Jesus was not really all that popular in his own day, and so there is no reason to expect any contemporary references to him, but that due to the actions of later cult members, his name became known. (one wonders why a nobody who remained a nobody was able to start a cult at all, and why that cult survived his death...)
Indeed.

How could someone so unpopular, so unimportant that that they went un-noticed at the time, become elevated to God?

We do have many references to minor figures and events, Jesus must have been less popular than those minor nobodies.


K.
Kapyong is offline  
Old 11-21-2010, 01:19 PM   #103
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,779
Default

Gday all,

Would Jesus have been mentioned or recorded?
Here again is my list of writers from the period who coulda, woulda, shoulda mentioned Jesus.


WRITERS WHO SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS

PHILO

Philo Judaeus wrote very many books about Jewish religion and history, in the 30s and 40s, living in Alexandria, and visiting Jerusalem.

Philo was contemporary with Jesus and Paul,
Philo visited Jerusalem and had family there,
he developed the concept of the Logos and the holy spirit,
he was considered a Christian by some later Christians,
he wrote a great deal about related times and peoples and issues.

If Jesus had existed, Philo would almost certainly have written about him and his teachings.

Rating: SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 5


WRITERS WHO PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS

SENECA

Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome.

Seneca wrote a great deal on many subjects and mentioned many people. He was a Stoic, a school of thought considered sympathetic to Christian teachings.

In fact,
early Christians seemed to have expected him to discuss Christianity - they FORGED letters between him and Paul.

How else to explain these forgeries, except as Christian responses to a surprising VOID in Seneca's writings?

Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 4


PLUTARCH

Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia in about 90-120 CE.

Plutarch wrote about influential Roman figures, including some contemporary to Jesus,
Plutarch wrote on Oracles (prophesies),
Plutarch wrote on moral issues,
Plutarch wrote on spiritual and religious issues.

Plutarch's writings also include a fascinating piece known as the "Vision of Aridaeus", a spiritual journey, or out of body experience, or religious fantasy -
http://members.iinet.net.au/~desmode...rchVision.html

If Plutarch knew of Jesus or the Gospel events, it is highly likely he would have mentioned them.

Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 4



JUSTUS

Justus of Tiberias wrote a History of Jewish Kings in Galilee in late 1st century.

Photius read Justus in the 8th century and noted that he did not mention anything: "He (Justus of Tiberias) makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did."

It is surprising that a contemporary writer from the very region of Jesus' alleged acts did not mention him.

Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 3


K.
Kapyong is offline  
Old 11-21-2010, 01:20 PM   #104
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,779
Default

WRITERS WHO COULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS


DAMIS

Damis wrote most of what we know about Apollonius of Tyana. He was a philospher and mystic exactly contemporary with Jesus and who was rather similar to Jesus - enough for some authors to argue they were one and the same person.

If Damis/Apollonius had known of Jesus, he could have easily have been mentioned as a competitor. A story in which Apollonius bested Jesus in debate would not be un-expected.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



PLINY THE ELDER

Gaius Plinius Secundus wrote a large Natural History in Rome c.80CE

Pliny wrote a great deal - his Natural History mentions HUNDREDS of people, major & minor - writers, leaders, poets, artists - often with as much reason as mentioning Jesus. (Of course like many other writers he talks about astronomy too, but never mentions the Star of Bethlehem or the darkness.)

It is not at all un-reasoble for this prolific writer to have mentioned Jesus or the Gospels events.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



JUVENAL

Decimus Junius Juvenalis wrote sixteen satires in Rome in early 2nd century.

Lucian the Roman satirist DID ridicule Christians (as gullible, easily lead fools) in mid 2nd century. By the later time of Lucian, Christianity obviously was known to the wider Roman community. Whereas Juvenal wrote at a time when Christianity had only just started to rate a few tiny mentions (Pliny the Younger, Tacitus.)

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



MARTIAL

Marcus Valerius Martialus wrote satires in Rome in late 1st century.

Martial wrote a large body of poems about all sorts of things. He mentions many people, places, stories and issues - major and minor, within and without Rome, such as :
* Stoic suffering of discomfort and death,
* virgin's blood,
* Roman funerary practices,
* the way accused men look in court,
* Roman soldiers mocking their leaders,
* anointing the body with oil,
* Molorchus the good shepherd,
* Tutilius a minor rhetorician, Nestor the wise,
* the (ugly) Temple of Jupiter,

This shows Martial mentions or alludes to many and varied people and issues.

He could easily have mentioned Jesus (or the Gospel events).

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



PETRONIUS

Petronius Arbiter wrote a large novel (a bawdy drama) the "Satyricon" c.60CE.

Petronius mentions all sorts of people and events in this large work, including :
** a CRUCIFIXION !
** a scene where guards are posted to stop a corpse being stolen,
** a tomb scene of someone mistaking a person for a supernatural vision,
* gods such as Bacchus and Ceres,
* writers such as Sophocles and Euripides and Epicurus,
* books such as the Iliad,
* Romans such as Cato and Pompey,
* people such as Hannibal, and the Governor of Ephesus,
* female charioteers, slaves, merchants, Arabs, lawyers
* baths, shipwrecks, meals...

This large work, cover MANY topics, including a CRUCIFIXION, and it was written just as Peter and Paul had come to Rome, allegedly. It could easily have mentioned Jesus.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



PAUSANIAS

Pausanias wrote the massive Guide to Greece in mid 2nd century.

Pausanias' work is vast and the index covers over 70 pages of small print, I estimate a couple of THOUSAND names are mentioned. He mentions a large number of minor figues from within and without Greece.

He even mentions a Jewish prophetess - a figure so minor she is essentially unknown: "Then later than Demo there was a prophetic woman reared among the Jews beyond Palestine; her name was Sabbe." Phokis, Book X, 12, [5]

Pausanias also mentions the Jewish rebellion under Hadrian.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



EPICTETUS

Epictetus is known for several books of Stoic religious and philosophic discourses in the early 2nd century. One of his disciples was Arrian, and thanks to him much of Epictetus' works are extant.

Epictetus DID apparently mention "the Galileans", which could be a reference to :
* the early Christians,
or
* the revolt under Judas the Galilean in early 1st century.

Either way, this shows quite clearly that Epictetus could refer to a figure such as Jesus.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



AELIUS ARISTIDES

Aelius Aristides the Greek Orator spoke and wrote a History of Rome and other subjects - he seems to refer to the Christians as "impious men from Palestine" (Orations 46.2)

If he could mention people from Palestine, he could easily have mentioned Jesus.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



FRONTO

Marcus Cornelius Fronto of Rome wrote several letters in mid 2nd century.

According to Minucius Felix, he scandalised rites practiced by Roman Christians - so he could easily have mentioned Jesus.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



PERSIUS

Aulus Persius Flaccus wrote six fairly long satires in Rome in the mid 1st century, of a rather philosophic nature.

The argument that no Roman satirist could be expected to mention Jesus, is proven wrong by the case of a Roman satirist who DID mention Jesus (but only as echoes of later Christian beliefs.)

Persius wrote a reasonably large body of work that mentions many people and issues.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



DIO CHRYSOSTOM

Dio Chrysostom (Cocceianus Dio) wrote many works and gave many speeches in various Roman and Greek centres in late 1st century, of which 80 survive e.g. the Euboicus.

Dio wrote a large number of works in the late 1st century - he certainly could have mentioned Jesus, if he knew of him.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



AULUS GELLIUS

Aulus Gellius wrote Attic Nights (Nights in Athens), a large compendium of many topics and which mentioned many people.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



LUCIUS APULEIUS

Lucius Apuleius wrote the Metamorphoses (the Golden Ass or Transformations of Lucius) and many other spiritual, historical, and philosophic works - several survive.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



MARCUS AURELIUS

Marcus Aelius Aurelius Antoninus wrote the Stoic Meditations in mid 2nd century - he (apparently) refers once to the Christians in XI, 3.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



MUSONIUS RUFUS

C. Musonius Rufus wrote on Stoic philosophy in Rome in mid 1st century.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



HIEROCLES

Hierocles of Alexandria wrote on Stoic philosophy in late 1st century.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



MAXIMUS of TYRE

Cassius Maximus Tyrius, a Greek NeoPlatonic philosopher, wrote many works in mid 2nd century.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



ARRIAN

Arrian wrote a History of Alexander c.120CE.

The subject is not related, but Arrian wrote a very large work which mentioned HUNDREDS of people, some not from Alexander's time.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



APPIAN

Appian wrote a large Roman History (from the Gracchi to Caesar) in mid 2nd century.

It's not particularly likely that this specific writer would mention Jesus.
But,
he wrote a LARGE work which mentions HUNDREDS of people.
Appian does mention some issues of HIS day (mid 2nd century), e.g. a decision by Hadrian.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



THEON of SMYRNA

Theon of Smyrna wrote on astronomy/philosophy in early 2nd century.

Theon wrote about philosophy. If Jesus and his teachings were known, it is entirely plausible for to mention them.

Theon also wrote about astronomy.
If he had heard about the Star of Bethlehem or the Darkness (as an event, or from the Gospels) he could easily have mentioned it.

Apologists frequently cite Phlegon and Thallus, astronomers who mentioned eclipses (but NOT Jesus or the Gospel events, that is merely later Christian wishful thinking) as evidence for Jesus.

An astronomer could easily be expected to mention those incidents, especially when apologists claim other astronomers of the period did exactly that.

The silence of early astronomers about the Star of Bethlehem or the crucifixion darkness argues these "events" were unknown until later.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



QUINTILIAN

Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, wrote the "Education of an Orator" in Rome in late 1st century.

One of the things Jesus was allegedly noted for was his PUBLIC SPEECHES - e.g. the Sermon on the Mount, which supposedly drew and influenced large crowds.

If Quintilian had heard of Jesus or the Gospels events, he could have mentioned the allegedly famous speeches of Jesus.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



LUCIUS ANNAEUS FLORUS

Lucius Annaeus Florus wrote an Epitome of Roman History.

Although not directly on subject, Florus wrote a large work which mentions many names. He could have mentioned Jesus if he had known of him.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



LUCAN

Marcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome in mid 1st century.

In his large poem, the Pharsalia, he mentions some events from later times, and he covers many different issues and people in passing.
He:
* mentions an event from 56CE,
* refers to places as far afield as Sicily and Kent,
* refered to Stoic religious beliefs about the end of the world,
* refers to many books and myths and persons and events not part of the main story.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



STATIUS

Publius Papinius Statius wrote numerous minor and epic poems (e.g. Ode to Sleep and the Thebaid) in Rome in late 1st century.

Statius wrote many works on several subjects, he could have mentioned Jesus.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



HERO of ALEXANDRIA

Hero(n) of Alexandria wrote many technical works, including astronomy.

If he had known of the Gospel stories about Jesus, he could have mentioned them.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



GEMINUS

Geminus wrote on mathematics astronomy in Greece.

If he had known of the Gospel stories about Jesus, he could have mentioned them.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



ALBINUS

Albinus taught on (neo-)Platonism in early 2nd century, a little survives.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



ARISTOCLES

Aristocles of Messene wrote On Philosophy, early 2nd century.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



APOLLODORUS

Apollodorus compiled a large Mythology in mid 2nd century.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



HEPHAESTION

Hephaestion of Alexandria wrote many works in mid 2nd century.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



SEXTUS EMPIRICUS

Sextus Empiricus wrote Outlines of Scepticism in mid 2nd century.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
Kapyong is offline  
Old 11-21-2010, 01:21 PM   #105
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,779
Default

WRITERS CLAIMED TO MENTION JESUS

JOSEPHUS

Much has been said about Josephus, but not here.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but may not have.



TACITUS

Cornelius Tacitus wrote a celebrated passage about Jesus roughly 80 years or so after the alleged events - but he seems to be reporting Christian beliefs of his later times, not using earlier documents: he uses the incorrect title 'procurator' - the term used in Tacitus' time, not Pilate's; he fails to name the executed man (Roman records could not possibly have called him 'Christ '); and he accepts the recent advent of the Christians, when Rome was known to allow only ancient cults and religions.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but probably late hearsay.



NUMENIUS

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name"

Numenius does not mention Jesus, just a story that was later attributed to him.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but probably late hearsay.



SUETONIUS

Gaius SUETONIUS Tranquillus wrote a histories/biographies of Roman Caesars c.120CE.

He mentions a "Chrestus" (a common slave name meaning "Useful") who caused disturbance in Rome in 49CE.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.



PHLEGON

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by much later George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon said anything about Gospel events - just evidence for later Christians believing his statements about an eclipse (there WAS an eclipse in this period) was really about the Gospel darkness.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.



THALLUS

Thallus perhaps wrote in early 2nd century or somewhat earlier (his works are lost, there is no evidence he wrote in the 1st century, in fact there is some evidence he wrote around 109 BCE, and some authors refer to him for events before the Trojan War!) - 9th century George Syncellus quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse". There is no evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events, as there was an eclipse in 29, the subject in question. Furthermore the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is likely a mis-reading.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.
Kapyong is offline  
Old 11-22-2010, 09:33 AM   #106
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dallas Texas
Posts: 758
Default

Toto:

In response to your snarky question at #77 I believe that Matthew and Luke are to some important extent dependent of Mark if that’s what you were trying to communicate. I also know that there is material in both Matthew and Luke that did not come from Mark. With respect to that material they are independent of Mark. I also recognize that there is material in Matthew and Luke that can be found in Neither of the other synoptics which I would say represents tradition independent of any other synoptic source. Perhaps the unnamed mythmaker. In any event while there is a degree of interdependence only someone with an agenda would view the synoptics as a single source.

John it seems to me represents a second line of tradition about the same guy. Your mythmaker must have been very busy.

Steve
Juststeve is offline  
Old 11-22-2010, 09:51 AM   #107
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dancing
Posts: 9,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Juststeve View Post
In response to your snarky question at #77 I believe that Matthew and Luke are to some important extent dependent of Mark if that’s what you were trying to communicate.
"Some extent"? If Mark, Matthew, and Luke all submitted their gospels as undergraduate papers they would be kicked out of school for plagiarism. Only apologists claim that Matt and Luke are "independent". At most some scholars say that Mark and John are two independent gospels. But there really isn't any consensus that John is independent of Mark. The biggest argument for their indepdendence is the lack of word-for-word agreement.

How you could even think that Matt and Luke count as "indepdendent" when they have such egregarious word-for-word agreement is beyond me. The mere fact that there is a "synoptic problem" precludes independence.
show_no_mercy is offline  
Old 11-22-2010, 10:10 AM   #108
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Juststeve View Post
Toto:

In response to your snarky question at #77 I believe that Matthew and Luke are to some important extent dependent of Mark if that’s what you were trying to communicate.
Hi Steve -

Surely you have been around here long enough to have figured out how to use the "reply with quote" button, so that the readers might judge for themselves if this constitutes snark:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto
What is your agenda? Does it prevent you from recognizing that the four gospels are not independent?
If you read non-apologetic scholarly literature, the synoptics are not treated as separate independent sources for the purposes of historicity.

Quote:
I also know that there is material in both Matthew and Luke that did not come from Mark. With respect to that material they are independent of Mark.
This material is generally referred to as 'Q.' Is it your contention that the Q material supports the historicity of the crucifixion?

Quote:
I also recognize that there is material in Matthew and Luke that can be found in [n]either of the other synoptics which I would say represents tradition independent of any other synoptic source.
Generally referred to as L, and M . . .

Quote:
Perhaps the unnamed mythmaker.
You do realize that mythmaking is part of the human make up? We are all mythmakers to some extent. Each of the authors of the gospels was a mythmaker.

Quote:
In any event while there is a degree of interdependence only someone with an agenda would view the synoptics as a single source. . . .
No one said that the synoptics were a single source, just that they were dependent, much too dependent to constitute multiple attestation. That's why they are called "synoptic" - look up the meaning.

What would be your agenda in confusing the issue?
Toto is offline  
Old 11-22-2010, 01:28 PM   #109
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Juststeve View Post
I also know that there is material in both Matthew and Luke that did not come from Mark. With respect to that material they are independent of Mark.
Well sure. But if the purpose is to determine whether or not Jesus really was crucified, then later writings that plagiarize and then add to an earlier text are not going to help in any way toward that aim.

Quote:
John it seems to me represents a second line of tradition about the same guy. Your mythmaker must have been very busy.
Yes, it probably is a second line of tradition. ...and today there are several thousand different lines of Christian tradition.

The further you get from the source, the more time there is for lines of tradition to evolve. I seem to recall that you prefer a first century dating for all 4 canonical gospels. How do you explain this odd divergence of tradition in such a brief period?
spamandham is offline  
Old 11-22-2010, 03:04 PM   #110
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maryhelena View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

And that is EXACTLY what you cannot show. I am really surprised that would claim there are elements in the storyline that there was a SIGNIFICANT historical figure behind the gospel Jesus and cannot produce any evidence whatsoever to support the claim.
<snip>

The actual EVIDENCE suggests that no historical figure was NEEDED to fabricate the Jesus figure just Hebrew Scripture.
Big difference between "NEEDED" and reality, between "fabricate" and historical realities. Big difference between the fabricated gospel Jesus figure and the historical realities of the time period in which that gospel Jesus storyline has been set. Yes, interpretations, evaluations, of historical realities (by all accounts a great Jewish pastime.....) required that the Hebrew Scriptures be used - no need to jettison an already established template for further elaborations re pseudo-historical storytelling.
What are you really saying? What exactly in the historical realities show that the Jesus character was based on a significant historical figure?

What significant Jewish man TAUGHT his disciples that he would be RAISED from the dead on the THIRD Day?

What significant Jewish man could have died for the sins of mankind when THOUSANDS of Jews were crucified?

What historical source show that the Jesus character was based on a significant historical figure?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maryhelena View Post
No real Jesus, no historical gospel Jesus, underneath the figurative or symbolic gospel Jesus - only historical realities of the 70 years between 40/37 bc and 30/33 ce. Historical realities that Jewish Christian thinkers might well have had reason to consider relevant in the furtherance of their ideas re theological/salvation developments...
What are you talking about? You are extremely vague? We have the writings of Philo, the Jew, of Alexandria, and Josephus, a Pharisee, who lived in Galilee and these writings covered hundreds of years of Jewish history including virtually the ENTIRE 1st century.

Tacitus' in Histories 5 claimed Jews had a MENTAL concept of DEITY up to the 2ND century.

Histories 5
Quote:
....the Jews have purely mental conceptions of Deity, as one in essence. They call those profane who make representations of God in human shape out of perishable materials.

They believe that Being to be supreme and eternal, neither capable of representation, nor of decay....
What are you talking about? Please say which significant historical Jewish figure was ultimately worshiped as a God, the Creator of heaven and earth and was RAISED from the dead?

It was the OFFSPRING of the Holy Ghost that was CRUCIFIED in the Gospels, not a man.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:35 AM.

Top

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