Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-29-2010, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Actually, no opponent of Christianity questioned Jesus' historicity until after the Enlightenment.

Emperor Julian did.

Source? I think you will find that Julian described Jesus as an ordinary Galilean.

Quote:

Or more likely because Christians claimed that he did. They had no independent evidence of Jesus' miracles.

Do you mean to imply that the Jews believed Jesus to be a wonder maker simply because the Christians said he was though no Jewish historian recorded any such wonders? Hhmmm...

If they believed that Jesus had worked miracles, they ascribed it to the devil. If they actually believed that Jesus worked miracles through divine power, they undoubtedly would have converted.

Is there any other source for the idea that Jesus worked miracles, other than Christian sources? Even the passage in Josephus appears to be based on Christian sources of some sort.

spamandham · 01-29-2010, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Actually, no opponent of Christianity questioned Jesus' historicity until after the Enlightenment.

Emperor Julian did.

Are referring to 'Against the Galilaeans'? Because if so, nowhere in that text does Julian doubt that Jesus had existed as a man. Rather, the fiction of the Galilaeans he refers to has to do with his claim that Christian dogma is a pack of lies that does not follow from the Jewish scriptures.

From Roger's site:

Moses says that the creator of the universe chose out the Hebrew nation, that to that nation alone did he pay heed and cared for it, and he gives him charge of it alone. But how and by what sort of gods the other nations are governed he has said not a word,----unless indeed one should concede that he did assign to them the sun and moon. However of this I shall speak a little later. Now I will only point out that Moses himself and the prophets who came after him and Jesus the Nazarene, yes and Paul also, who surpassed all the magicians and charlatans of every place and every time, assert that he is the God of Israel alone and of Judaea...

Clearly, Julian thought Jesus was a real person just like he thinks Moses, the prophets and Paul were real people.

aa5874 · 01-29-2010, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, Marcion questioned that Jesus was human since the 2nd century.

Marcion is irrelevant to my argument. He purported to be a Christian. It was a domestic quarrel. The counterargument was more or less based on the NT, which was useless to refute the fourth-century pagan opinion that Julian chose to side with.

But, such a position is hopelessly illogical.

Once the existence of a human Jesus was questioned by persons who were deemed or called christian then such claims are extremely significant.

There was NO such thing as a "domestic quarrel" with the respect to the existence of a human Jesus. The existence of a human Jesus is at the VERY CORE of christian belief and would be argued for perhaps hundreds of years even up to today.

We are dealing with a "quarrel" about the very "historicity of Jesus" as early as the middle of the 2nd century.

Justin Martyr will show the problem was more UNIVERSAL in "First Apology"

Quote:

And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator.

And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians...

Marcion was claimed to be a SHIPMASTER so perhaps could have traveled to Jerusalem and Galilee.

Marcion's position on Jesus would have or could have meant that there was no known historical records of the NT Jesus, his parents, siblings, or relatives.

Marcion perhaps could not have found any historical records of any activities of the NT Jesus in Galilee or Jerusalem.

Marcion with his many followers may have found out that there were no historical sources of any contemporary disciples of the NT Jesus.

Again, the writer using the name Tertullian has identified the main problem with Jesus and it is that his NON-HISTORICAL nature is assured or agreed but his HISTORICAL nature, his HUMAN nature was NOT certain.

Once CHRISTIANS themselves doubted and asserted that JESUS had no HUMAN nature it must be expected that there were skeptics who were of the view that Jesus was not human or the son of a God around the time of Marcion and the Marcionites.

Marcion with the Pauline writers present some of the best internal information for the NON-HUMAN nature of JESUS.

According to Marcion, Jesus did not exist as a human and the Pauline writer did not write that he saw Jesus as a human before he was raised from the dead.

aa5874 · 01-29-2010, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Emperor Julian did.

Are referring to 'Against the Galilaeans'? Because if so, nowhere in that text does Julian doubt that Jesus had existed as a man. Rather, the fiction of the Galilaeans he refers to has to do with his claim that Christian dogma is a pack of lies that does not follow from the Jewish scriptures.

From Roger's site:

Did you read the very first line of "Against the Galileans"? Julian clearly stated that the Galileans were FABRICATED by FICTION.

"Against the Galileans"

Quote:

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

The Galileans were fabricated. The Galileans were composed by fiction and wickedness. The Galileans did not exist as found in the NT.

As far as I understand "fabrication" means "structure of falsehoods".

In effect, Julian was claiming that the Galileans were structured from falsehoods.

Or in other words, the Galileans did exist as fiction.

Toto · 01-29-2010, 06:57 PM

aa - this is basic English. The "fabrication of the Galileans" does not mean that the Galileans are fabricated. It refers to the fabrication (lie) told by the Galileans.

ynquirer · 01-30-2010, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Emperor Julian did.

Source? I think you will find that Julian described Jesus as an ordinary Galilean.

I regret to disagree. You relieve Julian to be a far less intelligent man than he actually was. A skilled Platonist as he was, Julian’s position is rather close to what Earl Doherty has contended for recently.

Julian begins his Against the Galileans with a theory of myth making. Although he speaks of Moses and Jesus as real people, it is only too clear that he does not more believe they were so than he does of Achilles and Heracles. He, for instance, says:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Yet Jesus, who won over the least worthy of you, has been known by name for but little more than three hundred years: and during his lifetime he accomplished nothing worth hearing of, unless anyone thinks that to heal crooked and blind men and to exorcise those who were possessed by evil demons in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany can be classed as a mighty achievement.

If you don’t catch the irony in this paragraph, you urgently need some lectures on rhetoric.

What Julian does in his AG is nothing other than an argument a fortiori. In other words, though he believes nothing of the narrative of the Christians, he deals with it as it were true. For that he seeks not truth, but intelligent myth making. And in this he finds the Christians to fall short of the task, as showing – or believing to show – how stupid they are.

aa5874 · 01-30-2010, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

aa - this is basic English. The "fabrication of the Galileans" does not mean that the Galileans are fabricated. It refers to the fabrication (lie) told by the Galileans.

So, what does "fabrication" mean in English?

Please read the passage again. It did not say the Galileans fabricated a lie.

It clearly stated the Galileans were fabricated.

Perhaps you don't understand basic English.

Quote:

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Now, please tell me the truth about Jesus the Galilean according to Julian. Did Julian claim that Jesus the Galilean lied about his birth or is it the "men" who fabricated the birth of Jesus the Galilean?

What lies did Jesus the Galilean himself fabricate in "Against the Galileans"?

This is Julian on Jesus the Galilean

"Against the Galileans"

Quote:

But it is very clear that not one of these sayings relates to Jesus; for he is not even from Judah. How could he be when according to you he was not born of Joseph but of the Holy Spirit? For though in your genealogies you trace Joseph back to Judah, you could not invent even this plausibly....

Julian has established that Jesus the Galilean was a fabrication, an invention of YOU men. Jesus the Galilean, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, was the fabrication of fiction and wickedness.

See http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/more...ans_1_text.htm

Solo · 01-30-2010, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The sort of unresolved question was whether Eusebius meant falsehood or fiction (i.e. a story that everyone knew was just a story.)

Since in that section of the book he is discussing the use of stories and parables in the bible for people too stupid to understand philosophy, and language such as "God getting angry", it seems fairly clear that he means "fiction" (i.e. stories). The alternative we are supposed to believe -- that Eusebius is calling the bible a "falsehood" -- requires rather more evidence than one interpretation of a dodgy heading in the middle of a very long book about how Greek teaching parallels that of the bible. The phrase "quote-mining" comes to mind.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Good try, Roger but no cigar. If the scholarly view of Eusebius' PE remarks as inspired by Origen's Homilies on Jeremiah, prevails - and I don't see why it should give quarter to pious wishful thinking, then it is clear that the bishop believed in the idea of a noble lie. You will not wriggle out of it. See Andrew's post quoting the Homilies.

Best,
Jiri

PhilosopherJay · 01-30-2010, 12:44 PM

Hi Ynquirer,

Thank you for pointing out this interesting passage.

In it, Josephus is addressing troops loyal to three factions which have taken over Jerusalem: He gives a description of exactly who these factions were in 5.6.1:

Quote:

1. NOW the warlike men that were in the city, and the multitude of the seditious that were with Simon, were ten thousand, besides the Idumeans. Those ten thousand had fifty commanders, over whom this Simon was supreme. The Idumeans that paid him homage were five thousand, and had eight commanders, among whom those of greatest fame were Jacob the son of Sosas, and Simon the son of Cathlas. John, who had seized upon the temple, had six thousand armed men under twenty commanders; the zealots also that had come over to him, and left off their opposition, were two thousand four hundred, and had the same commander that they had formerly, Eleazar, together with Simon the son of Arinus. Now, while these factions fought one against another, the people were their prey on both sides, as we have said already; and that part of the people who would not join with them in their wicked practices were plundered by both factions.

The three leaders of the rebellion were Simon of Gerasa (a Greco-Roman city), the son of Gioras, The Galilean John of Gishala, son of Levi, and, Eleazar, son of Simon. Josephus describes an early action of Simon of Gerasa this way (2:22.1):

Quote:

Simon, the son of Gioras, got a great number of those that were fond of innovations together, and betook himself to ravage the country; nor did he only harass the rich men's houses, but tormented their bodies, and appeared openly and beforehand to affect tyranny in his government

Josephus describes these people as tyrants, innovators and zealots. Josephus also talks about Idumeans, these were people from the south who were associated with Esau, the twin brother of Jacob/Israel. They apparently came into the city with Simon and were responsible for killing the high priests, including Ananus (4:5.2):

Quote:

2. But the rage of the Idumeans was not satiated by these slaughters; but they now betook themselves to the city, and plundered every house, and slew every one they met; and for the other multitude, they esteemed it needless to go on with killing them, but they sought for the high priests, and the generality went with the greatest zeal against them; and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun. I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city.

It is to these zealots, innovators and Idumeans that Josephus addresses his speech in 5:4.9. The speech criticizes war-like actions and reaffirms that Jews are specially protected by God.

Quote:

"O miserable creatures! are you so unmindful of those that used to assist you, that you will fight by your weapons and by your hands against the Romans? When did we ever conquer any other nation by such means? and when was it that God, who is the Creator of the Jewish people, did not avenge them when they had been injured?"

"Will not you recall to mind the prodigious things done for your forefathers and this holy place, and how great enemies of yours were by him subdued under you? "

He gives five examples of how the Jews did not use violence and depended on God and were victorious:

Quote:

"Pharaoh; he came with a prodigious army of soldiers, and seized queen Sarah, the mother of our nation. What did Abraham our progenitor then do?... spread out his hands towards this holy place, which you have now polluted, and reckoned upon him as upon his invincible supporter, instead of his own army. Was not our queen sent back, without any defilement, to her husband, the very next evening? - while the king of Egypt fled away.."

"shall I mention the removal of our fathers into Egypt, who, (17) when they were used tyrannically, and were fallen under the power of foreign kings for four hundred ears together, and might have defended themselves by war and by fighting, did yet do nothing but commit themselves to God!"

"did not Palestine groan under the ravage the Assyrians made, when they carried away our sacred ark? as did their idol Dagon, and as also did that entire nation of those that carried it away, how they were smitten with a loathsome distemper in the secret parts of their bodies,...It was God who then became our General, and accomplished these great things for our fathers, and this because they did not meddle with war and fighting, but committed it to him to judge about their affairs."

"When Sennacherib, king of Assyria, brought along with him all Asia, and encompassed this city round with his army, did he fall by the hands of men? were not those hands lifted up to God in prayers, without meddling with their arms, when an angel of God destroyed that prodigious army in one night?"

"at Babylon, where the people were captives for seventy years; yet were they not delivered into freedom again before God made Cyrus his gracious instrument in bringing it about; accordingly they were set free by him, and did again restore the worship of their Deliverer at his temple. And, to speak in general, we can produce no example wherein our fathers got any success by war, or failed of success when without war they committed themselves to God.

"

He then gives four examples of times when Jews took up arms and did not depend on God and were defeated in battle:

Quote:

"king Zedekiah fought against him, contrary to what predictions were made to him by Jeremiah the prophet, he was at once taken prisoner"

"when Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes, lay before this city, and had been guilty of many indignities against God, and our forefathers met him in arms, they then were slain in the battle, this city was plundered by our enemies, and our sanctuary made desolate for three years and six months."

"Whence did our servitude commence? Was it not derived from the seditions that were among our forefathers, when the madness of Aristobulus and Hyrcanus, and our mutual quarrels, brought Pompey upon this city, and when God reduced those under subjection to the Romans who were unworthy of the liberty they had enjoyed? After a siege, therefore, of three months, they were forced to surrender themselves,"

"Do not we know what end Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, came to, under whose reign God provided that this city should be taken again upon account of the people's offenses? When Herod, the son of Antipater, brought upon us Sosius, and Sosius brought upon us the Roman army, they were then encompassed and besieged for six months, till, as a punishment for their sins, they were taken, and the city was plundered by the enemy. Thus it appears that arms were never given to our nation, but that we are always given up to be fought against, and to be taken; for I suppose that such as inhabit this holy place ought to commit the disposal of all things to God, and then only to disregard the assistance of men when they resign themselves up to their Arbitrator, who is above"

Finally, after reminding them that historically non-fighting will bring Jews success and fighting will bring defeat, he declares their last chance to surrender:

Quote:

However, there is a place left for your preservation, if you be willing to accept of it; and God is easily reconciled to those that confess their faults, and repent of them. O hard-hearted wretches as you are! cast away all your arms, and take pity of your country already going to ruin; return from your wicked ways, and have regard to the excellency of that city which you are going to betray, to that excellent temple with the donations of so many countries in it. Who could bear to be the first that should set that temple on fire? who could be willing that these things should be no more? and what is there that can better deserve to be preserved? O insensible creatures, and more stupid than are the stones themselves! And if you cannot look at these things with discerning eyes, yet, however, have pity upon your families, and set before every one of your eyes your children, and wives, and parents, who will be gradually consumed either by famine or by war.

This speech is obviously not anti-Jewish in any way. It is simply reminding the zealots, foreigners (Idumeans) and innovators that Jews have been successful by depending on God, rather than fighting wars.

This speech confirms that the gospels' doctines of innovation to traditoinal Jewish laws would have been anathema to Josephus, a devout, traditional Jewish Priest.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi ynquirer,

Can you cite these paragraphs or chapters that contain these invectives against the Jewish leadership? I don't recall them offhand. What is the "misconception" you refer to in your second proposition?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Josephus’ defeatist speech before the walls of Jerusalem, WJ 5.9.4.

aa5874 · 01-30-2010, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

....This speech is obviously not anti-Jewish in any way. It is simply reminding the zealots, foreigners (Idumeans) and innovators that Jews have been successful by depending on God, rather than fighting wars......

But, was not Josephus himself actually fighting with the Jews against the Romans? So, how can he claim that it was better to depend on God?

It would appear that if Josephus was not captured that he would not have written such a speech. Josephus would still be killing or trying to kill Romans, and most likely would not have remembered or depended on God until the Romans were all dead.

It would appear that if the Jews had the upper hand in the War, Josephus may have happily and personally killed Vespasian and Titus if the opportunity did arise.

Josephus' written speech may have just been a fancy POW recantation or one of a traitor trying to secure his own life. After all Josephus wrote the speech after he was a POW.

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

01-29-2010, 06:57 PM	#75
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	aa - this is basic English. The "fabrication of the Galileans" does not mean that the Galileans are fabricated. It refers to the fabrication (lie) told by the Galileans.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.