Ted Hoffman

Ok CX,
So now I am not boring I am tedious. Has it ever occured to you that the two words are synonymous?

Anyway I've little interest in a flame war, but your continual claims of rebutted arguments etc. when you've done no such thing is irritating
So now I am irritating? Because as you say, I claim I have rebutted an argument while I have not.

In general I find your arguments to be barely coherent. Rarely do your conclusions follow from your premises. You say much without ever making your case
If only you could back up your claims. Provide an example.
Your failing to grasp my agrument does not necessarily mean my arguments are incoherent you know! It takes two people!

You are soundly rebutted and then claim victory or else you just "chuckle" and exit the discussion with nary a word. I refer you to our previous discussion regarding the authorial attributions of GMk and GLk
For anyone curious, this is <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000269&p=4" target="_blank">the thread</a> now from that thread, it is clear that I said:

CX,
Beautiful work. Now if only U had done that six posts earlier!
I rest my case.

This means:
1. I gave you credit for the good work you did in making your case or formulating your argument.
2. I had no more arguments (resting my case means I am bowing out of the discussion/ argument).

But of course you dont take good words too nicely so you responded:

What case?

And me, refusing to be drawn into a flame war just chuckled:

Chuckle, chuckle

Of course, I quit decently and you were bristling with anger that I did not stoop down to pick a fight with you. That is the anger that makes you label me as incoherent, boring and irritating. Its evidence that you have run out of ideas. You just want a dirty, low-down fight - a brawl.

Mind you, all I had done was tell you to back up your claims. That of course is incoherent to you.

In this thread, at least in your discussions with me, you have asserted that "Q" could derive from Mithraic influences or Homeric epics and have said not one thing to make any such connection whatsoever. All you've managed to show is that Judeo-Xian religious themes incorporate elements of other religions which was not in dispute.
This is what I said:

Intensity: The gospel of Q could well have been the Homeric Epics or books on Mythras

Is this what you call an assertion? I just suggested it was possible and I argued how it was possible.

You railed about how incoherent it was to say such a thing and I responded:

Intensity: Don't beat yourself to death about it. I said "Could have" (hence speculation) you have asserted "could not have". Its not incoherent. Its incorrect and I agree with you.

Do you see any signs of an assertion? Obviously I am not supposed to point at possibilities because you will turn them to assertions and pick a fight over them.

. I've strong doubts if you even fully understand what "Q" is
Your doubts are totally irrelevant to this discussion; even at this point.

If you want to keep up people's interest
Oh, so now you are "people"? Talk about delusions of grandeur! I am not interested in generating peoples interest. They have to do that themselves I am not an activist or lobbyst of some sort. All I want is to argue with people who are willing to walk the path of discussion.

Try to be more concise, follow the basic rules of logic and make a case for your position
If only you could support your claims. Am I still tedious? Please let me know. I don't want to waste time bothering to respond to your previous post only to have no counter-response.

I have made over 731 posts and you don't expect me to be swayed when you come here to claim that I am tedious and boring and irritating without demonstrating your claims. You really have some nerve!

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

CX

Heh. Fair enough. Guess I got a bit overzealous. I do that on a pretty regular basis it would seem. Nervy indeed am I. Evidently I have largely misunderstood you. My apologies. That being said, your "Q" = Mithraism argument is pretty damn weak so far. Since you don't seem to have all that much invested in it and since I don't have much further interest in it. I am happy to withdraw.

Ted Hoffman

Okay. I respect you for putting those sentiments as you have. Till we cross swords again.

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Iasion

Greetings Vinnie et al,

There are many reasons why a writer may mention Jesus - why did Josephus allegedly do so? why did Thallus allegedly do so?

The real issue is the CONSISTENCY of NO MENTION of Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospel events :

• Not a single 1st century Christian writer mentions Jesus of Nazareth or the Gospel events.
• No early-mid 1st century writer - i.e. those CONTEMPORARY with the alleged Jesus - mentions him or the Gospel events.
• No Roman writer from mid-late 1st century mentions Jesus or the early Christians - even in the very period Roman Christianity was said to be founded.

In short, of those who SHOULD and those who COULD mention Jesus, all do NOT.

It is sometimes claimed that we could hardly expect much mention of Jesus in such a sparcely recorded time.
Such a claim is false - this period was actually quite well recorded - yet not one writer shows any mention of Jesus of Nazareth or the early Christians. Of course quibbles can be made about each writer - the point is the overall picture which shows a historical Jesus of Nazareth to be UNKNOWN in the 1st century.

Because we have reviews of Justus's writing by Photius who complains that Jesus could not be found in this contemporary history of the very region where Jesus was said to be active.

And we know about Apollonius from later writers - and we can be almost certain that had Jesus and Apollonius met we would have heard of it.


Hmmm... I am referring to the evidence we have. But you seem to be arguing based on documents we DON'T have - are you claiming all the documents that support YOUR argument have been lost, but only the ones that support my views have survived? Shirley you can't be serious?


Indeed - that is why I carefully refer to "Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospel events" - of course the Logos Iesous Christos is mentioned in early 1st century.

But not a single 1st century writer mentions any historical details about Jesus of Nazareth or the Gospel events :

• No Virgin birth stories
• No Bethlehem
• No Magi
• No Nazareth
• No census
• No slaughter of the innocents
• No Mary or Joseph
• No teachings by Jesus
• No healings by Jesus
• No triumphal entry
• No Pilate
• No trial
• etc. etc..

All the 1st century references are to the spiritual Iesous Christos - the Logos in every human.

The stories about an actual person Jesus of Nazareth and the events surrounding his life, are all unknown in the 1st century.

Similarly, the Gospels are unknown in the 1st century.

And even the four Evangelists are unknown in the 1st century.

NO version of Jesus can be found in the 1st century except the Mythic Iesous Christos - the Logos.

My site lists a LARGE number of writers from many classes and subjects - NONE of them mention Jesus or the Gospel events - this consistency applies across the entire literature of the period.
It is FALSE to claim these are a small elite.


I present the evidence of all the writers of the period - do you really not see why a book on astronomical events, say, would mention the Gospel events if they really happened?

Do you really not see why a book on Stoic philosophy, say, would mentioned Jesus' teachings if they had really happened?

Of course you can quibble about each book - the point is the overall pattern - one of total and complete silence about Jesus and the Gospel events in the 1st century.


What on earth are you talking about?
If the darkness really happened then a book on astronomical events could obviously "reasonably be expected" to mention it - if it actually happened. If such a book did not mention it - it LESSENS our confidence that the event really happened.

When ALL such early books fail to mention anything about these events - both those who SHOULD have mentioned it, and those who COULD have - it strongly suggests such events did NOT happen.

The simple fact is that there is NO evidence for Jesus of Nazareth - its a myth.

Quentin David Jones

Tercel

The complaint of a lack of non-Christian references to Jesus, seems to me to be a rather ludicrous one.
Jesus was a comparatively minor religious upstart in a Jewish backwater that was always throwing up crazy cults. And after only a couple of years of teaching he got himself killed. He's an important figure to us, but to the writers of his day?
No early non-Christian writer makes references to Jesus. So what? Why should they have cared?

But what about Christianity? What about Paul?
The contempory writers should have mentioned Jesus if he existed, should they? Then surely they should also have mentioned Christianity? Surely they should have also have mentioned Paul?
I think I can safely assume that it's undisputed that both Paul and Christianity existed by 60AD. Christianity was a Roman-World-Wide movement, causing disputes among the Jews, and receiving persecution by the Romans. Paul, unlike Jesus, didn't just preach in a backwater for a couple of years, but preached across the Roman World for a decade. Paul, unlike Jesus wasn't killed in some remote backwater of the empire, but was (most probably) killed for his faith in Rome.
If Jesus was worth mentioning then how much more are Paul and Christianity worth mentioning?

As Iasion has pointed out:
"The first reliable early and vague references to Christianity... occur in early 2nd century:
* Pliny
* Tacitus (probably)
* Epictetus (maybe)
* Suetonius (maybe)
* Aelius Aristides (maybe)"

Even Christianity itself doesn't get a mention until the early second century. Yet we know it existed earlier. I don't know when the first non-Christian reference to Paul is (some homework for you guys), but I don't imagine it's particularly early.
My point being that we have absolutely no reason to find the lack of reference to Jesus worrying since there is an equal lack of reference to things that were more likely to be mentioned, and which we know existed.

Tercel

Iasion,
Um, doesn't every NT book mention Jesus? Don't the Gospels mention Gospel events? Don't numerous other NT books refer to the Crucifixion and Resurrection? Doesn't Paul quote sayings of Jesus and refer to Last Supper?
Care to qualify your statement?
If you mean Christian non-NT writer, doesn't that simply beg the question given that the number of surviving (non-NT) Christian writings from the 1st Century is so tiny?

What about Paul? Paul's letters from the 50s mention at least the Crucifixion, Resurrection, Last Supper and some teachings of Jesus.

Are you suggesting that Christianity didn't exist at that stage either?

No, in short those who should and could mention Jesus do. Others who might possibly have made mention of Jesus don't even bother to mention Christianity which certainly existed.

Yeah, by Josephus and some other historians living a couple of hundred years later whos statements you find it convenient to ignore.

I'm getting quite worried here... it seems you might be suggesting that Christianity didn't exist during this time period... are you crazy?

Except for GMark... and Q... and M... and L... and GJohn... and Paul's numerous writings... and most of the rest of the NT...

Paul's rather strange reference to Jesus as "born of a women" (Galatians 4:4) could conceivably be a reference to the Virgin birth.

Um, care to elaborate on that... novel... idea?

Yes the Gospels are not referenced in the 1st century by any of the incredibly small amount of Christian writings that survive from then, although there are a couple of possible quotes. However it's generally accepted even by the more radical thinkers that all the Gospels reached a reasonably complete form by the end of the first century. I see from your site you're even more radical, plus you naively assume that "not referenced" (by the tiny number of documents we possess) = nonexistent. Arguments from silence are almost the weakest form of argument. Arguments from silence that exists primarily because our lack of documents are absolutely worthless.

Are you aware of just how small a percentage of the Christian writings of that time survive to today? Even of the great Christian writers of the time (eg Origen who lived at the end of the 2nd Century), we posses only a tiny number of late manuscripts covering only a small proportion of their writings. Going back to Papias (c130AD) we possess nothing save a few quotes from Eusebius a few hundred years later.
Your arguments from silence are absurd. The silence is because of our lack of manuscripts. What writings we do have aren't helpful to your case either (eg on of the snippets from Papias mention the Gospel of Mark).

I think you're crazy. Looking at your site, the Mythic Iesous Christos you come up with seems to require significantly more gullability to believe in than Invisible Pink Unicorns or Santa.

Except for GMark, Q, L, M, Paul, the rest of the NT, Josephus, Tacitus, etc of course.
Celsus seemed to have no trouble believing in the historical Jesus despite writing a ptolemaic against Christianity in the 2nd Century. Try taking a piece out of his book. You don't have to be a Christian if you don't want to, but try not wasting everyone's time with absurd and way-out rubbish.

Ted Hoffman

Trecel,

Jesus was a comparatively minor religious upstart in a Jewish backwater that was always throwing up crazy cults. And after only a couple of years of teaching he got himself killed. He's an important figure to us, but to the writers of his day?
No early non-Christian writer makes references to Jesus. So what? Why should they have cared?
Are you telling us that someone who could heal the sick got no attention at all? Weren't there sick people seeking healing from all over the middle east? If it was just one of the "crazy cults", how many other known "crazy cults" existed then? How many other crazy cults claimed virgin birth, resurrection, messianic purpose, and all those miracles?

I think I can safely assume that it's undisputed that both Paul and Christianity existed by 60AD. Christianity was a Roman-World-Wide movement, causing disputes among the Jews, and receiving persecution by the Romans. Paul, unlike Jesus, didn't just preach in a backwater for a couple of years, but preached across the Roman World for a decade. Paul, unlike Jesus wasn't killed in some remote backwater of the empire, but was (most probably) killed for his faith in Rome.
If Jesus was worth mentioning then how much more are Paul and Christianity worth mentioning?

You missed the entire point. Existence of christianity and Paul are evidence of Paul and a belief respectively, not of a Historical Jesus.
We are concerned with the latter.

Even Christianity itself doesn't get a mention until the early second century. Yet we know it existed earlier
Thank you. Therefore the construction of a historical Jesus came later - meaning christianity developed without a historical Jesus they probably constructed a historical Jesus when people started questioning the basis of the faith.
Thus Jesus is a myth.

I don't know when the first non-Christian reference to Paul is (some homework for you guys), but I don't imagine it's particularly early.
Paul was Just a believer who spread the faith. He provides us with no historical information.

My point being that we have absolutely no reason to find the lack of reference to Jesus worrying since there is an equal lack of reference to things that were more likely to be mentioned, and which we know existed.
Like what? who else resurrected? who else had a virgin birth? who else claimed to be the son of God?

Um, doesn't every NT book mention Jesus? Don't the Gospels mention Gospel events? Don't numerous other NT books refer to the Crucifixion and Resurrection? Doesn't Paul quote sayings of Jesus and refer to Last Supper?
Care to qualify your statement?
The NT is not a historical book but a religious book. It is written by evangelists not historians.

What about Paul? Paul's letters from the 50s mention at least the Crucifixion, Resurrection, Last Supper and some teachings of Jesus.

Paul was a believer, he fails the bias test. We need historians.

No, in short those who should and could mention Jesus do. Others who might possibly have made mention of Jesus don't even bother to mention Christianity which certainly existed.

And how do you know christianity existed?

Yeah, by Josephus and some other historians living a couple of hundred years later whos statements you find it convenient to ignore.
The testimonium flavianum has been well refuted.

I'm getting quite worried here... it seems you might be suggesting that Christianity didn't exist during this time period... are you crazy?

You need to demonstrate that it indeed existed during that period.

Except for GMark... and Q... and M... and L... and GJohn... and Paul's numerous writings... and most of the rest of the NT

They are not of any historical value

Ted Hoffman

Tercel
...are you crazy?
...Your arguments from silence are absurd.
...I think you're crazy. Looking at your site, the Mythic Iesous Christos you come up with seems to require significantly more gullability to believe in than Invisible Pink Unicorns or Santa.
...You don't have to be a Christian if you don't want to, but try not wasting everyone's time with absurd and way-out rubbish.

What a persuasive argument you have made Tercel! Bravo!

Iasion

Greetings Tercel,

Hmm...
Perhaps you didn't actually READ my posts - you seem to have missed the CRUCIAL distinction between Jesus of Nazareth and Iesous Christos the Logos.

Yes,
the NT epistles mention Iesous Christos - in high spiritual terms with NO historical setting - no dates, names, or places.

But no,
the NT epistles do NOT mention Jesus of Nazareth - i.e. the words "Nazareth", "Mary", "Joseph", "Bethlehem", "Pilate", etc. are NOT mentioned by any 1st century author.

If you really don't understand this distinction then you are ill-equipped to discuss this issue.


So what?

• The Gospels are not even MENTIONED until early-mid 2nd century,
• The Gospels are not cited until mid 2nd century
• The Gospels are not Numbered until c.172
• The Gospels are not Named until c.185
• The Gospels are full of midrash and myth
• The Gospels are wildly at variance with each other
• There were many other Gospels, all different

Explain why YOU think the Gospels are historical proof for events in 1st century?

Yes, a few, in high spiritual terms - WITHOUT a single historical reference.

Actually No,
Paul attributes his teachings to personal revelations or to God - he does NOT explicitly cites teachings or sayings to Jesus. I'm starting to wonder if you have actually researched any of this?

Yes,
he does refer to the Last Supper, but :

• Its DIFFERENT to the Gospel versions
• He provides no setting - time, place, names - he could just have easily mean in the upper realms
• It may be an interpolation

I just don't see it carries much weight.

Yes, in a large body of writings - he includes a TINY number of high spiritual references which MAY be interpreted as historical - but he does NOT give ANY details that we normally consider history.

Furthermore, his statements make much more sense when considered as spiritual allegory - consider his statements about :

• being crucified to the world
• his old man being crucified with Christ

Now these cannot mean a literal crucifixion can they? So you are forced to interpret SOME of his statements as allegory, and some as literal - and Christian apologists do this because they start by assuming he means a literal crucifixion - essentially this is special pleading for YOUR preferred belief.

No,
I am arguing that the traditional view of 1st century Christianity is actually based on myth - we see no evidence for Jesus of Nazareth, weak evidence for Paul, almost none for the 12 apostles - and no 1st century evidence for Roman Christianity. Only LATER writings mention any of this.

Hmm.. you really haven't even read my post have you? nor researched this at all...

Here is a fairly complete list of 1st century writers :

• Philo Judaeus
• Apollonius of Tyana
• Justus of Tiberias
• Marcus Manilius
• Velleius Paterculus
• Quintus Curtius Rufus
• Marcus/Lucius Annaeus Seneca
• Pomponius Mela
• Lucius Annaeus Seneca
• C. Musonius Rufus
• Marcus Annaeus Lucanus
• Aulus Persius Flaccus
• Petronius Arbiter
• Hero(n) of Alexandria
• Geminus
• Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella
• Cleomedes
• Dioscorides
• Plutarch of Chaeronea
• Dio Chrysostom
• Pliny the Elder
• Marcus Fabius Quintilianus
• Publius Papinius Statius
• Dio of Prusa
• Silius Italicus
• Sextus Julius Frontinus
• Marcus Valerius Martialus
• Josephus (Flavianus)

None of them mentions Jesus Christ or the Gospel events or early Roman Christianity - and this list doesn't include the early 2nd century writers who ALSO make no mention.

What on earth are you on about?
What do writers from centuries afterwards have to prove about Jesus?
Who did I ignore?

Hmm..
It appears you just don't understand the issues - and your emotive personal attacks suggest you really have no argument to make.

No,
The Gospels are unknown in the 1st century,
Q is lost,
Paul and the NT epistles have NO mention of the historical Jesus of Nazareth - just the spiritual being Iesous Christos.

Do you actually have any evidence to adduce?


Yes, it could be - but your whole argument is based on such "could be"s - you cannot produce a single piece of hard evidence to support the existance of Jesus of Nazareth.

And anyway - Hercules was "born of woman" and we even know her name - more than we know from Paul who gives no historical details, just high spiritual allegory - do you conclude Hercules was real? or William Tell? or Roland? or Ichabod Crane?


Me:
I have expounded at length and often on this subject - if you really want to understand this idea you need to actually do some background research - start with :

• The Nag Hammadi Library
• Cicero's Dream of Scipio
• The Nassenne Psalm
• Philo Judeus
• Plutatch's On the Delay of Divine Justice
• The Ascension of Isaiah 2
• the Kabalah

In short, seekers just before and contemporary to Paul allegorize the soul as being "dead" in our life - and returning to life when we die. This soul was said to be "pinned" to the body by passions and lusts. Paul seems to have married this idea with the Logos, the first emanation of the God-head, called the Son-of-god, and to have used the word "crucify" to refer to this death, or possibly to refer to rising above the passions (c.f. Clement's EXPLICIT comment that "crucify" MEANS to loose oneself from the passions).

Paul even explicitly says the secret is "Christ in you".

Incredibly small? here is the list:

• 1 Thessalonians,
• 1 Corinthians,
• 2 Corinthians,
• Galatians,
• Romans,
• Philippians,
• Philemon
• Hebrews
• Colossians
• James
• 1 John
• 2 Thessalonians
• Ephesians
• 1 Peter
• Revelation
• 1 Clement

I do not call 16 books, hundreds of chapters, to be incredibly small.

Furthermore, this list covers the ENTIRETY of the NT not counting the Gospels - and NONE of these writings shows ANY knowledge of the Gospel or the stories there-in. Did you really mean to call the WHOLE New Testament (minus the Gospels) "incredibly small" ?

Another "possible" - showing just how weak your case really is. There are NO clear quotes of the Gospels in any 1st century Christian writer.

Wrong,
I ARGUE at length that Jesus was not historical based on the evidence that we have. Are you really claiming the ENTIRE New Testament, less the Gospels, is a "tiny number of documents" ?

How do you explain that even Christians in the forming years of Christianity MAKE NO MENTION of Jesus of Nazareth or the Gospels events?
Do you actually have any arguments to adduce?

The argument from silence is entirely valid when the silence is so pervasive, and especially when supported by the obvious mythic and midrashic elements in the Gospels.


Absolute poppycock!
We have MANY documents from early Christianity - the 16 NT non-G documents and a few more:

• Jude
• the Didakhe
• Barnabas
• 2 John
• 3 John

How on earth can you claim that the the entire corpus of the first twenty-one documents of Christianity are "a lack of documents" ?
Seriously, I don't think you actually know what you are talking about.

How do explain that NOT A SINGLE ONE of the first twenty-one documents of Christianity has any clear evidence for Jesus of Nazareth or the Gospels or the events there-in?

21 documents is not a "lack"

Wrong,
In fact Papias' comments directly support my case -

• he emphasises the importance of the Oral tradition over the written, suggesting the Gospels were new and still not fully accepted
• he explains that Mark was NOT an eye-witness (as do other early Fathers)
• he refers to a Hebrew Matthew that is not like ours today, showing the Gospels were still in development

Hmm...
Your childish and emotive comments show just how little actual arguments you have.

Again, this shows you have not understood the issues or researched the facts - only 2 of those are demonstrable 1st century documents (Paul and Josephus) - Paul has NO mention of Jesus of Nazareth, and Josephus is a forgery. Tacitus repeats Christian beliefs from 80 years after the events, and etc. is much too late to be real evidence.


Well,
that is 180-degrees, totally, completely 100% wrong !
Celsus explicitly denied that Jesus was historical - he wrote : Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"

Again, you prove to us all that you are totally un-aware of the facts.

Furthermore,
he was not the only one to doubt a historical Jesus :

• Trypho seems to have argued that Jesus was unknown to history
• Porphyry also wrote against the historical Jesus in Against the Christians : " the evangelists were inventors – not historians "
• Julian wrote : "why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice "

Not to mention various early Christian groups who did not believe in a Jesus "of the flesh" as shown by 1 and 2 John.

Well,
I think we have all seen who is wasting our time - considering your woeful knowledge of the facts, your general lack of understanding of the issues, and your childish recourse to silly personal attacks.

Quentin David Jones

[fixed some tyopes [ 8^)&gt;
[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Iasion ]

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Iasion ]</p>

Alexis Comnenus

Quentin,

I'm afraid I have to ask if you are being totally honest here. I assume you haven't read Against Celsus or you would know your quotation is highly misleading. <a href="http://www.bluffton.edu/~humanities/1/celsus.htm" target="_blank">Here are Celsus's words</a> cut from Origen. As you can see he doesn't remotely suggest Jesus never lived but does say the virgin birth is a fabrication.

Also, you are misquoting or misusing the other pagans you mention as none of whom claim Jesus did not exist. They say that the Gospels contain untruths but that is a much lesser claim.

The Gospels are first century and your arguments they are not are just from silence. As Tercel said, you explain away the evidence and then declare there isn't any. Your argument that the Romans should have mentioned Jesus has been totally debunked many times and you simply refuse to listen. Christianity was a tiny irrelevant eastern cult - NO ONE CARED!!!!! You are incapable of getting out of your anachronistic mind set where Christianity is important. You can supply a list of authors as long as my arm - it isn't going to do your argument a blind bit of good because in 100AD there were so few Christians (less than 10,000 according to Keith Hopkins, in an Empire of 50 million) we do not expect them to be mentioned. The evidence is EXACTLY what we expect.

Also to claim Josephus for your list without comment is dishonest as is including Hero who wrote about Hydrolics. Frontinus wrote about drains. I can't even be bothered to look the others up.

As you've been told before, read the documents in context, stop pruning quotes out of context, read some serious scholarship and listen to CX even if you won't believe what we Christians have to say to you.

Yours

Alex

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Alexis Comnenus ]</p>