Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Metacrock · 01-21-2002, 04:32 PM

About this Virgin Birth issue. Since I know most of you wont click on a link here is what I have on it on my site. Now in addition to these general comments I also find from my own research in real mythology books (that is one's written for just the myths not to debunck Christianity or to support the Christ-myther thing) the following figures cannot be said to actually be born of a virigin:

Attis
Mithra
Hercules
Osiris
Buddah
Krishna

These general comments are from my website, I researched them and I wrote them.

) "They were born of Virgins" actually none of them were.

This is a tricky one. Some of these figures were not even claimed to have been produced by Virgins. Others, it depends. That is, none of them were produced without the benefit of sexual contact. For some, such as Herakles that contact came between the mother and god, the mother may never have "known" a mortal man, and so in a technical sense is a 'virgin' but she not conceived without benefit of sexual contact. Jesus Christ was so conceived. The notion of the "Virginal conception" does not say that God was Mary's lover, Mary did not have sex with God, when the Holy Spirit "came upon her" it was more like artificial insemination, not sexual contact. And none of these "saviors" were touted as products of "virginal conceptions" as part of their theological doctrine.

In Raymond E. Brown's highly respected work on the Birth Narratives of Jesus, he evaluates these non-Christian "examples" of virgin births and his conclusions are as follows:

"Among the parallels offered for the virginal conception of Jesus have beneath conceptions of figures in world religions (the Buddha, Krishna, and those of Zoroaster), in Greco-Roman mythology (Presses, Romulus), in Egyptian and Classical History (the Pharaohs, Alexander, Augusts), and among famous philosophers or religious thinkers (Plato, Apologias of Tyana), to name only a few.
"Are any of these divinely engendered births really parallel to the non-sexual virginal conception of Jesus described in the NT, where Mary is not impregnated by a male deity or element, but the child is begotten through the creative power of the Holy Spirit? These "parallels"consistently involve a type of hieros gamos (note: "holy seed" or "divinesemen") where a divine male, in human or other form, impregnates a woman,either through normal sexual intercourse or through some substitute form of penetration. In short, there is no clear example of virginal conception in world or pagan religions that plausibly could have given first-century Jewish Christians the idea of the virginal conception of Jesus."[The Birth of the Messiah, by Raymond E. Brown, Doubleday: 1993: 522-523]

From a much less sympathetic perspective, the history-of-religions scholar David Adams Lemming (writing in EOR, s.v. "Virgin Birth") begins his articleby pointing out that all 'virgin births' are NOT necessarily such:

"A virgin is someone who has not experienced sexual intercourse, and a virgin birth, or parthenogenesis (Gr., parthenos, "virgin"; genesis,"birth"), is one in which a virgin gives birth. According to this definition, the story of the birth of Jesus is a virgin birth story whereas the birth of the Buddha and of Orphic Dionysos are not. Technically what isat issue is the loss or the preservation of virginity during the process of conception. The Virgin Mary was simply "found with child of the Holy Ghost "before she was married and before she had "known" a man. So, too, did the preexistent Buddha enter the womb of his mother, but since she was already a married woman, there is no reason to suppose she was a virgin at the time. In the Orphic story of Dionysos, Zeus came to Persephone in the form of aserpent and impregnated her, so that the maiden's virginity was technically lost."

The example of Buddah:

Glenn Miller, Christian Think Tank on the specifics of Buddha,

Quote:

Buddha was born of the virgin Maya. [We have already seen the radical differences here, and the data that his mom was married before his conception counts against the factuality of this. There ARE later traditions, however, that assert that she had taken vows of abstinence even during her marriage (a bit odd?), but it can be understood (so in EOR) to refer only to the time of that midsummer festival. The first and finest biography of the Buddha, written by Ashvaghosha in the 1st century, called the Buddhacarita ("acts of the Buddha") gives a rather strong indication of her non-virgin status in canto 1: "He [the king of the Shakyas] had a wife,splendid, beautiful, and steadfast, who was called the Great Maya, from her resemblance to Maya the Goddess. These two tasted of love's delights, andone day she conceived the fruit of her womb, but without any defilement, inthe same way in which knowledge joined to trance bears fruit. Just beforeher conception she had a dream." (Buddhist Scriptures, Edward Conze,Penguin:1959.:35)

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Mythological_Jesus.htm" target="_blank">Mythological Jesus</a>

<a href="http://pub18.ezboard.com/bhavetheologywillargue" target="_blank">Have Theology, Will Argue</a>

Metacrock · 01-21-2002, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RyanS2:

In the writings of Josephus, we find accounts of a number of Jesuses.... None of them were crucified, a death which was generally only done to political enemies of the Roman government. Why would a group of Jews, executing what was supposed to be an unknown Jew, preaching in a remote area of the World, for any reason?

MEta=-> Because the Jews had lost the power to do captial punishment, and they had to go through the Romans. Moreover, that's why they had to appeal to his statements of being "kind of the Jews" to make him guilty of sedition against Rome. Now that argument falls on empirical grounds, in fact is self defeating, since Jospheus mentions crucifiction Jews several times and we have tons of historical examples of Jews being curcified.

Quote:

Concerning the Virgin Birth Status of Jesus being associated with the Old Testament, Jewish authorities actually deny it:

<a href="http://www.outreachjudaism.com/alma.htm" target="_blank">http://www.outreachjudaism.com/alma.htm</a>

Meta =>Problematic. Turns on the issue of wheather Alma means "virgin" or "young woman." But, Edersheim shows us in Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah that the Talmudists understood the passage in Is. 7 to refur to the Messiah! (see my huge tome above). Moreover (same source) also shows that some Rabbinical scholars placed an interpritation upon Genesis 3 about the seed of the woman that it comes from God and is somehow miraculous. (see above also). The issue of Alama (the word trans "virign" in Is 7) I think can be put to rest in two ways:

1) all the words pertaining to sex and young women in that era applied to the age and not the sex. So it wasnt' so much that she had not had sex but that she was of a young marragable age.But it could go either way. Alma can imply a virigin even though technically it means "young woman." The word for "virigin" Balahu (sp) was also used of married women and mothers of that age. So there is no hard and fast use of these terms.

2) the Greek translation in the LXX used Parthenos for that passage, which definatly means "virigin."

<a href="http://pub18.ezboard.com/bhavetheologywillargue" target="_blank">Have Theology, Will Argue</a>

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]

Haran · 01-21-2002, 05:01 PM

Quote:

[/qb]There is more than one reference. The one you are referring to is the Toldoth Jesu . While it may have been written ~500, there is a quote from Celsus that implies he has at least knew the story presented by the Toldoth Jesu, and Celsus was writting around 170.[/qb]

You are correct in the reference I was referring to. However, I'm not familiar with Celsus "implying" that he knew the Talmudic story. Could you provide a referece? The following is the closest I could find in the work, and it seems to me to say that Celsus believes Jesus was hung on a cross:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04166.htm" target="_blank">Contra Celsus</a>
Book VI Chapter XXXIV
"After finishing the foregoing, and those analogous matters which we ourselves have added, Celsus continues as follows: "They continue to heap together one thing after another,--discourses of prophets, and circles upon circles, and effluents from an earthly church, and from circumcision; and a power flowing from one Prunicos, a virgin and a living soul; and a heaven slain in order to live, and an earth slaughtered by the sword, and many put to death that they may live, and death ceasing in the world, when the sin of the world is dead; and, again, a narrow way, and gates that open spontaneously. And in all their writings (is mention made) of the tree of life, and a resurrection of the flesh by means of the 'tree,' because, I imagine, their teacher was nailed to a cross..."

Quote:

There are also separate references to the death of Yeshu ben Stada in Lud, and another reference to Yeshu the Nazarine, both killed (stoned and hung on a tree) on the eve of Passover. One of these is tenatively dated around 110-95BCE, but I don't think that rules it out entirely. An earlier Jesus could still be a basis for mythmaking.

Please, please give references... I don't believe that I have heard of these either, or at least not their early dating.

Quote:

I will also remind you of this verse:
quote:Acts 5: 30: "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree."

This quote was directed towards the Sanhedrin, the Jewish legal body, who would have carried out a death sentance according to Jewish law, not Roman.

The phrase "hanged on a tree" is known through ancient Jewish references to also refer to crucifixion, so this doesn't do much for me.

Quote:

Convincing? Maybe not. But the point is not that any of this is hard evidence, but part of a large collection. "Preponderance of the evidence"

The "preponderance of circumstantial evidence" thing could go both ways in my opinion...

Haran

Asha'man · 01-21-2002, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock:
 MEta=-> Because the Jews had lost the power to do captial punishment, and they had to go through the Romans.

According to The Jewish Encyclopedia, in the article on �Adultery�, the Sanhedrin was allowed to enforce capital punishment until the year 40, when the Romans took it away from them. Also check out The Trial and Death of Jesus by Hiram Cohn, pp96. He says that at the time in question, �the Sanhedrin did carry out capital sentences itself.�

Since the gospels were written a good bit after the year 40, they reflect the mistaken belief you just stated. Take a look at the response to Pilate in John 18:31.

-DM- · 01-21-2002, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock:
Because the Jews had lost the power to do captial punishment, and they had to go through the Romans.

Not necessarily true according to what I have read. Books such as "The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth" by S.G.F. Brandon, "The Death of Jesus" by Joel Carmichael, and "Who Crucified Jesus" by Solomon Zeitlan, point out that the Jews did in fact have the right at the time to carry out the death penalty against their own people for their own reasons and that they sometimes did so.

There are many problems with the story of Jesus alleged hearing/trial. As Michael Grant puts it in his "Jesus: An Historian's Approach to the Gospels": "The story is told variously by the evangelists, and the discrepancies have formed the theme of many books." [p. 156]

As stated in "The Search of the Historical Jesus": "Pontius Pilate would never order anyone to be put to death because of a religious matter; it would have to be a civil or military threat to prompt the Judean procurator to order the death sentence." [p. 92]

As Voltaire points out, there is no known tangible evidence that a trial before Pontius Pilate ever occurred -- Pontius Pilate seems not to have mentioned it nor does it appear in his court records.

And according to "Isrealis, Jews and Jesus," none of the four Gospels shows Jesus to have committed blasphemy under Jewish law. Neither the claim to be Messiah nor the claim to be a Son of God or The Son of God -- if he ever made such claims -- were considered to be blasphemy or capital offenses under Jewish law. [p. 47, p. 96]

Thus, I don't think that we really have much of an idea of what the charges were and what really happened. The thinking is that Jesus likely got himself in trouble with the Roman authorities for alleged insurrection or some such but that it would have bben dangerous in Gospel times to lay the responsibility for his execution squarely on the Roman authorities, thus the involvement by the Gospelists of the Jewish authorities/Sanhedrin.

--Don--

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Don Morgan ]

Asha'man · 01-21-2002, 05:31 PM

Haran,

For Jewish quotes that may refer to Jesus, check out these:
<a href="http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fccat.sas.upenn.edu%2 F%7Ehumm%2FTopics%2FJewishJesus%2F" target="_blank"> Ancient Jewish Accounts of Jesus</a>
<a href="http://biology.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html" target="_blank">MYTH OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS</a>

These have date references with them, but I know I found another source originally, which I will look for.

As for a Celsus reference to the Toldoth Jesu, I have an indirect reference, but haven�t yet followed up on the source.

Quote:

Robert Sheaffer, in The Making of the Messiah, writes 
But the Toldoth clearly draws upon material that is far older still. Voltaire mentions this work both in his Philosophical Dictionary,(3) and in his Letter Concerning the Jews. Voltaire says that the second-century Roman writer Celsus cites the Toldoth �with confidence.� This is not correct. While Celsus� arguments against Christianity parallel those in the Toldoth�Celsus states that he is telling us the facts that are known among the Jews�we do not know whether Celsus actually read that work, or possibly a predecessor to it, since none of the works of Celsus have survived (except what is quoted by Origen, attempting to refute him), undoubtedly because they were �heretical� in the extreme. What we can say with confidence is that much of the material now in the Toldoth was known to Celsus around the year 170.

(3) Voltaire, Dictionnaire philosophique (1764), s.v. �Messie� (Messiah) and �Christianisme.�

(added 2nd web page link)

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Asha'man ]

-DM- · 01-21-2002, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock:
O come on Don, you can think better than that!

Oh come on Metacrock, you can think better than that. By this time you should know that it is one of the most basic and ignorant of reasoning errors to state with certainty what never happened in the life of someone as legendary as Jesus.

Quote:

Obviously I can't know that Jesus never had children, ....

That isn't the only thing that you claimed that he never did. Nor is this the first time that you have claimed to know what never happened. You need to stop repeating common reasoning errors if you hope to be convincing.

Quote:

... but since it isn't recorded in the Gospels you can't use it for the list because it's not listed as anything that is part of the story.

Look, Meta, either you do or do not think that the Gospels are accurate, infallible, plenary. Since you have clearly stated that they are not, then you need to stop using them to try to prove what did or did not happen.

Quote:

With that kind of thinking you can prove anything, no evidence for it, just assert we can't know it isn't true so it could be thus it is.

With your kind of thinking -- picking and choosing from the Bible what you will and won't believe even though you consider it not infallible, not plenary -- you can, and do, believe whatever you want to believe. Remember, I'm not making any claim about whether Jesus did or didn't have kids or anything else, but you are making a claim as to what never happened, what he never did, and it wasn't just that he had no kids.

Quote:

You can only use things on the list that are clealry in the Gosples, that's the point! Come on man, that's just wasting our time to argue that way.

Funny, but my opinion is that YOU are wasting both your time and ours with your wishy-washy, liberal theology, picking and choosing what you wish from the Bible and from the writings of various liberal theologians as to what you will believe.

--Don--

GunnerJ · 01-21-2002, 05:42 PM

Quote:

John F. Kennedy was the son of a rich and powerful man, his mother was the daughter of a rich and powerful family, he went off to war and had adventrues, retured, ruled and passed laws that were good, he was killed on a hill (well a grassy knole) and many myths and legonds have sprung up about his death. He wasn't exactly the product of a virigin birth, but hey we can assume his ma was a virgin until her wedding night, like 90% of the mothers in mythology, so does that mean he's a myth?

VERY sloppy, Meta! You've taken a few points and ignored the majority. Interestingly, these are the points you consider problematic for the Jesus myth theory, although the other points, which you have not contested and many of which do fit Jesus, you ignore in your assesment of JFK. Your misdirections are becoming an embarrassment.

Some comments and questions:

"Rich and powerful parents?" Not nearly close enough to royalty.
You say he "had adventures." Did any of them involve the slaying of a giant or dragon, as the scale details? You might have a better case if he was running against an incumabant; you could claim he defeated a king. However, Nixon was not president when JFK ran against him.
You say he "passed laws that were good." an decent parallel with point 15. But could you honestly say his reign was uneventful (point 14)?
Your history is garbled. He was killed on a road by a shooter on a grassy knole.
I am confused as to why you mention that "many myths... have sprung up about his death." This is not part of the scale.
We have no reason to assume anyhting about the chastity of JFK's mother when she was married, and the comparison to hero myths is spurious as many of these myth specifically mention the virgin status of the mother.
A few questions: Were JFK's parents related? Is there anyhting unusual about JFK's conception? Did anyone claim he was divine at the time? Were there any evil forces trying to kill the infant JFK, and if so, was he "spirited" to saftey and raised in another country? Do you know of any biography of JFK that doesn't tell us about his childhood until he "journeys to his future kingdom" (assuming he was raised somewhere besides America)? Was Jackie-O a princess? Was he unpopular in America before his death, or do you have evidence that God didn't like him? Was he "driven" from America? Have you ever been to JFK's grave in Arlington Cemetary? Do you know of any Holy Sepulchres that followed him? Why don't you deal with more of the elements than suit your conclusion, and even then do so sloppily?

Here's my score for JFK, feel free to comment, history buffs:

(1) The hero's mother is a royal virgin, while

-.25, she was of a "rich and powerful family," but we have no idea whether her hymen was intact at marraige, although it was DEFINATELY not at JFK's conception, as he has older siblings.

(2) his father is a king, and

-0, JFK's dad was a rum-runner.

(3) the father is related to the mother.

-0, as far as I know.

(4) The hero's conception is unusual or miraculous; hence

-0, unless Meta has something to bring to the table about JFK's conception.

(5) he is reputed to be a son of a god.

-0, I know Democrats gush about him now, but really.

(6) Evil forces attempt to kill the infant or boy hero, but

-0, unless some history buff tells me about mobsters trying to kill him.

(7) he is spirited away to safety and

-0, from above.

(8) reared by foster parents in a foreign land. Besides this,

-0, as far as I know, JFK was raised in America.

(9) we learn no details of his childhood until

-0, I'm sure plenty of biographies can tell us all about JFK's childhood.

(10) he journeys to his future kingdom, where

-0, Unless JFK was raised somewhere other than the U.S.A.

(11) he triumphs over the reigning king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast, and

-0, there might be a case here if Nixon was running for a second term, but he wasn't.

(12) marries a princess, often his predecessor's daughter, and

-0, unless someone can give me more insight into Jackie Onasis' background, and her relation to Good Old Ike.

(13) becomes king himself.

-1, he did become the president.

(14) For a while he reigns uneventfully,

-0, maybe I should brush up my history, but I don't think the Kennedy presidency was "uneventful."

(15) promulgating laws. But

-1, he passed laws. OK.

(16) he later loses favor with his subjects or
with the gods and

-0, possible .5 if someone can tell me if the polls were against him before he was killed.

(17) is driven from the throne and the city and

-0.

(18) meets with a mysterious death,

-1, need I go into detail?

(19) often atop a hill.

-0, see my reply.

(20) If he has children, they do not succeed him.

-.5, his children did succede him in many ways; none became President, but they were very politacal, and many met his fate. (The "Kennedy Curse.")

(21) His body is not buried, yet

-0, I've seen his grave.

(22) he has one or more holy sepulchers.

-0, unless you count the campaign propaganda that can be sold on e-bay for a pretty penny.

My score- 3.75. Nowhere near Jesus' 19. Sorry Meta. Good try though. Wait, I take that back.

lpetrich · 01-21-2002, 06:18 PM

Quote:

LP:
"The Christian God did not have sexual relations with that woman, Mary"

I chose that phrasing to evoke some well-known hairsplitting from a recent President, which is what that argument is. Hairsplitting.

Meta =>No kidding! :eek But no, it's not hairsplitting, it's crucial. The distinction makes all the difference. ...

The "virgin" part of "royal virgin" may be a misnomer here; I'd have to check Lord Raglan's original writings for why he uses that term. "Queen whose child is miraculously conceived" would express that part of the Mythic-Hero profile much better, but it's long-winded.

Quote:

Metacrock:
In the Isaiah 7 passage the sign is suppossedly that an actual virgin will have a kid, that makes it a miracle! ...

"Young woman" - in a passage quoted out of context in the NT; there are several other out-of-context quotes used as "prophecies" in the NT.

Quote:

LP:
Moses dies on top of Mt. Pisgah. - Deut 34:1-6

MEta=>Sheeeeeeeeeash! Moses was not a mythic hero! ...

Though Lord Raglan had used him as a source, he nevertheless fits the average profile very well.

Quote:

Metacrock:
Look either you are on raised ground of flat land.

Quote:

LP:
Hercules dies on top of Mt. Oeta. - <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/bio.html" target="_blank">http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/bio.html</a>

Meta =>That's just one version. ...

Meaning that he only half-fits.

Quote:

(On Lord Raglan...)
Meta =>When was he writting? Might as well base this on Bullfinch. Do you realize that this stuff was abandoned in the 19th century? When Freasure was discredited for the Golden Bough this kind of argument dropped out of real scholarship.

Explain how that discrediting had happened. One need not believe in mystical Jungian archetypes in order to recognize these strong plot similarities.

Quote:

Metacrock:
Jesus didnt' have children that is one of the things, although its admitted but since its in the list it helps create the impression that there are 19 things when really one of them doesn't count.

LP:
How doesn't it count?

Meta =>Are you kidding? He didn't have any. the thing says they have kids, he didn't have any. So obviously it doesn't apply to him!

It does -- read it again: his offspring, IF ANY, do not succeed him. To rephrase: his successors are not whatever offspring he might have, if any at all.

Quote:

(1) The hero's mother is a royal virgin, while
meta => What hero mother's are Royal virigins?

See above. I think that Lord Raglan may have used a misleading abbreviation, as it were.

Quote:

Meta:
First that raises the question was Mary a "Royal virign?" She wasn't in the line to accept the throne, that was Jo's line. Her line goes through Nathan so she wasn't eleigable. Just being a decendent of David doesn't make her Royal.

How does descent though Nathan make any difference? If we are to accept the Luke genealogy = Mary's hypothesis, that makes her a descendant of King David also.

Quote:

(2) his father is a king, and
Meta:
Jo wasn't a king. Just because he was in the line doesn't make him a king. ...

However, his royal ancestry is emphasized in the Gospels, as if it had great significance. So we can count this peasant (carpenter, actually) as an honorary king.

Quote:

(3) the father is related to the mother.
Meta:
Examples please? That is just added to make it seem closer.

Such close relationships exist in other hero myths; in the Joseph and Mary case, it is more distant: descent from King David.

Quote:

(4) The hero's conception is unusual or miraculous; hence
(5) he is reputed to be a son of a god.
Meta:
But most of the actual mthical stories only have an unusual concetion in that the woman is with a god. ...

Just like the virgin-birth story in the Gospels. Try again.

Quote:

(6) Evil forces attempt to kill the infant or boy hero, but
(7) he is spirited away to safety and
(8) reared by foster parents in a foreign land.
Meta:
O yea name three! Who else did this happen to? ...

Lots of other mythic heroes. Romulus and Remus, Krishna, Perseus, Moses, Hercules, ...

Quote:

Besides this,
(9) we learn no details of his childhood until
(10) he journeys to his future kingdom, where
Meta:
... It's also not hard to figure why they usually don't have details of childhood, because it's not important.

True, most childhoods are not very notable life periods, but this is significant if someone's infancy was described in gory detail. Why mention what someone was like as a baby while passing over what happened afterwards?

One problem with this criterion is that stories of childhood sometimes exist for some mythic heroes. However, they are usually stories of great precocity, as in the case of Jesus Christ (JC at the Temple, the noncanonical Infancy Gospel).

Quote:

Meta:
The ancient world was not into documentary, they didn't care about documenting every detail for posterity, they barely had a concept of history. ...

The next question is whether that is also true of the biographies of Jesus Christ.

Quote:

(11) he triumphs over the reigning king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast, and
Meta:
Jesus never did any of that.

However, he successfully resists some really big temptations that the Devil offers him, such as rule of all the kingdoms of the world. So I think that that counts.

Quote:

(12) marries a princess, often his predecessor's daughter, and
(13) becomes king himself.
Meta:
Jesus didn't do these three things, so that is three more we can take off the list.

He was a big religious prophet, and thus a sort-of king. Don't be stupidly literal-minded. And while the canonical Gospels picture him as being single, a noncanonical Gospel states that he had kissed Mary Magdalene on the mouth very lovingly, and the Jesus Christ - Mary Magdalene relationship has been the subject of much speculation in later centuries. However, MM is not exactly some sort of princess.

Quote:

(14) For a while he reigns uneventfully,
(15) promulgating laws. But
(16) he later loses favor with his subjects or with the gods and
(17) is driven from the throne and the city and
(18) meets with a mysterious death,
Meta:
This didn't happen to Jesus either. ...

Look more closely. Between his temptation and his trial, he has a relatively uneventful period in which he works lots of miracles and issues various teachings, many of which may be interpreted as laws. When he commands something, he is issuing a law, right?

Quote:

(19) often atop a hill.
Meta:
one example of a peaceful death on a moutin top and one of a violent one. ...

"OFTEN" atop a hill. But Jesus Christ fits very well.

Quote:

(20) If he has children, they do not succeed him.
Meta:
Jesus didn't

See above.

Quote:

(21) His body is not buried, yet
(22) he has one or more holy sepulchers.
Meta:
That is the most absurd one of all. The mention of more than one seplechur is not in the Gospels. ...

He rises from the dead, and eventually ascends into Heaven, which certainly fits. Also, having only one holy sepulcher also fits. Not that it says "ONE or more".

Quote:

Meta:
I forgot who said this, but about the old archetypical profile:
(JFK bio details deleted...)

However, there was nothing unusual about JFK's conception and infancy, as far as anyone knows, and no wicked leader tried to kill him when he was a baby. Also, he was assassinated by some lone lunatic; to fit the Mythic-Hero profile, he'd have to be put on trial for various supposed crimes and executed.

(Metacrock's quibbling about the virgin-birth issue deleted...)

It's a quibble, pure and simple. Just like then-President Clinton's famous comment. Which is why I chose the phrasing:

The Christian God did not have sexual relations with that woman, Mary

Haran · 01-21-2002, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Asha'man:
[QB]For Jewish quotes that may refer to Jesus, check out these:
<a href="http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fccat.sas.upenn.edu%2 F%7Ehumm%2FTopics%2FJewishJesus%2F" target="_blank"> Ancient Jewish Accounts of Jesus</a>
<a href="http://biology.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html" target="_blank">MYTH OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS</a>

The first one I find to be a decent source and even have a link to it on <a href="http://dreamwater.org/bccox/" target="_blank">my own poorly organized website</a>.

However, the second website is full of rhetoric and speculation, giving no detailed sources for its datings and information. As a matter of fact, he seems to state that Jesus lived somewhere around 100 B.C. and that his father was a Roman soldier. This confuses me somewhat because only in 63 A.D. did Pompey and his Roman army enter and defeat Jerusalem, turning Palestine into a protectorate (not even a Roman province, which only happened in 6 A.D.).

Quote:

These have date references with them, but I know I found another source originally, which I will look for.

Honestly, I'd like to see the early sources you mentioned earlier. I don't take things second or third hand...

Quote:

As for a Celsus reference to the Toldoth Jesu, I have an indirect reference, but haven?t yet followed up on the source.

Since this 'indirect reference' says specifically, "...much of the material now in the Toldoth was known to Celsus", one cannot say that Celsus necessarily knew of the story you mentioned earlier. From Origen's work above, Celsus specifically states specifically that he believed Jesus was probably crucified.

Haran

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.