Freethought & Rationalism Archive

04-18-2002, 11:24 PM

Greetings Michael,

Quote:

What I am claiming is that Pliny attests to the outline of the Jesus legend quite early, to early for Quentin's thesis that it is a second century invention,

I beg your pardon?
How much of the Jesus legend does Pliny outline?

He never even uses the word 'Jesus' - he refers to a 'Christ' who is worshipped 'as a God' - this is the vaguest possible type of reference.

Furthermore, this vague tiny reference in c.112 is exactly in accord with the time-line I gave earlier - showing a only very few details of the Life of Jesus being known c.110 - then growing over several clearly identifiable stages in the 2nd century.

Pliny's vague few words exactly fits in with my suggested time-line - would you care to explain how you think Pliny evidences more then the few details I showed are known in this period?

Quentin David Jones

Vorkosigan · 04-19-2002, 12:51 AM

Whoops! You're right. I never even noticed Pliny doesn't mention the word Jesus....sorry I ever opened my mouth.

Michael

Vinnie · 04-19-2002, 12:57 AM

The Gospels dated to the 2nd century? I must need to get out of the igloo more often. Is that notion still being circulated today?

Quote:

Josephus?

Yes, Josephus. You know, the traitor and historian? That Josephus ben Matthias dude!

Quote:

Josephus was a Jew, his book goes on about many minor figures who led the Jews astray, he specifically avoids calling any of them the Messiah, he spends pages on minor criminals -

Then the Testamonium suddenly breaks into the flow with a tiny hagiographic paragraph about the Messiah, written in obviously Christian terms.

Thats only if one does not remove the patently Christian elements. From the esteemed Jeffrey Jay Lowder about the TF breaking the flow:

Quote:

"Even if the passage were out of context, that would still not make it likely that the passage is an interpolation. It was common for ancient writers to insert extraneous texts or passages which seemingly interrupt the flow of the narrative (whereas today the material would be placed in a footnote):"

Then J. Lowder goes on to quote Michael Grant, Greek & Roman Historians: Information and Misinformation (New York: Routledge, 1995), p. 53.

Quote:

A further main reason why ancient historiography differed from its modern counterparts was provided by digressions. They were far more frequent in Greek and Roman writings than in our own. For one thing, there was a simple technical explanation for such digressions. Nowadays we have footnotes; the ancients did not, so that what would now be relegated to a footnote had to appear in the text. But there was also a deeper philosophical explanation. The Greek and Roman historians wanted to supply background....

Then J-Lo goes on to quote E. Mary Smallwood who doth argue that this is characteristic of the Josephan style:

Quote:

One feature of Josephus' writing which may be disconcerting to the modern reader and appear inartistic is the way in which at times the narrative is proceeding at a spanking pace when it is unceremoniously cut short by a paragraph or a longer passage of material unrelated or only marginally related to the subject in hand, and then resumed equally abruptly. Basically, these interruptions are of two types, with different reasons behind them, and it may therefore be helpful if a word is said here about the conventions of ancient historiography, which differed considerably from ours.

One type of interruption, such as a sudden move to another theatre of war, occurs because ancient historians usually wrote annalistically---literally, by years ...

A quite different explanation lies behind other interruptions to the flow of the narrative. The ancient world never invented those useful lay-bys in which the modern author can park essential but intractable material, and thus avoid breaking the main thread of his argument, the footnote and the appendix ... what we relegate to notes and appendixes appeared as digressions

That very informative quote was taken from : Josephus, "The Jewish Wars". Translated by G.A. Williamson. Revised with introduction by E. Mary Smallwood. Penguin Books, 1981, pp. 20-21.

Wait now, there is more! J to the Ello Hello goes on to say:

Quote:

But in fact I see no reason to believe the Testimonium occurs out of context. For example, New Testament scholar R.T. France has argued that Josephus is simply listing events that happened during or near Pilate's reign.[36] And Steve Mason thinks that Josephus is merely "trying to paint a picture of escalating tension for Jews around the world."[37] It is therefore unclear why the Testimonium is "out of context."

So it doesn't interupt the flow after all! Score two for the home team!

I have this big book on my, you guessed it, bookshelf. Its okay but I like the books with pictures you know? This one has lots of esoteric terms like hagiography. Sometimes the reading requires asprin but I do remember something of relevance from it. Moving on to the comprehensive, critical and unbiased scholarly giant, John Dominic Crossan:

Quote:

The Birth of Christianity, pp11-12

First, overlap. Josephus's two major works--Jewish War, written in the late 70s and early 80s of the first century, and Jewish Antiquities, written in its early 90s--overlap on the history of the period from the mid-160s B.C.E. to the early 70s C.E. They give, in other words, two versions of events in the Jewsih homeland during most of that first century. Absences, changes, and divergences between those twin accounts must always be assessed carefully to understand bias, prejudice, and purpose. In the section about Pontius Pilate in Jewish War 2.169-177, he notes only two popular disturbances brought on by his misgovernment. nothing at all is said about Jesus. In retelling the same period in jewish antiquities 18:55-89, Josephus makes two major changes, and these are significant for the context of his Jesus story.

Second, context. He first enlarges the Pilate disturbances to three, closing with a new one that cost Pilate his job and could well have cost him his life if the emperor Tiberius had not died before he reached Rome for judgement. That set of three Pilate disturbances is similar in that the authorities involved are all to blame for the troubles. But then Josephus inserts, between those older two items in 18.55-64 and the newer final one in 18.85-89, three more disturbances in 18.63-64, 65-80, and 81-84. This second set is also similarr, but in the opposite way to the first set. Now it is not the authorities but the protagonists who seem more to blame for the disorders. The first in this new set concerns Jesus, and that is quite appropriate since he appeared under Pontius Pilate. But the next two inserts are quite strange. They both involve disturbances, to be sure, but in Rome rather than jerusalem. In one story priests of the Egyptian goddess Isis assist a libertine aristocrat in seducing a high born Roman matronnamed Paulina. The guilty priests are crucified and their temple is destroyed as a punishment. in the other story " certian Jew, a complete scoundrel, who had fled his own country because he was accused of transgressing certian laws and feared punishment on this account" (18.81), conspired to defraud an aristocratic Jewish proselyte named Fulvia of gifts designated for the Temple at HJerusalem, and the result was that "the whole Jewish community" (18.83) was ordered to leave Rome as punishment. The juxtaposition of Pilate disturbances and Rome disturbances, of those criminal fraud stories and the Jesus story, gives the latter rather a negative context. Was that Josephus's purpose and design? Is the story of Jesus too bee judged by association with the two incidents that follow it? Jesus, the Isis priest, and the Jewish "scoundrel" may well have been, for Josephus, three warnings of how public disturbances and official punishments may be caused by individual religious malfeeasance.

Crossan goes on to say he thinks the text of the TF is quite neutral.

Quote:

Origen specifally noted early 3rd century that Josephus did NOT call Jesus the Messiah, and no other early writer noticed the Testamonium

Its often objected that no early church father quotes the TF as a defense. Such a passage would have been highly quoted. But if you remove the patently Christian elements it would explain why no Church father quotes it in defense. Quoting an educated Jew who casts Jesus in a negative light as a defense for specific truth claims of Christianity would not be on an early aopologist's top things to do list. So either its a complete forgery or it was later interpolated. I don't think the early lack of references to the TF can tell us either way

Speaking of Origen, I personally think the patently Christian elements were inserted after Origen but before or by Eusebius. From Robert Eisler on the TF:

Quote:

For whilst Eusebius (died c. 340) quotes this 'precious testimony' thrice [4], Origen (died c. 254), 'the greatest and most conscientious scholar of the ancient Church,; makes it quite clear, in two different passages [5], that in his text of the Antiquities Josephus did not represent Jesus as the Christ. From these passages Eduard Norden [6], among others, has inferred that, in his version of Josephus, Origen had found nothing whatever concerning Christ. But this hypothesis lacks a sound basis, for it is quite impossible that so scholarly and conscientious a writer as Origen appears to have been should have based his explicit statement on Josephus' rejection of the Christ as the Messiah on nothing more positive than the silence of the Romanized Jew concerning Jesus' life and work, or simply on Josephus' use of the somewhat ambiguous expression 'called the Christ,' a phrase which, besides, occurs also in the Gospel of Matthew (1:16), whom nobody, because of these words, has ever accused of disbelief in the Messianic dignity of Jesus.
**Extract Found Online. Comes from The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist according to Flavius Josephus' recently rediscovered 'Capture of Jerusalem'
and the other Jewish and Christian sources .

A question I have, was Joesphus's work copied from its inception? How many copies were there in the 2nd century? How many in in the third? Is there any way to know or make a reasonable guess? If there were quite a few extant copies were Christians in a position to to add to Josephus's work and monopolize the copies in such an early time? Remember it does not appear that it was tampered with, if it existed, by the time Origen.

Regarding when Christians came into power: Eisler also said:

Quote:

Naturally, a party possessing the power to destroy obnoxious books will ipso facto be in a position to enforce minor omissions and alterations [8] in works in which only individual passages were felt to be objectionable. It is equally clear that owners of valuable manuscripts, whether private individuals, book-vendors, or officials in libraries and synagogues, should have preferred the excision of a few lines or certain alterations to the alternative of seeing their treasures devoured by the flames. Add to this the loss involved in the destruction of a whole Josephus in manuscript, and the laws imposing capital punishment on the concealed possession of writings hostile to Christianity [9], and the natural consequence will be obvious to every one. As a matter of fact, not a single Greek, Latin, Slavonic, or other Josephus text has come down to us which has not passed through the hands of Christian scribes and Christian owners. The numerous glosses and marginal notes, abounding in every single manuscript [10], fully bear out this statement.

In large works where very little is said either negatively or neutrally about Jesus wouldn't it be more logical to just adapt the few texts than to destroy the work altogether?

One interesting thing to note is that in the Gospels, the Jews are blamed for Jesus's death where the blame here in the TF would seem to have fallen on Pontius Pilate if completly interpolated by a Christian. A Christian interpolater is going to call the Jewish authorities and leaders believed to have killed Jesus "men of the highest standing among us" ? I can vision one leaving it in there but not one fabricating it. The statement doesn't seem to flow with the patently Christian elements.

Quote:

think that Tacitus is not a witness of anything in this case. I think the text has been fiddled with (as Josephus was). No-one mentions Tacitus's testimony for Christ or Christians until a century or so ago. Not a single person in antiquity evinced knowledge of what is used by moderns as historical evidence. No ancient attestation of Tacitus by christians points to no testimony in Tacitus.

You would be much better off arguing that there is inconclusive evidence that Tacitus had independent sources. Maybe you've been reading too much Gordon Stein? Lowder mentions Gordon's view in his Mcdowell critique article :

Quote:

[83] Gordon Stein denied the authenticity of this passage, arguing: (1) there is no corroborating evidence that Nero persecuted the Christians; (2) there was not a multitude of Christians in Rome at that date; (3) 'Christian' was not a common term in the first century; (4) Nero was indifferent to various religions in his city; (5) Nero did not start the fire in Rome; (6) Tacitus does not use the name Jesus; (7) Tacitus assumes his readers know Pontius Pilate; (8) the passage is present word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus. However, Stein's arguments are extremely weak. At best, (1), (2), and (5) only cast doubt on the reliability of the passage; these are not good reasons for rejecting the authenticity of the passage. (3) and (4) are likewise irrelevant. Contrary to what Stein claims, (6) and (7) suggest that Pontius Pilate might have been relatively unknown. Finally, (8) is irrelevant. The fact that a later author expanded the passage in no way makes it probable that the original passage was interpolated. Furthermore, there are good reasons for accepting the authenticity of this passage: the anti-Christian tone of the passage, the scapegoat motif, the Latin style, and the integration of the passage with the story. Stein's argument for interpolation is completely unconvincing. See Stein 1982.
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#tacitus[/QUOTE" target="_blank">]http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#tacitus

</a>

Well, OBVIOUSLY a Christian didn't interpolate this one:

Quote:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

So who did and what was their motivation. Speculate if its required. Judging by the view I am commenting on, I trust that will not pose a problem to you.

Well, me and my pernicious superstition will be heading back to the igloo now where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular

Until we meet again (assuming I do not get mauled by any polar bears)!

Vinnie

edited a quote tag error

editing it yet again--my igloo is melting

okay, getting ticked now

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: ilgwamh ]

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: ilgwamh ]

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: ilgwamh ]</p>

Vinnie · 04-19-2002, 01:17 AM

Paul and Jesus, this Challenge is easy. You just need background.

Have Fun and check out the groovy conclusion:

Quote:

F. F. Bruce, 'The New Testament Documents. Are They Reliable?

All of Chapter 6

The Importance of Paul's Evidence

The earliest of the New Testament writings, as they have come down to us, are the letters written by the apostle Paul up to the time of his detention in Rome (c. AD 60-62). The earliest of our Gospels in its present form can certainly not be dated earlier than AS 60, but from the hand of Paul we have ten Epistles written between 48 and 60.

This man Paul was a Roman citzen of Jewish birth (his Jewish name was Saul), born somewhere about the commencement of the Christian era in the city of Tarsus in Cilicia, Asia Minor. His birthplace, 'no mean city', as he said himself (Acts 21:39), was in those days an eminent centre of Greek culture, which did not fail to leave its mark on Paul, as may be seen in his soeeches and letters. He received an education in Jerusalem under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), the greatest rabbi of his day and a leader of the party of the Pharisees. He rapidly attained distinction among his contemporaries by the diligence of his studies and the fervour with which he upheld the ancestral traditions of the Jewish nation (Gal 1:13 f.). He may even--though this is uncertain--have been a member of the Sanhedrin, the supreme court of the nation.

This zeal for the law brought him into conflict with the early Jerusalem Christians, especially with thoe who belonged to the circle of Stephen, whose teaching he must have heard in the synagogue where the Cilician Jews met (Acts 6:9) and who early realized, with exceptionally far-sighted comprehension, that the Gospel cut at the roots of the traditional Jewish ceremonial law and cultus. At the stoning of Stephen, we find Paul playing a reasonable part and giving his consent to his death, and thereafter proceeding to uproot the new movement which, in his eyes, stood revealed by Stephen's activity as a deadly threat to all that he counted dear in Judaism (Acts 7:58; 8:1 ff.; 9:1 ff.; 22:4; 26:9 ff.; 1 Cor 15:9 etc.). To use his own words, 'Beyond all measure i persecuted the Church of God and harried it' (see Gal. 1:13)--until his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus convinced his mind and conscience of the reality of His resurrection, and therewith of the validity of the Christians' claims, whereupon he became the chief herald of the faith of which he formerly made havoc.

It is reasonable to believe that the evidence which convinced such a man of the out-and-out wrongness of his former course, and led him so decisively to abandon previously cherished beliefs for a movement which he had so vigorously opposed, mus have been of a singularly impressive quality. The conversion of Paul has for long been regarded as a weighty evidence for the truth of Christianity. Many have endorsed the conclusion of the eighteent-century statesman George, Lord Lyttelton, that 'the conversion and apostleship of St. paul alone, duly considered, was of itself a demonstration sufficient to prove Christianity to be a divine revelation'.

Here, however, we are chiefly concerned with the information we can derive from his Epistles. These were not written to record the facts of the life and ministry of Jesus; they were addressed to Christians, who already knew the Gospel story. Yet in them we can find sufficient material to construct an outline of the early apostolic preaching about Jesus. While Paul insists on the divine pre-existence of Jesus (E.G., Col..1:15 ff.), yet he knows that He was none the less a real human being (Gal. 4:4), a descendent of Abraham ( Rom 9:5) and David (Rom. 1:3); who lived under the Jewish law (Gal 4:4); who was betrayed, and on the night of his betrayal instituted a memorial meal of bread and wine (1 Cor. 11:23 ff.); who endured the Roman penalty of crucifixion (Phil. 2:8; 1 Cor 1:23), although the responsibility for His death is laid at the door of the representatives of the Jewish nation (Gal 3:12; 6:14 etc); who was buried, rose the third day, and was thereafter seen alive by many eyewitnesses on various occasions, including one occasion on which He was so seen by over five hundred at once, of whom the majority were alive nearly twenty-five years alter (1 Cor 15:4 ff.). In this summary of the evidence for the reality of Christ's resurrection, Paul shows a sound instinct for the necessity of marshalling personal testimony in support of what might well appear an incredible assertion.

Paul knows of the Lord's apostles (Gal 1:17 ff.), of whom Peter and John are mentioned by name as 'pillars' of the Jerusalem community (Gal 2:9), and of His brothers, of whom James is similarly mentioned (Gal. 1:19, 2:9). he knows that the Lord's brothers and apostles, including Peter, were married (1 Cor. 9:5)--an incindental agreement with the Gospel story of the healing of Peter's mother-in-law (Mark 1:30). He quotes sayings of Jesus on occasion--e.g., His teaching on marriage and divorce (1 Cor 7:10 f.), and on the right of the Gospel preachers to have their material needs supplied (1 Cor. 9:14; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Lk 10:7); and the words He used at the institution of the Lors's Supper.

Even when he does not quote the actual sayings of Jesus of Jesus, he shows throughout his works how well acquanted he was with them. In particular, we ought to compare the ethical section of the Epistle to the Romans (12:1 - 15:7), where Paul summarizes the practivcal implicationa of the gospel for the lives of believers, with the Sermon on the Mouint, to see how thouroughly imbued the Apostle was with the teaching of his Master. Besides, there and elsewhere Paul's chief argument in his ethical instruction is the example of Christ Himself. And the character of Christ as understood by Paul is in perfect agreement with His character as portrayed in the Gospels. When Paul speaks of 'the meekness and gentleness of Christ' (2 Cor. 10:1), we remember our Lord's own words, "I am meek and lowly in heart' (Matt. 11:29). The self-denying Christ of the gospels is the one of whom Paul says, 'Even Christ pleased not himself' (Rom. 15:3); and just as the Christ of the Gospels called on His followers to deny themselves (Mark 8:34), so the apostle insists that, after the example of Christ Himself, it is our Christian duty 'to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves' (Rom 15:1). He who said : 'I am among you as the servant' (Luke 22:27), and performed the menial task of washing His disciples' feet (John 13:4 ff.), is He who, according to Paul, 'took the form of a slave' (Phil. 2:7). In a word, when Paul wishes to commend his readers all those moral graces which adorn the Christ of the Gospels he does so in language like this : 'Put on the Lord Jesus Christ' (Rom 13:14).

In short, the outline of the gospel story as we can trace it in the writings of Paul agrees with the outline which we find elsewhere in the New Testament, and in the four Gospels in particular. Paul himself is at pains to point out that the gospel which he preached was one and the same gospel as that preached by the other apsotles (1 Cor. 15:11)--a striking claim, considering that Paul was neither a companion of Christ in the days of His flesh nor of the original apostles, and that he vigorously asserts his complete independence of these.

Vinnie

Alexis Comnenus · 04-19-2002, 01:29 AM

On Tacitus, perhaps this article will be of interest: <a href="http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/index.htm" target="_blank">Tacitus manuscripts</a>.

Spin, I'll assume that 'crucify' in Paul means 'crucify' for real unless the context makes clear this won't do. I read the words in their common sense which gives us a real crucifixion of a real man that came to have symbolic signficance while you insist on a special reading because that fits with your theory.

Also, you are quoting in English (and worse, an old non-scholarly translation) when the text is in Greek. At least use the RSV.

Regards

Alex

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Alexis Comnenus ]</p>

Alexis Comnenus · 04-19-2002, 03:54 AM

Iasion, I am not attacking you. I am merely stating I don't think you yet have the skills to adequately carry out the task you've set yourself. I'm sure that in time you could gain those skills as you appear intelligent and enthusiastic.

As I've stated repeatedly, I'm not going to get into an argument on whether Jesus existed as the matter seems an open and shut case. I think your arguments are wrong and that you need far more understanding of the period and genre you are dealing with. If you think this is an insult then you will need to develop a much thicker skin. Sorry, but I'm sure you'll find lots of Christian apologists who will argue with your views (indeed, I note several are) so you don't need me.

Finally, if you have a radical position (and, let's face it, you do) you must win the argument without hinting that you are the only person able to see clearly and the rest of us have been deluded all our lives. If you want to be taken seriously by people outside the closed world of hard core atheism you'll need to drop that line of thought pretty quickly.

Regards

Alex

Vorkosigan · 04-19-2002, 04:38 AM

I have this big book on my, you guessed it, bookshelf. Its okay but I like the books with pictures you know? This one has lots of esoteric terms like hagiography.

Iggy, you wouldn't tolerate childish crap like this on your site. So why do you spout it on ours?

While Paul insists on the divine pre-existence of Jesus (E.G., Col..1:15 ff.), yet he knows that He was none the less a real human being (Gal. 4:4), a descendent of Abraham ( Rom 9:5) and David (Rom. 1:3); who lived under the Jewish law (Gal 4:4); who was betrayed, and on the night of his betrayal instituted a memorial meal of bread and wine (1 Cor. 11:23 ff.); who endured the Roman penalty of crucifixion (Phil. 2:8; 1 Cor 1:23),

In other words, Paul knows a formula. He knows nothing of the gospel stories. They were compiled and embellished after his time.

although the responsibility for His death is laid at the door of the representatives of the Jewish nation (Gal 3:12; 6:14 etc)

But Jesus was executed by the Romans, not the Jews.

; who was buried, rose the third day,

But Jesus did not rise on the third day....

and was thereafter seen alive by many eyewitnesses on various occasions, including one occasion on which He was so seen by over five hundred at once, of whom the majority were alive nearly twenty-five years alter (1 Cor 15:4 ff.).

An obvious tall tale, common in many claims of this nature.

In this summary of the evidence for the reality of Christ's resurrection, Paul shows a sound instinct for the necessity of marshalling personal testimony in support of what might well appear an incredible assertion.

The best he can do is personal testimony? Not really very convincing. Hardly surprising, though, since Paul did not even know Jesus personally.

Michael

Vorkosigan · 04-19-2002, 04:44 AM

I'm not going to get into an argument on whether Jesus existed as the matter seems an open and shut case.

You are kidding, right?
"Open and shut." ROTFL.

More like, since WWII, the myth-history pendulum has swung back the other way, since the mythicist position was widespread prior to the second world war. Whether the Jesus legend is accepted as history depends on the political success of the pro-history advocates, who since WWII have been successful in getting that legend accepted as fact. It has nothing to do with scholarship.

There is, however, no reason to take any of the gospels seriously as history. No methodology can get you history out of myth. GIGO, you know.

Tell you what, Alex, since it is an "open and shut" case, why don't you give an outline of the methodology used to determine which areas of the gospels are true and which are embellishments? After all, I could, simply by citing the opinions of reputable scholars, show that almost every part of the gospel is a myth, since for every section, there's someone out there who thinks it is a myth/interpolation/oral saying/not part of Jesus story.....

Michael

spin · 04-19-2002, 05:24 AM

Alexis Comnenus:
---------------
On Tacitus, perhaps this article will be of interest: <a href="http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/index.htm" target="_blank">Tacitus manuscripts</a>.
---------------

This URL is of course irrelevant to the discussion. No-one is doubting the general veracity of the Tacitus texts, merely its transmission in a particular point. Deal with the problem of not one writer before recent times citing the Tacitus "testimony" for Christ.

Alexis Comnenus:
---------------
Spin, I'll assume that 'crucify' in Paul means 'crucify' for real unless the context makes clear this won't do. I read the words in their common sense which gives us a real crucifixion of a real man that came to have symbolic signficance while you insist on a special reading because that fits with your theory.
---------------

This is why I gave you them all, so that you could see that staurow was not being treated as the word one finds in the gospels. You are avoiding the issue yet again.

Be literal with "the old man crucified with him (Christ)".

Be literal with "I have been crucified with Christ".

Be literal with "And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh".

You appeal to literalness seems unfounded when you actually look at the text. Your appeal to common sense defies Paul's use of the terminology.

Alexis Comnenus, I get the idea that you have nothing to say. And don't be silly about the versions cited. The important thing was the citations so that you could look them up yourself.

Now that said, what are your overburdening problems with the literal ASV? What is non-scholarly about it? Is it not more literal than many of the modern translations and therefore closer to the Greek? (In fact, had the AV not been based on the TR it would have been even more literal, but you need to understand the significance of Jacobean English to use it -- that's why so many people make a mess using the AV.)

And if you would like a discussion on the Greek for some reason, feel free to introduce it, otherwise I'll get the idea that you are merely filibustering.

And that seems to be the appropriate word. Filibustering by palming off an irrelevant URL. Filibustering by ignoring what Paul actually says. And filibustering with a closet ad hominem about texts cited.

Do your job, Alexis Comnenus. And stop avoiding your responsibilities.

sotzo · 04-19-2002, 05:44 AM

Hi hinduwoman!
Sotzo,
The story of resurrection is not unique.

I realize that as I said in my post.

A god dies and is raised up from the dead. If Christ is the Son of God/God then obviously it is old wine in new bottle.

Why is it "obvious"? You've automatically assumed this without dealing the points I raised in my post.

Also, in Hindu mythology, dead men --- men -- are raised up by the gods.

Yes they are. But the Vedas never claim that such men are historical - the Gospels do claim that Jesus is. (Not that a claim makes it automatically true however.)

Why do you assume that the story of the body not in the grave was a fact?

I haven't assumed it. I raised 3 points above which you are free to take issue with if you disagree with them.

The early church grew only among the slaves and the lower classes to whom it held out hopes of a better life after death. It really took off under Constantine.

It was thriving well before Constantine else Constantine would never have used it as a political platform!

And the early church growth among lower classes has nothing to do with whether or not the resurrection is historical, unless you can show that such a fact would create an inability on the part of the Gospel writers to record history.

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

04-19-2002, 12:51 AM	#52
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Whoops! You're right. I never even noticed Pliny doesn't mention the word Jesus....sorry I ever opened my mouth. Michael

04-19-2002, 01:29 AM	#55
Alexis Comnenus Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: UK Posts: 63	On Tacitus, perhaps this article will be of interest: <a href="http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/index.htm" target="_blank">Tacitus manuscripts</a>. Spin, I'll assume that 'crucify' in Paul means 'crucify' for real unless the context makes clear this won't do. I read the words in their common sense which gives us a real crucifixion of a real man that came to have symbolic signficance while you insist on a special reading because that fits with your theory. Also, you are quoting in English (and worse, an old non-scholarly translation) when the text is in Greek. At least use the RSV. Regards Alex [ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Alexis Comnenus ]</p>

04-19-2002, 03:54 AM	#56
Alexis Comnenus Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: UK Posts: 63	Iasion, I am not attacking you. I am merely stating I don't think you yet have the skills to adequately carry out the task you've set yourself. I'm sure that in time you could gain those skills as you appear intelligent and enthusiastic. As I've stated repeatedly, I'm not going to get into an argument on whether Jesus existed as the matter seems an open and shut case. I think your arguments are wrong and that you need far more understanding of the period and genre you are dealing with. If you think this is an insult then you will need to develop a much thicker skin. Sorry, but I'm sure you'll find lots of Christian apologists who will argue with your views (indeed, I note several are) so you don't need me. Finally, if you have a radical position (and, let's face it, you do) you must win the argument without hinting that you are the only person able to see clearly and the rest of us have been deluded all our lives. If you want to be taken seriously by people outside the closed world of hard core atheism you'll need to drop that line of thought pretty quickly. Regards Alex

04-19-2002, 04:38 AM	#57
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I have this big book on my, you guessed it, bookshelf. Its okay but I like the books with pictures you know? This one has lots of esoteric terms like hagiography. Iggy, you wouldn't tolerate childish crap like this on your site. So why do you spout it on ours? While Paul insists on the divine pre-existence of Jesus (E.G., Col..1:15 ff.), yet he knows that He was none the less a real human being (Gal. 4:4), a descendent of Abraham ( Rom 9:5) and David (Rom. 1:3); who lived under the Jewish law (Gal 4:4); who was betrayed, and on the night of his betrayal instituted a memorial meal of bread and wine (1 Cor. 11:23 ff.); who endured the Roman penalty of crucifixion (Phil. 2:8; 1 Cor 1:23), In other words, Paul knows a formula. He knows nothing of the gospel stories. They were compiled and embellished after his time. although the responsibility for His death is laid at the door of the representatives of the Jewish nation (Gal 3:12; 6:14 etc) But Jesus was executed by the Romans, not the Jews. ; who was buried, rose the third day, But Jesus did not rise on the third day.... and was thereafter seen alive by many eyewitnesses on various occasions, including one occasion on which He was so seen by over five hundred at once, of whom the majority were alive nearly twenty-five years alter (1 Cor 15:4 ff.). An obvious tall tale, common in many claims of this nature. In this summary of the evidence for the reality of Christ's resurrection, Paul shows a sound instinct for the necessity of marshalling personal testimony in support of what might well appear an incredible assertion. The best he can do is personal testimony? Not really very convincing. Hardly surprising, though, since Paul did not even know Jesus personally. Michael

04-19-2002, 04:44 AM	#58
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I'm not going to get into an argument on whether Jesus existed as the matter seems an open and shut case. You are kidding, right? "Open and shut." ROTFL. More like, since WWII, the myth-history pendulum has swung back the other way, since the mythicist position was widespread prior to the second world war. Whether the Jesus legend is accepted as history depends on the political success of the pro-history advocates, who since WWII have been successful in getting that legend accepted as fact. It has nothing to do with scholarship. There is, however, no reason to take any of the gospels seriously as history. No methodology can get you history out of myth. GIGO, you know. Tell you what, Alex, since it is an "open and shut" case, why don't you give an outline of the methodology used to determine which areas of the gospels are true and which are embellishments? After all, I could, simply by citing the opinions of reputable scholars, show that almost every part of the gospel is a myth, since for every section, there's someone out there who thinks it is a myth/interpolation/oral saying/not part of Jesus story..... Michael

04-19-2002, 05:24 AM	#59
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Alexis Comnenus: --------------- On Tacitus, perhaps this article will be of interest: <a href="http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/index.htm" target="_blank">Tacitus manuscripts</a>. --------------- This URL is of course irrelevant to the discussion. No-one is doubting the general veracity of the Tacitus texts, merely its transmission in a particular point. Deal with the problem of not one writer before recent times citing the Tacitus "testimony" for Christ. Alexis Comnenus: --------------- Spin, I'll assume that 'crucify' in Paul means 'crucify' for real unless the context makes clear this won't do. I read the words in their common sense which gives us a real crucifixion of a real man that came to have symbolic signficance while you insist on a special reading because that fits with your theory. --------------- This is why I gave you them all, so that you could see that staurow was not being treated as the word one finds in the gospels. You are avoiding the issue yet again. Be literal with "the old man crucified with him (Christ)". Be literal with "I have been crucified with Christ". Be literal with "And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh". You appeal to literalness seems unfounded when you actually look at the text. Your appeal to common sense defies Paul's use of the terminology. Alexis Comnenus, I get the idea that you have nothing to say. And don't be silly about the versions cited. The important thing was the citations so that you could look them up yourself. Now that said, what are your overburdening problems with the literal ASV? What is non-scholarly about it? Is it not more literal than many of the modern translations and therefore closer to the Greek? (In fact, had the AV not been based on the TR it would have been even more literal, but you need to understand the significance of Jacobean English to use it -- that's why so many people make a mess using the AV.) And if you would like a discussion on the Greek for some reason, feel free to introduce it, otherwise I'll get the idea that you are merely filibustering. And that seems to be the appropriate word. Filibustering by palming off an irrelevant URL. Filibustering by ignoring what Paul actually says. And filibustering with a closet ad hominem about texts cited. Do your job, Alexis Comnenus. And stop avoiding your responsibilities.

04-19-2002, 05:44 AM	#60
sotzo Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Lakeland, FL, USA Posts: 102	Hi hinduwoman! Sotzo, The story of resurrection is not unique. I realize that as I said in my post. A god dies and is raised up from the dead. If Christ is the Son of God/God then obviously it is old wine in new bottle. Why is it "obvious"? You've automatically assumed this without dealing the points I raised in my post. Also, in Hindu mythology, dead men --- men -- are raised up by the gods. Yes they are. But the Vedas never claim that such men are historical - the Gospels do claim that Jesus is. (Not that a claim makes it automatically true however.) Why do you assume that the story of the body not in the grave was a fact? I haven't assumed it. I raised 3 points above which you are free to take issue with if you disagree with them. The early church grew only among the slaves and the lower classes to whom it held out hopes of a better life after death. It really took off under Constantine. It was thriving well before Constantine else Constantine would never have used it as a political platform! And the early church growth among lower classes has nothing to do with whether or not the resurrection is historical, unless you can show that such a fact would create an inability on the part of the Gospel writers to record history.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.