Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 06-08-2013, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

though he may have gone out on a limb among the mythicists himself with his theory that Nazareth didn't exist.

It is important to specify WHEN Nazareth existed. It exists now...but the question is, did it exist at the end of the first millenium BC. Evidence for that is sparse.... at best.

I simply view it as a work camp for reident Jews in Galilee for the rebuilding of Sepphoris that evolved into and agricultural work camp to feed Sepphoris.

Was there even one house at the beginning of the century, or 30 ? we dont know.

Its my opinion it was there, but small. Ive heard population guestimates from Jesus time to a few hundred to four hundred. Ive often wondered if thats a bit high.

Minimalist · 06-08-2013, 07:09 PM

Quote:

It is said that Celsus was a late 2nd century writer who was the first known to have written against the Christians in "True Discourse".

Well, Lucian of Samosata in The Death of Peregrinus writes satirically of xtians but no jesus...or paul or luke or mark, etc. about 160 AD or about 20 years before Celsus, aa. I suppose that supports your point.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/wl4/wl420.htm

maryhelena · 06-09-2013, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Aa, your whole argument here seems confused.

Why would you cite two 2nd century authors (Irenaeus & Aristides) as the earliest witnesses to a written gospel, but then attack the credibility of one of them?

You say Irenaeus' Against Heresies "claimed Jesus was crucified 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius."

This would date the crucifixion to 47-49 CE (counted from Tiberius' 15th year, which could be counted from the date of his co-regency with Augustus, 27 CE, or from his sole rule upon Augustus' death, 29 CE) which is clearly at variance with the account of Josephus, that Pilate was removed in late 36 or early 37 CE.

However, what Irenaeus actually says in 2.22.4-6 is that Jesus was just shy of 30 yrs old in the 15th year of Tiberius, and was at least 40 yrs old at the time of his death.

Irenaeus had assumed that the 15th year of Tiberius is to be counted from his co-regency with Augustus to the end of Pilate's governance, a period of roughly 10 years.

It does not appear that you have proposed a well thought out and effective argument.

And you want to apply a rule that you cannot speculate on the dates of composition of the various Gospels any earlier than the 1st witness to their existence, but this is not how historians work, or else we can't know much of anything about ancient literature, classical or Christian, that precedes the fall of the Roman empire in 1000 CE, when most of the earliest surviving manuscripts date to.

With the new BC&H rules being applied as we speak, you are going to have to do better than this if you expect to continue posting on this board.

The rules apply to you. You have presented no evidence from antiquity at all in your response to my posts.

You openly violate the rules.

You know the rules. Present your evidence from antiquity because I am tired of your rhetoric and double standard.

Where are your sources from antiquity that support you? I need to see them.

It is utterly erroneous that in Against Heresies 2.22 that Jesus died at about 40 years--absolute nonsense.

You should be aware that I have "Against Heresies" 2.22 in front of me

Against Heresies 2.22

Quote:

For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years............... He did not then wont much of being fifty years old;(6) and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year.

For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year....

It is there in "Against Heresies 2.22 that Jesus died around the 50th year.

There are times, aa, when you deserve a medal - and this is one of them!
Thanks for keeping in focus writings that others might want to discredit. Old assumptions re the gospel JC story die hard and those upholding them will seek to discredit sources, such as the one you have referenced, that challenge their own assumptions.

Yes, sources can be contradictory. Back then, as today, attempts are made to resolve these contradictions in the sources. However, resolving contradictions cannot simply be a matter of picking and choosing which sources supports ones own assumptions re that gospel JC story. Resolving contradictions requires nor rejection of those contradictions that question ones own assumptions - it requires accommodation of the contradictions. The contradictions need to be allowed to further the debate over the gospel JC - not hinder that debate by ruling out possibilities for advancement.

DCHindley · 06-09-2013, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

You say Irenaeus' Against Heresies "claimed Jesus was crucified 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius."
...
However, what Irenaeus actually says in 2.22.4-6 is that Jesus was just shy of 30 yrs old in the 15th year of Tiberius, and was at least 40 yrs old at the time of his death.
...
With the new BC&H rules being applied as we speak, you are going to have to do better than this if you expect to continue posting on this board.

The rules apply to you. You have presented no evidence from antiquity at all in your response to my posts. ... You know the rules. Present your evidence from antiquity because I am tired of your rhetoric and double standard. ... I need to see them.

It was right there in the passage you cited. See below.

Quote:

It is utterly erroneous that in Against Heresies 2.22 [it says] that Jesus died at about 40 years--absolute nonsense.

Actually, I said that Irenaeus said that Jesus "was at least 40 yrs old at the time of his death."

Quote:

You should be aware that I have "Against Heresies" 2.22 in front of me

Then this would perhaps be a good time to read it more closely. Yes?

Against Heresies 2.22

Quote:

For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years ...
He did not then wont much of being fifty years old;(6) and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" ...
He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. ...
For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year....

Yeah that crazy Irenaeus. Whoo-weee! He's hyped up the difference "ad absurdum." Them dumb Valentinians don't see what is plainly in their sight in the canonical gospels (whether they accept them all or not, because he knows what is right better than them). A one year career is utterly erroneous -- absolute nonsense!

Quote:

It is there in Against Heresies 2.22 that Jesus died around the 50th year.

No, Irenaeus said that as part of his own rhetoric against the Valentinian teaching that Jesus preached exactly 12 months before his crucifixion.

FWIW, in section 3 Irenaeus had already established, from the gospel of John, the lowest limit for the length of Jesus' career. John presents three separate Passover festivals after Jesus' baptism, meaning a preaching career of at least three years.

In sections 4-6 Irenaeus is establishing, from John 8:56-57, the higher limit for the length of his ministry, that is, 20 years.

[645] 4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized,
and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. ...

Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, ...

5. They [the Valentinians], however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, “to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month.

For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master?

For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old," when He came to receive baptism); ...

Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, [old age] which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, ...

... they [the Jews] answered Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" Now, such language ["not yet 50"] is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, ...

For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood [the Jews] would certainly not extend the [647] number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age,

whether they had truly ascertained this [age] out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age.

yet is not far from this latter period [non tamen multum a quinquagesimo anno absistit = "not yet much away from fiftieth year to withdraw from"]. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they [the Jews] were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. ...

He did not then want much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” ...

For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year, ...

To demonstrate that it is not just me, see Jack Finnegan's Handbook of Biblical Chronology (I am using the old 1964 edition) says "Irenaeus insists that this ["you are not yet 50 years old"] must mean sometime in the decade leading up to the age of fifty. ... Since Irenaeus puts the baptism of Jesus just before he was thirty years of age, and interpreted Jn 8:57 to mean that Jesus was at that time in his forties, he must have considered that the public ministry lasted for more than 10 years" (pg. 275). Also, "On the basis of Jn 8:57, however, Irenaeus is sure that Jesus had not reached his fiftieth year. He was, then, between forty and fifty, Irenaeus holds, and thus (counting from baptism at about thirty) must have has a ministry of between ten and twenty years. Thus Irenaeus argues against5 the Valentinian view of a one year ministry. (pg. 282).

Also, see the footnote about the testimony of the elder John (just after Irenaeus' statements about stages of life): "With respect to this extraordinary assertion of Irenæus [that Jesus' career spanned 10-20 years], Harvey remarks: 'The reader may here perceive the unsatisfactory character of tradition, where a mere fact is concerned. From reasonings founded upon the evangelical history, as well as from a preponderance of external testimony, it is most certain that our Lord’s ministry extended but little over three years; yet here Irenæus states that it included more than ten years, and appeals to a tradition derived, as he says, from those who had conversed with an apostle'." Personally, I think Roberts and Harvey missed the point when they attribute all the comments about stages of life to John, and what John testified to was just "[old age] which our Lord possessed while he taught."

So, Irenaeus did not say Jesus was crucified at 50, but that the Jews portrayed in John 8:57 thought that he was in his 40s. While I agree that Irenaeus may have sympathized with that idea, all he really asserted was that he felt Jesus was at least 40.

I know you won't find this explanation satisfactory, and will savage it with your stock replies to any statement made at all.

aa5874 · 06-09-2013, 10:12 PM

Again, you do not understand that Irenaeus argued that Jesus was JUST BEFORE 50 years old--NOT at least 40.

1. Do you not see where it is stated that He did not then want much of being fifty years old?

2. Do you not see that it is stated that "it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they [the Jews] were mistaken by twenty years"?

You should be able to do the maths.

If it is argued that Jesus was JUST BEFORE 30 years old at baptism in the 15th year of Tiberius then 20 years later would make him JUST BEFORE 50 years old c 49-50 CE under Claudius.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

You say Irenaeus' Against Heresies "claimed Jesus was crucified 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius."
...
However, what Irenaeus actually says in 2.22.4-6 is that Jesus was just shy of 30 yrs old in the 15th year of Tiberius, and was at least 40 yrs old at the time of his death.
...
With the new BC&H rules being applied as we speak, you are going to have to do better than this if you expect to continue posting on this board.

The rules apply to you. You have presented no evidence from antiquity at all in your response to my posts. ... You know the rules. Present your evidence from antiquity because I am tired of your rhetoric and double standard. ... I need to see them.

It was right there in the passage you cited. See below.

Quote:

It is utterly erroneous that in Against Heresies 2.22 [it says] that Jesus died at about 40 years--absolute nonsense.

Actually, I said that Irenaeus said that Jesus "was at least 40 yrs old at the time of his death."

Quote:

You should be aware that I have "Against Heresies" 2.22 in front of me

Then this would perhaps be a good time to read it more closely. Yes?

Against Heresies 2.22

Quote:

For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years ...
He did not then wont much of being fifty years old;(6) and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" ...
He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. ...
For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year....

Yeah that crazy Irenaeus. Whoo-weee! He's hyped up the difference "ad absurdum." Them dumb Valentinians don't see what is plainly in their sight in the canonical gospels (whether they accept them all or not, because he knows what is right better than them). A one year career is utterly erroneous -- absolute nonsense!

Quote:

It is there in Against Heresies 2.22 that Jesus died around the 50th year.

No, Irenaeus said that as part of his own rhetoric against the Valentinian teaching that Jesus preached exactly 12 months before his crucifixion.

FWIW, in section 3 Irenaeus had already established, from the gospel of John, the lowest limit for the length of Jesus' career. John presents three separate Passover festivals after Jesus' baptism, meaning a preaching career of at least three years.

In sections 4-6 Irenaeus is establishing, from John 8:56-57, the higher limit for the length of his ministry, that is, 20 years.

[645] 4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized,
and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. ...

Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, ...

5. They [the Valentinians], however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, “to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month.

For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master?

For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old," when He came to receive baptism); ...

Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, [old age] which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, ...

... they [the Jews] answered Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" Now, such language ["not yet 50"] is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, ...

For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood [the Jews] would certainly not extend the [647] number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age,

whether they had truly ascertained this [age] out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age.

yet is not far from this latter period [non tamen multum a quinquagesimo anno absistit = "not yet much away from fiftieth year to withdraw from"]. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they [the Jews] were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. ...

He did not then want much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” ...

For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year, ...

To demonstrate that it is not just me, see Jack Finnegan's Handbook of Biblical Chronology (I am using the old 1964 edition) says "Irenaeus insists that this ["you are not yet 50 years old"] must mean sometime in the decade leading up to the age of fifty. ... Since Irenaeus puts the baptism of Jesus just before he was thirty years of age, and interpreted Jn 8:57 to mean that Jesus was at that time in his forties, he must have considered that the public ministry lasted for more than 10 years" (pg. 275). Also, "On the basis of Jn 8:57, however, Irenaeus is sure that Jesus had not reached his fiftieth year. He was, then, between forty and fifty, Irenaeus holds, and thus (counting from baptism at about thirty) must have has a ministry of between ten and twenty years. Thus Irenaeus argues against5 the Valentinian view of a one year ministry. (pg. 282).

Also, see the footnote about the testimony of the elder John (just after Irenaeus' statements about stages of life): "With respect to this extraordinary assertion of Irenæus [that Jesus' career spanned 10-20 years], Harvey remarks: 'The reader may here perceive the unsatisfactory character of tradition, where a mere fact is concerned. From reasonings founded upon the evangelical history, as well as from a preponderance of external testimony, it is most certain that our Lord’s ministry extended but little over three years; yet here Irenæus states that it included more than ten years, and appeals to a tradition derived, as he says, from those who had conversed with an apostle'." Personally, I think Roberts and Harvey missed the point when they attribute all the comments about stages of life to John, and what John testified to was just "[old age] which our Lord possessed while he taught."

So, Irenaeus did not say Jesus was crucified at 50, but that the Jews portrayed in John 8:57 thought that he was in his 40s. While I agree that Irenaeus may have sympathized with that idea, all he really asserted was that he felt Jesus was at least 40.

I know you won't find this explanation satisfactory, and will savage it with your stock replies to any statement made at all.

ApostateAbe · 06-10-2013, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

though he may have gone out on a limb among the mythicists himself with his theory that Nazareth didn't exist.

It is important to specify WHEN Nazareth existed. It exists now...but the question is, did it exist at the end of the first millenium BC. Evidence for that is sparse.... at best.

Maybe, and I think sparse evidence is more than all it takes, since such a town plausibly preceded the existing city. It is very much implausible to claim that a town was founded in a certain region just because some religion made it up and falsely claimed it existed, as in such a thing has either never happened as far as we are aware or it has happened very rarely. It is especially unlikely when we have no apparent reason why the religion made it up and instead evidence that would indicate the opposite interest.

Toto · 06-10-2013, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.... It is very much implausible to claim that a town was founded in a certain region just because some religion made it up and falsely claimed it existed, as in such a thing has either never happened as far as we are aware or it has happened very rarely. ...

But isn't that about what happened with a lot of Christian landmarks? The Empress Helena, mother of Constantine, traveled to the Holy Lands to locate the places in the gospels. The local obliged by pointing out likely prospects. I don't see the implausibility. I can't prove that is what happened with Nazareth, but it's not so implausible.

Add to that the fact that we don't really know where Nazareth was, and small villages sometimes did not have fixed locations, and the description in the gospels does not fit the current location of Nazareth -

From JesusNeverExisted.com

Quote:

In the 3rd century Church Father Origen knew the gospel story of the city of Nazareth – yet had no clear idea where it was – even though he lived at Caesarea, barely thirty miles from the present town! Even in Origen's day, as the Church became more institutionalised, intense rivalry was developing between the patriarchs of Caesarea and Jerusalem. This rivalry was only resolved (in Jerusalem's favour) at Chalcedon in 451. Part of the rivalry centred on control of 'Holy places'. Hence, 'finding' the lost city of Nazareth was a matter of major importance,

Perambulating to the rescue, in the early 4th century, came the 80-year-old dowager Empress Helena. Preparing the way for an imminent meeting with her maker with a program of 'Works', she made a conscience-salving pilgrimage to Palestine. In the area of Nazareth she could find nothing but an ancient well – in fact the only water source in the area (which in itself demolishes the idea there was ever a 'city' ). No doubt encouraged by canny locals, Helena promptly labelled the hole in the ground 'Mary's Well' and had a small basilica built over the spot. Conveniently, the gospels had failed to make clear exactly where Mary had been when the archangel Gabriel had come calling. Thus the Well site acquired local support for the divine visitation and Nazareth acquired its first church.

Helena created the pilgrimage business which has never ceased. Yet before the passage of the imperial grandee, not a single ancient source had established a precise location for the 'Nazara' of the gospels.

ApostateAbe · 06-10-2013, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.... It is very much implausible to claim that a town was founded in a certain region just because some religion made it up and falsely claimed it existed, as in such a thing has either never happened as far as we are aware or it has happened very rarely. ...

But isn't that about what happened with a lot of Christian landmarks? The Empress Helena, mother of Constantine, traveled to the Holy Lands to locate the places in the gospels. The local obliged by pointing out likely prospects. I don't see the implausibility. I can't prove that is what happened with Nazareth, but it's not so implausible.

Add to that the fact that we don't really know where Nazareth was, and small villages sometimes did not have fixed locations, and the description in the gospels does not fit the current location of Nazareth -

From JesusNeverExisted.com

Quote:

In the 3rd century Church Father Origen knew the gospel story of the city of Nazareth – yet had no clear idea where it was – even though he lived at Caesarea, barely thirty miles from the present town! Even in Origen's day, as the Church became more institutionalised, intense rivalry was developing between the patriarchs of Caesarea and Jerusalem. This rivalry was only resolved (in Jerusalem's favour) at Chalcedon in 451. Part of the rivalry centred on control of 'Holy places'. Hence, 'finding' the lost city of Nazareth was a matter of major importance,

Perambulating to the rescue, in the early 4th century, came the 80-year-old dowager Empress Helena. Preparing the way for an imminent meeting with her maker with a program of 'Works', she made a conscience-salving pilgrimage to Palestine. In the area of Nazareth she could find nothing but an ancient well – in fact the only water source in the area (which in itself demolishes the idea there was ever a 'city' ). No doubt encouraged by canny locals, Helena promptly labelled the hole in the ground 'Mary's Well' and had a small basilica built over the spot. Conveniently, the gospels had failed to make clear exactly where Mary had been when the archangel Gabriel had come calling. Thus the Well site acquired local support for the divine visitation and Nazareth acquired its first church.

Helena created the pilgrimage business which has never ceased. Yet before the passage of the imperial grandee, not a single ancient source had established a precise location for the 'Nazara' of the gospels.

Do you stand behind those claims of JesusNeverExisted.com? I ask because I would like to argue with members of the forum, not the guy of JesusNeverExisted.com. Thanks.

aa5874 · 06-10-2013, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...Maybe, and I think sparse evidence is more than all it takes, since such a town plausibly preceded the existing city. It is very much implausible to claim that a town was founded in a certain region just because some religion made it up and falsely claimed it existed, as in such a thing has either never happened as far as we are aware or it has happened very rarely. It is especially unlikely when we have no apparent reason why the religion made it up and instead evidence that would indicate the opposite interest.

Are you not claiming that the Jesus cult made up the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem?

Are you not claiming that the Jesus cult made up the conception by the Holy Ghost?

Are you not claiming the Jesus cult writers made up the Holy Ghost Bird and the voice from heaven?

Are you not claiming that the Jesus cult writers made up the miracles of Jesus.

Are you not claiming that the Jesus cult writers made up the resurrection?

Are you not claiming that the Jesus cult writers made up the ascension?

The Jesus cult writers made up the story of Jesus from conception to ascension.

Why could they not have made up that Jesus came from Nazareth?

By the way, there is no claim whatsoever that Jesus was born in Nazareth because the very Gospels which claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost in Bethlehem also claimed he merely LIVED in Nazareth.

Toto · 06-10-2013, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
Do you stand behind those claims of JesusNeverExisted.com? I ask because I would like to argue with members of the forum, not the guy of JesusNeverExisted.com. Thanks.

I don't think that these particular claims are especially controversial. Do you see a problem with them?

I don't think that we can really know if Nazareth existed, because we don't know where it was. I don't think that this has anything much to do with a historical Jesus, because the historical Jesus hypothesis can accommodate any set of facts.

I find all of your claims based on plausibility and probability to be too subjective to be the basis of an argument.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.