 |
| |
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
So you brush off archaeological evidence as "circumstantial?" |
What evidence are you talking about? The startling thing seems to be the lack of any mention of Jesus, this includes writtings.
quote:
Consider the following list. These are the historians and writers who DID live within Christ's alleged lifetime or within a hundred years of it, after the time:
Apollonius Persius
Appian Petronius
Arrian Phaedrus
Aulus Gellius Philo-Judaeus
Columella Phlegon
Damis Pliny the Elder
Dio Chrysostom Pliny the Younger
Dion Pruseus Plutarch
Epictetus Pompon Mela
Favorinus Ptolemy
Florus Lucius Quintilian
Hermogones Quintius Curtius
Josephus Seneca
Justus of Tiberius Silius Italicus
Juvenal Statius
Lucanus Suetonius
Lucian Tacitus
Lysias Theon of Smyran
Martial Valerius Flaccus
Paterculus Valerius Maximus
Pausanias
Yet, aside from two FORGED passages in the works of a Jewish writer mentioned above, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there isn't ANY mention of Jesus Christ. At all. |
http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/jesus5.htm
Additional commentary on the problems with using Flavius Josephus's writtings as proof of Jesus' existence and the relevant passage can be found at this site.
quote:
This passage is called the Testimonium Flavianum, and is sometimes cited by propagandists as independent confirmation of Jesus' existence and resurrection. However, there is excellent reason to suppose that this passage was not written in its present form by Josephus, but was either inserted or amended by later Christians:
The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah, in direct contradiction to the above passage, where Josephus says, "He was the Messiah." Thus, we may conclude that this particular phrase at least was a later insertion. (The version given above was, however, known to Jerome and in the time of Eusebius. Jerome's Latin version, however, renders "He was the Messiah" by "He was believed to be the Christ.") Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite this passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do so. There is thus firm evidence that this passage was tampered with at some point, even if parts of it do date back to Josephus.
The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy. Indeed, the passage seems to make Josephus himself out to be a Christian, which was certainly not the case.
Many Biblical scholars reject the entire Testimonium Flavianum as a later Christian insertion. However, some maintain that Josephus's work originally did refer to Jesus, but that Christian copyists later expanded and made the text more favorable to Jesus. These scholars cite such phrases as "tribe of Christians" and "wise man" as being atypical Christian usages, but plausible if coming from a first century Palestinian Jew. Of course, a suitably clever Christian wishing to "dress up" Josephus would not have much trouble imitating his style. |
http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...ser/hojfaq.html
Addtional evidence questioning the authenticity of this part of Joephus's writtings can be found here:
quote:
Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words.
The third century Church 'Father' Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden paragraph' from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ." |
http://jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.htm
Last edited by Mordoch on 13-11-2003 at 13:00
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
Do you think Santa Claus exists? We have lots of writings about him...surely he must be real!
The point you're missing is that for someone who supposedly had such a dramatic impact on the world around him, the complete lack of contemporary documentation is eye-raising, at the very least. This man supposedly had all of Judea in such an uproar that the ruling elite wanted him dead, and the Romans were afraid of the trouble enough to comply with their wishes. Yet no Jewish or Roman writings document these events outside of the possibly apocryphal gospels. Now, there are some convenient explanations for why those documents might have been lost, but it's still a little strange. I think it certainly indicates there's a lot of exaggeration of the significance of the events in the gospels, if Jesus was real.
On top of that, you can find earlier accounts of prophets resembling the Jesus mythology that indicate it was derivative of those earlier figures, perhaps an amalgam of several different people (Yeshua, mentioned in the Torah IIRC, being one of them). This gives people reason to believe that Jesus as described in the gospels is fiction.
Regardless, the your categorization as people who think there wasn't an historical Jesus as "morons" was clearly unfounded. Since you've been unable to provide any evidence asked for, I'll take that as a concession.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Do you think Santa Claus exists? We have lots of writings about him...surely he must be real!
The point you're missing is that for someone who supposedly had such a dramatic impact on the world around him, the complete lack of contemporary documentation is eye-raising, at the very least. This man supposedly had all of Judea in such an uproar that the ruling elite wanted him dead, and the Romans were afraid of the trouble enough to comply with their wishes. Yet no Jewish or Roman writings document these events outside of the possibly apocryphal gospels. Now, there are some convenient explanations for why those documents might have been lost, but it's still a little strange. I think it certainly indicates there's a lot of exaggeration of the significance of the events in the gospels, if Jesus was real.
On top of that, you can find earlier accounts of prophets resembling the Jesus mythology that indicate it was derivative of those earlier figures, perhaps an amalgam of several different people (Yeshua, mentioned in the Torah IIRC, being one of them). This gives people reason to believe that Jesus as described in the gospels is fiction.
Regardless, the your categorization as people who think there wasn't an historical Jesus as "morons" was clearly unfounded. Since you've been unable to provide any evidence asked for, I'll take that as a concession. |
Tonight, I will try to locate a reputable source that provides strong-possible evidence that Jesus was a real person.
But I was out of line when I used the word "moron."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
I'm certainly perplexed as to how the Menorah is considered a "secular" display:
http://www.jewfaq.org/signs.htm
Menorah
One of the oldest symbols of the Jewish faith is the menorah, a seven-branched candelabrum used in the Temple. The kohanim lit the menorah in the Sanctuary every evening and cleaned it out every morning, replacing the wicks and putting fresh olive oil into the cups. The illustration at left is based on instructions for construction of the menorah found in Ex. 25:31-40.
It has been said that the menorah is a symbol of the nation of Israel and our mission to be "a light unto the nations." (Isaiah 42:6). The sages emphasize that light is not a violent force; Israel is to accomplish its mission by setting an example, not by using force. This idea is highlighted in the vision in Zechariah 4:1-6. Zechariah sees a menorah, and G-d explains: "Not by might, nor by power, but by My spirit."
The lamp stand in today's synagogues, called the ner tamid (lit. the continual light, usually translated as the eternal flame), symbolizes the menorah.
The nine-branched menorah used on Chanukkah is commonly patterned after this menorah, because Chanukkah commemorates the miracle that a day's worth of oil for this menorah lasted eight days.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
How did we get from discussing an idiotic school in New York to the existance of Jesus? |
Because some fanatical atheists wish that he didn't exist. I think it disturbs them for some reason.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:32
|
|
Boris:
quote:
1) They're not historical contemporary documents of the life of Jesus, as the earliest known gospel post-dates his supposed life by 2 decades, at least. If it must be explained why religious dogma isn't taken as historical truth when it's uncorroborrated, well then...
|
Look at the earlier list of historical 'contemporaries' all of them, including Josephus, wrote well after the events they claim occured, and much later than the synoptic Gospels.
So you say 2 decades is not contemporaneous, yet all these other historians writing centuries afterwards, must be contemporaries to Christ. I smell a double standard.
quote:
2) There is no evidence whatsoever that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses to the events. The earliest found manuscripts do not have any ascription, and it is commonly believed by theologians that the assigning of others was done c. 120 CE by Papias. On what basis he assigned the authorships is unknown, but the passage in John wherein the author claims to be an eyewitness was added by someone else, since it's not in the earlier manuscripts. That's called forgery.
|
Citation of the allegedly forged passage would greatly assist your argument. No one ought to have to cite evidence against himself.
Secondly, you claim that Papias had no authority for assigning the authorship of the Gospels, but under what authority do you make the claim? Why did the church accept these authors for their Gospels if they knew them to be falsely attributed?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Boris:
Look at the earlier list of historical 'contemporaries' all of them, including Josephus, wrote well after the events they claim occured, and much later than the synoptic Gospels.
So you say 2 decades is not contemporaneous, yet all these other historians writing centuries afterwards, must be contemporaries to Christ. I smell a double standard.
|
I said no such thing in regards to the list of other historians--you haven't ceased making up other people's arguments, I see!
The fact that none of those historians mentions Jesus isn't evidence Jesus didn't exist in and of itself, but it corroborrates the notion, as there aren't any contemporary records that support his existence. Jesus's absense from them is conspicuous when taken alongside the lack of contemporary account, not in and of itself.
Regardless, you'd think that if the events of the gospel were as important as the gospels maintain, these historians would be mentioning them. The paltry reference in Tacitus to Christians (the details of which are refuted by Seutonius) and lack of other mentions make me think that the supposed storm over the supposed prophet Jesus is a good deal exaggerated, at the very least.
quote:
Citation of the allegedly forged passage would greatly assist your argument. No one ought to have to cite evidence against himself. |
I believe there is only once instance in John in which the author claims to be an eyewitness. I don't have the passage citation handy, but we've discussed this many times before. It was a passage you yourself brought up first.
quote:
Secondly, you claim that Papias had no authority for assigning the authorship of the Gospels, but under what authority do you make the claim? Why did the church accept these authors for their Gospels if they knew them to be falsely attributed? |
No, I didn't claim Papias had no authority--once again you're conjuring false arguments. I said we have no idea on what basis he made the ascriptions. Given that is was nearly a century after the supposed events, the nature of the difficulty of placing authorship in those days, etc., it's very reasonable to question the validity of his claims. The fanatically faithful have consistently shown a knack for deceit so long as it furthers their agenda. The "church" at that time was not the organization it is today or was even 200 years later--if Papias made the claims "These are written by the apostles," a lot of people will believe him because they simply want to believe him. Standards of scholarship among the laypeople weren't exactly strident then, were they?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-11-2003 11:47
|