MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Creation Myths, Ancient & Modern (Philosophy)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Why not an allegorical/historical blend of sorts, much like Homer's Odyssey and the synoptic gospels?

That is exactly what I said it was. It is a blend of Myth, Legend and History of a minor people who have been erroneously given a world perspective. Which I might add was probably not the intention of an obscure group of tribal Arab descendents who lived in the southwestern corner of the Arabian Peninsular.

How did this happen -- with the mistranslation of just ONE word.

That word was rrt and at the time when Greek-speaking Jews translated it in the Ptolomite Period in Alexandria the only rrt they knew was Ararat in modern day Armenia. Suddenly this obscure book about a minor people was given a world perspective. Instead of Noah's descendants creating tribal folk that still exist exactly where the Bible says they live -- even to this day. Shem, Ham and Japheth have become the progenitors of all of western civilisation.

The local Flood Myth became a World Flood Myth.

With regard to who borrowed what from whom. In order to understand whose was the original Flood Myth one only has to read the Bible text. De Santilla and von Dechard made a comprehensive study of Flood Myths in Hamlets Mill and ascertained from over fifty different societies that although they all shared a similar mythos they all retold events that were of local conditions ... the Polynesians' myth was about sea floods, the Chinese's about river floods, the Biblical flood about a rain flood.

The Biblical flood was caused by torrential rain.

Now where in Mesopotamia is there torrential rain .... then or now.

It doesn't exist.

It's a bloody great plain in a DESERT with two rivers that were extensively terraformed in the earliest period of the Sumerians. They built an extensive network of canals, locks and sluiceways to irrigate the marginal land between the two rivers just as the Egyptians did -- if they were used to torrential rain, why bother? There was no torrential rain in Mesopotamia. There may have been in the mountains over 1000 miles to the north but by the time the floodwaters reached that far south it would have well and truly dissipated over the flat lands that surround the rivers for hundreds of miles. So the Mesopotamian Flood Myth that mirrors the Biblical one was not theirs.

It may not have even been the Hebrews either.

I could go on and on and on and on, so are we to 'believe' that these events do not have any allegorical/mythological merit whatsoever, and fall merely into your category of 'religious significance'?

I didn't say they had no mythological merit. I was rebutting the comments made that some or almost all of the figures in the Bible did not exist. You can't have Myth and Legend without REAL people to base them on. Even the Anglo-Saxons deified their heroes.

The story of Adam has TWO different references to h-dm (the Adam) and one dm (Adam). "The Adam" is a reference to MAN and "Adam" is a reference to a man called Adam. The way the story is written the reader assumes they are one and the same person because it was translated by people who were unaware of the significance of the original text and have translated h-dm as dm plain Adam. It is only when you reference the original Bible in Ancient Hebrew that the mistranslation is discovered. It is clear from this that by the time of the Septuagint the best Jewish minds had lost the significance of the original text or they wished to disguise its original message from the Greek philosophical cadre of their time.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
...with the help of lateral thinkers like Ish and a bunch of willing Questers with open minds we became enlightened and began to question the fundamental beliefs that we all held so dearly. SLOT, SCUM and OGRE are just some of the result of this enlightenment.


Remember Komori that most of our readers here will be wholly unfamiliar with these acronyms. And please do not spill the beans.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:

Yet Another Conspiracy Theory of Christian Origins Mission Statement

Tekton Apologetics Ministries is committed to providing scholarly answers to serious questions, which are often posed on major and minor elements of the Christian faith....relevant to the Church as a whole
.

Before replying to the article on Marduk's link please take note of the mission statement above. This a fundamentalist Christian Site that debunks alternative Biblical History.

I hardly think the tenor of the site to be accurately characterized as "fundamentalist." Even the tenor of the quote you selected! Evangelical perhaps. Fundamentalist? Give me a break.

And I also think they are entitled to their editorial position, which incidentally makes them an excellent source for contrarian arguments. Well chosen by Marduk indeed.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Remember Komori that most of our readers here will be wholly unfamiliar with these acronyms. And please do not spill the beans.


The mere thought hadn't even begun to speculate about the merest possibility of crossing my mind.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

OK then what are we to make of all fabulous events of the Old Testament i.e.,

Before I answer that, answer me this:

Is St Paul's vision on the road to Damascus any different to Joseph Young's vision in the Sacred Grove?


Yes, Paul's Damascus vision is primarily different from Joseph Smith's in that, in all of his epistles, Paul was not as presumptuous as Joseph Smith to think that anybody would literally buy an 'overtly allegorical' tale like the Damascus Vision. Especially in his own words. Paul had some self-respect, whilst it seems that Joseph Smith had nothing to lose in mimicking the archetypical 'Christian salvationary vision'. To me it is quite clear that Joseph Smith wanted us to understand his 'vision' literally through symbolic-colourful language, but then I am barely acquainted with Joseph Smith and the body of his writings.

Paul wasn't dealing with a bunch of willing sheep, he was attempting to usurp the authority of James and Peter who held that their version of Christianity was a Jewish-only affair and they represented Yeshua/Jesus's vision of new religion. Paul on the other hand wanted to take this new religion to a bigger audience and to do that he need a powerful ally and who better than Yeshua/Jesus himself. Hey Presto, a Revelation.

So let's look at some of these fabulous events that you speak of and see just how miraculous they really are.

We'll start with Moses, a man who spent his entire life as an Egyptian of very high status. After he learned he was Hebrew and various other political intrigues he led 600,000 of his fellows who had endured several hundred years of servitude under Egyptian control on a trek to the Promised Land. These were not a harmonious people who were enamoured with Moses as a leader either politically or religiously. They were disparate tribes who were definitely not all Yahweh-worshippers. How was he ever going to put the fear of God into these vying factions? But Moses had an epiphany; he was 'called' to the heights of Mt Sinai (which St Paul knew to be in Arabia), which was trembling and belching smoke and ash (a volcanic mountain no doubt) where he received inscribed tablets with a testament written thereon.

When he returned down from the mountain his miscreant followers had reverted to Baal worship - something they would do recurringly for many centuries to come if I read the Bible correctly. Moses didn't actually get to share his miraculous gift with his followers as in his anger at their paganism he smashed the tablets and proceeded to put hundreds to the sword. Without proof he had to go back up the mountain where Yahweh told him he could write the bloody things out himself and on something less fragile.
God: What are you doing back here?
Moses: I broke them
God: Fucksake!
Moses: I thought you said they were unbreakable
God: The commandments not the tablets. Of all the monotheistists in the world I've gotta pick one who's clumsy and intellectually challenged.
You can write them out this time.

Moses: On what?
God: Well you're a civilised Egyptian aren't you? Don't you carry some spare papyrus around for when nature calls?
Moses: Right
God: Now take this down, it's in Hebrew
Moses: I'm Egyptian remember. What's this Hebrew?
God: Ah! We could have a problem here.

How could an Egyptian-educated Moses write out the new commandments in HEBREW? Only the elite were permitted to read and write and they did it in Egyptian. Reading and writing wasn't available to Joe Average Egyptian so I hardly think it would have been de rigueur amongst the 'foreign' captives. I guess it just happened. Sounds familiar, but this is the Bible, right?

Skip ahead a few hundred years to Solomon's time and we find the Zadokite priest Hilkiah, another highly educated elite, who at the time the Empire was fragmenting suddenly discovered a never-before-attested holy book, 'Deuteronomy', which just happened to encapsulate all his Zadokite religious ideals. The contents of which when disclosed to the newly crowned Josiah sets off another spree of bloodletting against the pagan Israelites -- it seems that ten of the twelve tribes had reverted to Baal worship. In fact of the entire reign of the Solomomid Empire, Yahweh-worship was only prevalent for less a third of time. Another wondrously fortuitous Revelation.

The scene now shifts to the pre-Persian exile in Babylon where the prophet Ezekiel, one of the deported Zadokite priests, had what can only be described as a very convenient chat in which God told him that the Zadokites were the only true priests, and that he should control the spiritual destiny of His people along with a new temple, its surroundings, and its revenues. The Levites, the traditional priesthood, were to be relegated to menial religious tasks. This was to have dire consequences much later as Ezekiel's cronies had the Davidic line of Kings replaced. To say that Yeshua/Jesus, in the 1st Century, was a little pissed at this eventuality would be an understatement

We move now to Paul, another highly educated Hellenised Jew with several hundred years of Greek philosophy to draw on. His dream was to spread the infant Christianity of James and Peter to the unwashed masses of the Gentiles. And who better to stamp their seal of authority on his aspirations than, you guessed it, Jesus himself. The road to Damascus is long and winding with plenty of spots for a convenient vision. Look there's one just over there.

But things didn't run exactly to plan. Those bloody Byzantines got hold of Paul's idea and fucked the whole thing up. Enter our next highly educated saviour, Mohammed. The Persian and Byzantine empires were about to collapse, the merchant classes were ripping off all and sundry, the world was in state of disarray, Axum and Hymar had collapsed, half the world population were dead, the remnants were desperate for new direction. And Mohammed provided it with an abracadabra. Don't tell me. Another Revelation, right?

The next time-warp is rather large and much closer to our time. Joseph Smith was 1000 years and a Reformation away from the previous Revelation but you can't keep an educated man with a divine mission down. What he lacked in philosophical nous and eloquence he more than made up for with sheer bravado. And if there is one thing that defines American Christianity it's bravado. But how to get their attention, they're not exactly the sharpest tools in the shed. A Revelation. That ought to do it. He may have been no Paul but he recognised a great idea when he saw it.

All of the above were highly intelligent, well-educated men with a divine mission, preaching to an easily swayed congregation. NONE of their Revelations hold any merit. They each used lies to sway the gullible masses to their cause. One Revelation is maybe believable. Two is a coincidence. But six revelations using the same modus operandi is a bloody great anomaly. We've torn anomalies with far more substance than this to shreds on a dozen different threads on the Quest.

There are no fabulous events in the Old Testament. There is a lot of history transfigured into Mythical Supernatural Tales spun by highly intelligent men whose ultimate agendas were not always in the best interests of the listeners and anything woven in at a philosophical level was way beyond their comprehension. The prime motive in at least three cases (the Zadokite, Catholic and Mormon clergy) was control of the illiterate masses and the self-perpetuation of their respective priesthoods paid for by those masses.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Paul's account of his own conversion is not to be confused with the allegory written about him in Acts.

I think you're too stuck in Bibilical literalism. Moses may have existed but the Biblical character of Moses never did. Jesus certainly never existed. Paul existed but not the Paul of "The Road to Damascus." He is a literary invention. Mohammed almost certainly never existed. All of these revelations exist only in a mythology that was composed with these few as the central characters.

Joseph Smith alone composed his own mythology with himself as the central character.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Paul's account of his own conversion is not to be confused with the allegory written about him in Acts.

Quite right but one has to not assume that ALL of Acts is allegory. If you had read it in the original Greek you would have observed that it has two distinct literary styles. One is in First Person Plural -- the so called 'we sections' by scholars. They are all first hand accounts of the travels of Paul and his companions. The bulk of Acts however is in the Third Person and its narrative style and content are dubious at best and bear the unmistakable style of Luke. Acts is in effect Luke's Second Gospel.

Jesus certainly never existed.

Jesus certainly never existed as Paul portrays him or as James and Peter did, but an historical person named Jeshu whom both Jesuses are based on certainly did.
If we strip away the Mythology and the Biblical parallels we are left with the distilled evidence of a man named Yeshua who:
1. Was the heir to the Davidic line
2. Was a preacher of Mosaic law
3. Garnered some degree of local support
4. Arrived in Jerusalem to assert his birthright
5. Caused a commotion in Herod's temple
6. Was arrested and put to death.

The Talmud records that this Jeshua was the illegitimate son of Roman, who mocked men of learning, gathered around him disciples, caused a popular stir and was put to death on the eve of Jewish Passover.

Tacitus writing in 111 AD reported that the Christian troublemakers of his time were so called after Chrestus who was put to death during the reign of Tiberius when Pilate was procurator of Judea. Flavius Josephus records the death of James the brother of Jesus in AD 62 by stoning. Paul himself in Thessalonians directly blames the Jews for Jesus' death, which Josephus confirms.

An historical figure of Jeshua/Jesus did exist. In a short but fatal career he garnered local support in a land that was rife with political and religious infighting and violence. At a time when three religious factions (Pharisees, Sadducee and Zadokites) were locked in a power struggle for popular support and at a time when resistance to Roman authority was at a fever pitch he represented an alternative view, which was ultimately crushed.

He was not the Mythological/Esoteric figure created by both Paul and James respectively but he was remembered as a local hero whom both parties used to build separate Mythologies around. They could hardly create a contemporary myth about someone who didn't exist in the minds of the local population as some sort of a hero.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I could go on and on and on and on, so are we to 'believe' that these events do not have any allegorical/mythological merit whatsoever, and fall merely into your category of 'religious significance'? If so, then please outline what you perceive as 'religious significance'. Then define where, and by what criteria, we should draw the line between 'actual history' and 'religious significance'.

They have both but without religious or social significance neither the history nor the myth have any merit within a given culture. Myth is not history but it is woven with the same thread. People, places and tribes are transformed into heroes, gods and goddesses. Political alliances become personal friendships. Tribal confederation become royal marriages, migrations become voyages of adventure and political conflicts become matters of personal honour.

Mythology galvanises social identity, whether tribe or nation and just like history, provides a given society with a political, religious and moral platform that defines their culture. They may even recognise the fantasy within the Myth but, they embrace it because they know at its core are real people and events.

Why not an allegorical/historical blend of sorts, much like Homer's Odyssey and the synoptic gospels?

Exactly what I believe is the case. I have no problem with this concept at all. What I do take umbrage at are blanket statements to the effect that certain characters within these Myths never existed when plainly they did. In order for Mythology to have resonance with those whom it is designed to inspire the heroes, villains, geography, politics and minor characters must have a reality that the listener can identify with. Especially if these Myths are about contemporary figures within the particular culture the Myth is set, which the Bible certainly is.

One only needs to read the Shipwrecked Sailor, the Epic of Gilgamesh /Atrahasis/ Ishtar, Hesiod's Works and Days, Homer's Odyssey, Plato's Republic/Phaedo, Ovid's Metamorphoses, Virgil's Aeneid, the works of Philo, the Synoptic Gospels, Plutarch's Lives, Diogenes' Life of Pythagoras, etc. in order to sense the complexity of the mythmaker's thought processes.

And which of these had/have any resonance or wide appeal in their respective cultures, or were inspiring enough to stand the test of time in popular culture. The Gospels definitely, Homer's works yes, Gilgamesh maybe, the rest are eminently forgettable except in selective academic circles. Only Plato is remembered and only because of his tales of Atlantis. The complexity of their Mythmaking was so effective no one remembers either them or their Myths.

It not that you can't see the forest for the trees, you can't see the forest is MADE of trees.
Send private message
Wireloop


In: Detroit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

kid stated:
"Quite right but one has to not assume that ALL of Acts is allegory"

response:
It is not a matter of assumption, it is a matter of being able to distinguish the forest from the trees by looking at the whole cultural and literary mileu of 1st century Judaism.

kid stated:
"Acts is in effect Luke's Second Gospel"

response:
All the more reason to suspect that Acts is completely fictional, even the so called 'we sections'. It is quite obvious that the author of Acts was not only familiar with the synoptics but also with Paul's letters. This author is telling things in a way which would resonate with his audiance.

kid stated:
"The Talmud records that this Jeshua was the illegitimate son of Roman"

response:
The Talmud was written post 300 AD. Christian literalism has already thoroughly permeated civilized society. The Jesus 'documentation' in the Talmud is a literalist Jewish reponse to the emerging stranglehold of Christianity over traditional Judaism.
I trust the Talmud's explanation for Jesus just as much as I trust Eusebius'.

kid stated:
"Jesus certainly never existed as Paul portrays him or as James and Peter did"

response:
A fair portion of Paul's letters and most certainly the letters of James and Peter that have been canonized are pseudopigraphia. I trust that you know the pros and cons of the argument.

kid stated:
"If we strip away the Mythology and the Biblical parallels we are left with the distilled evidence of a man named Yeshua who:
1. Was the heir to the Davidic line
2. Was a preacher of Mosaic law
3. Garnered some degree of local support
4. Arrived in Jerusalem to assert his birthright
5. Caused a commotion in Herod's temple
6. Was arrested and put to death"

response:
1) Paul and Philo both say that 'we' as Abraham's spiritual seed, according to promise, are the heirs. Christianity is not about a physical 'heir' as evangelism wants us to believe.
2) Paul says that the law, symbolic of the Philonic concept of 'the flesh' no longer has any power over us, and that 'Christ' is the fulfillment of the Law that establishes the Kingdom within the Soul. The Law is transformed. Read Galatians and Romans.
3) All anti-establishment movements because of their grass roots nature garner 'local support'.
4) The gospels present Jesus (JEHOVAH SAVES) as an OT mimesis of Joshua son of Nun, King Josiah the temple restorer, and as one yet to be named.... Nothing in the gospels are to be taken literally...nothing.
5) The Herod stories are a mimesis of the Moses, Elijah and Esther stories. The cleansing of the Temple is a mimesis of Josiah and has philosophical ramifications.
6) The suffering servant, Socrates, was also arrested and put to death.

You cannot use the synoptic accounts (ca 75 AD and beyond) to account for the historical life and times of Jesus. The synoptics are a complete philosophical allegory in the tradition of Philo of Alexandria. All that we are left with is Paul, and he doesn't say much at all.
Forget about Josephus (ca 80 AD) and Tacitus (ca 110 AD).
Josephus' 'blurb' is complete interpolation...(I know the arguments like the back of my hand...save it ; ) and Tacitus' 'blurb' is post synoptic and therefore quite unreliable.

When one reads Paul and the Gospels inlight of the Philonic, Alexandrian Judaism it is quite evident that Jesus is the product of a Jewish paradigm shift which placed Plato on the same pedestal as Moses and the scriptures. The scriptures were now read, interpreted and rewritten in light of Plato's city/soul.
I can't go into it all right now komorokid (for various reasons), but maybe in the new year. You've bought into the minimalist version of the historical Jesus..but all is not what it seems.

kid stated:
"Only Plato is remembered and only because of his tales of Atlantis"

response:
Kid, you've got to be kidding.
The children of Plato shaped 'western civilization' as we know it (and in ways some don't know of).
Now I understand where you are coming from.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
Jesus certainly never existed as Paul portrays him or as James and Peter did, but an historical person named Jeshu whom both Jesuses are based on certainly did.

He certainly did not.

The Talmud records that this Jeshua was the illegitimate son of Roman, who mocked men of learning, gathered around him disciples, caused a popular stir and was put to death on the eve of Jewish Passover.

This material was written literally HUNDREDS of years after the events were alleged to have occured. It constitutes a Jewish response to Christian historiography. It is certainly not Jewish history.

Tacitus writing in 111 AD reported that the Christian troublemakers of his time were so called after Chrestus

A problematic passage.

Flavius Josephus records the death of James, the brother of Jesus, in AD 62 by stoning.

James, the Brother of Jesus, was indeed a real person. However, he did not have a literal brother named Jesus. Paul mentions James "the brother of the lord" in his letters. James appears to have been something of a papal figure for the early Church.

Paul himself in Thessalonians directly blames the Jews for Jesus' death...

I Thess. 2.14-16 has often been regarded as a post-Pauline interpolation. But should it prove original on the body of the evidence, in must be interpreted as metaphorical on the basis of Pauline Christology evident in the remainder of Paul's work.

...which Josephus confirms.

You can't be seriously invoking Josephus! Everything...and I mean everything...Josephus has to say of Christ was inserted long after Josephus was dead and buried. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

An historical figure of Jeshua/Jesus did exist. In a short but fatal career he garnered local support in a land that was rife with political and religious infighting and violence.

Yet this career goes wholly unmentioned by Paul? Yet Philo has nothing to say of him?
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael (not the Biblical Ishmael, he was actually Al-Ismail, a pre-Christian God of West Arabia) said:

I Thess. 2.14-16 has often been regarded as a post-Pauline interpolation. But should it prove original on the body of the evidence, in must be interpreted as metaphorical on the basis of Pauline Christology evident in the remainder of Paul's work.

The key here is the use of phrases like 'often regarded as' and "must be interpreted as" are standard orthodox techniques used to suggest that first hand testimony is some how false.

You can't be seriously invoking Josephus! Everything...and I mean everything...Josephus has to say of Christ was inserted long after Josephus was dead and buried. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

Yes and the insertions are quite obvious; I threw that one in to see how many fish would bite and it seems I'll be having seafood dinners for a coupla days.

A problematic passage.

Yes. For you it is. This is first hand testimony from a totally unbiased source that knew who Chrestus was, that his followers were seen as troublemakers in his time, and was aware of the circumstances and historicity of his demise.

Paul said:
--Concerning his Son Jesus Christ, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.--

I Wirebot said:

Western Civilisation is the Child of Plato.

Whereupon Plato said:
'That bastard child is no progeny on mine' and promptly sent a DNA sample to Bryan Sykes and hired a paternity lawyer.

I Wirebot said: 'My logic is undeniable / unreliable" (strike out whichever doesn't apply)

The Kid said: 'Live long and proselytise' and he even got the Vulcan salute right.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
The key here is the use of phrases like 'often regarded as' and "must be interpreted as" are standard orthodox techniques used to suggest that first hand testimony is somehow false.

No Kom. Sorry, not buying it.

I was once completely convinced that Christ was historical. Perhaps a mythologized persona but derived from a real person who really lived nonetheless. I would have laughed at anyone who suggested otherwise.

That's where you are now.

But I have been utterly convinced that Christ could not possibly have ever lived. It is not possible to read Paul, divorced from the Gospels, and conclude that Jesus ever walked this Earth. It just does not make any sense.

I'm not going to debate it with you though. The arguments are all available on the Web and expressed far more eloquently than anything I could offer. I could not do the case proper justice.

I'm a big proponent of Occam's Razor and the one explanation that best-fits all of the facts is that Jesus was ever always only a metaphor.

==========

p.s. I find it interesting that you first attempted to invoke Josephus as evidence for your case despite, you claim, always agreeing that everything he appears to say concerning Jesus is an interpolation. Not very ethical.

But that aside, if you agree that Josephus's mentions of Jesus are 100% interpolated, that leaves you with this problem: Josephus, arch-Jewish Historian, whose attention to detail was such that he wrote extensively about even little-known religious sects, never once -- never once -- mentions Jesus. This does not strike you as problematic?

Does it not also strike you as problematic that the interpolator of Josephus had a motive to doctor the text in the first place? Why was it so important that Josephus mention Christ?

If you answer these questions, you are sure to tie yourself up in knots of special pleading.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

p.s. I find it interesting that you first attempted to invoke Josephus as evidence for your case despite, you claim, always agreeing that everything he appears to say concerning Jesus is an interpolation. Not very ethical.

It was a foolish attempt to elicit a vitriolic response and I apologise.

Does it not also strike you as problematic that the interpolator of Josephus had a motive to doctor the text in the first place? Why was it so important that Josephus mention Christ?

Interpolation was common among early Christian scholarship. The entire works of Greek philosophy were vigorously suppressed and destroyed. Christian zealots burnt the library in Alexandria and its wealth of philosophical and esoteric knowledge to the ground. Most of the non-Christian ancient texts have come down to us from outside Christian sources. The Talmud was banned and burned by decree, as were many 'heretical' texts. The early Christian church fathers, when they gained power in Rome, were eager to destroy or suppress any history on Jesus that contradicted THEIR version of history. Josephus' works confirmed much of Old Testament history and as such was an ideal testament to doctor at a time when the validity of the historical Jesus may have been in question.

The authors may have simply been unaware of the historic reference by Tacitus, something you have still not addressed to date. Of all the ancient scholars he is recognises as the most accurate. He was a Roman senator and contemporary with the events. He not only had access to Senate records but also the private journals of many prominent Roman officials, whose works he referenced in all his Histories. The text below was not an account of events in Palestine but the historic account of the burning of Rome during Nero's reign. It is apparent from the text he is no friend of Christians and would hardly have endorsed their 'mythological' history of Christ. He was emphatic about the person and the circumstances of his death.

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 centre 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.

This material was written literally HUNDREDS of years after the events were alleged to have occurred. It constitutes a Jewish response to Christian historiography. It is certainly not Jewish history.

The Talmud was not as you stated written HUNDREDS of years after the event. The texts were compiled and redacted in Babylon in the 5th Century from records written in that city and in the Palestine cities of Tiberias and Caesaria during the late 2nd and early 3rd Centuries. The text quoted relates to a Jeshua ben Pendira who was a historical figure in 1st Century Palestine who was put to death on or around the Jewish Passover. This legendary figure, who was branded a heretic by Jewish leaders, founded a Jewish sect that inspired and influenced the early Christians. He spent time in the Jewish Alexandrian community at the same time as Philo, before his time in Palestine. The Talmud credits this person as the historical base for the later esoteric development of Pauline Christianity. The Talmud recognises this Jeshua as a historic figure. Taken alone this evidence is deniable but in the light of Tacitus' independent corroboration of a similar person who died at the same time in the same place there is more than enough evidence of a historical Jeshua.

The texts in question were written down BEFORE Christianity was formalised in 4th Century.

But that aside, if you agree that Josephus's mentions of Jesus are 100% interpolated, that leaves you with this problem: Josephus, Arch Jewish Historian, who's attention to detail was such that he wrote extensively about even little-known religious sects, never once -- never once -- mentions Jesus. This does not strike you as problematic?

Josephus was born after Jeshua lived and did not write his Histories until after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. He was also a Pharisee -- who were totally opposed to all things Christian. It's not that he had nothing to say about Jesus, he had nothing to say about Christians at all. By the time he was writing Christianity, thanks to Paul, was beyond the borders of Palestine. Even when he went to Rome, where he was confirmed as a Roman citizen, there is not a mention of Christians there or anywhere else, such as Greece or Turkey. They are conspicuously missing from his histories even though Tacitus records their presence in Rome. Why? He didn't live in the time of Jesus but he most certainly did live in the time of Paul and the spread of Pauline Christianity.
This Arch Jewish Historian, whose attention to detail was such that he wrote extensively about even little known religious sects, just happened to miss the Christians.

James, the Brother of Jesus, was indeed a real person. However, he did not have a literal brother named Jesus. Paul mentions James "the brother of the lord" in his letters. James appears to have been something of a papal figure for the early Church.

Paul is defining which James he is referring to. James was a very common name at that time, as it is today. He was not talking about James the Just or James the son of Zebadee or James the son of Alphaeus he was talking about James the brother of Jesus.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
The authors may have simply been unaware of the historic reference by Tacitus, something you have still not addressed to date.

Because I don't want to debate this issue here. To me, it is a settled matter that Jesus simply could not exist. For many years, I pondered related matters assembling in my mind all of the apparently inconsistent and otherwise peculiar material from the New Testament and could never succeed in making rational sense of it all. Not until I encountered the arguments for the Mythical Christ thesis. With this single theory, all the internal and inter-relational contradictions of scripture and external historical sources disappeared. I am completely pursuaded and have no interest in debating it.

Moreover, unlike yourself, I really don't like wasting the group's time discussing someone else's theories -- not when I have so many of my own in other areas -- new material the world has not seen. I am, for example, sympathetic to the proposition that Europe's "Dark Age" never happened -- but I almost never discuss it (in fact, I only ever discuss it as an aside -- never as an advocate).

But as for my position on Tacitus, I thought I had outlined this.

I most strongly suspect this is a later, Christian interpolation (that is what I meant by characterizing it as "problematic"). However, if assumed for the time being to be original, it actually provides us with no evidence for the historicity of Christ. The details it reports are near-verbatim restatements of what we know as the Nicean Creed, which means that if the passage is not a fabricated insertion of the Christian credo into an historical source, it is the faithful reportage of the story only as Tacitus received it ("Sources say..."). But Tacitus appears to have no direct knowledge of the supposedly historial events he is recording.

He not only had access to Senate records but also the private journals of many prominent Roman officials, whose works he referenced in all his Histories.

And yet, despite the wealth of resources at his disposal, he provides us with not one iota of information not already present in the New Testament. Curious.

He was emphatic about the person and the circumstances of his death.

Emphatic? He mentions it. He mentions it in precisely the same way in which the Nicene Creed mentions it. In the same way that Luke mentions it. Suspicious.

...Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius:

And that's it. That's all we've got about Christ from Tacitus who, as you said, had access to "journals...of Roman officials." He quotes none. And what he does say suspiciously echoes the Nicene Creed.

...and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate...

As well as Luke...

...In the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea...

So Tacitus is useless for establishing anything of the historicity of Christ. On the other hand, assuming Christ is a metaphor makes Paul's life, ministry, and theology for the first time make real sense.

The texts in question were written down BEFORE Christianity was formalised in 4th Century.

Scholars have been debating this matter for some time and there's just no argument you can offer that has not been thoroughly gone over elsewhere in greater degree and proven unpersuasive.

WHy waste time arguing over someone else's ideas? Why don't you come up with some of your own instead?

Josephus was born after Jeshua lived and did not write his Histories until after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. He was also a Pharisee who were totally opposed to all things Christians....

blah blah blah. More special pleading as I predicted.

You say that Josephus does not mention Jesus because he was opposed to Christianity. Yet clearly Tacitus was opposed to Christianity (on the evidence of the cited passage anyway) yet he does mention Jesus. So opposition to Christianity is in no way an obvious impediment to mentioning Jesus in a universal sense. There must be some other reason Josephus fails to mention Jesus then and the one you cite is of no value in building an argument.

Other people were also born after Jesus lived -- Origen for instance -- and they also mention Jesus. So being born too late is also no impediment to mentioning Jesus. Thus this reason too is of no value in explaining Josephus' oversight.

In fact, Jesus had become more important by 70 AD than he had been in the days of Tacitus. So if anything, the later an historian is born, the more likely it should be that he will mention Christ.

It's not that he had nothing to say about Jesus he had nothing to say about Christians at all.

Correct. Because there was no such thing as Christianity. How could Josephus write about something that did not exist?

Paul is defining which James he is referring to. James was a very common name at that time as it is today. He was not talking about James the Just or James the son of Zebadee or James the son of Alphaeus he was talking about James the brother of Jesus.

I'm surprised. James the Just is James the Brother of Jesus. An allegedly papal-like figure for the early Church, he was called a "brother of Christ" (that is, the visionary, intercessory Platonic Christ ideal) because he was recognized for his holiness. Identifying a man as a "brother of Jesus" was just another way of identifying him as truly "Just". The two titles are identical. James "The Just" and James "The brother of Jesus."

Jesus is the archtypical "Just Man."
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

In fact, Jesus had become more important by 70 AD than he had been in the days of Tacitus. So if anything, the later an historian is born, the more likely it should be that he would mention Christ.

You really need to get your facts right, Ish. Tacitus was 14 years old in 70 AD and died at the age of 51 in 117 AD. He WAS a later historian and he DID mention Christ. You just contradicted your own argument.

Correct. Because there was no such thing as Christianity. How could Josephus write about something that did not exist?

How do you figure that? Nero falsely blamed the Christians for burning Rome in 67 AD. So they were certainly known as Christians before the destruction of Jerusalem. Josephus died in 100 AD at the age of 63. By the time Josephus was 30 Christians were present in Palestine and throughout Turkey, Greece and Italy. Paul had preached in all these places. Josephus wrote all of his known works in Rome and was a contemporary of Tacitus a mere 4 years after the Burning of Rome and lived through the persecutions of Domitian a decade later.

And you say there was no such thing as Christianity in Josephus' time. Despite mentioning every piffling little sect he totally fails to mention the most significant religious movement of his time.

Why waste time arguing over someone else's ideas? Why don't you come up with some of your own instead?

Isn't that exactly what you're doing? Your great enlightenment of a Mythological Jesus is no Ishmaelian epiphany. It is a well-known controversy that began in the early 19th century when some historians disputed the existence of an historical Jesus at all. According to this theory, Jesus never existed and the early church fathers created him as a figure for their religion. The gospels are compilations of various legends and esoteric concepts that were attributed to this mythical character Jesus.

Unless of course you're claiming this is a pre-emptive interpolation to thwart your truly original idea.

Please post your special pleadings below.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Jump to:  
Page 3 of 5

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group