Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
#76

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-25-2019, 02:47 AM)Minimalist Wrote: Free reminds me of this comment from Ingersoll.

Quote:The ministers, who preached at these revivals, were in earnest. They were zealous and sincere. They were not philosophers. To them science was the name of a vague dread—a dangerous enemy. They did not know much, but they believed a great deal.

For an alleged skeptic he seems to believe a great deal of what the jesus freaks claim is fact.  You don't suppose he is full of shit do you, Buck?

Naw ... you're just jealous because I so easily destroy you in debates. All you got left is your ad homs and Donald Trump style denialism.

But don't go away! Your silliness is so hilarious that it brightens up my day!
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#77

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
You're a lot like Trump, dumbass.  You think making stuff up counts.

It doesn't.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#78

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-25-2019, 02:09 AM)Free Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 01:02 AM)Paleophyte Wrote: The problem with a mythical Jesus, as opposed to a historical individual or individuals who served as the nucleus for the Christ myth, is one of motive. Anybody concocting anything this elaborate is going to need a damned good motive and none of those point to some obscure Judean who got himself tacked to a cross. For that matter, why would anybody with a lick of sense invent a religion from scratch when they had so many mystery cults just lying about to pick and choose from?

We have modern examples of religions arising and we have historical documentation of their dirty little schismatic origins. Early Christianity has very similar fingerprints. The lack of early historical evidence for Christ or Christians just goes to show that the early church was obscure and unimportant.

The truth is the early church scattered after Jesus was strung up, and they were not the Christian church. The Christian church really didn't start developing a history until about the early CE 40s with Paul. By the CE 60s they were viewed like a cult, and therefore despised by the Jews and the Romans. There was just enough of them around to be noticed. 

I would assume that there was likely numerous gospels accounts at the time as Christian churches were not a strong collective, and therefore some would have had their own versions of certain gospel accounts. Paul himself says as much.

The church would have stayed relatively obscure until the CE 60s when Nero persecuted them. A persecution of that type would only create martyrs, which would attract more into the church over the next couple of decades. By the end of the century they really started to become a problem.

So yes, for the first 30 years the early church would have been relatively obscure, but the next 30 years was a population explosion due to Paul, Peter and others likely becoming famous martyrs.

That might be a bit of an exaggeration and I'd take Tacitus with a very healthy dollop of salt. The whole Great Fire of Rome Persecution by Nero narrative relies on (1) there being enough Christians to persecute in any significant number and (2) Christianity being well enough established for Nero to even consider using them as fall guys for the fire. Little point in blaming some group that nobody's ever heard of and then rounding up the half dozen that you can find. What's more likely is that Nero did what bad leaders do best and rounded up a whole load of trouble-makers and executed the lot of them. A few early Christians, who were trouble-makers, were likely rounded up along with the rest and Tacitus likely mentions them in passing. The rest is church hyperbollox. The fact that all of the other historians who documented the Great Fire of Rome are silent on the matter of Christian persecution suggests that it wasn't particularly noteworthy.

Early church growth was likely not driven by martyrdom by the Romans, which is a lovely narrative that develops later on. Instead it was likely propelled by infighting between Petrine and Pauline Christianity. Face it, if you want Christian persecution you get a Christian to do it. Petrine Christianity being entirely unpalatable outside of Judea goes extinct with the Jewish Revolt and Destruction of the Second Temple. The Pauline branch then embraces their fallen brethren as martyrs, which does propel growth. Later church fathers gloss over the existence of the schism and blame Nero for the martyrs. Eventually the martyrdom narrative and Great Fire narratives get merged, which is handy since we want good, upstanding Pauline martyrs, Nero gets painted as the anti-Christ and Petrine Christianity gets swept under the rug.

I don't know what the mythicists get out of pushing the reliable dates back. We know that a cartload of Coptics, Gnostics, and all sorts of other wack-a-doodle offshoots had to evolve and develop their own communities and that's going to require time. I have also yet to here a plausable motive from the mythicist camp and pushing their genesis date later into Roman history doesn't do them any favours.
Reply
#79

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
Maybe Nero didn’t persecute Christians after all
Charles Mercier  Dec 18, 2016 
Part 1:
https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2016/12/1...hristians/  

"The evidence is thin, to summarize Shaw, both for Nero’s persecution, and even for the possibility that Romans could so early have recognized Christians judicially or religiously as such."


In pondering martyrdom, uncritical history doesn’t help
Charles Mercier  Dec 19, 2016 
Part 2:
https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2016/12/1...esnt-help/

"We need to recognize that ancient Christians were as prone as their pagan peers, and even as their modern successors, to devise fiction to fill in gaps of what we know about the past. A sharp distinction between fiction and documentary history is itself a modern construction."

Presented for your consideration.   Smile
No gods necessary
The following 2 users Like brunumb's post:
  • Paleophyte, Chas
Reply
#80

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
I'm fond of the tale where Nero flees the wisdom of a small child and runs off to convert to Judaism.
Reply
#81

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-25-2019, 07:17 AM)brunumb Wrote: Maybe Nero didn’t persecute Christians after all
Charles Mercier  Dec 18, 2016 
Part 1:
https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2016/12/1...hristians/  

"The evidence is thin, to summarize Shaw, both for Nero’s persecution, and even for the possibility that Romans could so early have recognized Christians judicially or religiously as such."


In pondering martyrdom, uncritical history doesn’t help
Charles Mercier  Dec 19, 2016 
Part 2:
https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2016/12/1...esnt-help/

"We need to recognize that ancient Christians were as prone as their pagan peers, and even as their modern successors, to devise fiction to fill in gaps of what we know about the past. A sharp distinction between fiction and documentary history is itself a modern construction."

Presented for your consideration.   Smile

Way too many loose ends and "maybes."
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#82

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-25-2019, 03:16 AM)Free Wrote: Naw ... you're just jealous because I so easily destroy you in debates. 

So much winning. 
It's almost like you win so much we're gonna get tired of the winning. 
How can you stand yourself ?
Reply
#83

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-25-2019, 07:17 AM)brunumb Wrote: Maybe Nero didn’t persecute Christians after all
Charles Mercier  Dec 18, 2016 
Part 1:
https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2016/12/1...hristians/  

"The evidence is thin, to summarize Shaw, both for Nero’s persecution, and even for the possibility that Romans could so early have recognized Christians judicially or religiously as such."


In pondering martyrdom, uncritical history doesn’t help
Charles Mercier  Dec 19, 2016 
Part 2:
https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2016/12/1...esnt-help/

"We need to recognize that ancient Christians were as prone as their pagan peers, and even as their modern successors, to devise fiction to fill in gaps of what we know about the past. A sharp distinction between fiction and documentary history is itself a modern construction."

Presented for your consideration.   Smile

Dr. Candida Moss, "The MYTH of Persecution". 
(Horribly boring book ... but she makes her points, and backs them up). 
https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Persecution-...B0089LOOF4
Reply
#84

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-25-2019, 02:58 AM)Free Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 02:18 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 02:09 AM)Free Wrote: The truth is the early church scattered after Jesus was strung up, and they were not the Christian church. The Christian church really didn't start developing a history until about the early CE 40s with Paul. By the CE 60s they were viewed like a cult, and therefore despised by the Jews and the Romans. There was just enough of them around to be noticed. 

I would assume that there was likely numerous gospels accounts at the time as Christian churches were not a strong collective, and therefore some would have had their own versions of certain gospel accounts. Paul himself says as much.

The church would have stayed relatively obscure until the CE 60s when Nero persecuted them. A persecution of that type would only create martyrs, which would attract more into the church over the next couple of decades. By the end of the century they really started to become a problem.

So yes, for the first 30 years the early church would have been relatively obscure, but the next 30 years was a population explosion due to Paul, Peter and others likely becoming famous martyrs.

No references. Dismissed.

Paul, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, 1st Clement, Josephus.

Not gonna cut it ... ya see, (clearly you don't know how History is referenced), with each assertion, the reference, text, chapter and paragraph needs to be documented). It'll be good practice for you. If you keep practicing, maybe some day, you'll actually get to be at least a beginner historian.
Reply
#85

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-25-2019, 06:19 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 02:09 AM)Free Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 01:02 AM)Paleophyte Wrote: The problem with a mythical Jesus, as opposed to a historical individual or individuals who served as the nucleus for the Christ myth, is one of motive. Anybody concocting anything this elaborate is going to need a damned good motive and none of those point to some obscure Judean who got himself tacked to a cross. For that matter, why would anybody with a lick of sense invent a religion from scratch when they had so many mystery cults just lying about to pick and choose from?

We have modern examples of religions arising and we have historical documentation of their dirty little schismatic origins. Early Christianity has very similar fingerprints. The lack of early historical evidence for Christ or Christians just goes to show that the early church was obscure and unimportant.

The truth is the early church scattered after Jesus was strung up, and they were not the Christian church. The Christian church really didn't start developing a history until about the early CE 40s with Paul. By the CE 60s they were viewed like a cult, and therefore despised by the Jews and the Romans. There was just enough of them around to be noticed. 

I would assume that there was likely numerous gospels accounts at the time as Christian churches were not a strong collective, and therefore some would have had their own versions of certain gospel accounts. Paul himself says as much.

The church would have stayed relatively obscure until the CE 60s when Nero persecuted them. A persecution of that type would only create martyrs, which would attract more into the church over the next couple of decades. By the end of the century they really started to become a problem.

So yes, for the first 30 years the early church would have been relatively obscure, but the next 30 years was a population explosion due to Paul, Peter and others likely becoming famous martyrs.

That might be a bit of an exaggeration and I'd take Tacitus with a very healthy dollop of salt. The whole Great Fire of Rome Persecution by Nero narrative relies on (1) there being enough Christians to persecute in any significant number and (2) Christianity being well enough established for Nero to even consider using them as fall guys for the fire. Little point in blaming some group that nobody's ever heard of and then rounding up the half dozen that you can find. What's more likely is that Nero did what bad leaders do best and rounded up a whole load of trouble-makers and executed the lot of them. A few early Christians, who were trouble-makers, were likely rounded up along with the rest and Tacitus likely mentions them in passing. The rest is church hyperbollox. The fact that all of the other historians who documented the Great Fire of Rome are silent on the matter of Christian persecution suggests that it wasn't particularly noteworthy.

But this assumes there weren't enough Christians around to be noticed among the population in Rome at the time. According to Paul, there was a church in Rome some 20 years or so before the persecution by Nero. Rome appeared to be the one place were Christianity flourished the most. Tacitus described Rome as being some kind of a hell-hole for anything undesirable. Therefore, even if there was a mere 1000 Christians among the 500,000 population of Rome, they would be noticed. Tacitus said they were hated by the population, which provides an emotional connection to their existence which invokes memories.

A mere 1000 Christians with a zealous demeanor would certainly be noticed, and certainly it's anything but an unreasonable number after perhaps 20 years of recruiting people into their cult, and with Paul reportedly being in Rome himself. 1000 is a very low ball estimate.

Over the course of the first 30 years (AD 33 - AD 63), all that would be required for Christianity to grow is to recruit just 3 people each day over the ENTIRE Roman Empire and in 30 years you end up with well over 35,000 Christians, and again that would be a low ball estimate.

Hell, even just 1 recruit a day over 30 years and you could end up with about 12,000 Christians, and that doesn't even include people being born into Christian households.

I find it completely unreasonable for anyone to think that a cult such as Christianity could not grow by a very low balled average of at least 1 member each day over the course of 30 years.

Even today in my city with a Pop of 100,000, I know of a J.W. Kingdom Hall with only about 200 members, representing 2/10 of 1% of the population.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#86

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-25-2019, 05:45 PM)Free Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 07:17 AM)brunumb Wrote: Maybe Nero didn’t persecute Christians after all
Charles Mercier  Dec 18, 2016 
Part 1:
https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2016/12/1...hristians/  

"The evidence is thin, to summarize Shaw, both for Nero’s persecution, and even for the possibility that Romans could so early have recognized Christians judicially or religiously as such."


In pondering martyrdom, uncritical history doesn’t help
Charles Mercier  Dec 19, 2016 
Part 2:
https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2016/12/1...esnt-help/

"We need to recognize that ancient Christians were as prone as their pagan peers, and even as their modern successors, to devise fiction to fill in gaps of what we know about the past. A sharp distinction between fiction and documentary history is itself a modern construction."

Presented for your consideration.   Smile

Way too many loose ends and "maybes."

Given the nature of the evidence, or lack thereof, that's exactly what I'd look for in a balanced analysis.
The following 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post:
  • Free
Reply
#87

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-25-2019, 05:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 02:58 AM)Free Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 02:18 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: No references. Dismissed.

Paul, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, 1st Clement, Josephus.

Not gonna cut it ... ya see, (clearly you don't know how History is referenced), with each assertion, the reference, text, chapter and paragraph needs to be documented). It'll be good practice for you. If you keep practicing, maybe some day, you'll actually get to be at least a beginner historian.

Nawww ... it cuts it.

But it may not cut it for you because you are not interested in learning about it so you have no desire to take any suggestion I have anyways.

How's that for the truth?

Thumbs Up
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#88

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
Par for the course with you.

Everyone is wrong except you and the jesus freaks you insist are right.

I think you are a phony.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#89

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-25-2019, 06:52 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Par for the course with you.

Everyone is wrong except you and the jesus freaks you insist are right.

I think you are a phony.

Not everyone is wrong. 

Just you.

Dance
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#90

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-25-2019, 06:15 PM)Free Wrote: But this assumes there weren't enough Christians around to be noticed among the population in Rome at the time. According to Paul, there was a church in Rome some 20 years or so before the persecution by Nero.

According to Paul or somebody writing under his name there was "a church" in Rome... Not exactly reliable or unbiased.

Quote:Rome appeared to be the one place were Christianity flourished the most.

Circular argumentation seeing as how that's what we're trying to establish.

Quote:Tacitus described Rome as being some kind of a hell-hole for anything undesirable.

At best Tacitus, writing some 50 years after the fire, describes Rome as being some kind of hell-hole filled with Mexicans, rapists, jihadists, and the usual hyperbollox.

Quote:Therefore, even if there was a mere 1000 Christians among the 500,000 population of Rome, they would be noticed.

Maybe. You have to remember that Rome was a seething pot of every religion from across the empire and beyond. One more mystery cult could easily go unnoticed, especially if the average Roman couldn't distinguish between Jews and early Christians.

Quote:Tacitus said they were hated by the population, which provides an emotional connection to their existence which invokes memories.

I'd consider this part extrapolation or addition. It plays to the whole martyrdom story nicely but contradicts established history. You have Pliny the Younger writing to Rome some 50 years later asking what to do with these Christians because there isn't legal precedent. That makes it look unlikely that a large, hated population of Christians has existed in Rome for half a century. You can also look to Tacitus himself, who completely fails to mention Christians in his Histories despite Book 5 containing a fairly thorough overview of Jewish demographics and beliefs as a prelude to his history of the Jewish Revolt.

I'm content to accept that the passage in Tacitus' Annals establishes the existence of a Christian church in Rome at the time of the fire. That seems to be the consensus amongst historians and it makes sense in light of the other facts. The details provided in that passage are much more suspect and should be treated with skepticism.
Reply
#91

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-25-2019, 07:18 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 06:15 PM)Free Wrote: But this assumes there weren't enough Christians around to be noticed among the population in Rome at the time. According to Paul, there was a church in Rome some 20 years or so before the persecution by Nero.

According to Paul or somebody writing under his name there was "a church" in Rome... Not exactly reliable or unbiased.

Romans is considered authentic to Paul. There's no reason to think otherwise.

I often wonder why people think that even if someone wrote under a pseudonym as Paul what difference it would make to the historical value of the context? When we examine other obvious writers operating under a pseudonym in history, the context itself- such as the Revelation of John- is almost always some vivid description of an apocalyptic scenario. The letters attributed to Paul bear nothing other than preaching church doctrine, chastisement, and chest thumping. All of that is consistent with Paul.

I, like other historians, find Romans to be very reliable and bias isn't even a consideration because the only bias is his faith, which is to be expected.

Quote:
Quote:Rome appeared to be the one place were Christianity flourished the most.

Circular argumentation seeing as how that's what we're trying to establish.

This assumes we omit Romans, which I do not agree to.

Quote:
Quote:Tacitus described Rome as being some kind of a hell-hole for anything undesirable.

At best Tacitus, writing some 50 years after the fire, describes Rome as being some kind of hell-hole filled with Mexicans, rapists, jihadists, and the usual hyperbollox.

Tacitus was a contemporary of AD 60s Rome.

Quote:
Quote:Therefore, even if there was a mere 1000 Christians among the 500,000 population of Rome, they would be noticed.

Maybe. You have to remember that Rome was a seething pot of every religion from across the empire and beyond. One more mystery cult could easily go unnoticed, especially if the average Roman couldn't distinguish between Jews and early Christians.

Does Christianity strike you as ever being some kind of a mystery cult? According to all available history it was anything but a mystery cult. They preached to anyone who would listen, and the culture of the time was zealotry, not just for Christians but for any whacked out faith.

Quote:
Quote:Tacitus said they were hated by the population, which provides an emotional connection to their existence which invokes memories.

I'd consider this part extrapolation or addition. It plays to the whole martyrdom story nicely but contradicts established history.

In what way does it contradict established history? Tacitus literally says the Christians were hated by the population, and Tacitus is widely considered as established history.

Quote:You have Pliny the Younger writing to Rome some 50 years later asking what to do with these Christians because there isn't legal precedent. That makes it look unlikely that a large, hated population of Christians has existed in Rome for half a century.

That is not accurate. Pliny says:

"I have never participated in trials of Christians. I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.


He had no legal experience, and therefore did not know what the appropriate punishment for them would be. If you are suggesting that the punishment inflicted by Nero would therefore be precedent and thereby Pliny should have already known what to do, it would be incorrect as Tacitus- writing at the same time- tells us that Nero blamed and persecuted the Christians for starting the fire, not for merely practicing Christianity as in Pliny's case.

Pliny wanted to know what the appropriate punishment would be for practicing Christianity, which he did not know because he had no experience. 

Quote:You can also look to Tacitus himself, who completely fails to mention Christians in his Histories despite Book 5 containing a fairly thorough overview of Jewish demographics and beliefs as a prelude to his history of the Jewish Revolt.

At the time of Tacitus, Christianity was distinguishing itself from Judaism due to the fact that Christianity was a gentile religion outside Judea which included mostly Greeks. Therefore when he speaks of the Jews, he is speaking of only the Jews of Judea.

Quote:I'm content to accept that the passage in Tacitus' Annals establishes the existence of a Christian church in Rome at the time of the fire. That seems to be the consensus amongst historians and it makes sense in light of the other facts. The details provided in that passage are much more suspect and should be treated with skepticism.

I find no reason whatsoever to hold the details in that passage as being suspect in precisely the same way I do not hold any other details in any other unrelated passage as being suspect. In the same way Tacitus reports other Roman historical events, he likewise reports on the Christian story. It's his history, and just because there are Christians in it makes it no more suspect than anything else he wrote.

 No one says that skepticism should not be used, but if it's used then it needs to be unbiased and reasonable. In my experience, those who hold it in suspect almost always have a bone to pick with Christianity. But despite the fact that I dislike what Christianity is, I put aside my bias and look at such passages with complete indifference. I find that to be the only way to reasonably assess the truth value of anything in history.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#92

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-25-2019, 06:36 PM)Free Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 05:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 02:58 AM)Free Wrote: Paul, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, 1st Clement, Josephus.

Not gonna cut it ... ya see, (clearly you don't know how History is referenced), with each assertion, the reference, text, chapter and paragraph needs to be documented). It'll be good practice for you. If you keep practicing, maybe some day, you'll actually get to be at least a beginner historian.

Nawww ... it cuts it.

But it may not cut it for you because you are not interested in learning about it so you have no desire to take any suggestion I have anyways.

How's that for the truth?

Thumbs Up

So, I see you really don't know what constitutes a proper reference. 
Interesting.
Reply
#93

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-25-2019, 08:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 06:36 PM)Free Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 05:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Not gonna cut it ... ya see, (clearly you don't know how History is referenced), with each assertion, the reference, text, chapter and paragraph needs to be documented). It'll be good practice for you. If you keep practicing, maybe some day, you'll actually get to be at least a beginner historian.

Nawww ... it cuts it.

But it may not cut it for you because you are not interested in learning about it so you have no desire to take any suggestion I have anyways.

How's that for the truth?

Thumbs Up

So, I see you really don't know what constitutes a proper reference. 
Interesting.

Oh I do, but my experience with you has educated me well enough to know where this is going to go. That, and the fact that I already know that YOU know that what I am saying is, in fact, supported within the texts I referenced. Therefore, since I already know that you already know, then I can safely conclude that you are only trying to troll me.

How am I doing so far?

Dance
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#94

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-25-2019, 09:59 PM)Free Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 08:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 06:36 PM)Free Wrote: Nawww ... it cuts it.

But it may not cut it for you because you are not interested in learning about it so you have no desire to take any suggestion I have anyways.

How's that for the truth?

Thumbs Up

So, I see you really don't know what constitutes a proper reference. 
Interesting.

Oh I do, but my experience with you has educated me well enough to know where this is going to go. That, and the fact that I already know that YOU know that what I am saying is, in fact, supported within the texts I referenced. Therefore, since I already know that you already know, then I can safely conclude that you are only trying to troll me.

How am I doing so far?

Dance

About as well as you just did, when you asserted (falsely) that Josephus never referenced Vespasian, and I proved you were totally wrong. 

Now, since we know Josephus did reference Vespasian as the person referenced in the messianic prophesy, how about you explain how he could have said that Jesus was the messiah (in the Testimonium) ?
Reply
#95

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-25-2019, 05:45 PM)Free Wrote: Way too many loose ends and "maybes."

Hmm Oh, the irony.
No gods necessary
Reply
#96

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-25-2019, 11:24 PM)brunumb Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 05:45 PM)Free Wrote: Way too many loose ends and "maybes."

Hmm Oh, the irony.

No comparison.

Big Grin
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#97

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-25-2019, 10:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 09:59 PM)Free Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 08:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: So, I see you really don't know what constitutes a proper reference. 
Interesting.

Oh I do, but my experience with you has educated me well enough to know where this is going to go. That, and the fact that I already know that YOU know that what I am saying is, in fact, supported within the texts I referenced. Therefore, since I already know that you already know, then I can safely conclude that you are only trying to troll me.

How am I doing so far?

Dance

About as well as you just did, when you asserted (falsely) that Josephus never referenced Vespasian, and I proved you were totally wrong.

Claiming victory where none was made? No where does Josephus claim that Vespasian was a Messiah. Perhaps you should study serious history instead of Atwill's rubbish.

Quote:Now, since we know Josephus did reference Vespasian as the person referenced in the messianic prophesy, how about you explain how he could have said that Jesus was the messiah (in the Testimonium) ?

No, we do not know Josephus referenced Vespasian as a Messiah. In fact, he doesn't say anything about it.

And even if he did, why wouldn't he reference Jesus as a messiah also? After all, Vespasian was dead at the time Josephus wrote Antiquities. 

So? What say you now, Bucky boy? 

Why wouldn't he?

Dance

Here's something you should ponder about part of the TF, and it's something neither you nor Carrier would be invited to see and discuss. Josephus said:

"He was Christ."

Have you noticed that Tacitus also said "Christ?" Did you see it in Pliny also? Now think ...

Josephus was writing in the Greek, to the Greeks. They didn't say "Jesus." They said "Christ" because from the Greek's perspective, that's who Jesus was. The name "Jesus" was irrelevant and virtually unknown among the Romans and in particular, Roman officials.

When Josephus said, "He was Christ," he was not stating a position of faith, but in the tradition and culture of the Greeks, he was only identifying who the person was that Pilate crucified in the same way as Tacitus identified him, and with the same identification process that Pliny used.

After all, Bucky, Yosef ben Matityahu was a Jew who became Titus Flavius Josephus ... a Romanized Jew.

(Psst! Did you learn anything? These types of discussions are what happens among the pros, outside the eye of the web. Pros such as Steve Mason. How would you like to talk to him? I can arrange it.)

Wink
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#98

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-26-2019, 01:29 AM)Free Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 10:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 09:59 PM)Free Wrote: Oh I do, but my experience with you has educated me well enough to know where this is going to go. That, and the fact that I already know that YOU know that what I am saying is, in fact, supported within the texts I referenced. Therefore, since I already know that you already know, then I can safely conclude that you are only trying to troll me.

How am I doing so far?

Dance

About as well as you just did, when you asserted (falsely) that Josephus never referenced Vespasian, and I proved you were totally wrong.

Claiming victory where none was made? No where does Josephus claim that Vespasian was a Messiah. Perhaps you should study serious history instead of Atwill's rubbish.

Quote:Now, since we know Josephus did reference Vespasian as the person referenced in the messianic prophesy, how about you explain how he could have said that Jesus was the messiah (in the Testimonium) ?

No, we do not know Josephus referenced Vespasian as a Messiah. In fact, he doesn't say anything about it.

And even if he did, why wouldn't he reference Jesus as a messiah also? After all, Vespasian was dead at the time Josephus wrote Antiquities. 

So? What say you now, Bucky boy? 

Why wouldn't he?

Dance

Here's something you should ponder about part of the TF, and it's something neither you nor Carrier would be invited to see and discuss. Josephus said:

"He was Christ."

Have you noticed that Tacitus also said "Christ?" Did you see it in Pliny also? Now think ...

Josephus was writing in the Greek, to the Greeks. They didn't say "Jesus." They said "Christ" because from the Greek's perspective, that's who Jesus was. The name "Jesus" was irrelevant and virtually unknown among the Romans and in particular, Roman officials.

When Josephus said, "He was Christ," he was not stating a position of faith, but in the tradition and culture of the Greeks, he was only identifying who the person was that Pilate crucified in the same way as Tacitus identified him, and with the same identification process that Pliny used.

After all, Bucky, Yosef ben Matityahu was a Jew who became Titus Flavius Josephus ... a Romanized Jew.

(Psst! Did you learn anything? These types of discussions are what happens among the pros, outside the eye of the web. Pros such as Steve Mason. How would you like to talk to him? I can arrange it.)

Wink


So you can list names. Names are not references. So you really are not a scholar in any sense. 

I see you have no answer to why Josephus would say that Jesus was a "christ" when in fact he thought that : 

Post # 70 : 
Too bad for Free, Josephus specifically DOES point to Vespasian as being the one prophesied about, (and NOT Jesus). This is at least circumstantial evidence (which Free himself was touting, just last week) that the Testimonium is an interpolation. 

The Wars of The Jews : 6.5.4. 
"Now if any one consider these things, he will find that God takes care of mankind, and by all ways possible foreshows to our race what is for their preservation; but that men perish by those miseries which they madly and voluntarily bring upon themselves; for the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple four-square, while at the same time they had it written in their sacred oracles, "That then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become four-square." But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction."

Read it and weep Free. We all know you will attempt a weasel excuse.
Reply
#99

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-26-2019, 03:01 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(07-26-2019, 01:29 AM)Free Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 10:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: About as well as you just did, when you asserted (falsely) that Josephus never referenced Vespasian, and I proved you were totally wrong.

Claiming victory where none was made? No where does Josephus claim that Vespasian was a Messiah. Perhaps you should study serious history instead of Atwill's rubbish.

Quote:Now, since we know Josephus did reference Vespasian as the person referenced in the messianic prophesy, how about you explain how he could have said that Jesus was the messiah (in the Testimonium) ?

No, we do not know Josephus referenced Vespasian as a Messiah. In fact, he doesn't say anything about it.

And even if he did, why wouldn't he reference Jesus as a messiah also? After all, Vespasian was dead at the time Josephus wrote Antiquities. 

So? What say you now, Bucky boy? 

Why wouldn't he?

Dance

Here's something you should ponder about part of the TF, and it's something neither you nor Carrier would be invited to see and discuss. Josephus said:

"He was Christ."

Have you noticed that Tacitus also said "Christ?" Did you see it in Pliny also? Now think ...

Josephus was writing in the Greek, to the Greeks. They didn't say "Jesus." They said "Christ" because from the Greek's perspective, that's who Jesus was. The name "Jesus" was irrelevant and virtually unknown among the Romans and in particular, Roman officials.

When Josephus said, "He was Christ," he was not stating a position of faith, but in the tradition and culture of the Greeks, he was only identifying who the person was that Pilate crucified in the same way as Tacitus identified him, and with the same identification process that Pliny used.

After all, Bucky, Yosef ben Matityahu was a Jew who became Titus Flavius Josephus ... a Romanized Jew.

(Psst! Did you learn anything? These types of discussions are what happens among the pros, outside the eye of the web. Pros such as Steve Mason. How would you like to talk to him? I can arrange it.)

Wink


So you can list names. Names are not references. So you really are not a scholar in any sense. 

I see you have no answer to why Josephus would say that Jesus was a "christ" when in fact he thought that : 

Post # 70 : 
Too bad for Free, Josephus specifically DOES point to Vespasian as being the one prophesied about, (and NOT Jesus). This is at least circumstantial evidence (which Free himself was touting, just last week) that the Testimonium is an interpolation.

For the sake of steelmanning, Vespasian may possibly have been the one whom Josephus claimed was being prophesied about, but the prophesy itself does not mention a messiah, and nor does Josephus.

That's the bottom line here. That's the evidence. Unless you can show where Josephus specifically uses the term "Messiah"  then all you have is your "interpretation."

1. There is no evidence that the prophesy itself referred to a Messiah.

2. Textual criticism reveals another very plausible argument that Josephus was actually contradicting the Jew's belief that the prophecy was about one of them, possibly a Messiah,  who would come to their rescue, and instead it turned out that the prophecy was talking about their enemy conquering them. This is all evidenced within the Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius texts.

3. Since Josephus used the title of "Christ" when he spoke of James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, then we know he was not afraid to speak the term, which begs the question of; "If he really thought that Vespasian was a Messiah, why didn't he specifically name him as such the same way he did for Jesus?"

Therefore to make a positive claim that Josephus spoke of Vespasian as being a messiah when there is no direct evidence and therefore requires "belief" from personal interpretation is as intellectually dishonest as any Christian who claims that God exists.

Quote:The Wars of The Jews : 6.5.4. 

"Now if any one consider these things, he will find that God takes care of mankind, and by all ways possible foreshows to our race what is for their preservation; but that men perish by those miseries which they madly and voluntarily bring upon themselves; for the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple four-square, while at the same time they had it written in their sacred oracles, "That then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become four-square." But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction."

Read it and weep Free. We all know you will attempt a weasel excuse.

All I want you to do is show me exactly where the prophesy mentions a Messiah, and where Josephus specifically uses the word "Messiah" in the text above.

Take your time. I can wait.

Popcorn
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-26-2019, 03:24 AM)Free Wrote: For the sake of steelmanning, Vespasian may possibly have been the one whom Josephus claimed was being prophesied about, but the prophesy itself does not mention a messiah, and nor does Josephus.

LOL
Dishonest evasion. I see what you're about. 

Quote:That's the bottom line here. That's the evidence. Unless you can show where Josephus specifically uses the term "Messiah"  then all you have is your "interpretation."

Bullshit. You don't make the rules here. Stop your obnoxious pontification. 

Quote:1. There is no evidence that the prophesy itself referred to a Messiah.

You can't possibly be serious.
Yes there is. The quote I provided. I know you are not THAT stupid. 

Quote:2. Textual criticism reveals another very plausible argument that Josephus was actually contradicting the Jew's belief that the prophecy was about one of them, possibly a Messiah,  who would come to their rescue, and instead it turned out that the prophecy was talking about their enemy conquering them. This is all evidenced within the Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius texts.

No shit Sherlock. It's exactly what the quote I provided, (and you did not know about) ... says in Josephus. 
Stop PRETENDING that you introduced this idea. I did.

Quote:3. Since Josephus used the title of "Christ" when he spoke of James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, then we know he was not afraid to speak the term, which begs the question of; "If he really thought that Vespasian was a Messiah, why didn't he specifically name him as such the same way he did for Jesus?"

"Speaking" the term is not endorsing the term. Fail again. 

Quote:Therefore to make a positive claim that Josephus spoke of Vespasian as being a messiah when there is no direct evidence and therefore requires "belief" from personal interpretation is as intellectually dishonest as any Christian who claims that God exists.

Nope. You don't make the rules. YOU have been caught here, in your ignorance. You're trying to weasel out of your position that Josephus never said anything about Vespasian as messiah, (or having fulfilled that role) .... which IS, as I have proven, is the consensus position . You can't answer the 2 questions. And now you're displaying your total dishonesty. You're not playing your "game" honestly. Debate with you is a total waste of time. 

Quote:All I want you to do is show me exactly where the prophesy mentions a Messiah, and where Josephus specifically uses the word "Messiah" in the text above.

Strawman.
More attempted dishonest evasion. Apparently you have no capacity to read a text and understand the meaning. 
You have erected the classic "straw-man" You think you are the only one that can play that stupid game ? 
The fact is, if Josephus (who is obviously talking about the FUNCTION of a messiah) .... one does not have to actually use the word, (and as you have been schooled HERE in this thread, the word for "anointed one" would have come out "ointment" to a Roman) which YOU never addressed,
your objection is worthless, and is a straw-man. 

Maybe if you keep trying to learn how to argue, someday you might get to be at least a little bit good at it.

You have a hard time keeping your eyes on the bigger picture. I asked you why Josephus would say in the interpolation something which contradicts his position that Vespasian was the one who was to save the Jews. You didn't and obviously can't answer that. The interpolation is NOT a support of the historical Jesus. It's obviously a fake.

You're not steelmaning here. You are precisely and exactly doing the opposite. Strawmaning.
How pathetically obvious.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)