Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13634
Posted: January 24 2017 at 14:20
EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote:
lazland wrote:
SteveG wrote:
Dean wrote:
Against my better judgement, but here goes nothing...
Tacitus wrote of christians in 112CE and Suetonius in 119CE, both during their account of the reign of Nero and the burning of Rome in 64CE so they were not writing about a real person as such so their source for the origins of christianity are most likely to have come from the christians themselves, either from the gospels (such as Mark, written some 40 years earlier) or simply as common knowledge.
AFAIK the Dead Sea Scrolls, despite being fairly comprehensive on the torah and ketuvium books (especially those concerned with mosaic law), are actually extremely fragmented and thin on texts from the nevi'im History books.
SteveG wrote:
However, the chronicles of these writers was the media of it's age and that these accounts are independent of the gospels only falls into focus when supported against the histories written by the Jewish historian Josephus, at approximately the same time, on behalf of the Roman emperor Trajan after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE. Josephus did plainly state, without much fanfare in a unadorned passage (when stripped of an inane later Christian introjection) about Christ, that he did actually live and was crucified by Pontius Pilate, along with many other Jews for sedition.
Well, no. It doesn't. Aside from the blatantly obvious observation that once the text had been corrupted by later christian embellishment, (of which there is very little doubt) then its veracity becomes highly questionable, one also has to ask where Josephus came by this piece of information in 93CE if not from the christians themselves? So using the claims of the christians to prove the provenance of the claims of the christians is the very definition of a circular argument. There is nothing to show that Josephus' account was independent of the gospels given that three of the four gospels were written before his Testimonium Flavianum.
Now, I haven't actually come down on one side or the other as to whether Jesus existed or not, and I don't see much reason to vote either way.
SteveG wrote:
Edit: Btw, The Dead Sea Scrolls maybe highly fragmented, but what is legible does not conflict with any of the writings of the Hebrew canon.
I never said they did, so what's your point?
Here goes nothing? Correct, as you put nothing of value forward.
I don't time for a good old dust up, or the eyesight, these days so I'll make this as brief as possible.
First off, the removal of interpolations form Josephus' writing of Jesus from the writings commonly known as the Antiquities is and has been widely excepted by generations of biblical scholars, and is believed to put forward an accurate account that Jesus of Nazareth actually lived and was crucified for sedition by the Roman prefect known in the New Testament as Pontius Pilate. Josephus, unlike the gospels, makes no apologies and holds the Romans accountable for their brutal mistreatment and murder of numerous Jews during their 30 year occupation of Judea.
Secondly, Josephus' also related the lives of New Testament figures John the Baptist and James the Brother of Jesus, without any christian invention such as miracles, resurrection, etc., similar to his depiction of Jesus. Not ironically, Josephus' messianic comrade of temple priests actually killed James on the steps of the great temple.
There is no apologetics in any of Josephus' writings regarding these people and events.
I place Josephus' quote on Jesus below with the later interpolation and with the interpolation removed so that other members can see what we're discussing:
<span style="color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px;">About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.</span>
<cite style="font-style: inherit; color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px; display: block;">Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18 chapter 3,3</cite><cite style="font-style: inherit; color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px; display: block;"> </cite><cite style="font-style: inherit; color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px; display: block;"><span style="white-space: nowrap;">Redacted without the later Christian interpolations:</span></cite><cite style="font-style: inherit; color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px; display: block;"><div =""="" style="font-size: 12.32px; : relative;"><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: inherit;">About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was (called) the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
This long held belief by academics to the accuracy of Josephus' passage on Jesus is supported by scholars
as faithful as N.T. Wright to as sceptical as John Dominic Crossan and Reza Aslan. This is no way a circular argument. However, you are free to accept it or reject as you wish.
As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, I wanted to make sure that I understood you correctly. With two thirds of the known Old Testament remarkably preserved for two millennia and first written a thousand years before that, I thought that you would give seem credit to a oral tradition that had only been around for 60 years. Not a lot of time when compared with two thousand for DDS, is it?
But I forget that this EddieURVarese's hate on Jesus thread, so back to the topic.
Edit: Book 18 Chapter 3, 3 redaction of Josephus' <i style="color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px;">Antiquities.
Yep, the redacted text of Josephus is commonly accepted to be that as written by the historian. It is also commonly accepted as being independent evidence, as with the comments by Tacitus, Pliny, and Sietonius, of the existence of Jesus, and his impact upon the politics and religion of his time.
I would, though, repeat here the point that none of this "proves" the divinity or miracles of Christ, and I am aware, btw, that you are not making this point.
The resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith. I would, though, make the not unreasonable point that all barring one apostle (John) died rather violent deaths defending this belief. Not exactly the acts of people who did not at least hold a profound belief in this act. I would also make the point that the message of Jesus was accepted as doctrine by many people in the Roman Empire, not all of whom could remotely be accepted as thick, ignorant, peasants.
I would also make the point that the conspiracy theories put about by the OP regarding the motives of the Roman authorities to be amongst the most ignorant and depressing I have ever seen. Dean has said much the same.
What I find most unutterably depressing about yet another thread designed to goad those of us who believe in the nature of God, or who try to take an intellectual opinion and view on such matters, is that it was started by a chap who, according to his profile, is fifty bloody three. 53.... A year older than me. I thought Eddie was about 17. It is clearly his mental age. I find these threads horrible, because they seem designed simply to goad and cause trouble. They inevitably succeed. I regard both Dean and you as being two of the best members of this site, and I dislike it a lot when your exchanges result in conflict.
I will say, though, that your point regarding oral history is extremely well made. All of the evidence points towards oral history being accurately reflected in later writings across the millennia, and this in way more cultures than merely Israelites and early Christians.
As I have said before, none of this makes folk such as I right when we profoundly believe in the Divine. It does, though, allow us to state that there is at least some historical basis behind the scripts which tell of the times.
I will say this about Jesus, and this as someone who is a believer in the Divine, and someone extremely interested in both the period, and its impact across the millennia. I actually think that Jesus is best viewed as what he was historically. That is a Jewish Prophet. When you read the Bible, and place Jesus in this context, a lot of his sayings, initially opaque, suddenly make a great deal more sense. He called himself the Son of Man. As did Esekiah. It was a reference to one who had the Divine within them, extolling the word of God to others, one who was inspired to offer words of conduct and wisdom.
The latter theology of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I.e. The Holy Trinity were just that, theology interpreted by later Church Fathers. Their attempt, I suppose, to make sense of the message passed to them. Paul's epistles talk of the Holy Spirit, but do not attempt to impose a theological code, rather a way of living in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, and, yes, a belief in His resurrection. The idea of resurrection was not uniquely Christian. A reading of much of the Old Testament tells us that Jewish beliefs included that of pious and observant people being rescued from the pit by a forgiving and loving God. Many of the Psalms cry for just that.
At the end of the day, threads like this will never have members such as Dean, you, and others, including me, agreeing. In fact, they are depressing, because reasonable debate, which I love, is hijacked by blithering bloody idiots who simply seem to really enjoy merely taking the piss out of honestly held beliefs. I will not name him, but I have received a PM from one such member, a highly respected member of the site, who really hates these things, and has been tempted to leave because of it.
This is where, I believe, that moderation needs to be a damned sight stronger here. Posts designed to goad should simply be hidden, and only those designed to inform and influence allowed to remain on view.
The Internet can be a marvellous tool, but it can also be a damned pain in the arse, allowing idiots, such as a very immature Australian, to sit back and gloat at yet another achievement in winding folk up.
Stick and stones may break my bones but Leeks will never hurt me............
I do not find this, or you, funny. I find you an utter bore and a royal pain in the arse.
Let me articulate this.
If I were to start a thread saying that all homosexuals are degenerate sub-humans deserving of being thrown from the highest building (a view espoused by nutty extreme Islamists), I would, rightly, be banned.
If I were to start a thread stating that all Muslims were terrorists and we should immediately start a Crusade to rid the world of them, I would, rightly, be banned.
If I were to start a thread stating that all Australians were immature w**kers descended from nothing more than the degenerate filth of convicted prisoners in Britain, I would, rightly, be banned.
I do not, btw, hold any of those views, excepting the immature w**ker bit, of course.
If I were to start a thread challenging, in a most inappropriate fashion, the politics of people I do not agree with here, saying that they were all somehow beneath contempt, and posting items which did not debate, but demeaned, I might not be banned, but I certainly would not be respected.
For this very reason, you are not respected.
It seems to me that it is acceptable on this site to target those who hold Christian views with utter contempt, posting articles and items which are rather contemptible and demeaning. I do not think it is acceptable. It is one thing debating and putting across deeply held views and beliefs as, for example, Dean does. It is another merely trolling for attention and to wind people up, and that is what you are doing.
If I were you, I would be careful. It would not bother me in the slightest if you were to be asked in the Collab zone to be banned from the site, because your behaviour is very close to earning such a thing. There are others who have been banned for a damned sight less.
Please respect others opinions, and stop with the incessant winding up.
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13634
Posted: January 24 2017 at 14:29
Logan wrote:
We're all idiots, Steve, but I have an official village idiot diploma.
Eddie: I do think you are coming across as too incendiary, a little too much silliness, and intolerant/ insensitive at times (I mean, I know that I cross all of those lines too, so it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black). Incidentally, I closed the topic before you could answer, but why did you do the Japanese jokes thread?
This post crossed with my latest, Greg.
You are not an idiot. Anything but. I am, in contrast, a rather pedantic fellow who finds it difficult to let things go, when more sensible folk might just sit back and let it ride, for the sake of a quiet life, if nothing else.
This member requires calling out, though. As you have done. I believe action and debate on this should now be restricted to the Collab Zone.
My point, though, regarding religious "debate" on this site is well made, I believe. I do not want PA to be a carbon copy of PE, where there is no political or religious, etc, debate. There are, however, sensible limits which should be respected.
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Joined: February 04 2016
Location: Aust
Status: Offline
Points: 1802
Posted: January 24 2017 at 14:44
lazland wrote:
EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote:
lazland wrote:
SteveG wrote:
Dean wrote:
Against my better judgement, but here goes nothing...
Tacitus wrote of christians in 112CE and Suetonius in 119CE, both during their account of the reign of Nero and the burning of Rome in 64CE so they were not writing about a real person as such so their source for the origins of christianity are most likely to have come from the christians themselves, either from the gospels (such as Mark, written some 40 years earlier) or simply as common knowledge.
AFAIK the Dead Sea Scrolls, despite being fairly comprehensive on the torah and ketuvium books (especially those concerned with mosaic law), are actually extremely fragmented and thin on texts from the nevi'im History books.
SteveG wrote:
However, the chronicles of these writers was the media of it's age and that these accounts are independent of the gospels only falls into focus when supported against the histories written by the Jewish historian Josephus, at approximately the same time, on behalf of the Roman emperor Trajan after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE. Josephus did plainly state, without much fanfare in a unadorned passage (when stripped of an inane later Christian introjection) about Christ, that he did actually live and was crucified by Pontius Pilate, along with many other Jews for sedition.
Well, no. It doesn't. Aside from the blatantly obvious observation that once the text had been corrupted by later christian embellishment, (of which there is very little doubt) then its veracity becomes highly questionable, one also has to ask where Josephus came by this piece of information in 93CE if not from the christians themselves? So using the claims of the christians to prove the provenance of the claims of the christians is the very definition of a circular argument. There is nothing to show that Josephus' account was independent of the gospels given that three of the four gospels were written before his Testimonium Flavianum.
Now, I haven't actually come down on one side or the other as to whether Jesus existed or not, and I don't see much reason to vote either way.
SteveG wrote:
Edit: Btw, The Dead Sea Scrolls maybe highly fragmented, but what is legible does not conflict with any of the writings of the Hebrew canon.
I never said they did, so what's your point?
Here goes nothing? Correct, as you put nothing of value forward.
I don't time for a good old dust up, or the eyesight, these days so I'll make this as brief as possible.
First off, the removal of interpolations form Josephus' writing of Jesus from the writings commonly known as the Antiquities is and has been widely excepted by generations of biblical scholars, and is believed to put forward an accurate account that Jesus of Nazareth actually lived and was crucified for sedition by the Roman prefect known in the New Testament as Pontius Pilate. Josephus, unlike the gospels, makes no apologies and holds the Romans accountable for their brutal mistreatment and murder of numerous Jews during their 30 year occupation of Judea.
Secondly, Josephus' also related the lives of New Testament figures John the Baptist and James the Brother of Jesus, without any christian invention such as miracles, resurrection, etc., similar to his depiction of Jesus. Not ironically, Josephus' messianic comrade of temple priests actually killed James on the steps of the great temple.
There is no apologetics in any of Josephus' writings regarding these people and events.
I place Josephus' quote on Jesus below with the later interpolation and with the interpolation removed so that other members can see what we're discussing:
<span style="color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px;">About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.</span>
<cite style="font-style: inherit; color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px; display: block;">Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18 chapter 3,3</cite><cite style="font-style: inherit; color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px; display: block;"> </cite><cite style="font-style: inherit; color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px; display: block;"><span style="white-space: nowrap;">Redacted without the later Christian interpolations:</span></cite><cite style="font-style: inherit; color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px; display: block;"><div =""="" style="font-size: 12.32px; : relative;"><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: inherit;">About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was (called) the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
This long held belief by academics to the accuracy of Josephus' passage on Jesus is supported by scholars
as faithful as N.T. Wright to as sceptical as John Dominic Crossan and Reza Aslan. This is no way a circular argument. However, you are free to accept it or reject as you wish.
As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, I wanted to make sure that I understood you correctly. With two thirds of the known Old Testament remarkably preserved for two millennia and first written a thousand years before that, I thought that you would give seem credit to a oral tradition that had only been around for 60 years. Not a lot of time when compared with two thousand for DDS, is it?
But I forget that this EddieURVarese's hate on Jesus thread, so back to the topic.
Edit: Book 18 Chapter 3, 3 redaction of Josephus' <i style="color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px;">Antiquities.
Yep, the redacted text of Josephus is commonly accepted to be that as written by the historian. It is also commonly accepted as being independent evidence, as with the comments by Tacitus, Pliny, and Sietonius, of the existence of Jesus, and his impact upon the politics and religion of his time.
I would, though, repeat here the point that none of this "proves" the divinity or miracles of Christ, and I am aware, btw, that you are not making this point.
The resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith. I would, though, make the not unreasonable point that all barring one apostle (John) died rather violent deaths defending this belief. Not exactly the acts of people who did not at least hold a profound belief in this act. I would also make the point that the message of Jesus was accepted as doctrine by many people in the Roman Empire, not all of whom could remotely be accepted as thick, ignorant, peasants.
I would also make the point that the conspiracy theories put about by the OP regarding the motives of the Roman authorities to be amongst the most ignorant and depressing I have ever seen. Dean has said much the same.
What I find most unutterably depressing about yet another thread designed to goad those of us who believe in the nature of God, or who try to take an intellectual opinion and view on such matters, is that it was started by a chap who, according to his profile, is fifty bloody three. 53.... A year older than me. I thought Eddie was about 17. It is clearly his mental age. I find these threads horrible, because they seem designed simply to goad and cause trouble. They inevitably succeed. I regard both Dean and you as being two of the best members of this site, and I dislike it a lot when your exchanges result in conflict.
I will say, though, that your point regarding oral history is extremely well made. All of the evidence points towards oral history being accurately reflected in later writings across the millennia, and this in way more cultures than merely Israelites and early Christians.
As I have said before, none of this makes folk such as I right when we profoundly believe in the Divine. It does, though, allow us to state that there is at least some historical basis behind the scripts which tell of the times.
I will say this about Jesus, and this as someone who is a believer in the Divine, and someone extremely interested in both the period, and its impact across the millennia. I actually think that Jesus is best viewed as what he was historically. That is a Jewish Prophet. When you read the Bible, and place Jesus in this context, a lot of his sayings, initially opaque, suddenly make a great deal more sense. He called himself the Son of Man. As did Esekiah. It was a reference to one who had the Divine within them, extolling the word of God to others, one who was inspired to offer words of conduct and wisdom.
The latter theology of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I.e. The Holy Trinity were just that, theology interpreted by later Church Fathers. Their attempt, I suppose, to make sense of the message passed to them. Paul's epistles talk of the Holy Spirit, but do not attempt to impose a theological code, rather a way of living in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, and, yes, a belief in His resurrection. The idea of resurrection was not uniquely Christian. A reading of much of the Old Testament tells us that Jewish beliefs included that of pious and observant people being rescued from the pit by a forgiving and loving God. Many of the Psalms cry for just that.
At the end of the day, threads like this will never have members such as Dean, you, and others, including me, agreeing. In fact, they are depressing, because reasonable debate, which I love, is hijacked by blithering bloody idiots who simply seem to really enjoy merely taking the piss out of honestly held beliefs. I will not name him, but I have received a PM from one such member, a highly respected member of the site, who really hates these things, and has been tempted to leave because of it.
This is where, I believe, that moderation needs to be a damned sight stronger here. Posts designed to goad should simply be hidden, and only those designed to inform and influence allowed to remain on view.
The Internet can be a marvellous tool, but it can also be a damned pain in the arse, allowing idiots, such as a very immature Australian, to sit back and gloat at yet another achievement in winding folk up.
Stick and stones may break my bones but Leeks will never hurt me............
I do not find this, or you, funny. I find you an utter bore and a royal pain in the arse.
Let me articulate this.
If I were to start a thread saying that all homosexuals are degenerate sub-humans deserving of being thrown from the highest building (a view espoused by nutty extreme Islamists), I would, rightly, be banned.
If I were to start a thread stating that all Muslims were terrorists and we should immediately start a Crusade to rid the world of them, I would, rightly, be banned.
If I were to start a thread stating that all Australians were immature w**kers descended from nothing more than the degenerate filth of convicted prisoners in Britain, I would, rightly, be banned.
I do not, btw, hold any of those views, excepting the immature w**ker bit, of course.
If I were to start a thread challenging, in a most inappropriate fashion, the politics of people I do not agree with here, saying that they were all somehow beneath contempt, and posting items which did not debate, but demeaned, I might not be banned, but I certainly would not be respected.
For this very reason, you are not respected.
It seems to me that it is acceptable on this site to target those who hold Christian views with utter contempt, posting articles and items which are rather contemptible and demeaning. I do not think it is acceptable. It is one thing debating and putting across deeply held views and beliefs as, for example, Dean does. It is another merely trolling for attention and to wind people up, and that is what you are doing.
If I were you, I would be careful. It would not bother me in the slightest if you were to be asked in the Collab zone to be banned from the site, because your behaviour is very close to earning such a thing. There are others who have been banned for a damned sight less.
Please respect others opinions, and stop with the incessant winding up.
Lazyland, please Note I am the OP of this Thread and it was you that brought up the subject of my nationality not me and cast the first stone, as it would be and I unlike christian folk do not turn the other cheek- and I find your rhetoric boring and abrasive...........................
"Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes" and I need the knits, the double knits!
Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13634
Posted: January 24 2017 at 14:55
EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote:
lazland wrote:
EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote:
lazland wrote:
SteveG wrote:
Dean wrote:
Against my better judgement, but here goes nothing...
Tacitus wrote of christians in 112CE and Suetonius in 119CE, both during their account of the reign of Nero and the burning of Rome in 64CE so they were not writing about a real person as such so their source for the origins of christianity are most likely to have come from the christians themselves, either from the gospels (such as Mark, written some 40 years earlier) or simply as common knowledge.
AFAIK the Dead Sea Scrolls, despite being fairly comprehensive on the torah and ketuvium books (especially those concerned with mosaic law), are actually extremely fragmented and thin on texts from the nevi'im History books.
SteveG wrote:
However, the chronicles of these writers was the media of it's age and that these accounts are independent of the gospels only falls into focus when supported against the histories written by the Jewish historian Josephus, at approximately the same time, on behalf of the Roman emperor Trajan after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE. Josephus did plainly state, without much fanfare in a unadorned passage (when stripped of an inane later Christian introjection) about Christ, that he did actually live and was crucified by Pontius Pilate, along with many other Jews for sedition.
Well, no. It doesn't. Aside from the blatantly obvious observation that once the text had been corrupted by later christian embellishment, (of which there is very little doubt) then its veracity becomes highly questionable, one also has to ask where Josephus came by this piece of information in 93CE if not from the christians themselves? So using the claims of the christians to prove the provenance of the claims of the christians is the very definition of a circular argument. There is nothing to show that Josephus' account was independent of the gospels given that three of the four gospels were written before his Testimonium Flavianum.
Now, I haven't actually come down on one side or the other as to whether Jesus existed or not, and I don't see much reason to vote either way.
SteveG wrote:
Edit: Btw, The Dead Sea Scrolls maybe highly fragmented, but what is legible does not conflict with any of the writings of the Hebrew canon.
I never said they did, so what's your point?
Here goes nothing? Correct, as you put nothing of value forward.
I don't time for a good old dust up, or the eyesight, these days so I'll make this as brief as possible.
First off, the removal of interpolations form Josephus' writing of Jesus from the writings commonly known as the Antiquities is and has been widely excepted by generations of biblical scholars, and is believed to put forward an accurate account that Jesus of Nazareth actually lived and was crucified for sedition by the Roman prefect known in the New Testament as Pontius Pilate. Josephus, unlike the gospels, makes no apologies and holds the Romans accountable for their brutal mistreatment and murder of numerous Jews during their 30 year occupation of Judea.
Secondly, Josephus' also related the lives of New Testament figures John the Baptist and James the Brother of Jesus, without any christian invention such as miracles, resurrection, etc., similar to his depiction of Jesus. Not ironically, Josephus' messianic comrade of temple priests actually killed James on the steps of the great temple.
There is no apologetics in any of Josephus' writings regarding these people and events.
I place Josephus' quote on Jesus below with the later interpolation and with the interpolation removed so that other members can see what we're discussing:
<span style="color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px;">About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.</span>
<cite style="font-style: inherit; color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px; display: block;">Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18 chapter 3,3</cite><cite style="font-style: inherit; color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px; display: block;"> </cite><cite style="font-style: inherit; color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px; display: block;"><span style="white-space: nowrap;">Redacted without the later Christian interpolations:</span></cite><cite style="font-style: inherit; color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px; display: block;"><div =""="" style="font-size: 12.32px; : relative;"><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: inherit;">About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was (called) the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
This long held belief by academics to the accuracy of Josephus' passage on Jesus is supported by scholars
as faithful as N.T. Wright to as sceptical as John Dominic Crossan and Reza Aslan. This is no way a circular argument. However, you are free to accept it or reject as you wish.
As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, I wanted to make sure that I understood you correctly. With two thirds of the known Old Testament remarkably preserved for two millennia and first written a thousand years before that, I thought that you would give seem credit to a oral tradition that had only been around for 60 years. Not a lot of time when compared with two thousand for DDS, is it?
But I forget that this EddieURVarese's hate on Jesus thread, so back to the topic.
Edit: Book 18 Chapter 3, 3 redaction of Josephus' <i style="color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px;">Antiquities.
Yep, the redacted text of Josephus is commonly accepted to be that as written by the historian. It is also commonly accepted as being independent evidence, as with the comments by Tacitus, Pliny, and Sietonius, of the existence of Jesus, and his impact upon the politics and religion of his time.
I would, though, repeat here the point that none of this "proves" the divinity or miracles of Christ, and I am aware, btw, that you are not making this point.
The resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith. I would, though, make the not unreasonable point that all barring one apostle (John) died rather violent deaths defending this belief. Not exactly the acts of people who did not at least hold a profound belief in this act. I would also make the point that the message of Jesus was accepted as doctrine by many people in the Roman Empire, not all of whom could remotely be accepted as thick, ignorant, peasants.
I would also make the point that the conspiracy theories put about by the OP regarding the motives of the Roman authorities to be amongst the most ignorant and depressing I have ever seen. Dean has said much the same.
What I find most unutterably depressing about yet another thread designed to goad those of us who believe in the nature of God, or who try to take an intellectual opinion and view on such matters, is that it was started by a chap who, according to his profile, is fifty bloody three. 53.... A year older than me. I thought Eddie was about 17. It is clearly his mental age. I find these threads horrible, because they seem designed simply to goad and cause trouble. They inevitably succeed. I regard both Dean and you as being two of the best members of this site, and I dislike it a lot when your exchanges result in conflict.
I will say, though, that your point regarding oral history is extremely well made. All of the evidence points towards oral history being accurately reflected in later writings across the millennia, and this in way more cultures than merely Israelites and early Christians.
As I have said before, none of this makes folk such as I right when we profoundly believe in the Divine. It does, though, allow us to state that there is at least some historical basis behind the scripts which tell of the times.
I will say this about Jesus, and this as someone who is a believer in the Divine, and someone extremely interested in both the period, and its impact across the millennia. I actually think that Jesus is best viewed as what he was historically. That is a Jewish Prophet. When you read the Bible, and place Jesus in this context, a lot of his sayings, initially opaque, suddenly make a great deal more sense. He called himself the Son of Man. As did Esekiah. It was a reference to one who had the Divine within them, extolling the word of God to others, one who was inspired to offer words of conduct and wisdom.
The latter theology of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I.e. The Holy Trinity were just that, theology interpreted by later Church Fathers. Their attempt, I suppose, to make sense of the message passed to them. Paul's epistles talk of the Holy Spirit, but do not attempt to impose a theological code, rather a way of living in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, and, yes, a belief in His resurrection. The idea of resurrection was not uniquely Christian. A reading of much of the Old Testament tells us that Jewish beliefs included that of pious and observant people being rescued from the pit by a forgiving and loving God. Many of the Psalms cry for just that.
At the end of the day, threads like this will never have members such as Dean, you, and others, including me, agreeing. In fact, they are depressing, because reasonable debate, which I love, is hijacked by blithering bloody idiots who simply seem to really enjoy merely taking the piss out of honestly held beliefs. I will not name him, but I have received a PM from one such member, a highly respected member of the site, who really hates these things, and has been tempted to leave because of it.
This is where, I believe, that moderation needs to be a damned sight stronger here. Posts designed to goad should simply be hidden, and only those designed to inform and influence allowed to remain on view.
The Internet can be a marvellous tool, but it can also be a damned pain in the arse, allowing idiots, such as a very immature Australian, to sit back and gloat at yet another achievement in winding folk up.
Stick and stones may break my bones but Leeks will never hurt me............
I do not find this, or you, funny. I find you an utter bore and a royal pain in the arse.
Let me articulate this.
If I were to start a thread saying that all homosexuals are degenerate sub-humans deserving of being thrown from the highest building (a view espoused by nutty extreme Islamists), I would, rightly, be banned.
If I were to start a thread stating that all Muslims were terrorists and we should immediately start a Crusade to rid the world of them, I would, rightly, be banned.
If I were to start a thread stating that all Australians were immature w**kers descended from nothing more than the degenerate filth of convicted prisoners in Britain, I would, rightly, be banned.
I do not, btw, hold any of those views, excepting the immature w**ker bit, of course.
If I were to start a thread challenging, in a most inappropriate fashion, the politics of people I do not agree with here, saying that they were all somehow beneath contempt, and posting items which did not debate, but demeaned, I might not be banned, but I certainly would not be respected.
For this very reason, you are not respected.
It seems to me that it is acceptable on this site to target those who hold Christian views with utter contempt, posting articles and items which are rather contemptible and demeaning. I do not think it is acceptable. It is one thing debating and putting across deeply held views and beliefs as, for example, Dean does. It is another merely trolling for attention and to wind people up, and that is what you are doing.
If I were you, I would be careful. It would not bother me in the slightest if you were to be asked in the Collab zone to be banned from the site, because your behaviour is very close to earning such a thing. There are others who have been banned for a damned sight less.
Please respect others opinions, and stop with the incessant winding up.
Lazyland, please Note I am the OP of this Thread and it was you that brought up the subject of my nationality not me and cast the first stone, as it would be and I unlike christian folk do not turn the other cheek- and I find your rhetoric boring and abrasive...........................
It's Lazland.
You are the OP of the thread, and it was deliberately designed to wind people up. And succeeded, might I add.
I did indeed, raise the subject of your nationality, and let me immediately apologise for that. It is my opinion that you would be an immature w**ker whatever your nationality. Being Australian has nothing to do with it, and I was wrong to infer this.
Rhetoric can be boring or abrasive. Not both at the same time. Abrasive people are very rarely boring.
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Joined: February 04 2016
Location: Aust
Status: Offline
Points: 1802
Posted: January 24 2017 at 15:00
Logan wrote:
We're all idiots, Steve, but I have an official village idiot diploma.
Eddie: I do think you are coming across as too incendiary, a little too much silliness, and intolerant/ insensitive at times (I mean, I know that I cross all of those lines too, so it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black). Incidentally, I closed the topic before you could answer, but why did you do the Japanese jokes thread?
Logan, note my previous response (in particular that I am the OP of this Thread too), to Lazland I think in this case he is the incendiary one noting that he brought up the subject of nationality not me, then proceeds to come back with insulting comments such as "all Australians were immature w**kers descended from nothing more than the degenerate filth of convicted prisoners in Britain".
Note I never stated on here anything of such unmitigated inappropriate personal bashing- trying to cover it up by stating "I do not, btw, hold any of those views, excepting the immature w**ker bit, of course." does not work on any level...........
Two your second point my reason for doing the Japanese jokes thread is two fold, firstly I'd made a joke regarding Trump and the Japanese Whaling of Minke Whales in my Career Advice for Donald Trump Thread, which secondly was closed without notice by DamoXt7942, hence my Japanese jokes thread- which was titled Are Japanese Jokes ok?
"Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes" and I need the knits, the double knits!
Joined: February 04 2016
Location: Aust
Status: Offline
Points: 1802
Posted: January 24 2017 at 15:05
lazland wrote:
EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote:
lazland wrote:
EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote:
lazland wrote:
SteveG wrote:
Dean wrote:
Against my better judgement, but here goes nothing...
Tacitus wrote of christians in 112CE and Suetonius in 119CE, both during their account of the reign of Nero and the burning of Rome in 64CE so they were not writing about a real person as such so their source for the origins of christianity are most likely to have come from the christians themselves, either from the gospels (such as Mark, written some 40 years earlier) or simply as common knowledge.
AFAIK the Dead Sea Scrolls, despite being fairly comprehensive on the torah and ketuvium books (especially those concerned with mosaic law), are actually extremely fragmented and thin on texts from the nevi'im History books.
SteveG wrote:
However, the chronicles of these writers was the media of it's age and that these accounts are independent of the gospels only falls into focus when supported against the histories written by the Jewish historian Josephus, at approximately the same time, on behalf of the Roman emperor Trajan after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE. Josephus did plainly state, without much fanfare in a unadorned passage (when stripped of an inane later Christian introjection) about Christ, that he did actually live and was crucified by Pontius Pilate, along with many other Jews for sedition.
Well, no. It doesn't. Aside from the blatantly obvious observation that once the text had been corrupted by later christian embellishment, (of which there is very little doubt) then its veracity becomes highly questionable, one also has to ask where Josephus came by this piece of information in 93CE if not from the christians themselves? So using the claims of the christians to prove the provenance of the claims of the christians is the very definition of a circular argument. There is nothing to show that Josephus' account was independent of the gospels given that three of the four gospels were written before his Testimonium Flavianum.
Now, I haven't actually come down on one side or the other as to whether Jesus existed or not, and I don't see much reason to vote either way.
SteveG wrote:
Edit: Btw, The Dead Sea Scrolls maybe highly fragmented, but what is legible does not conflict with any of the writings of the Hebrew canon.
I never said they did, so what's your point?
Here goes nothing? Correct, as you put nothing of value forward.
I don't time for a good old dust up, or the eyesight, these days so I'll make this as brief as possible.
First off, the removal of interpolations form Josephus' writing of Jesus from the writings commonly known as the Antiquities is and has been widely excepted by generations of biblical scholars, and is believed to put forward an accurate account that Jesus of Nazareth actually lived and was crucified for sedition by the Roman prefect known in the New Testament as Pontius Pilate. Josephus, unlike the gospels, makes no apologies and holds the Romans accountable for their brutal mistreatment and murder of numerous Jews during their 30 year occupation of Judea.
Secondly, Josephus' also related the lives of New Testament figures John the Baptist and James the Brother of Jesus, without any christian invention such as miracles, resurrection, etc., similar to his depiction of Jesus. Not ironically, Josephus' messianic comrade of temple priests actually killed James on the steps of the great temple.
There is no apologetics in any of Josephus' writings regarding these people and events.
I place Josephus' quote on Jesus below with the later interpolation and with the interpolation removed so that other members can see what we're discussing:
<span style="color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px;">About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.</span>
<cite style="font-style: inherit; color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px; display: block;">Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18 chapter 3,3</cite><cite style="font-style: inherit; color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px; display: block;"> </cite><cite style="font-style: inherit; color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px; display: block;"><span style="white-space: nowrap;">Redacted without the later Christian interpolations:</span></cite><cite style="font-style: inherit; color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px; display: block;"><div =""="" style="font-size: 12.32px; : relative;"><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: inherit;">About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was (called) the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
This long held belief by academics to the accuracy of Josephus' passage on Jesus is supported by scholars
as faithful as N.T. Wright to as sceptical as John Dominic Crossan and Reza Aslan. This is no way a circular argument. However, you are free to accept it or reject as you wish.
As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, I wanted to make sure that I understood you correctly. With two thirds of the known Old Testament remarkably preserved for two millennia and first written a thousand years before that, I thought that you would give seem credit to a oral tradition that had only been around for 60 years. Not a lot of time when compared with two thousand for DDS, is it?
But I forget that this EddieURVarese's hate on Jesus thread, so back to the topic.
Edit: Book 18 Chapter 3, 3 redaction of Josephus' <i style="color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px;">Antiquities.
Yep, the redacted text of Josephus is commonly accepted to be that as written by the historian. It is also commonly accepted as being independent evidence, as with the comments by Tacitus, Pliny, and Sietonius, of the existence of Jesus, and his impact upon the politics and religion of his time.
I would, though, repeat here the point that none of this "proves" the divinity or miracles of Christ, and I am aware, btw, that you are not making this point.
The resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith. I would, though, make the not unreasonable point that all barring one apostle (John) died rather violent deaths defending this belief. Not exactly the acts of people who did not at least hold a profound belief in this act. I would also make the point that the message of Jesus was accepted as doctrine by many people in the Roman Empire, not all of whom could remotely be accepted as thick, ignorant, peasants.
I would also make the point that the conspiracy theories put about by the OP regarding the motives of the Roman authorities to be amongst the most ignorant and depressing I have ever seen. Dean has said much the same.
What I find most unutterably depressing about yet another thread designed to goad those of us who believe in the nature of God, or who try to take an intellectual opinion and view on such matters, is that it was started by a chap who, according to his profile, is fifty bloody three. 53.... A year older than me. I thought Eddie was about 17. It is clearly his mental age. I find these threads horrible, because they seem designed simply to goad and cause trouble. They inevitably succeed. I regard both Dean and you as being two of the best members of this site, and I dislike it a lot when your exchanges result in conflict.
I will say, though, that your point regarding oral history is extremely well made. All of the evidence points towards oral history being accurately reflected in later writings across the millennia, and this in way more cultures than merely Israelites and early Christians.
As I have said before, none of this makes folk such as I right when we profoundly believe in the Divine. It does, though, allow us to state that there is at least some historical basis behind the scripts which tell of the times.
I will say this about Jesus, and this as someone who is a believer in the Divine, and someone extremely interested in both the period, and its impact across the millennia. I actually think that Jesus is best viewed as what he was historically. That is a Jewish Prophet. When you read the Bible, and place Jesus in this context, a lot of his sayings, initially opaque, suddenly make a great deal more sense. He called himself the Son of Man. As did Esekiah. It was a reference to one who had the Divine within them, extolling the word of God to others, one who was inspired to offer words of conduct and wisdom.
The latter theology of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I.e. The Holy Trinity were just that, theology interpreted by later Church Fathers. Their attempt, I suppose, to make sense of the message passed to them. Paul's epistles talk of the Holy Spirit, but do not attempt to impose a theological code, rather a way of living in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, and, yes, a belief in His resurrection. The idea of resurrection was not uniquely Christian. A reading of much of the Old Testament tells us that Jewish beliefs included that of pious and observant people being rescued from the pit by a forgiving and loving God. Many of the Psalms cry for just that.
At the end of the day, threads like this will never have members such as Dean, you, and others, including me, agreeing. In fact, they are depressing, because reasonable debate, which I love, is hijacked by blithering bloody idiots who simply seem to really enjoy merely taking the piss out of honestly held beliefs. I will not name him, but I have received a PM from one such member, a highly respected member of the site, who really hates these things, and has been tempted to leave because of it.
This is where, I believe, that moderation needs to be a damned sight stronger here. Posts designed to goad should simply be hidden, and only those designed to inform and influence allowed to remain on view.
The Internet can be a marvellous tool, but it can also be a damned pain in the arse, allowing idiots, such as a very immature Australian, to sit back and gloat at yet another achievement in winding folk up.
Stick and stones may break my bones but Leeks will never hurt me............
I do not find this, or you, funny. I find you an utter bore and a royal pain in the arse.
Let me articulate this.
If I were to start a thread saying that all homosexuals are degenerate sub-humans deserving of being thrown from the highest building (a view espoused by nutty extreme Islamists), I would, rightly, be banned.
If I were to start a thread stating that all Muslims were terrorists and we should immediately start a Crusade to rid the world of them, I would, rightly, be banned.
If I were to start a thread stating that all Australians were immature w**kers descended from nothing more than the degenerate filth of convicted prisoners in Britain, I would, rightly, be banned.
I do not, btw, hold any of those views, excepting the immature w**ker bit, of course.
If I were to start a thread challenging, in a most inappropriate fashion, the politics of people I do not agree with here, saying that they were all somehow beneath contempt, and posting items which did not debate, but demeaned, I might not be banned, but I certainly would not be respected.
For this very reason, you are not respected.
It seems to me that it is acceptable on this site to target those who hold Christian views with utter contempt, posting articles and items which are rather contemptible and demeaning. I do not think it is acceptable. It is one thing debating and putting across deeply held views and beliefs as, for example, Dean does. It is another merely trolling for attention and to wind people up, and that is what you are doing.
If I were you, I would be careful. It would not bother me in the slightest if you were to be asked in the Collab zone to be banned from the site, because your behaviour is very close to earning such a thing. There are others who have been banned for a damned sight less.
Please respect others opinions, and stop with the incessant winding up.
Lazyland, please Note I am the OP of this Thread and it was you that brought up the subject of my nationality not me and cast the first stone, as it would be and I unlike christian folk do not turn the other cheek- and I find your rhetoric boring and abrasive...........................
It's Lazland.
You are the OP of the thread, and it was deliberately designed to wind people up. And succeeded, might I add.
I did indeed, raise the subject of your nationality, and let me immediately apologise for that. It is my opinion that you would be an immature w**ker whatever your nationality. Being Australian has nothing to do with it, and I was wrong to infer this.
Rhetoric can be boring or abrasive. Not both at the same time. Abrasive people are very rarely boring.
Lazland, stating an apology then stating I'm a immature w**ker, does not cut it in my book- personal attacks are not on and I never do them- I'll kid and joke about anything but personal attacks are not on. Immaturity is an interesting topic in this context but i wont go there for the same reasons...........
"Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes" and I need the knits, the double knits!
Joined: February 04 2016
Location: Aust
Status: Offline
Points: 1802
Posted: January 24 2017 at 15:19
“The avoidance of the thought of death is a proxy: death in itself is not a particularly scary thing, and it has an inevitability about it, and humans are pretty good at accepting inevitability. What really punishes us in Western civilization is the fear that God is a b*****d and that hell is real and that you’re going there. The fear of death, in Western culture, is simply a layer over the fear of an angry God who’s going to torture you for existing. If you think about that—I mean, this is kind of a controversial thing to say, but we seem to be in the territory—what kind of parent would have children and then torture them for disobeying—not punish, torture? The answer is: a completely psychotic and evil parent that should be removed from their children, locked in a deep, dark dungeon, and never allowed outside again. And if treatment will help them, that’s great, but it probably won’t.
And that’s the God of Western civilization. It’s the God of Islam too. This is a being that—if that was an actual human being—we would consider to be the worst kind of psychopath, and we would lock up and never allow out again. And that is, I think, a very reasonable way of approaching Western religion: I think it should be locked up and never allowed outside again because it’s completely psychologically destructive for people to believe that they are trapped in the universe with that kind of a deity. It’s an unbelievable psychological trauma. It’s a huge scar on the culture. And frankly Western culture is in a process of recovery from having gotten a really bad rap in the sort of medieval mythology game. You got a really bad medieval mythology. It’s twisted your culture in some really bizarre and frightening ways that are threatening the existence of the entire planet. But, at the end of the day, you can recover. We know where human beings came from—they evolved. They weren’t made by some angry God, and that angry being is not waiting for you as soon as you die to beat you with a stick. It’s fine. God is dead. There’s nothing to worry about. Have a nice day. Go out and enjoy yourselves.”
-Vinay Gupta
"Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes" and I need the knits, the double knits!
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 35886
Posted: January 24 2017 at 15:32
^^^ Thanks Lazland (Steve). And noted.
EddieRUKIddingVarese wrote:
Logan, note my previous response (in particular that I am the OP of this Thread too), to Lazland I think in this case he is the incendiary one noting that he brought up the subject of nationality not me, then proceeds to come back with insulting comments such as "all Australians were immature w**kers descended from nothing more than the degenerate filth of convicted prisoners in Britain". Note I never stated on here anything of such unmitigated inappropriate personal bashing- trying to cover it up by stating "I do not, btw, hold any of those views, excepting the immature w**ker bit, of course." does not work on any level...........
Two your second point my reason for doing the Japanese jokes thread is two fold, firstly I'd made a joke regarding Trump and the Japanese Whaling of Minke Whales in my Career Advice for Donald Trump Thread, which secondly was closed without notice by DamoXt7942, hence my Japanese jokes thread- which was titled Are Japanese Jokes ok?
Eddie: It's important to always note context, and Steve's Australian "If I were to start a thread stating...", which was part of many ifs that he was not condoning, does not really seem wrong to me. Never-the-less, he apologized for it. Calling you an immature w**ker is a personal attack, and a matter of opinion, but it's being used as parallelism. I'm not condoning the immature w**ker bit, but I understand the temptation to create such a grammatical construct in response to your response on his earlier comment. I like to play with words, and it is a sort of word play.
The Japanese jokes thread concerned me particularly when I realized that Keishiro had closed one of your threads (when I closed that thread I hadn't even considered that it could possibly be about you going so low as to make that thread as a response to someone who is Japanese and made a call on the appropriateness of the Trump thread). It is important to note that Keishiro did not hide your joke about Japanese whaling in the Trump thread, although I probably would have because of the derogatory term Japs. Instead he hid various posts which had silly, spammy, and perverse images in them and then locked the topic because of its dis-respectfulness, spammy qualities, divisiveness and its inanity. I see a serious lack of evidence that his nationality had anything to do with it, and Keishiro is a very even-tempered and rational professional.
EDIT: And by the way, if you get a post hidden and/or a topic locked, that should be taken as a warning so you should be more careful after that. Having one topic locked, then coming out with another problematic one in response is not advisable behavior.
Had a call while I was composing this, so probably more posts have popped up in the meantime that I haven't read.
Joined: February 04 2016
Location: Aust
Status: Offline
Points: 1802
Posted: January 24 2017 at 15:40
Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the “Historical Jesus” actually existed primarily reflect disagreements among atheists. Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed “Christ of Faith” (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.
Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment.” From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman’s Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?
The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.
The methods traditionally used to tease out rare nuggets of truth from the Gospels are dubious. The criterion of embarrassment says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic. Unfortunately, given the diverse nature of Christianity and Judaism back then (things have not changed all that much), and the anonymity of the authors, it is impossible to determine what truly would be embarrassing or counter-intuitive, let alone if that might not serve some evangelistic purpose.
The criterion of Aramaic context is similarly unhelpful. Jesus and his closest followers were surely not the only Aramaic-speakers in first-century Judea. The criterion of multiple independent attestation can also hardly be used properly here, given that the sources clearly are not independent.
Paul’s Epistles, written earlier than the Gospels, give us no reason to dogmatically declare Jesus must have existed. Avoiding Jesus’ earthly events and teachings, even when the latter could have bolstered his own claims, Paul only describes his “Heavenly Jesus.” Even when discussing what appear to be the resurrection and the last supper, his only stated sources are his direct revelations from the Lord, and his indirect revelations from the Old Testament. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources (see Galatians 1:11-12).
Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.
Agnosticism over the matter is already seemingly appropriate, and support for this position comes from independent historian Richard Carrier’s recent defense of another theory — namely, that the belief in Jesus started as the belief in a purely celestial being (who was killed by demons in an upper realm), who became historicized over time. To summarize Carrier’s 800-page tome, this theory and the traditional theory – that Jesus was a historical figure who became mythicized over time – both align well with the Gospels, which are later mixtures of obvious myth and what at least sounds historical.
The Pauline Epistles, however, overwhelmingly support the “celestial Jesus” theory, particularly with the passage indicating that demons killed Jesus, and would not have done so if they knew who he was (see: 1 Corinthians 2:6-10). Humans – the murderers according to the Gospels – of course would still have killed Jesus, knowing full well that his death results in their salvation, and the defeat of the evil spirits.
So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?
Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.
Joined: October 31 2015
Location: Tomorrowland
Status: Offline
Points: 495
Posted: January 24 2017 at 19:10
Hackettfan said:
"I presume you're making some connection between religiosity and intuition."
Well, not really, but that connection is common fact on the Eastern philosophy.
Hackettfan said:
"You also use the idea of "...believing in the existence of something without having to see and hear it first".
Okay, I should have put "...guessing the existence of something without having to see and hear it first", since I was roughly trying to make a point about the Samurai's intuition.
Hackettfan, sorry but I'm not interested on discussions about Physics neither Einstein's thoughts on it with anybody here, nor about the ultimate meaning of the word "INTUITION". But one thing for sure you're right - intuition is not at all equivalent to insight. Nevertheless, I don't agree with your statement that it is certainly not insightful.
Obviously I have different thoughts on the matter and have my own reasons for our disagreements...
Anyway, according to my interpretation of it, I assume that prior to the emergence of any careful philosophizing, serious reflection (both in the West and in the East) often followed a method which we may roughly describe as a combination of illustrative induction AND intuitive insight.
As an example, take the reasoning frequently employed in the Tao Te Ching. The author asks us to to consider obvious facts about the familiar substance water; it is quite content to settle in the lowly hollows which other objects disdain as beneath them, yet it is the source of life and nourishment to all growing things. From these facts the reader is expected to arrive at the general moral insight that true greatness rests in the humble willingness to serve rather than in the competitve struggle to outdo others, which is a well-known behavior that is fairly common in our Western culture, incentivated, amongst other factors, by the dominant interests of our modern culture.
Fairly speaking, I tend to gather much better the eastern use of intuition, because in the West its use is generally regarded as an invalid method, it appears to be incapable of being checked in any of the ways required by the Western developed sense of 'intellectual responsibility'.
Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13063
Posted: January 24 2017 at 20:02
Tacitus (who could never be confused as a Christian apologist) and Suetonius (Nero's biographer) both mentioned Christian persecution during Nero's reign (54 AD to 68 AD).
It's interesting that a sect who worshiped an allegedly fictitious personage would be noticeable enough in Rome, a city of 2 million people at the time, that Nero would consider persecuting them. This, just after the alleged conspiracy to create this legendary person (with the aid of Joseph Campbell and various world myths obviously readily available for perusal at the Golgotha Branch of the Jerusalem Public Library) no more than 30 years previously in the backwaters of Judea.
Considering Tacitus was alive during the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, one would not assume his history as apocryphal:
"Therefore, to stop the rumor[that he had set Rome on fire], he[Emperor Nero]falsely charged with guilt, and punished with the most fearful tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were [generally] hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the reign of Tiberius, but the pernicious superstition - repressed for a time, broke out yet again, not only through Judea, - where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, whither all things horrible and disgraceful flow from all quarters, as to a common receptacle, and where they are encouraged. Accordingly first those were arrested who confessed they were Christians; next on their information, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of burning the city, as of "hating the human race."
Not a very flattering portrait of Christians (or Nero, for that matter).
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Joined: February 04 2016
Location: Aust
Status: Offline
Points: 1802
Posted: January 24 2017 at 20:17
Jesus thinks your a jerk- Song by Zappa fits well into this debate
There's an ugly little wasel 'bout three-foot nine Face puffed up from cryin' 'n lyin' 'Cause her sweet little hubby's Suckin' prong part time (In the name of The Lord) Get a clue, little shrew Oh yeah, oh yeah Jesus thinks you're a jerk Did he really choose Tammy to do His Work? Robertson says that he's The One Oh sure he is, If Armageddon Is your idea of family fun, An' he's got some planned for you! (Now, tell me that ain't true)
"Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes" and I need the knits, the double knits!
Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
Posted: January 24 2017 at 21:39
I want to keep this brief. I think we're well off the historical question.
Tillerman88 wrote:
Hackettfan said:
"I presume you're making some connection between religiosity and intuition."
Well, not really,
Okay. That's good, then.
Tillerman88 wrote:
but that connection is common fact on the Eastern philosophy.
Were backtracking. It's a part of Eastern Philosophy, not a fact of it. I dispute the veracity of that connection, but it certainly still may be useful, just as one can derive benefit from meditation without being Buddhist.
Tillerman88 wrote:
Hackettfan said:
"You also use the idea of "...believing in the existence of something without having to see and hear it first".
Okay, I should have put "...guessing the existence of something without having to see and hear it first", since I was roughly trying to make a point about the Samurai's intuition.
I do indeed assume the existence of things without having to see and hear them first, given proper context. This does not suggest anything religious to me. However, you said above that you were not speaking earlier of a connection between religiosity and intuition, so I still have no idea what the purpose of this statement is.
Tillerman88 wrote:
Hackettfan, sorry but I'm not interested on discussions about Physics neither Einstein's thoughts on it with anybody here, nor about the ultimate meaning of the word "INTUITION". But one thing for sure you're right - intuition is not at all equivalent to insight. Nevertheless, I don't agree with your statement that it is certainly not insightful.
Intuition I suppose may or may not be insightful. My comment was directed to my own specific example, the purpose of which was to highlight the difference between the two, because the difference was relevant to showing it was not the same thing.
Tillerman88 wrote:
Obviously I have different thoughts on the matter and have my own reasons for our disagreements...
Anyway, according to my interpretation of it, I assume that prior to the emergence of any careful philosophizing, serious reflection (both in the West and in the East) often followed a method which we may roughly describe as a combination of illustrative induction AND intuitive insight.
As an example, take the reasoning frequently employed in the Tao Te Ching. The author asks us to to consider obvious facts about the familiar substance water; it is quite content to settle in the lowly hollows which other objects disdain as beneath them, yet it is the source of life and nourishment to all growing things.
Okay
Tillerman88 wrote:
From these facts the reader is expected to arrive at the general moral insight that true greatness rests in the humble willingness to serve rather than in the competitve struggle to outdo others,
Donald Trump needs to know this, I agree.
Tillerman88 wrote:
which is a well-known behavior that is fairly common in our Western culture, incentivated, amongst other factors, by the dominant interests of our modern culture.
Fairly speaking, I tend to gather much better the eastern use of intuition, because in the West its use is generally regarded as an invalid method, it appears to be incapable of being checked in any of the ways required by the Western developed sense of 'intellectual responsibility'.
.
..
I use intuition quite a bit, and I lend it the credence (=lack of credence) that it deserves. How would intuition apply to the question of whether Jesus was a historical figure? Who's intuition? Mine I hope.
Edited by HackettFan - January 24 2017 at 21:43
A curse upon the heads of those who seek their fortunes in a lie. The truth is always waiting when there's nothing left to try. - Colin Henson, Jade Warrior (Now)
Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
Posted: January 24 2017 at 22:22
Lazland wrote:
As I have said before, none of this makes folk such as I right when we profoundly believe in the Divine. It does, though, allow us to state that there is at least some historical basis behind the scripts which tell of the times.
I will say this about Jesus, and this as someone who is a believer in the Divine, and someone extremely interested in both the period, and its impact across the millennia. I actually think that Jesus is best viewed as what he was historically.
When I look back on the period, I tend to envision original Christianity looking a whole lot more Gnostic than Orthodox. A Gnostic, would believe in a holy spirit form of Jesus even prior to crucifixion, and, I presume, downplay the importance of a historical Jesus. What is your perspective on this? Why is historical veracity so often presented as a prerequisite for spiritual authenticity in Orthodox Christianity?
A curse upon the heads of those who seek their fortunes in a lie. The truth is always waiting when there's nothing left to try. - Colin Henson, Jade Warrior (Now)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.281 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Posted: January 24 2017 at 14:20
Jesus Christ! Fact or fiction?
Topic Options
EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote: