PDA

View Full Version : Was Jesus Christ a historical person?



Rincewind
09-03-2015, 10:59 AM
Not a poll but a thread to discuss the issue. My claim is that this question may not be able to be settles to a high degree of certainty but the argument for a historical Jesus is not very strong and takes advantage of a pro-Christian bias in Western culture in general and New Testament studies in particular.

However the historical investigation of the stories of the old testament have shown that lots of them do not document historical events and as time progresses I suspect more and more questions will be asked about the historical claims in the New Testament.

Certainly all the supposed extrabiblical evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus Christ does not bear close scrutiny. So the existence of Jesus basically comes down to the Gospels. Document written decades after the event and which also contain may mythic elements which no historian believes (like the story of the census during the reign of Herod and the massacre of the innocents).

If you have something on this issue you want to post, please do so here rather than in other threads (like the one about Obama being an atheist).

Tony Dowden
09-03-2015, 10:14 PM
Of course he was 'historical' figure. So was Pilate, Herod, Julius Caesar, the 12 apostles, Mary and Joseph, etc.

The 'Jesus myth theory' has never been popular because it just isn't credible. The evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is overwhelming. Today there are millions and millions of followers of Christ. In the early years of Christendom hundreds and thousands of people were martyred by the Romans. Today they are still being martyred. The idea that all these people gave up their lives for an imaginary person is impossibly far-fetched.

Rincewind
09-03-2015, 11:01 PM
Of course he was 'historical' figure. So was Pilate, Herod, Julius Caesar, the 12 apostles, Mary and Joseph, etc.

The 'Jesus myth theory' has never been popular because it just isn't credible. The evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is overwhelming. Today there are millions and millions of followers of Christ. In the early years of Christendom hundreds and thousands of people were martyred by the Romans. Today they are still being martyred. The idea that all these people gave up their lives for an imaginary person is impossibly far-fetched.

Regarding the popularity of the historical hypothesis over myth has a lot to do with the bias of Western culture. Many westerners think, like you, that that the number of believers of a myth make that history. The bias is quite deep and difficult to remove from the discipline. But a close look at the evidence reveals the real reason history is assumed over myth is not due to the preponderance of evidence for history but rather a lack of evidence challenging it. However since all the textual evidence we have has gone through the filter of several cycles of copying by Christian monks the preservation of inconvenient evidence in unlikely and the preservation of pro-historical evidence and even the improvement of pro-historical evidence is strongly favoured. This has been documented in the corruption of biblical texts (e.g. Long ending of Mark, and forged Pauline letters such as 2 Thessalonians, 1&2 Timothy and Titus) as well as deliberate corruption of extra-biblical texts such as Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews.

One of the challenges to the historical side of the argument is why we have no written record of Jesus doing anything coming from an eye-witness? All the written records come from writers working decades after the fact. We would have to presume no literate person ever met Jesus and thought him noteworthy. Given the stories in the New Testament this seems unlikely especially when you factor in that the early church would have been trying to preserve any such texts if they existed. The uncontested Pauline letters are among the earliest writings we have and their author (Paul?) attests as to having never met Jesus Christ. The gospels were written later and not by eye witnesses.

However if you disagree with this or believe there is good primary evidence for Jesus' existence somewhere you should cite it. The save some time you should review the Does God Exists thread and many common bad arguments for primary evidence for Jesus have been made there and shown to be wanting. (Particular around 2005). A good search string in "Josephus".

Capablanca-Fan
13-03-2015, 06:20 AM
F.F. Bruce (1910–1990), Ryland professor of Biblical Criticism at the University of Manchester, writes:


Some writers may toy with the fancy of a ‘Christ-myth’, but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the ‘Christ-myth’ theories. [F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? (London: Inter-Varsity, 1968), p. 119.]

Indeed, the main proponent of the ‘Christ Myth’ idea was G.A. Wells (1926– ), a professor of German, not a historian.

One of RW's heroes, British political philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) had no doubts that Jesus existed:


It is of no use to say that Christ as exhibited in the gospels is not historical … . Who among his disciples or among their proselytes was capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to Jesus, or of imagining the life and character revealed in the gospels? Certainly not the fishermen of Galilee, still less the early Christian writers.

Indeed, we have less manuscript evidence for some of the people that Dr Dowden mentioned, e.g. Pilate, Herod, Julius Caesar, and the extend manuscripts are centuries after the events. E.g. we have only 10 manuscripts of Caesar's writings, and the earliest dates from about 1,000 years after he wrote. But there are over 20,000 manuscripts in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and other languages from the time and place—over 6,000 in Greek alone—and some go back to the second century AD. We also have about a million NT quotations in the Patristic (Church Fathers) writings.

Classical scholar A.N. Sherwin-White, who laments the fragmentary manuscript evidence for classical figures, couldn't understand why unbelieving NT scholars would whinge about the paucity of manuscripts they have available.

Rincewind
13-03-2015, 07:14 AM
Historical arguments with fundamentalists are pointless as evidence by the batshit crazy assertions you made in the other thread on the dating of the gospels. Uncontroversial dating of the gospels gives no possibility that the authors were the people to whom they are ascribed. Mark is the earliest followed by Matthew, Luke and John is the youngest and dates to around 95 AD perhaps later.

Not sure why Julius Ceasar is an issue we have mountain of evidence for him not from his writings but inscriptions, coins, and eye-witness accounts written in his lifetime. Likewise both Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa I are well attested in histories and could not possibly be fictions. Although these are famous men and so it is not surprising that there is mountains of evidence. Pilate likewise is also extensively covered in a number of sources including Philo and Josephus and we have at least one inscription mention Pilate as prefect of Judea.

For Jesus we have no coins, no inscriptions, no eye-witness accounts. The earliest writing we have are the letters of Paul who never saw him and then decades later we have the gospels appearing which a large number of mythical elements contained in them. Philo's silence and the corruption of Josephus means we have no reliable extrabiblical evidence.

The main reason NT historians accept the historical Jesus is that they believe the stories of the baptism and crucifixion based on the criterion of embarrassment. However that is projecting modern sensibilities back 2000 years. In fact I don;t know of any Christians who find ether element embarrassing. The baptism has been used to justify biblical prophecy and also it has been written in such a way that John acknowledges his inferiority to Jesus and the crucifixion is a powerful image because the main message of Christianity is that injustices in the present life will be overcome in the next. This idea found a lot of favour in a people who were subjugated by Rome without any hope of a military saviour to restore their national identity. So I would say the criterion of embarrassment has been incorrectly applied here and really all we have is taking the word of religious propaganda written decades after the events they attest to describe.

Tony Dowden
15-03-2015, 12:24 PM
... For Jesus we have no coins, no inscriptions, no eye-witness accounts ...

Simply untrue: we have all of these.

We also have communities, churches, cathedrals, universities, cities, entire civilisations. What is more, these appear independently and have survived in inhospitable places for two millennia. Apart from European christendom, there's also Armenians and other minorities in Syria, Turkey & Iraq; the Coptic church in Egypt; and very old indigenous churches in Ethiopia and India. None of these have died out despite intense persecution and even genocide. Not what one would expect for a non-existent figure.

There's nothing left to say about this issue except to consider why it continues to attract the occasional proponent.

While the Jesus-myth theory itself is patently absurd, in my opinion there is a logical rationale that neatly explains why some will irrationally cling to the position. The Jesus-myth provides self-protection for those rare and commendable people who are intellectually honest but are afraid to address the central question pertaining to Jesus of Nazareth: Is he Jesus the Christ? Their terrible fear - from the position of an honest atheist - is that they will be confronted with the truth. But of course there is no reason for fear: the truth shall set you free.

antichrist
15-03-2015, 01:56 PM
Simply untrue: we have all of these.

We also have communities, churches, cathedrals, universities, cities, entire civilisations. What is more, these appear independently and have survived in inhospitable places for two millennia. Apart from European christendom, there's also Armenians and other minorities in Syria, Turkey & Iraq; the Coptic church in Egypt; and very old indigenous churches in Ethiopia and India. None of these have died out despite intense persecution and even genocide. Not what one would expect for a non-existent figure.

There's nothing left to say about this issue except to consider why it continues to attract the occasional proponent.

While the Jesus-myth theory itself is patently absurd, in my opinion there is a logical rationale that neatly explains why some will irrationally cling to the position. The Jesus-myth provides self-protection for those rare and commendable people who are intellectually honest but are afraid to address the central question pertaining to Jesus of Nazareth: Is he Jesus the Christ? Their terrible fear - from the position of an honest atheist - is that they will be confronted with the truth. But of course there is no reason for fear: the truth shall set you free.

Opposite mate, if I consider I become inflamed for attempting and wasting my time on absolute rubbish that is an insult to the intellect

Rincewind
15-03-2015, 04:07 PM
Simply untrue: we have all of these.

That is just plain silly. Coins minted in early 1st century with Jesus' head on it? No there are none of these. (Not that we would expect any of course but we do have these for Pilate, not with head or name, and Julius Caesar).

Inscriptions from early 1st century naming Jesus. There are none of these either. (Again possible but unlikely for Jesus but we do have inscriptions for both Pilate and Julius Caesar).

Eye witness accounts to the events described in the gospels? We have none of these.

Only fundamentalists believe the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses. Historians date them to past 65 AD and probably as late at 95 AD. Perhaps they stem from an oral tradition but the gospels in the form we have them were not written by eye-witnesses.

Instead of making fact free (and faulty) assertions. You should simply cite this abundant evidence.


We also have communities, churches, cathedrals, universities, cities, entire civilisations.

None dating to early 1st century.


What is more, these appear independently and have survived in inhospitable places for two millennia. Apart from European christendom, there's also Armenians and other minorities in Syria, Turkey & Iraq; the Coptic church in Egypt; and very old indigenous churches in Ethiopia and India. None of these have died out despite intense persecution and even genocide. Not what one would expect for a non-existent figure.

The same can be said for the pyramids. South American, African and Asian civilisations. A Tony Dowden writing in the 4th century would has used the same argument to claim that Romulus must have been a historical figure because Rome thrived.


There's nothing left to say about this issue except to consider why it continues to attract the occasional proponent.

While the Jesus-myth theory itself is patently absurd, in my opinion there is a logical rationale that neatly explains why some will irrationally cling to the position. The Jesus-myth provides self-protection for those rare and commendable people who are intellectually honest but are afraid to address the central question pertaining to Jesus of Nazareth: Is he Jesus the Christ? Their terrible fear - from the position of an honest atheist - is that they will be confronted with the truth. But of course there is no reason for fear: the truth shall set you free.

Your psychological analysis is as slap-shot as your history. Earlier in this reply you claimed physical evidence for a historical Jesus. That is artefacts or writings dated to early 1st century naming Jesus. Unlike Caesar, Herod and even minor identities like Pilate where we do have such evidence, in the case of Jesus there is none. You claim to disagree so cite your evidence.

In fact, the historical cases for Jesus rests almost entirely in the gospels which are late 1st century at best and written as religious propaganda. Even then these are known to be mythic and historically dodgy so that the only events that nearly all historians agree on are the baptism and the crucifixion and the cases for these primarily rest on the criterion of embarrassment. However I think this argument to be over simplified since the embarrassment is minor at best.

Rincewind
19-03-2015, 11:45 AM
Despite a call of evidence the best Jono or Tony have come up with is some quotes that claim that historicity is unquestionable and Tony's evidence of a bunch of stuff (like churches and cathedrals) which do not require historicity.

The axiomatic historical fact of Jesus seems to be a very special kind of truth, one that is based on no physical evidence whatsoever.

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2015, 12:30 PM
RW can continue his fringe beliefs if he wants, but he has no historical support, and even Bart Ehrman thinks that the Christ-mythers like RW are batsh!t crazy.

Rincewind
19-03-2015, 02:07 PM
RW can continue his fringe beliefs if he wants, but he has no historical support, and even Bart Ehrman thinks that the Christ-mythers like RW are batsh!t crazy.

Bart Ehrman's reason for thinking Jesus was historical is a little odd and I won't go into his argument in detail as it rests on evidence which is supposed to have once existed but does not any longer. As like Bruce, Ehrman is a Textual Critic rather than an specialist in late antiquities per se and seems to confuse evidence we have with theories about what evidence might have once existed.

But it is interesting that both Jono (and Tony) make such strong claims for the historicity claiming it is on a similar grounding as say one of the Caesars or kings of Judea when this is clearly not just wrong, but patently wrong.

Even Pilate, who was only Procurator of Judea which was a fairly minor office has much better historical evidence than Jesus. One of the key differences is that we know that Philo of Alexandria (a contemporary) mentions Pilate whereas Philo is embarrassingly silent on Jesus. Secondly we also have a stone inscription from the 1st century mentioning Pilate. Thirdly we know Roman coins were minted in Judea around 28-30AD which would have been done at Pilate's direction if (as all sources confirm) Pilate was in charge at the time. Also the passages in Josephus mentioning Pilate are more lengthy and have less evidence of corruption than the two short passages mentioning Jesus (although Josephus is not an eye witness to either).

Indeed denying Pilate as a historical person is difficult. But again offer the historicists to present the evidence that Jesus was a historical person so that it might be scrutinised.

Agent Smith
19-03-2015, 06:09 PM
batsh!t crazy.
I think he means you RW, laugh. :P

Rincewind
19-03-2015, 07:55 PM
I think he means you RW, laugh. :P

I think I am batshit crazy but only to the extent that I somehow, despite all evidence to the contrary, expect religious fundamentalists to present a cogent argument grounded in historical evidence. The embarrassing point is that the historical assumption is based almost entirely on the gospels and even a fairly casual reading of those makes clear that they were written as myths and not history. The analogies to previous leaders (like Moses) are heavyhanded and not only do they relate stories to which they could not have been witnesses (like nativity myths) in exactly the same style, they also describe events which we know did not happen due to historical implausibility in exactly the same language. They also have broad disagreement on points of hsitory like the disagreement on the year of Jesus' birth.

Tony Dowden
19-03-2015, 10:48 PM
My last contribution to this thread: I'm always willing to share my opinion with people who are sincere and want to honestly and reasonably consider another point of view but I'm not going to get involved with deceitful arguments, name-calling or applying unflattering labels.

Rincewind
19-03-2015, 11:08 PM
My last contribution to this thread: I'm always willing to share my opinion with people who are sincere and want to honestly and reasonably consider another point of view but I'm not going to get involved with deceitful arguments, name-calling or applying unflattering labels.

It's ok Tony. I understand that you don't want to get involved in a topic that might bring into question your fragile world view. But I would appreciate an explanation why you participate in name calling me as 'deceitful'.

I assure you and anyone that I have wanted nothing more than having a reasonable discussion on the historical evidence. At present however, you have brought none to the table. If you decide to ever actually participate in the thread some time in the future then you will be welcome back.

antichrist
20-03-2015, 09:54 PM
Christians should be relieved if Jesus did not exist as it would mean that he did not suffer on the cross - though being simulaneously god he probably was laughing it off upstairs - having his fingers crossed behind his back

Gnostic Bishop
20-03-2015, 10:08 PM
Of course he was 'historical' figure. So was Pilate, Herod, Julius Caesar, the 12 apostles, Mary and Joseph, etc.

The 'Jesus myth theory' has never been popular because it just isn't credible. The evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is overwhelming. Today there are millions and millions of followers of Christ. In the early years of Christendom hundreds and thousands of people were martyred by the Romans. Today they are still being martyred. The idea that all these people gave up their lives for an imaginary person is impossibly far-fetched.

Christians killed more Christians than Rome ever did but you seem to have forgotten that part of your history.

As a Gnostic Christian, I have always though Jesus a myth of an archetypal good man. I am now starting to believe that a Jesus did live but he is not the miracle working scapegoat that Christianity has made a fool of by saying that he condemned us just to turn around and stupidly die to reverse his own judgement.

Here is the latest on what may have helped sell the Jesus myth. I know I waste my time with those who are idol worshipers like you but others may enjoy thinking.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUw9j_JitYE

(Ed. religious views split to new thread. Read the rest of the post here (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?15853-GB-religious-beliefes-(SF-Was-Jesus-historical)))

Regards
DL

Rincewind
21-03-2015, 09:50 AM
Hi GB. The existence of "lost gospels" are not surprising. By the end of the first century there were many splinter groups within the Christians which each having their own favoured gospel and tradition. The early church tradition of revelation meant that new theology was being generated all the time and at some point the church had to decide what was in and what was out. Of course since the church decided not only what was canonical but which texts they would preserve and which texts they would not we have very little information on these early cults actually believed. But we can occasional piece together things mentioned in criticisms and the like as well as the occasional luck archaeological discover.

So a lost and independent gospel would be evidence for historicity if it agreed to the gospels we have. Of course if it diverges from the gospels we have it adds weight to the idea that the gospels are moralising fiction which no basis in history.

Gnostic Bishop
22-03-2015, 12:25 AM
Hi GB. The existence of "lost gospels" are not surprising. By the end of the first century there were many splinter groups within the Christians which each having their own favoured gospel and tradition. The early church tradition of revelation meant that new theology was being generated all the time and at some point the church had to decide what was in and what was out. Of course since the church decided not only what was canonical but which texts they would preserve and which texts they would not we have very little information on these early cults actually believed. But we can occasional piece together things mentioned in criticisms and the like as well as the occasional luck archaeological discover.

So a lost and independent gospel would be evidence for historicity if it agreed to the gospels we have. Of course if it diverges from the gospels we have it adds weight to the idea that the gospels are moralising fiction which no basis in history.

All we have was basically written by Jews regardless of the stated author as we know that all the gospels were from anonymous authors.

Christianity arose out of the Jewish temple at the time you have stated. They popped out to churches only at about the year 80 when they actually split from Jewry.

Knowing this, please listen to what this scholar says at about the 14 min. marc on although I recommend the whole interview.

You will see that in that day, both Jews and Gnostic Christians were definitely not literalists and we did what Jesus recommended and that was to seek God. We did so by doing all kinds of changes to our scripture to enhance that seeking.

You will note that the offshoots of those early years, Christianity and Islam, have become idol worshipers whioch has caused them to become homophobic and misogynous and thus immoral religions.


http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Regards
DL

Rincewind
22-03-2015, 12:45 AM
All we have was basically written by Jews regardless of the stated author as we know that all the gospels were from anonymous authors.

Jews and Gentiles but that doesn't make much difference. The canonical gospels all tend to have a Gentile flavour because part of their message was about growing the cult beyond the Jews. In fact after the Jewish war Christianity would have had other reasons to distance themselves from Judaism and further the crucifixion stories go as far as they can are absolving the Romans and blaming the Jews which again would be politically advantageous in the year immediately following the Jewish war.

Gnostic Bishop
22-03-2015, 03:26 AM
Jews and Gentiles but that doesn't make much difference. The canonical gospels all tend to have a Gentile flavour because part of their message was about growing the cult beyond the Jews. In fact after the Jewish war Christianity would have had other reasons to distance themselves from Judaism and further the crucifixion stories go as far as they can are absolving the Romans and blaming the Jews which again would be politically advantageous in the year immediately following the Jewish war.

If by Gentile flavor you mean Rome's flavor then I agree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJgvws0ZYUE

If you begin with that link and then think of Constantine's manipulation of the Trinity belief and implementation, then denying government manipulation of the Christian religion becomes impossible.

Regards
DL

Capablanca-Fan
22-03-2015, 10:09 AM
Jews and Gentiles but that doesn't make much difference. The canonical gospels all tend to have a Gentile flavour because part of their message was about growing the cult beyond the Jews. In fact after the Jewish war Christianity would have had other reasons to distance themselves from Judaism and further the crucifixion stories go as far as they can are absolving the Romans and blaming the Jews which again would be politically advantageous in the year immediately following the Jewish war.

More nonsense. The Gospels all point to Pilate as a gutless wimp who sentenced a man he knew to be innocent to a literally excruciating death, and even gratuitously added a flesh-tearing flogging without even being pressured to. The Apostles' and Nicene Creeds say that Jesus was "crucified under Pontius Pilate".

The Gnostic Gospels excluded themselves from the canon because they were far later and contradicted the genuine 1st-century ones. E.g. that imbecile GB claimed that Christianity is misogynistic, but his own Gospel of Thomas says (v. 144):


Simon Peter says to them: "Let Mary go out from our midst, for women are not worthy of life!" Jesus says: "See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven."

Rincewind
22-03-2015, 02:35 PM
More nonsense. The Gospels all point to Pilate as a gutless wimp who sentenced a man he knew to be innocent to a literally excruciating death, and even gratuitously added a flesh-tearing flogging without even being pressured to. The Apostles' and Nicene Creeds say that Jesus was "crucified under Pontius Pilate".

When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this Man's blood; see to that yourselves." And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!"

It is interesting to see that this is absent in Mark (although Mark is still written as a Roman apology) but part of the embellishing added by the author of Matthew.

Capablanca-Fan
22-03-2015, 03:16 PM
When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this Man's blood; see to that yourselves."
This didn't stop him from ordering a gratuitous flogging, although the flogging was often lethal in itself.


And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!"
Not an inspired comment, so is not binding on anyone, least of all today. Not everything recorded in the Bible is endorsed by the Bible.


It is interesting to see that this is absent in Mark (although Mark is still written as a Roman apology) but part of the embellishing added by the author of Matthew.
Atheopaths are prone to use arguments from silence.

Rincewind
22-03-2015, 05:02 PM
This didn't stop him from ordering a gratuitous flogging, although the flogging was often lethal in itself.

What percentage of the time was the flogging lethal?


Not an inspired comment, so is not binding on anyone, least of all today. Not everything recorded in the Bible is endorsed by the Bible.

Everything in the bible is there for some reason. Someone saw fit to put it down. In the case of Matthew adding the hand washing it is clearly Roman appeasement. The Christians don;t want to be tarred with the brush of the Jewish rebellion.


Atheopaths are prone to use arguments from silence.

Since it is widely acknowledged Matthew cribbed from Mark the additional things Matthew saw fit to include he got from somewhere. I suspect he just saw the opportunity to appease the Romans even more than Mark. It could have come from another (now lost) document but that would be just as speculative.

Patrick Byrom
22-03-2015, 09:01 PM
Not an inspired comment, so is not binding on anyone, least of all today. Not everything recorded in the Bible is endorsed by the Bible.
I thought you believed that the whole Bible is divinely inspired, as in the AIG Statement of Faith:

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

If the Bible is the written word of God, then the statement that Rincewind was referring to ('And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!"') must have been put there by God for some reason.

Gnostic Bishop
23-03-2015, 12:02 AM
More nonsense. The Gospels all point to Pilate as a gutless wimp who sentenced a man he knew to be innocent to a literally excruciating death, and even gratuitously added a flesh-tearing flogging without even being pressured to. The Apostles' and Nicene Creeds say that Jesus was "crucified under Pontius Pilate".

The Gnostic Gospels excluded themselves from the canon because they were far later and contradicted the genuine 1st-century ones. E.g. that imbecile GB claimed that Christianity is misogynistic, but his own Gospel of Thomas says (v. 144):


Simon Peter says to them: "Let Mary go out from our midst, for women are not worthy of life!" Jesus says: "See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven."

"Male and Female into a Single One"

The main interest of Saying 22, however, lies in what follows the disciples' question. Jesus replies: "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner as the outer, and the upper as the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male shall not be male, and the female shall not be female: . . . then you will enter [the kingdom]."

The theme of two-in-oneness appears repeatedly in Gnostic literature. Three variations on it come from the Acts of Judas Thomas. In addition to Mygdonia's words, already quoted, we might remember that her husband Karish dreams of the eagle that snatches up two partridges and two doves. The following morning he is puzzled when he puts his left shoe on his right foot. In Thomas's long prayer before his martyrdom, he recites his efforts to carry out his mission, and says: "The inside I have made outside, and the outside [inside], and thy whole fullness has been fulfilled in me."

What most forget is that the ancient Jews thought God to be androgynous. Gnostic Christian Jesus was a believer in that view.

====================

Jesus is talking about the feminine and the masculine aspects that exist in all persons. The feminine represents the emotional aspects of humanity, and the masculine represents the logical aspects of humanity. When humans demonstrate dominant masculine aspects at the expense of their feminine, they can suppress their emotions to such an extent as to be without conscience. Also, when humans demonstrate feminine aspects as the expense of their masculine aspects, they can suppress their ability to effectively reason and instead act upon emotion.

Jesus is telling you to find balance, harmony in your masculine and feminine existence. From there you will understand things from a more complete perspective. Then, with a greater balance within your internal self, you then make your external self behave as one with your internal self. When you can see things with your mind's eye more clearly, it replaces the physical eye. When your hands react according to your internal balance, then they have been replaced.

It's a simple matter of acknowledging the entire entity- masculine and feminine- that represents the totality of what is you.

The above was the best explanation that I have found.

As Universalists, Gnostic Christians know that we all end in heaven. We are not misogynous or homophobic because of that belie. You have to also remember that Jesus was talking to Jews who thought of women as chattel or property.

Regards
DL

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2015, 02:00 PM
I thought you believed that the whole Bible is divinely inspired, as in the AIG Statement of Faith:
I don't work for AiG. However, I do believe that, but evidently you fail to understand what it means. It includes just what I said. Since the Bible reports ‘And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!"’, it is factually true that they said that. But since those people were not Jesus, apostles, or prophets, the Bible is not affirming that what they said was right, just that they said it. The Bible also records the statement "There is no God", but it is not endorsing that, because it is said by the fool. And it records "Curse God and die" by Mrs Job.


If the Bible is the written word of God, then the statement that Rincewind was referring to ('And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!"') must have been put there by God for some reason.
Because they said it, and the Bible was reporting accurate history.

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2015, 02:02 PM
What percentage of the time was the flogging lethal?
Go and see Mel Gibson's Passion. It was an accurate depiction of Roman flogging.

[Rest of the above Christ-myth loony's speculation about Matthew's motivation snipped.]

Rincewind
23-03-2015, 02:39 PM
Go and see Mel Gibson's Passion. It was an accurate depiction of Roman flogging.

I haven't seen it but from what I have heard it isn't particularly accurate and Jesus doesn't die in the flogging stage so that fails to answer the question.


[Rest of the above Christ-myth loony's speculation about Matthew's motivation snipped.]

Translation: Jono has no answers for the obvious Roman apologetics in the gospels. Pilate is seen as believing Jesus was innocent and executes Jesus at the vociferous insistence of the "rebellious" Jewish mob.

I'd also point out that the Roman apologetics is independent of the question of whether Jesus was historical or mythical. So on this basis Jono's blindness to the bias in the NT has nothing to do with his supposed objection to the Christ-myth theory.

ER
23-03-2015, 03:16 PM
Go and see Mel Gibson's Passion... Viewers of the particular movie have found the dual depiction of satan (as mother and child) following Jesus on the way to the Cross as most disturbing. I found the scene grotesque and unbecoming since no reference of such incident exists in the Holy Scriptures!

Patrick Byrom
23-03-2015, 06:55 PM
I don't work for AiG. However, I do believe that, but evidently you fail to understand what it means. It includes just what I said. Since the Bible reports ‘And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!"’, it is factually true that they said that. But since those people were not Jesus, apostles, or prophets, the Bible is not affirming that what they said was right, just that they said it.That's a fair point. But presumably you believe that Matthew - and only Matthew - was divinely inspired to include it?


Because they said it, and the Bible was reporting accurate history.
But the Bible doesn't record everything that happens. For example, the statement itself only appears in Matthew, but not in the other Gospels. As that statement has been used to justify anti-Semitism, and God would presumably have foreseen this, it is hard to believe that God inspired its inclusion. Just leaving out the final phrase ("and on our children") could have helped to avoid a lot of suffering.

ElevatorEscapee
23-03-2015, 07:47 PM
Of course Pilate was real:


... "Oh ye, and verily, let there be known my exercise regime, and trainers go forth unto the heathens so that others may benefit from my healthful ways...."

I think that was from part of one of the Dead Sea Scrolls that was surpressed by the Catholics - how else can one explain the popularity of Pilates today!

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2015, 02:08 AM
That's a fair point. But presumably you believe that Matthew—and only Matthew—was divinely inspired to include it?
Yes. Note that inspiration means that God used the human authors, without overriding their styles and aims, to write down accurately what He wanted. E.g. Matthew wrote his Gospel first to Jews, to show that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah foretold in the Hebrew Bible, hence the frequent Old Testament fulfilment, typology, and application.


But the Bible doesn't record everything that happens.
Who ever claimed that it does? I've written myself that the Bible is totally true but not exhaustively true (http://creation.com/biblical-history-and-role-of-science).


For example, the statement itself only appears in Matthew, but not in the other Gospels. As that statement has been used to justify anti-Semitism,
Yet Matthew was the most Jewish of the Gospels; all were written by Jews, including Luke, but Matthew was written to Jews. I've pointed out before (http://creation.com/whats-wrong-with-bishop-spong#8):


The NT was written by Jews, and its prosemitism is evident. Jesus’ first priority was to ‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Mt. 10:6, 15:24), and says, ‘… for salvation is from the Jews’ (John 4:22, a book Spong singles out for his charge of antisemitism!). Paul always evangelised Jews first in every city he visited (Acts 13:4–5, 14, 14:1, 16:11–13, 17:1–2, 10, 16-17, 18:1–4, 19, 19:1,8). Paul wrote to the church at Rome:


For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rom. 1:16).
I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin (Rom. 11:1).




and God would presumably have foreseen this, it is hard to believe that God inspired its inclusion.
Why? Abuse of a text is the fault of the abusers, not the text. First, as I've explained, the statement is not inspired per se, just recorded accurately, so it is not binding, unlike "Forgive them Father, for they don't know what they're doing." Also, at most it would be just the speakers and their children, and something bad did happen 40 years later: Rome's destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Nothing was said about an ongoing curse on Jews, who after all wrote all the New Testament after this statement.


Just leaving out the final phrase ("and on our children") could have helped to avoid a lot of suffering.
Antisemites don't need much pretext. Both Nazis and Muslims have invoked other excuses for their Jew-hatred, as does Antichrist today. In fact, there are plenty of statements in the Old Testament that could be twisted far easier for antisemitic purposes, since it calls Israelites: ‘stiffnecked people … rebellious from the day I knew you’, another thunders: ‘Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity …’, yet another despairs: ‘Refuse silver shall men call them, because the LORD has rejected them,’ (Deut. 9:6, 24; Is. 1:4; Jer. 6:30)

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2015, 02:13 AM
Viewers of the particular movie have found the dual depiction of satan (as mother and child) following Jesus on the way to the Cross as most disturbing. I found the scene grotesque and unbecoming since no reference of such incident exists in the Holy Scriptures!

I agree with you on that.

Patrick Byrom
24-03-2015, 12:43 PM
Why? Abuse of a text is the fault of the abusers, not the text. First, as I've explained, the statement is not inspired per se, just recorded accurately, so it is not binding, unlike "Forgive them Father, for they don't know what they're doing." Also, at most it would be just the speakers and their children, and something bad did happen 40 years later: Rome's destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Nothing was said about an ongoing curse on Jews, who after all wrote all the New Testament after this statement.
But it's not strictly true that the use of a text to justify violence is not the fault of the author. If the violence is foreseeable, then the author must bear some responsibility. If the Author is God, He knew exactly what was going to happen.

And, as you say, the statement is not binding - it could easily have been left out.


Antisemites don't need much pretext. Both Nazis and Muslims have invoked other excuses for their Jew-hatred, as does Antichrist today. In fact, there are plenty of statements in the Old Testament that could be twisted far easier for antisemitic purposes, since it calls Israelites: ‘stiffnecked people … rebellious from the day I knew you’, another thunders: ‘Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity …’, yet another despairs: ‘Refuse silver shall men call them, because the LORD has rejected them,’ (Deut. 9:6, 24; Is. 1:4; Jer. 6:30)
But that passage has been one of the worst (http://www.levitt.com/essays/bloodlibel.html), and it isn't even necessary:

Furthermore, it can be said without fear of exaggeration that the devastation imposed and inflicted on the Jewish people by the Church’s anti-Jewish reading of Matthew 27:25 has shed oceans of Jewish blood issuing into a ceaseless stream of misery and desolation that horribly culminated in Hitler’s Holocaust.

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2015, 12:49 PM
But it's not strictly true that the use of a text to justify violence is not the fault of the author. If the violence is foreseeable, then the author must bear some responsibility. If the Author is God, He knew exactly what was going to happen.

That's bizarre. The fault is with the sinful twisting, not the historically accurate passage. Plenty of good statements have been twisted for evil, and the fault is not with the statement.


And, as you say, the statement is not binding - it could easily have been left out.

Since it is not binding, there was nothing wrong with it, so stop bellyaching.


But that passage has been one of the worst (http://www.levitt.com/essays/bloodlibel.html), and it isn't even necessary:

Furthermore, it can be said without fear of exaggeration that the devastation imposed and inflicted on the Jewish people by the Church’s anti-Jewish reading of Matthew 27:25 has shed oceans of Jewish blood issuing into a ceaseless stream of misery and desolation that horribly culminated in Hitler’s Holocaust.

Did you bother to read your own source?


Matthew 27:25 arguably stands out as one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted passages in all of Holy Scripture. … The true meaning of Matthew 27:25, like any other Bible verse, is found within the context in which it is written. When looking at the context of Matthew’s Gospel (specifically, chapters 26 and 27) it is quite obvious that the entire Jewish race was not totally responsible for having Jesus crucified. … From the context of Matthew 26–27 Jewish guilt for the death of Jesus applies only to Judas, the religious leaders of Jerusalem, and the mob of Jerusalem before the judgment seat of Pilate. It was the unbelieving Jews of Jerusalem and Israel, not all Jews in general, whom Matthew and the New Testament indict for their failure to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and their complicity in His death.

The meaning of “children” in the cry of the crowd in Matthew 27:25 does not mean all the subsequent descendants of those Jews who rejected Christ in Matthew 26 and 27. The word in the Greek text of Matthew can also mean a child of parents. In the context of verse 25 it refers to the offspring of the unbelieving Jews of Jerusalem who shouted for Christ to be crucified. This at once limits the meaning to only one generation and corresponds with the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70.

To read the cry of Matthew 27:25 as an eternal curse on the Jewish people is therefore to press the language beyond its Biblical context. Jewish guilt for the death of Christ in Matthew rested upon a small number of the nation who were there, and to read into these words a curse on all Jews forever is ludicrous (after all, Matthew and his fellow apostles were Jews). Like everyone else in the present age of grace, Jews will not be judged corporately, but judged individually on the sole basis of their acceptance or rejection of Jesus as Messiah and Lord (John 3:36).

If indeed Matthew 27:25 meant the Jews are in fact condemned as a race for killing Christ, should not the Italian descendants of the ancient Romans also be condemned for nailing Jesus to the cross? Those within the Church who have favored the anti-Jewish interpretation of Matthew 27:25 would do well to at least be consistent with their racist interpretation. The reason they are not is because they are exclusively biased against the Jewish people.

The anti-Jewish interpretation of Matthew 27:25 is simply false because it plainly contradicts the general teaching of Scripture regarding the present and future reality of the Jews being God’s Chosen People (Romans 9–11).

Patrick Byrom
24-03-2015, 08:53 PM
That's bizarre. The fault is with the sinful twisting, not the historically accurate passage. Plenty of good statements have been twisted for evil, and the fault is not with the statement.
So if a person in a crowded theatre sees a fire on the movie screen and shouts "Fire!", he has no responsibility if people are killed in the ensuing riot? He could argue that his statement was completely accurate, and all the deaths were only due to people misinterpreting what he said. However he should have foreseen what would happen, so I would consider him partly responsible.

And if a statement is made by an omniscient being, he should definitely be able to foresee the results of his actions. So if that statement is the Word of God, then I would consider God partly responsible for any deaths caused by it, even by people who have misinterpreted it.

Rincewind
30-03-2015, 09:25 AM
Indeed denying Pilate as a historical person is difficult. But again offer the historicists to present the evidence that Jesus was a historical person so that it might be scrutinised.

From post #11 above. Still no takers...

ElevatorEscapee
02-04-2015, 08:06 PM
From post #11 above. Still no takers...
I always thought that that stuff about King Herring was a little fishy!:P

Desmond
02-04-2015, 08:14 PM
Professor Francesca

rfDJbi5gfC0

Gnostic Bishop
02-04-2015, 10:29 PM
Professor Francesca

rfDJbi5gfC0

One of my favorite scholars.

She did a piece on Eden for the BBC that was the best I ever saw, but for some reason, the BBC pulled it.

The church likely exerted pressure and a weak management did their bidding.

Regards
DL

Capablanca-Fan
03-04-2015, 07:30 AM
So if a person in a crowded theatre sees a fire on the movie screen and shouts "Fire!", he has no responsibility if people are killed in the ensuing riot? He could argue that his statement was completely accurate, and all the deaths were only due to people misinterpreting what he said. However he should have foreseen what would happen, so I would consider him partly responsible.
Now the above village atheist is getting desperate. An interpretation that a shout of "fire" means that there really is a fire is a reasonable interpretation. So yes, if there was no real fire, then the shouter really is responsible for the riot, whether negligence or malice. Also, the hearers have good reason to believe that no one would shout it without good reason, i.e. a credible source.

But it is a totally unreasonable interpretation that "his blood be on us and our children" is a binding command, coming as it does from a demonstrably unreliable source: the mob who bayed for Jesus' crucifixion. It is also an unreasonable understanding that this has anything to do with all Jews throughout eternity, since this has nothing to do with the meaning of the words. After all, they were recorded by Jews, and the entire New Testament was written by Jews, and elsewhere explicitly condemns antisemitism, so obviously there is no intent to impute racial guilt on Jews, any more than there is on Italians although Jesus was sentenced by a Roman governor and killed on a Roman cross by Roman soldiers.


And if a statement is made by an omniscient being, he should definitely be able to foresee the results of his actions. So if that statement is the Word of God, then I would consider God partly responsible for any deaths caused by it, even by people who have misinterpreted it.
Not at all: God truthfully recorded a statement; any deaths are solely the fault of the sinfully unreasonable twisting of that statement and its utterers. But evidently the above thinks we should not record any historical action if it might be twisted later.

Capablanca-Fan
03-04-2015, 07:32 AM
Is there no evidence that Jesus even existed? Part 1 (http://www.rightreason.org/2010/is-there-no-evidence-that-jesus-even-existed-part-1/) Part 2 (http://www.rightreason.org/2010/is-there-no-evidence-that-jesus-even-existed-part-2/) Part 3 (http://www.rightreason.org/2010/is-there-no-evidence-that-jesus-even-existed-part-3/).

Rincewind
03-04-2015, 08:36 AM
Is there no evidence that Jesus even existed? Part 1 (http://www.rightreason.org/2010/is-there-no-evidence-that-jesus-even-existed-part-1/) Part 2 (http://www.rightreason.org/2010/is-there-no-evidence-that-jesus-even-existed-part-2/) Part 3 (http://www.rightreason.org/2010/is-there-no-evidence-that-jesus-even-existed-part-3/).

Of the three articles linked here the only one of any value is Part 3 and it deals with Tacitus and Josephus exclusively. The author of that blog post takes a very Jesus-friendly line claiming the only additions to to the critical Testimonium Flavianum were the obvious Christian insertions. However in is more likely that the Christian embellishments go deeper than the sections that blogger excises from the text. Given the brevity of the Testimonium and the lack of background information on the character of Jesus it is likely the Testimonium is entirely a fiction. The other evidence for it's late insertion is that church father Origen (2nd/3rd century) knew Josephus and quoted from it often but never quoted the Testimonium Flavianum even in texts where quoting from it would strengthen his argument. No writer talks about Josephus explicitly citing Jesus until Eusibius of Caesarea writing in the late 3rd early 4th century. So it seemed the corruption to Josephus was likely 4th century in origin with perhaps later embellishment.

The James passage is more likely a simple and perhaps even accidental corruption. Likewise Tacitus is a simple corruption and perhaps was accidental with the insertion of the execution of Christus under Pilate and the hypercorrection of Chrestus to Christus.

Patrick Byrom
04-04-2015, 12:31 AM
Now the above village atheist is getting desperate. An interpretation that a shout of "fire" means that there really is a fire is a reasonable interpretation. So yes, if there was no real fire, then the shouter really is responsible for the riot, whether negligence or malice. Also, the hearers have good reason to believe that no one would shout it without good reason, i.e. a credible source.

But it is a totally unreasonable interpretation that "his blood be on us and our children" is a binding command, coming as it does from a demonstrably unreliable source: the mob who bayed for Jesus' crucifixion. It is also an unreasonable understanding that this has anything to do with all Jews throughout eternity, since this has nothing to do with the meaning of the words. After all, they were recorded by Jews, and the entire New Testament was written by Jews, and elsewhere explicitly condemns antisemitism, so obviously there is no intent to impute racial guilt on Jews, any more than there is on Italians although Jesus was sentenced by a Roman governor and killed on a Roman cross by Roman soldiers.

Not at all: God truthfully recorded a statement; any deaths are solely the fault of the sinfully unreasonable twisting of that statement and its utterers. But evidently the above thinks we should not record any historical action if it might be twisted later.
That "unreasonable" interpretation you refer to was actually considered quite reasonable by many early Christians. For example, this is Augustine (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godandthemachine/2012/05/unwilling-witnesses-st-augustine-and-the-witness-doctrine/), who was relatively 'progressive':

That is, It is not as you say, not by bodily death shall the ungodly race of carnal Jews perish. For whoever destroys them in this way shall suffer sevenfold vengeance, that is, shall bring upon himself the sevenfold penalty under which the Jews lie for the crucifixion of Christ. So to the end of the seven days of time, the continued preservation of the Jews will be proof to believing Christians of the subjection merited by those who, in the pride of their kingdom, put the Lord to death.[5]

Did Augustine 'sinfully twist' God's words?

Surely an omniscient being could predict that an unreasonable interpretation would be placed on the words, leading to millions of Jews being killed? When assigning responsibility, the question is not whether the interpretation is reasonable; it is whether it is foreseeable.

Capablanca-Fan
04-04-2015, 03:03 AM
Easter and Good Friday: questions and answers (http://creation.com/easter-and-good-friday-questions-and-answers)
Does Easter have a pagan derivation? Was Jesus really crucified on a Friday?
Jonathan Sarfati, 5 April 2008

Summary:
The word ‘Easter’ has nothing to do with paganism; rather, it was the word for ‘Passover’ in English from the time of the Anglo-Saxons to Tyndale, and is similar to the old German word.
Jesus really was crucified on Good Friday; claims about Thursday or Wednesday crucifixions misunderstand the Jewish way of counting days, where a part of a day was counted as a whole, much like modern hotels today.

Rincewind
04-04-2015, 09:18 AM
Easter and Good Friday: questions and answers (http://creation.com/easter-and-good-friday-questions-and-answers)
Does Easter have a pagan derivation? Was Jesus really crucified on a Friday?
Jonathan Sarfati, 5 April 2008

Summary:
The word ‘Easter’ has nothing to do with paganism; rather, it was the word for ‘Passover’ in English from the time of the Anglo-Saxons to Tyndale, and is similar to the old German word.
Jesus really was crucified on Good Friday; claims about Thursday or Wednesday crucifixions misunderstand the Jewish way of counting days, where a part of a day was counted as a whole, much like modern hotels today.

Of course easter bunnies and easter eggs are not pagan fertility symbols. Afterall what do rabbits and eggs have to do with fertility and why would there be a fertility festival in the Northern Hemisphere spring? It all goes back to Luther's translation of the bible into German. Thanks for the clarification Craper-fan.

Ultimately Easter is of pagan origin since the Israelites came up with the Moses/Passover narrative during the period of Babylonian enslavement and borrowed liberally from the Babylonian mythos.

Kevin Bonham
04-04-2015, 09:33 AM
Posts moved

Numerous off-topic, silly or confused posts from this thread have been moved here in the interests of maintaining serious discussion on the current thread:

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?15872-Jesus-related-random-fluff-(sf-was-JC-historical-)

Capablanca-Fan
05-04-2015, 03:55 PM
Of course easter bunnies and easter eggs are not pagan fertility symbols. Afterall what do rabbits and eggs have to do with fertility and why would there be a fertility festival in the Northern Hemisphere spring? It all goes back to Luther's translation of the bible into German. Thanks for the clarification Craper-fan.
I wasn't talking about the bunnies and eggs, that I don't care much for either way, but about the term "Easter". Try reading before spouting off for a change. e.g. I discuss Luther's translation which included terms like Osterfest and Osterlamm for Passover feast and lamb.


Ultimately Easter is of pagan origin since the Israelites came up with the Moses/Passover narrative during the period of Babylonian enslavement and borrowed liberally from the Babylonian mythos.
More nonsense of course. The internal evidence of Exodus shows it was written for people just coming out of Egypt and unfamiliar with the land of Israel.

antichrist
05-04-2015, 04:05 PM
I wasn't talking about the bunnies and eggs, that I don't care much for either way, but about the term "Easter". Try reading before spouting off for a change. e.g. I discuss Luther's translation which included terms like Osterfest and Osterlamm for Passover feast and lamb.


More nonsense of course. The internal evidence of Exodus shows it was written for people just coming out of Egypt and unfamiliar with the land of Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_history

However, archaeology reveals a different story of the origins of the Jewish people: they did not necessarily leave the Levant. The archaeological evidence of the largely indigenous origins of Israel in Canaan, not Egypt, is "overwhelming" and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness", according to Biblical minimalists.[5] Many archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit".[5] A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has arguably found no evidence that can be directly related to the Exodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness, leading to the suggestion that Iron Age Israel—the kingdoms of Judah and Israel—has its origins in Canaan, not Egypt:[6][7] The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether this can be taken as an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute.[8]

Now Jono, historically speaking such claims re the Exodus cannot be made

Capablanca-Fan
05-04-2015, 04:08 PM
That "unreasonable" interpretation you refer to was actually considered quite reasonable by many early Christians. For example, this is Augustine (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godandthemachine/2012/05/unwilling-witnesses-st-augustine-and-the-witness-doctrine/), who was relatively 'progressive':

That is, It is not as you say, not by bodily death shall the ungodly race of carnal Jews perish. For whoever destroys them in this way shall suffer sevenfold vengeance, that is, shall bring upon himself the sevenfold penalty under which the Jews lie for the crucifixion of Christ. So to the end of the seven days of time, the continued preservation of the Jews will be proof to believing Christians of the subjection merited by those who, in the pride of their kingdom, put the Lord to death.[5]

Did Augustine 'sinfully twist' God's words?
What you quoted doesn't even refer to "his blood be on us ...", so where is the twisting? Indeed, what you quoted even forbade killing Jews on pain of death. And the article you quoted says:


As I say in my apologia, it’s hard to read much of the material that follows from our perspective in the 21st century, but it’s important to recall how radically progressive were Augustine’s views on Judaism. They even earned him a sharp rebuke from St. Jerome, which Augustine batted away with his usual skill. His position is that the Jews are under a divine order of physical protection, and that not only must they be protected, but they must be allowed to worship as Jews. As we will see, his reason for this view is demeaning for Jews, but it also informed centuries of theology and countless orders of protection for Jews living in Christian lands. When Jews were persecuted at the hands of Christians, it was in direct defiance of this doctrine, and when they were protected, it was because of its influence.

From our position in the 21st century, it is important to distinguish between the modern, genocidal experience of anti-Semitism and the contra Iudaeos tradition of the early Church. Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews as Jews, and is rooted in racism. The contra Iudaeos tradition is a dispute with Judaism as a religion in same way the Church Fathers disputed pagans, Manicheans, Donatists, and other heretics. That the early Christian anti-Jewish polemic did the intellectual spadework for later persecution of the Jews is undeniable, but at its heart the first centuries of Jewish-Christian relations were based on intellectual and theological dispute among people who sprang from the same religious soil. It was not a product of blind racial hatred. Indeed, it could not have been, since the Jewishness of Jesus and his apostles was understood by all the Church fathers.

Although this appears to be a clear example of the blood libel that held the Jews collectively guilty for the murder of God, we shall see that Augustine’s position is not nearly that simple.

“God’s hardening of Israel was strategic, not punitive. And it was only temporary. As history rushes to its conclusion, and as the ‘full number’ of Gentiles comes to Christ, God will cease hardening ‘part of Israel. . . . And so all Israel will be saved’ (Romans 11:26). In the end, God has mercy on all (Romans 11:32).”

If you insist on your atheistic apologetics, at least read your own sources.

[rest of post moved - mod]

Patrick Byrom
05-04-2015, 06:43 PM
What you quoted doesn't even refer to "his blood be on us ...", so where is the twisting?

You said previously:
"It is also an unreasonable understanding that this has anything to do with all Jews throughout eternity, since this has nothing to do with the meaning of the words."

Do you agree that Augustine believed that the Jews were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus, and would be punished for this "throughout eternity", as he says in the quoted passage:

So to the end of the seven days of time, the continued preservation of the Jews will be proof to believing Christians of the subjection merited by those who, in the pride of their kingdom, put the Lord to death.
If he did, then he is in agreement with what you claim is an "unreasonable" interpretation of Matthew. I didn't say that his belief was based on that specific passage - although it presumably is. So is that belief a 'sinful twisting' of what was written in the Bible (not necessarily in Matthew)?


The people who would twist it so ludicrously were predisposed against the Jews anyway. ... But then evolutionists squawk pitieously about how racist and eugenicist views should not be blamed on Darwin (http://creation.com/darwin-and-eugenics) ...
But Darwin, who was not omniscient, could not have forseen how his theory would be abused. An omniscient being should have predicted how that passage would be 'misinterpreted', and taken steps to avoid it.

[rest of post moved - mod]

ER
05-04-2015, 09:46 PM
Dear Tony Dowden, thanks for the lovely Easter egg! I wish you and your family a very Happy Easter!

Capablanca-Fan
06-04-2015, 02:58 AM
Dear Tony Dowden, thanks for the lovely Easter egg! I wish you and your family a very Happy Easter!

Ditto ↑↑

Despite RW's claims, Easter eggs are not pagan, but are a much more recent tradition, coming from abstaining from eggs at Lent, and to avoid wasting them, they were boiled. Later on, German Lutherans coloured these eggs. When such people came to America, they brought their Easter (and Christmas) traditions with them. Americans, who had been restricted by Puritanism, saw these hardworking and devout immigrants enjoying themselves at these Christian festivals, and took them up. The Eastern Orthodox still dye their eggs a deep red, to symbolize Christ's blood, using red onions (http://greekfood.about.com/od/greekcookingtips/ht/redeggs.htm),

Capablanca-Fan
06-04-2015, 03:07 AM
You said previously:
"It is also an unreasonable understanding that this has anything to do with all Jews throughout eternity, since this has nothing to do with the meaning of the words."

Do you agree that Augustine believed that the Jews were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus, and would be punished for this "throughout eternity", as he says in the quoted passage:

So to the end of the seven days of time, the continued preservation of the Jews will be proof to believing Christians of the subjection merited by those who, in the pride of their kingdom, put the Lord to death.
If he did, then he is in agreement with what you claim is an "unreasonable" interpretation of Matthew. I didn't say that his belief was based on that specific passage - although it presumably is. So is that belief a 'sinful twisting' of what was written in the Bible (not necessarily in Matthew)?
It ‘presumably’ is? Yet it is not stated in the article, from which you cherry-pick. Note also, any punishment would be for what the current Jews did about Christ, not what their ancestors would do. Augustine was perfectly aware that Jesus and the NT writers were Jewish, and of Jews who had become believers in Jesus since then, so there was no ongoing racial guilt.


But Darwin, who was not omniscient, could not have forseen how his theory would be abused. An omniscient being should have predicted how that passage would be 'misinterpreted', and taken steps to avoid it.
Yes, He could have given any antisemites a splitting headache whenever they misintepreted Scripture. But then your ilk would whinge about that too. But in the real world, we don't withhold the truth just because some will twist it.

[rest of post moved - mod]

Rincewind
06-04-2015, 08:41 AM
Despite RW's claims, Easter eggs are not pagan, but are a much more recent tradition, coming from abstaining from eggs at Lent, and to avoid wasting them, they were boiled. Later on, German Lutherans coloured these eggs. When such people came to America, they brought their Easter (and Christmas) traditions with them. Americans, who had been restricted by Puritanism, saw these hardworking and devout immigrants enjoying themselves at these Christian festivals, and took them up. The Eastern Orthodox still dye their eggs a deep red, to symbolize Christ's blood, using red onions (http://greekfood.about.com/od/greekcookingtips/ht/redeggs.htm),

Decorating eggs predates Christianity. Of course when Christians usurped the pagan fertility festivals they attached their own symbology to the traditions that is how syncretism works.

antichrist
06-04-2015, 10:35 AM
Ditto ↑↑

Despite RW's claims, Easter eggs are not pagan, but are a much more recent tradition, coming from abstaining from eggs at Lent, and to avoid wasting them, they were boiled. Later on, German Lutherans coloured these eggs. When such people came to America, they brought their Easter (and Christmas) traditions with them. Americans, who had been restricted by Puritanism, saw these hardworking and devout immigrants enjoying themselves at these Christian festivals, and took them up. The Eastern Orthodox still dye their eggs a deep red, to symbolize Christ's blood, using red onions (http://greekfood.about.com/od/greekcookingtips/ht/redeggs.htm),

Doubling up on those eggs after lent they would be getting a good dose of cholesterol - now if only those hens get clucky at the approp time and just sit on them

Patrick Byrom
06-04-2015, 04:58 PM
Note also, any punishment would be for what the current Jews did about Christ, not what their ancestors would do. Augustine was perfectly aware that Jesus and the NT writers were Jewish, and of Jews who had become believers in Jesus since then, so there was no ongoing racial guilt.
Which is not quite what he says:

So to the end of the seven days of time, the continued preservation of the Jews will be proof to believing Christians of the subjection merited by those who, in the pride of their kingdom, put the Lord to death.


He refers to the "subjection merited by those [the Jews] who ... put the Lord to death". So he believes that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. He also states that this subjection will continue "to the end of the seven days of time", implying that it will be imposed on Jews who were not born when Jesus died. These Jews would be punished for what their predecessors did.

So Augustine believed in an ongoing guilt. I agree that it wasn't racial, but directed towards Jews who followed the Jewish religion - although I don't see how that is much better than racial guilt. He is not saying that Jews are being punished just because they don't believe in God; he is saying that they are being punished also for what happened to Jesus.

Of course, there is no point in discussing the source of Augustine's belief, if you don't agree that he actually has it.


Yes, He could have given any antisemites a splitting headache whenever they misintepreted Scripture. But then your ilk would whinge about that too. But in the real world, we don't withhold the truth just because some will twist it.
Who would 'whinge' about anti-semites having a splitting headache? And we constantly withhold the truth to prevent it being twisted.

[rest of post moved - mod]

Capablanca-Fan
07-04-2015, 04:42 AM
Which is not quite what he says:

So to the end of the seven days of time, the continued preservation of the Jews will be proof to believing Christians of the subjection merited by those who, in the pride of their kingdom, put the Lord to death.


He refers to the "subjection merited by those [the Jews] who ... put the Lord to death". So he believes that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. He also states that this subjection will continue "to the end of the seven days of time", implying that it will be imposed on Jews who were not born when Jesus died. These Jews would be punished for what their predecessors did.
So where was his biblical justification? You have no proof that it was based on the text at hand, or on any other text for that matter.


So Augustine believed in an ongoing guilt. I agree that it wasn't racial, but directed towards Jews who followed the Jewish religion - although I don't see how that is much better than racial guilt. He is not saying that Jews are being punished just because they don't believe in God; he is saying that they are being punished also for what happened to Jesus.

Of course, there is no point in discussing the source of Augustine's belief, if you don't agree that he actually has it.
But this is important since we were meant to be discussing the text of Scripture, not the views of a theologian of the Alexandrian school notable for allegorization. E.g. where is the biblical evidence of racial guilt against Jews but not against Italians, for example?


Who would 'whinge' about anti-semites having a splitting headache?
The anti-semites for one, e.g. Antichrist.


And we constantly withhold the truth to prevent it being twisted.
Even so, the blame is on the twister, not the truth-teller.

[rest of post moved - mod]

antichrist
07-04-2015, 06:10 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
Who would 'whinge' about anti-semites having a splitting headache?

Jono: The anti-semites for one, e.g. Antichrist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AC: actually Jono I am fantastic for not having headaches. Only bad one was when playing chess 14 hours a day for 3 consecutive days at Ukraine Club where there were some genuine anti-Semites. I am an anti-Zionist.

Patrick Byrom
07-04-2015, 02:54 PM
So where was his biblical justification? You have no proof that it was based on the text at hand, or on any other text for that matter. But this is important since we were meant to be discussing the text of Scripture, not the views of a theologian of the Alexandrian school notable for allegorization. E.g. where is the biblical evidence of racial guilt against Jews but not against Italians, for example?
That's a fair point. Although I'm surprised you're suggesting that Augustine would have made such a claim without Biblical justification.

However, if you are looking for anti-semitism specifically based on Scripture, there are plenty of examples. For example, this quote from Martin Luther (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm):

"He did not call them Abraham's children, but a 'brood of vipers' [Matt. 3:7]. Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel, and they declared, 'He has a demon' [Matt 11:18]. Our Lord calls them a 'brood of vipers'; furthermore in John 8 [:39,44] he states: 'If you were Abraham's children ye would do what Abraham did . . . You are of your father the devil.' It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham's but the devil's children, nor can they bear to hear this today."


[rest of post moved - mod]

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2015, 08:14 PM
Posts moved

Posts about whether or not Hitler was a Christian have been moved to a new thread. Parts of posts referring to this issue have been copied over.

Rincewind
10-04-2015, 09:09 AM
There is a new documentary mini-series produced by Nutopia in the UK and screened on CNN in the US called Finding Jesus: Faith Fact Forgery. It purports to concentrate on the scientific investigation of 6 relics. Episode one concentrated on the Shroud of Turin. There are lots of dramatisations of supposed 1st century events, mostly surrounding the passion and so it will be popular with masochists but people interested in facts will be disappointed. The scientific scholarship is scant and lacking depth and even the textual scholarship takes lots of assumptions without any justification. I imagine fundamentalists will not like the textual liberties as much as I disliked the lack of scientific details.

Anyway since it relates directly to this thread people following this might still find the documentary interesting although I wouldn't recommend or endorse it in particular. (I'd give it 1.5 stars out of 5)

Patrick Byrom
10-04-2015, 03:43 PM
There is a new documentary mini-series produced by Nutopia in the UK and screened on CNN in the US called Finding Jesus: Faith Fact Forgery. It purports to concentrate on the scientific investigation of 6 relics. Episode one concentrated on the Shroud of Turin. There are lots of dramatisations of supposed 1st century events, mostly surrounding the passion and so it will be popular with masochists but people interested in facts will be disappointed. The scientific scholarship is scant and lacking depth and even the textual scholarship takes lots of assumptions without any justification. I imagine fundamentalists will not like the textual liberties as much as I disliked the lack of scientific details.
I'm surprised that the Shroud is included, as it has been definitively established that the Shroud was of Medieval origin (http://www.historytoday.com/charles-freeman/origins-shroud-turin).

Rincewind
10-04-2015, 04:26 PM
I'm surprised that the Shroud is included, as it has been definitively established that the Shroud was of Medieval origin (http://www.historytoday.com/charles-freeman/origins-shroud-turin).

Yes and this lead to a somewhat confusing first episode where investigation of the age of the shroud was hinted at but set aside for the first two thirds of the episode at which point they basically fessed up and said, we actually radio carbon dating was performed years ago and it is 13th century in origin. The remaining 1/3 of the episode dealt with the Sudarium of Oviedo and a theory that the image on the shroud was a medieval photograph produced with a camera obscura. Which was a somewhat confusing way to present the material.

Gnostic Bishop
11-04-2015, 04:06 AM
That series to date is just the same old same old Christian garbage.

It is easy to see that it is theistic funding at work.

Regards
DL

Capablanca-Fan
14-04-2015, 03:11 AM
I'm surprised that the Shroud is included, as it has been definitively established that the Shroud was of Medieval origin (http://www.historytoday.com/charles-freeman/origins-shroud-turin).

And the Shroud contradicts the biblical record anyway, because this specifies strips (plural) of linen. See my old DVD Arguments Creationists Should NOT Use (http://creation.com/s/30-9-535) where I briefly analyze the original Greek texts. RW noted the textual liberties taken by this series.

Capablanca-Fan
14-04-2015, 03:21 AM
That's a fair point. Although I'm surprised you're suggesting that Augustine would have made such a claim without Biblical justification.

However, if you are looking for anti-semitism specifically based on Scripture, there are plenty of examples. For example, this quote from Martin Luther (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm):

"He did not call them Abraham's children, but a 'brood of vipers' [Matt. 3:7]. Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel, and they declared, 'He has a demon' [Matt 11:18]. Our Lord calls them a 'brood of vipers'; furthermore in John 8 [:39,44] he states: 'If you were Abraham's children ye would do what Abraham did … You are of your father the devil.' It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham's but the devil's children, nor can they bear to hear this today."

Yes, we know about Luther's typical trash-talking. But of course, he had no doubt that Jesus and the Apostles were also Jewish. He exchanged schatological language with Thomas More for example. German-speakers in general seemed to be fond of schatalogical language; Mozart was another. I discuss Luther more here (http://creation.com/refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-nazi-darwin-link#luther).

I wrote the following (http://creation.com/whats-wrong-with-bishop-spong#8) over 20 yeas ago:


8.1) Supposedly antisemitic NT texts
Spong claims that Jesus (as depicted in John) and Paul are guilty of anti-Jewish prejudice, and blames them for 'pogroms, ghettos, … Kristallnacht and Dachau' (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism p. 22). Spong should be more concerned that the Holocaust occurred in the country where his beloved theological liberalism first crippled the churches (see section 7.1).

Spong here, and in many other place, confuses legitimate use of biblical passages with their abuse (cf. RBF p. 20). It is not the Bible's fault that antisemites, as well as slavers, wife-beaters, crusaders and inquisitors have read their own prejudices into the texts (i.e. eisegesis).

It is hardly a new charge that the NT contains remarks that antisemites have misused. However, a book which contains scathing remarks about some Jews is not necessarily antisemitic. For example, a certain book calls Israelites: ‘stiffnecked people … rebellious from the day I knew you’, another thunders: ‘Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity …’, yet another despairs: ‘Refuse silver shall men call them, because the LORD has rejected them.’ Yet these examples all come from the Old Testament (Deut. 9:6, 24; Is. 1:4; Jer. 6:30)! Not even Spong [or our resident ChessChat christophobes] would accuse the OT of antisemitism, although it is often brutally honest about the faults of God's chosen people.

Critics of the NT also fail to realise that the word Ioudaios, usually translated ‘Jew’, probably only means Jew in the widest sense (descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) when used by gentiles. When used by Jews, it is probably a sectional term meaning ‘Judean’ [Malcolm Lowe, ‘Who Were the Judaioi?’ Novum Testamentum XVIII:101 ff. (April 1976)]. This reflected the mutual dislike between Judeans and Galileans. The latter included Christ and his disciples who were most strongly opposed by Judeans. To illustrate the difference, the Roman Pontius Pilate had Jesus labelled: ‘King of the Jews’ (Mt. 27:37) while the Jewish leaders said: 'If He be the King of Israel …' (Mt. 27:42).

The NT was written by Jews, and its [I]prosemitism is evident. Jesus’ first priority was to ‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Mt. 10:6, 15:24), and says, ‘… for salvation is from the Jews’ (John 4:22, a book Spong singles out for his charge of antisemitism!). Paul always evangelised Jews first in every city he visited (Acts 13:4–5, 14, 14:1, 16:11–13, 17:1–2, 10, 16-17, 18:1–4, 19, 19:1,8). Paul wrote to the church at Rome:


For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rom. 1:16).
I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin (Rom. 11:1).

Kaitlin
14-04-2015, 06:14 AM
Yes, we know about Luther's typical trash-talking. But of course, he had no doubt that Jesus and the Apostles were also Jewish.

Jesus was Jewish but the Apostles weren't, that's why they are called Apostles... that's like saying a Adult is a Teenager

Rincewind
14-04-2015, 08:18 AM
Jesus was Jewish but the Apostles weren't, that's why they are called Apostles... that's like saying a Adult is a Teenager

Apostle just means messenger. Some of the apostles were Torah observant Jews and some were not. This lead to some conflict between various early churches with the non-Torah observing churches winning which was likely anyway since it made the conversion of gentiles easier.

antichrist
14-04-2015, 09:10 AM
Apostle just means messenger. Some of the apostles were Torah observant Jews and some were not. This lead to some conflict between various early churches with the non-Torah observing churches winning which was likely anyway since it made the conversion of gentiles easier.

But the Gentiles will never be the real thing to this day. Just as the African Jews are not considered the real thing.

Rincewind
14-04-2015, 10:59 AM
But the Gentiles will never be the real thing to this day. Just as the African Jews are not considered the real thing.

I think you are somewhat confused as to what I was saying. The non-Torah observance became the mainstream to such an extent that Christianity rapidly became disassociated from Judaism.

Patrick Byrom
14-04-2015, 04:17 PM
Yes, we know about Luther's typical trash-talking. But of course, he had no doubt that Jesus and the Apostles were also Jewish. He exchanged schatological language with Thomas More for example. German-speakers in general seemed to be fond of schatalogical language; Mozart was another.
The problem with Luther is not his language, it is what he says (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm):


First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. ...

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. ...

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. . . .

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. ...

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. ...

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. ... For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause. ...

Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]). ...


That last one sounds disturbingly familiar.

jammo
14-04-2015, 09:57 PM
The problem with Luther is not his language, it is what he says (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm):


First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. ...

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. ...

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. . . .

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. ...

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. ...

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. ... For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause. ...

Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]). ...


That last one sounds disturbingly familiar.

Wow! That's some list. Luther wasn't German by any chance......

Capablanca-Fan
14-04-2015, 10:27 PM
Wow! That's some list. Luther wasn't German by any chance......
Typical trash-talk of the day. Compare it to his scatalogical exchanges with More, or this Lutheran Insulter site (http://ergofabulous.org/luther/).

Yet Germans until the rise of evolutionary anti-semitism in the late 19th century was the most Jew-friendly country in the world. German Jews were patriotic. Richard Evans in The Coming of the Third Reich argued that if someone around 1900 had predicted a Holocaust in Europe in the next few decades, most would have thought it would be plausible in France with the Dreyfuss affair, or in the Russian Empire with its frequent progroms, but not in Germany. Overseas organizations of German-speakers readily admitted German-speaking Jews. Since they had a large proportion of Lutherans, it's evident that they didn't take Luther's religious anti-Judaism as part of their faith, but as trash-talk. Lutheran churches in both America and Australia took the Allied side in WW2.

Patrick Byrom
15-04-2015, 12:04 AM
Typical trash-talk of the day. Compare it to his scatalogical exchanges with More, or this Lutheran Insulter site (http://ergofabulous.org/luther/). Yet Germans until the rise of evolutionary anti-semitism in the late 19th century was the most Jew-friendly country in the world.
You seem to be ignoring the violence against the German Jews that Luther inspired. For example (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/germany.html):

In the Reformation period, Jews continued to be oppressed both physically and economically – those who were not expelled shouldered a crippling tax burden. Additionally, Martin Luther, after failing to convert the Jews to Protestantism, savagely denounced them, which led to more religiously-inspired violence against them.


And: (http://ardentseeker.com/Martin%20Luther/martinluther.html)

Luther spoke out against the Jews in the German provinces of Saxony, Brandenburg, and Silesia.(11) Josel of Rosheim, the Jewish spokesman who tried to help the Jews of Saxony in 1537, later blamed their plight on “that priest whose name was Martin Luther-may his body and soul be bound up in hell!-who wrote and issued many heretical books in which he said that whoever would help the Jews was doomed to perdition.”(12) Josel asked the city of Strasbourg to forbid the sale of Luther's anti-Jewish works: they refused initially, but relented when a Lutheran pastor in Hochfelden used a sermon to urge his parishioners to murder Jews.(13) Luther's influence persisted after his death. Throughout the 1580s, riots led to the expulsion of Jews from several German Lutheran states.(14) Luther's treatises against the Jews were reprinted again early in the 17th century at Dortmund, where they were seized by the Holy Roman Emperor. In 1613 and 1617 they were published in Frankfurt am Main in support of the banishment of Jews from Frankfurt and Worms. Vincent Fettmilch, a Calvinist, reprinted On the Jews and Their Lies in 1612 to incite hatred against the Jews of Frankfurt. Two years later, riots in Frankfurt resulted in the deaths of 3,000 Jews and the expulsion of the rest. Fettmilch and other leaders were executed by the Lutheran city authorities for attempting to overthrow them, but Robert Michael writes that his execution was for attempting to overthrow the authorities, not for his offenses against the Jews.(15)


It is true that the position of Jews steadily improved in Germany, starting in the eighteenth century, but that was despite Luther's writings on the subject.

I assume you think it is just a coincidence that the program outlined by Luther for dealing with the Jews could be read as blueprint for the Final Solution? I don't recall any similar anti-semitism in Darwin's writings.

Gnostic Bishop
15-04-2015, 02:29 AM
Jesus was Jewish but the Apostles weren't, that's why they are called Apostles... that's like saying a Adult is a Teenager

All early Christians were Jews. Not till Paul were Gentiles allowed to be Christian without following the Jewish law which included the cutting of the foreskin.

Paul was first to tell Gentiles they could ignore the Jewish law.

Regards
DL

antichrist
15-04-2015, 07:28 AM
All early Christians were Jews. Not till Paul were Gentiles allowed to be Christian without following the Jewish law which included the cutting of the foreskin.

Paul was first to tell Gentiles they could ignore the Jewish law.

Regards
DL

If Paul had kept his silly religion amongst the Jews millions or even billions of young males around the planet would not have been assaulted at birth. What authority did Paul have to break the rules of the Old Testament? Was he God to change God's word? Why aren't females also circumcised - completely sexual discrimination!

Gnostic Bishop
15-04-2015, 09:32 AM
If Paul had kept his silly religion amongst the Jews millions or even billions of young males around the planet would not have been assaulted at birth. What authority did Paul have to break the rules of the Old Testament? Was he God to change God's word? Why aren't females also circumcised - completely sexual discrimination!

Because their hygiene was better than men's in the distant past is my guess.

That and to many women, uncut men look funny so that would certainly entice many men to take to the knife as men will do just about anything to get laid.

Regards
DL

Kaitlin
02-05-2015, 01:40 PM
Adam and Eve were in fact Nordic... and it wasn't a apple or pomegranate tree.. but a Oak tree. :uhoh:

MichaelBaron
04-05-2015, 01:36 AM
I think almost everybody (even Atheists) mostly agree that Jesus did exist. Even if we assume that he was not Son of God and there is no God... there is at least evidence that there was such a person - a scholar and a philosopher.

Rincewind
04-05-2015, 10:23 AM
I think almost everybody (even Atheists) mostly agree that Jesus did exist. Even if we assume that he was not Son of God and there is no God... there is at least evidence that there was such a person - a scholar and a philosopher.

I think this is mostly a factor of Christian bias in biblical studies. As I have already outlined, there is no primary physical evidence for Jesus. All we have is the textual evidence and the question we have to answer is, is the textual evidence we have better explained by the existence of an historical Jesus or on the historisation of an originally supernatural "person".

This is not an easy question to answer and even more difficult to address if you happen to have a faith in the historical explanation of the evidence.

However careful examination of the textual evidence reveals some very odd facts. Things like Paul not mentioning Jesus's earthly life at all in thousands of words. Paul is the earliest writer and his apparent ignorance of the earthly life of Jesus is very odd indeed. A generation later we have the gospel writers coming on the scene and they place Jesus in an historical context but we know a lot of the information in the gospels is mythical. So the question is did Jesus actually exist and was mythicised further, or was the original Jesus a supernatural being who was placed in an historical setting by the gospel writers?

Things like the silence in Paul of the earthly life of Jesus makes the mythical hypothesis at least tenable as it certainly explains this silence in the earliest recorded information of the Christian church.

MichaelBaron
04-05-2015, 02:35 PM
I think this is mostly a factor of Christian bias in biblical studies. As I have already outlined, there is no primary physical evidence for Jesus. All we have is the textual evidence and the question we have to answer is, is the textual evidence we have better explained by the existence of an historical Jesus or on the historisation of an originally supernatural "person".

This is not an easy question to answer and even more difficult to address if you happen to have a faith in the historical explanation of the evidence.

However careful examination of the textual evidence reveals some very odd facts. Things like Paul not mentioning Jesus's earthly life at all in thousands of words. Paul is the earliest writer and his apparent ignorance of the earthly life of Jesus is very odd indeed. A generation later we have the gospel writers coming on the scene and they place Jesus in an historical context but we know a lot of the information in the gospels is mythical. So the question is did Jesus actually exist and was mythicised further, or was the original Jesus a supernatural being who was placed in an historical setting by the gospel writers?

Things like the silence in Paul of the earthly life of Jesus makes the mythical hypothesis at least tenable as it certainly explains this silence in the earliest recorded information of the Christian church.

Yes, super-natural powers were possibly not there. But somehow I feel there got to be such a person, say a traveller who was going around teaching people.

Rincewind
04-05-2015, 03:24 PM
Yes, super-natural powers were possibly not there. But somehow I feel there got to be such a person, say a traveller who was going around teaching people.

But if that was true then why was someone like Paul writing in the mid 1st century (roughly 40-60 AD) who should have been aware of the existence of this person not mention Jesus's earthly life at all?

The first attestation of an earthly Jesus is in the gospels, all of which were compiled after 60AD in some cases well after (John, for example).

Capablanca-Fan
07-05-2015, 04:46 AM
But if that was true then why was someone like Paul writing in the mid 1st century (roughly 40-60 AD) who should have been aware of the existence of this person not mention Jesus's earthly life at all?
Crap, as usual with dupes of the batsh!t-crazy Christ-myth views. E.g. Paul said that Jesus was "born of a woman (http://biblehub.com/galatians/4-4.htm)", Galatians 4:4, language reflecting knowledge of the virginal conception claims but still a historical birth. Also, in 1 Corinthians 11 (http://biblehub.com/esv/1_corinthians/11.htm), Paul says, "the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is fore you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” Paul also took care to differentiate between known words of Christ and Paul's own (also binding) commands in 1 Corinthians 7 (http://biblehub.com/esv/1_corinthians/7.htm). In general, Paul was writing to people who already knew about the historical Jesus so had little need to remind them of much of that. Paul was expounding on the meaning of what Christ had done in history.

Rincewind
07-05-2015, 11:43 AM
Crap as usual with dupes of batshit crazy religious fundamentalists who ignore the scholarly research into the authorship of the Pauline literature.


E.g. Paul said that Jesus was "born of a woman", Galatians 4:4, language reflecting knowledge of the virginal conception claims but still a historical birth.

And if Paul was meaning Mary it is odd that he doesn't provide that earthly detail. The quote in context is "born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons." So it is more than likely that Paul is using 'woman' allegorically to indicate that Christ was created under the old covenant and nothing to do with an actual physical birth.


Also, in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul says, "the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, This is my body which is fore you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.

Yes it is a typical meal mystery that was common among syncretic mystery religions. There is nothing in that passage which gives any historical setting for the meal other than the night before he was betrayed the betrayal could just as easy have taken place in the spiritual realm. Also Paul attest to knowing about this by revelation in 1 Cor 11.23 "For I received from the Lord also what I pass on to you." So this very passage Paul is saying he knows from revelation, not personal experience or common historical knowledge.


Paul also took care to differentiate between known words of Christ and Paul's own (also binding) commands in 1 Corinthians 7.

True but the commands of Christ are those which he said he received via revelation. That is he had a dream or vision and they were the commands of Christ. he does quote anything the earthly Jesus said or did explicitly with any historical detail whatsoever. Reading Paul there is no mention of Pilate, Mary, Joseph, curing of the sick, feeding the multitude, calming of the waters, or any other notable or mundane detail of an earthly existence. Even the last supper reference mentioned above, Paul explicitly says he received in a vision and it contains no mention of historical details.


In general, Paul was writing to people who already knew about the historical Jesus so had little need to remind them of much of that. Paul was expounding on the meaning of what Christ had done in history.

That is not true there were various Christian sects with a diversity of beliefs and although details of the sects which came to be labelled as unorthodox the details are sketchy, since the orthodox historical sect won the political battle and they decided what texts would be preserved. We know they certainly contested the historical details (based on the writing of early church fathers who criticised them and whose writings were preserved, for example see Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Vol 3, Chap XI).

However nothing in Crappy-Fan's last post changes the fact that the total lack of any historical content in Paul remains a serious challenge to the thesis that Jesus was believed to be a flesh and bood person by Paul.

Agent Smith
09-05-2015, 08:50 AM
I think almost everybody (even Atheists) mostly agree that Jesus did exist. Even if we assume that he was not Son of God and there is no God... there is at least evidence that there was such a person - a scholar and a philosopher.
Hmmm. In all likelihood he didnt exist. An obviously unreal fable from two millenia ago, supposedly recorded decades after the event. Oh - but the person is real. Laugh. Perhaps most people do think he existed, but only because of the "big enough lie" factor, that most people aren't in the habit of openly confronting social norms, no matter how absurd they are.

Rincewind
09-05-2015, 09:53 AM
Hmmm. In all likelihood he didnt exist. An obviously unreal fable from two millenia ago, supposedly recorded decades after the event. Oh - but the person is real. Laugh. Perhaps most people do think he existed, but only because of the "big enough lie" factor, that most people aren't in the habit of openly confronting social norms, no matter how absurd they are.

Even though the gospels contain a lot of detail which could not have happened that doesn't mean an historical Jesus didn't exist. Most historians agree to varying degrees that there is a lot of myth in the gospels and things that are historically false. However most also think that it is more probable that some dude did exist upon which the gospels are a based. The question of whether a guy existed or not does not rely (for example) on someone feeding a bunch of people with a few loaves and fishes. To have a serious discussion on the historically interesting point you have to get over the mythological Jesus which is impossible for fundamentalists.

As an aside not all Christ-mythers are non-Christian. Check out the case of Fr Tom Brodie http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irish-priest-disciplined-after-claims-jesus-never-existed-in-controversial-book-187717531-237560221.html who is a mythist but not an atheist.

Agent Smith
09-05-2015, 01:08 PM
I can see what you're saying.... But to me "some dude did exist upon which the gospels are a based" seems doubtful, just like, say, the protagonists of Tolstoy's novels (war generals etc excluded) never existed - even though he based his characters about real people in his life.

And just extrapolating a little - some romantic people may choose to believe "God exists", in some metaphysical essence not related to organised religion, perhaps as Gaia or a mystical force in their life, or that merely the popular _notion_ of a god alone means he exists. But in these cases also, I assert god does not exist at all, because to exist means to have a physical presence.

(Haha - so does "time" exist ? This is a pet subject of mine :) I contend a point of time does not exist at all, and is the cause of (at least some of) the quandry of quantum physics.)

Gnostic Bishop
11-05-2015, 01:39 AM
I think almost everybody (even Atheists) mostly agree that Jesus did exist. Even if we assume that he was not Son of God and there is no God... there is at least evidence that there was such a person - a scholar and a philosopher.

If so we would have some of what he wrote. We do not.

That is why it is more likely that Jesus was just a Rabbi and a man and not some poor God.

If Jesus was God then we would expect a moral theology from him and his policies are often just un-workable rhetoric or like his no divorce for women and forgiveness policies, are immoral and anti-love.

Regards
DL

Rincewind
11-05-2015, 05:09 PM
If so we would have some of what he wrote. We do not.

That is why it is more likely that Jesus was just a Rabbi and a man and not some poor God.

If Jesus was God then we would expect a moral theology from him and his policies are often just un-workable rhetoric or like his no divorce for women and forgiveness policies, are immoral and anti-love.

Regards
DL

I would contend that he wasn't even a ordinary Rabbi. I think that the very early Christians (c. Paul 50AD) believed he was a purely spiritual savior-god and the gospel writers invented the historical flesh-and-blood Jesus as a convenient fiction which was later believed to be true. I think this basic hypothesis is a better fit to the evidence we have than a real person existing who was later mythologised.

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2015, 08:24 PM
I think almost everybody (even Atheists) mostly agree that Jesus did exist. Even if we assume that he was not Son of God and there is no God... there is at least evidence that there was such a person - a scholar and a philosopher.

Can't see evidence to rate him too highly as either of those. I see him as more akin to a political leader with a cult following. Perhaps the Bob Brown of his day.

Gnostic Bishop
12-05-2015, 12:12 AM
I would contend that he wasn't even a ordinary Rabbi. I think that the very early Christians (c. Paul 50AD) believed he was a purely spiritual savior-god and the gospel writers invented the historical flesh-and-blood Jesus as a convenient fiction which was later believed to be true. I think this basic hypothesis is a better fit to the evidence we have than a real person existing who was later mythologised.

I agree. Jesus is just an archetype to me as well. A good man type.

I think that that is the way all scriptures and the ancient myths should be read.

Check this out if you have the time. To me, it shows the ancients trying to find a pattern for good living and that they would. as Jesus of the bible says, elect themselves a God. It is a bit long but there aere shorter links on that page.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUw9j_JitYE

God was always to be a man in the Jewish traditions if you think of the Divine Council and the fact that the Rabbi could overrule God himself.

This Gnostic Christian’s saying. My God is I am. I am God.

The only God fit to rule men and women is a man or a woman. That is how it has always been and all we have ever had. Who but a man or woman can express the will of God? There have always only been men and women of good hearts able to express God’s real will. Archetypal Jesus and his wife preached to seek God perpetually, --- even after finding a bit of God or Goddess within the self. We are to perpetually raise the bar of excellence for ourselves, our God. Be a God and brethren to a less literal Jesus. Free yourself from your self-imposed bondage and seek Gnosis. This begins by recognizing that both Yahweh, and by association, the Westernized Jesus, as being evil and quite immoral. We do endorse the more Eastern esoteric Jesus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

Adamski
19-06-2015, 01:10 PM
So fruitloopy and imbecilic that you could come up with a single reason for Paul's bizarre silence on the historical details of the supposed life of Jesus.RW, Paul did not need to repeat the historical details of Jesus' life in his letter to the Romans. The audience already knew these from the early Gospels and a strong oral tradition in the churches. Jesus' life on earth was still the recent past.

Rincewind
20-06-2015, 01:02 AM
RW, Paul did not need to repeat the historical details of Jesus' life in his letter to the Romans. The audience already knew these from the early Gospels and a strong oral tradition in the churches. Jesus' life on earth was still the recent past.

That does not make sense. Sure he didn't have to detail every aspect but Paul details NO ASPECT WHATSOEVER. The majority of the new testament is the writings of Paul and none of those tens of thousands of words give even one detail. Any objective reading of Paul would describe the silence of historical detail as bizarre.

Capablanca-Fan
20-06-2015, 04:33 AM
That does not make sense. Sure he didn't have to detail every aspect but Paul details NO ASPECT WHATSOEVER.
Demonstrably wrong. Paul says that Jesus was "born of a woman", a hint of the virginal conception given the strong patrilinearity of that world; has knowledge of things that Jesus said and what He didn't say, the Last Supper. And what Adamski said.


The majority of the new testament is the writings of Paul and none of those tens of thousands of words give even one detail. Any objective reading of Paul would describe the silence of historical detail as bizarre.
Actually, when it comes to volume, most of the NT is from Dr Luke (Luke and Acts). The whole NT in the original Koinē Greek has 138,020 Greek words; Luke wrote 37,933 (27%) while Paul wrote 32,407 (23%).


none of those tens of thousands of words give even one detail. Any objective reading of Paul would describe the silence of historical detail as bizarre.
Argument from silence again.

Rincewind
21-06-2015, 04:59 PM
Demonstrably wrong. Paul says that Jesus was "born of a woman", a hint of the virginal conception given the strong patrilinearity of that world;

Already disposed of above. This passage contains no historical detail and in context had more to do with Christ being a suitable substitutionary sacrifice than anything to do with biology.


has knowledge of things that Jesus said and what He didn't say,

No evidence he did. Paul explicitly says he received all his knowledge of Christ from revelations. Makes little or no use of any of Jesus' parables or other quotable statement from the gospels.


the Last Supper. And what Adamski said.

Last supper already demolished above. Again no historical details and all information received via revelation.


Actually, when it comes to volume, most of the NT is from Dr Luke (Luke and Acts). The whole NT in the original Koinē Greek has 138,020 Greek words; Luke wrote 37,933 (27%) while Paul wrote 32,407 (23%).

It may depend on whether you accept the Western or Alexandrian texts. Much of the embellishment of the Alexandrian Acts (included in the Western Acts) looks stylistically different and probably originates from another hand. In any case the two contributions are roughly the same size and comprise roughly a half of the NT. Luke/Acts makes numerous references to historical details of Jesus' life and Paul says nothing. 30,000 words and no details whatsoever. The silence is deafening.


Argument from silence again.

Very astute. Was it when I said "Any objective reading of Paul would describe the silence of historical detail as bizarre" the clue that tipped you off?

You seem to think that all arguments from silence are invalid. They are not. When the silence is highly unexpected then it requires explanation. In the case of Paul, roughly a quarter of the New Testament with no historical detail of Jesus and this the book that was written closest to the supposed life of Jesus. That is a highly bizarre silence.

antichrist
21-06-2015, 05:56 PM
The same with Josephus, a one liner is inserted about a saviour or something, completely out of context if he really meant a supernatural being. Josephus would be wow, wam, zap! A SAVIOUR - not just matter of factly

Capablanca-Fan
30-06-2015, 11:02 PM
No evidence he did. Paul explicitly says he received all his knowledge of Christ from revelations. Makes little or no use of any of Jesus' parables or other quotable statement from the gospels.
He spent three years with those who knew Jesus the best.


Last supper already demolished above. Again no historical details and all information received via revelation.
More ipse dixit from a fringe Christ-myther.


It may depend on whether you accept the Western or Alexandrian texts. Much of the embellishment of the Alexandrian Acts (included in the Western Acts) looks stylistically different and probably originates from another hand. In any case the two contributions are roughly the same size and comprise roughly a half of the NT.
You need to learn about textual history. The earliest papyri and codices are mainly Alexandrian. The Western text such as the Codex Bezae is not so reliable. Around AD 900, the Byzantine texts became the majority. The text behind the King James NT was based on a handful of Byzantine manuscripts. But in all of these textual families, the major doctrines of Christianity are preserved, and the texts agree >98% of the time. Most of the variation in the remaining <2% is merely stylistic, much is not even translatable in English (e.g. movable nu and presence or absence of article on name), and not a single doctrine of Christianity relies on a debatable text.


Luke/Acts makes numerous references to historical details of Jesus' life and Paul says nothing. 30,000 words and no details whatsoever. The silence is deafening.
I've informed you that Paul said a number of things, and had no reason to say more. The first organized Christians already knew those details so early on.
Around the 60s, these details needed to be writen down since it was ageneration after His death and resurrection.


Very astute. Was it when I said "Any objective reading of Paul would describe the silence of historical detail as bizarre" the clue that tipped you off?
Objective apparently means "what bizarre Christ-myth nutters think as oppose to any reputable historian or even Bart Ehrman".


You seem to think that all arguments from silence are invalid. They are not. When the silence is highly unexpected then it requires explanation. In the case of Paul, roughly a quarter of the New Testament with no historical detail of Jesus and this the book that was written closest to the supposed life of Jesus. That is a highly bizarre silence.

Paul was explaining the meaning of Christ's life, death,, and resurrection to the first generation of organized Christians, and correcting mistakes.

Rincewind
30-06-2015, 11:55 PM
He spent three years with those who knew Jesus the best.

Circular and anyway if associations with Peter and James did provide any first hand information of a historical Jesus then it makes Paul's silence even more baffling.


More ipse dixit from a fringe Christ-myther.

No just a statement of fact. See post #87 which I quote in part...


Yes it is a typical meal mystery that was common among syncretic mystery religions. There is nothing in that passage which gives any historical setting for the meal other than the night before he was betrayed the betrayal could just as easy have taken place in the spiritual realm. Also Paul attest to knowing about this by revelation in 1 Cor 11.23 "For I received from the Lord also what I pass on to you." So this very passage Paul is saying he knows from revelation, not personal experience or common historical knowledge.


You need to learn about textual history.

More importantly you need to learn how to use the quote facility properly as you are putting your words into my mouth in post #100.


The earliest papyri and codices are mainly Alexandrian. The Western text such as the Codex Bezae is not so reliable. Around AD 900, the Byzantine texts became the majority. The text behind the King James NT was based on a handful of Byzantine manuscripts. But in all of these textual families, the major doctrines of Christianity are preserved, and the texts agree >98% of the time. Most of the variation in the remaining <2% is merely stylistic, much is not even translatable in English (e.g. movable nu and presence or absence of article on name), and not a single doctrine of Christianity relies on a debatable text.

I never said there were any doctrinal issues just that the sizes by word count was different so that a couple of percent difference between Luke/Acts and Paul are effectively meaningless.


Around the 60s, these details needed to be writen down since it was ageneration after His death and resurrection.

It makes no sense that Paul had no need to mention anything of Jesus' life unless he believed Christ to be a completely spiritual entity. There are plenty of opportunities where quoting historical details of Jesus or his supposed teachings or other events from Jesus' life would have strengthened Paul's letters. However, reading Paul we receive no historical details and all Paul's words from Christ come to him from personal revelation (as Paul explicitly says in 1 Cor 11.23, for example).


Objective apparently means "what bizarre Christ-myth nutters think as oppose to any reputable historian or even Bart Ehrman".

Well if you can provide evidence of Paul giving a detail for the historical Jesus post it. Please don't repeat the same failed quotes that have already been shown to have zero historical content like Galatians 4:4 and 1 Corinthians 11. For reasons already given above these passages are just as likely on the myth hypothesis.


Paul was explaining the meaning of Christ's life, death,, and resurrection to the first generation of organized Christians, and correcting mistakes.

One of Paul's main agenda items was conversion of the gentiles. That and other doctrinal issues involved the answering criticisms and is is frankly bizarre that Paul could write 30,000 words about the teaching of Christ and answering criticism and progressing his agenda of the conversion of gentiles without mention of a single historical detail of Jesus life.

For example, why is the baptism of Jesus by John never mentioned by Paul? All the synoptic gospels mention John and the baptism. Since Paul is in the business of converting people and specifically conversion of gentiles it is odd that John is never once mentioned by Paul.

Capablanca-Fan
01-07-2015, 05:25 AM
Did the Early Scribes Corrupt the New Testament? - Dan Wallace, PhD (https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=22&v=wiWKifMu6f8)
Bible scholar Dan Wallace defends the reliability of the New Testament against the new atheist critics. Wallace touches on many claims made by Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus), C. J. Werleman (Jesus Lied), Dan Brown (The Da Vinci Code), etc., and implicity of Christ-myth loonies like RW. There really is an embarras de richesses: >5,800 manuscripts of the New Testament in the original Greek, over 10,000 manuscripts in Latin, 5,000–10,000 translated into other languages like Coptic, Armenian, and Aramaic, and a million quotations in the church fathers. No other classical or ancient document even comes close in terms of either quantity or quality (closeness to time of writing). Dr Wallace also discusses the variants of the manuscripts and shows how insignificant they are. But even Bart Ehrman admitted:


Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=22&v=wiWKifMu6f8

Rincewind
01-07-2015, 11:07 AM
That says nothing about Christ myth. Almost all of these physical texts are copies of earlier documents and almost none date from before 120AD by which time the Jesus myth was already established.

The hypothesis that Jesus was not a historical person does not rely on textual corruption of the new testament for support.

Gnostic Bishop
02-07-2015, 06:48 AM
[B][]

For your files. It shows some of the scriptural manipulation of some of the oldest text.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rAt-PAkgqls

Regards
DL

Agent Smith
02-07-2015, 05:21 PM
V. Interesting :)

jammo
02-07-2015, 07:33 PM
V. Interesting :)

Agreed! Now we wait on Jono to try to refute the claim in the video .....

Gnostic Bishop
02-07-2015, 09:46 PM
V. Interesting :)

They have found about the same with Qur'anic text.

Strange that man gets to change what Gods are supposedly dictating to prophets.

God's real words get ----


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCVR_ajL_Eo

Regards
DL

Agent Smith
05-06-2016, 09:50 AM
"IF Jesus had been on earth, he wouldn't have been a priest,' [Hebrews 8:4]

Gnostic Bishop
06-06-2016, 02:16 AM
"IF Jesus had been on earth, he wouldn't have been a priest,' [Hebrews 8:4]

I agree.

Jesus was clearly putting people as the controllers of religions and not some God or religion controlling people.

Clearly, that is the Gnostic Christian Jesus, a free thinker, peeking out of the Christian theology that he would reject today the same way he did when Christians decimated our religion and killed freedom of religion.

Regards
DL

Agent Smith
06-06-2016, 09:06 AM
The new testament quote, I heard in the "The God who Wasnt There" DVD.

His point is that, Paul, author of much of the nt, and the period linking Christ with the early Church, didnt believe Jesus was ever on earth. His other, stronger, point, is that , despite being the main author, he never refers to any of the traditionally accepted historical facts.

Though whether Paul was the author of Hebrews, is disputed.



These documents represent almost all we have of the history of Christianity during this decades long gap.And here’s the interesting thing: if Jesus was a human who had recently lived, nobody told Paul.Paul never heard of Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, Herod, John the Baptist.He never heard about any of these miracles.He never quotes anything that Jesus is supposed to have said.He never mentions Jesus having a ministry of any kind at all.He doesn’t know about any entrance into Jerusalem.He never mentions Pontius Pilate or a Jewish mob or any trials at all.Paul doesn’t know any of what we would call the story of Jesus, except for these last three events.And even these, Paul never places [sic] Jesus on earth.Just like the other savior gods of the time, Paul’s Christ Jesus died, rose, and ascended all in a mythical realm.

jammo
06-06-2016, 12:39 PM
For your files. It shows some of the scriptural manipulation of some of the oldest text.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rAt-PAkgqls

Regards
DL

I just played all the videos in this series again. Very entertaining. He makes an overwhelming case that Jesus never existed.

Rincewind
06-06-2016, 01:58 PM
His point is that, Paul, author of much of the nt, and the period linking Christ with the early Church, didnt believe Jesus was ever on earth. His other, stronger, point, is that , despite being the main author, he never refers to any of the traditionally accepted historical facts.

The historically defensible version of the myth hypothesis is precisely Jesus was a spiritual figure and the New Testaments were written which place a physical Jesus on Earth but those at the time would know that they were legends rather than facts. There are precedents for this form of writing. Finally the early church becomes controlled by a historical sect and the historicity of the NT become unquestionable.


Though whether Paul was the author of Hebrews, is disputed.

As is just about everything else. :D

While Paul gives us the best account of the early church it is difficult for the conventional theory to explain the dearth of contemporaneous written sources for the life of the supposed Jesus and the first generation of the church.

Gnostic Bishop
06-06-2016, 10:53 PM
I just played all the videos in this series again. Very entertaining. He makes an overwhelming case that Jesus never existed.

If we are talking of the miracle working Jesus, no argument.

I think the good man Jesus archetype was already in use at that time. At least the Gnostic Christians used it to make their view of God speak.

This is hinted at in this research.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUw9j_JitYE

Regards
DL

Desmond
08-06-2016, 06:23 PM
I just played all the videos in this series again. Very entertaining. He makes an overwhelming case that Jesus never existed.
Yes most interesting. So Christianity is based on a ripoff of the Odyssey. Next!

Adamski
08-06-2016, 11:13 PM
No impressive argumemts from the atheists in these videos. If I only had time I would address some. I will leave it to Jono S. Jono A.

Gnostic Bishop
09-06-2016, 12:20 AM
No impressive argumemts from the atheists in these videos. If I only had time I would address some. I will leave it to Jono S. Jono A.

There is no impressive argument from theists, unless your stupidly want to believe in the supernatural, that a rise from the dead Jesus ever lived.

You do think that real belief in the supernatural is stupid. Right?

Regards
DL

Adamski
09-06-2016, 08:49 AM
There is no impressive argument from theists, unless your stupidly want to believe in the supernatural, that a rise from the dead Jesus ever lived.

You do think that real belief in the supernatural is stupid. Right?

Regards
DL

No!!

jammo
09-06-2016, 11:06 AM
No impressive argumemts from the atheists in these videos. If I only had time I would address some. I will leave it to Jono S. Jono A.

An impressive counter argument. "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Gnostic Bishop
09-06-2016, 11:33 AM
No!!

Oh well.

I guess I would apply to you the last label spoken here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E&feature=related

Regards
DL

Capablanca-Fan
20-07-2016, 04:01 AM
The new testament quote, I heard in the "The God who Wasnt There" DVD.
Not serious! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::rolleyes::rolleyes::roll eyes::rolleyes:

This movie pushes the moronic Christ-myth theory, which includes that womanizing cheat come-out-as-polyamorous Richard Carrier, a laughing stock even among atheistic historians such as Tim O'Neill and Bible scholars like Bart Ehrman (http://historyforatheists.blogspot.com/2016/07/richard-carrier-is-displeased.html), although RW probably adores him.

The DVD also includes the theoroughly discredited "16 Crucified Saviors" nonsense by Kersey Graves about which even the Infidels website (http://infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/) had to offer this caution:


ATTENTION: The scholarship of Kersey Graves has been questioned by numerous theists and nontheists alike; the inclusion of his The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors in the Secular Web's Historical Library does not constitute endorsement by Internet Infidels, Inc. This document was included for historical purposes; readers should be extremely cautious in trusting anything in this book.

See this Tekton review (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/godthere.php) of The God Who Wasn't There.

Rincewind
20-07-2016, 09:36 AM
Not serious! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::rolleyes::rolleyes::roll eyes::rolleyes:

I haven't seen the movie but the commentary that Richard Carrier provides in his books is well worth consideration. Unfortunately Tim O'Neill doesn't think so and prefers (like CF) to obsess about personal minutia. Speaking of minutiae, if you are going to name someone in your defence you should try to get their name right. I do have a lot of time for Bart Ehrman too but I think he assumes too much on the historicity side.

The other issue clouding the debate here is that the Christian's Jesus is not the same as the Historian's Jesus. Saying that the Historian's Jesus didn't exist is quite a strong conclusion as there is very little physical evidence either way and their only lasting legacy is in the founding of religion which was of significant cultural importance but only indirectly as the physical manifestation was effected by followers and their descendants.

Saying that the Christian's Jesus didn't exist is a much weaker statement since many of the stories in the Bible are known to be extremely unlikely historically. Bart Ehrman and Tim O'Neill for example would seem to accept the historicity of the Historian's Jesus but not the historicity of the Christian's Jesus.

TimONeill
20-07-2016, 09:10 PM
the commentary that Richard Carrier provides in his books is well worth consideration. Unfortunately Tim O'Neill doesn't think so

More significantly, no actual scholars think so either. That's because pretty much every argument the current crop of Jesus Mythicists present were given consideration about a century ago and were rejected.


... and prefers (like CF) to obsess about personal minutia.

The article linked to above was responding to "personal minutia" from Carrier. But if you read a bit further you'll find I move on to some fairly detailed technical analysis of one of his arguments. Though if you want a broader analysis of why the Jesus Myth thesis doesn't work, you can find that here (http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/did-jesus-exist-jesus-myth-theory-again.html).


I do have a lot of time for Bart Ehrman too but I think he assumes too much on the historicity side.

Such as what, exactly?

Rincewind
20-07-2016, 10:47 PM
Another Beetlejuice moment.

Rahane_S (Axiom)
20-07-2016, 11:12 PM
About Tim O'Neill (http://www.strangenotions.com/author/tim-oneill/)
Tim O'Neill is an atheist blogger who specializes in reviews of books on ancient and medieval history as well as atheism and historiography. He holds a Master of Arts in Medieval Literature from the University of Tasmania and is a subscribing member of the Australian Atheist Foundation and the Australian Skeptics. He is also the author of the History versus The Da Vinci Code website and is currently working on a book with the working title History for Atheists: How Not to Use History in Debates About Religion. He finds the fact that he irritates many theists and atheists in equal measure a sign that he's probably doing some good. Follow his blog at Armarium Magnum.

Capablanca-Fan
21-07-2016, 12:54 AM
Another Beetlejuice moment.
What are you on about? Tim O'Neill's article that I linked to does have a detailed analysis of the "Jesus, who was called Christ", showing that Josephus used legomenos ("called") as a brief mention that someone, something, or some place was "called" something in those days without any explanation as to why. He gives the examples of "the ascent of Engedi, at a place called 'the Eminence'," "ten men, who were called 'the Freemen'", "Roman horsemen were seen at a place called 'Union', in the borders of Galilee", "he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, who was called Cabi, son of Simon". So that description of Jesus as "called Christ" is consistent with Josephus' style, while Christians would normally say that Jesus was the Christ, not merely called the Christ.

Also, the first time Joseph introduces a person in his narrative, he provides an identifying appellation, but once he has established that, then he doesn't give the appellation again, assuming that readers will understand that he is referring to the one previously introduced. Jesus was quite a common name in those days, and Josephus also talked about "Jesus, the son of Damneus". But what Josephus would not do, which would be necessary for Carrier's claim to work, is mention a new person by name alone without an identifying description, then mention him later with that description:


Then there’s the fact that dismissing the phrase “who was called Messiah” as a marginal gloss that found its way into the body of the text doesn’t go far enough to explain the textus receptus. Josephus is very consistent in the way he introduces new actors to his narrative and in the way he differentiates one from another. Nowhere does he introduce a person simply by their name (“Jesus”, minus the Messiah part) and then refer to them by an identifying appellation later (“Jesus, son of Damneus”). Yet that’s what Carrier’s contrived ad hoc work around requires.

When there are over 9,000 words explaining more about that alleged interpolation and Josephus' style, this is hardly "arguing over Carrier's minutiae".

Capablanca-Fan
21-07-2016, 01:03 AM
Though if you want a broader analysis of why the Jesus Myth thesis doesn't work, you can find that here (http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/did-jesus-exist-jesus-myth-theory-again.html).

Hard to dispute reasonably with the Conclusion after over 8,000 words of documentation:

The question asked if historians regarded the existence of Jesus to be "historical fact". The answer is that they do as much as any scholar can do so for the existence of an obscure peasant preacher in the ancient world. There is as much, if not slightly more, evidence for the existence of Yeshua ben Yusef as there is for other comparable Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants, even without looking at the gospel material. Additionally, that material contains elements which only make sense if their stories are about a historical figure.

The arguments of the Jesus Mythicists, on the other hand, require contortions and suppositions that simply do not stand up to Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) and continually rest on positions that are not accepted by the majority of even non-Christian and Jewish scholars. The proponents of the Jesus Myth hypothesis are almost exclusively amateurs with an ideological axe to grind and their position is and will almost certainly remain on the outer fringe of theories about the origins of Christianity.

Rincewind
21-07-2016, 01:17 AM
There is some worthwhile content in that post but it is buried quite deep in historically irrelevant details about Carrier's personal affairs and amateur psychoanalysis of his state of mind. as you introduced the post


that womanizing cheat come-out-as-polyamorous Richard Carrier, a laughing stock even among atheistic historians such as Tim O'Neill and Bible scholars like Bart Ehrman, although RW probably adores him.

It seemed clear to me that you were more interested in the histrionic rather than historical points of O'Neill's post and by my reckoning O'Neill's expends 2,500 words in the name of histrionics before it gets started on the historical.

Capablanca-Fan
21-07-2016, 01:30 AM
It seemed clear to me that you were more interested in the histrionic rather than historical points of O'Neill's post
Not so clear at all, and in any case, you are the one who actually takes Carrier seriously.


and by my reckoning O'Neill's expends 2,500 words in the name of histrionics before it gets started on the historical.
Even if you're right, that still leaves about 6,500 words.

Rincewind
21-07-2016, 01:49 AM
Not so clear at all, and in any case, you are the one who actually takes Carrier seriously.

No it is pretty clear. If you were interested in something of note like the issue of Josephus' writing style then you would have said something in your citation to make that clear. When what you actually drew attention to were the personal attacks it is pretty obvious that is what you were citing the post for.


Even if you're right, that still leaves about 6,500 words.

No you're assuming the post doesn't descend back into histrionics. Sadly it does. But I admit there is some good points in there but if that is what you were trying to get to then you did a really bad job of citing it. We weren't discussing Josephus' writing style and no now claim that was the point of your first citation make no sense to me. Sounds more like a back-peddle.

While there is some good points in O'Neill's post I tend to not read blog posts for this sort of material. Books are a much better source IMHO. This is part of my reason for knowing more about Carrier and Ehrman than O'Neill is that the first have produced non-technical books. To my knowledge O'Neill hasn't yet but happy to be corrected on this.

Regarding Carrier's position being non-mainstream, that is not news. As far as I know Carrier doesn't claim otherwise.

Capablanca-Fan
21-07-2016, 04:15 AM
No it is pretty clear. If you were interested in something of note like the issue of Josephus' writing style then you would have said something in your citation to make that clear. When what you actually drew attention to were the personal attacks it is pretty obvious that is what you were citing the post for.
Stop whinging. It's not my fault that you didn't want to read the article, and the actual first point of citing it was to show how absurd the whole The God who Wasnt There DVD was by relying on dilettantes like Carrier and the 19th-century ramblings of Kersey Graves that are an embarrassment to any serious historians, including atheistic ones.


No you're assuming the post doesn't descend back into histrionics. Sadly it does.
My word count didn't include that part, starting with:


This is, remember, a guy who wasted the critical years after his graduation indulging in his hobbies (supported by his long-suffering wife) and so failed to secure any significant academic appointment. A guy whose H-index rating is in the toilet. And a guy who wrote that ringing endorsement of his own paper above four years ago and has since seen it cited by ... ummm, well, no-one. As Carrier would say, "Ooops!"

TimONeill
21-07-2016, 05:25 AM
Another Beetlejuice moment.

Whatever. You keep going on about how parts of my post on Carrier was "personal minutia", which you seem to be using to try to dodge the substance of my post. As I said, my post was a response to a post about me by Carrier which included some "personal minutia" about me. And a lot of the "personal minutia" in my post goes to the heart of why Carrier - a fringe figure with a clear ideological bias, no objectivity and and some crippling character flaws - has zero credibility. But most of it addresses one of his key arguments and shows why it simply doesn't work. But you keep dodging that part.

Then you try this:


While there is some good points in O'Neill's post I tend to not read blog posts for this sort of material. Books are a much better source IMHO.

Given that Carrier is a nobody, you aren't going to find detailed discussion of his claims in books. Most scholars in the field have never heard of the guy and the few who have consider him a crank. So I'm afraid if someone is going to cite any detailed refutation of him it's going to be in blogs. That aside, your excuse above is another dodge. Now that you've been alerted to a detailed critique of one of Carrier's key arguments, why wont' you actually engage with it, regardless of what you "tend" to generally do?

You also dodged my question about your vague claim that Ehrman "assumes too much on the historicity side".

Why all the dodging?

Capablanca-Fan
21-07-2016, 08:44 AM
While there is some good points in O'Neill's post I tend to not read blog posts for this sort of material. Books are a much better source IMHO. This is part of my reason for knowing more about Carrier and Ehrman than O'Neill is that the first have produced non-technical books.
But then in another thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?15613-Geocentrism-heliocentrism-(sf-Israel-Palestine))I cited a book by James Hannam, who earned a Ph.D. in history of science from Cambridge, and linked to Tim O'Neill's favorable review (http://www.strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/), and you dismissed Hannam as a "blatant catholic apologist", whereas your idol Carrier far better fits the charge of "blatant atheist apologist". And that time, you dismissed Hannam's as a "popular history book", and now you whinge when someone has NOT written a non-technical book.

TimONeill
21-07-2016, 09:27 AM
But then in another thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?15613-Geocentrism-heliocentrism-(sf-Israel-Palestine))I cited a book by James Hannam, who earned a Ph.D. in history of science from Cambridge, and linked to Tim O'Neill's favorable review (http://www.strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/), and you dismissed Hannam as a "blatant catholic apologist", whereas your idol Carrier far better fits the charge of "blatant atheist apologist". And that time, you dismissed Hannam's as a "popular history book", and now you whinge when someone has NOT written a non-technical book.

It seems like this guy works hard to avoid any analysis that doesn't fit his pre-assumed ideas. Not only does Hannam have a PhD in the history of science from Cambridge but his book was favourably reviewed by historians of science, including some leading figures in the field. Strange that they didn't notice it was the work of a "blatant Catholic apologist". Not only this, but it was shortlisted for British Society for the History of Science's Dingle Book Prize for 2011. This is not an organisation known for honouring works of Catholic apologism. And then there is the fact it was also shortlisted for the Royal Society's Science Book Prize for 2010. Again, the Royal Society is not exactly a hotbed of blatant Catholic apologism.

As for it being a "popular history book", that is entirely true - it was honoured by the Royal Society as such. And what "popular history books" do is take the more obscure and difficult technical work of scholars and communicates the consensus reached by those experts for a wider audience. Which is precisely what Hannam's book does. He also provides good notes and an extensive bibliography in case anyone who suspects that he is somehow telling lies about the scholarly consensus or peddling some whacko private thesis or fringe theory can check and see what the experts say.

So what is the real reason this "Rincewind" doesn't want to know what the scholarly consensus on medieval science is? I suspect it's the same reason he likes biased fringe eccentrics like Carrier over the consensus on a historical Jesus.

Rincewind
21-07-2016, 09:53 AM
But then in another thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?15613-Geocentrism-heliocentrism-(sf-Israel-Palestine))I cited a book by James Hannam, who earned a Ph.D. in history of science from Cambridge, and linked to Tim O'Neill's favorable review (http://www.strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/), and you dismissed Hannam as a "blatant catholic apologist", whereas your idol Carrier far better fits the charge of "blatant atheist apologist". And that time, you dismissed Hannam's as a "popular history book", and now you whinge when someone has NOT written a non-technical book.

Now you are just being ridiculous. I didn't "whinge" that O'Neill had not written a non-technical book but rather that was an explanation as to why I was not familiar with his position regarding historicity. I prefer to not trawl the internet for a bloggers pushing their particular barrow. When he has something in published form I may read it but for now there is no reason to do so.

TimONeill
21-07-2016, 09:59 AM
that was an explanation as to why I was not familiar with his position regarding historicity.

Well, you are now.


I prefer to not trawl the internet for a bloggers pushing their particular barrow.

My "barrow" is the consensus position of scholarship on the subject. You "prefer" to insulate yourself from mainstream scholarship and read fringe works by unemployed bloggers like Carrier? A strange way of researching things.


When he has something in published form I may read it but for now the is no reason to o so.

So you now know there is a detailed critique of the fringe position you've decided to champion but you want to close your eyes and ignore it? This is a "rational" way of approaching a topic?

Kaitlin
21-07-2016, 08:17 PM
Didn't the Romans mention Jesus in their writings.

TimONeill
21-07-2016, 08:35 PM
Didn't the Romans mention Jesus in their writings.

There are a few mentions of Jesus or a "Christ" in ancient works of the late first and early second centuries, but of these only Tacitus and Josephus actually mention Jesus as a historical person - the others are all simply references to early Christianity, some of which mention the "Christ" that was the focus of its worship.

Josephus was a Jewish priestly aristocrat - Joseph ben Matityahu - who took the Roman name Flavius Josephus, and is our main source of information about Jewish affairs in this period and is usually the only writer of the time who makes any mention of Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants. In other words: people like Jesus. Not surprisingly, he mentions Jesus twice: firstly in some detail in Antiquities of the Jews XVIII.3.4 and again more briefly when mentioning the execution of Jesus' brother James in Antiquities XX.9.1. The first reference is problematic, however, as it contains elements which Josephus cannot have written and which seem to have been added later by a Christian interpolator.

Here is the text, with the likely interpolations in bold:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of paradoxical deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ And when Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

There has been a long debate about what parts of this reference to Jesus are authentic to Josephus or even if the whole passage is a wholesale interpolation. Proponents of the Jesus Myth hypothesis, naturally, opt for the idea that it is not authentic in any way, but there are strong indications that, apart from the obvious additions shown in bold above, Josephus did mention Jesus at this point in his text. There are stylistic elements which are exactly like language used by Josephus elsewhere but which are not found in early Christian writitngs. And there are variant versions of this passage which have differing versions of the sections in bold, indicating an earlier form of the passage before Christian elements were added. This is why, contrary to the Jesus Mythicist position, the scholarly consensus is that this passage is partially authentic and that Josephus did originally give a brief account of Jesus at this point in his text.

The other mention of Jesus in Josephus, Antiquities XX.9.1, is much more straightforward, but much more of a problem for Jesus Mythicists. In it Josephus recounts a major political event that happened when he was a young man. This would have been a significant and memorable event for him, since he was only 25 at the time and it caused upheaval in his own social and political class, the priestly families of Jerusalem that included his own.

In 62 AD the Roman procurator of Judea, Porcius Festus, died while in office and his replacement, Lucceius Albinus, was still on his way to Judea from Rome. This left the High Priest, Hanan ben Hanan (usually called Ananus), with a freer reign than usual. Ananus executed some Jews without Roman permission and, when this was brought to the attention of the Romans, Ananus was deposed. This deposition would have been memorable for the young Josephus, who had just returned from an embassy to Rome on the behalf of the Jerusalem priests. But what makes this passage relevant is what Josephus mentions, in passing, as the cause of the political upheaval:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so (the High Priest) assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.

This mention is peripheral to the story Josephus is telling, but since we know from Christian sources that Jesus' brother James led the Jesus sect in Jerusalem in this period and we have a separate, non-dependent, Christian account of James' execution by the Jerusalem priesthood, it is fairly clear which "Jesus who was called Messiah" Josephus is referring to here.

Almost without exception, modern scholars consider this passage genuine and an undisputed reference to Jesus as a historical figure by someone who was a contemporary of his brother and who knew of the execution of that brother first hand.

Then there is the mention of Jesus in the Annals of the aristocratic Roman historian and senator Publius Cornelius Tacitus is significant partly because of his status as one of the most careful and sceptical historians of the ancient world and partly because it is from what is obviously a hostile witness. Tacitus absolutely despised Christianity, as he make clear when he mentions how the emperor Nero tried to scapegoat them after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD. He also gives an account to his readers as the origin of the Christian sect and their founder in Judea:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judća, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
(Tacitus, Annals, XV.44)

Again, this clear reference to Jesus, complete with the details of his execution by Pilate, is a major problem for the Mythicists. They have arguments against the scholarly consensus on all three of these references, but their counter arguments are all critically flawed. I can go over them and why they don't work if anyone is interested. These three references mean that we actually have slightly more sources that mention Jesus than we have for any analogous early first century Jewish preacher, prophet or Messianic claimant. It takes a special sort of bias to not accept he most likely existed on this evidence alone, before we even look at indications in the gospels and the writings of Paul that only make sense if he was a recent historical person.

Kaitlin
21-07-2016, 08:52 PM
....so a real person then.

TimONeill
21-07-2016, 08:54 PM
....so a real person then.

That's the most logical and least contrived conclusion, yes. The claims made about him later, on the other hand, are another thing entirely. But we have claims like that made about various other historical people from the time.

Rincewind
21-07-2016, 09:55 PM
....so a real person then.

Possibly, possibly not. There is a lot of bad mythic theories and some reasonable ones. Many of the counterarguments overstate the reliability of the evidence they have. For example Josephus contains known interpolations but no one really knows how much and there is some mainstream debate about the the more contentious ones as they relate to historicity of Jesus.

The best evidence is probably the authentic letters of Paul from the NT. Although Paul didn't know Jesus first hand he may have met people who did (assuming Jesus was historical). Josephus is written a generation later and the gospels later still. However, the problem with Paul is the paucity of historical detail. I've not heard a good explanation for this which is entirely consistent with the historical theory, hence there may be reason to doubt.

As I have have mentioned many times before (despite recent charges to the contrary) I have always stated that the mainstream position is that there was some historical person upon whom the gospel stories are based. However I think there is some wiggle room due to the bias in the preservation of evidence, corruption of the original sources and absence of first hand accounts.

My own feeling is both side of the debate are guilty of gilding the lily on this. If I remember correctly Carrier gives a probability of roughly 66% for not historical (Edit: that estimate is arguing 'a fortiori'; not Carrier's 'best' estimate). Most mainstream scholars are speaking as if the certainty is must stronger than that (like 99% historic although most don't quantify it in those terms).

Rincewind
21-07-2016, 10:13 PM
Didn't the Romans mention Jesus in their writings.

Not to any reliable degree. There are no surviving records of people crucified in Judea or anything like that but there are a couple of mentions of the existence of Christians in the empire that are quite early. However these just attest to the existence of Christians not Christ.

Capablanca-Fan
22-07-2016, 12:01 AM
Not to any reliable degree.
Tacitus was reliable as shown above (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?15834-Was-Jesus-Christ-a-historical-person&p=413069&viewfull=1#post413069).


There are no surviving records of people crucified in Judea
AFAIK there is no archaeological evidence of anyone being crucified apart from one ankle bone that belonged to "Yochanan", a crucifixion victim. Yet written records affirm the gruesome practice. A lot of the Christ-mythers overestimate the amount of evidence we should find.

Capablanca-Fan
22-07-2016, 12:51 AM
Not only does Hannam have a PhD in the history of science from Cambridge but his book was favourably reviewed by historians of science, including some leading figures in the field. Strange that they didn't notice it was the work of a "blatant Catholic apologist". Not only this, but it was shortlisted for British Society for the History of Science's Dingle Book Prize for 2011. This is not an organisation known for honouring works of Catholic apologism. And then there is the fact it was also shortlisted for the Royal Society's Science Book Prize for 2010. Again, the Royal Society is not exactly a hotbed of blatant Catholic apologism.

As for it being a "popular history book", that is entirely true - it was honoured by the Royal Society as such. And what "popular history books" do is take the more obscure and difficult technical work of scholars and communicates the consensus reached by those experts for a wider audience. Which is precisely what Hannam's book does. He also provides good notes and an extensive bibliography in case anyone who suspects that he is somehow telling lies about the scholarly consensus or peddling some whacko private thesis or fringe theory can check and see what the experts say..

Thanks for the information. It seems that Hannam's book has probably done more than any other work to educate non-historians about the ingenuity of medieval science, and destroy the myth of the "Dark Ages" (your article How the Middle Ages Really Were (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/how-the-middle-ages-reall_b_5767240.html) is a helpful summary that should educate thousands).

Probably God's Philosophers (The Genesis of Science—USA title) will have the same effect of dispelling medieval myths/bogus history that Jeffrey Burton Russell's book Inventing the Flat Earth (https://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Flat-Earth-Columbus-Historians/dp/027595904X) did to drive the nail into the coffin of the flat earth myth. The late soi-disant flat-earth-myth expert Robert Schadewald scoffed at the book when it came out, but after Stephen Jay Gould reviewed it very favorably, the flat earth myth died for anyone desiring any credibility.

TimONeill
22-07-2016, 06:03 AM
Possibly, possibly not.

About 90% of ancient history is "possibly, possibly not". The key is to work out which is more likely. The evidence points to the existence of Jesus being entirely likely on the balance of the evidence, which is why this is the position of the overwhelming consensus of scholars.


There is a lot of bad mythic theories and some reasonable ones.

The problem remains that even the ones that aren't totally whacko rely on suppositions piled on suppositions and creaking contrivances to keep them from collapsing. This is why they tend to convince two groups of people: (i) people who are generally clueless about how history is studied and (ii) people who are emotionally invested in the idea that Jesus didn't exist. And there is huge overlap between those two categories. People with the requisite training and without some warping animus against Christianity find them bafflingly silly.


Many of the counterarguments overstate the reliability of the evidence they have. For example Josephus contains known interpolations but no one really knows how much and there is some mainstream debate about the the more contentious ones as they relate to historicity of Jesus.

Of course no-one "knows" how much, but - again - the weight of evidence points to the reference in Antiquities XVIII as having an authentic core on the textual evidence alone, leaving aside the stylistic evidence. And the reference in Bk. XX is virtually universally regarded as entirely authentic. Carrier's flawed attempt to show otherwise has convinced no-one in the field.


The best evidence is probably the authentic letters of Paul from the NT. Although Paul didn't know Jesus first hand he may have met people who did (assuming Jesus was historical).

"May have"? He TELLS us he met Peter and Jesus' brother James in Galatians 1.



Josephus is written a generation later and the gospels later still.

Big deal. All our references to any of the other early first century Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants were also written a generation later, so this is precisely what we'd expect. And Josephus was a younger contemporary of Jesus' brother James and was in the city of Jerusalem when he was executed. To pretend his references to Jesus was some distant echo from the other side of the Empire decades later is ridiculous. And the gap between the death of Hannibal and our first attestation of him in Polybius is about the same as the gap between the execution of Jesus and the first gospel. Which is pretty close compared to the 600 year gap between the death of Alexander and our main detailed account of his campaigns in Arrian. Welcome to ancient history. This is what ancient sources are like, yet Jesus Mythers and their sympathisers pretend these gaps are somehow unusual or dubious in the case of Jesus.



However, the problem with Paul is the paucity of historical detail. I've not heard a good explanation for this which is entirely consistent with the historical theory, hence there may be reason to doubt.

There is much more historical detail in Paul's seven letters than we find in later epistles in the same genre in 1Clement and 2Clement. Yet the writers of those two much later works definitely believed in a historical Jesus. So why the almost complete lack of historical detail? Genre. Those works were explaining theology, not telling the story of Jesus' life. Paul does the same, though he does mention far more details of Jesus' life. He says Jesus was born as a human, of a human mother and born a Jew (Galatians 4:4). He repeats that he had a "human nature" and that he was a human descendant of King David (Romans 1:3). He refers to teachings Jesus made during his earthly ministry on divorce (1Cor. 7:10), on preachers (1Cor. 9:14) and on the coming apocalypse (1Thess. 4:15). He mentions how he was executed by earthly rulers (1Cor. 2:8) and that he died and was buried (1Cor. 15:3-4). And he says he had an earthly, physical brother called James who Paul himself had met (Galatians 1:19). "Lack of historical details"?



My own feeling is both side of the debate are guilty of gilding the lily on this.

I can't see how saying that the weight of evidence is that Jesus most likely existed is anything other than a reasonable position. "Gilding the lily" is crap like the fundamentalist Christian claim that "there is more evidence for Jesus than for Julius Caesar", which is total nonsense.


If I remember correctly Carrier gives a probability of roughly 66% for not historical.

*snort* Yes, using his ridiculous misapplication of Bayes Theorem - a method used by no other historian on earth. And his misuse of it has been totally flayed by every actual Bayes-literate mathematician who has bothered to look at it.


Most mainstream scholars are speaking as if the certainty is must stronger than that (like 99% historic although most don't quantify it in those terms).

No mainstream scholar would be so stupid as to try to put a figure on it - they leave that sort of undergraduate fumbling to clowns like Carrier. All anyone else says is that the existence of a historical Jesus is, on the weight of the evidence, the most likely explanation of the material we have. Occam's Razor slices and dices the alternatives.

Rincewind
22-07-2016, 09:30 AM
Tacitus was reliable as shown above (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?15834-Was-Jesus-Christ-a-historical-person&p=413069&viewfull=1#post413069).

That post does nothing to establish its reliability and as I said it is (at best) reporting the existence of Christians and their beliefs.


AFAIK there is no archaeological evidence of anyone being crucified apart from one ankle bone that belonged to "Yochanan", a crucifixion victim. Yet written records affirm the gruesome practice. A lot of the Christ-mythers overestimate the amount of evidence we should find.

I agree and I was not suggesting that such evidence should exist but disabusing that expectation.

Rincewind
22-07-2016, 09:39 AM
Thanks for the information. It seems that Hannam's book has probably done more than any other work to educate non-historians about the ingenuity of medieval science, and destroy the myth of the "Dark Ages" (your article How the Middle Ages Really Were (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/how-the-middle-ages-reall_b_5767240.html) is a helpful summary that should educate thousands).

Jono you are conflating the dark ages and the middle ages yet again. Although I haven't read Hannam's book what what I have read about it most of the action from Hannam's POV occurs in the later part of the medieval period not the dark ages.

Capablanca-Fan
22-07-2016, 01:25 PM
Jono you are conflating the dark ages and the middle ages yet again. Although I haven't read Hannam's book what what I have read about it most of the action from Hannam's POV occurs in the later part of the medieval period not the dark ages.

RW I already explained that the "Dark Ages" has often been used as a term for the entire Middle Ages. Hannam documents that Petrarch, who coined the term, and the other leaders of the Renaissance were quite reactionary. They glorified ancient Greece and Rome, so had to claim that anything that came after them until the Renaissance was a regression, hence "Dark".

However, even the earlier period was not so dark, e.g. the huge advance in writing called the Carolingian minuscules, the ornate illuminated manuscripts like the Lindisfarne Gospels, the fine Saxon jewellery of the Sutton Hoo hoard. But the real great advance came in the "12th-century renaissance".

Tim O'Neill documents the wider use of "Dark Ages" in his review of Hannam's book (http://www.strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/), commenting on an atheopathic graphic he calls "The Most Wrong Thing On the Internet Ever", showing the "Christian Dark Ages" up to about AD 1300. The reality that even at the beginning of what even RW calls the Dark Ages, logical thinking was valued:


Speaking of rationalism, the critical factor that the myths obscure is precisely how rational intellectual inquiry in the Middle Ages was. While writers like Charles Freeman continue to lumber along, claiming that Christianity killed the use of reason, the fact is that thanks to Clement of Alexandria and Augustine's encouragement of the use of pagan philosophy, and Boethius' translations of works of logic by Aristotle and others, rational inquiry was one intellectual jewel that survived the catastrophic collapse of the Western Roman Empire and was preserved through the so-called Dark Ages. Edward Grant's superb God and Reason in the Middle Ages details this with characteristic vigor, but Hannam gives a good summary of this key element in his first four chapters.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
22-07-2016, 02:22 PM
Another Beetlejuice moment.

Oh dear, not this again.

Rincewind
22-07-2016, 02:25 PM
RW I already explained that the "Dark Ages" has often been used as a term for the entire Middle Ages.

Imprecisely at least for the last 100 years.


Hannam documents that Petrarch, who coined the term, and the other leaders of the Renaissance were quite reactionary. They glorified ancient Greece and Rome, so had to claim that anything that came after them until the Renaissance was a regression, hence "Dark".

Are you saying that words once given a meaning retain that meaning in perpetuity? If not then I fail to see that citing Petrarch is relevant. For the last century at least and precisely because of the recognition of the accomplishments of the middle ages that the term is largely restricted to the period ~500-1000. To continue to abuse normal usage appears to be manufacturing a controversy that is not there.


However, even the earlier period was not so dark, e.g. the huge advance in writing called the Carolingian minuscules, the ornate illuminated manuscripts like the Lindisfarne Gospels, the fine Saxon jewellery of the Sutton Hoo hoard. But the real great advance came in the "12th-century renaissance".

These were largely cultural and not scientific achievements.


Tim O'Neill documents the wider use of "Dark Ages" in his review of Hannam's book (http://www.strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/), commenting on an atheopathic graphic he calls "The Most Wrong Thing On the Internet Ever", showing the "Christian Dark Ages" up to about AD 1300. The reality that even at the beginning of what even RW calls the Dark Ages, logical thinking was valued

I think you will find that I never said that no-one in the Dark Ages valued logical thinking. In fact I never said that there weren't any useful contributions made by anyone in the period. And in fact I don't blame the dearth of the advancements of knowledge in the period on the Church. The reason is primarily due to the collapse of the European economy and the power structures which took centuries to replace. In some ways the Church helped to re-establish the European economy which enabled trade and spending on things like universities. However other actions by the church in the second millennium were less optimal for the advancement of human knowledge (e.g. the Condemnations, the Index, persecution of the occasional 'scientist', etc).

Rincewind
22-07-2016, 03:06 PM
Oh dear, not this again.

Yeah I know. Let's hope we don't get on to discussing the Notorious B.I.G. ;)

TimONeill
22-07-2016, 06:01 PM
That post does nothing to establish its reliability and as I said it is (at best) reporting the existence of Christians and their beliefs.

Wrong. It is not just "reporting the existence of Christians and their beliefs", as anyone who bothers to read what Tacitus says can see:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judća, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
(Tacitus, Annals, XV.44)

So Tacitus explains the name of the Christians by referring to its historical founder. He gives us one of his names - "Christus" - which is the Latin form of the Greek χριστός, meaning "Anointed One", which in turn is the Greek form of the Hebrew ha-Mashiach or Messiah. He tells us this man was executed and gives us key details of who did this ("Pontius Pilatus"), where ("in Judća") and when ("during the reign of Tiberius"). That is historical information about a man who lived a few decades earlier and it is far more than simply "reporting the existence of Christians and their beliefs". Did you even bother to read the passage in question?

As for "establishing its reliability", I'm afraid ancient historians didn't use footnotes and rarely tell us about their sources. So what we have to do is test two things: (i) did the writer potentially have access to reliable sources of information on this and (ii) do we have any reason to believe we can't trust what this text tells us for some reason? Taking these in turn:

(i) As it happens, yes Tacitus did have access to reliable information about events in Judea in the relevant period. In the wake of the Jewish War of 66-70 AD Rome was host to a number of aristocratic Jewish refugees, several of whom were associated directly with the Flavian court and so moved in Tacitus' direct social circle. The Emperor Titus himself had lived with his Jewish mistress, the Princess Berenice, daughter of Herod Agrippa from 75 AD and the historian Josephus also moved in the same circles as Tacitus, as did many other Judean exiles. So Tacitus had plenty of opportunity to learn of key events in the years before the uprising and if he wanted to know about the origin of this Christian sect there were plenty of people around him who could tell him. Berenice's father was ruler of Galilee when this Galilean troublemaker was crucified and a synoptic analysis of what Josephus says in Ant. Book XVIII and what Tacitus writes shows the two overlap in key details.

(ii) There is nothing in the text to indicate that Tacitus is unreliable here. Jesus Mythers, of course, try to find reasons to do so. The first main way they do so is to claim that all Tacitus is doing is repeating Christians' own claims about their founder and so this is not independent attestation of Jesus as a historical person. But nothing in the passage indicates anything to support this supposition. And even as a supposition, it fails on several fronts. To begin with, Tacotus scorned the use of mere hearsay in his work. For example:

"My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay, and to request that all those into whose hands my work shall come not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history"
(Tacitus, Annals, IV.11)

Secondly, the scorn that Tacitus shows for the Christians makes it clear that he would not have found them a respectable source of information even if an aristocrat like himself had somehow found some reason to associate with low class foreigners and slaves like them, which is unlikely. He calls Christianity "a most mischievous superstition .... evil .... hideous and shameful .... (with a) hatred against mankind" - not exactly the words of a man who regarded its followers as reliable sources about their sect's founder. Furthermore, what he says about Jesus does not show any sign of having its origin in what a Christian would say: it has no hint or mention of Jesus' teaching, his miracles and nothing about the claim he rose from the dead. On the other hand, it does contain elements that would have been of note to a Roman or other non-Christian: the bare when, where and by whom of his execution and that's about all.

And the other way the Mythers try to dismiss this passage is by their old standby - interpolation. This is even weaker. This passage is distinctively Tacitean in its language and style and it is hard to see how a later Christian scribe could have managed to affect perfect second century Latin grammar and an authentic Tacitean style and fool about 400 years worth of Tacitus scholars, who all regard this passage and clearly genuine. There is nothing in the language and style of this passage to indicate anything but total authenticity. And we know from actual Christian interpolations that these later Christian scribes could not resist the urge to insert elements that bolster their theological arguments or support their apologetic agendas - like the interpolations into Josephus Ant. Book XVIII, which have a Jew making the claim that Jesus was the Messiah and rose from the dead. We see nothing like that here and the idea that a fourth or fifth century interpolator would be subtle enough to imitate the scorn of a second century senator for a superstitio or resist the urge to make Tacitus praise Jesus or mention his miracles or resurrection is fanciful in the extreme.

So we know Tacitus had access to sources of information about early first century Judea, we know he didn't accept the word of people he didn't trust as sources and there is nothing in this passage to suggest it is anything other than Tacitean. It takes a certain wilful boneheadedness not to accept that this is clear attestation of a historical Jesus by one of the and most reliable historians of the time.

Kaitlin
22-07-2016, 06:31 PM
Jesus was just a normal person who thought to change some injustices, but after he died to cover up the fact that they had taken he's body he's followers made up a story and it went viral. After that the truth was irrelevant.

TimONeill
22-07-2016, 06:35 PM
Jesus was just a thought to change some injustices, but after he died to cover up the fact that they had taken he's body he's followers made up a story and it went viral. After that the truth was irrelevant.

That's pretty unlikely. Firstly, why would they steal his body? Secondly, it assumes that the later stories about the discovery of an empty tomb are historical, whereas it's likely they are much later additions.

Rincewind
22-07-2016, 09:27 PM
Jesus was just a normal person who thought to change some injustices, but after he died to cover up the fact that they had taken he's body he's followers made up a story and it went viral. After that the truth was irrelevant.

I agree with you to the extent that a lot of the stories in the gospels are mythic and they certainly went viral. :)

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2016, 03:15 AM
Are you saying that words once given a meaning retain that meaning in perpetuity?
Rather, I am pointing out that the whole term ‘Dark Ages’ is largely frowned upon by modern historians.


If not then I fail to see that citing Petrarch is relevant. For the last century at least and precisely because of the recognition of the accomplishments of the middle ages that the term is largely restricted to the period ~500-1000. To continue to abuse normal usage appears to be manufacturing a controversy that is not there.
Then blame your fellow atheopaths for using a graph that calls the whole period the ‘Dark Ages’.


These were largely cultural and not scientific achievements.
True, but there were some things relevant to science. Modern atheopaths like Bill Nye the Soundbite Guy and Neil deGrasse Tyson portray medieval people as thinking the earth was big and the universe quite small. But Boëthius (AD c. 480–524), right at the beginning of the ‘Dark Ages’, wrote in his very widely read Consolation of Philosophy:


As you have heard from the demonstrations of the astronomers, in comparison to the vastness of the heavens, it is agreed that the whole extent of the earth has the value of a mere point; that is to say, were the earth to be compared to the vastness of the heavenly sphere, it would be judged to have no volume at all.

His contemporary John Philiponus (c. 490 – c. 570) also proposed the idea of "impetus", refined by Buridan in the High Middle Ages, which was a predecessor to Galileo's refinement of inertia. Galileo is also given credit for showing that heavy objects do NOT fall faster than light ones (apart from air resistance), but Philiponus beat him by a millennium, and you see his advocacy of observation rather than relying on Aristotle:


But this [view of Aristotle] is completely erroneous, and our view may be completely corroborated by actual observation more effectively than by any sort of verbal argument. For if you let fall from the same height two weights, one many times heavier than the other you will see that the ratio of the times required for the motion does not depend [solely] on the weights, but that the difference in time is very small.


I think you will find that I never said that no-one in the Dark Ages valued logical thinking. In fact I never said that there weren't any useful contributions made by anyone in the period. And in fact I don't blame the dearth of the advancements of knowledge in the period on the Church. The reason is primarily due to the collapse of the European economy and the power structures which took centuries to replace. In some ways the Church helped to re-establish the European economy which enabled trade and spending on things like universities.
Agreed. The Church encouraged the formation of universities, an invention of the High Middle Ages.


However other actions by the church in the second millennium were less optimal for the advancement of human knowledge (e.g. the Condemnations, the Index, persecution of the occasional 'scientist', etc).
A lot of the above was Renaissance not Medieval.

Rincewind
23-07-2016, 09:07 AM
Rather, I am pointing out that the whole term ‘Dark Ages’ is largely frowned upon by modern historians.

Sure that's true in technical writing but I'm not sure how mainstream is the frowning on the term altogether. Regardless of that the term Dark Ages is not widely equated to the the whole Medieval period. Some people might still use it that way but that usage is definitely deprecated and has been for a long time,


Then blame your fellow atheopaths for using a graph that calls the whole period the ‘Dark Ages’.

I've only seen the graph brought up by people already denigrating it so what would be the point? If it was all that prevalent then perhaps you have a point. But this is part of the reason I don't spend much time reading blogs. There is a lack of quality control.


True, but there were some things relevant to science. Modern atheopaths like Bill Nye the Soundbite Guy and Neil deGrasse Tyson portray medieval people as thinking the earth was big and the universe quite small. But Boëthius (AD c. 480–524), right at the beginning of the ‘Dark Ages’, wrote in his very widely read Consolation of Philosophy:


As you have heard from the demonstrations of the astronomers, in comparison to the vastness of the heavens, it is agreed that the whole extent of the earth has the value of a mere point; that is to say, were the earth to be compared to the vastness of the heavenly sphere, it would be judged to have no volume at all.

His contemporary John Philiponus (c. 490 – c. 570) also proposed the idea of "impetus", refined by Buridan in the High Middle Ages, which was a predecessor to Galileo's refinement of inertia. Galileo is also given credit for showing that heavy objects do NOT fall faster than light ones (apart from air resistance), but Philiponus beat him by a millennium, and you see his advocacy of observation rather than relying on Aristotle:


But this [view of Aristotle] is completely erroneous, and our view may be completely corroborated by actual observation more effectively than by any sort of verbal argument. For if you let fall from the same height two weights, one many times heavier than the other you will see that the ratio of the times required for the motion does not depend [solely] on the weights, but that the difference in time is very small.

Remember I never said there weren't any individuals. Just that their weren't many. A couple of contributions at the boundary does not challenge that view.


Agreed. The Church encouraged the formation of universities, an invention of the High Middle Ages.

Some of the universities certainly particularly Paris and Oxford, perhaps surprisingly the church was less involved in the Italian universities.


A lot of the above was Renaissance not Medieval.

Sure but I said "in the second millennium" for a reason. The Condemnations were Medieval but the Index officially arose in in the 16th century (and although there was some precursors, they were less effective at suppressing inquiry).

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2016, 11:51 AM
Surely you of all people would appreciate the medieval scientist, logician, theologian, and priest Thomas Bradwardine, ‘Doctor Profundus’ (c. 1290 – 26 August 1349). You might say that he's the patron saint of your field:


[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth ... whoever then has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start that he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom.

Rincewind
23-07-2016, 12:37 PM
Surely you of all people would appreciate the medieval scientist, logician, theologian, and priest Thomas Bradwardine, ‘Doctor Profundus’ (c. 1290 – 26 August 1349). You might say that he's the patron saint of your field:


[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth ... whoever then has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start that he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom.

He was a promoter of mathematics by the sounds of that quote although probably Roger Bacon was more influential. The usual name touted as the patron saint of Mathematicians is St Hubertus (7-8th century monk). If I was of that bent I would prefer the more modern (and beatified although not yet canonised) Blessed Francesco Faŕ di Bruno, who is more recognisably a mathematican in the modern sense. I've even had need to call on his formula for the repeated derivative of a composite function (although he was not the first to write that formula down).