RE: Question for Christians/Muslims etc.
January 9, 2010 at 8:20 pm
(This post was last modified: January 9, 2010 at 11:10 pm by Minimalist.)
(January 9, 2010 at 11:41 am)tackattack Wrote: Anyways, The canonization of the books of the bible weren't to choose which gospels were true or untrue, it was to choose which one's were divinely relevant to the religion.
Oh come on. You can't be that naive. These books were chosen by the bishops in the 4th century to establish their position within the church. This was about power and control and had jackshit to do with "religion."
Quote:Josephus, Tacitus, the Talmud, Pliny the younger, Suetonius, Mara Bar-Serapion, Julius Africanus, Lucian of Samosata, The Toledot Yeshu , Quran, etc. all aside from the bible accept the life of Jesus. They may have different subjective opinions of who he was and what he did, but all accept that Jesus was a man. Yes, they were not eye-witness accounts. Yes, it makes more sense that his body was stolen.
Here we go again....same shit - different asshole.
Josephus: The crown jewel of xtian forgery. Not a single early xtian writer makes reference to Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum prior to the work of Eusebius in the 4th century. Not one. Origen, makes specific and correct reference to Book XVIII of Antiquities of the Jews by correctly citing the John the Baptist reference but he somehow missed the reference to jc. Either Origen (writing c 250 AD) was the stupidest bastard who ever lived or the forgery had not yet happened. I’ve read Origen. He wasn’t stupid - just desperate to defend the rather silly doctrine of early xtianity against the far more sophisticated attack of the Greco-Roman philosopher, Celsus. The TF is a virtual bullet point presentation of 4th century xtian doctrine. Josephus himself was a pharisee who sold out to the Romans and basically felt that every criminal executed by the Romans had it coming.
The shorter Josephan reference in Book XX of Antiquities is probably not a deliberate forgery but rather a simple case of xtian wishful-thinking. To Josephus the Greek word ‘christos’ meant “the anointed” or “the anointed one.” In his culture it referred to the king of Judah or to the high priest, both of which were invested in their office by means of a ceremonial anointing with sacred oils. In the paragraph in question it is the activities of the high priest which are under scrutiny. With the exception of the two Roman procurators cited, virtually everyone named in the story was a “christos” at one time or another. Would a Jew like Josephus refer to some executed criminal who had oil splashed on his feet by a woman ( let’s remember that women were basically shit in that culture!) as “christos” given his understanding of the word? Be serious.
(P. Cornelius) Tacitus: A second century Roman writer but here again we run up against the stench of forgery. Recent scholarship using ultraviolet light has shown that the earliest surviving manuscript of Tacitus’ Annals was tampered with in the Middle Ages. The word “Chrestianos” (follower of “Chrestus”) was written over as Christianos “follower of Christus.” A minor change but it brings Tacitus into agreement with Suetonius...see next entry. Further, the entire story of Nero persecuting xtians for the Great Fire is equally unknown to early xtian writers. No one, not even that great church liar Eusebius, seems to know anything about that. The text which was later attributed to Tacitus shows up in the 5th century writings of Sulpicius Severus, who does not quote Tacitus as the source.
G. Suetonius (Tranquillus): Another second century writer. In Life of Claudius writes about one “Chrestus” causing trouble in Rome and getting Jews thrown out by Claudius. As Claudius was emperor after Caligula who was emperor after Tiberius who supposedly was emperor when your godboy was nailed on the boards it would be rather impossible for Chrestus = Christus. Your own fairy tales claim that jc was long dead by the reign of Claudius. Still, it hardly ever slows the average xtian kook down from making this spurious claim. A better reference is in Suetonius Life of Nero where he makes casual mention of xtians being punished....along with cheating innkeepers and drunken charioteers!...but nothing to do with any of the more lurid details that xtians love to invent. Most likely, given the silly placement in the text, this is another example of xtian interpolation. It is also possible that Suetonius picked up this little tidbit while serving on the staff of Pliny the Younger in Asia Minor (see below.)
G. Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Younger) C. 110 AD Pliny was appointed Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Unlike his friend, Tacitus, or his subordinate, Suetonius (a junior officer on Pliny’s staff) Pliny was not writing a history. Instead he was making a report of criminal activity to the Emperor Trajan. In it he notes that he has run across a group which calls itself xtians and who were holding illegal secret meetings. The issue for the Romans was sedition, not religion. The Romans were very tolerant of other religions. Anyway, Pliny reports that under questioning he found nothing but pernicious superstition and offered them the opportunity to recant. He mentions that most “cursed Christ” and willingly sacrified to our gods (which by this time would have included Trajan himself.) Xtians who love to trot out Pliny never want to hear that part because it undercuts the Hollywood version of gallant martyrs suffering all sorts of torment for their faith. Tough shit. Anyway, neither Trajan nor Pliny, both Roman aristocrats, seem to have any knowledge of xtians burning down the capitol a few decades earlier. One would think that they might bear a grudge but Trajan’s reply to Pliny is even milder in tone than Pliny’s original letter. In any case, Pliny never mentions anyone named “jesus.” Although curiously he does report that xtians worship christ “as if” (latin= quasi) “he were a god.” Odd way to turn a phrase.
Mara ben Serapion: This piece of shit again! He never mentions jesus or christ. He speaks of the Jews killing a “wise king” but jesus was never king of anything. However, it is true that in 36 BC Herod the Great and/or Marc Antony did execute the last Hasmonean king, Antigonos thus setting up Herod’s family to rule. The Jewish upper classes were never satisfied with Herod. Still, only a xtian fanatic would automatically assume that this “letter” is in reference to their god boy.
Julius Africanus: A supposed writer but one whose works have not survived. We only know of him because of Eusebius but even this makes little sense. Xtian scribes copied everything that remotely backed their beliefs. This one they didn’t bother with? Unfortunately that leaves us with only the word of Eusebius who was not above forging Josephus’ TF. Legally, Africanus amounts to hearsay. We cannot examine his works directly.
Lucian of Samosata was a Greco-Roman satirst writing in the mid 2d century. He makes fun of xtians who presumably by then had become numerous enough in the east to make a nuisance of themselves. However, Pliny has already told of xtians in Asia Minor 50 years earlier. Lucian’s later humorous pokes at xtians add nothing to the discussion.
The Toledot Yeshu (and all the other Talmudic references) were not written until between 200 and 500 AD and are thus even later than Lucian. Try to understand that the existence of xtians in the second century does not prove that your godboy was walking around in the first.
The Quran: You’ve got to be kidding. This is medieval Arab writing in which they scooped up all the old shit, gave it a spit shine and called it new. Please.
(January 8, 2010 at 11:48 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
People have seen Elvis, too.
Are you denying that Elvis did exist and that he was a singer with some talent? Some atheists treat Jesus that way.
[/quote]
I had records by Elvis. And photos. But he is dead and people who claim to see him are hallucinating. Paul had a "vision" of jc. Nowadays we take people like that, shoot them full of thorazine and lock them in padded cells for their own good.
