ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 8th March 2018, 04:41 PM   #881
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,338
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
If we eliminate the supernatural parts of the story, and the obviously absurd where it has him doing things like traveling from Tampa to Orlando by way of Seattle, what is left?

His preaching tour is a list of miracles with some Q&A attached to the miracles; take away the miracles, and there's nothing left for those brief little Q&A snippets to be based on or refer to, so we can't keep the Q&A if we're not keeping the miracles.

The only preaching that leaves is the Sermon On The Mount, which entirely depends on his miracle tour to have built up the audience ahead of time because nobody would have cared about a guy shouting on a hill if he hadn't done something else to establish a reputation first, of there wasn't a miracle tour, then there also can't be a SOOM. And it only gets tacked on to his miracle story sometime after the earliest Gospel and is apparently unknown or irrelevant to the authors of the other two later Gospels, which only makes sense for a later embellishment to a story that began with something else, not as the core upon which the rest was based.
Lena Einhorn, PhD suggests the "Egyptian Prophet" (between 52 and 58 CE based on the descriptions in Jewish War 2.259-263 and Jewish Antiquities 20.169-171) was the basis for the Gospel Jesus (Lena Einhorn, PhD (Nov.17-20, 2012) Jesus and the "Egyptian Prophet" Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting)

The "Egyptian Prophet" "came out of Egypt to Jerusalem" (Matthew) and "He advised the crowd to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of a kilometer." (reworked into the Sermon On The Mount).

Personally I believe that the Gospel Jesus is a composite character with bits and pieces taken from other holy men of the region and the rough time period

Last edited by maximara; 8th March 2018 at 05:00 PM.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 07:47 PM   #882
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
These three points result in one and only one year for Herod the Great's death: 4 BCE. so a 1 BCE date is far too late for Herod the Great to be involved in the life of Jesus.
That's only a problem for someone wanting to show that Herod the Great was involved in the life of Jesus, which I'm not interested in. The main take-away point is that there is no wide discrepancy in the dates given for Jesus in ancient times, with some thinking it was 100 BCE. All early Christians dated it around 2 BCE, with Luke explicitly giving a like date, while also implying a date around 6 CE (the census), assuming the census story was true, which most scholars doubt.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 10:33 PM   #883
dejudge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
That's only a problem for someone wanting to show that Herod the Great was involved in the life of Jesus, which I'm not interested in. The main take-away point is that there is no wide discrepancy in the dates given for Jesus in ancient times, with some thinking it was 100 BCE. All early Christians dated it around 2 BCE, with Luke explicitly giving a like date, while also implying a date around 6 CE (the census), assuming the census story was true, which most scholars doubt.
Your position that there is no wide discrepancy in the dates given for Jesus in ancient times is most laughable.

The ancient writers who gave the supposed consistent dates of his birth claimed he was fathered by a Ghost.

The birth narratives in gMatthew and gLuke are evidence that Jesus was born of fiction.

What is equally laughable is that a writer under the name of Paul claimed he was seen by the son of fiction [the son of God] after he was raised from the dead.

Jesus was born of fiction and the writer under the name of Paul was a false witness.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 10:56 PM   #884
Elagabalus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,423
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Your position that there is no wide discrepancy in the dates given for Jesus in ancient times is most laughable.

The ancient writers who gave the supposed consistent dates of his birth claimed he was fathered by a Ghost.

The birth narratives in gMatthew and gLuke are evidence that Jesus was born of fiction.

What is equally laughable is that a writer under the name of Paul claimed he was seen by the son of fiction [the son of God] after he was raised from the dead.

Jesus was born of fiction and the writer under the name of Paul was a false witness.


The Historical Jesus existed! Get over it!*





*an oldie but a goodie.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 11:03 PM   #885
dejudge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
That's strange. Paul was invented to historicise Acts? So "original non-historical Acts" must have existed before Paul. But Acts contains references to Paul. When and by whom were these inserted, if the insertion was performed to historicise Acts? It must mean that original non-historical Acts had no such references, because Paul was invented later to historicise the work.
You must have never heard of interpolations, redactions, forgeries and false attribution.

The Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles are perfect examples of corrupted writings, riddled with interpolations, redactions, forgeries and false attribution.

Anyone who has read Acts of the Apostles would see that the author wrote about a character called Saul which was later changed to Paul.

Acts 9
Quote:
.1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
Saul wrote no letters to Churches in Acts.

The name Saul was changed to Paul after the Epistles were invented.

The supposed ascended Jesus in Acts did not know "Paul" only Saul.

Acts 26:14
Quote:
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Last edited by dejudge; 8th March 2018 at 11:09 PM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 11:30 PM   #886
dejudge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
The Historical Jesus existed! Get over it!*


*an oldie but a goodie.
Origen's Against Celsus
Quote:
let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost:

It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood.

And their not doing this in a credible manner, but (their) preserving the fact that it was not by Joseph that the Virgin conceived Jesus, rendered the falsehood very palpable to those who can understand and detect such inventions.
Why do you invent an historical Jesus when Christian writers have admitted their Jesus was born of a Ghost?? Why??

Please, do not concoct fables for an historical Jesus.

You will never ever be able to provide any historical evidence for an historical Jesus because there never was such a character.

Jesus was born of a Ghost---born of nothing.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 08:44 AM   #887
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,338
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
That's only a problem for someone wanting to show that Herod the Great was involved in the life of Jesus, which I'm not interested in. The main take-away point is that there is no wide discrepancy in the dates given for Jesus in ancient times, with some thinking it was 100 BCE. All early Christians dated it around 2 BCE, with Luke explicitly giving a like date, while also implying a date around 6 CE (the census), assuming the census story was true, which most scholars doubt.
All early Christians? You do know there were Jewish Christians that based on what we have appeared to have put Jesus c 100BCE, right?

This group's view of Jesus survives in the Talmud - "The Jewish history-writers say that Joshua ben Perachiah was the teacher of Yeshu ha-Notzri [the Nazarene], according to which the latter lived in the day of King Janni [Jannaeus]; the history-writers of the other nations, however, say that he was born in the days of Herod and was hanged in the days of his son Archelaus. This is a great difference, a difference of more than 110 years." (Abraham ben Daud 12th century)

(I am assuming the "hanged" here means crucified)

Then you have Epiphanius (who wrote in the range when the Talmud is thought to have been compiled) who can't seem to decide if Jesus lived in the 1st century CE or the 1st century BCE.

"For the rulers in succession from Judah came to an end with Christ's arrival. Until he came the rulers were anointed priests, but after his birth in Bethlehem of Judea the order ended and was altered in the time of Alexander [Jannaeus], a ruler of priestly and kingly stock. From Alexander on this office ceased — from the days of Alexander and Salina, who is also called Alexandra, to the days of Herod the king [Herod the Great] and Augustus the Roman emperor. "

Note that this passage clearly states that "after his (Jesus) birth" "the rulers in succession from Judah came to an end" and this happened "in the time of Alexander [Jannaeus]". Given that Epiphanius elsewhere puts Jesus c 2 BC why does in this passage does he put him c100 BCE?

Shirley Jackson Case in 1912 tried to explain this in his The historicity of Jesus with the tap dancing seen a lot with that temporal mess of a passage but it avoids a key question...if the life of Jesus was so well known why even try to say he was born in 100 years before he was?

It should be mentioned that Talmud could have been compiled as early as the 3rd century ie 100 years before Epiphanius.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 08:54 AM   #888
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,373
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
You must have never heard of interpolations, redactions, forgeries and false attribution.

The Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles are perfect examples of corrupted writings, riddled with interpolations, redactions, forgeries and false attribution.
That's fine. These interpolations forgeries etc must have been inserted by particular people at particular times, and must have had specific textual content.

Which bits, then, of the original non-historicised Acts were added to create the historicised version that exists now? How could these refer to Paul, and still have been added before Paul had been invented?
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 08:58 AM   #889
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,373
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Origen's Against Celsus

Why do you invent an historical Jesus when Christian writers have admitted their Jesus was born of a Ghost?? Why??

Please, do not concoct fables for an historical Jesus.

You will never ever be able to provide any historical evidence for an historical Jesus because there never was such a character.

Jesus was born of a Ghost---born of nothing.
Origen believed that. Did Mark believe that? I am unwilling to attribute infallibility to Origen, or anyone else. But our earliest sources have no ghost.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 09:07 AM   #890
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,373
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
All early Christians? You do know there were Jewish Christians that based on what we have appeared to have put Jesus c 100BCE, right?

This group's view of Jesus survives in the Talmud - "The Jewish history-writers say that Joshua ben Perachiah was the teacher of Yeshu ha-Notzri [the Nazarene], according to which the latter lived in the day of King Janni [Jannaeus]; the history-writers of the other nations, however, say that he was born in the days of Herod and was hanged in the days of his son Archelaus. This is a great difference, a difference of more than 110 years." (Abraham ben Daud 12th century)

(I am assuming the "hanged" here means crucified)

Then you have Epiphanius (who wrote in the range when the Talmud is thought to have been compiled) who can't seem to decide if Jesus lived in the 1st century CE or the 1st century BCE.

"For the rulers in succession from Judah came to an end with Christ's arrival. Until he came the rulers were anointed priests, but after his birth in Bethlehem of Judea the order ended and was altered in the time of Alexander [Jannaeus], a ruler of priestly and kingly stock. From Alexander on this office ceased — from the days of Alexander and Salina, who is also called Alexandra, to the days of Herod the king [Herod the Great] and Augustus the Roman emperor. "

Note that this passage clearly states that "after his (Jesus) birth" "the rulers in succession from Judah came to an end" and this happened "in the time of Alexander [Jannaeus]". Given that Epiphanius elsewhere puts Jesus c 2 BC why does in this passage does he put him c100 BCE?

Shirley Jackson Case in 1912 tried to explain this in his The historicity of Jesus with the tap dancing seen a lot with that temporal mess of a passage but it avoids a key question...if the life of Jesus was so well known why even try to say he was born in 100 years before he was?
The passage is a mess, and you try to escape from it, I notice, by leaving the expression "and this happened" outside the quotation marks in which you include the rest of the passage. We discussed this in the forum years ago. I don't think Epiphanius is trying to say that Jesus was born in the days of Janneus.

Quote:
It should be mentioned that Talmud could have been compiled as early as the 3rd century ie 100 years before Epiphanius.
More detail on that please. The Talmud is a composite work existing in two versions.

Last edited by Craig B; 9th March 2018 at 09:08 AM.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 10:30 AM   #891
dejudge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Origen believed that. Did Mark believe that? I am unwilling to attribute infallibility to Origen, or anyone else. But our earliest sources have no ghost.
I am so very delighted that you say our earliest sources have no ghost.

Well, please tell us the nature of Jesus while he walked on water?

In the fable called gMark the disciples believed Jesus was a Ghost.

Mark 6
Quote:
When it was evening, the boat was in the middle of the sea, and He was alone on the land.

48 Seeing them [w]straining at the oars, for the wind was against them, at about the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea; and He intended to pass by them.

49 But when they saw Him walking on the sea, they supposed that[ it was a ghost, and cried out; 50 for they all saw Him and were [y]terrified. But immediately He spoke with them and *said to them, “Take courage; it is I, do not be afraid.” 51 Then He got into the boat with them, and the wind stopped; and they were utterly astonished.......
gMarl's Jesus was a fake Ghost.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 10:32 AM   #892
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Your position that there is no wide discrepancy in the dates given for Jesus in ancient times is most laughable.

The ancient writers who gave the supposed consistent dates of his birth claimed he was fathered by a Ghost.

The birth narratives in gMatthew and gLuke are evidence that Jesus was born of fiction.

What is equally laughable is that a writer under the name of Paul claimed he was seen by the son of fiction [the son of God] after he was raised from the dead.

Jesus was born of fiction and the writer under the name of Paul was a false witness.
You know, instead of recycling the same nonsense over and over, how about you make an actual argument?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 02:23 PM   #893
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
All early Christians? You do know there were Jewish Christians that based on what we have appeared to have put Jesus c 100BCE, right?
No, there were no Jewish Christians that put Jesus at c 100 BCE.

Originally Posted by maximara View Post
This group's view of Jesus survives in the Talmud - "The Jewish history-writers say that Joshua ben Perachiah was the teacher of Yeshu ha-Notzri [the Nazarene], according to which the latter lived in the day of King Janni [Jannaeus]; the history-writers of the other nations, however, say that he was born in the days of Herod and was hanged in the days of his son Archelaus. This is a great difference, a difference of more than 110 years." (Abraham ben Daud 12th century)

(I am assuming the "hanged" here means crucified)
That view is not attributed to "Jewish Christians". It is the thoughts of a medieval Jewish scholar on a passage in the Talmud. Whether the "Yeshu" in question was the Christian Jesus or not is an open question.

Some think that there are references to Jesus in the Talmud, but they were hidden messages so as to avoid persecutions from Christians, whom were gaining political power around the time the Talmud was constructed. But there were no Christians, Jewish or otherwise, who placed Jesus back then.

Originally Posted by maximara View Post
Then you have Epiphanius (who wrote in the range when the Talmud is thought to have been compiled) who can't seem to decide if Jesus lived in the 1st century CE or the 1st century BCE.
We covered this earlier in this thread. Epiphanius explicitly states that Jesus was born just before 1 CE ("43rd year of Augustus"), as per my earlier posts, and which I reproduce below.

Originally Posted by maximara View Post
"For the rulers in succession from Judah came to an end with Christ's arrival. Until he came the rulers were anointed priests, but after his birth in Bethlehem of Judea the order ended and was altered in the time of Alexander [Jannaeus], a ruler of priestly and kingly stock. From Alexander on this office ceased — from the days of Alexander and Salina, who is also called Alexandra, to the days of Herod the king [Herod the Great] and Augustus the Roman emperor. "

Note that this passage clearly states that "after his (Jesus) birth" "the rulers in succession from Judah came to an end" and this happened "in the time of Alexander [Jannaeus]". Given that Epiphanius elsewhere puts Jesus c 2 BC why does in this passage does he put him c100 BCE?
Why does Epiphanius mention Herod the King and Augustus in that chain, in your opinion? What happened then? The office "ceased" from Alexander to the days of Herod the king. So what happened in the days of Herod and Augustus?

As I said, the passage is corrupted. But we have other passages where Epiphanius refers to Christ being born in the days of Herod the King and Augustus, to help us understand what is going on in your passage above. Here is what Epiphanius writes, in the same work:
https://archive.org/stream/ThePanari...lamis_djvu.txt
2,1 The Savior was born at Bethlehem of Judaea in the thirty-third year of Herod, 1 the forty-second of the Emperor Augustus. He went down into Egypt in the thirty-fifth year of Herod and returned from Egypt after Herod’s death. (2) And so in the thirty-seventh year of that same reign of Herod, when Herod died after a reign of 37 years, the child was four years old.
So the office ceased from Alexander, to the days of King Herod and Augustus, at which point Jesus was born. Then the office resumed under Jesus, since he was (according to Epiphanius) a king by virtue of being a descendent of David. That seems to be the implication of the corrupted passage. Still, what do you think the reference to King Herod and Augustus meant in the passage that you quoted? Why is it there, if Christ had been born 70 years earlier?

Last edited by GDon; 9th March 2018 at 02:25 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 08:36 PM   #894
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,338
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
As I said, the passage is corrupted. But we have other passages where Epiphanius refers to Christ being born in the days of Herod the King and Augustus, to help us understand what is going on in your passage above. Here is what Epiphanius writes, in the same work:
https://archive.org/stream/ThePanari...lamis_djvu.txt
2,1 The Savior was born at Bethlehem of Judaea in the thirty-third year of Herod, 1 the forty-second of the Emperor Augustus[/hilite]. He went down into Egypt in the thirty-fifth year of Herod and returned from Egypt after Herod’s death. (2) And so in the thirty-seventh year of that same reign of Herod, when Herod died after a reign of 37 years, the child was four years old.
So the office ceased from Alexander, to the days of King Herod and Augustus, at which point Jesus was born. Then the office resumed under Jesus, since he was (according to Epiphanius) a king by virtue of being a descendent of David. That seems to be the implication of the corrupted passage. Still, what do you think the reference to King Herod and Augustus meant in the passage that you quoted? Why is it there, if Christ had been born 70 years earlier?
Augustus didn't call himself that until 16 January 27 BC. He was born Gaius Octavius Thurinus and changed his name Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus in 44 BC.

So strictly speaking there was no rule of "Augustus" between 44 to 27 BCE. In fact he used this name change to distance himself from his harsh efforts to consulate power under his old name of Octavian. More over 27 BCE is when the Roman Republic effectively became the Roman Empire.

Also the passage has its own set of problems....it puts Jesus birth at 8 BCE well past any reasonable way of saying Jesus was about 30 as Luke states (he would b3 36 perhaps 37 by this calculation).
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 11:20 PM   #895
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
Augustus didn't call himself that until 16 January 27 BC. He was born Gaius Octavius Thurinus and changed his name Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus in 44 BC.
I covered that here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=831

Tertullian, Origen and Epiphanius are working from a time when Octavian "became" Caesar, somewhere between his adoption date (44 BC) and him being declared Son of God (42 BC). That's why Tertullian said that Augustus reigned 56 years (42 BCE to 14 CE) rather than 41 years (27 BCE to 14 CE). Again, see the link above. I give the actual text showing the dates that Tertullian is using. He throws Cleopatra into the mix, so it provides proof that he is dating Augustus's reign from around 42 BCE.

Originally Posted by maximara View Post
Also the passage has its own set of problems....it puts Jesus birth at 8 BCE well past any reasonable way of saying Jesus was about 30 as Luke states (he would b3 36 perhaps 37 by this calculation).
I simply don't care! I'm not trying to reconcile the dates in the Gospels (I'm not a Christian), only what is in Epiphanius and the notion that he wrote about a Jesus 100 BCE.

Again, I ask you: if Epiphanius believes that Jesus was born in the time of Alexander Janneaus around 100 BCE, why does he refer to the time of Herod the King and Augustus in that very same passage at all?

Here are the key passages again:
https://archive.org/stream/ThePanari...lamis_djvu.txt
Panarion 29

For the rulers in succession from Judah came to an end with Christ’s arrival. Until he came <the> rulers <were anointed priests >, 9 but after his birth in Bethlehem of Judaea the order ended and was altered 10 in the time of Alexander, a ruler of priestly and kingly stock. (4) This position died out with this Alexander from the time of Salina also known as Alexandra, in the time of King Herod and the Roman emperor Augustus.

(Though this Alexander was crowned also, as one of the anointed priests and rulers. 11 (5) For when the two tribes, the kingly and priestly, were united — I mean the tribe of Judah with Aaron and the whole tribe of Levi — kings also became priests, for nothing hinted at in holy scripture can be wrong.) 12 (6) But then finally a gentile, King Herod, was crowned, and not David’s descendants any more.

3,7 But with the transfer of the royal throne the rank of king passed, in Christ, from the physical house of David and Israel to the church. 13 The throne is established in God’s holy church forever, and has both the kingly and the high-priestly rank for two reasons. (8) It has the kingly rank from our Lord Jesus Christ, in two ways: because he is physically descended from King David, and because he is in fact a greater king from all eternity in virtue of his Godhead. But it has the priestly rank because Christ himself is high priest and the founder of the office 14 of the high priests...

Panarion 56

The Savior was born at Bethlehem of Judaea in the thirty-third year of Herod, the forty-second of the Emperor Augustus. He went down into Egypt in the thirty-fifth year of Herod and returned from Egypt after Herod’s death. (2) And so in the thirty-seventh year of that same reign of Herod, when Herod died after a reign of 37 years, the child was four years old.
The best guess is that the original passage had something like: Alexander was King David's last direct descendent who had the dual role of king and high-priest; it stopped with him, from the time of Salina (whom took over from him) until the time of King Herod, during whose reign Christ was born, and so the dual role of King of Israel and High Priest resumed with Jesus.

Since there is no extant text that specifies this in the first passage, it is conjecture. But how else to explain the reference to King Herod directly after the mention of Alexander, if Christ was born in 100 BCE? How would King Herod fit into all this, with a Christ born in 100 BCE?

Last edited by GDon; 9th March 2018 at 11:34 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 03:59 AM   #896
dejudge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,986
The use of writings attributed to Epiphanius, Origen and Tertullian for dates of the birth of Jesus is really a waste of time because all of them state Jesus was fathered by a Ghost.

Epiphanius' Panarion--- He came down from heaven and was conceived, not of man’s seed but by the Holy Spirit….

Tertulian's On the Flesh of Christ--- it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed......He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father

Origen's Against Celsus ---"" and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost:

In effect, the Jesus character was the son of a myth--the product of fiction.

The question is when was the myth fable called Jesus invented?

The myth character called Jesus was most likely manufactured after the writings of Tacitus or after c 110 CE which would mean the so-called Epistles under the name of Paul about Jesus could not have been composed before the start of the 2nd century.

The writings attributed Philo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Municius Felix, Celsus and DSS support the argument that the Epistles under the name of Paul are all fake.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 06:22 AM   #897
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
The use of writings attributed to Epiphanius, Origen and Tertullian for dates of the birth of Jesus is really a waste of time because all of them state Jesus was fathered by a Ghost.
That is literally your only argument, and it fails entirely. You just refuse to accept it.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 07:46 AM   #898
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,373
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
I am so very delighted that you say our earliest sources have no ghost.

Well, please tell us the nature of Jesus while he walked on water?

In the fable called gMark the disciples believed Jesus was a Ghost.

Mark 6

gMarl's Jesus was a fake Ghost.
Your thinking on this point seems rather tangled. When the disciples saw something astonishing, according to this story, they thought they were seizing a ghost, not a real person. That is a common kind of popular reaction to seeing what appears to be an illusion, like a person in a dream or a mirage; and back then people believed in ghosts, as many still do.

But did the companions of Jesus, as described in Mark, believe that he had been conceived when a ghost had impregnated his mother? That's different from seeing someone walking on water and wondering if you're seeing a ghost. Anyway, how did Jesus respond? Did he say, "yes I'm a ghost, but only on my father's side of the family"?
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 07:54 AM   #899
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,373
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
... The best guess is that the original passage had something like: Alexander was King David's last direct descendent who had the dual role of king and high-priest; it stopped with him, from the time of Salina (whom took over from him) until the time of King Herod, during whose reign Christ was born, and so the dual role of King of Israel and High Priest resumed with Jesus.
That is very clearly the most plausible reading of the confused passage. It makes sense at every level, and conforms to Christian ideology, which Epiphanius was concerned to propagate.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 08:50 AM   #900
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,373
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Origen's Against Celsus

Why do you invent an historical Jesus when Christian writers have admitted their Jesus was born of a Ghost?? Why??

Please, do not concoct fables for an historical Jesus.

You will never ever be able to provide any historical evidence for an historical Jesus because there never was such a character.

Jesus was born of a Ghost---born of nothing.
You may well believe that the Holy Ghost is nothing, but trinitarian Christians believe definitely that it is something, albeit they disagree over whether it proceeds from the Father only, or from the Father and the son (Filioque).

But the Ghost you seem to be imagining is one wearing a white sheet, or carrying its severed head under its arm and shouting "Woooooo..." in an English haunted house. To deny that Jesus' father was such a being will not elicit the slightest disagreement from Christians, not even from Bible-bashing fundies.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 09:55 AM   #901
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,338
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
That is very clearly the most plausible reading of the confused passage. It makes sense at every level, and conforms to Christian ideology, which Epiphanius was concerned to propagate.
The passage is still a mess thanks to the bizarre wording as it seems to say "the order ended and was altered in the time of Alexander [Jannaeus]" "after his birth in Bethlehem of Judea"

In fact over the years many scholars and amateurs have read it as putting Jesus birth c 100BCE.

"One example to give is it (Toledot Yesh) begins with claiming Jesus was “born in the year 3671 in the days of king Jannaeus”" - (Was Jesus Crucified? By Keith Prosser) The Jewish calendar starts from our 3760 BCE which turns the above into 90 BCE.

Now this is written off as satire of the actual Jesus but there is one huge problem with that idea - why move the date of birth back 100 years? More over in his Incredible Shrinking Son of Man Robert M. Price states that the Toledot Yeshu is "dependent on a second-century Jewish-Christian gospel". Which means there is a Jewish-Christian gospel that put Jesus' birth in 90 BC.

If Jesus existence was a matter of historical fact why did this happen?

Last edited by maximara; 10th March 2018 at 10:00 AM.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 10:25 AM   #902
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,338
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Your thinking on this point seems rather tangled. When the disciples saw something astonishing, according to this story, they thought they were seizing a ghost, not a real person. That is a common kind of popular reaction to seeing what appears to be an illusion, like a person in a dream or a mirage; and back then people believed in ghosts, as many still do.

But did the companions of Jesus, as described in Mark, believe that he had been conceived when a ghost had impregnated his mother? That's different from seeing someone walking on water and wondering if you're seeing a ghost. Anyway, how did Jesus respond? Did he say, "yes I'm a ghost, but only on my father's side of the family"?
Satire aside the Jesus myth theory article over at Rationalwiki taks on the the who virgin birth nonsense:

While it is true that our versions of Matthew and Luke have virgin birth stories there are hints that these are late comers to the Jesus story.

Paul in Romans 1:1-3 states that Jesus came "from the seed of David, according to the flesh" (the belief at the time was that women were the earth into which men planted their seed so here Paul expressly states that Jesus's link to David is through the male line: i.e. through Joseph) and in Galatians 4:4 stated "God sent his Son, born of a woman" using the word gune (woman) rather than parthenos (virgin).[31] Both these points show that Paul not only did not know of a virgin birth, but expressly denied it.

When Marcion of Sinope put together the first Christian bible ca. 140 CE, his Luke (Evangelikon) had no birth story. While his critics claimed he removed this portion it is more likely that the Luke as we know it today was written in response to Marcion's Luke.[32][33]

This means that the virgin birth was added sometime between Paul's letters and whenever Matthew was written (some time before ca. 180 CE).

More over Irenaeus' Against Heresies (c 180 CE) documents the existance of a sect of Christianity led by Cerinthus who "represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men."[34]

In fact, it has been suggested that being born of a virgin was the ancient equivalent of being born with a silver spoon in one's mouth and signified the "extraordinary personal qualities exhibited by an individual"[35] as well as being an "attempt to explain an individual's superiority to other mortals. Generally Mediterranean peoples looked at one's birth or parentage to explain one's character and behavior" and "veneration of a benefactor." [36] Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, Plato were all stated as being born of virgins and we know they were actual historical people—so the term 'born of a virgin' was never meant to be taken literally.

--

THis should (hopefully) put a kabash on the whole born of a ghost nonsense. As documented by Irenaeus c180 CE there was at least one sect of Christianity was a mortal born the normal way (just as Paul seems to have indicated)

Last edited by maximara; 10th March 2018 at 10:34 AM.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 10:54 AM   #903
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,373
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
... More over in his Incredible Shrinking Son of Man Robert M. Price states that the Toledot Yeshu is "dependent on a second-century Jewish-Christian gospel". Which means there is a Jewish-Christian gospel that put Jesus' birth in 90 BC.

If Jesus existence was a matter of historical fact why did this happen?
You should have reminded your readers here that Price's opinion in this matter is outside the general consensus
Recent scholarship has given increased attention to the date of origin of the Toledot YeshuWP. A recent study reports that more than 100 manuscripts of the Toledot exist, almost all of them late medieval (the oldest manuscript being from the 11th century). The earliest stratum of composition was probably in Aramaic. There are recensions extant in Hebrew, and later versions in Judeo-Persian and Arabic as well as Yiddish and Ladino (Judeo-Spanish).
and
The opinion of Father Edward H. Flannery is representative:

This scurrilous fable of the life of Jesus is a medieval work, probably written down in the tenth century. .... Though its contents enjoyed a certain currency in the oral traditions of the Jewish masses, it was almost totally ignored by official or scholarly Judaism. Anti-Semites have not failed to employ it as an illustration of the blasphemous character of the Synagogue."
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 01:05 PM   #904
dejudge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Your thinking on this point seems rather tangled. When the disciples saw something astonishing, according to this story, they thought they were seizing a ghost, not a real person. That is a common kind of popular reaction to seeing what appears to be an illusion, like a person in a dream or a mirage; and back then people believed in ghosts, as many still do.
What you say is so laughable!! You don't make much sense. It is simply absurd to suggest that multiple persons at the same time saw a real person walking on water but supposed it was a ghost.

Since people believe Ghosts exist without birth then people can believe Jesus was one of them Spirit.

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
But did the companions of Jesus, as described in Mark, believe that he had been conceived when a ghost had impregnated his mother? That's different from seeing someone walking on water and wondering if you're seeing a ghost. Anyway, how did Jesus respond? Did he say, "yes I'm a ghost, but only on my father's side of the family"?
Again, you post more nonsense.

Based on your absurdity the angels and Satan must also be human because it is claimed they were on earth in the company of Jesus in gMark.

There is no birth narrative for the angels and Satan in the Gospels.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 03:18 PM   #905
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,373
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
There is no birth narrative for the angels and Satan in the Gospels.
We are told in Job 2:1 that the Angels, as well as Satan, are "sons of God". But we're not told that God put on a white sheet and shouted "wooooo ... " , in His "Ghost" disguise, while copulating with their mothers.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 04:16 PM   #906
dejudge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,986
duplicated

Last edited by dejudge; 10th March 2018 at 04:28 PM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 04:25 PM   #907
dejudge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
We are told in Job 2:1 that the Angels, as well as Satan, are "sons of God". But we're not told that God put on a white sheet and shouted "wooooo ... " , in His "Ghost" disguise, while copulating with their mothers.
Wooooooo!!! Wooooo!!!! Wooooo!!!! Jesus had the whitest white clothes on earth in gMark after he transfigured in the presence of the resurrected Moses and Elijah.


The Transfiguration
Mark 9
Quote:
2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John and led them up a high mountain by themselves to be alone. He was transfigured in front of them, 3 and his clothes became dazzling—extremely white as no launderer on earth could whiten them. 4 Elijah appeared to them with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus.

You have already admitted that back then people believed in ghosts, as many still do so it is clear that gMark's Jesus was some kind of a Ghost that people believe really existed.

Real Ghosts have no birth.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 05:09 PM   #908
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,373
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Wooooooo!!! Wooooo!!!! Wooooo!!!! Jesus had the whitest white clothes on earth in gMark after he transfigured in the presence of the resurrected Moses and Elijah.
I think you've been watching too many soap powder adverts on the tv. Jesus didn't wash his Ghost white enough, cos we read in Mark 3:29
but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: 30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.
And notice when he mentions the Holy Ghost he never says, "that's my dad, by the way".

Last edited by Craig B; 10th March 2018 at 05:10 PM.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 05:19 PM   #909
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,338
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
You should have reminded your readers here that Price's opinion in this matter is outside the general consensus
Recent scholarship has given increased attention to the date of origin of the Toledot YeshuWP. A recent study reports that more than 100 manuscripts of the Toledot exist, almost all of them late medieval (the oldest manuscript being from the 11th century). The earliest stratum of composition was probably in Aramaic. There are recensions extant in Hebrew, and later versions in Judeo-Persian and Arabic as well as Yiddish and Ladino (Judeo-Spanish).
and
The opinion of Father Edward H. Flannery is representative:

This scurrilous fable of the life of Jesus is a medieval work, probably written down in the tenth century. .... Though its contents enjoyed a certain currency in the oral traditions of the Jewish masses, it was almost totally ignored by official or scholarly Judaism. Anti-Semites have not failed to employ it as an illustration of the blasphemous character of the Synagogue."
This disregard has recently been lifting as the text becomes discussed as a possible window into the early history of polemic between Christians and Jews (Meerson, Michael, and Peter Schäfer. Toledot Yeshu : The life story of Jesus. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism ; 159. Tubinger: Mohr Siueck, 2014. ISBN 9783161534812 Contents: Vol.1, Introduction and translation)

The wikipedia article goes into greater detail and the dating of the Toledot Yeshu.

"Date and Provenance: The date and provenance of the Toledot Yeshu have not been adequately determined. While one branch of scholarship views the entire tale as very late (Middle Ages), an alternative branch has argued for a much older date, sometimes as early as the second century. (Burke & Landau New Testament Apocrypha, v1 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing pg 161)

Then there is the idea that there is "provenance in Palestine in the third-fourth century CE" (Willem F. Smelik. 39–73 41 "The Aramaic Dialect(s) of the Toldot Yeshu Fragments" Aramaic Studies 7.1 (2009))

Last edited by maximara; 10th March 2018 at 05:23 PM.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 10:19 PM   #910
dejudge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
I think you've been watching too many soap powder adverts on the tv. Jesus didn't wash his Ghost white enough, cos we read in Mark 3:29
but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: 30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.
.
Why would Jesus have to wash his clothes when he could transfigure?
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
And notice when he mentions the Holy Ghost he never says, "that's my dad, by the way".
You forget that gMark does not say Jesus was born of a Ghost.

In gMark, Jesus walked on water like a Ghost, looked liked a Ghost and talked to Ghosts after the Transfiguration.

What walks like a Ghost, looks like a Ghost and talks to Ghosts??

Mark 15:37---And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

Jesus in gMark was just a Ghost that people believe existed.

A writer under the name of Paul acknowledged his Jesus was the first born of the dead.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2018, 06:39 AM   #911
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
More over in his Incredible Shrinking Son of Man Robert M. Price states that the Toledot Yeshu is "dependent on a second-century Jewish-Christian gospel". Which means there is a Jewish-Christian gospel that put Jesus' birth in 90 BC.
No, it doesn't. Dr Price doesn't give the name of that "Jewish-Christian gospel" that has Jesus being born in 90 BCE. I think it is because it doesn't exist. I checked his book on Amazon and found the page in his Incredible Shrinking Son of Man where he makes that comment (page 40). The footnote (note 32) is to sixty pages of Mead's book "Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?" Since I am rather anal and the book is on-line I went through those 60 pages, but couldn't find anything specific. The closest thing I could find was here: http://www.gnosis.org/library/grs-me..._100/ch19.html
As we have frequently referred to the Apocryphal Gospels, or "Histories," as Epiphanius prefers to call them, it might be opportune to append in this place a curious passage from the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy. The form in which we now have this Gospel is of course very late, but it frequently works up ancient matter.

In the middle portion of this apocryphon, which professes to give a detailed story of what happened to the Holy Family during their three years' sojourn in Egypt, ch. xxv. reads as follows:

"Thence they went down to Memphis, and having seen Pharaoh, they staid three years in Egypt; and the Lord Jesus wrought very many miracles in Egypt, which are not found written either in the Gospel of the Infancy or in the Perfect Gospel."

Now the last of the Pharaohs was Cleopatra, whose tragic death occurred in B.C. 30. There is just the faintest possibility that this detail may have been taken from some ancient source; but on the face of it, it seems to be the story-telling of some imaginative monk, following out his normal association of ideas (Egypt-Pharaoh), the naive adornment of a tale.

If, however, as some think, this Gospel came from Coptic circles, then the possibilities of our first hypothesis would be slightly increased, for dwellers in Egypt might be supposed to hand on local tradition, even while transforming it out of all recognition. But who can recognize with any certainty the flotsam and jetsam from the shipwreck of history that may have come into the hands of late legend-makers?
You're welcome to look for yourself. I'm only an amateur, but fairly widely read, and I'd be very surprised indeed if there was a Jewish Christian text that had Jesus born around 100 BCE that I hadn't heard about. Dr Price is a lovely guy, but he does like repeating theories outside-the-box without much critical analysis (witness his comments about Acharya S). Maximara, I think you've been duped. I'd love to be proven wrong on that.

Also, what about my question to you regarding King Herod and Augustus appearing in Epiphanius's passage regarding Jesus being born in 100 BCE, as evidence of the direction of the corruption in that passage. What do you think they are doing at the end of that passage, if Jesus was born around 100 BCE?

Last edited by GDon; 11th March 2018 at 06:45 AM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2018, 06:52 AM   #912
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
THis should (hopefully) put a kabash on the whole born of a ghost nonsense. As documented by Irenaeus c180 CE there was at least one sect of Christianity was a mortal born the normal way (just as Paul seems to have indicated)
Justin Martyr, writing around 150 CE, is even earlier witness to this. From his "Dialogue with Trypho": http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...guetrypho.html
"... For there are some, my friends," I said, "of our race [i.e. Christians], who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have [now] the same opinions as myself should say so...
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2018, 08:30 AM   #913
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,338
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
No, it doesn't. Dr Price doesn't give the name of that "Jewish-Christian gospel" that has Jesus being born in 90 BCE. I think it is because it doesn't exist. I checked his book on Amazon and found the page in his Incredible Shrinking Son of Man where he makes that comment (page 40). The footnote (note 32) is to sixty pages of Mead's book "Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?" Since I am rather anal and the book is on-line I went through those 60 pages, but couldn't find anything specific. The closest thing I could find was here: http://www.gnosis.org/library/grs-me..._100/ch19.html
As we have frequently referred to the Apocryphal Gospels, or "Histories," as Epiphanius prefers to call them, it might be opportune to append in this place a curious passage from the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy. The form in which we now have this Gospel is of course very late, but it frequently works up ancient matter.

In the middle portion of this apocryphon, which professes to give a detailed story of what happened to the Holy Family during their three years' sojourn in Egypt, ch. xxv. reads as follows:

"Thence they went down to Memphis, and having seen Pharaoh, they staid three years in Egypt; and the Lord Jesus wrought very many miracles in Egypt, which are not found written either in the Gospel of the Infancy or in the Perfect Gospel."

Now the last of the Pharaohs was Cleopatra, whose tragic death occurred in B.C. 30. There is just the faintest possibility that this detail may have been taken from some ancient source; but on the face of it, it seems to be the story-telling of some imaginative monk, following out his normal association of ideas (Egypt-Pharaoh), the naive adornment of a tale.

If, however, as some think, this Gospel came from Coptic circles, then the possibilities of our first hypothesis would be slightly increased, for dwellers in Egypt might be supposed to hand on local tradition, even while transforming it out of all recognition. But who can recognize with any certainty the flotsam and jetsam from the shipwreck of history that may have come into the hands of late legend-makers?
You're welcome to look for yourself. I'm only an amateur, but fairly widely read, and I'd be very surprised indeed if there was a Jewish Christian text that had Jesus born around 100 BCE that I hadn't heard about. Dr Price is a lovely guy, but he does like repeating theories outside-the-box without much critical analysis (witness his comments about Acharya S). Maximara, I think you've been duped. I'd love to be proven wrong on that.

Also, what about my question to you regarding King Herod and Augustus appearing in Epiphanius's passage regarding Jesus being born in 100 BCE, as evidence of the direction of the corruption in that passage. What do you think they are doing at the end of that passage, if Jesus was born around 100 BCE?

Shirley Jackson Case's 1912 The Historicity Of Jesus IMHO does the best argument (ie without involving the ad hoc of it is corrupted theory): "In this argument Epiphanius' chief interest clearly is dogmatical rather than historical. Thinking, as he does, that Alexander Jannaeus (104-78 B.C.) was the last of the Jewish kings to combine in one person the offices of both king and high priest, he is led by his Old Testament proof-texts to assume that Jesus was the immediate successor of Alexander. Then Jesus must have been born during Alexander's reign. This is the logic of dogma."

But this begs the question of why even go there? Or if you have to why not make Jesus (somehow) a dependent/relative of Alexander Jannaeus then saying he was born in that time.

By the way Mead is used as a reference in The Historical Jesus: Five Views by InterVarsity Press who is "a publisher of evangelical Christian books". Certainly if the Mead reference was nonsense they of all people would have at least had one of the other four others (Crossan, Johnaon, Dunn, or Bock) would have pointed out the flaw of the Mead reference...yet none of them do.

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Justin Martyr, writing around 150 CE, is even earlier witness to this. From his "Dialogue with Trypho": http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...guetrypho.html
"... For there are some, my friends," I said, "of our race [i.e. Christians], who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have [now] the same opinions as myself should say so...
IMHO Irenaeus is more direct then Justin Martyr.

Interestingly Justin Martyr also says "When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter." (Justin Martyr, First Apology [21:30])

But the cultural context of that, established in the writings of Herodotus and Euhemerus, was Jupiter (Zeus) was thought to be an actual king of Crete. (Euhemerus even said Zeus was buried there). Heck, "Plutarch (c46 – 120 CE) sought to pin Osiris down as an ancient king of Egypt", and Eusebius in the 4th century CE accepted Heracles as a flesh and blood man who by birth was an Egyptian and was a king in Argos. So Justin Martyr seems to say what appears to be opposite views.

Last edited by maximara; 11th March 2018 at 08:45 AM.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2018, 09:14 AM   #914
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,373
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Why would Jesus have to wash his clothes when he could transfigure?


You forget that gMark does not say Jesus was born of a Ghost.

In gMark, Jesus walked on water like a Ghost, looked liked a Ghost and talked to Ghosts after the Transfiguration.

What walks like a Ghost, looks like a Ghost and talks to Ghosts??

Mark 15:37---And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
What walks on water like a ghost, looks like a ghost, talks to ghosts and gives up the ghost, but is not said to have been born of a ghost?
That's a hard one. I think I'll have to pass on that question.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2018, 03:00 PM   #915
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
But this begs the question of why even go there? Or if you have to why not make Jesus (somehow) a dependent/relative of Alexander Jannaeus then saying he was born in that time.
Why go there indeed, if a corrupted text -- in a text with known corruptions -- explains the problem? Dr Richard Carrier and an expert on the old FRDB forum discussed this in 2006. (You may need to get access to the forum to view the link)
http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/...=165230&page=5

Andrew Criddle proposed that two passages in the original Greek got transposed. He gives the Greek and notes that the two passages are of equal length. When swapped, it gave a more straight forward translation:
The passage now reads much mores traightforwardly. Epiphanius begins by saying that the royal and priestly line failed in the time of Alexander and was set (back) up when Christ was born in Bethlehem. The subsequent passage goes on to expound these themes in more detail.

As to the plausibility of this emendation it may be worth noting that the two transposed clauses are of almost identical length.
To which Dr Carrier responded:
This (the arguments and evidence I clipped out but that are included in this thread above) is very interesting, and I agree it is plausible, for all the same reasons, though I am saying this only having skimmed the substantial points. I will not likely ever spend enough time to examine this thesis in detail, but it's worth keeping in mind. I think it even gains more plausibility in light of the passage from Augustine you cited earlier in this thread.

I can add to the overall picture that the manuscripts of Epiphanius are in awful shape scribally, so a transposition like you suggest would not be bizarre, especially since the segments have a length that could correspond to an actual line length (it depends), making transposition of the entire line an even more plausible culprit...

I can speak from direct experience as to the Weights and Measures (another text by Epiphanius), which I have worked with quite closely, both critical editions and photoplates of the extant manuscripts, having given a paper on this at a conference at UC Berkeley, and that text is an outright nightmare of accidental interpolations, confusions, misspellings, errors, and I don't doubt transpositions as well. Though we have reason to expect this more in that text than in the Panarion, I've seen indications the Panarion is not in sterling shape.
I'll leave it there on this particular topic, maximara. Thanks for the conversation, and I'll look forward to the next one!

Last edited by GDon; 11th March 2018 at 03:04 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2018, 07:31 PM   #916
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,338
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Why go there indeed, if a corrupted text -- in a text with known corruptions -- explains the problem? Dr Richard Carrier and an expert on the old FRDB forum discussed this in 2006. (You may need to get access to the forum to view the link)
http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/...=165230&page=5

Andrew Criddle proposed that two passages in the original Greek got transposed. He gives the Greek and notes that the two passages are of equal length. When swapped, it gave a more straight forward translation:
The passage now reads much mores traightforwardly. Epiphanius begins by saying that the royal and priestly line failed in the time of Alexander and was set (back) up when Christ was born in Bethlehem. The subsequent passage goes on to expound these themes in more detail.

As to the plausibility of this emendation it may be worth noting that the two transposed clauses are of almost identical length.
To which Dr Carrier responded:
This (the arguments and evidence I clipped out but that are included in this thread above) is very interesting, and I agree it is plausible, for all the same reasons, though I am saying this only having skimmed the substantial points. I will not likely ever spend enough time to examine this thesis in detail, but it's worth keeping in mind. I think it even gains more plausibility in light of the passage from Augustine you cited earlier in this thread.

I can add to the overall picture that the manuscripts of Epiphanius are in awful shape scribally, so a transposition like you suggest would not be bizarre, especially since the segments have a length that could correspond to an actual line length (it depends), making transposition of the entire line an even more plausible culprit...

I can speak from direct experience as to the Weights and Measures (another text by Epiphanius), which I have worked with quite closely, both critical editions and photoplates of the extant manuscripts, having given a paper on this at a conference at UC Berkeley, and that text is an outright nightmare of accidental interpolations, confusions, misspellings, errors, and I don't doubt transpositions as well. Though we have reason to expect this more in that text than in the Panarion, I've seen indications the Panarion is not in sterling shape.
I'll leave it there on this particular topic, maximara. Thanks for the conversation, and I'll look forward to the next one!
Carrier evidently decided that there was no transposition:

"Epiphanius then says a curious thing; these Christians say Jesus had lived and died in the time of Alexander Jannaeus. (an extended quote of the passage follows) The Babylonian Talmud not only confirms this, but its Jewish authors appear to have known no other form of Christianity." - sic (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus pg 281-282

Carrier also gives us this passage from the Babylonian Talmud: 'when King Jannaeus was killing our rabbis, R. Jesus and Jesus [the Nazarene] escaped to Alexandria, Egypt; and when peace was restored.' (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus pg 282. There is a third of a page is devoted to notes on this so Carrier goes into a lot of trouble in showing why the passage should be read this way.

Carrier also references Epiphanius as an example of a c 100 BCE Jesus on page 288.

Carrier also uses Epiphanius as a reference to the Torah-observant Christians Nazorians (to show that Jesus need not come from the town of Nazareth) on page 401

Last edited by maximara; 11th March 2018 at 07:33 PM.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2018, 05:30 AM   #917
dejudge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Justin Martyr, writing around 150 CE, is even earlier witness to this. From his "Dialogue with Trypho": http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...guetrypho.html
"... For there are some, my friends," I said, "of our race [i.e. Christians], who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have [now] the same opinions as myself should say so...
You have forgotten what is written in First Apology attributed to Justin.

Justin's First Apology
Quote:
And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter...
Christian writers of antiquity specifically stated that their Jesus was born of a Ghost in and out the Bible.

Ignatius Ephesians
Quote:
For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.
It is also known that the Romans believed that Ghosts actually existed and could impregnated virgins.

In Plutarch's Romulus it is stated that the Roman people believed Romulus and Remus were born of a Ghost [Apparition] and a Virgin.

Plutarch's Romulus
Quote:
There was an oracle of Tethys in Tuscany which Tarchetius consulted, and received an answer that a virgin should give herself to the apparition, and that a son should be born of her, highly renowned, eminent for valour, good fortune, and strength of body.
Plutarch's Romulus is evidence that characters that were claimed to be born of a Ghost[ apparition] were readily accepted as Divine.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2018, 06:01 AM   #918
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,338
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
You have forgotten what is written in First Apology attributed to Justin.

Justin's First Apology

Christian writers of antiquity specifically stated that their Jesus was born of a Ghost in and out the Bible.
As pointed out before in the very same First Apology Justin seems to say the exact opposite:

"When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter."

But the cultural context of that, established in the writings of Herodotus and Euhemerus, was Jupiter (Zeus) was thought to be an actual king of Crete. (Euhemerus even said Zeus was buried there). Heck, "Plutarch (c46 – 120 CE) sought to pin Osiris down as an ancient king of Egypt", and Eusebius in the 4th century CE accepted Heracles as a flesh and blood man who by birth was an Egyptian and was a king in Argos.

In fact, it has been suggested that being born of a virgin was the ancient equivalent of being born with a silver spoon in one's mouth and signified the "extraordinary personal qualities exhibited by an individual"[35] as well as being an "attempt to explain an individual's superiority to other mortals. Generally Mediterranean peoples looked at one's birth or parentage to explain one's character and behavior" and "veneration of a benefactor." [36] Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, Plato were all stated as being born of virgins and we know they were actual historical people—so the term 'born of a virgin' was never meant to be taken literally.

I again point to Paul who in Romans 1:1-3 states that Jesus came "from the seed of David, according to the flesh" (the belief at the time was that women were the earth into which men planted their seed so here Paul expressly states that Jesus's link to David is through the male line: i.e. through Joseph) and in Galatians 4:4 stated "God sent his Son, born of a woman" using the word gune (woman) rather than parthenos (virgin).[31] Both these points show that Paul not only did not know of a virgin birth, but expressly denied it.

More over Irenaeus' Against Heresies (c 180 CE) documents the existence of a sect of Christianity led by Cerinthus who "represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men."[34]

So here we have two "Christian writers of antiquity" either stating Jesus was born via the normal union of a man and a woman (Paul) or acknowledging there was a sect of Christianity that taught "Jesus as having not been born of a virgin" existing (Irenaeus).

IMHO the whole virgin birth thing was the product of the sect of Christianity that won the theological battle taking the metaphoric "born of a virgin" literally even though Paul himself had his Jesus born the normal way...ie no ghost involved. The modern equivalent would be saying the silver spoon someone was born with in their mouth was sterling and just as absurd.

This brings up an important point - we have to look at the sects of Christianity that lost the theological battle as well as the one that won. Heck, Origen had to deal with the idea that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier name Pantera (suggested at least by the 170s).

And this is where things get interesting. "Yeshu ben Pantera" is the name of the c 90 BE Jesus in the Talmud. So did Origen in railing against just the idea that Pantera was the father of Jesus miss the idea that this Jesus was born c 90 BCE?

Last edited by maximara; 12th March 2018 at 06:06 AM.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2018, 06:05 AM   #919
David Mo
Master Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 2,681
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
You have forgotten what is written in First Apology attributed to Justin.

Justin's First Apology

Christian writers of antiquity specifically stated that their Jesus was born of a Ghost in and out the Bible.

Ignatius Ephesians

It is also known that the Romans believed that Ghosts actually existed and could impregnated virgins.

In Plutarch's Romulus it is stated that the Roman people believed Romulus and Remus were born of a Ghost [Apparition] and a Virgin.

Plutarch's Romulus

Plutarch's Romulus is evidence that characters that were claimed to be born of a Ghost[ apparition] were readily accepted as Divine.
You get entangled in your own words. Greeks believed that gods crossed paths with women and procreated men of flesh and bone, who were born, fed and died like any mortal.
So did the evangelists, who believed that Jesus had been begotten by the Holy Spirit, but that was not why he ceased to be a man.
True, just like Hercules or Achilles, the Christ could do extraordinary things, without ceasing to be a man for it.
It is impossible to deny hat the evangelists believed the Christ was a man in some way - total or partial - , unless one starts shouting and anathematizing as you do.

Notice that Julius Caesar claimed to be a descendant of Venus. I suppose you won't deny that Julius Caesar existed.
Go down on earth, please.

Last edited by David Mo; 12th March 2018 at 06:07 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2018, 06:25 AM   #920
dejudge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
You get entangled in your own words. Greeks believed that gods crossed paths with women and procreated men of flesh and bone, who were born, fed and died like any mortal.
So did the evangelists, who believed that Jesus had been begotten by the Holy Spirit, but that was not why he ceased to be a man.
True, just like Hercules or Achilles, the Christ could do extraordinary things, without ceasing to be a man for it.
It is impossible to deny hat the evangelists believed the Christ was a man in some way - total or partial - , unless one starts shouting and anathematizing as you do.
You seem not to realise that you have admitted Jesus was just like Hercules and Achilles.

Just like Hercules and Achilles, Jesus was a non-historical character.

I have not denied that the Jesus in the NT was God Creator, the Logos, the first born of the dead, the Lord from heaven, born of a Ghost and a Virgin who walked on water and instantly transfigured before his resurrection and ascension

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Notice that Julius Caesar claimed to be a descendant of Venus. I suppose you won't deny that Julius Caesar existed.
Go down on earth, please.
Notice I am not arguing about the existence or non-existence of Julius Caesar.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:17 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.