Very, very well said, Moggy!
j
Christianity did NOT borrow from pagan "Dying-Rising" God motifs
by yaddayadda 93 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
lovelylil
Ruth,
Thanks for your input. I looked at your questions but they are more like statements. I did not write the article, btw did you go to the link and read the whole thing?
The thoughts in the article are similar to what most Christians believe. Josephus by the way does indeed mention Jesus along with his brother James and John The baptist. I have his complete works. However, many who are not believers have asserted that the text about Jesus was added in at a later time. It is funny because they do not assert that John the Baptist or James (Jesus' brother) are fictional people but yet claim Jesus is fictional. Also there is no proof at all that anyone tampered with Josephus' writings, it is a theory only.
Why doesn't Josephus mention all of Jesus' deeds and teachings? That is a valid question and one that I don't really know how to answer fully, I am being totally honest with you. But I notice in reading his works that he writes for the purpose of making an accurate accouning of Jewish history as laid out in the OT, and he writes about the wars of the Jews. And he only really addresses these things. Many believe that he was beginning a new work and that one may have had more information about Jesus, but that is only congecture as he never got to do this new work. He does many times in his work say he will later write some other things down but like I said never did. Josephus' main work was not on the life and ministry of Christ, that was why the gospels were written down.
Also, Jesus is mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud and this is brought out in the article above. And Jesus is mentioned in many other Christian writings of that era including ones written from the agnostic view. Most Bible scholars do believe Jesus was an actual living breathing person who was a teacher of great things during that time. The belief that he is totally fictional is a fairly modern day view.
About the reliable track record of the NT gospel writers, this is totally proven already. Many of the things they wrote about and the people at one time were thought to be fictional by some skeptics however, modern day archaeological evidence has proven that the gospel record was accurate in detailing other people, places and things. Here is one ex. At one time it was thought that the high priest Caiaphas was a myth. But in the 1990's his burial tomb was discovered with his name and title "high priest" on it. There are numerous things like this I can site.
Anyway, Hope I was able to give you some adequate answers to your questions. Peace, Lilly
-
Narkissos
Seems like we have drifted from the mythical Jesus to the historical one...
many who are not believers have asserted that the text about Jesus was added in at a later time. It is funny because they do not assert that John the Baptist or James (Jesus' brother) are fictional people but yet claim Jesus is fictional.
You are lumping together three completely distinct issues to dismiss an argument on the grounds of the assumed motivation of its tenants.
Literary analysis of Josephus has led a majority of exegetes (both believers and unbelievers in the religious sense, who may or may not believe -- in the scholarly sense -- in the existence of a historical Jesus) to dismiss the Jesus-passages in Josephus as Christian interpolations.
Josephus' main work was not on the life and ministry of Christ, that was why the gospels were written down.
Lol, you are more of a radical critic than I am then. I would assume that the core of Mark was written before Josephus. Otoh, Luke indeed shows dependence on Josephus.
Also, Jesus is mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud and this is brought out in the article above.
Do you know when the Jesus-passages in the Talmud were written? Btw, do you know how they date the "Jesus" they are referring to?
And Jesus is mentioned in many other Christian writings of that era including ones written from the agnostic view.
I suppose you meant Gnostic.
But in the 1990's his burial tomb was discovered with his name and title "high priest" on it.
Afaik the only inscription was Yoseph bar Kaipha -- no "high priest". That it is the same person is likely but not unchallenged.
-
AlmostAtheist
>>The one that lasted the longest and the best well known today. No brainer!
Wouldn't that be Allah? He's better known today than Jesus, isn't he? Or did you just mean here locally?
BTW, I'm enjoying this thread immensely. Thanks to all that are participating! I'll look up the references when I can!
Dave
-
lovelylil
Narkissos,
Thanks for the correction of Gnostic. I've been typing all day and I am going ga ga. The point about Josephus is that his main work was not to do a testimony of Christ and his teachings. But a history of Judaism and the Wars of the Jews only. Christians use other sources for Christ's life and teachings, the gospels.But Jesus is mentioned in Josephus' his work. And while you can argue that some disagree that the writings on Jesus were written by Josephus, as I did point out, other experts will say that Josephus did write it. Most Bible scholars DO agree that Jesus was a real historical person. The view that he is a total myth is a relatively new one. About Caiaphas - every biblical archaeologist I have read says that this IS the high Priest Caiaphas and they based that upon items found in his tomb.
The point about John the Baptist and James, who btw Bible Scholars say is the half brother of Jesus (the myth), is that no one is questioning the fact that they are mentioned in Josephus yet people question the fact that Jesus is named? I think this is a valid point. How could someone get away with naming two actual historical persons and then adding a myth in with that testimony?
BTW: and this is not directed at you Narkissos, almost No one has addressed any of the good points brought out in the article I put the link up for, except for Ruth. Lilly
-
DanTheMan
BTW, I'm enjoying this thread immensely.
Me too.
Especially that passage from Nietzsche's The Antichrist on Narkissos's post on page 2. That guy was too smart for the credulous age he lived in, no wonder he went crazy in the end. I guess he was a kind of martyr!
from page 1
Those who see parallels every which way between the NT and other religions fall into the ‘terminological fallacy’. Nash puts it this way: “one frequently encounters scholars who first use Christian terminology to describe pagan beliefs and practices and then marvel at the awesome parallels they think they have discovered.”
So xtianity owns certain words?
-
lovelylil
About Caiaphas the high priest - archaeologists believe they have discovered his actual remains inside his ossuary within his family tomb. The find occured by accident in November of 1990 when workers were building a water park in Jerusalems's Peace Forest, which is south of the Temple Mount. The discovery was made when the roof of the buriel chamber collasped and revealed 12 limestone ossuaries. One of the ossuaries was exquisitely ornate and decorated with incised rosetttes. It obviously belonged to a wealthy high ranking patron who can afford such a box.
One this box was an inscription. It read in two places Qafa and Yehosef bar Qayafa ("Caiaphas," "Joseph, son of Caiaphas"). The New Testament refers to him only as Caiaphas, but Josephus gives his full name as "Joseph who was called Caiaphas of the High Priesthood.
information for the above taken from two soures: 1. Biblical Archaeology Review (1990), 2. The Stones Cry Out, by Randall Price (1997 Harvest House Publishers)
Have a good weekend everyone, be back on Monday. Peace always, Lilly
-
lovelylil
Evidence of Christ's existance outside of the Bible, in addition to Josephus' testimony;
Tacitus, (annals 15:44)
Nero fastened the guilt on a class hated for their abominations called Christians by the populace. Chistus (Christ) from whom the name had its origin suffered the extreme penalty during the riegn of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilatus
Babylonian Talmud (transl. by I. Epstein London 1935)
on the eve of the passover Yeshu (Jesus in Hebrew) was hanged (crucified). For forty days before the execution took place a herald cried "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy
-
tetrapod.sapien
lilly,
i personally could care less if jesus was a historical person and the son of god almighty, or even god almighty himself.
some people think that because i am an atheist TOWARDS JESUS, that i want him to have been a no body carpenter who liked to talk a lot, in the words of richie rich. but this is not the case with me, although i think it is the most likely explanation.
if jesus came with an angelic host out of the sky tomorrow to turn people from their evil ways, i would still tell him to f*ck off. his DIVINITY, whether it is true or not, is totally beside the point to me!
other people, like yadda, must have jesus as god almighty, or his son, for their views to remain intact. i hope this straightens out what anyone might be thinking i am trying to get out of a thread like this.
I am familiar with Paul's conversion to Christianity and aware that he converted after Christ died and went to heaven.
so am i. i learned this at the kingdumb hall.
But Paul did in fact believe Jesus was the promised Messiah, born of a virgin, that the prophets fortold.
sources svp. what scholars who have the same motives as i do, (as in: do not care if he was divine or not [see above if you are confused!]), assert this? this is my measuring stick. this is why i think christian scholars are full of shite.
Just because his writings were from a different view point, his being chosen by Christ from heaven and not by Christ on earth as the other Apostles, does not mean he believed in a different Christ than the others did.
no lilly. do not create a straw man of my argument, and then tear your creation apart. paul does not just recieve a revelation from *christ* (BIG DIFF!!!!) in spirit, but he does not refer to jesus as earthly. don't change the subject.
Remember he did not see the physical Christ
no need to remind me, I REMEMBER!! who exactly do you think you are talking to? if i have no respect for the bible or jesus or his mom and dad, it doesn't mean that i am uneducated. or are you just filling space, with........ words?
but heard him speak to him from heaven. Jesus said he chose Paul as his special messenger to the Gentile peoples.
no. the Christ did. BIG DIFF!!! if you still cannot see the difference, then perhaps, just perhaps, it is because of your implicit assertions, which frankly bore me!
There are then differences in Pauls conversion and ministry compared to the other Disciples.
again, i know this from being a dub. are you teaching me this because you don't think i remember or something? tell me something i don't know!! sheesh!!
But again, to say he believed in a totally different Christ is complete rubbish.
rubbish? HA! you have not even shown me, or anyone else in this thread WHY you assert such a thing, apart from the obvious fact that you want what i said to be rubbish! again: my motive, don't care either way. yadda's motive, and probably yours: GOD. chew on that.
He certainly DID understand that Christ was alive on earth at one time,
why? because you say so? still waiting lilly!
for he himself used to stone and persecute Christ's followers.
jesus' followers. not christ's. BIG DIFF!!! (as i am sure paul would have noted, based on what he thought of cults, and what he later thought was the christ.
Thinking that they were following a man instead of the true God.
the true Who?
And this opinion of men about Paul believing in a different Christ comes from those who have virtually no understanding of the Bible's simple writings but rather complicate matters for themselves by inventing scenarios that only exist in their own minds.
"opinion of men"?? wow, that sounds way WTS to me. "exist in their own minds"? hey! if you say so, then it must be!!
Many of them are so haughty because of their own percieved intelligence, that they lack the humbleness to "see" what is right in front of their noses.
awww lilly, and here you are a humble servant of the LORD GOD TRUE. good for you! haughtiness, then, must be a real evil thing because it stops people from seeing things right in front of their noses? whatever you say!!
That being said, I have no need today to sit here and continuing banging my head into a brick wall.
for sure, that ought to hurt. i assume you are speaking LITERALLY for obvious reasons.
People will believe what they want.
people don't know what they want. people believe what their ancestors and their culture's believe. look around at the world!!
Not everyone will become a Christian, and that is their personal choice.
can i be excused to go to the bathroom too Headmaster Lilly?
The best advice I can people who want to learn more about the Bible is to read the bible themselves and build up thier trust in it,
been there done that. heard it all before. if i just try a little harder with this book called the bible, something will finally go "click" and i will get it. personally, i'll take wikipedia, thanks.
and their understanding of it,
the bible? or your view of it? you see lilly, i already have an excellent understanding of the bible, whether you think that is possible for an unbeliever or not.
before looking into all these contrary arguements.
"contrary arguments"? like, you mean, apostate type thoughts? [gasp!] so, read read read read the bible, come to trust it, understand it *really*, and then look at secular exegesis?
um, lilly, are not all arguments contrary to each other?
things that should make you go "hmmmm?"
That is what I did and due to this, in 25 years no has has been able to break my faith in God,
wow. 25 years with an unbroken record in faith. how time flies!
his word or his Son.
whose word, and whose son?
again, your replies are totally unconvincing, and at this point i am not even sorry for being hard on you. i had teachers like you as a child.
Or succeed in convincing me that these contrary arguements against the Bible really have any merit.
way to go. YAY BIBLE TEAM!
And believe me many have tried.
well then! my oh my! the trials your faith has gone through! your special pleas may work with others, but not with me.
again, some repitition for emphasis:
tetrapod no no care if jebus son of yabay is divine omnimax god you say he is or not. tetrapod, cool wit it either way, and would actually like to see you and yadda be right in the end on this so-called "issue". in a really morbid sort of way.
i am not afraid of being wrong. if jesus comes to kick my ass, then i will turn the other cheek. if he gets the joke, then i'll see you on the other side! if i am right, then, well, nothing surprising there!
regards,
tetragod
-
tetrapod.sapien
Thank You but I don't need your permission.
top hat, no really. no, really really really, he is your god, and your myth, not mine. i am not giving you permission, just opt-ing out of your little mythology.
like, for example, if you and i went to see the movie Narnia together (not that i am asking you on a date), and i decided that because cs lewis is a retard, and the concept of the movie is by extension retarded, and i left, i would LOOK AT YOU funny if you said: "i don't need your permission to like this movie!" -- because....because, it's just a movie to me. watch whatever you want!
tetra