OrangeHound wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
One of my favourites is the Jesus-Mithras link......
Odd that the myths about a pagan demi-god worshipped by the Romans should so closely resemble the myths surrounding Christ.
It was common in the ancient world for gods/goddesses to adopt the traits and characteristics of other deities, particularly if those deities were perceived as more powerful. This is one of the reasons why the Ephesian Artemis began as the Hunt/Nature Goddess combined with the Maiden Goddess. But, as the city grew in power, she absorbed the characteristics of Selene/Luna, then the Love Goddess, and finally the Great Mother Goddess.
Mithras merely absorbed the characteristics of Jesus ...
It's the other way around sparky. Jesus (the Gospels; etc) absorbed the traditions, myths of the older pre-existing god-man myths.
OrangeHound wrote:
topal63 wrote:
Let's stick with the evidence for a historical Jesus and look at all of it (any of it). I am willing - so far you have argumentation without evidence. Lets stick with the Josephus Text for now - which is a clear forgery - how is the Eusebius version of Josephus's Antiquities - evidence for a historical Jesus.
You seem to wish to ignore the details - that you brought up.
... And the Josephus Text is not an original Text - it is a copy by the hand of a devout Christian. And if you knew what you were talking about - you would know that the Early Christian 1st - 2nd century writings make no mention of this - so called Josephus (Textural) evidence that Jesus existed.
I have read the entire works of Josephus and this style [the block of text] in question is clearly a later addition - forgery; by the hand of a Zealot Christian scribe (copyist).
Josephus Antiquities 18.3.3 - first quoted specifically by
Eusebius in the fourth century - has come down to us as follows:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Sounds exactly like what a Jew would write about Christianity (something he does not believe in) - right? Not.
This was inserted into a passage describing of another event.
Assuming that Antiquities is a valid historical work.
Sort of, overall it is a work from history, some of it is accurate, some myth, and some inaccurate. It is an explanation of what it is to be Jewish in a sense to a Greek audience. And it begins with the mythical biblical creation story (that part is hardly history).
But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews (8) were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.
_
About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs. There was at Rome a woman whose name was Paulina; one who, on account of the dignity of her ancestors, and by the regular conduct of a virtuous life, had a great reputation: she was also very rich; and although she was of a beautiful countenance, and in that flower of her age wherein women are the most gay, yet did she lead a life of great modesty. She was married to Saturninus, one that was every way answerable to her in an excellent character. Decius Mundus fell in love with this woman, who was a man very high in the equestrian order; and as she was of too great dignity to be caught by presents, and had already rejected them, though they had been sent in great abundance, he was still more inflamed with love to her, insomuch that he promised to give her two hundred thousand Attic drachmae for one night's lodging; and when this would not prevail upon her, and he was not able to bear this misfortune in his amours, he thought it the best way to famish himself to death for want of food, on account of Paulina's sad refusal; and he determined with himself to die after such a manner, and he went on with his purpose accordingly.
This is the passage - with the insertion removed. And pray tell why wouldn’t the Arabic version (10th century) of Josephus (copied from) early versions of the Text (after the 4th Century : Eusebius) not parallel the former in form? (That's sarcasm in the form of a rhetorical question, in case you're wondering).
Apparently he (Josephus) was done talking about sedition as follows “And thus an end was put to this sedition. [insert forgery here] About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder. . . ”
So no - this is not evidence of a historical Jesus.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-10 14:29:50)
