|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 08/04/2002 : 11:30:09 [Permalink]
|
Argumentum ad hominem seems a little desperate to me. Why should my philosophy or ethnicity constitute a valid reason for you to avoid the questions?
You are so strange. Is asking a persons religion in a debate about religious philosophy an Argumentum ad hominem to you? Why do you get upset when your questions are ignored but constantly ignore those asked of you?
What are you hiding that you are so ashamed of?
Do you continue to assert that "annointed one" is "not a Jewish concept"?
Here's an ad hominem for you. You cannot read what is written without twisting what is said in web-trollish fashion.
ONE of the definitions of the word Christ is "annointed one" another is "the blue/black one".
Yes the Jews called their Messiah the annointed one. That's where the similarity stopped. Is this too much for you to fathom?
The Jews wanted a Messiah to free them from the Greeks, and later from the Romans when he didn't show up in Greek times. Do you mean to say that you think the Greeks and Romans were waiting for him too and came up with their own name for him that --just by coincidence mind you-- was the same as their god Christna?
Or do you assert that the Jews are waiting for Christ. If so please supply any Jewish references to them expecting a Christ instead of a Messiah and tell me why Jews for Jesus is a tiny cult and not main stream if the Jews think that Jesus the Christ is Jesus the Messiah?
Can you site any instance where the term Christ was applied to Helen, Dionysos, Heracles or Prometheus?
Helen? Do you know nothing of classical mythology? Helen was the opposite of a savior-she led men to their dooms through her beauty. Any basic book on comparative mythology will clue you in on which gods were savior gods which is what the word Christ came to mean. Try Joseph Campbell's Occidental Mythology; the sections on Hellenism: 331 BC-324 AD and Great Rome: C500 BC-500AD
Do you know of any scholarship that questions the historicity of Saul/Paul, his authorship of Philippians in the 3rd quarter of the 1st century, and, therefore, his Jewish origins?
I already told you Helms but you choose to ignore me when I answer you would much rather flame me.
Slater's "original thought" about 'Christ' being a pagan concept does a disservice to one of the major arguments for interpolation in the Testimonium Flavianum (Antiquities 18.3.3). It is commonly maintained that Josephus, a Jew, would have never referred to Jesus as 'Christ' precisely because of its Jewish connotation as 'the Messiah'.
Let me lift a few lines here from G.A. Wells who refutes this Xian ruse better than I can. Emphases are mine.
" Only a handful of Josh McDowell-types claim that the so-called Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18:63-64) is genuine. Josephus (circa C.E. 37-101) was an orthodox Jew who cannot be expected to have written such obviously Christian words. If he did write them, and if he believed what they say, then why did he restrict his coverage of Jesus to this little parenthesis?
The ancient table of contents of the Antiquities, which is mentioned in the fifth- or sixth-century Latin version, omits mention of the Testimonium. That a Christian summarizing this work would overlook this passage would be remarkable indeed, considering Christians' well-known tendency to resort to any justification for the faith they can find -- however remote or untruthful that justification may be.
If this passage is original to the work, we can expect later writers to refer to it. Justin Martyr (circa C.E. 100-165) had to defend Christianity against the charges that they had "invented some sort of Christ for themselves" and that they had accepted "a futile rumor" (Dial. w. Trypho 8; circa C.E. 135). We would think that Justin would have pointed triumphantly to the Testimonuim as part of his reply, but he did not.
Origen (circa C.E. 185-254), who in his own writings relies extensively upon the works of Josephus, does not mention this passage or any other passage in Josephus that mentions Christ. This conspicuous absence speaks volumes about the passage in question. Had this passage been the vestige of a genuine passage that had undergone the revising hand of the Christian Fathers, you would think Origen would have mentioned it, even to criticize it were it critical of Jesus. No mention from Origen whatsoever of this passage or any other.
Jerome (circa C.E. 347-420) cites Josephus 90 times, but seems oblivious to the Testimonuim. Perhaps the Testimonuim was added later? L. H. Feldman, in Josephus and Modern Scholarship, lists two fathers from the second century, seven from the third, and two from the early fourth, all of whom knew Josephus and cited his works, but "do not refer to this passage, though one would imagine it would be the first passage that a Christian apologist would cite."
Indeed, one seldom hears a modern Christian apologist refer to Josephus at all, except to falsely claim the Testimonuim as genuine. The first mention of the Testimonium is Eusebius (who died about C.E. 342), and a full century passes (including, most notably, the era of Augustine [C.E. 354-430]) before it is again mentioned. This suggests that it took that long for most or all of the copies to include this passage. The earliest extant copy containing this passage dates from the eleventh century.
None of the Fathers before Eusebius used the word "tribe" in describing the Christians. Neither does it fit Josephus' usage of the word elsewhere: Josephus uses it to describe only national groups. This is further indication that Eusebius probably inserted the Testimonium into Josephus's works.
The Testimonium even breaks the thread of the narrative where it occurs, interrupting the narrative in a style quite unlike that common in the works of Josephus. Elsewhere, when Josephus inserts a parenthetical section, he introduces it as a parenthesis and then announces that he is returning to the original narration. The paragraph into which the Testimonium was inserted is itself a parenthetical section. It deals with disorder ("uproar") and this word connects the passages after the Testimonium with those preceding it, making the Testimonium parenthesis unnatural and unannounced. Also, the parallel passage in The Wars of the Jews, which repeats the surrounding text almost as fully as does Antiquities, omits the Testimonium.
Although several Jewish scholars see the Testimonium's designation of Jesus as "a wise man" too modest an assessment for a Christian, Josephus himself, in the remaining body of his works, applies this designation only to Solomon and Daniel. He doesn't even say this about David. It is doubtful that he would placed the casually mentioned Jesus in the same category as the extensively covered characters of Solomon and Daniel.
Meanwhile, Josephus himself mentions "an ambiguous oracle" (Wars 6:312-13) in the Jewish scripture which foretold the emergence of a world-wide ruler from Judea. In it, he is careful not to call this a Messianic prophesy (since he disliked Messianism as the source of many nationalistic uprisings), though the Testimonium has Josephus being shameless in his mention of how "the divine prophets had foretold" of Jesus's career.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860
Edited by - slater on 08/04/2002 15:21:58 |
 |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2002 : 19:05:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In response to:
Argumentum ad hominem seems a little desperate to me. Why should my philosophy or ethnicity constitute a valid reason for you to avoid the questions?
Slater writes:
You are so strange. Is asking a persons religion in a debate about religious philosophy an Argumentum ad hominem to you? Why do you get upset when your questions are ignored but constantly ignore those asked of you? What are you hiding that you are so ashamed of?
While I'm sure that you would prefer to personalize the discussion, I was not debating "religios philosophy". I was challenging your fabrications. What is "so strange" is your pathetic effort to divert the discussion.
quote:
In response to:
Do you continue to assert that "annointed one" is "not a Jewish concept"?
Slater writes:
Here's an ad hominem for you. You cannot read what is written without twisting what is said in web-trollish fashion. ONE of the definitions of the word Christ is "annointed one" another is "the blue/black one". Yes the Jews called their Messiah the annointed one. That's where the similarity stopped. Is this too much for you to fathom?
The Jews didn't call their Messiah the anointed one. The term 'Messiah' means the anointed one. Can you offer a single 1st or 2nd century case of Christos being applied to anyone else?
quote:
In response to:
Do you know of any scholarship that questions the historicity of Saul/Paul, his authorship of Philippians in the 3rd quarter of the 1st century, and, therefore, his Jewish origins?
Slater writes:
I already told you Helms but you choose to ignore me when I answer you would much rather flame me.
What you said was: "Helm's covers Paul with his standard overkill." It is difficult to know if that was an answer or a diversion. Are you asserting that Helms represents "scholarship that questions the historicity of Saul/Paul, his authorship of Philippians in the 3rd quarter of the 1st century, and, therefore, his Jewish origins"? If so, where?
quote:
In response to:
Slater's "original thought" about 'Christ' being a pagan concept does a disservice to one of the major arguments for interpolation in the Testimonium Flavianum (Antiquities 18.3.3). It is commonly maintained that Josephus, a Jew, would have never referred to Jesus as 'Christ' precisely because of its Jewish connotation as 'the Messiah'.
Slater writes:
Let me lift a few lines here from G.A. Wells who refutes this Xian ruse better than I can. Emphases are mine.
At issue here is not the validity of the Testimonium Flavianum but a proper understanding of one of the key arguments for interpolation. If Christos was a pagan designation, there would have been little or no difficulty for a Jewish historian to refer to the Christ. But it is extremely doubtful that such a Jewish historian would have refered to Jesus as the [Jewish] Messiah.
Slater, - you claim that Christ is a "pagan [and] not a Jewish concept, not a Messiah"
- you claim that "Jesus was given the title "the Christ" seventeen hundred years ago" [e.g., 300 CE - RD]
- you claim that "The writings of "Paul" reflect the work of at least three different authors. None of whom was Jewish ..."
You've raised questions about my philosophy and ethnicity. You've resorted to name-calling. But you have not answered the questions.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2002 : 19:53:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Can you offer a single 1st or 2nd century case of Christos being applied to anyone else?
Sure no problem. The god Christna. He had a large following in Rome during the 1st/2nd century. The leader of this religion was a Greek Neo-Pythagorean named Apollonius of Tyana.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 03:54:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater writes:
The god Christna. He had a large following in Rome during the 1st/2nd century. The leader of this religion was a Greek Neo-Pythagorean named Apollonius of Tyana.
Thanks for sharing, but forgive me if I'm not willing to take your word for the designation. Please refer me to any 1st or 2nd century text which applies 'Christos' to a pagan deity. Also, - please support your assertion that "Jesus was given the title "the Christ" seventeen hundred years ago"
- please support your assertion that "The writings of "Paul" reflect the work of at least three different authors. None of whom was Jewish ..."
- please support your implication that Helms supports this view
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 06:00:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Please refer me to any 1st or 2nd century text which applies 'Christos' to a pagan deity.
Doing a simple web search on "Christos Krishna" brings up ample sources that say that "Christos" is the Greek version of the word "Krishna", and there doesn't appear to be any resistance to the assertion that Apollonius brought the teachings of Krishna with him around 30 - 40 CE.
So "Christos" means Krishna. Would you consider Krishna a pagan diety? [this is an honest question, not sarcasm. I ask because this information was very easy to find, so I'm wondering if this meets your criteria for the challenge above...]
------------
I am the storm
Sent to wake you from your dreams
Show me your scorn
But you'll thank me in the end
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 08/09/2002 06:05:13 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 07:30:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I had heard of this concept before but my poor husband (some of you may not know but he was a Roman Catholic priest when we met)was at a gas station the other day and the car in front of him had a Jews For Jesus bumper sticker on it. He was intrigued and asked the woman about it. She explained that she was a Jew who after reading the research had come to agree that Jesus was indeed the Messiah after all. OOPS!!! When D asked her if that didn't make her a Christian she was shocked because obviously (to her, D is still confused) it makes her even more of a Jew then before. After all the Messiah came to save the Jews not Christians.
I ran into these folks evangelizing in front of Union Station (Chicago, IL) in 1990. They believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Sent to save the Jews. This goes against the Dogma of the Orthadox Jewish faith. They were very pleasant Reform Jews.
They still held the Jewish traditions as correct. The status of Jesus as Messiah does not change the basis of their faith in the teachings of the Torah. Christianity is so much more than the divinity of Jesus.
Cthulu/Asmodeus, when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.
Edited by - valiant dancer on 08/09/2002 07:31:21 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 07:38:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So "Christos" means Krishna.
I find it telling that the spelling Krishna date back to only the second half of the nineteenth century. Up until then it had always been Christna. My guess is that it was changed when Apollonius became a cult figure for English Spiritualists.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 08:17:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
So "Christos" means Krishna.
I find it telling that the spelling Krishna date back to only the second half of the nineteenth century.
So then it should be "Krishna means Christos"?
------------
I am the storm
Sent to wake you from your dreams
Show me your scorn
But you'll thank me in the end |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 08:22:00 [Permalink]
|
From this site:
quote:
Christ comes from the Greek word Christos, and Christos is the Greek version of the word Krsna. When an Indian person calls on Krsna, he often says "Krsta." Krsna is a Sanskrit word mean ing the object of attraction."
Etymology is fun 
------------
I am the storm
Sent to wake you from your dreams
Show me your scorn
But you'll thank me in the end |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 09:52:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Please refer me to any 1st or 2nd century text which applies 'Christos' to a pagan deity.
Doing a simple web search on "Christos Krishna" brings up ample sources that say that "Christos" is the Greek version of the word "Krishna", and there doesn't appear to be any resistance to the assertion that Apollonius brought the teachings of Krishna with him around 30 - 40 CE.
So "Christos" means Krishna. Would you consider Krishna a pagan diety? [this is an honest question, not sarcasm. I ask because this information was very easy to find, so I'm wondering if this meets your criteria for the challenge above...]
There exist numerous sites which make this assertion, and I'd be interested in knowing which you find compelling. But this, of course, does not answer your question.
Once again, Slater asserts: "It means the anointed one in Greek. It is not a word at all in Hebrew. Comes from the god Christna's name. It's pagan not a Jewish concept, not a Messiah."
Given that I know of no standard definition for 'pagan', let me restate the request: Please refer me to any 1st or 2nd century text that employs 'Christos' in a 'non-Jewish' manner. This, too, is an honest question. While I have no doubt that an enormous amount of syncretism took place, I know of absolutely no scholarship to suggest that 'Christos' was intended as anything other than the Greek translation of a Jewish term for 'the anointed one' during the period in question. It is my understanding, for example, that the term 'Christos' is presicely the term employed in the Septuagint - hardly a Pagan text.
Note that, even if one could find a textual reference to Apollonius Christos, that alone would be hardly sufficient to prove that Christos, as used by the early Christian movement, was not intended as "a Jewish concept". Slater advocates a simplistic conspiracy theory whereby Christianity becomes a 4th Century Roman construct. It is this that prompts him to speak of Krishna and fabricate novel histories for Paul. The closest he has come to substantiating a position was his lengthy G. A. Wells quote. Unfortunately, the quote had absolutely nothing to do with the questions posed. Had he searched for a relevant quote from Wells, he might have noted that:
quote:
Jewish conceptions of the Messiah were also relevant. William Horbury's Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (SCM, 1998) shows that in Judaism ‘the Messiah could be understood as the embodiment of an angel-like spirit', that spiritual and superhuman portrayals' of him were ‘more customary than has been commonly allowed', and that there is ‘a considerable extent of common ground, especially in the period from the first century to the fourth, between ancient Jewish conceptions of a pre-existent Messiah, among other pre-existent entities, and contemporary Christian conceptions of the pre-existent Christ reigning over the church or creation'. There is thus a strong Jewish background, additional to statements in the Wisdom literature, to Paul's idea of Christ as a supernatural personage, briefly embodied in human form. Horbury is quite orthodox in accepting that Jesus conducted a Galilean ministry, as depicted in the gospels. He is concerned only to explain how the cult or worship of him originated, and supposes that it probably' developed from praise offered by foll |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 11:10:18 [Permalink]
|
Given that I know of no standard definition for 'pagan',
Pagan was a Roman term. An insult meaning something similar to our "hill Billy" or "country bumpkin." It was used to insult anyone not Christian.
let me restate the request: Please refer me to any 1st or 2nd century text that employs 'Christos' in a 'non-Jewish' manner.
The god Christna or Christos. The term came into the Greek language through the lieutenants of Alexander the Great who studied with monks of the god in India and Bactria. They identified Christna with Heracles, just as they identified Shiva with Dionysus.
I know of absolutely no scholarship to suggest that 'Christos' was intended as anything other than the Greek translation of a Jewish term for 'the anointed one' during the period in question.
Now you do. That's a very Jewish centered world view you are betraying there. You honestly think that the Hellenists believed their god was a Jewish Messiah? Do you think the Greeks even gave the Jews a second thought as anything other than a petty annoyance?
Note that, even if one could find a textual reference to Apollonius Christos,
Apollonius of Tyana never claimed to be the Christna. Please read what people are writing BEFORE you contradict them.
Slater advocates a simplistic conspiracy theory whereby Christianity becomes a 4th Century Roman construct.
To call it a simplistic conspiracy theory, I take it, is just to toss another in a long series of trollish insults at me.
First it is not simplistic as it takes into account only the facts that we know without making assumptions that the standard Xian version insists be made. Which you insist be made.
As for your calling it a conspiracy theory are you assuming that the Early Christian church (condemned by the Emperor Julian for their common practice of murder) is above reproach? Are you saying that the Imperial Roman government always behaved above board?
Are you saying that governments in those days never made up gods (see Serapis) to suit their political ends?
The closest he has come to substantiating a position was his lengthy G. A. Wells quote. Unfortunately, the quote had absolutely nothing to do with the questions posed.
This shows how naive I can be. I am always surprised when someone who writes as well as you do turns out to have so little intelligence. You have scant idea of what people are trying to communicate to you.
Wells lists all the facts that we know that assure us that the part of Josephus you were hanging your argument on is a forgery. A poor forgery at that by a self admitted forger.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 12:22:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater writes:
Wells lists all the facts that we know that assure us that the part of Josephus you were hanging your argument on is a forgery. A poor forgery at that by a self admitted forger.
You seem to be confused. I fully agree that the Testimonium Flavianum is, at least in part, an interpolation.
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 12:26:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
From this site: ...
Etymology is fun
I hope you're kidding. 
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 12:39:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
From this site: ...
Etymology is fun
I hope you're kidding.
Maybe I should have said "armchair etymology"!
------------
I am the storm
Sent to wake you from your dreams
Show me your scorn
But you'll thank me in the end |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 14:04:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Tokyodreamer wrote:
Maybe I should have said "armchair etymology"!
Or, perhaps, "astral etymology".
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
