... a constipated monkey frustrated that he can't throw his own poo.
And confused about where that smell is coming from. :yes:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Jesus Myth
- Thread starter fallingblood
- Start date
- Status
And confused about where that smell is coming from. :yes:
1) It isn't "quite clear." There have been many detailed arguments by scholars over the years arguing that the longer passage was altered, but said something about Jesus. I continually mention the study by Vermes, not simply because of its excellence in noting particularly josephan characteristics in this passage. The consensus of scholars is that the passage DOES refer to Jesus, although it has been altered.
2) Even without this passage, the shorter reference is all we need. Not only does it clearly reference Jesus, it mentions his brother, who is also mentioned by Paul, and Mark/Matthew.
How many primary ancient texts have you read?
Yes, Acts reads just like a history book,
Not to someone comparing it with modern history, but ancient history is a whole different ball game. How much have you read with which to compare acts?
logician
Well-Known Member
Yes, Acts reads just like a history book,
Acts12:6The night before Herod was to bring him to trial, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries stood guard at the entrance.
7Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. "Quick, get up!" he said, and the chains fell off Peter's wrists.
8Then the angel said to him, "Put on your clothes and sandals." And Peter did so. "Wrap your cloak around you and follow me," the angel told him. 9Peter followed him out of the prison, but he had no idea that what the angel was doing was really happening; he thought he was seeing a vision. 10They passed the first and second guards and came to the iron gate leading to the city. It opened for them by itself, and they went through it. When they had walked the length of one street, suddenly the angel left him.
11Then Peter came to himself and said, "Now I know without a doubt that the Lord sent his angel and rescued me from Herod's clutches and from everything the Jewish people were anticipating."
---------
I suppose the angel of the Lord is a blood sibling of Jesus too!
Acts in particular is such obvious fiction of impossible events that's it s hard to believe anyone could really take it seriously.
Again, spoken by someone who hasn't read ancient history. Should we disbelieve everything written by ancient historians from Herodotus to Livy because they talk about god, rumor, myth, magic, etc, which is all mixed in with actual history? No. We just need to examine these sources carefully, which is exactly what scholars have been doing for centuries, and continually come up with "Jesus existed." All this despite the fact that you read The Jesus Mysteries.
The most obvious thing about the Testimonium, and the thing that no one is disputing, is that it was altered at some point. Look at it: the interpolations are obvious.
Which suggests that if someone took the trouble to change it, rather than making up something new whole cloth, it must have carried it's own authority prior to the changes, which makes a case for it's basic legitimacy.
logician
Well-Known Member
"Which makes it necessary to ask: if someone took the trouble to change it, rather than making up something new whole cloth, it must have carried it's own authority prior to the changes, which makes a case for it's basic legitimacy.
__________________"
It's own authority in regards to what?
__________________"
It's own authority in regards to what?
Again, there have been numerous studies carefully examining the tone, lexical choices, syntax, etc, of the entire passage with Josephus. Such analyses reveal that it is more likely the passage was altered than interpolated. But even if it wasn't, the second reference is more than enough to establish historicity.
what I'm saying is that if someone thought it was worth their while to alter the script, obviously he wanted to attach his own sentiments to something that carried the weight of an already established acceptance. Otherwise why wouldn't he have just came up with his own forgery?
what I'm saying is that the Testimonium in some form must have already been in circulation and accepted as a legitimate part of the over all text. And, for a lot of reasons, he must have done it sometime quite a bit prior to Esubious.
Yes, Acts reads just like a history book,
Why does it have to?
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
According to Jayhawker Soule and oberon it does.
IfUDontKnowMeByNow
Member
This becomes problematic in at least 4 major ways.
1) there was an argument over where does it speak of these other christ figures we are suggesting were used for the Mythology of Jesus and in the Book of ACTs like 5:36 and acts 5:37 is where you find 2 of them. So if one claims it historical then they should not be arguing the references don't exist. This is why I said they denounce their own texts all the time and this is evidence that they do.
2) it's a problem to stake this claim because the Book of Acts contradicts actual history by claiming Theudas died before Yehuda of Galilee when clearly Yehuda died around the census of 7BC (he died in 6BC) and Theudas died around 45 ad.
3) Book of Acts in a few places: [FONT="]Acts [/FONT][FONT="]5:30, [/FONT] [FONT="]Acts [/FONT][FONT="]10:39, [/FONT] [FONT="]Acts [/FONT][FONT="]13:29 show Jesus as being stoned (slew) and hanged not pierced and crucified. This exposes another christ figure being used and combined in the Jesus accounts.
4) book of acts 2:27 like [/FONT] 1 Peter 3:19, [FONT="]and Apostles Creed say Jesus went down to hell which fulfills the prophecy in Ezekiel 28 of the fallen false prophet son of perdition. Perdition means to fall to the pit. Thus Jesus told Mary to lie for him and tell them he ascended instead:
[/FONT] [FONT="]in John 20:1-17[/FONT]. So he wasn't perfect and sinless as claimed once we see the iniquities in him as per the son of perdition called the
anointed (christ) Cherub (guardian-nazarei in Hebrew) seen as perfect
in Ezekiel 28:14-15. The only prophet ever mistaking deemed perfect was Jesus therefore only Jesus can be this first fallen messiah they call Lucifer and Preachers use Ezekiel 28 to be about Lucifer the false messiah.
[FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT]
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Yes, but we have to remind ourselves that we're not in Kansas anymore, this is a religious forum where everything in The Bible is serious business. Paul knew the brother of the Lord and now we just read that Peter met the angel of the Lord. What next?
Rather, you are on a forum where some members actually read the primary sources, and can therefore compare acts with other ancient histories, because they actually know what these texts contain.
logician
Well-Known Member
"Gestation of the Faith
Part 1.
St Paul and the Acts of the Apostles A Ripping Yarn"
A Ripping Yarn â "Acts of the Apostles"Part 1.
St Paul and the Acts of the Apostles A Ripping Yarn"
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
There's a huge difference in:
1) accepting Acts uncritically as a history
AND
2) critically locating historical elements in Acts
Most scholars (including Oberon and myself) recognize that Acts is of a different genre than a normative 21st century history book.
There are historical elements that we locate through historical-critical methods that are also used to interpret other ancient histories and sources such as Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus.
1) accepting Acts uncritically as a history
AND
2) critically locating historical elements in Acts
Most scholars (including Oberon and myself) recognize that Acts is of a different genre than a normative 21st century history book.
There are historical elements that we locate through historical-critical methods that are also used to interpret other ancient histories and sources such as Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
So you know this website well?
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
We've noticed.
Then why cling to quoting unhistorical elements of Acts of the gospels as if this precludes them from being in the genre of ancient history?
- Status