Pilate's testimony

[iaoua iaoua]

Quote from wiki page on acts of pilate:

Justin the Martyr wrote, "And that these things did happen, you can
ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate."[5] The Apology letters
were written and addressed by name to the Roman Emperor Pius and the
Roman Governor Urbicus. All three of these men lived between 138–161
AD.

So here we have Justin writing a defense of christian belief to some
roman leaders. He urges them to read the record of Pilate's deeds to
ascertain that these things really did happen.

Is there still anybody here that doesn't believe Jesus was real
historical figure that was killed under Pilate's rule at Jerusalem?
Doesn't it strike you as odd that Justing would write this to those
roman leaders if no such record existed? Wouldn't make a very good
defense (apology) now would it?

JC

[alextangent]

Why don't you take this off to somewhere like
alt.binaries.religious.bollox? No-one here gives a flying toss what
you believe.

[Garamond Lethe]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 09:12:30 -0800, iaoua iaoua wrote:

> Quote from wiki page on acts of pilate:
>
> Justin the Martyr wrote,

Did he? Let's find out.

> "And that these things did happen, you can
> ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate."[5]

Now that you're aspiring to be an academic and all you should really get
into the habit of citing your sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Pilate

> The Apology letters were
> written and addressed by name to the Roman Emperor Pius and the Roman
> Governor Urbicus. All three of these men lived between 138–161 AD.

This was also taken directly from the wikipedia page without quotation
marks or citation. Don't do this.

>
> So here we have Justin writing a defense of christian belief to some
> roman leaders. He urges them to read the record of Pilate's deeds to
> ascertain that these things really did happen.
>

You should also get into the habit of reading what Wikipedia cites. In
this case the wiki article was incomplete enough to be misleading.

There were *several* "Acts of Pilate" and while at least two of them
purport to be official records, none of them are based on any official
documents. F. F. Bruce cites two in particular:

"When the influence of Christianity was increasing rapidly in the Empire,
one of the last pagan emperors, Maximin II, two years before the Edict of
Milan, attempted to bring Christianity into disrepute by publishing what
he alleged to be the true 'Acts of Pilate', representing the origins of
Christianity in an unsavoury guise. These 'Acts', which were full of
outrageous assertions about Jesus, had to be read and memorized by
schoolchildren. They were manifestly forged, as Eusebius historian
pointed out at the time..."

"Later in the fourth century another forged set of 'Acts of Pilate'
appeared, this time from the Christian side, and as devoid of genuineness
as Maximin's, to which they were perhaps intended as a counterblast."

As to Justin Martyr's reference to a much earlier "Acts", Bruce states:

"We should especially like to know if Pilate sent home to Rome any report
of the trial and execution of Jesus, and, if so, what it contained. But
it is not certain that he must have done so; and if he did, it has
disappeared beyond trace.

"Certainly some ancient writers believed that Pilate did send in such a
report, but there is no evidence that any of them had any real knowledge
of it."

F. F. Bruce, _The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?_, quoted at
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/actspilate.html

> Is there still anybody here that doesn't believe Jesus was real
> historical figure that was killed under Pilate's rule at Jerusalem?

Based on Justin Martyr's citing a work that, if it did exist, was most
likely created out of whole cloth?

> Doesn't it strike you as odd that Justing would write this to those
> roman leaders if no such record existed?

Yes, especially since there's no evidence that any such record did
exist. Why would he do that? Was he bluffing, hoping that his readers
would be as ignorant as you are?

> Wouldn't make a very good
> defense (apology) now would it?

It certainly doesn't.

But hey, it was good enough to fool you.....

>
> JC

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 14:24:55 -0600, Garamond Lethe wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 09:12:30 -0800, iaoua iaoua wrote:
>
>> Quote from wiki page on acts of pilate:
>>
>> Justin the Martyr wrote,
>
> Did he? Let's find out.
>
>> "And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of
>> Pontius Pilate."[5]
>
> Now that you're aspiring to be an academic and all you should really get
> into the habit of citing your sources.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Pilate

To be fair, he did say "Quote from the wiki page on acts of pilate:". A
link would have been nice, but still, the attribution is there.

>> The Apology letters were
>> written and addressed by name to the Roman Emperor Pius and the Roman
>> Governor Urbicus. All three of these men lived between 138–161 AD.
>
> This was also taken directly from the wikipedia page without quotation
> marks or citation. Don't do this.

He's free to do that, especially since he did attribute the quote and
wikipedia runs on CC-by-SA. I _do_ hate it to be 'advocatus diaboli' for
vowelboy.

<snip rest>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________
/ Hmmm ... a CRIPPLED ACCOUNTANT with a \
| FALAFEL sandwich is HIT by a |
\ TROLLEY-CAR ... /
---------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[iaoua iaoua]

> F. F. Bruce, _The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?_, quoted athttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/actspilate.html

>
> > Is there still anybody here that doesn't believe Jesus was real
> > historical figure that was killed under Pilate's rule at Jerusalem?
>
> Based on Justin Martyr's citing a work that, if it did exist, was most
> likely created out of whole cloth?
>
> > Doesn't it strike you as odd that Justing would write this to those
> > roman leaders if no such record existed?
>
> Yes, especially since there's no evidence that any such record did
> exist.  Why would he do that?  Was he bluffing, hoping that his readers
> would be as ignorant as you are?
>
> > Wouldn't make a very good
> > defense (apology) now would it?
>
> It certainly doesn't.
>
> But hey, it was good enough to fool you.....
>

Why you even bothered to bring up some forgery attempts is completely
beyond me. As for your claim that I didn't cite my source you
evidently missed the first line of my original post.

Anyway, swiftly moving on. Nothing in my post indicated a reference to
any of the later documents named acts of pilate. Justin was quite
obviously referring to some Roman document which he assumed his target
readers had easy access to. His words would made no sense if this
document did not exist. He was hardly going to convert or win favour
from these Roman officials if the document didn't exist or didn't
confirm his point. Your conspiracy theory that he was bluffing is
perhaps the worst act of desperation I've heard since I started
inviting you guys to consider the evidence instead of just jumping on
the bandwagon of ideas that you are comfortable with. But hey I'm
talking to the guy that publishes papers about how great his race
conditions are and thinks that puts him in some academic position of
superiority. Should I really expect anything less?!

JC

>
>
>
>
> > JC

[*Hemidactylus*]

I've seen pilates testimony before. It happens in the morning when all
the informercials have taken over the airwaves and after the male
enhancement pill testimonies comes the pilates testimonies. Usually it
involves some hot chicks straddling a big rubber ball or jumping up and
down in sweats and giving testimony about how much weight they lost and
how their boyfriend pays more attention to them now and how they have to
buy a new set of clothes because their pants keep falling down.

What pilates testimony means for biblical tangents or origins I have no
idea. It sure beats testimony about buying foreclosures.

[Garamond Lethe]

I expect it would be.

> As for your claim that I didn't cite my source you
> evidently missed the first line of my original post.
>

Put it where your reader expects to find it.

> Anyway, swiftly moving on. Nothing in my post indicated a reference to
> any of the later documents named acts of pilate.

> Justin was quite
> obviously referring to some Roman document which he assumed his target
> readers had easy access to.

Hmmm.... no, I don't find that obvious at all.

Such a document would be very important to early Christians, right?
And Christians were very good about copying and distributing documents
they considered important. Yet there's no record of this document
even a couple hundred years later when forgeries start to come out.

If such a document existed we'd expect non-Christians to find it
important as well. Where else is this document referred to? Who
commissioned this document? Where was is kept? Did other
administrators in the Empire generate similar documents? Where are
they? Where are they referred to?

Given the absence of all of the corroborating evidence and the
willingness of Christians to create forgeries (or "fan fiction", if
you like), I can't see why a single offhand reference by Justin would
justify a belief in this document.

[Justin need not have lied, of course. Someone else could have
created the initial forgery and Justin could have believed it was
true.]

> His words would made no sense if this
> document did not exist.

Yes! Exactly! You've got it!

So, where's the document? Who else read it? What did they say about
it?

> He was hardly going to convert or win favour
> from these Roman officials if the document didn't exist or didn't
> confirm his point. Your conspiracy theory that he was bluffing is
> perhaps the worst act of desperation I've heard since I started
> inviting you guys to consider the evidence instead of just jumping on
> the bandwagon of ideas that you are comfortable with. But hey I'm
> talking to the guy that publishes papers about how great his race
> conditions are and thinks that puts him in some academic position of
> superiority. Should I really expect anything less?!
>

I took ten minutes to chase down your story. I used exactly the same
material that you have available to you. It didn't take any great
intellect or even an advanced degree. Just a little curiosity.



> JC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > JC

[Kermit]

On Dec 11, 4:14 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>
> I took ten minutes to chase down your story.  I used exactly the same
> material that you have available to you.  It didn't take any great
> intellect or even an advanced degree.  Just a little curiosity.

That, and a desire to know what is most likely to be true, rather than
confirmation of dearly held beliefs.

Kermit

[iaoua iaoua]

Evidently not! As we have no copies of it. Though there are many
uncatalogued manuscripts in the monasteries of Athos and that would be
a good place to start looking for a christian copy if one still
exists. Unfortunately Tischendorf ruined it for the rest of us when he
stole the codex sinaiticus from sinai by promising the monks he would
return it. As a result it's almost impossible to get the monks to
trust outsiders with the vast hoard of manuscript treasures they hold
there. In any case, early christians seemed to be more concerned with
preserving a select few documents and seeing to the destruction of all
other versions than anything else and so your assumption doesn't
really hold water. It is of no surprise that the Romans had no
interest to copy documentation of every official through the ages.
Most likely more concerned with important works of history and poetry.
Stuff like the aenid for example.

If you had at least done a little homework you would know that many
documents are known through quotations in other surviving copies. If
you are to insist that quoted documents never existed then the whole
framework of history would come tumbling down and we wouldn't know a
quarter of what we think we presently know about the past through
sources.

> And Christians were very good about copying and distributing documents
> they considered important.  Yet there's no record of this document
> even a couple hundred years later when forgeries start to come out.
>
> If such a document existed we'd expect non-Christians to find it
> important as well.  Where else is this document referred to?  Who
> commissioned this document?  Where was is kept?  Did other
> administrators in the Empire generate similar documents?  Where are
> they?  Where are they referred to?
>

Do you really know nothing of Roman beaurocracy? Just come and live in
Italy for a few years and you'll get the point. Ever wondered where
the term triplicate came from? You know if we still had the
everything in triplicate that was written during the roman empire I'm
sure there wouldn't be a library big enough in the world to contain
it. So we get pliny the elder and the aenid and other stuff that the
powers that be thought was good enough to keep copying through the
ages. Get with it dude. You are just showing your ignorance.

> Given the absence of all of the corroborating evidence and the
> willingness of Christians to create forgeries (or "fan fiction", if
> you like), I can't see why a single offhand reference by Justin would
> justify a belief in this document.
>

Whether these were intended to be understood as the document Justin
was quoting doesn't seem to be a clear assumption. Have you even read
the apocryphal acts of pilate? Maybe you should before you make
nonsense statements like the above. If these were genuine forgery
attempts you would at least expect them to contain material relevant
to the points Justin was trying to make.

> [Justin need not have lied, of course.  Someone else could have
> created the initial forgery and Justin could have believed it was
> true.]
>

When did Justing live/write? Please stop advertising your ignorance on
line. It's embarassing even to read it from a distance. Don't you have
some race conditions to publish or something?

> > His words would made no sense if this
> > document did not exist.
>
> Yes!  Exactly!  You've got it!
>
> So, where's the document?  Who else read it?  What did they say about
> it?
>

We don't know. Only a minority of important stuff and stuff that
people didn't want to destroy for censorship reasons manages to get
down to us 2000 years later. Your expectations are just completely
unrealistic.

> > He was hardly going to convert or win favour
> > from these Roman officials if the document didn't exist or didn't
> > confirm his point. Your conspiracy theory that he was bluffing is
> > perhaps the worst act of desperation I've heard since I started
> > inviting you guys to consider the evidence instead of just jumping on
> > the bandwagon of ideas that you are comfortable with. But hey I'm
> > talking to the guy that publishes papers about how great his race
> > conditions are and thinks that puts him in some academic position of
> > superiority. Should I really expect anything less?!
>
> I took ten minutes to chase down your story.  I used exactly the same
> material that you have available to you.  It didn't take any great
> intellect or even an advanced degree.  Just a little curiosity.
>

And so it's no wonder just what a complete fool you made of yourself.
Please spend more than 10 minutes preparation before your next
installment of making complete fool of yourself online.

The fact you have unaddressed remains despite your stream of nonsense.
Justin wrote in the early 2nd century to some roman governors inviting
them to check their records of the things pilate did concerning Jesus
to check that what he was saying was true. This would have made no
sense if those records didn't exist. He would only have been certain
to have had the exact opposite effect as his desired one. If you think
he thought that it was a bluff worth calling then you evidently
understand nothing of Roman beaurocracy.

To understand it all you have to do is read Luke's account of how
after Paul had appealed to Caesar even though they would have liked to
set him free they didn't. An appeal had been made to Caesar and to
Caesar he must go despite our being willing to find him innocent of
the charges against him.

JC

>
>
> > JC
>
> > > > JC

[Garamond Lethe]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 18:54:17 -0500, Metspitzer wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 14:24:55 -0600, Garamond Lethe

> Dawkins says Jesus existed.

Based on the totality of the evidence I've seen, Dawkins is correct.

[Garamond Lethe]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 16:50:47 -0800, iaoua iaoua wrote:

> On Dec 12, 12:14 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 3:20 pm, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> > Anyway, swiftly moving on. Nothing in my post indicated a reference
>> > to any of the later documents named acts of pilate.
>> > Justin was quite obviously referring to some Roman document which he
>> > assumed his target readers had easy access to.
>>
>> Hmmm.... no, I don't find that obvious at all.
>>
>> Such a document would be very important to early Christians, right?
>

If I may make a few notes:

1)

> Evidently not! As we have no copies of it.

2)

> Though there are many
> uncatalogued manuscripts in the monasteries of Athos and that would be a
> good place to start looking for a christian copy if one still exists.
> Unfortunately Tischendorf ruined it for the rest of us when he stole the
> codex sinaiticus from sinai by promising the monks he would return it.
> As a result it's almost impossible to get the monks to trust outsiders
> with the vast hoard of manuscript treasures they hold there.

3)

> In any
> case, early christians seemed to be more concerned with preserving a
> select few documents and seeing to the destruction of all other versions
> than anything else and so your assumption doesn't really hold water.

4)

> It
> is of no surprise that the Romans had no interest to copy documentation
> of every official through the ages. Most likely more concerned with
> important works of history and poetry.
> Stuff like the aenid for example.
>

5)

> If you had at least done a little homework you would know that many
> documents are known through quotations in other surviving copies. If you
> are to insist that quoted documents never existed then the whole
> framework of history would come tumbling down and we wouldn't know a
> quarter of what we think we presently know about the past through
> sources.
>

To summarize:

1) A first-person account of the passion of Christ wasn't considered
important by early Christians.

2) But if it was important, the monks lost it.

3) And if they didn't lose it, it was suppressed for being heretical.

4) And if it wasn't heretical, the Romans lost it.

5) And despite the fact that I can't find anyone who quoted this
document and the fact that a quotation would have little bearing on its
authenticity, I'll mention that documents are often quoted.

What a mutiplicity of hypotheses! Let me tuck mine in here as well.

0) "The Acts of Pilate" referred to by Justin Martyr was written by an
early Christian author who had no first- or second-hand knowledge of the
events described.

Now how should we go about determining which is most likely correct?
Perhaps consult an expert? I already have.

Would you care to cite an expert to support any of your hypotheses? (Not
that documents were lost/suppressed, but that *this* document was
authored by Pilate or under his direction.)

You can't. You don't know how.

Hmmm.... perhaps "fiction" is better than "forgery". It wasn't an
altered copy of an existing document; it was just intended to look like
an official document.

>> [Justin need not have lied, of course.  Someone else could have created
>> the initial forgery and Justin could have believed it was true.]
>>
>>
> When did Justing live/write? Please stop advertising your ignorance on
> line. It's embarassing even to read it from a distance. Don't you have
> some race conditions to publish or something?
>
>> > His words would made no sense if this document did not exist.
>>
>> Yes!  Exactly!  You've got it!
>>
>> So, where's the document?  Who else read it?  What did they say about
>> it?
>>
>>

> We don't know.

So then how did you arrive at your conclusion that the document was valid?

> Only a minority of important stuff and stuff that people
> didn't want to destroy for censorship reasons manages to get down to us
> 2000 years later. Your expectations are just completely unrealistic.

If I was asking for Jesus' tax receipts you'd have a point. But you're
positing that a first-hand, official account of the trial of Jesus was
never quoted, only mentioned at all a handful of time and then
disappeared, to be replaced later by obvious frauds. There's also the
problem of all of the other "Acts of [fill in the governor]" went
completely missing (and unquoted) as well.

That's a lot of coincidences you're piling up.

Contrast this with an alternative: people (say, like you) like writing
fiction. They like writing from the point of view of famous people.
These documents were recognized at the time for what they were (with a
few exceptions like Justin) an the early Church made no special effort to
preserve them (with the exception of a later version that became
relatively famous).

This has been common knowledge since about 1913. But that's not the
literature you read, so you wouldn't know that.

>
>> > He was hardly going to convert or win favour from these Roman
>> > officials if the document didn't exist or didn't confirm his point.
>> > Your conspiracy theory that he was bluffing is perhaps the worst act
>> > of desperation I've heard since I started inviting you guys to
>> > consider the evidence instead of just jumping on the bandwagon of
>> > ideas that you are comfortable with. But hey I'm talking to the guy
>> > that publishes papers about how great his race conditions are and
>> > thinks that puts him in some academic position of superiority. Should
>> > I really expect anything less?!
>>
>> I took ten minutes to chase down your story.  I used exactly the same
>> material that you have available to you.  It didn't take any great
>> intellect or even an advanced degree.  Just a little curiosity.
>>
>>
> And so it's no wonder just what a complete fool you made of yourself.
> Please spend more than 10 minutes preparation before your next
> installment of making complete fool of yourself online.
>
> The fact you have unaddressed remains despite your stream of nonsense.
> Justin wrote in the early 2nd century to some roman governors inviting
> them to check their records of the things pilate did concerning Jesus to
> check that what he was saying was true. This would have made no sense if
> those records didn't exist.

The "records" didn't exist. Justin was referring to a Christian
pamphlet.

And no, that didn't make too much sense.

> He would only have been certain to have had
> the exact opposite effect as his desired one. If you think he thought
> that it was a bluff worth calling then you evidently understand nothing
> of Roman beaurocracy.

Well, I do know how to *spell* it.

>
> To understand it all you have to do is read Luke's account of how after
> Paul had appealed to Caesar even though they would have liked to set him
> free they didn't. An appeal had been made to Caesar and to Caesar he
> must go despite our being willing to find him innocent of the charges
> against him.
>

If you're going to reply (and I expect you will) please cite the primary
literature.

> JC
>
>
>>
>> > JC
>>
>> > > > JC

[Steven L.]

"Metspitzer" <kilo...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:hdgae75soqfclo6aa...@4ax.com:

Yes. Only some atheists doubt Jesus' existence.

Whether Jesus was divine is a whole other question.



-- Steven L.

[iaoua iaoua]

What a multiplicity of misunderstanding. Go back and read it again but
this time carefully. What Christians found important was Christ's
resurrection not his undisputed death. The witnesses to this event
preached his resurrection all over the place. The sources we have that
the church considered to be reliable enough to canonise all focus on
the resurrection as the climax of their accounts. This is the good
news. That Christ raised from the dead. What's the use of a dead
messiah? The good news is that the messiah is alive and sitting at the
right hand of God. He is immortal.

The points that were made were these. There are many non canonical
manuscripts. A good place to start looking for those that scholars
have not yet been able to study is the libraries of the monasteries.
However, this is now difficult because of the theft of the codex
sinaiticus. We need to start rebuilding trust relationships with the
monks. A good first step would be to give back the codex sinaiticus
from the British library. Perhaps then we could regain their trust and
start cataloguing those manuscripts in cooperation with the monastery
librarians. They want to catalogue this stuff but don't have the
manpower. Further, it is clear that the masses of paperwork that the
Roman empire generated could not all be copied. Clearly they were
selective. We get pliny the elder, the aenid etc. But not the deeds of
every single governer in foreign locations in the roman empire.

> 0)  "The Acts of Pilate" referred to by Justin Martyr was written by an
> early Christian author who had no first- or second-hand knowledge of the
> events described.
>

What a surprise. You came straight out with a baseless conspiracy
theory. How totally unpredictable.

> Now how should we go about determining which is most likely correct?
> Perhaps consult an expert?  I already have.
>

Expert? Did you go back in time and ask the Roman officials that were
written to? I'm sure they would find your hypothesis just as
ridiculous as I do? Why would they be convinced by an obvious forgery?
Justin was asking them to check their records.

> Would you care to cite an expert to support any of your hypotheses?  (Not

Justin Martyr for example? Being a contemporary he probably had a much
better idea of what he was talking about that you. The context seems
clear. He is effectively saying 'if you don't believe then check your
own records'.

> that documents were lost/suppressed, but that *this* document was
> authored by Pilate or under his direction.)
>
> You can't.  You don't know how.
>

As I have already brought to your attention a great many documents
from antiquity are only known through quotations in extant
manuscripts. If you at least recognised this it would help to make you
seem less of such a complete beginner discussing issues he clearly
doesn't fully understand.

Please, here's some homework for you. Why should I believe in the
existence of the hexapla? Do you have a manuscript you can show me of
its existence? When you have done that bit of homework then please do
tell me why your are so much more willing to accept it was what the
context suggests it was? Selective bias per chance?

Because Justin Martyr wrote to the Roman officials asking them to
check their records to validate what he was saying. If Justin had a
copy he could have quoted it directly. Evidently, he didn't have
access not being a Roman official himself. But he was confident that
those he was writing to did have such access and the document would
confirm what he was saying to be true.

> > Only a minority of important stuff and stuff that people
> > didn't want to destroy for censorship reasons manages to get down to us
> > 2000 years later. Your expectations are just completely unrealistic.
>
> If I was asking for Jesus' tax receipts you'd have a point.  But you're
> positing that a first-hand, official account of the trial of Jesus was
> never quoted, only mentioned at all a handful of time and then
> disappeared, to be replaced later by obvious frauds.  There's also the
> problem of all of the other "Acts of [fill in the governor]" went
> completely missing (and unquoted) as well.
>

As I've already said Jesus execution was undisputed. The Jews answer
was that they had stolen his body and were lying about his
resurrection. Christians were concerned with preaching his
resurrection to the ends of the earth. Not in proving his execution.
That was undisputed at the time.

> That's a lot of coincidences you're piling up.
>
> Contrast this with an alternative:  people (say, like you) like writing
> fiction.  They like writing from the point of view of famous people.
> These documents were recognized at the time for what they were (with a
> few exceptions like Justin) an the early Church made no special effort to
> preserve them (with the exception of a later version that became
> relatively famous).
>
> This has been common knowledge since about 1913.  But that's not the
> literature you read, so you wouldn't know that.
>

Common knowledge since 33 was that Jesus was executed. What was
disputed was his resurrection. Heck, even his miracles weren't
disputed. His opponents claimed he was using the dark side to do his
work.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > He was hardly going to convert or win favour from these Roman
> >> > officials if the document didn't exist or didn't confirm his point.
> >> > Your conspiracy theory that he was bluffing is perhaps the worst act
> >> > of desperation I've heard since I started inviting you guys to
> >> > consider the evidence instead of just jumping on the bandwagon of
> >> > ideas that you are comfortable with. But hey I'm talking to the guy
> >> > that publishes papers about how great his race conditions are and
> >> > thinks that puts him in some academic position of superiority. Should
> >> > I really expect anything less?!
>
> >> I took ten minutes to chase down your story.  I used exactly the same
> >> material that you have available to you.  It didn't take any great
> >> intellect or even an advanced degree.  Just a little curiosity.
>
> > And so it's no wonder just what a complete fool you made of yourself.
> > Please spend more than 10 minutes preparation before your next
> > installment of making complete fool of yourself online.
>
> > The fact you have unaddressed remains despite your stream of nonsense.
> > Justin wrote in the early 2nd century to some roman governors inviting
> > them to check their records of the things pilate did concerning Jesus to
> > check that what he was saying was true. This would have made no sense if
> > those records didn't exist.
>
> The "records" didn't exist.  Justin was referring to a Christian
> pamphlet.
>

That conspiracy theory just doesn't hold any water. He was writing to
Roman officials. They were hardly likely to find a Christian pamphlet
convincing. That's why he asked them to check their own records.

> And no, that didn't make too much sense.
>
> > He would only have been certain to have had
> > the exact opposite effect as his desired one. If you think he thought
> > that it was a bluff worth calling then you evidently understand nothing
> > of Roman beaurocracy.
>
> Well, I do know how to *spell* it.
>
>
>
> > To understand it all you have to do is read Luke's account of how after
> > Paul had appealed to Caesar even though they would have liked to set him
> > free they didn't. An appeal had been made to Caesar and to Caesar he
> > must go despite our being willing to find him innocent of the charges
> > against him.
>
> If you're going to reply (and I expect you will) please cite the primary
> literature.
>

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Paul's letters, James, Peter, John
and Jude's letters. Happy reading.

JC

>
>
> > JC
>
> >> > JC
>
> >> > > > JC

[Ernest Major]

In message <obadnZgabZ0AbHjT...@earthlink.com>, Steven L.
<sdli...@earthlink.net> writes

That's ambiguously stated. It could be read as [only some] atheists
(true), or only [some atheists] (probably false, as doubting the
existence of Jesus is a possible position for followers of non-Abrahamic
religions).

>
>Whether Jesus was divine is a whole other question.
>

--

alias Ernest Major

[Garamond Lethe]

On Dec 12, 4:06 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 5:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > If you're going to reply (and I expect you will) please cite the primary
> > literature.
>
> Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Paul's letters, James, Peter, John
> and Jude's letters. Happy reading.
>

Thank you for your contribution. I'm certain you did your best.

For everyone else:

This is a fascinating (if you like this kind of thing) instance of the
evolution of a particular textual interpretation. JC's interpretation
fell out of favor in the late 1880s. Since then, the consensus has
solidified around the following:

"Justin’s appeal to an “Acts of Pilate” rests solely on his
assumption that such an official court document had been preserved."

Felix Scheilder, “The Gospel of Nicodemus Acts of Pilate and Christ’s
Descent into Hell,” New Testament Apocrypha (Rev. and ed. Wilhelm
Schneemelcher. Translated. R. Mcl. Wilson. Louisville: Westminster/
John Knox Press, 1991, 501. Cited in John David Shanon's MS Thesis "
'For Good Work Do They Wish to Kill Him?': Narrative critique of the
Acts of Pilate", UMissouri, 2006.

The earliest reference to this conclusion I've found is as follows:

"Scholten does not believe that any "Acts of Pilate" were in the hands
of either Justin or Tertullian; but that Justin merely assumed that
some such official report must have been sent, and Tertullian follows
Justin's assumption."

Scholten, _Die altesten Zeugnisse betreffend die Schriften des neuen
Testaments_, cited by James Rendel Harris, _The Homeric Centones and
the Acts of Pilate_, 1898, pg 73.

At which point even my interest began to flag....

[John S. Wilkins]

I'm appalled that you lose interest just as you get to the *real*
scholars of the 19thC...
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[iaoua iaoua]

This seems to be amongst the set of reasonable possibilities. I'm glad
you've done some reading. You are now saying things I can take far
more seriously. However, I still note your strong biased. You are all
too quick to accept something that sounds like it might contradict the
sources.

You remind a little of my wife in our early years. I always noted how
she, although being a nominal christian, was quick to chase after the
'wisdom' of the words of poets, philosophers, ukrainian tradition but
seemed to hate hearing anything from the bible. There was a passage
from Corinthians that I always tried to show her the wisdom of. It
spoke about love. One time we were in a restaurant and she found
something like these words on the back of a menu:

Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous, it does not brag, does
not get puffed up, does not behave indecently, does not look for its
own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep a record of
offenses. It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with
the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things,
endures all things. Love never fails. But whether there are gifts of
prophesying, they will be done away with; whether there are tongues,
they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will be done away
with. For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially; but
when that which is complete arrives, that which is partial will be
done away with. When I was a babe, I used to speak as a babe, to think
as a babe, to reason as a babe; but now that I have become a man, I
have done away with the traits of a babe. For at present we see in
hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face to
face. At present I know partially, but then I shall know accurately
even as I am accurately known. Now, however, there remain faith, hope,
love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

She marvelled at the wisdom of these (philosophical) words about love.
I sat there and laughed. She asked me why. I told her that these were
the very same words I had read to her already a thousand times but she
despised because she knew they were from the bible. Now she was
reading them on the back of a menu and not understanding that they
were from the bible all of sudden thought they were the wisest most
beautiful words she'd ever read. That was a turning point for my wife
and she started to read the bible without the prejudiced this world
had given her.

Stop reading conspiracy theories. Just read the sources. They are much
better than you think.

JC

[Garamond Lethe]

Cites to the others?

[Garamond Lethe]

On Dec 13, 12:06 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

...where "real" indicates the assumption that the readers' command of
Greek was at least as good as that of the authors', implying
translation was not only unnecessary but somewhat insulting....


> --
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/13/11 3:53 AM, iaoua iaoua wrote:
>
> Stop reading conspiracy theories. Just read the sources. They are much
> better than you think.

Why not take your own advice? Here are some original sources for you to
read:

The Epic of Gilgamesh
Enuma Elish
The Egyptian Book of the Dead
The Voyage of the Argo
The Iliad
The Prose Edda
The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius
The Ramayana
The Mahabharata (in particular the Bhagavad Gita)
Tao Te Ching
Analects of Confucius
Buddha's Sermon at Benares
The Kojiki
The Mwindo Epic
The Epic of Qayaq
Dine Bahane (The Navajo Creation Story)
The Popol Vuh
The Huarochiri Manuscript
Watunna

They are much better than you think.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[iaoua iaoua]

If you accept the possibility that Justing believe the deeds of Pilate
to be recorded then you must also accept the possibility that he had
either read them or received from a reliable source the report that
they did exist e.g. a friend that had read them. It only shows your
biased that you seem only willing to consider the scandalous but not
the also the trivial.

JC

[iaoua iaoua]

On Dec 13, 6:04 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:

Indeed. I hope to get round to learning all the necessary languages
and reading them all. One of my hopes for my research is to be able to
make a contribution towards making a representation of understanding
into which all ancient documents can be encoded and used as the basis
of accurate translation into whatever future languages are used.

JC

[John Stockwell]

It wouldn't be a convincing fake, if it didn't have real characters,
now
would it?

-John


>
> JC

[Garamond Lethe]

People who publish have a much higher bar to reach than "admit the
possibility". The best explanation we have --- and this has been
settled for 130 years now --- is that Justin simply assumed such a
document must exist.

If you like making up stories --- and you do --- then you can let your
imagination run wild with exculpatory theories: The friend of a
friend who gave the verbal summary of the project to Justin just
before the Church suppressed their copy and the Romans lost theirs,
except for the copy that still lies undiscovered, moldering in a
monastery.

That's not history --- that's fan fiction.

So, why is this relevant?

If you have a pet hypothesis, it's impossible to design an experiment
to falsify the hypothesis if you're willing to "admit the possibility"
that some other aspect of the experiment failed instead. If you treat
your work the same way you treat the study of history, your career
will end as you as you find an incorrect hypothesis you happen to be
fond of. You're always going to be able to invent an excuse as to why
the community should "admit the possibility" that you're right,
regardless of the accumulated evidence.

You're going to have to develop the habit of abandoning unpromising
hypotheses based on the preponderance of evidence. The time you spend
defending hypotheses that only admit to possibilities is time you're
never going to get back. Your academic clock is ticking: you have
four or five years to make yourself look better than the rest of the
Ph.D. students in your line of work.

> It only shows your
> biased that you seem only willing to consider the scandalous but not
> the also the trivial.

Still no cites?

Has nobody told you how this is done? Well, just in case....

1) Head over to scholar.google.com.

2) Put in <"acts of pilate" "justin martyr"> (without the <>). This
will bring up hits with both the phrases.

3) Open the first fifty hits in their own tabs. (As you get better
at this you'll be able to cut this number down substantially.)

4) In each document, search for the least common phrase you're
interested in.

5) Start skimming.

6) If you don't find anything relevant in the first ten hits or so,
try a different search string.

7) Follow up on citations.

8) Pay attention to dates. (Does opinion change over time?)

After reading 100 or so pages of text you'll have an excellent
superficial understanding of the issue and as well as a superficial
understanding of a sliver of scholarly opinion. Do this two or three
times a week and by the end of your student career you may have
learned how to learn.

>
> JC

[iaoua iaoua]

This is a considerable improvement on your earlier less informed
position but your comment 'this has been settled' is quite poor
academic practice. Your refusal to acknowledge that Justing may have
had good reason to believe his assumption just highlights your level
of biased not your good academic practice as you would like to come
across.

> If you like making up stories --- and you do --- then you can let your
> imagination run wild with exculpatory theories:  The friend of a
> friend who gave the verbal summary of the project to Justin just
> before the Church suppressed their copy and the Romans lost theirs,
> except for the copy that still lies undiscovered, moldering in a
> monastery.
>
> That's not history --- that's fan fiction.
>

Then the best I can suggest to you is to refrain from twisting my
words to suit your biased agenda.

> So, why is this relevant?
>
> If you have a pet hypothesis, it's impossible to design an experiment
> to falsify the hypothesis if you're willing to "admit the possibility"
> that some other aspect of the experiment failed instead.  If you treat
> your work the same way you treat the study of history, your career
> will end as you as you find an incorrect hypothesis you happen to be
> fond of.  You're always going to be able to invent an excuse as to why
> the community should "admit the possibility" that you're right,
> regardless of the accumulated evidence.
>
> You're going to have to develop the habit of abandoning unpromising
> hypotheses based on the preponderance of evidence.  The time you spend
> defending hypotheses that only admit to possibilities is time you're
> never going to get back.  Your academic clock is ticking:  you have
> four or five years to make yourself look better than the rest of the
> Ph.D. students in your line of work.
>

Skipped over this on the assumption that as your logic started out so
wrong it could only likely get worse. Want me to view the house you
build? Then put it on a firm foundation!

> > It only shows your
> > biased that you seem only willing to consider the scandalous but not
> > the also the trivial.
>
> Still no cites?
>

The primary sources. That which you seem to be incapable of handling.

> Has nobody told you how this is done?  Well, just in case....
>
> 1)  Head over to scholar.google.com.
>

1) Learn Koine Greek. You are way out of your depth.

> 2)  Put in <"acts of pilate" "justin martyr"> (without the <>).  This
> will bring up hits with both the phrases.
>

2) Obtain a copy in original language of Justin's original
communication.

> 3)  Open the first fifty hits in their own tabs.  (As you get better
> at this you'll be able to cut this number down substantially.)
>

3) Read the quote in context. That way you can save yourself the
embarassment of your first misguided and biased led opinions.

> 4)  In each document, search for the least common phrase you're
> interested in.
>

4) Once you have properly understood what kind of a record Justin was
referring to using the available contextual clues then it is time to
start considering what the shape of that document might have been and
why he was so convinced his readers could easily find it.

> 5)  Start skimming.
>

5) If you are going to start making conspiracy theories then you'd
better be willing as a bare minimum to make a search for responses or
evidence for responses from said Roman governors to the effect of "WTF
Justin. We have no such records".

> 6)  If you don't find anything relevant in the first ten hits or so,
> try a different search string.
>

6) If no such corrobatory evidence for your conspiracy theory exists
then maybe you should start considering dropping your biases and
acting like a proper scholar.

> 7)  Follow up on citations.
>

7) Now's the time to start considering what that original document
might have looked like and looking through the manuscript evidence to
see if any other Roman officials made reports of their deeds and or
judicial decisions. This may give us a starting place to reconstruct
what that document may have looked like.

> 8)  Pay attention to dates.  (Does opinion change over time?)
>

8) Use clues in the text to figure out what time the original of the
manuscripts you are considering may have been written.

> After reading 100 or so pages of text you'll have an excellent
> superficial understanding of the issue and as well as a superficial
> understanding of a sliver of scholarly opinion.  Do this two or three
> times a week and by the end of your student career you may have
> learned how to learn.
>

9) After getting your hands dirty with some real Greek and some real
experience of tracking down lost documents from antiquity you may be
able to enter the discussion. Until then you are just some whining
voice online that likes to make himself out to be the model academic.

Are you really such a tosser in real life? Can we skype sometime? I'm
wondering if this is just some internet persona you've created for
yourself or whether you really are this gratuitously patronising even
in fields you evidently know nothing about?

Have you learned Hebrew and Greek to examine the primary sources
yourself? Have you been on many an expedition in Greece, Egypt, Turkey
and Israel to visit monasteries and consult manuscripts first hand and
perhaps even get some experience in finding new ones? Have you visited
all the relevant archaeological sites to get a feel for the layout and
make educated guesses about where good places to look for hidden
evidence may be? You are so out of your depth son and you still want
to play the patronising tosser! I refuse to believe you are this much
of a prick in real life. You would be completely intolerable for any
department.

JC

>
>
>
>
> > JC

[John S. Wilkins]

Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 13, 12:06 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> > > Scholten, _Die altesten Zeugnisse betreffend die Schriften des neuen
> > > Testaments_, cited by James Rendel Harris, _The Homeric Centones and
> > > the Acts of Pilate_, 1898, pg 73.
> >
> > > At which point even my interest began to flag....
> >
> > I'm appalled that you lose interest just as you get to the *real*
> > scholars of the 19thC...
>
> ...where "real" indicates the assumption that the readers' command of
> Greek was at least as good as that of the authors', implying
> translation was not only unnecessary but somewhat insulting....
>

Dem's der fellows...

[Mark Isaak]

You have already learned them.

[Garamond Lethe]

On Dec 13, 1:58 pm, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 8:28 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 11:16 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 13, 2:57 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 13, 3:53 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 13, 7:19 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 12, 4:06 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 12, 5:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > If you're going to reply (and I expect you will) please cite the primary
> > > > > > > > literature.
>
> > > > > > > Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Paul's letters, James, Peter, John
> > > > > > > and Jude's letters. Happy reading.
>
> > > > > > Thank you for your contribution.  I'm certain you did your best.

> > > > > This seems to be amongst the set of reasonable possibilities.
>
> > > > Cites to the others?

> > Still no cites?

Still no citations.

At this point I consider the matter to be closed. You may have the
last word.

[Perseus]

> any of the later documents named acts of Pilate. Justin was quite

> obviously referring to some Roman document which he assumed his target
> readers had easy access to. His words would made no sense if this
> document did not exist.

It makes sense if the people he was addressing to did not know if the
document was real or not. By simply mentioning a document that did
not exist, he was giving some plausibility to the idea that the
gospels were truly the story of Jesus. With some words like "you can
go to the library of the Senate and read the document in which Pilate
informs the emperor of the death sentence of Jesus of Nazareth."

As simple as that. There was not any need that such document existed
at all.

> He was hardly going to convert or win favor

> from these Roman officials if the document didn't exist or didn't
> confirm his point. Your conspiracy theory that he was bluffing is
> perhaps the worst act of desperation I've heard since I started
> inviting you guys

It is "your words" that are a show the desperation to make us believe
that this story of Jesus is a true one.
I have not any problem with a Jesus man, even with a Jesus rabbi, or
whatever. None of us atheists here have a problem to believe a man
named Jesus ever existed as such a man. None only one. We atheists
can believe in halve a dozen Jews named Iosua, or Jesus. And that
they were peaching in Palestine at that time.

Perseus

[iaoua iaoua]

The sources have been given to you. Go away and read them. They have
been painstakingly copied through the centuries for. Many translations
exist. And yet you seem to prefer to read the opinions expressed in
writings nearly 2000 later somehow reasoning that being 2000 years
down the road they would be in a better position to know what really
happened. I've got some news for your ego. You are not the example
academic you think you are. Your scholarship is the poorest I've ever
seen. You refuse to even read the primary sources and then think you
should be taken seriously. Go away, learn Greek, read the sources.
Then come back and we can talk about it. Until you can handle the
sources directly you just another whining voice that evidently doesn't
have a clue.

JC

[Garamond Lethe]

On Dec 15, 10:37 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 5:34 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 1:58 pm, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 13, 8:28 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 13, 11:16 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 13, 2:57 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 13, 3:53 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 13, 7:19 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 4:06 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 5:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > If you're going to reply (and I expect you will) please cite the primary
> > > > > > > > > > literature.
>
> > > > > > > > > Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Paul's letters, James, Peter, John
> > > > > > > > > and Jude's letters. Happy reading.
>
> > > > > > > > Thank you for your contribution.  I'm certain you did your best.
> > > > > > > This seems to be amongst the set of reasonable possibilities.
>
> > > > > > Cites to the others?
> > > > Still no cites?
>
> > Still no citations.
>
> > At this point I consider the matter to be closed.  You may have the
> > last word.
>
> The sources have been given to you. Go away and read them.

Just a point of clarification --- I seem to have missed a post.

I was under the impression that no source prior to Justin Martyr ---
Christian or otherwise --- mentioned the Acts of Pilate. Which of
your sources prior to Justin reference this document? (Please provide
edition and page number.)

[Perseus]

even if existed such a forged or real document, it would not prove
that Jesus was a god-man. It only would have proved that a man named
Jesus was crucified in times of Procurator Pilate.

Perseus

[Perseus]

it does not make any sense for us to go to read these books. Most of
us, atheists had read the gospels and had realized they a forgery.
Do you want me to point you a few of the points that prove the gospels
are a forgery? Other atheist here can point you other different
points than me.

Perseus

[iaoua iaoua]

I am not aware of any extant sources prior to Justin Martyr that
reference the recorded deeds of Pilate. I don't get the impression
that Justin was referring to a specific document. Pilate's deeds were
likely recorded with many communications. My impression is that Justin
was requesting they check central records and look specifically for
Pilate's deeds.

In any case because of your snipping it is no longer clear what my
answer was in reply to when I suggested you consult the above sources.
If memory serves me correctly it was in reply to some comment of yours
expressing doubts about how we can know about the life and deeds of
Jesus and whether he was a real person.

JC

[iaoua iaoua]

Go for it.

JC

[Garamond Lethe]

The reason this is a (moderately) interesting question to me is that
we have forgeries that circulated later --- both Christian and secular
(the latter intended to discredit the Christian version).

The idea of this document can be plausibly traced back to Justin
Martyr. There was an interesting (moderately, to me) line of
scholarship in the 1880s that suggested the forgery we have can be
traced back to the document Justin referred to, but this position has
been abandoned since then (as best I could tell). While the idea of
such a document may be traced back to Justin, the evidence we have
suggests the documents we possess were created much later.

There was an even earlier strain of scholarship that suggested Justin
was referring to a real document. As he did not quote from the
document, was in no position to know whether or not such a document
existed and as we have no other record of this document, that line has
been abandoned as well.

This is not the only time Justin got his facts wrong. Whether you
want to acribe this to malice, carelessness or being honestly misled
is a question history isn't well-equipped to answer.

[Garamond Lethe]

Just to humor me, can you find any scholarship in the past 250 years
that came to a similar conclusion?

>
> In any case because of your snipping it is no longer clear what my
> answer was in reply to when I suggested you consult the above sources.
> If memory serves me correctly it was in reply to some comment of yours
> expressing doubts about how we can know about the life and deeds of
> Jesus and whether he was a real person.

Nope, that wasn't my point. You are correct in thinking Jesus was a
real person. None of your arguments were correct, but that doesn't
(necessarily) invalidate your conclusion.

[Garamond Lethe]

Well, I can't say that reading them will have any direct impact on
your after-tax income, but they are a fascinating set of studies of
human character.

If you have some free time, give Pagels' _The Origins of Satan_ a
spin. I think you'll like it.

> Most of
> us, atheists had read the gospels and had realized they a forgery.

No, no, I don't think I agree. Yes, the names of the supposed authors
are incorrect, and yes, they were written to achieve specific goals
(and a factual historical account was not one of those goals). If
you're willing to look at them as instruments for persuading a
specific audience to adopt a specific point of view then they become
far more interesting.

> Do you want me to point you a few of the points that prove the gospels
> are a forgery?  Other atheist here can point you other different
> points than me.
>

I'll observe again that there are probably more atheists who are
biblical literalists than there are Christians who are biblical
literalists. That a poor interpretation is wrong isn't really that
interesting.

> Perseus

[iaoua iaoua]

No! I'm not going to humour you. Frankly I don't care. Maybe there is.
Maybe there isn't. I'm here to help you learn how to use the sources
not to learn how to quote papers as if they were authorities on the
past. The sources are the authorities on the past. Learn how to handle
them and you can enter the debate. Keep insisting that you will only
believe something if somebody modern wrote about it then you show that
you are academically still quite immature and need to be spoon fed.

>
>
> > In any case because of your snipping it is no longer clear what my
> > answer was in reply to when I suggested you consult the above sources.
> > If memory serves me correctly it was in reply to some comment of yours
> > expressing doubts about how we can know about the life and deeds of
> > Jesus and whether he was a real person.
>
> Nope, that wasn't my point.  You are correct in thinking Jesus was a
> real person.  None of your arguments were correct, but that doesn't
> (necessarily) invalidate your conclusion.
>

Yawn! The publisher of race conditions as features now thinks he's an
expert of history. Please translate these words for me Oh great and
wise scholar and identify what their source was.

Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή

JC

[iaoua iaoua]

Draws a deep breath. Oh Garamond, Garamond, Garamond. If you still
doubt that the deeds of Pilate were recorded then skip over to the new
Tacitus thread that will be available shortly.

I've specifically delayed entering into a discussion about so called
later forgeries and allowed you to hold fast onto this a priori
assumption as a tool to let you be able to reason on the meaning of
Justin's statement. Now's the time to jump over to the Tacitus thread.
We'll talk about whether later documents were forgeries and how much
so and with what motivation later. Suffice it to say that are far too
quick to assume that the Christian version in its entirety is a
forgery. Also the fact that Romans later made their own version in no
way refutes the prior existence of an original. It merely enforces it.
They explicitly accept by this act that an original version existed.

JC

[alextangent]

On Dec 16, 5:09 pm, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Yawn! The publisher of race conditions as features now thinks he's an
> expert of history. Please translate these words for me Oh great and
> wise scholar and identify what their source was.
>
>  Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή
>
> JC
>

John 14:6 I am the way, the truth, and the life
Papyrus 66 around 200 CE
Papyrus 75 approx same date

Do I get a cookie?

[iaoua iaoua]

You could have let him sweat it out a bit.

Google translate?

JC

[Garamond Lethe]

On Dec 16, 9:09 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2:24 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Yawn! The publisher of race conditions as features

?

The race condition in question isn't in my code --- it's a materials
science dislocation simulator out of Stanford. I just use it as a
benchmark for my performance work. And why would someone bother to
publish a paper on such a trivial (and trivially correct)
optimization? It's certainly a clever bit of code and I appreciate
what they did, but it's not *that* clever.

http://paradis.stanford.edu

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good story....

> now thinks he's an
> expert of history. Please translate these words for me Oh great and
> wise scholar and identify what their source was.
>
>  Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή
>

Next time try something that's not quite as googleable.

(I'm surprised you didn't know that Google isn't limited to ASCII, but
not very surprised.)

[alextangent]

No. A straight google search, all I needed was on page 1.

You're not exactly the brightest bulb in the box when it comes to this
intertoobs stuff, are you?

Translate this;

Бути дурним не є злочином, тому ви можете вільно піти.

[Garamond Lethe]

On Dec 16, 9:09 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2:24 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

<snip>

> > > I am not aware of any extant sources prior to Justin Martyr that
> > > reference the recorded deeds of Pilate. I don't get the impression
> > > that Justin was referring to a specific document. Pilate's deeds were
> > > likely recorded with many communications. My impression is that Justin
> > > was requesting they check central records and look specifically for
> > > Pilate's deeds.
>
> > Just to humor me, can you find any scholarship in the past 250 years
> > that came to a similar conclusion?
>
> No! I'm not going to humour you. Frankly I don't care. Maybe there is.
> Maybe there isn't. I'm here to help you learn how to use the sources
> not to learn how to quote papers as if they were authorities on the
> past. The sources are the authorities on the past. Learn how to handle
> them and you can enter the debate. Keep insisting that you will only
> believe something if somebody modern wrote about it then you show that
> you are academically still quite immature and need to be spoon fed.
>

Did you manage to make the above self-refuting? I believe you did!

Ok, so you probably didn't mean what you ended up writing. No problem
--- you get a do-over.

[Hint: you're a "modern"; why should I believe what you write?]

<snip>

[Rolf]

Garamond Lethe wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 18:54:17 -0500, Metspitzer wrote:

>>> quoted at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/actspilate.html

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Is there still anybody here that doesn't believe Jesus was real
>>>> historical figure that was killed under Pilate's rule at Jerusalem?
>>>
>>> Based on Justin Martyr's citing a work that, if it did exist, was
>>> most likely created out of whole cloth?
>>>
>>>> Doesn't it strike you as odd that Justing would write this to those
>>>> roman leaders if no such record existed?
>>>
>>> Yes, especially since there's no evidence that any such record did
>>> exist. Why would he do that? Was he bluffing, hoping that his
>>> readers would be as ignorant as you are?
>>>
>>>> Wouldn't make a very good defense (apology) now would it?
>>>
>>> It certainly doesn't.
>>>
>>> But hey, it was good enough to fool you.....
>>>

>> Dawkins says Jesus existed.
>
> Based on the totality of the evidence I've seen, Dawkins is correct.

I haven't read this msg before today and am curious about the claim about
existence of Jesus. I have been under the impression that no evidence exist?

Which Jesus is Dawkins referring to?

A Jesus more or less like we find in the NT - sans crucifixion +/-
resurrection, or what?

My opinion is that the Jesus of the NT is 100% mythical. But I also believe
that many Jesus'es and aspiring Messiah's were roaming the land during those
times so it wouldn't have been a problem to find role models.Hsi teachings
are not all that original and unique, are they? Though he conforms to an
ideal, and the role of dying-and-resurrecting god-man has been pasted on to
the character.

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

Yes. The question of "How many Jesuses existed?"
has a pretty uncertain answer. It depends what
you mean by "Jesus", and the answer may be between
zero and thousands. Almost none of them were
usually addressed with a name sounding like
"Gee Zuzz", which is how it's said in English.

As for how many Jesuses exist today, in Mexico,
millions - but again with a pronunciation issue.

[Bill]

> >>> quoted athttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/actspilate.html

>
> >>>> Is there still anybody here that doesn't believe Jesus was real
> >>>> historical figure that was killed under Pilate's rule at Jerusalem?
>
> >>> Based on Justin Martyr's citing a work that, if it did exist, was
> >>> most likely created out of whole cloth?
>
> >>>> Doesn't it strike you as odd that Justing would write this to those
> >>>> roman leaders if no such record existed?
>
> >>> Yes, especially since there's no evidence that any such record did
> >>> exist.  Why would he do that?  Was he bluffing, hoping that his
> >>> readers would be as ignorant as you are?
>
> >>>> Wouldn't make a very good defense (apology) now would it?
>
> >>> It certainly doesn't.
>
> >>> But hey, it was good enough to fool you.....
>
> >> Dawkins says Jesus existed.
>
> > Based on the totality of the evidence I've seen, Dawkins is correct.
>
> I haven't read this msg before today and am curious about the claim about
> existence of Jesus. I have been under the impression that no evidence exist?
>
> Which Jesus is Dawkins referring to?
>
> A Jesus more or less like we find in the NT - sans crucifixion +/-
> resurrection, or what?
>
> My opinion is that the Jesus of the NT is 100% mythical. But I also believe
> that many Jesus'es and aspiring Messiah's were roaming the land during those
> times so it wouldn't have been a problem to find role models.Hsi teachings
> are not all that original and unique, are they? Though he conforms to an
> ideal, and the role of dying-and-resurrecting god-man has been pasted on to

> the character.- Sembunyikan teks kutipan -
>
> - Perlihatkan teks kutipan -

100% mythical? That seems pretty extreme to me. Within a few decades
you have Paul's Epistles giving evidence that there is a cult
throughout the Eastern Mediterranean centered on a guy named Jesus.
Within a few more decades, stories about his life are written down.
Within a few more decades his followers are numerous and troublesome
enough to get the attention of the Roman Empire. To me, the simplest
explanation is that there was a guy named Jesus who attracted a lot of
followers, caused enough disorder that he got himself killed by the
Romans, and then his followers gradually got organized into a church.
I don't see any reason to doubt that he taught approximately what is
recorded in the gospels or that the gospels reflect stories
circulating about him at the time. It seems needlessly complicated to
suggest that a bunch of stories about several different guys coalesced
into one narrative about Jesus. Simpler, to me, to say that he was a
cult leader and his cult just happened to luck out in the cult lottery
and turned into a world religion.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On 27 mar, 15:33, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 100% mythical? That seems pretty extreme to me. Within a few decades
> you have Paul's Epistles giving evidence that there is a cult
> throughout the Eastern Mediterranean centered on a guy named Jesus.
> Within a few more decades, stories about his life are written down.
> Within a few more decades his followers are numerous and troublesome
> enough to get the attention of the Roman Empire. To me, the simplest
> explanation is that there was a guy named Jesus who attracted a lot of
> followers, caused enough disorder that he got himself killed by the
> Romans, and then his followers gradually got organized into a church.
> I don't see any reason to doubt that he taught approximately what is
> recorded in the gospels or that the gospels reflect stories
> circulating about him at the time. It seems needlessly complicated to
> suggest that a bunch of stories about several different guys coalesced
> into one narrative about Jesus. Simpler, to me, to say that he was a
> cult leader and his cult just happened to luck out in the cult lottery
> and turned into a world religion.

I am happy with this very clear story.

[Harry K]

Except for the awkward fact that there is a remarkable lack of
official records of such doings.

Harry K

[Matthew Bladen]

In article <a72bc81c-c96d-41df-98b9-
40a43f...@pz2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Harry K <turnkey4099

@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 27, 6:33 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 27 Mar, 14:53, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Garamond Lethe wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 18:54:17 -0500, Metspitzer wrote:
> >
> > > >> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 14:24:55 -0600, Garamond Lethe
> > > >> <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 09:12:30 -0800, iaoua iaoua wrote:
> >
> > > >>>> Quote from wiki page on acts of pilate:
> >
> > > >>>> Justin the Martyr wrote,
> >
> > > >>> Did he?  Let's find out.
> >
> > > >>>> "And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts
> > > >>>> of Pontius Pilate."[5]
> >
> > > >>> Now that you're aspiring to be an academic and all you should
> > > >>> really get into the habit of citing your sources.
> >
> > > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Pilate
> >
> > > >>>> The Apology letters were written and addressed by name to the Roman
> > > >>>> Emperor Pius and the Roman Governor Urbicus. All three of these men

> > > >>>> lived between 138?161 AD.

Given the low survival rate of official records from that period, not to
mention the brief career and fairly insignificant social status of the
person in question, it would be remarkable if any such thing were
extant. I am willing to be corrected, but I don't believe that the
various first-century Jewish religious agitators recorded in the works
of Josephus, for instance, are recorded in contemporary epigraphical
texts either. At the time of his execution, Jesus of Nazareth simply
wasn't important enough to have had a documentary impact.

--
Matthew

[Bill]

That doesn't bother me. He was a loon on the fringe. Of course only
his followers wrote about him at first. And of course what they wrote
was biased and tendentious.

Socrates is only attested by a few contemporary sources (Plato,
Aristo[hanes, and Xenophon). And the most contemporary is
Aristophanes, who describes him in The Clouds as a sophist, something
Plato was at pains to show he wasn't. Yet I'm reasonably comfortable
that Socrates is not a myth.

[John Stockwell]

> >>> quoted athttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/actspilate.html

Apparently the remains of Jesus were found a few years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus

I guess that makes him real.

-John

[*Hemidactylus*]

You're being sarcastic right? That's like finding a tomb of someone
named Calvin who had family members near him with fairly common names
and assuming it was the Calvin you were looking for, because he had kin
with the same names. Yet the Calvin you're looking for supposedly didn't
have a son and this one did. Not very convincing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus#Criticism_of_the_documentary

And it's implied this Jesus had a son (Jude). If this is the true
Biblical Jesus, the Christians have a lot of soul searching to do if
they use the Jesus tomb as evidence for the historical Jesus. It might
fit with the whole Da Vinci Code Jesus family lineage controversy, but
not very well with what Christians think of Christ. Do Christians think
Jesus knew a woman in the Biblical way? It would humanize him a bit
though, but it's quite scandalous to think he did and had offspring.

I used to watch the "Naked Archaeologist" and liked a lot of the stuff
Simcha Jacobovici did on that show. When this Jesus tomb story first hit
I was quite interested, but it's not very convincing.


--
*Hemidactylus*

[Garamond Lethe]

The term of art is "historical Jesus" as opposed to "Christ of faith".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_perspectives_on_Jesus

Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels are my go-to authors here. Both of them
are in academia but both know how to write for a lay audience.

> My opinion is that the Jesus of the NT is 100% mythical.

While there are a few atheists who hold that view, I don't know any
historian who does.

> But I also
> believe that many Jesus'es and aspiring Messiah's were roaming the land
> during those times so it wouldn't have been a problem to find role
> models.

Ehrman is good about making the point that history is constrained to the
most likely scenario. We have experience with real people who accumulate
a penumbra of mystical stories after their death. We don't have nearly
as much experience with myths being created out of whole cloth (although
there are a few examples). So, on balance, it is more likely Jesus was a
historical figure.

> Hsi teachings are not all that original and unique, are they?

At a sufficiently coarse granularity there's nothing new under the sun.
That being said, I think most of the parables were original.

> Though he conforms to an ideal, and the role of dying-and-resurrecting
> god-man has been pasted on to the character.

Sure, but that doesn't speak to whether the underlying character existed
or not.

[John S. Wilkins]

F. F. Bruce was one of the greatest of the evangelical scholars of the
NT, who took history *very* seriously. I would take him at his word
here.

I am hoping that someboy finds a tomb for a "John, son of John" in 2000
years and assumes it is mine, and concludes that I was actually the
father of a dynasty of oil barons or something...
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[walksalone]

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr wrote in news:92ff760f-1423-48df-acbe-45ae43608237
@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

[walksalone]

walksalone <spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote in
news:XnsA023ED0...@news.datemas.de:

> marc.t...@wanadoo.fr wrote in
> news:92ff760f-1423-48df-acbe-45ae43608237
> @hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

no clue, but reply later today.

walksalone who does not need this first thing during any day, but got it.

CAT, n. A soft, indestructible automaton provided by nature to be kicked
when things go wrong in the domestic circle.
This is a dog,
This is a cat.
This is a frog,
This is a rat.
Run, dog, mew, cat.
Jump, frog, gnaw, rat.
Elevenson

[Friar Broccoli]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:42:04 +1100, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins)
wrote:

I'd rather have the money now, and be forgotten in future.

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[Friar Broccoli]

I agree. From the viewpoint of the Roman's they were just executing a
troublesome nut. They probably killed thousands of people in this way
each year to maintain order. Even if they did record the names of the
people they killed it is unlikely that particle list on which the name
Jesus of Nazareth was written would have survived.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Mar 27, 11:42 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]

> > I used to watch the "Naked Archaeologist" and liked a lot of the stuff
> > Simcha Jacobovici did on that show. When this Jesus tomb story first hit I
> > was quite interested, but it's not very convincing.
>
> I am hoping that someboy finds a tomb for a "John, son of John" in 2000
> years and assumes it is mine, and concludes that I was actually the
> father of a dynasty of oil barons or something...

This is going to help you how? You want somebody to find a tomb for
"John, Son of Nelson, Son of John, Son of John," or some like, proving
you're the HEIR of a dynasty of oil barons or something!

Mitchell, who only wants the best for you

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/27/12 8:30 PM, Garamond Lethe wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:53:40 +0200, Rolf wrote:

> [big snip]

>
>> But I also
>> believe that many Jesus'es and aspiring Messiah's were roaming the land
>> during those times so it wouldn't have been a problem to find role
>> models.
>
> Ehrman is good about making the point that history is constrained to the
> most likely scenario. We have experience with real people who accumulate
> a penumbra of mystical stories after their death. We don't have nearly
> as much experience with myths being created out of whole cloth (although
> there are a few examples). So, on balance, it is more likely Jesus was a
> historical figure.

I suppose one alternative is that he, like Paul Bunyan, was a figure
from an advertizing campaign. "Buy our Yeshua brand sandals. All the
best messiahs are wearing them!"

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[walksalone]

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr wrote in news:92ff760f-1423-48df-acbe-
45ae43...@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

Piggybacking for Bill, orig gonzo this station.

> On 27 mar, 15:33, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> 100% mythical? That seems pretty extreme to me. Within a few decades
>> you have Paul's Epistles giving evidence that there is a cult

Given the lack of historical evidence, evidence from contemporary
writers, and absence from Roman records, there is a reasonable
probability that he is a fact, entirely fictional. Given the society at
the time, which my reading gives the impression of a society desperate
for improved lives of their own and to hell with the fearless leaders of
the day, there is a good chance that only is he not historical, but that
he is a fabrication of what people wanted to hear. Not quite that simple,
we both realize.

>> throughout the Eastern Mediterranean centered on a guy named Jesus.

An extremely common name, according to at least one source the second
most popular name in Judea during the first century. The first most
popular name was Joseph, and for women it was Mary.

>> Within a few more decades, stories about his life are written down.

Until we can verify that they are in fact, about him, that's not too good
an idea for a bald-faced statement. No stories about his claimed life, I
can drink to that.
And in the case of Saul not Paul, I believe the phrase is, give me a
fanatic and I will show you a Yugo.

>> Within a few more decades his followers are numerous and troublesome

How numerous and how troublesome? We really don't have that many
businesses sending out within the Roman records. Now they, like all other
secret societies of the time, were subject to the attention of the
authorities for they were forbidden. Seems like one of the emperors
noticed, secret societies were hotbeds for political mischief. And so he
outlawed them.
They were such a novelty, that even Pliny the second had to write to Rome
in order to get instructions on how to deal with them.

>> enough to get the attention of the Roman Empire. To me, the simplest
>> explanation is that there was a guy named Jesus who attracted a lot of

Rather a lot of them really, just not as described within the Hebrew
Bible [xian version] or the Greek testaments.

>> followers, caused enough disorder that he got himself killed by the
>> Romans, and then his followers gradually got organized into a church.

Had somebody named Jesus been crucified, he would have been crucified
along. There were only three crimes that warranted automatic crucifixion.
In order of ascendancy to the best of my knowledge, piracy after Julius
Caesar, a slave that had revolted against its master, and a guaranteed
hotspot, that was reserved for being a traitor to Rome according to their
definitions. Other than that, no one would be crucified. Seeds as planned
within the Greek testaments would not have been crucified because, they
always needed help in the mines and the society at large was built on
slavery.

>> I don't see any reason to doubt that he taught approximately what is
>> recorded in the gospels or that the gospels reflect stories

Myself, I see no reason to accept them at face value. Fortunately for
humanity, our mileage will vary, and differing points of view will occur
with unamusing regularity.
Basically for me, the Greek Testament god does not match up with a god
who would have been in training with the Old Testament god for at least
2000 years. Something about like father like son comes to mind. Add to
that, there is nowhere in the Hebrew Bible that that a show messiah who
failed to account for his new requirements for a Messiah would be the
real deal. Though they do accept as a Messiah a foreigner, Korash by
name. I believe you are aware of him as Cyrus the great.

>> circulating about him at the time. It seems needlessly complicated to
>> suggest that a bunch of stories about several different guys coalesced

Needlessly complicated, I don't think so. For one thing, there is no
actual unifying theme throughout the Greek testaments other than he is
the long awaited Messiah. A Messiah would not be a liar, he will be
leading the nations and all nations came to go to him for a vice
interpretation. A liar would not be able to fulfill that obligation. And
yet, we find allies attributed to this particular individual for he has
not returned within the lifetimes of some standing there after he was
crucified.
Then there are the zombies walking around Jerusalem holloring hallelujah,
a total eclipse locally, Jerusalem only, disruption of the template for
the Roman guards who were there to ensure such activity did not happen.
The coming of the Messiah is not restricted to any holiday, and a Messiah
text are really enough to give anybody a headache if he wants to go
through them.

The Messiah Text Raphael Pati ISBN 0814318509 is one source of
information on the Jewish requirements for a Messiah. Not suggestions,
requirements. Oh, not recommended if you have a headache coming on. The
font is perfectly fine, but it does get confusing when you try to think
about what is being written. Interesting, but confusing.

>> into one narrative about Jesus. Simpler, to me, to say that he was a
>> cult leader and his cult just happened to luck out in the cult lottery

I don't even believe he was that, I suspect there were several activists
that I came to the Roman authorities attention, been eliminated, and
people still wanted a Messiah and so they created one. All we have on
Saul, is contained within the Greek testaments. At the back of the Greek
testaments. Politically astute intentionally dishonest.

>> and turned into a world religion.

And a world religion was created around people's desires, for if the
readings are correct, life during that time era was really hell on earth.
People wanted to escape. In this with a one-way.

Now of course I could be wrong, and I will not begin to tell you that I
have read enough to speak with authority. But I have read enough to come
to some conclusions that are not exactly mainline, and some that are.
What does that mean in the real world, but short of walking through that
region during the time of the claims are claimed to have happened, no one
will ever know. All we can do, or at least all I can do, is make an
educated guess based on information readily available to myself and
others. This does have a handicap or limitation if you will, quite
frequently I cannot access the academia information nor do I have time to
really sit in solitude and study it. Or at least not with any regularity.

walksalone who cheerfully admits it would be so much easier to simply say
the boy was, and some will. But I'm afraid I can't do that anymore, there
is no evidence that is not self contained or supportive of that claim but
authors who are biased to the claim because they affect believe any, and
I must back up and say no, not this time.

"Never let your schooling interfere with your education."

Mark Twain

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 03/28/2012 05:51 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/27/12 8:30 PM, Garamond Lethe wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:53:40 +0200, Rolf wrote:
>> [big snip]
>>
>>> But I also
>>> believe that many Jesus'es and aspiring Messiah's were roaming the land
>>> during those times so it wouldn't have been a problem to find role
>>> models.
>>
>> Ehrman is good about making the point that history is constrained to the
>> most likely scenario. We have experience with real people who accumulate
>> a penumbra of mystical stories after their death. We don't have nearly
>> as much experience with myths being created out of whole cloth (although
>> there are a few examples). So, on balance, it is more likely Jesus was a
>> historical figure.
>
> I suppose one alternative is that he, like Paul Bunyan, was a figure
> from an advertizing campaign. "Buy our Yeshua brand sandals. All the
> best messiahs are wearing them!"

He would have benefited from a blue ox sidekick.


--
*Hemidactylus*

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On Mar 29, 1:08 am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
> marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote in news:92ff760f-1423-48df-acbe-
> 45ae43608...@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

Thanks for this argumentation. I like it too although the style is
sometimes not as clear as it could be.

Avant donc que d'écrire, apprenez à penser
Ce qui se conçoit bien, s’énonce clairement
Et les mots pour le dire, arrivent aisément”
Boileau “L'Art poétique” (1674)

[Bill]

"What can be said at all, can be said clearly." Though it's pretty
ironic that the quote comes from Wittgenstein.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On Mar 29, 9:21 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "What can be said at all, can be said clearly." Though it's pretty
> ironic that the quote comes from Wittgenstein.

> > Avant donc que d'écrire, apprenez à penser
> > Ce qui se conçoit bien, s’énonce clairement
> > Et les mots pour le dire, arrivent aisément”

> > Boileau “L'Art poétique” (1674)- Hide quoted text -


Yes, and his friend and colleague Georg Henrik von Wright wrote about
Wittgenstein (Wikipedia):
"He was of the opinion... that his ideas were generally misunderstood
and distorted even by those who professed to be his disciples. He
doubted he would be better understood in the future. He once said he
felt as though he were writing for people who would think in a
different way, breathe a different air of life, from that of present-
day men".
As a reference to clarity I prefer to quote Boileau!

[Paul J Gans]

Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomynospam.net> wrote:
>On 3/27/12 8:30 PM, Garamond Lethe wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:53:40 +0200, Rolf wrote:
>> [big snip]
>>
>>> But I also
>>> believe that many Jesus'es and aspiring Messiah's were roaming the land
>>> during those times so it wouldn't have been a problem to find role
>>> models.
>>
>> Ehrman is good about making the point that history is constrained to the
>> most likely scenario. We have experience with real people who accumulate
>> a penumbra of mystical stories after their death. We don't have nearly
>> as much experience with myths being created out of whole cloth (although
>> there are a few examples). So, on balance, it is more likely Jesus was a
>> historical figure.

>I suppose one alternative is that he, like Paul Bunyan, was a figure
>from an advertizing campaign. "Buy our Yeshua brand sandals. All the
>best messiahs are wearing them!"

I think that Mark is correct. We went through all this a few months
back. Itinerant preachers were abundant; some were thought to be
messiahs. There is a list of major ones at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

Googling will turn up more. As the New Testament notes, this was a
time of great religious unrest in Palestine and numerous groups (dare
I call them cults) grew, lived, shrank, and died.

The story of Jesus could easily be like thee story of Paul Bunyan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bunyan

Or Jesus could have roots in reality like Johnny Appleseed (real name
John Chapman):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Appleseed

I don't think one can look at social phenomenon without taking into
account the environment in which it takes place. It is notable that
the entire Jesus story was NOT recorded contemporaneously. We can
be relatively sure of that since those of the next generation would
have certainly said so had such writings existed.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Miriam Rogers]

On 30 Mar, 07:21, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomynospam.net> wrote:
> >On 3/27/12 8:30 PM, Garamond Lethe wrote:
> >> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:53:40 +0200, Rolf wrote:
> >> [big snip]
>
> >>> But I also
> >>> believe that many Jesus'es and aspiring Messiah's were roaming the land
> >>> during those times so it wouldn't have been a problem to find role
> >>> models.
>
> >> Ehrman is good about making the point that history is constrained to the
> >> most likely scenario.  We have experience with real people who accumulate
> >> a penumbra of mystical stories after their death.  We don't have nearly
> >> as much experience with myths being created out of whole cloth (although
> >> there are a few examples).  So, on balance, it is more likely Jesus was a
> >> historical figure.
> >I suppose one alternative is that he, like Paul Bunyan, was a figure
> >from an advertizing campaign.  "Buy our Yeshua brand sandals.  All the
> >best messiahs are wearing them!"
>
> I think that Mark is correct.  We went through all this a few months
> back.  Itinerant preachers were abundant; some were thought to be
> messiahs.  There is a list of major ones at:

.

>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

The majority of those listed are quite late, after 700 CE, some into
the 1700's - not surprising they are documented. Of the early ones,
why would you believe that they existed at all? If you trust Josephus,
why not Q, Luke, and Paul?

[John S. Wilkins]

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

I think he is more like the stories of María Lionza:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar%C3%ADa_Lionza

A historical figure about whom nothing unmythical is known apart from
her statuesque breasts...

>
> I don't think one can look at social phenomenon without taking into
> account the environment in which it takes place. It is notable that
> the entire Jesus story was NOT recorded contemporaneously. We can
> be relatively sure of that since those of the next generation would
> have certainly said so had such writings existed.


--

[John S. Wilkins]

Bill <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> "What can be said at all, can be said clearly." Though it's pretty
> ironic that the quote comes from Wittgenstein.

That's not irony. He just thought very little could be said...
...

[Paul J Gans]

Wow!

>>
>> I don't think one can look at social phenomenon without taking into
>> account the environment in which it takes place. It is notable that
>> the entire Jesus story was NOT recorded contemporaneously. We can
>> be relatively sure of that since those of the next generation would
>> have certainly said so had such writings existed.

--

--- Paul J. Gans