Another revelation in the tragic Montanaplane crash endorsed by anti-choice freaks: one of the women on the plane was five months pregnant. If their deity is responsible for these deaths, not only is their god an abortionist, he's one of those hacks who butchers the mother in the process…but apparently, Gingi Edmonds is alright with that.
More like this
She's so mad about how mean pro-choice people are, that she's making up new facts. She says she received death threats over her callous use of the death of children, which may be entirely true (and if it is, I'm pissed off at you: no, it doesn't matter how vile her behavior is, you don't threaten…
There was an appalling and tragic plane crash in Montana: 14 people were killed, 7 of them children.
Tom Hagler, a mechanic at the Oroville airport, told The Sacramento Bee that he allowed several children ages 6 to 10 to use the airport bathroom before they boarded the doomed plane.
"There were a…
About 20 clergy, representing the very best of Christian theology, of course, and various Republicans gathered in Virginia to protest the existence of Planned Parenthood—they want all state funding, about $35,000 a year, stopped. They claim that Planned Parenthood is an evil organization because it…
Not many people know much about John McCain's new running mate, Sarah Palin, first term Governor of Alaska (in office 20 months). Not even John McCain knows that much about her. He only met her twice before deciding she was worthy of being his running mate. So let's take a look at her record, as…
Thank you for making my point, again. At least your good at something on this blog. Mags, I "attacked" your grasp of science because you wrote this:
There are two issues (evidence...) in this block of text that demonstrate rather clearly that you don't know enough about how science actually works to be making arrogant assertions about what it can or cannot do. One of these issues is pretty small, and could be argued as hair-splitting (although I would counter-argue that it belies a lack of any real understanding). The other is huge; it would span parsecs if we were mapping these blunders out. If you're as knowledgeable as your attitude would have us believe, then you should be able to quickly identify at least one of these two issues. If you can't, then I would again advocate perhaps toning down the attitude a bit and not assuming that know you more about bloody everything than everyone here (which, yes, is how you come across in numerous comments).
Regarding your attempt at a treatise on science that is comment #530, two things stand out. One is that you make both of the mistakes (the small one and the whopper) that are contained in the text I copied above.
The other is this:
This statement is close to being correct, but still contains a rather significant point of inaccuracy the sends the statement off the rails if taken in its entirety. I presume the problem results from a lack of precision in how you use words. It's an amateur mistake and would be hardly worth pointing out if you weren't being such an arrogant git overall.
Leigh,
my specialty is Emergency not Rheumatology,but this just doesnt sound right,and FM should be a diagnosis of exclusion,just like say "Irritable bowel syndrome".
I hope you find out whats going on,maybe a second opinion and pair of fresh doctor's eyes would be worth considering !
Maggie talking about things she doesnt know anything about:
Only christofascists and the Sith deal in -isms.......
Leigh,
No worries about being in the cross-hairs on my end. In the real world, where we actually live, I'd much rather all Christians be warm fuzzy hippies. I'm not sure exactly how much I buy into the argument (often made by PZ) that the simple existence of moderates allows the extremists to thrive, because I think that enough moderates do temper the actions of the zealous. The reason I've gone fundie on Maggie is that the basic argument that the Bible isn't a historical document is absolutely lost on her. It's lost on most religious extremists, and quite simply doesn't work. However, it is incontrovertible that denominations are different. The fact that there are so many disparate interpretations, held as strongly as they are, should give any religious person pause. I'm trying to argue from the inside, as it were.
Plus, people such as Maggie often think that atheists simply don't know anything at all about Christianity (which she's said about a dozen times here), and that's so wrong it's laughable, so it's fun to draw on the knowledge I do have to counter that.
And honestly, the way she's being so damned arrogant about it hits a nerve. She's claiming that anyone who doesn't believe exactly as she does is ignorant and stupid - that doesn't just tar atheists, who are used to hearing that from religious nuts such as her, but all other religions as well. Bluntly, she's calling my family idiots who have no idea how to be Christians, and that doesn't sit well with me. When I was a gung-ho fundamentalist it would have made me very sad for her because she was so deluded. Now it makes me mad because I think they're all equally full of it, so none of them can lay claim to special correctness and bash the others.
But really, she won't acknowledge baseline facts in the whole thing. She doesn't understand that not everyone takes the Nicene Creed as the gold standard. She doesn't understand that other denominations think Catholicism is weird. She doesn't understand basic questions like what changed in the majority of Christians to go from saying slavery was ordained by God to opposing it. She's as divorced from coherence as simon is, even though she can write in complete sentences. It just isn't worth it to try and engage her no matter whether from inside the tent of Christianity or outside of it. Trying to debate with Maggie is like bringing a knife to a balloon fight.
Is Maggie Barb??
No, Barb is a fundie protestant and Maggie is a catholic. Both are deluded in that they think their religion is be all and end all. It is just a pile of crap in both cases.
Oh, man, can you imagine Maggie v. Barb? It would take days to clean up the carnage.
Maybe. I'm thinking about it. I do think you have a point; if I didn't, I wouldn't have bothered continuing this discussion.
On here? Maybe. In real life? Certainly not. The last thing the conservative movement needs (in Britain or worldwide) is more internal divisions.
This is the curse faced by libertarians and classical liberals everywhere. We are never going to gain power outright in any country, because we don't have a natural popular support base. So, in many countries, we have to ally ourselves with religious/social conservatives - despite the fact that they say many things which I find nonsensical or abhorrent - as the lesser of two evils. In my own corner of the Conservative Party, I know some quite hardline (mainly Catholic) religious conservatives. I could quite happily have written a post on my blog condemning the Catholic Church for its recent pattern of deranged and morally bankrupt behaviour, for instance. But it would be impolitic to do so, given my readership.
No doubt you're going to decry this stance as cowardly and hypocritical. But think about it. I could join the (nascent) UK Libertarian Party and spend my life ranting on the internet about how the whole political establishment is morally bankrupt. I wouldn't be compromising my principles. But would I ever have any real effect on the actual political landscape? None whatsoever. In order to apply one's principles, one has to achieve power or influence those who hold power; and in order to do that, one has to make compromises. I'd rather help to get a slightly less bad government into power, than opt out of practical politics completely and rant about how bad they all are. This is why libertarians are so often allied with social conservatives, despite our different views on many issues.
Here in Britain, we do not yet have a US-style "culture war" between religious conservatives and secular progressives. That is the last thing I want in this country; because I am on neither side of the "culture war". In my personal view, the American "Left" is correct, broadly, about abortion, gay marriage, the separation of church and state, and civil liberties; while the American "Right" is correct, broadly, about taxes, the economy, and small government. I don't want a similar situation in Britain.
Debatable, but I see your point.
On reflection, yes. I like to think I would; but maybe I'd be too much of a coward.
And are you still beating your wife?
Seriously, what do you want me to do? I can't help being a white male. Does it mean I am deprived of the right to have an opinion on any matter of public policy which affects women?
John Morales said:
LOL!! And what, pray tell, informed the zeitgeist? (Hint, the same thing that has informed the zeitgeist of the West since Nov. 18, 33 AD, 8:55 PM)
Though he won't understand it, this answers Wowie also(#962).
Carllie:
I am sorry. You are wrong. Comprehensively wrong. There is no historian on the planet who would agree with this, even those who most vehemently deny its reliability. You can stick your fingers in your ears, if you like. You can go all Cowardly Lion on us(I don't believe! I don't, I don't, I don't!), if you like, but you are wrong.
The other thing that fascinates me is your inability to understand that your fundamentalist family might reject Catholics, but we do not reject them. If they cannot get past the differences between us, that is between them and God. I know for sure that they would not disagree with a single one of the 5 essentials I have laid out for you at least twice now, that all Christians agree on. At least, not if they are in some recognizable Christian denomination, that is. If they are in a cult or sect that has stepped outside the mainstream then all bets are off.
It intrigues me that you keep insisting on your position, despite that irrefutable proof, which, if you were ever a Christian, even a nominal one, you must recognize to be true. It tells me that your atheism is emotional not rational. I understand that, too. A lot of people have been hurt by church (all denominations) and don't realize where the problem lies.
Wowie
And yet you feel free to tell me what I believe and why, as well as how I must interpret the Bible (ignorantly). Do you not feel the slightest twinge of unease at this way of “thinking”?
Hey Janine! How about that Socrates? Did he actually exist?
You do understand a difference between a historical Jesus and God-incarnate, correct? You do understand that corroborative eyewitness testimony can be found for other extraordinary phenomena correct?I asked this up thread, but it was not answered. What in the bible suggests that any of it was divinely inspired? i.e. what in the bible could not have possibly been written by imaginative 1st century authors?
Are you so sure? Yes, you can redefine "Christian" to encompass only Trinitarians who subscribe to the Nicene Creed. But Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, for a start, certainly do not. Are they Christians? What right have you got to define them as non-Christians when they consider themselves Christians?
There is no real point on which all self-described Christians agree, other than, perhaps, that Jesus was "the Son of God" (though Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians differ profoundly as to what exactly that means). The question, then, is - given that we know very little about the life of Jesus, and that all the accounts we have are pseudonymous and were not written by eyewitnesses - how are we supposed to know which sect is right? What gives the Council of Nicaea, or the "canonical" selection of books chosen by the early Church fathers, special authority? How do you know that they were right and that those who dissented - from Marcion of Sinope to Joseph Smith - were all wrong?
"And what, pray tell, informed the zeitgeist? (Hint, the same thing that has informed the zeitgeist of the West since Nov. 18, 33 AD, 8:55 PM)"
Nope, other way around. Unless you expect us to believe that over a thousand-and-a-half years after the Bible, everyone suddenly learned how to read it correctly. Same reason that certain Christians consider stewardship of the Earth to be our divine mission, rather than to subdue the Earth as that one part of the Bible states. Just more parasitism by Christians of all the good secular philosophy and science done over the last few hundred years. "Oh, that's what the Bible said all along!" Yeah right.
Mendacious Maggie the Gag Lady, let me summarize your claims:
God, you have shown no evidence for, and in fact dodge like hell every time such a thing is mentioned. FAIL.
Bible, you have shown no evidence that it is totally correct. In fact, you claim that only by "intelligent reading" can it be deciphered. Now you use this book to prove god, but the book is god inspired. Circular reasoning. And if god ispired the book, there should be no errors. FAIL.
Resurrection, no evidence outside of the unreliable bible. FAIL.
Church dogma/creeds. Since these are build on logical structures created from imaginary god and a very unreliable bible, they are essentially worthless. FAIL.
So Mendacious Maggie is supposed to be believed on her word alone, even though her words have been show to be lies? We know better. FAIL.
Maggie, Maggie, total FAIL on your part. You may as well give up. You cannot present any evidence to convince us of your claims at this rate.
So the "mainstream" is defined by you? How is this not circular?
You still have not responded to the analysis given above regarding the Nicene Creed, its theological evolution, and how it differs in important theological ways from other creeds. You also haven't responded to the point that the "mainstream" was, in part, determined not by theology but by force, so that (for example) the reason there aren't a large number of docetists around who deny the actual physical death of Jesus is that they themselves were killed by the Catholic Church on crusade. If they hadn't been, I wonder how you would then define "mainstream"?
Walton, #1010,
Can I answer? That are not--that is, what is taught by the LDS and JW churches is not Christianity. As to what "right" I have to say that--that's kind of a dumb question. The LDS and JWs do not have a "right" to be called Christians. Neither do I. There is no "right" to be called something. They can call themselves Christian, they do have that right, but that's the extent of it. By the same token they are free to claim that I am not a Christian. Doesn't bother me a bit. In fact, they really should say that I am not a Christian since, from their perspective, I am a polytheist.
There are two bases by which I would say X is not a Christian, even though X claims to be. 1) there is a minimal circle of orthodoxy--and for me it is the Nicene creed, and 2) even if you are within the circle of orthodoxy you need to be known by your "fruits." On the first basis I would say that LDS & JW are not Christians. On the second I would say that Fred Phelps is not a Christian.
Again, they are free to same the same about me.
There is a slight subtlety. What we mean when we say someone is not a Christian is that it appears to us to the best of our ability to judge, as we are commanded to do, that they are not Christians. And so we treat them like non-Christians. We might be wrong.
That's only true if you say that everyone who claims to be a Christian must be accepted by everyone else who makes the same claim--which I say is nonsense. If you say: I think the Nicene Creed is a reasonable, minimal test of orthodoxy, then you have O(10^9) Christians in agreement on a set of basics that goes well beyond "Jesus is the son of God."
Well, there is a Calvinistic answer to that which I'll forgo, and a Catholic answer relating to the Magisterium and sacred tradition which I'll also forgo, and there are apologetic arguments regarding the reliability of scripture which would not be meaningful for you, but in essence we don't know we believe. Maybe we are wrong.
It is incomprehensible to me that people old enough to breed and vote are this deliberately (or can you really not help it?) this obtuse.
I have spoken to every single one of the issues you have raised here repeatedly. Repeatedly It is one thing not to understand what I have said. But to be unaware that I have answered these question not once, not twice, but repeatedly bespeaks some psychological need not to hear.
Come up with something new and, let us pray, intelligent. But at least something new.
No Maggie, you have condenscendingly dismissed every issue. There is a difference. You FAIL again. Maggie, quit lying to yourself, so you can quit lying to us.
Start with this Maggie. The bible is proof of nothing. People accepting the bible as proof of something is not a validation of what's in the bible.
Why is this hard for you to understand.
If this is really an accurate statement, then you have done so very poorly for at least some of the issues.
for sure that they would not disagree with a single one of the 5 essentials I have laid out for you at least twice now, that all Christians agree on. At least, not if they are in some recognizable Christian denomination, that is. If they are in a cult or sect that has stepped outside the mainstream then all bets are off.
So No True Christian believes anything different than you do. Do you understand that's what you're arguing? That's the reason I'm ready to throw in the towel entirely. You refuse to believe that there are religions who can call themselves Christian, who follow the Bible, who do not agree with your essentials in the way you have laid them out. You get around this by calling them cults outside of the mainstream, but the point is that you don't get to define the mainstream. The Catholic church has no business telling everyone else who is and isn't a Christian, because all they're doing is interpreting the same faulty documents differently. The Catholic Church has no more authority to define what a Christian is than Fred Phelps does.
I thought that at least I could get through to you that there are viewpoints different than yours, even if you think they're wrong, but your brain is too ossified to even do that much. You think that the other viewpoints don't even exist, and that anyone who tells you they do is deluded.
Hey Janine! How about that Socrates? Did he actually exist?
Since there are multiple contemporary sources that mention him, it is reasonable to assume that he did.
Since there is only one, non-contemporary source for the existence of Jesus, it is a lot less so.
But hey, don't let facts bother you too much.
Somewhere above Maggie says
Does that include the Chalcedonian Creed?
Nonsense. Just to pick one issue that I'm interested in, you have not demonstrated why the Nicene creed should be the necessary and sufficient criteria to be labelled "Christian", which is especially problematic since a) many Protestant faiths deny its authority as non-Biblical, b) some very large denominations which consider themselves Christian don't believe all of its tenets, and c) some Protestant denominations don't actually consider Catholics to be Christians.
Get help, Carlie. It is not possible for a sane person to continue to write the same obviously wrong drivel over and over.
I have linked to the Catechism to show what the Church says about the unity of all baptised believers. Didn't make a dent in your ignorance.
I have pointed out repeatedly what the essentials are. I have repeatedly acknowledged that there are differences-- hence the existence of denominations. What will get through to you? Anything? Or are you lost in your own world?
How do you ignore that the Catholic Church is the oldest Christian body in existence and that every other group is a branch of the church that Christ founded? How do you get around the fact that the Nicene creed has been around since 325 AD? How do you get around its wide acceptance by the Eastern Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic Church, including the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Old Catholic Church and its offshoots, the Lutheran Church, the Anglican Communion, and almost all branches of Protestantism, including the Reformed churches, the Presbyterian Church, and the Methodist Church (see Wiki)?
Come on Carlie. You must have an answer. Don't you?
Here is the beginning of a pretty good Wiki article on the subject:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed)
Well, Carlie?
Carlie,
The questions are directed at Maggie, but I'll take a stab. She may disagree with my answers--I am not claiming to answer for her.
Well I do, for sure.
I don't understand the big deal about this. If I said: "I believe in Elvis, and I believe Elvis was Mohammad reincarnated, so I am a Moslem then of course other Moslems can and should say to me: you are not a true Moslem. And in saying so they are not violating my rights.
The concept that a self-declaration must be recognized as valid is patently absurd.
Of course the Catholic Church or the LDS or the Baptists or any other group absolutely has a right to say: that person does not meet our standards.
Do you think I might find some on Pharyngula who would say that at least some theistic evolutionists are not "true" evolutionists? Or they are not "true" scientists? I bet I could.
Stu,
No, Jospehus is a contemporary source that mentions Jesus.
Dammit Stu, I just got online and I was going say that there are the accounts of Plato, Aristophanes, Xenophon and Aristotle as contemporary primary sources. Seeing that Plato had a habit of putting his own words in Socrates' mouth and Aristophanes was mocking Socrates. Proof enough that he lived but does not leave much details about his life. But that is a lot more then we have for Jesus.
Not that any of this means shit to maggie.
I agree with Heddle here. Each branch or denomination or whatever of Christianity has rules and can determine by those rules who are members of that denomination and who are not.
I think the big question comes, as has been repeated ad nauseum, when one denomination says another denomination is not Christian because of some set of rules particular to thier demonination.
Get help, Carlie. It is not possible for a sane person to continue to write the same obviously wrong drivel over and over.
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That is just so precious!
No, Stu. You are mistaken. There is virtually no evidence (of the kind you are insisting on for Jesus) for Socrates or any one of a large number of figures from the ancient world that we take for granted existed. There are no manuscripts of any writings nearer in time to most of them than the 9th century AD. It is rare for there to be more than one or two; often fragmentary. You may consult the book I cited in the original message which is available on Google books for more specifics about any figure you are interested in.
Contrast this to the availabilty of 5000 + partial and full manuscripts of the books of the Bible, the earliest of which date from within 100 years of the Resurrection. So who is more likely to be the fictional character? Jesus? or Socrates?
The evidence is not on Socrates' side by your standards. Fortunately, those standards are not the standards historians use to sift and weigh the evidence.
Hey Janine! Figured out who the fictional character is yet?
No, Jospehus is a contemporary source that mentions Jesus.
Oh David, stop lying. You know better than that.
"Jesus is mentioned in two passages of the work The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, written in the late first century AD. One passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, discusses the career of Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was at a minimum embellishment by early Christian scribes, if not a forgery. The other passage simply mentions Jesus as the brother of James, also known as James the Just. Most scholars consider this passage genuine,[1] but its authenticity has been disputed by Emil Schürer as well by several recent popular writers."
Fortunately, those standards are not the standards historians use to sift and weigh the evidence.
You pathetic little clown, yes they are -- just not by "historians" you like because they share your delusions.
By your standards, Hansl and Gretl are real, and Henry VII fictional. Get a grip, will you?
The stupidity that Maggie continues to drivel out has become tiresome. Now is the time on sprockets where we dance.
Hey Janine! Figured out who the fictional character is yet?
Long before you ever will!
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I cannot help but to think of the old Subgenius line. You will pay to pull the wool over your own eyes. I think this fits for the arrogant troll.
Vould you like to touch my monkey?
No, Jospehus is a contemporary source that mentions Jesus.
If by contemporary, you mean "not around when Jesus was around", then yeah, Jospehus was contemporary.
(shrug)
If by "mentions Jesus", you mean probably a forgery added later by somebody else, then yeah, Jospehus mentions Jesus.
(shrug)
Read up on Jospehus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum
Maggie, Maggie, Jebus is the fictional character, since there is no contemporary conformation that Jebus existed, and the books were simply copies of one another. You know that, but you keep lying on that point. Quit lying to yourself. Then you can quit lying to us.
Not a cage match, but an essay comparing evidence for the existence of Jesus vs. Socrates examines the contest mostly dispassionately.
I'm entertained when Maggie splits hairs over the Bible as a "historical document." Tax records and shopping lists and menus are historical documents. The real question is whether the Bible is necessary and sufficient evidence for the historicity of Jesus. As evidence for the historicity of a 6000 year old earth, or a Noachian flood, the Bible is clearly a collection of myths.
Stu,
That's what I thought you would say, and it is only partially true. The passage is:
It is rather undisputed that what is in italics, roughly speaking, was added by Christians. It is not universally claimed that underlying simple reference to Jesus the teacher was added. Rather many (not just Christian scholars) accept that the overt Christian redaction was fitted to an existing casual reference.
And the other mention of Jesus:
Is considered by many to be legitimate—that is Josephus wrote it. You can find some scholars who disagree, but it is not at all universal. Why this one wouldn't "count" is confusing.
So saying the references of Josephus, in their entirety, have been refuted, something that is parroted quite a bit--well that's just not correct.
Nerd: let's coin it the Argumentum Hanzl-Gretlum.
You have pointed out what the essentials are to you -- you still blinkeredly fail to see the point being made, which is that you have no argument for your criteria being the only criteria, or the right criteria.
Wow, super epic fail. What today calls itself the "Roman Catholic Church" may be the largest branch of a tradition that goes back many years, but that fact alone does not somehow make it the "main" branch of that tradition, or give it claim to any further authority. For example, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria could similarly claim that it goes back to exactly the same tradition, and that it actually maintains a "purer" form of that tradition than does the Roman church (given that it doesn't tolerate the whiff of Nestorian heresy that the Roman church did at the Council of Chalcedon). So why isn't the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria the "true" root, the "oldest Christan body in existence" and the Roman Catholic merely "a branch of the church that Christ founded"?
How do you get around the fact that the "Nicene" creed was altered in 381? Or that an additional alteration in the sixth century, intended to counter Arianism, instead helped lead to the schism between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Church? Or that various groups earlier that 325 also traced their tradition directly back to the beginning of Christianity, but held radically different views on theology -- why were their approaches not just as valid?
"Wide acceptance" is not the same as "defining". As the very Wikipedia article you note points out, some evangelical groups do not consider it to be the defining statement of Christianity, since it itself does not appear in the Bible, and various large denominations call themselves Christian yet do not adhere to all of its tenets.
Honestly, are you so blind that you can't see the mutable nature of these theological issues? Frankly, I put it down to you being a convert -- they are often more interested in aggressively asserting orthodoxy than in understanding where that orthodoxy came from.
A few points.
Anyone using the term "historical documents" should watch Galaxy Quest.
The entire Jesus vs. Socrates debate is somewhat moot, since:
- Nobody claims what Socrates taught was true because he was Socrates.
- Nobody claims that Socrates was the son of the creator of the universe.
- Nobody claims Socrates came back from the dead. When he drank the poison, he was done.
If anyone did, we might want a little more proof.
And nice strawman, Heddle. Yes, there is a reference in Josephus to A Jesus. It is hearsay and not contemporary. How can it not bother you that it is the only reference to the SON OF THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE, DYING FOR THE SINS OF MANKIND, RISING FROM THE DEAD, ASCENDING TO HEAVEN? For crying out loud, don't you think it would've been a big whoop? The only thing you have is hearsay from a questionable historian, and then brought up only to talk about his brother. Pathetic.
Cedric Katesby,
I have read all of Josephus, use his writings extensively, and have read a great deal about the scholarship regarding the authenticity of the Jesus references.
You need to do some homework. Parroting and thinking a wiki reference constitutes scholarship is no way to go through life. (shrug)
I have read all of Josephus, use his writings extensively
And that tells us everything we need to know.
Stu, check post 972.
As for the Argumentum Hanzl-Gretlum, the Englebert Humperdinck opera was animated in 1954, and the voice of the witch was provided by none other than Anna Russell. You can stream it from Netflix, just for the cackling, especially appropriate in the context of Maggie's performance in this thread.
Ken: sorry, didn't mean to plagiarize. I just skimmed the 5,325,013 previous comments.
So what if Jesus existed historically? So what if Josephus wrote about him? So what if Josephus actually had a camcorder and took live video of Jesus being born?
What does that prove, except that some dude named Jesus (like about every third male child of the region) who had a brother named James (like about every fourth male child of the region), who had a mother named Mary (like about every fifth female child of the region) said some interesting stuff and had some followers who went on to found some religion after said dude died?
What does it say about the validity of the beliefs themselves? Virgin birth? Resurrection from death? Walking on water? Water into wine?
It says nothing. Jack squat nothing.
No worries, I'm not accusing you of plagiarism, just claiming I popped the obvious thought bubble first.
Nice try, Tulse.
The issue is what Christian bodies have in common-- what they all agree on, which the Nicene creed lays out nicely. The evangelical churches do not reject what is in the creed-- they don't use it because they don't find the creed in the Bible. That is a bit silly but their perfect right.
What possible difference do you suppose it makes that the creed was revised to take into account the latest heresy? It is still widely accepted as it always has been.
Because it did not found the Church in Jerusalem, established by Christ. It was founded by the Church in Jerusalem-- traditionally its founding is ascribed to Mark in the time of Nero. Lets see-- Jerusalem church founded 33 AD. Nero begins reign in 54 AD. So at its earliest, the Alexandrian Church was established in 54 AD, possibly somewhat earlier, however, as there were Alexandrian Jews who were converts. But if we stick to what we can say with some certainty:
54
-33
_____
21
Yep. By my calculations, Jerusalem predates Alexandria.
Stu-- You are disproving the widely held notion that fish are brain food. All those red herrings! Try eating them instead of flinging them around on blogs.
Thank you Stu for pointing that out. I mean, just how common a name was that at that time? Supposing that the Jesus of the Gospels existed, would it be a possibility to consider that there could have been enough people with the same name at that time and place to have made Josephus's mention of a person with that particular name a significantly probable event?
That doesn't work unless the use of the Nicene creed is universal. Which it isn't. Another lie for Maggie the Mendacious. Keep it up, and nobody will believe anything you say--ooops, you are already there.
Say whaaaa? Do you know anything about Livy? I happen to have a copy of Livy's The Early History of Rome right here (Penguin Classics, 1971). From the Introduction:
Are you aware that Livy's history begins with the story of Romulus and Remus? Are you suggesting historians find that account factually credible? History involves a critical and honest examination of sources, their purposes, biases, and limitations; comparing and contrasting sources; the authentication of works; archaeological and other documentary evidence;... The claims of ancient historians are accepted (provisionally) on the basis of rigorous research. There is no good evidence for any of the supernatural events of Biblical myth.
Indeed, if one is honest. But we were talking about you.
It's getting to be time for the retrospective Best Of documentary, as seen on VH-1 for this thread.
A Maggie moment:
How many millions of followers have there been since 7:32 a.m. July, 7, 33 AD?
I'll have to consult the nearest McDonalds sign. If, using Bishop Ussher's chronometer, we assume that there's a seeker born every minute--sorry, I was so impressed by Maggie's precision that I quite lost track of the point.
amphiox, aswineina cage
It is always possible that Josephus referred to another Jesus. But since there is no known reference to another Jesus with a brother James in any literature, while one Jesus with a brother (or cousin, if, like Calvin and Luther, you think Mary was a perpetual virgin) is the founder of a major religion, it is not unreasonable, though not provable, that they are one and the same--even if you do not believe that the religion is valid. There is only one Jesus with a brother James who made "noise." And yes, references in Josephus mean nothing when it comes to claims of Jesus' miracles or divinity.
I was merely addressing that the conventional "wisdom" that all references to Jesus in Josephus are suspect is not true.
ROFL!Does it count when people place multiple orders over their lifetimes, kind of like what maggie did with Christianity?
Rather many (not just Christian scholars) accept that the overt Christian redaction was fitted to an existing casual reference.
The tap-dancing over this amuses me. It's special pleading, not the way other texts (even other passages from Josephus) are treated. But you slip in one "Jesus" and hoo boy! let the specious argumentation begin.
First, this "casual reference" is a digression. Remove the entire bit and the passages before and after it flow together just fine. Not that Josephus never digresses elsewhere, but usually he has a point in mind as he is doing so. Just prima facie, there appears to be no reason for mentioning Jesus here; he doesn't relate it to the foregoing or the following, in that Josephus is talking about catastrophic events in Judea as a result of resistance to Roman occupation. Jesus's crucifixion wouldn't have rated as catastrophic, for Jews, and it is not presented in the gospels that Jesus was opposed to Roman rule, but that Pilate was in effect forced by the Jews to crucify him. Really only a Christian mind would even think the passage fit where it is, as another catastrophe. To a 1st century Jew like Josephus, there would simply have been no connection in the context.
Second, and crucially, there are no references to this passages in the writings of the church fathers until Eusebius, in the 4th century. The "smoking gun" on this point is Origen, who, in Against Celsus, makes heavy use of Josephus, including the bit about James (about which more anon). If the Testimonium had existed c.220, Origen would certainly have made good use of it. Rather many (and not just non-Christian) scholars lay this pious bit of creative scribing at the feet of Eusebius himself.
As regards the other passage, her I think it's legitimate to suppose that a Christian scribe less bold than Eusebiius and at a much earlier date also crafted a small interpolation; even the best apologetic case for the Testimonium admits there was some scribal interpolation, so we know this was happening. Even just as a reporter, it's hard to imagine Josephus casually tossing out that "who was called Christ." It would have warranted an explanation. What most likely happened is that the original contained a reference to a Jacob, brother of Joshua, who was executed by the sanhedrin under Ananus. It would have been "just obvious" to a 2nd century Christian "who Josephus was really talking about," but these are two exceedingly common names. Take out the reference to the Christ, which sits uneasily there without any explication for Josephus' Roman audience, and you just have an ordinary, everyday, good old fashioned stoning. Ho hum.
Maggie's toolkit:
bald assertion
arrogant condescension
argument from historical popularity (that's argumentum ad populum historicum in made-up Latin, and argumentay omfray istoricalhay opularitypay in Pig Latin)
earpulgs
I think that about covers it. Heddle brings more to the table IMO.
July, 7, 33 AD
Mags was clearly funnin' us. Jesus didn't die in July, he died during Spring Break, during the Eostre celebrations. If he was alive then, he's dead now. If you've got a problem with that, tell it to the Ishtar Bunny.
This is too harsh. Sure, you are a coward in many respects, as I'm always happy to point out. But cowardice is not simply siding with one's fear in a life or death situation. Running into a house that is visibly near to collapse, without the protective equipment of modern firefighting and trained backup already on location to rescue you in turn, is a suicide mission. Choosing not to run in is a fairly neutral act, but then standing up for that decision, against the scolds of Christian nihilism who would have preferred that you throw away your own life, is courageous.
And the woman who decides to save her own life cannot be called a coward, and if she stands up to say that other women's lives are also worth saving then she is a hero.
No, your cowardice is in the ongoing habits of submission that you choose for yourself:
No doubt. You should take the history of progressives in the Democratic Party as a cautionary tale. They got used and abused, time and again, for failing to organize aggressively. They changed tactics and by 2006 they were winning primaries without the help of the DNC. Identifying Blue Dogs as a problem, and working to unseat them with Better Democrats, they've shifted the political landscape. America has swung left relatively quickly, and now progressives are the base that the Party can't win without. Reagan Democrats are out in the cold. The 2008 presidential primary was a referendum on DLC-style centrism and triangulation, and Senator Clinton lost.
Recall Carlie's example of the Overton window. In order to make compromises, you have to ask for more than you're willing to settle for. By imagining your current coalition as necessary, you cede all your power in it. Don't they need you as badly as you need them? If not, you're already just being used. But if they do need you, then make them work for it.
What do you get from Tory politicians? Lip service to laissez-faire principles while they stack the deck for entrenched industries at the behest of lobbyists. Doesn't that offend you? And you're afraid to say anything that might offend them? Get used to table scraps and a pat on the head if you're willing to sleep in the doghouse.
It wasn't a trick question. So there's your admission that you've never studied male privilege beyond a cursory glance at its Wikipedia page. If you're committed to the idea of not being Walton Misogynist anymore, and this isn't all a rhetorical trick, then you have to start by learning how to identify the sexism you've absorbed unconsciously, and the benefits society confers upon you for your gender.
Do your homework, Walton. If you care to understand why people know you as a misogynist, you'll have to study at least until you're no longer tone deaf to what we're saying.
You won't, because this is unimportant to you. I'm just mentioning it now so you can't protest ignorance later.
Caught you lying again. Abortion is the front line, and every time you bring this up I give you this link and you always ignore it. They're working to undo everything Thatcher risked her career for, and you're going to watch it happen without opening your mouth.
You're even contradicting yourself in your lie. If you didn't have a culture war, then your religious conservatives would be of no use to your coalition. Their only issues are culture war issues. That said, you might consider that there's more to these culture war issues than meets the eye, just like the fight about "women working outside the home!" was always more about economics than social tradition.
It's objectively hypocritical to say "I don't have the right to force X, or A, to run the risk of death against their will" while not opposing a law that does just that.
People can give you the benefit of the doubt when you're stuck in a contradiction you haven't worked through yet, but only if you acknowledge that there is a contradiction.
CJO,
Actually it fits rather well, in the context of what was happening, and gives additional circumstantial evidence that this was the James brother of Jesus, because the two histories dovetail.
Christian history says this is what is happening at this time: Because of the evangelizing of the Gentiles Christianity has lost its tenuous support of the Pharisees in the Sanhedrin. Everyone now recognized them as a different religion—and they are without protection such as was once provided by Paul’s advisor, Gamaliel and others. James is the head of the Jerusalem church, which is thriving.
At that point in Antiquities, Josephus (From elsewhere in Josephus we know he had a dislike for the high priests) is telling us of the death of the procurator Festus. Caesar has replaced him with Albinus. But it takes a while for Albinus, the replacement procurator, to get to Judea. In the meantime, the new high priest Ananus, whom Josephus implies is unworthy, is left in charge. Ananus was a hothead and a Sadducee—and they hated the Christians from day one—even as the Pharisees protected them.
It makes absolutely perfect sense for Josephus, in describing Ananus’ mischief, to give, as an example, the fact that he had James executed. He was, one can speculate, trying to point out his irresponsibility, because killing James might have (though it did not) cause a tumult which would have caused the Romans to move in to quell the unrest—which nobody would want.
So the mention of James is entirely reasonable, and it fits nicely with both Josephus’ secular history and Christian history.
The issue is what Christian bodies have in common-- what they all agree on, which the Nicene creed lays out nicely.
No it doesn't, as has been pointed out to you. If it did, it wouldn't have had to be altered several times. If it did, all Christians would adhere to it -- but they don't. If you are limiting it to a litmus test like Heddle does, fine -- but there are and have been quite a few self-called Christians that have been fine without it. If you wish to exclude them from your precious knitting circle, fine... just stop your mendacious hand-waving.
It is still widely accepted as it always has been.
Liar.
Because it did not found the Church in Jerusalem, established by Christ.
Are you talking the Holy Sepulchre? How was it established by Christ? There was a temple of Venus on the site a century after he died for crying out loud.
All those red herrings!
Name one. I double-dog dare you.
Heddle: so Abraham taught science to the Egyptians, right?
I can't believe you're actually using Josephus. We used to make fun of his drivel in high school, it's so bad. (Of course, then they made us translate reams of Seneca, which is like watching paint dry in print).
heddle,
I treated both passages in my comment. You're mixing up what I said about the Testimonium with what I said about the reference to the execution of James.
That's an impressive bit of extrapolation there, though. None of it seems unreasonable to me, but then again none of it compels me to posit a historical Jesus in the time of Pilate.
As long as we're on the subject, what is the apologetics answer to the puzzle of James? The puzzle being: Mark portrays Jesus's mother and brothers as actively hostile to Jesus's ministry. How does one of those brothers (a Galilean illiterate) end up as the leader of the Saints of Jerusalem?
I think it's more reasonable to suppose that James the Just should be identified with the son of Zebedee identified as a disciple in the synoptic tradition. "The Brother of the Lord" would not have been an unusual apellation: they all called each other "brother," and it's possible to read the title as more like "first among equals" than as literally the brother of Jesus.
And if she is, why do the Greek Orthodox, rather than the Roman Catholics have the lions share of responsibility? Hell, even the Armenian Apostolics (who like the Coptics, rejected the Roman Catholic heretical mollycoddling of Nestorianism in the Council of Chalcedon) have more responsibility than the Romans.
I am totally done with Maggie, as she seems to have nothing to offer except what comes directly from the Vatican as the end-all of information. From now on, I shall simply gaze at her comments as if they were marginally decorative, if aphid-infested, potted plants. The most recent one reminds me of a scraggly begonia.
they all called each other "brother"
All the more proof that they were black.
Stu,
I don't know what you mean by "it's so bad." Are you saying that (Christian editing aside) it is a bad history? Of course it is known that it is not written with modern scholarly standards, and that he inserted stories of his own bravery and stature which are suspect--but are saying it is a more or less unreliable and useless history of the first century Jews? Source please--other than your high school chums?
Do you think his account of the Jewish rebellion and the siege and destruction of Jerusalem are inaccurate? Do you know of conflicting, better accounts? Or his accounts of 1st century temple worship? You know them to be flawed? You know of more reliable accounts that dispute Josephus on anything substantive?
So what convinced you, in high school, that he was "so bad?"
Was it his writing style?--which I like actually--even though I am (not sure about you, back in high school) reading translations.
Now of course you are right that when Josephus writes out of his own time, such as regarding the patriarchs, we are no longer dealing with Josephus the historian but Josephus the bad exegete. But that is hardly cause to dismiss his writing of contemporary history--unless you know something I don't know.
Now of course you are right that when Josephus writes out of his own time, such as regarding the patriarchs, we are no longer dealing with Josephus the historian but Josephus the bad exegete. But that is hardly cause to dismiss his writing of contemporary history--unless you know something I don't know.
Since he has been proven to be a partisan, self-aggrandizing apologist for the jews, yes, all his works are suspect at the very least. His accounts aren't much disputeed because for many things, he's the only game in town.
But let's not get too far off the topic here. Forget the rebellion, how can you term his Jesus reference "contemporary history"? He wasn't even born when Jesus (allegedly) died.
Was it his writing style?--which I like actually--even though I am (not sure about you, back in high school) reading translations.
Not too bad, actually, especially when compared to Caesar and Seneca snoozefests. To this day I would give a kidney to have had my final exams on Livy or Vergil instead of Seneca. That asshole single-handedly ruined Latin for me for good.
CJO,
No, that makes sense, or at least one can speculate without being too fanciful. If Josephus had referred to Jesus as “the Christ” that would be very suspect. But by this time the Gentiles had already created the rather weird situation where “Christ” had effectively become Jesus’ last name. It is possible what gets translated here as Christ is something like “Chrestus”, similar to the Roman historian Suetonius (75-160) writing of Claudius’ expulsion of the Jews from Rome in 49:
Here too we (possibly) have a reference to fights between Jews and Christians in Rome that lead to the expulsion of Jews (and Christians--the Romans would have still viewed Christians as Jews in 49.) If so, Suetonius misunderstood is as a fight over someone suggestively named Chrestus (which is in fact a variant of Christus).
That is, Josephus could simply be saying: James had a brother Jesus, who some called by this other weird name.
That is, Josephus could simply be saying: James had a brother Jesus, who some called by this other weird name
And again, why would your only "contemporary" source feel James was more important than Jesus?
John Morales said "It was never the religious tenets per se, but the progress of civilisation, that made the Christians acquiesce to the zeitgeist and amend their understanding [of slavery]. Some of them, anyway."
Maggie said "LOL!! And what, pray tell, informed the zeitgeist? (Hint, the same thing that has informed the zeitgeist of the West since Nov. 18, 33 AD, 8:55 PM)Though he won't understand it, this answers Wowie also(#962).".
LOL!! Maggie, you are a laugh riot buffoon! Nice circular logic there! If it was the bible that informed the Zeitgeist to change some Christian attitudes towards slavery it would have done so from the beginning rather than failing to do so for 1800 years because that passage of the bible was the same all along. You can't claim something that occured in 33 AD caused a change if that change didn't take place for 1800 years. If it was responsible it would have caused the change immediately, not after 1800 years. As there was no change despite your claimed "cause" for 1800 years there must have been SOMETHING ELSE that changed to cause some Christians and the general public to oppose slavery. That was the zeitgeist of the time which clearly ignored the prevailing Christian support of the institution of slavery. There has to be a reason Christians supported slavery for 1800 years and that reason is that was their understanding of the bible. As you acknowledge sin didn't change so that couldn't have been the thing preventing a change in attitudes.
You are a pathetic, dishonest troll. Your mindfuck may work on your delusional brain but you're not going to fool any rational person with your BS.
Jesus could have saved everyone a lot of time and trouble if he wrote his own damn biography, rather than relying on the contradictory and confusing writers that came along decades and centuries after his death. Screw him if he can't plan ahead.
Another long thread is about to receive the final slash of the knife that represents closure.
If you really want to continue this conversation, go here.