Phoras, Proved to be a blatant forgery? Oh, please. First of all, nothing has been proved, just claimed. But what exactly are we referring to? Certainly the language in a few of the lines (not its entirety or context), of the first version you quoted are claimed by some scholars to be inconsistent with Josephus' style. And I would agree. Certainly "He was the Christ" is not Josephus but an interpolation, as he was Jewish. BUT.. the overwhelming majority of scholars agree that Josephus wrote the Testimonium Flavianum and its context. You're making it seem like Josephus never wrote anything about Jesus. That's being dishonest. Read the Arabic manuscript version of the Testimonium Flavianum that I supplied and you'll get an understanding of the context that Josephus wrote. You're the fast responder on these boards I assume, but finishing reading the post next time. And then try to understand that I was simply demonstrating that ancient historians mention Jesus and His crucifixation by Pontius Pilate, in response to a previous post that went unchecked claiming the opposite, not to argue anything more or less.
Laughably so, of course ("Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man"). BWAHAHAHA.
Well, the one very obvious one was the supposition that Jesus' followers did not think of him as divine. That was just silly. Even most Gnostic recognized the divinity of Jesus although some felt that He did not achieve divinity status until after He was resurrected. The apostolic followers of Jesus saw what He did, and heard what He said, and the Jews, who were fantastic about remembering things, recognized and passed on the details of those events. And though "The Bible" including the New Testament as Christian know it, did not come together as a single book until the 5th century, the individual components had been affirmed long before the Council of Nicea. BTW, this is an important point, and one that frequently escapes recognition. Many see the NT 4 Gospels as being some unique contingent that trumped all others because they agreed with some pre-set theology. In reality, it was the other way around. The late 1st century writings got passed around from church to church and group to group, and with many eyewitnesses of Jesus' life still around, the ones that were recognized to be accurate records were retained and those that had obvious errors were not copied and passed on. The result was that MMLJ were the ones that all the eyewitnesses agreed were the accurate record. The decision about Jesus divinity, and which writings told that story accurately was affirmed by the late-1st/early 2nd century. So the actual decision about the writings was placed, as it should have been, in the hands of people who were eyewitnesses to events. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not set out to convince people of a certain theology. People had already been convinced by the events they saw, and they recognized MMLJ to be reflective of the truth. The main story line in DVC was about the idea of a Holy Marriage and resultant Holy Bloodline and uncovering that information. The story was all about what impact that might have, not about whether the father/husband was a god or not, and when that status was achieved.
Yes it is. And my entire point on that score is that when he changes historical background, he has an obligation to reveal it, not mask it behind the preface he placed. To be clear, he wrote an entertaining book. I have listened to it on CD twice and will see the movie, despite the tepid reviews tomorrow. I give him credit. He has sold over 45,000,000 copies to this point. $$$$$$$$$$ He is a good storyteller.
You are close. Teabing says that "the Vatican" covered up the existence of the Scrolls to hide the truth about MM. And of course, the DDS is a bunch of writings about life in pre-Jesus times although there are a few writings that date into the 1st century AD but none of those deal with the life of Jesus in any substantive manner. Hence, the idea of a Vatican cover up makes no sense. The had no motive.
You're welcome. No, its been proven. Unless Josephus switched to medieval Latin during his first century AD writing, its a forgery. Fortunately for us, medieval forgers (Donation of Constantine, anyone?) were completely unaware of the concept of linguistic analysis. It took Lorenzo Valla to teach them that. No, its a complete forgery. Its not "claimed by a few scholars". Please show me where where I said that. The only thing that proves is that Jesus lived and died. No one's really disputing that. Unfortunately, it no more makes him God than it does Josephus, who we also know lived and then died. Suetonius has a (debated) throwaway line about a "Chrestus" too. So?
That's interesting. The coming of Christianity as a widespread religion signals the arrival of the Dark Ages. The first light of reason shines with the Rennaisance, which is the rediscovery of ancient secular philosophical works. The flowering of reason is the Englightenment which veered between the sceptical and the out and out anti-religious. So you're not even close. EDIT: I see Gringo has already pointed this out to you.
Isn't is amazing or rather sad, that whenever a single religion dominates an area it results in Dark times and increased violence? Like you pointed out the dark ages, one could also point to the ME now and see a similar state there.
I was in fact asking if there are any extant contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous documents and/or accounts that make mention of Jesus. While we apparently have Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Tacitus, none of them are contemporaries of Jesus. So we're left with Josephus, right? When is the best-case (for the Fervent) of when the Testimonium Flavianum was written, and isn't the actual scholarly consensus on that work that we just don't know what's fact and what's fake in the Josephus passage? How else do dogmatic Christians manifest their faith BUT in ways pre-conceived? Your entire framework, the entire way that a relationship to Christ can be authentic, has been laid out for you, correct? Is this a measure of caution you are offering yourself in terms of unthoughtful adherence to dogma? If so, I agree.
Well, its not so much the domination of one religion but rather the seeping of that religion into government that's the problem.
You're being too demanding Mel. There's no reason for Suetonius to write about a Chrestus unless he existed. Suetonius wouldn't have gotten his sources from Christians - he worked for the Emperors. He was almost certainly using older gossip columns. As for Tacitus, he's a fairly close contemporary of Jesus, born about 20 years after the crucifiction. And, of all the historians, if there's anyone unlikely to meet Christians, its Publius Cornelius Tacitus.
What was written about Jesus? I have some notes on the subject, based on a course I once took. Some who know history can let me know how accurate this is. (Maybe Nice can correct me if anything is innacurate). We have of course the four canonical gospels, of which Matthew and Luke seem to derive much from Mark, which was the earliest written. It was probably written after AD 70 since it describes the destruction of Jerusalem. (Unless we accept by faith that the description was a prophesy given by Jesus, as the gospel claims, or else that the writer or Jesus himself described the destruction before it happened because he expected it to happen.) Some scholars believe that there was an earlier document, called the Q document, from which Mark, Matthew and Luke are all derived. The few non-canonical sources that make reference to Jesus are so brief that they are valueless in attempting to say anything about who he was, but probably enough to confirm of his existence. We have Josephus possibly mentioning him. (with later insertions by Christian copyists who 'fixed' whatever he wrote about him). We have the Babilonian Talmud, as well as the passing mentions of Pliny the younger, Tacitus, Suetonius and Lucian. At best we can say that they confirm that Jesus was indeed a known figure, even as far away as Rome, within very few years of his death. There are other sayings of Jesus recorded outside the canonical gospels. For example, Saint Paul is said in the book of Acts to quote Jesus as saying 'It is blessed to give than to receive', which is not in the gospels. Other early Christian writers quoted sayings of Jesus from oral tradition. These are called the 'Agrapha' (unwritten), because they are not found in the four gospels. Other writings that allege to quote Jesus are the Oxyrhynchus papyri, and the 'Gospel of Thomas', which claim to have recorded sayings of Jesus. Some sayings are similar to those found in the Gospels and appear to be derived from them, but some are very different. It is possible that these records draw from the canonical gospels, or from the same oral tradition that the gospels are based on, but it's possible that they represent an independent oral tradition of the sayings of Jesus. Probably some of both. The Gospel of Luke in its first paragraph speaks of numerous written records about Jesus, supposedly predating the first gospel. It seems to imply that Jesus not only existed but was already quite well known. But none of those records, except Mark, (and possibly Matthew if it was written before Luke), have survived. There are many post-apostolic apocriphal gospels which survive, claiming to add information to the life of Jesus. These were considered heretical by the Church. I guess each person can make up their mind based on the above about the probability of the existence of the historical man we call Jesus, but it seems that there is enough documentary evidence to lead us to believe that he did indeed exist. Beyond that, it comes down to faith. There is no way anybody can say that they can prove that he was or wasn't married, or that he had any children, or that he came back from the dead, or indeed that what the gospels say about him, including the miracles and the supernatural things attributed to him, is true. Never mind what a present day fiction novelist might say about him.
Sidenote: A&E is showing a documentary on Angels & Demon right now. It doesn't generate as much debate as the novel that followed it, but I personally thought it was a better book, and is still a very, very interesting story.
The discovery-type channels are crawling with DaVinci Code documentaries right now. The one I just watched part of was especially brutal. So brutal that I wonder who paid for it. I have to say that if even half of this stuff is true, then DB is a lying liar but still, it's just a novel. It amazes me how much attention it's getting.
Fantastic. You've given me an idea. And that would be to start a new thread to prove just how misguided your comments are, though it won't be aimed at you. My friend, I've been there. The same anti-clerical "enlightment" speech that you echo, I use to accept at face-value. I would proclaim to others that the Church is an institution of repression, corruption, and ignorance; the sole benefactor of intellectual recession. Until I took it upon myself to begin a long in-depth study of the matter. I have many other things to do, but I'll try to get to it soon and make it worthwhile. Forgive me if I delay, I often lose vigour for keeping up with web forums.
Oh, I don't necessarily believe the above. Its just that the evidence is overwhelmingly against you. And for the record, I've given it no small amount of thought. There's no doubt that Christianity is responsible for a good bit of the reason the western world is currently the way it is. However, suggesting that it was Jesus who led westerners to reason is so disingenuous as to be dangerously close to an outright lie.
The validity of a fictional novel, to me at least, means nothing. The discussion it raises, however, of how women's roles within the church have been denigrated throughout the ages, is very encouraging to me.
Indeed. Since, for me, there's as much extant evidence for the literal truth of the bible as there is for the literal truth of Buriash and Enkimdu (and I know that it's difficult for the Committed to see that posted AND see a willing-to-die-for-the-Commands-to-Love commitment to Jesus as Divine Principle...I know that's hard for you...), I'd like to see the Fervent wrestle not with the fiction, but with the claimed facts behind it. For example, this is critic Dan Burstien's (SECRETS OF THE CODE) take on Margaret Starbird's WOMAN WITH THE ALABASTER JAR: Have any of the Fervent read Starbird? Riane Eisler? These works expressly submit that they are NOT fiction. Anything lacking a vested interest in faith propagation that makes the attempt to interpret "...the events of two thousand years ago through the prism of the myths and metaphors from cultures and eras of history that were, in fact, closer to the time of Jesus than we are today..."? I'd rather see folks wrestle with that, instead of essentially agreeing with everyone else that Brown's work is fiction, and being faux-indignant over that...