Which Religion is the One True Religion?

The passages of Josephus and Tacitus which are forwarded by christians as proof have been repeatedly shown to be of a dubious character, and are generally accepted by serious historical scholars to have been interpolations by later christian authors. The "testaments" to which you refer are four of no fewer than thirteen which existed in the second century C.E., before being heavily edited and winnowed down to the currently accepted canon. The only references by Roman historians which cannot be alleged to have been interpolations simply note that the followers of a popular sect allude to the individual. Not a single one of them, free of interpolation, states as a fact that such an individual existed.

I do not deny that people in the first century referred to a rabbi or teacher named Joshuah who retailed Essene philosophy. I dispute that such an individual is correctly described in the "Jesus" figure which survives into our era.

Since when did Your Majesty Setanta become a Master of the Interpolation Arts?

Fact of the matter is that cogito ergo sum, everything in life save for one's one existence should be obligatorily under scrutiny. If we can't make intelligent interpretations based on the data that we have, where does it stop? How do we make intelligent interpretations based on current, visual data? How do we make intelligent interpretations at all, given that we cannot fully trust our eyes to correctly perceive the information for us?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:



Source of this passage.[/b]

Eusebius is most often cited as the "villian" in the piece when historical researchers consider the alteration of the testaments to produce the modern canon. One makes intelligent decisions by comparing texts, and reviewing the statements of those acknowledging themselves to have been the editors of scripture.

The establishment of the quaternion of gospels by Eusebius

Wikipedia article on Eusebius

The "Jesus" of the modern canon has been created, modified, "refined" since the days of Eusebius and Pamphilus, and their work was based upon that of Origen. Whatever one may adduce about the accuracy of their portrayal, centuries after the events which are recounted in the "new testament," there can be no doubt that there does not survive anywhere a contemporary account of a life of a rabbi named Joshuah. In fact, Eusebius was accused in his lifetime, and not without justice, of subscribing to the "Arian heresy," which did not consider this Joshuah to have been a part of the deity, and which was "anti-trinitarian."

My point was and remains, that there is a serious dissociation between what people mean today when they say "Jesus," and what was retailed as the life of that rabbi in the centuries immediately after the events.

The current state of the controversy regarding the testimonium flavianum (i.e., the evidence of Flavius Josephus) can be found here.[/b]

In terms of historiography, the jury is still out on this one. Note that the site linked here is one dedicated to "proving" that Josephus is a first century source for the existence of "Jesus." Note also that "Jesus" is the Greek for Joshuah, and that Josephus wrote in Latin, not in Greek. Finally, note that the test of cui bono makes assertions about historical support for the existence of "Jesus" (as opposed simply to the contention that a rabbi named Joshuah taught the Essene philosophy in Palestine two thousand years ago) suspect at best.

This site discusses the subject of interpolations in Tactitus. For the record, i do not agree with the author's conclusion that the case for interpolation is not made. I consider that the test of cui bono makes such assertions from christian sources suspect, and requires a greater standard of proof than that which would be required of a disinterested party--someone "with no dog in the fight."

Another source on the subject of interpolation in Tacitus, Pliny and Seutonius.

This site contains the following paragraph, which is significant for a reasonable proposition on how the pagan Roman would have viwed christians:

It has always been an unfailing source of astonishment to the historical investigator of Christian beginnings, that there is not one single word from the pen of any Pagan writer of the first century of our era, which can in any fashion be referred to the marvellous story recounted by the Gospel writers. The very existence of Jesus seems unknown.

It can hardly be that there were once notices, but that they were subsequently suppressed by Christian copyists because of their hostile or even scandalous nature, for inimical notices of a later date have been preserved. The reason for this silence is doubtless to be discovered in the fact that Christianity was confounded with Judaism, no distinction being made between them in the minds of non-Jewish writers. Converts to Christianity were held to be proselytes to Judaism, and it was a matter of no importance to a Roman what particular sect of Jewry a convert might join. Such a question as what particular phase of Messianism the Judaei might be agitated about never occurred to him; circumcision or uncircumcision had no interest for him. He had a vague idea that the Judaei were a turbulent folk politically dangerous to the state, that they had a strange superstition and were haters of the human race, and there he left it.

great posts Setanta thanks

my very simplistic take on the matter is that Paul adapted the story of Jesus to make him acceptable to the Romans, i.e. turned him from politico to mystico.

Constantine bought into the idea and added the new God to the several others he had in his collection.

The Arian heresy is fascinating. Consider the man/god debate was settled by a show of hands at the council of Nicea in, I believe 325 ce. There has to be some irony here in men voting to install God, as... well as God.

Poor John Scopes, who was prosecuted in the famous "monkey trial" in Tennessee, got himself into trouble when he repeated to another teacher an aphorism, to which i cannot supply the attribution:

God created man, and man, being a gentleman, returned the compliment.

My bible study cancelled at the last minute. He probably thinks I'm just an illiterignoramus. So now I have nothing to do for a half hour but bother you folks:
I've been trying to explain this controversy to my friend Joe Sixpack. Remember him? After he won the 'Quintessential Common Man' award last year, he said to me" What's that mean, neo? There ain't five of me?" So hard to explain, you know.

Anyway, I had him read all the posts by Setanta and Rex. (He may not be bright, but I taught him to speed read.) He said to me "neo, if these real smart fellows can't agree, maybe where they're a-startin from is wrong."

I was amazed. do you think that might be true? If we could agree on our propositions and our definitions, might we find agreement?

I repeated the question to Joe, but by then he was busy poppin' a cool one. You know Joe.

God created man, and man, being a gentleman, returned the compliment.

There was a young man called Scopes
Who everyone thought was a dope
When he said God is Man
He went down the pan
But later came back as the Pope

heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee


okbye

If I were looking for sympathy I sure wouldn't be posting in these forums.

There's a lot more truth in this post than might first meet the eye.

I have some empathy for you. Well I try to do that for everyone. Don't always succeed though.

Steve (as 41oo) quoted Set's aphorism:
"God created man, and man, being a gentleman, returned the compliment."

and wrote:

There was a young man called Scopes
Who everyone thought was a dope
When he said God is Man
He went down the pan
But later came back as the Pope

which prompted Neologist to comment
There's a lot more truth in this post than might first meet the eye.

To which I add. Thanks. What?

I wonder how many popes were or became atheists?

Must have been at least one....?

"The child-pope Benedict IX (who became Pope at the age of 12!) was bi-sexual, sodomised animals, ordered murders and dabbled in witchcraft and Satanism. He loved to throw wild, bi-sexual orgies. Benedict IX held the post of Pope in the years 1032-44, 1045 and 1047-48. He was described as "A demon from hell in the disguise of a priest...", and St Peter Damian said of him: "That wretch, from the beginning of his pontificate to the end of his life, feasted on immorality". Dante estimated that under Benedict IX the papacy reached an all-time low in immorality and debauchery. When he was 23 he survived an assassination attempt (strangling at the altar during Mass). Benedict went on to marry his cousin and sell the papacy to his godfather, Gregory VI."

but it doesn't mention is atheism or otherwise. We have to assume he was a good Christian, perhaps with the occasional lapse into Satanism (after all no one is infallible). I note the present Pope has chosen the name Benedict, could be that he hopes to emulate....no better not go there.

Here's a better candidate:

"It was widely rumoured that the ex-pirate Pope John XXIII (1410-15) was an Atheist. He tortured his own cardinals and was said to have "had wicked company with two of his own sisters". Robert Hallum, Bishop of Salisbury said that he: "ought to be burnt at the stake"."

for more naughty popes see

http://www.geocities.com/missus_gumby/papal.htm

Uhm, i'm sorry to disabuse you of the notion, Steve, but the Popes became infallible on July 18, 1870. Ask the Pope, he'll tell you--and as he is infallible, he surely couldn't be wrong about it.

I thought thats when they became fallible

Or is this the old flammable/inflammable thing again?