Why is suggesting that you could be some far-Right Nationalist so funny? You’ve said nothing to suggest that you’re not and it would explain how an atheist could get so wound up and passionate about the existence of an historical Jesus. There are plenty of Nationalists who defend Christianity to the point of focusing the bulk of their attacks on their fellow atheists because having a strong Christian presence in their multicultural society helps them to feel reassured that those funny-looking people won’t destroy their own culture.

I also don’t know why suggesting that The Mad Rabbi was a sock puppet of yours was so funny. That happens a lot here. Particularly with new members who didn’t realise that there was a limit of four posts every 24 hours and get frustrated with it. It was a little convenient too that another newbie, who knew so much about you, made an appearance and finished posting within an hour of you showing up again. So please pardon my suspicions. This whole conversation has just been bizarre.

Posted by david f, Thursday, 1 January 2015 7:02:29 PM

" ... I do not see why his supposed Jewish origin is important. ... "

Thanks for all of that *DavidF*

I have to wonder though regarding the importance of his origin as if it is also true that some of the worst of anti-Semitism was in part fermented on the notion that "The Jews" as a whole were responsible for killing him, then if indeed he was a Jew as were supposedly many of his followers, it makes it all the more absurd that people accepted this as a reason to kill and persecute Jews in the wholesale fashions in which they were (6 million+ in WWII alone if I do not misrecall.)

..

I am confused as to how the earlier use "assume" as opposed to "conclude" can be considered as " ... semantics. ..."

"Conclude" in an academic or legal sense could mean that in the absence of a conclusive set of facts, but perhaps say on the basis of only a partial set of facts, that on the balance of probability a person could reasonably "conclude" that there was indeed a historical Jesus.

"Assume" on the other hand does not necessarily mean that the said assumption has any basis in fact at all, but may say be wholly drawn from a belief system. I am happy of course to be corrected about that however ..

..

As for the word "Christ" and again if I do not misrecall, this is not a name but rather a title. It may have its roots in old Greek but I would be pleased for someone who knows to clarify that. Additionally, as it pertains to Jesus, it may have been a title that was applied to him well after his death, assuming he lived at all, and part of the manufacturing of a legend.

Why can't all you people just argue about the subject on hand instead of all this personal abuse. It does no one any credit and detracts from any cogent points which you may wish to pursue.

David

McReal wrote:

"There are other pre-Christian references to Christs too (mainly as Greek versions of Chresto/Chrestos), which make the terminology less Jesus-specific."

Unless, of course, you actually look at the contexts in which these vaguely-similar-but-actually-different words are used and see that they have zero connection.

Speaking of which ...

"Writing around 134 CE, Hadrian purportedly stated "The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to the [Greco-Egyptian] God Serapis, who call themselves the bishops of Christ ..""

So does this mean that the worshippers of Serapis were called "Christians"? Ummm, no. Because if you look at the context (there's that word again) of what he was saying you see this:

"The Egyptians, whom you are pleased to commend to me, I know thoroughly from a close observation, to be a light, fickle, and inconstant people, changing with every turn of fortune. The Christians among them are worshippers of Serapis, and those calling themselves bishops of Christ scruple not to act as the votaries of that God. The truth is, there is no one, whether Ruler of a synagogue, or Samaritan, or Presbyter of the Christians, or mathematician, or astrologer, or magician, that does not do homage to Serapis. The Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is by some compelled to worship Serapis, and by others, Christ. It is a race of men, of all the most seditious, vain and mischievous. "

So he is saying that some Egyptians profess to be Christians but actually worship Serapis. Ditto for Jews, Samaritans and others. He's using this as an example of how "fickle" and "inconstant" the Egyptians are. It helps to actually read the text.

AJ Philips wrote:

"Why is suggesting that you could be some far-Right Nationalist so funny?"

If you knew me, you'd understand that it's hilarious.

"it would explain how an atheist could get so wound up and passionate about the existence of an historical Jesus. "

So let's see - either (a) I'm a "far-Right Nationalist" who has left a trail of left-leaning opinions on the net a mile wide and has consistently posted as someone with zero patience for fringe pseudo historical theories as a 20+ year cunning ruse to hide my true "far-Right Nationalist" views OR (b) someone with zero patience for fringe pseudo historical theories, thus the 20+ year posting history. And my lack of patience with Jesus Myther nonsense.

I know you have difficulty with the whole concept of Occam's Razor, but even you should be able to figure this one out.

"It was a little convenient too that another newbie, who knew so much about you, made an appearance and finished posting within an hour of you showing up again. "

They showed up very soon after this post appeared on another forum - one where I am well-known and where this weak accusation that I am not really an atheist is a regular source of amusement:

http://jameshannam.proboards.com/post/14645

Anything else I can help you with?

Tim: "Unless, of course, you actually look at the contexts in which these vaguely-similar-but-actually-different words are used and see that they have zero connection." ... Posted by TimONeill, Friday, 2 Jan 7:50:49 PM

Says you. They have plenty of connection: In Greek and in Latin.

Tim: "So he is saying that some Egyptians profess to be Christians but actually worship Serapis. Ditto for Jews, Samaritans and others. He's using this as an example of how "fickle" and "inconstant" the Egyptians are. It helps to actually read the text." ... Posted by TimONeill, Friday, 2 Jan 7:50:49 PM

err, No. The key aspects of your quote are these:

"The Christians among them [the Egyptians] are worshippers of Serapis, and those calling themselves bishops of Christ scruple not to act as the votaries of that God .... The Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is by some compelled to worship Serapis, and by others, Christ. It is a race of men, of all the most seditious, vain and mischievous."

And -
"The cults of Serapis and Isis did not merely survive the emergence of Christianity, but in the 2nd century AD actually increased in popularity. Serapis and Christ existed side-by-side and were frequently seen as interchangeable. Some early Christians made no distinction between Christ and Serapis and frequently worshipped both" http://dwij.org/forum/amarna/8_serapis_and_christianity.htm

Again, no mention of Jesus.