still not quite done; but, the main points are put in
Sorry, but it's still largely crap.
You can't come up with a bunch of quotes and trivia and expect us to buy the larger picture you're trying to sell. That's no different from The Da Vince Code throwing out some (wrong) facts (but then again the same goes for a lot of your 'facts') and constructing a conspiracy theory around it.
In all seriousness, have you considered some education in formal historical analysis? It would do you a lot of good.
thanks for the reply; and, as for the historical analyses class - maybe someday! Seriously, I wrote this or put it all together so I don't have to think about it anymore! I want to do mathematics; i think i took a lot of those thoughts out of this 'gospel of truth'; but, I do mention some of them throughout the rest of my blog.
I mean that I discovered the archaeology of the bible(mostly old testament in Finkelstein and Silverman's "The Bible UnEarthed") and then someone pointed out some stuff about sungods, and so I started getting into it, only to find that there's just so much! My "Gosep of Truth" here is the easily verifiable goodies! I mean to say that I read some stuff; looked at bibliography's and determined there's a finite amount of main material; so, I read them, took some notes, and put together the minimum stuff needed to point out things that should give someone pause! When you see stuff like Hyparchus's quotes about personification of the twelve constellations of the zodiac, or the quotes of Eusebius and Plato, and then note that Plato's Republic was found amongst the Nag Hammadi gnostic gospels(not to mention the quote about inventing stories about going to hell if your bad to keep the populace in line), well, I certainly think they're are worth bringing up. I don't see why you or I shouldn't think that they are not worth bringing up; or that you can somehow dismiss them.
"I don't see why you or I shouldn't think that they are not worth bringing up; or that you can somehow dismiss them."
I think that to think that you can just make some assumptions, come up with a pet theory, and then cite several trivia (some of which are misinterpreted as I say) in defense of that theory and then call that pet theory "The Gospel of Truth"... is a lot of things, to be honest.
The reason I recommend you to take classes in historical analysis is because it's clear that you don't have the correct methodology to be dealing with these questions.
As a historian I know says: if you have an idea about history that you like and think might be true, that means fuck all unless you've actually spent several months self-criticising your ideas and trying to tear them apart as best you can. If they stand up to everything you throw at it, then the next step is to give it to other people so they can try to tear it down.
Somehow I think you haven't done any of that.
'hundreds of historians is probably a generic and me being facitiuos number; the fact is that historians back then never heard of Jesus Christ much less actual Jews(like the Diasporan Paul). If you had read closely enough, you'd see that my quoting and pointing out of Origen shows that the Josephus passages are forged; that forgery is well known. The fact that you think that he does shows that you've grown up conditioned to think he has and never questioned it. The Tacitus quote . . . nobody conemporary worries about whether the Tacitus mention is a forgery; it's well known; i can look it up; i've seen the scholar work on that(and the Josephus stuff). Jesus Christ was not known in his time by anybody; and if he was what people say he was, as I said, the mediterraenean would have been plastered with artwork and literature to the effect; in fact, if Jesus Christ had lived, the whole history of the Roman empire would have been far different; instead, we have the history as it is; as if he never existed.
Once again, I'm quoting primary resources when quoting(including the bible) and mentioning major conclusions from 'the' major biblical scholars of the day whether archaeologists or mythologists/linguists/historians. Seems that you havn't heard of them; seems that you don't know what your talking about.
"the fact is that historians back then never heard of Jesus Christ"
Just as they hadn't heard of any other Jewish preacher.
"much less actual Jews(like the Diasporan Paul)"
Paul mentions meeting Jesus' brother, so your argument collapses right there.
"If you had read closely enough, you'd see that my quoting and pointing out of Origen shows that the Josephus passages are forged; that forgery is well known. "
It's well enough among enthusiasts with an axe to grind, but to people with a grasp of the material (like erm, virtuall all academic scholars) it is quite obvious that this is not a forgery.
1) Origen literally quotes Josephus' material at a time when Christians were in no position to be forging any material whatsoever, much less that of Josephus
2) Josephus mention of Jesus' brother is a side-note to a story about the High Priest Ananus (which makes it more likely to be authentic) and it fits with a confluence of evidence that Jesus had a brother called James
3) In 1970, we discovered a pre-interpolation copy of Josephus' work, indicating that we are dealing with a partly interpolated mention here, not two actual forgeries.
But of course, you don't know this because you hardly have a clue about this stuff.
"The Tacitus quote . . . nobody conemporary worries about whether the Tacitus mention is a forgery; it's well known; i can look it up; i've seen the scholar work on that(and the Josephus stuff)."
You're right: nobody worries about it. That's why there's hardly a scholar in the world who thinks the Tacitus' reference is a forgery: it's authentic Tacitean prose, and the idea that some monk three centuries later (at an age known for its rough Latin) could have just faked it, is absurd.
But do look up this "scholar work" on that. I'll be happy to point out how you've -yet again- proven you don't know what you're talking about.
"The fact that you think that he does shows that you've grown up conditioned to think he has and never questioned it."
No, the fact that I do means that I'm up to speed with the latest scholarly work and discoveries on it, and agree with the consensus among historians that there was a historical Jesus.
"Jesus Christ was not known in his time by anybody; and if he was what people say he was, as I said, the mediterraenean would have been plastered with artwork and literature to the effect;"
The sloppy reasoning aside, that leaves open a third conclusion: he did exist, but he wasn't who modern Christians say he was. Surprise surprise, that's exactly the position great scholars like Bart Ehrman, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredericksen, Dale Allison and a whole host of others argue.
"in fact, if Jesus Christ had lived, the whole history of the Roman empire would have been far different; instead, we have the history as it is; as if he never existed."
No, we have history exactly as we'd expect it: we have the evidence that Jesus was a little-known Jewish preacher of the time who spawned an apocalyptic cult.
"mentioning major conclusions from 'the' major biblical scholars of the day whether archaeologists or mythologists/linguists/historians."
Actually it's quite clear you're just parroting what people have told you the major scholars in the field have concluded. Because the crap you're spouting isn't taken seriously by anyone actually in the field.
"Also, Josephus and Tacitus are not primary resources anyways; they both were born essentially a generation after the supposed life of Jesus Christ"
Which makes them just as primary as our sources for Hannibal, Boudicca, Arminius, and thousands of other ancient figures. Contemporary sources are extremely rare; in history, we work with what we have and with what we can reasonably expect.
"and considering the mortality rate back then, that effectively makes them quite late."
That's total garbage. Mortality rates were skewed by high infant mortality; those who survived childhood often lived into their sixties.
"Philo is the real major figure here; and if you had read my "Gospel of Truth", you should see much significance in the fact that he doesn't know of any Jesus Christ."
I did read it, but I'm well-versed in this subject as well, so I can tell smokescreens and hand-waving when I see it. Since Jesus was a Jewish preacher, you can only expect Philo to mention Jesus if he shows an interest in other Jewish preachers of the time.
But he doesn't name a single Jewish preacher at all, so the fact that he doesn't mention the Jewish preacher Jesus specifically, bears no weight at all.
Ergo, Philo's silence on the matter cannot be used for anything.
If Philo had mentioned Simon of Peraea or Athronges, Hillel or Hanina Ben Dosa, John the Baptist or Honi HaM'agel but didn't mention Jesus then you'd have yourself an argument. Currently, you do not.
After going for a ride to take care of father's day stuff, I feel stronger than ever that your and others worry about my quotes being taken out of context is, well, out of line. I don't care whether Amos was taking a dump, talking to his wife, saying what he said alone; he said that God is the stars; and I don't care where, when he said it; he said; and that is the same nature as all the rest of the quotes; they're sitting their spouting off about how crummy the world is, and oops, they let out where they get their ideas of god or jesus Christ; these are oopsies; oops, did I say that we derived Jesus Christ from scripture? No, they didn't even say that; they thought they were being scientific. The only people taking anything out of context, were those deriving Jesus Christ from scripture(as Earl Doherty says).
The fact that you don't like me pointing out these facts highlights that your just an incrowder, and not a real intellectual; someone who finds insight wherever he can and enjoys intellectual insight whenever, wherever he sees it. You can't think for yourself; you need a phd to feel comfortable with new thoughts.
"The only people taking anything out of context, were those deriving Jesus Christ from scripture(as Earl Doherty says)."
And of course you've read Doherty.
How can I be surprised: Doherty's thesis sounds scholarly but -probably because it did not have to go through peerreview- is full of flawed reasoning, assumptions piled upon assumptions, unnecessary supposition to make his thesis work, etcetera.
Someone who understand the historical method can see this when they read it. Enthusiasts like you, on the other hand, swallow it hook line and sinker without checking for counter-arguments.
"The fact that you don't like me pointing out these facts highlights that your just an incrowder, and not a real intellectual; someone who finds insight wherever he can and enjoys intellectual insight whenever, wherever he sees it. You can't think for yourself; you need a phd to feel comfortable with new thoughts."
No, I need something more than a random guy on the internet with a demonstrably poor grasp of the source material for something to come on my radar.
There is a reason we respect PhD's and academic material: it's because in order to get that far, your material needs to pass a whole battery of rigorous tests; people will test your sources, check if your reasoning is sound, check to see if you left out sources that contradicted what you said, etcetera. You don't have any of this.
An academic would laugh at your sloppy research, non-sequiturs and lack of mention of alternatives. It's pseudo-history.