Historical Jesus

[TheERK]

The point of this thread is to get a serious opinion concerning the 'Historical Jesus' from people who have actually done some reading on the topic.

No gut reactions, please.

Also, this is an issue I am totally undecided on; I have heard decent arguments from both sides.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by TheERK
The point of this thread is to get a serious opinion concerning the 'Historical Jesus' from people who have actually done some reading on the topic.

IF there was an historical Jesus - his life is completely lost in the myths grown around him.

IF the Sayings of Jesus (Quelle) are all that is left from people who may have known him - he is an average sage teaching nothing new or radical.

The earliest writings - Paul's letters - do not speak of an historical Jesus. They speak of a spiritual Jesus. (I believe Paul was a Gnostic writing about the dying god-man of the mystery religions - except reformatted with a Jewish hero.)

The earliest Gospel - Mark - begins when Jesus is in his 30s - spins some miracles - and ends with an empty grave (Mk 16:8)

The next two Gospels - Matthew and Luke - spin more outlandish scenarios (virgin birth, body resurrection, etc).

We cannot see the historical Jesus through the layers - so in a way it doesn't matter if there was an historical Jesus or not.

[PotatoStew]

Hi TheERK...

I would suggest reading "A Marginal Jew" by John P. Meier. He looks at the available sources on Jesus' life to see what a "reasonable person" could "know" about the historical Jesus. He sets up his criteria beforehand (using methods that are widely accepted by historians in general) and examines the data in light of those criteria. The upshot, from what I've read, is that we can know quite a bit about Jesus' life and teachings, but there are still large areas that we can't "know" about in a critical historical sense. Some examples: He probably did teach about the "kingdom of God", his teaching and personality probably really rubbed the Jewish authorities the wrong way, he was probably baptized by John. Things we can't know about are items such as the virgin birth -- the data for that doesn't meet enough of the criteria, and so in a critical sense one can't say anything one way or the other about it.

Layers can be "peeled back" just as they are when examining the life of any historical figure.

If you're really interested in the subject, I'd recommend reading this book. I've finished the first volume, and will hopefully be getting the second volume for Christmas.

[triadboy]

Hi PotatoStew - there are a couple of things you wrote I disagree with.

I would suggest reading "A Marginal Jew" by John P. Meier. He looks at the available sources on Jesus' life to see what a "reasonable person" could "know" about the historical Jesus.

I reject the entire paragraph supposedly written by Josephus. The Testimonium Flavianum is a blatent insertion. Meier uses this as a source. In my opinion, he is now off in the weeds. The only sources one can use to 'know' the historical Jesus are the Gospels - and they disagree with each other.

The upshot, from what I've read, is that we can know quite a bit about Jesus' life and teachings...

We can't know anything about his life (if he existed) that isn't 3rd generation heresay. The only link to his teachings are the Sayings of Jesus (Q) - a small core of wisdom lessons.

He probably did teach about the "kingdom of God",

As did many wandering sages in that time. Don't forget the area was loaded with these people proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom of God and the end of this world.

Things we can't know about are items such as the virgin birth -- the data for that doesn't meet enough of the criteria, and so in a critical sense one can't say anything one way or the other about it.

I can state without reservation - there has never been a 'virgin birth'. The reference in Isaiah, which bungling Matthew attempted to translate, refers to a 'young woman' not a virgin. Moreover, the reference is to the King's wife - not a future messiah. Virgin births are a common feature of mystery religion dying god-men.

I can state without reservation there has never been a miracle. Why do xian miracles warrent notice while other reported miracles are myths or the work of Satan? To believe in miracles is to suspend belief in reality.

I can state without reservation there has never been a 'bodily' resurrection. The entire xian religion is based on this "fact" and it is mistaken.

After all this - what do we 'know' of Jesus? Nothing.

[Cleopatra]

Triad boy

You were faster than me I wanted to ask you how you exclude Josephus and Tacitus who make the only "external" references to the man that was called Jesus.

Could please expand on why you reject those sources?

[Cleopatra]

theERK :

This is what I think.

The sources we have about Jesus pose the following problems:


There is no way to verify the historicity of any single incident related in the gospels.

There is no way to verify the authenticity of any single saying attributed to him

We cannot identify the truth of any given verse in the gospels

If we tried to extract a bottom line from the four gospels this would be that according to the Gospels, Jesus was a miracle man who had the talent to attract large crowds of people with his speeches and that he had a dedicated group of followers or disciples.

"Jesus Era" coincides with an Era in which Judaism experienced tensions that led to a diversity of schools and sects within it. Josephus' testimony again is valuable.The Pharissees, the Sadduces and the Essenes are the most well known Jewish sects of the time.

I tend to accept the theory that Jesus, as John the Baptist, was a "monk" of the sect of the Essenes. Essenes didn't appear during the"era of Jesus" . In fact they constituted the oldest of the Jewish sects but in that era we notice a revival of their movement.

I also accept that they must have been many wandering "holly" men around the area of Judea but this man and his sect, "The sect of Jesus" managed to make a difference or to become the most serious threat to the status quo of the temple that's why he survived in the memories of non-"christian" testimonies.

So, talking about the historical Jesus in the Christian terms is kind of ridiculous but it's very difficult to dismiss the idea that somebody existed indeed. Even if nobody existed we must feel nothing but admiration for those who built Christianity. From all the theories I know it's the only one who survives for 2000 years now.

[wert]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
From all the theories I know it's the only one who survives for 2000 years now. [/B]Different (and older religions) have existed for more than 2000 years.

Longevity isn't evidence of anything but longevity. To read anything else into "well it's been around a long time" is just silly.

[evildave]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcse_his.htm has some sources for this, but I honestly don't care.

Whatever the truth is (assuming it could be proven), if it isn't aligned with a church doctrine of whatever sect, that sect will reject it and continue to teach whatever lies* it likes.

After all, with all of these christian churches and sects, they can't all be telling the truth. If it isn't truth, it's B.S.

Nor can all of the churches, temples, etc. sects of all religions all be correct.

Of course, with churches, we can redefine "truth" to mean "what we say", so facts don't matter when discussing them with the religiously afflicted.

The safest bet is that they're all probably at least partially wrong, and likely very, very wrong on many important points.

If a particular sect believed "Jesus is a magical invisible half-frog, half man that floats through the air and grants good wishes as he sees fit.", any fact that discounted half-frog or invisibility would be heresy.

So go ahead and make up any story you like. It will be no less wrong or accepted or rejected than any other opinion based on study and archaeological science.


*There's a difference between speaking out of simple ignorance and lying. Consciously deciding to ignore other information, and tell only the version of reality you want other people to believe in is lying by any definition of lying that means anything. Naturally, given the religiously afflicted tendency to treacherously redefine simple terms, lying is only disagreeing with a religious authority.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by wert
Different (and older religions) have existed for more than 2000 years.

Longevity isn't evidence of anything but longevity. To read anything else into "well it's been around a long time" is just silly.

Could you please list me a couple of theories that have survived in the western world for such a long time?

The longevity of Christianity shows that that this particular theory gives satisfying answers to the majority of people whether you like it or not.

[Libertarian]

Has anyone read this?

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/


It's hard to read stuff like this and believe there was a historical Jesus.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Has anyone read this?
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/
It's hard to read stuff like this and believe there was a historical Jesus.
What is the point of the book? making money?

[geni]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Could you please list me a couple of theories that have survived in the western world for such a long time?



Astrology
Witches

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by geni

Astrology

from www.m-w.com
Date: 14th century



Originally posted by geni

Witches


Date: before 12th century

[wert]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Could you please list me a couple of theories that have survived in the western world for such a long time?Did I say "western" world?

Strawman.

If you gave it any thought, you'd know that Hinduism is older than x-ianity and persists into our current world. And for many, Hinduism gives people "satisfying answers". From your statements, it's obvious you feel that popularity of a belief is a strong harbinger for the credibility of said belief.

The longevity of Christianity shows that that this particular theory gives satisfying answers to the majority of people whether you like it or not. Longevity means longevity.

Longevity means little from from an evidence seeking viewpoint. If so, we'd have to give credence to the notion that the earth is flat and revolves around the sun. For after all, wasn't that notion one that had longevity? Or how about the ancient beliefs of the Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, and the Norse? They had quite a bit of "longevity" also. Are you saying that their God-men and beliefs are somehow less credible simply because those beliefs have been overtaken by newer (and IMHO equally unsupportable) beliefs? bleh.


And talk of a "Majority" of people only shows your willingness to fallaciously (and ignorantly) rely on appeals to popularity.

As such, don't mind me if I find your "conclusions" to be lacking.

[geni]

astrology

1900BC

source

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_astro_history.htm

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by wert
Did I say "western" world?

No you didn't say it. I asked you and I repeat the question.

Since it's relevant I reply here to geni too:

Astrology and witches are not a cult. Astrology in particular is an Art.

[Longevity means longevity.

Thank you very much :) The point is to interpret why Christianity lasted that long.

Longevity means little from from an evidence seeking viewpoint.

True. I didn't claim that but I won't start screamming "strawman-strawman" it's very passe...

If so, we'd have to give credence to the notion that the earth is flat and revolves around the sun. For after all, wasn't that notion one that had longevity? Or how about the ancient beliefs of the Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, and the Norse? They had quite a bit of "longevity" also. Are you saying that their God-men and beliefs are somehow less credible simply because those beliefs have been overtaken by newer (and IMHO equally unsupportable) beliefs? bleh.

Bleh indeed. All the above is dismissed as a typical example of ignorance exhibited by an atheist. You don't reply to what I said you just play your old broken record.

And talk of a "Majority" of people only shows your willingness to fallaciously (and ignornantly) rely on appeals to popularity.

You don't have anything to say. So, how do you interpret the fact that Christianity lasts for 2000 years now? Do you have any explanation? Wait! I am not interested. You are a fanatic.

As such, don't mind me if I find your "conclusions" to be lacking.

As I said I am not very much interested in your pre-canned beliefs either.

You jump into a thread you have nothing to contribute on the subject only to recite your poem. I refuse to play the role of your audience.

[geni]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Astrology and witches are not a cult. Astrology in particular is an Art.


So I have to find a cult that has lasted 2000 years of being attacked by one of the most powerful religions on the planet (any cult in europe is going to have to have survived that)?

This may take some time but I think the best bet is some of the siberian shaministic stuff.

[Libertarian]

It will be hard to find a long-lasting cult since, by definition, a cult is just a religion without political power.

[wert]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


No you didn't say it. I asked you and I repeat the question.

Since it's relevant I reply here to geni too:No, that's simply changing the topic. My original post is there. No need to repeat it. Nice try though. :)

Thank you very much :) The point is to interpret why Christianity lasted that long.Then ask yourself why Hinduism has lasted so long.

True. I didn't claim that but I won't start screamming "strawman-strawman" it's very passe...A passé strawman is still a strawman. And it's still logically insupportable. Next.


Bleh indeed. All the above is dismissed as a typical example of ignorance exhibited by an atheist. You don't reply to what I said you just play your old broken record.Ah, how do you know I'm an atheist? Ignorance is often defined by those who jump to conclusions without an ounce of evidence. Seems you might (just might!) fall into that category.

Fallacious logic is fallacious logic no matter who uses it and in whatever context. If you can't use logic, I have little use for you.


You don't have anything to say. So, how do you interpret the fact that Christianity lasts for 2000 years now? It means nothing to me. No more than the fact that Hinduism has lasted longer or that several of the ancient religions also outlasted x-ianity. It's plain dumb (not to mention indisputably fallacious) to base credibility on longevity or popularity.

Do you have any explanation? Wait! I am not interested. You are a fanatic.Hm, Ad-hominen now. No surprises there. I guess you're attempting to see how much illogic you can fit into each post?

If so, kudos for your success in such endeavors. :)

As I said I am not very much interested in your pre-canned beliefs either.Strange, I don't think I recall ever stating what my beliefs are.

Though I do get a kick out of being chided for supposedly following "pre-canned beliefs" from someone who obviously does just that. (X-ianity anyone?)

You jump into a thread you have nothing to contribute on the subject only to recite your poem.Wow! Now I'm accused of poetry! I bet my old English H.S. teacher never thought we'd see that day. ;)

I refuse to play the role of your audience. Fine by me. :)

[slimshady2357]

Hello Potato Stew! :w2:

Nice to see you again.

Adam

[slimshady2357]

wert,

I've just read this thread all the way through, where does Cleopatra say that longevity counts as evidence for a religion as being true?

I can't find it. I can see where she claims it is evidence of the religion being satisfying to many people. I can see where she claims longevity would mean that the creators deserve admiration for their creation if the religion is not true, as well.

posted by Cleopatra
So, talking about the historical Jesus in the Christian terms is kind of ridiculous but it's very difficult to dismiss the idea that somebody existed indeed. Even if nobody existed we must feel nothing but admiration for those who built Christianity. From all the theories I know it's the only one who survives for 2000 years now.

I assume you were responding to this quote... but your response doesn't make sense then. You responded Longevity isn't evidence of anything but longevity. To read anything else into "well it's been around a long time" is just silly.

That is a fair statement, to be sure. But where did she claim this?

Later you even sayFrom your statements, it's obvious you feel that popularity of a belief is a strong harbinger for the credibility of said belief.

Obvious? Hardly! I can't even find it :D

But since you think it is obvious, can you quote her post that makes it 'obvious'?

Adam

[wert]

Originally posted by slimshady2357

I can't find it. I can see where she claims it is evidence of the religion being satisfying to many people. I can see where she claims longevity would mean that the creators deserve admiration for their creation if the religion is not true, as well. If longevity doesn't lend credence to a logically valid point, then why bring it up in the first place?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.

Pray tell, how does the popularity of x-ianity have anything to do with the historical Jesus. (which was the topic the last time I checked)

But since you think it is obvious, can you quote her post that makes it 'obvious'?

Adam

Even if nobody existed we must feel nothing but admiration for those who built Christianity. From all the theories I know it's the only one who survives for 2000 years now.

And why must we admire those who built x-ianity? Because of its longevity? because it gives comfort to many? The rational implication is that she is equating longevity with being admirable. For example.

Slavery has been around for a long long time (and can be argued to have given pleasure to many). Should we also refer to it as "admirable" merely because it's been around so long? Must we admire (or lend any credence to) any institution merely because of it's durability?

I would say her "logic" is suspect, but I've yet to see her actually use any logic. Unless you want to count her continued use of fallacies (Straw men, ad-hominen, appeals to popularity, etc.)

But of course, per Cleopatra, these are only the ravings of a "passé fanatic"

Your mileage, as always, may vary.

[Cleopatra]

wert

You are not in the position to judge my post. I explained to ERK which is my opinion on the matter and I concluded my post with one phrase of minor importance, which is a personal opinion.

I guess that you agree with the rest of my post. I guess that you tend to believe as I do that Jesus was an Essean "monk". You didn't have any problem with that. Also, I take for granted that you agree that Josephus' and Tacitus' testimonies are reliable.

I didn't see you complaining about those aspects of my post that are basic in the whole discussion and I know that they will bring me in disagreement with some posters.

But instead of touching the essence of my post you chose to twist what I said to the final sentence in order to recite your poem.

Of course, probably you are not in the position to discuss the issue. In that case, it's better to stay out of the thread and watch the older kids playing.

[wert]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
[b]wert

You are not in the position to judge my post. I explained to ERK which is my opinion on the matter and I concluded my post with one phrase of minor importance, which is a personal opinion.
Ah, but a logically unsupportable opinion presented as fact.

I guess that you agree with the rest of my post. I guess that you tend to believe as I do that Jesus was an Essean "monk". You didn't have any problem with that. Also, I take for granted that you agree that Josephus' and Tacitus' testimonies are reliable. You'd be mistaken. as usual. I notice quite clearly that upon being given an example of a religion that predates (and has greater longevity than) x-ianity, you don't have a lot to say. Must we respect the creators of Hinduism as you would have us do with x-ianity?


I didn't see you complaining about those aspects of my post that are basic in the whole discussion and I know that they will bring me in disagreement with some posters.The other aspects have been covered at tedious length right here on these forums. No need (or desire) to re-hash.

But instead of touching the essence of my post you chose to twist what I said to the final sentence in order to recite your poem.Wow, perhaps I'm not a sensitive enough soul to "touch the essence" of your fallacious arguments. Once again, thanks for likening my thoughts to poetry. :)

Of course, probably you are not in the position to discuss the issue.Oh, nice assumption. And an incorrect one.

I've yet to see you effectively rebut my examples of your fallacious "logic'. And when I see fallacies used to support a point, it's no small step for me to disregard the credibility of one who relies on such suspect disocourse.

Until I see some evidence that your fallacious arguments have some factual, logical base, I'll disregard your silly claim that I'm somehow in "no position" to point out your fallacious "logic".

In that case, it's better to stay out of the thread and watch the older kids playing. Wow, ad-hominen and now this patronizing bit of tripe. All this from someone who feels the need to press their arguments by referring to their detractors as "fanatics". (or even worse, Poets!)

Bleh.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by triadboy
I reject the entire paragraph supposedly written by Josephus. The Testimonium Flavianum is a blatent insertion. Meier uses this as a source.
People this sure of themself rarely have a basis to be so. What is your argument against partial interpolation? Also, what is your argument against the second reference?

[Loki]

Hi 'stew!

Merry Xmas (A little early I know, but you don't drop past like you used to!)

I have nothing to add to this thread...

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
What is your argument against partial interpolation?

The first mention of the TF is by Eusubius in about 230 AD. All that time since Josephus wrote it - all the written arguments used to prop up Chrisitianity by earlier church fathers - and no one mentions Josephus validating Jesus - until 230 AD?!

Here's a website that seems to follow the evidence I've read elsewhere:

http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appe.shtml

If one reads the TF in context with the surrounding text - it sticks out! I'm not an expert in textual examination, but even I can see this sore thumb.

[PotatoStew]

triadboy:


I reject the entire paragraph supposedly written by Josephus. The Testimonium Flavianum is a blatent insertion. Meier uses this as a source. In my opinion, he is now off in the weeds.


That's fine... the Josephus material makes up such a small portion of Meier's work that even if you reject it I hardly think it has much of an impact on the rest of the book. I happen to think that he makes good arguments for accepting a toned down version of the TF (that whole topic probably deserves it's own thread (again), but I suppose that's up to TheERK) but even Meier himself points out that the Josephus material adds very little to our knowledge of the historical Jesus (and provides absolutely no new info that can't be found elsewhere).


The only sources one can use to 'know' the historical Jesus are the Gospels - and they disagree with each other.


Meier agrees with you, as far as the gospels being our only really useful source for info on a historical Jesus. As for them disagreeing, this shouldn't come as a surprise where historical criticism is concerned. Scholars regularly deal with disparities in written accounts when researching historical figures. There are also many points of overlap and agreement, which is what allows things to be sorted out to some degree.


I can state without reservation there has never been a miracle. Why do xian miracles warrent notice while other reported miracles are myths or the work of Satan? To believe in miracles is to suspend belief in reality.

I can state without reservation there has never been a 'bodily' resurrection. The entire xian religion is based on this "fact" and it is mistaken.


I'll agree that you can state without reservation that you *believe* there has never been a miracle, or that you have never seen compelling evidence of a miracle, but if you are going to be honest, scientific, and rational, then you have no way of legitimately declaring that there has in fact never been a miracle. That would be saying that you have proof of a negative, which we all know isn't possible. Mind you, I'm not saying that there necessarily *has* been a miracle, I just felt that that particular statement of yours oversteps the bounds of good sense and is unsupportable, and I wanted to point that out.


After all this - what do we 'know' of Jesus? Nothing.


This seems way too extreme for me. You've dismissed all of the points, arguments and research presented in Meier's book without even really addressing them (at least not here in this thread). Do you disagree with the criteria he sets up? Which points? Why? Do you disagree with his application of the criteria in specific instances?

As with most things, I think the truth lies somewhere in between -- we can certainly know more than "nothing" about Jesus, but we surely can't say that everything the gospels say about him is 100% fact.

slimshady:

Hello to you too!

Loki:

An early Merry Christmas to you as well! I've found that I get a lot more work done when I don't frequent the forum. :) Hopefully I can indulge this little bit here without reacquiring a full-fledged monkey on my back.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by PotatoStew
triadboy:


I'll agree that you can state without reservation that you *believe* there has never been a miracle, or that you have never seen compelling evidence of a miracle, but if you are going to be honest, scientific, and rational, then you have no way of legitimately declaring that there has in fact never been a miracle. That would be saying that you have proof of a negative, which we all know isn't possible. Mind you, I'm not saying that there necessarily *has* been a miracle, I just felt that that particular statement of yours oversteps the bounds of good sense and is unsupportable, and I wanted to point that out.

I have to take offense at this paragraph. Although I agree that it is impossible to prove a UNIVERSAL negative, logically, there is the problem of contradiction within a physical framework. If a "miracle" has ever occurred, it, by definition, is a breach of the physical laws that drive and form the universe as we have uncovered them. And any event that contradicts a physical theory and the actual properties/phenomena on which they are modeled would cause that theory to be invalid. The very notion of a 'miracle' is '1. b : an event or effect in the physical world deviating from the laws of nature" [Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary]. Not only deviating, but, aye, to be a true miracle, not even probable within natural laws. In other words: a miracle cannot happen and the universe still remain understandable and intact. Even to consent that 'miracles' are minor and infrequent breaches of natural law would undermine any notion of evidencing one. How does one validate a miracle? You can't measure it, quantify it, experiment on it, repeat it, record it, or anything else. It is a subjective experience and therefore untenable.

I can say without any reservation that there has never been a miracle (as defined) and any supposed miracle cannot be shown to be such due to the problems stated above.

Kuroyume

[Cleopatra]

Kuroyume

I believe that you can't base your reasoning as to whether Jesus existed ot not on the premise that miracles cannot be performed, I think that this is what potato stew wanted to show.

The fact that miracles don't happen doesn't mean that a man named Jesus didn't exist. :)

[kuroyume0161]

In reply to the original topic:

1. There is no physical evidence that Jesus the Christ existed. None. Zilch. Nada. All supposed evidence (tons and tons of wood splinters from "the cross", the Shroud of Turin, the James Ossuary, and so forth) has been shown, upon scrupulous and proper examination, to be fraudulent. This makes all possibilities of his existence very slim indeed - ranking right up there with almost all other fictional characters (not based upon factual ones).

2. Current datings of the writings of the New Testament point to minimum dates at least 60 years after the supposed crucifixion/resurrection. To write of such a monumental event so long after its occurrence is unheard of for historical authenticity and accuracy. Jesus, supposedly a well-educated, upper-class Jewish male who has been hypothesized to have travelled far and wide by scholars, never once wrote anything.

3. Paul never once recollects the life of the living Jesus. The other "accounts" have many internal and interjacent inconsistencies not consistent with first-hand recounts or even collaborated reconstruction. If there was a man that spawned the movements that eventually coalesced into what we call Christianity, his life is nowhere recounted - everything is fulfillment of prophecy, personification of credos, and a story fit for any mystery/dying-man cult of the time.

4. Removing the New Testament references leaves a paltry and oft liberally interpreted amount of extra-biblical reference to Jesus the Christ far after the actual time period. References in the NT to actual personages, places, and events contemporary with the narration lend no authenticity to the historicity of the text.

5. How would one possibly distinguish any physical evidence as particular to a supposed Jesus as recounted in the Bible? There is no need to go into any detail validating that the Roman Empire had control over the region of Judea at the time, had many difficulties with the people of the region, used crucifixion as a form of punishment for dissidents on a regular basis, and had regional governors with troops to maintain order. Also, there were many religious/cult movements and prophets and messiahs roaming between Rome and Egypt (by way of the Mediteranean shoreline along Greece, Asia, Syria, and Palestine). Judea was a distant place from civilization (Egypt, Rome, the remains of Greece and Peria); if one desired lack of verification, that was a good place for such events.

Realizing that everything in the NT is basically personification (Which part of 'virgin birth', 'water to wine', 'loaves and fishes', 'resurrection', 'crucifixion', 'raising of Lazarus', etc., fits with reality?), the only information left is that it could have been somebody living between 50 BCE and 50 CE that was the initial motivator for the movement that eventually twisted and turned, evolved and coalesced, mixed and mingled into Christianity some 50 years after that latter date, the figure of narration created in the spirit of a mystery/dying-man cult to give a voice to a somewhat disparate set of codes (Q) passed on from one religious philosophy to another no longer having any affiliation with this possible initiator.

Kuroyume

[Yahweh]

Wert,

If there is anything a good intelligent person should know, its "Dont argue with Cleopatra". You wouldnt want to get eaten by crocodiles now, would you?

[mindless]

(posted by todangst)

Christian historians have been bothered by the lack of historical evidence for jesus for centuries. John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25), lists the following writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is supposed to have lived"

Caius Suetonius
Josephus
Philo-Judæus (see my entry on him)
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Pliny Younger
Paterculus
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus (see my entry on him)
Hermogones
Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Phædrus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna
Justus of Tiberias

And, according to Remsburg, "(While) Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library, (no where)... in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged brief passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ." Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles - increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity.

None of the gospels are contemporary accounts, they all were written by the end of the first century, and into the second.

They are all also anonymous.

So we have no first hand accounts.

And all that we do have (outside of paul's writings) is anonymous.

No one alive when Jesus supposedly lived ever mentions seeing Jesus or hearing Jesus -- or even hearing about Jesus!

They don't mention the star that heralded his birth.

They don't mention Herod's slaughter of boy babies.

They don't mention crowds gathered to hear him preach.

They don't mention his trial.

They don't mention his crucifixion.

They don't mention his resurrection.

They don't mention that his resurrection was supposedly followed by many unnamed saints who rose from graves....

They never mention anything he said, or anywhere he went, or anything
he thought, or anything he did.

No one alive when Jesus lived ever mentions him at all.

The philosopher Philo, who lived until about 50 CE and wrote of unusual sects like the Essenes, has nothing to say about Jesus.

Pliny the Elder (died 79 CE) collected data on all manner of natural and astronomical phenomena, even those which were legendary and which he himself did not necessarily regard as factual, but he records no prodigies associated with the beliefs of Christians, such as an earthquake or darkening of the skies at a crucifixion, or any star of Bethlehem.

Epictetus, the great Stoic philosopher who preached universal brotherhood to the poor and humble masses, records not a word about jesus.

Nor does Seneca, the empire's leading ethicist during the reign of Nero, make reference to such a figure.

Or other historians of the time, like Plutarch and Quintilian.

No one alive when Jesus lived ever mentions him at all.

There is NO information for later historians to draw upon. Nothing. Not a word.

All that has evolved, that could have evolved, comes from legend.

Please also see:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/home.htm

The astute dohtuns writes:

It is a major problem for the historicity of the popular Christian Jesus that neither he, nor any of his disciples, are ever mentioned once by any of the known contemporary historians who resided in the area where Jesus and his disciples are purported to have preached and performed miracles. That we have the work of 40 of such historians makes the Jesus claim much more shaky.

Of course, it becomes quite easy to dismiss the biblical Jesus when we try to account for the social and political upheaval purported to have been brought about by his presence and preaching. There are no governmental accounts of such events, and had such events occurred anyway, it would have been that much more likely that some of the 40 aforementioned historians would have written about the man at the center of such events. The idea of the fictional Jesus is further reinforced by the plainly contradictory accounts of his life recorded in the gospels, and that there is no mention even in the gospels of the life of the man, from his infancy to the days just prior to his death (save one suspiciously apocryphal tale from Luke) who would have been the most important individual ever to have walked the face of the earth.

The most parsimonious explanation, therefore, of the biblical account of Jesus is that he was created out of the popular political sentiments of the underclass Jewry, who were subjugated not only by Rome, but by their own people.

The wise raze writes:

Hello everyone. Its good to see so many thinkers involved in this debate over Jesus of Nazareth's existence.

I want to concentrate a little on the aforementioned "apocolyptic preachers." As I understand it from my historical research on the subject, their did exist a tribe of Jews that lived in the Cumran Valley in Palestine, slightly post of the alleged "Jesus of Nazareth" character's existence. And, this sect of Jews were opposed to traditional Judaism, as it stood in their day. They seperated themselves from the general population, and built themselves a small community in the Valley. They were exceptionally focused on Jewsih Apocalypticism, or End times. Some modern historians link them to the Essenes(but their is no definitive evidence of this). I think it may have been possible that the "Jesus" myth could have possibly evolved form a setting such as this. Such evidence to support this claim lies in a document called "Q." "Q" is a document which NT scholars think may be the original text in which the gospel of Mark was contrived, and subsequently changed and morphed into the "Jesus" tale through a Jewish method or reworking old legends called Midrashing. As I understand it, their is no literal document "Q", this conclusion was come about because of the language of the Markan gospel, and other literary constructions within its texts. It is popualrly known that the Markan gospel was the first out of the Synoptics, and the following gospels are merely "versions" of the Markan tale with various additions and reworkings(which ended up being contradictions among all of them). (For more information on this "Q" document and the Cumran residents see also The Jesus Puzzle website by Earl Dougherty, Westar Institute website, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christain Myth" by Dr. Paul Allegro, and Acharya S. "The Christ Conspiracy" site for further details).

I just wanted to bring this little piece of information to the table for those of you who may or may not know about the "Q" document and the Cumran Valley Jews. These points were fascinating to me, and helped lend further insight into the Jesus Myth. Thanks everyone, Raze.

Check out this link for more...
infidelguy.com (http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1508&highlight=historical+jesus)


you may also be interested in (Thomas Paine-The Age Of Reason (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/part1.html#3))

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by geni

So I have to find a cult that has lasted 2000 years of being attacked by one of the most powerful religions on the planet (any cult in europe is going to have to have survived that)?


Judaism.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by triadboy


I reject the entire paragraph supposedly written by Josephus. The Testimonium Flavianum is a blatent insertion. Meier uses this as a source. In my opinion, he is now off in the weeds. The only sources one can use to 'know' the historical Jesus are the Gospels - and they disagree with each other.



We have to dismiss that TF is an insertion because the same paragraph has been found in an Arabic version of the "Jewish Antiquities"

Meier doesn't just use the TF. He accepts that Flavius Josephus mentions Jesus and the text was just glossed up.

Also, we can't dismiss the theory that by the time Josephus wrote this he had coverted to Christianity. Josephus wasn't an ordinary person anyway. He was born a Sadducee, he claimed that after staying in the desert for three years he studied the doctrines of the Essenes and the Pharissees and he became a Pharisee.

Those who have read the whole of the "Jewish Antiquities" they must have noticed that Josephus is quite partial when he refers to the jewish sects.

Also, those who know the basics about the Jewish sects have to agree that if Christianity begun as a jewish sect( in my opinion there is no doubt about that), then there is no doubt that it had a leader.

[ceo_esq]

First of all, welcome back PotatoStew.

Next, just to put a few elements of this discussion into perspective:

1. Josephus refers to Jesus twice, in Antiquities 18 and 20.

2. The majority scholarly view is that the reference in Antiquities 20 is essentially genuine.

3. The majority scholarly view is that the reference in Antiquities 18 is not a pure forgery.

4. The majority scholarly view favors some form of historical Jesus.

5. (Somewhat gratuitously.) No matter how many times points 2 through 4 are evoked in R&P, some people refuse to acknowledge that they have any real significance to our discussions regarding Jesus' historicity.

Rather than re-hash each element of the foregoing, I refer the reader back to this thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11486), especially the last couple of pages.

Obviously, it is possible that all of the academics who have concluded that the New Testament refers back to a discrete historical figure are wrong. Still, that's generally not the way to bet in matters of a scholarly nature. I've never understood entirely what is so special about the notion of a historical Jesus that it would cause people to discount so thoroughly the prevailing views that obtain among experts in the field. After all, I should think we can all agree that accepting the likelihood of a historical Jesus is in no way tantamount to accepting the theological validity of the Xian Gospels, right?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I've never understood entirely what is so special about the notion of a historical Jesus that it would cause people to discount so thoroughly the prevailing views that obtain among experts in the field. After all, I should think we can all agree that accepting the likelihood of a historical Jesus is in no way tantamount to accepting the theological validity of the Xian Gospels, right?

I feel exactly the same. I don't understand why some people don't hesitate to make fool of themselves by dismissing the work of somebody who is an expert in a field.

Why atheists are so much afraid of this Jesus?

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by triadboy
People this sure of themself rarely have a basis to be so. What is your argument against partial interpolation? Also, what is your argument against the second reference?The first mention of the TF is by Eusubius in about 230 AD. All that time since Josephus wrote it - all the written arguments used to prop up Chrisitianity by earlier church fathers - and no one mentions Josephus validating Jesus - until 230 AD?!That is a horribly weak and naive argument from absence. If one were to assume a partial interpolation, the only reason why one would expect to find it referenced would be if historicity was a debated issue prior to Eusubius. Do you have any reason to think that this was the case? Where are the 2nd century CE polemics about a historical Jesus? Or, is the argument from absence only valid if selectively applied?

Originally posted by triadboy
If one reads the TF in context with the surrounding text - it sticks out! I'm not an expert in textual examination, but even I can see this sore thumb. No, you're not an expert in textual examination. You might wish to review Kirby's site (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html), and then respond to both of my questions.

[Kevin_Lowe]

If the "historical Jesus" is only mentioned in one document that most scholars take seriously, plus one probable forgery, and is mysteriously absent in every other contemporary account, isn't that incredibly strong evidence that any "historical Jesus" would have borne no meaningful resemblance to the mythical Jesus?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
If the "historical Jesus" is only mentioned in one document that most scholars take seriously, plus one probable forgery, and is mysteriously absent in every other contemporary account, isn't that incredibly strong evidence that any "historical Jesus" would have borne no meaningful resemblance to the mythical Jesus?

Good question.

How many of the "contemporary historians" wrote about the Jewish Wars and the Jewish sects and they didn't mention Jesus?

[LW]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

How many of the "contemporary historians" wrote about the Jewish Wars and the Jewish sects and they didn't mention Jesus?

One that we know of: Philo Judaeus [~25BC - ~AD41].

[LW]

Originally posted by mindless

you may also be interested in (Thomas Paine-The Age Of Reason (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/part1.html#3))

Oh, no. I knew I shouldn't click on any link with "Historical Jesus" in the title, but I just had to confirm my psychic prediction that someone would once again post that idiotic list of first-second century authors.

I'm not in the mood to go into much details, but I'll just pick a few names from the list:

Paterculus --- he was apparently executed around AD31. Since some authors put the execution of Jesus to around AD32 I wouldn't be too surprised that he didn't write anything about him. Even the earliest commonly argued date of crucification puts it into AD28 that doesn't leave too much time for an active politician participating in a coup-in-attempt to familiarize himself with some insignificant events happening far from Rome.

Pausanias --- born AD 115, a geographer. If you are going to include a man born 85 years after crucification to the list of contemporary authors, then you'd better add gospel writers, too.

Phlegon --- none of his full works survive. Some old christian authors claim that he mentioned the solar eclipse that supposedly happened during crucification.

But please, do not post that list anymore.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I don't understand why some people don't hesitate to make fool of themselves by dismissing the work of somebody who is an expert in a field.

But, of course, there are experts on both sides of the fence. Should I be forced to listen to an "expert" who has a definite bias toward xianity? I tend to trust secular experts over xian experts.

Why atheists are so much afraid of this Jesus?

Atheists are not afraid of Jesus. Jesus (if he existed) was one of many wandering sages. The myths and fabrications that arose after him proclaiming him a god don't frighten atheist either - because they are untrue.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by LW
Oh, no. I knew I shouldn't click on any link with "Historical Jesus" in the title, but I just had to confirm my psychic prediction that someone would once again post that idiotic list of first-second century authors.


:D

You got mad when I posted this list a year ago! Damn, you hate that list! :)

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
That is a horribly weak and naive argument from absence. If one were to assume a partial interpolation, the only reason why one would expect to find it referenced would be if historicity was a debated issue prior to Eusubius. Do you have any reason to think that this was the case?

Late 2nd century church fathers were being attacked by pagans because their "Jesus" was the same dying god-man of the mystery religions. How could xians possibly believe their Jesus was a true historical story when there were so many similar stories? (i.e. Attis, Serapis, Dionysus, Osiris, Mithra, etc, etc)

Just think if one of the church fathers would have said, "Well Josephus writes about Jesus as a real person, so he was real". This would have been a wonderful argument for the church fathers - BUT NO ONE DID IT! Because the paragraph didn't exist.

[LW]

Originally posted by triadboy

Just think if one of the church fathers would have said, "Well Josephus writes about Jesus as a real person, so he was real". This would have been a wonderful argument for the church fathers - BUT NO ONE DID IT! Because the paragraph didn't exist.

Origen mentioned the other paragraph that mentions Jesus.

[Edited to add: also, there exists an alternative pro-christian version of the TF paragraph that according to some experts that I'm too lazy to google up right now since last time when I did it no-one bothered to comment it is not a derivative nor a source to the more commonly known version. Apparently two different christian writers spontaneously and indepently decided to add a pro-christian paragraph at the exact same spot of text, if we are to believe those who say that the whole paragraph is forgery. ]

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



The longevity of Christianity shows that that this particular theory gives satisfying answers to the majority of people whether you like it or not.

The majority of Christians, to be sure..

The majority of the world's population, past and present, is far from even being aware of the teachings of Christianity...

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Kuroyume

I believe that you can't base your reasoning as to whether Jesus existed ot not on the premise that miracles cannot be performed, I think that this is what potato stew wanted to show.

The fact that miracles don't happen doesn't mean that a man named Jesus didn't exist. :)

I wasn't. I was pointing out flawed reasoning.

The fact that a story about some man named Jesus is at the root of one of the world's more persistent religions doesn't mean that he did exist.

It is reasonable to proffer that nothing about Jesus contained within the Synoptic gospels is based on truth, history, or reality. With that removed, there is no information about any real person, even with all of the supposed contemporary references (most of which are spurious, interpretive, and make no mention of any information about the person that could be used to sustain existence). There are no records of him, his family, or his Apostles until long after the time period.

BTW, Egyptian religion (in one related form or another) existed far, far longer than Christianity has - for over 3000 years. I'm still waiting for those animal headed deities to show up and pronounce their reality...

The number of years in which something is believed and number of people who believe it have no bearing on its factuality.

Jesus was the first dying-godman (to correct my omission in the previous message) who was mistaken for a living person.

Kuroyume

[triadboy]

Originally posted by LW
Origen mentioned the other paragraph that mentions Jesus.


Who told you that? ;)

[dingler44]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

All the above is dismissed as a typical example of ignorance exhibited by an atheist.


Why atheists are so much afraid of this Jesus?


What is this personal bias you have against atheists? I mean I can accept that perhaps from your personal experience, you have enough examples of atheist ignorance to back up the first claim... but to assume atheists fear the existence of a historical Jesus? Haha, that is just silly.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You were faster than me I wanted to ask you how you exclude Josephus and Tacitus who make the only "external" references to the man that was called Jesus.

Could please expand on why you reject those sources?

Tacticus (115 CE):

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, ..."

From various sources:

The Nero/xian conflict is a myth

"Christian" was not a common name in the 1st century

'Christus' or in others 'Chrestus' is not Jesus

Tacticus assumes the readers know who Pilate is and misidentifies him as 'procurator' when he was a 'prefect'

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
If the "historical Jesus" is only mentioned in one document that most scholars take seriously, plus one probable forgery, and is mysteriously absent in every other contemporary account, isn't that incredibly strong evidence that any "historical Jesus" would have borne no meaningful resemblance to the mythical Jesus?

Moreover, if the supposed "historical Jesus" bears basically no resemblance to the character described in the bible, by what accounts do we consider them to be a "historical figure"?

Dorothy of the Wizard of Oz was inspired by Maude Gauge Baum's niece. Her name was Dorothy and she had an Aunt "M."

Is she a "historical Dorothy"?

[DangerousBeliefs]

How come no one wants to debate the "Moses Myth"?

Prince of Egypt? Woo woo!

:D

Seriously, the biggest problem "Historical Jesus" has is that the best evidence for his existance is the gospels.

They support the view of a powerful figure, performing miracles in front of LARGE crowds.

Unfortunately, all sources in support of this occur at least one full generation after his death... and paint a somewhat different picture than the gospels.

They show a little-known figure with a small following which may or may not have been executed by the Romans (it's possible the Jews killed him).

This seems the most likely case, although it is entirely possible he was simply entirely made up based very loosely on an actual person(s) (ala the lumberjack Paul Bunyan).

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by triadboy
Late 2nd century church fathers were being attacked by pagans because their "Jesus" was the same dying god-man of the mystery religions. Sophomoric rubbish. You chatter a lot while religiously avoiding substantive answers to direct questions. Show me specific evidence of a 2nd century debate over historicity, or explain your failure to do so. And, while you're at it, perhaps you might share with us the reason(s) for your persistent refusal to address Antiquities 20.9.1..

[TheERK]

Thanks for the informative replies. Triadboy, you are aware that the abbreviation "xian" is considered rude, right?

[PotatoStew]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Rather than re-hash each element of the foregoing, I refer the reader back to this thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11486), especially the last couple of pages.


ceo-esq is right of course: the aforementioned thread is a near duplicate of this one in many ways, right down to the appearance of the list of "contemporary" authors who "should" have mentioned Jesus but didn't.

I think ceo's post in that thread from Jan 11 cuts right to the chase... the general consensus of scholars and experts in the appropriate field is that Jesus was a historical figure who actually existed. As he says, this is no guarantee that it's true, however, it should be a good indicator that the evidence points in that direction. Unless someone can present more recent research that points in the other direction, or rebut specific arguments by the scholarly consensus (Meier for instance... no one has bothered to address his criteria or his application of it to the gospels) then I personally see no reason to rehash the already existing thread.

kuro:


If a "miracle" has ever occurred, it, by definition, is a breach of the physical laws that drive and form the universe as we have uncovered them. And any event that contradicts a physical theory and the actual properties/phenomena on which they are modeled would cause that theory to be invalid.


So are you unwilling to admit that the theory *may* be invalid? You are 100% certain that our theories of the universe are 100% correct and 100% complete? That smacks of dogmatism, and is certainly not scientific. You are claiming perfect knowledge.


I can say without any reservation that there has never been a miracle


You can say that, but you can't logically support it. You are still claiming to be able to prove a negative, and to say that that doesn't apply here seems to be special pleading.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by TheERK
Triadboy, you are aware that the abbreviation "xian" is considered rude, right?

is not.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Show me specific evidence of a 2nd century debate over historicity, or explain your failure to do so.

Origen and Celsus

http://www.bluffton.edu/~humanities/1/celsus.htm

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Perhaps you might share with us the reason(s) for your persistent refusal to address Antiquities 20.9.1..

"So he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned..."

Forgery.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by PotatoStew

kuro:

So are you unwilling to admit that the theory *may* be invalid? You are 100% certain that our theories of the universe are 100% correct and 100% complete? That smacks of dogmatism, and is certainly not scientific. You are claiming perfect knowledge.

You can say that, but you can't logically support it. You are still claiming to be able to prove a negative, and to say that that doesn't apply here seems to be special pleading.

1. A scientific theory offers the best explanation of observable, repeatable phenomena, but is always tentative regarding the introduction of new evidence. For the most part though, a scientific theory is as close to "100% correct" as you can get. Modifications will occur; supercession will occur - but no proper scientific theory has been invalidated to date (in nearly 500 years!!) - but they all have been repeatedly (ad nauseum) validated. The idea of "falsifiable" has more to do with the framing of the theory (its logic) and not that it can be validated over and over and then one day it no longer valid. Newtonian laws of gravity are no longer correct in all situations, but are not invalid.

2. The definition of miracle is a contradiction all in itself. Let's start there. Any event that "deviates from the laws of nature" is supernatural. Can you show evidence for anything supernatural? I thought not. A miracle therefore contradicts the laws of nature and of scientific evidence which is how this universe and science operate. The universe operates as it does and science is a method that codifies our observations about this operation. If operations within the universe could be circumvented or temporarily anulled, then there would be no possible way to add them to any coherent model. As I stated already, there is no way to validate a "miracle", therefore it is special pleading to invoke the possibility of their existence. Unlike a "God" that exists external to the universe (and therefore has protection from existence determination), miracles act directly within the universe. Anything that does this can be observed and measured. That means that it is natural, not supernatural. Therefore, it cannot be a miracle (by definition). A contradiction has no asylum in "proving a negative".

Kuroyume

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by triadboy


is not.

Xmas... ;)

I don't understand the interchange. X is used to abbreviate:

1 cross
2 ex
3 experimental
4 extra
5 xenon

There is no "Christ" in that list. Okay, I see the connection between Christ and cross (as in crucifixion), but it is still nonsensical. Hey, just like xtianity! :p

Kuroyume

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by triadboy


Origen and Celsus

http://www.bluffton.edu/~humanities/1/celsus.htm As far as I can tell, the heart of Origen's disagreement with Celsus is not the issue of historicity. Celsus seems to criticize Jesus as a fraud, rather than a myth. Interestingly, Celsus believes that the historical Jesus actually possessed some degree of magical power, which he exploited in his bid to impersonate a god.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by triadboy
Origen and Celsus Perhaps you should reread the position attributed to Celsus before parading your ignorance.

Originally posted by triadboy
"So he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned..."

Forgery.Do you have any reason for making this claim, or is it simple an article of faith?

The pathetic truth is that you are methodologically indistinguishable from the mindless fundamentalist. A mythological Jesus is clearly not, in your case, a reasoned position but, rather, a bias more akin to religious conviction. It's rather sad ...

[Peter Soderqvist]

If God is omnipresent and omnipotent why does god have so much problem with his credibility??????

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
If God is omnipresent and omnipotent why does god have so much problem with his credibility?????? Sorry, I don't understand what you mean

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
If God is omnipresent and omnipotent why does god have so much problem with his credibility?????? As Mr Clinford suggests, that does this curiously inane remark have to do with the topic at hand?
----------
More than anything else, what leads me to favor historicity is the obvious tension between Paul and the Jerusalem church, i.e., between the Gospel as promoted among Gentiles and the Judaic cult. Those, like triadboy, who appear to need a mythological Jesus to prop up their atheism might suggest that this tension is nothing but clever fiction from the hands of conspiratorial 2nd century Church Fathers, but this seems more desparate than compelling. If, however, we are to acknowledge this Judaic cult, we must also acknowledge that messianic cults tend to congeal around messianic cult leaders. To allow that such a cult leader (named Yeshua) existed seems far less extreme than to religiously insist that he didn't.

[Peter Soderqvist]

Does it make sense that god has offered his own son to be tortured on the cross in order to give humanity a new chance to salvation, but he don't care in the first place to prove anything in order to prevent our disobedience, and/or our atheism?????? What kind of father is that?

But on the other hand it is only a fairy tale!

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
But on the other hand it is only a fairy tale!

And the good book is full of'em.

PotatoStew does actually sum this up pretty nicely. Jesus probably existed. But the Jesus of the Gospels... now his evidence is very VERY shaky... a leap of faith, so to speak.

[Peter Soderqvist]

It doesn't stand to reason to say that god is good when he has drowned the whole humanity in the biblical deluge, except the Noah family on the Ark, meanwhile, to say that the devil is evil when all he has done is to tempt Eve to eat the apple! Obviously: when genocide is considered good, and temptation is considered evil, the believers dance to its senseless whim! :D

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
As Mr Clinford suggests, that does this curiously inane remark have to do with the topic at hand?I assume he meant that the fact that Jesus' historicity is not so well established as to quell any debate on the subject, by itself constitutes evidence that Jesus was not the son of God, because presumably God would have taken steps to make sure that doubts about his son's historicity need never pose a challenge of faith for future generations.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by PotatoStew


I think ceo's post in that thread from Jan 11 cuts right to the chase... the general consensus of scholars and experts in the appropriate field is that Jesus was a historical figure who actually existed.

And my contention is that it is really hard to say that the Jesus in the New Testament is a "historical figure" if all you have is someone who bears little resemblence to Jesus of the bible, aside from a few mundane qualities (e.g. son of a carpenter, wandering preacher).

By that thinking, Dorothy of the Wizard of Oz is a "historical figure." Are Rhett Butler and Scarlet O'Hara "historical figures," too?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Perhaps you should reread the position attributed to Celsus before parading your ignorance.

Do you have any reason for making this claim, or is it simple an article of faith?

The pathetic truth is that you are methodologically indistinguishable from the mindless fundamentalist. A mythological Jesus is clearly not, in your case, a reasoned position but, rather, a bias more akin to religious conviction. It's rather sad ...

What is sad - is your bitterness about this subject. I posted that thread late last night. I admit I didn't read it fully, however it does display a 2nd century argument between Origen and Celsus about Jesus. I guess I'll have to dig through my library and find the reference I was speaking of. If you were more literate, I wouldn't have to do this for your wrinkled ass. (sorry...I lost it there. :) )

I don't know why you have it in for me, I must have offended you somehow.

But we agree on several things:

- Jesus was not god

- Jesus did not perform miracles

- Jesus was not born of a virgin

We agree on these items right? The only thing we are talking about is whether there was an actual guy named Jesus. I'm on the fence about this subject right now. Sure, there could have been an insignificant sage whose name and sayings were used to create a church. Or Paul could have used this sages name as the hero of his Jewish gnostic mystery religion. Or Paul could have made it up entirely. It's really not that important since you will never know anything about his real life (if he lived). But you seem to be overly eaten up with his existence.

For someone with a tag "ReasonableDoubt" - you seem rather unreasonable.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Those, like triadboy, who appear to need a mythological Jesus to prop up their atheism ...

Jesus has nothing to do with atheism. We both agree Jesus was not god - he was a man, right? You are assuming that if I believe Jesus was an historical figure - then he obviously was god! That is not reasonable, but I doubt you see that.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by triadboy

Or Paul could have used this sages name as the hero of his Jewish gnostic mystery religion. Or Paul could have made it up entirely. Why do you believe in a historical Paul?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Why do you believe in a historical Paul?

He wrote something.

I may be mistaken, but I believe there are also written references by others about Pauls activities that coincide with Pauls written activities.

[LW]

Originally posted by triadboy


Who told you that? ;)

Well, originally I read about that in the Historicity of Jesus FAQ.

But you don't have to trust the FAQ author, you can read Origen himself:

Contra Celcus, Book I, Chapter XLVII:

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.

[Skeptical Greg]

LW, from your reference...

Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.



I'm curious.. Other than in the minds of believers, how did Jesus become distinguished (....most distinguished, at that.. ) for his justice?


I'm not necessarily asking you, LW, just anyone who might care to comment...

[hgc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
LW, from your reference...

I'm curious.. Other than in the minds of believers, how did Jesus become distinguished (....most distinguished, at that.. ) for his justice?

I'm not necessarily asking you, LW, just anyone who might care to comment... Not a believer here, but perhaps it has something to do with, "let he that is without sin cast the first stone..." (and did someone say Jehovah?)

[LW]

Originally posted by Diogenes
LW, from your reference...

I'm curious.. Other than in the minds of believers, how did Jesus become distinguished (....most distinguished, at that.. ) for his justice?

In that place Origen quotes Josephus as telling that it was James who was distinguished for his justice and obedience of laws. Apart from the christian-altered TF Josephus doesn't speak anything about Jesus's own character.

I have to admit that I have very large difficulties in reading and understanding the English translations of both Origen and Josephus as they use so complicated language.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


And my contention is that it is really hard to say that the Jesus in the New Testament is a "historical figure" if all you have is someone who bears little resemblence to Jesus of the bible, aside from a few mundane qualities (e.g. son of a carpenter, wandering preacher).

By that thinking, Dorothy of the Wizard of Oz is a "historical figure." Are Rhett Butler and Scarlet O'Hara "historical figures," too? Before concurring in this analogy, let's consider how worthwhile it is.

What aspects of the historical existence of the "real" Dorothy could have (words, deeds, names, places, etc.) might - at least potentially - have been bestowed on the literary Dorothy? Not many, I should think. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that we know that Baum's niece died at age 6, The Wizard of Oz took place in a radically unhistorical context; the plot, settings, situations and character responses are so entirely removed from reality that the book cannot viably be approached as a history of anything.

On the other hand, the life of the "literary" Jesus as recounted in the New Testament is a different matter. The Gospels portray a world populated by a largely plausible supporting cast, references to actual places, texts, events, historical figures and groups, cultural phenomena and so forth. If you believe the analysis of the Jesus Seminar (hardly a bastion of Christian orthodoxy), there are even a handful of statements attributed to Jesus in the NT that are reasonably likely to have been spoken by the same individual and recorded with a fair degree of accuracy.

If one interprets the literary Jesus' most outlandish claims as imposture, and the most fanciful descriptions and explanations of his deeds as superstitious fancy or propaganda, one is left with a document that retains a degree of substance and verisimilitude that I daresay approaches that of many other "historical" narratives of the ancient world. Professional historians have to approach the works of Herodotus in a similar manner. Performing the same exercise with The Wizard of Oz, however, leaves you with essentially nothing - at least nothing of value to a historian: a little girl born in a nondescript setting in the American Midwest shortly before the turn of the last century, with an aunt called "Em".

The aspects of the NT that are rightly "filtered out" by the critical reader are imbued with so much theological and cultural significance that it is easy to overlook and downplay the historical interest and plausibility of the narrative and central character that undergirds them, including the central figure of Jesus. Unless, of course, you are a historian whose specialties include in the peoples and culture of first-century Palestine, in which case (to judge from the published literature) the odds are much better than even that you have already recognized all this.

I don't know anything about whether Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara and the basic contours of their personal experiences in Gone With the Wind were inspired by discrete individuals, but if they were, then I can more readily accept the analogy of the historicity of Jesus to that Rhett and Scarlett. To admit that, however, does not imply anything about the relative historical significance of Rhett and Jesus.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by LW
I have to admit that I have very large difficulties in reading and understanding the English translations of both Origen and Josephus as they use so complicated language.

Just think how difficult it would be in Finnish! :)

[triadboy]

Originally posted by LW
you can read Origen himself:


My point exactly - Origen lived 185 - 254 CE. We're talking about an author 200 years after an event (Jebus) commenting on writings 160 years old, which in turn are referring to an event 50 years older. That leaves a lot of time for xian mischief.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by hgc
Not a believer here, but perhaps it has something to do with, "let he that is without sin cast the first stone..." (and did someone say Jehovah?)

I realize this incident was recorded in the bible, but it certainly would not have been considered an act of ' justice ' by his peers. According to the law at the time the woman should have been stoned..
Jesus' action may have been one of mercy ( albeit impractical... Why don't we just set all criminals free, since none of us are perfect ?), but not of mercy...



By ' distinguished ', I mean ' of note '.. Again, with regard to the historicity of Jesus...

But, LW, seems to think, and on second reading I tend to agree, the author is sayin in this case, that it is James who is " most distinguished for his justice '.. So my question may be moot in this context...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Before concurring in this analogy, let's consider how worthwhile it is.

...................... what you said...


To admit that, however, does not imply anything about the relative historical significance of Rhett and Jesus.



We might need to revisit this in a hundred years or so, after the " The Cult of Rhett ' has emerged.:D

Seriously though, if you try to present Jesus as an historical figure based on the Gospel narratives, you can't overlook the fact that they contain historical innacuracies.. ( what's good for the goose.. )


In this light, it is not so far off to compare the Bible to fictional works that are laced with a few facts, historical and otherwise...

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
What aspects of the historical existence of the "real" Dorothy could have (words, deeds, names, places, etc.) might - at least potentially - have been bestowed on the literary Dorothy? Not many, I should think. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that we know that Baum's niece died at age 6, The Wizard of Oz took place in a radically unhistorical context; the plot, settings, situations and character responses are so entirely removed from reality that the book cannot viably be approached as a history of anything.


But this is all summed up in The Emerald City of Oz. Glinda enchanted the land of Oz to make it invisible to mortals. The historian gets his information from the wireless.

In the end, your argument that the difference between Jesus as a historical figure and Dorothy as a historical figure is that no one takes the WoO to be a historical document, whereas the New Testament refers to a historically viable place. It is interesting that the bible is considered "historical" whereas the WoO is not despite the fact that some of what is presented as history in the bible is verifiably false, which cannot be said about the WoO.

And as you note, even if the WoO fails, we can apply the standard to the Gone with the Wind, or Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer, or whatever.

[LW]

Originally posted by triadboy

My point exactly - Origen lived 185 - 254 CE. We're talking about an author 200 years after an event (Jebus) commenting on writings 160 years old, which in turn are referring to an event 50 years older. That leaves a lot of time for xian mischief.


Let's be more precise. The death of James as told in Josephus happened in 62 CE. Josephus was born in 37 CE, so he was around 25 years old when it happened and he lived in Jerusalem where the execution most probably happened (though around that time Josephus visited Rome so he might not have been in the area at that precise time). Antiquities was published in 93-4 CE so the time difference is around 30 years, not 50. Contra Celsus was written while Origen lived in Cesarea, probably between 245-50, so 160 years is reasonably accurate while 155 would be closer.

But anyway, your argument here seems to be that since Christians could have forged the paragraph, they did forge it. I'm not convinced by that one, and I don't think I'm the only one. By what I've read, the current consensus among the vast majority of Bible scholars, Christian or not, is that the mention of James by Josephus is genuine. You haven't given me any compelling reason not to go with the majority of experts in this case.

[LW]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

In the end, your argument that the difference between Jesus as a historical figure and Dorothy as a historical figure is that no one takes the WoO to be a historical document, whereas the New Testament refers to a historically viable place.

I would like to know whether there exists any person at all who you regard historical?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
But this is all summed up in The Emerald City of Oz. Glinda enchanted the land of Oz to make it invisible to mortals. The historian gets his information from the wireless.Thanks for spoiling the ending for us. ;)
Originally posted by pgwenthold
In the end, your argument that the difference between Jesus as a historical figure and Dorothy as a historical figure is that no one takes the WoO to be a historical document, whereas the New Testament refers to a historically viable place. It is interesting that the bible is considered "historical" whereas the WoO is not despite the fact that some of what is presented as history in the bible is verifiably false, which cannot be said about the WoO.It's a little more than this, I think. The nature of the WoO is such that, insofar as I am aware, nothing in the critical historian's bag of tools is sufficient to render feasible (or useful) the task of approaching the book as history (of either the good or the faulty sort). The same is not true of the NT.
Originally posted by pgwenthold
And as you note, even if the WoO fails, we can apply the standard to the Gone with the Wind, or Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer, or whatever. We can certainly apply the same standard, but no one's adduced any information suggesting how those works might actually fare against such standard.

As I intimated earlier, the historical works of Herodotus would probably come closer to being in the same ballpark.

[c4ts]

Prove that history actually happened! How do you know that it did? Stories? Unsubstantiated claims! Archeology? Falsely interpreted as evidence because of the literature (remember when they found "Troy?")! I do not believe in "history."

[LW]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

As I intimated earlier, the historical works of Herodotus would probably come closer to being in the same ballpark.

Two rather fine examples are King Arthur and Merlin. It is perfectly certain that the tales of the Round Table as they are nowadays told are 100% nonfactual.

However, there exists few snippets of evidence that in late 5th - early 6th century there lived a war-band leader with a name similar to Arthur and who became quite famous in his time, and that the stories told about him slowly morphed over centuries to the King Arthur stories as we know them. [Edited to add: some snippets of the earlier forms have been preserved to the day.]

Similarly, there is a little bit of evidence that in late 6th century there lived a scottish bard/seer named Myrddin or Lailoken and that stories told about him morphed into stories about Merlin.

In both cases contemporary evidence about them is practically nil. Both are mentioned in one single sentence of different Easter Annals that may be contemporary or they may be later insertions.

[kuroyume0161]

Now we get to the point. Here's where the problem resides:

Are we attempting to show the existence of the "biblical" Jesus or are we attempting to show the existence of some person whose life influenced the Synoptic gospels, no matter how 'legendary' they had become by the time of their writing?

Let me be clear on this: the biblical Jesus is fictional. His life consists of a birth and the last three years of life with one allegory inserted when he was supposedly about 12. That's about 3.001 years of fragmented information, most concerning miracles which could not have happened or sermons and parables which could be just mouthed rhetoric of some group of cynics or other philosophies, concentrating on the last few weeks leading up to the last supper, betrayal, and eventual crucifixion (the important part of the story of the dying-godman). This person never existed. No one can walk on water, raise the dead, drive out demons in (talking) swine, change water to wine, be tempted by "the Devil", heal the sick by being touched, etc. and so on. That leaves very little reality left to extract from the Synoptic gospels (sermons (?), parables (?), Mary Magdalene, maybe the story from Gesthemane to the crucifixion). The "virgin birth" is pure fabrication (all of it). The allegory at 12 is an insertion, serving no historical purpose whatsoever.

With that removed - a few fragments of historical reference remaining from the Synoptics - we have only spurious reports, mentionings, and strained correlations (Chrestus, Christ [a generic term by all means], Yeshua). Some of these may in fact provide evidence for a real person from which the mythology grew. But (the BIG BUT), there is no physical evidence (very bad) and no incidental, contemporary correlation of information (not too great).

Someone mentioned how we know any history is factual. Here ya go:

1. There are overwhelming correlated recordings, eye-witness accounts.

2. There is correlative physical evidence.

3. There are consistencies with events, social structures, geographic structures and records, causality, astronomical data, and other forms of collaborative evidence that lends credence the factuality of a person, place, thing, or event - hard circumstantial evidence.

4. It does not contradict reality, reason, logic, or scientific inquiry.

Satisfaction of three of these points are lacking. There is no physical evidence. There are no contemporary correlated recordings - only recounts after the supposed fact. The biblical recount violates point 4. The third is the most suspect in any reconstruction of a possible historical event. Many stories use such things to weave them into a time period and place. Without the first two, it becomes difficult to achieve a consensus. There may be a consensus amoung biblical scholars. That's not enough. The consensus must cover more territory.

What I'd like is a collection of all the supporting evidence for a historical person named Jesus considered to be the Christ or at least a wandering sage/messiah/prophet who can be associated with the movement that eventually became Christianity. And a rating of its possible validity (against time, forgery, insertion, interpretation, and so forth). That must be weighed since that is all we have. The lack of points 1, 2, and 4 makes the position of historicity much less tenable.

Again, I must remind those favoring his historicity that neither he, nor his "direct" apostles (only some anonymous writers many decades after the fact claiming to be his 'direct' apostles), nor any other members of his group, nor any person who saw him or his group first-hand, nor any person involved in the story, nor any person in the region thought to immediately record any of the events or personages related. How convenient (or stupid, depending on your view). Nobody in all of Judea or Palestine, including immigrated Greeks and Romans, had the ability to read and write? None had writing implements at their disposal? None felt compelled to record any of these events, even if they were not as remarkable as recounted in the Synoptics? If there was a historical Jesus, his success was a fluke, a usurption, an indictment to avoid conspiracy - for he was long forgotten and only dredged up as the main player in the story for some unknown motive. The real Jesus, if he existed, was Barbaras. That's not a direct relation, it's a comparision. He was the guy that didn't concern the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Roman governorship. There is more historical evidence for Spartacus and other rebellious slave leaders who were crucified by the Romans than for this supposed founder of Christianity.

I'd like to see the strong evidence and make a decision based upon that rather than a culmination of possibilities and circumstances.

Kuroyume

[triadboy]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
The real Jesus, if he existed, was Barbaras.

Luke 23:18
And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas:

Is it a coincidence the Barabbas means "Son of the Father"? ;)

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by triadboy
But we agree on several things: ...Yes, we do.

Originally posted by triadboy
Sure, there could have been an insignificant sage whose name and sayings were used to create a church. Then what is your basis for insisting that Antiquities 20.9.1 is a forgery?

Originally posted by triadboy
But you seem to be overly eaten up with his existence.I find it rather disingenuous that you would invent such a thing, since it was clearly you who were pedantically asserting a faith-based position.

Originally posted by triadboy
For someone with a tag "ReasonableDoubt" - you seem rather unreasonable. Unfortunately, I do not always live up to my username. If I have failed to present a reasoned position, you should feel free to correct me. Note, however, that there is a difference between reasonable doubt and unreasoned, reflexive denial.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Now we get to the point. Here's where the problem resides:

.................................................. ..............................


I'd like to see the strong evidence and make a decision based upon that rather than a culmination of possibilities and circumstances.

Kuroyume

Well said....

I look forward to your future contributions to these discussions..

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by triadboy
I guess I'll have to dig through my library and find the reference I was speaking of. If you were more literate, I wouldn't have to do this for your wrinkled ass. (sorry...I lost it there. :) ) I am fully confident in my literacy, and you've offered ample reason to question your own. I look forward to discussing your reference if and when it's presented.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
I am fully confident in my literacy, and you've offered ample reason to question your own. I look forward to discussing your reference if and when it's presented.

"Having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come and that the ungodly amoung men were to be punished by fire, the wicked spirits put forward many to be called Sons of God, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things that were said with regard to Christ were merely marvellous tales, like the things that were said by the poets" [Justin Martyr]

What we have here is Martyr (and Tertullian and Irenaeus) reacting to pagan critics of xianity. They were painfully aware that the Jesus story was eeriely similar to the pagan mystery god stories and they needed a reason. This is what they came up with Diabolical Mimicry. These church fathers alleged that Satan created the mystery religion dying god-men in advance of Jesus - so that the Jesus story would not carry as much weight!

"Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians - and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God." (Celsus On The True Doctrine, Hoffman)

Celsus is unveiling the idiocy of the early xians in believing their dying god-man is an historical person.

"It would have been better had you in your zest for a new teaching formed your religion around one of the men of old who died a hero's death and was honored for it - someone who at least was already subject of a myth. You could have chosen Heracles or Asclepius, or if these were too tame, there was always Orpheus, who as every one knows, was good and holy and yet died a violent death. Or had he already been taken? Well, then you had Anaxarchus, a man who looked death right in the eye when being beaten and said to his persecutors, "Beat away. Beat the pouch of Anaxarchus, for it is not him you are beating." But I recall that some philosophers have already claimed him as their master. Well, what of Epictetus? When his leg was being twisted he smiled and said with complete composure, "You are breaking it". And when it was broken, he smiled and said, "I told you so". Your God should have uttered such a saying when he was being punished!" (Celsus On The True Doctine, Hoffman)

[ReasonableDoubt]

Thank you for sharing, but I'd prefer it if you were more honest. At your convenience, please supply evidence of a 2nd century debate on historicity.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
I'd like to see the strong evidence and make a decision based upon that rather than a culmination of possibilities and circumstances.Given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you are no doubt agnostic with regards to much.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you are no doubt agnostic with regards to much.

I agree. The problem when it comes to history (paleontology, archaeology, etc.) is that absence of evidence is absence of anything. We wouldn't know dinosaurs ever existed without the evidence left behind by fossilization. We could have postulated about what existed 65 to 250 million years ago, but the postulations would be the end of the discussion.

It is very difficult, if not nearly impossible, to reconstruct a history without evidence. In this case, we have a story and some written accounts, but nothing substantial. This is sort of like having a couple of bones, slightly in the wrong strata and a tale of the beast in might have been. The facts remain shrouded by the absences.

So, yes, I may be agnostic about whether or not there was a real person attached to the mythos written into the Synoptics. And worse, I think that all of the poor handling of artifacts and records (shortly after the event - within the first millenium), the confusing doctrine and data, and the insertion of tons of fraudulent artifacts has muddied any possibility of a truly scientific search for that person.

As is probably obvious from my previous messages, I think that the written evidence is inconclusive and circumstantial, when it isn't dubious. As Christianity grew in popularity and control, there was much backpeddling to fill in the gaps and complete the doctrine (or fit it to whichever sect was backpeddling at the time). The power and control reached by the Roman Catholic church allowed for unchecked rewriting of history, omissions, substitutions, personal bias, among many other unscrupulous behaviors whether for the greater good or personal gain.

We are left with the task of trying to discern what is unadulterated and what not. Unlike searching for a city or civilization, which leaves a substantial footprint in the geologic record, a single person can easily be lost to history forever. Worst of all, is that the most extensive "record" of Jesus' existence is an unbelievable tale which may have hints and clues, but they are vague and general at best in most cases.

If Herod the Great, Herod Antipas, and Pilate kept rigorous records for, if anything, accounting and historical reference, they would be the most bejeweled to find. They were the most influential, highest-ranking figures directly associated with the story in the Synoptics. Kings and procurators would not keep records of myths intermingled with their daily and yearly records (one hopes, any how). Authenticating them if found would be another topic completely.

Kuroyume

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Thank you for sharing, but I'd prefer it if you were more honest. At your convenience, please supply evidence of a 2nd century debate on historicity.

Does the fact that the early church fathers had to invent a reason why the Jesus story was so similar to mystery religion stories pique your interest? And the ONLY thing they could come up with was Satan pre-planted the mystery religion stories? Why didn't Martyr simply provide the Jesus reference from Josephus? Because it didn't exist at that time?

I don't understand what you want - you have Martyr writing his weird-ass xian defense in ~150 AD and you have Celsus in 175 AD laughing at the xians for their idiotic belief in an ACTUAL historic dying god man.


Here is what Celsus believed to be the Jesus story:

"Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god." (Celsus)

[PotatoStew]

Hi kuro... thanks for the reply:

Originally posted by kuroyume0161

A miracle therefore contradicts the laws of nature and of scientific evidence which is how this universe and science operate. The universe operates as it does and science is a method that codifies our observations about this operation. If operations within the universe could be circumvented or temporarily anulled, then there would be no possible way to add them to any coherent model. As I stated already, there is no way to validate a "miracle", therefore it is special pleading to invoke the possibility of their existence. Unlike a "God" that exists external to the universe (and therefore has protection from existence determination), miracles act directly within the universe. Anything that does this can be observed and measured. That means that it is natural, not supernatural. Therefore, it cannot be a miracle (by definition). A contradiction has no asylum in "proving a negative".


I think we are talking past each other a bit here. For starters, yes, the way you've defined miracle, it would be "impossible" for one to occur because it would be unobservable. If it was observable, it would be "natural" and therefore no longer a miracle. All you've done is define it out of existence. However, your definition isn't necessarily *the* definition of miracle... m-w.com defines a miracle as "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs" or "an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment" ...natural laws do not necessarily have to be circumvented, and we don't run into problems with needing obsevable supernatural events.

Of course, dueling dictionaries gets us nowhere. Even if we go with your definition, my point wasn't necessarily that "miracles" in general can't be ruled out as having never happened, but rather that a specific "miraculous" occurrence can't be said to have never happened. In other words, I don't think you can legitimately say "X event has never occurred" even if "X" seems to violate what we currently know of the physical laws. The fact is that since we don't know all the laws it is possible that "X" is just an extremely rare case that still conforms to the laws of the universe, only it does so in a way that we don't yet understand.

Mind you, I'm in no way saying that this is an argument by which one can claim that a miracle *has* occurred, I'm only saying that it doesn't seem correct to me to say that a given miracle could not ever have occurred.

At any rate, this line of discussion is at best tangential to the thread, and I think that Cleopatra had it right when she said "The fact that miracles don't happen doesn't mean that a man named Jesus didn't exist." That's about all that would seem to matter as far as this thread is concerned. Sorry if I dragged the tangent on too long -- if you have anything to add you may have the last word on the subject. If you don't see where I'm coming from by this point, I don't expect any further arguments will change that. :)

[triadboy]

Originally posted by PotatoStew
m-w.com defines a miracle as "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs" or "an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment" ...natural laws do not necessarily have to be circumvented, and we don't run into problems with needing obsevable supernatural events.


Natural Laws MUST be circumvented for a miracle to occur. The first definition is correct.

The second one is wrong. I am the only man in the history of the military to serve on all three legs of the nuclear triad. That is a singularly unique accomplishment in the history of the world. Am I a miracle?

For a virgin birth to occur - natural laws must be broken.

I can't think of any miracle where natural laws aren't broken

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by triadboy


Natural Laws MUST be circumvented for a miracle to occur. The first definition is correct.

The second one is wrong. I am the only man in the history of the military to serve on all three legs of the nuclear triad. That is a singularly unique accomplishment in the history of the world. Am I a miracle?

For a virgin birth to occur - natural laws must be broken.

I can't think of any miracle where natural laws aren't broken As PototoStew has noted your definition of 'miracle' is 'something that can't happen'! Miracles, though, may have more to do with pointing towards The Kingdom of God; miracles as signs

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by triadboy


Does the fact that the early church fathers had to invent a reason why the Jesus story was so similar to mystery religion stories pique your interest? I asked for your argument against a partial interpolation and you respond with an argument from absence. I suggest that the only reason to quote the presumed original would be in the context of a 2nd century debate on historicity, and you sputter and babble about Celsus and Martyr. You dance poorly ...

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by triadboy
Here is what Celsus believed to be the Jesus story:

"Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god." (Celsus) Just to clarify, this account is what Celsus argued was the historical truth underlying the Jesus story. Celsus certainly was familiar with the Jesus story as presented in the four Gospels.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161


I agree. The problem when it comes to history (paleontology, archaeology, etc.) is that absence of evidence is absence of anything. It would be hard to fault agnosticism regarding the issue of historicity. However, as I've noted before, and as I'm sure you recognize, agnosticism is not the same as fervent denial. Furthermore, history is a tenuous thing, and often there is little to go on beyond circumstantial evidence and informed speculation. The site on Messianic Claimants (http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messianic_claimants00.html) seems relevant on two levels: Such claimants were apparently far from rare. Much of what we know comes to us primarily, and sometimes solely, by way of Josephus.I see little reason to insist that 20.9.1 was a forgery. Given that, I see little reason to insist that TF was more than a partial interpolation. Given this, and the reasonable presumption of a Jerusalem cult, the historicity of a cult leader appears to me to stand as the more reasonable possibility.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Given this, and the reasonable presumption of a Jerusalem cult, the historicity of a cult leader appears to me to stand as the more reasonable possibility.

We all agree in the possibility of the existence of a character whose life was mythicized into the glorious god-man we see now.

I personally don't think Josephus ever wrote about him OR if he did was uncomplementary of him. It would have been very easy for someone to insert a paragraph (in a very strange place of the narrative, by the way) and also insert "the brother of Jesus, who was Christ". We know of other forgeries (letters, Gospels, etc), it seems reasonable (from my studies) to consider the references by Josephus forgeries also.

Josephus disliked all the rabble-rousing would-be Messiah figures and was uncomplementary of them. And yet here is this one passage that is complementary of Jesus the Christ. It doesn't fit.

Origen - writing at the beginning of the 3rd century is unaware of the Testimonium Flavianum. He CERTAINLY would have referenced it if it existed.

Origen does make mention of the other Jesus reference, however:

"The only usually undisputed allusion to Jesus in Josephus is actually only a passing reference in the context of the trial of James. James is identified, not as James son of ???? as one would normally expect but as brother of Jesus. While this passage is more likely to be authentic than the one above, it is not without problems. Origen knows and cites this passage, and is unaware of the 'Testimonium Flavianum' above, providing some evidence for its presence in the Antiquities before its Christian reworking. On the other hand, Origen's version contains the unlikely addition in which Josephus also says that it is as punishment for the execution of James that Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed. The possibility suggests itself that even Origen's Josephus has undergone Christian reworking, simply of a different variety, in which, perhaps, the insulting Testimonium has been expunged, and James has been introduced as a pious Jewish hero." (copied from http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html)

[triadboy]

From The Jesus Mysteries, Freke/Gandy p239:


Clumsy Christian additions were made to the works of the Jewish Pythagorean Philo, and ridiculous legends invented that he had held discussions on the Law with the disciple John and met Peter in Rome! The Jewish historian Josephus was likewise transformed into a Christian and was even equated with the New Testament figure of Joseph of Arimathea! As previously discussed, addtions were made to his works that reverentially testify to the historical existence of Jesus.

A further document attributed to Josephus called On The Essence Of God was also forged to reinforce the previous forgery by putting Christian doctrines into Josephus' mouth. Through careful linguistic studies, scholars now know "beyond any doubt" that the forger of this text was none other than Hippolytus (c. 222), the arch-heresy-hunter and protege of Irenaeus! Scholars have also shown similarities in language and style between this forgery and Paul's Second Letter to the Thessalonians, which was written to call into question the authenticity of the first (genuine) letter. So, Hippolytus may well have also been the forger of this letter of Paul.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Just to clarify, this account is what Celsus argued was the historical truth underlying the Jesus story. Celsus certainly was familiar with the Jesus story as presented in the four Gospels.

Agree. He was familiar with the Gospel stories and ridiculed them as being the same story as Mithra, Dionysus, etc.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by triadboy
Origen - writing at the beginning of the 3rd century is unaware of the Testimonium Flavianum.Rubbish, The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You haven't a clue what Origin "is unaware of".

Originally posted by triadboy
He CERTAINLY would have referenced it if it existed.More rubbish. You're becoming tiresome, repeating your mantra and simply pretending that you've said something reasonable. In fact, it is far from 'CERTAIN'. If one assumes that TF is (only) a partial interpolation, there is zero compelling reason why anyone would quote it except within the context of a debate on historicity, and you have offered no evidence of such a debate.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Rubbish, The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You haven't a clue what Origin "is unaware of".

Poppycock! If Josephus had another paragraph for Origen to quote - he would have quoted it. ESPECIALLY, a juicy paragraph like the TF. Do some more studying and come back in 10 years.

More rubbish. You're becoming tiresome, repeating your mantra and simply pretending that you've said something reasonable. In fact, it is far from 'CERTAIN'. If one assumes that TF is (only) a partial interpolation, there is zero compelling reason why anyone would quote it except within the context of a debate on historicity, and you have offered no evidence of such a debate.

More poppycock! If the TF existed he would have quoted it. These idiotic xians needed something to prop up their fantasy religion and ANY quote from Josephus would have done it. You see how he jumped all over the other Jesus reference - and it was a forgery too.

Why does Jesus HAVE to exist for you? Would that tear your world apart? Can you imagine Paul starting a mystery religion with a Jewish hero. And eventually this myth comes to be believed as history? That is what Celsus and others were saying to the new xians - 'why do you believe this is history when it is myth'?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
You haven't a clue what Origin "is unaware of".


I am aware Origen knew there were many xian forgeries, additions, and deletions present in xian and secular writings.

[Cleopatra]

I think that the following article goes to this thread.....
I have access to this article through a discussion list that I follow I don't think that I violate the copy-right rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Feb. 19, 2005. 01:00 AM

Who wrote Dead Sea scrolls?
Scholars have long believed that Essenes, a Jewish sect, had written
the documents in Qumran Now Israeli archaeologists claim Essenes
didn't live there or write the scrolls, writes Neil Altman

More questions about the authorship of the Dead Sea Scrolls are being
asked today than any time since the documents were discovered 57
years ago.

The ruins of Qumran, where many scholars theorized that a Jewish
monastic brotherhood known as the Essenes copied the books of the Old
Testament, have yielded new evidence that casts doubt on the Essene
theory.

Itzhak Magen and Yuval Peleg, Israeli archaeologists who spent 10
seasons in the digs at Qumran, announced last summer that the
evidence they found all but proves that the Essenes didn't live there
and didn't write the Dead Sea Scrolls.

What they uncovered in the course of digging and sifting at Qumran
included jewellery and imported Italian pottery — not the sort of
things that an order of poor monks would have.

Magen and Peleg also came away from their work believing the Essene
theory should have died decades ago based on evidence that one
archaeologist, the late Roland de Vaux, couldn't have missed. A
respected scholar priest, de Vaux excavated Qumran for five years in
the 1950s and helped turn the Essene theory into dogma.

"It is impossible to say that the people who lived at Qumran were
poor," Peleg told Israel's Haaretz newspaper. "It is also impossible
that de Vaux did not see the finds we saw. He simply ignored what
didn't suit him."

A core of scholars who still support de Vaux's theory, including
scholars who have become famous for their research, articles and
books on the Dead Sea Scrolls and have much at stake in the debate,
have rejected Magen and Peleg's conclusions.

But archaeologist and Qumran expert Katherine Galor, a Brown
University professor, said that while some scholars are having a hard
time accepting the new research, many others no longer accept the
Essene theory.

Galor, who agrees with Magen and Peleg's conclusions that the Essenes
had nothing to do with the scrolls, noted that if Qumran had been the
place where hundreds of scrolls were written, the evidence would have
been all over the site. But it wasn't.

Not one scroll nor one scrap of writing has been found at Qumran, she
said, adding that nothing at Qumran — from its architecture to the
archaeologists' finds — suggest it was different from the other non-
religious communities in the vicinity.

There is evidence now to suggest that an Essene sect wasn't
established until after the time of Christ. But in the early 1950s,
scholars, looking for a way to connect the newly discovered Dead Sea
Scrolls to Qumran, revived a theory first put forth by biblical
critics in the 1800s.

Long before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars who
questioned the truth of the Bible developed the Essene theory to
account for the origins of Christianity. They speculated that it
sprang from a sect of pre-Christian Jews. These scholars also
suggested that John the Baptist and Jesus himself were Essenes. Yet
nowhere in the New Testament are the Essenes mentioned, though other
sects are, including the Zealots, Herodians, Sadducees and Pharisees.
In fact, the writers of the scrolls never called
themselves "Essenes." Rather, they referred to themselves as "the
poor" or "poor in spirit," which also happen to be terms applied to
the early followers of Jesus.

Today, a growing number of scholars say the writers of the scrolls
should not be referred to as "Essenes" but as the "Qumran sect."

The records of historians Pliny and Philo, who were writing in the
decades after Jesus' death, include sketchy details about sects. Dead
Sea Scroll scholars combined several sects into one — the Essenes —
to account for the authorship of the scrolls.

Josephus, a prominent Jewish historian of the same period, also wrote
about such a sect, calling its members city dwellers who lived
in "every town in Israel." They didn't live in a desert or
wilderness, like the Dead Sea region. In 1998, respected Israeli
archaeologist Yizhar Hirschfeld created a stir by asserting that
Essenes lived not at Qumran but at Ein Gedi, a Dead Sea community 20
miles south of Qumran. But Hirschfeld found a striking similarity
between that community and the monasteries built centuries later by
Byzantine Christians.

In a letter two years later, Hirschfeld wrote, "The remains I
uncovered at Ein Gedi fit better the description of Pliny the Elder.
This adds another proof that the site of Qumran had nothing to do
with the Essenes."

Peter Pick, an archaeologist and the former dean of arts and sciences
at Columbia Pacific University in California, added a nail to the
coffin of the Essene theory when he told Newsday in 1997 that "the
most telling thing was there was no synagogue at the Qumran site."

First-century Jews built synagogues in places where they lived for
only a few years, such as the fortress at Masada. Why, Pick asks,
wouldn't the Essenes have built a synagogue at Qumran where they
supposedly lived for more than a century?

Comparing the secular sites of Masada and Herodium in the light of
Peleg and Magen's discoveries at Qumran led Pick to say in October
2004 that "Qumran is not a religious site but a secular site."

But people called "Ossaeans" did live along the northern shores of
the Dead Sea after A.D. 68. Some scrolls scholars believe they were
the Essenes.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
First century Jews built synagogues in places where they lived only a
few years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------


Epiphanius, a church father of the third and fourth centuries A.D.,
wrote that the "so-called heresy of the Ossaeans ... originated from
the regions of Nabataea and Ituraea, Moabitis and Arielitis, from the
regions that are situated at the other side of the lake that in the
Holy Scripture is called Dead Sea." The fact that Epiphanius calls
them a "heresy" suggests that they had a Christian background.

Other groups lived not far away in the Golan Heights region. Claudine
Dauphin, a French archeologist, found that Judeo-Christian sects
emerged after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and continued into the
medieval period.

"At two of the sites," she wrote, "we started finding bizarre stuff —
Christian symbols intertwined with Jewish symbols ... like a menorah
covered by a ship, representing the church, whose mast was a cross,
or a lulav (palm branch) whose top branches formed a cross."

This may explain why some lameds — the tall Hebrew letter for "L" —
found in a Dead Sea Scroll called the Copper Scroll are turned into
crosses and why there are Xs in the margins of passages in the Isaiah
Scroll that speak of the Messiah.

Another important clue in the search for the Essenes is offered by
Athanase Negoitsa in Revue de Qumran. He writes about a document by
Nilus the Ascetic of the fourth century A.D. that indicates the
Essenes lived then. Nilus praises their "meditative and lofty moral
life." But he regrets that the Essenes do not follow in the true
philosophy of the gospel of Christ, implying that they were a
heretical Christian group.

Is there a source that clearly states the Essenes originated in the
Christian period and not before?

In the writings of the Christian church fathers, the Jews who
believed in Jesus were called "Nazarenes" and kept the laws of Moses
and the customs of the Jewish people. That dispels the gentile myth
that the Jewish people rejected Jesus. But between the time of the
first gentile believer — the Roman centurion Cornelius — and the time
that large numbers of gentiles in Antioch were converted, what name
differentiated gentiles?

Epiphanius wrote: "All Christians were called Nazoraeans (Nazarenes)
once. For a short time they were given also the name Iessaeans
(Essenes), before the disciples in Antioch began to be called
Christians."

Epiphanius thus contradicts the theory that the Essenes were a pre-
Christian sect. Many scholars regard Epiphanius as an extremely
important source. In Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, German scholar
Rainer Riesner states, "According to reliable tradition in
Epiphanius, the Jewish Christian community left the Holy City at the
outbreak of the Jewish War (A.D. 66-70) to settle at Pella in the
Decapolis."

Negoitsa writes: "Epiphanius was born in Palestine ... spoke five
languages,Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Coptic, and Aramaic. Thus he was able
to read all the documents and writings ... (had) precise information
regarding the sects of Palestine and especially those in the region
harbouring the Dead Sea." But even Negoitsa doesn't mention
Epiphanius' statements about "Iessaeans." What is the derivation of
this Greek word, and does this have any bearing on Christianity?

Phillip Comfort, former professor of Greek and New Testament at
Wheaton College and senior Bible editor at Tyndale Publishing House,
said the word "Iessaeans" or "Essenes" comes from the Greek
word "Iessaios," which means Jesse, the father of David.

"The early Christians may have called themselves this because the
Messiah was called the Son of Jesse (Isaiah 11:10, Romans 15:12),"
wrote Comfort, whose analysis offers further insight into Epiphanius'
statements that the Essenes were a Christian sect. How then could the
Essenes be the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which supposedly date
as far back as 300 B.C.?

The discovery of the scrolls "merely revived (this) old, long
discarded theory," claims Millar Burrows in More Light on the Dead
Sea Scrolls.

Scroll scholar A. Dupont-Sommer explains that the Essene theory was a
product of 18th-century biblical criticism. It speculated that
Jesus "was imbued with Essene ethics, which in their turn, owe much
to Zeno," who was a Greek philosopher of the 5th century B.C.

In The Essene Writings from Qumran, Dupont-Sommer said the Christian
apologists saw this philosophy as "a weapon, a devilish theory
designed to sap the originality and transcendence of Christian
revelation.

"It is, therefore, not difficult to understand the very lively
opposition of a number of Christian historians, Catholic and
Protestant alike, in the 19th century and during the first half of
the 20th."

In fact, the Essene theory had become a scholarly attack upon Jesus,
the uniqueness of his teaching, his Jewishness, his early years and
his divinity.

Though soundly refuted in the last century, the Essene theory began
gaining acceptance again in the 1950s. Jewish scholars, such as
Zeitlin and P. R. Weiss, were among a growing number who challenged
the early dating of the scrolls as well as the theory that the
Essenes wrote them. They believed the scrolls dated from the medieval
period, rather than 300 B.C. to A.D. 50.

Zeitlin wrote that "ascribing ... the scrolls to the pre-Christian
period (was) theologically motivated." The scrolls were being used as
propaganda against Christianity, he said, by back-dating them to the
pre-Christian era. Many scholars who no longer held to historic
Christian doctrinal beliefs revived the Essene theory to attack the
Judeo-Christian heritage. Ironically, it was the Jewish scholars who
defended Christianity.

Curiosity about the Dead Sea Scrolls continues as new pieces to the
puzzle of their origin are put into place and access to the Dead Sea
Scrolls becomes less restricted. Scholars now must search for the
true identity of those who wrote and carefully stored them in 11
caves near Qumran.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Neil Altman is a Philadelphia-based writer who has specialized in
writing about the Dead Sea Scrolls. David Crowder, a reporter with
the El Paso Times, assisted with this article.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?
pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1108595411286&call
_pageid=970599119419