historical proof that jesus existed [Archive]

davefoc

21st April 2003, 11:05 PM

I have been interested in this question for awhile and have read through quite a few of the secular historical Jesus sites.

The most extreme position is presented by this guy:
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

My own view, after reading this site and several others is that there was an historical Jesus, although even the phrase "historical Jesus" is ambiguous and there is a line of argument that goes something like this: "even if there was an individual that served as the inspiration for Christianity, if the content of the gospels is mostly made up there was no historical Jesus.

My view is that the content of the gospels was mostly made up, they aren't written contemporaneously with the life of Jesus (let me say here just once this is disputed and so is everything else about Jesus, but I'm giving you my take), they contain some stories that are pretty iffy on their face (virgin birth, water into wine, etc.), they are not consistent with each other, reconciling them to historical details is difficult, Paul who seems to be the most contemporaneious writer doesn't corroborate most of the stories and there is no other contemporaneous corroboration.

The best information outside the bible that Jesus existed was in some writings of Josephus. Unfortunately they are scant and what there is, is believed to be entirely planted by some scholars. Some scholars think that just some of the Jesus stuff was planted. I read through some of the arguments one night and decided that I thought the guys that thought only some of it was planted were most likely to be correct, but if I had to choose between all true or all planted I'd pick all planted.

So after that you've got the Ossuary with the James the son of Joseph and the brother of Jesus inscription. That's a really good fake if it is one, but there's some really good hoaxers around and they've been around for a long time so an early forgery is also possible and then maybe even if it's not a forgery it may have nothing to do with the Jesus in question.

After that there's an Occam's razor kind of argument. It's just simpler to believe that there was a charismatic, rebellious priest who inspired some folks to tell stories about him than that one or a few folks just started writing about a completelely fictional Jesus and the stories caught on. I find it more likely than not that Paul was writing about a real person. Of course, given the almost complete lack of known contemporaneous writing on Jesus, a person that was far less well known at the time than the biblical accounts would suggest.

Lastly, the consensus amongst secular sbiblical cholars seems to be that he probably did exist, perhaps a far stronger argument than my ramblings about stuff I know so little listed above.

Sanamas

21st April 2003, 11:46 PM

Yeah, I know all about the impossibility of proving a negative, I'm just speaking hypothetically.

ceo_esq

22nd April 2003, 04:01 AM

While there's no proof that Jesus existed historically, there is evidence to that effect. It's not dispositive evidence. I would say rather that it is more likely than not that Jesus existed historically, or that there is good reason to believe that Jesus existed historically.

This has been discussed in several older threads, including the "Titulus from Jesus' cross (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11486)" thread. (I note in passing that the alleged titulus itself is not good evidence, but simply provided an excuse to assess the various arguments during the course of the thread.)

Kevin_Lowe

22nd April 2003, 04:56 AM

Well, it's a virtual certainty that there were one or more itinerant preachers with gaggles of followers running around the right area at the right time.

The real question is this: Is there any hard evidence that such a guy articulated, let alone originated, the religious and philosophical ideas in the New Testament?

(Taking it for granted there's no hard evidence of silliness like walking on water that was clearly a later addition).

Agammamon

22nd April 2003, 06:02 AM

The historical documentation for Christ's existence is rather sketchy. He isn't mentioned by in any contempory source which is rather surprising considering the amount of trouble he's supposed to have stirred up. All of the historical accounts (including what went in to make up the New testament) is dated from several decades after his death.

LCBOY

22nd April 2003, 08:46 AM

One of my favorite topics! I'll put together a summary of the historitcal evidence that supports that Jesus existed. It'll take me a few days since there is so much historical evidence. :D
I'll post it ASAP...

Nyarlathotep

22nd April 2003, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Agammamon
The historical documentation for Christ's existence is rather sketchy. He isn't mentioned by in any contempory source which is rather surprising considering the amount of trouble he's supposed to have stirred up. All of the historical accounts (including what went in to make up the New testament) is dated from several decades after his death.

Plus there is the assertion that he rose into heaven in front of dozens of witnesses after his resurection. Given the fact that the Romans were literate and very good record keepers one would think that if a criminal that they executed was walking around three days later and then flew up into the sky, more than one account would have been written about it

LCBOY

22nd April 2003, 09:00 AM

I assume that the question is whether Jesus existed historically. Whether the "miraculous" aspects of his life are true or not is another question. As an analogy, we can pretty much agree that George Washington existed. There are documents and know many facts about his life are known. There are many "stories and legends" about him that are pretty much known to be not true, i.e. cutting down a cherry tree, etc. So I suggest that we focus on the debate of whether or not Jesus existed then move on from there.

davefoc

22nd April 2003, 10:18 AM

LCBOY,
I think you make the situation out to be a little simpler than it is. There are really two questions here:
1. Was there a single individual that was the inspiration for the Biblical stories about Jesus.
2. Were the events of the life of that person close enough to the Biblical Jesus to say that he was the historical Jesus.

As the above posts have indicated the answer to question one at this point in history can probably not be answered with certainty. I, and it looks like several others that have posted, think probably yes, but this guy thinks probably not:
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

The answer to the second question depends both on the facts and a personal subjective decision about what constitutes "close enough".

You used the example of George Washington. Yes there are a lot of myths concerning George Washington, but there is no doubt that the major events in his life as historically recorded did actually occur. Suppose on the other hand that there were doubts about whether George Washington was the leader of the continental army and as to whether he actually served as president of the US. Would it still be obvious to you that the historical George Washington existed?

I look forward to reading the summary of the historical evidence that you mentioned. This is also one of my favorite topics.

aggle_rithm

22nd April 2003, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Plus there is the assertion that he rose into heaven in front of dozens of witnesses after his resurection. Given the fact that the Romans were literate and very good record keepers one would think that if a criminal that they executed was walking around three days later and then flew up into the sky, more than one account would have been written about it

This account did not appear in the earliest Gospel, Mark. Matthew and Luke both appear to be elaborations on the Gospel of Mark, using it as a framework and adding new details (for instance, the two Nativity stories).

LCBOY

22nd April 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by davefoc

You used the example of George Washington. Yes there are a lot of myths concerning George Washington, but there is no doubt that the major events in his life as historically recorded did actually occur. Suppose on the other hand that there were doubts about whether George Washington was the leader of the continental army and as to whether he actually served as president of the US. Would it still be obvious to you that the historical George Washington existed?
.
It depends on whether the doubts had serious merit. Again when it comes to history we will always be missing some information or knowledge. Using GW as an example with the information we have it is clear that he did lead the Continental Army and was President. Any person that make a counter claim would have to produce the following

#1 evidence that shows that the knowlwdge the GW was a General and President is false or lacking

or

#2 evidence that someone else led the Continental Army and was the 1st President.

Even if #1 were true that doesn't prove that GW wasn't the leader of the Continental Army and President because there maybe other evidence that shows this or all evidence is lost. Kind of the "if there is no one in the forest and a tree falls is there any noise?"

LCBOY

22nd April 2003, 10:55 AM

When the name "JESUS CHRIST" is mentioned it always generates a mulititude of reaction. Many people try to disprove his existence or at least debate that it is possible that he didn't exist. I don't see as many people agruing over the existence of Alexander the Great, or Socrates, or Plato. Is there lots of evidence that these men ever lived?

c4ts

22nd April 2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by LCBOY
When the name "JESUS CHRIST" is mentioned it always generates a mulititude of reaction. Many people try to disprove his existence or at least debate that it is possible that he didn't exist. I don't see as many people agruing over the existence of Alexander the Great, or Socrates, or Plato. Is there lots of evidence that these men ever lived?

Well, does proving or disproving that these people existed have any effect on the appreciation of their works? Plato can be a hoax created by Franko for all I care, and I will still enjoy his dialogues. I don't need to believe in Plato.

LCBOY

22nd April 2003, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by c4ts

Well, does proving or disproving that these people existed have any effect on the appreciation of their works? Plato can be a hoax created by Franko for all I care, and I will still enjoy his dialogues. I don't need to believe in Plato.

By "enjoy" do you mean that Plato's writings and teachings are vaild and worthy of study and as a way to live one' life?

c4ts

22nd April 2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by LCBOY

By "enjoy" do you mean that Plato's writings and teachings are vaild and worthy of study and as a way to live one' life?

They are indeed worthy of study, and if you examine your own life, you may find that some of it is quite valid indeed. Plato presents us with a way of living, which is to live the just life in the pursuit of knowledge, questioning everything and everyone. (On the boards, we call that "critical thinking.") I don't have to agree with everything Socrates says, because it's the ideas which bring me enjoyment.

Skeptical Greg

22nd April 2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by LCBOY

By "enjoy" do you mean that Plato's writings and teachings are vaild and worthy of study and as a way to live one' life?

As far as I know Jesus didn't write anything.. His teachings weren't very original, and there are many aspects of his reported life that really are not very admirable.

People who who seem to be caught up in the myth of the perfect, sinless son of God, haven't read the Gospels very closely or ignored what is obvious to some people.

LCBOY

22nd April 2003, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes

As far as I know Jesus didn't write anything.. His teachings weren't very original, and there are many aspects of his reported life that really are not very admirable.

People who who seem to be caught up in the myth of the perfect, sinless son of God, haven't read the Gospels very closely or ignored what is obvious to some people.

The first statement is true, but did Socrates write anything himself? The other statements are really just opinions not assertions that can be either true or false.

As Dark Cobra would say, "Where's the evidence." :D

Ruby

22nd April 2003, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes

As far as I know Jesus didn't write anything.. His teachings weren't very original, and there are many aspects of his reported life that really are not very admirable.

People who who seem to be caught up in the myth of the perfect, sinless son of God, haven't read the Gospels very closely or ignored what is obvious to some people.

I'd like to see what is so obvious if you don't mind.

Skeptical Greg

22nd April 2003, 01:17 PM

Yeah', it's just my opinion that the person who said this, was being rude, hateful and uncompassionate.

Matthew 15:22
And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

15:23
But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

15:25
Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

15:26
But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

Should I bother with any more?

Skeptical Greg

22nd April 2003, 01:29 PM

I was so busy digging out my " Mean things Jesus did" notes, I fortgot to address this...

Originally posted by LCBOY

The first statement is true, but did Socrates write anything himself?

I don't know. Why do you ask?

Ruby

22nd April 2003, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Shroud of Akron
please provide it for me. i am not being sarcastic, i just have never seen any evidence that was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I don't know if anyone can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt most of the great figures in ancient history.

Still, there is a lot of evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Some extra-biblical sources are used as evidence. There was Cornelius Tactitus...a Roman historian who made some mention of Jesus and especially of the existence of Chrstians. Other sources came from: Lucian Samasata; Suetonius; pliny the younger; Thallus; Phlegon. There was also Josephus.

Justin Martyr recorded the deaths of all the apostles...save one..John.

There were also writings by Clement of Rome; Ignatius; Quadratus; Barnabas; Aristides; Hegesippus...

Ruby

22nd April 2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Yeah', it's just my opinion that the person who said this, was being rude, hateful and uncompassionate.

Should I bother with any more?

First of all, you need to read the entire passage Matthew 15 22- "And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed." But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, "Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us."
But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!" And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." But she said, "Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus said to her, "O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once. "

Jesus did heal this woman. He was only putting her off to prove to others how great her faith was...as she was not Jewish. The word "dogs" actually means "little puppies" .

Lord Kenneth

22nd April 2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Ruby

Jesus did heal this woman.[/color]

Evidence?

Skeptical Greg

22nd April 2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Ruby

Jesus did heal this woman.

It's O.K. to be hateful if you follow it up with kindness?

He was only putting her off to prove to others how great her faith was...as she was not Jewish. The word "dogs" actually means "little puppies" .

I don't see where it says this. Sounds like a good explanation if it doesn't read too well the way it is written, though.

added:

Why did Jesus say this?"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Was it a lie?
Did he disobey God, if we are to believe he didn't?

c4ts

22nd April 2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by LCBOY

The first statement is true, but did Socrates write anything himself? The other statements are really just opinions not assertions that can be either true or false.

As Dark Cobra would say, "Where's the evidence." :D

Socrates didn't write anything himself. He may not even have existed. And it doesn't change the ideas, whether or not he did, and the logic which Socrates uses does not diminish at all. Why do you insist that Socrates must be interpreted at face value for the arguments he makes with other characters, so that his philosophy would become invalid if he were knocking down strawmen? Are we to play with shadows all day long?

LCBOY

22nd April 2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

Socrates didn't write anything himself. He may not even have existed. And it doesn't change the ideas, whether or not he did, and the logic which Socrates uses does not diminish at all. Why do you insist that Socrates must be interpreted at face value for the arguments he makes with other characters, so that his philosophy would become invalid if he were knocking down strawmen? Are we to play with shadows all day long?

Whoa there! That's wasn't my point at all. I was responding to someone else who said that Jesus didn't write anything. I was trying to make a point that doesn't really mean anything, that Jesus didn't write anything. Socrates didn't write anything either but that is not really important either. People find value and truth in what he said and Christians find value and truth in what Jesus said, regardless if Jesus existed or not. Though, I believe he did.

c4ts

22nd April 2003, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by LCBOY

Whoa there! That's wasn't my point at all. I was responding to someone else who said that Jesus didn't write anything. I was trying to make a point that doesn't really mean anything, that Jesus didn't write anything. Socrates didn't write anything either but that is not really important either. People find value and truth in what he said and Christians find value and truth in what Jesus said, regardless if Jesus existed or not. Though, I believe he did.

Sorry. I'm so used to defending something, it's become a kind of reflex. Must have spent too much time dealing with morons.

LCBOY

22nd April 2003, 03:41 PM

Socrates makes an interesting subject for a new thread...

Loki

22nd April 2003, 05:50 PM

LCBOY,

Christians find value and truth in what Jesus said, regardless if Jesus existed or not.
I've got to question that accuracy of that statement! Are you seriously claiming that *most* christians would be largely unaffected by the discovery that Jesus was a fraud? This can *only* be true if the christians in question treats the New Testament as entirely consisting of parables - in other words, the meaning is what matters, not the method of presentation. I'm sure such "liberal christians" exist (Stamenflicker may be such a beast?), but do you think this is actually true of the vast majority of christians?

davefoc

22nd April 2003, 06:00 PM

Ruby said:
Still, there is a lot of evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Some extra-biblical sources are used as evidence. There was Cornelius Tactitus...a Roman historian who made some mention of Jesus and especially of the existence of Chrstians. Other sources came from: Lucian Samasata; Suetonius; pliny the younger; Thallus; Phlegon. There was also Josephus.

Ruby, there may be a lot of evidence for the existence of Jesus, but the folks that you mention seem to be suspect or were not contemporaneous with Jesus or both.

Pliny the younger seems like an interesting fellow who writes about torturing people with about the same degree of emotion that one might write an engineering paper but he seems to have been born well after the birth of Jesus.

here's a link:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pliny1.html

Thallus is completely suspect. He wrote some strange stuff and no one is quite sure when he lived. Here's a link on him:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html

Cornelius Tactitus seems to have written around 112 AD so presumably Jesus was way dead by the time Cornelius was around.

I believe the basic theory of the Jesus-didn't-exist people is that a few people soon after the time of his purported death started making up stories based very loosely on the lives of one or a few Jewish Priests. The stories contained so few facts that it is not reasonable to say that they represent the life of any actual person.

The kind of evidence that would refute this theory is to find contemporary writings and/or artifacts that corroborate the Biblical stories. To a lesser degree finding that the Biblical Jesus stories accurately report historical details and are self consistent with themselves would also argue for the existence of an historical Jesus.

At this time time, there are very few contemporaneous documents outside the Bible that have been put forth that mention Jesus at all. In fact there are significant historical inaccuracies in the Bible and it is difficult to find an exact correlation with between Biblical stories and other recorded history. And of course, as is often reported, the Gospels are self-contradictory.

So while, I personally think it is likely that Jesus existed, I also think the case is pretty weak. However, I would be very interested in any evidence that you supply that relates to whether a historical Jesus existed.

Loki

22nd April 2003, 06:09 PM

Ruby,

I don't know if anyone can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt most of the great figures in ancient history.
True enough, but the discovery that we were wrong about the existence of Helen of Troy would hardly threaten a major world religion. Helen's historical role has little relevance, therefore assumptions of her existence can be granted by a certain level of proof. Jesus' historical role - for many - is central to our entire system of morals and laws, therefore the level of proof (to me) should be correspondingly much higher. It isn't, in my opinion.

Still, there is a lot of evidence for the existence of Jesus.
All of it indirect, and none of it substantiating any of the major claims that make Jesus so important. I can easily grant the provisional claim "a man called Jesus probably existed in the time and place depicted by the New Testament" based upon the evidence you refer to. I find it impossible to extend that assumption of existence to the claim that "he was a man who walked on water and rose from the dead" based on the same evidence.

Some extra-biblical sources are used as evidence. There was Cornelius Tactitus...a Roman historian who made some mention of Jesus and especially of the existence of Chrstians. Other sources came from: Lucian Samasata; Suetonius; pliny the younger; Thallus; Phlegon. There was also Josephus.

Justin Martyr recorded the deaths of all the apostles...save one..John.

There were also writings by Clement of Rome; Ignatius; Quadratus; Barnabas; Aristides; Hegesippus...
The problem with these sources is that they *all* are indirect sources. At best, they quote other people who claim to have seen/heard Jesus. At worst, they simply mention christians (which obviously does not more than imply Christ).

stamenflicker

22nd April 2003, 07:50 PM

Dave,

At this time time, there are very few contemporaneous documents outside the Bible that have been put forth that mention Jesus at all.

That's just the problem though. The documents do exist, we just force them through more scrutiny than comparable documents for other figures based solely on the claims they make.

Loki,

The problem with these sources is that they *all* are indirect sources. At best, they quote other people who claim to have seen/heard Jesus. At worst, they simply mention christians (which obviously does not more than imply Christ).

The evidence doesn't suggest they are completely indirect and it should be noted that surviving documents of existing historical figures have been proven to be copies written much later (even as late as the 12th century) of earlier documents.

I would argue that "at best" the documents are true; and at worst, they are still historical documents in that they represent the thought of the early church-- real Jesus or not. Even at worst, they (as surviving documents), predate most surviving copies of existing histories.

Anyone looking for a historical Jesus is really looking to the wrong things anyway IMHO... as you have stated it's more interesting and beneficial to see if he is who the authors of these documents say he is, which cannot be objectively verified in the slightest. One is pretty much left to his or her own devices, and the meaning that can be extrapolated should the path be chosen.

Flick

Loki

22nd April 2003, 08:34 PM

Flick,

The evidence doesn't suggest they are completely indirect ...
Hmmm...perhaps a terminology problem? I'm not aware of any document outside of the New Testament and the "rejected gospels" in which the author claims direct knowledge of Jesus. Do you any details on such documents?

But the real issue is why does Jesus not directly appear in "non-christian" writings of the time. Didn't *any* of the multitude fed by the loaves and fishes think to write a letter informing a friend or relative? No one in the general audience at the sermon on the mount was moved to try and record the event?

stamenflicker

22nd April 2003, 08:52 PM

Hmmm...perhaps a terminology problem? I'm not aware of any document outside of the New Testament and the "rejected gospels" in which the author claims direct knowledge of Jesus. Do you any details on such documents?

No I meant that some of the evidence would counter the notion that the gospels themselves are indirect references to the historicity of Jesus.... i.e. second hand.

But the real issue is why does Jesus not directly appear in "non-christian" writings of the time. Didn't *any* of the multitude fed by the loaves and fishes think to write a letter informing a friend or relative? No one in the general audience at the sermon on the mount was moved to try and record the event?

Besides the current opinion that much of the Josephus narrative is authentic, there is no good explanation. The portions were Josephus seems to validate Jesus are clearly "corrections" to the orginial text. But it does appear that Josephus made reference to him, probably a negative one, hence the "correction."

The idea that a group of peasants had the skills to write anything down is a bit much to assume. Given the costs of associated with writing, I'd bet only a small fraction, even if they had the notion and the ability, would have been able to do it. As to the fishes and loaves, Jesus ended up ticking a bunch of them off later in the story. The gospel of John says, "many left him on that day." Regarding the sermon on mount, most of the evidence suggests that someone did in fact right it down, and it became the imfamous Q document that was incoportated into the gospels. I suppose the same could be said of the fish and loaves. There is no reason to assume it was not written down, incoportated into the "official" version of the gospel after which no further versions were needed. We wrongly assume that the ancient man needed a plethora of sources. He seems quite content with few sources as evidence by the massive expansion of the church; and next to zero sources as evidenced by the mission of Paul.

Flick

Loki

22nd April 2003, 09:33 PM

Flick,

No I meant that some of the evidence would counter the notion that the gospels themselves are indirect references to the historicity of Jesus.... i.e. second hand.
I've had a similar debate with PotatoStew in the past - I think the Gospels even if somehow proven to be historical first hand accounts need to be treated as "secondary evidence". Simply, because they are documents written by authors with a clear and unambiguous agenda. I don't believe that the Gospels, in any normal sense of the phrase, could be considered "unbiased". Of course, the counter argument is "well, what document (ancient or otherwise) *is* truly unbiased - don't all authors bring their bias to their writing?" True enough, but hopefully we can agree that "bias" is a scale, not a binary option, and I fail to see why we should accept that the Gospels authors would in any way seek to limit their biases.

Assume for a moment that Jesus, having distributed a meal of tuna sandwiches to the waiting crowd, then headed off to the pub after a hard day's work. While there, drinking a few lagers with the boys, a local lad makes a few disparaging remarks about Jesus' parentage - "You don't look much like your Dad you know - are you sure Mary wasn't keeping the straw warm in someone else's stable?". Jesus swears, staggers to his feet, and takes a few swings at the guy. Luke turns to Matthew, and whispers "Damn, he's lost it again. Lets leave this bit out of the Gospels..."

As to the fishes and loaves...
...
Regarding the sermon on mount,...
I think you realise that the tongue was in cheek for much of this!

The idea that a group of peasants had the skills to write anything down is a bit much to assume.
Agreed, but even thought I accept that most observers of Jesus' more public miracles would not have had either the ability or the inclination to put pen to paper (chisel to tablet?), it still seems unlikely that *no one* other than illiterate followers took any notice.

Regarding the sermon on mount, most of the evidence suggests that someone did in fact right it down,...
Or write down as best they good remember, or just make up some stuff that sounds pretty much like they wish he'd said. I must admit that I'm staggered that anyone actually believes that Jesus's words on the Mount are accurately recorded. Only godly intervention seems likely to solve that particular issue.

triadboy

22nd April 2003, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by LCBOY
When the name "JESUS CHRIST" is mentioned it always generates a mulititude of reaction. Many people try to disprove his existence or at least debate that it is possible that he didn't exist. I don't see as many people agruing over the existence of Alexander the Great, or Socrates, or Plato. Is there lots of evidence that these men ever lived?

I think the main point is - there were so many other characters who lived virtually the same life as Jesus - however hundreds or thousands of years before! (Mithra, Osiris, Dionysus, Attis, Serrapis, etc.) Jesus said nothing original. All of his miracles were performed by other God/Men centuries before. Isn't that strange to anyone?

neutrino_cannon

22nd April 2003, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by triadboy

I think the main point is - there were so many other characters who lived virtually the same life as Jesus - however hundreds or thousands of years before! (Mithra, Osiris, Dionysus, Attis, Serrapis, etc.) Jesus said nothing original. All of his miracles were performed by other God/Men centuries before. Isn't that strange to anyone?

And continue to be performed by "god men" today. And, no I don't find it the least bit strange, I find it however to be a poor reflection on human critical thinking skills.

ceo_esq

23rd April 2003, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by Loki

Agreed, but even thought I accept that most observers of Jesus' more public miracles would not have had either the ability or the inclination to put pen to paper (chisel to tablet?), it still seems unlikely that *no one* other than illiterate followers took any notice.
I agree it does seem unlikely. On the other hand, how many of your personal writings will be around 2,000 years from now? It was discussed in another thread how (excepting the discovery of a single stone tablet in recent decades) there is no historical mention of Pilate apart from Tacitus, Philo, Josephus and the New Testament - albeit that (1) he held an official position of regional importance for a number of years and (2) the Romans were highly literate and, by 1st-century standards, relatively obsessive about record-keeping. Pilate must have written, signed or been referred to in hundreds of contemporary official and unofficial documents. They simply didn't survive very long. And historians consider Pilate's existence to be relatively well-attested for a figure of his time!
Originally posted by Loki
I must admit that I'm staggered that anyone actually believes that Jesus's words on the Mount are accurately recorded. Only godly intervention seems likely to solve that particular issue. Didn't the Jesus Seminar conclude that about half of the Sermon on the Mount probably was recorded reasonably accurately?

stamenflicker

23rd April 2003, 04:37 AM

Simply, because they are documents written by authors with a clear and unambiguous agenda.

I suppose that's where the inconsistency is hiding. You've allowed for your own bias to enter the text from this side of history while denying the author's their own biases, or at least, you placed more value on your biases than those of the gospel authors.

Or write down as best they good remember, or just make up some stuff that sounds pretty much like they wish he'd said. I must admit that I'm staggered that anyone actually believes that Jesus's words on the Mount are accurately recorded. Only godly intervention seems likely to solve that particular issue.

There's an interesting work out there and I'll try to dig it up about an Aramaic version of the SOTM. This author was demonstrated how it could have easily appeared in spoken couplets so as to be easily remembered... probably a fella with too much time on his hands :)

Flick

Skeptical Greg

23rd April 2003, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by stamenflicker

You've allowed for your own bias to enter the text from this side of history while denying the author's their own biases, or at least, you placed more value on your biases than those of the gospel authors.

Flick

This is why there is a debate..;)

triadboy

23rd April 2003, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon

And continue to be performed by "god men" today. And, no I don't find it the least bit strange, I find it however to be a poor reflection on human critical thinking skills.

Yes, but is the cause of the poor critical thinking - ignorance or stupidity?

Skeptical Greg

23rd April 2003, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by triadboy

Yes, but is the cause of the poor critical thinking - ignorance or stupidity?

I think ' intellectual laziness ' might account for some of it..

Loki

23rd April 2003, 02:56 PM

ceo_esq,

It was discussed in another thread how (excepting the discovery of a single stone tablet in recent decades) there is no historical mention of Pilate apart from Tacitus, Philo, Josephus and the New Testament - albeit that (1) he held an official position of regional importance for a number of years and (2) the Romans were highly literate and, by 1st-century standards, relatively obsessive about record-keeping. Pilate must have written, signed or been referred to in hundreds of contemporary official and unofficial documents. They simply didn't survive very long.
Sheesh - always with the good points! Actually, it was almost a trick question - I've always thought that the destruction of the temple and the dispersal of the Jews provides a perfect backdrop for the loss of much historical information. Anyway, the conclusion I (currently) draw from the absense of such documentation about Jesus is that he probably didn't really have that much of an impact at the time - his fame came latter.

Didn't the Jesus Seminar conclude that about half of the Sermon on the Mount probably was recorded reasonably accurately?
I like the Jesus Seminar, and think that what they attempt is probably worth doing (if you've got a lot of free time on your hands). Still, if we were to accept their positon completely, we would conclude that 50% of the sermon is probably a fabrication of the gospel writers, and the remaining 50% is "reasonably" accurate. That's pretty much all I was gettting at - it seems exceedingly unreasonable to assume anything like 100% accuracy in the current gospel, short of divine intervention.

Loki

23rd April 2003, 03:03 PM

Flick,

You've allowed for your own bias to enter the text from this side of history while denying the author's their own biases, or at least, you placed more value on your biases than those of the gospel authors.
Perhaps. I guess I'm just trying to say that if we were to try and understand, 2000 years from now, who John Edward was and what he believed/did - and the *only* single solitary work we had was the book "Crossing Over", then it seems reasonable to treat this single work as "suspect" in terms of it's truth value, since the intent and bias of the author is obvious.

Lets try this from another angle - is there any particular Gospel verse that you feel shows some criticism, even slight, of Jesus?

JAR

23rd April 2003, 03:55 PM

I'm not religious, but I have to say that we do have historical evidence of Jesus. It's contained in four books called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. People exit prehistory when they are first written about. After that, they are referred to as historical. To say we have no historical evidence of Jesus is to say no-one has written about him.

Loki

23rd April 2003, 03:58 PM

JAR,

People exit prehistory when they are first written about. After that, they are referred to as historical.
The counterpoint is obvious - we have books written about James Bond and Sherlock Holmes. Both set in verifiable historical settings, and containing multiple references to other "verified" historical figures. Yet, these are obviously not real, historical people.

JAR

23rd April 2003, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Loki
JAR,

we have books written about James Bond and Sherlock Holmes. Both set in verifiable historical settings, and containing multiple references to other "verified" historical figures. Yet, these are obviously not real, historical people.

James Bond and Sherlock Holmes were never intended by their authors to be viewed as real people. Jesus was, just as Plutarch intended to portray a real person in his biography of Julius Caesar.

Loki

23rd April 2003, 04:39 PM

JAR

James Bond and Sherlock Holmes were never intended by their authors to be viewed as real people
Is it obvious from reading the book *alone* that James Bond is not real?

Is Achilles real in the Illiad? Did Homer intend for his work to be read as fiction, or history?

Dancing David

23rd April 2003, 05:11 PM

Unfortunately the one source for the proof of Jesus has been destroyed first by the Xians and then the Islam, the library at Alexandria.
I think that we would have to be very careful with any document written say even two hundred yeadrs after the event.
There is a book called Jesus the Magician which a friend of mine read, he told me that unfortunately there are very few contemporary accounts of Jesus.
The most telling idea I have heard is that cruxifiction was reserved for political criminals.
I am afriad that other religious leaders do have some contemporary accounts.
However myth or man what does it matter? It is the idea not the fact that is cool.

Peace
dancing david

PS the ossuary was found to be a fake, or at least part of the incription was.

Argo Nimbus

23rd April 2003, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by JAR
To say we have no historical evidence of Jesus is to say no-one has written about him.

Would you apply the same standard of evidence to the existence of ESP? That is, would you claim that to say we have no evidence of ESP is to say that no one has written about it? Or conversely, if someone writes about ESP, is that evidence that ESP exists?

--- Argo

davefoc

23rd April 2003, 06:35 PM

JAR said"

I'm not religious, but I have to say that we do have historical evidence of Jesus. It's contained in four books called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. People exit prehistory when they are first written about. After that, they are referred to as historical. To say we have no historical evidence of Jesus is to say no-one has written about him.

JAR,
I think you're making a semantic point here, which is probably valid. I think what you're saying is: regardless of whether there was a real person that served as the inspiration for the Biblical Jesus stories, there was a historical Jesus because people have written about him in a way intended to be non-fiction.

But I also think you're just confusing the issue. When people say "historical Jesus" they mean to refer to the person not the description of the person. So when the question is asked, did a historical Jesus exist what is meant is did the man exist.

Interestingly, some folks take a view which is contrary to yours and also is somewhat valid. That is, if the Biblical description of the life of Jesus is wrong in most substantive ways the historical Jesus did not exist even if a single individual that served as the inspiration for the stories did exist.

So to avoid semantic issues when I think about this I break it down into two questions:
1. Did a single man exist that was the inspiration for the Biblical stories which eventually evolved into the new testament?
2. Was the life of that man close enough to the Biblical description to reasonably call him the historical Jesus.

My answer to the first one, which is really just a guess, is yes.
My answer to the second one is yes also, but only because I don't think the Biblical representation needs to be all that close to refer to the actual man as the historical Jesus.

stamenflicker

23rd April 2003, 07:44 PM

John Edward was and what he believed/did - and the *only* single solitary work we had was the book "Crossing Over", then it seems reasonable to treat this single work as "suspect" in terms of it's truth value, since the intent and bias of the author is obvious.

That analogy can't apply in this situation. First, we have different mediums and a better understanding of written records, second I doubt seriously that we will have large numbers of people committing themselves to his writings; third, I doubt seriously that we will see 2000 years of historians investigating his claims. He just isn't that important. This figure named Jesus, fact or fiction, has demanded more from humanity and poor John Edwards can't hold a candle.

Flick

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

23rd April 2003, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Plus there is the assertion that he rose into heaven in front of dozens of witnesses after his resurection. Given the fact that the Romans were literate and very good record keepers one would think that if a criminal that they executed was walking around three days later and then flew up into the sky, more than one account would have been written about it

The Romans in the Palestinian province quite likely saw the emergence of several Messianic cults or movements. Jesus/Joshua would not be the 1st nor the last to be considered a Messiah.

Loki

23rd April 2003, 08:25 PM

Flick,

That analogy can't apply in this situation.
You'll be pleased to know that I agree that John Eward is not comparable to Jesus (yet?).

First, we have different mediums and a better understanding of written records, second I doubt seriously that we will have large numbers of people committing themselves to his writings; third, I doubt seriously that we will see 2000 years of historians investigating his claims.
So if I wish to make an analogy regarding the degree of 'bias' that might be present in the gospels then I need to find another 2000 year old book that has been investigated by historians for that entire time, and which has been embraced by large numbers of people? Hmm....

Look, you might be right that my bias is dominating my thinking. But I guess there are a few basic questions here.

1. Do you accept that, when writing historical documents, it is difficult for the author to achieve "true" objectivity?
2. Do you think an author of an historical document is obliged to "try" and achieve objectivity?
3. Is it "likely" that the gospel writers had a "conclusion" regarding Jesus that they were keen to propagate?

Really, I guess I'm asking "why would the gospel writers tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about Jesus"? Even if you wish to discount "deliberate fraud" from their writings, why do you discount "accidental fraud"?

Take 3 people - a fanatical Raiders fan, a fanatical Buccaneers fan, and a "neutral" observer. Play them a tape of a controversial play (referee's decision?), then ask the 3 of them to write down exactly what happens. Even if all three are being honest, do you actually expect to get 3 identical accounts? Aren't the chances very good that you'll get the two fanatical fans agreeing on some basic details, but having completely different interpretations of the event?

Doesn't this demonstrate the problem here - that when *you* interpret the bible, there's every chance that you are interpreting the gospel authors own interpretation of Jesus?

Finally, given the points made in previous posts (about lack of literacy in 33 AD, etc) shouldn't we conclude with some confidence that the gospel writers were, prior to writing the gospels, pretty damn commited to the cause - what else would drive then to spent the time and energy required?
This figure named Jesus, fact or fiction, has demanded more from humanity and poor John Edwards can't hold a candle
Unless JE fnally finds a way to back up his claims - then he might give Jesus a run for his money! (but I'm not holding my breath!)

stamenflicker

23rd April 2003, 09:05 PM

You'll be pleased to know that I agree that John Eward is not comparable to Jesus (yet?).

lol

Do you accept that, when writing historical documents, it is difficult for the author to achieve "true" objectivity?

Yes. I'd say its mostly impossible.

Do you think an author of an historical document is obliged to "try" and achieve objectivity?

I think to be considered as historical, sure.

Is it "likely" that the gospel writers had a "conclusion" regarding Jesus that they were keen to propagate?

I think it is possible to draw such a conclusion, but one has to assume first that relating their personal experiences was a secondary objective. I think we could accuse Paul of this more than the largely narrative passages of crucifixion, sermon on the mount, et. al. You argument is most valid in the early additions to the text, such as the birth narratives; and the later ones, including the resurrection.

Really, I guess I'm asking "why would the gospel writers tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about Jesus"?

That's really the question I suppose. It rightfully can go either way, as it can for most any historical document, especially anyone wanting to ride the magic carpet of Josephus. Philo is an enigma to me and I have no good explanation as to his silence. I think it is human nature to see what you want to see, both in a person, and in a document-- hence, I typically don't spend too much time here. I tend to ask who is Jesus to me, and that will always take precendence over who he may or may not have been to those around him, those who came after him, or to most anyone else.

Aren't the chances very good that you'll get the two fanatical fans agreeing on some basic details, but having completely different interpretations of the event?

Yes. But no one is denying that a game hasn't been played at all, which is mostly what the argument boils down to for so many atheists as eluded to in the first thread.

Doesn't this demonstrate the problem here - that when *you* interpret the bible, there's every chance that you are interpreting the gospel authors own interpretation of Jesus?

Sure it does. But doesn't that same scrutiny apply to Josephus and other early writers? Josephus was known to hate revolutionaries and was supposed to be a devoute Jew. Not to mention he was employed by Roman coin. Why would we trust his report any more or less than over 5,000 scraps of the N.T.?

Finally, given the points made in previous posts (about lack of literacy in 33 AD, etc) shouldn't we conclude with some confidence that the gospel writers were, prior to writing the gospels, pretty damn commited to the cause - what else would drive then to spent the time and energy required?

Yes it does. And that passion and intensity push me toward accuracy, not away from it. Especially given the consequences of their commitment... i.e. death and persecution.

Flick

Loki

23rd April 2003, 10:23 PM

Flick,

But no one is denying that a game hasn't been played at all...
And neither do I - something definitely happen back then!

But doesn't that same scrutiny apply to Josephus and other early writers? Josephus was known to hate revolutionaries and was supposed to be a devoute Jew. Not to mention he was employed by Roman coin. Why would we trust his report any more or less than over 5,000 scraps of the N.T.?
But it's not a case of trusting one ore than the other - they are different beasts.

We have multiple levels of possible documentation :

Level 1 - Writings by the man in question. For Jesus, there are none (a rather large question mark in itself I would have thought, but perhaps a topic for another day)
Level 2 - Writings by others who claim personal knowledge. For Jesus, this is the gospels.
Level 3 - Writings by people who claim to have known someone who knew the man. For Jesus, there are none of these?
Level 4 - Writings by people who are reporting what they've been told. For Jesus, this would be Josephus.

And that passion and intensity push me toward accuracy, not away from it.
Well, this is probably the point at which our personal biases come into play. I find it far more likely that "passion and intensity" will lead to *more* filtering of the information, and a greater tendency to "fudge" the details in order to achieve a clearer conclusion. This seems, to me, to be a widespread human trait - I guess I just lack your faith that the gospel writers were able to rise above the "trap" that so many other historians fall into.

Gregor

24th April 2003, 06:02 AM

As to the lack of documentation from ancients. . .

While I agree that we don't have reams of documents from 100 BCE to 100 CE, I think what we do have is interesting, and it is not inconsistent with similar historical periods. For example, of the 50+ noted philosophers from ancient Greece (400 BCE to 100 BCE) who wrote hundreds of books, we've got copies of what, 5? and that was thanks to the Arab scholars who kept them through the dark ages.

From Jesus' time we do have:

1. Ancient Jewish philosophical writings from 100 BCE like the book of Enoch, the 4 books of the Maccabees, and __(drawing a blank, here)__. This final book (the name escapes) pre-dated "Jesus" and contains many of the original sayings that found their way into the gospels (e.g. love your neighbor and your god). etc. It also had its own eschatology.

2. Ancient Jewish philosophical writings from post crucifixion like the dead sea scrolls. Several post-date Jesus' ministry but make no mention of him.

3. Ancient historical writings (Josephus, Philo) who make either no (Philo) or vague, if any (Joe) allusions to Jesus.

4. Paulian letters and the plagarized gospels, gospel of Thomas, other apocrypha.

I think these are more consistent with the conclusion that (i) the philosophy of redemption, brotherly love, and judgment pre-dated Jesus, (ii) Jesus was one of many minor evangelists at the time who did nothing out of the ordinary for the time, and (iii) inflation of his role by those acting 100+ years after his death.

rikzilla

24th April 2003, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by Shroud of Akron
please provide it for me. i am not being sarcastic, i just have never seen any evidence that was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

This may be a fun topic,..but don't kid yourself. What you are doing is intellectual masturbation. ;)

There is no importance to this question. Whether Jesus existed or not is beside the point. What you are talking about here is religion. Religion is based on faith, not proof.

Therefore, whatever conclusion you guys may reach about the historical accuracy of Jesus will mean less than nothing. Did the Catholics remove the "Shroud of Turin" after it was scientifically proved a middle ages era fake? Nope...it is still enshrined. Their "faith" is stronger than science. The fossil record? Obviously placed there by Satan to ensnare the unbelievers!

Give it up guys....faith is immune to even the most solid of evidence. And evidence for (or against) the historical reality of Jesus is pretty flimsy stuff.

-zilla

Mike B.

24th April 2003, 08:28 PM

I have read a huge amount on this since I went on this forum. A few points:

I am sorry to say I have yet to find a major secular historian to push for the theory that there was no historical Jesus. The books that say this are put out by Humanist Presses often.

There are a number of non-xian historians of the period that have written on the historical Jesus. Paula Fredrickson's book: "Jesus of Nazarteth: King of the Jews" is to me one of the best recreations of the material.

Without getting into Josephus or Tacitus,(I think under normal historical circumstances for anyone else, his entry would be prime facie evidence for a historical person.) I think there is enough in the genuine Pauline letters to let me conclude there is a historical Jesus.
(Gal 4:4 - God sent his son: Born of a woman, born under the law)
(I Cor. 9:14 - Just as the Lord preached those who preach by the Gospel should live by it.)

Among others...

Also in Paul he speaks of going to meet James, the Lord's brother and Cephas (Peter). It would be odd if there was no historical Jesus and he was on a level of Sherlock Holmes that his Watson (Peter) would be real and his brother Mycroft (James) is real...;)

And plus Paul supposedly converted 3 years or so after the death of Christ. His genuine letters are not 100s of years later, but within a 20 years or so.

And I would point out that the objection that the gospels were written 40-70 years after Jesus's death pales because the first biography we have of Alexander the Great comes 300 years later...It is just the way it goes with antiquity.

Of course believing in a historical Jesus is not the same as being an Xian...:p

triadboy

24th April 2003, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by JAR
I'm not religious, but I have to say that we do have historical evidence of Jesus. It's contained in four books called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. People exit prehistory when they are first written about. After that, they are referred to as historical. To say we have no historical evidence of Jesus is to say no-one has written about him.

Using that reasoning, we have historical evidence of Mithra, but he is not an historical figure. He is a mythological figure.

Which, again is what all my research leads me to - Jesus is a mythological figure overlayed onto an insignificant sage.

The virgin birth, water to wine, reviving the dead, resurrecting, etc. are all standard mythological fare. Celsus used to ridicule Christians because they stole their story from the standard mythologies present at that time - BUT THEN BELIEVED THEM TO BE TRUE!

I believe only Luke refers to the Sermon on the Mount. If this was such a keystone of the Christian faith, why did Matthew/Mark/John forget to mention it?

I believe the truest representation we have of the sage "Jesus" is the Gospel of Thomas. A list of sayings without the drama. Yes, it is a Gnostic text, but I believe Christianity rose out of the Gnosticism that Paul created.

JAR

2nd June 2004, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Shroud of Akron
historical proof that jesus existed

please provide it for me. i am not being sarcastic, i just have never seen any evidence that was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
It amazes me that people would question the existence of Jesus when we have writings mentioning him written by people who knew him.

Jesus' disciples Matthew and John both wrote a biography about him. His disciple Peter started his epistle, 1 Peter, with "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ", and started 2 Peter with "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ."

Pixel42

2nd June 2004, 11:58 PM

A few years ago my newspaper (the UK Guardian) reported a poll which showed that 40% of the British people believe that Sherlock Holmes was an historical figure. This is less than a century after his creator's death, and in a society where almost everyone can read, and can go into any public library and find a book of stories about him in the fiction section with "By Arthur Conan Doyle" clearly printed on it.

Make of that what you will. :)

The Fool

3rd June 2004, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by JAR

It amazes me that people would question the existence of Jesus when we have writings mentioning him written by people who knew him.

Jesus' disciples Matthew and John both wrote a biography about him. His disciple Peter started his epistle, 1 Peter, with "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ", and started 2 Peter with "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ."
round and round we go.... Matthew and John? Did they exist? or where they just arbitrary names attached to various gospels? Was Matthew actually written by a guy called matthew? who knows...... You basically cannot find a person, who's existence is fact, who can say "I met Jesus"..not one...nil...nada...zipporoonie.

Pixel42

3rd June 2004, 06:17 AM

It's just occurred to me that Sherlock Holmes meets JAR's criterion for proof of historical existence, since all the books about him are written in the first person by someone who knew him well - his good friend Dr. Watson.

JAR

3rd June 2004, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
round and round we go.... Matthew and John? Did they exist? or where they just arbitrary names attached to various gospels? Was Matthew actually written by a guy called matthew? who knows...... You basically cannot find a person, who's existence is fact, who can say "I met Jesus"..not one...nil...nada...zipporoonie.
John certainly did exist. Paul actually met him. In Paul's epistle to the Galatians, Paul said in 2:9, "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me."

Kitty Chan

3rd June 2004, 06:34 PM

Just a question, no one seems to have brought up that is was not advantageous for any of Jesus followers to proclaim a faith in Him.

You could say the doomsdays cults follow their leaders but they generally stay together and dont go out to the "world" because their followers thinking could be changed.

Not so with Christs followers, they are not confined to stay with their "own". (with some obvious exceptions ie Hutterites, Amish)

So, other than a sensational answer why would so many stay so long if there wasnt at least a person of Christ? It would have fallen apart years ago.

And also if Ive read what everyone said correctly people are looking for outside the Bible mention of Christ. Religions like Islam seem to mention Him as a great teacher for one.

jaderook01

3rd June 2004, 06:36 PM

Shroud of Akron,

From an apologetics point of view, the best I've seen is in a book by Lee Strobel called The Case For Christ.

triadboy

3rd June 2004, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
You could say the doomsdays cults follow their leaders but they generally stay together and dont go out to the "world" because their followers thinking could be changed.
Not so with Christs followers, they are not confined to stay with their "own". (with some obvious exceptions ie Hutterites, Amish)

So, other than a sensational answer why would so many stay so long if there wasnt at least a person of Christ? It would have fallen apart years ago.

Human nature. People want to believe.

And also if Ive read what everyone said correctly people are looking for outside the Bible mention of Christ. Religions like Islam seem to mention Him as a great teacher for one.

We don't have a solid, non-biblical, contemporary reference to him. (The Book of Mormon mentions him too.)

One would think one of the historians - writing at that time - in that area - would have written something about a sage causing such a commotion.

JAR

3rd June 2004, 08:16 PM

triadboy

3rd June 2004, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
You could say the doomsdays cults follow their leaders but they generally stay together and dont go out to the "world" because their followers thinking could be changed.

Not so with Christs followers, they are not confined to stay with their "own". (with some obvious exceptions ie Hutterites, Amish)

If Jesus was living now and had followers, they may act the same way as any other doomsday cult. But to answer your question - Xians are supposed to evangelize - so they must go out into the world. It is their 'job' to convert heathens - just ask the Aztecs.

So, other than a sensational answer why would so many stay so long if there wasnt at least a person of Christ? It would have fallen apart years ago.

Plato mentioned a place called Atlantis. There are people living today who believe it existed.

triadboy

3rd June 2004, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by JAR

There is no law of science that says non-Christians contemporary with Jesus would mention Jesus if he existed. You're argument has indirect evidence that he didn't exist, but no hard indirect evidence. You're argument for Jesus' non-existence is speculation.

However, the web of lies is an indicator that the story is very suspect. For instance, take the Slaughter of the Innocents - this is standard mythological fare. It 'happened' to Moses. It even happened to my relatives - but that is another story.

Matthew 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

This is a lie. Herod did not do this. Why? Because there is not a non-biblical reference to this event. One would think someone would have written about all children two and under being killed. Josephus - who hated Herod and mentioned every evil thing he ever did - knows nothing of this story.

So here we have an event - mentioned in the Bible - not mentioned anywhere else - that is a lie.

Now we have Jesus - raising the dead, walking on water, feeding multitudes, changing water to wine, creating havoc wherever he went - and no one mentions this?!

I think the mythology contained in his story, came to be believed as history...but it isn't.

JAR

3rd June 2004, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by triadboy
However, the web of lies is an indicator that the story is very suspect. For instance, take the Slaughter of the Innocents - this is standard mythological fare. It 'happened' to Moses. It even happened to my relatives - but that is another story.

This is a lie. Herod did not do this. Why? Because there is not a non-biblical reference to this event. One would think someone would have written about all children two and under being killed. Josephus - who hated Herod and mentioned every evil thing he ever did - knows nothing of this story.

So here we have an event - mentioned in the Bible - not mentioned anywhere else - that is a lie.

Now we have Jesus - raising the dead, walking on water, feeding multitudes, changing water to wine, creating havoc wherever he went - and no one mentions this?!

I think the mythology contained in his story, came to be believed as history...but it isn't.
I don't doubt that the miracles and the slaughter of innocents didn't occur, but that Jesus didn't exist, that I do doubt. Once again I tell you that there is no scientific law that says a lack of mentions of Christ by contemporary non-Christians indicates that Christ did not exist.

The evidence for Christ's existence is overwhelming. We have two biographies about him by two of his disciples, we have a biography about him by Mark who knew his disciple Peter, we have the letter to the Galatians by Paul mentioning more than once meetings between Paul and one or more of Christ's disciples, we have a letter called "James" and the most likely candidate for authorship is considered to be James the brother of Jesus, we have two letters by his disciple Peter, three letters by his disciple John, and a book of prophecy called "Revelations" by the same disciple John, so it is very obvious Jesus existed.

Kitty Chan

3rd June 2004, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by triadboy

Human nature. People want to believe.

[b]

We don't have a solid, non-biblical, contemporary reference to him. (The Book of Mormon mentions him too.)

One would think one of the historians - writing at that time - in that area - would have written something about a sage causing such a commotion.

the question was, no one seems to have brought up that is was not advantageous for any of Jesus followers to proclaim a faith in Him.

Your response to the afterthought of cults that people wanting to believe does not quite work with this question. However, a question for you to consider or others is Why do people want to believe, or search or however you want to call it.

I mentioned Islam because its older than Joesph Smiths writings and from the same side of the world.

I believe if you check earlier in this thread someone mentioned other non biblical types, you can check it out.

JAR

4th June 2004, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by triadboy
We don't have a solid, non-biblical, contemporary reference to him. (The Book of Mormon mentions him too.)

One would think one of the historians - writing at that time - in that area - would have written something about a sage causing such a commotion.
There are solid, non-biblical, contemporary references to Christ.

Josephus wrote a book which appeared either in AD 93 or AD 94 called "The Jewish Antiquities", and in 18.3.63-64 it says:
(63) Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. (64) And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.
In 20.9.200 it mentions both Jesus and his brother James:
(200) when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity to exercise his authority. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin 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:
Tacitus, who died either in AD 116 or after that date, wrote a series of books called "Annals", and in 15.44, it says concerning the fire that swept Rome in AD 64 during the reign of Nero:
But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. 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, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
Nero offered his garderns for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

Doctor X

4th June 2004, 02:51 AM

Wanders out onto the battlements. . . .

The disciples did not write the NT texts. The "names" of the authors were assigned centuries later. We keep them for convenience.

Besides, one would think "witnesses" would not screw up birthdates by ten years or confuse a Judas who hangs himself with a Judas who spontaneously explodes!

They also would not screw up historical and geographical details.

This is understandable given the lateness of the texts--Mk being the earliest extant text dating no earlier than 70 CE--and the polemical nature of the texts. For one, the apostles are portrayed as fools. Much of the lesson is arguing against someone else.

There is no historical evidence of a historical Junior. Interestingly, Schweitzer rather came to this conclusion about a century ago.

However, that does not mean "some figure" did not exist. As one scholar quipped, "All you need for a founding figure is a name ad a place."

The problem is that we can say nothing about him. The individual scholars of the Jesus Seminar simply argue for the figure they like and pretend it is scientific.

However, however, one piece of evidence exists--and it is not the ossary stored on a toilet. . . .

Paul hated the Jerusalem Group. His Mein Kampf is Galatians in which he gives his version of his disagreement with them. He refers to James as "the brother of the Lord."

So . . . if Junior had a brother. . . .

That is not definitive because, as some scholars have argued, this is not a specific title. However, they do not explain why, in the legitimate Pauline letters, he does not refer to others in this way.

Still . . . if that is "proof" we are still left with absolutely nothing definitive as to what he said or did.

. . . retires to his wine.

--J.D.

Peter Soderqvist

4th June 2004, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by Kitty Chan

the question was, no one seems to have brought up that is was not advantageous for any of Jesus followers to proclaim a faith in Him.

Your response to the afterthought of cults that people wanting to believe does not quite work with this question. However, a question for you to consider or others is Why do people want to believe, or search or however you want to call it.

I mentioned Islam because its older than Joesph Smiths writings and from the same side of the world.

I believe if you check earlier in this thread someone mentioned other non biblical types, you can check it out.

Soderqvist1: Isn't eternal life in the heaven, or paradise advantageous?
There is no mentioning in the bible about Islam, because they are not contemporary, the time difference is 500 years! We can turn the question around and ask; why do people from various cultures from our history come up with different scriptures (non-compatible since all of them cannot be the inerrant word of god), if spiritual longings have merit when it comes to evidence? Josephus is born in Ad 37 and is not contemporary with Jesus! Jesus is myth just as Krishna, Shiva etc is in Hinduism the world's oldest religion! Old fairy tales or new ones like Harry Potter's movies are not authentic! Nor is the World of Conan Doyle; where Sherlock Holmes, Dr Watson, and Professor Moriarty are talking about each other! You simply need independent humans from 1870 in the case of Holmes, and people from 0 – 30 AD correlated and consistent! But there is no such thing, therefore; god has not made us in his image, but we have made various gods in our imaginations, and thus Longings is no good alarm clock in our collective daydream! :D

Iacchus

4th June 2004, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by Shroud of Akron

please provide it for me. i am not being sarcastic, i just have never seen any evidence that was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is much to be gained on holding the molopoly on truth, whether it happens to be true or not. So in that sense you just can't take anybody's word for it. Of course if there is a God, and He's the one in control, then it's pretty much up to Him to reveal Himself to us in whatever way He deems fit. Meaning, He's calling the shots. Indeed, if He's the personal God He's claimed to be, why shouldn't we expect to find Him operating through human agency? ... meaning us. In which case I wouldn't dismiss such a notion entirely.

As for being able to ascertain whether there was a historical Jesus or not? Maybe that's not as important as having an open mind about God and being able to ascertain this for ourselves? Afterall, isn't this what Jesus preached, the kingdom of God? If so, then we should be able to approach this God by following His words shouldn't we? Which is, afterall, the ultimate test don't you think?

triadboy

4th June 2004, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by JAR

There are solid, non-biblical, contemporary references to Christ.

Josephus wrote a book which appeared either in AD 93 or AD 94 called "The Jewish Antiquities", and in 18.3.63-64 it says:

I don't buy the Josephus reference. Here are the reasons.

The paragraph is absent from early copies of the works of Josephus. For example, it does not appear in Origen's second-century version of Josephus, contained in Origen Contra Celsum where Origen fiercely defended Christianity against the heretical views of Celsus. Origen quoted freely from Josephus to prove his points, but never once used this paragraph, which would have been the ultimate ace up his sleeve.

In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine. Bishop Eusebius, a close ally of emperor Constantine, was instrumental in crystallizing and defining the version of Christianity which was to become orthodox, and he is the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus. Eusebius said that it was permissible for Christians to tell lies if it furthered the kingdom of God. The fact that the Josephus-Jesus paragraph shows up at this time of history, at a time when interpolations and revisions were quite common, makes the passage quite dubious. Many scholars beheve that Eusebius was the forger.

The passage is out of context. In Book 18, which contains the paragraph about Jesus, Josephus starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 AD, talks about various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes, and a sect of Judas the Galilean. He discusses Herod's building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on. Chapter 3 starts with a sedition against Pilate who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem, and the Jews protested. Pilate sent spies into the Jewish ranks with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre.

Then comes the paragraph about Jesus, and immediately after it, Josephus continues: "And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews . . ." Josephus, an orthodox Jew, would not have thought the Christian story to be "another terrible misfortune." It is only a Christian (someone like Eusebius) who would have considered this to be a Jewish tragedy. Paragraph 3 can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter. It flows better without it.

Josephus would not have called Jesus "the Christ" or "the truth." Whoever wrote these phrases was a Christian. Josephus was a messianic Jew and never converted to Christianity. Origen reported that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."

The phrase "to this day" shows that this is a later interpolation. There was no "tribe of Christians" during Josephus's time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

Josephus appears not to know anything else about Jesus outside of this tiny paragraph and a reference to James, the "brother of Jesus" (see below). He is silent about the miracles of Jesus, although he reports the antics of other prophets in great detail. He adds nothing to the Gospel narratives, and says nothing that would not have been known by Christians already, whether in the first or fourth century. In all of Josephus's voluminous works, there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere outside of this tiny paragraph. He relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus. He lists the activities of many other self-proclaimed Messiahs, including Judas ofGalilee, Theudas the magician, and the Egyptian Jew Messiah, but is mute about the life of one whom he claims is the answer to his messianic hopes.

The paragraph mentions that the life of Jesus was foretold by the divine prophets, but Josephus neglects to mention who these prophets were or what they said. In no other place does Josephus connect any Hebrew prediction with the life of Jesus. If Jesus truly had been the fulfillment of divine prophecy, Josephus would have been the one learned enough to confirm it. The hyperbolic language is uncharacteristic of a careful historian: " . . . as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him . . ." This sounds more like the stuff of sectarian propaganda.

Christians should be careful when they refer to Josephus as historical confirmation for Jesus. It turns around and bites them. If we remove the forged paragraph, the works of Josephus become evidence against historicity. If the life of Jesus was historical, why did Josephus know nothing of it?

There is one other passage in the Antiquities that mentions Jesus. It is in Book XX, Chapter 9:

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was put upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, (or some of his companions). And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned . . ." (Whiston's translation)

This is flimsy, and even Christian scholars widely consider this to be a doctored text. The stoning of James is not mentioned in Acts. Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian, in 170 AD wrote a history of the church saying that James the brother of Jesus was killed in a riot, not by sentence of a court, and Clement confirms this (quoted by Eusebius). Most scholars agree that Josephus is referring to another James here, possibly the same one that Paul mentions in Acts, who led a sect in Jerusalem. Instead of strengthening Christianity, this "brother of Jesus" interpolation contradicts history. Again, if Josephus truly thought Jesus was "the Christ," he would have added more about him than a casual aside in someone else's story.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/j_myth.htm#h2_2

When you see Bishop Eusebias is involved - take heed. (Isn't he also the first one to quote the added text in Mark?)

triadboy

4th June 2004, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by JAR
Tacitus, who died either in AD 116 or after that date, wrote a series of books called "Annals", and in 15.44, it says concerning the fire that swept Rome in AD 64 during the reign of Nero:

I don't buy it.

Sometime after 117 AD, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote in his Annals (Book 15, chapter 44): "Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race."

In this passage, Tacitus depicts early Christians as "hated for their crimes" and associated with "depravity and filth," not a flattering picture. But even if it is valid, it tells us nothing about Jesus of Nazareth. Tacitus claims no first-hand knowledge of Christianity. He is merely repeating the then common ideas about Christians. (A modern parallel would be someone reporting that Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni, which would hardly make it historical proof, even though it is as close as a century away.) There is no other historical confirmation that Nero persecuted Christians. Nero did persecute Jews, and perhaps Tacitus was confused about this. There certainly was not a "great crowd" of Christians in Rome around 60 AD, and the term "Christian" was not in use in the first century. Tacitus is either doctoring history from a distance or repeating a myth without checking his facts. Historians generally agree that Nero did not burn Rome, so Tacitus is in error to suggest that he would have needed a scapegoat in the first place. No one in the second century ever quoted this passage of Tacitus, and in fact it appears almost word-for-word in the writings of someone else, Sulpicius Severus, in the fourth century, where it is mixed in with other myths. The passage is therefore highly suspect and adds virtually no evidence for a historic Jesus.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/j_myth.htm

ceo_esq

4th June 2004, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by triadboy

I don't buy the Josephus reference. Here are the reasons. I hate to point this out, but this is another source without expert credentials. Dan Barker apparently has just a bachelor's degree (in "Religion") and is not affiliated, as far as I can tell, with any university, research institution or professional historical association.

This wouldn't be so bad, actually (after all, a reasonably smart layman is at least capable of surveying the expert literature), if Barker's essay had loads of footnotes or other references to more established authorities. But it doesn't; it makes a lot of factual and interpretive assertions that we are encouraged to accept without authoritative support.

Also, although there is a decent-sized bibliography at the very end, it curiously omits the biggest names in the field of Josephus studies (like Louis Feldman or John Meier, or even older luminaries such as Thackeray). Plus, it looks as though the average age of the works on the bibliography is around 40 years - partly the result of being a bit overloaded with very early 20th-century works from when the "Jesus myth" thesis was briefly faddish. None of this inspires confidence that Barker's observations or conclusions are based on the best or most reliable research available.

triadboy

4th June 2004, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I hate to point this out, but this is another source without expert credentials.

Understood - but this site incapsulated the observations I've read elsewhere.

ceo_esq

4th June 2004, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by triadboy

Understood - but this site incapsulated the observations I've read elsewhere. I'd still like to know where though, even if the source isn't online.

JAR

4th June 2004, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Doctor X
The disciples did not write the NT texts. The "names" of the authors were assigned centuries later. We keep them for convenience.
For at least Matthew and Mark I can say that that is not true. We have fragments from Papias writings contained in the writings of Eusebius. According to this page: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm Papias' writings were written sometime between AD 115 and AD 140. In the sixth part of the fragments Papias says(from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html:
And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.
In there you can see that Papias speaks about both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark as being written by Matthew and Mark.
Originally posted by Doctor X
Besides, one would think "witnesses" would not screw up birthdates by ten years or confuse a Judas who hangs himself with a Judas who spontaneously explodes!
Being that it was Luke who said that Judas exploded, perhaps Luke was lying when he said he was a witness. Luke was not one of the original twelve disciples but Matthew was and it was Matthew that said Judas hung himself.

JAR

4th June 2004, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by triadboy
the term "Christian" was not in use in the first century.
The term "Christian" was in use in the first century.

Jesus' disciple Peter wrote in his first epistle, which was written in the early AD 60s,:
However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.
The earliest date that Acts is thought to be possibly written in is AD 61. In Acts 11:26 it says:
The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

triadboy

4th June 2004, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by JAR

For at least Matthew and Mark I can say that that is not true. We have fragments from Papias writings contained in the writings of Eusebius.

Nice use of the word "fragments".

What we have is Papias claiming Peter told Mark the Presbyter - which is ALL run through the Eusebius filter.

Doctor X

4th June 2004, 01:00 PM

JAR:

In there you can see that Papias speaks about both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark as being written by Matthew and Mark.

Which in no way indicates they were. That Mt uses Mk as a source further undermines the categorization of either as a witness.

Being that it was Luke who said that Judas exploded, perhaps Luke was lying when he said he was a witness.

Save that Lk states he was not a witness. . . .

. . . but Matthew was and it was Matthew that said Judas hung himself.

The author of Mt was not a witness.

--J.D.

triadboy

4th June 2004, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by JAR

Jesus' disciple Peter wrote in his first epistle, which was written in the early AD 60s,:

90-110 AD

The earliest date that Acts is thought to be possibly written in is AD 61.

80-130 AD

JAR

4th June 2004, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by triadboy
90-110 AD
80-130 AD
You're dates are speculations, and even if they were correct, they would not debunk my claim that the word "Christian" was in use in the first century AD. My argument still holds.

The claims you presented that Tacitus didn't refer to Christ and the Christians and that Josephus didn't refer to Jesus are all speculations.

JAR

4th June 2004, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by triadboy
Nice use of the word "fragments".

What we have is Papias claiming Peter told Mark the Presbyter - which is ALL run through the Eusebius filter.
You have no hard evidence that Papias didn't write those things.

JAR

4th June 2004, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Doctor X
Which in no way indicates they were. That Mt uses Mk as a source further undermines the categorization of either as a witness.
You still lack hard evidence that Matthew did not know Jesus.
Originally posted by Doctor X
Save that Lk states he was not a witness. . . .
This doesn't debunk Jesus' existence.
Originally posted by Doctor X
The author of Mt was not a witness.
The fact that Matthew didn't witness the death of Judas does not debunk the existence of Jesus.

Doctor X

4th June 2004, 01:46 PM

JAR:

Sorry, but his dates are not speculations.

Whilst this may seem like I am waving about sufficient strawmen to constitute a major fire hazard, your objection is similar to this:

Newton: Einstein shows equivalency between mass and energy.

Moi: That is just speculation.

Now, to "prove" me wrong, Newton has to dump more than a year's worth of college physics on me. If he has better things to do . . . like have a life . . . he probably will not bother to which I start dancing, "you cannot show evidence! You cannot show evidence!"

Thus is it with Biblical Scholarship [Cue Thunderclap.--Ed.]

There are a number of great references to begin exploring issues such as the dates of authorship. I, and I am sure others, will be more than happy to provide them if you are interested. Otherwise, you are trying to fight against over 200 years of scholarship.

Note well that this is not Evil Atheist Scholarship [Tm.--Ed.]. Religious scholars have come to accept this--non-witness authorship of the texts, late dates for the texts, et cetera.

In that case, I would suggest you provide the evidence to support such early dates for the texts and the authorship. You may then submit it to the peer-reviewed literature.

Ah . . . I see you post as I post . . . let me edit in a reply:

You still lack hard evidence that Matthew did not know Jesus.

See above. References on the Synoptic problem available. That Mt refers to unhistorical events rather undercuts his veracity. That he alters the text of Mk further undercuts his veracity. That he denigrates the disciples--which you feel he is--further undercuts your speculation. Et cetera.

Moi:Save that Lk states he was not a witness. . . .

JAR: This doesn't debunk Jesus' existence.

On the contrary, my quote was not intended to debunk the existence of a historical Junior. It was to demonstrate your error in reading Lk-Acts.

Same with your further quote. I would suggest you address what a poster argues rather than what you think he argues.

--J.D.

[Edited to respond to post.--Ed.]

JAR

4th June 2004, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Doctor X
There are a number of great references to begin exploring issues such as the dates of authorship. I, and I am sure others, will be more than happy to provide them if you are interested. Otherwise, you are trying to fight against over 200 years of scholarship.
I'd be happy to see these references as long as they are mainstream references from trustworthy scholars.
Originally posted by Doctor X
Note well that this is not Evil Atheist Scholarship [Tm.--Ed.]. Religious scholars have come to accept this--non-witness authorship of the texts, late dates for the texts, et cetera.
Not all religious scholars have come to accept this.
Originally posted by Doctor X
In that case, I would suggest you provide the evidence to support such early dates for the texts and the authorship. You may then submit it to the peer-reviewed literature.
I got my dates from "The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary", "The NIV Study Bible", and off of the Catholic Encyclopedia off the internet. I'm not an expert, I just get my dates from the writings of other people who are experts. The stuff I saw written up above in the articles Triadboy posted about Josephus and Tacitus saying that they didn't actually mention Christians and Christ is stuff I have never seen written in a book by a prominent mainstream reliable scholar, so I assume that the stuff in the articles was speculations that didn't give me the whole story.
Originally posted by Doctor X
See above. References on the Synoptic problem available. That Mt refers to unhistorical events rather undercuts his veracity. That he alters the text of Mk further undercuts his veracity. That he denigrates the disciples--which you feel he is--further undercuts your speculation. Et cetera.
The fact that Matthew's Gospel is historically inaccurate, that he relied partly on Mark's Gospel for his own gospel, that he denigrates the disciples, does not prove that he didn't write the Gospel of Matthew.

Doctor X

4th June 2004, 02:50 PM

JAR:

I'd be happy to see these references as long as they are mainstream references from trustworthy scholars.

They will be. Give me a day to troll the library--I am "at the office."

Not all religious scholars have come to accept this.

The non-apologetic actual scholars have.

I got my dates from "The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary", "The NIV Study Bible", and off of the Catholic Encyclopedia off the internet.

Eeeeee . . . not the best since they have a bias . . . understandable, of course.

I'm not an expert, I just get my dates from the writings of other people who are experts. The stuff I saw written up above in the articles Triadboy posted about Josephus and Tacitus saying that they didn't actually mention Christians and Christ is stuff I have never seen written in a book by a prominent mainstream reliable scholar, so I assume that the stuff in the articles was speculations that didn't give me the whole story.

Actually, they have been. One of them is in a reference I will give you--the Josephus and Tacitus specifically.

The problem is this stuff is a "mine-field" when you get started out. For example, walk in to most major book stores and try to find a credible scholarly work--you find Strobel all over the place. Why? Because it is "popular" just as Sylvia Brown's crap is "popular." Of course, the devestating refutation of Strobel is not popular.

The other problem is the lack of evidence. For example, return to my citation of Galatians above. Does that mean a historical James the Brother to Junior existed?

Well . . . who knows?! I think it is consistent and I think those who argue against it--"brother of the Lord" being a "generic" term --have not proven that. Unfortunately, there is no hard evidence proving one or the other.

In a way, the historical Junior is a separate issue from religion. Of course if NO ONE existed and it was all made up--well, that undercuts faith, but then does one need such to behave the way they do? Does one need historical certainty in order to be nice?

IF someone existed--the figure of the texts--which contradict one another--may have NO RELEVANCE to this historical figure--much like Shakespeare's Richard III to the real Richard III.

This is the strongest argument of the "mythicists" who argue that the figure of Junior is taken from other myths--they have a strong case, incidentally.

The fact that Matthew's Gospel is historically inaccurate, that he relied partly on Mark's Gospel for his own gospel, that he denigrates the disciples, does not prove that he didn't write the Gospel of Matthew.

Actually it rather does--if you want "Matthew" to be a historical direct witness.

Anyways, more later--I will construct a "list" off-line.

--J.D.

Kitty Chan

4th June 2004, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist

Soderqvist1: Isn't eternal life in the heaven, or paradise advantageous?
There is no mentioning in the bible about Islam, because they are not contemporary, the time difference is 500 years! We can turn the question around and ask; why do people from various cultures from our history come up with different scriptures (non-Scompatible since all of them cannot be the inerrant word of god), if spiritual longings have merit when it comes to evidence? Josephus is born in Ad 37 and is not contemporary with Jesus! Jesus is myth just as Krishna, Shiva etc is in Hinduism the world's oldest religion! Old fairy tales or new ones like Harry Potter's movies are not authentic! Nor is the World of Conan Doyle; where Sherlock Holmes, Dr Watson, and Professor Moriarty are talking about each other! You simply need independent humans from 1870 in the case of Holmes, and people from 0 – 30 AD correlated and consistent! But there is no such thing, therefore; god has not made us in his image, but we have made various gods in our imaginations, and thus Longings is no good alarm clock in our collective daydream! :D

my original statement was

"And also if Ive read what everyone said correctly people are looking for outside the Bible mention of Christ. Religions like Islam seem to mention Him as a great teacher for one."

I was answering the question above first, turning it around is another.

The Koran says: (Islam)
and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths;

After reading a bit more from there it must be clerics opinions that Christ was a great teacher but not the Son of God as the Koran seems to say different to the point that I have read anyway. Actually there is quite a bit about Jews and Christians in the Koran. Once again, what the Bible says about Islam is another question, one cant go in too many directions at once.

To try to respond to the rest of your comments:

Mohammod was a person, Christ was a person. Just like Alexander the Great was a person.

myths and fairy tales and are stories based on imagination.

Krishna, Shiva are gods of which there are many. If you believe them thats another story but, they are gods.

Now you can go and lump all together but you are not being accurate and if your attempt is for constructive arguement or to present a case for thought it does not happen with lumping things.

As for Christ thats where its a little different. Christ was a person that did live long ago and if it was left at that I suspect there would not be much conversation over the years.

But then He also said He is God. Where Alexander the Great was a person and Shiva is a god, Christ said "I Am" Which separated Him from Shiva and Alexander. Being both a man and God. Thus all the conversation.

Once again lumping it all as a myth is not accurate and just does not work.

For Instance

What if I lumped science together with pseudo science? It seems to annoy most on this site when it happens. Its not accurate and I would not do that. I could say that a germ is crazy, look at my hands what on them could hurt anyone? nothing there! those scientists they just want research funds to mess around with myths. They dont know a thing.

Perhaps thats why people continue believing Uri Geller can bend spoons. The arguement for him not to is that they are not intelligent (woo woo is the term) Degrading or dismissing something to sound childish is not very critical or logical.

Doctor X

4th June 2004, 10:14 PM

Maybe I am utterly missing something Kitty-Chan but I am uncertain where your post was suppose to go. A couple of things stick out, however.

Actually there is quite a bit about Jews and Christians in the Koran.

Not surprising since the Koran was based on and competing with these religions.

Once again, what the Bible says about Islam is another question, . . .

The Bible does not say anything about Islam--it did not exist when the texts were written. It also does not say anything about Dianetics.

Mohammod was a person, Christ was a person. Just like Alexander the Great was a person.

No. Actually there is a great deal of controversy regarding the details of the historical Mohammed. Junior has no realiable attestation outside of the biblical texts--Josephus & Tacitus are late, and highly controversial, to write the least. Most significant, even if legitimate, you are left with a "so what?" in that neither gives any useful information on what Junior said or did.

I am lost regarding your next section. Incidentally, a Hindu commentator states that Hinduism is monotheistic--all are avatars/aspects of one deity. Take that with an appropriate shovel of salt since I do not know.

As for Christ thats where its a little different. Christ was a person that did live long ago and if it was left at that I suspect there would not be much conversation over the years.

That is the subject of debate.

But then He also said He is God.

Actually he does not. This has caused some scholars to wonder if the historical Junior ever made such a claim--particularly since the Jerusalem group appears secular and the Synoptics and Jn castigate the disciples for never figuring out he was divine. The authors feel he was a "son of a god" which is a conception that differs depending on the writer.

The Synoptic Junior does make a wonderful pun--"ego eimi"--I am what I am," essentially.

Where Alexander the Great was a person and Shiva is a god, Christ said "I Am" Which separated Him from Shiva and Alexander. Being both a man and God. Thus all the conversation.

So . . . Reverend Moon is a god? He says he is. Hence, I am not sure I understand your point.

Right . . . now on to the library. . . .

--J.D.

Doctor X

4th June 2004, 11:00 PM

The Good Doctor's Syllabus:

Right, I link to Amazon simply to make finding the books easier. Check the library or used books for bargains. I have tried to avoid the controversial and arcane stuff for the New Testament--and state where some areas need more work. As I composed this books and books came to mind . . . well, I limited it. I do not want to waste pages of bandwidth.

Texts:

Ideally, you want to read the NT in the "original" Greek. Sure . . . the thing to understand is that the English translations follow tradition rather than the language. I have two favorite examples of this which I will bore youse guys with later if you want.

Fine . . . not a Greek scholar?

Revised Standard Version is a basic text. Scholars use it because it is available BUT translate passages themselves when necessary. Hold that thought a mite.

BlueLetterBible (www.blueletterbible.com) is a good "on-line" Bible in that you can switch from different translations, check the Greek and other languages as you need it.

KJV is a good doorstop as far as scholarship goes. Sorry, better witnesses and better translators came after it. However, one should not diminish its historical value--you wanna know what T.S. Elliot is pissing on about? Go ye to KJV. Sometimes it preserves a closer translation. So there. Just be willing to switch around and accept some uncertainty.

Gospel Parallels (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0840774842/qid=1086413716/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-0037805-4676935?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), Throckmorton:

Get this book. NOW!! In fact I will wait.

Right, the earlier editions are CHEAP--under $10. Why the big deal?

How did Mt rewrite Mk? Who is Q?

This takes the NRSV [New Revised Standard Version--Ed.] of the Synoptics--Mt, Mk, Lk--and puts them side-by-side. NOW you can see things scholars write about. This is a MUST!

No big deal if you go for earlier editions.

The intro is a bit "biased" in the he would like you to believe the text of the NT in "nearly certain." Bullcrap, but it has an introduction to textual criticism.

Textual Criticism:

Where is Mk? It is a scroll somewhere? Signed limited edition? Sorry, the texts are put together from a slew of witnesses of various ages. Throckmorton gives some introduction to that.

Now, textual criticism matters because "what" is in the text determines what it means of course. However, for most this is FAR beyond what you need. So, I will not pontificate further. IF youse guys want it, I will give some great introductions, and you can all argue about "Western Texts" and homoeoteleuton. [Stop that.--Ed.]

Just know that "certain" is not certain.

NT 101:

Start with the works of Burton Mack. Here is a good one:

Who Wrote the New Testament? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060655186/qid=1086413308/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-0037805-4676935?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

This is a good beginning introduction to the issues of early movements and the social structures that lead to Christian myth--sorry, resurrection is a myth . . . even the Jesus Seminar had to accept that! Dead flesh is DEAD FLESH! [Stop it!--Ed.]

It also gives an introduction to the texts.

This one is a more "classic" two volume introduction--make sure you get both:

Introduction to the New Testament (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/3110149702/qid=1086414609/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_10/102-0037805-4676935?v=glance&s=books) by Koester. This is for you, JAR because Koester is more "conservative." I laugh at it because it is PONDEROUS sometimes, but it is complete.

What about the "historical Junior" . . . Koester simply dismisses the question and states scholars should not "ask such questions." What?

Well . . . scholars are nervous about them so approaching the HJ is a problem. ALL think about what their research says--unfortunately it is often contradictory. So the details have to be gleaned from the works piecemeal. However,

New Testament Background (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060605537/qid=1086414768/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-0037805-4676935?v=glance&s=books) is a good introduction to texts that may have been the basis for some NT texts--this includes a discussion of the controversies with Josephus and Tacitus--and Eusebius . . . and. . . . It is "dated" a bit and "conservative" but it is a good start I still use. Heck, for $4 it is more than worth it.

Myth? History:

I have not read this yet, but it has been recommended:

The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0826415431/qid=1086413308/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-0037805-4676935?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Mack.

I will recommend the works of this man, Gerd Ludemann. He is/was a religioius NT professor in Germany who lost his chair because he lost his faith in the biblical stories--to make a complicated story short. This does not mean he is an atheist. However, his struggle with the issues touches on historicity. I recommend this book: The Unholy in Holy Scripture: The Dark Side of the Bible (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0664257399/qid=1086414987/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0037805-4676935?v=glance&s=books) for discussions on the OT practice of herem or sacrifice of people to your god, but he discusses the NT as well. Under $3 people! Ignore the "girly-men" who wrote the Amazon reviews--Collins cites the book in his SBL presidential address.

I have not read his:

Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figement? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830815694/qid=1086414987/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-0037805-4676935?v=glance&s=books)

but I will. As youse can see from the review both sides support it and denigrate it! If anyone here has read it, let me know what you thought.

Okay . . . I have saved this for last. . . .

Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0968601405/qid=1086415330/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0037805-4676935?v=glance&s=books)

Sorry, I have not read it yet. Why do I mention it then? Why am I writing like Hemingway. Who fought all night with fish. Which was big. In the rain?

It is the one that causes skeptics and "mythicists" to go nuts on boards. I wish some scholars would address him--Ivory Tower 'n all that. I, myself, looked at his treatment of the Galatians evidence I mentioned above and . . . well . . . I am not convinced. Do a search and you will find his web-page and find all sorts of debates. He is an extreme mythicist.

Okay, seems long enough . . . I have more references for more specific issues. Let me stop there.

Notice I have not mentioned Crossan, or some other recent religious scholars. Why? Not enough time. Here I will confess a bias I will correct. Crossan seemed, in interviews, a bit of an apologist--a priest trying to find his Jesus. On a limited budget and every book 300 pages . . . one has to make choices.

However, Crossan is NO FOOL as anyone reading the literature will stumble over his references.

Then one day . . . whilst I flipped on the television . . . I saw him on either Fox or MSNBC which is Fox or at least tries to be it and the topic was the Gospel According to Mel. "Great!" I thought.

He REAMED the film:

O'Riley/Scarborough/SomeConservativeFanatic: "You consider it 'inaccurate.'"

Crossan: "Irresponsibly inaccurate. Dangerously inaccurate!"

So . . . I will have to spring some $$$ and check him out. . . .

--J.D.

davefoc

5th June 2004, 01:45 AM

Kitty Chan,
I think you are making the situation out to be simpler than it is.

You say that Christ existed as if it was an absolute fact without explaining what you mean. What part of the Christ stories in the bible does your statement imply are true?

If all that is required for your statement to be true is that a person by the name of the aramaic equivalent of Jesus existed around 1 AD your statement hasn't made much of a prediction. There were lots of people named Jesus about that time, many of whom some documentation exists of their life.

If you mean that a person named Jesus existed that was:
* born in Bethlehem
* born to a woman named the aramaic equivalent of Mary
* born to a woman impregnated by God
* raised in Nazareth
* walked on water
* healed people with supernatural powers
* delivered the sermon on the mount
* led a group of 12 apostles
* had a relative (possibly brother) named James
* was sentenced to death by pontius pilate
* was crucified
* rose from the dead
* had two apostles that documented his life
* was written about by those two apostles and others

You have made a very strong prediction which appears to be largely incorrect based on the available evidence.

So what does "Christ was a person" mean to you?

The author, Paul Tobin, of this site (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html) and many other secular writers would agree that a historical Jesus probably existed, but that a great deal of the biblical documentation of his life is just fabrication. I think what the author of this site might say is that there was a historical Jesus who was:
* born about 4 bc
* named the aramaic equivalent of Jesus
* probably a Jewish priest
* founder of an alternative sect within Judaism
* the relative (probably brother) of James
* killed about 33 bc possibly by crucifixiton
* succeeded by his relative James after his death as leader of cult he founded

Paul Tobin, bases the above largely on the epistles in the new testament that he thought Paul actually wrote and a bit on the mention of James by Josephus.

But there are secular writers who argue that Jesus didn't exist at all. This is one of the sites that puts forward that view:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

ReasonableDoubt

5th June 2004, 04:51 AM

See, also The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings
(http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=mHu1vu0ZEC&isbn=0800629523&itm=2) Early Christian Writings (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/)

SFB

5th June 2004, 09:09 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Iacchus
"There is much to be gained on holding the molopoly on truth, whether it happens to be true or not."

So true, esp. for xtianity.

"...Maybe that's not as important as having an open mind about God....."

But many would argue, given the world-wide ways gods manifest themselves, there can be no true god; it's all part of humankind.

"...we should be able to approach this God by following His words shouldn't we? Which is, afterall, the ultimate test don't you think?"

Why do you put your head in the sand over this? Your hands over your ears? That seems to be what you suggest, thus not making it a challenge at all, no? Sure sounds like blind acceptance, a willingness to accept ignorance, and refusal to accept a broader point of view......

See the many links just posted for more information, for example.

davefoc

5th June 2004, 11:46 AM

Based on Doctor X's suggestion I found this site on "The Jesus Puzzle":
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/

I read through most of the site. The author's position is that an historical Jesus did not exist. A rough summary of the author's views is that the Gospels are not reliable and that Paul, the writer closest in time to Jesus was referring to a mystical Jesus and not a real flesh and blood Jesus. The site also offers a fairly detailed refutation of the idea that the two Josephus references to Jesus were actually written by him.

http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm

I would recommend this site:

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html

over the Jesus Puzzle site for somebody that is looking for a well written, concise overview of the generally accepted secular views of the new testament. Although the author of the site differs with the author of the Jesus Puzzle site on the existence of Jesus, there is considerable agreement between the sites on the origins and dating of the Gospels and their reliablity as historical documents.

The two sites differ significantly only on the question of the existence of Jesus Christ and the origins of the Christian Church.

Tobin, sees James as a genuine historical character that becomes leader of a Jewish-Christian sect that follows Mosaic law. He sees Paul as a founder of the gentile wing of that Church. Tobin further claims that the Jewish branch of Christianity was destroyed to the point that they were unable to continue as a sect by the second Roman destruction of Jerusalem about 135 AD.

Earl Doherty, (the Jesus Puzzle), sees Paul not so much as a founder of Christianity but rather as an itinerant preacher going around to already existing congregations whose foundation predated the alleged existance of Jesus Christ.

I would in particular recommend Tobin's site to JAR because it explains in a very readable way why modern secular biblical scholarship doesn't accept the traditional dating of the Gospels or the traditional authorship of the Gospels.

Kitty Chan

5th June 2004, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Doctor X
Maybe I am utterly missing something Kitty-Chan but I am uncertain where your post was suppose to go. --J.D.

I just stopped in quick I will have to come back a bit later.

If it helps read my post from the view that I am attempting to respond to the Soderqvist1 essay. Think of that when you read my answers. Its kind of hard to talk to a essay that wasnt totally about the question in the first place, but I tried. So try that and it will help you.

Some of what you commented on I said I actually didnt say someone else did. Anyway hope that helps.

Also, you or another Id have to look back and times short right now, but a direct question to me was what I meant by Jesus being a person.

I mean like you, me, Soderqvist, James, Napoleon, Bach, Caesar, Nero, Cleopatra, are persons. Im simply talking existance walking around talking to people in different towns etc nothing else attatched to that. I cannot understand how anyone could have an theory He didnt actually exist. I can understand debating the things Jesus did or the statements He made fine go ahead.

However, I have to go with history having a understanding that at least He existed. If we cant believe that then how can I believe that ole Cleo existed? If one cant trust history to have at least gotten something like existance straight where does that leave us?

P.S. Someone also said Mohamood wasnt real, Im sure I read where he was born etc, I will get back to that too.

Doctor X

5th June 2004, 07:34 PM

Kitty-Chan:

If it helps read my post from the view that I am attempting to respond to the Soderqvist1 essay. Think of that when you read my answers. Its kind of hard to talk to a essay that wasnt totally about the question in the first place, but I tried. So try that and it will help you.

I read Soderqvist1's post and, unfortunately, it did not then nor does it now clarify your post.

Some of what you commented on I said I actually didnt say someone else did. Anyway hope that helps.

No. I suggest in the future you indicate who wrote what--using quote functions or citations--to avoid confusion.

. . . but a direct question to me was what I meant by Jesus being a person.

[Snip!--Ed.] I cannot understand how anyone could have an theory He didnt actually exist.

That does make sense. The case mythicists make which is very compelling is that all aspects of Junior can be mythic. Thus, remove the myth, what do you have? Nothing.

However, this does not prove no historical figure existed. It does suggest we know squat all about him.

If we cant believe that then how can I believe that ole Cleo existed?

. . . because you have independent and contemporary documentation.

If one cant trust history to have at least gotten something like existance straight where does that leave us?

Why it is all fun! Seriously! Scholars have slowly come to the conclusion that no Exodus happened. There is a big wad of "history" flushed! However, Washington never chopp'd down a cherry tree either. The study of history involves re-examination of evidence all of the time.

With ancient history, we have little evidence and must, therefore, be more stringent in our assessments.

Not to tangent too much, but if no Exodus and if the Patriarch narratives are anachronistic--and they are--"who" is real in the OT? There is a lot of controversy there! Certainly not Moses!

P.S. Someone also said Mohamood wasnt real, Im sure I read where he was born etc, I will get back to that too.

You may be thinking of moi. I believe I mentioned taking such an opinion with a shovelful of salt. I have not studied Islam or Mohammed for some time. For example, scholars are just discussing variant witnesses to the Qu'ran! The "history" of Mohammed is not--to the best of my recollection--contemporary at all.

There is, to my memory, considerable controversy to "what is" and "what is not" reliable. Just as no one walked on water, Mohammed did not "fly" to Jerusalem! Fine! It is easy to delete miracles and other flim-flam.

However, other details are sketchy. I, personally, am not up on the objective scholarship.

Of course, the fact that people with rocks gets pissed when you ask these questions rather constrains research!

--J.D.

davefoc

5th June 2004, 08:46 PM

Kitty Chan said:I mean like you, me, Soderqvist, James, Napoleon, Bach, Caesar, Nero, Cleopatra, are persons. Im simply talking existence walking around talking to people in different towns etc nothing else attached to that. I cannot understand how anyone could have an theory He didn’t actually exist. I can understand debating the things Jesus did or the statements He made fine go ahead.

The significant difference between the historical characters that you list above and Jesus is that the characters were famous in their own time, were written about contemporaneously and held positions that uniquely identified them. None of the above is true about Jesus.

When secular scholars have eliminated the information about the life of Jesus which is obviously false and probably false they are left with a small set of facts that might be true. It is how to interpret this small set of facts about the life of Jesus that might be true that divides the scholars who have different opinions about the existence of an actual historical Jesus. There are basically three ideas that have been forth with regards to the existence of an historical Jesus:

1. The Jesus of the bible didn't exist at all.
2. The stories about Jesus were derived from the events in the lives of a few real individuals and the imagination of the writers.
3. A real Jesus did exist that served as the founder of a Christian-Jewish sect.

While, it might make no difference to your conclusion that a real Jesus existed if you read through some of the links provided in the previous posts you might see how tenuous the basis for that conclusion is.

I have repeated some of the links here for your convenience.

Jesus didn't exist at all:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/

The biblical Jesus narrative is an amalgam of stories from the lives of several real people:
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

A real Jesus did exist that founded a Christian-Jewish sect
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html

All of these sites agree on the same basic facts about the unreliability of the new testament as a source of historical data. They vary mostly as to how much of the information that might be true is true and what the significance of that true information is.

JAR

5th June 2004, 10:09 PM

It has hit me that there is a problem with my use of Josephus' first reference to Jesus as evidence for a historical Jesus. Even if he actually did write that, his account of Jesus is so dead on to what the Gospels said about Jesus, that it is quite impossible that his account of Jesus could have originated from any writing or anyone that was non-Christian. So his account of Jesus adds nothing to the Jesus story that we would not learn from the four Gospels, and at most, if it isn't just an addition to Josephus' text, his account of Jesus just serves as an early reference in a work of history to what Christians believed happened in Christ's life.

[edited to add: So my quoting of Josephus reference to Jesus as evidence for a historical Jesus is basically like if a historical work was written and another book quoted from that work and I then cited both the part in the historical work that was quoted by the other book and the part in the other book that quoted from the historical work to try to add credibility to the view that a historical event happened.]

[edited to add: What I just said here also applies to the Tacitus quote.]

It also does seem pretty unlikely that a person who wasn't a Christian would not question the Christian claims about Christ, in fact, the text has Josephus actually buying into the claims about Jesus, leaving the reader wondering why Josephus never converted to Christianity.

Doctor X

5th June 2004, 11:37 PM

[JAR:

On behalf of our charge, Doctor X, we would like to thank you.

He is currently curled in what we presume is a fetal position, which seems to comprise his general reaction to any shocking event such as discovering there is no Easter Bunny, the girl in Hedwig and the Angry Inch is a guy, and when posters in a religious discussion alter or expand their opinions based on evidence.

We wish to personally thank you for his current state since it greatly eases our work and allows us great amusement when we periodically poke him with a cattle prod.

--Ed.]

JAR

6th June 2004, 12:24 AM

It says in my "NIV Study Bible" on page 1431 that 91 percent of Mark is contained in Matthew and 53 percent of Mark is contained in Luke, which shows that something very fishy is going on. It does seem highly doubtful that Matthew and Luke wrote the Gospels attributed to them.

Doctor X

6th June 2004, 01:47 AM

JAR:

You will really like Throckmorton's work linked above. It makes it very easy to compare the texts and see where Mk is quoted--without any attribution. Furthermore, you can see where Lk and Mt alter Mk. For example, right in the beginning, Mt and Lk correct Mk's misattribution of a prophecy to Isaiah [Mk 1:2-3--actually Malachi combined with Isaiah.--Ed.] and after "the Big Voice" speaks to Junior after his baptism, the spirit "immediately drove him out into the wilderness." [Mk 1:12.--Ed.]

"Drove?" How can anyone "drive out" a son of a god? Mt softens it [Mt 4:1] with, "then Jesus was led up by the Spirit. . . ." Lk inserts his genealogy--different from Mt's!--after the baptism then has, "And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit. . . ." [Lk 4:1].

There are many others.

Understanding the "why" behind a "sayings source" known as Q--such as Mt 3:11b-12 and Lk 3:16b-17--they attached this to Mk's 1:7-8.

Anyways, great resource folks!

--J.D.

triadboy

6th June 2004, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
The biblical Jesus narrative is an amalgam of stories from the lives of several real people:
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

I found this one very interesting. Thanks davefoc.

ReasonableDoubt

6th June 2004, 06:04 AM

I find sights such as the one listed above wholly defined by selection bias and close to worthless.

Far better, in my opinion, are ... Historical Jesus Theories (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html) Christian Origins (http://www.christianorigins.com/)

triadboy

6th June 2004, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
I find sights such as the one listed above wholly defined by selection bias and close to worthless.

Far better, in my opinion, are ... Historical Jesus Theories (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html) Christian Origins (http://www.christianorigins.com/)

Understood. However, within this article are bits and pieces of pre-Jesus Jewish tales I've read elsewhere. This one seemed to bring them all together. I like Early Christian Writings too.

triadboy

6th June 2004, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by JAR
Jesus' disciple Peter wrote in his first epistle, which was written in the early AD 60s

Finally got around to looking this up.

Who Wrote The New Testament (Burton Mack) dates 1 Peter at 100 AD.

Asimov's Guide To The Bible (Isaac Asimov - I recommend this one)
has some interesting things to say about 1 Peter:

It might also be argued that the epistle was written long after both Peter and Paul were dead, and that it was merely ascribed to Peter to lend it authority. Thus, at the conclusion of the epistle, the writer sends greetings:
1 Peter 5:13 - The church that is at Babylon ...saluteth you...

Clearly, this cannot be taken literally. There was no church at Babylon, for, indeed, the city no longer existed. But it is an old Biblical device to use the name of a bygone persecutor in order to indicate, discreetly, a present enemy. By Babylon, therefore, is surely meant Rome.

Asimov concludes 1 Peter was written by someone other than Peter, under Emperor Domitian's reign which ended in 96 AD

The earliest date that Acts is thought to be possibly written in is AD 61.

Burton Mack has Acts at 120 AD.

Loki

6th June 2004, 03:38 PM

Doctor X,

The Bible does not say anything about Islam--it did not exist when the texts were written. It also does not say anything about Dianetics.
Well of course the Bible doesn't mention Dianetics! It's clear that Christ is both the victim of an R6 'false memory' implant, and a recurring implant for each of us. What more do you need?

From here: (http://www.ami.com.au/~bradw/cos/Theology/Theology/#christ)
Hubbard on the "Christ Game"
"You'll find, by the way, another man at this stage, and his preclears will shift the identities and borrow facsimilies. Like men, there's what they call 'The ChristGame' and that game has been played and played and played and play..., honest to Pete, these cards are just so thin, they've been laid down amongst the coffee cups, and so forth, of the whole universe. You'll find out thousands of years before the year 1 AD, Earth, you will have facsimilies and dolls made up like Christ. Fact one: a million years ago is occasionally rigged with Christ and the devil and an angel. It's a fascinating thing, it's an old game. Here on Earth, there was undoubtably a Christ. One of the reasons he was ... he swept in so suddenly ah, and he, he would go forward so hard, is he had a good assist back of him in terms of an implant.", Philadelphia Doctorate Course, Tape #24, L. Ron Hubbard, 1952. [Real Audio]
Commentary:

Hubbard claims that Jesus Christ was real, but that Christianity was established not because of merit, but because Christ triggered an implant [false memory]. This is similar to his "Man on the cross, there was no Christ" statement.

I hope this clears everything up.....

Doctor X

6th June 2004, 04:07 PM

. . . well . . . yes . . . now that you put it that way . . . I feel the sudden urge to spend all my money learning how to think like a clam. . . .

--J.D.

ceo_esq

6th June 2004, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by triadboy
Burton Mack has Acts at 120 AD. Dillon, in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, citing Wikenhauser, Schmid, Kummel, and Conzelmann, points out that Mack is in the minority here, and that the majority of scholars date Acts somewhere between AD 80 and 90.

ceo_esq

6th June 2004, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by triadboy
Asimov concludes 1 Peter was written by someone other than Peter, under Emperor Domitian's reign which ended in 96 AD.Does Asimov somehow relate that bit about "Babylon" being Rome to the date question? Because even the authorities (not that Asimov is one, of course) who argue in favor of a 1 Peter date just before Peter's death (probably in AD 65 under the persecution of Nero) suggest that the "Babylon" reference was a cryptogram for Rome. Just curious why you cited it.

ReasonableDoubt

6th June 2004, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by triadboy

Understood. However, within this article are bits and pieces of pre-Jesus Jewish tales I've read elsewhere.
I found the site to be shallow and amateurish. What "bits and pieces" did you find compelling?

triadboy

6th June 2004, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Does Asimov somehow relate that bit about "Babylon" being Rome to the date question? Because even the authorities (not that Asimov is one, of course) who argue in favor of a 1 Peter date just before Peter's death (probably in AD 65 under the persecution of Nero) suggest that the "Babylon" reference was a cryptogram for Rome. Just curious why you cited it.

Yes it does mean Rome. I can't type the whole section of Asimov's Guide, but basically because it refers to Rome as "Babylon" is the reason the early date doesn't work. Rome would have been "Babylon" under Emperor Domitian NOT Nero. Nero did not repress Christianity empire-wide - only (supposedly) in Rome - the majority of Christians were unaffected.

Asimov:
The Domitianic persecution was empire-wide and for the first time the Christians of Asia Minor felt organized repression from the central government. The epistle, addressed to the Christians of Asia Minor, refers to such repression:
1 Peter 4:12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you...

triadboy

6th June 2004, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt

I found the site to be shallow and amateurish. What "bits and pieces" did you find compelling?

I read a lot of the information before, but hadn't heard the information contained in the Tosefta and the Baraitas. I thought it was interesting. For instance, I always wondered where the Pantera story came from. I will study this further, but this gives me some place to start.

Doctor X

6th June 2004, 10:03 PM

Scholar who want, very much, for the NT texts to preserve relevant material for the historical Junior try very hard to date the materials as early as possible.

--J.D.

davefoc

7th June 2004, 05:34 PM

Reasonable Doubt,
Thank you for the links. I spent a bit of time reading through some of the many articles linked to by your link:
http://www.christianorigins.com/

One article that I came across indirectly through your links was this one:

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm

The article, puts together many of the standard arguments against the historical reliability of the Gospels, but it adds some information that I wasn't aware of. Apparently, Mathhew, in addition to copying large parts of Mark and adding embellishments perhaps taken from a q document, also made many corrections to Markian material when he detected apparent errors made by Mark with respect to Jewish traditions and laws.

I found this interesting, both because it suggested that the earliest Gospel author may not have been Jewish (based on his apparent unfamiliarity with Jewish traditions) and that a later Gospel writer was either Jewish or had a detailed understanding of Jewish traditions.

I don't know if this supports the idea that there was a semi-independent group of Jewish-Christians that were developing a kind of Christianity about the same time as the Gentiles led by Paul were or not. I believe that the Jewish-Christians were thought not to incorporate many of the ideas of the Gentile Christians but the author of Matthew appears to be a Jew that not only believed in the Gentile version of Chrisitianity but was creating it.

I also found these artilcles interesting:
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli2.htm

These discuss the oldest source materials for the new testament and how they vary from each other and how they vary from what are now the accepted versions of the new testament biblical stories.