The Historical Jesus.

[heretic888]

I understand the argument that a figurehead could have been created and certainly Christian philosophy echoes aspects of many previous belief systems, but the issue is whether a person named (something that has been transliterated to) Jesus lived around 2000 years ago and either started, or had started around him, a religion. Given the age of the synoptic gospels (70CE-110CE) and the many parallels between them, they appear to have been based on an earlier book(s) (and some absed on others of them). It points to a (near-)contemporary account of an individual.

Incorrect.

The early dating of the Synoptics is something only committed to by theologians. Not historians. St. Jerome flat-out stated that the Gospel of Luke was of a relatively late date (past 150 CE) and Ireneaus commnted that the Gospel of John was created to refute Cerinthus (145 CE). In addition, NONE of the Gospels are known by name before the time of Irenaeus (175 CE) and even then the implications are quite clear that there were not very popular texts (Irenaeus went out of his way to defend their exclusive canonhood) and many other texts were given precedence (including Marcion's Gospel of the Lord).

Good day.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by heretic888
*rubs head* This entire post was nothing but an overtly emotionalized rant against anybody that disagrees with you. Its entire content consisted of condemning anybody that asks for primary historical sources for your rather dubious claims.

I already rebutted the supposed "evidence" you brought forth (including the forged excerpt from Tacitus), so you have yet to provide any "proof" for your claims. Secondary sources and hearsay are not "evidence" to me.

*shakes head*

"Ahem" "Your incorrect" "sigh" (please note my mocking tone )

I have been in quite a few religious discussions on MT, and even the people who disagree with me will attest that I am not the "emotional type" who has a fit when people disagree with me.

I like discussions with people, even when they disagree. An example of what I don't mind is the exchange earlier on this thread between myself and "r erman." We disagreed on some details regarding the Council of Nicea and how some of the Gospels relate to the Council. He proposed his evidence to support his arguement, as I did mine. We came to some conclusions. We may even still disagree, but at least we had a meaningful discussion.

You, however, do not seem to have the ability to have a meaningful discussion regarding this subject. You are the very typical antagonist described in my above post. You pose your opinions as if they are educated, but with no evidence to back them up. You pose opinions as if they are fact, when they are not. And...the very little evidence you do bring forth has less historical and logical support then what you are contesting. Sometimes this evidence is outright wrong, or at least seen as such by almost any historian. You say things that are outright untrue, offering no evidence to support your claim. The list goes on. The really annoying part, though, is your arrogence. "Ahem" "Incorrect" "In fact" "I suggest you do more research" Re-read what I wrote about the antagonist, because it accurately describes your behavor on this thread. And..guess what??? It's annoying.

But you wanna play games, fine. I can pick apart your arguements too, as I have been. Except I'll offer actual evidence to support my claims. And, just like your horrably lossing this arguement so far, Antagonists generally never win arguements, except in there own minds and maybe the minds of one or two that get dragged down their arrogent path with them. Just keep this in mind.

 

[cdhall]

I just noticed this thread and I apologize for not going through the whole thing before posting but I have read some of this and it purports to answer the question of Jesus and his place in history.

The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus
by Lee Strobel

I don't know if there is a good way to link to an item on Amazon.com but here is the URL I landed at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...5040797/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-3609634-0145541

He also wrote
The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity
by Lee Strobel

I'm taking a class on Apologetics at Church right now and our teacher formerly taught at Westpoint. He is very good. I want to keep this brief so I'll get off now and try to read the thread.
:asian:

 

[Jay Bell]

Paul,

You've lost me here on your last two posts. Antagonist...I just don't see it. He's giving information. He's putting out times, dates, historical documents, etc to back up that information. All you seem to be doing is complaining about it <??>

I was under the impression that you two were having a great topic of conversation (up until you last two posts).

 

[Cruentus]

Yes...here we go again indeed....

Originally posted by heretic888
Here we go again....


This supposed "transmission test" is not a reliable criteria for establishing historical viability. A large number of copies of any document can produced in a very short amount of time.

Mass production says absolutely nothing of historical reliability, or else Little Red Riding Hood would be the standard historical textbook in most classrooms.

O.K. You have just proven your inability to read. And, this is exactly what I am talking about. You make a claim: "This supposed 'transmission test' is not reliable criteria for establishing historical viability." O.K.....prove it! You make this claim, that this test isn't reliable, but you leave nothing to back up your conjecture. Not only that, this is totally wrong. If you look into it, you will find that "the Bibliographical Test" or "Transmission Test" is a common test used to verify the validity of ANY historical documention, especially ancient ones where the originals are missing. The idea is very simple; you compare all the copies that existed within a given time frame to see how close they "match" to what may have been the original "story" (Document, or orally transmitted story). The Gospels pass this test with flying colors. If you READ what I wrote, you would see that I admitted that this doesn't prove that Jesus was divine. THe stories could still have been made up, although there are other tests that disprove the "made up" conjecture. But this does prove that the Gospels in the Bible weren't "changed" or "embelished" over time. The stories we have today are going to be extremely close to the stories that were being orally transmitted around the time of the apostles, and around the time they were first written down (a date that we still are uncertian of because none of the original manuscripts have been found). So, we can conclude that for whatever reason, people were telling and eventually writting the gospel stories, and they believed them to be true.

This entire part of the post is completely incorrect. The Synoptics are self-contradictory at many parts:

No....they are not....as I explained. However, at least you have some evidence here, so I will entertain you.

Before I go through everything point by point, I want to point out one thing. The fact that the Gospels differ a bit is a good thing, historically. If they were all exact and to the tee with no discrepancies, then Historians would have more of a reason to doubt their validity. They would doubt that they all weren't copies of the same source. Since the 4 Biblical Gospels do differ, then this helps verify Jesus' existance and their beliefs of him to be the Messiah even more because they now exist as 4 seperate sources. Now, some of the sources were clearly "cross referenced." For example, the most widely accepted theory about Johns Gospel is that the author read the Synoptics prior to writing his version. However, this still does not discredit this account. Just look at the media today. One Reporter will cover the latest on Ben and J-Lo, and a bunch of other reporters will read that report, gather other information, and report later on the same story but with additional information to make it unique and readable. Why would the second reporter just copy the 1st report? And, does the fact that the second reporter read the 1st report before making his make his report untrue? No, it doesn't.

So, some discrepencies are good, historically speaking. They verify at least the existance and the beliefs more then they discredit.

1) There are two different lineages attributed to Jesus, one in Luke and one in Matthew. From one generation past Joseph onward, these patrilineal lines of descent have completely different names ---- meaning, Joseph must have had two granddaddies on his poppa's side. And, who said the Bible promoted homophobia??

LOL...homophobia.

O.K....differen't names in this case isn't a "hard" contradiction (I explained hard contradictions previously), if even a contradiction at all. Plus, you need to understand the nature of titles like "father" and "brother" in the ancient middle eastern world. "Brother" for instance could mean Sibling, friend, cousin, second cousin, brother in law, cousin in law, etc. Father could mean Dad, Uncle, Grandfather, elder, or teacher. They didn't have the same seperation with titles like father or Brother like we do today, so this really isn't a contradiction when you understand this, and you take it within the context of the authors intent.

2) The Bible is theologically contradictory. On one point the lineages are established to trace Joseph's line through to David to "prove" Jesus is the messiah and is of the "seed of David". On the other hand, Jesus is the messiah because of the virgin birth and isn't blood-related by Joseph at all. These two "messiah proofs" don't mix, friends. Either he is of the seed of David and Joseph and Mary did the nasty-nasty, or he is not of the seed of David --- and Mary was a virgin momma.

Still no problems here, theologically, not if you understand how marraige is treated theologically. Christian theology explains that when a man and a woman marry, they are no longer 2 people. They become "one." When I marry, my wifes parents become my parents and vice-versa. This makes Jesus son of David through marrage. Who's "seed" at that point is moot.

3) Many events in the Bible are contradictory. How and when the angel comes to tell Mary she is impregnated with Jesus is contradictory in different gospels. The number of people that witness Jesus resurrect differs in the Gospels. Oh yeah, and the places people witness Jesus resurrect is contradictory in the Gospels (in one account, its in Bethlehem; in another, its a town 100 miles away).

Not internally consistent at all.

Again...not hard contradictions. Contradictions in details and hard contradictions are seperate things.

For you to say "Not internally consistant at all" is again you posting your perception as fact. And again, it is not true. All the Gospels say he died by the cross, for instance, a "hard consistancy." They all give the account of Peters deniel, Judas selling him out, etc. The "Hard" consistancies are in tact.

A few problems with this external consistency claim:

1) The Bible in fact has many historical events wrong. There was no census during the reign of Herod, for example. Most, if not all, of the 'historical events' also cannot be verified by outside sources so this entire claim of external consistency is bunk.

There you go again. It's not "bunk," dude. You claim that because some historical events in the bible haven't been verified yet by outside sources, then you generalize "the entire claim of external consistency is bunk." This is false logic. Just because some things haven't yet been verified, that doesn't mean that the whole story must be false. I point out some things that HAVE been verified. What IS verified is more important to the external test then what HASN'T been verified.

2) Contrary to what has been stated, there is little (if any) evidence to support dating the Synoptics at such an early date. It has been linguistically proven that Luke is dependent on Marcion (dated at 140 CE). John's gospel is an attempted repudiation of the gnostic leader Cerinthus (145 CE) and is partially derived from his writings. Matthew (with its identification of Peter as 'the rock' of the Church) shows evidence of the developing Roman hiearchy which had not come into effect until around 170 CE. Justin Martyr (150 CE) is completely ignorant of the existence of the 4 Synoptics yet only one generation later Irenaeus (175 CE) is defending their existence as the "true canon". As other scholars have pointed out, Irenaeus' "artificial arguments" are indicative of the fact that the notion of the 4 Synoptics as the "only canon" was a novel and new idea that needed defending.

You again make a claim: "there is little (if any) evidence to support dating the Synoptics at such an early date." Then you proceed to give alternate dates. Have you given us sources or logical/historical proof to back up these dates? NO! And this is the problem with your arguements. Now, I wouldn't be all over you about this, but you tend to discredit what other say by saying they lack "proof," even when they offer you evidence. Then what do you do? You offer false evidence to support your solutions with even less proof to support it (support offered or in existance).

But whatever. What you say above (particularly the dates) is almost entirely thought of by historians and the scholarly community alike to be false. They date the first "copies" that were found was authered somewhere between 70-110 AD. These are what is commonly accepted to be true, not just my theory. Just because there are a small few scholars who disagree, and it plugs into your fantasy world, that doesn't make it the truth.

3) As we accurately date the Synoptics at a later date (Luke and John at the very least date past 160 CE), the idea that they are a primary historical source is less and less viable. As before, hearsay and secondary sources are not reliable historical records.

Once again, the burden of proof is on you for this, because this is not the accepted idea based on the data, yet you offer no data (once again).

4) There is no mention in any reliable historical sources outside the Bible of the existence of Jesus or Christians prior to approximately 115 CE. That is nearly 100 years after the events in question and hardly reliable sources.

Once again, these are your special dates, but not the dates of what the data points too.

Then why were there so many versions of it at the same time as the precious "Four Synoptics"??

Not a bad question. You could ask this about News stories. Why did almost every paper in the country cover 9-11 when it occured? Because each paper had something a little bit different to offer about the same event. This is the same with the Gospels; each one emphasises different theological points, even though they are about the same events/occurances.

*chuckles* That depends on how much weight you give to pseudo-science. Personally, I will never regard a religious text as a primary historical source. Especially one that dates to decades after the events in question.

*chuckles* Sorry to break it to you, but none of this is pseudo science. It isn't even science in question here, it is history. And..the you have offered the most psuedo-info of anybody on this thread so far, so your one to talk about pseudo science.

And, you don't have to be Christian, Catholic, or anything if you don't want too. I can't foce you. And, you don't have to regard a "relgious text" as anything more then that, if that is what plugs into your program more comfortably. I have a problem with the whole "I am going to argue what is generally exepted and say that there lacks evidence, and then propose alternatives that lack EVEN MORE evidence" thing that you have been doing.

But...whatever.

Laterz.

Um...yea. "laterz" :shrug:

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Jay Bell
Paul,

You've lost me here on your last two posts. Antagonist...I just don't see it. He's giving information. He's putting out times, dates, historical documents, etc to back up that information. All you seem to be doing is complaining about it <??>

I was under the impression that you two were having a great topic of conversation (up until you last two posts).

Right....I understand and through my annoyance (which I recognize is more my problem then his or anyone elses) I was a bit harsh. I'll give you some concrete examples of what I mean to better illustrate tha "antagonist" thing:

"The problem once again, Paul, is you don't have a shred of empirical or historical evidence to back up any of those claims"

See, this is arrogent. To dispute evidence is fine, but to say that I don't have a shred of evidence is an insult at best. How does he know what evidence I have, or don't have? Like I am dumb, and I am just making things up as I go along.

"Also, it is an interesting fact to note..."

O.K....I just quote this little portion because what an antagonist does is say things are "fact," without offering evidence to support there "facts." Often times, these "facts" are just opinions. This kind of behavior is not conducive to a discussion where 2 parties are trying to come to a conclusion of some sort.

"In fact, this practice was known to ONLY take place under the reign of Christian emperors."

An example of an outlandish claim, without supporting evidence. To say that something as common as leaders destroying records happends ONLY under Christian rule is a comment that is difficult to prove at best, yet we are supposed to by this as "fact."

"Contemporary study of the available evidence has demonstrated that idea to be lies invented by Christian authors of later centuries. The Christians were, in fact, only persecuted as a group for a total of 5 years under the Empire's rule. And none of these years were consecutive, mind you"

More claims, w/ no backups. What contemporary studies? He is making the claim here, the burden of proof is on him, yet...no proof. Again, we are just expected to accept a false statement as truth.

"Even the reputed Tacitus 'excerpt' you used as a claim for Jesus' historical existence is identified as a forgery of the 15th century CE, and there is little other proof that Nero (or any Roman leader prior to 250 CE) persecuted the Christians."

Again...evidence anyone?

"I suggest you study the history of the Hellenistic Roman Empire in more depth"

This is arogent as hell. I suggest YOU study more MOTHER***ker! :rolf: LOL, seriously, though, who is he to tell me to "study more"? Arrogent...

"Also, the earliest Christian teachings, such as the authentic letters of Paul, demonstrate a complete ignorance of any 'biographical' information concerning Jesus. In fact, to Paul, 'Christ' seems to be little more than a Platonic form, Jungian archetype, or Gnostic aeon. There is definitely a docetic flavor to Paul's non-forged letters."

Blah, blah, blah, with no proof proof proof once again.

"In fact, there is no evidence that the Christians saw Jesus as a historical individual until around 110 CE. You are basing your assumptions on incorrect dates which give the highly questionable Synoptics precedence over the Pauline letters."

Once again "in fact" and "I have no evidence." But...where is his evidence?

"You, again, have no evidence to support this claim. It all comes down to an article of faith."

Once again....no evidence eh?

Now, mind you all this with "ahem" and "sigh" and other little arrogent throw-ins.

So, I don't know if you see what I mean here about the antagonist or not. It LOOKS like a discussion is taking place, but really one person is trying to discuss an issue and at least trying to bring constructive evidence to the table, and the other is only trying to argue that person wrong in the most arrogent way that they can think of, while barely bringing anything constructive to the table, particularly in terms of evidence.

Now For the most part this has been a good discussion. You, for instance, and others, I know do not agree with me, which is fine. But I do think that we have been able to have constructive dialog on both sides.

Heretic888 has had some constructive things to say, even though I disagree. But mostly of what is being said, especially towards me, has not been constructive in my opinion. He has been an antagonist during most of the conversation.

Now, you may disagree with me, and that is fine. But, I hope that you see that I am not just "complaining," but that I have a valid conern regarding "the antagonist." My concern is that conversations that are supposed to be constructive are reduced to the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I....infinity!" with an antagonist in the room. Hell, they are everywhere, not just in religious discussions!

Anyways, sorry if I sounded like I was just pissin a b**ch...I didn't mean too.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by cdhall
I just noticed this thread and I apologize for not going through the whole thing before posting but I have read some of this and it purports to answer the question of Jesus and his place in history.

The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus
by Lee Strobel

I don't know if there is a good way to link to an item on Amazon.com but here is the URL I landed at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...5040797/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-3609634-0145541

He also wrote
The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity
by Lee Strobel

I'm taking a class on Apologetics at Church right now and our teacher formerly taught at Westpoint. He is very good. I want to keep this brief so I'll get off now and try to read the thread.
:asian:

Lee Stobel is a good source. Don Bohrer was kind enough to send me a copy. I read some last night. It is an enjoyable read so far, as well as a good apologetic book. I'd be interested to see what you post here, reflecting what you've learned in your class.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by heretic888
Incorrect.

The early dating of the Synoptics is something only committed to by theologians. Not historians. St. Jerome flat-out stated that the Gospel of Luke was of a relatively late date (past 150 CE) and Ireneaus commnted that the Gospel of John was created to refute Cerinthus (145 CE). In addition, NONE of the Gospels are known by name before the time of Irenaeus (175 CE) and even then the implications are quite clear that there were not very popular texts (Irenaeus went out of his way to defend their exclusive canonhood) and many other texts were given precedence (including Marcion's Gospel of the Lord).

Good day.

I almost forgot to address this one:

Sorry...I believe that you are "Incorrect." Early dating of synoptics are dated by historians. Trust me, if it was left up to theologians who wanted to fill an agenda, they wouldn't have dated it even as far as 70-110 CE. Both historians and theologians dispute these dates among their peers, but 70-110 is generally accepted. The rest of what you write here is a spin on information, and is not entirely true.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by PAUL
Sorry...I believe that you are "Incorrect." Early dating of synoptics are dated by historians.

Yes, I agree. What is the source for the claim that they date from the mid-to-late 2nd century?

 

[meni]

Can anyone anywhere please find me a single shred of historical evidence by a counterpart of Jesus the even mention Jesus or in the same time of Jesus that recall his action?
Any historian or hard archeology will do ļ

But as we all know it a matter of faith not of historical evidence!

So sorry

M

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by meni
Can anyone anywhere please find me a single shred of historical evidence by a counterpart of Jesus the even mention Jesus or in the same time of Jesus that recall his action?
Any historian or hard archeology will do ļ

But as we all know it a matter of faith not of historical evidence!

So sorry

M

You'd be good to re-read this thread. A matter of faith? Yes. Is ANY history or truth a matter of faith though? To a degree, yes, if you think about it.

The notion that Jesus lived and had followers who believed the Gospel claims happends to be quite verifyable historically, as I have contended, if you read anything I have said.

 

[meni]

I read your replays 3 times and still there is no historical proof at all

 

[heretic888]

I am not going to respond to your first post, Paul, as Jay summed things up fairly nicely.

You can keep on insulting me ("arrogant", "antagonist", "can't read", "annoying", etc) if that makes you feel better. It doesn't really bother me. *shrugs*

For some reason, I am suddenly reminded of Shadowhunter. Hmmmmmmm....... ;p

You make a claim: "This supposed 'transmission test' is not reliable criteria for establishing historical viability." O.K.....prove it!

Very well.

There are two primary flaws in establishing the 'transmission test' (independent of its connection to the Bible) as a criteria for historical viability.

One) Numerous historically viable texts and documents fail the 'transmission test':

You admitted this within your own post. There are only 20 copies of Tacitus' Annals, 10 copies of Ceasar's triumphs in the Gallic Wars, and 8 copies of Herodotus' History. By the criterion of the 'transmission test', the historical viability of these documents is highly questionable. However, we know from empirical historical evidence (of which the 'transmission test' is not a type) that this is not so. Thus, the reliability of the 'transmission test' on this front alone is brought into question.

Two) Numerous unhistorical texts and documents successfully pass the 'transmission test':

In ancient China, countless copies of the Tao te Ching were popularly known. The popularity of the Tao te Ching spread even to foreign lands such as Japan and Korea. However, modern historians acknowledge that there is very little possibility that Lao Tzu ever existed and, if he did, the Tao te Ching most certainly wasn't authored by him (as it is claimed to be). As I stated before, numerous copies have been published of popular fables such as Little Red Riding Hood and Uncle Tom. I am quite certain the number of copies of Homer's epics is immense, yet these are still mythological works. Again, the reliability of the 'transmission test' as a viable means of historical inquiry is also brought into question due to the fact that works of fiction can pass its criterion.

Additionally, there are many claims concerning the Bible and its connection to the 'transmission test' that don't quite bear out the weight of historical inquiry.

You stated that there are 5,686 Greek manuscripts (which continue to grow with archeological work). Additionally, there are copies of ancient translations of the Bible which include over 10,000 in Latin, over 4,000 in Slavic, over 2,500 in Armenian, over 2,000 in Ethiopian, and hundreds more in other languages. Combining the Greek texts with the translated documents gives the New Testament over 24,000 manuscripts.

However, you neglect to give the time frame in which all these manuscripts were produced (one of the criterion for the 'tranmission test'). You fail to state whether all these manuscripts were produced within a period of 100 years or 1,000 years.

You also give the impression that any of these copies of the New Testament are in any way historically close to their supposed 'originals'. However, this is not the case. We, in fact, do not have any full versions of the canonically recognized New Testament books prior to the 500's CE. That makes even the oldest of the manuscripts you described to still be over 300 years removed from their 'originals'. A single excerpt or portion dating to the 100's CE is not enough to establish a concrete historical link.

Thus, based on the above reasoning, I am forced to be skeptical on the New Testament and any historical viability it may have from the 'transmission test' --- which, as I demonstrated above, is itself a dubious means of historical research.

. But this does prove that the Gospels in the Bible weren't "changed" or "embelished" over time. The stories we have today are going to be extremely close to the stories that were being orally transmitted around the time of the apostles, and around the time they were first written down (a date that we still are uncertian of because none of the original manuscripts have been found). So, we can conclude that for whatever reason, people were telling and eventually writting the gospel stories, and they believed them to be true.

I'm afraid this is not quite true.

Regardless of the number of copies existing at any given time, the oldest of full New Testament books dates back to the 500's CE (and, rest assured, the number of New Testament manuscripts dating back this far is quite few indeed). That is well over 300 years removed from the 'oral stories' you cite as original sources.

In addition, there is no historical proof whatsoever that the New Testament books we have now are even dependent on any sort of first century 'oral tradition' --- there is indeed the possibility that they are all mid-to-late 2nd century creations. The first time the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) are mentioned by name is with Irenaeus (circa 170 CE), and we still don't know if the Synoptics he refers to are identical (or even similar) to the copies we have now. The first time the Pauline epistles are mentioned is with Marcion (circa 140 CE), and his versions are in a quite different form than the versions we have now.

So, some discrepencies are good, historically speaking. They verify at least the existance and the beliefs more then they discredit.

Perhaps. But when the discrepancies are so extreme that they actually record the same event as taking place in two completely different locations (as with Jesus' supposed resurrection), then you have a problem.

O.K....differen't names in this case isn't a "hard" contradiction (I explained hard contradictions previously), if even a contradiction at all. Plus, you need to understand the nature of titles like "father" and "brother" in the ancient middle eastern world. "Brother" for instance could mean Sibling, friend, cousin, second cousin, brother in law, cousin in law, etc. Father could mean Dad, Uncle, Grandfather, elder, or teacher. They didn't have the same seperation with titles like father or Brother like we do today, so this really isn't a contradiction when you understand this, and you take it within the context of the authors intent.

For a text that, at its earliest, dates back to the 500's CE, you sure seem to be making an interesting presumption concerning the author's intentions (considering he/she never wrote anything to clarify this point).

Also, this was not written in the dialect of the "ancient Middle Eastern world". It is written in the Greek language, where the distinctions between "father" and "brother" and so on are more concrete. I think the contradition is pretty straightforward.

Matthew 1:16 states: "Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah."

Luke 3:23 states: "When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli"

According to the Synoptics, Joseph has two fathers: Jacob and Eli. This, to me, is a little screwy.

Still no problems here, theologically, not if you understand how marraige is treated theologically. Christian theology explains that when a man and a woman marry, they are no longer 2 people. They become "one." When I marry, my wifes parents become my parents and vice-versa. This makes Jesus son of David through marrage. Who's "seed" at that point is moot.

Key words here: "according to Christian theology." Just because Christians of later centuries project their theology onto the New Testamental books does not change what was written by at least the 500's.

In no way was this how the Hebrews saw the situation, nor is it how they see it now. Born of the "seed of David" is a fairly straightforward description. Either, Jesus was born of the seed of David or he was born of a virgin. You can't have both.

There you go again. It's not "bunk," dude. You claim that because some historical events in the bible haven't been verified yet by outside sources, then you generalize "the entire claim of external consistency is bunk." This is false logic. Just because some things haven't yet been verified, that doesn't mean that the whole story must be false. I point out some things that HAVE been verified. What IS verified is more important to the external test then what HASN'T been verified.

I must admit... you do have a point here.

However, it is widely known among modern researchers that there was no census during Herod's reign, nor was there any attempted "slaughter of innocents". Neither Philo nor Josephus make any mention of either of these events.

In addition, the primary event itself, the trial and execution of Jesus, is completely absent from the Roman records. It is also absent of any historian's mention until around 115 CE (over 80 years after the event in question) and even these 'historical mentions' are of an incredibly dubious nature (Tacitus' supposed reference to Jesus and his record of Nero's persecution of the Christians, for example, is a forgery of the Middle Ages).

I will admit that some of the events of the New Testament may have historical viability. Of course, this brings into question as to when the New Testament books were actually written (its not hard to be historically accurate when you have hindsight). In addition, other events of the New Testament (including the existence and execution of Jesus) have no reliable external sources to corroborate their historical viability.

You again make a claim: "there is little (if any) evidence to support dating the Synoptics at such an early date." Then you proceed to give alternate dates. Have you given us sources or logical/historical proof to back up these dates? NO!

I actually gave evidence to support my claims, you musta just overlooked it.

There are numerous reasons to doubt the early (70-110 CE) dating of the Synoptics:

One) There is no extant version of any of the Synoptics that dates prior to the 500's CE. Thus, we have no reason to conclude that the Synoptics we possess are even remotely similar in content to the ones mentioned by individuals such as Irenaeus. They may indeed be alike in name only.

Two) The first time in recorded history that the Synoptics are mentioned by name is with Irenaeus (circa 175 CE). Justin Martyr, writing only one generation earlier, fails to mention even one of their names a single time. In addition, Irenaeus is quite enthusiastic in his defense of these Synoptics as the "true canon" --- indicating the idea of defending these four exclusively was something of a new and novel idea at the time.

Three) The Gospel of Luke (and possibly some of the other Synoptics) has been demonstrated to be dependent on the Gospel of Marcion (circa 140 CE). The claim of Tertullian (circa 200 CE) was that Marcion had edited Luke. However, this does not bear the weight of logic; there are numerous verses within Luke that would indeed have benefitted Marcion's philosophical position (of docetism), and there are numerous verses in his Gospel of the Lord that indeed do not benefit his philosophical position.

Four) St Jerome (circa 320 CE) has admitted that the Gospel of Luke is of a very late date, written after other Gospels known to have first been published in 160 CE. He also admits that the Theophilus mentioned in Luke was in fact the Bishop of Antioch during the 170's CE.

Five) Irenaeus has admitted that the Gospel of John was written to repudiate the writings of the gnostic Cerinthus. Cerinthus was active during the 140's CE.

Six) Both the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew contain verses whose content deals with the hierarchical system first being developed within Rome during the 170's CE.

Seven) Certain excerpts from our Gospel of Mark (namely, the chronological order of Jesus' teaching at Taberbaum) are directly derived and dependent on the Gospel of Luke --- indicating our Luke has historical precedence. As Luke has been demonstrated to be derived from Marcion, this indicates both Luke and Mark were written within the latter half of the 2nd century (150-200 CE).

Eight) There have been studies demonstrating Luke may also be partially dependent on the writings of Josephus (circa 95 CE).

There's your evidence.

Once again, these are your special dates, but not the dates of what the data points too.

The supposed "historical references to Jesus" that are so often bandied around date to about 115 CE. This includes Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, etc. Mind you, this does not mean all (or even any) of these references actually refers to Jesus or are even authentic (non-forged), but these are their supposed dates nonethless.

The only historical source to supposedly refer to Jesus before this timeframe is Josephus (95 CE), and even the authenticity of his excerpts (including the James reference) are questioned by many.

Not a bad question. You could ask this about News stories. Why did almost every paper in the country cover 9-11 when it occured? Because each paper had something a little bit different to offer about the same event. This is the same with the Gospels; each one emphasises different theological points, even though they are about the same events/occurances.

Actually, that's not what I'm talking about at all.

There were literally hundreds of Christian gospels and epistles during the later half of the 2nd century, and the Synoptics were by no means the most well-known or popular of them (only Irenaeus and Tertullian, both in Rome, seem to have any faith in them). There is in fact no reason to conclude that the Synoptics are any more authentic than any of these other Gospels (especially considering we have no extant form of the Synoptics prior to the 500's CE and they are never mentioned by name until the 170's CE).

Laterz.

 

[arnisador]

I am quite certain the number of copies of Homer's epics is immense, yet these are still mythological works.

But the question we're asking is more akin to, Was there a Homer? Or perhaps more to the point, no one believes there was an Odysseus--that fact is believed to have been transmitted faithfully.

There is no extant version of any of the Synoptics that dates prior to the 500's CE. Thus, we have no reason to conclude that the Synoptics we possess are even remotely similar in content to the ones mentioned by individuals such as Irenaeus. They may indeed be alike in name only.

Might not similar reasoning apply to Homer's works? It matters less perhaps in that case, though people debate whether there was a Trojan War.

There are indeed discrepancies in the Synoptics. But there are also sections that have such similar phrasing that it is clear that they are linked. The similarities are more telling than the dissimilarities.

A religion was founded by Muhammed. It can be done.

 

[MA-Caver]

This snippet from a John Lennon & Yoko Ono interview, in 1980 (the year he died).
PLAYBOY: "So Janov was a daddy for you. Who else?"

ONO: "Before, there was Maharishi."

LENNON: "Maharishi was a father figure, Elvis Presley might have been a father figure. I don't know. Robert Mitchum. Any male image is a father figure. There's nothing wrong with it until you give them the right to give you sort of a recipe for your life. What happens is somebody comes along with a good piece of truth. Instead of the truth's being looked at, the person who brought it is looked at. The messenger is worshiped, instead of the message. So there would be Christianity, Mohammedanism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Marxism, Maoism-- everything-- it is always about a person and never about what he says."

ONO: "All the 'isms' are daddies. It's sad that society is structured in such a way that people cannot really open up to each other, and therefore they need a certain theater to go to to cry or something like that."

LENNON: "Well, you went to est."

ONO: "Yes, I wanted to check it out."

LENNON: "We went to Janov for the same reason."

ONO: "But est people are given a reminder..."

LENNON: "Yeah, but I wouldn't go and sit in a room and not pee."

ONO: "Well, you did in primal scream."

LENNON: "Oh, but I had you with me."

ONO: "Anyway, when I went to est, I saw Werner Erhardt, the same thing. He's a nice showman and he's got a nice gig there. I felt the same thing when we went to Sai Baba in India. In India, you have to be a guru instead of a pop star. Guru is the pop star of India and pop star is the guru here."

LENNON: "But nobody's perfect, etc., etc. Whether it's Janov or Erhardt or Maharishi or a Beatle. That doesn't take away from their message. It's like learning how to swim. The swimming is fine. But forget about the teacher. If the Beatles had a message, it was that. With the Beatles, the records are the point, not the Beatles as individuals. You don't need the package, just as you don't need the Christian package or the Marxist package to get the message. People always got the image I was an anti-Christ or antireligion. I'm not. I'm a most religious fellow. I was brought up a Christian and I only now understand some of the things that Christ was saying in those parables. Because people got hooked on the teacher and missed the message."

PLAYBOY: "And the Beatles taught people how to swim?"

LENNON: "If the Beatles or the Sixties had a message, it was to learn to swim. Period. And once you learn to swim, swim. The people who are hung up on the Beatles' and the Sixties' dream missed the whole point when the Beatles' and the Sixties' dream became the point. Carrying the Beatles' or the Sixties' dream around all your life is like carrying the Second World War and Glenn Miller around. That's not to say you can't enjoy Glenn Miller or the Beatles, but to live in that dream is the twilight zone. It's not living now. It's an illusion."

PLAYBOY: "What is the Eighties' dream to you, John?"

LENNON: Well, you make your own dream. That's the Beatles' story, isn't it? That's Yoko's story. That's what I'm saying now. Produce your own dream. If you want to save Peru, go save Peru. It's quite possible to do anything, but not to put it on the leaders and the parking meters. Don't expect Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan or John Lennon or Yoko Ono or Bob Dylan or Jesus Christ to come and do it for you. You have to do it yourself. That's what the great masters and mistresses have been saying ever since time began. They can point the way, leave signposts and little instructions in various books that are now called holy and worshiped for the cover of the book and not for what it says, but the instructions are all there for all to see, have always been and always will be. There's nothing new under the sun. All the roads lead to Rome. And people cannot provide it for you. I can't wake you up. You can wake you up. I can't cure you. You can cure you."

PLAYBOY: "What is it that keeps people from accepting that message?"

LENNON: "It's fear of the unknown. The unknown is what it is. And to be frightened of it is what sends everybody scurrying around chasing dreams, illusions, wars, peace, love, hate, all that... it's all illusion. Unknown is what what it is. Accept that it's unknown and it's plain sailing. Everything is unknown... then you're ahead of the game. That's what it is. Right?"
(End of Interview)

 

[Klondike93]

Wow, great discussion so far I think, but I have to wonder about basing your evidence on "oral traditions". Stories told over time will tend stray far from the original, become greatly exaggerated.
I see Paul basing a lot of his evidence on this and find it shakey at best. Others seem to be basing what they say on actual writings, other than the bible, which if based of "oral traditions" must be somewhat suspect. I'm currious what historians Paul is citing, are they other than christian? (I'm not Paul bashing either, just you have me asking myself the most questions, but that's what discussion is for right?)

 

[don bohrer]

I will say this again "The Case for Chris by Lee Strobel" is worth reading. You can also check out Josh Mcdowell's book "The new evidence that demands a verdict". I have only skimmed Josh's book, but found it more in-depth than Strobel's. I have heard Mcdowell, Strobel and another "Hank Hennegraaff" speak many times in the apologetics field. "Hank Hennegraaff" is a speaker and author that I think you will find very compelling. All three authors I mentioned are up to date on their facts, offer evidence and do a great job at answering these tough questions.

don

 

[Dennis_Mahon]

Matthew 1:16 states: "Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah."

Luke 3:23 states: "When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli"

According to the Synoptics, Joseph has two fathers: Jacob and Eli. This, to me, is a little screwy.

Jacob and Eli (also known as Heli) were brothers, their mother being Estha. According to ancient Jewish geneological customs, Joseph was the biological son of Jacob and the legal son of Eli.

Jame Akin explains in The Geneologies of Christ .

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by meni
I read your replays 3 times and still there is no historical proof at all

Yup...your lost. I have offered evidence, so take it for what it's worth. Sorry that I can't help you further.

 

[r erman]

Originally posted by heretic888


Example: Santa Claus (not St. Nicholas) really did exist but all the evidence of his life was destroyed by the big bad European kings. But, still, I know he existed even though I don't have proof. Why, you ask?? Because the stories say so!!

Just a fun tidbit; The historical St Nicholas was one of the Bishops at the first Council of Nicea, and debated with an so-far-unnamed Bishop over the divinity of Christ. In fact, when the other Bishop refused to see St Nick's POV(that Christ was divine) he struck the man. This debate, and the debate over the Arian letter(written by the philosopher Arius) points to the possibility(I'm being cautious ) that established men of christian faith still wrestled with what would be the 'official' standing on Jesus within Christianity.

Also, in regards to the 'age' of the gospels, I'll use Matthew as an example, the Ebionites were known to have used a version of Matthew in the first half of the second century, this according to Iranaeus(140-200). What is interesting to note, though, is that the Ebionites denied the virgin birth of Christ. This brings up two possibe conclusions: 1) This early 'version' of Matthew did not contain the virgin story, or 2) they were using their own non-canonical gospel at or around 175c.e(quotations of which are mentioned by Epiphanius in his Heresies 30 in 375)--if they had their own gospel it was a gospel that was easily confused with Matthew.

I know there has been a lot of debate over what sources were used for the Gospels and the ages thereof. The Fellows of the Jesus Seminar have put forth the Gospel of Peter as the source for the passion stories, but still insist that Mark, or the structure of Mark, was the primary base for the canonical gospels(and possibly the hypothetical 'Q' text being the basis for these as well). They generally advocate, and offer evidence to support, that there were two primary archetypical gospels that the followers of Christ used. The first would have been a gospel of the sayings of Jesus(Q), and second, a gospel of the signs, or miracles, of Jesus. This goes a long way in explaining why there were divergent groups of Christians in the first couple of centuries.

I have to argue with the point that there are no discovered Gospels dated before 500c.e.(unless referring to the Synoptics). The Egerton Gospel papyrus was found in Egypt and dates to the second half of the second century(150-200c.e.) It is considered one of the oldest extant copies of a gospel in the world.

p.s. for those wanting historical proof of Jesus. Look into John Dominic Crossan's lates work: Excavating Jesus. I would not suggest apologetic books, such as those by McDowell or others. They are not scholarly and don't stand up to criticism--these books are great for fundamentalists looking for some kind of veracity, but aren't regarded as accurate by any objective scholarly body--including those bodies trying to discover the historical Christ.