The Historical Jesus.

[arnisador]

Please, post links to long segments of others' writings rather than copying them into the thread. There may be times when it's necessary to copy the material but as a rule mixing the long text in breaks the flow of the discussion between particpants here.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-

 

[Cruentus]

Sorry....

I bummed my sources from an encyclopedia.

I'll try to find more links, or just summerize better, next time!

 

[r erman]

Originally posted by PAUL
LOL thanks man. Dude...fundamentalist!?!?! Catholic, I say Catholic! :soapbox: Oh well...I guess I don't sound Catholic here.

I thought there was some hope for protestants...I guess not(that was a joke, and not be taken as a slight to anyone who fits the bill).

I don't think Paul was as gnostic, he warns some of the early churches against the teachings of the gnostics in some of his letters. Incidently, the follower's of Jesus' brother James were supposed to have considered Pauline Christianity to be false...Interesting that so much of the New testament, let alone modern christianity, is based more on Paul than Jesus.

I didn't read all of the above posts, but has anyone else explored the connection between the teachings of Jesus and the altered Hebrew teachings found in the Targums(paraphrases of Hebrew texts rendered in Aramaic that were a sort of 'Oral Tradition'[uh oh] that Jesus worked from)? Interesting stuff.

I won't add anymore for now

 

[Cruentus]

:rofl:

Seriously...here are some sources for further reading. Lee Strobel's "The Case For Christ" has been referenced here already. I am currently reading it right now, and I must say that it is decent. When i am finished, I would like to pass it along to one of you, if that is O.K. w/ Don (the cool guy who let me borrow his book, and told me to pass it along). So PM me if your interested.

Other sources (both Christian and Non) are as follows:

For a taped Debate, if you can find it: William Lane Craig and Frank Zindler, "Atheism Vs. Christianity: Where does the evidence point? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), videocassette.

"The Making of the New Testament" Aurthur G. Patzia

"A History of God" Karen Armstrong

"The Son Rises: Historical Evidence for the Resurection of Jesus" William Lane Craig

"The Testimony of the Evangelists" Simon Green leaf

"Jesus Under Fire" eds. Michael J Wilkins and J.P. Morelands

"The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" Gleason L. Archer

"When Critics Ask" Thomas Howe & Norman Geisler

"The Books and The parchments" F.F. Bruce

"Evidence that demands a Verdict" Josh McDowell

"Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testement" Benjamin B. Warfield

"Act of God" Charles Templeton

"Josephus and the Scriptures" Edwin Yamauchi

"The Case Against Christianity" Michael Martin

"The Historical Jesus" Gary Habermas

"Pontius Pilate" Paul L. Maier

"The Verdict of History" Gary Habermas

"The Real Jesus" Luke Timothy Johnson

"Ready with an Answer" John Anjerberg & John Weldon

"Archaeology and the New Testament" John McRay

"Jesus: The Evidence" Ian Wilson

"American Athiest" 'Where Jesus Never Walked' Frank Zindler

"The Archaeology of the New Testament" Jack Finegan

"Rocks, Relics, and Biblical Reliability" Clifford Wilson

"The War of the Scrolls" 'Christianity Today' Kevin D. Miller

"Jesus under Seige" Gregory A. Boyd

"The Historical Jesus" John Dominic Crossan

"New Approaches to Jesus and the Gospels" Royce Gordon Gruenler

"Farewell To God" Charles Templeton

"People of the Lie" M. Scott Peck

"Jesus: A Biblical Defense of his Diety" Josh McDowell and Bart Larson

"Science Speaks" Peter W. Stoner

"Betrayed!" Stan Telchin

"Jewish Doctors Meet the Great Physician" Ruth Rosen

"The Passover Plot" Hugh Schonfield

"Holy Blood, Holy Grail" Henry Lincoln, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh

"Harvard Theological Review 25 (1932): The use of nails in the Crucifixion" J.W. Hewitt

"Journal of the American Medical Association (3/21/86): On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ" William Edwards

"The Easter Jesus" Gerald Collins

"Jesus: An Historiancs Review of the Gospels" Michael Grant

"The Historical Evidence for the Resurection of Jesus Christ" Kirsopp Lake

"The Evidence for the Resurection" J.N.D. Anderson

"Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurection Debate" Gary Habermas and Anthony Flew

"Christ Is Risen: So What?" Michael Green

"More then a Carpenter" Josh McDowell

"Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament" A.N. Sherwin-White

"Handbook of Christian Apoligetics" Peter Kreeft

"Mere Christianity" C.S. Lewis

 

[Cruentus]

These are a variety of cites ranging from stuff written in the early 1900's to stuff written in the last decade or so. It ranges from Theology to history to archeology, etc. There is much more then that out there, but these were just a few.

Also, important to note that I didn't just Cite stuff that supported my arguements. I cited works that both supported and went against what I said.

Examples would be Frank Zindler and Michael Martin, both who I have read works on, who are probably two of the leading exponnents of Christianity today. They both make seemingly compelling arguements that Jesus never existed.

You see, I believe that to truely be able to study something and formulate opinions, one must look at both sides of the arguement. So, don't just find the books that support your narrow world view just to verify your opinions (this goes for both Non-Christians as well as Christians). Look at both sides, and THEN make an educated decision.

To get started, I would get a cassete tape of that Debate I cited, or get the works cited by Lee Strobel, and by Michael Martin.

Happy Reading!

 

[Cruentus]

What I found from my studies of BOTH sides of the arguement:

First, I would like to admit that there is a lack of what could be considered "Imperical" evidence for the existance of Jesus. This makes it difficult to believe the Christian Premise at first.

However, what I also found was that there is a lack of "Imperical" evidence for almost EVERYTHING in history; especially when regarding events that happened prior to 1000 CE. The "problems" we run into verifying the Gospel stories are often magnified when trying to verify any other event in Ancient history.
So, I found that even though the Evidence for Jesus' existance doesn't appear to be emperical enough on the surface, there is seems to be FAR more evidence available to verify the existance of Christ, and to verify the Gospel accounts then in any ANY other Ancient history, or World Religion.

I also found that the problem the Athiests and skeptics have is within their solutions. They focus on refuting existing evidence, which is not hard to cast doubt with ANY ancient history. This makes the Skeptic arguement sound compelling to the average person who does not realize the nature of Ancient History. However, the skeptic alternative solutions is where the skeptic arguments really fall short, I have found. The reason is because the skeptic alternative solution, I find, is MORE DIFFICULT to prove given the evidence we have then the simple idea that a guy names Jesus was a real person who developed a following called the Christain Religion. At the very least, the skeptic solutions are no more imperical then the non-skeptical ones.

I think you will find...regardless of what you choose to believe or not believe, that my above statement is very true.

Have a good day...

 

[don bohrer]

Good Job! Well done indeed.

don

 

[Klondike93]

Well done Paul


artyon:

%think%

 

[Cruentus]

Thanks guys...

 

[heretic888]

Sorry this reply took so long, guys. There was a lot of misinformation that needed to be addressed, and I haven't had the time to do this with any useful sources on hand. Be forewarned that this is most likely going to be a VERY long post. That being said....

You make this point, as well as a tone of others. But you have yet to argue effectively how any of this proves that Jesus never existed against what ALL the other sources are saying.

The point I was making, paul, was that, contrary to what you have erroneously claimed beforehand, there are no extant New Testament manuscripts prior to the early-to-mid 300's CE. In fact, even the earliest extant versions of some of the books of the New Testament date back even later to the 400's CE. And, as before, the actual number of New Testament documents that date even this far back are very few in number (effectively 'failing' your 'transmission test'). This late dating of the extant New Testament documents is fairly well known (if you want corroboration for this, look into Crossan's works). Whatever source told you there were extant copies dating to the 1st to 3rd centuries is, to be blunt, incorrect.

In addition, also contrary to what you have claimed, no New Testament fragments date prior to the mid-to-late 100's CE. The empirical proof of such a late dating is found among the works of the eminent papyrologist Graham Stanton, who noted that all supposed '1st century fragments' are written in the 'Biblical Uncial' handwriting --- which only emerged in the late 2nd century. Additionally, the actual number of pre-3rd century fragments amounts to less than 10 (which, again, hardly does well for your 'transmission test').

And, even then, the fragments still remain just that --- fragments. Although some scholars have erroneously claimed what canonical Gospels they believe the fragments to come from, there is actually no proof to corroborate such a claim. It is equally possible (and, based on the ignorance of the early Church fathers concerning the Synoptics, much more probable) that the fragments are actually derived from documents that the canonical Gospels used as source material (such as is commonly claimed by the Q-theorists that Matthew and Luke did with Mark). This could easily account for the common passages between the fragments and our extant Gospels. After all, it must be remembered that even the lengthiest of the fragments consist of only a few pages of papyri --- as opposed to any 4th century extant document, which consists of over 800 pages of papyri.

Yet, despite the obvious lack of empirical evidence to corroborate such an early dating for any of the Synoptic Gospels, many scholars still maintain the late 1st century to early 2nd century dates. The only historical 'evidence' (which is not empirical but textual) to back this up are some rather vague allusions in the writings of Papias and Polycarp (both dated to the early 2nd century). The problem is that their writings have been through the 'holy forgery mill' of Irenaeus (late 2nd century) and Eusebius (early 4th century), and it is virtually impossible to determine precisely what Papias and Polycarp wrote themselves and what was forged in later centuries. It is interesting to note in the works of Papias (interpolated they may be), however, that his 'Gospel of Matthew' consists of nothing more than a collection of oracles --- meaning it was in a quite different form than our Matthew (this seems to indicate that, even in the early 2nd century, the Matthew narrative as we know it had yet to be authored). In addition, Papias himself is very critical of the Gospel of Mark --- due to the fact that Mark was not supposed to have been present during the events he recounts (Mark was supposed to have been some sort of secretary for Peter). Papias makes no mention of either Luke or John. So, at best, the only canonical Gospel that was completed during the time of Papias (circa 110 CE) was Mark's. This, of course, assumes that the reference to Mark was not an interpolation of later centuries.

It is very suspicious that Justin Martyr (circa 150 CE) never mentions Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John in any of his extant works and yet just a generation later in the same part of the world (Rome), Irenaeus (circa 190 CE) states that there are only 4 gospels and the canon is closed. Celsus (circa 170 CE) knows nothing about Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John but does refer to gospels of Helen, Mariamme, Salome, and a host of other women. The only texts known to Plotinus (early-200's CE) in his criticism of Christianity are Gnostic works. Still no Synoptics.

On a final note, in 1919 the German scholar Karl Ludwig Schmidt was able to show that the author of Mark (supposedly the earliest and 'simplest' of the Synoptics) had created his gospel by linking together smaller existing stories, which had no time/place setting themselves. He, in effect, created the Jesus story from pre-existing narrative fragments. Schmidt demonstrated that the connecting links between these various fragments were entirely of Mark's own invention. For example, some scholars have noted that all passages in Mark referring to Galilee are later additions to the text. This can be seen in the line 'And passing by the sea of Galilee he saw Simon and Andrew' (Mark 1:6) in wich the words 'by the sea of Galilee' are placed quite ungrammatically in the Greek syntax. The verb 'passing along' is not used with the preposition 'by' in Greek. If this part of the excerpt is removed, the passage flows on normally and naturally. This has led many New Testmanent scholars to believe Mark added a geographical context to a story that previously lacked it.

Additionally, Mark evinces a clear ignorance of Palestinian geography: 'In the seventh chapter, for instance, Jesus is reported as going through Sidon on his way from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. Not only is Sidon in the opposite direction, but there was no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the first century CE, only one from Tyre. Similarly the fifth chapter refers to the Sea of Galilee's eastern shore as the country of the Gerasenes, yet Gerasa, today Jerash, is more than thirty miles to the southeast, too far away for a story whose setting requires a nearby city with a steep slope down to the sea. Aside from geography, Mark represented Jesus as saying "If a woman divorces her husband and marries another she is guilty of adultery" (Mark 10:12), a precept which would have been meaningless in the Jewish world, where women had no rights of divorce.' (I. Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence)

Any way you cut it... these Synoptics were not eyewitness accounts and not historically accurate.

how any of this proves that Jesus never existed against what ALL the other sources are saying

You have yet to provide any of these 'sources', so I will have to take that rebuttal with a grain of salt. I assume you are referring to your flimsy external sources --- all of which are written nearly 100 years after the events in question (and, lacking any obvious direct records or primary sources, are thus secondary sources), some of which do not even refer to Jesus ('Chrestus' is not an aberration of 'Christos' and Jesus was never supposed to have been in Rome), and some of which are forgeries (Tacitus' reference to Jesus is never quoted prior to the 1400's, when it suddenly 'magically' appears in all extant versions of his works).

So, again, what sources??

This discussion is getting to be laughable, and I am not going to go through each and every point again. You have resorted to repeating yourself on many accounts, even though the points have been refuted. I feel like we are going around in circles at this point.

Gee.... now who's arrogant??

Maybe I should just go over all the points I had either mentioned for the first time and/or that you have yet to refute in any satisfactory manner:

1) The New Testament does not effectively 'pass' the 'transmission test' prior to the the 400's CE --- and even then, it only does so with a minimal number of documents (only a few dozen at most).

2) The New Testament does not tell us what the original Christians may or may not have believed. It only tells us what they may have read --- not their interpretation of what they read.

3) There are Christian texts just as old, if not older, than the Synoptics that paint a very different picture of Jesus. These include, but are not limited to, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of the Hebrews, Marcion's Gospel of the Lord, and the Gospel of the Egyptians.

4) The Gospels have undergone changes and revisions both before and after the 400's CE --- some of which are much more than the 'linguistic differences' you attempted to reduce them to. There is both empirical and textual evidence for this (such as the writings of Origen). An example of this is the 'long ending' found in the Gospel of Mark.

5) There is, in fact, no reliable proof (whether empirical or textual) that Christian "literalism" existed prior to Justin Martyr, circa 150 CE.

6) There is no reliable proof of "persecution" of Christians as a group prior to 250 CE in either empirical or textual sources. Even the first time persecution by Emperor Nero is ever mentioned is by Bishop Melito of Sardis around 170 CE --- well over 100 years after the events in question.

7) No extant New Testament document dates prior to the 300's CE.

8) No New Testament fragment dates prior to the mid-to-late 100's CE.

9) The fragments in question are not proof that the Synoptics existed then in the first place, as we cannot accurately confirm they come from the Synoptics in the first place. They could be from source materials the Synoptics drew upon.

10) There is no proof that Christianity began in Palestine. In fact, the relatively large number of Christians in "Pagan" countries is as early as the 2nd century is testament that it did not. Additionally, the vast majority of these 'Christians' were members of Gnostic sects (according to Irenaeus, Tertuallian, and the Pastoral Letters).

11) The Synoptics are never quoted or mentioned by name until 190 CE with Irenaeus. Papias and Polycarp, due to the massive interpolations in their works, are not reliable sources.

12) There were Pagan critics as early as the 2nd century that made claims that the teachings and stories of Christianity are plagiarisms of Paganism. Justin Martyr responded to them in much of his work, and there is also Celsus.

13) Early Christian texts, such as Marcion's Apostolikon (which textual examination have shown predate the canonical Pauline Epistles by decades) are of a decidedly docetic nature viewing Jesus in a non-historical light.

14) There are blatant contradictions in the New Testament --- including different accounts of where the resurrection took place (one account says Galilee and another says Jerusalem).

15) There is no reputable evidence, whether primary or secondary, to support Eusebius' claims about Jesus having two "fathers" (Joseph and Eli).

16) Many of the historical "events" in the Gospels never took place, such as Herod's supposed "slaughter of innocents".

17) The external sources you provided are unreliable and even spurious at times.

18) There is no proof that the authors of the Synoptics were either Jewish or from Palestine.

19) There is no empirical or reliable textual evidence that the Synoptics were "eyewitness accounts".

Gee... by my count, that's almost 20 points that need addressing. Good luck.

What I can't believe is that you can't see that your evidence and the evidence of the scholars you quote is no more "imperical" then the evidence that supports the ideas of Jesus being a real person.

Ahem. It's spelled 'empirical' and I can assure you it is a real word (look up 'empiricism' in the dictionary if you don't believe me).

Additionally, what I am pointing out is the incredible lack of ANY empirical evidence to corroborate your claims. You have certainly failed to provide any. There is no empirical evidence per se to support my claims. On the other hand, there is plenty of secondary and textual evidence --- such as the obvious parallels between the Jesus story and Pagan myths, the 'silence of Paul', and no mention of Christian 'literalist' beliefs prior to 150 CE.

There is FAR more corroborating evidence supporting the idea that Jesus was a real person, and his followers believed in his divinity.

Not unless you consider your word to be some kind of proof. You have yet to provide any evidence to support these claims. All you've provided are erroneous dates for Biblical manuscripts and fragments, and a lot of unproven assumptions on what the early Christians believed and where they were centered.

How about just admiting the truth...that your evidence is not more "imperical" then anyone elses?

Well, then I'd be lying. Last time I checked, that's a sin.

This is misinformation. First, the part about Paul being a Gnostic has no credence at all, particularly when you read the letters themselves and realize that The philosophies he proposes doesn't fit at all with the Gnostics

There are two reasons for this rather erroneous interpretation (by the way, I am going to assume Paul actually existed and wrote most of the epistles attributed to him for this discussion):

One) Many of letters attributed to Paul were, in fact, late 2nd century forgeries. Only 7 (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon) are generally regarded by scholars as authentic. In addition, many excerpts within the authentic Pauline epistles have been edited or added in by later redactors.

Two) For such a "non-Gnostic", Paul sure likes to use Gnostic terminology a lot. The problem is the translation from the Greek to "churchy" English that give a false impression of what is actually written. Paul makes extensive use of Gnostic concepts such as gnosis, sophia, pistis, psychic, pneumatic, aeon, archon, the '7 heavens', and many variations of telios.

I suggest reading Freke and Gandy's work --- they discuss the 'Gnosticism' of Paul in depth.

Gnostics (which is why they are Christian).

Umm... most of the Gnostic sects were Christian. Even their opponents (Irenaeus and Tertullian) admitted this.

There is also no historical connection that I have seen pointing to Paul being anything but a Christian after his conversion.

Many Gnostic groups, including the Valentinians and Marcionites, trace their beginnings to Paul. Additionally, Marcion made extensive mention of Paul while he was in Rome decades before any literalist did (Justin Martyr, in all of his extant works, does not mention Paul once).

However, what is also misinformation is the idea that Gnostics, Docetists, or Celsus believed that Jesus didn't exist. On the contrary, they believe he existed, but as a Pagan God only in spirit and sorcery.

This is a horrid misinterpretation of the Gnostic doctrine of Docetism. The very fact that people still buy that line is testament to how slow religious scholarship progresses.

Freke and Gandy: "The opponents of Gnosticism have portrayed this as a rather strange belief that Jesus did not actually have a flesh and blood body, but only seemed to exist physically, and that he magically made it appear as if he was dying on the cross although in reality he was not. As usual, however, by taking the Gnostics literally, the Literalists completely miss the point."

Freke and Gandy again: "The Gnostics did not believe that Jesus only seemed to exist, or that he magically avoided suffering on the corss, or, more sinisterly, that he had himself replaced by Simon of Cyrene, who was crucified instead while Jesus stood safely at a distance laughing. Such doctrines would, as the Literalists claimed, be distasteful and ridiculous. But this is a misunderstanding (or more likely a conscious distortion!) of Gnostic teachings. In fact, 'Illusionism' is simply part of understanding the crucifixion story as an initiation allegory [...]"

Elsewhere, Freke and Gandy claim: "The Gnostics' doctine that Jesus is a symbolic visionary figure is known as docetism. It is misunderstood by Christian Literalists as the bizarre claim that Jesus was some sort of disembodied spook that miraculously appeared to be a man who lived the life described in the gospels. But this crazy idea is just the product of Literalists taking the Gnostics literally."

Gerald Massey states: "The Docetae sects, for example, are supposed to have held that the transactions of the gospel narrative did occur, but in a phantasmagoria of unreality. This, however, is but a false mode of describing the position of those who denied the Christ could be incarnated and become human to suffer and die upon the cross. The Christians who report the beliefs of the Gnostics, Docetae, and others, always assume the actual history and then try to explain the non-human interpretation as an heretical denial of the alleged facts. But the docetic interpretation was first, was pre-historical [...]"

Ireneaus, in his refutation of the Docetics, refers to them as seeing Jesus as an 'imaginary' being: "He shall also judge those who describe Christ as [having become man] only in [human] opinion. For how can they imagine that they do carry on a real discussion, when their Master was a mere imaginary being? Or how can they receive anything steadfast from Him, if He was a merely imaginary being, and not a verity? And how can these men really be partaken of salvation, if He in whom they profess to believe, manifested Himself as merely an imaginary being?"

The common interpretation of what Docetism (or Illusionism) entails is always based upon its refutations by its Literalist opponents --- not how it was understood by its proponents.

Oh, and by the way, paul..... next time, try and cite something more historically reliable and authoritative than an encyclopedia.

*chuckles* Laterz.

 

[Cruentus]

At this point, I think that we can consider this conversation over.

As I have said before, and I wasn't trying to be arrogent, but you have resorted to regurgitating your points. You give a huge list of points, however many of them I have refuted. Some I haven't, but what's the purpose? If you won't recognize the points that I have addressed, then why should I continue to address more of your points? So you can pretend that I didn't address them? The whole thing has gotten stupid because of this.

I have read many things on both sides of the arguement. How much have you read that supports my side? With that being said, I'd like to refer you to some of the sources I have given earlier. Particularly "Jesus Under Fire," or anything by William Lane Craig.
Many of your arguements have been successfully refuted by these sources. Maybe while you read them, you can talk to the book and say "you didn't address this point" while they address it in the text. That would be about as productive as this conversation has gotten.

Besides...say what you'd like...but NOTHING you say could refute this:

What I found from my studies of BOTH sides of the arguement:

First, I would like to admit that there is a lack of what could be considered "Imperical" evidence for the existance of Jesus. This makes it difficult to believe the Christian Premise at first.

However, what I also found was that there is a lack of "Imperical" evidence for almost EVERYTHING in history; especially when regarding events that happened prior to 1000 CE. The "problems" we run into verifying the Gospel stories are often magnified when trying to verify any other event in Ancient history.
So, I found that even though the Evidence for Jesus' existance doesn't appear to be emperical enough on the surface, there is seems to be FAR more evidence available to verify the existance of Christ, and to verify the Gospel accounts then in any ANY other Ancient history, or World Religion.

I also found that the problem the Athiests and skeptics have is within their solutions. They focus on refuting existing evidence, which is not hard to cast doubt with ANY ancient history. This makes the Skeptic arguement sound compelling to the average person who does not realize the nature of Ancient History. However, the skeptic alternative solutions is where the skeptic arguments really fall short, I have found. The reason is because the skeptic alternative solution, I find, is MORE DIFFICULT to prove given the evidence we have then the simple idea that a guy names Jesus was a real person who developed a following called the Christain Religion. At the very least, the skeptic solutions are no more imperical then the non-skeptical ones.

I think you will find...regardless of what you choose to believe or not believe, that my above statement is very true.

Have a good day...

 

[heretic888]

At this point, I think that we can consider this conversation over.

Unless you can actually start providing us some reliable information or sources, then sure.

Seriously... almost all of the "evidence" that you've presented thus far is nothing but misinformation (example: the unreliable external sources you cited to "prove" Jesus' historicity) and "blind faith" assumptions (example: Christianity started in Palestine in the 1st century CE --- there is no proof for these claims).

As I have said before, and I wasn't trying to be arrogent, but you have resorted to regurgitating your points. You give a huge list of points, however many of them I have refuted.

Actually, you've refuted none of them.

I, on the other hand, refuted several of your points (including your 'transmission test' theory) and pointed out the misinformation in several of your claims (namely, the dates you gave for extant New Testament documents and fragments).

You have yet to provide one shred of credible evidence for any of your points.

Some I haven't, but what's the purpose? If you won't recognize the points that I have addressed, then why should I continue to address more of your points? So you can pretend that I didn't address them? The whole thing has gotten stupid because of this.

Why should I recognize points that are "supported" by misinformation, apologetic forgeries, and unproven assumptions??

Again, this conversation is going to go nowhere unless you actually start providing real empirical evidence for your claims. You have yet to do so.

I have read many things on both sides of the arguement.

Two things:

One) So what?? Somebody could have read arguments for both sides in the 15th century and still conclude Galileo is wrong and the Earth really is the center of the known universe.

Just because you've listened to "both sides" does not make your theories and hypotheses any more credible. The evidence you use to support your ideas is what gives them credibility.

Two) For someone who has "read both sides", you seem to possess a decided ignorance about many common criticisms against the historicity of Jesus and the New Testament.

How much have you read that supports my side?

A lot, actually. I was a "true believer" in my younger days. None of the material I read, however, has convinced me of the historicity of Jesus.

With that being said, I'd like to refer you to some of the sources I have given earlier. Particularly "Jesus Under Fire," or anything by William Lane Craig.

I'd direct you to sources I gave earlier, as well. Especially Earl Doherty's works. And, unlike your arguments on this thread, they actually use reliable empirical evidence to support their arguments.

Many of your arguements have been successfully refuted by these sources.

In your mind, perhaps.

Maybe while you read them, you can talk to the book and say "you didn't address this point" while they address it in the text. That would be about as productive as this conversation has gotten.

Yes, but that has more to do with your inability to provide any credible evidence than anything else.

Besides...say what you'd like...but NOTHING you say could refute this:

*chuckles* Oh, really??

First, I would like to admit that there is a lack of what could be considered "Imperical" evidence for the existance of Jesus. This makes it difficult to believe the Christian Premise at first.

No, it makes it difficult to believe at all. Period.

And, again, its spelled empirical. Crack open a dictionary and check for yourself.

However, what I also found was that there is a lack of "Imperical" evidence for almost EVERYTHING in history; especially when regarding events that happened prior to 1000 CE. The "problems" we run into verifying the Gospel stories are often magnified when trying to verify any other event in Ancient history.
So, I found that even though the Evidence for Jesus' existance doesn't appear to be emperical enough on the surface, there is seems to be FAR more evidence available to verify the existance of Christ, and to verify the Gospel accounts then in any ANY other Ancient history, or World Religion.

I also found that the problem the Athiests and skeptics have is within their solutions. They focus on refuting existing evidence, which is not hard to cast doubt with ANY ancient history. This makes the Skeptic arguement sound compelling to the average person who does not realize the nature of Ancient History. However, the skeptic alternative solutions is where the skeptic arguments really fall short, I have found. The reason is because the skeptic alternative solution, I find, is MORE DIFFICULT to prove given the evidence we have then the simple idea that a guy names Jesus was a real person who developed a following called the Christain Religion. At the very least, the skeptic solutions are no more imperical then the non-skeptical ones.

*sighs* This entire quote is blatantly untrue.

You have attempted to use a vague, generalized claim about history as whole to invalidate a particular, specified claim about an individual point in history (the 'mythicist' theory about Jesus). That would be like saying that just because many people in Nazi Germany were biggoted fascists that all Germans during the 40's were fascists.

In any event, the historical claims made during this quote are laughable in and of themselves. What you failed to tell everybody, and/or failed to take into consideration, that this point during human history was one of the most well-recorded known to modern man. There were dozens (nearly a hundred, I believe) of Roman historians writing at or within a century of the time that Jesus was supposed to have lived (I can post their names if you wish). They don't make a whisper of him. They do make extensive mention, however, of dozens of other would-be "messiahs" running around both Judea and Rome. The same holds true for Jewish historians such as Philo and Justus, as well.

So, it seems, your vague generalization about history does not actually hold true for this particular stretch of history in this particular part of the world. Sorry... but generalizations don't prove particulars.

Besides, this quote doesn't actually solve the known historical inconsistencies in the New Testament. For example, Jesus was supposed to have been born during the reign of Herod, who died 4 BCE. Yet, he was also supposed to have been born during the census of Quirinus, which historians record at 6 CE. That's a 10 year difference there for "eyewitness" accounts and does indeed fit what you would call a "hard contradiction".

In addition, the fact remains that the earliest Gospels themselves (namely, Mark, Matthew, and Luke) are written in a form similar to plays. It seems very much so that the Synoptics were originally mystery dramas of some sort (and Christianity itself some form of Hellenistic-Jewish mystery school, it seems). The proof of this found in the Synoptics themselves. Many scenes take place in which Jesus is off by himself with no witnesses whatsoever to record his supposed utterances. An example of this is found in the passion scene at the Garden of Gethsemane, as well as Jesus' "tests" during his time in the desert. This poses a problem for an eyewitness account of historical events --- but not for a character monologue in a theatrical performance.

The events themselves are often structured like a play, as well. Events in different locations occur with no break in the narrative and with no dialogue between the disciples or Jesus between events. There remains a very dramatic and "theatrical" flare to the earliest threads of the Gospels. It seems very likely the Jesus narrative was originally some form of mystery play akin to the kind played out in Greece and Egypt centuries prior to the common era.

There is also, again, the blatant ignorance of Palestinian geography and laws found within Mark, the earliest of the Synoptics. There is also the research of Karl Schmidt in demonstrating Mark itself is created from numerous pre-existing story fragments taking place in no time/place setting. The chronological and narrative link between these various story fragments was entirely of Mark's own creation, as well.

When the Gospels themselves don't pass the test of historical reliability (I wouldn't call a play created out of pre-existing story fragments with an obvious ignorance of the geography of the place its supposed to take place in a 'historically reliable' document), then how are we to seriously regard for the historicity of Jesus --- whose major supposed "proof" is found in Biblical canon?? There certainly isn't any credible proof in any extra-Biblical sources, as I stated beforehand. In addition, as stated before, Paul (in his authentic epistles) evinces a clear ignorance of both Jesus' teachings and his biography, and he himself seems to have Gnostic/Docetic leanings.

These points, among others, are all deeply troubling concerns for the contemporary apologetic.

Laterz.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by heretic888
Unless you can actually start providing us some reliable information or sources, then sure.

Seriously... almost all of the "evidence" that you've presented thus far is nothing but misinformation (example: the unreliable external sources you cited to "prove" Jesus' historicity) and "blind faith" assumptions (example: Christianity started in Palestine in the 1st century CE --- there is no proof for these claims).

Yea...misinfo according to YOU. I gave you a list of sources...but of course THAT"S NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Whatever.

Actually, you've refuted none of them.

I, on the other hand, refuted several of your points (including your 'transmission test' theory) and pointed out the misinformation in several of your claims (namely, the dates you gave for extant New Testament documents and fragments).

You have yet to provide one shred of credible evidence for any of your points.

Your dillusional. Anybody with the free time to read through this entire thread can see that your an idiot. NOT because of your beliefs, but because of your refusal to recognize that I at least have made points with sources to back them up.

I can recognize your points and your sources...so why can't you recognize mine? I'll answer for you....your too threatened by my arguement.

Why should I recognize points that are "supported" by misinformation, apologetic forgeries, and unproven assumptions??

Because...it is only in your OPINION, and possibly the opinion of a select few other scholars, that what I have brought to the table is not credible. That is the problem I have in talking to YOU. You don't respect my opinion or my sources, yet you expect me to respect yours. You are so threatened by my arguement that you've resorted to a thinly supported refutation of my sources because you can't/won't address my real arguements.

Again, this conversation is going to go nowhere unless you actually start providing real empirical evidence for your claims. You have yet to do so.

I've provided evidence, so what you say is debatable. One thing that isn't debatable, though, is the fact that your sources are certianly no more "imperical" or "credable" then mine.

Two things:

One) So what?? Somebody could have read arguments for both sides in the 15th century and still conclude Galileo is wrong and the Earth really is the center of the known universe.

Just because you've listened to "both sides" does not make your theories and hypotheses any more credible. The evidence you use to support your ideas is what gives them credibility.

No...it doesn't make my arguement in itself more credible, but it does show that I don't feel threatened by other arguements, and that I have the ability to look at things objectively and with an open mind. You have yet to provide evidence that you have this same ability. It also does say that I know what both sides of the arguement are, so that my opinion isn't one sided like yours.

And the point of my objectivity above, sir, DOES give my opinion more credence then yours.

Two) For someone who has "read both sides", you seem to possess a decided ignorance about many common criticisms against the historicity of Jesus and the New Testament.

Once again...your OPINION.

A lot, actually. I was a "true believer" in my younger days. None of the material I read, however, has convinced me of the historicity of Jesus.

Well, just because you were a Christian puppet at one point in your life, and you read a few things on the opposing side that made you feel "empowered" with knowledge, and made you feel better, smarter, etc., then your Christian peers, that doesn't give any evidence to your objectivity. Maybe you've been reading the wrong stuff.

I'd direct you to sources I gave earlier, as well. Especially Earl Doherty's works. And, unlike your arguments on this thread, they actually use reliable empirical evidence to support their arguments.

I'd be happy to read some of your sources...as I believe some of my sources that support your side reference some of yours, although I could be mistaken. I find it laughable, though, that your close-minded enough to believe that any of these sources are somehow more "reliable" and "emperical" then other competable references out there.

In your mind, perhaps.

No....Anyone with the ability to read and understand what we have both written here can clearly see that for many of your points, I have addressed them, argued them, and given references to my arguement. You may not agree with my ARGUEMENT...and that is fine. But instead of giving a counter point or explaining why you don't agree, you revert to saying the logical equivelent of "ISN'T SO!" Well...sorry to break it to you but just because you say it ain't so, that doesn't make it true. Because you expect anyone to buy your crap just because you said it is megalomania, in my opinion.

Yes, but that has more to do with your inability to provide any credible evidence than anything else.

Oh no....it couldn't have anything to do with your unobjective, arrogent attitude, or your inability to recognize my arguements and sources when they are spelled out for you, could it?

*chuckles* Oh, really??

yea...chucklehead...really.

No, it makes it difficult to believe at all. Period.

And, again, its spelled empirical. Crack open a dictionary and check for yourself.

Hey...stick to the arguement or F**K off. My spelling has little to do with anything here. Some of us have jobs and lives, and don't care to spend time correcting spelling and grammer on internet forums to pacify our need to "look smart."

*sighs* This entire quote is blatantly untrue.

You have attempted to use a vague, generalized claim about history as whole to invalidate a particular, specified claim about an individual point in history (the 'mythicist' theory about Jesus). That would be like saying that just because many people in Nazi Germany were biggoted fascists that all Germans during the 40's were fascists.

Your comparison is completely illogical. A doesn't = B and B Doesn't = C for C to = A here. I make a summerizing point that holds true for the study of ANY ancient history, a point which most scholars will agree on. This isn't the logical equivalent of making a generalization of an entire race because of an event in history.

In any event, the historical claims made during this quote are laughable in and of themselves. What you failed to tell everybody, and/or failed to take into consideration, that this point during human history was one of the most well-recorded known to modern man. There were dozens (nearly a hundred, I believe) of Roman historians writing at or within a century of the time that Jesus was supposed to have lived (I can post their names if you wish). They don't make a whisper of him. They do make extensive mention, however, of dozens of other would-be "messiahs" running around both Judea and Rome. The same holds true for Jewish historians such as Philo and Justus, as well.

O.K....assuming your point is true, you just countered your own arguement. If there were "extensive mentions" of would be messiah's running around, then wouldn't be logical that the Jesus figure that the Christians worshipped could have been one of these figures? Remember...we aren't argueing over his possible divinity. We are arguing over the possability that he existed as a real person. Your statement here proves that this is not only possible, but probable (especially given the commonality of the name 'Jesus')

So, it seems, your vague generalization about history does not actually hold true for this particular stretch of history in this particular part of the world. Sorry... but generalizations don't prove particulars.

Besides, this quote doesn't actually solve the known historical inconsistencies in the New Testament. For example, Jesus was supposed to have been born during the reign of Herod, who died 4 BCE. Yet, he was also supposed to have been born during the census of Quirinus, which historians record at 6 CE. That's a 10 year difference there for "eyewitness" accounts and does indeed fit what you would call a "hard contradiction".

In addition, the fact remains that the earliest Gospels themselves (namely, Mark, Matthew, and Luke) are written in a form similar to plays. It seems very much so that the Synoptics were originally mystery dramas of some sort (and Christianity itself some form of Hellenistic-Jewish mystery school, it seems). The proof of this found in the Synoptics themselves. Many scenes take place in which Jesus is off by himself with no witnesses whatsoever to record his supposed utterances. An example of this is found in the passion scene at the Garden of Gethsemane, as well as Jesus' "tests" during his time in the desert. This poses a problem for an eyewitness account of historical events --- but not for a character monologue in a theatrical performance.

The events themselves are often structured like a play, as well. Events in different locations occur with no break in the narrative and with no dialogue between the disciples or Jesus between events. There remains a very dramatic and "theatrical" flare to the earliest threads of the Gospels. It seems very likely the Jesus narrative was originally some form of mystery play akin to the kind played out in Greece and Egypt centuries prior to the common era.

There is also, again, the blatant ignorance of Palestinian geography and laws found within Mark, the earliest of the Synoptics. There is also the research of Karl Schmidt in demonstrating Mark itself is created from numerous pre-existing story fragments taking place in no time/place setting. The chronological and narrative link between these various story fragments was entirely of Mark's own creation, as well.

When the Gospels themselves don't pass the test of historical reliability (I wouldn't call a play created out of pre-existing story fragments with an obvious ignorance of the geography of the place its supposed to take place in a 'historically reliable' document), then how are we to seriously regard for the historicity of Jesus --- whose major supposed "proof" is found in Biblical canon?? There certainly isn't any credible proof in any extra-Biblical sources, as I stated beforehand. In addition, as stated before, Paul (in his authentic epistles) evinces a clear ignorance of both Jesus' teachings and his biography, and he himself seems to have Gnostic/Docetic leanings.

These points, among others, are all deeply troubling concerns for the contemporary apologetic.

Laterz.

Now you've resorted to a long rant of repeating aforementioned points. I will not waste my time addressing the rant of someone who is not only repeating things I have previously addressed, but who doesn't have respect for my opinion anyways.

But here is a rhetorical question for you: Why all the animosity towards the mere idea that someone named Jesus could have claimed to be the messiah almost 2000 yrs ago, gathered a following, which we now call Christianity today? Why are you so threatened by the mere thought? Why the refusal to acknowledge known authors and sources as credable, even if you don't believe the claims? I think you are clearly hiding behind emotional hang-ups through pseudo-educated opinions. Seek help.

PAUL

 

[heretic888]

Yea...misinfo according to YOU.

I could address the points one by one, from your flimsy "external sources" to your incorrect dates for New Testamental works and fragments.... if that is what you wish. I could also address the fact that you've given no evidence to actually support the popular 70-110 CE dating for the Synoptics outside of the notion that "that's what everyone else says". I could also address the reality that the New Testament does indeed not "pass" your transmission test to any respectable degree.

Also, some of your claims ("there is seems to be FAR more evidence available to verify the existance of Christ, and to verify the Gospel accounts then in any ANY other Ancient history, or World Religion") are so unverified and unsupported its not even funny.

So, again, where is your evidence?? :shrug:

I gave you a list of sources...but of course THAT"S NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Whatever.

Correct. A list of names and book titles does not constitute "evidence" to me.

One were to assume that if any of these sources had strong arguments and/or evidence for their case(s), that you would present them on the thread to refute the "mythicist" position I am supporting. However, you have yet to do so.

This, to me, is very interesting... to say the least.

Your dillusional.

Ahem. It's spelled delusional, and I'd appreciate it if you kept the personal insults to a minimum.

Anybody with the free time to read through this entire thread can see that your an idiot. NOT because of your beliefs, but because of your refusal to recognize that I at least have made points with sources to back them up.

Such as??

The only "evidence" I have seen you attempt to provide is:

1) External sources limited to completely unreliable and/or questionable quotations found in Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, and Pliny the Younger.

Even the oldest of these sources, Josephus, dates back to nearly 70 years after the Gospel events were supposed to have occured. In addition, Josephus himself was born nearly 20 years after the time of the supposed death of Jesus, and he does not draw upon any primary sources or records in the two excerpts in question. By no means does he constitute a reliable (re: primary) historical source on Jesus. And he's the oldest of these external sources!! Most of the others date to around 115 CE --- nearly 100 years after the events in question!!!

Of course, this is assuming these are even historically accurate accounts in the first place. The Christian persecutions under the Emperor Nero, for example, is mentioned nowhere outside of a single line in Tacitus' works, and this excerpt wasn't ever quoted until the 1400's CE. In fact, no Christian even makes mention of the Nero persecutions until 170 CE --- over 100 years after they were supposed to have taken place!! Tacitus even incorrectly refers to Pontius Pilate as a "procurator" rather than the historically accurate title of "prefect". The Tacitus excerpt is thus an obviously historically inaccurate source --- if not a forgery.

The other external sources don't fare much better. This is hardly useful "evidence" at your disposal.

Two) Your supposed "transmission test".

As I stated before, the New Testament does not pass the transmission test to any respectable degree. Even the earliest copies of any extant New Testamental books dates to the 300's CE. The copies of some of the books date back even further to the 400's CE. Thus, we have to wait until the 5th century to get our hands on anything resembling a complete New Testament. And, rest assured, the number of Biblical copies dating this far back is quite few indeed.... at most, a few dozen.

This was after Church canon had already been established and after Constantine had instituted literalist Christianity as the state religion (and subsequently began a campaign to stomp out all other religious dissidents). So, contrary to what you claimed beforehand, even these 4th and 5th century copies (the earliest copies known) could easily be the product of political agendas and revisions.

So, it seems there is again no "evidence" found in your transmission test claims, either.

Three) Supposed "internal consistencies" within the New Testament.

This is the easiest one to shoot down. I already cited the conflict of birth dates between the death of Herod in 4 BCE vs. the census of Quirinus in 6 CE. There are also the different references of Jesus' "post-ressurection" commands (one account has him telling the disciples to stay in Jerusalem, while another has him appearing to them for the first time in Galilee) in the different Synoptics... as well as differing claims on what his "final utterances" were during the crucifixion. There are also conflicts on where Jesus was supposed to have travelled during his ministry (one account says he stayed in and around Galilee, while another has him going all around Judea).

And, as before, there are the conflicting lineages traced to David. And, before you start citing the dubious Eusebius again, I'd like to mention that according to one of these lineages Jesus is only 20 or so generations removed from David while the other has him over 40 generations removed from David!!! Even if Joseph did have "two fathers", this issue still remains blatantly inconsistent!

There appears to be little, if any, internal consistency within the Synoptics. This internal consistency bears even worse if we throw Paul's ignorance of Jesus' biography and reported teachings into the mix.

Sorry, no "evidence" here.

Four) Supposed "external consistencies" between the New Testament and historical sources.

This one's almost as easy as one above. An easy inconsistency can be found in the New Testament's "slaughter of innocents" initiated by Herod. No historian, including Josephus and Philo (both Jews), makes any mention of this. There is also the conflict between the reign of Herod, ending in 4 BCE, and the census of Quirinus, taking place in 6 CE --- events which the Synoptics record as taking place during the same time!!

Let's refer once again to the geographical and legal inconsistencies in Mark: "In the seventh chapter, for instance, Jesus is reported as going through Sidon on his way from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. Not only is Sidon in the opposite direction, but there was no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the first century CE, only one from Tyre. Similarly the fifth chapter refers to the Sea of Galilee's eastern shore as the country of the Gerasenes, yet Gerasa, today Jerash, is more than thirty miles to the southeast, too far away for a story whose setting requires a nearby city with a steep slope down to the sea. Aside from geography, Mark represented Jesus as saying 'If a woman divorces her husband and marries another she is guilty of adultery' (Mark 10:12), a precept which would have been meaningless in the Jewish world, where women had no rights of divorce." (I. Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence)

I don't suppose I should mention that no external source is "consistent" with the trial and execution of Jesus, either?? An interesting fact... considering the Romans were such a copious and well-documented people during this time period, especially in regards to their legal proceedings.

Well, that's all the supposed "evidence" I can see... just these four points, all of which consist largely (if not entirely) of misinformation, as I have just demonstrated.

If you have any other "evidence" to present, please feel free to do so.

I can recognize your points and your sources...so why can't you recognize mine? I'll answer for you....your too threatened by my arguement.

No, its because your four major points of "evidence" (as covered above), are all misinformed. I'm not threatened by anything here.

Because...it is only in your OPINION, and possibly the opinion of a select few other scholars, that what I have brought to the table is not credible.

Ok. I'll admit that.

That is the problem I have in talking to YOU. You don't respect my opinion or my sources, yet you expect me to respect yours. You are so threatened by my arguement that you've resorted to a thinly supported refutation of my sources because you can't/won't address my real arguements.

I don't recall claiming that I don't "respect" your opinion.

In any event, I have addressed all the supposed "evidence" you have presented (the four points above). None of them are really that credible or reliable. In my opinion, of course.

I've provided evidence, so what you say is debatable.

You've provided flimsy evidence. There's a difference.

One thing that isn't debatable, though, is the fact that your sources are certianly no more "imperical" or "credable" then mine.

Why do you make a habit out of misspelling words in quotation marks??

If what you mean by sources here is the bibliographical list of works you mentioned, then I'll certainly grant the claim in the above quote. If you are referring to my claims, however, then I'm afraid mine do have much more empirical data to support them (for example: no extant New Testament book dates prior to the 300's --- in contrast to what you have state before). In my opinion, of course.

No...it doesn't make my arguement in itself more credible, but it does show that I don't feel threatened by other arguements, and that I have the ability to look at things objectively and with an open mind. You have yet to provide evidence that you have this same ability. It also does say that I know what both sides of the arguement are, so that my opinion isn't one sided like yours.

And the point of my objectivity above, sir, DOES give my opinion more credence then yours.

I hope you're aware that this entire quotation seems to be more concerned with validating yourself and not your arguments.

I don't really care what you've read or how "objective" you think you are. The proof is in the pudding (i.e. the evidence) not in your opinion of yourself.

Once again...your OPINION.

Yep. The opinion of someone who actually has read the argument of the side that you claim to know so much about (but don't show it in your posts, and don't mention it in your bibliography).

Well, just because you were a Christian puppet at one point in your life, and you read a few things on the opposing side that made you feel "empowered" with knowledge, and made you feel better, smarter, etc., then your Christian peers, that doesn't give any evidence to your objectivity. Maybe you've been reading the wrong stuff.

I never claimed I was a "Christian puppet" or what have you... simply that, at one point, I was a devout Christian (to some, of course, there is little difference). I have, in fact, read many of the works you cited. That haven't impressed me in my more recent years of life.

You seem to be projecting a lot onto what you think happened in my life. You also seem to be taking a lot of this personally and feel the need to reduce yourself to character attacks. I would suggest re-evaluating your strategy here.

I'd be happy to read some of your sources...as I believe some of my sources that support your side reference some of yours, although I could be mistaken. I find it laughable, though, that your close-minded enough to believe that any of these sources are somehow more "reliable" and "emperical" then other competable references out there.

I, in fact, did not mention anything about the reliability of the sources you listed. I was referring to the flimsiness of your own arguments on this thread.

No....Anyone with the ability to read and understand what we have both written here can clearly see that for many of your points, I have addressed them, argued them, and given references to my arguement. You may not agree with my ARGUEMENT...and that is fine. But instead of giving a counter point or explaining why you don't agree, you revert to saying the logical equivelent of "ISN'T SO!" Well...sorry to break it to you but just because you say it ain't so, that doesn't make it true. Because you expect anyone to buy your crap just because you said it is megalomania, in my opinion.

*chuckles* I find it amazingly humorous that you can blithely reduce my claims to the flimsiness of your evidence as being just "my opinion". Yet, you rigidly assert your observations of my arguments as if it were the Word of God (pardon the pun).

And, in defense, I did in fact offer many counterpoints to your arguments (as I also did in this post). You just chose to ignore them and assail me with a bevy of personal insults.

Now, granted, I can't go into extensive detail on every one of my counterpoints.... but if you want me to detail a point of contention, I will be more than happy to do so.

Oh no....it couldn't have anything to do with your unobjective, arrogent attitude, or your inability to recognize my arguements and sources when they are spelled out for you, could it?

I don't recall you "spelling out" any sources in support of your arguments. You just presented your supposed "evidence" (which I already addressed) and pasted a bibliographical list on the end. You used very little, if any, direct quotations or citations in-argument.

Your comparison is completely illogical. A doesn't = B and B Doesn't = C for C to = A here. I make a summerizing point that holds true for the study of ANY ancient history, a point which most scholars will agree on. This isn't the logical equivalent of making a generalization of an entire race because of an event in history.

Actually, it does hold true. You make a vague generalization about historical information covering a broad stretch of time (several millenia) and any locale to somehow prove a point concerning a particular stetch of time in a particular place in the world.

The simple truth, paul, is that generalizations don't prove particulars.

I'll address the rest later. Bye.

 

[arnisador]

If you'd like to isolate a single point(s) in a new thread(s), that's fine. I know I find it hard to follow like this!

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-

 

[heretic888]

The simple truth, paul, is that generalizations don't prove particulars.

Outside of using generalizations to "prove" particulars, we run into further historical complications.

You see, even if your assumption that it is very difficult to historically verify any person and/or event prior to 1000 CE is accurate, it most certainly doesn't hold true to the time period and part of the world that we are presently concerned with. The Hellenistic Roman Empire circa 100 BCE to 100 CE is without doubt one of the most well-recorded points in human history. There were over a hundred Roman historians writing at or within a century of the time Jesus was supposed to have lived. This doesn't even take into account the Jewish historians of the period, either. As before, only a handful of historians make reference to Jesus... and, each time, the reference is either forged, hearsay, or not even referring to Jesus in the first place (an example of this is the Chrestus vs Christos idiocy).

In either event, your claim that a lack of empirical evidence is somehow "not a problem" for the historicist position about Jesus is in no way accurate. This is most definitely a problem for apologetics of any stripe.

O.K....assuming your point is true, you just countered your own arguement. If there were "extensive mentions" of would be messiah's running around, then wouldn't be logical that the Jesus figure that the Christians worshipped could have been one of these figures? Remember...we aren't argueing over his possible divinity. We are arguing over the possability that he existed as a real person.

It's possible... if you want to be really broad in your conception of what the "historical Jesus" could be. None of these messiahs were connected to the founding of any religious cult dedicated to their worship, nor did they live a life even remotely like the kind mentioned in the Gospel narratives. If your definition of "historical Jesus" is simply a claimed messiah named Joshua (Yeshwah) that was summarily tried and executed by the Romans, then sure.... there were plenty of "historical Jesuses" by that account.

None of these "historical Jesuses", however, is ever associated with a Christist cult, nor any body of ethical/moral teachings, nor with a crucifixion and subsequent resurrection, nor any other affectation associated with the Mystery Cults of the time (such as the devouring of the god-man).

All of these Jesuses are also executed for accounts of political rebellion. The Jesus of the Gospel story was not. If he was, it stands to reason that his disciples would have been imprisoned with him.... but they were not. They were completely left unharmed in the story. The Jesus of the Gospels is tried for "religious crimes", not political ones. The Jews are without doubt painted as the "bad guys" in the story, not the Romans (Pontius Pilate seems to make every effort in the story to let Jesus go).

In any event, none of these Jesuses are ever associated with Pontius Pilate. They are almost always centered in Rome, a city the Christian Jesus was never supposed to have visited at all.

Your statement here proves that this is not only possible, but probable (especially given the commonality of the name 'Jesus')

This is not accurate. The name 'Joshua' (Yeshwah or Yehoshua) was quite common. 'Jesus' was not. The Greek name Iesous (which we transliterate as 'Jesus') is a forced and incorrect transliteration of the Jewish name Yehoshua. It is specifically altered from the true transliteration to have numerological significance in the Greek gematria system (namely, the number 888).

Thus, 'Jesus' was not common at all. In fact, it wasn't even a real name (although it was similar to a real name). No one would have had this name in Judea.

Now you've resorted to a long rant of repeating aforementioned points. I will not waste my time addressing the rant of someone who is not only repeating things I have previously addressed, but who doesn't have respect for my opinion anyways.

*chuckles* Already addressed?? You have made no mention of the obvious legal and geographical inconsistencies in Mark, the research showing Mark to be a "patchwork" of pre-existing non-time/place story fragments, the obvious mystery play nature of the Gospel narratives in all but John, or other points. You can make claims that you have "addressed" these points, but anyone that has read through the thread will tell you otherwise.

I don't ever recall saying I don't respect your opinion. I just happen to think you're wrong on this particular subject.

But here is a rhetorical question for you: Why all the animosity towards the mere idea that someone named Jesus could have claimed to be the messiah almost 2000 yrs ago, gathered a following, which we now call Christianity today? Why are you so threatened by the mere thought? Why the refusal to acknowledge known authors and sources as credable, even if you don't believe the claims? I think you are clearly hiding behind emotional hang-ups through pseudo-educated opinions. Seek help.

Amazing. You are once again resorting to character insults and some half-arsed psychobabble (as a psychology major I can assure you that you don't have the foggiest clue on what is entailed in any of the psychological conditions you've projected onto me) to defend your position.

In no way am I exerting any "animosity", nor am I "threatened". If I was in any way angry or threatened, one would assume I would resort to the tactics you have reduced yourself to --- namely, personal attacks, character insults, and ill-informed psychobabble a la Freudian projectionism. I would suggest looking in the mirror before using such tactics again.

I don't recall naming any of the bibliographical sources you cited as being unreliable, only that the "evidence" you have presented thus far is simply misinformation and hearsay. I did not make a single utterance about any of the authors you mentioned, only your own rather flimsy arguments.

Laterz.

 

[Cruentus]

It's possible... if you want to be really broad in your conception of what the "historical Jesus" could be.

Good. I win, you lose. What started this thread was your comment, "whom, like Jesus, I doubt ever existed in the historical sense"

Then you go on and on how he never existed historically. You go off on many tangents, listing a whole slew of historical pseudo-facts to support your opinion that he never existed, which is very confusing to the reader. I guess you figured you could confuse everyone into buying your conjecture.

However, since we aren't talking about divinity, or viability of the Christian faith, but we ARE talking about the existance of the historical Jesus, then you lose. You finally admit that there were messiah's (or "would be" messiah's) walking around who were executed for their beliefs. You may not believe in the history as told in the Gospel stories (you may not believe for instance, that Jesus rose from the dead, or healed the sick), but that isn't what we are talking about here. You may argue EVERY DETAIL of the gospels if you'd like, but it doesn't matter for this arguement.

Now although I have allowed you to pull me on to many different tangents, we are talking about the possibility that a "Messiah," or someone who claimed to be, existed, and developed a following. Since you've admitted that not only was this historically verifiable, but you have verified that there were in fact many "messiah's" who existed around that time period.

So, the historical Jesus, whoever he may have been, did in fact exist in the broad sense. You have just admitted it. Therefore, this arguement is over, and you've lost.

Any questions?


PAUL

P.S. I am not trying to resort to insulting you to win an arguement here, but I am going to call things as I see them. If I think your refusal to acknowledge my arguement is annoying and idiotic, I will say so. If I think that your scoff's, "ahem's" (although 'ahem 2' was kind of funny), your "rolleyes," your unessicary correcting of my spelling and grammer, and your overall method of addressing an arguement is arrogent, I am going to say so. Trust me, it isn't personal, I am just calling things as I see them. And, I feel that your entire methodoligy and undertone here has been far more insulting then anything that I have said so far, for at least I have been straight forward in my opinions that might be considered insults.

Also...my questions that I posed regarding your personal emotional/psychological position on the subject were only that, questions. They are rhetorical because although I would like to know the answer, I doubt I'll get the straight story. They are only questions, however. They are not me trying to impose "ill-informed psychobabble" on you, even though you have resorted in attempting to do so on me in your last post.

 

[heretic888]

Good. I win, you lose.

No. Nobody "wins" in a discussion like this. This isn't the freakin' presidential election here. It's just a free-flow of ideas and positions on an internet forum with no real tangible "end" established in any formal manner. There is no "winner" and no "loser" in discussions like this.

Then you go on and on how he never existed historically. You go off on many tangents, listing a whole slew of historical pseudo-facts to support your opinion that he never existed, which is very confusing to the reader. I guess you figured you could confuse everyone into buying your conjecture.

If you are confused with any of my "pseudo-facts" (interesting position coming from someone whose only four "facts" I completely rebuked), then feel free to ask for clarification. Most of them are, however, simply cut-and-dry observations about both New Testament textual threads and Biblical scholarship.

However, since we aren't talking about divinity, or viability of the Christian faith, but we ARE talking about the existance of the historical Jesus, then you lose. You finally admit that there were messiah's (or "would be" messiah's) walking around who were executed for their beliefs.

Incorrect. You are once again projecting your own personal wishes and desires onto what I actually said... err, typed.

All I stated was that there were many claimed "messiahs" by the rather common name of Joshua (Yehoshua or Yeshua) that were summarily tried and executed by the Romans for inciting political rebellion. That's it.

None of these individuals developed a new religious cult dedicated to their exclusive worship (it should be remembered there is a substantial difference between the Jewish conception of "messiah" and the divine god-man figure found in the Greco-Christian "christ"). None of these individuals were associated with some new and "revolutionary" moral teaching. None of these individuals were associated with Pontius Pilate. Most, if not all, of these individuals were centered in Rome --- not Galilee. None of these individuals are ever associated with living a life even remotely similar to that of the Gospel narrative (even when you take out the "supernatural" aspects).

The Jesus of the Gospels (and thus, the Christians) is tried and executed for religious crimes (claiming to be the "messiah" and the "son of God"). Every "messiah Joshua" we are referring to is executed for political crimes. The Romans didn't give a flip what religious claims these individuals were and weren't making. They were concerned, however, if these individuals were inciting rebellion against the state.

Jesus, however, never incited rebellion against the state. "Give unto caesar what is his", right?? None of Jesus' disciples are ever gone after (an interesting strategy if they were indeed part of some political rebellion), only Jesus himself. In fact, in the story, the Romans (a la Pontius Pilate) make every effort to let Jesus go but its the Jewish Sanhedrin that are the "evil" prosecutors here. Jesus' stated crimes are that he claims to be the "son of god", not that he is inciting rebellion of any form.

In addition, none of these individuals ever had the name of Jesus. They were all Joshuas. The Greek Iesous is a forced and artificial (re: altered) transliteration of Yehoshua. No Jewish man of any century would have this name, because it's not a real name to begin with (although its somewhat similar to a real name).

So... what do we have here?? Well, our "historical Jesus" is limited solely to any number of Jewish men named Joshua (not Jesus) that claim to be messiahs, that are tried and executed for political (not religious) crimes, that are never associated with Galilee or Pontius Pilate, never associated with any new religious cult centered around their worship, never associated with any of the moral or ethical teachings found in the "Christian Jesus", and didn't live a life even remotely similar to the Gospel narrative.

If the preceding fits your bill of a "historical Jesus", then yes, there were many "historical Jesuses". Of course, no devout Christian would concede that any of those individuals are their Jesus. Nor would any hardline skeptic or atheist concede that any of those individuals fit the bill, either. Truly, these "historical Jesuses" are so removed and remote from the Biblical figure that to even draw a comparison seems laughable.

Still, to each his own. I guess.

You may not believe in the history as told in the Gospel stories (you may not believe for instance, that Jesus rose from the dead, or healed the sick), but that isn't what we are talking about here. You may argue EVERY DETAIL of the gospels if you'd like, but it doesn't matter for this arguement.

Actually, the Gospel accounts are pretty important here... considering they are the only supposed "eyewitness" accounts of who and what Jesus was, and if the life of a real-life historical individual doesn't fit the Christian/Gospel account to the slightest, it doesn't really seem fair (or intelligent) to associate the two individuals as the same person.

Now although I have allowed you to pull me on to many different tangents, we are talking about the possibility that a "Messiah," or someone who claimed to be, existed, and developed a following. Since you've admitted that not only was this historically verifiable, but you have verified that there were in fact many "messiah's" who existed around that time period.

I admitted there were many "Messiah Joshuas" that developed a political following of some kind. None of these followings were Christian, however.

It is conceivable that Gospel authors based their "Jesus Christ" character on one of the many Joshuas claiming to be a messiah at the time that were tried and executed (although I would look at the Old Testamental Joshua/Jesus as the main source). However, basing a fictional character loosely on a real-life person doesn't somehow make the fictional character "real".

All you've managed to show on this little tangent is that the Christian Jesus may have been loosely based on one of the Messiah Joshuas tried and executed by the Romans for inciting political rebellion. None of these messiahs actually lived a life similar to that in the Gospels, however, nor are any of them associated with Christianity.

Given that in Paul's time (approximately 50 to 80 CE by most accounts) there is virtually no knowledge of either Jesus' biographical details nor his teachings, it seems the Gospel authors didn't start adapting this "historical Jesus" until fairly late in the game, however.

So, the historical Jesus, whoever he may have been, did in fact exist in the broad sense. You have just admitted it. Therefore, this arguement is over, and you've lost.

Uhhh.... right.

All I admitted was that a Messiah Joshua that the Gospel Jesus is based on may have exited. No one actually lived a life as found in the Gospel narrative, however, as virtually every aspect of the life described in the Gospels are mythos derived from Pagan and Jewish myths.

Any questions?

No, not really.

P.S. I am not trying to resort to insulting you to win an arguement here

Actually, that was exactly what you were doing. Your previous post was mostly concerned with launching insults at me and projecting a little "mini-history" about my life and beliefs that I have never stated before. In fact, almost everything you said about me was blatant misinformation and lies. Not once did I say any of your sources were questionable (all I did say was the arguments and "evidence" that you were using on the thread were bunk), and not once did I launch a personal attack at you. You, however, felt completely justified in doing both of these against me.

I find it amusingly humorous that you accuse me of doing something that you have been engaged in for quite some time on the thread now.

If I think your refusal to acknowledge my arguement is annoying and idiotic, I will say so.

So.... because I disagree with you, I become "idiotic" and "annoying"??

You are truely worthy of your apologetic heritage, my friend. Who knows?? Maybe next you'll start forging a document to "prove" that I am part of some anti-Christian coalition??

Trust me, it isn't personal

Oh, it isn't personal... even though you are now spending most of your posts launching a bevy of personal insults ("delusional", "annoying", "idiotic", "stupid", "close-minded") at me??

Rigghhhhhht.......

And, I feel that your entire methodoligy and undertone here has been far more insulting then anything that I have said so far, for at least I have been straight forward in my opinions that might be considered insults.

Ok. Apparently your definition of "insulting" is "not agreeing with everything I say". The fact that you resort to personal attacks when I make an attempt rebuke your "facts" and when I point out blatant lies you have spurted ("I have covered all these points!!"... Oh, what about the geographical and legal inconsistencies in Mark, the 'patchwork' nature of Mark, and the 'dramatic' form of the earlier Gospels??") says something very real about you and your arguments.

Also...my questions that I posed regarding your personal emotional/psychological position on the subject were only that, questions.

"Your dillusional."

"Well, just because you were a Christian puppet at one point in your life, and you read a few things on the opposing side that made you feel 'empowered' with knowledge, and made you feel better, smarter, etc., then your Christian peers, that doesn't give any evidence to your objectivity."

"Anybody with the free time to read through this entire thread can see that your an idiot."

"You are so threatened by my arguement that you've resorted to a thinly supported refutation of my sources because you can't/won't address my real arguements."

"Because you expect anyone to buy your crap just because you said it is megalomania, in my opinion."

And that's just in your last post alone.

are only questions, however. They are not me trying to impose "ill-informed psychobabble" on you, even though you have resorted in attempting to do so on me in your last post.

You know, paul, just because you say you didn't do something doesn't make it so.

This isn't the first time I've caught you in a lie on this thread, and I doubt it will be the last.

Have a nice one.

 

[Cruentus]

Um...your still talking? Didn't you "lose" the arguement here? It sounds like your being a poor sport.

The issue was the existance of a would be messiah, you admited to the probability that there were messiah(s) that existed, outside of the evidence I brought forth that pointed to this likely conclusion. So...you lose!

Now you want to play like there was no arguement, and there is no 'winner' or 'loser' to the arguement. Spoken like a true loser who is trying to hide the fact that he lost! The fact is you came into this thread swingin' and I put you down...hard.

The divinity of Jesus would be a different arguement all together, because yes...this would be a 'faith based' arguement, coming down to belief rather then historical facts. If that was the arguement, then yes, no one could truely 'win' or 'lose' per say.

But the historic idea of a Messiah? This could come down to verifiable evidence...where there could be a clear "winner" or "loser." You came into this thread with the attitude that your so damned smart, and that your going crush us all in our ignorance. Face it...you came in to bash down anyone who thought differently then you so badly that you forgot what the discussion was about; that it was NOT about Divinity or historocracy of the Bible even...it was about the historical fact of a Messiah. You forgot this....and you gave up the arguement in the process. Admit it...you came in to "win," but you clearly did not. And now you want to say that there was no arguement where there could be a winner or loser...? :rofl: How convienient! :roflmao:

SO....How about taking your beating like a man, rather then denying it like a sore loser?

Oh...now about YOU being more insulting to ME rather then the other way around. Here is a perfect example:

You know, paul, just because you say you didn't do something doesn't make it so.

This isn't the first time I've caught you in a lie on this thread, and I doubt it will be the last.

O.K....you just called me a "liar" without SAYING I am a liar. You do this in almost all you posts...you insult me through implication. Not only is this worse and more character damaging then an actual insult, but it proves your lack of straightforwardness. A lack of honesty that prevails in your statements that you expect us to believe as "fact," and with a lack of straightforwardness in your arguements as a whole.

So...if you wanna insult me, just do it, and don't be a pansy-@$$. If you think I am a liar, just say so. You see, you've called me plenty more things here then I have called you through your undertones. Again...you attack my honesty, which is humorous, yet I have been nothing but straightforward here, and you sir have not been.

By the way...I wasn't making a psychological implication specifically, as I said before. I just called things the way I saw them, and if it was insulting then oh well. The "questions" at the end of my post regarded this: It does seem clear to me that you have a "deal" of some sort...so asking what your 'deal' was at that point was an honest question, not a psychological implication.

But...if you want to continue to believe I am a liar, then go ahead....then I'll continue to believe that your an arrogent A-hole.

Have a good day.

 

[heretic888]

Um...your still talking? Didn't you "lose" the arguement here? It sounds like your being a poor sport.

Only in your mind, paul. Just because you declare yourself the "winner" doesn't make it so.

I demonstrated quite clearly in the two prior posts that your "Messiah Joshua" does not fit with most individuals' conceptions of a "historical Jesus". It is either your inability to read and/or your rigid egotism that is preventing you from grasping this very obvious truth. Apparently, though, we'll have to go over the facts once again...

None of these Joshuas were tried and executed for "religious" crimes; Jesus was. None of these Joshuas are associated with founding a Christist cult; Jesus was. None of these Joshuas are particularly associated with Galilee; Jesus was. None of these Joshuas are associated with Pontius Pilate; Jesus was. None of these Joshuas were tried and prosecuted by Jewish leaders (as opposed to Roman authorities); Jesus was. None of these Joshuas are associated with establishing something resembling a Christian moralism; Jesus was. None of these Joshuas are associated with living a life even remotely similar to the Gospel narrative; Jesus was. None of these Joshuas are hailed by their followers as a Pagan-esque godman; Jesus was. All of these Joshuas were tried and executed for inciting political rebellion; Jesus wasn't. None of these Joshuas had the name 'Jesus'; Jesus did.

Once again, you are being so vague and so broad in your definition of a "historical Jesus" that you are allowing any Jewish man with the name Joshua that claims to be a "messiah" and was executed to fit the bill. The fact that they didn't have anything to do with Christianity, didn't claim to be some kind of godman, didn't have a life even remotely similar to the kind attributed to Jesus, were tried for political not religious crimes, and didn't even have Jesus' name is completely beyond you.

Sorry, paul, but you haven't "won" anything. Except in your own mind, of course.

The issue was the existance of a would be messiah

Actually, no, that's not the issue at all. The issue is the existence of a "historical Jesus", not a would-be messiah of any type.

you admited to the probability that there were messiah(s) that existed, outside of the evidence I brought forth that pointed to this likely conclusion.

And this proves the existence of a historical Jesus.... how??

You are seriously exhibiting some extreme delusions here, paul. And this isn't an insult (like you launched against me earlier), its a cut-and-dry observation. This would be like proving Macolm X really existed because there were many Black Muslim leaders in the 60's.... as opposed to showing any empirical evidence (which, unlike with Jesus, we actually have) that Malcolm X the individual specifically had historical validity.

I am amazed at your tendencies to use historical generalizations to "prove" historical specifics. The world doesn't work that way.

Now you want to play like there was no arguement, and there is no 'winner' or 'loser' to the arguement. Spoken like a true loser who is trying to hide the fact that he lost! The fact is you came into this thread swingin' and I put you down...hard.

Spoken by someone that doesn't know much about public debating. Seriously, paul, go to college. Get your facts straight.

But the historic idea of a Messiah? This could come down to verifiable evidence...where there could be a clear "winner" or "loser."

Actually, no, there wouldn't be any verifiable evidence.

We have many individuals (none of which were the Christian Jesus) that claimed to be the messiah. There is actually no proof that any of these individuals was a messiah.

You came into this thread with the attitude that your so damned smart, and that your going crush us all in our ignorance. Face it...you came in to bash down anyone who thought differently then you so badly that you forgot what the discussion was about; that it was NOT about Divinity or historocracy of the Bible even...it was about the historical fact of a Messiah.

Wrong. This discussion (if you can read the thread title) was about the historical fact of a "Jesus of Nazareth". I didn't say anything about there being or not being any historical "messiahs".

Read the thread title. It says "historical Jesus", not "historical messiah".

You forgot this....and you gave up the arguement in the process. Admit it...you came in to "win," but you clearly did not. And now you want to say that there was no arguement where there could be a winner or loser...? How convienient!

And to think this was the person that called me a moron.

O.K....you just called me a "liar" without SAYING I am a liar. You do this in almost all you posts...you insult me through implication. Not only is this worse and more character damaging then an actual insult, but it proves your lack of straightforwardness. A lack of honesty that prevails in your statements that you expect us to believe as "fact," and with a lack of straightforwardness in your arguements as a whole.

*shrugs* I suppose it depends on your definition of a "liar", paul.

Make of it what you will, paul. It wasn't an insult, it was an observation. You lied on the thread. And it wasn't the first time either. If that makes you a "liar", then you're a liar.

So...if you wanna insult me, just do it, and don't be a pansy-@$$. If you think I am a liar, just say so. You see, you've called me plenty more things here then I have called you through your undertones. Again...you attack my honesty, which is humorous, yet I have been nothing but straightforward here, and you sir have not been.

No, you have not been straightforward at all. You directly insulted me and fabricated some "psychobabble" and "psychological history" about me and my beliefs. Anyone that has read through the thread can see this.

Then, when I called you on it, you flatly denied doing any of this. Sorry, but in my book, that's called lying.

By the way...I wasn't making a psychological implication specifically, as I said before. I just called things the way I saw them, and if it was insulting then oh well. The "questions" at the end of my post regarded this: It does seem clear to me that you have a "deal" of some sort...so asking what your 'deal' was at that point was an honest question, not a psychological implication.

A 'deal', huh??

Paul, your lack of any educative background in psychology is so painfully obvious to someone like me its not even funny.

But...if you want to continue to believe I am a liar, then go ahead....then I'll continue to believe that your an arrogent A-hole.

We're all entitled to our beliefs, paul, regardless of any evidence to support them. You have demonstrated this time and time again. And are demonstrating it again.

Heh. Laterz.