Peanut Gallery: Jesus history/contemporary proofs contest
Offline This thread is for comments and for split off posts from this thread.
The contest to prove people existed without contemporary evidence was ended when Richard Carrier showed us it was possible. Richard joined us to record 7 shows, and we talked about it in the Jesus mythicism show. Richard agrees that Jesus likely never existed, however lacking contemporary evidence alone isn't enough to make the case. There's much more to it.
As you'll see below the beggining of the split off comments start with a line of discussion looking for oother historical figures that we accept as real but that don't have contemporrary evidence for them, like in the case of Jesus. Richard showed me how there are quite a few people who we accept as true that didn't have contemporary evidence for them. He admits it's extremely hard to find someone that lacks evidence for 40 years after their death like in the case of Jesus, but nevertheless I agreed to put my foot in my mouth if I was shown other historical figures have similar lacking evidence.
The myth of Jesus is not best found through the argument for silence, I never proposed it was, you'll hear the arguments that show how Jesus never existed on our October 6th show. Enjoy!
The contest to find contemporary evidence for Jesus is still on, as the contest has it's own merits, even though there are much better arguments against his existence.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
www.fuckinggoogleit.com :roll:
www.fuckingbeinganarrogantprick.com
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
www.adamryanwishesrookwouldbelessacridandlittlemorerational.com
thanks Sapient, btw.
-adamryan
I posted a page where you could start to check out refutations to your claims, and then you didn't answer it. I posted something to you wqhich you ignored - or skipped over - twice now. You then have the gull to ask Yellow where you can find a page where I have refuted your claims, which I've already stated elsewhere here that there is a full three pages of refutations over at the IG forum and all you have to do is google my name to have those pages pop up. Instead you wish to waste my time by asking me (actually - you asked other people to ask me, which I think is even more dispicable) when I've already made it clear what to do, and made my case a hundred times over.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Sometimes I don't know why we bother.
I don't think the Mythicist position is that Christianity was "made up" or that the earliest apostles were "lying", but that they regarded Jesus as having been purely a heavenly being. If the Christianity they promulgated arose out of a belief that a heavenly Jesus appeared to people in visions (e.g. Paul), then they wouldn't have been "dying for a lie" at all, they would have been dying for something they genuinely believed in.
At some stage later, instead of being believed to have died for a mythical Jesus, the stories were changed so that they died for a historical Jesus.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
gdon I'm impressed, you are practically 100% correct. The only change I would make would be that the belief didn't change, or at least, not in a 360' sort of way. More, that in a way, out of oral tradition and misrepresentation of ideas in Pauls epistles and in later accounts of the gospels, a belief in a historical figure developed. Really, this is merely 'euhemerizing? Jesus, something that was very common during the Hellenizing days of Galilee.
Hell, there's even a word for it...
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
This is the same Graig that, in the middle of a losing debat, decided to bring up how hot his wife was as a counter point? I'm just not impressed by him.
But...I have a sleeping historian (one of the most respected, Richard Carrier) on the couch no more then five feet away from me who would disagree with you. And he makes one damning case.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
(From Wikipedia: There is some debate over the meaning of "Yeshu." It has been used as an acronym for the Hebrew expression yemach shemo vezichro, meaning "May his name and memory be obliterated", a term used for those guilty of enticing Jews to idolatry and used in place of the real names of individuals guilty of such sins who are deemed not worthy of being remembered in history. Some argue that this has always been its meaning. Indeed the name does not correspond to any known Hebrew root and moreover no other individuals have ever borne this name in Jewish history, while the usage of the expression yemach shemo vezichro and its acronym were widely used in Jewish writings.
...In 1554 the Vatican issued a papal bull censoring the Talmud and other Jewish texts, resulting in the removal of references to Yeshu. The primary references to Yeshu are found in uncensored texts of the Babylonian Talmud and the Tosefta. No known manuscript of the Jerusalem Talmud makes mention of the name although one translation (Herford) has added it to Avodah Zarah 2:2 to align it with similar text of Chullin 2:22 in the Tosefta. All later usages of the term Yeshu are derived from these primary references.
In all cases the references are to individuals who (whether real or not) are associated with acts or behaviour that are seen as leading Jews away from Judaism to minuth (a term usually translated "heresy" or "apostacy").
But he was never charged with practicing sorcery nor of leading Israel astray. And none of this above list was punishable by death during the reign of the Roman occupation. Any attempt to apply this part of the Talmud to Jesus is doomed to failure.
I'm being kicked off by Sapient. More tomorrow.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
This is Part 1
You are doing little but regurgitating refuted material that other theists continually skirt around as though these people had never been discussed or refuted before by anybody.
On Flavius Josephus, I have two essays from two other people aside rom me on this very website. Follow the following links:
Evidence Against Josephus and the TF (Part I); Peter Kirby
Evidence Against Josephus and the TF (Part II); Mia Faber
Here is an excerpt From The Bible Geek Episode 7 (Fellow Robert Price) about Extra-biblical evidence for jesus.
Here is something I compiled based on the information above and my own investigating:
"At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified, and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day" (Antiquities 20:200)
I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people[...]
(The following is from a debate)
Who Was James?
Which James?
Naming the Jameses
Josephus on Jesus
With regard to the mentions by Josephus of John the Baptist. How is this evidence for Jesus? This is evidence for the existence of John the Baptist.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Part II
Your whole argument for Lucian is bunk. And the fact that it?s only a slight mention, if but two sentences, really doesn?t help your case.
So it proved the Christians worshipped. Who?s arguing that point? This is irrelevant.
This is as I stated above Lucian?s reference to the Christians reaction to HIS CHARACTER, Peregrines! This is a failure on your part, because you probably just went to some Christian site, copied the butchered text, and pasted it as if that was all Lucian wrote in his entire life. Where in fact these statements you claim are applied to Jesus are actually about a man named Peregrines who, ?for a time in his early life went over to Christianity, practicing it to the point of imprisonment under a very tolerant administration, and after returning to Cynicism became in his old age so enamoured of Indic ideas and precedents that he cremated himself at Olympia, just after the games of A.D. 165, even as Calanus had done at Susa in the presence of Alexander the Great and as Zarmarus had done at Athens, after initiation into the mysteries, in the presence of Augustus.? - H.M. Harmon (Lucian of Samosata : The Passing of Peregrines)
It should be noted too, that Josephus talks a lot about crucifixion in his works. In the 120 years that passed between Jesus' supposed existence and Lucian, thousands upon thousands were crucified in Palestine. In fact, in just one year, multitudes numbering 500 in one day, sometimes more, were sent to be crucified during the seige in 70 CE.
"...before they died, and were then crucified before the wall of the city. This miserable procedure made Titus greatly to pity them, while they caught every day five hundred Jews; nay, some days they caught more: yet it did not appear to be safe for him to let those that were taken by force go their way, and to set a guard over so many he saw would be to make such as great deal them useless to him. The main reason why he did not forbid that cruelty was this, that he hoped the Jews might perhaps yield at that sight, out of fear lest they might themselves afterwards be liable to the same cruel treatment. So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies." (War 5: Chapter 11)
To claim that the one man who was crucified is your savior is incredulous. So many myth's were flying around the time of Lucian it is impossible really to name them all. So many "saviors" crucified. And since Christ Chrestians and Christians, Alexander the False Prophet and his followers.
Incidentally...Alexander was claiming to be the son of Zeus (hm) and he was a sage, and an oracle. He preformed miracles that Lucian mocked.
"As a matter of fact, this trick, to a man like you, and if it is not out of place to say so, like myself also, was obvious and easy to see through, but to those drivelling idiots it was miraculous and almost as good as incredible."
"Well, as I say, Alexander made predictions and gave oracles, employing great shrewdness in it and combining guesswork with his trickery. He gave responses that were sometimes obscure and am?biguous, sometimes downright unintelligible, for this seemed to him in the oracular manner. Some people he dissuaded or encouraged as seemed best to him at a guess. To others he prescribed medical treatments and diets, knowing, as I said in the beginning, many useful remedies."
"By now he was even sending men abroad to create rumours in the different nations in regard to the oracle and to say that he made predictions, discovered fugitive slaves, detected thieves and robbers, caused treasures to be dug up, healed the sick, and in some cases had actually raised the dead. " (sound familiar yet?)
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Part III
- (a) Balaam was slain with a sword, while Jesus died by crucifixion.
- (b) The father of Jesus was not named Beor, nor was he a soothsayer.
- (c) One would be hard pressed to find biblical support for allegations that Jesus died by stoning, burning, decapitation and strangulation. Incidentally, how could he have died by all four methods? In order to make sense, "and" should have been translated as "or".
- (d) If "she" is referring to the mother of Jesus, this passage is saying she was a harlot with many carpenters (plural).
- (e) If Jesus is Balaam, then the passage is implying Jesus is bloody and deceitful.
- (f) When did Jesus keep a chronicle, especially one relating his age or death?
- (g) Jesus was never lame, and certainly not for thirty years.
- (h) The names Jesus and Balaam are quite different.
- (i) And finally, Jesus was not killed by someone named Phinehas the Robber.
It doesn't take a great deal of wisdom to see that apologists are stretching interpretation to the limits on these.A short little comment found in the footnotes of Sanhedrin 107b says, "In the uncensored editions there follows here, 'and not like R. Joshua b. Perahjah, who repulsed Jesus (the Nazarene) with both hands." The problem with this sentence is that only the Munich manuscript adds (the Nazarene).
Another footnote in Sanhedrin 107b says, .
- (a) Jesus was not a rabbi when he fled to Egypt.
- (b) The New Testament says nothing about Jesus fleeing to Alexandria, Egypt.
- (c) When did Jesus ever worship a brick? The worship of bricks is known in the Hermes cult, and is not Christian.
- (d) According to apologetic theology, Jesus neither sinned nor caused others to sin.
- (e) Jesus was not a contemporary of King Jannai.
- (f) while the Munich, Florence, and Karlsruhe manuscripts and the early printed editions of the Talmud mention Yeshu, only the Munich text adds "the Nazarene."
That's about as coherent as these passages can be rendered.And
Another passage of equal clarity is found in Abodah Zarah 17a which says,
A final passage from the Mishnah itself, as opposed to the Gemara, is found in Yebamoth 49a, which says,
Some people actually see Jesus in this. The problems are:
To skirt this difficulty some writings say, "A certain person was illegitimately born of a married woman." The word "illegitimate" is a euphemism. In addition, "a certain person" could apply to thousands of Middle Eastern people, and Mary was not married.
In summary, the Talmud has no independent tradition about Jesus; all that it says of him is merely an echo of Christian and Pagan legends, which it reproduces according to the impressions of the second and later centuries. The Talmud has "borrowed" its knowledge of Jesus from the Gospels. When Josephus is excluded from the Jewish witnesses to the historicity of Jesus, there remains only the question of whether or not there may be some other evidence in the other Jewish literature of the time, in the Talmud, for instance. The answer is no.
Pliny: "I have laid down this rule in dealing with those who were brought before me for being Christians. I asked whether they were Christians; if they confessed, I asked them a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; if they persevered, I ordered them to be executed.... They assured me that their only crime or error was this, that they were wont to come together on a certain day before it was light, and to sing in turn, among themselves, a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath--not to do anything that was wicked, that they would commit no theft, robbery, or adultery, nor break their word, nor deny that anything had been entrusted to them when called upon to restore it.... I therefore deemed it the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave women whom they call deaconesses. But I found it was nothing but a bad and excessive superstition.... the sacred rites which had been allowed to lapse (by them--Ed.) are being performed again, and flesh of sacrificed victims is on sale everywhere, though up till recently scarcely anyone could be found to buy it."
Why anyone would quote this passage is hard to understand:
IN REGARDS TO THE LETTERS (Both Pliny's and Trajan's) AUTHENTICITY:
Both [url=http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jacoby.html ]F.Jacoby[/url] and R.T.France note that this does NOT in any way prove Thallus mentioned Jesus at all - it seems that it was Julius, nearly 2 centuries after Thallus alleged wrote about it, who made the connection.
Remember that we are looking for historians who mention Jesus to confirm that a historical personage existed BUT:
Thallus provides no evidence of anything about Jesus.
Tacitus: "But neither the aid of man, nor the liberality of the prince, nor the propitiations of the gods succeeded in destroying the belief that the fire had been purposely lit. In order to put an end to this rumor, therefore, Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men, hateful for their crimes, whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again, not only in Judea, the native land of the monstrosity, but also in Rome, to which all conceivable horrors and abominations flow from every side, and find supporters. First, therefore, those were arrested who openly confessed; then, on their information, a great number, who were not so much convicted of the fire as of hatred of the human race. Ridicule was passed on them as they died; so that, clothed in skins of beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or committed to the flames, and when the sun had gone down they were burned to light up the night. Nero had lent his garden for this spectacle, and gave games in the Circus, mixing with the people in the dress of a charioteer or standing in the chariot. Hence there was a strong sympathy for them, though they might have been guilty enough to deserve the severest punishment, on the ground that they were sacrificed, not to the general good, but to the cruelty of one man." (Annals XV, 44)
It would be utterly ridiculous to use this, but still, some do.
Suetonius: "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (the emperor, Claudius) expelled them from Rome" (The Life of Claudius, Sec. 25.4).
Many people will assert to no end the people that are listed are all that is needed to prove the existence of Jesus. In fact, like GO, many hold on for dear life to the very people who have been shown time and time again to be false witnesses.
NONE are contemporary accounts, all are at least second or third hand accounts, MOST are more. None depict Jesus as the man mentioned in the Bible.
The most damning evidence against Jesus is not what WAS said, but what WASN'T said. No contemporary source ever wrote or mentioned Jesus.
Justus of Tiberius was a native of Christ's own country, Galilee. He wrote a history covering the time of Christ's reputed existence. This work perished, but Photius, a Christian scholar and critic of the 9th century, was acquainted with it and said, "He (Justus) makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did." (Photius, Bibliotheca, Code 33).
Further in later Codices, Photius had to add in bits of information into Antiquities, since both he and Origen were stoutly against Eusebius' tampering with the documentation. He does not add in the Jesus passage from Testimonium, and in fact makes an effort to state that his mentions of Jesus are interjections just so the reader knows of the time frame from which Josephus speaks and that he is discussing.
Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry in Jerusalem. He was there when the Crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place--when Christ himself rose from the dead. Yet, these events were not mentioned by him.
Under the reign of Tiberius the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman empire, was allegedly involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Yet, Seneca and Pliny the Elder, who recorded all the great earthquakes, meteors, comets, and elipses they could find and who lived during the period of Jesus, failed to mention the event.
Paul shows absolutely no knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth or the Gospel events. G.A. Wells notes : "These letters have no allusion to the parents of Jesus, let alone to the virgin birth. They never refer to a place of birth (for example, by calling him 'of Nazareth'). They give no indication of the time or place of his earthly existence. They do not refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution. They mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas, nor Peter's denial of his master. (They do, of course, mention Peter, but do not imply that he, any more than Paul himself, had known Jesus while he had been alive.) These letters also fail to mention any miracles Jesus is supposed to have worked, a particularly striking omission, since, according to the gospels, he worked so many... Another striking feature of Paul's letters is that one could never gather from them that Jesus had been an ethical teacher... on only one occasion does he appeal to the authority of Jesus to support an ethical teaching which the gospels also represent Jesus as having delivered. "
As Dennis McKinsey, author of The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, wrote once, "Many writers, such as Renan, have attempted to write his biography but failed, failed because no materials for such a work exist. If Jesus was an historical person, how is it that not only does the Talmud never mention him but Paul's Epistles do not tell a single special fact about the life of Jesus? Read the other Epistles of the NT. Nowhere in any of the early Christian documents do we find even the slenderest reference to the mere man Jesus, the historical personality as such, from which we might infer that the author had a close acquaintance with him. His life, as described in the gospels, seems to have been entirely unknown to the authors. His speeches and sayings are hardly ever quoted and where this is done, as in the Epistle of James or the Book of Acts, they are not quoted as sayings of Jesus."
And lastly, Christians contend all of the following pre-Christian sun-gods are mythological: Hercules, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus, and Horus. Yet, all: (1) allegedly had gods for fathers and virgins for mothers; (2) had their births announced by stars and celestial music; (3) were born on the 25th of December (Solstice); (4) had tyrants trying to kill them when they were infants; (5) met with violent deaths; and (6) rose from the dead.
In the end, any reasonable person has to look at the evidence against Jesus, in fact, in light of him, and see that he could not possibly have existed. No contemporary evidence, no mention of him except in forgeries so obvious only those ignorant to the facts will use them as some sort of evidence, and what is there is lacking anything substantial, only blind assertions, rationalizations and outstretched hands grasping for straws; can even barely twist them to mean Jesus.
As Celsus stated, "I could continue along these lines, suggesting a good deal about the affairs of Jesus' life that does not appear in your own records. Indeed, what I know to be the case and what the disciples tell are two very different stories... [for example] the nonsensical idea that Jesus foresaw everything that was to happen to him (an obvious attempt to conceal the humiliating facts)." (62).
"The men who fabricated this geneaology [of Jesus] were insistent on on the point that Jesus was descended from the first man and from the king of the Jews [David]. The poor carpenter's wife seems not to have known she had such a distinguished bunch of ancestors." (64).
"What an absurdity! Clearly the christians have used the myths of Danae and the Melanippe, or of the Auge and the Antiope in fabricating the story of Jesus' virgin birth." (57).
"After all, the old myths of the greeks that attribute a divine birth to Perseus, Amphion, Aeacus and Minos are equally good evidence of their wondrous works on behalf of mankind- and are certainly no less lacking in plausibility than the stories of your followers." (59).
And lastly, one of my favorites: "One ought first to follow reason as a guide before accepting any belief, since anyone who believes without testing a doctrine is certain to be deceived." (54).
Indeed...and here we witness the most deceptive...as the only evidence he can bring up is mentioned ONLY in Eusebius' work, and as Gibbon states, "In this general view of the persecution which was first authorised by the edicts of Diocletian, I have purposely refrained from describing the particular sufferings and deaths of the Christian martyrs. It would have been an easy task. From the history of Eusebius, from the declamations of Lactantius, to collect a long series of horrid and disgusting pictures ...[snip] But I cannot determine what I ought to transcribe, till I am satisfied how much I ought to believe. The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion. (178) Such an acknowledgement will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other; and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius, which was less tinctured with credulity, and more practised in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries. [etc]." (Gibbon, Edward, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Encyclopedia Britannica reprint, 1990, ISBN 0-85229-531-6. Volume I, chapter 16, p.232.)
On Josephus, we have the following:
Since Eusebius, everybody quotes the Josephus passage as though it were actual, but before, not one church father or scribe or even a monk mentions this passage in ANY form, not even those who used Josephus' works frequently! It smells of something...rotten in Denmark.
And after 2,000 years, with all the research and field time, no evidence physical or otherwise can be brought up to effectively prove the existence of Jesus. Not even a slipper, or a cup...only a forged passage, a few references to Chrestians and Christians in later centuries, and the Bible which has enough holes to make a back door screen jealous.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Rook, there is some good stuff there, but also some bad information and analysis. You've been refuted on the bad stuff elsewhere (just google it) so what I'll do is look at two people you use for references, who are both atheists and well-known writers on historicity claims.
There are quite a few secular scholars who believe there is enough evidence to conclude that there was a historical Jesus. They know a lot more on the topic than you and I, so their conclusions should perhaps be taken seriously. Are they making rational claims? If they are irrational, why not interview them?
Peter Kirby:
Most scholars believe there is a genuine core to the TF, and that the second reference is genuine. Peter Kirby, Internet Infidel co-founder and atheist (you call him "Richard Kirby" above) says that (my emphasis):
"I am presently persuaded to regard the shorter reference as authentic... It shows that Josephus accepted the historicity of Jesus. Simply by the standard practice of conducting history, a comment from Josephus about a fact of the first century constitutes prima facie evidence for that fact. It ought to be accepted as history unless there is good reason for disputing the fact."
Jeffrey Jay Lowder:
I agree that Lucian is too late to establish Christ's historicity (we have Josephus for that), though the reference is useful for determining what was thought about Jesus by that time. But it beggers the imagination that you can conclude that "This is a SPECIAL PLEADING argument by Christians, we are too ASSUME he is talking about Jesus". Heh? Lucian, writing around 160 CE, writes about Christians who "worship a crucified sage", and you really think there is doubt about whom he is talking about??? What percentage do you put on the chance that this is NOT Jesus Christ Lucian is talking about?
Even more incredibly, you go on to say that Jeffrey Jay Lowder himself "is is an APOLOGIST [NOT an atheist]. He also believes in the historicity of Christ".
Lowder is a well-known atheist and writer who has written MANY articles on historical criticism and counter-Apologetics. He spent 5 years building the Secular Web, and was the Internet Infidels President for a number of years. I can only assume that, because he believes that the evidence points to a historical Christ, you assumed that he was a Christian apologist.
Now, both Lowder and Kirby are atheists. They both know more than you and I on this topic. I suggest that if they have come to the conclusion that the evidence points to a historical Jesus, then their conclusions should be considered. And these are the kinds of analysts that you and your show are missing. There are lots of secular scholars who also think that there was a historical Jesus. I'd love to see you debate them. I think they would tear you apart, personally. But I would like to see the results.
A couple of other points:
You wrote:
"No contemporary source ever wrote or mentioned Jesus". But do you now agree that it is possible to conclude (however tentatively) someone's historicity without contemporary sources? (I just want this confirmed after the recent contest on that subject)
Lastly, you wrote:
"Christians contend all of the following pre-Christian sun-gods are mythological: Hercules, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus, and Horus. Yet, all: (1) allegedly had gods for fathers and virgins for mothers; (2) had their births announced by stars and celestial music; (3) were born on the 25th of December (Solstice); (4) had tyrants trying to kill them when they were infants; (5) met with violent deaths; and (6) rose from the dead."
As far as I know, this is the kind of bogus information that gets spread around the net. Can I have your evidence for claims about those gods, please? How many match those 6 points?
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
But these are secular scholars making these claims. Is it possible to assert the historicity of Jesus as a rational claim? If you regard either Kirby and Lowder's reasons as being irrational, why not interview them on your show?
Mythicism has been around for about 200 years, and goes through popularity phases every now and then. The peak was probably around 100 years ago. Mythicism has been dying for a long time, though Doherty has seen a brief revival in the last 10 years or so. Whether this is a fad or not remains to be seen.
Can you name any other, who have published on the subject in peer-reviewed publications? Seriously. Doherty published in Price's secular journal, and nobody responded to it AFAIK.
Who are the other scholars? Acharya S and Tom Harpur?
Yep. "Appeal to authority" isn't necessarily invalid. Secular scholars support a tentative historical Jesus. No problems with questioning Christians on this -- they SHOULD be questioned -- but this is not a "Christian vs secularism" claim.
Currently there are more secular scholars supporting a historical Jesus than not. Why not start interviewing them on your program?
Well, why not get Peter Kirby and interview him on your program? Get Richard Carrier as well to question him -- wouldn't that make for a great program?
My point is that, not only is Lowder a well known atheist writer on counter-apologetics, he has written on historical criticism. Earlier you wrote on secular scholars following others' conclusions. Lowder may be wrong, but he isn't just following someone else. Read one of his articles on historical criticism. Why not invite him on your program to ask him how he comes to his conclusions? Here is what he says here when looking at framing questions dealing with historicity (my emphasis):
"Although a discussion of the New Testament evidence is beyond the scope of this paper, I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament "the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material," we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament's claim that Jesus existed."
Why not have him on your show and interview him on the subject?
I don't give two twigs with trying to discrediting you. Someone being wrong doesn't mean they are discredited. I've been wrong heaps of times. I've learned more from being wrong than from being right.
Personally as far as I'm concerned, you are as loony as any fundy. But unlike most fundies, I DO see you trying to investigate these things, which is to your credit. Talking to Carrier is a good start.
Well, why not get on some secular scholars on your show who believe that that evidence is there?
Neither of those links show that they had "all" those 6 elements. How about the claim "(4) Had tyrants trying to kill them when they were infants"? Who was the tyrant trying to kill Osiris, Mithras or Prometheus, for example?
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
I'm aware... I'm pretty sure tht is exactly what I said. What does repeating this fact prove? That the secular community is split on the issue? Well d'uh.
I see no reason why that won't eventually happen.
Mythicism hasn't been around as much as you claim here. It is a fairly more popular thing now then it ever has been. It's only been around about 50 years as something that is really starting to be taken seriously. Previous appeals to pop. have really made it difficult to grab an audience for the mythicist position.
Dude, this is really irrelevant and inconsequential to the message. You can't keep focusing on these trivial details when there is so much more important parts of my argument that have more sustance and can hurt my case more if you were to prove me wrong.
You're right. It's a historical vs. mythical claim. One that has to be looked at but has not been looked at nearly as seriously as you would have us think. Had scholars given the mythicist position more merit earlier on, I doubt you would be able to ascribe so many scholars that adhere to historicity.
Even still, this is still a minute point on your part, and clearly irrelevant. Whether 9/10 scholars feel one way or another does not change the course of the facts.
I promise you that will eventually happen. I'm not the only host on the show and as such guests have to be determined as a whole. And it's not that these scholars don't have open invitations.
Perhaps, that could be true.
Do I really have to repeat myself again? Really, gdon, just say something once, would you?
Yes, any time this can be arranged.
I agree.
I'm going to get cocky here. Ready for it?
:roll:
Okay, this coming from the world championship ad-hoc user?
Anyway, thank you for the follow-up compliment.
I'll tell you what, I'll discuss this with Carrier tomorrow when we record our "Mythicism" show together.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
That's good. I'll look forward to that. It would be nice to hear you debating secular scholars on the topic.
Mythicism has been around since at least 1790s, from the time of Count Volney and Dupuis. You yourself quote Dupuis above. Weren't you aware he published in the 1790s?
Mythicism was taken seriously to some extent around 100 years ago, and then pretty much dismissed as pseudoscience (pseudohistory perhaps may describe it better). It hasn't been taken seriously at all in the last 50 years that I've heard about, hence my questions about scholars publishing in peer-reviewed journals. (I should point out that it isn't "mythicism" per se that I mean, but the mythicist theories that have been presented to date).
Is it possible that, like any pet fringe "theory" like ID, alien contactees, etc, you have over-estimated how much credibility the topic has among secular scholars? Fringe theorists all seem to believe that somehow "the mainstream scholarly community know, but are too scared to address the facts". Is that what you believe also? (Apologies if the question is uncomfortable).
Claims that there are other scholars in the field who support mythicism is inconsequential??? Are you kidding? I'd like to hear about them and read their work if possible. Please tell me who they are, so I can look at their work. They have to be scholars in that field, though. Creationists are notorious for using scientists in non-related fields to back up their claims.
Creationists would say the same thing, Rook. Being on the side of 9 out of 10 scholars is perhaps the better place to be, IMHO. It doesn't make them right of course. I'd be interested in you informing, say, Kirby or Lowder where and how you think they are wrong. Why not write a rebuttal to Lowder's article or Kirby's article? I'll see about passing it on if you like.
In this case my point is more "address his argument" than "have him on the show". Sorry for the confusion.
You're welcome. As I say, talking to Carrier is a good start. He is a mythicist but I have no problem with him -- he references his material and writes like the scholar he is.
I think you could be the same, if you didn't keep using bombastic statements like your "no thieves were crucified never ever" statement. You overstate your case way too often, I suspect to try to introduce doubt in your debating opponent. But to anyone knowledgeable on the topic, you sound like a damn fool.
Some examples:
Your comment that "Jesus was crucified, not hanged". But the NT says he was hanged also. (Claim that as a contradiction if you like.
)
Your comment "Nowhere in the New Testament was Jesus charged with sorcery" as part of your evidence against the Talmud "mentioning Christ". I agree that the Talmud probably doesn't mention Christ, btw, but Jesus was called a sorceror later (see Celsus), and even in the NT the Pharisees charged Jesus with being able to perform miracles through Satan.
Your comment "The plea is that we accept that Lucian is talking about Jesus of Nazareth, but clearly it isn?t certain". It's about as certain as it can be.
Your comment "Roman laws accorded religious liberty to all. Before Constantine there was not a single law opposed to freedom of thought." There was Christianity itself -- is that in doubt in your mind? Also Druidism and some Bacchic rites, which were banned at one stage
Your comment "The worshippers of the Sun-god Serapis were also called "Christians." " Heh? Isn't that from a satire? What is the evidence for that?
Your comment about how those gods had "all" 6 elements.
Quite a few more as well. Lowder covers some of the same ground here in his "How Not to Argue Against the Historicity and Resurrection of Jesus" article, which I recommend.
As I said, you overstate your case way too often, even when you don't need to. I hope that you ask Carrier to review your work above for his comment.
Thank you. I suspect Carrier will recommend you revising your list. Let me know what he says.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
I was banned from Macrumors Forum, Politics and Religion for annoucing this:
"You have been banned for the following reason:
Trolling with inflamatory religious threads and continued after one was closed
Date the ban will be lifted: 08-16-2006, 11:00 AM"
I simply quoted the $666.00 challenge and that was that. <joking>I guess Rational Responders is inflamatory and disrespectful.</joking>
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=223253
I was one of the first mofos to reply to this thread and I'm still waiting for even a bone to be thrown this way as far as an answer.
I'm not too broken up though, since it wasn't my answer, but rather a reply I got when I posted the challenge on MySpace. They didn't want to bother joining a forum, so I posted their replies.
-=Grim=-
No Nyarlathotep, Know Peace.
Know Nyarlathotep, No Peace.
No Nyarlathotep, Know Peace.
Know Nyarlathotep, No Peace.
Theologian; not theologist.
A theologist would be practically anyone who contemplates God; theologians are the people who you are contrasting here.
Euphemized insult. Very ad-hom of you, Rook.
Rook, I mean no degradation here, but for some reason or another, I sincerely doubt that you are personally dealing with the translation, interpretation, and reiteration of ancient texts and their languages. Just from what I've gathered about you so far, personally, it seems highly unlikely.
Again, another acrid, yet euphemized, insult. There's no need to belittle the opposition, Rook; if your point is true, then that's what will be made obvious in the end. There's no need for attacking the credibility, diligence, and level of scrutiny that biblical scholars employ in their "line of work".
Understood. And I apologize for my lack of timeliness in responding to what you've written.
Will do. Thanks for the polite-mannered suggestion.
You're "not a fan"? That's it?
Rook, you basically just said, "I don't like it.", and then puerilely made an unfounded insult.
For some reason, I have this awkward feeling that if I were questioned whether or not I knew the writings of some atheist philosopher, and I responded in the same manner you did, you people would zealously excommunicate my theist posterior from this forum.
Is it possible that the writings of the NT (not all of them, perhaps) were penned early (which explains the overall basic congruity of the gospels; it was easy to recall the events), the original autographs became non-extant (continous handling of, normal "wear-and-tear", etc ), the "earliest copies" that we now have have become the basis for our conclusions in dating their content, and any conclusions we formulate using these documents to attach dates and create timelines are contaminated by uncertainity from the very beginning of our analysis?
Interesting.
-adamryan
"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins
That may be so, but it doesn't change the difference here. I'm a historian and don't deal with the philosophical nature of things.
Wow, don't take me the wrong way, Adam. In no way that was directly attacking you or theology in general.
My position is this: Theology doesn't deal in facts it deals in speculation. A prima facto example would be that almost every single apologist out there has some degree in Theology, yet only a mere handful have some sort of grasp of history and what it means for something to be classified as historical. This is simply fact. Gleason Archer, McDowell and Stuart, Strobel, Comfort, not a grasp of what it means for something to be historical.
Don't ever call me on ad-homs, again, Adam. As this was a lot more confrontational then anything I've said to you. Have you even heard my dissertation shows with Carrier?! I am CONSTANTLY researching the Greek, Greek Lexicons and Hebrew transcripts. That doesn't mean that I am at all fluent in the Greek or Hebrew, I have the LSJ for that, and Richard Carrier and my cousin Eric Schumacher (Professor of Ancient Philosophy) helps me out when I'm in a bind or when the LSJ fails to yeild me any conclusive results. Either way, my quest is the same as yours: The search for the truth. My search has taken me on a path which may be different from yours, but in the end our goal should be equal.
Who's attacking anybody? The very idea of the facts is exactly what we're trying to establish here! If I give you a historical account of Justin Martyr who not only agnknowledges the fact that the Jesus myth resembles earlier Pagan and Greek myths, and that the Jesus myth philosophy mimics those of the Orphics and of the philosophers of the Greeks - and not only does Justin admit this but he clearly writes out the other similarities of which that have existed before the first century even started! That is fact! A theologian would merely point out the same thing Justin did: That the Devil confiscated these other Gods and Philosophies to deter people from the path of righteousness! Indeed, many HAVE used that argument. Theology plays no roll in determining facts, the roll Theology plays is how to twist the facts to better represent the Theology they are most bias towards. In other words, Theologians are nothing more then apologists with a better grasp of the dogma then your typical Theologist.
The facts don't play into this point.
Apology accepted.
The very least I can do for being a crude ass earlier.
Let me put it like this...when a man such as Graig brings up how much hotter his wife is then his opponents in a debate, I lose a lot of respect...especially since it was such an off-the-wall comment and completely unenessecary. I've read his debates, and am disgusted with them quite frankly. Does that make my reasons a bit more clear and refined?
Absolutely not true. I would hope you'd be able to back it up with something, but your opinion alone is never going to get you expelled from this forum. We have a lot more tolerance then that.
But that's just it, if the man Jesus had lived during the time of the first century, there would have been a lot more writings of his existence. See my argument from silence in this topic. Especially since the average life span of a human being in the Roman Empire at the time of the first century was a mere 40 years old, and that is ONLY if a person survivde past the age of 20, as persecutions, war, religious sacrifices, and corruption were often seen to end your life before you ever got past your 20th birthday. (Sources in my Silence discussion)
The auograohs are speculation at best. Even Christian apolgetics agree, which is damn sad for this case your making here. Allow me to show you:
Archer himself admits the original writings no longer exist:
Having said this, Archer then makes a statement bordering on the absurd.
Imagine the nonsense of this! We are told, How does he know the original itself is flawless? The originals themselves could very well contradict each other.
Of course this is neither here nor there, but the statements above paint a clea rpicture for how poor the argument is that the origionals MIGHT have been something or COULD have been written when...the fact is it's all speculative. Since the argument from silence in this case is so damning, even Carrier agrees (Please listen ot purchase the Jesus Mythicism show with Carrier and myself for further details on this), there is really no way to date them earlier then the fall of the Temple.
If the Gospels has existed before this date, Paul would have SURELY known about them and used them to prove that his Jesus existed especially to the Romans, as he even went to Jersusalem just three years after his conversion and met up with Peter...yet nothing in Paul's epistles shows any signs that Peter knew of anything in the Gospels, and Paul certainly doesn't. And these weren't the only epistles to be written in the first century without knowledge of the Gospels or a historical Jesus.
Clement knows nothing, names none, cites nothing, and is almost just as oblivious as Paul is.
Hebrews has not a word of the Gospels and this is an early epistle (although not from Paul).
No real mention in Josephus, Philo, or Pliny the Elder. No mention of any of the events in the Talmud, nothing in any of the Sethian writings...
And if Mark had been written in 70 CE, it would have easily been passed around quick enough to the churches, as of that time there would have been enough patrons to the church to have an ample audience and more scribes to copy things. More literate members...Matthew and Luke could ahve obtained copies and themselves scribbled down their versions best they could, albeit their copies were not the origionals either.
It would best explain the boom of knowledge of the Gospels in the middle-late second century and the small amount of actually physical manuscripts and papyrus we have from that period as well...and also the it explains the complete LACK of said manuscripts prior to the turn of the century. As the only physical manuscript evidence for the Gospels we have is a small slither of a verse from what we assume to be the Gospel of John, dated between 125-150 CE.
Indeed. Take care Adam.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Josephus the Romano-Jewish historian reported him, and was his contemporary.
I assume you joined because you saw the bulletin on MySpace as you've only been a member for a few hours. However, I am confused. Did you actually read the MySpace bulletin?
If you did, then surely you must have seen this.
From the RRS MySpace Bulletin concerning the contest:
"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank."-Woody Allen
"Atheism is life affirming in a way religion can never be."-Richard Dawkins
Joh 19:40 They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it with the spices in linen cloths, according to the burial custom of the Jews.
Joh 20:5 He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the cloth that had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. (NRSV)
The Shroud of Turin is a single object, thus contradicting the verses in The Book of John which state that the body of Jesus was wrapped in "linen wrappings" (plural) along with a single cloth for his head.
Don't take me seriously, I'm just Joshin' ya.
Such a person would have nothing to do with the 'jesus' of the gospels.... it's possible that a person like that helped inspire the story, but saying "some really nice rabbi existed, ergo there's evidence for jesus' would be akin to saying "there was once this really tall lumberjack, ergo Paul Bunyan existed"
Evidence of a purely human 'jesus' would actually refute the gospels...
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
In discussing the fact that a historian might accept the existence of a figure for which there is no evidence of any contemporary accounts, we must remember that we are comparing an ordinary claim with an extraordinary claim.
The gospels don't make an ordinary claim. They hold that a man/god strode the earth for years, creating miracles, etc. The book of Matthew even speaks of zombie-saints rising from graves.
Ergo it's not just that there is a contemporary silence concerning 'jesus' that strikes us as bizarre... it is that we should expect an outrcy from anyone in the area, able to write...we ought to expect the event to have a dominating influence any form of song, poetry, history that does exist from that era.
For it not to show up as a constant theme in the works of any historian or poet of that time, is akin to the idea of the Moon disapearing in 1979 without Carl Sagan bothering to mention it in Cosmos in 1980.
Of course, those arguing for a 'jesus-lite' - a mere man that inspired a legend, can argue that the more miraculous claims for 'jesus'. like those in the book of 'matthew' are merely literary license, gone amuck. The problem with this argument is that it is entirely ad hoc - whatever would necessarily demand that the world take note of, is removed from the record as 'poetic exaggeration'....
This leaves us with a process akin to peeling back layers of an onion to get to the 'real onion' ... it's utterly arbitrary where you stop....
Anyone who takes the gospels seriously, particularly Matthew and John, has a serious problem before them: there's no rational way to conclude that the written word from that time wouldn't have been dominated by talk of the miracles, the zombie saints, etc.... no matter the author's particular normal range of interests....
Take a look at how the theme of 9/11 dominates our media. Now, instead of some buildings being knocked down, imagine that newcameras captured zombie saints rising from graves on that day instead.....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
If so, why didn't "jesus the messiah" dominate his discussion of Jewish history? Seems he didn't have anything to go on.. nothing that led him to believe that there was any actual messiah... this seems to a pretty damning disproof more than anything else.... of a gospel jesus.
See the slight problem above.
Then give one of their great arguments, rather than just assert.
You wrote this to Rook:
People in glass houses... stones... sure you get the idea....
You continue here:
So he's just like a fundy, except he's completely unlike a fundy in that he critically examines his own beliefs!
So he's a fundy, except that he isn't.
Funny stuff.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Gdon once again pwned by Todangst. I'm hiring you on as my official debunker of gdon. Expect payment in the mail. What's gdon worth exactly? A nickle? Four cents?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
I don't understand what the big deal is, who's to say there wasn't a living flesh and blood man named Jesus living way back when that was a rabbi, whom might have had some revolutionary insights? It's not like he actually said he was THE son of God (at least not in a particular line I know of).
We know he's not what people make him to be, but how would you know he wasn't at least a man?
You're demanding proof that he exists which is commendable, you deserve a pat on the back, but your premise that he doesn't exist is a leap of faith in itself. The belief in the nonexistance of God is a leap of faith in itself too in case you didn't realize...
But anyway there were parables written from the perspectives of his friends, friends I'm not even certain thought of him as a supernatural god in their own lifetimes as later Constantinian pictures would depict...
Couldn't you consider that a teacher named Jesus did live in some roughly outlined life as found in the judeo-christian bible, but that much of the supernatural stuff people percieve about him was embellished from the more factual in later centuries? Seems reasonable to me...
Visit my myspace : http://www.myspace.com/richardb8633
Why would you be confused? I just figured we've both safely assumed that I didn't read the whole thing.
It sounds pretty unreasonable of you, if I may say so.
Visit my myspace : http://www.myspace.com/richardb8633
This thread is only for posts entering the contest, and one post for a debunking (some minor exceptions will be granted). If there is a $666 prize this thread will be opened up to all posts concerning the evidence received, which of course would be one of the most important historical discoveries of our time.
All other posts are either deleted or moved here, to the discussion thread.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
"Jesus the Messiah" wouldn't have dominated Jewish history because there were many proclaimed "messiahs" who were often militaristic and led more than several of the revolts the Judeans had against Roman Imperialism. These revolts happened perhaps every hundred years or so and none of those messiahs have any place in Jewish history.
I think Jesus was some sort of minor rallying figure of many during these times, many figures of which were refered to as "messiahs" in there short spans. I'm pretty sure the ones who weren't killed in battle were crusified just Roman capitol punishment to non-citizens prescribed.
Consistently the Romans slaughtered the Jews in these revolts and leveled Jerusalem repeatedly. Relatingly "the Temple" that Jesus paid homage in stood in his own time, but was leveled within the century.
A few hundred years later the Jews who liked Jesus in particular were distinguished as Christians right about the time of Paul. Later Christians became the "Unity in Victory" rather than the "Unity in Peace" type as soon as Constantine "the Great" got his hands in it and made it the state religion of Rome. It was used to take control of "the world."
Sure the hocus pocus stuff in the legend of Jesus isn't empirically real, but perhaps the complete negation of this figure ever existing is overkill. It's too intolerable for even the fringe Christians to accept. I've more success with other strategies it's seemed.
I think the deification of Jesus should be played down, but the complete denial of Jesus seems completely ineffective on these people to me, though maybe at times it can be a rallying for the rest of us...
Visit my myspace : http://www.myspace.com/richardb8633
Yet the roman empire did this to Gaul, Germania, and even Greece. Was Judea special in that it received a harsher government? I ask because we have literally tons of verifiable information, artifacts, personal accounts, and hard tangible evidence concerning the rest of the roman empire during this rise of christianity. We have chronological timelines that cross reference each other. Yet nothing concerning an actual man named jesus christ, only hearsay. Everything else has been debunked not disregarded.
Whatever happened to 'seek and ye shall find'? lol.
Wow. That's a hell of a timeline there, Dick.
Some people want the truth, not just what 'works'. For some people, it means examining every scrap of text in the world.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Actually the Romans treated Judea differently in the way the allowed Jews to observe their religious holidays and rituals. Jews were exempt from military service for instance because military service was filled with pagan ritual the Jews especially didn't want part in.
Yes, a rough timeline because the evolution of religions is rough and sloppy and very unprecise, and is never precise and stagnant as it appears to our short term perspectives. It took something LIKE hundreds of years for Christianity to become it's own religion apart from Judaism. Everything Jesus did was pretty Jewish.
The truth is a man named Jesus probably did live, as quite a flesh and blood human man with hopes and fears like the rest of us.
Visit my myspace : http://www.myspace.com/richardb8633
I'm confused in that I can't understand what objection you would have to finding proof, as outlined and defined.
If indeed this man really existed then there would be tons of something first hand because he was allegedly so influential.
Yet there is still none. It slaps the metaphorical face of logic to believe anything without evidence. It goes one step further when some people affect mine and base their entire existence upon words that they can't verify as actually coming from the mouth of the supposed son of their god.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Skeptical scholars overwhelmingly believe that Paul was a contemporary of Jesus.
Paul refers to Jesus's teaching:
I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself (Romans 14:14 )
Paul placed Jesus in Jerusalem:
So all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodilness from Jacob; for this is My covenant with then, when I take away their sins."(Romans 11:26)
Paul refers to Jesus as being Jewish:
Born of a woman, born under the law (Gal 4:4)
Paul placed Jesus as someone living at a particular time in the past, listing Jesus as living after earlier people who were considered historical (list compiled by Ben Smith):
1. Jesus must have lived after Adam, since Paul calls him the latter Adam (1 Corinthians 15.22, 45).
2. Jesus must have lived after Abraham, since Paul calls him the seed (descendant) of Abraham (Galatians 3.16).
3. Jesus must have lived after Moses, since Paul says that he was the end of the law of Moses (Romans 10.4-5).
4. Jesus must have lived after David, since Paul calls him the seed (descendant) of David (Romans 1.4).
Evidence that Paul regarded Jesus as having lived recently, within living memory, as an older contemporary:
1. Paul believes he is living in the end times (1 Corinthians 10.11), that he himself (1 Thessalonians 4.15; 1 Corinthians 15.51) or at least his converts (1 Thessalonians 5.23; 2 Corinthians 4.14) might well live to see the parousia. Paul also believes that the resurrection of Jesus was not just an ordinary resuscitation of the kind Elijah or Elisha supposedly wrought; it was the first instance of the general resurrection from the dead at the end of the age (1 Corinthians 15.13, 20-28). When, then, does Paul think Jesus rose from the dead? If, for Paul, he rose from the dead at some point in the indeterminate past, then we must explain either (A) why Paul thought the general resurrection had begun (with Jesus) well before the end times or (B) why Paul regarded the end times as a span of time stretching from the misty past all the way to the present. If, however, Paul regarded the resurrection of Jesus as a recent phenomenon, all is explained. The resurrection of Jesus was the beginning of the general resurrection and thus the ultimate sign that the end times were underway.
2. Paul expects that he might see the general resurrection in his own lifetime (1 Corinthians 15.51). He also calls Jesus the firstfruits of that resurrection. Since the firstfruits of the harvest precede the main harvest itself by only a short time, the very metaphor works better with a short time between the resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection of the rest of the dead, implying that the resurrection of Jesus was recent for Paul.
3. There is, for Paul, no generation gap between the death of Jesus and the resurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15.4). Furthermore, there is no generation gap between the recipients of the resurrection appearances and Paul himself; he is personally acquainted with the first recipient of a resurrection appearance (1 Corinthians 15.5; Galatians 1.18). Is there a gap between the resurrection and the first appearance? The flow of 1 Corinthians 15.3-8 would certainly not suggest one; however, I believe we can go further.
Paul claims that Jesus was the end of the law for those who have faith (Romans 10.4), that he was raised from the dead in order to justify humans (Romans 4.25), and that this justification comes by faith (Romans 5.1) in Jesus (Romans 3.22). Paul also claims that no one can have faith unless he first hears the gospel from a preacher (Romans 10.14) who is sent (Romans 10.15). Finally, Paul acknowledges that it was at the present time (Romans 3.26) that God showed forth his justice apart from the law (Romans 3.21), and that the sent ones, the apostles, were to come last of all (1 Corinthians 4.9); he also implies that the resurrection appearances were the occasion of the sending out of apostles (1 Corinthians 9.1; 15.7, 9; Galatians 1.15-16). If we presume that, for Paul, Jesus was raised in the distant past but only recently revealed to the apostles, we must take pains to account for this gap; why, for Paul, did Jesus die in order to end the law and justify humans but then wait indefinitely before making this justification available to humans? If, however, we presume that, for Paul, Jesus was raised recently, shortly before appearing to all the apostles, all is explained. That was the right time (Romans 5.6).
4. Paul writes that God sent forth his son to redeem those under the law in the fullness of time (Galatians 4.4). It is easier to suppose that, for Paul, the fullness of time had some direct correspondence to the end of the ages (1 Corinthians 10.11) than to imagine that the fullness of time came, Jesus died, and then everybody had to wait another long expanse of time for the death to actually apply to humanity.
Counterpoints:
"Paul doesn't give any historical details about Jesus"
Actually, Paul gives few historical details about anything. This is fairly standard, and can be seen in the first few centuries, among both pagan and Christian writings. Historicists like Tertullian wrote letters without any historical details about Jesus. But, as noted above, Paul doesn't appear to place Jesus in a "timeless past", in fact he appears to place Jesus in a recent past.
"Paul doesn't refer to Gospel sayings or events"
The problem with this objection is that few scholars believe that all the events in the Gospels are historical. The objector would need to clarify which events or sayings in the Gospels actually happened first.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
I consider your post a form of 'trolling' since time and time again people have been told that the bible is not evidence for the existence of jesus.
In my opinion, it shows a complete disregard of the thread rules and a lack of consideration for ALL of the people involved.
Have a nice day.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Not to mention it was initially posted in the other thread as historical contemporary evidence of Jesus. I had to move it.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
My apologies.
In that case, can I ask the moderators to delete my post, please?
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
Then you should provide names. Anonymous citation doesn't allow us to critically examine your claim.
You need to tell us who meets the criteria of 'skeptical scholars', how many there are in your estimation, and then, show what the term 'overwhelmingly' means in relation to your statement. Does an overwhelming percentage believe? What makes for an overwhelmin percentage?
Then you need to explain whether you only consider those interested in christianity.....
You should also realize that even if we were to take this as true, he does not provide an historical report on 'jesus' anyway. Paul concedes his 'contact' was through a vision. Paul does not write as an eyewitness. He does not give a historical report, nor does he reference work of eyewitnesses.
But what matters here is what specifics does he give, via eyewitness report. Do his comments require a real jesus that he's observed?
Um... yeah, and this requires eyewitnessing how?
You see, all your points are red herrings..... Paul makes these claims, but they are just definitional to the concept of jesus.... they don't require eyewitnessing.... and they aren't 'proof' of contemporary testimony.
Um...a person said to come from the line of david would have lived after adam, right? I think you're just padding your posts here..... there's nothing here that speaks to a need to live a contemporary to garner this 'knowledge'... this is all just definitional to the concept of 'jesus'.
Which of course, he can't be.... seeing as he's a demigod. Anyway, again this is 'definitional' to the concept of jesus
Every christian believes this, eschatology, parousia is part of the religion. Every generation of humanity has people who believe end times are coming. It's a egocentrism of humanity.... "I'm too important to pass without the world going along with me..." - every generation, deep down, thinks it is special...hence we get this narcissism about living in end times.
Again, every christian believes this.... that's a key component of the religion... in fact, that's pretty much one of the points of holding to it... that you're living in some special time, and that 'jesus' is just around the corner.
Try to find a time in history where people didn't think that endtimes were upon them.
And how he would he know that 'god' did this? Again, this has nothing to do with demonstrating a contemporary writing about a historical person, this is all just definitional to 'christianity'
How does that help your case? It just furthers the point that theres a lack concern about actual historicity in his works.... in fact, one might say that a historical jesus would have gotten in the way of what Paul wanted to say.
Paul's 'historicity' for jesus pretty much begins and ends in a vision.
I have no problem agreeing with your anonymous scholars here.
But this doesn't help you either.... if the gospels really existed in some form during Paul's time, then he'd at least have heard of them, and some of the key elements of the gospels would have bled through his writings at the very least.... it's just too incredible to hold that Paul concerned himself an historical jesus to any real degree, and yet ignored the gospels in whatever form they would have existed.
Basically, your post contains a bunch of elements that do not require any observation at all... they are concepts definitional to christianity. To demonsrate that someone is an actual contemporary, actually writing about a real person, you'd need to give a report that speaks as an eyewitness, that can be corrobated as having an origin in the "time of jesus'...
** edit: feel free to move my post too.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
It's ok, it can remain in the peanut gallery.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Yeah yeah yeah, well show me proof he didn't exist.
Jesus was of utmost insignificance back then, with the exception of to his little cult. Don't put all your faith in logic me boy, it's more useful than literal interpretation of the myths but it isn't everything. Logic is inherently fragmentary from a quantum or a nondual perspective.
Visit my myspace : http://www.myspace.com/richardb8633
Are you serious? There's no such thing as a burden of disproof.
This makes no sense. Any jesus who fits the gospel accounts would be a miracle worker, hardly insignificant.
Any insignificant jesus would not be the jesus of the gospels in the first place.
Logic is inherently fragmentary? From a nondual perspective?
You're misusing quantum theory - your statement makes no sense.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
No but there is burden in your claim-- that he didn't exist at least as a man. It's the most unextraordinary claim that he probably did exist as a sort of ordinary man.
I'm as concerned about what the gospels say as I am with what Aesop's Fabels or old Saved by the Bell episodes have to say.
Here's the great postmodern discovery that led to quantum physics and relativity, also known as the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, as Ken Wilber describes it:
By 1900, science was convinced that it had nearly reached the end of the Quest for Reality. As a matter of fact, physicists were leaving the field, for as one put it, there was nothing left to do but calculate the next decimal point-- every phenomenon in the physical universe had been neatly descibed in the strictly deterministic terms of cause and effect. In one sense, it was still the old Judaeo-Christian world of a politcal assembly of finite chunks and bits of matter governed by absolute (i.e., measurable) law-- the only item missing was the Monarch Himself, who was looked upon by most scientists as the Great Watchmaker-- that Big Mechanic who initially wound the universe up and then, struck by an unexpected case of laziness, sat back to watch it unwind. Yet scientists were now convinced that they had, through objective measurement and verification, discovered the universal and absolute laws of the Monarch. Every Phenomenon in nature could be rduced to small lumps of matter and these in turn were ridgedly defined by Newtonian mechanics.
.......... he goes on some more interesting turns, then...
Exactly here was the problem. To measure anything requires some sort of tool or instrument, yet the electron weighs so little that any conceivable device, even one as "light" as a photon, would cause the electron to change position in the very act of trying to measure it! This was not a technical problem but, so to speak, a problem sewn into the very fabric of the universe. These physicists had reached the annihilating edge, and the ssumption that had brought them there, the assumption that the observer was seperate from the event, the assumption that one could dualistically tinker with the universe without affecting it, was found untenable. In some mysterious fashion, the subject and the object were intimately united, and the myriad of theories that had assumed otherwise were now in shambles. As the physicist Eddington exclaimed:
Something unknown is doing we don't know what--that is what our theory amounts to. It does not sound a particularly illuminating theory. I have read something like it elsewhere--
The slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
AND THUS YOU HAVE THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE CLASSICAL AND PURELY DUALISTIC APPROACHES
Read the Spectrum of Consciousness by Ken Wilber for more of that stuff..
Do you see what I mean about "objective" logic?
Visit my myspace : http://www.myspace.com/richardb8633
Oy vay. Until he's proven to exist, the default position is he didn't.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
I disagree, seems that the default position is that he did exist, though all the mythology he inspired probably didn't. Even Jews don't argue that he probably existed as a man, and Muslims certainly believe he did because Mohommad praised Jesus in the Quran as being a profit in the tradition of Abraham and the others.
It seems most likely to me that he was a real living man, so the real extraordinary claim is that the whole Jesus story came out of a vacuum without any minimum historical grounds. You would have to say the whole thing was a hoax from day one.
Really I think the writers of the gospels were inspired by the orally passed down parables that were first told by the friends of this man of legend. I think originally when they told these stories he was just a guy they missed a lot, whom they often imagined was still with them. This is common to humans whom loose close ones.
That's about it, nothing much more to say about that.
Visit my myspace : http://www.myspace.com/richardb8633
"I am more sure that Yahweh doesn't exist, than I am of the fact that I do exist." - me
How can you be sure of something more than that you exist?
Decartes said "I think therefor I am" and proved that he existed, or at least that thought or mind or something was going on...
How can the precise status of the god abstraction be known more certain than that THOUGHT is occuring?
It seems all abstractions are collapsable into the concrete NOW, where time and space are mere judgemental afterthoughts as if there is such a thing.
Visit my myspace : http://www.myspace.com/richardb8633
'seems, argue, probably, believe'
Do you see the problem with those words? None of those words have 100% fact which is the definition of absolute proof.
'seems, most likely, minimum historical grounds'
It's great that's enough for you to believe in jesus. Why can't you accept that more is needed for others? Why must you persist in this delusion and bring others with you through 'faith'? I will need to know your motivations for continuing this argumentative approach to the thread topic.
If you could clarify 'day one'? The hypothesis that it was a hoax fabricated prior to 'day one' is fast approaching theory status.
Prove your hypotheses, don't have faith in your opinions. That's my opinion.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.