PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Offline 
Whether he was named or simply "called" Jesus is not really important in the question of his actual existence. Whether he was the Mesiah or a lunitic is the more appropriate question don't you think? For instance, Simon, was called Peter, Saul was renamed Paul. There seems to be adaquate references to a person that was referred to as Jesus, that was at the base/basis of the Christian faith. That person was believed to be (rightly or wrongly) the Son of God, by the people that established the Christian Faith.
In my thinking, and according to verifiable documents, Christians were put to horrible deaths in the Roman Coliseum for their beliefs in Christ. It seems that this sort of commitment would take a lot more conviction than some "Gospel" a dozen guys could come up with in some upper room.
That being said...I am going to go with the "Historical Jesus."
[aside: according to the Discovery Channel documentary I saw the other day, Nero was inadvertantly a major contributor to the spread of Christianity in Rome, because the Christians would not deny Christ even in the horrific tortures that were inflicted upon them. Those convictions held by Christians convinced many Romans that there must be something very substantial in their beliefs if they were willing to endure such horrors and not renounce their Christ in order to live.]
In intellectual matters you can think things out, but in spiritual matters you will only think yourself into further wandering thoughts and more confusion. --Oswald Chambers
No, not really.
Even if there was a son of god running around Israel at the time of Jesus' supposed existance, but:
a) his name wasn't Jesus
b) he wasn't crucified
c) or wasn't even killed
d) add whatever incosistencies with the bible you wish
then Christianity is simply wrong. It would be a false religion, and Christians would be worshipping a false god.
Similiarly, if there was a normal guy called Jesus, that lived at the time, that preached exactly what the bible claims Jesus preached, and was crucified for it, but:
a) He performed no miracles (because he was just a normal guy
b) He didn't die for our sins (same as a)
then Christianity is just as wrong. In that case it's nothing more then cult based on an overblown story of one of thousands self-proclaimed messiahs of the day.
So the only question actually worth asking is: did Jesus as described in the bible exist. If he did, we'd have shitload of evidence, but we don't, so he didn't.
What?
Yes it takes a lot of conviction, but it doesn't have to be based on anything true. Look at the Muslims (unless you think they are right). They throw their lives away without thinking twice, you could torture them 'till their deaths, I doubt any of them would convert.
They are like Christians of the ancient times.
Today's Christians (most of them, I hope) are like ancient Romans, thinking "Have their lost their minds?! Faith or not, I would never do that", when they hear of another suicide bomber, or whatever.
And by the very same mechanism you described at the end of your post, people are actually converting to Islam, because they think that such conviction must be based on something true.
I am not real sure where the alphabet came in there with all the dis-qualifiers, but they are obviously more of a personal interjection that have little or no basis--other than a need for personal satisfaction on your part.
For you to say all that, and then imply they are truths and therefore Christianity is false is just messed up. (I think some might prefer the term logical phallacy).
You are aware that Christians and Muslims believe in the same God right?
//This place is littered with scarecrows...
In intellectual matters you can think things out, but in spiritual matters you will only think yourself into further wandering thoughts and more confusion. --Oswald Chambers
You sir, are absolutely right. They have no basis, and they weren't supposed to have any.
It was a thought experiment for crying out loud. A few "what ifs" to consider nothing more.
Where have I said, or implied, that they are truths?
I just wanted to show, that unless you find evidence for Jesus as described in the bible, Christianity is false.
Either because it would be a cult based on a hype, or, in the extremely unlikely event that there was a son of god (but different then the one described in the bible), because it worships a false god.
And if you look at the claims of the bible about what happened in Jesus' lifetime, you'll see there should be tons of evidence. I mean shouldn't we have tons of written sources about a guy that turned water into wine, raised the dead, or about the freaking zombies running around the place around the time of his ressurection?
Or what about those 500 eye-witnesses (at the moment I can't recall what miracle they witnessed), you're telling me they remained silent for the rest of their lives,or that if they weren't silent, no one found it important to right down what they were saying?
There is no evidence for any of the claims of the bible about Jesus Christ, and until someone finds it, everyone that thinks Christianity is false, is justified in doing so.
Yes, and?
I said "unless you think Muslims are right", if you do, then pick any other religion, most of them, if not all, have their fanatics.
Now, how does the fact that someone was brainwashed to throw his life away prove that he was right about something?
I thought so....thanks for clarifying though. At first it was perceived that you to implied you believed those things at first, but realized that was not the intent.
There is plenty of documentation that indicates there was indeed a person that roamed the country side, that many people believed to be the Son of God. How else can we explain such a large following? What could cause so many people came to believe something so outrageous during that day. How/why would the concept of establishing a church, based on the ravings of a lunatic, in order to expand their 'faith' so far as to be known and feared by the Roman's?
There is at the least, a third possibility/alternative!
I don't understand how a god could have a son, and then not be considered a god? If God had a Son, then it seems very likely that it would be evidense of a god?
I am not sure how aware you are of the fear the earliest Christians lived with. That was Saul's/Paul's job for a while. There is very strong evidense to point to a large movement in the early christian chursh. These people believed they were following Christ.
We do have written sources! There are not "tons" because not many people wrote back then. There certainly wasn't going to be a printing press for at least a thousand years (not gutenberg's), There certainly isn't a "ton" of any writings from that period. But there is a great volume of writings from those times and the next couple of centuries that document the percecutions they suffered, and adaqate records indicating that it was a large amount of the population believed these things to be true.
Not sure on this one either. That is the number of people that it is said Jesus appeared to after his death.
No, I am not telling you that AT ALL! They were NOT silent. They shouted out their belief and were beaten, imprisoned, tortured, and killed for talking about what they believed in. That sort of evidense causes me to think there was something pretty miraculous--not to mention convincing--that this guy had something pretty special going on! While there may be no direct evidense that this guy fed five thousand people (which would be quite a miracle in the first place) with five loaves of bread and two fish, obviously, there was some reason for a large number of people to believe something(s) supernatural happened.
.
Perhaps some people think that Christianity is some great plot conspired by a hand full of men, for the purpose of controlling the world, during the 21st century. But for what purpose? How would they benefit from something that carried on for a couple of thousand years? To deny there was a Christian movement, one would not appear to be very informed of the verifiable documents of the Christian movement in the first and second century. Which by the way, just happens to have occured around the time said "guy" was supposed to have been killed. (hear the, twighlight zone theme?)
.
This causes me to really think people had good reason to believe that Christ was a real person walking around about thirty years before beginning of what we call BCE (Before the Common Era).
I don't think Muslims are right, so I guess your point is moot?
.
Brainwashed is such an over-used term. coerceded maybe, indoctrinatede perhaps. I think we see plenty of evidense that many people are not permenately effected by "religious" teachings. I have no explaination for leaders like David Karesh, but it can be said he was a prophet.
.
How about if we not use the actions of "fanatics" to cloud the subject, or used as evidense against God? Sort of "inadmissible" if you know what I mean? (sorry, I mentally drifted into a court room setting--as if we were trying a legal case)
In intellectual matters you can think things out, but in spiritual matters you will only think yourself into further wandering thoughts and more confusion. --Oswald Chambers
Precisely, which is why the term 'historical jesus' makes no sense. "Jesus" is a reference to the god/man of the gospels, an 'historical jesus' is thererfore an oxymoron. Any man who 'inspired the legend' wouldn't be jesus of the gospels (after Mark), ergo to refer to this historical man as 'jesus' is an attempt at equivocation.
If a very tall man, bull-owning man, capable of felling trees quicker than others were uncovered in history, this would not be "Paul Bunyan'. It would be a man who inspired the legend of Paul Bunyan. There's a difference.
Furthermore, we must consider that Gdon is a christian... so what possible motive could he have to refute his own religion by arguing for a 'historical jesus' - unless he plans a 'bait and switch' at some point? As you point out, an historical jesus refutes the bible.
Precisely, and this is the very reason for the ad hoc response of 'historical jesus'... It seeks to remove the need for witnesses by turning jesus from a godman, into a man.
But by doing so, Gdon merely borrows from Peter to pay Paul.... he saves his argument from one type of refutation, only to force it to suffer from another.
The same old error - confusing conviction for truthfulness. We could also point to the Branch Davidians, or Jim Jones, or countless other zealots... including the zealots themselves.
Precisely. I need to cite what I am going to state next, so take it with a grain of salt, but I do recall some psychological research that demonstrated that there's actually somewhat of a negative relationship between conviction and correctness, after a certain point.....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
You are aware that this is a red herring, right?
Muslims claim to believe in the god of abraham, but they also hold that Muhammad's addition to the religion of abraham is the final and correct version, meaning that christians hold to a series of errors that damn them to hell.
So functionally, the religions are not the same, and functionally, dying for "Islam" is dying for a false conviction, to a christian.
Muslims reject that 'jesus' even died on the cross, holding that he was saved and replaced by a doppleganger. They do not accept jesus as the christ, and do not hold that doing so brings salvation. They hold that works matter, and that accepting Allah as god and Muhammad as his last prophet, are what lead to paradise.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
No, there is none.
If you disagree, produce some.
You're begging the question. How do you know what following 'he had' if you haven't even cited writings of that time?
Pull up an encyclopedia, look up "Islam"
Then cite it.
No, we do not have any.
Plenty of people wrote back then, but not a word about zombie saints rising from graves. Odd lack of interest, don't you think?
Not a word about your 'jesus'
Disagree? Cite one.
Well then, if you know this, then you have evidence. Cite it.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
While you may dismiss this (simply one of the first and easiest ones available) as worthless because it contains the word catholic, here it is anyway.
.
http://cr.middlebury.edu/public/russian/Bulgakov/public_html/catholic.html
If those resources are all dismissed off-handedly, then I fail to see your point.
In intellectual matters you can think things out, but in spiritual matters you will only think yourself into further wandering thoughts and more confusion. --Oswald Chambers
Did YOU read any of this?
Most of the sources they give were written well after Jesus' supposed death, and their authors were born generations later as well. As such these sources could not refer to Jesus directly, but only as an object of Christian faith.
In other words, they are not evidence for the existance of Jesus, they are evidence for the existance of Christians.
The only exception to this is Philo, who said nothing about Jesus.
The only source that mentioned Jesus directly was Josephus, and the authenticity of the passages reffering to Jesus has been disputed, as it has been proven they have been tampered with.
So, at the very best, and I mean very very very best, Josephus can give you evidence for a "historical" Jesus, which, as has been mentioned, refutes Christianity.
I think I see what you are getting at. Unless someone actually knew of a person named Jesus (who professed to be Christ), and wrote about that person during Jesus' lifetime, that document doesn't support a historical Jesus? Which seems to make the following documentation, null and void in that context.
Another Roman writer who shows his acquaintance with Christ and the Christians is Suetonius (A.D. 75-160). It has been noted that Suetonius considered Christ (Chrestus) as a Roman insurgent who stirred up seditions under the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41 54):
Whether Christianity was refuted--at least in this source--has little to do with whether the evidence points to the person of Jesus.
I admit I am not a historian--though I enjoy some history. I haven't spent a lot of time (several hours of several days) researching the sources as perhaps I should do. But, it does make me curious as to how much documentation there is for any person in that period of history. Would Herod or Pilate have court records that contained the proceeding of every trial they conducted? If these men created such court records, would they have endured hundreds of years?
What other sources would record the existence of people in the first century that were not historical references. When was Homer born? If he hadn't written the "Iliad" and the "Odyssey" would there be any evidence he existed?
(These are rhetorical questions and not meant to be answered directly, nor will I refer to them as oversight in future posts (i.e., "well, you didn't answer my question about Homer)--as I see all too often on some forums.)
Even if we were to find the census records from the time when Joseph and Mary came to Bethlehem, they couldn't be used as proof. If Jesus had a birth certificate, it is highly unlikely it would have endured, and most likely would have been lost within a few years
I don't intend this to be a strawman, or a red herring, either. I simply want to point out, there is/are historical document(s) that indicate Jesus was a historical person. You did concede at least one document supports a historical Jesus. You are correct that there are not many sources to be found that support a historical Jesus. But I don't really see--given the above--how it can be denied that Jesus was a man who actually lived during that time.
Therefore, it seems fairly clear, a historical Jesus does exist. Whether he was the Christ, or a crazy man, seem to be the real question to be addressed.
In intellectual matters you can think things out, but in spiritual matters you will only think yourself into further wandering thoughts and more confusion. --Oswald Chambers
Yep.
It's not only about this source.
Any evidence for a historical Jesus will refute Christianity.
If archeologists 2000 years from now uncover Superman comics and try to find out wheter or not such a man existed, and after lots and lots of digging they'll find a few more comic books, some movies, and finally an article in a newspaper written by a Clark Kent, will that prove Superman existed?
No. It is a well known fact that reporters don't have super powers, so you'd need something more like evidence for the great battles he fought, and all the stuff he'd done for mankind, to prove Superman existed.
All evidence pointing to an ordinary man called Clark Kent will ultimately disprove the existance of Superman.
Yes, if they were stored in a safe place, they could survive thousands of years. Like, say, the diplomatic correspondence of the pharaoh, from around the year 2000 BCE, found in Tell el Amarna.
You might want to check out this video if you want to find out how archeologists find out about the people and events of ancient times.
That's where I got the information about Tell el Amarna, by the way, I'm not that good with history either
Well, actually these are very good questions.The truth is we know very little about Homer. In fact we know so little that it was suggested he never existed and that his works were created by a number of people, and "Homer" was just a made up person to group them all togather... tough I must admit I can't remember where have I heard this claim, and how much truth there is to it.
So you see, it's not just the existance of Jesus that people require evidence for.
Woah there!
I said at the very best, and I was generous at that.
Even Christians admit that Josephus is the only person that wrote something about Jesus directly.
However he was no contemporary, and it is known for a fact that the passages reffering to Jesus have been tampered with.
So not only there are not many sources, there are good reasons to doubt their authenticity.
Simple. There is no contemporary evidence for his existance.
You see that's the reason I keep rambling about evidence for historical Jesus refuting Christianity. The only reason why Christians even try to argue he existed as a historical person, is to do a bait and switch like you just did.
If Jesus existed as a normal person he couldn't have been the Christ, because if he was, we would have evidence of his miracles, just like we would have evidence for Superman's battles if he existed.
Chrestus is not a reference to christ. Read Rook's points on this.
There are plenty of people who lived in the time of christ who could have written on him. None did.
And we don't even need original documents... we just need copies, or even references to them.
But we don't even have this.
All of these people could have written on 'jesus christ'. None did.
Caius Suetonius
Josephus
Philo-Judæus
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones
Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Phædrus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Valerius Flaccus
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna
Justus of Tiberias
Sorry Gdon...
Bingo. Either there's a jesus the christ, or there isn't. A 'jesus' who isn't 'jesus', isn't jesus.
Only on a theology discussion board would such a statement be required....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Ivan_Ivanov
That's a good point about Superman. Especially, since he is a known fictional character. Homer, on the other had would have been a more appropriate comparison. But, I guess some would never be convinced no matter the quality or quantity of sources that support the subject.
In intellectual matters you can think things out, but in spiritual matters you will only think yourself into further wandering thoughts and more confusion. --Oswald Chambers
Yes, some people are like that. Even if you had lots and lots of good evidence, they wouldn't belive you. However, you have none, so your point is moot.
You can choose to believe that the person referred to as Jesus never existed. You can choose to believe that Christianity is based on a concept created by devious men to control the world 2000 years in the future. You can laugh everytime you pass a church on the corner. You can dismiss anyone who holds a belief in God. You can ignore the facts and deny the evidence. But you have not convinced me you are knowledgable of the truth.
In intellectual matters you can think things out, but in spiritual matters you will only think yourself into further wandering thoughts and more confusion. --Oswald Chambers
Or you can just not believe he existed. You can believe that he's a
myth, just like 10,000 other myths.
Beliefs aren't a choice... The fact that you have to call it a 'choice' seems to imply that it's an emotional decision... which is a rather hollow complaint coming from a theist who takes things on faith.
But what choice do you have, but to create a strawman of rational non belief? You can't afford to deal with the truth: that non belief is a rational decision based on the maxim that beliefs ought to be justified.
Why do you have to argue to strawmen?
Answer: because the real atheist position can't be successfully debated.
Christianity may have formed like any other myth: the myth makers believed what they believed, and thought they were telling a truth.
There's no need for a conspiracy.
The fact that you have to repaint the picture in a false way speaks to the weakness of your position.
Such anger in you. I don't believe your myth. That's it. No need to laugh at a church.
Again, such hate, such anger. No one is dismissing you. We are just dismissing bad arguments.
There is no evidence. None. Zero.
And you have to ignore that fact.
Just like you have rewrite non belief as if it were a positive claim. Or a matter of intrasigience. Just like you have to rewrite the normal process of mythmaking as a conspiracy.
You have to misrepresent, and rely on strawmen, because you can't deal with the truth.
There's NO contemporary accounts of a jesus. None. If you disagree, present it.
You haven't shown that you can correctly represent the basics of the discussion. As for the truth - there's no contemporary accounts of a jesus. None.
Instead, you've launched into character attacks of non believers.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
No actually I cannot choose to believe anything. I evidence for something persuades me or it doesn't, and I have no choice on the matter. No matter how hard I try I won't be able to choose to belive the Easter Bunny, for instance.
Oh?
So if I don't think that a particular religion is based on facts, this means that I automatically belive they are a result of conspiracy?
So by this logic you must believe that Buddhism, Hinduism, the old Pagan religions of Europe, (optionally Judaism and Islam) are based on a concept created by devious men to control the world X years in the future?
That was lame.
I don't find churches funny and I don't dismiss anyone?
Where did you get this, and what's your point?
What facts, and what evidence?
You linked to a site, that cited some sources it claimed was evidence. Only one of those would meet the criteria for contemporary historical evidence, if it wasn't a forgery.
So now you try to pretend that I'm dismissing you and ignoring your evidence, so you won't have to actually defend your belief.
Sweet.
Who said I was?
I said I have seen any evidence for the existance of Jesus, that;s why I don't believe he existed.
My argument is not based on knowledge of something, but lack of it. That is the default position when you don't have evidence for something - lack of belief.
If you want to show something/someone existed, you have to do the convincing.
Perhaps I did some unwarranted projecting there. Perhaps I should have used the word "one" rather than "you." If you do not hold those concepts--conspiracy, churches are funny--I apologize for implying you do. My bad!
My reference to choice of belief was intended on something more substantial than the Easter Bunny. I was thinking more along the lines of something like, whether planets were formed quickly or slowly; whether global warming is caused by man or nature; the mechanism behind high gas prices. Those things where you/one is presented with contradicting evidence and must choose which "resources" to accept and which to reject. Those decisions are much more subjective and one must make a choice.
I do understand the intuitive aspect of those choices however. I understand that some just make more sense than othes instinctively, and we are naturally or seemingly pulled in one direction or another by that which makes more "sense" to us.
The evidence I was referring to was that of a more personal nature. I understand that individual beliefs is circumstantial evidence--at best. Eye-witness accounts hold a great deal of merit in our modern courts--though it has been proven to actually be very subjective, and often contradictary. It seems difficult for me to disregard the evidence that Chrisitanity was based on a Christ that walked the earth (irregardless whether it happened two thousand years ago) based on the Christian movement we see today.
I have encountered such arguments as these before, and have yet to see a winner declared by the opposition (other than themselves of course). Perhaps this debate goes on among other religions also, and would probably have similar outcomes. It would be interesting to observe a debate on whether Mohammad was a historic person between Muslims and athiests.
I guess the irony of this subject is that in attempting to disprove a historic Jesus, it can be done simply by ignoring, or claiming fraud regarding, any source that was not written, and preserved, during the lifetime of that Jesus. Especially considering that going in to the debate, it is known that every apostle--save one--was killed, the pharisees methodically imprisioned, tortured, and killed as many followers as they could find. And for two centuries continued to torture and kill thousands of people who claimed--or were suspected--to subscribe to his teachings. Part of that methodology would have included destroying any written evidence that such person existed--similar to what happened in Nazi Germany in the 30's and 40's with the book burnings.
For the athiest, it is pretty much a one sided argument, and a win/win debate. I mean, how can you loose?
added: I know "irregardless" is a non-standard word, but it just seemed to be useful there.
In intellectual matters you can think things out, but in spiritual matters you will only think yourself into further wandering thoughts and more confusion. --Oswald Chambers
Nice of you to concede that. In my opinion, in these exchanges, theists tend to project, and atheists tend to idealize (things like science, etc.)
What atheist on this board holds that christianity was a conspiracy?
People don't choose their beliefs.
That's not evidence.
Belief is not proof of anything.
There is no evidence of a christ. None.
There is NO such thing as a burden of disproof. No one has to disprove a historical jesus.
There is no evidence of jesus the christ.
Ergo, as per the maxim of justifying your beliefs, non belief is the rational course of action.
There are NO contemporary reports. None. Zero. What part of this confuses you?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
todangst said: "There are NO contemporary reports. None. Zero. What part of this confuses you?
Josephus was a contemporary, his writings were of that time. That is ONE! not none, not zero! These are now being discounted because of a possibility of being tampered with. I am confused why you do not see that. I am also confused why you harp on this premise, and disregard the later references that clearly indicate that Jesus was a person that caused a great deal of strife for the Hebrew and Roman population.
This debate seems pretentious. It seems that it can be compared to the pretense of having a new trial for O.J. Simpson, but only allowing eye-witness testimony. It's a ploy, a pharse, and I am surprised anyone actually takes it so seriously.
In intellectual matters you can think things out, but in spiritual matters you will only think yourself into further wandering thoughts and more confusion. --Oswald Chambers
No, he was not. You need to examine this matter more carefully.
Josephus (c. A.D. 37 – c. 100),
He was not born until 37 AD, which is past the standard time period given for the putative life of jesus.
No. He wrote after the putative time of jesus.
Nope.
Yes none, yes zero. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch. The total is zero, and zero is the total. None. Blank. Null. Empty set.
No, they are discounted because the following reasons:
1) Josephus is not an eyewitness account or a contemporary. He was born in 37 AD.
2) Josephus does not give any detailed account of 'jesus' anywhere in his writings. There is merely the brief testimonium, which, even if true, is only a second hand account (at best) and not a first hand, eyewitness account.! Some christians tend to pass over this fact, treating the testimonium as if it were a first hand account.
3) The testimonium, for the most part isn't considered a legitimate writing of Josephus anyway.
4) The testimonium is self refuting. Josephus was writing a history of the jews. The single most important element of the history of the jews would be the messiah. If Josephus felt he has actual information concerning the jew's messiah, he would have had to rewrite his entire history of the jews. The story of 'jesus' would have dominated the historical account.
Instead, we get NOTHING. The man writing the history of the jews doesn't mention the fact that he has historical documention of jewish messiah. Doesn't that arouse your suspicions?
5) Josephus died a Jew. Think that one over.
Of course you are, because you didn't even bother to check out what year Josephus was born. If you did, you'd have your answer.
If there are NO contemporary accounts of jesus, then what did later writers call upon? Hearsay. Legends. Myths.
A game of teleophone tag, through history, with no idea of how far back the legend goes, where it really started, and what, if anything about it, is 'true' in a historical sense, at all.
I don't disregard anything. I show there's nothing to disregard in the first place.
I'll say it again for clarity: without ANY evidence of ANY contemporary accounts, there's NOTHING for any future writer to call upon, other than hearsay.
It's not a ploy, or a farce. It's a fact. NO contemporary accounts. No evidence of any contemporary accounts.
If there were, you'd crow about it. There isn't, so you have to write it off as insignificant.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I thought you were the one writing things off as insignificant. I really don't need anything "crow" about. Interesting that you imply I would take an attitude similar to your's!
In intellectual matters you can think things out, but in spiritual matters you will only think yourself into further wandering thoughts and more confusion. --Oswald Chambers
todangst,
are you saying that for any historian's reports to be accurate they had to have been an eye-witness, or at least a contemporary during the events? If so, there must not be much you can believe by historians! Not only do they report the present, but the past. Therefore, historians are not always contemporaries of the events they write. For you to assume that Josephus and Tacitus are not reliable sources for a jewish man named Jesus existing is completely unwarranted. Are they also unreliable when reporting the history of the Jewish people and their wars? (Maybe so, since they didn't exist during the time of Abraham or Moses).
Keep in mind these men were not Christians, they were Jewish or Roman. Do you honestly think they would've written about Jesus if he never existed? To suggest such a thing is to insult their professions as historians. If there had've been any doubt as to whether or not Jesus truly existed, these men would have at least depicted it as possible fiction. Yet, there is absolutely no implication of any such doubt.
Tacitus, Annals 15.44: "Hence to suppress the rumor, [Ceasar Nero] falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius."
Josephus, Antiquities 18.3.3: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man... a doer of wonderful works... And when Pilate had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him did not forsake him... And the tribe of Christians, named after him, are not extinct at this day."
Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1: "[Ananus] assembled the Sanhedrin of juges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James."
One can doubt if Jesus was God or not, but to doubt his existence as a man is far-fetched. The Jewish people themselves, those that reject him as the Messiah, and Arabs alike, agree that he existed.
As for there being no detailed accounts of Jesus in their writings, that is pretty easy to answer. To historians of the day, Jesus was not important. He never engaged in politics, he wasn't a revolutionary, he never wrote any philosophical Greek works, and he never travelled outside of Palestine (except for when he was in Egypt as a child). Instead, Jesus was a poor man, living as a marginal jew. His own race considered him and those like him to be "low class." He also died as a criminal. He was just another "false messiah" of the time! Aside from some testamonies that he rose from the grave, there seemed to be no real reason to mention him.
And as a side note - just a thought: Can any validity be credited to the Bible for its agreement with history? The same characters, events, wars, kings, ceasars and nations mentioned in the Bible are proven to be correct by history. The Bible even predicted the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD by Nero. You do believe that Nero, Peter and Paul (whom he put to death), Pilate, and Kind David (just to name a few), really did exist, don't you?
Todangst will likely comment better than can, but Josephus is a bad source:
1) There were arguments about the earthly existence of Jesus in early xiandom, and people on both sides quoted authors when possible. Though the "History of the Jews" existed during this period, the Testimonium Flavinuim was NOT quoted by those arguing for an earthly Jesus like Origen. Gee, I wonder why? Because it wasn't WRITTEN yet. It was an insertion by a later xian, possibly Eusebius, in whose writings we see the passage for the first time (324 CE).
There are issues with Tacitus and the other Josephus bits, too, though less widely agreed upon. Search wiki to get the gist of the arguments.
I'm personally not concerned whether he existed; if he was one of many no-name traveling preachers of the time, that's no skin off my nose, and it's certainly possible that such a man would leave no trace. But if this guy really went around doing miracles for multitudes, seen by 500 after rising from the dead, (which caused earthquakes & zombie walking), and NOBODY bothered to write any of that down? Come on.
Historians are not eyewitnesses to history. But they base their understanding of it on the writings of those who WERE. We have a TON of this stuff from past presidents, kings, etc. - and even from the era of Jesus' supposed existence. So why nothing of Jesus, especially since of all the documents written over the millennia, xian ones were most carefully preserved?
That the bible's truth is independent of its mention of extant people & places is lost on xians ASTOUNDS me. TONS of fictional works set their story among existing places & people, even when they make NO pretense to truth. If someone WANTED to claim truth, they'd CERTAINLY do this. The Bible only predicted the temple destruction IF it was written beforehand. THAT is unproven. I could "predict" the 9/11 disaster and claim I had written it in 1999. Prove me wrong. Better yet - wait 2000 years and THEN prove me wrong.
No, you're misreading the conversation. We are talking about whether or not there are ANY contemporary accounts for 'jesus the christ'.
A historian himself need not be a contemporary, but in order for a historian's report to be reliable, it must call upon contemporary accounts from someone down the line, or from artifacts.
So the historian need not be present, but he must be able to have access to accounts of someone who WAS present, OR he must turn to artifacts, etc. In the case of 'jesus' there are NO such people given to us by history. NONE.
Also note: It is important to note here that historical claims are ordinary claims. No one doubts that kings and countries existed. So when a historian makes an inference from artifacts, or later historical events, he does so based on ordinary grounds. So please make sure not to conflate an ordinary historical account with an extraordinary supernatural claim, such as a claim for a 'christ'
O RLY?!
No kidding. But in order to report on the past, they must rely on reports from that era, or from artifacts. So they must rely on something from that era. That's the actual point being made here: that there isn't anyone who history records as a contemporary to 'jesus' who wrote on 'jesus'
Your claim here is based on your erroneous reading of the situation. I've not ruled them out as reliable sources, instead I've explained that Josephus and Tacitus are NOT contemporary accounts. So they cannot be first hand sources by definition.
So your claim itself is 'unwarranted'
You don't seem able to follow the point just given to you. If Josephus actually believed that jesus was the messiah, if Josephus actually had evidence that this was the case, then why didn't he convert to christianity? Why didn't he rewrite his jewish history by reporting the return of the messiah? Why wasn't the story of jesus the christ the centerpiece of his works?!
Citing Josephus is therefore self refuting for this reason. At best, Josephus can only be transmitting information that he himself did not believe... he could only report hearsay.... OR again, we would expect to read today about Josephus the christian, and his works would FOCUS on jesus.
Keep in mind how self refuting that is. You want to hold that they had reliable evidence that jesus was the christ, but at the same time, they lived lives that clearly reject such a claim.
Your assumption that they actually wrote about 'jesus' in the first place is in error.
Nonsense. You don't seem to grasp that they didn't write on jesus.
'Chrestus' is not a reference to jesus the christ. Please read Rook's refutatoin of this spurious claim.
Please read the various refutations of the testimonium available anywhere.
Please read rook's refutation of this passage.
Please also do me a favor and respond to the five points given on josephus above which demonstrate how self refuting it is to expect that josephus could have had any real information about 'jesus the christ'
Here's your problem: the gospels report that jesus was a miracle worker, that he raised people from the dead, and that saints rose from graves upon his resurrection. How anyone could ignore zombie saints walking through the city square escapes me...
Now, of course, you could say that all of this is embellishment. But then you're stuck in an ad hoc dilema... if you take away all that is noteworthy about 'jesus' then how do you justify what you keep of the story?
Claiming that jesus was historically insignificant, but still real, is simply begging the question. You're using the fact that the world is silent on such a person to hold that he was not important, but then, on what grounds do you hold that he existed at all?
If there is outside corroboration, sure.
Sigh. Here's a more parsimonious explanation that seems to have passed you by: The gospels accounts of the fall of the temple were written after the fall of the temple. No prediction.
If you disagree, ask yourself this: why would the fall of the temple be important to you in the year 2006? What possible reason would you even have to know about this?
The only reason such an event was recorded was because it was important to the people of that time.
One final word:
Seriously, you need to read Rook's points on the 1000 times refuted arguments you've given.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
BINGO. Because the testimonium did not exist. If it did, we'd see it quoted over and over at that time. Instead, we get NOTHING.
Yes. And it's a clumsy, self refuting passage anyway, because for Josephus to actually believe it, and then NOTt go on to change his Jewish history, would be like the Moon exploding during the makign of Cosmos, and Carl Sagan not bothering to metion it during his discussion of the solar system!
It's simply ridiculous. Only someone who basically knows nothing about this situation could argue pro-testimonium.
Here's a nice encapsulation from wiki:
However, most scholars view the Testimonium Flavianum as dubious - not only does the text read more continuously without it, but despite Josephus being a life long Jew, who portrayed Vespasian as the Messiah (Vespasian was Josephus' patron), the Testimonium Flavianum has Josephus state that Jesus was the Christ, foretold by the prophets, and a worker of wonders.
Most christians who cite the testimonium know nothing about josephus...
Rook deals with both issues. It's a common mistake to confuse chrestus for jesus the christ, and the other Josephus passage is not actually a refernce to james, the brother of jesus... Rook's argument explains what the passage is really about.
There are other good sources available as well. Again, even wiki:
This paragraph is generally accepted as authentic by scholars, although there is debate as to whether the words who was called Christ were in the original passage, or were a later interpolation.The following quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic by the majority of scholars.[6] Even most scholars who hold that the Testimonium is inauthentic regard the xx 9.1. reference as original to Josephus. Unlike the Testimonium, the xx 9.1. reference was mentioned in several places by Origen. A small minority, including Zindler, challenge the passage in its entirety, noting contradictions in both the characterization of Ananus and the chronology of his tenure between the passages in the Antiquities and the Jewish Wars.
The heart of the debate is over whether the "Jesus" in question is the same person as the main character of the Christian Bible or, as the passage states at the end, merely "the son of Damneus" (which would make the James whom Ananus had executed the son of Damneus, as well.) Some assert that the paragraph discusses two different people named "Jesus." Others assert that Jesus the brother of James and Jesus the son of Damneus are the same person, and see King Agrippa's action as a particularly pointed snub of Ananus (by making the new high priest be the brother of the man Ananus had wrongfully executed). Those who hold to the latter view note that, if one assumes that "who was called Christ" is a later interpolation by a Christian scribe, the reference to Christ may well have replaced "the son of Damneus" at that location in the original text.
If one makes such an assumption, additional problems with the text as it stands are resolved. First, it would have been quite unusual, bordering upon unheard-of, to identify a man as somebody's brother rather than as his father's son. On the other hand, introducing men as brothers and identifying their father at the same time would have been pro forma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimonium_Flavianum#Reference_to_Jesus_as_brother_of_James
Precisely. The theist has a choice: either a 'historical jesus' which is really not jesus at all, or the jesus of his gospels. Such a jesus would be noticed by the entire world.. yet, no one noticed at all.
Very odd.
Right. A very simple point, isn't it?
Bingo.
Very well said.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
If i misread the conversation or misunderstood in anyway, I apologize.
Right, and if we're going to discount the Gospel's as historical, you may be onto something. So then, did the writers just make up a silly story for no reason? Or are ALL of the characters in the Bible fictional? And if so, who wrote the book, and why would he do such a thing? Or if the Gospel writers did exist, why would they risk their lives and die for a man that they knew never existed?!?! it surely would not have profited them much.
Wow. You sure do like putting words into someone's mouth! When did i ever say Josephus was a Christian? In fact, did I not specifically say he wasn't? Where did I say that Josephus had proof that Jesus was the Messiah? I didn't. I said that Josephus records that a man named Jesus did certainly exist. The statement, "He was the Messiah" does not necessarily imply personal belief. It appears to me that he is giving a historical account of the man Jesus and what the Christians believed about him. I admit there are some questionable things about the validity of that text, however, most scholars still agree that most of them are genuine. You are trying to prove to me that parts of Josephus' writings are not genuine, yet you do not even have enough evidence to be convincing!
You are basically self-refuting yourself. You are saying that if Josephus was a Christian then he would've written TONS about Jesus. But yet, you wanna say that a Christian added those references later. If a Christian copyist had the liberty to do such a thing, wouldn't he have added alot more? Wouldn't he have gone great lengths to "FOCUS on Jesus'"?! It just doesn't add up. Even if parts of 18.3.3 were an addition, a Christian certainly couldn't have written 20.9.1. No Christian would refer to Jesus as 'the so-called Christ'. It makes no claims of Jesus' divinity, nor gives him any importance. This is obviously part of the original text.
Again, you must not be getting the point I already explained to you. No one is claiming that Josephus was a Christian!! Where do you get that from?!?!
I have read many of them. Like I've said before, they are interesting and do raise some good points. However, they do not present enough evidence to settle the debate.
Yes, Christ did miracles, people were raised from the dead, etc. But, your assumption that this would've given him world-wide fame is false. If you know anything about the time of the Roman Empire, and in that time of Jewish history, people always used tricks to claim divinity. The bible talks about "false signs, false wonders... and false messiahs." Casear's were known for it!!! They set themselves up as gods. People were very superstitous. The majority of the jewish people rejected him, and cared nothing for him. Rome just thought he was a lunatic. He did not appear to be anything important. The Bible even talks about this, guys. The Jews thought their Messiah would lead a revolt against Rome, but Jesus never did that, so therefore, he was no Messiah. They did not get what they expected. They even accused him of using satanic powers to perfom his miracles. The fame of Christ that we are now familiar with is from the apostles going out and preaching and discipling all nations. Not from Jesus the Superstar that walked the earth as an aspiring celebrity!
Excuse me? Sure, maybe the gospels were written after the temple fell, but i wasn't just talking about the Gospels, sir. If you've ever read Paul's letters they give internal evidence of being written around AD 51-53, and Revelation in AD 65 or 66. I do not hold to the late-date view. I believe that most of Revelation has already been fulfilled and that it was for the 7 churches it was addressed to. You don't have to talk to me about original audience context, i rely on that persistently to properly interpret the bible. Hence, I believe the events in Revelation were relevant to the original audience.
Was there a Jesus? Of course there was a Jesus – many!
The archetypal Jewish hero was Joshua (the successor of Moses) otherwise known as Yeshua ben Nun (‘Jesus of the fish’). Since the name Jesus (Yeshua or Yeshu in Hebrew, Ioshu in Greek, source of the English spelling) originally was a title (meaning ‘saviour’, derived from ‘Yahweh Saves’) probably every band in the Jewish resistance had its own hero figure sporting this moniker, among others.
Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4). The surfeit of early Jesuses includes:
(see article for list)
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm
Wow...first there is the claim there is NO JESUS, now there are four?
I would like to address these issues again.
I don't put much stock in a "fictional" Jesus, for several reasons. Perhaps, this is a good time to redress rule number one. The rise of the Christian faith simply does not support that idea. There was a significant "event" going on, and I can't fathom that could cause the explosion of Christianity that it did, simply based on a fictious character in written texts. The sort of reaction it caused among the people can not be explained by the suggestion that a story and legend could be spread so effectively that people were willing to die for it, based on anything other than eyewitness events?
Whether there is documentation of eyewitness testimony, or direct knowledge and encounters with "Jesus", there is plenty of historical evidense that indicates there were hundreds of thousands of people who were willing to be burned alive, tortured, and public exicuted with horendous methods, seem pretty convincing that they believed the person we recognized as Jesus was most certainly historical.
I loosely agree!
In intellectual matters you can think things out, but in spiritual matters you will only think yourself into further wandering thoughts and more confusion. --Oswald Chambers
Josephus was born around 37 CE, so obviously any mention of this so called "historical jesus" is automatically hearsay.
I've never understood this objection. People only had to believe there was a historical Jesus. It doesn't matter whether there were or not. If they were mistaken on this, then they could have very well "died for a lie".
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
Yes, that's a good point.
According to Peter Kirby, most secular scholars believe that there is a core to the TF that is genuine to Josephus. I've been encouraging the RRS to interview secular scholars who are historicists, that would make for an interesting interview.
What is the evidence that Paul wrote around 51-53 CE?
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
|ncorrect. I am not writing off anything. I am telling you that there's nothing to write off in the first place, as there are no contemporary accounts for "jesus'
Sure you do. You were just going off about how there was a contemporary account... now that you have been refuted you suddenly have stopped crowing.
You were the one with that attitude, until I demonstrated that your claim was in error.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I accept your apology, and await your next one for this post!
Previously you came away with the false conclusion that I was insisting that all historians must be eyewitnesses, when in fact I stated that all historians must rely on reliable sources. I do hope you now concede that your own conclusion was in error.
Now, unfortunately, your next post is dedicated to another erroneous conclusion: that I am insisting that you've claimed that josephus was a christian. I never did such a thing.
Seriously, sincerely... honestly... I ask you to not post lenghty responses to me in the future... instead, I ask you to ask questions for clarification, because I've now devoted two posts to doing little more than clarify what I feel are obvious points.
This is the one point you gathered correctly. The point before you is that there are no contemporary accounts of 'jesus', where simple logic demands that there be a multitude of accounts. That's all.
Silly story? They held a belief in a messiah - a savior, just like many people do today, just like you do. And like so many other people through history, they thought that they lived in a troubled time - and troubled times are times when people hope for a messiah. So the gospel writers likely created a 'midrash' of Old testament stories to match their hopes. They used their belief to guide them through the OT for stories that fit the story they wanted to tell. This is a process that eveyr religion undergoes.... The Jews did it. The Muslims did it. The christians did it. You are forced to agree that every OTHER religion in fact does this..... so you are forced to concede that you are special pleading for christianity.
So many problems here for you, that I have to break it down:
A) assuming they did actually 'die' for their beliefs,
1) you're assuming a false dichotom: either 1) they had personal knowledge of a 'jesus' or 2) that their story was a complete fabrication. This is a false dichotomy. Every person involved in the creation of the gospels may well believed that 'jesus' existed, even as they had no direct knowledge of any such 'being'. After all, you believe in jesus, don't you? Yet you have no actual knowledge direct knowledge of such a 'being'. So would you die for your belief? Perhaps you would. If so, there's your answer. Haven't you heard those stories about christians in modern times who died for their beliefs? What 'evidence' did they have? They only had their hope, their belief, but they died for it.
So the gospel writers could have believed that they were doing the best they could to tell the story of jesus that they already believed in... just like you do... a story of a 'real being' that existed - but for which they had no direct knowledge. Given their belief, they could have felt that relying on Old testament stories as the basis for their writings was the best they could do. They could have used their hope to guide their use of the Old testament stories... there's no need for a 'lie' only a hope, only a belief....
2) You're assuming that the only 'belief' that they could die for was a real personal knowledge of a 'jesus' when in fact they could have died for a belief just like yours - one based on a hope first and foremost... again, a christian could die tomorrow for his belief.... without any actual knowledge of a 'jesus'... so the fact that your surprised that the gospel writers could do the same is just amazing.. Muslims die for their beliefs. Branch Davidians died for their beliefs.... Jim Jones' followers died for their beliefs... need I go on?
Devotion to a belief is not a sign of its truth.
B) Now let's remove the assumption that these men died for their beliefs:
1) You can't even name any of these writers, nor can you give me any details of their lives, so how can you insist that you know they died for their belief?
Wow... you sure do like misreading my posts! You're putting words in my mouth! How ironic!
Where did I ever say that you said that? Go on. Look through my post.... we'll work this out together... go and see... nowhere do I say that. Go look. Keep reading and rereading... you won't find me saying that.
So it would seem that YOU are the one putting words in other's mouths.
You need to slow down and read more carefully.
Here is what is really going on: I am asking you questions about logical ramifications. I am not assuming your position, I am stating that IF josephus had reliable knowledge of a savior, then we would expect a few things about josephus and his writings.
You need to slow down and read more carefully, most of my posts to you are corrections of your misreadings.
I will again repeat the point, so you can read it correctly.
You don't seem able to follow the point just given to you. If Josephus actually believed that jesus was the messiah, if Josephus actually had evidence that this was the case, then why didn't he convert to christianity?
******Read this again and again until you see that I AM ASKING YOU A QUESTION HERE, NOT STATING THAT YOU CALLED JOSEPHUS A CHRISTIAN.
Do you get it now?
Here's another question for you, from my last post:
Why didn't he rewrite his jewish history by reporting the return of the messiah? Why wasn't the story of jesus the christ the centerpiece of his works?!
*****AGAIN, THESE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT LOGICAL RAMIFICAITONS, NOT STATEMENTS ABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE SAID.
And again:
Citing Josephus is therefore self refuting for this reason. At best, Josephus can only be transmitting information that he himself did not believe... he could only report hearsay.... OR again, we would expect to read today about Josephus the christian, and his works would FOCUS on jesus.
WHERE DID I SAY THAT YOU SAID THAT?
AGAIN: I didn't say you did. I asked you a question.
PLEASE. READ. MORE. CAREFULLY. AND. ASK. QUESTIONS.
No, I have not said that. Please read more carefully:
I am saying that if josephus had a valid reason to believe that 'jesus' was the messiah, if he had evidence, eyewitness testimony that jesus was in fact the jewish savior, then it naturally follows that he would have shown AN AMAZING AMOUNT OF INTERST IN THE FACT THAT THE SAVIOR HAD RETURNED.
AND, if he actually believed that GOD HAD SENT A MESSIAH, A SAVIOR, then he would naturally enough accept this savior as the christ, right?
It follows naturally.
Now, imagine that you're josephus... and the following is true:
1) YOU KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THE SAVIOR SPOKEN ABOUT IN JEWISH RELIGION HAS COME TO EARTH
2) YOU ARE A HISTORIAN WITH A PARTICULAR INTEREST IN JEWS
3) YOU ARE LIKELY TO EXPRESS SOME INTEREST, CONSIDERING THAT THIS IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT EVENT POSSIBLE FOR THE JEWS.
So, do you think it follows now?
Here, maybe this will help:
Imagine you are news reporter.
And you get the following 2 news stories:
1) A TIME MACHINE HAS BEEN INVENTED THAT ALLOWS YOU TO TRAVEL TO ANY TIME YOU LIKE, IT ALSO CURES CANCER, VALIDATES PARKING, INCREASES PENIS SIZE AND ALLOWS YOU TO TALK TO ELVIS.
2) Some mundane, trivial event, of no long lasting importance.
Now, here are the question:
1) Which do you pick to put on page 1?
2) If you decide to choose story 1, would you only devote 1-2 lines to story 1? Or perhaps a tad bit more?
Here's a tip:
The story of god sending a savior to earth would be a bigger story than story 1.
No. Here's why: How could he do so, without rewriting a work by josephus that was already well known?! At best, all they could do was insert things.... there was no way that they could pull off a complete rewrite.
Yet, if Josephus wrote a history of the jews... if HE HAD EVIDENCE OF THE JEWISH MESSIAH - THIS WOULD HAVE DOMINATED HIS WRITING ON THE JEWS! It would have been the key point of the entire history.
Again, I've not said that you have, so you're the one having trouble with the points here.
The point I am making to you is if Josephus had a good reason to believe in jesus as the christ, then he would have accepted jesus as the christ. I am pointing out a logical ramification.
And yet how can you make such a claim, given that such events would have gone noted by any person capable of writing? We would expect miracles to have been noticed by someone....
No, it's the other way around. If ZOMBIE SAINTS RISE FROM GRAVES AND RETURN TO THEIR OLD LIVES, SOMEONE WOULD PROBABLY NOTICE.
You're refuting yourself here. If what you say is true, and it is, then it would then follow, logically, rationally, that you'd have to toss aside any claims for jesus too... right?
Odd that you missed that.
Here's another point you missed... the miracle claims in the bible are not the sort that a person can fake... you can't raise saints from the dead, and have them return to their homes and partake of their lives again.
All you can do is deny that such things happened... you have to write them off, in a complete ad hoc fashion... as literary devices....
But once you do that, you're already in deep trouble....
The point before you is that it ought to be very, very odd for you, a christian living in 2006, to find out that the gospels, supposedly written for you, seem to focus a great deal of concern for events that happened 1900 years ago.. events with no concern for you today. Events with NO relevance at all for you or anyone else.
So why do we have such stories? Simple: When people tell stories about saviors, about prophecies, they are worried for themselves. No one tells stories for people for 2000 years from now.
I do have to talk to you about original audience context, because you've missed a very big point: 'original audience context' is the actual motivation for the work. You are missing the forest for the trees - original audience context is the only actual context in mind for the writers... everything else is just your projections of your own needs onto writings never intended for you or anyone else alive today.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Not if you think it through. First, it would require rewriting of Josephus entire work.... a work already known and existent in various copies.
Next, it would require that a christian move past mere 'pious lying' and on to outright fraud and deception. I think that most christians employing the 'pious lie' were not outright liars... because I believe that they believed in jesus the christ. Those who burned the 'wrong book's most likely felt they were 'protecting the truth'. Those who made changes in works that were otherwise considered 'not sacriligious' very likely felt that they were 'correcting errors' or even 'clarifying matters' by making whatever changes they made.
They believed what they believed just as scientologists and christians and Cargo Cult believers believe what they believe.... they weren't out to commit fraud, just "set things straight' given their belief....
If you believe that 2+2=5, and you see a book that claims 2+2=4, and you see that otherwise, the book is userful, you'll 'correct the error'....
1) Even if it is as Kirby and your anonymous 'scholars' say, a partial TF demands that josephus had no clear evidence of a messiah.... He can only be reporting hearsay. Again, the TF is self refuting unless josephus himself does not take the claim seriously.
If he takes the claim seriously, then you have to answer as to why he didn't write his history of the jews with jesus as the dominate theme. You have to explain why he believes jesus was the messiah, yet fails to convert to christianity!
Josephus an't actually have a valid reason to believe that there is a savior, and yet ignore this totally while writing about the history of the jews. It's very simple logic.
2) While there are some who support the TF, there are very good reasons to reject it totally:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimonium_Flavianum
Just as there are good reasons to rule out the passage from antiquities....
The reality is that there should be a preponderence of writings on a miracle working saviour, yet there are none.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Yes, Josephus didn't take claims of messiahship seriously --that is the consensus. Josephus had heard of Jesus, and that some people claimed that Jesus was the Messiah, though he didn't believe this himself. That is what secular scholars overwhelmingly believe. (I'll start a new thread on what secular scholars believe so we can discuss separately. If you have evidence to the contrary I'll be interested to see it)
I can think of many counter examples:
1. People who were regarded as miracle workers and sorcerors of whom we have few references, like Apollonius, Oni the Circle-drawer, sorcerors listed in the Talmud, etc,.
2. Catastrophic natural events which left physical evidence behind, but no written records. For example Mt Vesuvius, which erupted in 79 CE, virtually in the middle of the Roman Empire, killing thousands and leaving tens of thousands homeless, but we only have one written reference.
3. Even with Jesus, we see in the stories in the Gospels, and the criticisms of pagans like Celsus, etc, that even people who believed that Jesus performed miracles, still regarded him as a common sorceror instead of the Messiah. Thus, they weren't impressed enough to convert.
Can you expand on why you think that there should have been a preponderence of writings on a miracle working saviour, esp if they believed that the person was a sorceror rather than a saviour?
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
It is simple logic. If he took the claim seriously, then one would expect that it would have had shocking reverberations in his work.
He could have only heard it as a rumor. Hearsay. A myth. Something that he himself did not believe. Seeing as no one denies that a jesus myth existed in the first century, we can put the Josephus 'claim' to rest.
You assume too much here....What we can logically infer, if the testimonium is in any way an actual writing of Josephus, is that he had heard a story of a jesus.
Or, more parsimoniously, that he had heard of claims for a jesus as a messiah.
Precisely. So he's reporting a rumor, something without any evidence to substantiate it.
So you can't even claim that there was an 'actual jesus' ... all you can say is IF the testimonium is really a writing of Josephus, then he had heard rumors of a story of a jesus who was a 'savior' or 'messiah'
overwhelming = rhetoric.
What matters is why one believes what they believe. There are good reason to reject the testimonium. What matters to me is which case is stronger.
Here's the problem for this claim:
This counter example requires that the 'jesus miracles' be nothing more than parlor tricks.
Presumably you'd agree that these 'miracles' were lightly regarded historically because there was no clear evidence of any miracle. Whereas the claims in the gospels involve astonishing events... people being fed miraculous food, the sun standing still, people being resurrected, saints rising from their graves to recover their homes....
So you can't equate the two claims. Either you have to reject the gospel claims of miracles, or you have some real splainin' to do, Lucy, as to why no one bothered to take note of zombie saints.
One surviving, reliable written reference - from Pliny the Younger, which is infinitely more than we have for your jesus. And Pliny reports that others such as his own uncle, Pliny the elder, were there with him. So we have good reasons to believe that there were many more eyewitnesses, including Pliny the elder, who may very well have died because of inhaling sulphuric acid from the eruption!
Remember - we are not just talking about surviving written references, but the existence of any contermpoary accounts.... accounts by others concerning the existence of contemporary accounts is fine. And we do have such accounts, which is surprising considering that most of the eyewitnesses ended up covered in layers of molten lava or choking to death on poisonous hot ash.
As for Mt Vesuvius being 'virtually in the middle of Roman Empirie' this is somewhat accurate geographically, but misleading in the sense that you used the phrase - i.e. it is a red herring. Yes, it was in the 'middle' of Rome, but it's not as if this means that the event would have been captured on the Roman News at 11. First of all, those cities nearby enough to see the smoke and ash were likely destroyed by fire and poison. Those farther away were not privy to any direct evidence of the event, nor directly effected by the eruption. It's not like Pliny the Younger could turn on his radio, or get into his helicopter to view the effects. They had to sail towards the event, and even then, they needed the resources to do so.
You act as if it being 'virtually in the middle of the Roman empire" means that it couldn't be ignored... but in reality, it could well be ignored, and would be ignored, as just one more eruption to be ignored, as long as it didn't present a direct threat to other cities. Eruptions and earthquakes were not uncommon events....
The reality is that we have plenty of information concering reports of eruptions from that area from that era. In fact, we know that the Romans had even become quite blase' about eruptions, given their frequent occurence. Yet we know a great deal about the event, even including the precise year of it's occurence
But for your jesus, who was a far greater miracle than a mere volcanic eruption, we have NO contemporary data.
Seriously, think this one over. I don't see how you can equate this with a miracle worker raising saints from graves, unless the zombies ate the living and killed off all the witnesses.
This sounds like a good bit of storytelling then.
I trust that if you reread your own statement a few times, the obviousness of it will eventually come to mind.
If not, read my last post.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I think it is more than that. Josephus hearing a story about Jesus at such an early point in history is a good indication of what people believed at that time. Of course, it isn't 100% verification, but the most parsimonious explanation of why Josephus heard that story was simply because that is what people believed. That places a belief in a historical Jesus very early indeed. As Peter Kirby says, "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."
The vast majority of modern scholars accept that Josephus refers to Jesus. I've read that Jewish and leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman claims that this "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars. I'd be interested in hearing evidence to the contrary, though. What is your estimation on the acceptance by secular scholars on this?
I'm trying to frame the argument in terms of a historical Jesus, not a Gospel one, and approaching it from the view of secular scholarship, not a fundy theist/atheist view. I don't really care whether Jesus actually performed miracles or not, so I'll leave you to argue this question to anyone wanting to defend a Gospel Jesus.
However, looking at the reporting on people who were believed to have performed miracles at that time, Richard Carrier has written a good article here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html
Lots of people were thought to have performed miracles of various descriptions, yet (1) were believed to have been historical nonetheless, (2) had very little written about them.
Really? AFAIK, that was the first eruption in that region in hundreds of years. It's slightly off-topic, I know, but what you wrote sounds interesting. I'm fascinated by the impact that catastrophic events would have had on the minds of the people of that time, so have looked for evidence of such, but didn't find anything. What were the other eruptions in that area in the previous 500 years or so, such that the Romans had become used to them?
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
It is unbelievable that an individual denoted as the son of a god, walked on water, cast demons out as the story goes, brought dead people back to life, turned water into wine, was nailed to a board, killed, and came back to life and floated into the sky, was not considered very important.
Why wasn’t the spot where the crucifixion occurred marked for posterity?
Why wasn’t the place where the body was placed marked?
Why wasn’t the spot where jesus supposedly rose marked?
Not one piece of cloth that he wore, no sandals, not a single lock of hair, the boat he crossed the river in, no cup or bowl he ate from, or any other eating utensils, not even the nails that supposedly went through his hands and feet, not even a splinter of the cross he was supposedly nailed to was preserved.
Why wouldn’t the son of a god know how to at least write? Was it that no one preserved anything because people didn’t care?
Was it that no one preserved anything because people were not appreciative? Especially the apostles, his mother Mary, Joseph, the people he brought back from the dead, and those he cured of diseases, and the man who’s eye sight he restored?
Did they all just simply say, “Hey thanks” and went on their merry way? Or did they even say thanks? Didn’t any of the witnesses even talk about what they saw?
This is one of the most amazingly strange things about this story of jesus. It is as if he never existed.
How do xians explain this?
How do all the archeologists and anthropologists explain this?
todangst mentioned all the writers that lived in the area at the time that should have heard of jesus, none of whom wrote anything about any jesus like character, but surely there were artisans in the area at that time also and yet there are no carvings, sculptures, or paintings either.
It's obvious the NT jesus never existed.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
I'm trying to frame the argument in terms of a historical Jesus, not a Gospel one, and approaching it from the view of secular scholarship. I'll leave the above to those atheists and theists who are only interested in the Gospel Jesus.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
There are several contemporary accounts, you just write them off as invalid because they are in the New Testament.
I was never crowing in the first place--unless you consider that you yourself was crowing.
The accounts weren't refuted--except to YOUR satisfaction--they were just discounted. You are arguing points way off topic anyway, and making up your own rules to the contemporary "Jesus Game" so many people seem to like to play. If you are going to make up your own rules as you go along, then there is not much point in playing.
There are few contemporary “scholars” that would deny the historicity of “Jesus the Nazarene.” There is plenty of evidence to support the historical validity of that person. You seem to prefer to take the stance of the 18th and 19th century “scholars.”
Perhaps you misunderstood my usage of “attitude.” My claim is not in error—except by your “rules.” I don’t have the “attitude” you imply. I harbor no anger or hurt feelings here. If you read that into my response, perhaps it is your attitude that is out of perspective?
The people who “created” the Gospels did have direct knowledge…that’s one of the reasons they wrote them.
While I can’t speak for adamgrant, for you to assume there is no “direct knowledge” of a living Jesus, implies you don’t understand the implication of the resurrections of the Son of God. If He rose from the dead and is still alive today, then He can deal with people directly, and there is little need for historical proof.
People die for much less. People are dieing everyday for their country. Perhaps they don’t intend to, but they have agreed to put themselves in harms way to support the freedom we in America enjoy. Perhaps that is mere foolishness. Perhaps it is stupidity or ignorance on their part. Perhaps they believe in something that is not there. So perhaps it is not so far fetched to claim that the early Christians died for a belief that (as todangst claims) had no real basis.
But the people we are talking about (the early {first and second century}Christians), merely had to bow down to a Roman God, and denounce their belief in Jesus the Nazarene and that He was the Christ. If that concept was simply based on hearsay, they must have heard it from some pretty convincing story tellers.
I have to wonder how sound your understanding of those contemporaries is here. We have at least four contemporary accounts of the “historic” Jesus in the Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Now there were many, many other people by those same names—not to mention many of those names were changed--but these are the four that are most recognized as having direct contact with the man we are referring to here. You obviously seem to over look the fact that the people Jesus was concerned about, and dealt with on a daily basis, were not the most educated of the time.
It is highly unlikely that many of these people would have known how to write at all. Yet you seem to demand that they would have recorded their experiences with logic. I fail to see the logic that would compel someone to learn to write about such events for posterity’s sake. And let’s not forget, these people didn’t expect ‘time’ to get past that first century in the first place. Where is the need to record such events for a people that were not expected to even be born.? In comparison to the personal experiences of these people, and the traditions of verbal history, there would be little or no incentive for such record.
This is real irony. If Josephus had become a Christian, you would have discounted his work (even more blatantly, and) much like you do that of the authors of the Gospels.
You (todangst) seem to prefer to argue about the argument, rather than the topic. You claim a hollow victory in your refutations and false claims. You obviously ignore the evidence that is right in front of you, and detract and derail the topic. I too am guilty of the same thing, I admit. It is interesting how you demand apologies for the same offenses you project, yet offer none yourself. Tsk, tisk.
--------------------------------------
Yes…it certainly would be unbelievable. I guess that’s why He is still so important today?
Your questions that follow are interesting in that you aren’t aware of the answers. While I am inclined to take them on a line by line basis, I am not sure that it would be of any help. But I would like to take some of them, and point out a few things that you seem to have over looked by way of more questions.
Are there any marked graves that remain from the first century?
No one saw Jesus rise so how could that spot be marked?
How many people keep dead men’s clothes, much less enshrine them?
(Do you not know about the Roman soldiers casting lots for Jesus' clothes?
Have you not heard of the "Shroud of Turan?")
How many wooden boats remain from the fist century?
Have you heard of the “Quest for the Holy Grail?”
(Jesus and the Apostles had little or no possessions of their own. The famous “Cup of Christ” would have been provided by the person that loaned them the “upper room” for the “Last Supper.” Taking the “cup” or any of the utensils Jesus used would have been stealing. There are at least three churches that claim to possess this cup.)
Why would any these things be important if the person were not dead?
Have you heard of the “Knights Templar” and their excavation of Jerusalem?
(The Knights Templar are said to have taken the remnants of the “cross” with them. If any artifacts of Jesus actually remain, they certainly would be highly guarded or hidden by collectors. And it is not likely that those people fleeing for their lives would have returned to the upper room and asked for that cup Jesus used. It is not likely that they would have thought of its value for posterity. During the times following Jesus crusifixtion, such items would have had little or no real value, and the disciples had more than enough to remember their Jesus by, and would not have held much regard for such icons.)
If someone had those objects, do you think they would have been talked about openly?
If they had those artifacts, do you think they would have been safe in the hands of common people? (How likely is it that they would have been stolen?)
Do you not realize that people are still talking about this Jesus?
Do you not realize that Christians thank God for sending His Son on a daily basis?
What is an “xian?”
Are you not interested in modern archeology and anthropology?
How have you missed all the finds made by these people in the 20th century that support the validity of the “man?”
Why would writers of the time, write about a person that caused so much trouble for the Romans (who were the majority of the writers then, and the rest were Jews) and was rejected by his own people (the Jews)?
Any carvings, sculptures or paintings that existed at the time would certainly have been destroyed—as was/is common when the ruling government is trying to eradicate any reference to an enemy of the state. When an enemy is conquered one of the fist things they do is deface and destroy any symbol of that enemy.
This is the most blatant and ironic oversight. It is very clear to me and millions of others that Jesus most certainly exists. The debate over whether He was the Son of God is still open, but your claim seems to put you in a very small circle of people who either ignore or deny the evidence.
In intellectual matters you can think things out, but in spiritual matters you will only think yourself into further wandering thoughts and more confusion. --Oswald Chambers