The Trouble With Timelines

[Badger]

We have no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was ever condemned by Pilate…it is not mentioned outside the NT and if you take Matthew and Luke as “the gospel”, then it is impossible for it to be the truth…

Well, OK, let's forget Pilatus and say "Jesus was crucified by the Roman authorities." This is one of the most certains facts we know about historical Jesus. His death is attested by early Christian tradition, passion narrative, six (out of seven) Paul's authentic letters, the four canonical Gospels, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, Josephus,Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, and Jewish Talmud.

 

Show me one piece of evidence that dates from the 1st century CE…of the 15,000 fragments and parts of the various NT documents that exist (and Christians seem to be sooo very proud of), none are from the 1st century CE and only two very tiny fragments come from late 2nd century, everything else hails from the 3rd century CE or later…mainly later. Christian scholars like to say that the Gospels were written during the 1st century CE, but there is no evidence at all that they were…the first mentions of any gospel wase in the first two decades of the 2nd century where Clement mentions that Mark had written something. It was not until 150 CE that it was said that gospels existed and not until 180 CE that gospels were mentioned by the names of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John by Irenaeus, he who said Jesus lived to the 90s…LOL. If you are going to debate someone, have at least basic knowledge of your subject

The fact is that manuscripts evidence for the New Testament is overwhelming when compared to other works of antiquity; I'm sure you know this. We have more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts, not to mention ancient versions and Patristic quotations. Earliest manuscripts come from 2nd century, and they are more than two tiny fragments. Daniel Wallace confirms that there are at least ten and as many as thirteen the New Testament manuscripts that are possibly or definitely from the second century, and they cover over 43% of all the verses in the New Testament.¹ Nor all of them are tiny fragments! P66 (late 2nd c.) includes almost the entirety of John's Gospel, P46 (late 2nd c.) has got seven of Paul's letters and Hebrew in it, and P75 (c. 200) has John and Luke almost in their entirety.² The earliest extant papyrus fragment (P52), including small portions from John' Gospels, has generally been dated to ca. 125. This is interesting since most if not all scholars hold John as the latest of the canonical Gospels because its greater theological development, arguing that at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke were in existence before the end of the first century. Now, you said "Christian scholars like to say that the Gospels were written during the 1st century CE." Not only they, but sceptical and liberal scholars also!³

 

1. Wallace, D. B. "Second Century Papyri." Bible.org: Second Century Papyri. 5 March 2009: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=6229#P18_3986

2. Strobel, Lee. The Case for the Real Jesus. Zondervan, 2007. Page 85.

3. Butner, G. "Dating the New Testament Books." Dating the NT. 5 March 2009: http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT.htm

[Badger]

And I can go as far as saying that some of the Gospel stories could be based on some truth too. (I say they could, but I don't say they must) And I don't mean the miracle parts, or even the exact number of disciples or who they were, or other details in the story, but rather that there was some group following a teacher with some crazy ideas. At least crazy to the Jews, but perhaps not so crazy to the Romans?

Even if you don't accept that supernatural miracles happened, do you accept that Jesus was healer and miracle worker? (according to Britannica Encyclopedia Online healers and miracle workers were fairly well known in the 1st century)¹

 

1. Sanders, E. P. "Jesus Christ." Jesus Christ -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia. 5 March 2009: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/...91/Jesus-Christ

[Badger]

I think you would be surprized as to how many think it is entirely an interpolation.

How many then?

This question was probably too hard since I didn't get answer, so let me help you (you can always correct me).

 

Peter Kirby says this:

 

Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation. In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist. In one book, by Freke and Gandy, the authors go so far as to state that no "serious scholar" believes that the passage has authenticity (p. 137), which is a serious misrepresentation indeed. ( http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html )

[Ouroboros]

Even if you don't accept that supernatural miracles happened, do you accept that Jesus was healer and miracle worker? (according to Britannica Encyclopedia Online healers and miracle workers were fairly well known in the 1st century)¹

Yes they were, and we have some of them today too, but in my opinion they're just skilled magicians. With skills and some luck, you can convince people something "magical" happened. Just look at the magicians who can levitate, in broad daylight, in front of people. I know some of the tricks, but still, they're tricks. Anyway, I can even accept a situation like that. Even to the point that Jesus could have been using drugs or other medical help and actually healed one or two, but it doesn't make it any more supernatural than what doctors do today.

 

So to answer if I accept Jesus was a healer? I can only say it's a possibility, but I won't take a stand either or, because we know too little about what actually happened to know what in the story is true and what is embellished. Also consider that I don't put any more belief into any of the other "miracle" workers from that time. I don't believe Zeus, Apollo, or any other God as such did anything to cause any supernatural events. But I do know more about human nature and how gullible it is, and also how devious or deceitful some can be to get attention or influence.

 

You can as well turn the tables around and ask yourself, you do believe the other miracle workers who did stuff in the name of Zeus or Apollo where actually doing those things for real?

[Badger]

So to answer if I accept Jesus was a healer? I can only say it's a possibility, but I won't take a stand either or, because we know too little about what actually happened to know what in the story is true and what is embellished. Also consider that I don't put any more belief into any of the other "miracle" workers from that time. I don't believe Zeus, Apollo, or any other God as such did anything to cause any supernatural events. But I do know more about human nature and how gullible it is, and also how devious or deceitful some can be to get attention or influence.

That historical Jesus was a healer E. P. Sanders hold as indisputable fact, which any interpretation of Jesus should be able to account for.¹ There is reason for this. Jesus' miracles are independently attested by multiple and early sources: the Q-document, Mark's Gospel, and the special material of Matthew and Luke (the criterion of multiple attestation). Moreover, we have extra-biblical sources suggesting Jesus was miracle worker and healer (such as Josephus, the rabbinic traditions²). According to Witherington, "Most scholars are willing to say that Jesus performed deeds that were viewed as miracles in his day. Indeed, most would say that he had a notable reputation as a miracle worker, although some would qualify that saying that we are talking about psychosomatic cure and therapy of various sorts."³

 

You can as well turn the tables around and ask yourself, you do believe the other miracle workers who did stuff in the name of Zeus or Apollo where actually doing those things for real?

All I can say here is that since I'm not naturalist, I don't have problems to think they could have done miracles. However, as we have seen, stories of Jesus' miracles originated very early. What kind of data we have about other miracle workers? Christopher says that at least "no other person of that time period has anything close to the attestation Jesus receives as a miracle worker."

 

1. "The Historical Jesus of E. P. Sanders." PTypes - The Historical Jesus of E. P. Sanders. 6. March 2009: http://www.ptypes.com/sanders-historical-jesus.html

2. Christopher, P. "The Miracles of Jesus: A Historical Inquiry." The Miracles of Jesus: A Historical Inquiry. 6 March 2009: http://www.christianorigins.com/miracles.html

3. Witherington III, Ben. New Testament History. Baker Academic, 2006. Page 120.

[Heimdall]

1937 to 1980

That last date was 30 years ago...might want ot look up some more recent figures...LOL...30 years ago the Albright school of archeology was still the "Big Dog" in the yard, now most of their findings have been show to be erroneous...same goes for textual material...Heimdall

[Badger]

That last date was 30 years ago...might want ot look up some more recent figures...LOL...30 years ago the Albright school of archeology was still the "Big Dog" in the yard, now most of their findings have been show to be erroneous.

And what about those 13 books since 1980, huh?

 

same goes for textual material

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Is this your comment for manuscripts evidence for NT or what?

[Ouroboros]

That historical Jesus was a healer E. P. Sanders hold as indisputable fact, which any interpretation of Jesus should be able to account for.¹

To him it was a historical and indisputable fact, but since not all historians or (evil-non-christian) scholars agree, I think it's better to keep it simple and real, which is that it's more likely that stories were embellished and/or they "eyewitnesses" mistook magic tricks for real miracles.

 

There is reason for this. Jesus' miracles are independently attested by multiple and early sources: the Q-document, Mark's Gospel, and the special material of Matthew and Luke (the criterion of multiple attestation).

People are attesting today to the "miracles" of magicians. But it doesn't make their tricks supernatural.

 

Moreover, we have extra-biblical sources suggesting Jesus was miracle worker and healer (such as Josephus, the rabbinic traditions²). According to Witherington, "Most scholars are willing to say that Jesus performed deeds that were viewed as miracles in his day. Indeed, most would say that he had a notable reputation as a miracle worker, although some would qualify that saying that we are talking about psychosomatic cure and therapy of various sorts."³

That's his opinion, but I disagree, since there are others (non-Christians and evil) scholars who also disagree.

 

All I can say here is that since I'm not naturalist, I don't have problems to think they could have done miracles. However, as we have seen, stories of Jesus' miracles originated very early. What kind of data we have about other miracle workers? Christopher says that at least "no other person of that time period has anything close to the attestation Jesus receives as a miracle worker."

True, but that could be because the other material was destroy or lost. Since Christianity won the media war (or cultural war) in the Roman empire, a lot of the other material is lost. You only save the books which supports your view, hence your view must be the true one in 1,000 years.

 

1. "The Historical Jesus of E. P. Sanders." PTypes - The Historical Jesus of E. P. Sanders. 6. March 2009: http://www.ptypes.com/sanders-historical-jesus.html

2. Christopher, P. "The Miracles of Jesus: A Historical Inquiry." The Miracles of Jesus: A Historical Inquiry. 6 March 2009: http://www.christianorigins.com/miracles.html

3. Witherington III, Ben. New Testament History. Baker Academic, 2006. Page 120.

They are Christian scholars, so of course they attest to the "authenticity" of everything they believe in, while they will refuse to attest to anything they don't believe in. Everyone is their own king of truth.

[Badger]

To him it was a historical and indisputable fact, but since not all historians or (evil-non-christian) scholars agree, I think it's better to keep it simple and real, which is that it's more likely that stories were embellished and/or they "eyewitnesses" mistook magic tricks for real miracles.

If all historians or scholars doesn't agree on something, does that mean this something can't be true or authenthic? Uh. Anyway, I think you failed to see my point: I wasn't arguing that something supernatural happened! My original question was: Even if you don't accept that supernatural miracles happened, do you accept that Jesus was healer and miracle worker?

 

They are Christian scholars, so of course they attest to the "authenticity" of everything they believe in, while they will refuse to attest to anything they don't believe in. Everyone is their own king of truth.

Did you read Christopher's site?

 

For all of the above reasons, modern scholarship has concluded that Jesus' reputation as a miracle worker originated with Jesus himself. His contemporary followers believed that Jesus was performing miracles in their midst. See B.L. Blackburn, "Miracles and Miracle Stories" (in Jesus and the Gospels, p. 556), "Among NT scholars there is almost universal agreement that Jesus performed what he and his contemporaries regarded as miraculous healings and exorcisms." Many of these scholars, though, would not concede that Jesus actually performed supernatural feats. For example, though Fredriksen believes Jesus healed the sick, she also is adamant that she "does not believe that God occasionally suspends the operation of what Hume called 'natural law.'" Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, p. 114. Nevertheless, placing the origin of Jesus' miracles with Jesus himself is a significant historical conclusion.

[Ouroboros]

If all historians or scholars doesn't agree on something, does that mean this something can't be true or authenthic? Uh. Anyway, I think you failed to see my point: I wasn't arguing that something supernatural happened!

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood you. So yes, something in it could be true, definitely.

 

But just so you understand how easily we humans are fooled, look up pathological science, and read a bit about stories like the N-Rays. Some people actually thought they saw these rays. The power of suggestion is very strong, and many experiments in psychology confirms it.

[Heimdall]

Been trying to post this since yesterday afternoon:

Alright. Philo, Justus, along with 40 or so others never mentioned Jesus, and the church Fathers commented on the strangeness of this as well. Well, I can't say that they did

Just a suggestion, if you want to debate your religion’s history, maybe you ought to read these folks works. You can rest assured that if I say something here I will have researched it as much as I can to include both pro and con multiple sources and used textual criticism to arrive at the truth (as close as you can get after centuries of time has passed).

I guess my religion doesn't exist, and caused mass hysteria and delusion for 2000years.

Show me one place that any of us have said that Christianity never existed…Christianity has been a part of history for 2000 years, just as Buddhism has been a part of history for at least 2500 years and Hinduism has been a part since about 4000 years. But I do agree with you that it has caused mass hysteria and delusions for 2000 years. You only have to look at the Christian history of wars in the name of god, persecutions of members of other religions in the name of god, the torture and murder of non-believers (or suspected non-believers) and the conquest and forced conversion of millions of innocents in nearly every continent of the world, followed by the theft of those innocent’s wealth and lands.

I guess I am just a delusional believer of Christ.

I guess you are, especially if you believe that you have a relationship…LOL

I still wouldn't consider it a myth

Your priviledge, but be aware that over 2/3s of the world’s population do not agree with you…LOL

Why can't a believer in Christ say, this is our history of Christianity and Jesus? Christianity, whether one feels like it exists or not..., is real.

You can, just as an Muslim can say that this is his history of Islam and Mohammed (I am assuming you are referring to the bible) But just saying it doesn’t make it true…too many historians have pointed out the inconsistancies of the bible with recorded history and have been backed up by archaeology and contemporary writings of other nations.

There are many people throughout history that we may know little about through commentary, or no death dates, birthplaces, etc; yet they still are considered people because other people close to their dates of their existence, community, group, etc, wrote about them.

The major difference here is that those folk were not claimed to be a miracle working, soul saving son of God…there is an old saying about claims, “Extraordinary claims must have extraordindary proof”. If you claim there are invisible pink unicorns at the bottom of the garden, you have to present verifiable proof of these creatures, else it can only be considered as untrue. There were about 40 historians working during the period Jesus supposedly lived, was followed by multitudes and worked his miracles. Since the Roman populace constantly demanded to be entertained, these writers and historians reported every tidbit they could from all over the Empire – yet not a one of them make any mention of a miracle worker name Jesus walking around Galilee and Judea working marvelous worders…walking on water, healing the sick, feed a multitude with one small box lunch, turn water into wine and raising the dead. Not one mentioned the great earthquake that released the undead to walk the streets of Jerusalem or the 3 hour darkness that blanketed Jerusalem when he died on the cross. You can get one or two of these writers to not report such, but all of them…hardly, especially since some were not under the control of the priests or Rome. Even the Emperor would have been interested in this” son of god’ for entertainment or for military intelligence…after all Jesus was living in a country considered a powder keg and was followed my multitudes…sounds an awful lot like a conspiracy to rebel to me, even at this late date.

This in turn causes the 'falsifying history' of Christianity from the people that contend that God doesn't exist

History is hardly being falsified, it was falsified by the early Church and all the while that Christianity had power to punish those that dissented, it remained that way. By the late 20th century, Christianity entered the beginning of its fall from power and no longer could stop historians from exposing the truth. This has led to the current slow slide to oblivion for Christianity…something that will possibly take place for Abraham’s other two bloody children. Incidentally, I am a Deist (look that one up) and do believe in a Creator but do not believe in your blood soaked Hebrew Demon.

Christianity is as much a part of history as any group, culture, history that has writings, books, commentaries, biographies, etc to define that group, or time.

No one here ever denied that…Christianity is very much a part of our history…after all if it were for that religion and it’s sister religion of Islam, most of our wars would never have taken place, science and medicine would by now be vastly advanced, instead of being stunted by Christianity’s destruction of the Greek’s knowledge because it disagreed with what their holy book told them. Christianity is like all the other revealed religions with nothing to show that it is the one true way except by mythology written by long dead and usually anonymous individuals of whom we have no knowledge of their veracity. This very thing can be said of the other religions, so how is Christianity any different? - Heimdall

[Badger]

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood you. So yes, something in it could be true, definitely.

But you're not sure?

 

Show me one piece of evidence that dates from the 1st century CE…of the 15,000 fragments and parts of the various NT documents that exist (and Christians seem to be sooo very proud of), none are from the 1st century CE and only two very tiny fragments come from late 2nd century, everything else hails from the 3rd century CE or later…mainly later.

It seems you're saying that the Gospels can't be written in the 1st century, since no manuscripts from that century exist; right? Well, are you not aware that earliest manuscripts, for example, of Tacitus (AD 50-120) and Suetonius (AD 69-140) are from 9th century?

[Badger]

There were about 40 historians working during the period Jesus supposedly lived, was followed by multitudes and worked his miracles. Since the Roman populace constantly demanded to be entertained, these writers and historians reported every tidbit they could from all over the Empire – yet not a one of them make any mention of a miracle worker name Jesus walking around Galilee and Judea working marvelous worders…walking on water, healing the sick, feed a multitude with one small box lunch, turn water into wine and raising the dead.

And still, the vast majority of scholars and historians agree that Jesus was historical figure even if a mere human.

[Ouroboros]

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood you. So yes, something in it could be true, definitely.

But you're not sure?

No, why?

 

Plato wrote dialogues using Socrates as the spokesperson. No one is sure if Socrates really said those things or not. The later works it's pretty sure he didn't, but the early works, well, it's more a matter of opinion. So how can they be sure? They're not. That's how history works. It's about probability. I have to analyze the past in the light of how I understand the current. I spent 30 years believing, and not once did I see any miracle. I wanted to. Sometimes I prayed for it. Many times I went to "healing meetings," but not one single time did God act. Even though I was a dedicated Christian with my heart in it, I couldn't see God's hand in my life or in others. Random chance, or the skills of the person, were more reasonable arguments to their success or failure. And the same for me and my family. So do I think God acted in the past but not now? I don't see a reason to why believing such a thing. The more logical approach is then to accept that it's more likely that miracle stories are made up or people's misconceptions, than real events.

 

So can I say I'm 100% sure? No, I can't. But does it mean I not sure at all? No, not that either. I'm about 99.9% sure the stories are made up or people got fooled. So to turn me around, you have to overcome those 99.9%.

 

But it is also possible that there were a bunch of different Jesus's at that time. The name Jesus was extremely common (according to scholars who refute the Jesus-tomb findings recently), so it is possible we had a teacher Jesus talking about loving your neighbor, then we had Jesus Barabbas leading a pack of zealots, and then we have the local magician Jesus who made people go "wow" and "aawwh". And then after year 70, those stories got mixed up, and then added with some Hellenistic flavor by Paul and others, and voilá, suddenly we have a melting pot of stories, with the gustatory pleasure for everyone.

[Badger]

So can I say I'm 100% sure? No, I can't. But does it mean I not sure at all? No, not that either. m about 99.9% sure the stories are made up or people got fooled. So to turn me around, you have to overcome those 99.9%.

I'm not 100% sure either. But remember, the question is not wheter something supernatural happened; I'm not going to argue for that. What I would like to know is if you're ready to accept that Jesus was regarded as a healer and miracle worker by his contemporaries.

[Abiyoyo]

Just a suggestion, if you want to debate your religion’s history, maybe you ought to read these folks works. You can rest assured that if I say something here I will have researched it as much as I can to include both pro and con multiple sources and used textual criticism to arrive at the truth (as close as you can get after centuries of time has passed).

 

I agreed that Jesus wasn't mentioned.

 

Show me one place that any of us have said that Christianity never existed…Christianity has been a part of history for 2000 years, just as Buddhism has been a part of history for at least 2500 years and Hinduism has been a part since about 4000 years. But I do agree with you that it has caused mass hysteria and delusions for 2000 years. You only have to look at the Christian history of wars in the name of god, persecutions of members of other religions in the name of god, the torture and murder of non-believers (or suspected non-believers) and the conquest and forced conversion of millions of innocents in nearly every continent of the world, followed by the theft of those innocent’s wealth and lands.

 

If you join Christianity into it's root religion, then it would be better to suggest that it has more than a 2000year background, in comparisons with other religions. Judaism has been around longer than any of them. And since Christianity stems from Judaism, it's only fair to note that.

 

You can, just as an Muslim can say that this is his history of Islam and Mohammed (I am assuming you are referring to the bible) But just saying it doesn’t make it true…too many historians have pointed out the inconsistancies of the bible with recorded history and have been backed up by archaeology and contemporary writings of other nations.

 

Just as the Greek Gods, and their oracle's aren't true. Right? Apples for apples.

 

The major difference here is that those folk were not claimed to be a miracle working, soul saving son of God…there is an old saying about claims, “Extraordinary claims must have extraordindary proof”. If you claim there are invisible pink unicorns at the bottom of the garden, you have to present verifiable proof of these creatures, else it can only be considered as untrue.

 

Supposedly, the Greek Gods lead them into victory, and it was an established practice to consult them before war. We have little proof of them as well, yet it is still apart of Roman history.

There were about 40 historians working during the period Jesus supposedly lived, was followed by multitudes and worked his miracles. Since the Roman populace constantly demanded to be entertained, these writers and historians reported every tidbit they could from all over the Empire – yet not a one of them make any mention of a miracle worker name Jesus walking around Galilee and Judea working marvelous worders…walking on water, healing the sick, feed a multitude with one small box lunch, turn water into wine and raising the dead. Not one mentioned the great earthquake that released the undead to walk the streets of Jerusalem or the 3 hour darkness that blanketed Jerusalem when he died on the cross. You can get one or two of these writers to not report such, but all of them…hardly, especially since some were not under the control of the priests or Rome. Even the Emperor would have been interested in this” son of god’ for entertainment or for military intelligence…after all Jesus was living in a country considered a powder keg and was followed my multitudes…sounds an awful lot like a conspiracy to rebel to me, even at this late date.

 

Jesus claimed heritage to the God of Israel, the God of the current living Jews. He spoke with authority, according to the NT. So, why would have anyone wrote about him. Lets say the NT is accurate as far as the story goes. Jesus started a movement, claimed the Jews God to be His, went around 'working miracles' in which the Jews called blasphemy, and petitioned Him to the officials to be killed. I think the documentation of Christ in Tacitus, for example, is about all the creditability He would probably have gotten. Even the NT says many of these sect, cults were forming. I'm sure to these prominent writers, they just put it off as hear say.

 

Are there any other cults, sects, Messiahs, that were written about, by any of these infamous writers?

 

No one here ever denied that…Christianity is very much a part of our history…after all if it were for that religion and it’s sister religion of Islam, most of our wars would never have taken place, science and medicine would by now be vastly advanced, instead of being stunted by Christianity’s destruction of the Greek’s knowledge because it disagreed with what their holy book told them. Christianity is like all the other revealed religions with nothing to show that it is the one true way except by mythology written by long dead and usually anonymous individuals of whom we have no knowledge of their veracity. This very thing can be said of the other religions, so how is Christianity any different? - Heimdall

 

Rome had their gods, and their holy book, and it still didn't make a difference when Christianity began. Their gods lead them to real violence unlike we have seen in modern times. They used to find amusement in torturing and brutally killing people, especially Christians. Was the guy that chopped the man's head off running up and down the Greyhound bus Christian? No. Where do you see Christians in modern times brutally, watching out of amusement killing people and using it for entertainment? I will agree of war over religions, and many innocent being killed because of it, but not out of amusement as the Romans did, with their gods. Did their Gods come down from their oracle and say, Diocletian, Why are you killing people in this manner? No. They were fixed gods that were amused with things that the God of Israel wouldn't have considered, good. Or should I say 'just', which is why Diocletian went on a killing spree. For the first time, the gods of the oracle where, stumped.

 

Heimdall, I have read history of the Greek gods and their relations to the rulers, and the Greek god apollo? What did apollo think about Christians?

 

 

History is history, Heimdall. It's not selective. Have you studied the Delphi oracle and it's inscriptions?

[Ouroboros]

I'm not 100% sure either. But remember, the question is not wheter something supernatural happened; I'm not going to argue for that. What I would like to know is if you're ready to accept that Jesus was regarded as a healer and miracle worker by his contemporaries.

Depending on what we mean with contemporaries.

 

For instance, Philo from Alexandria was a true contemporary, born about the same time as Jesus, and was active author of Jewish religious literature at the time Jesus died. He doesn't even mention Jesus.

 

While the ones who where contemporary, Paul, never met Jesus in real person, but had a vision of Jesus, and he claims to have met the real disciples, but then again, he puts his own spin on the new religion and even argue with Peter at times. Even if the issues were minor, still, they were in disagreements and how many in total we can't really know.

 

Then we come to the Gospels, we can't be sure they were written by, or even dictated by contemporaries, or if they are religious interpretations of what they thought, believed and wanted Jesus to be. So they probably believed Jesus to be a healer, but then it's hard to say if this group of Christians (after 70 CE and Jerusalem's destruction) were really contemporaries or just later believers.

 

This makes it hard to say for sure if the people, the Jews following Jesus believed him to be a miracle worker. And it makes it hard to say if those who claim Jesus to be a miracle worker also were contemporary in strict sense.

 

So I leave that in the "don't know" case.

 

Then we also have the side of, how did the Gnostics interpret the stories? I do have yet another view on how some of the early Christians might have viewed the story. And it's basically that the story wasn't supposed to be literal or historical, but was intended to be read as the hero's journey, and you as the reader were supposed to identify yourself with the character. You would be Jesus, and by reading the story, and getting the revelation of the necessity and sublimity of supererogatory acts of the hero, become the same, become Christ, anointed by God to also do the works of Jesus in the story. A believer of this mystical form of Christianity would not believe in a literal Jesus as the miracle worker, but rather Jesus as the spirit from God from which you would become the embodiment of the miracle worker. This would mean the stories were intentionally written as myths, and not as literal or historical events, because their purpose were different. But then along came Paul and called them heretics, because he saw it in a different light. One of the first literalists maybe?

[Heimdall]

Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied

Okay, if my math is right 42 out of 52 believe that there are Christian interpolations within the TF, how many is what they can’t agree on, but if you remove the very obvious Christian references the TF would look like this

Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. those that loved him at the first did not forsake him.

Removal of the obvious Christian material would leave us with a story of a man named Jesus and even if you put the part about Pontius Pilate back in it would mean little since Pilate executed many Jews, many of them by Crucifixion and since Jesus was such a common name, many of them named Jesus. There is the problem of that there exists an table of contents from prior to the 5th century that does not list the TF, something that on his website Kirby contends is "an important and powerful piece of evidence, although one that doesn't get much attention.

Was Jesus of Nazareth actually mentioned in Josephus works, the jury is still out on that matter, but in it riddled with interpolations…definitely and probably the whole thing is an interpolation…maybe some day we will know

 

 

Well, OK, let's forget Pilatus and say "Jesus was crucified by the Roman authorities.

In other words, you are saying the gospels are NOT the inerrant word of God? Outside of the NT, there is NO contemporary information on Jesus or his death…this puts him in the same position as Mithras, Krishnah and other more ancient resurrecting savior gods…Mythological

This is one of the most certains facts we know about historical Jesus

Actually there is not contemporary evidence that this happened, it is not fact, but rather word of mouth tradition. This crucifixion by the Romans is NOT even alluded to by Paul, he only mentions a crucifixion and gives the impression that this happened in the spiritual plane, not the physical plane.

. His death is attested by early Christian tradition, passion narrative, six (out of seven) Paul's authentic letters, the four canonical Gospels, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, Josephus,Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, and Jewish Talmud.

The first mention we can find by the Apostolic Fathers is Clement writing around 100 CE, which is hardly contemporary, especially considering we really have no idea when he was born and died. The canonical Gosples can’t be considered contemporary since there is no evidence they were written prior to the 2nd century CE, The writings of the Apostolic Fathers cannot be ascribe a time prior to the 2nd century, Josephus is held by MOST scholars as being a later interpolation by Christians, Tacitus and Lucian were writing in the second century and the Jewish Talmud dates (completed form) from around the 5th century CE…none are hardly more than word of mouth and depending on when he actually lived and ministered would be as much as two centuries after the fact (Epiphanius says he was born during the reign of the Hasmonean King Alexander Jannaeus (130-76 BCE) and presently there is no way to prove him wrong. So all the neat little Apologetic ploys you have trotted out do not hold water, there are all merely hearsay and would not be accepted by a court of law, or a group of non-Christian historians without multiple sources that verify them.

Earliest manuscripts come from 2nd century

Actually only P52 can be assigned a 2nd century date (2nd century is 100 to 199 CE). P66, P45,P46, P47,P4, P75 and P72 are all assigned a 3rd century date (200 to 299 CE)But since I was speaking of the absence of 2nd century manuscripts and mentioned thatthere wereonly two, P52 and possibly P64 , both minute fragments…some folk are trying to say that the Dead Sea Scroll fragment 7Q5 is part of Matthew, but most scholars do not agree.

Daniel Wallace confirms that there are at least ten and as many as thirteen the New Testament manuscripts that are possibly or definitely from the second century,

Hmmmm, Dan Wallace, a Doctor of Theology and an ordained minister teaching at a seminary, who would have thought that he would defend his paycheck…Sorry, this is a very learned man, but I have reservations in accepting what he says, especially since it goes against what most scholars are saying. I know he and Erhman are at loggers, but that would be normal right? Erhman’s works are undermining Wallace’s livelihood… Heimdall

 

Folks, I will try to get back to you next week...I am taking medication that (quite frankly) slows me down and makes me a little goofy...hopeful the condition will be cured by Monday and I can come back then...

[Abiyoyo]

For instance, Philo from Alexandria was a true contemporary, born about the same time as Jesus, and was active author of Jewish religious literature at the time Jesus died. He doesn't even mention Jesus.

 

Hans

 

You said it, not me. So here goes. Philo from Alexandria. Was as like you said, a true contemporary, writing, teaching, expressing, his thoughts and philosophy to other philosophers. Jesus was a heretic. Here is how I would see conversation among scholars, philosophers, then.

 

Hey, have you heard about the guy from wherever, ...No. What's up?....Well, he is healing people, and has some followers, his name is Jesus, and talks about the God of Israel......Where did he go to school?.....Oh, he's not in school, just stood up one day during a reading, he is son of Joseph, a carpenter.......Why are you telling me about some joe from wherever, thats a carpenter, that thinks he is Elijah.....Well, he heals people, and has raised the dead.....Oh, Apion over here from Alexandria's school of Homer is causing a trouble.....Alright, lets go deal with him.

 

Or whoever else. See my point?

 

Jesus was a nobody, and considered a heretic, and was killed for blasphemy by the Jews. That's it. That simple. History wrote about Him, and His followers, yet they know little about the man they call Jesus. By the time they could know, He was gone, and nobody had anything on Him. What about John the Baptist? Why didn't they write about him? Because they didn't care, they had more important philosophical things to write about.

 

I asked Heimdall in my last post, I will ask you too Hans. What about the Delphi Oracle? What did Apollo have to say about Christians?

[Badger]

if you remove the very obvious Christian references the TF would look like this

Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. Removal of the obvious Christian material would leave us with a story of a man named Jesus and even if you put the part about Pontius Pilate back in it would mean little since Pilate executed many Jews, many of them by Crucifixion and since Jesus was such a common name, many of them named Jesus.

Actually, the possible neutral reconstruction goes: "Around this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, [but] those who had first loved him did not cease [doing so]. To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared." That Josephus calls Jesus as "worker of amazing deeds" can be read to mean simply that Jesus had a reputation as a wonder-worker; the phrase itself is ambiguous since it can also be translated "startling/controversial deeds."¹ We must not forget the another passage where Josephus mentions Jesus, the brother of James, who was called Christ (Ant. 20.9.1). Here Josephus distinguishes this Jesus from the many others he mentions who had same name using neutral description.

 

Outside of the NT, there is NO contemporary information on Jesus or his death…this puts him in the same position as Mithras, Krishnah and other more ancient resurrecting savior gods…Mythological

I didn't say there is contemporary information on Jesus' death, but that his death is multiple attested. Anyway, the fact that no contemporary information exist, does not, in itself, make Jesus mythological.

 

Actually only P52 can be assigned a 2nd century date (2nd century is 100 to 199 CE). P66, P45,P46, P47,P4, P75 and P72 are all assigned a 3rd century date (200 to 299 CE) But since I was speaking of the absence of 2nd century manuscripts and mentioned thatthere wereonly two, P52 and possibly P64 , both minute fragments

The 2nd century is the period from 101 to 200; the 3rd century is the period from 201 to 300. (Wikipedia)

 

In his book Encountering the Manuscripts, Philip Comfort says that "in recent years, paleographic studies have placed far more papyri in the second century."² These manuscripts are as follows: P4+P64+P67 (third quater of 2nd c.), P32 (2nd c.), P46 (usually ca. 200, but probably earlier), P52 (ca. 115-125), P66 (usually 200, but some mid 2nd c.), P77 (late 2nd c.), P90 (late 2nd c.), P98 (late 2nd c.), P103 (late 2nd c.), P104 (late 2nd. c.). Now, note what I said: the manuscripts I listed are possibly or definitely from the second century.

 

1. Van Voorst, R. E. Jesus Outside the New Testament. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. Page 89.

2. Comfort, P. Encountering the Manuscripts. B&H Publishing Group, 2005. Page 31-31.

[Ouroboros]

You said it, not me. So here goes. Philo from Alexandria. Was as like you said, a true contemporary, writing, teaching, expressing, his thoughts and philosophy to other philosophers. Jesus was a heretic. Here is how I would see conversation among scholars, philosophers, then.

 

Hey, have you heard about the guy from wherever, ...No. What's up?....Well, he is healing people, and has some followers, his name is Jesus, and talks about the God of Israel......Where did he go to school?.....Oh, he's not in school, just stood up one day during a reading, he is son of Joseph, a carpenter.......Why are you telling me about some joe from wherever, thats a carpenter, that thinks he is Elijah.....Well, he heals people, and has raised the dead.....Oh, Apion over here from Alexandria's school of Homer is causing a trouble.....Alright, lets go deal with him.

 

Or whoever else. See my point?

 

Jesus was a nobody, and considered a heretic, and was killed for blasphemy by the Jews. That's it. That simple. History wrote about Him, and His followers, yet they know little about the man they call Jesus. By the time they could know, He was gone, and nobody had anything on Him. What about John the Baptist? Why didn't they write about him? Because they didn't care, they had more important philosophical things to write about.

I don't know if it's true, because Philo was interested in renewing the Jewish faith, so I rather think he would have been interested in the approach by Jesus, and besides Philo's books were saved because the Christians saved them. Philo's writings was very likely the inspiration to the Gospel of John. Philo also used "Logos" to talk about God's creating power. So... if Philo's books were of interest to the early Jewish Christians, then why wasn't Philo interested in the Christians?

 

I asked Heimdall in my last post, I will ask you too Hans. What about the Delphi Oracle? What did Apollo have to say about Christians?

I don't know, what did the Oracle, or Apollo have to say? Was it something like "Why did the Christian cross the road?"

[Badger]

Depending on what we mean with contemporaries.

Sorry, that was really vague. Let's say by some of his contemporaries.

 

Then we come to the Gospels, we can't be sure they were written by, or even dictated by contemporaries, or if they are religious interpretations of what they thought, believed and wanted Jesus to be. So they probably believed Jesus to be a healer, but then it's hard to say if this group of Christians (after 70 CE and Jerusalem's destruction) were really contemporaries or just later believers.

Remember what I said. Jesus' miracles are independently attested by multiple and early sources; we're talking about early traditions that predates our Gospels. "We note that Jesus as exorcist, healer (even to the point of raising the dead), and miracle worker is one of the strongest, most ubiquitous, and most variously attested depictions in the Gospels. All strata of this material--Mark, John, M-traditions, L-traditions, and Q--make this claim. This sort of independent multiple attestation supports arguments for the antiquity of a given tradition, implying that its source must lie prior to its later, manifold expressions, perhaps in the mission of Jesus himself." (Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, p. 114)

[Abiyoyo]

I don't know, what did the Oracle, or Apollo have to say? Was it something like "Why did the Christian cross the road?"

 

Something like that. Diocletian went to the oracle for advice from the gods, and a reason for their lack of speaking. It said that 'the just on earth' were the reason that Apollo's advice is hindered. Then, he began to seize and persecute Christians to appease the gods.

[Ouroboros]

Remember what I said. Jesus' miracles are independently attested by multiple and early sources; we're talking about early traditions that predates our Gospels. "We note that Jesus as exorcist, healer (even to the point of raising the dead), and miracle worker is one of the strongest, most ubiquitous, and most variously attested depictions in the Gospels. All strata of this material--Mark, John, M-traditions, L-traditions, and Q--make this claim. This sort of independent multiple attestation supports arguments for the antiquity of a given tradition, implying that its source must lie prior to its later, manifold expressions, perhaps in the mission of Jesus himself." (Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, p. 114)

So we're not talking about the Gospels, which were written at least 40 years after the events. But we're talking about M, L, Q which are theoretical documents based on the Gospels, but no one actually have a copy. I think the earliest fragments we have are from around 100 CE for any of the books in the New Testament, and I believe it was some of the Pauline epistles.

 

What are the documents attesting to Jesus doing miracles before the Gospels? Exactly what sources are you talking about?

[Ouroboros]

I don't know, what did the Oracle, or Apollo have to say? Was it something like "Why did the Christian cross the road?"

 

Something like that. Diocletian went to the oracle for advice from the gods, and a reason for their lack of speaking. It said that 'the just on earth' were the reason that Apollo's advice is hindered. Then, he began to seize and persecute Christians to appease the gods.

People are crazy and do stupid things, that's for sure.

 

The sign said: Cross here.