The Bible Fraud

[Neon Genesis]

Harry Potter is not historical document, and to claim otherwise would be a contradiction in terms. It's a fantasy novel.

And as Ehrman points out in Lost Christianities, there were religious documents written for entertainment purposes too, like the Acts Of Paul And Thecla and yet many people believed Thecla was also a real person and held her as being just as important as the Virgin Mary based solely on a work of fiction. Do you believe St. Thecla was also a real person and an actual convert of St. Paul's? If you don't, why not when there's just as much evidence for her existence as there is for Jesus? How are the Acts Of Paul and Thecla different than the gospels in the NT?

[Badger]

And as Ehrman points out in Lost Christianities, there were religious documents written for entertainment purposes too, like the Acts Of Paul And Thecla and yet many people believed Thecla was also a real person and held her as being just as important as the Virgin Mary based solely on a work of fiction. Do you believe St. Thecla was also a real person and an actual convert of St. Paul's?

Lost Christianities, 36-37

Given the quality of the tales,

one might suspect that he write his narrative for the purpose of entertainment

, as a kind of early Christian novel. Scholars have long noted that the various Apocyphal Acts, that is, the surviving accounts of the activities of individual apostles, such as Paul, Peter, Thomas, John, and Andrew (all of which we have), appears to be modeled on the ancient pagan "romances," or novels, that have come donw to us from Greek and Roman late antiquity. - -

The overarching themes of these ancient novels, however, are quite different from what one finds on the Christian Apocryphal Acts

. - - Thus,

even if the Acts of Thecla was meant to entertain, it was also meant to intruct and encourage

.

I see no reason why Thecla couldn't have been a real person. She is also mentioned by Tertullian, who "is probably to be trusted as providing reliable information." (32) Neither Ehrman claims Thecla is a fictious character; at least I didn't notice.

 

If you don't, why not when there's just as much evidence for her existence as there is for Jesus? How are the Acts Of Paul and Thecla different than the gospels in the NT?

While the evidence of Jesus is scanty, it's still overwhelming compard to the evidence of Thecla.

[Guest]

I think it would be wrong to claim they wrote history for its own sake, like ancient historians did. Not even the author of Luke-Acts who is generally considered as historian. These documents are essentially theological. However, as far as I know, it seems that classical historians hold the gospels and Acts in higher esteem than many New Testament scholars or Internet sceptics, and are incline to criticize their over skeptical attitude.

 

And this is exactly why we can not take the gospels accounts at face value like we could for another historical person. THIS is why we need to verify the gospel accounts. THIS is what I've been trying to get you to see the whole thread, but you would insist "the gospels are historical documents".

 

Either this post has changed your mind, or your position changes depending on what needs to be argued.

[Badger]

And this is exactly why we can not take the gospels accounts at face value like we could for another historical person. THIS is why we need to verify the gospel accounts. THIS is what I've been trying to get you to see the whole thread, but you would insist "the gospels are historical documents".

Dear Marty, I'm not arguing we can take the gospels at face value as evidence of Jesus.

 

Let me quote Michael Grant (classical historian)

 

The extraction from the Gospels of evidence about the life and career of Jesus is a singularly difficult, delicate process...

 

If we apply to the new Testament

, as we should,

the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned

. Certainly, there are those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took plce just because pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms. That there was a growth of legend around Jesus cannot be denied, and it arose very quickly. But there had also been a rapid growth of legend around pagan figures like Alxander the Great; and yet nobody regards him as wholly mythical and fictitious...

 

A short way back,

exception was taken to the view that everything the evangelists say must be assumed correct until it is proved wrong

.

Should we, therefore, accept the opposite opinion

, which has been locked in an agonizing struggle with it for two hundred years,

that all the contents of the Gospels must be assumed fictitious until they are proved genuine? No, that also is too extreme a viewpoint and would not be applied in other fields

. When, for example, one tries to build up facts from the accounts of pagan historians, udgment often has to be given not in the light of any external confirmation - which is sometimes, but by no means always, available - but on the basis of historical deductions and arguments which attain nothing better than probability. The same applies to the Gospels. Their contents need not be assumed fictitious until they are proved authentic. But they have to be subjected to the usual standards of historical persuasiveness...

 

By such methods information about Jesus

can

be derived frm the Gospels.

 

 

Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels

A. N. Sherwin-White (another historian of ancient Rome) makes interesting comparison between Jesus Christ and Tiberius Caesar, a well-documented figure and "the best-known contemporary of Christ."

The story of his reign is known from four sources, the Annals of Tacitus and the biography of Suetonius, written some eighty or ninety years later, the brief contemporary record of Velleius Paterculus, and the third century history of Cassius Dio. These disagree amongst themselves in the wildest possible fashion, both in major matters of political action or motive and in specific details of minor events.

Everyone would admit that Tacitus is the best of all the sources, and yet no serious modern historian would accept at face value the majority of the statements of Tacitus about the motives of Tiberius. But this does not prevent the belief that the material of Tacitus can be used to write a history of Tiberius

.

 

Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament.

 

This is exactly my problem with you and others claiming we can know nothing about Jesus, or that using historical standards we have no evidence of him, or that historians don't say Jesus was a historical figure. I would assume you and others here don't even have validity to make such claims, since you're not experts of history. Of course you can have your personal opinion. That's all fine. But making claims like these imply more than just personal opinion. It is like you know what you're talking about and to claim otherwise would be stupidity.

[Badger]

I coudn't edit anymore but "to claim otherwise" means "to disagree with you".

[Guest]

This is exactly my problem with you and others claiming we can know nothing about Jesus, or that using historical standards we have no evidence of him, or that historians don't say Jesus was a historical figure. I would assume you and others here don't even have validity to make such claims, since you're not experts of history. Of course you can have your personal opinion. That's all fine. But making claims like these imply more than just personal opinion. It is like you know what you're talking about and to claim otherwise would be stupidity.

 

It is of course my opinion, and I do know what I'm talking about. Not in the sense that I have a degree in history or anything, but with that logic you have no right to say anything about jesus either, unless you have a degree in history and/or theology. I knew more about the quality and quantity of historical information about jesus than you did, at least. Either way, you're trying to make an appeal to authority. I am able to read, understand what it is I read, and form a conclusion based on what I read. And as far as I know, historians are not privy to some secret library of information that we can not access with a little study on the internet. There is no secret cache of information on jesus that is being kept from the public eye. And in this case, the cumulative effect on what I know about jesus and others with the same story line is that in most likelihood he is a fabrication.

 

The biggest hurdle I have in looking at jesus as a historical person is the only source we have for him comes from religious propaganda, with history not being the aim of the record. Inside these documents, there are numerous places we can check the accuracy both within the NT itself and from outside through secular observations or information and what we find is that the bible as a whole is more unreliable than it is reliable.

 

So to me, unreliable religious documents + no record at all with secular documents = myth. But, now that I think of it, I never was good at math. At one point, I used to think that jesus must have been real at some point, because how could such a powerful religion grow from nothing? But then I learned about Scientology and Mormons and how they got started, and then I realized all it takes is a few smart people and a whole bunch of gullible ones to start a religion.

[Badger]

Not in the sense that I have a degree in history or anything, but with that logic you have no right to say anything about jesus either, unless you have a degree in history and/or theology.

Of course I can express my personal opinion, based on evidence.

 

So to me, unreliable religious documents + no record at all with secular documents = myth. But, now that I think of it, I never was good at math.

We have some assumptions here: (1) that the gospels are unreliable, and (2) that no outside sources referring to Jesus exist. But as long as it is even possible that your premises are not justified, you have to be open to the possibility that you're wrong. Now, I have demonstrated in this thread, and elsewhere, why the second premise is false. Josephus refers to Jesus twice, and both of these passages are reliable, one of them, however, contaning a few interpolations. This by itself is enought to shatter the whole Jesus didn't exist theory. Yet, you haven't offered rebuttal, but totally disregarded the issue.

 

The biggest hurdle I have in looking at jesus as a historical person is the only source we have for him comes from religious propaganda, with history not being the aim of the record. Inside these documents, there are numerous places we can check the accuracy both within the NT itself and from outside through secular observations or information and what we find is that the bible as a whole is more unreliable than it is reliable.

Just a question, do you (or are you ready) treat the gospels like any other historical document? Subject them to the same criteria? You don't need to answer. Just think about it.

[Guest]

We have some assumptions here: (1) that the gospels are unreliable, and (2) that no outside sources referring to Jesus exist. But as long as it is even possible that your premises are not justified, you have to be open to the possibility that you're wrong. Now, I have demonstrated in this thread, and elsewhere, why the second premise is false. Josephus refers to Jesus twice, and both of these passages are reliable, one of them, however, contaning a few interpolations. This by itself is enought to shatter the whole Jesus didn't exist theory. Yet, you haven't offered rebuttal, but totally disregarded the issue.

 

Nowhere in this thread have I even implied I am not open to the idea of being wrong. Just because you are giving me shit does not mean I have to eat it. You have brought nothing to the table that I have not already seen and considered. Bring me something new and convincing and my mind will be changed.

 

And I do not need to demonstrate how wrong the first statement is; it is not an assumption, the gospels do not even agree with each other, let alone are correct in timelines of history, details of geography, and common sense (for an omnipotent deity) science. We even discussed how many variants there are, as well as accusations of changing texts at will.

 

And outside sources for jesus do not exist. Josephus has been disregarded by the majority of the scholarly community as being interpolation. I thought this thread had demonstrated that. I guess you really don't read what we type here, you just look for something to refute. Just because you stick your fingers in your ears and shout "NUH UH" does not make Josephus suddenly a quality source. I am done with this point. Unless you find something else that has not been discussed already, don't bring this back up.

 

The biggest hurdle I have in looking at jesus as a historical person is the only source we have for him comes from religious propaganda, with history not being the aim of the record. Inside these documents, there are numerous places we can check the accuracy both within the NT itself and from outside through secular observations or information and what we find is that the bible as a whole is more unreliable than it is reliable.

Just a question, do you (or are you ready) treat the gospels like any other historical document? Subject them to the same criteria? You don't need to answer. Just think about it.

 

I do not treat the gospels like I would historical documents for the simple reason as they are not. You even said that much in your last post. Do you consider the book of Mormon to be historical documents? The gospels are religious propaganda, and I treat them exactly as I do the Koran, the books of L. Ron Hubbard, the book of Mormon, and any other religious scripture you can think of. Why should I view the gospels as historical documents?

 

Now, if what you meant to ask me is do I use the same criteria to judge the historicity of jesus as I would any other figure in history, I would answer yes, I think I do. How is it (and this question is addressed to anyone) that I am being unfair to the character of jesus? All I am asking for is something that was not motivated out of religious belief.

[Badger]

And I do not need to demonstrate how wrong the first statement is; it is not an assumption, the gospels do not even agree with each other, let alone are correct in timelines of history, details of geography, and common sense (for an omnipotent deity) science. We even discussed how many variants there are, as well as accusations of changing texts at will.

These are the kind of problems we meet with other historical documents as well.

 

Josephus has been disregarded by the majority of the scholarly community as being interpolation. I thought this thread had demonstrated that.

That's what you keep insisting, without providing any reference. It is demonstrated, however, that the majority of scholarship consider TF as partially authentic with a few or some interpolation (post #67).

 

I do not treat the gospels like I would historical documents for the simple reason as they are not. You even said that much in your last post.

You misrepresented my words.

 

The NT writings have historical value and thus they're historical documents.

[Guest]

Josephus has been disregarded by the majority of the scholarly community as being interpolation. I thought this thread had demonstrated that.

That's what you keep insisting, without providing any reference. It is demonstrated, however, that the majority of scholarship consider TF as partially authentic with a few or some interpolation (post #67).

 

You might want to read the wiki article I quoted earlier. Maybe even specifically the parts I bolded. *EDIT* Sorry, I really didn't bold anything much in that quote. But do go back and read that link. I believe it is a reference; one that has links to lots of other ones if you scroll down to the bottom.

 

And really, if any part of it has been changed, than the whole thing is in question, especially when you consider the earliest church fathers never used it, even though they were familiar with Josepheus. Xtians cannot be trusted to be honest with the facts, Celsus noted it back then, and I see it happening even today. You give xtians the benefit of the doubt, I do not. That is a core difference between us.

 

I do not treat the gospels like I would historical documents for the simple reason as they are not. You even said that much in your last post.

You misrepresented my words.

 

Oh, did I?

 

I think it would be wrong to claim they wrote history for its own sake, like ancient historians did. Not even the author of Luke-Acts who is generally considered as historian. These documents are essentially theological. However, as far as I know, it seems that classical historians hold the gospels and Acts in higher esteem than many New Testament scholars or Internet sceptics, and are incline to criticize their over skeptical attitude.

 

Seems to me that you admit here that the aim of the gospels and letters of Paul are theological, and not historical. But now you want to claim that they are historical, so you can use them as a legitimate source for jesus.

[Badger]

You might want to read the wiki article I quoted earlier. Maybe even specifically the parts I bolded.

That is a reference, yes, but I don't see how does it support the claim you made.

 

And really, if any part of it has been changed, than the whole thing is in question, especially when you consider the earliest church fathers never used it, even though they were familiar with Josepheus. Xtians cannot be trusted to be honest with the facts, Celsus noted it back then, and I see it happening even today. You give xtians the benefit of the doubt, I do not. That is a core difference between us.

As said, I don't understand why early Church fathers would have cited a passage that confirmas merely Jesus' existence and death. And in fact, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the majority of scholars.

 

Seems to me that you admit here that the aim of the gospels and letters of Paul are theological, and not historical. But now you want to claim that they are historical, so you can use them as a legitimate source for jesus.

You claimed that I have said the gospels are not "historical documents," and that's not true. I admit that the evangelists didn't write history for its own sake and that their works are essentially theological. This does not, necessarily, mean however that they were not interested about history and facts, or that the gospels have no historical value at all.

[Guest]

Whatever you say, badger. I'm tired of going around in circles with you.

[RationalOkie]

Badger - I'll ask you again to - Google "The Three Witnesses": Shortly after joseph smith announced his tablets, there were three men who signed a joint statement saying they had actually seen them. This statement is printed in every copy of the book of mormon. There is also a monument to them in salt lake city. Some time after, they were joined by eight additional witnesses. All these guys solemnly attested to seeing those tablets.

 

Do you believe them? Why not? There are approximately 5 million mormans in the U.S. alone. Are they all wrong? Why? They've got witnesses.

What's your point? That Joseph Smith existed? Why not...

 

Oh, wait a minute! Why I'm not mormon, right? That's simply. Because the Bible is true and anything else wrong.

 

So you don't believe in the Mormon miracles? That's weird.... I guess you're right, their story sounds craaaaaazy. How fortunate for you that your 'bible is true and everything else wrong.'. The mormons will be greatly dissapointed.