Why Focus On The Bible First, And Proof God Is Real Second?

[Mriana]

Well this might interest some of you:

 

Former fundamentalist 'debunks' Bible

 

Doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus and heaven and hell are not based on anything Jesus or his earlier followers said.

 

At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries.

 

Believing the Bible is infallible is not a condition for being a Christian.

 

His claims, though, take on some of Christianity's most sacred tenets, like the resurrection of Jesus. Ehrman says he doesn't think the resurrection took place. There's no proof Jesus physically rose from the dead, and the resurrection stories contradict one another, he says.

 

It is a myth and even Spong says it is allegorical and not meant to be taken as a literal resurrection (see his book Resurrection: Myth or Reality).

[Ouroboros]

Well this might interest some of you:

 

Former fundamentalist 'debunks' Bible

 

Doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus and heaven and hell are not based on anything Jesus or his earlier followers said.

 

At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries.

 

Believing the Bible is infallible is not a condition for being a Christian.

 

His claims, though, take on some of Christianity's most sacred tenets, like the resurrection of Jesus. Ehrman says he doesn't think the resurrection took place. There's no proof Jesus physically rose from the dead, and the resurrection stories contradict one another, he says.

 

It is a myth and even Spong says it is allegorical and not meant to be taken as a literal resurrection (see his book Resurrection: Myth or Reality).

I think what Badger see here is that Ehrman say that the resurrection, the divinity, and the miracles are not historical, but Ehrman at the same time (as seen from other quotes) think that Jesus existed as a human being. So the miracle/SonOfGod/resurrected Jesus story is a myth, but the human-being Jesus is a possible history.

 

And that's where Price and Ehrman are separate. Price believe that Jesus didn't even exist as a charismatic leader, nor as a person of any kind, not even a low-life hobo high on drugs and ranting spiritual "truisms."

 

I think it's important to see the difference.

 

Take the story about Mohammad. Mohammad existed, we are pretty sure about that, but do we believe the part of the stories that he saw and talked to an Angel? Not really. So it could be the same thing here. A Jesus who did not do miracles. A Jesus who did not walk on water. A Jesus who wasn't resurrected. Etc. But still could be a Jesus who led a little rebel group and told them a bunch of religious stuff. And then the story got embellished and Jesus was made into a divine figure, intermixed with other religious beliefs (like paganism and much more).

 

Ehrman (to my understanding) does not deny this possibility.

[Badger]

We wouldn't lose history, because the standards I'm talking about are the standards of History as it exists now. That's my entire point.

I'm not convinced that your "methods" are standards of history. You would not consider anything as "historical" without contemporary evidence and first hand accounts, supported by secondary sources. Of course it may be that I'm just ignorant. Do you have a degree in history?

 

Who Jesus was in the sense you're talking about is not the question of History, that's what Theology is, and theology is not history. History has a much more vague interpretation of the question of 'who' and is only interested in facts.

Wait a second, the sense I'm talking about Jesus is not theological. I'm refering to him as human not as the Son of God or divine being.

 

All mentions of the name Jesus in TF are contested or considered suspect.

You mean you're considering it suspect, right? But it's possible that the assumption (that there was no historical Jesus) on which your argument is based is false and Christian scribe doctored the passage not to make it evidence of Jesus but to support the Christian view of Jesus ("If it be lawful to call him a man," "He was the Christ," "For he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him"). Moreoever, Jesus' name appears only once. Even if we remove it we still have Josephus reporting about one who was crucified at the hands of Pilatus and linked with Christians, who were named after him (Christ).

 

There was probably mention of Christ, or Christus, but the section about Jesus, who was called Christ, brother of James, is considered one of the things added by the Christian forgers in most academic circles.

Again, please name scholars who support that view. Antiquities 20.9.1 is neutral and the reason the identifying phrase "the brother of Jesus called Christ" appears is for the identification of James. It also goes as this Jesus would be previous introduced (that is in Antiquities 18). Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman comments this passage, "That, indeed, Josephus did say something about Jesus is indicated, above all, by the passage - the authenticity of which has been almost universally acknowledged - about James, who is termed (A XX, 200) the brother of 'the aforementioned Christ.'" (emphasis mine)¹

 

1. L. H. Feldman and G. Hata, eds. Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 1987.

In the same book Zvi Baras states that this passage "is considered authentic by most scholars." (341)

 

If you must cite secondary sources, stick with Piny, or Tactius. Josephus's pool has been tainted. It's not reliable, even if reconstructed, it's still just a best guess.

While some would say Tacitus is independent source, others consider Suetonius, Pliny, and Tacitus as merely reporting what they have heard Christians of their own day say. Josephus instead is considered as the most important non-Christian evidence of historial Jesus. Both his passages, 18.3.3 and 20.9.1, are accepted as essentially reliable by the majority. There is no reason to dismiss the Testimonium Flavianum.

[Badger]

I would strongly disagree - it is certainly disputed.

Sure it is disputed but it seems that only by, more or less, Jesus Mythist. And in internet.

[Guest Thor]

No Badger, the facts surrounding Josephus alone are enough to dispute the validity. There's no evidence that Josephus is valid - there are no extant Greek copies of the Antiquities that predate the 9th to 11th century. He mentions around 20 different Jesus' & none ever turn out to be THE biblical Jesus. Josephus wasn't an eye witness nor were any of his sources.

 

And, if you REALLY look into the opposition you'' learn that mythicists are not the only ones disputing i:

 

"The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth…"

 

- The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (v.6,83)

 

- "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" (WWJ) 84

 

"Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent upon these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic"

 

- F.F. Bruce, "New Testament History" (163) founder of the modern evangelical movement

 

- "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" (WWJ) page 84

 

"...there are very few sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus beyond the four canonical Gospels. Paul and Josephus offer little more than tidbits. Claims that later apocryphal Gospels and the Nag Hammadi material supply independent and reliable historical information about Jesus are largely fantasy. In the end, the historian is left with the difficult task of sifting through the Four Gospels for historical tradition."

 

- John P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew," vol. II, 5.

 

- Who Was Jesus? page 86

 

* Dr. Meier is a Catholic University New Testament professor, Catholic priest and monsignor

[DarthOkkata]

Not really, the Mythist largely support the claim that the document is a complete forgery.

 

I personally don't agree with that.

 

I do find it suspect and unreliable though.

 

I believe that Jesus was a myth myself. I wouldn't call myself a 'mythist' though. I can accept that he 'might' have 'possibly' been a real man.

 

I just don't see this as anywhere near convincing evidence that he was. Especially given that it's largely accepted that at least parts of it is forgery. We aren't sure which parts are, and which parts aren't. Though we think we have a general idea, we're not sure of it at this point either way.

 

The evidence has been tainted, that's why I can't accept it. Plus, even if it isn't, it's still only secondary at best. We don't know his sources, and he's been wrong before.

 

It's just not a convincing argument to me that Jesus was a real man. I need more than a few, at best, secondary sources to convince me of this.

 

There's no real compelling evidence of this, and there's a lot of sides to the issue. Citing one expert or another on one side of the issue doesn't sway me. Regardless of their credentials, because the other views are all supported by people with just as much academic weight behind them in their credentials.

 

I stand somewhere in the middle. Yeah, it's possible, but it's also not been proven. I'm awaiting further evidence before a firm statement can be made. Until then, Jesus is legend in my opinion. I'll be more than happy to revise that given sufficient evidence to counter my opinion on the matter.

 

All that's been going on here for a while now is citing different sides of an ongoing argument. Neither side has conclusively proven their case either way. It's debatable either way, as the length of this thread gives testament to.

 

I'm convinced Jesus is just legend or myth until further evidence to the contrary is presented. I haven't ruled out the possibility of that happening. It seems to me to be the most reasonable stand to take at the present.

 

There just isn't enough there to claim he's historical at this point.

 

The claim that he isn't is just the default stance in any kind of science. Claims must be proven tested, and verified before they become valid, Historical Jesus hasn't been. Not yet, and he may never be, but that doesn't mean that he won't ever be either.

 

More data is needed before any definitive stance of 'he existed' or 'he didn't exist' can be made.

 

At the moment, one stance or the other is just an opinion. That's all we've got on the matter at this point. Opinions that are still being argued both ways.

 

There just isn't any consensus that Historical Jesus is or isn't right now. It's a debate in progress. Our opinions of whose argument is more valid makes no real difference in the issue. Only the evidence will decide the issue in the end.

 

Right now, there's not enough to say either way.

[Guest Thor]

Fair enough but, again, before you assume Acharya manufactures anything you need to study CIE. You will change your mind.

 

You say she is not manufacturing facts but...the video you post makes a big deal of Jesus and Horus both being born on Dec 25th.

This is exactly what I am talking about when I mentioned false cognates. See, we already have a pretty good idea of why the proto-orthodox church set the date to Dec. 25th, and it had nothing to do with Horus.

 

They placed in then because it was at the same time as the winter solstice celebrations and the early church thought it would be easier to convert a pagan holiday than it would be to get everyone to stop celebrating that holiday and start a new one.

 

See, if you are only presented with part of the information the connection seems obvious, but with more information the connection seems much more dubious.

 

I downloaded one of her books and I plan on giving it a read, but I am pretty skeptical, this looks like pretty shady scholarship to me.

 

Kuroikaze "You say she is not manufacturing facts but...the video you post makes a big deal of Jesus and Horus both being born on Dec 25th"

 

No, it is absolutely not a "false cognate" - that's a falsehood in itself. What is poor scholarship is the claim that Horus was not born on the winter solstice or "December 25th." The fact is that he, as the morning sun, WAS born at that time, as stated by the ancient historian Plutarch and as proved otherwise, especially in "Christ in Egypt" which provides other primary sources as well.

 

So, claiming the opposite is a manufactured Christian revisionist position. Of course, the orthodoxy did not come right out and say, "Hey, this winter-solstice birthday has to do with Horus." That's a straw man. At the time when Christ was supposedly born, Horus was one of the most popular gods in the Roman Empire. The more evidence you have, the more obvious the connection becomes.

 

What is very poor scholarship is to ignore the fact that for many centuries Jesus Christ's birthday has been celebrated on December 25th by hundreds of millions of people and that this date is basically the winter solstice, celebrated in Egypt as the birth of Horus long before Christ supposedly lived. It is old news that ancient sun gods were celebrated on the winter solstice which carried over for 3 days. Christianity has simply severed Dec 25th from the winter solstice natural phenomena to the point that people today never make the connection. All of this is detailed in an entire chapter in CIE, of course.

 

It is comments like these based in utter ignorance that convince others not to study further. You've already admitted that you've never studied her work. If & when you read CIE, you'll be thoroughly embarrassed to make those types of comments again.

 

Kuroikaze "I downloaded one of her books and I plan on giving it a read, but I am pretty skeptical, this looks like pretty shady scholarship to me."

 

Which book & from where do you have a link?

[Guest Thor]

Fair enough but, again, before you assume Acharya manufactures anything you need to study CIE. You will change your mind.

 

You say she is not manufacturing facts but...the video you post makes a big deal of Jesus and Horus both being born on Dec 25th.

This is exactly what I am talking about when I mentioned false cognates. See, we already have a pretty good idea of why the proto-orthodox church set the date to Dec. 25th, and it had nothing to do with Horus.

 

They placed in then because it was at the same time as the winter solstice celebrations and the early church thought it would be easier to convert a pagan holiday than it would be to get everyone to stop celebrating that holiday and start a new one.

 

See, if you are only presented with part of the information the connection seems obvious, but with more information the connection seems much more dubious.

 

I downloaded one of her books and I plan on giving it a read, but I am pretty skeptical, this looks like pretty shady scholarship to me.

 

Kuroikaze "You say she is not manufacturing facts but...the video you post makes a big deal of Jesus and Horus both being born on Dec 25th"

 

No, it is absolutely not a "false cognate" - that's a falsehood in itself. What is poor scholarship is the claim that Horus was not born on the winter solstice or "December 25th." The fact is that he, as the morning sun, WAS born at that time, as stated by the ancient historian Plutarch and as proved otherwise, especially in "Christ in Egypt" which provides other primary sources as well.

 

So, claiming the opposite is a manufactured Christian revisionist position. Of course, the orthodoxy did not come right out and say, "Hey, this winter-solstice birthday has to do with Horus." That's a straw man. At the time when Christ was supposedly born, Horus was one of the most popular gods in the Roman Empire. The more evidence you have, the more obvious the connection becomes.

 

What is very poor scholarship is to ignore the fact that for many centuries Jesus Christ's birthday has been celebrated on December 25th by hundreds of millions of people and that this date is basically the winter solstice, celebrated in Egypt as the birth of Horus long before Christ supposedly lived. It is old news that ancient sun gods were celebrated on the winter solstice which carried over for 3 days. Christianity has simply severed Dec 25th from the winter solstice natural phenomena to the point that people today never make the connection. All of this is detailed in an entire chapter in CIE, of course.

 

It is comments like these based in utter ignorance that convince others not to study further. You've already admitted that you've never studied her work. If & when you read CIE, you'll be thoroughly embarrassed to make those types of comments again.

 

Kuroikaze "I downloaded one of her books and I plan on giving it a read, but I am pretty skeptical, this looks like pretty shady scholarship to me."

 

Which book & from where ... do you have a link?

[Badger]

No Badger, the facts surrounding Josephus alone are enough to dispute the validity. There's no evidence that Josephus is valid - there are no extant Greek copies of the Antiquities that predate the 9th to 11th century. He mentions around 20 different Jesus' & none ever turn out to be THE biblical Jesus. Josephus wasn't an eye witness nor were any of his sources.

Whoa, you're going to cast aside one of the most important historical sources we have; and in fact all literary sources we have from antiquity! None of them would most likely meet your criteria. And your argument about not mentioning the Jesus is simply based on assumption that Josephus does not mention him. Isn't this kinda circular?

 

And, if you REALLY look into the opposition you'' learn that mythicists are not the only ones disputing i:

If we are talking about disputing in the sense of claiming Josephus is unreliable and useless evidence of Jesus, then yes, virtually none but Jesus Mythist hold this position. Both, Bruce and Meier, does consider the Testimonium Flavianum as important evidence of historial Jesus, admitting it contains some later interpolations. Meier calls the passage as "a small but precious piece of independent attestation to Jesus' existence, ministry, and fate."¹ But actually the question was not about TF but about Antiquities 20.9.1 where Josephus mentions Jesus, who was called Christ.

 

1. Meier, John P. 1991. The Present State of the 'Third Quest' for the Historical Jesus: Loss and Gain. Biblica 80: 459-487.

[Badger]

There just isn't enough there to claim he's historical at this point.

That is true. There is no evidence you would accept. And that's OK. But as I said I'm thinking you have rather sceptical attitude toward history. But that's fine if you treat all historical information similarly.

 

There just isn't any consensus that Historical Jesus is or isn't right now. It's a debate in progress.

I would say there is; wheter this consensus is wrong or right is another issue.

[Guest Thor]

I just gave quotes from Christian, Catholic & Jewish sources disagreeing with you.

 

Badger "Meier calls the passage as "a small but precious piece of independent attestation to Jesus' existence, ministry, and fate."

 

That was in 1991 - apparently he changed his mind since then. Meier specifically states in his own book that Paul & Josephus offer little more than tidbits - if you don't like that you'll have to take it up with Meier. They all agree that the "sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic." And that "In the end, the historian is left with the difficult task of sifting through the Four Gospels for historical tradition."

 

Again, Josephus mentions around 20 different Jesus's & NONE can be demonstrated to be the biblical Jesus. That is just the facts.

 

Badger "Both, Bruce and Meier, does consider the Testimonium Flavianum as important evidence of historial Jesus"

 

Well, it only decreases their credibility as the TF is universally disputed & your James passage isn't much better.

 

"The arguments against the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum include that there is no mention of it before the time of Eusebius (c. 260-c. 339?). Indeed, no early Church father before then has taken the slightest notice of this very important testimony to the existence of the Lord and Savior, even though a number of them poured over the works of Josephus and other writers in order to find precisely such references to Christ, Christians or Christianity. Christian experts on Josephus such as Origen somehow missed this critical passage, the Church father even complaining that the Jewish historian did not consider Jesus to be the Christ."

 

- WWJ 88

 

"...let us for a moment assume that the Testimonium Flavianum is genuine, in whole or in part. Even with such an assumption, the TF still does not constitute credible, scientific proof of the historicity of Jesus Christ, since it was not written by an eyewitness, nor is it based on any discernible documents of any authority. The TF reflects only a tradition or rumor of something that purportedly occurred 60 to 70 years earlier and made little to no impact upon anyone significant outside of immediate Christian circles."

 

- WWJ 91

 

A point of fact here is that the reason Christians are so heavily reliant upon Josephus is because there is no valid contemporary evidence for Jesus during his supposed like time. The reliance upon the TF & James passage serves to demonstrate the flimsiness of the evidence for Jesus. Even belief in a historical Jesus requires a giant leap of faith. I will accept a historical Jesus as soon as VALID evidence is offered that can stand up to peer review & scientific scrutiny. After 2,000 years none has passed the test.

[Mriana]

And that's where Price and Ehrman are separate. Price believe that Jesus didn't even exist as a charismatic leader, nor as a person of any kind, not even a low-life hobo high on drugs and ranting spiritual "truisms."

 

Actually, what Price has said, at least in podcasts is, "There never was a historical Jesus or if there was, the man is too buried in myth to find".

 

Take the story about Mohammad. Mohammad existed, we are pretty sure about that, but do we believe the part of the stories that he saw and talked to an Angel? Not really. So it could be the same thing here. A Jesus who did not do miracles. A Jesus who did not walk on water. A Jesus who wasn't resurrected. Etc. But still could be a Jesus who led a little rebel group and told them a bunch of religious stuff. And then the story got embellished and Jesus was made into a divine figure, intermixed with other religious beliefs (like paganism and much more).

 

Ehrman (to my understanding) does not deny this possibility.

 

I question as to whether or not Mohammad existed. IF he did, the illiterate man was extremely mentally ill, yet charismatic enough to get the naive and uneducated to follow him.

[mwc]

I question as to whether or not Mohammad existed. IF he did, the illiterate man was extremely mentally ill, yet charismatic enough to get the naive and uneducated to follow him.

You get your innards washed by some angel then take a magic trip to heaven and we'll see how you fare.

 

mwc

[Mriana]

No Badger, the facts surrounding Josephus alone are enough to dispute the validity. There's no evidence that Josephus is valid - there are no extant Greek copies of the Antiquities that predate the 9th to 11th century. He mentions around 20 different Jesus' & none ever turn out to be THE biblical Jesus. Josephus wasn't an eye witness nor were any of his sources.

Whoa, you're going to cast aside one of the most important historical sources we have; and in fact all literary sources we have from antiquity! None of them would most likely meet your criteria. And your argument about not mentioning the Jesus is simply based on assumption that Josephus does not mention him. Isn't this kinda circular?

 

It is not historical and it's not important because it is not historical.. Josephus was a forgery. Well not Josephus, but what was written and added to- the part that was added, was the forgery. The part that was added after Josephus was dead, was added by people who wanted to make Jesus look real. The tip off was it wasn't quite written in the same style as the rest of writing.

 

If we are talking about disputing in the sense of claiming Josephus is unreliable and useless evidence of Jesus, then yes, virtually none but Jesus Mythist hold this position. Both, Bruce and Meier, does consider the Testimonium Flavianum as important evidence of historial Jesus, admitting it contains some later interpolations. Meier calls the passage as "a small but precious piece of independent attestation to Jesus' existence, ministry, and fate."1 But actually the question was not about TF but about Antiquities 20.9.1 where Josephus mentions Jesus, who was called Christ.

 

Meier admits to it having interpolations, but turns around and states a contradiction? That should tell you that he is only a worthless apologist who wants to keep believers under the delusion and control of the Church. Why in the world would you want to listen to such flap-trap of contradictions?

[Mriana]

I question as to whether or not Mohammad existed. IF he did, the illiterate man was extremely mentally ill, yet charismatic enough to get the naive and uneducated to follow him.

You get your innards washed by some angel then take a magic trip to heaven and we'll see how you fare.

 

mwc

 

Right!

[Badger]

I just gave quotes from Christian, Catholic & Jewish sources disagreeing with you.

I don't see how they are disagreeing with me (apart from The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia). Meier and Bruce says nothing I can't agree with.

 

That was in 1991 - apparently he changed his mind since then. Meier specifically states in his own book that Paul & Josephus offer little more than tidbits - if you don't like that you'll have to take it up with Meier. They all agree that the "sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic." And that "In the end, the historian is left with the difficult task of sifting through the Four Gospels for historical tradition."

Actually the date was wrong (and you can check it up yourself). The article by Meier is written in 1999, that is five years later than the book you quoted. No, he has not changed his mind. In page 466 he writes: "The only significant independent source is Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum in Book 18 of his Jewish Antiquities (18.3.3 §63-64)."

 

Again, Josephus mentions around 20 different Jesus's & NONE can be demonstrated to be the biblical Jesus. That is just the facts.

No, it is not fact. Not at all. It is a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning.

An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove.

Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion. (from

logicalfallacies.info

)

Well, it only decreases their credibility as the TF is universally disputed & your James passage isn't much better.

If we are counting heads from 1937 to present day it is about 39/16 for partial authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum. Paula Fredrikson, a historian and a scholar of religious studies, states in his Jesus of Nazareth that "most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by Christian scribes." (249) She herself accepts TF as evidence of Jesus. Maier affirms: "While debate continues over this passage, I am heartened by the fact that a number of recent scholars have basically accepted something like my suggested reconstruction of the authentic core text." (ibid. 466) Regarding Antiquities 20.9.1, it is "almost universally acknowledged" as authentic. (Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, quoted earlier).

 

As I said, if we are talking about disputing in the sense of claiming Josephus is unreliable and useless evidence of Jesus, then yes, virtually none but Jesus Mythist hold this position.

 

The arguments against the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum include that there is no mention of it before the time of Eusebius (c. 260-c. 339?). Indeed, no early Church father before then has taken the slightest notice of this very important testimony to the existence of the Lord and Savior, even though a number of them poured over the works of Josephus and other writers in order to find precisely such references to Christ, Christians or Christianity. Christian experts on Josephus such as Origen somehow missed this critical passage, the Church father even complaining that the Jewish historian did not consider Jesus to be the Christ."

Now my Bullshit Detector screams. Her argument is based on two assumptions: (1) that early Church fathers would have cited a passage that confirms merely Jesus' existence and death, and (2) that some early Church fathers "poured over the works of Josephus." Where are arguments and evidences to back up these claims? No such exist but that's nothing new. Now, according to calculations by Roger Pearse, Josephus is quoted only 13 times by Ante-Nicene Fathers. "On the basis of the data, the argument from absence seems very shaky indeed. There is little use of Antiquities at all."¹ Acharya S fails also to explain why we should accept the first premise. It might argue against TF as we have it in all manuscripts however, but not necessarily against its authenticity (or existence) as a whole.

 

1. Pearse, Roger. Josephus in the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

 

"...let us for a moment assume that the Testimonium Flavianum is genuine, in whole or in part. Even with such an assumption, the TF still does not constitute credible, scientific proof of the historicity of Jesus Christ, since it was not written by an eyewitness, nor is it based on any discernible documents of any authority. The TF reflects only a tradition or rumor of something that purportedly occurred 60 to 70 years earlier and made little to no impact upon anyone significant outside of immediate Christian circles."

Acharya S isn't historian, is she? Well, show me a historian that would accept her criteria about a valid historical source. I assume that using her standards we could know almost nothing from the past. Not to mention that scholars seems to disagree with her. Something is wrong here.

 

I will accept a historical Jesus as soon as VALID evidence is offered that can stand up to peer review & scientific scrutiny. After 2,000 years none has passed the test.

Huh? Do you have a degree in history?

 

I believe I dealt with this issue above.

[Badger]

It is not historical and it's not important because it is not historical.. Josephus was a forgery. Well not Josephus, but what was written and added to- the part that was added, was the forgery. The part that was added after Josephus was dead, was added by people who wanted to make Jesus look real. The tip off was it wasn't quite written in the same style as the rest of writing.

Really? And you have someting to back up these claims?

 

Meier admits to it having interpolations, but turns around and states a contradiction? That should tell you that he is only a worthless apologist who wants to keep believers under the delusion and control of the Church. Why in the world would you want to listen to such flap-trap of contradictions?

Meier is not apologist (oh, of course he is if he dare to disagree with you). But no, there is no any contradiction.

[angelinabee]

Yeah, historical fiction.

No one deny there is historical information in the Bible. Do you?

 

I don't deny that there is historical stuff in the bible, but there is also historical stuff in:

 

The Indiana Jones movies (as the OP said)

The movie 300

The book/movie Watchmen

The movie Elizabeth and its sequel

Many of Shakespeare's plays

The North and South trilogy by John Jakes...

 

and I could go on for hours.

 

They are all works of fiction. The fact that they contain history does not make them real.

 

And sorry for responding to an old post, but I couldn't resist.

[Mriana]

It is not historical and it's not important because it is not historical.. Josephus was a forgery. Well not Josephus, but what was written and added to- the part that was added, was the forgery. The part that was added after Josephus was dead, was added by people who wanted to make Jesus look real. The tip off was it wasn't quite written in the same style as the rest of writing.

Really? And you have someting to back up these claims?

 

I have no less than you do with your claim that the whole book is historical. Actually, I have more than you do with your claim, but you only reject what I have put before you thus far. I will throw out some reading for you though: Some Reasons Why Humanist Reject the Bible Scroll down to Inaccurate Statements About History or read the whole thing if you have time. However, this is something I have researched and studied for over 25 years now. The book is more fictional literature than it is fact. It was written and inspired by man, not God, with rewritten myths, set to a specific culture.

 

Yeah, historical fiction.

No one deny there is historical information in the Bible. Do you?

 

I don't deny that there is historical stuff in the bible, but there is also historical stuff in:

 

The Indiana Jones movies (as the OP said)

The movie 300

The book/movie Watchmen

The movie Elizabeth and its sequel

Many of Shakespeare's plays

The North and South trilogy by John Jakes...

 

and I could go on for hours.

 

They are all works of fiction. The fact that they contain history does not make them real.

 

And sorry for responding to an old post, but I couldn't resist.

 

Exactly what I've been trying to say throughout this whole thread, esp when I first mentioned North and South way back there somewhere.

[Mriana]

Acharya S isn't historian, is she? Well, show me a historian that would accept her criteria about a valid historical source. I assume that using her standards we could know almost nothing from the past. Not to mention that scholars seems to disagree with her. Something is wrong here.

 

In a way, she is. She has studied anthropology/archeology, which means she has gotten down into the dirt to discover the past and in my opinion, the study of mythology is basically the study of the evolution of human thought concerning religion and god concepts. IF you study it long enough and learn the parallels, as I mentioned with Victor Matthews' books, you soon realize that today's religions are nothing but an evolve form of past myths.

[Badger]

I have no less than you do with your claim that the whole book is historical.

I have not claimed it is (or isn't). Only said there is historical information in the Bible.

 

So do you have someting to back up your claim or not?

 

I took a glance at the site you linked. Nothing really new there. The section "Inaccurate Statements About History" is largely based on the argument from absence what comes to the New Testament. Only the census reported by Luke is a real historical problem of those listed.

[Mriana]

I took a glance at the site you linked. Nothing really new there. The section "Inaccurate Statements About History" is largely based on the argument from absence what comes to the New Testament. Only the census reported by Luke is a real historical problem of those listed.

 

It said more than that.

[Badger]

It said more than that.

Virtually no, it does not. It's obviously written with an agenda, and while there are some points it isn't a serious attempt to evaluate the historical value of the biblical documents.

[DarthOkkata]

So the Apologist Christian sources you've been citing for this thread [and others] don't have an agenda then?

 

I could say the same thing about them. They were less interested in finding the reality of History and more interested in proving Jesus to be real and that their holy book has historical value.

 

Even if you did cite others, [often cherry picking and misrepresenting them], you can't deny that many of the sources you brought up had agendas of their own. So, you really can't claim them as any more valid than this one.

 

Secularist have nothing to gain or lose with Jesus being proven to be a real human person.

 

Religious Apologists can't say the same thing. He -must- be real to them. It cannot be any other way. They're looking for proof that he was, and aren't concerned or interested with anything that counters that idea.

 

Apologist have expectations to begin with when they enter this debate. They expect to find Jesus, and proof that he was real. It's just a matter of when and were that evidence is found. They cannot consider the possibility that he might not have been.

 

They have an agenda to promote, and cannot be trusted to be honest with anything that does not promote it. Any such idea must be disproved and debunked by any means necessary, because they cannot accept the other option.

 

Apologist have a vested interest in Jesus being real. They'll rationalize it any way they can if it is at all possible. I also wouldn't put it past them to brush aside and try to hide evidence that counters their preconceived notion that he 'must' be real.

 

I don't trust them as sources on matters like this. There's too much to be gained or lost in a subject like this for them for their opinions and judgment to not be clouded.

 

Not every secularist disagrees with them, most only partially, but their biases are obvious, and make them untrustworthy in matters like this in the end.

 

So, saying that this is bias and has an agenda is somewhat hypocritical. Especially given that you've been citing biased sources with agendas of their own in this and other threads.

 

Having some [limited] historical value does not validate the Bible as true. That's been covered already to the point of it being exhaustive.

 

The historical value it does have is rather vague at best, and no more than a lot of other Historical Fiction or period pieces in fiction.

[Badger]

So the Apologist Christian sources you've been citing for this entire post don't have an agenda then?

What apologist sources exactly?

 

Even if you did cite others, [often cherry picking and misrepresenting them], you can't deny that many of the sources you brought up had agendas of their own.

How exactly I'm "cherry picking and misrepresenting" them?

 

So, you really can't claim them as any more valid than this one.

Of course I can question or even dispute it's validity. Sommer appears to be attorney. He is not expert in OT or NT criticism or history, yet he try to be so convincing with all those claims he made. Sure there was some points. I admit that.

 

So, saying that this is bias and has an agenda is somewhat hypocritical. Especially given that you've been citing biased sources with agendas of their own in this and other threads.

I hope you can show me where.

 

The historical value it does have is rather vague at best, and no more than a lot of other Historical Fiction or period pieces in fiction.

That's fine. Creationist has their own faith as well.