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

[Kuroikaze]

There is a difference between believing the fantasy of the Bible, and recognizing it as Historical. It perphaps may not be historically accurate to someone who expects it to meet the 'flawless Bible' standards, but by many educated, historians, the Bible is historically accurate in many parts. Do you suggest Israel didn't exist? Are all the Jews liars when they speak of the fore fathers? These people are real people Mriana, still living in a country represented of them and their heritage. How historically accurate does it need to be? I would assume that it is as historically accurate to the same extent that any other formations, during the great reigns of the powerful countries of that era. We find some pottery, arrows, and drawings and have detailed descriptions of groups, settlements, ancient civilizations (small ones); yet the Jews are debunked because they have a God and a Bible, and a guy named Jesus started a movement through it?? There are real Jews, there were real Jewish settlements. King Darius did decree the Jews to be released, ..outside the Bible's acknowledgment. People of the era of Christ wrote about the movement of Christianity. The Greek oracle speaks of Christians in the era of early Christianity. What is not historical?

 

Now you are jumping into an area I am familiar with. Which fore fathers are you referring to? Abraham? Moses? Saul? David? Solomon? Almost all the historians who specialize in early middle eastern history agree that these people did not exist. Heck all but the most orthodox Jews admit they are not real.

 

Yes, anthropologists have found evidence of the origins of Jewish culture, but it is a very different picture than the one we get from the bible.

 

First, the Pentateuch and the histories (Kings and Chronicles) that record these people did not likely exist in a finished form until around 500 B.C.E., more than 500 years after the era David supposedly reigned in, and more than a thousand years after Moses.

The Jews did not move into Palestine as slaves wandering from Egypt as is claimed in Exodus, but instead were a group native to Palestine that slowly became dominate over the area through a succession of wars.

 

The histories do start to become more accurate in their reports of of things that happened after around 700 B.C.E. Though not entirely accurate, they do report on both the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles, which are both believed to have occurred. The Babylonian exile, in particular, is recorded by Babylonian historians as well. Though the bible seems to get some of the dates and names of rulers wrong in places. Daniel has several historical errors, but it probably wasn't penned until about 300 B.C.E.

 

As a point of correction, Cyrus freed the Jews after capturing Babylon, not Darius. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon

 

When you say "era of Christ" you should perhaps be a little more specific, The earliest references I know of to Christianity were during Nero's reign more than 30 years after Jesus supposedly died, and even then they are fairly sketchy.

[Abiyoyo]

 

Now you are jumping into an area I am familiar with. Which fore fathers are you referring to? Abraham? Moses? Saul? David? Solomon? Almost all the historians who specialize in early middle eastern history agree that these people did not exist. Heck all but the most orthodox Jews admit they are not real.

 

Yes, anthropologists have found evidence of the origins of Jewish culture, but it is a very different picture than the one we get from the bible.

 

First, the Pentateuch and the histories (Kings and Chronicles) that record these people did not likely exist in a finished form until around 500 B.C.E., more than 500 years after the era David supposedly reigned in, and more than a thousand years after Moses.

The Jews did not move into Palestine as slaves wandering from Egypt as is claimed in Exodus, but instead were a group native to Palestine that slowly became dominate over the area through a succession of wars.

 

The Israel Stele dates back to 19th Egyptian dynasty(1213-1200BC), and historians have quoted that for them to even be engraved on the tablet, assigned that they were definitely some force to be recognized. That makes sense, as how large the Egyptians were. If Israel was just a few tribal peoples that they killed, or took over, then they probably wouldn't have been mentioned. It also shows that someone mentioned the name' Israel' to them, for which they engraved through their symbols. This is important to me because if you remember, Israel was Jacob renamed by God. So, the fact that they called themselves Israel says much to me. I shows the character of the Bible, Jacob, possibly existed.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele#Content

 

The histories do start to become more accurate in their reports of of things that happened after around 700 B.C.E. Though not entirely accurate, they do report on both the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles, which are both believed to have occurred. The Babylonian exile, in particular, is recorded by Babylonian historians as well. Though the bible seems to get some of the dates and names of rulers wrong in places. Daniel has several historical errors, but it probably wasn't penned until about 300 B.C.E.

 

The Tel Dan stele is also significant to the existence of Israel which dates possibly 8th-9th century BC that has even more writing on it, and mentions the house of David. Again, the significance of the naming here. The fact that 'house of David' was inscribed says that David may have existed.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

 

The Mesha Stele, again another important artifact close to Bible history. Dated 8th-9th century BC as well, also mentioning Israel and 'house of David' again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele

 

Here's the Wiki link to more important Biblical artifacts.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artif...nt_to_the_Bible

 

As a point of correction, Cyrus freed the Jews after capturing Babylon, not Darius. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon

 

Oops Need coffee.

When you say "era of Christ" you should perhaps be a little more specific, The earliest references I know of to Christianity were during Nero's reign more than 30 years after Jesus supposedly died, and even then they are fairly sketchy.

 

Well, the thing is that when history in general is at play, 30 years isn't necessarily a big deal, just like a tablet that pinpoints a certain activity, from the BC periods today, if 30 years off, are not much scrutinized so to speak. History is always rewriting itself so to speak. References to Christianity 200 years later is okay, as long as it isn't the autobiography of a Christ that died 200 years prior. Copies of copies of the originals are possible. The NT is a little more complicated to pinpoint, but even in a general sense, Roman writings mention the Christ movement, such as in The Annals. Some say that one part is forged, but that is a minority, and most conclude The Annals authentic.

[Kuroikaze]

The Israel Stele dates back to 19th Egyptian dynasty(1213-1200BC), and historians have quoted that for them to even be engraved on the tablet, assigned that they were definitely some force to be recognized. That makes sense, as how large the Egyptians were. If Israel was just a few tribal peoples that they killed, or took over, then they probably wouldn't have been mentioned. It also shows that someone mentioned the name' Israel' to them, for which they engraved through their symbols. This is important to me because if you remember, Israel was Jacob renamed by God. So, the fact that they called themselves Israel says much to me. I shows the character of the Bible, Jacob, possibly existed.

 

This really doesn't fall far out of what I was saying. It is mentioned in the article you referenced that this mention of Israel seems to refer to them as nomads not people with an organized city or government.

 

Claiming this suggests Jacob existed is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. The story in the bible to which you refer could just as likely be a mythic creation. After all, Jacob, if real, would have lived at least 500 years before this tablet was written.

 

The Tel Dan stele is also significant to the existence of Israel which dates possibly 8th-9th century BC that has even more writing on it, and mentions the house of David. Again, the significance of the naming here. The fact that 'house of David' was inscribed says that David may have existed.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

 

The Mesha Stele, again another important artifact close to Bible history. Dated 8th-9th century BC as well, also mentioning Israel and 'house of David' again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele

 

The second one is new to me, but I had already heard of the first one. Few historians take this as strong evidence of David's existence. For one, they date to around the Assyrian conquest, in the neighborhood of 300 years after David's supposed reign, and the references are quite small, almost afterthoughts in the overall writings. It is equally reasonable that they reference Israel as the "kingdom of David" because of a legend, not because there was an actual David. A case strengthened by the lack of any contemporary mention of David or Solomon by neighboring kingdoms.

 

I will clarify though, that quite a few historians will say that there may have been a leader by the name of David who controlled a small fiefdom. However, the outlandish stories in the bible of buildings made with thousands of pounds of gold, fabulous wealth, near unstoppable armies, and kings who had hundreds of wifes and concubines are pure fiction. If Israel had been that powerful they would have been mentioned by the surrounding kingdoms of the time. Yet we find near total silence until barely hundred years before Assyria invaded.

[Badger]

Yeah, except this is clearly a strawman. The argument looks more like this.

 

1. Josephus mentions several persons called Jesus.

2. There were lots of people called by that name at the time.

Conclusion. It is not possible to tell if the Jesus he is referencing is the same one spoken of in the bible.

Thor claims that (1) several Jesus is mentioned but (2) the Jesus is not mentioned. S/he says this explicitly, without providing any reason. Argument assumes what it is trying to prove, and is thus circular reasoning.

[Badger]

You've been asking for an unusually large amount of clarification, information, and references. To the point that it seems belligerent. As if you're using it as a distraction to divert attention away from other issues or as a way to stall instead of giving straight answers.

I have been asking since you, and some others, use to appeal to authority without any reference. Constantly. Theories have been "rejected by lack of evidence" and have no "support within the historical community." Legitimate historians have rejected and discounted Josephus, or Tacitus, as hearsay. Even most of Christian scholars consider Josephus as unreliable and "probably outright forgery." Just some examples. Thor claimed, in spite of evidence I gave, that TF is "universally acknowledge by a majority of scholars including Christian biblical scholars to be a forgery." So if making such claims is acceptable, then asking for source is not any less that.

[DarthOkkata]

You've been given references for these things, more than once.

 

The claim that's been most supported by myself and others here is that Josephus is at least a 'partial' forgery. You are both generalizing and quote mining with your incorrect claims that a majority of us are calling it an 'outright forgery'. I never said any such thing outside of a reference to the opinion of others, nor have most of the posters. You're intentionally misrepresenting what the majority opinion here. You seem to be trying to imply 'we're all ganging up on you by making unreasonable claims' and that isn't the case.

 

The majority opinion, including secularists, and theist together, is that it is likely a partial forgery. Most of the sources I've seen on the matter say as such. Not all support or deny that Historical Jesus may or may not have existed. There isn't much agreement there, but as far as TF being considered at least a partial forgery, that's pretty well established.

 

Josephus and Tactius are hearsay. Neither is a first hand account, and neither would likely qualify as a second hand account. That is exactly what 'hearsay' means. Even if they are accurate, they are still hearsay, they are not first hand accounts, but rather reports based upon what others said. That is the definition of hearsay.

 

Forgery, partial forgery, or not forgery at all. I see no reason to think Josephus was correct even if it is really all his writings. The same can be said of Taticus, Piny, and crew. I see no reason to take their word for it, especially considering it's not really 'their word' but rather their rendition of someone else's word. I don't know their sources, methodologies, or standards.

 

It's also not been shown that even if Jesus was mentioned, that it was the Jesus he was referring to. I'm not saying that it might not be the case, but it's not been definitively shown either way that he was or was not referring to the Jesus in the Bible. There were a lot of people named Jesus, and James as well. Both were common names, and it's not unreasonable to speculate that the references might have been about entirely different people.

 

You have constantly used appeal to authority yourself, even if you cite who the authority is, it's still appeal to authority. You're taking an experts word because they are a experts. These people have provided no viable evidence they are correct that I've seen. They are merely being speculative based on limited references. No more or less than the people who disagree with them on the same subject have. You're just as guilty of appeal to authority arguments as anyone else here.

 

My argument has been consistent. It doesn't matter what the experts opinions on the matter are. With no evidence to support it, it's just an opinion. An educated opinion perhaps, but still an opinion. I've said things to that effect several times over the course of this thread.

 

My stance is that when evidence is provided beyond a group of people having an argument about it, I'll consider changing my mind. I'm convinced at present, given the evidence I've seen presented, that Jesus was not a real man. I'm open to changing that opinion given sufficient evidence, a bunch of people arguing about it who have not reached a consensus of any kind isn't enough to sway me.

 

As I mentioned earlier, this isn't a court of law. There is no 'innocent until proven guilty' here. Proof of claims must be established before the status of Theory or fact is awarded. That's how Science works.

 

I have to admit, I do have problems with so many references to TJP. It's in year one out of a five year study. The work isn't even near halfway finished yet.

 

I find Josephus suspect, and a majority of things I've read on the topic agrees with me, at least partially. I've seen opinions to the opposite effect as well, but not near as many.

 

I'm aware that a majority does not always equal correct, and I'm willing to accept and examine more evidence if it is presented. Until then, I see no reason at all to think I should trust Josephus in particular as a source for 'Historical Jesus'.

 

Nor have I seen enough evidence from sources that claim 'Historical Jesus' to accept the idea as true. I have no real reason to believe it. That doesn't mean I think that the people who support it are lying, or being dishonest either.

 

I just don't see any reason to think them correct. Given further evidence, I'll reexamine that position, but not before. There's not enough there outside of a few, at best, second hand accounts that he existed. There's no physical evidence, no reference to him during his lifetime despite meticulous record keeping within his region [the Romans had a hard on for records], no mention of him at all until after his supposed death, he left no writings, no archeological evidence, no [known] relatives, no eyewitness accounts.

 

There is no compelling proof he was ever real. I have no reason to think that he was.

 

Why should I trust such a claim when all there is to support it is secondary 'I heard from someone else about this guy who died a while ago' claims? That is not proof or evidence. Even the secondary evidence is heavily contested.

 

Just because a Historian might believe that Jesus was a real person, does not mean they can prove that he was. Opinions, even those of Historians, are not History. It's Science, and like any other, it must be proven beyond mere opinion before it can qualify as Historical.

 

At present, I see no reason to think 'Historical Jesus' is anything more than Hypothesis. Though, 'Mythical Jesus' is no different. Both are mere Hypothesis at this point.

 

I don't know if Jesus was a real man or not, but I see no reason to think that he was either. I'm awaiting further proof, but based on what's available at this point 'not real' seems the more likely and rational option.

 

On a lighter note, Monty Python and the Word of Josephus:

 

http://www.josephus.org/MontyPython.htm

[Badger]

The claim that's been most supported by myself and others here is that Josephus is at least a 'partial' forgery. You are both generalizing and quote mining with your incorrect claims that a majority of us are calling it an 'outright forgery'. I never said any such thing outside of a reference to the opinion of others, nor have most of the posters. You're intentionally misrepresenting what the majority opinion here. You seem to be trying to imply 'we're all ganging up on you by making unreasonable claims' and that isn't the case.

I'm not intentionally misrepresenting anything. Just cited what you have claimed. Here it is.

The legitimacy of Josephus is highly contested, and it has been that way since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the view has been that it has -at a minimum- been altered by Christian scribes, and possibly is an outright forgery. I don't recommend using that source to site as evidence in any sort of argument in the future in particular. It's extremely suspect, and I'm not sure why so man Apologist continue to site this, especially

given that even a great many Christian experts advise against it. Even most of them agree on that matter, Josephus isn't a reliable source at all and is probably outright forgery

. Citing such a source in any argument will do more harm than good to your claims.

 

That Josephus is partially authentic (including some insertions) is my position, as well.

 

You have constantly used appeal to authority yourself, even if you cite who the authority is, it's still appeal to authority. You're taking an experts word because they are a experts. These people have provided no viable evidence they are correct. No more or less than the people who disagree with them on the same subject have. You're just as guilty of appeal to authority arguments as anyone else here.

I assume experts or authors know about historical methods and science more than you (or I) do. You keep claiming like you know how these things works, and dismiss words of historians if necessary. That's pretty interesting.

[Mriana]

No more absurd than your zombie Jesus and IF you are a Rapture believer, it sure as hell is better than that Return of the Zombie story, because Rapture theology is totally bogus and not actually in the Bible. Of course, not all Xians believe in Rapture theology and not all church preach that insanity.

 

There is a difference between believing the fantasy of the Bible, and recognizing it as Historical. It perphaps may not be historically accurate to someone who expects it to meet the 'flawless Bible' standards, but by many educated, historians, the Bible is historically accurate in many parts. Do you suggest Israel didn't exist? Are all the Jews liars when they speak of the fore fathers? These people are real people Mriana, still living in a country represented of them and their heritage. How historically accurate does it need to be? I would assume that it is as historically accurate to the same extent that any other formations, during the great reigns of the powerful countries of that era. We find some pottery, arrows, and drawings and have detailed descriptions of groups, settlements, ancient civilizations (small ones); yet the Jews are debunked because they have a God and a Bible, and a guy named Jesus started a movement through it?? There are real Jews, there were real Jewish settlements. King Darius did decree the Jews to be released, ..outside the Bible's acknowledgment. People of the era of Christ wrote about the movement of Christianity. The Greek oracle speaks of Christians in the era of early Christianity. What is not historical?

 

Now you are misconstruing what I said. I said it was no more historical than North & South. Lincoln was a real man, N.C. existed, Slavery existed, BUT what John Jakes attributed to Lincoln as saying, he probably did not say, there probably was no Ory Main, as well as other characters in the book, and many of the slaves may or may not existed and the actual events (except the Civil War of course) depicted more than likely did not happen as stated. Thus, given there were many Jesuses around the time of the N.T. setting, we don't know which one it was and much of what is attributed to Jesus in the story, he did not say (see Jesus Seminar for one source). The crucifixion is an event that has happened many times in history previous to that, even in myth. Many heroes were nailed to a tree or something there of, in this case, we have a tree or rather something made from a tree and Judas was a mirror of that when he hung himself from a tree (see Robert Price's "Deconstructing Jesus" for one source out of many) It is a previous myth rewritten to a particular culture, thus the places, for example being real, but not necessarily historically accurate in depiction.

 

If you read that again, I said anti dogmatic, Christian ( as anti both) at least accept that the Bible is history in some degree; and it is true. Yes, there are some here that just deny it, but it to me means they are the same as someone that is 'stuck' on the truths of the Bible. Being stuck is not just a Christian thing, it's a people thing. :wink:

 

No it is not true. Do some REAL research instead of being spoon-fed by your preacher and apologists. That last about being stuck makes absolutely no sense at all. Your definition of anti-dogmatic, as well as how your write it, is not standard. A really twisted misuse of the word and the English language, which, the way you are attempting to use the word, makes no sense because it is not proper use of the English language.

 

Okay, all the points you are mentioning, you are correct. They all can not be proven to have happened, but that doesn't make them not historical. Your opinion, and personal view of the subject makes it not historical, not the events. People wrote about the reurrection, famous painters in history sculpted, painted Jesus arrays, and it is still a movement in our current world. Rome, historically, made Christianity their official religion. History is history. Opinions on history is opinions, it still doesn't change the meaning of history.

 

Um... IF it cannot be proven, then one cannot take it as actually being historical. Have you ever researched why and how Rome made Xianity their official religion? Just because it is an official religion does not make it literally true or even historical. I am not expressing an opinion, I am expressing that people have been fooled by ancient Rome and those who have been in control of the "vulgar" since Rome created the pagan mixed Xian religion and enforced it on people. Xianity is nothing but pagan mythology, anthropomorphasized and rewritten to a specific cultural.

[Badger]

Do some REAL research instead of being spoon-fed by your preacher and apologists.

Damn, Abiyoyo. You're guilty of "cherry picking" scholars other than Price, Carrier, Jesus Seminar, &co. How dare you!

[DarthOkkata]

That was a reference to the opinions of others.

 

There are many, even if not a majority of, Christian experts who suggest citing Piny and others as opposed to Josephus because of the heavily contested nature of TF in particular. It can be used to make the position look suspect too easily. Even the partial forgeries can make the whole text look bad.

 

'Most would agree' was meant to imply that 'Most would agree it's better to use other, less contested sources', as it's less difficult to brush them aside based on the insertions in TF. It can be damaging to the argument to try and use it, even if it is mostly accurate. The insertions taint the evidence, and make it to easy to counter or brush off in a discussion like that. Which is true.

 

Perhaps I should have been clearer, but that's what I was arguing there, and I don't think I was wrong.

 

I get what you're saying there, but a majority of my posts do not support the position of 'outright forgery'. It was misrepresenting my position citing that particular quote out of the many I've made. You did do a bit of quote mining there.

 

I agree that it's likely only a partial forgery, and most of the posters in the thread agree with that as well. That doesn't mean we think the rest of it is true by any means, but that it was mostly Josephus's work, we agree for the most part.

 

Most of us arguing against it as proof of Jesus don't trust it because of the second hand nature of it. Not because we think it is a complete forgery. The same could be said of Piny, Taticus and others like them as well. We don't think them to be unauthentic, just unreliable as a primary source because of their, at best, second hand nature. The fact that it contains insertions also taints it as evidence, and makes it even more unreliable, as we're not sure exactly where the forgeries are. We think we have a general idea about what is, and is not forgery, but that's also not certain.

 

This is a case of a few dishonest people ruining things for everyone else. It's sad, but it does cast doubt on how much of TF can be trusted. Particularly in it's mention of Jesus as a historical figure. Because of this disgusting defiling and deception, I don't think it should be used as even a secondary source for such an argument. No more than tainted DNA should be used in a criminal prosecution case.

 

I don't feel that's an unreasonable position to take on the matter. Even as completely authentic documents, they're still hearsay as far as the subject of Historical Jesus is concerned.

 

That also doesn't mean they have no historical value. They definitely do, all of them are valuable documents. Only that they alone are not enough to support something like 'Historical Jesus' on their own.

 

They are enough to justify stating that such a thing as Historical Jesus as possible, but are not enough to verify it as factual or historical. It's not proof of such a thing.

 

TF has more value in other areas. The Monty Python article I posted gives a few good examples of some of the other value TF provides. It's a very good document to provide insight to a lot of things about life, religion, and politics in the era. However, it is not proof of the existence of anyone aside from Josephus himself.

 

It's not really a joke article at all, or I would have posted it in the humor section. Though there are some funny bits from Life of Brian mentioned. It's about how Josephus was used to make the movie accurate. Even though it is a parody and contains a lot of silliness, Life of Brian is a surprisingly accurate window into the period it is set.

 

Well worth watching if you've not seen it before. The article is worth looking over as well, it's not very long, and while on the lighter side, pretty sound. It doesn't make an argument for or against the reliability of Josephus either. It is just a good way of showing some of the other things that could be learned from TF, even if just a few small examples.

[DarthOkkata]

I'm not discounting the opinions of those who 'know the scientific method better than you or I'.

 

I'm discounting the opinions of experts who aren't using it. I've yet to see any evidence that any such Theory has been presented for review. I've seen mention of it in academic writings, yes. However, as something that's been put fourth, with evidence, to support that Jesus was a real man in actual History as an actual Theory? Not at all.

 

Thus far it's just been mentioned in writings and presented as an opinion. Which is fine, but also not the same thing as claiming it to be actual History. It does not appear in actual History text being mentioned as anything more than the 'beliefs' of people, and no claims that he was ever a real man as proven fact or even as a Theory have been made.

 

At present, it's only an untested unverified hypothesis as far as I'm aware. It's an academic hyperbole. Something that's floating about, waiting for enough evidence to present it as something that can be reviewed and confirmed or denied as a Historical principal. Which is what the JP is for I believe, finding enough to try and put forth a Theory on the matter. It has not yet been done, and we're still about four years away from that being finished.

 

I dismiss the words, but not the work. I can discount anyone's opinion about something they haven't proven, or attempted to prove. There are just as many experts who disagree with your historians. It's heavily contested on both sides of the issue.

 

You're making it sound like I'm arguing that Hitler didn't exist. I'm not, I'm just not agreeing with the experts you've chosen to support about an unproven assumption. There are experts and Historians who agree with my position on the matter as well. I'm not discounting anyone's 'work', only their personal opinions about an unproven matter.

 

You've yet to provide any actual evidence for the existence of Historical Jesus aside from a few Hearsay accounts, and opinions on the matter that are contested by others with just as much credentials as those you're citing.

 

What archeological evidence do you have? Where are Jesus's writings? A first hand account of his existence? Someone who saw, spoke to, or witnessed something he did, or something that happened to him?

 

All you've got are contested opinions, and a few scattered hearsay accounts with questionable sources.

 

Historical Jesus is not a Theory, it's not to my knowledge yet been presented as one to be reviewed and verified by any serious historian.

 

That doesn't mean that no historian ever written anything about the subject either. They have, on both sides of the issue. It's not been presented as something to be verified and supported as a Historical claim either. There are books on the subject, written by prominent and well established scholars, but that's not the same thing as presenting a theory either.

 

Maybe JP will settle the matter. Probably not, unless they confirm that he was real beyond doubt. If they don't, the argument will continue.

 

I'm not discounting anything the way you're claiming I am. I'm just not agreeing with the same historians and experts as you. There are those who support my side of the issue as well, and they've got the same evidence those you support do. They just aren't interpreting it in the same way, and I agree with their conclusions more.

 

Once again, you're misrepresenting me, and the issue. You've been doing a lot of quote mining, and twisting the words of others to support your own agenda in this thread recently. We're not so stupid as to not notice this tactic.

 

In the end, it's not the opinions of either side that will decide the issue. Which is what I've said from the beginning. It's the evidence that will ultimately decide this issue. Regardless of what any experts, historians, or theologists are arguing at present.

 

Their opinions, both those that agree, and those who disagree with me, are irrelevant to what the evidence will show in the end.

 

Science and History are about evidence, not opinions, no matter how much of an expert the one giving the opinion is. Right now, opinions are the only thing there is.

 

I've been pretty consistent and clear in saying this from the start. Nothing has been proven, evidence is more relevant to this issue than anyone's opinion no matter what their status as an expert or historian, and the evidence will decide what is or is not History, not the opinions of Historians or anyone else.

 

You're attempting to twist that out of context to make me look like I have an opinion different from what my stance on the matter actually is. It's not the first time, and I'm not the only one you're trying to do this to. We notice this tactic, we're not so stupid as to not realize exactly what you're doing here.

 

Jesus as a real person is something that's often assumed, but has never been proven.

[Mriana]

This demonstrates the ignorance (not an attack or name calling) on the subject - the winter solstice/xmas has been a well known celebration date for the sun god for literally thousands of years. Thus, hand-waving dismissals will not suffice.

 

I did some research and found out that Horus' birth day was not even in December. It falls on July in the current calendar http://books.google.com/books?id=-mtlCPm70...lt&resnum=1

 

Not only that Horus was not born of a virgin, his father was Osris. He was killed by his brother Seth. Isis used a spell to bring him back to life for a short time so they could have sex, in which they conceived Horus

 

Sure, if you read it in B&W literally word for word without considering any the metaphors or allegory symbols, instead of a literary outline that was/is most typical of such hero stories.

 

Let's take something that everyone can get their hands on- The Acts of the Buddha (I could even do Krishna for that matter, but I'll stick with the Buddha for now, esp since I have textbook documentation). Keep in mind, it is all metaphor and allegory we are dealing with, not literal word for word facts. Of course, unlike Krishna and JC, the Buddha is not an incarnation of God, but a human being who does have a miraculous birth, much like the two god-men.

 

Since some struggle with the term "virgin birth" I will use miraculous birth. The Buddha has a miraculous celestial birth (acts chapter one) (when Vessantara dies, the bodhisattva is reborn in the heavens, where he waits until the earth needs a new Buddha to set the wheel of dharma in motion again), which even many Buddhists admit is not a true story of the Buddha's birth. Both Jesus and Buddha are fictionally conceived miraculously without sexual intercourse (A Concise Introduction to World Religions p 384). Nonetheless, it was depicted as miraculous and happened during a solar event (as depicted by the fictionalized celestial events). The Christ birth is basically the same thing and the 12 (or in this case 13 because the wheel has 13) relate to said wheel- thus Christ ushers out the age of the ram and ushers in the age of the fish during Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year) in Mark 1:1-11 (Spong's Hebrew liturgical calendar in A New Christianity for a New World p 94 and Concise intro p 384). The Buddha also returns and starts a new age as depicted on the Dharma wheel.

 

Buddha's mother is married, but is under a vow of celibacy and Mary is said to be an unwed virgin (this does not matter, not even to the text book authors of Concise Intro p 384, which BTW is a text from one of my college religious courses). Buddha in a grove and Jesus in a stable, both births were announced by a bright light in the sky (a star), and sages foretell the infants' future greatness (ibid). In both cases the births were announced by angels- to a meditating sage in one case, to shepherds in the other (ibid). This shows that the literally outline that scholars and even Acharya (whether you consider her a scholar or not) are looking at is the same and it is what is taught in college religion course textbooks. Even Mara and Satan are the same and both characters attempt to tempt the two heroes (Concise Intro p 386-387).

 

This textbook, from one of my college religion courses, goes on to compare the two lives in this literary outline format, but here is the problem... Unless the doubters here have the college text in front of them, they won't believe a word of it and even if they did, they still might not believe it, even try to attempt to say, "Oh but the JC story came first" when it did not.

 

Here is the clincher to the literary outline- Both JC and the Buddha has a last supper and both were murdered. While the Buddha is not nailed to a tree, he is murdered. The Buddha makes his sacrifice by telling his followers not to take revenge on those who poisoned him. The cycle begins again with the Buddha in waiting to be reborn miraculously again, just as the cycle of the Sun of God does. This is a birth, death, and resurrection story in a literary outline sense- except in this case, the "resurrection" is a returning of a new Buddha, which BTW, there is one final last return of the Buddha- but it ages away. JC was supposedly the last and it too, as I said, ushered in a new age.

 

Side note: King Ashoka is converted to Buddhism around 273-232 BCE, much like Saul/Paul was said to be converted to Xianity, two centuries after the Buddha's death. Very interesting from a literary perspective and what one is looking at with all these stories is a literary outline and the JC story is just one more in a line of mythical stories set to a particular culture and written in this literary form. This too is pointed out in the Old Testament with Victor H. Matthews college textbook "Old Testament Parallels", which I mentioned before. So these stories in the Bible, from the O.T. on into the N.T. are rewritten mythology. Nothing more and IF you don't care to take Acharya's word for it, try reading the college textbooks I have pointed out here in this thread and you will see there is a pattern to all these stories.

 

I even learned this when I took a course in high school called "Literature of the Bible". So, bottomline is, people really do need to dig deeper and not attempt to just discard various information just because they do not believe it is "scholarly" or accurate. We are NOT talking literalism here, we are talking literature. Pure literature that dates back to the beginning of human history, even Osiris/Horus, which has the very same literary framework as even the most recent stories.

 

Personally, I get really tired of literalists, no matter if they call themselves Xian or atheist, because we aren't talking literally, but metaphorically and allegorically, along with many other literary terms used to write stories.

[Badger]

I'm not discounting the opinions of those who 'know the scientific method better than you or I'.

 

I'm discounting the opinions of experts who aren't using it.

Oh, of course.

[Kuroikaze]

Yeah, except this is clearly a strawman. The argument looks more like this.

 

1. Josephus mentions several persons called Jesus.

2. There were lots of people called by that name at the time.

Conclusion. It is not possible to tell if the Jesus he is referencing is the same one spoken of in the bible.

Thor claims that (1) several Jesus is mentioned but (2) the Jesus is not mentioned. S/he says this explicitly, without providing any reason. Argument assumes what it is trying to prove, and is thus circular reasoning.

 

Um, no... he said this

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

 

You are creating a strawman, because Thor did not say "jessus is not mentioned" but that it can not be demonstrated that Jesus was mentioned. Those are two entirely different claims.

[Badger]

You are creating a strawman, because Thor did not say "jessus is not mentioned" but that it can not be demonstrated that Jesus was mentioned. Those are two entirely different claims.

Oh my, that's true. How coudn't I see that...

 

It would be interesting to know, however, how s/he prove this claim.

Or is it based on assumption that Josephus doesn't mention the Jesus?

[DarthOkkata]

Well, I'm perfectly justified in asking this question: Who are you to speak about 'making assumptions'?

 

You've certainly been making them yourself with little difficulty over the course of this thread.

 

Throwing rocks in glass houses and all that.

 

You're also asking that a negative be proven here. You should know better, as that particular issue has been brought up multiple times already.

 

Didn't you mention something about 'burden of proof' a few posts ago? You know, about how it 'lies on those making claims'?

 

Well, the assumption that he was talking about 'the' Jesus certainly implies that there's a claim being made.

 

What proof do you have that he was?

 

Asking what proof is there that he wasn't is asking to prove a negative, so the burden falls on the one claiming that he was.

[Ouroboros]

It would be interesting to know, however, how s/he prove this claim.

Or is it based on assumption that Josephus doesn't mention the Jesus?

The problem is that Jesus was an extremely common name, so it's more likely it was any Jesus than that Jesus.

 

And how do I know there were so many with the name Jesus? Because that was one of the arguments by apologists against the tomb finding. It could have been Jesus family, or that particular Jesus, because it was so frigging many in Jerusalem who was named Jesus, Mary, and John. Close to 10% of the population was called Jesus. (According to one table I saw) So if one person for every 10th person you met was named Jesus, then it's quite likely that Josephus meant any one of all these Jesuses. Lets say there were 500,000 citizens in Jerusalem, that would mean there were 50,000 Jesuses! You pick any one of them, and tell me if that one is "Him."

 

But on the other hand, if you argue that Jesus wasn't so common, well, now perhaps there could be some truth to the Jesus family tomb after all.

[Badger]

You've certainly been making them yourself with little difficulty over the course of this thread.

Sure, I certainly have assumptions. At least one one who admit that publicly.

 

Well, the assumption that he was talking about 'the' Jesus certainly implies that there's a claim being made.

 

What proof do you have that he was?

 

Asking what proof is there that he wasn't is asking to prove a negative, so the burden falls on the one claiming that he was.

I believe I have answered these already. Just go back and read.

[Badger]

The problem is that Jesus was an extremely common name, so it's more likely it was any Jesus than that Jesus.

It's not more likely when Josephus explicitly identifies this person to "the Jesus." Ant. 18.3.3 reports person called Jesus, living at specific time ("at this time"), who was crucified at the hands of Pilatus and linked with Christians, who were named after him. In Antiquities 20.9.1, 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).

[DarthOkkata]

Well, I'll give you credit for attempting to answer. I don't feel it was a successful attempt. It certainly didn't convince us otherwise, or we wouldn't have reached this point.

 

So, points for effort, but you've not proven your case on the matter either.

 

I see no compelling evidence that it was a reference to 'the' Jesus, but also can find no definitive argument that it was not. So, we're left with yet another vague 'maybe' on the subject. Thor wasn't wrong, but he's not disproved your perspective on the matter either.

 

So, we end up in the gray area of the possibility that either one of you might be right. There were plenty of James and Jesus at the time, and plenty of people who claimed the title 'Christ', so odds are it wasn't referring to the same man.

 

That doesn't rule out the possibility that you're correct either, just implies that it's less likely.

[Kuroikaze]

Sure, if you read it in B&W literally word for word without considering any the metaphors or allegory symbols, instead of a literary outline that was/is most typical of such hero stories.

 

Why exactly would I take the claim that Jesus was born on December 25th as an allegory or metaphor? No one in Zeitgeist says Horus was "metaphorically" born on December 25th. Why would one automatically assume metaphor here? Most of the people reading her books or watching Zeitgeist are not going to assume this, because no says ANYWHERE that they do not LITERALLY mean what they say.

 

Besides, Horus is a fictional character, he was never actually "born", we are talking about when people celebrated his birth...and it was not in December.

 

Here is the clincher to the literary outline- Both JC and the Buddha has a last supper and both were murdered. While the Buddha is not nailed to a tree, he is murdered. The Buddha makes his sacrifice by telling his followers not to take revenge on those who poisoned him. The cycle begins again with the Buddha in waiting to be reborn miraculously again, just as the cycle of the Sun of God does. This is a birth, death, and resurrection story in a literary outline sense- except in this case, the "resurrection" is a returning of a new Buddha, which BTW, there is one final last return of the Buddha- but it ages away. JC was supposedly the last and it too, as I said, ushered in a new age.

 

Most of the claims you are making about Buddha are false, legend says he was born to a family of royal blood, he had a father, so his birth was not particularly "miraculous".

 

His death was not even necessarily a murder, all the legends I have read said that the poisoning was accidental. (He ate some bad food)

 

The connection you are making between enlightenment and resurrection is quite weak.

 

I studied Buddhism quite a bit in college, under a professor who actually called himself a "Christian Buddhist" If there were such obvious connections between the two religions he would have been talking about them non-stop.

 

The connections you are making here seems quite accidental, and trying to claim Buddhism is an extension of sun worship seems down right nutty to me. It was a reformation movement from Hinduism, which had no strong link to sun worship. This the the kind of stuff that makes this whole thing look like a conspiracy theory.

 

Twisting facts to fit your preconcieved notions and then saying "but I am speaking metaphorically" doesn't really wash with me.

 

Unless you are claiming that the connection is only a "metaphorical" one?

 

 

Personally, I get really tired of literalists, no matter if they call themselves Xian or atheist, because we aren't talking literally, but metaphorically and allegorically, along with many other literary terms used to write stories.

 

*sigh* Can't say anything reasonable so you resort to insults? I have no problems with metaphors that are actually metaphors. However, you can't just throw that term around to excuse saying anything you want.

 

Since you apparently want to make this personal. You know what I get tired of? I get tired of people excusing nonsensical or absurdly inacruate statements by claiming they are "metaphors." I know what a metaphor is, and there is nothing to indicate the claims in zeitgeist are meant to be metaphorical.

[Kuroikaze]

The problem is that Jesus was an extremely common name, so it's more likely it was any Jesus than that Jesus.

It's not more likely when Josephus explicitly identifies this person to "the Jesus." Ant. 18.3.3 reports person called Jesus, living at specific time ("at this time"), who was crucified at the hands of Pilatus and linked with Christians, who were named after him. In Antiquities 20.9.1, 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).

 

Except almost everyone except you agrees that the passage in section 18 was added or at least heavily edited several centuries later by Christian monks.

[Ouroboros]

The problem is that Jesus was an extremely common name, so it's more likely it was any Jesus than that Jesus.

It's not more likely when Josephus explicitly identifies this person to "the Jesus." Ant. 18.3.3 reports person called Jesus, living at specific time ("at this time"), who was crucified at the hands of Pilatus and linked with Christians, who were named after him. In Antiquities 20.9.1, 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).

True.

 

There are other references by other writers. I was think more like the Jewish record:

It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover. Ulla said: Would one think that we should look for exonerating evidence for him? He was an enticer and G-d said (Deuteronomy 13:9) "Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him." Yeshu was different because he was close to the government.[87]

That doesn't necessarily mean the same Jesus, since for every execution made, at least every 10th criminal could potentially be named Jesus.

[Badger]

Well, I'll give you credit for attempting to answer. I don't feel it was a successful attempt. It certainly didn't convince us otherwise, or we wouldn't have reached this point.

Then I expect you and others explain why it wasn't successful.

[Mriana]

Throwing rocks in glass houses and all that.

 

Does that really surprise you considering the Stone Age mentality of the Bible?