jesus and the gospels

[Taphophilia]

Hi Jules,

 

Welcome!

 

You seem like a sincere person but you haven't done your homework on Josephus. He was born in 37 or 38 AD and died in 100 AD. It isn't possible for him to have been an eyewitness.

 

Taph

[Antlerman]

Hey all! just signed up and I'd figure I'd dive right in to the Lion's Den. I voted Historical based on the many eyewitnesses and out side christian sources. ex. Josephus

 

Really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Name one first hand eyewitness from the Gospel

Ummm.... what about the 500 who saw him walking around after he was dead?

[Taphophilia]

Hey all! just signed up and I'd figure I'd dive right in to the Lion's Den. I voted Historical based on the many eyewitnesses and out side christian sources. ex. Josephus

 

Really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Name one first hand eyewitness from the Gospel

Ummm.... what about the 500 who saw him walking around after he was dead?

 

Okay, that explains it. All the historical eyewitness accounts of Jesus were after he was dead. How long did zombie Jesus walk the Earth, a hundred years?

 

Taph

[Mythra]

Jules - for starters, why don't you give us all of the passages that reference Jesus from Justus, Seneca, Pliny the Elder and Philo Judaeus (all of them were actual contemporaries of "Jesus" day).

 

After that, you can make a list of all of the extant fragments of the NT that date to the first century.

 

Then, we can go on to discuss Josephus.

[Antlerman]

 

Okay, that explains it. All the historical eyewitness accounts of Jesus were after he was dead. How long did zombie Jesus walk the Earth, a hundred years?

 

He walks amongst us still

 

 

 

I think our new fundi isn't coming back. Post and flee.

[Open_Minded]

Hey all! just signed up and I'd figure I'd dive right in to the Lion's Den. I voted Historical based on the many eyewitnesses and out side christian sources. ex. Josephus

 

let the rotten tomatoes fly!!!

 

Hello Jules:

 

Are you willing to put down the Bible and talk ... if so there's a thread especially designed for you.

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=7142

 

Hey everyone

 

I voted: Legendary: events exaggerated from true history

 

It surprised me that Legendary/Mythical: fictional stories inspired by a man's life is getting 43% and that Mythical is getting a minority of the votes. I would've guessed that most people on this board felt Jesus never existed. Every single day I learn something new here.

[Antlerman]

It surprised me that Legendary/Mythical: fictional stories inspired by a man's life is getting 43% and that Mythical is getting a minority of the votes. I would've guessed that most people on this board felt Jesus never existed. Every single day I learn something new here.

Mythical isn't the minority. It's 2nd place at 36%

[Checkmate]

...............

It surprised me that Legendary/Mythical: fictional stories inspired by a man's life is getting 43% and that Mythical is getting a minority of the votes. I would've guessed that most people on this board felt Jesus never existed. Every single day I learn something new here.

Just for the record, I voted Pure Grade-A bullsh...er...MYTH.

 

[And yes, I too, am amazed that the Myth vote is coming in a poor second. Ah, well. Live and learn.]

[Mythra]

I've been strongly in the myth camp, but some of the things I've been reading have got me wondering and perhaps moving into euhemerism. (creating deities from historical characters)

 

James the Righteous, Yeshu Ben Pandira, The Essenes, Qumran, The Ebionites - The Zealots - Paul's eary persecution of "the church" - perhaps all pieces of a puzzle - and not easily accounted for by the myth ideas.

 

No doubt the gospel story itself is fictional. But maybe there was a man who got things kicked off. Perhaps it was ben Pandira. And then the Messianic Frenzy of the times took over and Paul took it from there with his visions and revelations and hellenistic philosophies.

 

Who knows?

 

But it's interesting to study and think about.

[Checkmate]

................

But it's interesting to study and think about.

Not really. At least not to me any longer. Studying "Jesus" makes about as much sense as studying Santa Claus. The stuff of deranged madmen.

 

While RELIGION per se remains an interesting study in human behavior, I grow weary of the debates about Jeebus. I've firmly settled into the camp of believing that this Jesus was myth, created out of whole cloth, just so these new ideas could have a "person" to rally around. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

Oh, and just in case any more Josephus fans show up, here's a link. I'm tired of re-inventing the wheel for Christians. Let them do their own damn homework.

[Onyx]

Definitely this:

 

Legendary/Mythical: fictional stories inspired by a man's life

 

Why? Perhap all gods/esses was based on certain men/ women's lives?

[Antlerman]

................

But it's interesting to study and think about.

Not really. At least not to me any longer. Studying "Jesus" makes about as much sense as studying Santa Claus. The stuff of deranged madmen.

Ahh, come on... what's so bad about Santa? I think the evolution of mythologies is a fascinating study, whether it's Jesus, Santa, the Easter Bunny, or my personal favorite Paul Bunyan. It says something about how humans operate. Besides, when a fundi comes along it shows several different, far more rational and well researched explanations that exist which better address their claims, rather than just accepting the fantastical assumptions they make.

[Mythra]

I think what I find so fascinating is that so many million people know every aspect of the gospel story, and yet are completely ignorant of the history and facts and other writings of that time.

 

So many people, like Jules, read one biased account - say for instance the Josephus passage - and then they are satisfied. Proof positive.

 

They know a single interpolated passage of Josephus (or Tacitus, or Suetonius, or Pliny the Younger, or the Talmud (well- on this one, they only quote half of it - since the second half of the narrative demonstrates that it's a different Yeshu and different time and place) , or Thallus. Yet they have never read anything else by those writers and never looked into whether or not they were genuine..

 

I was the same way when I was a fundy strutter. I have learned WAY more about Palestine and Rome in the first and second centuries (in the past six months) than I learned in the past 20 years.

 

It's just staggering to think that so many people could be devoting their entire lives to something without doing their utmost to verify that it's genuine.

[NotBlinded]

I think what I find so fascinating is that so many million people know every aspect of the gospel story, and yet are completely ignorant of the history and facts and other writings of that time.

 

So many people, like Jules, read one biased account - say for instance the Josephus passage - and then they are satisfied. Proof positive.

 

They know a single interpolated passage of Josephus (or Tacitus, or Suetonius, or Pliny the Younger, or the Talmud (well- on this one, they only quote half of it - since the second half of the narrative demonstrates that it's a different Yeshu and different time and place) , or Thallus. Yet they have never read anything else by those writers and never looked into whether or not they were genuine..

 

I was the same way when I was a fundy strutter. I have learned WAY more about Palestine and Rome in the first and second centuries (in the past six months) than I learned in the past 20 years.

 

It's just staggering to think that so many people could be devoting their entire lives to something without doing their utmost to verify that it's genuine.

It really astonishes me too. They will not even bother to take the time to investigate. I had one person tell me that they could find completely different things to prove their side of the arguement too. They say both sides are putting forth things that can be taken for truth, so they choose their side. I can understand what they are saying and they are right to a certain extent. The difference is, they don't bother to even look at both sides. They make a uninformed decision and stick to it because of the belief that both sides are equally able to put forth evidence, therefore, there is no need to see the other side's evidence.

[Mythra]

They say both sides are putting forth things that can be taken for truth, so they choose their side. I can understand what they are saying and they are right to a certain extent. The difference is, they don't bother to even look at both sides.

 

Here is the bottom line, though. Both sides present arguments, and have a list of reasons and citations supporting their positions. Neither can definitively prove they are right beyond any doubt. But one argument makes more sense - it has less holes in it - it takes less of a leap of faith to believe. Richard Carrier calls this the "Argument to the Best Explanation" :

 

There are two ways to "prove" ahistoricity:

 

(1) If you can demonstrate that there is both insufficient evidence to believe x and sufficient evidence to disbelieve x, then it is reasonable to disbelieve x. This is the "Argument from Silence."

 

(2) If you can demonstrate that all the evidence can be far better accounted for by a theory (y) other than historicity (theory x), then it is reasonable to believe y and, consequently, to disbelieve x. This is the "Argument to the Best Explanation."

[NotBlinded]

They say both sides are putting forth things that can be taken for truth, so they choose their side. I can understand what they are saying and they are right to a certain extent. The difference is, they don't bother to even look at both sides.

 

Here is the bottom line, though. Both sides present arguments, and have a list of reasons and citations supporting their positions. Neither can definitively prove they are right beyond any doubt. But one argument makes more sense - it has less holes in it - it takes less of a leap of faith to believe. Richard Carrier calls this the "Argument to the Best Explanation" :

 

There are two ways to "prove" ahistoricity:

 

(1) If you can demonstrate that there is both insufficient evidence to believe x and sufficient evidence to disbelieve x, then it is reasonable to disbelieve x. This is the "Argument from Silence."

 

(2) If you can demonstrate that all the evidence can be far better accounted for by a theory (y) other than historicity (theory x), then it is reasonable to believe y and, consequently, to disbelieve x. This is the "Argument to the Best Explanation."

Yes, but they know not the arguments! And, they don't care to. Sad, sad thing but not for them because as the old adage goes...ignorance is bliss. Although, I think they would be much, much happier without ignorance, they can't be convinced otherwise. I see this in a few of my family members. They think they are happy with their beliefs, but if I could only show them they don't have to be the way they think they should be, true happiness will take the place of happiness that is only falsely achieved. Dang-it...I just hate it that I can't do anything.

[jrmarlin]

I was wondering why the community stood on this. More than any other topic, this is probably the one where I change my mind the most. My vote is for Legendary/Mythical.

Pretty much as I have said before... The Bible is really just a very elaborate game of telephone where everything was either made up in the beginning or loosely based on... blah blah blah.

 

The stories are fantastical -- seas parting, famine, wine and bread from stones and sand... it's like Harry Potter on acid -- and if you read them as if they were the fiction they are - as opposed to the Xians' stance that they're real -- they make for fascinating fiction. If they spiffed up the language and took out a lot of the contradictions you would have a very good story line with twists and turns much like the popular movies today. But like I said, you would really have to clean up contradictions and make the story have more of a comprehensive line...

 

[SkepticOfBible]

Can anyone tell me when exactly were the Gospel written?and what dating methodolgies are used to determine these dates?

[jrmarlin]

Can anyone tell me when exactly were the Gospel written?and what dating methodolgies are used to determine these dates?

Interesting that you brought that up, I was thinking the same thing.

 

We all know the King James Version was created by King James 1 in order to keep his masses in check. But as for how the dates were ascertained and who really was the first to commit it to paper is grossly abiguous.

 

One bit of advice, Skeptic, don't ask a Xian, they definitely won't know.

[trashy]

Can anyone tell me when exactly were the Gospel written?and what dating methodolgies are used to determine these dates?

 

well, a simple search on Google would probably get you TONS of information on that topic, but a sampling of scholars will give you a general range of 50-100 AD

 

I would have preferred a voting option for "Mythical: based on a mix of legends and pagan deities"

[- AUB -]

Hi, just dropping in for a second.

 

I love this topic, nice to see it “resurrected”.

 

Mythra

 

A quick summary of the issues you raised.

 

James the Righteous,

 

Not enough data here, too much interpolations and contradictory accounts.

 

Yeshu Ben Pandira,

 

Totally irrelevant. The Jewish people did not know Jesus, and after Christianity developed and spread the idea of a historical Jesus, after several centuries the Jews found it necessary to give some explanation for him. They, like the Christians took his existence for granted, but had no records of him, so began to assume vague references to similar characters were really of him. They then proceeded to, in later compilations of the Talmud, construct "Gospels" of their own, that were radically different to the Christian versions, because they were a patchwork of disconnected references of old rabbis and sorcerers. Ben Pandira, as with other characters, bore 2 or 3 vague similarities, that grew as other rabbis were merged with him. There are also a variety of misunderstandings and mistranslations which alleged to a Jesus in 100 BCE. Critical and Jewish scholars have gone through the evidence, and sorted it all out. It is an understandable turnabout, when dealing with "false memories" but no rabbinical person similar to Jesus could be the founder of Christianity, given the later development of such a character in Christian mates, as it clear antecedents of Christ. (i.e. Logos based).

 

The problem is, the Jews played into the hands of the Christians, unwittingly they created "evidence" of Jesus, and because they condemned this character, in a fit of counter propaganda, they allowed to Christians the opportunity to point to this "evidence" and say "look they are unrepentant in the murder of their king". But all the evidence clearly shows that no Jew ever met someone called Jesus Christ.

 

The Essenes,

 

They may have provided some ceremonial and theological influences, but I favour a more Gentile origin.

 

Qumran,

 

Not really relevant. Although the findings showed some theological context, nothing of significance relating to Christianity was ever found. Although many Christians offer ludicrous arguments in connection with Qumran.

 

The Ebionites

 

Not enough data, if there was a Middle Eastern origin to Christianity, all trace of it is lost, as all the earliest material is of Gentile and mostly philosophical sources.

 

The Zealots –

 

Provided an interesting example of Doomsday hysteria, which leaked into Christianity, resulting in some of its most egregious habits. Their understanding of the Messiah was occasionally similar to Christianity’s in some respects. But not enough of a link to showed direct influence.

 

Paul's eary persecution of "the church"

 

This is in all probability total bunk. Persecution hysteria was rife at the time, and was used to guarantee followers obedience even in the face of hardship. The amount of real persecution was miniscule. There is no reason for Paul to have launched a personal vendetta against Christianity, no explanation is given, and it is taken for granted, which speaks of a later persecution mentality. And all the accounts of such chapters in Paul's life are from Acts, which is no more historically valid than the Gospels.

 

- perhaps all pieces of a puzzle - and not easily accounted for by the myth ideas

 

Far more easily accounted than the historical version. Not that there is enough solid data here to assist either side.

 

Mr. Grinch

 

Nice of you to use one of my Logos.

 

 

SkepticOfBible

 

 

Can anyone tell me when exactly were the Gospel written?and what dating methodolgies are used to determine these dates?

 

Tough one. The earliest complete Gospels date to around 300 CE. There are multiple fragments going back earlier, possibly late 1st century, though dating is extremely in-precise. Another problem is that these fragments do not fit together neatly into the Gospels we know today. There are multiple contradictions, which demonstrate a evolution overtime and a considerable amount of additions and "tinkering".

 

My personal position is that Mark was written around 135 - 140 based on a reference to the Bar Kochba rebellion, and signs that several generations have passed since the time described. (Transfiguration dodge, spin for empty tombe motif etc).

 

Matthew was probably written around 10 to 20 years later, and Luke around the same time. Matthew intended to add greater drama and scale to the proceedings, as Mark underplayed Jesus’ life, so as to "smuggle” him into history. He is also very keen on twisting old Testament passages to the story, and inventing new elements from them. Luke simply wanted to create the impression that this was history, and in doing so tipped his hand, leaving clear signs of his conscious fraud.

 

John is the big enigma, in some way is he looks older than the others, given that he shows clear signs of pre gospel Pauline or logos christology. But his work is better researched, and has elements which demonstrate various theological and narrative trends, when put last. He clearly did not care about contradicting the previous Synoptics, but must have been aware of them, as he corrects errors they make. Most likely his theological agenda overrode any desire for harmony, showing religion was his agenda not accurate historical reporting.

[Guest Enforcer]

I'm not certain of whether there is a god or not, although I lean towards the latter. I am certain that Jesus wasn't him!

[Mythra]

Hi, just dropping in for a second. I love this topic, nice to see it “resurrected”.

 

AUB was here! Damn AUB, I wish you'd stop in more often, before we all slip into the "Jesus was just a man" nonsense. I needed to get knocked in the head to get back on my solid mythicist footing. Thanks, man.