16-11-2003 18:25									#181
	Suffering from ads?

*journalism course starts to come in handy*

I've not been following this thread but reading the last few posts I'm wondering whether the historical evidence for Jesus's existence passes the standard criteria of source criticism.

Specifically: How long after his death were the sources written? Are they primary or secondary sources? Are there at least two independent sources that do not rely on each other at all that argue for his existence, and prefferably have opposing interests? Do the sources contain falsehoods on other issues? What is the purpose of the sources- are they really documents designed to tell historical truth or are they opinions, allegories, etc.? Do the sources have an inherent interest in presenting Jesus as having existed?

	16-11-2003 18:30									#182
	Support Apolyton

Well, Buck, I am no expert. I am sure Molly or UR will give you a good answer.

	16-11-2003 19:52									#183
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless Rather like Merlin (who WAS a historical figure).

Ooh! Ooh! Prove it! Prove it!

	16-11-2003 20:58									#184
	Got spare money?

Does Lincoln's book come in a braille version?

	16-11-2003 22:10									#185
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp That's nonsense. It's entirely on the basis of similar fragments from Gildas, Bede and the Anglo-saxon Chronicle that we draw practically our entire historical knowledge of all dark-ages British rulers.

But this is part of the point. The similarities between Arthurian legend and the real basis for Arthur are probably about the same as those between the legend of Jesus given in the gospels and the real person(s).

	17-11-2003 08:14									#186
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp That's nonsense. It's entirely on the basis of similar fragments from Gildas, Bede and the Anglo-saxon Chronicle that we draw practically our entire historical knowledge of all dark-ages British rulers.

I am not sure if that's tongue-in-cheek, Laz.

Even though there are more outside sources such as archeological digs to confirm or deny info contained within these works.

	17-11-2003 08:32									#187
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Buck Birdseed Specifically: How long after his death were the sources written? Are they primary or secondary sources? Are there at least two independent sources that do not rely on each other at all that argue for his existence, and prefferably have opposing interests? Do the sources contain falsehoods on other issues? What is the purpose of the sources- are they really documents designed to tell historical truth or are they opinions, allegories, etc.? Do the sources have an inherent interest in presenting Jesus as having existed?

AFAIK, the earliest of the three Synoptic Gospels, Mark, was written somewhere between 70CE and 90CE, and it is widely held to be based on a number of primary sources, now lost. These primary sources are variously named Q, L, M, etc.

There are several abnomalities that lead one to doubt the accuracy of the Synoptic Gospels and the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, the primary one being the behaviour of Paul the Apostle, who did exist. Paul never referred to any of the Synoptic Gospels in his writings, and has a rather radical different discription of Jesus (than that of the Synoptic Gospels).

Another big one is of course the contradictions among the Synoptic Gospels (like the two different genealogies given in Matthew and Luke), such contradictions are usually denied by Christians.

	17-11-2003 10:07									#188
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Alright, I'm back.

Starting with Boris:

quote: The fact that none of those historians mentions Jesus isn't evidence Jesus didn't exist in and of itself, but it corroborrates the notion, as there aren't any contemporary records that support his existence. Jesus's absense from them is conspicuous when taken alongside the lack of contemporary account, not in and of itself.

Josephus mentions the existence of Christ.

quote: Regardless, you'd think that if the events of the gospel were as important as the gospels maintain, these historians would be mentioning them.

Were they important to the people of the time, to the Roman Empire? No. It is only later, with Nero, that we see Nero blaming the Christians, that they start to make a big enough impact on the world around them. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

quote: The paltry reference in Tacitus to Christians (the details of which are refuted by Seutonius) and lack of other mentions make me think that the supposed storm over the supposed prophet Jesus is a good deal exaggerated, at the very least.

How exactly does Seutonius refute Tacitus? And how is the supposed storm exaggerated? Which accounts are making him to be more than he is?

The synoptic Gospels?

quote: I believe there is only once instance in John in which the author claims to be an eyewitness. I don't have the passage citation handy, but we've discussed this many times before. It was a passage you yourself brought up first.

Then you can do your own homework.

quote: I said we have no idea on what basis he made the ascriptions.

He made the ascriptions because he believed them to be true.

quote: Given that is was nearly a century after the supposed events, the nature of the difficulty of placing authorship in those days,

Not difficult, especially when you have the Early church available to verify and scrutinise everything that has to do with Christ. If Papias had it wrong, I'm sure they would have corrected his works, or we would have heard of contrasting interpretations or theories. The reality is that there is no controversy for the church as to the authorship of the Gospels.

quote: Standards of scholarship among the laypeople weren't exactly strident then, were they?

Why would a layperson be a member of the clergy? By definition, the clergy had to have some education in order to become part of the clergy and the clergy would be making these decisions.

	17-11-2003 10:18									#189
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Josephus mentions the existence of Christ.

You know when you try to portray something like this as a factualy blanket statement, you just anoy everyone else. There is are a couple of paragraphs attributed to him in some works, but considerable doubt has been laid upon the authenticity of these works, and the reasons why have already been posted and linked to in this thread.

For instance:

quote: This passage is called the Testimonium Flavianum, and is sometimes cited by propagandists as independent confirmation of Jesus' existence and resurrection. However, there is excellent reason to suppose that this passage was not written in its present form by Josephus, but was either inserted or amended by later Christians: The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah, in direct contradiction to the above passage, where Josephus says, "He was the Messiah." Thus, we may conclude that this particular phrase at least was a later insertion. (The version given above was, however, known to Jerome and in the time of Eusebius. Jerome's Latin version, however, renders "He was the Messiah" by "He was believed to be the Christ.") Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite this passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do so. There is thus firm evidence that this passage was tampered with at some point, even if parts of it do date back to Josephus. The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy. Indeed, the passage seems to make Josephus himself out to be a Christian, which was certainly not the case.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...ser/hojfaq.html

	17-11-2003 10:22									#190
	Remove this text

Che:

quote: The same is true for Christians. Christianity is defined by its history and by its adherents and by its victims. Your struggle, therefore, isn't with atheists and other "anti-Christians," but with the Christian religion itself. Until you can get Christians to break with their hateful ways towards other human beings, how can you expect the rest of us to trust you?

Che:

Our struggle is with the world, in that the world does not love Christians for what they believe and what they teach. This is why Jesus says that he comes not to bring peace, but a sword. Anyone who follows his teachings will become a fool in the eyes of the world, making the question for each individual Christian whether they want the world more than Christ.

You are right to gage Christians by what you see as right conduct, but one thing you must understand is that if you take the same eye to yourself, is your conduct any better? Is the problem with the Christians, or with the perception of one not a Christian? I've been blessed with knowing a great deal of intellegent and exemplary Christians, whom I struggle to come even close to what they find easy and simple.

No Christian places his faith on sand, on the actions of others, but on Christ himself. If my best friend were to fall away, I would consider that his failing and not Christ's.

Don't trust me, don't trust Lincoln, but read the Gospels, and see for yourself.

	17-11-2003 10:31									#191
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: The Orthodox position was that Christ died bodily and was resurrected bodily.

Okay Che, I'm going to stop you here. Why was this the orthodox position? Politics? Hardly. It would make more sense to be like the Gnostics because the Gnostics taught like the Pharisees, and the Greeks, in believing in a spiritual, though not physical resurrection.

quote: There was no martyrdom to emulate,

So the Gnostics assert Christ never died on the cross? There is absolutely no room for accomodation if this is the case.

As for the NT apocrypha books, this raises an interesting question of inspired and not inspired books. However, this is more of an in-house debate. What's the use of arguing over which books ought to be in the canon, when you don't even believe in any of the books?

	17-11-2003 10:38									#192
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: and I note that none of your other historical references record that Jesus existed:

Jack:

Setting aside your other points since Josephus was 'addressed' by waving your hand and plugging your ears.

"Chrestus! = Christ " is enough proof for you?

I wish I had your faith in UR.

You have failed to deal with the synoptic Gospels which I have submitted as historical evidence of Christ in this thread. Care to deal with my argument?

	17-11-2003 10:49									#193
	Got spare money?

quote: Specifically: How long after his death were the sources written? Are they primary or secondary sources? Are there at least two independent sources that do not rely on each other at all that argue for his existence, and prefferably have opposing interests? Do the sources contain falsehoods on other issues? What is the purpose of the sources- are they really documents designed to tell historical truth or are they opinions, allegories, etc.? Do the sources have an inherent interest in presenting Jesus as having existed?

Buck, these are excellent questions.

OF the books besides the NT surviving from the 1st Century:

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html

"A final consideration is that we have very little information from first-century sources to begin with. Not much has survived the test of time from A.D. 1 to today. Blaiklock has cataloged the non-Christian writings of the Roman Empire (other than those of Philo) which have survived from the first century and do not mention Jesus. These items are:

An amateurish history of Rome by Vellius Paterculus, a retired army officer of Tiberius. It was published in 30 A.D., just when Jesus was getting started in His ministry.

An inscription that mentions Pilate.
Fables written by Phaedrus, a Macedonian freedman, in the 40s A.D.
From the 50s and 60s A.D., Blaiklock tells us: "Bookends set a foot apart on this desk where I write would enclose the works from these significant years." Included are philosophical works and letters by Seneca; a poem by his nephew Lucan; a book on agriculture by Columella, a retired soldier; fragments of the novel Satyricon by Gaius Petronius; a few lines from a Roman satirist, Persius; Pliny the Elder's Historia Naturalis; fragments of a commentary on Cicero by Asconius Pedianus, and finally, a history of Alexander the Great by Quinus Curtius.
Of all these writers, only Seneca may have conceivably had reason to refer to Jesus. But considering his personal troubles with Nero, it is doubtful that he would have had the interest or the time to do any work on the subject.

From the 70s and 80s A.D., we have some poems and epigrams by Martial, and works by Tacitus (a minor work on oratory) and Josephus (Against Apion, Wars of the Jews). None of these would have offered occasion to mention Jesus.
From the 90s, we have a poetic work by Statius; twelve books by Quintillian on oratory; Tacitus' biography of his father-in-law Agricola, and his work on Germany. [Blaik.MM, 13-16] "

	17-11-2003 10:59									#194
	Put an end to popups!

Compare these total works, we still have the synoptic Gospels.

All of the other historical evidence, Josephus, etc. count as secondary sources, while the synoptic gospels are primary. The synoptic Gospels were written between 50-60 AD, only 20-30 years after the death of Christ. Almost all of the eyewitnesses would still have been alive to verify the Gospels.

quote: Are there at least two independent sources that do not rely on each other at all that argue for his existence, and prefferably have opposing interests?

Different Gospel writers use different eyewitnesses. As for opposing interests, that's why the Josephus quote comes up so much because he would not be considered an ally of the Christians.

This lack of sources from opposing interests needs to be balanced with the number of historical records we have from this time peroid, which are scant.

quote: are they really documents designed to tell historical truth or are they opinions, allegories,

The synoptics are written accounts that are very restrained, that expose the disciples as less than stellar people.

	17-11-2003 11:07									#195
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Ben -

quote: Our struggle is with the world, in that the world does not love Christians for what they believe and what they teach.

No Ben, it's because most Christians feel compelled to "save" the rest of us by force, be it inquisitions or laws. If Christians minded their own business they wouldn't engender disgust from people who believe in "live and let live". The failure of so many Christians to understand that many people don't like having Christians run their lives reveals a willful ignorance and arrogance. Many Christians don't settle for telling us they know the proper path, they threaten people with violence to compel everyone else to follow that path.

So what is the difference between Islamists who punish people for not accepting the Islamist way of life and these Christians? Today's Christians are not as brutal? That's about it... Osama would kill me for being a "sinner", Jerry Falwell wants me put in a cage until I accept his "salvation"... And if I refuse, back in the cage I go... So much for the Golden Rule...

	17-11-2003 11:08									#196
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

UR:

quote: AFAIK, the earliest of the three Synoptic Gospels, Mark, was written somewhere between 70CE and 90CE, and it is widely held to be based on a number of primary sources, now lost. These primary sources are variously named Q, L, M, etc.

No. This 'Late date' assumes that when Jesus foretold the destruction of the Temple had to happen after 70AD because we know Jesus could not prophesy.

quote: There are several abnomalities that lead one to doubt the accuracy of the Synoptic Gospels and the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, the primary one being the behaviour of Paul the Apostle, who did exist. Paul never referred to any of the Synoptic Gospels in his writings, and has a rather radical different discription of Jesus (than that of the Synoptic Gospels).

Umm, so Paul then must be the ultimate authority?

Secondly you are very far out in left field. Paul wrote his letters before the Synoptics were written.

Third, can you please cite what makes Paul's discription of Christ, radical?

quote: Another big one is of course the contradictions among the Synoptic Gospels (like the two different genealogies given in Matthew and Luke), such contradictions are usually denied by Christians.

That would work however, one geneology goes through Mary and the other through Joseph.

	17-11-2003 11:13									#197
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy.

Actually, that passage strikes me as very sarcastic, exactly how a Jew would want to portray Christ. Why would a Christian say, "If indeed he were a man?" A Christian would be much less restrained.

	17-11-2003 11:23									#198
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Why would a Christian say, "If indeed he were a man?" A Christian would be much less restrained.

A Christian forger wouldn't want to appear much less restrained when masquerading as a non-Christian Jew.

	17-11-2003 12:16									#199
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi No. This 'Late date' assumes that when Jesus foretold the destruction of the Temple had to happen after 70AD because we know Jesus could not prophesy.

Assuming he can is begging the question, i.e., already assuming that Jesus was divine. I suppose one can always introduce the notion that Jesus was one of the prophets, but Christians deny this also.

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Umm, so Paul then must be the ultimate authority?

As far as we can factually find out, Apostle Paul was the person who popularised Christianity during the early days. The question becomes that, if Jesus did indeed exist and was indeed a martyr, why did he not use this to all its effect?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Secondly you are very far out in left field. Paul wrote his letters before the Synoptics were written.

Even if I concede this point, that Paul did not refer to any of the so called "eyewitness accounts" which supposedly formed the basis of the Synoptic Gospels put a big hole in that assertion.

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Third, can you please cite what makes Paul's discription of Christ, radical?

I will dig it out later.

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi That would work however, one geneology goes through Mary and the other through Joseph.

That's the standard, uh, explanation. However, there is no good reason for that to be the case and certainly there is no internal evidence for that to be the case.

	17-11-2003 12:22									#200
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi "Chrestus! = Christ " is enough proof for you?

Why would any non-Christian refer to Jesus of Nazareth as Christ?

	17-11-2003 13:22									#201
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Even if I concede this point, that Paul did not refer to any of the so called "eyewitness accounts" which supposedly formed the basis of the Synoptic Gospels put a big hole in that assertion.

1 Cor 15:3-8

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.


He's basing his testimony on eyewitnesses here.

quote: Why would any non-Christian refer to Jesus of Nazareth as Christ?

For the same reason people call him Christ here if they are not believers. So you know who he's talking about.

quote: The question becomes that, if Jesus did indeed exist and was indeed a martyr, why did he not use this to all its effect?

Read the letters. It should be painfully clear what he preaches.

quote: However, there is no good reason for that to be the case and certainly there is no internal evidence for that to be the case

No internal evidence? Luke uses different sources from Matthew. This difference would reflect his emphasis on women, while also reflecting Matthews concern for the Jews. The explanation is 'standard' because this is a very old issue.

	17-11-2003 18:45									#202
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Ben - No Ben, it's because most Christians feel compelled to "save" the rest of us by force, be it inquisitions or laws. If Christians minded their own business they wouldn't engender disgust from people who believe in "live and let live". The failure of so many Christians to understand that many people don't like having Christians run their lives reveals a willful ignorance and arrogance. Many Christians don't settle for telling us they know the proper path, they threaten people with violence to compel everyone else to follow that path. So what is the difference between Islamists who punish people for not accepting the Islamist way of life and these Christians? Today's Christians are not as brutal? That's about it... Osama would kill me for being a "sinner", Jerry Falwell wants me put in a cage until I accept his "salvation"... And if I refuse, back in the cage I go... So much for the Golden Rule...

Berserker, this is just a bit harsh, is it not? With the separation of Church and State in most of the Christian world, this is no longer possible. It is ancient history.

I can hardly imagine today's Christian churches trying to forcibly convert a non believer. I have never heard of such a thing being done or even proposed by the Catholic Church in my entire life.

	17-11-2003 23:55									#203
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Ooh! Ooh! Prove it! Prove it!

...Um. Well, I'd have to do some digging for the primary sources, but this is a summary of what Merlin has that Jesus does not:

1. Actual writings from the man himself. We have works from Myrddin the Bard. There is no "Book of Jesus".

2. Actual contemporary accounts. Not written decades later by "acolytes of Merlin" (Merlinians?). And not merely historical accounts of the existence of a group of people who "believed" that he existed.

Ben:

quote: The synoptic Gospels were written between 50-60 AD, only 20-30 years after the death of Christ.

There does not appear to be any actual evidence for that assertion.

I suspect that it comes from a desire to believe that Jesus DID prophesy the destruction of the temple, therefore "of course" they were written earlier.

quote: The reality is that there is no controversy for the church as to the authorship of the Gospels.

I think "well, duh..." is an appropriate response to that!

There is plenty of controversy for historians, however!

	18-11-2003 00:54									#204
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov But this is part of the point. The similarities between Arthurian legend and the real basis for Arthur are probably about the same as those between the legend of Jesus given in the gospels and the real person(s).

The biggest case against the existance of Arthur as a person is the fact that Gildas doesn't mention him. Sorry, but you're falling flat there. No serious Dark Ages historian takes Arthur seriously, even as a "real man, not a legend".

The case for the factual life of Jesus is every bit as strong as (for example) Ceawlin or Maelgwyn. Whether you accept his divinity or not, there's a strong case for accepting his existance.

	18-11-2003 00:55									#205
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger I am not sure if that's tongue-in-cheek, Laz.

Not in the slightest.

	18-11-2003 11:07									#206
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi He's basing his testimony on eyewitnesses here.

Ah, so, why are the different accounts of the Resurrection so different?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi For the same reason people call him Christ here if they are not believers. So you know who he's talking about.

You have completely ignored that fact that Western culture has been under Christianity influence for 2000 years or so. Not something the Romans and Jews were under.

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Read the letters. It should be painfully clear what he preaches.

Of course it is clear. It is religious propaganda, afterall.

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi No internal evidence? Luke uses different sources from Matthew. This difference would reflect his emphasis on women, while also reflecting Matthews concern for the Jews. The explanation is 'standard' because this is a very old issue.

Where is the evidence of the author of Luke emphasised on women? Furthermore, at least half of those names in Luke are not women names, so what gives? Lastly, why are there overlaps between the two lines?

This explanation simply does not hold water for any nonbelievers.

	18-11-2003 11:16									#207
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp The case for the factual life of Jesus is every bit as strong as (for example) Ceawlin or Maelgwyn. Whether you accept his divinity or not, there's a strong case for accepting his existance.

Even with no historical record of such a supposedly important person?

	18-11-2003 11:25									#208
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Ned -

quote: Berserker, this is just a bit harsh, is it not? With the separation of Church and State in most of the Christian world, this is no longer possible. It is ancient history.

Separation of Church and State has not prevented Christians from legislating their religion on a whole range of issues, but yes, the ancient history was even more brutal. Christians no longer burn people at the stake or stretch them on racks, etc... Their victims are put in cages now...

quote: I can hardly imagine today's Christian churches trying to forcibly convert a non believer. I have never heard of such a thing being done or even proposed by the Catholic Church in my entire life.

Do you know the origin of penitentiaries? A place to "repent".

	18-11-2003 11:38									#209
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

you know that repent has nonreligious connotations

JonMiller

	18-11-2003 11:47									#210
	Inflate your Upload Space

Not when Christians create penitentiaries for people to repent. That is the origin of penitentiaries so it would be illogical to say there were no religious connotations involved...especially when your stay in a penitentiary is a result of "sinning"...