Freethought & Rationalism Archive

achristianbeliever · 05-31-2007, 07:45 AM

I'd say the Bible provides prima facie evidence of the existence of a historical Jesus. First off Jesus being based on a real person is not an extraordinary event. Probably the biggest piece of evidence is in Paul's writings on such things as James brother of the Lord. I think the idea that brother of the Lord is some sort of title is seriously lacking in credibility. Besides the fact that we don't have any real evidence that such a title was given to an individual much less that somebody named James was given it we also have corroborating evidence that James really was the brother (no matter how far later it was written) due to Church father writings and that the gospels indicate that Jesus had a brother. Not to mention Josephus writings even though most likely the Jesus mythers believe that is a forgery. But it doesn't make much sense to me later writiers would make up James being a brother rather than say it was a title. Most likely they wrote it because it was the truth. Without any corroborating evidence James the brother of the Lord was speaking as a title and the only evidence points to being a real brother we should assume the Church fathers are correct in this instance.

lee_merrill · 05-31-2007, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

In another thread I asked the following question:

What is the best piece of evidence we have for a historical Jesus?

There has been much discussion, on this board, regarding a Historical Jesus.
I'd appreciate the chance to evaluate the best piece of evidence we have from the proponents of the HJ position.

Well, the cards have been put on the table again and again, do we need yet another thread to discuss this yet another time? This thread title makes it sound like Roger has not posted this, nor Chris this, nor this...

The cards are on the table, so the best piece of evidence, well, that would seem to be up to you to evaluate!

But I would recommend to you the prayers of Paul, "Who are you, Lord?" and "Lord, what do you want me to do?" If you find answers to these, if there is a real response, that would be convincing, I have (I must say) found it so.

dog-on · 05-31-2007, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gooch's dad

I think all of the evidence together is what makes a strong case, but I'll take a shot at answering anyway. I think the best "piece of evidence" is the corroboration between a Christian source and a secular source about James. That is, Paul's reference to James as "the brother of the Lord" (a term he doesn't use with anyone else) and Josephus' reference to James as Jesus' brother are independent sources for the same historical fact.

Josephus was in Jerusalem during the Jewish wars, and it would be very odd if he didn't know at least some of the early Christians, James included.

Thanks for your response.

Personally, I think the Pauline reference may be an interpolation to tie Paul to the "catholic" church, as can be said of Acts.

I have heard various arguments regarding this particular reference in Josephus, the most likely, in my own view, is that the Jesus referred to is actually the High Priest Jesus mentioned at the end of that particular section.

dog-on · 05-31-2007, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

But I would recommend to you the prayers of Paul, "Who are you, Lord?" and "Lord, what do you want me to do?" If you find answers to these, if there is a real response, that would be convincing, I have (I must say) found it so.

This, I take it, is your best piece of evidence?

achristianbeliever · 05-31-2007, 09:00 AM

Quote:

I have heard various arguments regarding this particular reference in Josephus, the most likely, in my own view, is that the Jesus referred to is actually the High Priest Jesus mentioned at the end of that particular section.

So where Josephus says, "So-called Christ" was at an interpolation for something?

dog-on · 05-31-2007, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by achristianbeliever

So where Josephus says, "So-called Christ" was at an interpolation for something?

If I wanted to counterfeit a $100 bill. Should I really put the word "Counterfeit" in place of the words "In God We Trust"?

achristianbeliever · 05-31-2007, 09:32 AM

Quote:

If I wanted to counterfeit a $100 bill. Should I really put the word "Counterfeit" in place of the words "In God We Trust"?

okkkkk? Not really an answer to my question. yes or no was the part where it says, "so-called christ" an interpolation?

And my apologies when I wrote "for something" I meant to say "or something"

Minimalist · 05-31-2007, 09:43 AM

I'll vote for interpolation.

Huon · 05-31-2007, 09:48 AM

I found the reference to Tacitus (c. 112 CE) here :

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...ac.+Ann.+15.44
Annals, 15,44
....

Quote:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. ....

lee_merrill · 05-31-2007, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

This, I take it, is your best piece of evidence?

It's certainly the best evidence, if Christ is real, and you can speak to him, and have then, answered prayers! That would be a real person, and if the same as lived in Galilee, also historical.

But for the references mentioned, the case has been presented, I believe, so then select among them as to which you then think best. There is no need that I can see to reiterate the points made yet again, for some specific historical reference, given the many such threads here recently and the extended discussion that has taken place already...

Best wishes,
Lee

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-31-2007, 07:45 AM	#11
achristianbeliever Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Saskatchewan Canada Posts: 582	I'd say the Bible provides prima facie evidence of the existence of a historical Jesus. First off Jesus being based on a real person is not an extraordinary event. Probably the biggest piece of evidence is in Paul's writings on such things as James brother of the Lord. I think the idea that brother of the Lord is some sort of title is seriously lacking in credibility. Besides the fact that we don't have any real evidence that such a title was given to an individual much less that somebody named James was given it we also have corroborating evidence that James really was the brother (no matter how far later it was written) due to Church father writings and that the gospels indicate that Jesus had a brother. Not to mention Josephus writings even though most likely the Jesus mythers believe that is a forgery. But it doesn't make much sense to me later writiers would make up James being a brother rather than say it was a title. Most likely they wrote it because it was the truth. Without any corroborating evidence James the brother of the Lord was speaking as a title and the only evidence points to being a real brother we should assume the Church fathers are correct in this instance.

05-31-2007, 09:43 AM	#18
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	I'll vote for interpolation.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.