Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TimBowe · 09-27-2009, 10:03 AM

Doesn't academic support hold any meaning for you?

The majority of New Testament scholars are believers in the New Testament, that is, they're theologically committed to the text, but the majority of historians do not agree with the New Testament. They don't agree with the Resurrection or the virgin birth. Or any of the other mythical aspects of the New Testament. But they would stress that Jesus was a historical figure.

aa5874 · 09-27-2009, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

Doesn't academic support hold any meaning for you?

Doesn't evidence mean anything to you?

Why can't YOU name one single piece of evidence of antiquity external of the Church for the HJ?

Call you favorite academic if you don't know. Let the academic tell you.

I will be waiting FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

TimBowe · 09-27-2009, 10:14 AM

Quote:

http://www.i4m.com/think/bible/jesus_evidence.htm

Examining All the Evidence for a Historical Jesus

TimBowe · 09-27-2009, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Good historical information about Jesus can be acquired by establishing the overall context of his public ministry.
The only substantial sources for the life and message of Jesus are the Gospels of the New Testament, the earliest of which was Mark (written ad 60–80), followed by Matthew, Luke, and John (ad 75–90). Some additional evidence can be found in the letters of Paul, which were written beginning in ad 50 and are the earliest surviving Christian texts. There are, however, other sources that may have further information. Noncanonical sources, especially the apocryphal gospels, contain many sayings attributed to Jesus, as well as stories about him that are occasionally held to be “authentic.”

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...1/Jesus-Christ

TimBowe · 09-27-2009, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Apart from four short gospels, whose evidence is partly repetitive and partly contradictory, few facts are known about the life of Jesus. There is no historical document which mentions him, and there is no trace of him in Roman literacy sources. He did not even attract major notice from the Jewish writers of the period such as Josephus or Philo.

From Europe A History

storytime · 09-27-2009, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Jesus didn't resurrect_ because he never lived_
Nothing more than an imaginary character created by and written about by a demented and half-baked religious cult.

I'm wondering, maybe the Roman cruelty and torturous executions were so terrible that the passion story evolved from that circumstance.

Sheshbazzar · 09-27-2009, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

Doesn't academic support hold any meaning for you?

Not if it supports lies and outright bull-shit. Like a good many things down through history, it takes more than majority opinion of 'scholars' and 'experts' to make a thing be true.
I have absolutely no shadow of doubt that eventually mankind will recognise these past and present day 'authority figures' to be as full of it as those 'experts' who once held forth that the earth was flat, or was the center of the universe.
Their days of honor are numbered, and the garbage they presently present and defend will soon be consigned to the dust-heaps of the detritus of discredited human theories and false teaching.
One may hope that mankind can at last throw of the shackles of ignorance and the superstitions that the church and governments use to manipulate the unlearned.

TimBowe · 09-27-2009, 10:22 AM

Quote:

There are a few references to Jesus in 1st-century Roman and Jewish sources. Documents indicate that within a few years of Jesus’ death, Romans were aware that someone named Chrestus (a slight misspelling of Christus) had been responsible for disturbances in the Jewish community in Rome (Suetonius, The Life of the Deified Claudius 25.4). Twenty years later, according to Tacitus, Christians in Rome were prominent enough to be persecuted by Nero, and it was known that they were devoted to Christus, whom Pilate had executed (Annals 15.44). This knowledge of Jesus, however, was dependent on familiarity with early Christianity and does not provide independent evidence about Jesus. Josephus wrote a paragraph about Jesus (The Antiquities of the Jews 18.63ff.), as he did about Theudas, the Egyptian, and other charismatic leaders (History of the Jewish War 2.258–263; The Antiquities of the Jews 20.97–99, 167–172), but it has been heavily revised by Christian scribes, and Josephus’s original remarks cannot be discerned.

The letters of Paul contain reliable but meagre evidence. Their main theme, that Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead, is especially prominent in 1 Corinthians 15, where Paul evokes an early tradition about Jesus’ death and subsequent appearances to his followers. The Crucifixion and Resurrection were accepted by all first-generation Christians. Paul also quotes a few of Jesus’ sayings: the prohibition of divorce and remarriage (1 Corinthians 7:10–11), the words over the bread and cup at Jesus’ last supper (1 Corinthians 11:23–25), and a prediction of the imminent arrival of the Saviour from heaven (1 Thessalonians 4:15–17).

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...1/Jesus-Christ

Quote:

Since both the original context of Jesus’ sayings and deeds and those passages in the Gospels that go back to the historical Jesus are unknown, there are substantial difficulties in attempting to reconstruct the Jesus of history. Of these two difficulties, the lack of immediate context is the more serious. It must be admitted that, on many points, precision and nuance in describing the teaching and ministry of Jesus cannot be achieved.

There are, however, tests of authenticity that make it possible to acquire good general information about Jesus’ teachings. One of the most important of these is “multiple attestation”: a passage that appears in two or more independent sources is likely to be authentic. A prime example is the prohibition of divorce, which appears in the letters of Paul and in two different forms in the Synoptic Gospels. The short form, which is focused on remarriage after divorce, is found in Matthew 5:31–32 and Luke 16:18. The long form, which is more absolute in prohibiting divorce, appears in Matthew 19:1–12 and Mark 10:1–12. Paul’s version (1 Corinthians 7:10–11) agrees most closely with the short form. Because of this excellent attestation, it is almost indisputable that Jesus opposed divorce and especially remarriage after divorce, though study of the five passages does not reveal precisely what he said.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...1/Jesus-Christ

ChristMyth · 09-27-2009, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

But Sheshbazzar, you have to know that biblical historians and scholars are very dismissive of the Christ myth theory. I mean that may not mean anything to you, but regardless of weather the mythical aspects attributed to him are false, you still have to come to terms with the fact that a man named Jesus actually existed.

And, for the record, I would like to be kept out of this argument, thank you very much!

storytime · 09-27-2009, 10:29 AM

How easy would it be to create a story around David Koresh and his followers? The government was on his shoulder, he was innocent practicing his religion, people hated him and wanted him dead. Koresh could have been arrested prior to government interference.

Koresh walked among his townspeople and none sought to harm him. Koresh was interviewed months before he was accused of being anti-government.

Koresh was not his real given name ( I can't remember what it was at birth). But Koresh sought to re-invent himself and become a biblical prophet. Men will write about Koresh, just like they wrote about Jesus. Miracles will be imagined, and "truth" against the government.

Is there any outside evidence for a man called "David Koresh"? No, he was an invention.

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

09-27-2009, 10:03 AM	#21
TimBowe Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oak Lawn, IL Posts: 1,620	Doesn't academic support hold any meaning for you? The majority of New Testament scholars are believers in the New Testament, that is, they're theologically committed to the text, but the majority of historians do not agree with the New Testament. They don't agree with the Resurrection or the virgin birth. Or any of the other mythical aspects of the New Testament. But they would stress that Jesus was a historical figure.

09-27-2009, 10:29 AM	#30
storytime Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 2,608	How easy would it be to create a story around David Koresh and his followers? The government was on his shoulder, he was innocent practicing his religion, people hated him and wanted him dead. Koresh could have been arrested prior to government interference. Koresh walked among his townspeople and none sought to harm him. Koresh was interviewed months before he was accused of being anti-government. Koresh was not his real given name ( I can't remember what it was at birth). But Koresh sought to re-invent himself and become a biblical prophet. Men will write about Koresh, just like they wrote about Jesus. Miracles will be imagined, and "truth" against the government. Is there any outside evidence for a man called "David Koresh"? No, he was an invention.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.