Toto

Just look. They gave us George Bush, Ann Coulter, a poorly planned war, and economic collapse.

Not necessarily. Lots of liberals believe in a historical Jesus. I think that most self-identified Christians in the world are probably centrist or left of center, if not socialistic.

The modern conservative movement is a "big tent" alliance between Straussian conservatives who think that religion is a convenient way of getting suckers to vote for their policies, conservative Catholics who think that the quest for a historical Jesus is largely a Protestant heresy that denies the divinity of Jesus, and the Protestant religious right, which thinks that the entire Bible is a historical document, modern NT studies be damned. It took a lot of negotiating and compromising to bring these and a few other factions together, and looking too closely at the way that sausage was made might just ruin your appetite.

After all, if you proved the existence of a historical Jesus, you might have to decide what sort of a person he was, and at that point, the whole enterprise dissolves into ideological warfare. Was he merely human? God incarnate? Was he of the same substance of God, or just a similar substance? Was he a socialist, anti-materialist hippie? a deluded apocalyptic nutjob? A muscular revolutionary? A pacifist wimp? a misunderstood Torah-observant Jew? a Pharisee in disguise? a Hellenistic cynic sage?

And what if you start out to prove the existence of a historical Jesus and you fail? Or you find proof that there was no Jesus? That's the end of Christianity as we know it. Why risk it, when Christianity has done so well for so long without any proof of the historical Jesus? :Cheeky:

the_cave

But isn't it interesting that this precis does not mention teachings--it only describes Jesus as a healer. The "word which was published" here is the story of Jesus and his deeds--not the teachings of Jesus:

Does this suggest that the earliest gospel would have been a signs gospel?

the_cave

Indeed, I agree--then how can the OP use it as evidence that the earliest apostles did not mention the teachings of Jesus?

You seem to mistake me--I am not claiming that Acts is evidence of the life of Jesus. I am asking if it is evidence of the history of the early church, and if so, how we can distinguish accurate history from inaccurate history (as the OP seems to assume that there is accurate history in Acts).

mountainman

Dear Wordy,

This was the case until the nineteenth century, and then these "other documents" started turning up, which the heretics buried. These documents keep surfacing such as the DSS, the Nag Hamadi codices and the codex tchacos (containing gJudas and other tractates).

We need to look at these documents very carefully. Yes, as you say, "almost no text remains from the heretics but as comments in the surviving groups victorious history" --- this was the case until recently. It is no longer the case.

What is the difference between a Pythagorean gnostic and a Gnostic pythagorean? You'll notice that I did not mention either Plato or Jesus. Recently I saw a documentary called "The Yogis of Tibet" which had footage of the dwellings and the activities -- asceticism being paramount -- of these "Yogis" prior to the military invasion under the communistic Maoists.

I mention this because if you remove "christianity" from the equation of the jig-saw puzzle of the evidence, then the role of the eastern city of Alexandria in the Graeco-Roman empire can be seen as some sort of Lhasa - supporting an almost Buddhist-like, and almost Hindu-like tradition, closely aligned to ascetism. (Note: this is not examining the ruling Tibetans, but the custodial traditions of handing the temples and the [in this case Buddhist] knowledge over across successive generations.)

For example, have a look at "The Hymn of the Pearl". It seems to be saying that is no external christ, it is all up to one's own self - and that the inscription Know Thyself was all about the inner journey. Its about as gnostic as you'll find.

The legend of christ was met with a hersey about the flesh, and the trinity and about the words of Arius. At the time of Nicaea I think the eastern empire needs to be seen as possibly the peak of trading for the library of Alexandria for example. All went down under military control, and from that control the support to the christian party was delivered.

The ruling party wanted to form an external spiritual authority which was not "weak and greek collegiate" in nature. The monotheism had to be plain and simple, so as to attract the bulk of the population. And very external. Like Hollywood.


It was in one sense a temple-culture, maintained and expanded by donations from all sorts of people from private civilians to the Roman emperors. In another sense, the strict practices associated with any priesthoods were observed and there must have existed a collegiate assembly of all concerned with the administration of these temples (eg: Asclepius), and for the preservation of literature. They had power through their knowledge. They represented the high technology --- of writing, building, medicine, mathematics, astronomy and astrology, etc, etc, etc --- they were the gnostics. See I did not mention "christians".

I have not yet discovered the difference between a pythagorean gnostic and a gnostic pythagorean.

They had the Library of Alexandria.
Do I need to say anything more?

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear rlogan and wordy,

Those whom the other side euphemistically termed of the "Docetic belief" appear to have been convinced the flesh of jesus was a contraversial issue. I have often wondered why everyone immediately lines up into a well fashioned orthodox christian empire after Nicaea.

If their hypothesis were false, and we are dealing with a literary jesus, in the sense of Harry Potter or Superman, then we are looking for a really big political controversy which was buried by the victors, when the one true canon was separated from "Other Gospels and Acts".

Best wishes,


Pete

ercatli

G'day team. I'm back from holidays and the discussion has happily moved on. Just a few brief comments ...

The books I quoted were mostly dated in the 1990s, with some in the new millennium. Not sure you'll find many more "modern" than that. Yes the opinions extend a long way, but the consensus doesn't extend that far. Depends whether you want to read the christian apologists (early dates, reliable), the sceptical apologists (late dates, unreliable, all sorts of theories) or the mainstream (careful conclusions).

The archaeological evidence is for the historicity of the sources. What did you want, a gravestone? : )

That's exactly my point. See my comments to bacht above. You guys mostly want to quote the sceptical apologists, most christians want to quote the christian apologists. I'm trying to be fair-minded and unbiased by quoting those in the middle who use neutral historical analysis.

I don't think anyone thinks they were history in the modern sense - very few ancient documents (even "histories") are. Nevertheless, my quotes (and I have many more besides) show that the best scholars believe they contain sufficient history to draw conclusions. Should I trust you or them?

Half true, but the consensus is that there is quite enough there that is genuine to constitute a source.

"Probably"? In your view? Again, the consensus of historians is that it is a genuine and independent source. You want me to trust you over them?

I don't see anything substantial here to respond to. My sources are "old" (so last year!), so are yours, yours are respected, so are mine. I try to quote neutral historians and you call me an apologist. Not sure if you think I'm not addressing "real evidence" or if I'm annoying you, but it seems like it.

Paul Simon wrote "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." You think I'm doing that, I think you are. Let's call it a draw, shall we?

Best wishes

ercatli

That's not what I have read. For example:

"Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent." and "While very few scholars believe the whole testimonium is genuine,[49] most scholars have found at least some authentic words of Josephus in the passage." From NationMaster.

From SkepticWiki no less: "most scholars have concluded that the passage as a whole was not a Christian interpolation, but rather that Christians tampered with the passage" - the bits that they say are genuine include mention of Jesus. See also "a much shorter mention of Jesus in Josephus, Antiquities 20:200, is regarded as nigh certain."

Wikipedia suggests your theories on Eusebius are not generally accepted.

[PERMISSABLE SARCASM] No I don't read any other opinions. I don't read people's comments on atheist forums like this. I don't read any of the extensive Internet Infidels library, I've never read Earl Docherty or the Jesus Seminar or others sceptical authors in my local library.[/PERMISSABLE SARCASM]

And now, a short play in one act.

rlogan sits at his/her keyboard. Thinks "This ercatli dude is getting too uppity. What really rational atheistic argument can I present to completely demolish his delusional ideas." Thinks. And thinks.

Finally: "I know, I've got it!...."

: )

Jiri, this sounds like an impressively tough-minded statement, but it must be very onerous for you. How do you investigate the possible religious beliefs of every teacher? And sports coaches? Bus drivers too, you know, those sneaky dudes could all be christians if you don't investigate them thoroughly! And then there's police and librarians and the parents of kids who invite your kids out to birthday parties - they might all be covert christians too! You really can't be too careful can you? : )

Well, it's 5 minutes to midnight and January's about to end. I must finish before I turn into a pumpkin. So it's off to hibernation. Dunno when I'll see you again, but until then, best wishes to all of you and thank you for letting me converse with you for these few short days.

aa5874

So, tell us what Josephus wrote originally in Antiquities of the Jews in book 18.3.3. Tell us what was corrupted.

Did Josephus write that the rumors there was a man called Jesus living in Judea are patently false and a monstrous lie?

Please tell what was originally in the "TF"?

You know the "TF" was corrupted. You know that the "TF" contains fiction, right now.

mountainman

Dear ercatli,

Thanks for your response and for the references above. I am preparing a response to the above, but will post the response on a separate thread entitled WIKI's Josephus on Jesus "discussion" page in the next day or so.

Just checking that I was not dealing with some form of "fundamentalist". I hope you dont mind me asking this question so bluntly, but I find it saves a bit of time here and there.

Best wishes,


Pete