Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Pendaric · 04-05-2005, 09:40 AM

I'm involved in a discussion on a different forum where this has come up. I don't pretend that this is any kind of area of expertise for me, so if any of you clever chaps could give me the framework of an answer I would be grateful. Thanks

Quote:

"Outside of the bible there is exactly zero independent evidence for the existence of Christ."

Well, consider these four points

1)
The Jewish historian Josephus, writing for the Roman government in the
records some incidental things regarding Christ and the church. He
confirms that John the Baptist died at the hand of Herod (this same
incident is recorded in the gospels) as well as the death of, "The
brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James. . . he
delivered them to be stoned" (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book
XVIII, ch. V, p. 20; Book XX, ch. IX, p. 140 ).
Again there is sources external to the Bible that demonstrate the historical reliability of
this text.
What this also tells you is that within a couple of decades of Christ's death, the knowledge of who he was, was widespread enough that Josephus could reference him and expect his readers to know exactly who he was talking about.

2) The Koran admits that Jesus was born.

3) The Talmud, which is a collection of Jewish commentaries, report that Jesus performed miracles (although they say His power came from Satan).

4) Letters from Roman officials say that Jesus was crucified, His body was missing, and that His followers believed He was raised from the grave and worshiped Him as God.

So, using these sources outside the Bible, sources that were either
hostile or at best indifferent to Christianity, it suggests that Jesus
Christ was a real person, He was reputed to be virgin born, He was said
to perform miracles, He was put to death on a cross, buried, His body is
missing and people thought He was God.

Julian · 04-05-2005, 09:49 AM

Easy enough.

1. The 'Testimonium Flavianum' in Josephus is a forgery. Learn more here:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

2. The Q'uran is way late. Many hundreds of years late.

3. The Talmud is also way late in its references to Jesus.

4. No such letters exist. Ask him what he is referring to. If he says Pliny the Younger then know that they are also way late and only refer to christians, not Jesus.

Julian

Pendaric · 04-05-2005, 10:04 AM

Um. The conclusion of the link you gave is that the Josephus writings on Christ are genuine, which isn't really advancing my argument any.

As for the rest fair enough. When was the Talmud written?

Julian · 04-05-2005, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baldbantam

Um. The conclusion of the link you gave is that the Josephus writings on Christ are genuine, which isn't really advancing my argument any.

As for the rest fair enough. When was the Talmud written?

The Talmud was written 200CE and onwards as far as I can tell, starting with the mishnah.

The Josephus link was provided to give you all the material regarding those entries. I do not agree with Peter's conclusions. If you read the arguments in favor of forgery you will clearly see their strength as opposed to the rather weaker authenticity claims. The link was for completeness and fairness only.

Julian

Toto · 04-05-2005, 10:40 AM

Peter Kirby is in the process of revising his work on the Testamonium (again) and may come to a different conclusion this time.

Most scholars think that many of the details in the Testamonium were forged, and it is hard to know what the original contained. It is impossible to claim that there is more information about Jesus other than that he existed, was some sort of movement leader, and was reputed to have been crucified. There is no indication of any early traditions of a virgin birth, and you have to trust an untrustworthy source to claim that there were early traditions of miracle working.

It is not quite true to claim that "Outside of the bible there is exactly zero independent evidence for the existence of Christ." It would be more accurate to state that there is no historically reliable evidence that does not show some signs of forgery.

Julian · 04-05-2005, 11:01 AM

It is also worth remembering that Josephus is from the 90s and therefore too late to be a witness. He was not always trustworthy as we have seen over in the Daniel thread regarding the fabrication about Alexander.

Julian

P.S. I am looking forward to reading Peter's new stuff re TF. I also supplied some new material to him. I can only hope he will come to a more satisfactory conclusion (for me, that is

).

John A. Broussard · 04-05-2005, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baldbantam

I'm involved in a discussion on a different forum where this has come up. I don't pretend that this is any kind of area of expertise for me, so if any of you clever chaps could give me the framework of an answer I would be grateful. Thanks

"4) Letters from Roman officials say that Jesus was crucified, His body was missing, and that His followers believed He was raised from the grave and worshiped Him as God."

The first three items, as others have pointed out, are either forgeries, later interpolations, useless, or simply irrelevant. #4 isn't that easy to dismiss, however.

So far as I know there isn't a single, authentic bit of writing--letters or otherwise--from Roman officials showing awareness that Romans crucified a purported King of the Jews, that the King was buried, that he arose from the dead, that he then paraded around the countryside for forty days and that he then arose to heaven.

Even a smidgeon of such writing would do far, far more than the gospels to authenticate the Christ myth.

So--if you can find these claimed sources, please publish them here.

Julian · 04-05-2005, 11:13 AM

There is a letter from Pilate to Emperor Claudius which has been shown to be a later forgery. That may be what is referred to here.

Julian

ETA: This is an excellent resource on many of these things: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

Pendaric · 04-05-2005, 11:35 AM

Thanks guys. If the debate continues I may well come back to you again for more help.

Peter Kirby · 04-05-2005, 03:14 PM

What does "ETA" stand for?

best,
Peter Kirby

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

04-05-2005, 09:49 AM	#2
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	Easy enough. 1. The 'Testimonium Flavianum' in Josephus is a forgery. Learn more here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html 2. The Q'uran is way late. Many hundreds of years late. 3. The Talmud is also way late in its references to Jesus. 4. No such letters exist. Ask him what he is referring to. If he says Pliny the Younger then know that they are also way late and only refer to christians, not Jesus. Julian

04-05-2005, 10:04 AM	#3
Pendaric Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle. Posts: 3,715	Um. The conclusion of the link you gave is that the Josephus writings on Christ are genuine, which isn't really advancing my argument any. As for the rest fair enough. When was the Talmud written?

04-05-2005, 10:40 AM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Peter Kirby is in the process of revising his work on the Testamonium (again) and may come to a different conclusion this time. Most scholars think that many of the details in the Testamonium were forged, and it is hard to know what the original contained. It is impossible to claim that there is more information about Jesus other than that he existed, was some sort of movement leader, and was reputed to have been crucified. There is no indication of any early traditions of a virgin birth, and you have to trust an untrustworthy source to claim that there were early traditions of miracle working. It is not quite true to claim that "Outside of the bible there is exactly zero independent evidence for the existence of Christ." It would be more accurate to state that there is no historically reliable evidence that does not show some signs of forgery.

04-05-2005, 11:01 AM	#6
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	It is also worth remembering that Josephus is from the 90s and therefore too late to be a witness. He was not always trustworthy as we have seen over in the Daniel thread regarding the fabrication about Alexander. Julian P.S. I am looking forward to reading Peter's new stuff re TF. I also supplied some new material to him. I can only hope he will come to a more satisfactory conclusion (for me, that is ).

04-05-2005, 11:13 AM	#8
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	There is a letter from Pilate to Emperor Claudius which has been shown to be a later forgery. That may be what is referred to here. Julian ETA: This is an excellent resource on many of these things: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

04-05-2005, 11:35 AM	#9
Pendaric Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle. Posts: 3,715	Thanks guys. If the debate continues I may well come back to you again for more help.

04-05-2005, 03:14 PM	#10
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	What does "ETA" stand for? best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.