J-D

My problem is that I have not yet seen the account which you suppose to be the most parsimonious one presented in sufficient detail for evaluation.

aa5874

.......found....to be fiction....

The historicity of Jesus the Christ can only be resolved positively if there is corroboration of the NT's stories about Jesus the Christ, and in addition, the stories themselves must have some credibilty or truth to them.

The character 'Jesus the Christ' in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John or Pauline Epistles has not ever been proven to be the same character, this character has only been assumed to be so.

If I wrote a book, claiming extensively, that George Bush, an African-American, was President of USA before WW II, would that claim be embillishments or just plain fiction? To some that may be an open question, however I would regard it as fiction, void of credibilty.

If we look at the story of Jesus the Christ, the claims about him parallels my fictition of George Bush.

Jesus the Christ was prophesied, yet there are no prophecies about him in the OT.
Jesus the Christ was a Jew, but his father is the Holy Ghost.
The earthly father of Jesus the Christ is called Joseph, however the Joseph in Matthew is different to the Joseph in Luke.
Jesus the Christ removed devils to heal the sick, today we know that sickness is unrelated to devils.
Jesus the Christ was buried, his body was never seen by his followers.
Jesus the Christ ascended into heaven, Superman can do that!

I think fiction resolves everything.

Larsguy47

Sorry, J-D, but applying your favorite misinterpolation of what the gospels say doesn't count here as a dismissal proof. Here's your corrections to the above, which you then may rechallenge:


>Yes I know he didn't see all the kingdom of the world at once from the top of a high mountain.

Satan showed him a "vision" of these kingdoms. Not the actual kingdoms.

>I know he didn't turn water into wine.

No you don't. Remember, "miracles" by their nature are exception to natural law. As long as Jesus claimed this was a "miracle" if off the the table for being challenged.

>I know he didn't simultaneously ride on two different animals.

Again, you misread. The reference to his sitting on "them" is a reference to the garments placed on the colt, not to both the animals:

Matt 21:7 "6 So the disciples got on their way and did just as Jesus ordered them. 7 And they brought the ass and its colt, and they put upon these their outer garments, and he seated himself upon them [the garments]." Misreading a text doesn't count as a contradiction, sorry.

>I know he wasn't born at two different times (once when Herod was king and once when Quirinius was govenor).

First of all, the question of when Herod's rule actually was is a matter of ongoing debate for some. The gospels date Herod's rule at a different time than the Josephus does, who apparently revised the chronology of Herod to steal some years from his reign to add to the reign of Flavius as far as we can surmise. At any rate, the adjusted "eclipse" dating for his reign dates his death on Shebat 2, 1 AD. The context of that year allows for a gap in the "governorships" during which time Quirinis is suspected of being a acting governor for the summer at the time when a census was done, not a taxation, but simply a registration in response to the jubilee year of caesar. So those issues are potentially resolved. The eclipse of 4 BCE currently dating Herod's rule is not applicable for Josephus' reference whatsoever. Josephus though gives a double-rulership for Herod, one of 34 years from year 37 BCE and one of 37 years from year 40 BCE, which by experience with Josephus is a giveaway that Herod's 37-year rule originally began in 37CE. Based upon that reference alone his death would occur on Shebat 2, 1 AD. When we check that against an eclipse occurring the month before, it checks out, so, Shebat 2, 1 AD at this point is the best reference in the context of apparent revisionism/shortening of the rule of Herod.

And that's it. You have to come up with something else as your basis for dismissing the reliability of the gospel account. Your current challenges would be considered "inconclusive" or "inappropriate" for a historical challenge.

Larsguy47

Steven Avery

This is much easier to grasp when you use the true historic Received Text and the pure King James Bible translation -

Matthew 21:7
And brought the ass, and the colt,
and put on them their clothes,
and they set him thereon.

The interesting thing here is that Zechariah alludes to both the mom and the colt, as does Matthew. Then there is a textual variant in the modern versions that leads to the mistranslations that imply Jesus riding both animals.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messia.../message/11730
Matthew 21:4 - and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messia.../message/11731
Zechariah 9:9 - a colt, and his mom

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

gnosis92

The problem I have is you can make the same claim for any figure of antiquity that is singly attested.

lpetrich

I think that the poor attestation is only part of the problem. A more serious one is comparison with various literary genres; that's what I've tried to do with my Lord Raglan mythic-hero comparisons.

That is not an airtight proof, however; it is possible that real history survives alongside the literary inventions. But might there be cases where one can track the growth of myth and legend and literary invention over time? I've seen Sabbatai Zevi (1626-1676), the self-styled Jewish messiah and the miracles that he had performed, mentioned in this context. St. Francis Xavier is also worth a mention; Bertrand Russell mentioned him in his Religion and Science as an example of the growth of miracle stories. For instance, he write that the Japanese language was very difficult for him, but later accounts describe him as miraculously being able to speak in different languages.

And Lord Raglan's mythic-hero profile turns out to be a remarkably good test. Working out Lord Raglan scores for several notable people reveals that Augustus Caesar and Alexander the Great score unusually high -- about 10 out of 22 -- for well-documented people. Such people usually score 5 or 6 at the most.

However, Jesus Christ scores something like 18 or 19, which places him among the likes of Oedipus and Moses and Romulus and Hercules and Krishna.

Yet another illustration of the problem can be found in comparing epics like the Iliad and the Odyssey to the archeological record. The Iliad describes bronze armor and boar's tusk helmets, which were common in Mycenaean Greece, but which went out of style in the Greek Dark Age, and were replaced with iron armor. The Iliad also describes using chariots in battle -- only for getting to the front. Its authors were unfamiliar with chariot warfare. Likewise, its authors were unfamiliar with writing; the only reference to writing in the Iliad is where Bellerophon is given a tablet with "magic signs" on it.

spin

Where did you get that idea from? You are obviously wrong here, otherwise, why did the devil take Jesus to the top of an exceedingly high mountain?? The Greek which follows says that he showed him all the kingdoms of the world.

deiknusin autw pasas tas basileias tou kosmou

What you are doing is saying that the writer didn't mean what he said, but what you think. I'll go for the writer every time.

You seem to forget v.5 which clearly gives from the prophecy the king's sitting on both animals.

Not in the field of history.

Sheer inventiveness. Quirinius, having reached consular rank took appointments at that level, legatus propraetor at a minimum, proconsul. He would not have done "acting" anythings.

Both Josephus and Luke allude to the same event, ie the property assessment of 6CE, the "census" when Quirinius governed Syria -- not acted as governor.

The eclipse is a smokescreen. It relates to the execution of a Matthias and has nothing to do with when the high priest Matthias had his wet dream.

These attempts at attrition hide from the Quirinius census like the vampire from sunlight.

Either you deal with reality or you stop wasting our time. The Romans gave him the nod in 40BCE. Josephus is explicit. The problem is that the Parthians interceded for Antigonus and Herod had to fight for his kingdom, which he won back (the only non-Roman I know of to have led Roman legions in doing so) three years later when he was able to take possession of his kingdom, so of course it would not seem strange to you that Herod commemorated the winning of his kingdom with every coin he minted, all carrying the date, "the third year".

You are back to the eclipse, but you haven't shown its relevance as no-one else has.

A great big nothing.

First you have to get a bit more serious with your analyses and not overlook most of the data. Once you've done that you can try some other juicy tidbits.


spin

aa5874

Can you tell me of a figure of antiquity who died and was buried in a sealed tomb under guard and his body was never found 2 days afterwards when visited by his followers?

aa5874

Miracles are a fundamental core of the Jesus stories. These so-called miracles are reported in the bible as real events, i.e. real people who were blind, deaf, dumb and dead were healed, resurrected and witnessed by real people.

Now, it was the inclusion of miracles in the Jesus stories that have destroyed the credibilty of the NT. It appears that 2000 years ago, even up to now, many people believe that miraculous events really occured, and inadvertently, the authors of the NT made fatal errors.

So today we know, the prophecies about Jesus are fiction, the Angel Gabriel story is fiction and the virgin birth is fiction. These were declared to be true repeatedly in the NT , but are obviously false, and one ponders about what else is false.

Now, if Jesus was a real person, then some real person had sexual contact with the supposed Mary, therefore Joseph's angelic visit is fiction, Mary's story about impregnation by the Holy Ghost is also fiction.

As you read the NT, the pattern becomes obvious, if Jesus was a real person, then all miraculous events with respect to him are fiction and statements made by others and related events also become fiction as it relates to the miracle.

If all the characters in the NT make fictitious statements and are placed at fictitious events to make Jesus real, then I conclude that the the historicity of Jesus the Christ is fiction.

If someone were to tell you today, that after being dead for 4 days, that they were resurrected, wouldn't you challenge that claim? And what would you do if that same person told you that thousands witnessed his resurrection, including his family?

The life of Jesus the Christ, from birth to death, is an exception to natural law and what is even more disturbing is that the authors of the NT claimed that real persons witnessed this exception.

spamandham

I haven't seen a detailed account either, but I see enough holes in the traditional account to determine that as far as I'm concerned, it is unsupported by anything of substance and fails to account for all the facts without resorting to implausible speculation.

As for the Mark-as-fiction approach, there's nothing published in peer reviewed journals as far as I know. The mainstream still considers this quackery, and it may well be. Perhaps I'm just foolish to think I can take the summarized results of the extensive effort the historians and archaeologists have produced, and draw my own conclusions from it. :huh: