Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 01-29-2006, 05:38 AM

Considering the fact that there was no one named "James", and that there is no one named "James" to be found within any actual ancient manuscript,....<edit>

Doug Shaver · 01-29-2006, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigers!

So if the evidence freely lead the atheist to believing in an historical Jesus would they do it? I not convinced that they would.

Most of the atheists I have known in my life have believed in a historical Jesus.

I became an atheist in my mid-20s (I'm 60 now). For about the next 30 years I harbored no doubt about Jesus' historicity. I sometimes read about people who questioned it, and I thought they were crackpots. I didn't change my mind until I read Earl Doherty's Web site.

jjramsey · 01-29-2006, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I became an atheist in my mid-20s (I'm 60 now). For about the next 30 years I harbored no doubt about Jesus' historicity. I sometimes read about people who questioned it, and I thought they were crackpots. I didn't change my mind until I read Earl Doherty's Web site.

What about Doherty did you find convincing?

Didymus · 01-29-2006, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Yes indeed there is. Many of the Christian foundational documents cannot be shown to be other than fiction or forgery.

Surprisingly, the Roman Catholic Church has been a vigorous debunker of "pseudegraphia" like Eusebius' story of Jesus correspondence with King Abgar of Edessa and Pilate's letter to Tiberius expressing regrets for the crucifixion. I assume that the church has done this in order to discourage heresy and to keep its stories straight. And to keep a high polish on its "there is no contradiction between Christianity and reason" badge.

Of course, spurious or not, the Canon is immune from such scrutiny.

I've seen many definitions of "pseudegraphia," but I think the church's covers those documents which were written under false pretenses or which contradict the gospel accounts in some way. Most of the apocryphal gospels fall into both categories. Heresy, it would seem, is a different matter: A heretical work can be authentic (The Gospel of Marcion) and a pseudegraphical work doesn't necessarily contradict church doctrine (the Pilate letter).

Anyone know of a reliable and thoroughly researched history of Christian fakes and forgeries?

Didymus

Didymus · 01-30-2006, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

What I do think is obvious is that layers of mythical elements have been accreted to the Historical Jesus by his followers and by those involved in the institutionalization of the church.

Depends on what's left after you purge all the mythical elements, doesn't it? If what remains is an unremarkable life, you've built a mythical Jesus.

Didymus

Sheshbazzar · 01-31-2006, 04:36 PM

Considering the fact that there was no one named "James", and that there is no one named "James" to be found within any actual ancient manuscript, What honest reasons exists to continue perverting the name that actually appears within the ancient Hebrew and Greek documents?

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

01-29-2006, 05:38 AM	#81
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Considering the fact that there was no one named "James", and that there is no one named "James" to be found within any actual ancient manuscript,....<edit>

01-31-2006, 04:36 PM	#86
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Considering the fact that there was no one named "James", and that there is no one named "James" to be found within any actual ancient manuscript, What honest reasons exists to continue perverting the name that actually appears within the ancient Hebrew and Greek documents?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.