CX

This could be a fruitful thread, but let's keep out personal testimony about experiences in the workplace etc.

Thanks,

CX - BC&H Mod (and all around killjoy)

CX

To my knowledge I have read just about every purported extra biblical reference to Jesus and his ministry. I am not aware of anything that provides more than the barest details of Xian doctrine, if that. One of the striking things about the Jesus myth is the lack of external corroboration. This is perfectly understandable under a secular historical model of who Jesus was and whathe did, but nearly inconceivable if the events depicted in the NT actually occurred. Unfortunately unless your coworker provides further details your discussion is probably at a dead end.

NearNihil Experience

I was under the impression that Josephus was a Jew writing for Romans, in the house of a Roman, and as a slave to a Roman.

I do have that text, albeit, a very old copy and translation...but, he says more to the effect that Jesus is claimed to be the Christ. Josephus merely reports, never asserts Jesus's status.

Not to mention that he mentions around seven Jesuss in his work....about three or four fit the description and actions of the most famous of "Jesi". (like "cactus" and "cacti"...it supposed to be funny )

Cynthia of Syracuse

At earlychristianwritings.com (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html) there is a discussion of the Testimonium. The passage is translated as:
(bolding added)
The Greek is given:
One of our resident experts in Greek would have to determine if the English version is translated accurately, as I have "little Latin & less Greek."

Bede

Derailment alert:

Note that Cynthia here uses a literary device to tell us what her expertise in classical languages is. The phrase comes from a description of Shakespere IIRC. Now, does anyone want to say that Cynthia's use of the device means that we should assume she is not telling the truth? If not, why do you apply such standards to the NT and assume anything that has a literary pedigree isn't true?

Just wondering.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith an dreason

fr8trainman

Raydo97 wrote: "I tried to wade in and carefully point out that there are no extra-biblical historical documents that claim eye witness accounts of Jesus' miracles or crucifixion and the woman started to lose control of her emotions! She was visibly agitated and suddenly became very loud. She absolutely refused to let me finish my point, interrupting to explain that even though she couldn't identify any of these secular writers, she knows there's an abundance of them because her husband is a preacher and he said so! I could see that she was about to lose control in the workplace, so I simply reiterated my interest in seeing these corroborative historical documents and let it die."

ex-idaho wrote: "Once I was in a position where one employee of mine was openly criticizing another because she was Mormon. Calling her a devil worshipper and ridiculing her faith. I couldn't let him get away with it so I laid into him demanding he answer a few of the inconsistencies and contradictions from the Bible. Within 10 minutes I had him crying."


I can sympathize with you both. I've had "discussions" w/ co-workers degenerate into yelling faith-defenses (from them--my demeanor doesn't change). What does that say about people who believe this crazy stuff? Their beliefs are a replacement for reality. And when we threaten their their replacement of that reality, their true weaknesses show, their comfort zone is under attack, and sometimes they break down (yelling, crying--signs of having no real defense).

Believe me, I don't derive any pleasure from making people cry, but I am one atheist who will not back down (anymore) and is not afraid to calmly present the facts. If people want to tell me they believed something on faith, well, fine. You have a right. But please don't pee on head and tell me it's raining. If you claim facts support your position, and I can show you are wrong, I will show you wrong. I'm not letting any lies or propaganda go unchallenged just to bolster someone's weak faith. I'm not going to cower alone for fear of offending someone--and Cheers! to those of you who have taken the same approach

Man oh man, work is a bad place for this stuff (i think). But people who bring up religion in th workplace have opened a door I'm not afraid to pass through and make my own. Making a claim like "there's secular evidence for the crucifiction of Jesus of Nazareth" is a big door. Pooh on some weenie who brings it up and turns into a quaking quivering mass of jello when and honest man asks where that evidence is. Raydo97, your co-worker probably wanted moral support for her weak position--and you tossed in a grenade ~teehee! Sad, but the humor isn't lost on me.

Happiness to Y'all,

fr8trainman

Gregg

Or, he could have been an entirely divine figure, like other dying/rising savior gods of the era. Then someone wrote a story about him and placed it on Earth in a semi-historical setting. Not so strange when you think about it--the Greeks and Romans had lots of stories about their gods coming down to Earth and interacting with people.

Anyways, the "central figure" or "founder" of a new religion doesn't have to be the object of worship. Muhammad (supposedly) and Joseph Smith started new religions. Christianity could have been started by people like Paul who worshipped a new Greco-Jewish religious concept, a heavenly intermediary/redeeming savior god.

Vorkosigan

It's a good point, Bede, but it cuts both ways. The point is not so much that it is false, it is that, once we have fictional overwriting using the OT as a basis, we cannot know that any of it is history (since we have no outside vectors).

Additionally, Cynthia's comment did not occur in the midst of larger structural units that are also fictional in composition. For example, Mark's gospel has two clear groups of five miracles. It is the presence of fiction in a structure of fiction that signals a serious historical problem. Every layer is apparently fictional.

Hope that is clear. Thanks for the reference, though, I was scratching my head trying to remember where that was from! Who said it?

Vorkosigan

Occams_Razor

Purportedly the unpublished novel, Manuscript Found, by Solomon Spalding

MechAnimal

When four people write four different, long and detailed accounts of someone's life who lived in the same century that they did, and that person they're writing about affected a large group of people, the evidence of which can be seen in someone's letters (Paul's), and when other associates of his write some stuff about him (James, Jude), I'm not going to question his existence. And especially when Josephus and Tacitus mentioned him, too. Those two references come from people from another religion and they were professional historians. So when it gets to that point I think I'm justified in believing that that person existed.

Miracles, on the other hand, are another ball game. They require extradordinary evidence, and the only evidence is in the gospels, the authors of which are biased, because they're trying to prove a point. And that point is that Jesus was the Christ. And it's really easy to take the miracles out of the equation, and still have the events in the gospels, only with the lepers or lame or crippled people leaving Jesus and happy simply because their sins were forgiven, and that's it. It's easy to see, with that in mind, Jesus dying and then his followers having to make some godly stuff up about him to justify their actions in the past and have a reason (if make-believe) to continue believing in him. That, I can understand.

The closest thing that comes to an unbiased account of Jesus' miracles comes from some historian whose name starts with a "P", but I can't remember what it was. It wasn't Pliny the Younger. Origin and I think Jerome mentions him as a historian that mentions the earthquake and the eclipse, but I don't think there was anything else. Altogether, there's three references, I believe, made by the church fathers who quote him. But that's not even second hand. That's third hand, and who knows who the historian got this information from, or whether the quotes were out of context or not. So not even that accounts for much.

Evidence for Jesus' existence = good
Evidence for his miracles = nothing substantial