FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-02-2009, 08:40 PM   #41
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southwest USA
Posts: 4,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Scott View Post
Perhaps not, but I don't think you can make that conclusion simply based on the fact that this person is not mentioned by Roman writers in the early 2nd century.
Once there is no evidence of Jesus in the 1st century, it is reasonable to conclude that there was no Jesus in the 1st century especially when well-known authors make mention of christians and the origin of the christian superstition without making a single reference to Jesus.
I disagree. It appears that you are not aware of the reality of communications in the first century, and besides you are saying there is no evidence of the existence of Jesus in the 1st century when there actually is evidence, just not evidence that you are chosing to accept. In reality there is plenty of contemporaries of your Pliny who have written that there was a teacher in the first c. named Jesus. If you chose not to believe them, and instead use the lack of mention by Pliny and others as evidence of non-existence, then that is your choice.



Quote:
The NT may be mis-leading, but the NT and church writings did propagate that Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, had thousands of followers and was well-known throughout the region.

But, of course, Jesus of the NT is just a story.
No, I think he is mythological, but many myths are based in some fact.




Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Scott
It's really impossible to know any details of the life or death of the figure behind this religion, with only his teachings surviving as an oral tradition any number of truths about his life can be possible, even the name could have been extrapolated from a figure in one of the stories; Jesus the Son of God could have come from Jesus the Son of the Father (Yeshua Barabbas), etc. Regardless, I don't think you can conclude the non-existence of someone in the first c. because someone else didn't mention there name in their writings, especially someone as obscure as the Jesus figure. All you can conclude is there is too little to go on to conclude much of anything.
I think you may have mis-understood my position. I am not claiming that the NT and church writings about Jesus are true, but merely giving the depiction of Jesus as found in the NT.
I understood your position. Your position is that because Jesus was not mentioned by name by Romans 75 to a hundred years after he supposedly lived, that this is somehow irrefutable evidence that he did not exist during the time attributed to him. Does that cover it?

Quote:
Now if there is no evidence of Jesus in the 1st century by sources external of the church writings and the NT, then it can be concluded that Jesus did not exist in that century until evidence becomes available to show that Jesus did exist at that time.
So then you would also agree that since there is absolutely no record that Socrates existed other than the writings of fellow Philosophers, that it can be concluded that Socrates did not exist.

Quote:
If there is no evidence that "Tristan Scott" posted on this forum, then it can be concluded that "Tristan Scott" did not post here. As soon as evidence is provided to show that "Tristan Scott" did post, then it can be concluded that "Tristan Scott" did.

This is basic.
I would use the term simplistic. Tristan Scott posted seven times in the Philosophy forum a few weeks ago, then the system crashed and the posts were gone. Several ather posters confirmed that Tristan Scott posted at that time, but they couldn't confirm the exact number of times he posted. One poster in the EoG forum wrote a long post about Philosophy and how he liked to post in the Philosophy forum, but not once mentioned Tristan Scott. I take it then that you would conclude that this was evidence that Tristan Scott did not post in that forum?
Tristan Scott is offline  
Old 07-02-2009, 09:15 PM   #42
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 84
Default

Quote:
Tristan Scott said: In reality there is plenty of contemporaries of your Pliny who have written that there was a teacher in the first c. named Jesus.
Er...who would these contemporaries be?

-evan
eheffa is offline  
Old 07-02-2009, 09:48 PM   #43
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southwest USA
Posts: 4,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eheffa View Post
Quote:
Tristan Scott said: In reality there is plenty of contemporaries of your Pliny who have written that there was a teacher in the first c. named Jesus.
Er...who would these contemporaries be?

-evan
Probably all of the gospel writers.
Clement of Rome.
Polycarp.
The writer(s) of the Didache, hell, most of the writings pertaining to Jesus were written contemporary to Pliny.
Tristan Scott is offline  
Old 07-02-2009, 10:43 PM   #44
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eheffa View Post

To read the book of Acts, the movement grew rapidly
Can you explain what you see happening in Acts and just what you mean by rapidly? The numbers in Acts seem quite small really.

When paul writes to various cities many years after christ the numbers still seem quite small, dont they?







Quote:
When we look for corroborative evidence for all this activity & growth from other authors, or even its supposed opponents we find this remarkable vacuum.
What sort of evidence might one reasonably expect?


Quote:
Your point stands I think in that these people have no knowledge of the Jesus of the NT.

-evan
I dont think we can use the evidence in this way. We cant conclude that people had no knowledge of such things, only that in this one text it is not clear that these people revere Jesus.

If we use the evidence in this way we are just the same as fundamentalists IMHO, insisting that we have proved this or that when the best we can say is we dont know.
judge is offline  
Old 07-03-2009, 06:34 AM   #45
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 84
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Scott View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by eheffa View Post

Er...who would these contemporaries be?

-evan
Probably all of the gospel writers.
Clement of Rome.
Polycarp.
The writer(s) of the Didache, hell, most of the writings pertaining to Jesus were written contemporary to Pliny.
Perhaps I should have been a little more clear...

Unlike the letter of Pliny the Younger, these other sources like the Canonical Gospels are not dated and could have been written through a wide range of dates. The traditional datings of the Gospels depend on the assumption that the authors were contemporaries of their subject and yet it appears that there is a remarkable lack of evidence for their existence until the mid to late second century CE.

Matthew is assumed to have used Mark as a source & since Mark is dated by its references to the little apocalypse to 70-80 CE Matthew must have been written around 80 CE etc. Ignatius is quoted as being familiar with parts of Matthew (Circa 110 CE therefore Matthew is corroborated to exist then; BUT, Ignatius is a disputed & quite possibly fabricated / forged work in and of itself...

Luke was familiar with Josephus' writings & is probably later - some time in the early second Century as is gJohn...so again we have no firm dates.


(BTW..The undated Didache talks a lot about "The Lord" but not much about a Gospel Jesus. Even the Eucharist is referred to without reference to this Gospel Jesus; thus reinforcing aa's original point.)

If you think I am just blowing smoke through an orifice, look at this summary of dates from
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion.html
Note how the estimated date ranges are pretty broad for almost all these sources and could be placed well after Pliny (- which in contrast is pretty tightly datable).

Tacitus' reference to Nero has a much more disputable history & may be an embellishment or even a medieval interpolation.

Anyways. Your statement that there are contemporaries to corroborate the existence of a clearly defined Gospel Jesus at the time of Pliny or earlier is no slam-dunk. The Gospel Jesus story does not appear to be widely known or promulgated in Christian circles & writings until sometime later.

(See Doherty's summary of the second century apologists for a more complete thesis on this.
http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/century2.htm )

I am no scholar & I am open to correction for my possible misunderstandings but I smell a rat & I think his name is Fabricatio Fictitious.


-evan
eheffa is offline  
Old 07-03-2009, 06:47 AM   #46
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

Once there is no evidence of Jesus in the 1st century, it is reasonable to conclude that there was no Jesus in the 1st century especially when well-known authors make mention of christians and the origin of the christian superstition without making a single reference to Jesus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Scott View Post
[ I disagree. It appears that you are not aware of the reality of communications in the first century, and besides you are saying there is no evidence of the existence of Jesus in the 1st century when there actually is evidence, just not evidence that you are chosing to accept. In reality there is plenty of contemporaries of your Pliny who have written that there was a teacher in the first c. named Jesus. If you chose not to believe them, and instead use the lack of mention by Pliny and others as evidence of non-existence, then that is your choice.
All the information about Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, is from the same source, the Church.

The claims of the Church about Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, must first be corroborated by external sources to have credibility. The claims about Jesus have not been confirmed by external sources.

The secular writers of antiquity, like Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny that mention christians did not corroborate any claims about Jesus from the Church, or did not even mention that there were anecdotes, rumors or stories of Jesus.

There are really only unconfirmed claims from the Church about Jesus.
So far, only forgeries have been found.

Therefore Jesus of the NT can be deemed non-existent until external confirmation of the claims about Jesus can be found.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
The NT may be mis-leading, but the NT and church writings did propagate that Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, had thousands of followers and was well-known throughout the region.

But, of course, Jesus of the NT is just a story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Scott
No, I think he is mythological, but many myths are based in some fact.
Yes, Jesus, as presented by the Church, is mythological.

Jesus, in fact, was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, who truly transfigured, resurrected and actually ascended through the clouds according to the NT and Church writings.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Scott
I understood your position. Your position is that because Jesus was not mentioned by name by Romans 75 to a hundred years after he supposedly lived, that this is somehow irrefutable evidence that he did not exist during the time attributed to him. Does that cover it?
So are you claiming that the lack of evidence or information about Jesus by external sources can be refuted presently?

Are you saying that Jesus of the NT MUST have existed or that I may be right that Jesus did not exist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Scott
So then you would also agree that since there is absolutely no record that Socrates existed other than the writings of fellow Philosophers, that it can be concluded that Socrates did not exist.
Please present all the information or sources about Socrates so that I can make some kind of determination about his historical status. I have not investigated whether or not Socrates did exist, but I did some research on Jesus, the disciples and Paul and they are all 1st century fiction characters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
]If there is no evidence that "Tristan Scott" posted on this forum, then it can be concluded that "Tristan Scott" did not post here. As soon as evidence is provided to show that "Tristan Scott" did post, then it can be concluded that "Tristan Scott" did.
This is basic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Scott
I would use the term simplistic. Tristan Scott posted seven times in the Philosophy forum a few weeks ago, then the system crashed and the posts were gone. Several ather posters confirmed that Tristan Scott posted at that time, but they couldn't confirm the exact number of times he posted. One poster in the EoG forum wrote a long post about Philosophy and how he liked to post in the Philosophy forum, but not once mentioned Tristan Scott. I take it then that you would conclude that this was evidence that Tristan Scott did not post in that forum?
Now, once several other posters confirmed that Tristan Scott posted before the crash then we have some external confirmation. It can be reasonably concluded that Tristan Scott did post before the crash.

This is simple logics.

Now, the church writers claimed Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, did exist, none of the writers, Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny, external of the church, that mentioned christians POSTED such a claim in their books.

It is reasonble to conclude Jesus of the NT did not exist up to the time of Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny until new information can be found.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 07-03-2009, 06:50 AM   #47
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,305
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eheffa View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Scott View Post
Probably all of the gospel writers.
Clement of Rome.
Polycarp.
The writer(s) of the Didache, hell, most of the writings pertaining to Jesus were written contemporary to Pliny.
Anyways. Your statement that there are contemporaries to corroborate the existence of a clearly defined Gospel Jesus at the time of Pliny or earlier is no slam-dunk. The Gospel Jesus story does not appear to be widely known or promulgated in Christian circles & writings until sometime later...

-evan
Right, this is in fact a key point of controversy: are there any reliable first century witnesses that confirm the NT narrative? We can posit Christian origins anywhere from 1st C bce to 2nd C ce because the surviving evidence is thin and tendentious. There seems to be nothing to support a Jesus crucified by Pilate outside of Xtian writings, which are revelation as much as history.
bacht is offline  
Old 07-03-2009, 08:10 AM   #48
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southwest USA
Posts: 4,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eheffa View Post
I am no scholar & I am open to correction for my possible misunderstandings but I smell a rat & I think his name is Fabricatio Fictitious.


-evan
I am not arguing that the Jesus as depicted in the NT is a fabrication, however I don't believe it is a complete fabrication, and I've stated why, and that is because there was a strong oral tradition that has been found in independent, albeit religious, sources.

Do I think it's possible that Jesus was a complete fabrication? Sure it's possible. Do I think that his not being mentioned by name by Roman writers prove it? No. Proving the non-existence of anyone 2000 years ago is pure folly. It's simply impossible. Anyone with a thread of logic knows that the lack of proof for existence is not proof of non-existence.
Tristan Scott is offline  
Old 07-03-2009, 09:00 AM   #49
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eheffa View Post
I am no scholar & I am open to correction for my possible misunderstandings but I smell a rat & I think his name is Fabricatio Fictitious.


-evan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Scott View Post
I am not arguing that the Jesus as depicted in the NT is a fabrication, however I don't believe it is a complete fabrication, and I've stated why, and that is because there was a strong oral tradition that has been found in independent, albeit religious, sources.
What proof do you have that there was a strong oral tradition of Jesus? You are asking others for proof but you provide only what you believe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Triston Scott
Do I think it's possible that Jesus was a complete fabrication? Sure it's possible. Do I think that his not being mentioned by name by Roman writers prove it? No. Proving the non-existence of anyone 2000 years ago is pure folly. It's simply impossible. Anyone with a thread of logic knows that the lack of proof for existence is not proof of non-existence.
You seem to be confusing "proof" with "position".

People maintain or hold a "position" based on the information that they have. No position can be 100% fool-proof when dealing with indirect evidence or information provided by secondary sources.

Now, anyone with a thread of logic knows that ALL THINGS THAT ARE DEEMED NON-EXISTENT HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF THEIR EXISTENCE.

It therefore follows logically that Jesus of the NT can be deemed to have been non-existent since, like all NON-things, there is no corroborative evidence for Jesus.

It is not folly, but logical and reasonable, to deem or maintain the position that Homer's Achilles, the offspring of a sea-goddess, is a myth, the same can be done to Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 07-03-2009, 09:37 AM   #50
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default

Going back to the sacrificing.

I understand it as this xian cult had caused widespread damage because people were no longer going to the temples and were no longer buying animals and birds from the traders but were instead were gathering together and singing hymns which looked like illegal political association and refusing to sacrifice to the emperor god.

However, a little bit of arm twisting quickly got people to return to the temples, except for some recalcitrant women deaconesses.

AA, please explain why my interpretation is wrong.
Clivedurdle is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:38 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.