show_no_mercy

Read Mark 4:1-20. Jesus is the "word" and Peter is, well, Peter (rock). Which is what happens in Mark 14:27-72.

Anyone who says that we can know things in history "for certain" is trying to sell you something. Especially in this case, where the only historical data is writings about someone, and no writings from the person himself.

History is not theology. History is (or should be) a science. And in the scientifc method, almost nothing is certain. All conclusions are tentative until a better explanation that accounts for the data is presented. Certainty is for religions.

This is a logical fallacy, plain and simple (a fallacy of composition). Transformers, G.I. Joe, Star Trek, ad nauseum all have things that can be archaeologically verified. For example, Serpentor was said to have the DNA of Ivan the Terrible, Alexander the Great, and other historical personages infused into his own to make him the best leader possible. Not only that, but DNA exists. Does it really follow, then, that because Serpentor's creation references real people and real things (DNA) that this "Serpentor" person actually exists and in the 80s lead a nefarious group of villains hell bent on taking over the world? Of course not. There's nothing stopping the gospel writers from simply placing a fictional character in a historical context. This has to be ruled out before claiming archaeological verification. The Book of Daniel placed a fictional character (Daniel) in a historical context (the exile) to comment on the author's contemporary situation (the Maccabean revolt c. 165 BCE).

What would count as "archaeologically verified" would be something like what we have of another Jewish Messiah. Simon Bar-Kokhba has coins minted from his brief reign of Jewish independence from Rome in 132 - 135 CE. There is also corroborating evidence from the writings of Christians, Jews, and Romans verifying Simon's existence.

Where did I say that John was refuting the synoptics?

FYI:
Note that this means that Cerinthus was either a contemporary or an antecedent of John. Depending on when you date John's gospel, Cerinthus came before it.

You can also read Tertullian's Against Marcion (c. 200 CE) for what Marcion most likely believed, which was Docetism.

Note that prior to Justin Martyr's gospel harmony (or his student Tatian's), the four gospels were being used independently by different sects of Christians. Not only that, but according to the proto-Catholics, these heretical Christians used "modified" versions of the four, while other less popular gospels were used by yet smaller sects of Christians.

The Ebionites, for example, claimed to be descendents of James the Just and his church. They apparently used a version of Matthew that didn't have the nativity. Whether our nativity scene is before or after the Ebionites is uncertain. Ignatius c. 96 CE writes about Jesus' miraculous birth, but we don't know if he's quoting Matthew or if our current Matthew used Ignatius as a source. Not only that, but Ignatius arrives to us today with multiple interpolations.

And how exactly do historians separate them out? It's well within your intellectual capacity to question their methodology and see if it matches the methodoloy of the historical reconstructions behind other people from antiquity.

It depends on what you mean by "solid historical core". The only solid historical core is that there might have been a person named "Joshua" who was executed during the tenure of Pontius Pilate. But then again, Pilate probably executed myriads of Jews (and Samaritans) named Joshua. He wasn't exactly known for his patience. Quite the opposite, actually... which is contrary to how Christians portrayed him. Probably so they could blame the death of Jesus on the Jews for theological reasons.

History isn't a hard science. It's basically reconstructed sociology of the past. We would be more certain about who the Nazarene Jesus was if we had writings from the man himself. As it is, we only have what certain (highly superstitious) people thought about him. The skepticism that you use when dealing with other modern superstitions didn't exist among common people in antiquity, only among the educated elite. These four factors (sociology, in the past, no writings from Jesus, and rampant credulity) alone should give us a huge pause before we conclude things about Jesus the Nazarene with rock solid certainty. As it is, in my opinion the only position that we should take in regards to the historicity of this person is agnosticism.

Rick Sumner

I'm really, really struggling not to take a shot back here. Really struggling.

Does the team with Acharya S really want to start trading blows about cliched proponents?

Kapyong

Gday,

Oh please !
We are talking about Jesus, remember?
The NT is a book full of BELIEFS about Jesus.
Do you want to have a real discussion or not?



Yes, I agree.
Which is why those beliefs are NOT accepted as reality.
Just like your beliefs about Jesus are not blindly accepted as reality.


Why won't you answer questions put to you?
Yes or no -
Do you believe what Scientologists say about Xenu?
Yes or no?


["And there is NO archeology to support the existance of Jesus. None."]

Rubbish.
It can be taken in exactly ONE way -
"there is NO archeology to support the existance of Jesus."
It means exactly what it says.


FFS !
You haven't even READ the book ?!

Which is why you FAILED to cite any examples from it, because there are NONE !

There is NO archeological evidence for Jesus existing.
None.

If YOU believe there is, then SHOW US!


K.

Kapyong

Gday,

So there we have it -

ercatl thinks "miracles, demons, resurrection etc" could be true.

He doesn't know how we could determine they aren't true.

Wow.



K.

Kapyong

Gday,

A book you HAVEN'T read,
which ISN'T by an archeologist,
and DOESN'T have any archeological evidence for Jesus.


G.John reports the expulsion from the synagogues as if it happened in Jesus' time.
It's completely wrong, on this and other matters.

But you just ignore the errors and problems that people bring up, and just keep on preaching your beliefs.


Yes.
Why haven't you checked the facts ?
Even the NT refers to those who do NOT belief Jesus came in the flesh.
Did you skip that bit ?


K.

spin

Why limit the options? MJ is only one alternative to HJ (unless you overgeneralize the usage of "mythical" to mean "not historical").

The HJ process is simply bad methodology from go to "woe". One doesn't assume that there must be some substance a priori within a tradition. It's a ship that's destined to sink as it rolls down the slipway. Instead, start with the position that there may be substance and if there is how does one extract it? It is self-defeating though popular to work on the assumption that if you remove enough bad stuff you'll get to the good. Do you see people doing this with the traditions surrounding Robin Hood? The 0% option is a valid possibility (as seen in the case of Ebion -- who lacked the popular imagine of a religion behind him), so you shouldn't discount it out of hand as you do.

You start with what you can say, not with what you know you can't. And what can you say about Jesus (that you can't about Robin Hood)?


spin

spin

I wouldn't know. Ask them. I don't really see much difference between the two parties.


spin

Kapyong

Gday,

Don,
you seem to be saying that people only believe things that are true - that if people believe, it must be true.

Is that your claim here?

K.

show_no_mercy

John also has the absurdity of Samaritans accepting a Jew as "the messiah".

GakuseiDon

Sure, and they need to account for how churches that Paul wrote to in the 50s/60s were historicists by 110 CE. And that's because it IS evidence (I'm only questioning the comment that Tacitus is not evidence towards historicity)