Jabu Khan

Like the time of Joseph Smith there were reportedly many people running around claiming to be the messiah during the time of Jesus. I doubt that he was from Bethlehem or Nazarath as these were not place names until much later.

As to why anyone would invent him perhaps to try to merge Judiasm with Mythraism so that the Empire had more sway over their culture and customs.

Vinnie

""""Do you mean that it is positive attestation for the flesh and blood Jesus? """"

Yeah given that half its saying are found in Q, some found in Special L and M sources, some found in triple-tradition material and in other places.

Yes, I would say it adds to the record the idea that there was an historical Jesus who "said" certain things. Exactly what remains to be seen.

Also it mentions names like Peter and James and Mary and Thomas which are elsewhere tied directly into the life of the historical Jesus as his followers. Jesus saying things to them independently in the Gospel of Thomas confirms this. Paul also mentions these followers and so do the canonical Gospels.

Epsitles, sayings Gospel and narrative Gospels all have. Multiple attestation of sources and even multiple attestation of forms and/or media!

I dismiss Doherty's nonsense on the Gospel of THomas without a second thought. He engaged in ridiculous special pleading here. It was his argument that all the "Jesus said" lines in Thomas may have been a later addition to the text or some such nonsense.

"""""""That's probably one reason why it isn't canon."""""

I put an article up on that here:
http://www.after-hourz.net/forum/ind...?showtopic=325

I also started a bew thread with an HJ Skepticism FAQ. The idea that we need outside extra-biblical sources is critiqued in number 13 with reference back to number 2:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/jesusfaq.html

Also, I did not mean ad hominmen against me. I did not see that at all in your post. I meant against "Christians" in general. I also said that it "bordered" on it, not that it was one. Basically, it is my understanding of that data that "Christian witnesses" should be our primary candidates for Jesus material. Saying they are no good and we need outside sources is simply not justified. That is what I argued at any rate.

Vinnie

rlogan

Thanks Vinnie. I read your piece on Thomas, and I agree about the reasons it would never be canonized.

I'll concede Peter James and Mary.

But I am surprised that it is dated to late 2nd century. If that were true it would weaken my concession. I was thinking it was more like "Q". Admitting I have not studied this one enough.

I see you have the other post up so I'll turn to it.

Remember too, Vinnnie where I came from. Former gospel singer discovers huge web of deceit in Church history and the Bible itself.

Vinnie

I personally don't date Thomas to the second century. I date it to the first century. If it was late and dependent upon the canonicals it wouldn't have as much probative value here. I view it as independent and early.

To be precise Thomas mentions:

James (probably Jesus' brother!!!)
Thomas
Peter
Matthew
Mary or Miriam (possibly Magdalene but not certain)
Salome (indepdnently witnessed by Mark)

Note that this is multiple attestation of sources and forms. Its important when not only two sources, but two different media overlapp. I think a great argument for historicity can be made from Jesus followers. We actually have contemporary-primary source data on them. For example, Paul claims to have known, met, debated with and spoken to Peter who is tied into the historical Jesus!

Vinnie

mike_decock

I think there's a good case to be made that Thomas, in some form, existed in the 1st century as gJohn seems to be a refutation of it (or at least the Thomas community).

These days I'm leaning more towards a HJ as I'm reading up on gnosticism.

-Mike...

Vinnie

I never completed this but lately I am thinking that I might. But at any rate, right now there is about 90 pages of text on the Gospel of Thomas up that I wrote:

http://www.acfaith.com/gthomasq.html

Vinnie

Vinnie

Mike, sounds like my first supplementary article there might be something you would want to read:

Wisdom in Corinth:

http://www.acfaith.com/wisdomcorinth.html

Vinnie

Answerer

Hmmm, why doesn't anyone mentioned about the Arian Christinity? It is one of those early Christian sects as well but much better than Catholics. At least, it never tried to use Jesus as a tool for political power.

Asha'man

A clarification: My position (which seems to be shared by at least a few other skeptics) is not that stories of Jesus were fabricated out of thin air. The problem is that every element of the Jesus story existed somewhere else before the Jesus story came to be. The idea of a savior God, the death and resurrection of a divine being, a sacrifice to take away sins, a God producing a semi-human child with a human woman, all these ideas predate Jesus by centuries. We can find examples of all of them in the mythologies that predated Christianity.

More specifically, we can also see a clear pattern in Jewish culture to read things in the scriptures, and to extract ideas of what is happening in the present or immediate future. It’s very clear that Paul is doing this, he goes on and on about how “scripture tells us this” to support his points.

We can also see much of Jesus’ philosophy in the surrounding cultures as well. Much of his teaching appears to be greek and roman philosophy blended into the Jewish culture.

We also have historical evidence of a whole horde of god-men wandering around the countryside, preaching change from the current system, and working “miracles” to prove their position. We even know that some of these god-men may have been named Jesus, and may have claimed the title of the Jewish Messiah. Josephus records several false Messiahs, as well as numerous men named Jesus.

So, essentially, we aren’t claiming that Jesus’ story was “invented” as much as it was “collected” and applied to a single individual, real or otherwise.

There are so many people involved, and so many elements to the story, and so much time elapsed, that there is no possible one answer to that question.

For example, I think the two genealogies of Jesus were fabricated for the explicit purpose of proving that Jesus was of Davidic descent, and therefore fit a requirement for the Messiah. However, they were written by two different people at different times, so the exact thinking of each one may have been different. It’s also clear that these genealogies were written before the idea of the virgin birth was added to the collection, since the virgin birth makes them both irrelevant.

I also think the trial scene of Jesus was edited at least twice, to shift the blame from the Jews to the Romans, and then back to the Jews. The motivation for the second shift is pretty clear, since Rome was becoming an ally rather than an enemy, and it was better not to antagonize the authorities. The motivation for the first edit is less clear, and the edit itself is disputed.

You might also read Koyonasquati’s deconstruction of the Sermon on the Mount. He nicely demonstrates how it is teaching people to be meek and enjoy their suffering under the strong hand of the Roman government. Again, the motivation for this piece seems clear: turn the (initially rebellious) Christians into good little sheep for the benefit of the Empire.

Virtually none. I think that there may have been a preacher around the 1st century that was named Jesus, and he probably caused trouble for the authorities. I can’t decide if he caused trouble with the Jewish authorities and was therefore stoned to death, or if he troubled the Roman authorities and was crucified, since there is evidence to support both positions. I also think that so much of the story was drawn from surrounding myth and scripture that a historical Jesus might be unnecessary.

Nomad

Actually, what you have said above is simply false. The only "Saviour God" among the ancients that pre-dates Christianity is that of the Jewish God as found in the Hebrew Bible (especially in Isaiah and the Psalms). No divine beings were ever "resurrected" as this is merely anachronist presentations of common "dying and rising" god myths common to agricultural pagan deities. These gods did not, however, die and rise for anyone, nor did they sacrifice themselves to take away anyone's sins. Though some gods did mate with human females (Zeus among the more famous examples) they did so in a fashion that saw them taking on some kind of human/animal/physical object form. The net result is that the legendary development that surrounds Jesus is entirely unanticipated by any pre-dating myths, and modern scholarship is increasinly familiar with this.

This part is quite true. To this day Judaism looks for ways to incorporate new events and knowledge into past wisdom as it is found in Hebrew Scriptures.

This too is simply false. As you have simply asserted it without supporting evidence, however, it is difficult to examine.

And this is also completely untrue. I have discussed this issue elsewhere, however, and as you have produced no evidence in support of your assertions, I will leave it for now. Suffice to say, Josephus did not mention a single messiah figure coming from Palestine (excepting Jesus, of course, but, then one must accept that the two references are authentic to grant this), nor has any other source claimed that there were any messianic claimants in Palestine from about 200 BC through AD 130.

And as the premise of your beliefs is founded upon things that are simply untrue, it would be prudent to re-examine them.

This is also rather problematic, as very little time did elapse between the time that Jesus died, and the beginnings of the first legends about Him. This is is espcially true of the Resurrection, the central miracle claim attached to Jesus, and one that arose within no more than a few years of His death.

The geneologies are, indeed, problematic in their historicity, but this is not really fundamental to the claim that Jesus was a Davidic Messiah. That claim is attested in Mark (the earliest Gospel), as well as in Paul. One need not accept that the geneologies are accurate to accept that Jesus was thought to be a Davidic Messiah.

Umm... this is rather confused argumentation. The geneologies were not intended to explain the virgin conception of Jesus. They were meant to establish that Jesus was the Davidic Messiah. The idea that Jesus was conceived in the womb of a virgin is an entirely different question, and there is some evidence that this may have been believed before Matthew first recorded it. Moreover, if Luke is independent of Matthew, then it is certain that the idea predates them both.

Rome did not become an "ally" of Christianity until the conversion of Constantine in the 4th Century. As the final redactions of the Gospels took place long before this date your hypothesis is nonsensical. Luke was certainly interested in presenting Christianity in a positive light to the Romans, but, of course, he has only one Jewish, and one Roman, trial scene in his Gospel, so it is incorrect to say he had a "second shift" in the trial.

Regardless, Rome alternately persecuted and tolerated Christianity through its first 250+ years of existence. The first and confessional Creed of Christianity attributes Jesus' death to the Romans, through Pontius Pilate, and claims that the early Christians blamed the Jews, and not the Romans, for Jesus death is patently false. Christians blamed both.

Nomad