Dirge

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110600478.html
Site May Be 3rd-Century Place of Christian Worship

If the date is verified, the claim that Jesus is a 4th century invention is certainly in doubt. (they may even find older churches, or Christian meeting places someday)

spin

While we're asking such silly questions as "What is the real evidence against a historical Jesus?",

what is the real evidence against ghosts?

and

what is the real evidence against reincarnation?

and

what is the real evidence against all the alien visits to the earth?

I'd be interested in any reasoned response, but then I'd be more interested in questions that are more reasonable, such as "What is the real evidence for a historical Jesus?" It is much more meaningful to deal with substantive claims.


spin

TedM

As I explained earlier, I don't think the question is silly because I think that if Jesus never walked the earth, then we should expect certain things in the writings about this non-existent man since clearly the alternative would have been a religion built around some other kind of Jesus. THAT would would constitute evidence worthy of consideration.

ted

TedM

No impugning was intended. I didn't recall, so I just asked. Thanks for clarifying.

spin

What prevents you from seeing how silly something is doesn't change its silliness.

If Paul believed, after his reported vision of a revealed Jesus in Galatians, that Jesus was a real person (without his having any knowledge of a real person -- you know, like Tertullian with Ebion), what would you expect to be different in the writings from what you would expect if Jesus was a real person?


spin

TedM

Here's what I see as a possibility:

1. He was seen as righteous by his followers
2. He thought he perhaps was the Messiah
3. He orchestrated his own crucifixion to be during Passover
4. Those who loved him may have had dreams or visions after his horrifying death.
5. Some would have thought deeply about the meaning of his death during Passover.

None of the above requires a big following during his life.

Re: Luke
He says "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" delivered information to him. Why he didn't name names? I don't know.


I don't know. It is a strange way to write..


It is clear that "Luke" is saying "This is not a work of fiction". Of course, it's not much to go on, but that is the claim. Luke did not think it was fiction, even if Mark did.


Thanks. I agree that the evidence has many holes, and the HJ position is not nearly as strong as many think.

take care,

ted

TedM

Perhaps a discussion of when and where that Jesus lived, or achknowledgement by Paul of how little he knows about those things, or a discussion of where Paul's knowledge about the person of Jesus he believes in comes from. Unless Paul's message wasn't concerned about those things.

But so much more would be expected of Christian writings---I would expect major discussions of Jesus' historical existence once Mark became widespread. I also would expect different stories about the person of Jesus which clearly conflict with the gospels on major issues, in the earliest writings, about the when and where of Jesus' origins, teachings, and crucifixion events, with lots of strange mythical elements relating to the LIFE of this mythical man.

And, I would not expect actual living beings to be given the title of biological brothers, uncles, cousins, etc.. to this person at an early date. I would not expect this person, the Messiah, to have failed to perform miracles, or to have even had brothers and sisters in the gospel records themselves.

ted

spin

Like the discussion of where Ebion was born? or about his travels and that he visited Rome? Your expectation here is vain.

When there is a will to find out more, the mind is able to provide. It seems to me that you are doing just that now. Throwing up more silliness to feed your desire for that sort of thing.

You can see active discussion in the post-Marcan gospels... let's have a genealogy... too bad that the one they found for Mt doesn't agree with Lk... or a birth narrative... too bad that the one they found for Mt doesn't agree with Lk.

This sort of thing, I must admit, is the sort of thing that one would expect from a fertile desires rather than any real sources.

Ummm, do you remember that there was a "church police" which burnt books and killed heretics?? What we know about early conflicting beliefs is told by the police.

Mother and father you should expect whether real or not real, right? If that is the case then your not expecting the others is merely arbitrary.

Is that because you are not interested in what the failure might say?

All you are saying with your expectations is that you like the gospel literature the way it is and you don't want it to be any different, as it fulfills your expectations from your religious indoctrination.

There were simply many more people interested in Jesus than there were in Ebion, so you would expect a lot more traditions about Jesus. And strangely their views of the world were different enough from yours for you not to be able to expect to understand what they could produce. Your expectations are all very arbitrary to me.


spin

Doug Shaver

Most of what I have read about first-century Jewish thinking has been written either by conservative Christians or their adversaries, so I'm probably at a disadvantage here, but I have yet to be informed of any other instance in which a group of Jews:

• Attributed messiahood to any man other than the leader of an armed rebellion or insurrection;
• Believed that any man, aside from certain heroic figures of Judaism's ancient history, was God's own son; or
• Claimed that any man was the actual incarnation of the divine Wisdom.

When I say I haven't heard of any, I don't mean I disagree with the ones I've heard about. I mean that I have never seen it even alleged, with specific names, dates, and places, that any of these things ever happened.

Except, of course, to Jesus of Nazareth. But if he was the exception, then what did he do to inspire such exceptional devotion, and how do we know he did that, and if he did it, why did Paul never mention his doing it?

Not very well, but they did claim, explicitly and unambiguously, to have sources. One example I can think of offhand is Diogenes Laertius.

As an explanation for the documentary vacuum, this argument assumes that everybody on whom Jesus made a big impression came to the same belief on this particular point of eschatology. If there is one thing Christians seem never to have been at any time in their history, it is in agreement about anything at all.

Roger Pearse

<wince>

Try to find the 'original stories' -- please. This whole idea is bunk, as you will quickly see when you do.

All the best,

Roger Pearse