Steven Avery

Most definitely, and if a nail in the coffin was needed for the "well the Talmud didn't know what Jesus it was referencing (or it was another one), and the Toldet Yeshu authors were simply stabbing in the dark" argument, which is what you see above, then Celsus synchronicity supplies the additonal nail.

TedM, you will likely never convince any mythicists here on the Jewish writings, because an admission that the Jews knew of whom they were writing is essentially a refutation of the mythicist position. So like with the Josephus - James passage, or even something interesting (and still waiting for dialog) like the crosses on the ossuaries, now with the Jewish writings, you can know that the answer will be hand-waving and harumphing and obfuscation and looking for every angle of denial.

They simply must.

The denial can take many forms, here's another one, a fallback position you will likely see.

"The Jews did know that they were supplying this argument against Jesus of Nazareth, only because people thought he lived, so they had to respond, and wrote as if he lived, and dissed his life (sorcery, mamzer etc) every which way, but actually they thought he did not live".

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Asha'man

It looks like the same assumption to me. Why would Celsus or Origen be immune to this type of confusion in the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries?

As I understand the connections, the Talmud places a Yeshu ben Pandira as teaching during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, which places him early in the 1st century BCE, around the year 87 BCE. If this particular Jesus was real, and he really was stoned and hanged for his crimes, then the story has plenty of time to be misremembered and distorted by the middle of the 1st century CE when Paul started writing.

If a story of a new Jesus start circulating, and memory of ben Pandira is still around but a bit vague, why would the two not get conflated? In fact, why would Mark not draw upon that earlier story when fleshing out the details of his imaginary biography of Jesus?

The Talmud also seems to identify a Yeshu ben Stada who was killed late in the 1st Century, perhaps 80-100 CE, in the city of Lud (not Jeruselem). Again, we have verbal rumors running around about Jesus of Nazareth, and yet another guy with the same name comes along to confuse things.

Add in yet another hundred years for the process to shake and bake, and I'm certain somebody would confuse these three stories.

When you look at later works like the Toldoth Yeshu, it still puts Jesus dying at the hands of a Queen, who was probably Alexander Jannaeus's wife ruling after his death, around 76 BCE. Again, people are clearly confused as to which story they are dealing with. Even if the Toldoth was written specifically to denounce Christianity, why would they deliberately set the date wrong by almost a century?

Notice, btw, that Metacrock makes the same error that most Christian apologists make about hanging being a euphemism for crucifixion. He is clearly ignoring the fact that a literal hanging was exactly what Jewish law requires after the victim has been stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 21:22-23)

Asha'man

This is nothing but a wild accusation, and a rather ironic one.

First, I'm not a mythicist. I think the mythic Jesus theory is a good one, worthy of respect and further investigation, but that doesn't mean I'm convinced yet. In fact, I've changed my view several times over the last couple years, based on evidence presented here and my readings.

My current 'best candidate' explanation is actually that the Talmud does refer to the historical Jesus, but that the Gospels are almost pure fiction. The real Jesus was stoned and hanged around 76 BCE, just like the Talmud says. A distant memory of him remained into the 1st century, where it was incorporated into Paul's savior cult.

However, what you will never see is a Christian ever considering the mythic viewpoint, or my alternative, honestly. They will not look at the evidence because their faith trumps all evidence. When it comes to denial and harumphing, I think we can all see where that's coming from.

rlogan

Sheesh. I was struggling over how to phrase something like this. Thank you.

Now get to work on the chiasms in Justus.

Steven Avery

We know this is always the complaint of the skeptic and mythicist. That the believer is afflicted with a type of 'blind faith' rather than a sincere heart of hunger and truth, and a desire for a good viewing of evidences. Fair enough, that is their viewpoint, and they state it frequently.

Ahaa'man... One of the points that I am (reasonably successfully, it seems) attempting to share with the mythicists and skeptics here is the immense unseen baggage of presups and skewed analysis and dropped and heavily-downplayed topics that they are bringing to so many of the questions on this forum. Turnabout is fair play, you know.

We have seen that clearly seen in looking at the various skeptic/mythicist analyses these last few days. So perhaps some of them will take this earnestly, and others will se it as simply a gnat-like fleeting momentary challenge, to be ignored or belittled. Their choice.

Perhaps if all sides are willing to review, acknowledge and understand their own presups, there could be a more honest dialog.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

FatherMithras

The problem is, that plenty of skeptics go out and look at the evidence and come to their conclusions. For most atheists, that's the reason we stop believing in the first place. The problem is that the religious start out with a preconceived notion, and look to support it with anything they can. That the Bible is entirely accurate, it cannot be wrong etc. The skeptic who doesn't believe in the resurrection doesn't have to have a viewpoint that Jesus never existed. They can say he wasn't god, or never returned to life after death, or even that he wasn't crucified. However, if you take an honest look at it, there is an argument for a mythical figure coming from nearly nothing. I don't buy into this, as I think a myth figure coming that fast is terribly difficult. The mistake the religious make is that they cannot change their beliefs on evidence due to faith. Faith will make people deny evidence against their belief. AND since they still believe, they won't say "the evidence disagrees but I don't care". That's contrary to what we know about psychology. Instead, they'll cling to fringe studies, done by anybody, regardless of credentials, and hold to them. It's all psychology, and you can watch it happen with incredibly minor facts (people will ignore contrary evidence or explain it away).

I'm an atheist. That's my viewpoint. However, I would love for there to be a God who loves me. The concept of immortal happiness and love is tempting, and I'd love to believe in it. Yet when i look at the studies, both sides of them (I read every link I get) and analyze them, I come to the same conclusion almost invariably (though I admit, plenty of atheist claims have been debunked and I don't hold to them anymore). I don't have a side I'm rooting for. I've simply accepted the more credentialed and supported arguments. Arguing that both sides have biases and won't concede doesn't lead anywhere, and neither do arguments that don't follow the logic or the evidence.

Mountain Man

No, I'm just getting down to the bottom line.Your explanation contained nothing about the main issue; contemporary evidence that the jesus of the bible actually existed. That's what I want to know about.

The title of this thread is "Evidence for the existence of jesus christ." Some historian talking about jesus 100 years after the fact is not evidence. Some writer telling a story told to him is not evidence. So... where's the evidence?:huh:

Red Expendable

That's where I would like to start as well. I'm an interested atheist you might say.

I've been trying to follow the posts, but I am lost since, my knowledge is not as extensive as everyone else is here.

I'd like to start at the beginning and work from there.

So where are these contemporary works from the time of when J.C. was supposed to have been alive?

How come he wrote no books? A man as important as this surely would have written something himself, no? I know it's an assumption, a big assumption on my part, but how come he's written nothing? Any explainations?

RedEx

rlogan

Hi Red. Stick around. Lots to absorb.

Wouldn't that be nice? The problem is that over a couple of centuries the "official beginning" was fabricated, and became police state propaganda for more than a thousand years.

Decent people are trying to piece together what they can, and it is very interesting indeed.

One of the things that is very clear now is that the gospel stories took passages from the hebrew bible (Old Testament) and used them to create the fable of Jesus Christ.

That has for millenia been used as the "proof" that he was divine. (Fulfilled prophesy). That's backwards. It is instead the proof that the story consists of mining bits and pieces from ancient scripture.

heh. Good question. One the apologists like to excuse with piffle and bluster. There aren't any. So why not think about rational explanations for that. For example, that the story was made up long after the events supposedly happened.

Myths don't write stories.


How is this a "big assumption"? We're supposed to fawn over every word he uttered. Stoop at every rock he peed on. Oh, but nothing would have been written, or saved. By anyone. No worshiping or pilgrimages to his supposed execution site. Or grave.

Because it didn't happen.

Additionally, he supposedly sent 2,000 pigs into the sea. That alone would put him in the world record class lawsuit of the time. Healing dead people. Feeding 5,000 people with a couple of dried herring

Yea. Sure.


You might try reading Earl Doherty's Jesus Puzzle web page just to get a look at one pretty well integrated model for the historical development. Just Goolge that.

I would also recommend just ignoring the apologists here that have nothing on their minds but "proving" their precious little nonexistant sky daddy.

Notsri

I think you run into several difficulties here, Asha'man. The materials deriving from the earliest strata of the rabbinic corpus do not place Yeshu (ben Pandira) in the 1st c. BCE. They're in fact silent on the subject. It's not until the amoraic strata, ca. 220-500 CE, that we find this early date first proposed; and it's found there only in a single episode (related in both b. Sotah 47a and b. Sanh. 107b). When we then compare these two talmudic data to a story from the Yerushalmi/Jerusalem Talmud, the historical worth of the Babylonian version drops to virtually nil.

Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 6:6 (23c): And so ends the story of Yehudah ben Tabbai.

Cf. Bavli Sotah 47a: Needless to say, the Bavli has reworked and expanded the Palestinian tradition.

Once this late text(s) from the Bavli have been removed from serious consideration, I think one can then begin working with the earlier materials more sensibly. Take the story from the Tosefta for example.

Tosefta Hullin 2:22-3 says: Ignoring some of the text's logical incoherence, we might note that it represents the earliest of texts possibly relating to Jesus; the Tosefta generally dating from the tannaitic period (ca. 70-220 CE), and the story's protagonists dating from the late 1st-early 2nd c. CE.

Two points of significance: (1) Yeshu(=Jesus) is given the patronymic Pantera; (2) his follower is portrayed as attempting to use his name in the course of performing a miracle. Beyond that, the text offers nothing more of Yeshu's identity, and certainly nothing in regard to the time of his floruit.

Obviously, if we're going to link this text with the Jesus of Christianity, we have to establish some plausible points of connection. Usually Celsus is adduced at this point in the discussion, and as of yet I can see no convincing reason for dismissing what he has to offer. The use of Jesus' name in performing miracles is well attested in early Christian sources (e.g. Acts 3:6, 16; 4:7, 10), and Celsus complains of the same activity in his own day, attributing it to mere magic or sorcery (e.g. Origen, Cont. Cel. 1.6). (2) above would then seem to comport well with what is known of early Christian practice, and the things of which Celsus complains. But then what of the name Pantera? I know I hardly need to mention it at this point—Celsus suggests that Jesus had been conceived in adultery, that his father was in fact a soldier named Panthera (Cont. Cel. 1.32); a tradition he claims to have received from Jews. So both points of special interest in the above tosefta find signficant parallels in the allegations made by Celsus against Christ and Christianity. It seems very likely to me, then, that Tosefta Hullin's Yeshu(=Jesus) is Jesus Christ. (Let's not forget, either, that both Celsus' and the Tosefta's tradtions probably derive from at least the 2nd c. CE.)

I'm a bit tired at this point, and don't feel like commenting at length here. Suffice it to say for now, though, that Ben Stada is only identified with Jesus in late rabbinic texts, and even then the name "Yeshu ben Stada" actually does not occur—it never occurs.

The Toledot's Jewish author(s) set the wrong date undoubtedly because of an unwavering devotion to the words of the Rabbis. We've already seen above the rabbinic texts that place Jesus in the 1st c. BCE; the Toledot was simply following that tradition. There was likely no question of whether or not that chronology was correct. The Rabbis said it (without dispute) in the Talmud; it had to have been true. That's all there was to it.

There are lots of Jewish texts that help to emphasize just how highly esteemed were the words of the Rabbis, but I'll quickly mention just two:

Yerushalmi Berakhot 1:4 (12a) says: Of more interest—Abraham ibn Daud writes in his Sefer ha-Kabbalah (12th c. CE): Regards,
Notsri