eheffa

Ha... it isn't all unanimous here is it? Almost like the church.

YI've been following this debate with some interest.

It's helpful to recognize these categories or distinctions - I see that a mythical Jesus is not the same as a fictional Jesus; at least in terms of intent or means of creation.

I have only recently become aware of this question of Nazareth's existence during the time of the early first century & it certainly was a scandalous thought at first blush. After reading more on this it looks to me like there is not enough evidence to be sure either way - maybe there was, maybe there wasn't but the argument from silence needs more weight to be truly compelling.




Ha...unfortunately I (& many like me) can't read Greek, Latin or Hebrew & never will, so we are at the mercy of the "scribes & the pharisees" & all these scholars & historians with their apparent biases. We have to trust someone along the way though in understanding the history of this era.


Thanks your thoughts.

-evan

eheffa

Thank you.



Yes. the evidence...I can't believe how much time I've spent chasing these threads of evidence in the last month and a half...

-evan

eheffa

[QUOTE]Thanks for this reference - It is surprising that these references by others are so late.

Justin wrote ~ 140-150 CE?



Thank you. It's good to know that others share this same situation.

Do you think that the existence of the unapproved Gospels like Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Hebrews, Judas etc. indicates a general awareness of the Gospel story? i.e. details of the Virgin Birth, disciples, crucifixion.

Do some of these "apocryphal" works not have their origin as late first early second century & if so would this not suggest that the "gospel" stories were out there in general circulation at this earlier time (?)

I am thinking that this would represent a possible refutation of the idea put forward by Earl Doherty that the Jesus story had an earthly context no earlier than mid-second century.

-evan

eheffa

Ah yes. The argument that one cannot have values or ethics outside of an absolute external standard. I would have happily endorsed this position until recently. As I am working through this now, I am becoming more convinced that the appeal of a god-given standard is more pragmatic (easier to impose on others) than it is real or even necessary.

-evan

GakuseiDon

Earl has suggested that the earliest was around the time of Tacitus and Ignatius, dating Ignatius to around 110 CE in his book, though I believe he has reconsidered this early dating since then. But he sees historicism as a gradual process, so I doubt that he'd see those books as evidence against his theories.

eheffa

[QUOTE]
Well, considering the fact that I spent the first 50 years of my life surrounded by Christians reinforcing my beliefs - I guess to be balanced, I should spend the next 50 years surrounded by atheists. But seriously, I have & do read the Christian apologetic literature & find it wanting for good evidence.

Maybe, but there are some pretty varied opinions being posted here.


Hmmm. Pilate & Herod could just as easily fulfill the needs of verisimilitude as in any decent historical novel. I think that "Faith" that ignores the obvious flaws in the assertion that the gospels (and whole Bible for that matter) are the inerrant & inspired Word of God, has to be ignorant or willfully blind. The possibility that the early church of the fist & second centuries was in fact unaware of the existence of the gospels or even the HJ, is an intriguing and important question.


I too have done this a number of times for a season - but always with a residual loyalty to "Jesus". This time I have realized that if he really isn't there, I won't be offending him by my doubts or indeed my lack of belief.


-evan

eheffa

This is an astonishing assertion - not that I am doubting you as I have for many years held this view myself on the say-so of the "experts" like McDowell et al. I find it quite incredible that these kinds of statements can be put forward with a straight face and not a shred of evidence.

I always understood this to be evidence for the prophetic words of Jesus in predicting the fall of Jerusalem - only a true cynic would insist on dating Mark's gospel after 70 AD based on the belief that the author had the advantage of the retrospectroscope... you don't suppose...Naah couldn't be.


I am struggling through two of his books (at my wife & daughter's prompting) to make sure I am not accused of overlooking the "other" side. I am not impressed with his arguments though. He seems to be preaching to the choir & seems blissfully unaware that his assertions fall flat for someone who is skeptical of the underlying premises. I would think that CS Lewis makes a much better argument than he does.



[/QUOTE]I would just like to note that "Simply Christian" is endorsed by Ann Rice of vampire fame.[/QUOTE]

I saw that on the cover - Ha!

Thank you for the welcome. I am no scholar but I appreciate the quality of discussion here.

-evan

spin

Without languages you can still deal with many issues, if you are prepared to juggle various translations (bible softweare makes it easy and there are a few free bible apps). The RSV (Revised Standard Version) and NRSV (New RSV) are good fairly literal translations which have a few footnotes which tell you when they are not being literal (as in the case of "brothers and sisters" for the Greek brothers). For the Hebrew bible (christians call it the old testament), there is a Jewish translation JPS, which gives you a non-christian translation for you to compare a christian one with. And obviously avoid easy reading translations -- which sacrifice accuracy. There's an ugly old literal translation called Young's which will help a bit with the gospels and epistles. So you can get an idea of the text from different translations. If you can't do the languages you'll have to do the translations for a closer understanding of texts.

The mainly source material that we use around here is the biblical text itself. Then of course we can get indications about early christian history from church fathers and as long as you're not dependent on specific wordings translations will be fine.

Some fellas'll try to pull the wool over yer eyes with all these modern writers, but in the end, if it doesn't get down to evidence cited, it goes nowhere.

Have fun.


spin

spin

I am not an atheist, so don't assume everyone here is.

But at least you'll get another side of the argument. Christians sites need us.

The Satyricon mentions Augustus, Julius (Caesar), Pompey, and Crassus, so I guess you'll think it's OK as well.

The answer to "does god exist?" is: how can one know objectively? If you can't know objectively, then if you believe he exists you put yourself on a par with schizophrenics who have non-objective worldviews (no offense intended to schizophrenics).


spin

GakuseiDon

But, why read Christian apologetic literature at all? Are there truly just two choices: Christian apologetic literature or Jesus Myth literature?

Are the only choices then between McDowell on one side, and Doherty on the other?