Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Julian · 01-25-2006, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spincracker

It is an incontrovertible fact that Jesus existed and was crucified. The arguments are over what type of existence that was. Sources outside of the Bible confirm his existence.

You are new here so this is obviously forgivable but I will suggest that you do some reading in the SecWeb library and study up on this before uttering such statements. Start here: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...er/hojfaq.html

Julian

Spincracker · 01-25-2006, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

You are new here so this is obviously forgivable but I will suggest that you do some reading in the SecWeb library and study up on this before uttering such statements. Start here: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...er/hojfaq.html

Julian

Quote:

Originally Posted by essay

nor does it attempt to answer the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth really lived or not.

So the question is why I would state Jesus was crucified?

The author even admits the plausibility of Jesus being crucified...so I'm a bit confused.

Julian · 01-25-2006, 08:03 AM

You said that it is "an incontrovertible fact that Jesus existed and was crucified," when it clearly is nothing of the kind. You also stated that sources outside the bible confirms this, when we have nothing contemporary confirming any of the NT.

Your statement was simply inaccurate. The essay doesn't answer the question because the question is not answerable with any certainty, one way or another.

Julian

Spincracker · 01-25-2006, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

You said that it is "an incontrovertible fact that Jesus existed and was crucified," when it clearly is nothing of the kind. You also stated that sources outside the bible confirms this, when we have nothing contemporary confirming any of the NT.

Your statement was simply inaccurate. The essay doesn't answer the question because the question is not answerable with any certainty, one way or another.

Julian

The essay appears to focus more on pro-Jesus propaganda than his actual existence/crucifixion. I totally agree there are sky-rooms of debatable material available on such issues. However, let me ask how many outside sources would be necessary to satisfy the condition?

To say that Jesus existed and was crucified is not equitable to proclaiming unquestionable critique of what is in the NT.

How can we say the question is not answerable when we have outside sources confirming Jesus' existence?

Julian · 01-25-2006, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spincracker

However, let me ask how many outside sources would be necessary to satisfy the condition?

For a miraculous event? A miraculous number of sources. For the mere existence of a Jesus, just a few.

Quote:

How can we say the question is not answerable when we have outside sources confirming Jesus' existence?

Why don't you name just one contemporary source outside the bible?

Julian

Spincracker · 01-25-2006, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

For a miraculous event? A miraculous number of sources. For the mere existence of a Jesus, just a few.

I am in NO WAY arguing for or against miracles...but it is interesting that word is pretty much absent from the NT.

Quote:

Why don't you name just one contemporary source outside the bible?

What is meant by a contemporary source? Not trying to be difficult, but it's possible I'm not understanding what is meant by that term.

We have to admit the most obvious problem of sources in 1CE, namely the lack of literacy.

Julian · 01-25-2006, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spincracker

What is meant by a contemporary source? Not trying to be difficult, but it's possible I'm not understanding what is meant by that term.

We have to admit the most obvious problem of sources in 1CE, namely the lack of literacy.

A contemporary source would be a source written by someone who would have been present at the time (and place) of the events.

Julian

ETA: Or could draw upon such sources and supply proper support for their authenticity.

Spincracker · 01-25-2006, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

A contemporary source would be a source written by someone who would have been present at the time (and place) of the events.

Julian

Ahhh...what a brain fart I had! lol...Admittedly, I should not have made the original statement w/o posting support, and I apologize for that mistake. Also, I wish I had the texts with me that was studied to arrive at that conclusion.

It's strange that Flavius is considered a "Jewish" source considering he became a tool of the Roman empire. I have no new sources other than the ones surely known, but the ossuary discovery of 1990 is helpful from a physical perspective.

Quote:

ETA: Or could draw upon such sources and supply proper support for their authenticity.

This is a rub because, even in the link provided, the essay does not contest the writings affirming Jesus' existence, only who he was. We can take any text from antiquity and extrapolate speculations.

jjramsey · 01-25-2006, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

You are new here so this is obviously forgivable but I will suggest that you do some reading in the SecWeb library and study up on this before uttering such statements. Start here: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...er/hojfaq.html

To be fair, the FAQ is a bit inaccurate about Josephus:

Quote:

Josephus apparently refers to Jesus in passing later in the "Antiquities", where we find this passage:

Quote:

"so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and someothers (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned." (Antiquities 20.9.1)

Opinion about this passage is mixed. Some scholars believe that it is a later Christian insertion, like the Testimonium Flavianium may be, but of course much less blatantly so. Others believe that the passage may in fact be genuine. No adequate means of deciding the issue exists at this time.

The consensus on that passage is that it is authentic. Jeffrey Jay Lowder had even pointed out that "I have much more confidence in the assessment of Josephan scholar Louis Feldman who noted that the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged." (source)

His first two arguments on Suetonius are flawed as well:

Quote:

"Chrestus" is the correct Latin form of an actual Greek name, and is not obviously a mispelling of "Christus", meaning Christ.

From the academic mailing list Corpus Paulinum:

Quote:

If Suetonius or Tacitus had meant someone other than Christ, they would have specified him as "Chrestus the proconsul from Carthage" or whatever. That was the common method of signifying people. Again, Christus/os and "Christians" were household words by the time Tacitus (c.55-A.D. c.117) and Suetonius (A.D. c.69-c.140) wrote their histories. Hence, one word like "Chrestus" was enough. If I wrote about "Madonna" now,in the context of a well-known contemporary figure, you would know right away who I meant from the context, even if I cutely spelled Mad-donna..

From http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/c...08/001138.html

Quote:

The passage seems to imply that there was actually someone named Chrestus at Rome at the time. This rules out a reference to Jesus.

No, it doesn't. It can also indicate that Suetonius has a garbled understanding of Christianity.

Julian · 01-25-2006, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spincracker

It's strange that Flavius is considered a "Jewish" source considering he became a tool of the Roman empire.

He was still Jewish, just like you can be Jewish and American or Jewish and French or whatever.

Quote:

This is a rub because, even in the link provided, the essay does not contest the writings affirming Jesus' existence, only who he was. We can take any text from antiquity and extrapolate speculations.

I just grabbed a link at random form the library. If you go to www.infidels.org and search for "jesus historical evidence" or some other phrases like that you will find many, many sources on this topic.

Julian

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-25-2006, 08:03 AM	#143
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	You said that it is "an incontrovertible fact that Jesus existed and was crucified," when it clearly is nothing of the kind. You also stated that sources outside the bible confirms this, when we have nothing contemporary confirming any of the NT. Your statement was simply inaccurate. The essay doesn't answer the question because the question is not answerable with any certainty, one way or another. Julian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.