Minimalist

If you start with that Talpiot Tomb shit I will hunt you down and beat you with a stick!




Anything involving Simcha Jocobovici should be instantly shit-canned.

badger3k

Yeah - invoking such pseudoscientific crap, and frauds (the related James Ossuary) is pretty sad. BUT - if you were being serious and not sarcastic, I'm sure that someone, maybe me even, can point you to resources that can help you see what we are referring to. There was an interesting (and disturbing) book I read on antiquities forgeries recently (reviewed here), which can give some background on the relationship between those events.

Toto

Previous thread on Nina Burleigh's "Unholy Business: A True Tale of Faith, Greed and Forgery" on the James Ossuary fraud.

As for the question We would expect to find at least some the sort of archaeological evidence that Christians felt the need to fake (probably not the Holy Prepuce) - gravestones, monuments, inscriptions on walls, documents, etc., although the Jewish wars can be blamed for wiping out anything that might have been in Jerusalem.

aa5874

And it must be stressed that there is no corroborative source that can show that all or any persons called christians did believe in or followed a deified character called Jesus in the 1st century.

In fact, based on Justin Martyr, in the 1st century, during the time of Claudius, people who followed the teachings of the magician Simon Magus were called Christians. Almost the whole of Samaria were Christians who followed the magician.

Roger Pearse

I think perhaps my question wasn't understood. In your argument you are appealing to the silence of extant historians. Tell me the names of the writers who, in your opinion, must have recorded the sermon on the mount and did not. Your argument cannot sensibly appeal to historians who are NOT extant and about whose works we know nothing; for they could have recorded anything (or nothing).

Most people who make the sort of points you are doing don't know anything about ancient literature, you see. But in this forum, we do!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

dog-on

How about..........Mark?

(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain :notworthy

aa5874

The question is not whether Jesus made a sermon on the mount, but if he did exist as described and supposedly witnessed.

The extant information show that Jesus, using his supposed mother as witness, was the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God. The extant information, using a character called Peter, show that Jesus used to walk on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

The extant information supports fiction. It can be reasonably considered that Jesus of the NT was a mythological character simply believed to have existed but did not.

Zaphod

You know very well who should have written about this event but were silent. It matters not.

Because my point, which you seem unable to grasp despite your self-proclaimed mastery of ancient literature, is about the scientific method and truth claims.

Perhaps you are simply too close to the subject. Or perhaps you have other motivations to insist that a historical core to JC is properly assumed as true, despite a lack of evidence and indications to the contrary.

I feel certain that a careful student of ancient literatures is always open to new insights and interpretations,
keen for objective investigations based on sound practices. Or perhaps not.

jakejonesiv

Darn you guys are tough! I guess the wink smilie on the message wasn't obvious enough!

Roger Pearse

Erm, no... I asked the question because it needs to be asked. I know all the possible relevant writers. I am not convinced you do. Answering the question will help us think through the case better.

One thing at a time. You're making a specific claim that certain historians should have mentioned the sermon on the mount. Let's deal with that first. Who?

All the best,

Roger Pearse