Toto

This makes the gospels historical novels?

Wrong on two counts - the four gospels are not independent. Two clearly copies from another, and one probably did. And yet - they do not confirm any of the events of the alleged resurrection.

The length of time between an alleged event and the report is not necessarily meaningful.

But there is clearly no necessity of positing a supernatural source.

Not true.

It's probably a mistake to answer this, since freetrader is two months in arrears and still isn't engaging with his critics.

spamandham

...and virtually every book you'll find in the 'fiction' section of the library as well, aside from the fantasy and science fiction subgenres. Are we to conclude that these are all historical records too?

It doesn't disqualify them as evidence, but it does alter the conclusions we should draw from that evidence.

aa5874

It is not really true that Josephus mentioned James the Just. There is no person called James the Just in all the extant works of Josephus unless you believe in miracles.

Jesus of the NT was the product of a MIRACLE, it is totally implausible that such a miracle could have had a real human brother.

The brother of James in Josephus must have a real human father.

JESUS of the NT is not a candidate. JESUS was a miracle.

Once you admit that there is evidence of MIRACLES, then you must show the evidence for the miracle called JESUS who had no human father and was MUlTIPLE-ATTESTED to be the offspring of the HOLY GHOST OF GOD who miraculously transfigured, resurrected and astoundingly was WITNESSED going through the clouds by miracle.

Please provide the evidence that the miracle called Jesus did miracles during the days of Tiberius.

Can you produce a single source external of the Church writers who even claimed that they saw JESUS trying to perform a miracle even if he was not successful?

Amaleq13

That is crop circle as in a single earlier example. It was in Australia in '66 and the inspiration for the admitted hoaxters' efforts in the 70's. The rational thinker requires no other explanation given that we know subsequent efforts were easily created by mischievous humans.

But this is the difference between an open mind and an empty head.

spin

Eh, you silly persons, youse! Monsieur freetrader at post #260 (Sept 18) is responding to post #140 (July 14). If you keep quibbling at his every stupid blunder he vill never reach ze point of being in a conversation. Your naughty taunting will give you no satisfaction because it's too old when he arrives at it. Save up ze best stupidities for later and put zis silly thread on ice. Let him respond to his heart's content. One day he will get to ze end. You don't vant zat to be when you are old silly persons. Zen, if you still really and truly vant to be engaged in witty intercourse, you may have a partner.


inspector spin

spamandham

Even though freetrader is living 100 posts in the past, other people are reading the rebuttals. It ain't just about him.

freetrader

July 13, 2009, 10:57 PM #6015119 / #141
mountainman


And what conclusion would you draw from this -- that there were no Christians or Christian churches prior to Constantine? It's difficult to see how this item has any bearing on the historicity of Jesus, unless it is supposed to prove that the whole Jesus legend must have been invented by Constantine and so none of it was true.

Which particular claims would you expect to "corroborate" with archaeology and carbon 14 dating? The period of his public life, which is all we have of him, was only about 1-2 years long, and there is no one place where we can locate him, except probably he spent some time at a dwelling in Capernahum. What objects to dig up could we expect to identify with him?

I think there has been some archaeological evidence to confirm some names found in the NT and not elsewhere, but this comes from the ossuaries that have been uncovered, and there's much dispute over these. Though most mainline archaeologists reject the "Jesus Family Tomb" findings, this is arguably evidence for the existence of the Mary & Joseph family, which had five sons including a Jesus.

There is another figure -- Simon the Cyrenian, mentioned in all the Synoptics, who was encountered at the point where Jesus was taken out from Pilate's headquarters to his crucifixion and who was recruited to carry the cross. Mark names this one's son as "Alexander" (Mk 15:21), and an ossuary inscribed with this name was found which seems to be the same Alexander:

It is not "certain" but this is probably the same person.

According to http://www.bleepingherald.com/mar2007/miceal , the total number of ossuaries discovered is about 1000. Out of these 1000, how many Simons from Cyrene would be likely, and of these, how many would likely have a son Alexander? This name Alexander was not one of the common Jewish names like Simon and Jacob and Joseph and Matthew etc.

So the odds are good that this Alexander, whose ossuary was found, was the same as the Alexander named in Mark. It's not a certainty, but it's a high probability, and this is archaeological evidence from before 70 AD, so we have here evidence to confirm a New Testament character who is not named elsewhere.

Although there is little in the gospels that can be confirmed, there is also little that can be refuted from any evidence. This one ossuary gives evidence to confirm at least this one character.

More could be speculated about the names Mary and Joseph and Jesus son of Joseph and Jose, which is not necessarily the family of Jesus, but this family is mentioned in the Synoptics and there developed a tradition that this was the same Jesus who did the miracle healings and was crucified, and the later Bethlehem legends grew from this.

That the one who was crucified was not the same Jesus (son of Mary & Joseph) is indicated by Mt. 27:56 & 61 and Mt. 28:1, Mk. 15:40 & 47, and Lk. 24:10, where Mary is named but identified only as the mother of James and Jose(ph) and not of Jesus, who is being killed before her on the cross. The best explanation for this disconnect is that Jesus was not the son of Mary & Joseph, despite the two popular Bethlehem legends.

So the finding of the ossuaries in the "Jesus Family Tomb" is evidence to confirm the existence of this family, named in the gospel accounts, and this can be added to the Alexander son of Simon of Cyrene ossuary as a piece of archaeological evidence.

These cases illustrate the point that if any archaeological evidence is found, the tendency will be to reject it as evidence for the gospel accounts, despite the strong probability that biblical characters are identified and confirmed by evidence. The claim that the names uncovered were all common names ignores the fact that the total number of ossuaries uncovered is really not so many, and so the chance of discovering such names, or name groupings, that correspond to NT characters is not likely due to coincidence.

An ossuary also has been found for Caiaphas, the high priest, and this one is not disputed but is recognized as corresponding to the actual high priest named in the gospels, yet there seems no more reason to accept this one while rejecting the others than the fact that in the case of Caiaphas there is independent evidence that he was a real historical figure, whereas for the other ossuary discoveries the characters are not known outside the Bible, and so the rule seems to be that if a character is mentioned only in the Bible, any outside archaeological verification has to be suspect, whereas if the character is known from other sources, then the archaeological verification is eagerly recognized.

The Alexander-Simon of Cyrene case is really quite persuasive and should be recognized, and the "Jesus Family Tomb" case looks like a better than 50% probability (though not that the Jesus of that family was the same Jesus who was crucified), while some others are more doubtful, like the disputed James ossuary and also claims of a Peter ossuary. If this was about anything other than the NT writings and characters named there, these findings would be granted more credence by the archaeological establishment.

So there seems to be a built-in bias against recognizing archaeological evidence for the historicity of Jesus or other NT figures when such evidence actually should turn up. It's even quite possible such evidence would be suppressed, especially if the findings would be troublesome to either the Jewish or Christian religious establishment.


It's what happened in the 1st century that concerns us here, not the 4th century. What we need is an explanation how the Christian church became the player that it was up to the time of Constantine. This requires tracing it back to its origins and explaining how the Jesus character became transformed from a nobody into the deity upon which the church established itself.

spin

It vould be better zen if you would tok amongst youselfs rahzer zan simplement rebutting to ze freetrader. No? Tok about ze freetrader rahzer zan to 'im.

Vhy not tok about 'is silly presuppositions. Make a list. Youse have enough data to do an etude sociologique on ze characteristiques of subservience to ze religion and zeir effect on ze intellect -- if you really want to wade through the logorrhea.

If youse simplement respond to ze silly person, youse give more stuff for 'im to respond to in a few months.


inspector spin

Toto

Perhaps this should be split into a separate thread, since it is the only new point in a long while.

paper on scribd on the Alexander son of Cyrene ossuary

The ossuary does not identify Simon as from Cyrene (although there is an undecipherable word that could almost be Cyrene.) Simon is an extremely common name, the most common on ossuaries. Alexander is rare as a Jewish name, but not unheard of - 20 Alexanders are mentioned on ossuaries. And if Simon really was from Cyrene, a Greek colony, Alexander would be a logical choice for a Hellenistic Jew.

But we don't know much from this ossuary. Simon of Cyrene might have been a real person, like Pilate, who was written into the gospel narrative.

On the contrary, the tendency has been to tie any archaeological find to the gospels. I think you ignore the fact that the total number of ossuaries is quite large, so that the residents of Israel use them as flower pots.

aa5874

Finding ossuaries with names like Alexander, Simon or any other name is not evidence of miracles by Jesus of the NT. It does not logically follow that an ossuary is evidence of a miracle.

You have failed to produce evidence that Jesus did miracles.