Phear this Mind

The burdon of proof is on those who would deny the existence of Jesus, His Crucifixion, and His dissapearance from the tomb.

The following are SOME of the problems present themselves when attempting to deny Christ's existence, crucifixion, or dissaperance from the tomb:

- You have an entire generation of history to contend with, ESPECIALLY JOSEPHUS. I challenge someone to provide me with scholarly literature of Christ's time that attempts to deny either His existence or crucifixion.

- The fact the the Sadducces and Pharicees did not outright and blatantly contend with such claims. Would they not simply carry Christ's body through the streets and crush the "sect" of Christians?

- The historical accuracy of the synoptic gospel accounts. While off subject historical accuracy does not prove that the parts dealing with Christ are true, they do lend support to the remaining account.

- The fact that all of the apsotles were willing to face execution for their beliefs. You do not die for a lie, and CERTAINLY not for someone who never existed.

- There is absolutely NO evidence that lends one to deny Christ as a person who lived, was crucified, and who's body was missing from the tomb. The entire worlds history did not change because of someone the apostles made up.

Paul didn't kill thousands of Christians over someone who knew didn't exist

The jews did not hold meetings to discuss someone who wasn't alive.

Where is all of the writing pointing out the obvious lie of Christ? Just WHO was John the Baptist preaching about, or did he not exist either?

All of the evidence going against Christ as a historical figure is simply bold assertion and heresay. If you want to view his life through the paradigm of philosophical naturalism, that is fine. But to deny his existence altogether is the mark of a poor education.

Lets argue the facts. WHO WAS CHRIST? not DID HE EXIST? We will never find truth and knowledge if we shoot ourselves over the issues that are factually obvious and acceptable to everyone's pressupositions.

Vorkosigan

By all means, let's argue facts. And the first fact is that you should probably run out and read one of the intro to the NT texts.

Michael

cb

Hi Michael,


I'm working on a response to your other posts, but I was just wondering, what do you mean by "intro to the NT texts"?

lpetrich

Only if the burden of proof is also on those who deny the existence of Romulus and Remus, their having a god and a virgin as their parents, just like Jesus Christ, and their having been taken care of in their infancy by a wolf. And also that Romulus founded Rome, that he disappeared in a storm, and that he then appeared to a Senator, telling him that Rome was to rule the world, before returning to Heaven.

Most of the history of the century after Jesus Christ's supposed career is almost completely blank on him; there are a few offhand comments here and there, but there is nothing really detailed, however interesting it might be.

Because they had simply not cared. In fact, the mythicist position was that Paul had pictured JC as a sort-of god without an earthly career, thus making the early Christians invulnerable to that would-be refutation. But if JC had actually been some obscure prophet, then his body may have been hard to find.

Furthermore, the early Christians may have reacted like many end-of-the-world believers; they often continue to support some end-of-the-world predictor whose prediction has just been falsified. Lots of new religions have done anything other than wither and die when confronted with skepticism about its central claims:

Mormonism
Christian Science
Moonism
Scientology

A totally stupid argument. All it shows is that the Gospel writers were just like good historical-fiction writers: getting the background straight.

The Romans' big grudge against them was their refusal to worship the Empire's official gods.

See <a href="http://www.jesuspuzzle.com" target="_blank">The Jesus Puzzle</a> for counterevidence.

???

Someone else.

There is something about the rejection of Jesus Christ's existence that drives some people absolutely nuts.

Vorkosigan

I'm working on finding the (@*$&^ reference to Paul's death in Acts. Is it in 21:37? I;ll be damned if I can recall...

Yes, one of the texts entitled Intro to the NT by either Bart Ehrman, L T Johnson, Raymond Brown, Ute what-is-his-last-name-CowboyX-will-know (my brain is fried. Early onset Alzheimers or something ) or else some similar text. The Birth of Christianity is another common name, with texts under that moniker from Dom Crossan and Alfred Loisy. Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels and Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of the Scripture are a couple of others.

This sort of apologist stuff -- the apostles wouldn't have died for something that didn't happen -- is nonsense on so many levels. For example, there are traditions, but no real hard evidence, that the apostles even died martyrs. Who they were is even more mysterious...

Consider the case directly. Do people die for things that they witness do not work. The answer is, of course, YES!. The maji-maji revolt in East Africa is an excellent example, the revolt dragging on for years even though it was bloodily demonstrated again and again that the magic water did not stop the White Man's bullets. Faith healers fail again and again. But people will always blame themselves, or find reasons to avoid facing uncomfortable facts and giving up hard-won identities. Cognitive dissonance, more persuasive than cash.

Although, I suspect, the majority of the "witnesses" were not people who had ever done much with or for Jesus, just like so many of those who "witness" the miracles of Mother Katherine or Sai Baba do not actually interact with them very long. In the Rebbe Schneerson case, one girl who was healed by him had never met the man -- just the magic power of his name, you know. So the whole idea of "witness" is a very slippery in cases like this.

It's Jerusalem. Jesus is dead. Rival groups are vying for the right to carry on in his name. Happens commonly -- the Lubavitchers, Mormons and the Muslims split after the deaths of their leaders. One side garners the majority, and precedes to rewrite history. To skew it. To make claims. Perhaps the "judiazers" were just a group who did not think Jesus was god, but the Peter-Paul crowd felt he was, just as today, the Lubavitchers have split over whether Schneerson was really the Messiah. Some even claim to have visions of the fallen messiah -- that's common as all hell. Gradually the doctrine develops, until a hundred years later, there is a physical resurrection and a Church that invents apostolic succession back to the largely imaginary apostles, to confirm its political rights against the heretics.....

Michael

spin

"The burdon of proof is on those who would deny the existence of Jesus, His Crucifixion, and His dissapearance from the tomb."
---------------------

This has already been responded to. The basic theme is: one has to demonstrate the existence of someone/something before one needs question that existence. Having the courage to apply historical methods coherently means every datum put forward as fact needs to be justified.


"The following are SOME of the problems present themselves when attempting to deny Christ's existence, crucifixion, or dissaperance from the tomb:"
----------------------

I don't deny any existence here. I say that no existence has been established, merely assumed.

"- You have an entire generation of history to contend with, ESPECIALLY JOSEPHUS. I challenge someone to provide me with scholarly literature of Christ's time that attempts to deny either His existence or crucifixion. "
----------------------

You need to read Josephus. The text has obviously been manipulated by the Christians who preserved him. A good Jew like Josephus (evident from his apologetic work) would never make the statement of belief that someone was the messiah without explanation. Early writers who knew Josephus didn't show any awareness of such an important witness to the existence of Jesus, so the direct conclusion is that it wasn't in the original text. Beside the tricked Josephus there is no sign of any entire generation of history.

- The fact the the Sadducces and Pharicees did not outright and blatantly contend with such claims. Would they not simply carry Christ's body through the streets and crush the "sect" of Christians?
------------------------

The Sadducees disappeared from history at least around the time of the Jewish War. That there are no contentions in early rabbincal writings would suggest that there were no Christians in Palestine to contend with.


"- The historical accuracy of the synoptic gospel accounts. While off subject historical accuracy does not prove that the parts dealing with Christ are true, they do lend support to the remaining account. "
-------------------------

This is not an argument. Literary works can be internally consistent. You cannot assume the accuracy of the synoptic gospels: this needs to be argued from evidence. I'll wait for something substantial to come along.


"- The fact that all of the apsotles were willing to face execution for their beliefs. You do not die for a lie, and CERTAINLY not for someone who never existed."
----------------------

Martyrs are martyrs. Look at the martyrs who kill themselves carrying bombs into crowds. This is not an argument.


"- There is absolutely NO evidence that lends one to deny Christ as a person who lived, was crucified, and who's body was missing from the tomb. The entire worlds history did not change because of someone the apostles made up."
---------------

Assuming your conclusions.


"Paul didn't kill thousands of Christians over someone who knew didn't exist"
------------------------

Paul doesn't say anything about doing this.


"The jews did not hold meetings to discuss someone who wasn't alive."
--------------------------

Which Jews, when? What are your sources?


"Where is all of the writing pointing out the obvious lie of Christ? Just WHO was John the Baptist preaching about, or did he not exist either?"
---------------------------

Tell me why the works of Porphyry were burnt by the Christians?

We have difficulties knowing what John preached about. According to Joesphus he did some years after the time attributed to Jesus's death, so is he relevant?


"All of the evidence going against Christ as a historical figure is simply bold assertion and heresay. If you want to view his life through the paradigm of philosophical naturalism, that is fine. But to deny his existence altogether is the mark of a poor education."
---------------------------

I'm not really interested in evidence against Jesus. I'm interested in evidence for. I do not deny what I've seen no evidence for. Discussing what is a mark of poor education is merely ad hominem.


"Lets argue the facts. "
----------------------

This is my interest.


"WHO WAS CHRIST? not DID HE EXIST?"
----------------------

When you cannot demonstrate if something existed or not, there is no point in first assuming that existence then analysing what it should be like. This is simply a waste of time. Let's not ask "did Marduk exist?", but "who was he?"


"We will never find truth and knowledge if we shoot ourselves over the issues that are factually obvious and acceptable to everyone's pressupositions. "
-------------------

Precisely. When you recover from the self-inflicted wound, you will start to realise that there are no obvious facts in the matter we are analysing. Don't be so acceptable to "everyone's presuppositions": unless a thing can be challenged from its fundaments and survive, then it has no basis whatsoever.

spin

Michael:
"It's Jerusalem. Jesus is dead."

Shooting yourself in the foot. If you can answer the question, "did Jesus exist" then you may talk about his death. I don't think you can answer the question. If you are merely hypothesizing then we usually indicate it through language.

Now, why do you think that Christianity sprung up in Judea? The first writings we can date beside Paul (who was from Tarsus) came from elsewhere, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch...

Pandora

Whilst awaiting a big package from those nice people at Amazon, I downloaded Robert M Grant's "A Historical Introduction to the New Testament" and Richard Heard's "An Introduction to the New Testament."

I'm finding them interesting, but I was a bit wary since they were written in 1963 and 1950 respectively. Has anyone else read them or have any comments?

CX

You're thinking of Udo Schnelle. His book History and Theology of the New Testament Writings pretty much replaced Raymond Brown's for first year seminarians.

CX

Literary dependence in the synoptic gospels is based, among other things, on the presence of verbatim agreements between the texts. The most conclusive is in GMk's "mini-apocalypse":

Mark 13:14
"When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong - let the reader understand - then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

Matthew 24:15
"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,'spoken of through the prophet Daniel - let the reader
understand - then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

The bolded text is a redactional gloss (an explanatory comment inserted into the text by the author). Given that this phrase "let the reader understand" is not part of the narrative, is not a quotation of Jesus' words, occurs in the same narrative framework and agrees verbatim between the two passages the only reasonable conclusion is that the two texts are literarily interdependent. Either AMk borrowed from AMt, AMt borrowed from AMk or both authors used the same source document. There are numerous other cases of verabtim agreement in the synoptic gospels. All the reasons for concluding there is a literary interdependence stem from text critical analysis and have little to do with the narrative content per se.

It is certainly speculative which parts of the gospels are historical and which are not, but the literary dependence of the synoptic gospels is beyond question.

A further note: I don't think most people here suggest that the three synoptic gospels are based on a common source. I think that most of us who have studied the issue, accept some version of the 2 source hypothesis. This is currently the mainstream view in biblical studies. I personally hold to markan priority with or without the existence of the hypothetical "Q" text. If you are unfamiliar with any of this I recommend, as others have I think, Dr. Goodacre's <a href="http://www.ntgateway.com" target="_blank">NT Gateway</a> particularly his link to Synoptic Problem websites. It also wouldn't hurt to read a good scholarly intro text.

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: CowboyX ]</p>