sighhswolf

Tercel,
Would you give me the sources of documentation of the life and ministry Jesus that were written during his lifetime and not something pulled out of thin air 100 years after his death.
I would love to see those, because I must have missed them in my reading.

I agree with you guys that the document itself
seems to be a figment of imagination, and a little too convenient for comfort.
It is strange to me though that nearly all of the noncanonical gospels/gnostic scriptures show this character in a very different light from what is presented in the NT.

"Claims like this are absurd on their face, and falsified by the actual record. The Jesus of the Gospels is a myth, the character he is based on is an unknown, nobody knows when he lived or died, no one can even say for sure which gospel events are legend and which are true."
Vorkosigan

I most certainly agree with your statement above.
In reading the information from the Jesus Seminars they make a statement that 85% of words
attributed to Jesus recorded in the NT were in fact not spoken by the man.
(reference the Jesus Seminars)

There seems to be no shortage of gospels, writings
anti-scriptures that were spawned 100 to 150 years after his death.
These sources in many cases present an image that conflicts with the image christianity has assigned
to Jesus.

Now whether or not there is any truth what-so-ever
contained in these noncanonical sources, wasnt the
question that I had asked myself.
I asked myself if there were information available
from any sources at all that would have proved the
historicity of Jesus or even helped to document
his life and ministry be they flattering or unflattering why did the church only use the gospels that showed the image they wanted?
It would have been more believable if they had included in the NT some of the oppositions views
IF in fact there was....... any opposition.

Maybe the early church Fathers had no documentation to begin with, because it never existed in the first place.

Looking at the "Secret Gospel of Mark" and "The Testimony of Truth", "The Apocalypse of Adam", "The Thought of Norea",
"The Hypostasis of the Archons", "The Apocryphon
of John", "The gospel of Philip" "The gospel of Mary" there is represented a very large volume of work and scholarship.

Some of these works are mythology and lean toward
magic and mystical practices and premises, but they do exist.
So why have we not found written documentation of this icon's ministry during his lifetime?
It would seem that when the Temple was destroyed
the artifacts and writings held in the Temple were
spirited out and hidden.
So the argument that the documentation of Jesus'
ministry was lost with the destruction of the temple does not make sense to me.

Considering the amount of scriptural texts that surfaced after the death of Jesus it is unreasonable to think that somewhere there should have been writings of this man during his lifetime.

It has been theorized that the library at Alexandria contained much information, but it was destroyed ....that also seems a little too convenient for an explanation of the lack of documentation.

Unless, the entire NT every single part was a complete fabrication of the early church fathers.
We dont know who wrote the canonical gospels, but it is widely accepted that the named authors did not.
Whats the difference in the "Secret Gospel of Mark" and the canonical version of Mark, if they are both suspect in authorship?
These are just a few questions that I had while reading through some of the Gnostic and noncanonical gospels.

How can the church and theologians dismiss manuscripts and unflattering accounts of Jesus as being fraud and forgery,
but they cannot verify the authenticity or authorship of what they have adopted as NT gospels?

So this is why I brought up the subject.


Wolf





<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Perchance

To me, there is one way that this could make sense: if they never intended to portray Jesus as human in the first place. "Son of Man" or not, a lot more people seem fixated on the "Son of God" aspect. Perhaps the early Church wanted to emphasize the idea of Jesus's divinity, and one way to do that was to distance him from the human, and one of the easiest ways to do that would be to make him avoid one of the most basic human activities.

They couldn't have him not eat or drink or sleep; those are too basic. But having sex, though very human, isn't really a requirement- you're not going to die if you stay celibate- so perhaps this was a way to convince listeners that he wasn't human.

Or something like that. This is all just speculation .

Interesting speculation, though.

-Perchance.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

Tercel

I think you missed my main question there. Does he have 4 suriving biographies written within a hundred years of his death or not?

I of course could equally give a nice list for Jesus:

• An early Christian creed (probably c32-38AD), as recorded in 1 Cor 15.
• 1 Thessalonians c51AD (see esp. 2:14-16)
• Galations c54AD (see esp. 4:4 & 1:19)
• 1 Corinthians c54AD (see esp. 11:23-25)
• Romans c57AD (see esp. 1:3)
• The now lost Passion Narrative & Q.
• The Gospel of Matthew
• The Gospel of Mark
• The Gospel of Luke
• The Gospel of John
• The Nineteen further NT books not mentioned above
• Two references by the Jewish Historian Josephus c95 AD
• Innummerable apocryhal writings in the second century.

That would be exactly what I would say about the Jesus myth claim...

Jesus mything is to history what Young Earth Creationism is to science.
The one is about as accept by the professionals as the other. In fact, YEC, probably has significantly more support. Just remind me, how many professional scholars currently support the Jesus-myth hypothesis again? How many people have advanced the hypothesis (ie published it) over the last hundred years? Precisely what percentage of those have actually had relevant qualifications (eg History, Biblical studies etc)?
Is not the obvious conclusion that the theory is simply a wacko one, and the few who do advance it do so for little more reason than that it’s sure to sell their books?

Tercel

Toto

Tercel, you keep repeating this nonsense like a borken record. YEC creationism is based on ignoring the evidence of science and sticking to scripture. Scientists can disprove the claims of creationists. Creationism is wrong because it does not follow the rules of science, not because of the percentage of experts opposed to it.

The Jesus myth hypothesis is an interpretation of the history of an era where it is not possible to know with scientific certainty what happened.

There is no consensus of historians about what happened in the 1st century CE the way there is a scientific consensus about evolution, and there is no call to defame people with alternate theories as wackos.

The true analog to YEC creationism is fundamentalism, which accepts the Bible as true and tries to distort secular historical sources to support it.

If the existence of the historical Jesus were so obvious and easy to prove, there would be something like talkorigins where professional historians could set the doubters straight. Instead, you have that execrable book by Habermas that Peter Kirby helpfully ripped to shreds for us. Or you have professional historians considering the existence of Jesus and deciding that, he probably existed but that's about all one can say. There is no clear and convincing evidence.

Tercel

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
I keep repeating this nonsense? Me?

Just answer the questions: Who has ever advanced the hypothesis that Jesus never existed and what were their qualifications? In the course of the last hundred years how many professional scholars have done so?
The answer is of course: So few that it clearly shows the theory belongs in the loony bin. Why has no interest been shown in top scholarship on the issue? Wait, perhaps all the scholars are biased...?
Or maybe... just maybe the theory that Jesus never existed is so utterly ridiculous as to render it laughable and so it gets left up to apologists like Brian Trafford and Gary Habermas to argue against it.
No major scholar has ever argued specifically against it: Is that because it's so good a theory that they could come up with no arguments, or simply because it was such a joke it wasn't worth refuting?

And Jesus-mything on ignoring the evidence of history and sticking to what the atheists wished was true. Hence the analogy.

Historians can disprove the claims of Jesus-mythers.

No, it's wrong because the evidence is against it. Simply not following the rules of science per see does not render an idea wrong.

If by "scientific certainty" you mean we cannot repeatedly observe it occuring, then I agree. I would note that we cannot repeatedly observe us evolving either. It is similarly a past event and we cannot "know" it save by the evidence left by it. Similarly we can know the falsity of Jesus mything because of the evidence.

There is a consensus that Jesus existed in the same way there is a consensus about evolution. Whether he was a blasphemer, a teacher, a prophet, or the divine Son of God is certainly disputed.
But to say that Jesus never existed at all, or that we can know next to nothing about him at all is wacko.

Another analogy is fundamentalistic, Jesus-mything, Metaphysical Naturalism which accepts Christianity as false and tries to distort secular and biblical historical sources to discredit it. Instead of having to explain away the resurrection, it is much easier for the skeptic to advance the absurd hypothesis that Jesus never existed at all which puts there little minds at rest from having to think through the difficulties of their position, and puts another obstactle in the way of them or those who hear them ever becoming Christian. And as for the book-writers there is always a ready-market for atheists being told what they want to hear.

The hypothesis that Jesus didn't exist is not taken seriously by professional historians.

Tercel

Tercel

I was intrigued by the Sighhswolf's quote from Augustine:
"It is lawful then to him that discusses disputes and preaches of things eternal or to him that narrates of things temporal pertaining to religion or piety to conceal at fitting times whatever seems fit to be concealed."

So I've tracked it down. It comes from Augustine's On Lying, which is a discussion of exactly what qualifies as a "lie" and when such a "lie" is permissable. Augustine opens with:
"There is a great question about Lying, which often arises in the midst of our every day business, and gives us much trouble, that we may not either rashly call that a lie which is not such, or decide that it is sometimes right to tell a tie, that is, a kind of honest, well-meant, charitable lie."

Augustine later wrote another book call Against Lying. With regard to the difference between the two, he writes:
"....Therefore in this retractation of my works, as I have found this [On Lying] still in being, I have ordered that it should remain; chiefly because therein are to be found some necessary things which in the other are not. Why the other has for its title, Against Lying, but this, Of Lying, the reason is this, that throughout the one is an open assault upon lying, whereas great part of this is taken up with the discussion of the question for and against. Both, however, are directed to the same object."

The actually passage itself containing the questionable statement is as follows. I have italised the original quote - immediately noticable is the fact that the original quote was not the whole sentence.

"Wherefore, from the doctrine of religion, and from those utterances universally, which are uttered on behalf of the doctrine of religion, in the teaching and learning of the same, all lies must be utterly kept aloof. Nor can any cause whatever be found, one should think, why a lie should be told in matters of this kind, when in this doctrine it is not right to tell a lie for the very purpose of bringing a person to it the more easily. For, once break or but slightly diminish the authority of truth, and all things will remain doubtful: which unless they be believed true, cannot be held as certain. It is lawful then either to him that discourses, disputes, and preaches of things eternal, or to him that narrates or speaks of things temporal pertaining to edification of religion and piety, to conceal at fitting time whatever seems fit to be concealed: but to tell a lie is never lawful, therefore neither to conceal by telling a lie."

Interesting how quotes change given a little context, isn't it?

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

sighhswolf

Hum, seems a bit like the Bishop is saying lie if you have, exaggerate if you have to, engage in deception if you need to, but remember I cannot Condone a lie.
A bit like spin doctoring dont you think?
The old plausible deniablility routine.

I dont necessarily say that Jesus never existed.
I think that there are some pretty good arguments
against his historical existence, mainly the lack of written documentation during his lifetime.
It would seem that 150 of the top Biblical scholars, theists, theologians and secular researchers after ripping the NT apart word for word and studing all available documentation would have put this historical Jesus search to bed once and for all.
But the Jesus Seminars only resulted in more questions and more contradictory information.

But the point is there is a wealth of information
concerning different views of this icon and there is no more reliability in the gospels contained
in the NT.... as they are for all the non-flattering accounts.

Anything that is presented as an alternative view
is "unreliable" "fiction" "lies" and "attacks on christianity" and "quackery", and I dont see it that way.
If the question of the historical Jesus is to be answered in any acceptable way, then those unflattering accounts must be an evidential part
of the puzzle.

I expect those christian responses, but if we are totally honest, the canonical gospels included
in the NT have no more validity than any other document from antiquity, christian scholars have for the most part accepted the fact that the named authors of those chosen gospels were not the actual writers, but they dont have to be verified and they dont have to meet standards of
evidence in a court of law.

Lets look at one of the documents discarded and discredited by the church fathers.

"Yeshu then resolved to go the Temple to acquire again the secret of the Name. That year the Passover came on a Sabbath day. On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu, accompanied by his disciples, came to Jerusalem riding upon an ass. Many bowed down before him. He entered the Temple with his three hundred and ten followers. One of them, Judah Iskarioto[9] apprised the Sages that Yeshu was to be found in the Temple, that the disciples had taken a vow by the Ten Commandments not to reveal his identity but that he would point him out by bowing to him. So it was done and Yeshu was seized. Asked his name, he replied to the question by several times giving the names Mattai, Nakki, Buni, Netzer, each time with a verse quoted by him and a counter-verse by the Sages.

Yeshu was put to death on the sixth hour on the eve of the Passover and of the Sabbath. When they tried to hang him on a tree it broke, for when he had possessed the power he had pronounced by the Ineffable Name that no tree should hold him. He had failed to pronounce the prohibition over the carob-stalk[10], for it was a plant more than a tree, and on it he was hanged until the hour for afternoon prayer, for it is written in Scripture, "His body shall not remain all night upon the tree." They buried him outside the city.

On the first day of the week his bold followers came to Queen Helene with the report that he who was slain was truly the Messiah and that he was not in his grave; he had ascended to heaven as he prophesied. Diligent search was made and he was not found in the grave where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him from the grave and had brought him into his garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters flowed into the garden.

Queen Helene demanded, on threat of a severe penalty, that the body of Yeshu be shown to her within a period of three days. There was a great distress. When the keeper of the garden saw Rabbi Tanhuma walking in the field and lamenting over the ultimatum of the Queen, the gardener related what he had done, in order that Yeshu's followers should not steal the body and then claim that he had ascended into heaven. The Sages removed the body, tied it to the tail of a horse and transported it to the Queen, with the words, "This is Yeshu who is said to have ascended to heaven." Realizing that Yeshu was a false prophet who enticed the people and led them astray, she mocked the followers but praised the Sages.

The disciples went out among the nations--three went to the mountains of Ararat, three to Armenia, three to Rome and three to the kingdoms buy the sea, They deluded the people, but ultimately they were slain.

The erring followers amongst Israel said: "You have slain the Messiah of the Lord." The Israelites answered: "You have believed in a false prophet." There was endless strife and discord for thirty years.

The Sages desired to separate from Israel those who continued to claim Yeshu as the Messiah, and they called upon a greatly learned man, Simeon Kepha, for help. Simeon went to Antioch, main city of the Nazarenes and proclaimed toe them: "I am the disciple of Yeshu. He has sent me to show you the way. I will give you a sign as Yeshu has done."

Simeon, having gained the secret of the Ineffable Name, healed a leper and a lame man by means of it and thus found acceptance as a true disciple. He told them that Yeshu was in heaven, at the right hand of his Father, in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1. He added that Yeshu desired that they separate themselves from the Jews and no longer follow their practices, as Isaiah had said, "Your new moons and your feasts my soul abhorreth." They were now to observe the first day of the week instead of the seventh, the Resurrection instead of the Passover, the Ascension into Heaven instead of the Feast of Weeks, the finding of the Cross instead of the New Year, the Feast of the Circumcision instead of the Day of Atonement, the New Year instead of Chanukah; they were to be indifferent with regard to circumcision and the dietary laws. Also they were to follow the teaching of turning the right if smitten on the left and the meek acceptance of suffering. All these new ordinances which Simeon Kepha (or Paul, as he was known to the Nazarenes) taught them were really meant to separate these Nazarenes from the people of Israel and to bring the internal strife to an end.

Of course this was part of the Toledoth Jesus story written about the Life and death of Jesus through the eyes of the Jews.
Now what makes this document "false" as opposed to Matthew Mark Luke and John?
If those people listed above cannot be verified as the authors of the gospels, then who were the authors? And how is it possible to denigrate
other accounts when there exists no verification
or authentication of those works?
Mr. Humm has explained this text in the following manner:
"This is a derogatory version of the life of Jesus, growing out of the response of the Jewish community to Christianity. The tradition presented here is most commonly dated to approximately the 6th century CE. The text it self is closer to the 14th c. There is no scholarly consensus on to what extent the text might be a direct parody of a now lost gospel. H.J. Schonfield argued that it was so closely connected to the Gospel of the Hebrews that he attempted to reconstruct that lost work from the Toledoth."

Now is the above text truth?
I dont know...but it holds no more or no less validity than the gospels contained in the NT.
Until unimpeachable sources found to put this in perspective and verify the truth of the documents no one will know for sure.

It has been my position and continues to be my position that anything at all written by man is subject to deception, exaggeration, heresay, and
personal motivations such as the persuit of power and wealth.
The early church fathers were in practical terms trying to establish a power base large enough to challenge the Roman Empire.
Such a goal would lend itself to major deception
and questionable evidence.

And we arrive back at the beginning, why is there no written documentation of Jesus ministry during his lifetime?
The NT accounts of miracles, and the teachings of Jesus (in direct conflict with the Rabbinic authorities) should have spread far and wide by word of mouth and someone somewhere would have documented these events.
And my major question is that the NT itself documents the rift between Jesus and the Rabbinic
authorities, Rabbi's were educated learned and
a source of information for all the ancient Hebrews, with that in mind why is it that there were no spy reports, no first hand accounts of this subversive and counter culture figure from those who would have seen him as a threat to their power structure?
(and I dont buy the destruction of the Temple argument).

Wolf

Perchance

I suppose, to play devil's (ha) advocate for a moment:

One could argue that people could see Christianity was the Truth (TM) even then, and so fought to destroy it, to have its records destroyed, and to make sure that no one had the documentation that would have proved it beyond doubt.

But this leaves at least two questions unanswered:

1) Even if someone "sensed" that Christianity was the Truth (TM), why would he or she want to destroy it? It's highly unlikely that they could see into the future and decipher all the blood it would spill.

2) Why do Christians and enemies of the Church have no trouble seeing the Truth (TM), but others are blind to it? What accounts for that?

You have to have faith, I suppose.

-Perchance.

P.S. This argument does not necessarily represent the opinion of the party making it.

Dark Jedi

Ya know, it might be a hoot to send this analysis to Fred Phelps.
I suspect he'd have a stroke.

sighhswolf

Perchance,
Truth is simply what the majority of the population perceives it to be no more or no less.
Truth is not verification as much as it is agreement by majority rule.
When the president says "This is a christian nation, based on christian values"...........
Even though every high school kid knows different
from basic American History....it is still hawked as "truth" and accepted by a large majority of Americans.

The christians tell me that the Bible is true.
The christians say Jesus was the messiah and performed miracles.
The christians say their icon was crucified dead and buried.
"I believe in god the father almighty maker of heaven and earth and in Jesus christ his only son our lord.
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin mary, suffered was crucified dead and buried ....he decended into hell.
The third day he arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of god the father almighty. (another contradiction, I guess he would have to be three people so that he could sit beside himself, huh?)
From whence he shall come to Judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the holy ghost, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the ressurection of the body and the life everlasting.
(If I left anything out, please cut me some slack I was pulling it out of my memory, and I have made it a project of mine to forget as much of this bullshit as possible)
Say this a few million times and it becomes "truth", but is it really?
Can any of this stuff be proven?
NOPE........but it is accepted as truth by millions, with no more documentation or authority
than pure heresay and shakey circumstancial evidence.
So this is my point that there is just too much information out there that has been supressed simply to protect the position of the church.
It has been simply too easy to sweep the unflattering stuff under the carpet and dismiss
anything not canonical as lies and misdirection and words out of context.
And that tired old christian two steppin just doesnt cut for me anymore.

There are those who are so convinced of their own intellectual superiority that they dismiss every word as being groundless without substance, unverifiable, taken out of context and to those folks it will never matter what evidence is presented because they are so arrogant they refuse to even consider that there are people who are more schooled and have access to better material and have given large parts of their lives in an attempt to find the "real truth".
But to be honest...there isnt any real truth.
And the church has learned the art of deception very well, I have to hand it to them they have succeeded in perpetuating this utter falsehood for over 2000 years and they know how to manipulate perception and play on the fears of those whom they seek to control.

Christianity is not about Jesus, lets face it.
It's about a guy who had some kind of seizure and
experienced some delusions of piousness and of speaking to some divine being.
It should have been called "Paulianity".

It would seem that according to Paul anyway, Jesus renounced his Jewish heritage ......because the NT gospels are contrary to just about everything that the Jewish monotheistic form of god worship was all about.

If in fact there was an historic Jesus, why do you think he would have sought to discredit in any way the basis of his life the law of god given to moses.
And the noahide covenant given to Noah by god after the flood.

Christians discount the Jewishness of their icon
and preach a gospel invented for gentiles.
And that is what these accounts are all about, the
reality of how orthodox Jews viewed this person collectively as a religious leader and prophet of god.

Myself, I dont believe a word of any of it, but I enjoy mythology and a good story.
And I like to "stir the pot" so to speak.
Hum "devils advocate" I like that term...
Wolf



[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: sighhswolf ]</p>