Gregg

Christianity was not originally based on an actual historical crucifixion. Jesus Christ started out as mythical dying/rising savior god similar to Mithrais, Attis, and Horus. It was only when the Gospels, which were originally written as allegories, began to be regarded as histories that Christ was brought to earth.

Check out <a href="http://www.jesuspuzzle.org" target="_blank">www.jesuspuzzle.org</a> for the full story.

Gregg

Gregg

Mark, Paul, and John are not "indendent witnesses." The Gospels of "Mark" and "John" are faith documents and cannot be relied on as accurate historical accounts. Paul certainly never claims to have witnessed the crucifixion.

Even you cannot deny that the Josephus references are hotly debated and that many "serious historians" regard them as later Christian interpolations.

None of the authors of the epistles, Paul included, ever talk about Jesus as if he had recently been on earth. Paul, for all his fascination with Jesus' suffering and crucifixion, never talks about visiting Calvary and prostrating himself on the unspeakably holy ground where his Lord gave his life for the sins of humanity.
Eh? How could we possibly "know" this beyond any reasonable doubt? Oh, I don't know. If you had lots of independent attestion to the events surrounding Jesus' ministry and death, such as Josephus saying something like, "I spoke with many people who were witnesses to Jesus' ministry--Jews and Romans alike--and they all agreed that Jesus had raised a several-days-old man from the dead. In fact, I spoke with Lazarus himself and he affirmed that yes, he'd been dead and Jesus brought him back to life. And many people in Jerusalem remember that when Jesus was crucified, dead folks rose from their graves and walked the earth. I spoke to some of those formerly dead people too, and some of them showed me their tombstones and grave wrappings. Finally, I talked with a couple of people who, shortly after Jesus' death and burial, swear that they saw him eating fish with the men who'd followed him in life. Of course, I might as well have saved my time and ink here, because all these amazing occurrences are already well documented and the Jews and Romans who saw them have never stopped talking about them. In fact, as everyone knows, Pilate himself and many of his soldiers decided to confess Christ as Lord after witnessing the amazing signs and portents surrounding his death, and even though they didn't personally witness the resurrection, they certainly had no reason to doubt Jesus was capable of such a feat."

Oh yeah. There was a big conspiracy to cover everything up, right? Everyone in Jerusalem was frightened into denying that the dead ever walked the streets. Everyone, that is, except Jesus' own disciples, who were allowed to spread the good news from Jerusalem for at least a couple of decades following the crucifixion.

Try checking out <a href="http://www.jesuspuzzle.org" target="_blank">www.jesuspuzzle.org</a> for a different explanation.

Gregg

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Gregg ]</p>

diana

Possibly because:

1. Many of us were raised fundamentalist and this is the default mindset.

2. The bible itself supports the notion that the things therein are literally true.

3. Given the choice between understanding a Xn to believe the bible is literally true and to believe it isn't true, it makes little sense to assume the Xn believes the bible isn't true. It's also less defensible--which parts do you believe and which do you not? Why? How do you decide?

If you'd like to pursue this discussion, leonarde, please open another thread. Thanks.

d

diana

Bede,

He qualified his comment with "many." IIRC, that leaves room for the fact that some, or possibly even most, may not agree.

I haven't read your posts for a while.

I'd forgotten how nasty you can be.

We're always proud to have Xns like you around.

d

diana

Gregg said:
This strikes me as a fairly weak argument in itself. It more or less assumes that a person who believes will seek out a physical holy place that is connected to his belief system. That's a bit of a leap.

For me, it is enough that Paul never claims to have witnessed the crucifixion/resurrection. I think his "If Xst be not risen, then our faith is in vain" comment is simply a way of positing the crucifixion/resurrection as a premise for his belief system. He puts it forth as a given. In logic circles, we'd call this an assumption.

The assumed premise cannot double as the logical conclusion.

d

Rusting Car Bumper

Bede,

I have the occasion to speak to some religious scholars and historians on a frequent basis... (No I'm not a student.)

When I ask their opinion of the state of scholarship on what happened in the first century they generally tell me there is no consensus. Many who are specificaly in that field tell me that there about the half a dozen variations (more or less) and that no one variation is dominant.

None of this means that Jesus did or did not exist. However, it seems to fly in the face of these claims you make that "no serious scholars doubt" and so forth.

My response is "Who cares what Bede thinks?"

DC

diana

Thus spake Bede:
The crucifixion of Jesus of Nazereth is a historical fact which no serious historian doubts.

And "serious historian" is defined as a person who does not doubt the crucifixion of Jesus.

While there is no absolute proof, historical methodology does place this fact beyond reasonable doubt.

"Historical methodology" equally places the original stories of all religions beyond reasonable doubt.

We have several independent witnesses: Mark, Paul, John, Josephus and perhaps authors of the other Catholic letters.

Josephus being the only one who deigned to sign his name to his work, but even if the Testimonium is taken as original, he still does not purport to be an independent witness. Nor does the Testimonium read thusly. I reads like repeated hearsay, any way you slice it.

We also know that there is no motive that makes sense for making up the crucifixion.

Any more than there would be motive that makes sense for anyone creating the basic stories of any religion.

Everybody was happy under Roman rule, after all. None of them was looking for something to believe in. Nobody ever wanted a religion that was "better" or more righteous than its competitors.

On the other hand, the resurrection, which is the the real cornerstone of Christian faith, is not open to historical proof.

On the same hand, actually.

d

Bede

DC,

Try asking the state of scholarship on whether the crucifixion of Jesus actually happened. You will get the answer yes it did.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Rusting Car Bumper

My questions include such scenarios and it depends on what level of detail you want to go down to. Remember, I am asking about the state of scholarship. I am not asking their opinion of what happened. Even the scholars who are Christians readily admit there is no consensus.

As such your claims that scholars are in general agreement simply isn't true.

DC

rdalin

I actually referred to 'many Christians' in this excerpt; I didn't mention you at all. Touchy, aren't you?

After I read all of your hundreds of posts, what then? Is there an exam?

Edited to add: I notice that you didn't bother to answer my original post. That's another tactic which many Christians engage in.

Edited again: You said this: "As you haven't been here long, you might like to read this on the academically accepted methods used in studying the historical Jesus. Vork rejects them all (as he keeps repeating endlessly) but given that professional secular historians do not, who cares what Vork thinks?" If you don't care what Vork thinks, why do you mention him in the first place? I think you secretly do care.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: rdalin ]

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: rdalin ]</p>