Brewmaster

I apologize for my absence. As stated previously, my life is quite hectic at the moment. Also, I appreciate the tone and shrewdness of this discussion. My goal in this post is to respond to several of you at one juncture.

Simian: I contend that there is a vast difference between Greek mythology and Christianity. For example, John Frame, a noted Christian theologian, says that there is no attempt to locate the myths, in Greek mythology, in real space-time history. There is no appeal to witnesses, no surrounding history, no calendar dating, no spatial locating, etc. Indeed, it’s questionable whether the Greeks really thought that the myths actually happened in human history or whether they were just figurative ways of explaining various phenomena. On the other hand, the heart of Christianity is its historical veracity. Scripture presents biblical history in a detailed, rational fashion. It asserts supernatural events and gives evidences for them, which other accounts of supernatural events lack.

Goliath: The following are references, outside of the New Testament, which mention Jesus. The time period covered ranges from the mid-first century to the end of the second century. They are: Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Josephus, Suetonius, Plinius Secundus, Thallus, and the Letter of Mara Bar-Serapion. There are several other examples, but for space concerns I have left them off. I would also like to point out the witness of the early church fathers.

Hobbs: You say that there should be a single first-hand account of Jesus in light of the miracles he performed and the sheer number of witnesses. I believe the New Testament is a factual record of the life of Jesus Christ, including Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These are verifiable eyewitness accounts. A good place to begin is the book of Mark, which most scholars believe came first. I would argue that it was written before A.D. 60, sometime in the late fifties. It is most probable that Mark was writing on behalf of the Apostle Peter and relying on him as his main source. Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia until about A.D. 130, tells us as much in Eusebius’s History of the Church. If Mark is valid as an account, then it seems to me that you have your witness. However, you seem unwilling to accept the Bible and its claims. If an extra biblical manuscript was found tomorrow, which substantiated the claims of the New Testament would you believe? I seriously doubt it. You want extra sources, other than Scripture, for the life of Jesus, but there are plenty of instances in history were we rely on one source as proof. Also, your assertion that there are no first-hand reports of the of the Apostles is erroneous. For example, Clemens Alexandrinus records the martyrdom of James. Lastly, you argue against miracles and the truth of Scripture based on Matthew 27.51-54 (although you probably have other verses in mind as well) because if it were true there would be substantiation outside of Matthew. I concede that this is a difficult verse. Furthermore, scholars have struggled with this verse as well. But there are several possibilities to consider. First, it actually did occur and Matthew is recording the reports of a witness, or several witnesses. It is not unlikely that Matthew would be the only person to record this. Jewish authorities would definitely not, in light of Jesus’ claims, have written about this event and would have sought to suppress any knowledge of it. There is also a possibility that others recorded it and Matthew is the only source that has survived. This is not surprising considering the importance the early church placed on the writings of the Apostles verses other non-apostolic writing. Also, we don’t know whom they appeared to in Jerusalem. If it were only to the followers of Jesus then Matthew’s account would have been enough. Second, some believe Matthew is giving us a profound meditation on what the crucifixion of Jesus means for the destiny of humankind. Third, many feel that the reference to the holy city is the New Jerusalem meaning heaven and not the earthly Jerusalem. This is common in Jewish apocalyptic writings from this period. Further, you also said in your post that you don’t believe in miracles because, according to your own understanding of the world, they are not possible. It seems to me the bigger question revolves around the existence of God in this case. If God exists miracles are possible. If He does not exist then they are not possible. Thus, we have met a fork in the road. I am willing to accept/believe that there is a Creator and that my intelligence is subservient to One who is greater than me. You seem satisfied that your own autonomous understanding of the world is sufficient.

Echo: In response to your question concerning what effect James ossuary would have on the atheist community, I thought everyone would immediately turn on Z88.3 (only you will get this). Seriously, I was just curious. In reality, I really didn’t think it would mean much, however, the number of people who didn’t believe that Jesus existed as a historical figure surprised me.

simian

I will point out that in an earlier post, I said:

"I have offered to use another term, if they can find one they would also use to describe the golden fleece, translating stones, statues of Hindu gods drinking milk, etc. - so far I have not seen a response. It could be because Chirstians like to think that their stories in their religion is somehow more true than the stories in other religions."

The golden fleece is greek.
Translating stone is Mormon.
Hindu god statues drinking milk is obviously Hindu.

I mentioned far more than just greek mythology. I happen to group them all as mythology, however.

The Oddessey is at least partially true - the location of Troy has been discovered from what I understand, and a number of the threats on the Oddessey are real locations. I would say the story existed in real space-time.

I don't know how much of the Oddessey is factual, and how much is mythology. I can point out that dipping somebody in magic water is not likely to make them impervious to weapons, because that magic water doesn't exist.

I don't know how much of the bible is factual about the life of one particular person. I can point out that going to a mountain high enough to see the all the kingdoms of the earth isn't going to happen, because the geometry of the earth is such that it can't.

The vast majority of Christians I know will admit some portion of the bible is mythology, the problems is getting them to admit some of it is made up, and a HUGE obstacle is getting them to apply the word mythology to things that they happen to believe in. Such as:

Young Earth Creationism
A mountain high enough to see all the kingdoms of the earth
The Shroud of Turin
The Holy Grail
Heaven(I would say this meets the definition of not existing in real time-space you assigned to the greeks above)
Hell (I would say this meets the definition of not existing in real time-space you assigned to the greeks above)
Speaking in Tongues
This casket "discovery" seems to be here too...

The list can go on and on. If these claims were being made by any other religion, you would most likely label them as mythology or magic. I no longer make the distinction between Christian mythology and the mythologies of all the other religions.

Simian

Goliath

Brewmaster,

Your sources mean nothing to me. Evidence for supernatural claims will never establish said supernatural claims. Your list of sources could be infinite, and it would make absolutely no difference.

Are you capable of proving that Jesus existed?

Sincerely,

Goliath

LordSnooty

Hi Brewmaster,

I just wanted to point out that some of the sources you mention are either false or of dubious origin. The Josephus entry is almost certainly a forgery, the Suetonius entry does not appear to refer to Jesus, the text written by Thallus is mentioned in later work but is no longer extant, and the Tacitus entry is a minor one which only shows that Tacitus was aware of the Christians.

Why do you not think that your own autonomous understanding is sufficient?

Paul

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: LordSnooty ]</p>

MortalWombat

Wrote in 115 CE. Hardly an eyewitness. wrote in ~170 CE. Also not an eyewitness. Was born in 39 CE. Not an eyewitness Wrote around 120CE. Doesn't mention Jesus, but "Chrestus" who apparently instigated disturbances among Jews in Rome. Wrote around 111 or 112 CE. Not an eyewitness. We don't even have his writings directly. All we have about his writings are a 3rd hand account from Eusebius (4th centuyr) writing about the Christian writer Julius Africanus (3rd Century) who wrote about Thallus. Historians aren't even sure when Thallus would have writen. An imprisoned Syrian who wrote some time after 73 CE. He doesn't even mention Jesus at all. The closest he comes is this quote: "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?" By all means, post them. Which ones are those? None of them were eyewitnesses as far as I know. You are in the minority. Almost all critical biblical scholars date it to at or around 70 or so. State your evidence for a pre-60 dating, please. Again, Eusebius was writing about 300 years after the fact, and most historians don't consider him to be the most reliable of sources. And Mark is woefully ignorant of basic Judean and Galilean geography (for instance, in Mark 7:31, he writes "Then he (Jesus) returned from the region of Tyre, and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, through the region of the Decapolis". I'd like to see someone explain how someone could do that. And in Mark 5:1, he has the region of the Gerasenes located right next to the Sea of Galilee, when Gerasa is actually more than 30 miles to the southeast) which would make him unlikely to have been an eyewitness.

cydonia

Not only are other religions' "miracles" mythology, they are also created by satan herself to trick us into not accepting Jesus, evidently.

And when the other evil religion myths are practically identical the "facts" of the bible, we have what i like to call "diabolical mimicry". Damn that devil's good!

Hobbs

Oh, cut the condescending bullshit.

I'd apologize for the rude comment, but I don't think it a crime to answer rudeness with rudeness. I'm particularly sensitive to insults such as this because intellectual integrity is among my primary values. If you have the evidence, put up; if not, shut up.

I used to be an ardent creationist, until I actually studied the real science of evolution and had to admit that I was wrong. I used to believe that the Bible was the inerrant word of God, until I more closely examined the evidence and had to admit that I was wrong. I've been wrong before and willing to admit it when confronted with evidence. IF you could actually come up with some real evidence that could actually withstand critical scrutiny, I'd freely admit that I was wrong. I take your insulting statement here to be a tacit admission on your part that you have no such evidence (otherwise you'd actually present it rather than discuss what hypothetically may happen if you did), and you are trying to avoid the consequences of not having convincing evidence by pretending that I wouldn't believe it even if you did have it.

Then verify it. There are plenty of good reasons to conclude that they are not. For just one problem, they aren't even written as primary accounts. Paul, for example, in his letters writes about "I went there and we did this," as you would expect from a firsthand account. The Gospels are not written at all like firsthand accounts are written. For another, there are too many conflicts between the stories (e.g. how were the first disciples, such as Simon and Andrew, collected; when Mary M left the tomb, did she see Peter or Jesus first; and on and on), so even if they were eyewitness accounts, we can't tell from them which, if any, is a reliable account.

Yes, most scholars believe Mark was written first. But they do not believe it was written before 60, nor do they believe he got his account from Peter. The vast majority of them peg it at the early 70s, at the earliest. The only ones I know of who claim an earlier date are the ones who were already committed to theological conservatism before they began their studies and, unlike many of their previously conservative colleagues, have somehow managed to continue holding that view in spite of the evidence otherwise. You say that you "would" argue that it was written before 60; but you didn't so argue. Care to give it a try? And remember to explain why you think the majority of scholars are incorrect in their dating of Mark. Why should I take your unsubstantiated word over the weight of scholarship on the issue?

Then there is the problem of why Mark would have written a gospel based on Peter's testimony when Peter wrote a gospel of his own. You do accept the Gospel According to Peter, and the one according to Thomas, as legitimate, don't you? If not, why not, and why do you accept the four you list above?

Then there is the problem of why Matthew, if he was an actual eyewitness, would have used Mark as one of his major sources. Why not just write his own account rather than rewrite (and alter along the way) the account of someone who was not an actual eyewitness? If he needed to jog his memory, why not use Peter's own account rather than Mark's account of what Peter told him?

You insulted my intellectual integrity, so I'll insult yours: I have to conclude that you believe only because you want it to be true, not because the evidence actually points that way. But some of us realize that wishing doesn't make something true.

I too am quite willing to accept that there is a Creator whose intelligence, and everything else, is far greater than anything I've got, if indeed it is true. I just don't see any evidence for it. And it was only with great reluctance that I came to that conclusion and had to give up my former beliefs. If you want to know a little more about why I believe what I do, and no longer believe what I used to, see <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=001340&p=" target="_blank">my response to woodchuck's testimony</a> which I posted recently.

I'm not "satisfied" that my own autonomous understanding is "sufficient." I merely refuse to pretend that, ultimately, I have anything else to start with. Or, did you use some source or method other than your autonomous understanding to determine that there is such a god, and if so, who he is and what he's like? What might that source have been? God Himself? How can you tell that your understanding of God is accurate whereas all those theists who think they get their understanding from God but have a much different understanding than you are all wrong? Why should I take your understanding of God over a Muslim's, a Hindu's, a [insert any of the thousands of Christian denominations you aren't a member of here]'s? What's so special about you?

David M. Payne

I guess so. The Brewmaster talks the talk, but can't walk the walk.

David

simian

I have no doubt he "will return before this generation passes from the earth." Of course, generation and earth will have to be redefined, just like in the bible...

Simian

Hobbs

That's quite a lot to keep up with, so I'll help out by keeping this thread easy to find. **bump**