Originally posted by David C
Then your involvment in this thread amounts to trolling, since the question was evidence of extra-biblical reference to Jesus. There simply aren't any credible sources.
Actually, your question was about "indisputable historical references" to Jesus. You have yet to say why you think the Gospels cannot be accepted as evidence of the existence of a man named Jesus. And I'm including the Apocryphal Gospels here as well. After all, here you have a number of documents, produced independently, all dating to within a few decades of the supposed death of Jesus.
May I point out that your post hoc ergo propter hoc is far more dubious than mine.
Pray, where have I used a post hoc argument?
Why is that? Surely you don't contend that the gospels are scientific proof of Jesus' existence.
Of his existence, yes. Of his divinity, perhaps not. You keep getting confused between the two.
As I mentioned before, here are a number of documents dating back to the 1st century AD, many of which were produced independently of other accounts, all of which agree at least on the fact that Jesus was a real person. Unlike mythological accounts/epics in other cultures, the accounts for Jesus's life were not recorded centuries after his death based on folk tales and legend. They were recorded at a time when many of the other characters in his life (his family, the Apostles, other disciples) were still alive. If the story of Jesus were merely a natural Hebraicisation of other myths (which date back to a 1000 years or more BC), then we would see clear evidence of this in the Hebrew literature of the time (some kind of proto-myth would exist prior to the supposed birth of Christ). If not, then the only other explanation left for you is to assume a deliberate hoax. If it were a deliberate hoax, then it seems unreasonable that they would've included assertions in their account that can be very easily refuted by public officials (the Sanhedrin, Roman officers).
So, what do you think is more probable - Did the Jesus-myth evolve from older myths in Jewish culture but not leave any evidence of such evolution until a sudden spurt in accounts around 70 AD? Did a group of people cook up an elaborate hoax and then suddenly run around the countryside converting people? Or is it more probable that there really was a man named Jesus who went around preaching and got killed for his troubles (whether he subsequently resurrected or not)?
How many times do I have to restate this? I will claim agnosticism on the topic of Socrates and Alexander. I have not investigated the historical references to either figure. Trying to draw an analogy between moon landing conspiracists and my question are ludicrous and entirely disingenuous.
That depends on how you respond to the three options in the paragraph before this.
Originally posted by David CI know Pal is far to bright to think prophecy 'probable.'
Granted, but herein lies my conundrum. Most of the documentation we've discussed has had ample opportunity to be modified to a particular viewpoint by indivduals with a vested interest. Would you agree?
Now, given the evidence that there are "Jesus" figures in other religions with similar, if not remarkably parallel histories, does it not seem less-tha ...[text shortened]... " route. At this point I won't debate the reasons why it happened, other than to say "power".
Really, if prophecy is 'probable,' then doesn't it sort of lose its power?
I prophecy that tomorrow some one will die in Iraq. Not so amazing is it?
Originally posted by telerion
[b]Either he is inconsistent in his application of his standards, and he does not question the historicity of Socrates and Alexander
Or whether or not he accepts the historicity of these two men is superfluous. It simply clouds the discussion. [/b]
On the contrary, it tells us what his historical method is.
For instance, I claim agnosticism as to the historicity of both Socrates and Alexander.
What about the moon landings? Surely you're not going to believe that Man landed on the moon entirely based on the evidence provided by one governmental agency that had clear and explicit vested interests in claiming that its representatives were the first to land on the moon?
Once again, it boils down to historical method. David's historical method can be clearly demonstrated to produce absurd results when applied to other historical personalities/events. As you said, it's good academic practice to demonstrate flaws in a method, no?
If his method can be demonstrated to be flawed/produce absurd results, then there is no need to try and meet it for Jesus.
In the face of that, your 'criticism' is exposed for the red herring that it is. This is not a discussion of either Socrates or Alexander. Cases for either could be presented at some other time. The grounds for these cases would surely be based on different evidence and so the strength of the argument for either of these figures does not bulster the case for Jesus. Right now, Jesus of Nazareth is on the table. Care to talk about him instead?
Sure, read my post at the beginning of this page.
Sounds fair enough to me. I wouldn't accept a text from the LDS's "proving" that John Smith was actually directed by Moroni to golden tablets written in Ancient Egyptian.
No. But would you reject LDS texts altogether as evidence for the existence of a man named John Smith?
Once again, we're not discussing the miraculous events from Jesus's life - but the very existence of such a person.
We have plenty of texts claiming that Zeus exists. Maybe we should accept those as well. Hell not all of them were written by cult members. Even the media of the time (playwrights) accepted it and wrote about it as fact.
The case of Zeus would be interesting. Many mythologies develop over centuries from events/conflicts that actually occurred. It's not improbable that the deity Zeus is based off some historical/legendary chieftain or a composite of a few such chieftains.
Nevertheless, in the case of Zeus, one can clearly see the development of the mythology across time. With Jesus, that's not the case.
Again I am, as yet, not in either camp on the issue. I just see one side doing some real thinking and the other playing games. I'd like to hear a solid case presented.
If you and David stop mixing up the question of whether a man named Jesus existed and whether the miraculous events attributed to Christ actually happened with this man you'll see that plenty of historical evidence/arguments for the existence of Jesus has been provided.
So far David has put forward reasons why the historicity of Jesus should be questioned.
Actually, the only reason he has put forward is that the Gospel accounts of Jesus's life shares some similarities with other mythological characters. He has flatly refused to consider the Gospels as historical documents (although they can be reliably dated back to around 90 AD or so). And he's mentioned that Josephus is a forgery. What else?
He has countered every evidence thus presented with standard objections from scholarship.
Far from it. He's flatly rejected almost every piece of evidence thrown at him - evidence that a historian or archaeologist would be more than happy to have. And he's not "countered" it, merely refused to consider it.
Originally posted by David Ci definitely am no 'jesusbot'. but this is another interesting topic, courtesy of David C. i recently saw a screening for a documentary, the main premise of which was the claim that jesus never existed -- rather, according to the documentary, he was simply a literary character concocted from earlier mythological molds. i found it one-sided and less than compelling. i think the documentary was called 'the god who wasn't there' if i recall correctly.
I met this guy the other day. He said to me, "Jesus never really existed, you know. It's simply the retelling of the archetype saviour myth handed down from antediluvian times. It was anthropomorphized to coincide with the new age...which is now about to draw to a close."
Wow, says I.
"What about the historical evidence?", I asked naively. "You k ...[text shortened]... ysteries" reference was a blatant forgery by the forgers' forger, Eusebius. What else you got?
at any rate, i'm not sure what to think about whether jesus was or wasn't. my current opinion (which is unfounded, and i don't claim it to be otherwise) is that jesus the man probably did exist, but, alas, he wasn't the shiznit. or at least, i think that someone fitting the description of jesus (sans the supernatural gibber-jabber, miracle working, what-have-you) probably did exist. i'm willing to let the theist have this assumption; i don't think it's much of a concession really.
Originally posted by David CAgain, you're mixing up the historicity of Jesus and the historicity of the purported events in Jesus's life.
Granted, but herein lies my conundrum. Most of the documentation we've discussed has had ample opportunity to be modified to a particular viewpoint by indivduals with a vested interest. Would you agree?
Now, given the evidence that there are "Jesus" figures in other religions with similar, if not remarkably parallel histories, does it not seem less-tha ...[text shortened]... " route. At this point I won't debate the reasons why it happened, other than to say "power".
If I were an atheist, the most reasonable conclusion I would reach based on the evidence would be that there really was a man named Jesus who went around teaching, got in trouble and got killed. The rest of it could be politics. But, as Pal points out, I would think it extremely unlikely that a new religion can spread like wildfire based on a fictional character who's supposed to have lived in the same region just a few years back.
On the contrary, it tells us what his historical method is.
Not really. The position you hold would suggest to us that to deny any character to be a historical figure claimed by any text making a historical claim is tantamount to denying the moonlanding. Given your displayed fondness for absurdity, it does not surprise me that you actually take time out of your day to worship your idol and follow the CC.
What about the moon landings? Surely you're not going to believe that Man landed on the moon entirely based on the evidence provided by one governmental agency that had clear and explicit vested interests in claiming that its representatives were the first to land on the moon?
What about the Zeus? What about . . . What about . . . We could be here a while. When will you finally have the courage to face the real questions in the thread?
Nice misanalogy by the way. The evidence for the moon landing can be examined independent of a the words from the US gov't. Certainly NASA wouldn't counter an anti-moonlanding argument with 'Well, we said that the we landed on the moon so there.' That's basically what you've got for your case so far.
Once again, it boils down to historical method. David's historical method can be clearly demonstrated to produce absurd results when applied to other historical personalities/events. As you said, it's good academic practice to demonstrate flaws in a method, no?
Well, at least you are starting to learn. It only looks absurd when you misapply it and construct misanalogies for that sole purpose. Most of us grow tired of such mental masturbations. Have fun exploring though.
If his method can be demonstrated to be flawed/produce absurd results, then there is no need to try and meet it for Jesus.
Except that you've failed show this. You only shown that you're are willing to go to any lengths to avoid thinking critically about your holy superstitions. What's the saying in your cult? "Give us the first five years of your child's life . . ."
No. But would you reject LDS texts altogether as evidence for the existence of a man named John Smith?
I would give them little weight if that was the only evidence that we had, especially given the other claims in those texts. I have not rejected the sources you site as 'evidence,' but I do think that much can be said to the reliability of those texts. So it isn't that it you have given 'evidence;' it's that the evidence that you have given is very suspect.
Once again, we're not discussing the miraculous events from Jesus's life - but the very existence of such a person.
You're starting to understand, finally.
The case of Zeus would be interesting. Many mythologies develop over centuries from events/conflicts that actually occurred. It's not improbable that the deity Zeus is based off some historical/legendary chieftain or a composite of a few such chieftains.
So you are claiming agnosticism now? What of your historical method? You accept one standard for your Christ, but retreat to agnosticism with others? Surely, you are not agnostic about the moon landing? Oh look, masturbation is such a tough habit to kick.
Nevertheless, in the case of Zeus, one can clearly see the development of the mythology across time. With Jesus, that's not the case.
Of course Zeus is a myth to you. But Jesus walking on water and feeding thousands of people with a bit of bread and fish, that's what did you say . . . 'probable?' Is that you 'scientific' assessment?
If you and David stop mixing up the question of whether a man named Jesus existed and whether the miraculous events attributed to Christ actually happened with this man you'll see that plenty of historical evidence/arguments for the existence of Jesus has been provided.
Haven't done this. But nice diversion.
Actually, the only reason he has put forward is that the Gospel accounts of Jesus's life shares some similarities with other mythological characters. He has flatly refused to consider the Gospels as historical documents (although they can be reliably dated back to around 90 AD or so). And he's mentioned that Josephus is a forgery. What else?
And here I thought you were actually reading the thread. Oh well. Maybe next time.
Far from it. He's flatly rejected almost every piece of evidence thrown at him - evidence that a historian or archaeologist would be more than happy to have. And he's not "countered" it, merely refused to consider it.
More than happy to have? Do you mean by that obscure phrase that a historian or archeologist would accept this few scraps as rock solid evidence of the existence of such a figure? Oh so I guess that's why nobody debates the existence of Socrates or Aeneas.
1. Show me a SINGLE INSTANCE of someone claiming that Zeus was a historical human being. Again, confusing the historicity issue with the deity issue.
2. How's this for a reason not to entirely reject the Gospels? The reason we can fairly accurately date the birth of Jesus is thanks to the Gospel of Luke, which records a census that is known to have occurred from other sources. Score one point for verifiable fact in the Gospels.
Originally posted by telerionIn here, you talk about Jesus walking on water. Again, irrelevant to the question in this thread.
[b]On the contrary, it tells us what his historical method is.
Not really. The position you hold would suggest to us that to deny any character to be a historical figure claimed by any text making a historical claim is tantamount to denying the moonlanding. Given your displayed fondness for absurdity, it does not surprise me that you actuall ...[text shortened]... such a figure? Oh so I guess that's why nobody debates the existence of Socrates or Aeneas. [/b]
Originally posted by orfeoWell said Orf!
Jesus did claim to be the Messiah, that is why he was killed. At least, according to the Gospels. Which brings us back to...
If you acknowledge that Socrates and Alexander pose the same problems as Jesus, well I don't really feel the need to try to establish the historical existence of Jesus. Or Shakespeare or Mozart or Abraham Lincoln, for that matter. ...[text shortened]... o the culture(s) it sprang from. Please give me a concrete example of this so-called archetype.
We all only believe anything of history 'on authority'. We must individually decide what historians or history books or network newsmagazines we will trust to have done their homework in a responsible manner. Once we do decide, our whole credibility lies in their credibility.
By the way, I understand (from those authorities I trust) that when it comes to contemporary manuscripts (read: more reliable) there are more of the New Testament than there are of any other ancient text.
Originally posted by David C
The Tacitus reference is problematic, Bosse. It didn't appear until 1468 C.E. when de Spire published a copy of Annals.
Although it was only published by the Spira around 1468-70 AD, it was available in manuscript form much earlier. The Spira version is based on the Monte Cassino manuscript, copied around 1050 AD. This manuscript, in turn, would be a direct copy of a 5th century manuscript.
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/
Stylistically, this passage is indistinguishable from the rest of Tacitus' Annals, hence it is reasonable to assume that the author of the rest of the Annals also authored this passage.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html
If this passage was available to early Christian proponents such as Eusebius, Clement, and Tertullian, and wasn't cited by them, then its' veracity is beyond doubtful.
Actually, there is a perfectly good reason why they wouldn't cite him on this passage - because of its extremely unflattering portrayal of Christians and Christianity. We know that Tertullian, for instance, called him "the most loquacious of liars".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitean_studies
If the question of Jesus' existence was never questioned at the time, why would Eusebius et al. need to cite him (clearly a writer with opposing views on Christ and Christianity)?
Sorcery? Apostasy? Seems pretty un-jesus like. I'm not sure I buy the Talmud citation.
I'm not sure I buy it completely either (although at least one version of the Talmud calls him "Yeshu the Nazarene"😉, but sorcery and apostasy sound exactly like the kind of charges levelled against Jesus in the Bible.
1. Show me a SINGLE INSTANCE of someone claiming that Zeus was a historical human being. Again, confusing the historicity issue with the deity issue.
Think about selling in the fish market? You seem to have cornered the market on red herrings.
Clearly, you have distorted the nature of my objection (perhaps due to some inadequancy on your part). The point, within its narrow context, was that Zeus has been put forth as a historical person. Obviously, he is not a human being. That doesn't undermine the relevance of the point.
2. How's this for a reason not to entirely reject the Gospels? The reason we can fairly accurately date the birth of Jesus is thanks to the Gospel of Luke, which records a census that is known to have occurred from other sources. Score one point for verifiable fact in the Gospels.
Funny. That is actually a portion of the Bible that apparently does not match up with Roman records. There was no world-wide census at that time. So maybe you better take that 'one point' and give it to its rightful owner: ignorant zealotry.