Again, it was around long before it was actually penned to paper; I think some people are just failing to note the difference, and in any case many scholars continue to find evidence for earlier written works, such as the 'Q' hypothesis, and then there is Joachim Jeremia's extensive documentation of the NT writings and the Gospels being contemporary sources, not later fabrications. There are no anachronisms to be found in the four Gospels.
The Historicity of Jesus Christ
- Thread starter Alter2Ego
- Start date
Again, it was around long before it was actually penned to paper; I think some people are just failing to note the difference, and in any case many scholars continue to find evidence for earlier written works, such as the 'Q' hypothesis, and then there is Joachim Jeremia's extensive documentation of the NT writings and the Gospels being contemporary sources, not later fabrications. There are no anachronisms to be found in the four Gospels.
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
Isn't every post of yours a pile of shit, Perry?
I am interested in the possible historical data points for Buddha, King Arthur, Muhammad, King Minos, but I am keen for history and the ancient past.
Anyone who hollers "Who gives a shit!" is just a person who doesn't care about history. To each their own
No, we care about history. We just don't care about the Christian religion.I am interested in the possible historical data points for Buddha, King Arthur, Muhammad, King Minos, but I am keen for history and the ancient past.
Anyone who hollers "Who gives a shit!" is just a person who doesn't care about history. To each their own
How do you know this?
There ARE, however, jarring inconsistencies. Eg the "genealogies". But there's a reason for it. The Gospels were not written to be an accurate account of the events of the day but rather to fulfill a particular political or theological desire of the authors. The audience was different for all the authors and they tuned the story to match their audience' need.
The thing I can't keep saying enough (but dishonest people can't seem to get through their thick skulls) but there may very well have been a real Jesus. I am about 100% certain none of the supernatural stuff happened. I'm even willing to bet that some of the various anecdotes were made up as well. And I'm even happy with that putative Joshua apocalyptic preacher saying the things attributed to him.
I think the only reason I chimed in on this thread was because I see the push to "explain away" the Gospels as if they were accurate or real on all counts is a fool's errand. And, indeed, usually it is undertaken to firm up the supernatural stuff. But I also understand that folks like @Cypress who have no use of the teachings of Jesus would also be interested in just plain ol' history.
Even if they find that the stuff Jesus said is something that is not for them.
I am interested in the possible historical data points for Buddha, King Arthur, Muhammad, King Minos, but I am keen for history and the ancient past.
Anyone who hollers "Who gives a shit!" is just a person who doesn't care about history. To each their own
And, of course, I already noted that. I think that's cool. (See, Cypress, unlike you I can compliment you and even see your point....that's called being an ADULT)
The key, though, is that most of the time the reason for finding the real analogues in the Bible is to firm up the OTHER stuff, the stuff that CAN'T be evidenced.
Now I know for a fact you are not doing that. I understand that. You can lie about my position all you like but I understand yours.
I merely came on here to point out that, indeed, it doesn't really matter to the MESSAGE of the faith. I also understand you think that Christianity is a cult for suckers so you don't feel any need or interest in the MESSAGE of Christ.
That's all I was saying.
You keep getting things wrong.
Jesus was executed around 30 AD.
Mark seems to have been written about 65 AD, according to scholars.
That is 35 years after Jesus.
Not "70 years", as you claim.
More importantly Mark is probably a compilation of sermons and information Peter gave to his disciples, and organized and commited to papyrus by Mark much later. So these sermons and stories obviously predate 65 AD by a considerable number of years.
Fair catch. My apologies.
But, again, if we know from studies today that eye witness testimony is often flawed why would it be GOOD after 30 years?
As for your hypotheses of what was written when, well, given that you don't have any real direct information on what the Q document or some other document said I am guessing that still can't really say much about the accuracy of all the parts.
How would one not know this is the case? Read up on Jewish culture and how teachers were trained in those days.
Easily explained. Find the section in Jeremia's book that explains it, and then find other scholars' explanations for it. One is Joseph's line, the others is Mary's, his mother's. Why the need for both? The Babylonians' return created a need for them to change the 'legitimate' line of Jews from father to the mother; Ezra was inventing a 'master race' for his Babylonian Jews to exclude Jews who weren't exiled to Babylon. See Jeremias book section on 'racial purity' laws imposed on which Jews could hold offices, etc.
Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus by Joachim Jeremias @ CenturyOne Bookstore
Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus by Joachim Jeremias An investigation into economic and social conditions.
www.centuryone.com
Part four THE MAINTENANCE OF RACIAL PURITY
No, I mean what support do you have for your claim.
The point is to find the EARLIEST EXTANT versions of the stories. Not simply assume that one can square all the circles by simply waving one's hands and invoking that the stories must have been going around without any changes whatsoever.
When I get around to it I'll read this. But I'm not making any promises. Especially if it wasn't interesting enough for you and you are invoking it right now as a defense of your position. So if you don't really care about it I don't really care about it.
Not really. Here's Luke stacked up against Matthew:
Matthew 1:16: "...And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
Luke 3:23 "...And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli," (it goes on from there).
So we have at least two genealogies going through Joseph to Jesus.
Yet Joseph was NOT Jesus' biological father so it's anyone's guess why Joseph's genealogy would matter.
Okay, so you don't care about the history of the most important man in the history of western civilization.
The legendary King Arthur seems to possibly be based on a Celtic Briton warlord who fought the Anglo-Saxon invaders. But that has nothing to do with America and probably of no interest to anyone who disdains history.
Or so the stories would lead us to believe.
That's the thing isn't it? Do we as a society value the PHYSICAL JESUS and his teachings? Or do we as a society value the SUPERNATURAL JESUS who died for our sins?
Yes, the Christian Church has effectively FORGED our society as we know it. It is ingrained in our history from some of the earliest periods. But was the faith driven by the message in the early days of Western Civilization or was the faith used as a political tool to enforce conformity and create a common experience all predicated on the "supernatural" stuff?
Paul and the early evangelists certainly pushed the MESSAGE but also the SUPERNATURAL stuff, the rising from the dead and the sacrifice for our sins becomes CENTRAL.
Certainly the Church as it existed in Medieval times would be conducted solely in Latin which none or almost none of the attendees would have spoken. It becomes "performative".
And the Church ultimately expresses its most direct control our forging our Modern Society through naked political machinations.
In many senses a "physical and real" Jesus was wholly inconsequential to the power the Church leveraged in making our society what it is today.
For you.
Atheist blogs have been writing for decades that the New Testament accounts are completely legendary and have no input from eyewitnesses, such that it is just accepted without question in the militant atheist community. at this point.
Paul is writing in 50 AD to the Corinthians about Jesus' life as he heard it directly from the apostles themselves. That's 20 years after the crucifixion
20 years is nothing. The Dubya Bush/John Kerry election was 20 years ago.
Moreover, the letter to Corinthians is well after Paul received reports about Jesus's life directly from the apostles Peter and James. So the reporting about Jesus given to Corinthians was given to Paul probably from the earliest days of the Church in Jerusalem.
You keep making these claims about "militant atheists" but literally NO ONE around here espouses the shit you claim they think.
Where do you get this shit?
You'd have to be pretty fuckin' dumb to NOT see the impact Christianity (and by extension, Christ) has had on western Civilization.
Even Wikipedia Scholar Cypress knows that!
I think if you surveyed reputable scholars of western history, they would universally say that Jesus is hands down one of the most important figures in the history of the west.
Please post that survey. I've studied history and never heard of a historian making that claim.
Did Jesus Exist?
by Bart Ehrman, PhD - noted agnostic/atheist New Testament Scholar
Jesus existed. Jesus is the best attested Palestinian Jew of the first century if we look only at external evidence.
The Gospel Sources
We have four narrative accounts of Jesus’ life and death, written by different people at different times and in different places, based on numerous sources that no longer survive. Jesus was not invented by Mark. He was also known to Matthew, Luke, and John, and to the sources which they used (Q, M, L, and the various sources of John).
All of this was within the first century.
Non-New Testament & Non-Gospel Sources – We Have Many!
This is not to mention sources from outside the New Testament that know that Jesus was a historical figure – for example, 1 Clement and the documents that make up the Didache. Or — need I say it? – every other author of the New Testament (there are sixteen NT authors altogether, so twelve who did not write Gospels), none of whom knew any of the Gospels (except for the author of 1, 2, and 3 John who may have known the fourth Gospel).
By my count that’s something like twenty-five authors, not counting the authors of the sources (another six or seven) on which the Gospels were based (and the sources on which the book of Acts was based, which were different again).
How We Know Jesus Wasn’t “Made Up”
If there had been one source of Christian antiquity that mentioned a historical Jesus (e.g., Mark) and everyone else was based on what that source had to say, then possibly you could argue that this person made Jesus up and everyone else simply took the ball and ran with it.
But …
But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information.
That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus. One of them was the apostle Paul, who was talking about Jesus by at least the year 32 CE, that is, two years after the date of Jesus’ death.
Paul personally knew Jesus’ own brother James and his closest disciples Peter and John.
That’s more or less a death knell for the Jesus Mythicist position, as some of them admit. I’ll get to Paul in a subsequent note. Here I am simply stressing that the Gospel traditions themselves provide clear evidence that Jesus was being talked about just a few years after his life in Roman Palestine.
continued at
by Bart Ehrman, PhD - noted agnostic/atheist New Testament Scholar
Jesus existed. Jesus is the best attested Palestinian Jew of the first century if we look only at external evidence.
The Gospel Sources
We have four narrative accounts of Jesus’ life and death, written by different people at different times and in different places, based on numerous sources that no longer survive. Jesus was not invented by Mark. He was also known to Matthew, Luke, and John, and to the sources which they used (Q, M, L, and the various sources of John).
All of this was within the first century.
Non-New Testament & Non-Gospel Sources – We Have Many!
This is not to mention sources from outside the New Testament that know that Jesus was a historical figure – for example, 1 Clement and the documents that make up the Didache. Or — need I say it? – every other author of the New Testament (there are sixteen NT authors altogether, so twelve who did not write Gospels), none of whom knew any of the Gospels (except for the author of 1, 2, and 3 John who may have known the fourth Gospel).
By my count that’s something like twenty-five authors, not counting the authors of the sources (another six or seven) on which the Gospels were based (and the sources on which the book of Acts was based, which were different again).
How We Know Jesus Wasn’t “Made Up”
If there had been one source of Christian antiquity that mentioned a historical Jesus (e.g., Mark) and everyone else was based on what that source had to say, then possibly you could argue that this person made Jesus up and everyone else simply took the ball and ran with it.
But …
But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information.
That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus. One of them was the apostle Paul, who was talking about Jesus by at least the year 32 CE, that is, two years after the date of Jesus’ death.
Paul personally knew Jesus’ own brother James and his closest disciples Peter and John.
That’s more or less a death knell for the Jesus Mythicist position, as some of them admit. I’ll get to Paul in a subsequent note. Here I am simply stressing that the Gospel traditions themselves provide clear evidence that Jesus was being talked about just a few years after his life in Roman Palestine.
Linguistic Evidence
There is more.continued at
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
Who is "we", Hume? You and your fellow militant atheists at the Lonely Girl's Club?