Gospels are eyewitness accounts

mindlight · Jun 29, 2018

Eudaimonist said:
That's simply not true, though they are a small minority to be sure.

And, yes, I do mean serious minded scholars.

eudaimonia,

Mark

You would have to be as blind as a bat to not recognise the evidence for Christs existence. The real reason for such a conclusion is always faulty presuppositions and evidence filters.

Eudaimonist · Jun 29, 2018

mindlight said:
You would have to be as blind as a bat to not recognise the evidence for Christs existence. The real reason for such a conclusion is always faulty presuppositions and evidence filters.

What would you say is the best single piece of evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus?

eudaimonia,

Mark

mindlight · Jun 29, 2018

Eudaimonist said:
What would you say is the best single piece of evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus?

eudaimonia,

Mark

The church that grew in his name AND the scriptures that testify directly to Him based on direct historical experience of his life and works

Silmarien · Jun 29, 2018

Eudaimonist said:
What would you say is the best single piece of evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus?

eudaimonia,

Mark

The immediate existence of early Christianity after his alleged death, as evidenced by Paul. If it had popped up 50-100 years later, then there would be a problem.

mindlight · Jun 29, 2018

Silmarien said:
The immediate existence of early Christianity after his alleged death, as evidenced by Paul. If it had popped up 50-100 years later, then there would be a problem.

So a church building created directly after the death of Christ for instance

World's 'oldest Christian church' discovered in Jordan

mindlight · Jun 30, 2018

ShamashUruk said:
The Bible is a collection of writings, so fragments that make up the Bible are essentially the Bible itself, meaning....circular. I have a collection of writings that claim I am God and because no one else has these writings, my collection of writings must be true. Joseph Smith does this same thing with LDS or Mormonism, it is only a claim and that is all it can be. Even if you add the word 'divine' it only still remains a claim, and can't be proved otherwise unless it can be substantiated. Even if (and in this case this is true) the church popularized those fragments; modernly we see those fragments into the Biblical account, that isn't proof, all that is, is fragments of translated writing. How does that make anything true?

The fragments can be dated to a reasonable distance from the events described. The content they proclaim is that of live testimony to a person whose presence the witnesses experienced. This is not just one man claiming to be mouthing the words of an angel. This is a community of witnesses many of whom are named in the text and who wrote down what they saw at a credible distance from these events. Many from this wider community were still alive to confirm the written record.

Judaism is popularized because it's culture survived, and we have Indo-Euro influence here. But, just like when the myth hero Moses cannot see Yahweh, Moses has to look at Yahweh from behind as he passes. The same happens with Zeus and the girl who couldn't look at his lightning bolts or she would perish. The epics are the same, only the characters change.

These stories really are not the same and it is quite disingenuous to suggest that they are. Zeus and Yahweh are very different also. Not least because the former is a fable and the later real. The former is not worshipped today and the later is.

Islam is an Abrahamic based religion, just like it's sister religion Christianity. They are both Monotheistic religions with Henotheistic overtones, and there is really no "authenticity" to be shown, we see each text coming from its adaptation from each religious ideology. The Koran being loosely based on the Bible, the Bible being loosely based on Judaic text. You would have to prove that the Tanach and KJV have different concepts entirely in order to refute this and you cannot do it I assure you.

Yes the Jewish prophecies predict the Christian messiah centuries before He came. Yes the Christian message was formed in a Jewish context at start and spread out from Israel. Yes Christians continue to believe the Old Testament was inspired by God. Yes the best bits of the Quran echo Christian and Jewish stories that predate them. Why is this inheritance a problem for one who asserts the gospels as drawing most heavily on eye witness accounts though?

What credibility? You have no extra Biblical evidences.

please read the James the brother of Jesus reference from Josephus. The bible is obviously the most credible source considering it is written by eyewitnesses, confirmed by a wider community of witnesses. it is confirmed by the sheer scale and depth of its historical momentum across multiple cultures and without political oppression. A momentum and geographical spread unequalled by any other religion or secular ideology. I notice that you cannot engage in any kind of defence of alternate texts since there is none to be made.

Please define "mythical style", and please define which processes were used to substantiate those Papyri.

There are descriptions from Egypt and the Hittite's of a peace treaty in 1213 BCE, this isn't stylized in Mythological writings. However, extra evidences such as archaeological digs and writings from the Hittite's (Indo-Euro) and Egyptian (Semitic) writings are agreeable. We don't see extra Biblical evidences confirming "eyewitness" accounts per se. Hence, the credibility factor goes out the window.

Just about any Hindu text is written in a mythical style where the metaphorical symbols and literal frameworks used have no literal connection to historical reality.

What has the treaty of Kadesh between a people whose capital was in Turkey and the Egyptians have to do with this thread?

The whole style of much of the gospel reporting is of eyewitness accounts of events or of what Jesus said. Bauckmans work on this is pretty conclusive the gospels are written in the style of testimony.

Eudaimonist · Jul 1, 2018

mindlight said:
The church that grew in his name AND the scriptures that testify directly to Him based on direct historical experience of his life and works

Silmarien said:
The immediate existence of early Christianity after his alleged death, as evidenced by Paul. If it had popped up 50-100 years later, then there would be a problem.

Let's put the scriptures aside for the moment. Why is the existence of church communities such a difficult thing to explain from a mythicist position? That seems pretty trivial. Any small cult can record stories of visions and create mythologies around them. Paul is a good example here of someone who doesn't claim to have ever met Jesus in the flesh, but only in visions. Nothing stopped him from preaching and making converts.

It's not like there weren't cults about other mythical figures in the Mediterranean region. It was pretty common back then.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Silmarien · Jul 1, 2018

Eudaimonist said:
Let's put the scriptures aside for the moment. Why is the existence of church communities such a difficult thing to explain from a mythicist position? That seems pretty trivial. Any small cult can record stories of visions and create mythologies around them. Paul is a good example here of someone who doesn't claim to have ever met Jesus in the flesh, but only in visions. Nothing stopped him from preaching and making converts.

It's not like there weren't cults about other mythical figures in the Mediterranean region. It was pretty common back then.

Paul does claim to have met with early Christians leaders like Peter and James, who are both explicitly tied to Jesus. He talks about Jesus being born of woman and about his execution and burial. It requires a very unnatural reading of Paul to end up with the conclusion that he's talking about some celestial being that only exists in visions. It is very obvious that there was a tradition here going back to historical events that preceded Paul's conversion.

It is far more common to mythologize a historical figure, as happened with literally every figure in antiquity, than to mistake a myth for reality within a short period of time. If Christianity had popped up 100 years after the alleged historical facts, then the mythicist position would be more likely than not, but this was a movement that showed up immediately and made actual historical claims.

If you prefer historical revisionism, so be it, but Mythicism is a much more convoluted position than the established scholarly view, and the agenda behind it is very obvious.

Eudaimonist · Jul 4, 2018

Silmarien said:
Paul does claim to have met with early Christians leaders like Peter and James, who are both explicitly tied to Jesus.

That's assuming that they didn't know Jesus through visions as well. But you are missing my point. If Paul can make converts and establish churches without having met Jesus in the flesh and only claiming to know Jesus through visions, the idea that churches are significant evidence of the existence of an historical Jesus is empty. You're better off pushing the "unnatural reading" position.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Silmarien · Jul 4, 2018

Eudaimonist said:
That's assuming that they didn't know Jesus through visions as well.

Sure, James has got an imaginary brother met in a vision and Peter just started spreading stories one day about the imaginary friend he denied three times. Because that's what people do.

Eudaimonist said:
If Paul can make converts and establish churches without having met Jesus in the flesh and only claiming to know Jesus through visions, the idea that churches are significant evidence of the existence of an historical Jesus is empty. You're better off pushing the "unnatural reading" position.

I don't care about the existence of churches. I care about the existence of early Christianity itself, since it's not normal that movements spring up around fictional characters within a couple years of their fictional deaths. It is, on the other hand, fairly normal that supernatural stories start spreading about actual historical figures. Are we going to start denying that Alexander the Great or Cleopatra existed because of all the mythology that's been built around them?

Seriously, there is a reason just about all reputable historians reject Mythicism. Trying to explain the birth of Christianity while denying the existence of the person behind it quickly turns into an exercise in creative writing. Everyone knows this except Carrier and his fans.

ShamashUruk · Jul 5, 2018

mindlight said:
I said serious minded scholars. Since you agree Jesus probably existed this is a moot point.

Like I stated Jesus may have existed (this doesn't mean it is confirmed), but also if Jesus did exist his epics are based on much older epics. In other words there is not a single thing that Jesus did that wasn't done before in other myths. How much of the Jesus myths were exaggerated is the question.

mindlight said:
Take the uncontroversial reference to James in Josephus which mentions Jesus and which you ignored in your response as an example.

You'd have to research this, but I believe that Josephus was dismissed as a source by scholars.

mindlight said:
These comparisons are not exact and are irrelevant if the false ones are just words with no basis in history.

This makes no sense at all, we aren't stating that the older myths are comparisons to Jesus in the NT, in fact the other way around. The stories of Jesus reflect older mythology, otherwise the epics of Jesus would have been seen in the OT, which we don't physically see a Jesus until the NT. In fact there is some interesting amalgamation that Melchezedik was Jesus. However, Melchezedik is a Canaanite priest, and no Canaanite was ever a monotheist. The rites that Abraham and Melchezedik engage in are Polytheistic in nature. This is a bad argument that I have seen Christians assert.

mindlight said:
I got my Hammurabi Code and Epic (2100BC) mixed up. But the essential point was that this false testimony was a sign of the rot that drove Abraham out

The issue we have here is that "for example": Babylon moved several locations while in Iraq and so did Canaan. In fact city-states were similarily used in name. Hence, why Babylon when it moves south doesn't have any Ziggurats (Towers), but when Babylon is the North they will have witnessed the towers of the Sumerian'; the factious epic of the Tower of Babel is incorrect as:

1) Babylonian's didn't have "towers" per se, but they did engage in Ziggurat practices.

2) Towers aren't built the way ascribed in the Bible.

This is simple example and the example that Ibrhim (a common stock West Semite name) is an inappropriate venture at best.

mindlight said:
What is vague about honest people of integrity being good witnesses.

It is vague because the "witnesses" are truly unidentified.

mindlight · Jul 6, 2018

ShamashUruk said:
Like I stated Jesus may have existed (this doesn't mean it is confirmed), but also if Jesus did exist his epics are based on much older epics. In other words there is not a single thing that Jesus did that wasn't done before in other myths. How much of the Jesus myths were exaggerated is the question.

You'd have to research this, but I believe that Josephus was dismissed as a source by scholars.

This makes no sense at all, we aren't stating that the older myths are comparisons to Jesus in the NT, in fact the other way around. The stories of Jesus reflect older mythology, otherwise the epics of Jesus would have been seen in the OT, which we don't physically see a Jesus until the NT. In fact there is some interesting amalgamation that Melchezedik was Jesus. However, Melchezedik is a Canaanite priest, and no Canaanite was ever a monotheist. The rites that Abraham and Melchezedik engage in are Polytheistic in nature. This is a bad argument that I have seen Christians assert.

The issue we have here is that "for example": Babylon moved several locations while in Iraq and so did Canaan. In fact city-states were similarily used in name. Hence, why Babylon when it moves south doesn't have any Ziggurats (Towers), but when Babylon is the North they will have witnessed the towers of the Sumerian'; the factious epic of the Tower of Babel is incorrect as:

1) Babylonian's didn't have "towers" per se, but they did engage in Ziggurat practices.

2) Towers aren't built the way ascribed in the Bible.

This is simple example and the example that Ibrhim (a common stock West Semite name) is an inappropriate venture at best.

It is vague because the "witnesses" are truly unidentified.

This post is so deeply flawed and false I cannot respond to it even line by line. For example you cite a scholarly consensus dismissing Josephus that does not exist and especially concerning the passage that I actually refered to. You dodge just about all the points I made. You ascribe an authority to just about everything that contradicts the bible record that is simply not credible but grant no authority to the bible accounts themselves.

ShamashUruk · Jul 6, 2018

mindlight said:
This post is so deeply flawed and false I cannot respond to it even line by line. For example you cite a scholarly consensus dismissing Josephus that does not exist and especially concerning the passage that I actually refered to. You dodge just about all the points I made. You ascribe an authority to just about everything that contradicts the bible record that is simply not credible but grant no authority to the bible accounts themselves.

Your response is totally misguided to what is being purported, that or you are way too lazy to do any actual research.

Simple example, Josephus is not consistent with numbers. For example, he says Mount Tabor is "thirty stadia" (18,200 feet), when in reality the mountain is only 1,920 feet. However, regardless of this, it wasn't my point to bring up in the first place. I have mainly agreed that a Jesus may have existed, but even if Jesus did exist he is an amalgamation, and a lot of the Bible is like that. We see the same epic of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis and we see the same in the book of Kings. We see Melchizedek in the early parts of the Bible having the same remenants as the myth hero Jesus.

You're assertion is that fragmentary Papyrus somehow validates the Bible, this is a falsity to begin with. Fragmented Papyrus simply are the New Testament, it isn't extra Biblical, therefore that is still circular in nature. In short you don't have any extra Biblical evidences to "prove up" your Jesus claim.

Even the "Virgin" birth of Jesus has elements of Polytheistic aforethought, for example: The conception of Jesus is understood as the result of a union between heaven and earth — the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary—just as in 'pagan' mythology it is Ouranos who impregnates Gaia. The figure of the woman in Revelation 12.1, then, was patterned after the image of Earth, Gaia, pregnant as a result of her union with Ouranos, Heaven. Using the images of Ouranos and Gaia, the Christian author presents here a picture of reestablishment of the primordial unity between heaven and earth.

Or you could ask why is Mary's physical condition so important in the history of salvation? Why would any one make her virginity a matter of such concern? For the Christian claim of salvation, the death and resurrection of Jesus were central issues, not the condition of Mary's hymen. But for minds accustomed to thinking in the categories of the prevalent pagan culture, the mother of the Son of God could have no lesser dignity than the Great Mother of
the gods, the favorite subject of popular piety in the East. So the author lifted Mary out of the ordinary and elevated her to a goddess like figure: her feet did not touch the ground until she was taken to the temple, her bedchamber was made into a sanctuary, and the "undefiled daughters of the Hebrews" attended her. Even after her marriage to Joseph she labored in the company of "pure virgins" at making a veil for the temple, much the same way that the girls of Athens worked at making the new peplos for the statue of the Virgin Athene.

You also get your timelines wrong, and this is pivitol to any discussion. I think you miss that the Bible is encompassed as a whole and not fragmentary, it's hard to dismiss the OT without the NT and vice versa. This is important to Christian history, but it seems you are mainly focused on the NT and existence of Jesus. It means so very little if Jesus did exist, because there are already a history of saviors.

mindlight · Jul 8, 2018

ShamashUruk said:
Your response is totally misguided to what is being purported, that or you are way too lazy to do any actual research.

I have read his works. It is history but it is not infallible nor inspired.

Simple example, Josephus is not consistent with numbers. For example, he says Mount Tabor is "thirty stadia" (18,200 feet), when in reality the mountain is only 1,920 feet.

The difference between 3 stadia and 30 is a scholarly error.

But the passage about James is not controversial amongst most scholars and affirms the existence of an early church in Jerusalem , James as its leader and mentions Jesus Christ.

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned
Antiquities Book 20 Chapter 9

However, regardless of this, it wasn't my point to bring up in the first place. I have mainly agreed that a Jesus may have existed, but even if Jesus did exist he is an amalgamation, and a lot of the Bible is like that. We see the same epic of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis and we see the same in the book of Kings. We see Melchizedek in the early parts of the Bible having the same remenants as the myth hero Jesus.

You're assertion is that fragmentary Papyrus somehow validates the Bible, this is a falsity to begin with. Fragmented Papyrus simply are the New Testament, it isn't extra Biblical, therefore that is still circular in nature. In short you don't have any extra Biblical evidences to "prove up" your Jesus claim.

Even the "Virgin" birth of Jesus has elements of Polytheistic aforethought, for example: The conception of Jesus is understood as the result of a union between heaven and earth — the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary—just as in 'pagan' mythology it is Ouranos who impregnates Gaia. The figure of the woman in Revelation 12.1, then, was patterned after the image of Earth, Gaia, pregnant as a result of her union with Ouranos, Heaven. Using the images of Ouranos and Gaia, the Christian author presents here a picture of reestablishment of the primordial unity between heaven and earth.

Or you could ask why is Mary's physical condition so important in the history of salvation? Why would any one make her virginity a matter of such concern? For the Christian claim of salvation, the death and resurrection of Jesus were central issues, not the condition of Mary's hymen. But for minds accustomed to thinking in the categories of the prevalent pagan culture, the mother of the Son of God could have no lesser dignity than the Great Mother of
the gods, the favorite subject of popular piety in the East. So the author lifted Mary out of the ordinary and elevated her to a goddess like figure: her feet did not touch the ground until she was taken to the temple, her bedchamber was made into a sanctuary, and the "undefiled daughters of the Hebrews" attended her. Even after her marriage to Joseph she labored in the company of "pure virgins" at making a veil for the temple, much the same way that the girls of Athens worked at making the new peplos for the statue of the Virgin Athene.

You also get your timelines wrong, and this is pivitol to any discussion. I think you miss that the Bible is encompassed as a whole and not fragmentary, it's hard to dismiss the OT without the NT and vice versa. This is important to Christian history, but it seems you are mainly focused on the NT and existence of Jesus. It means so very little if Jesus did exist, because there are already a history of saviors.

Jesus fulfils OT prophecies , the NT is saturated with OT concepts. You disagree with all the main Christian doctrines for comparative religious reasons but persistently fail to see the paucity of information supporting the alternatives you cite. These connections are not formative of the scriptures they are attempts of forgers to find the original. The bible is the pure form that these other religions aspire to in corrupted and perverted forms. Yes there are echoes because no lie can be told without an element of truth to it. But the truth is the pure version not the soiled copies.

ShamashUruk · Jul 8, 2018

mindlight said:
The difference between 3 stadia and 30 is a scholarly error.

This is a vague statement at best.

This doesn't say much, how is that a scholarly error? The Stadion is only an attic Greek measurement.

mindlight said:
But the passage about James is not controversial amongst most scholars and affirms the existence of an early church in Jerusalem , James as its leader and mentions Jesus Christ.

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned
Antiquities Book 20 Chapter 9

My point was that there is not much reliance on Flavius and that Flavius is in error, but you made a vague statement that, "The difference between 3 stadia and 30 is a scholarly error." Then you go on and mention a reference to Festus and you mention that an assembly of Rabbis was brought before the brother of Jesus (who was called Christ), I don't see a direct mention of Jesus here, but the brother of Jesus. BTW in the passage you mention the brother is called Christ (James). This is a clear example of the WHY of Flavius being unreliable. It leaves a lot to be questioned, also you would expect that a Scholar and Priest like Flavius who was thought to be around 30 AD and beyond would have more insight into the Jesus myths. However, being that Flavius is a Jewish Priest his connection with the Jesus hero is more Jewish based and less Christian based (which is hardly anything at all being that the Jews don't see a Messiah with the Jesus Character). What you quote deviates for example from the later works by Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, and Eusebius of Caesarea that it simply has James stoned while the others have other variations such as having James thrown from the top of the Temple, stoned, and finally beaten to death by a fuller. Also, the variations on the statements of John the Baptist and the brother of Jesus (James) fail as Flavius is not making interpolations; this is mainly and heavily influenced by the mere fact that Flavius is not including Christian traditions, but Jewish traditions.

But either way, generally the agreement is that a Jesus did exist; the miracles and other epics surrounding the Jesus myths are simply empowerment based on the church to popularize Christianity, while attempting to make distinctions between Judaism and Christianity.

mindlight said:
Jesus fulfils OT prophecies , the NT is saturated with OT concepts.

The point you bring up is moot as the OT itself has concepts from the OT (i.e. the same epic in Sodom in Gomorrah we see traces in the book of Judges). The Babylonians that live in Southern Babylon borrow concepts from Babylon when it was in the North. The Sumerian's in Sumer (Iraq) borrow concepts from the Proto Sumerian's in Gobekli Tepe (Turkey). The Canaanites split off from each other thus developing the first Israelite's, and borrow their Gods such as Yahweh and El. We constantly see concepts being borrowed, what exactly is your point?

We see such Cuneiform as "Enki confuser of languages" a 3000 BCE Cuneiform wherein the God Enki confuses the languages, then we see a Biblical epic (about 1200 BCE) on the Tower of Babel and the Judeo-Christian God confuses the languages. A conceptualization seen in early Sumer and later in Judaic and Christian texts.

Also, certain OT material comes from the Israelite's when in Babylonian captivity (hence, the Babylonian Talmud). The biggest clue here should be the Israelite's in Babel as the Babylonians were henotheists for the most part (they also happen to the first astronomer's). Even the book of Job is based on Babylonian mythology

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3260156?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

You are either going to have the P, E, J, D sources for these. But, most Christians ignore this and just make the assumption that the OT was properly doused with Christian themes and concepts, when in reality it is Judaism that takes the "cake" so to speak on the OT, and really the OT is based on Sumer, Babylonian, Canaanite, Hittite, etc, epics.

mindlight said:
You disagree with all the main Christian doctrines for comparative religious reasons but persistently fail to see the paucity of information supporting the alternatives you cite.These connections are not formative of the scriptures they are attempts of forgers to find the original. The bible is the pure form that these other religions aspire to in corrupted and perverted forms. Yes there are echoes because no lie can be told without an element of truth to it. But the truth is the pure version not the soiled copies

Such as? What alternatives? It isn't me who disagrees, I agree that the Bible has many epics, stories, etc. This isn't a disagreement at all. I even agree that the Tanakh has the same epics and stories as the Bible in the OT.

This isn't even the issue; the issue is that the Bible adopted these concepts and instead of Christians recognizing this historicity of the Bible, what the Christian does is something entirely misleading. Christians make the claim that the Bible is in its own right a book that is in origin "Christian" which is not even close to the truth.

On the flip side, the Babylonian's epics, stories, legends are based on Akkadian and even Sumerian epics, legends, but most scholars have cleared this up. So those that study Cuneiform and for example Akkadian Cuneiform can know that an epic in Akkadian is seen earlier in Sumer.

Yet, we don't see this with Christianity, what we see in Christianity is a denial that anything was adopted. Even for example in Luke 8:25 in sum, Jesus is seen as being able to control the storm. But, we see in Canaanite mythologies that Ba'al does the same thing as he is a storm God. Jesus is a male, Ba'al is a male. Jesus makes everything a new (according to Christian doctrine), yet in Canaan Ba'al being a storm God does the same thing, the storm brings life, etc. The parallelism is uncanny and yet we see denial after denial.

mindlight · Jul 9, 2018

ShamashUruk said:
This is a vague statement at best.

This doesn't say much, how is that a scholarly error? The Stadion is only an attic Greek measurement.

My point was that there is not much reliance on Flavius and that Flavius is in error, but you made a vague statement that, "The difference between 3 stadia and 30 is a scholarly error."

Exaggeration with numbers was common to historians of that era. But overall Josephus is a reliable source and is widely quoted because of that.

Then you go on and mention a reference to Festus and you mention that an assembly of Rabbis was brought before the brother of Jesus (who was called Christ), I don't see a direct mention of Jesus here, but the brother of Jesus. BTW in the passage you mention the brother is called Christ (James). This is a clear example of the WHY of Flavius being unreliable. It leaves a lot to be questioned, also you would expect that a Scholar and Priest like Flavius who was thought to be around 30 AD and beyond would have more insight into the Jesus myths. However, being that Flavius is a Jewish Priest his connection with the Jesus hero is more Jewish based and less Christian based (which is hardly anything at all being that the Jews don't see a Messiah with the Jesus Character). What you quote deviates for example from the later works by Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, and Eusebius of Caesarea that it simply has James stoned while the others have other variations such as having James thrown from the top of the Temple, stoned, and finally beaten to death by a fuller. Also, the variations on the statements of John the Baptist and the brother of Jesus (James) fail as Flavius is not making interpolations; this is mainly and heavily influenced by the mere fact that Flavius is not including Christian traditions, but Jewish traditions.

But either way, generally the agreement is that a Jesus did exist; the miracles and other epics surrounding the Jesus myths are simply empowerment based on the church to popularize Christianity, while attempting to make distinctions between Judaism and Christianity.

The essential point here is that there is an uncontroversial reference to Jesus here. Indeed most scholars accept that the Testimonium Flavium also refers to Christ in Book 18 Chapter 5.

"Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[12] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

But since you accept the existence of an historical Jesus this is a moot point anyway.

The point you bring up is moot as the OT itself has concepts from the OT (i.e. the same epic in Sodom in Gomorrah we see traces in the book of Judges). The Babylonians that live in Southern Babylon borrow concepts from Babylon when it was in the North. The Sumerian's in Sumer (Iraq) borrow concepts from the Proto Sumerian's in Gobekli Tepe (Turkey). The Canaanites split off from each other thus developing the first Israelite's, and borrow their Gods such as Yahweh and El. We constantly see concepts being borrowed, what exactly is your point?

We see such Cuneiform as "Enki confuser of languages" a 3000 BCE Cuneiform wherein the God Enki confuses the languages, then we see a Biblical epic (about 1200 BCE) on the Tower of Babel and the Judeo-Christian God confuses the languages. A conceptualization seen in early Sumer and later in Judaic and Christian texts.

Also, certain OT material comes from the Israelite's when in Babylonian captivity (hence, the Babylonian Talmud). The biggest clue here should be the Israelite's in Babel as the Babylonians were henotheists for the most part (they also happen to the first astronomer's). Even the book of Job is based on Babylonian mythology

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3260156?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Yes the pure version has many counterfeits. So many in fact that it was important to write down the truth at some point in the scriptures.. Yes there are typologies to be drawn within scripture and prophetic anticipations in one OT event of another. The main difference here is the historical credibility of the biblical accounts compared to their rivals and the theological focus which is entirely different than from these other accounts.

You are either going to have the P, E, J, D sources for these. But, most Christians ignore this and just make the assumption that the OT was properly doused with Christian themes and concepts, when in reality it is Judaism that takes the "cake" so to speak on the OT, and really the OT is based on Sumer, Babylonian, Canaanite, Hittite, etc, epics.

There was a living truth embodied in the life of Noah until about 400 years after the flood. But from about 2100BC majorly distorted accounts like the Epic started to emerge that contradicted this living witness. Abrahams departure from Iraq in around 1800BC was in part in response to this corruption but he still had the oral tradition of the truth at that time. Moses account some 400 years later which forms the basis of the Pentateuch is an inspired account in which the reality of actually what happened is recovered and was clearly written in contradiction to rival accounts with their pantheons of gods, corruption and morally dubious plots.

Such as? What alternatives? It isn't me who disagrees, I agree that the Bible has many epics, stories, etc. This isn't a disagreement at all. I even agree that the Tanakh has the same epics and stories as the Bible in the OT.

This isn't even the issue; the issue is that the Bible adopted these concepts and instead of Christians recognizing this historicity of the Bible, what the Christian does is something entirely misleading. Christians make the claim that the Bible is in its own right a book that is in origin "Christian" which is not even close to the truth.

This thread is mainly about the gospels and yes these are original Christian works written in a Jewish context but showing considerable fulfilment of OT prophecy and echoing many of its themes. Since the same God was at work in OT and NT Christians would expect this.

On the flip side, the Babylonian's epics, stories, legends are based on Akkadian and even Sumerian epics, legends, but most scholars have cleared this up. So those that study Cuneiform and for example Akkadian Cuneiform can know that an epic in Akkadian is seen earlier in Sumer.

Yet, we don't see this with Christianity, what we see in Christianity is a denial that anything was adopted. Even for example in Luke 8:25 in sum, Jesus is seen as being able to control the storm. But, we see in Canaanite mythologies that Ba'al does the same thing as he is a storm God. Jesus is a male, Ba'al is a male. Jesus makes everything a new (according to Christian doctrine), yet in Canaan Ba'al being a storm God does the same thing, the storm brings life, etc. The parallelism is uncanny and yet we see denial after denial.

Baal never controlled the storm. It was Elijah that shut up the skies and then at Gods command made it rain. That claims were made about mythical gods is one thing. But the reality was proven in the Jewish Christian God alone.

ShamashUruk · Jul 9, 2018

mindlight said:
Exaggeration with numbers was common to historians of that era. But overall Josephus is a reliable source and is widely quoted because of that.

Flavius will exhibit a Jewish priestly tone to the Christ character, but he doesn't reference the Jesus character directly. He only makes allusions to the brother, but how much church influence there is I don't know. It's really meaningless to rely that heavily on Flavius, especially when his writ(s) are contrary to others as I pointed out earlier.

mindlight said:
The essential point here is that there is an uncontroversial reference to Jesus here. Indeed most scholars accept that the Testimonium Flavium also refers to Christ in Book 18 Chapter 5.

"Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[12] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

But since you accept the existence of an historical Jesus this is a moot point anyway.

As I stated earlier the works of Flavius contrary to other scholars at the time, I'm sure if you look on "wiki" you will find that as well.

Secondly the passage doesn't reference Jesus at all, in fact it references James. Generally, Judaic priests don't accept a Jesus figure regardless, so whether or not Flavius was attempting to avert a Biblical conceptualization or as a Jew didn't accept a messiah in a Christian sense is unknown.

mindlight said:
Yes the pure version has many counterfeits. So many in fact that it was important to write down the truth at some point in the scriptures.. Yes there are typologies to be drawn within scripture and prophetic anticipations in one OT event of another. The main difference here is the historical credibility of the biblical accounts compared to their rivals and the theological focus which is entirely different than from these other accounts.

That is a really bad argument, we even see differences between Sumerian and Akkadian literature. I cannot then state that Sumerian prophetic or even Sumerian exorcists texts are less valid than Akkadian or more valid than Akkadian. No same story is actually the same, the epic of Atum isn't the same as Enki on Dilmun concerning creation epics, yet both are related as creation epics, the same applies to Biblical aforethought. Also, the Biblical epics are on parchment and well knowing that Cuneiform far predates any parchment writings you are making a far fetched claim.

I'd really like to know exactly what we are comparing, the Bible contains snippets and put together parts from earlier epics.

For example, in Genesis Noah is instructed to build an Ark (Tevah), the word Tevah is used to descrive the Ark of Noah. I challenge you to look up the word Tevah, it isn't an ark, it means to be startled or alarmed. If you mean by comparison, then by comparison the very language that the Bible uses fails.

mindlight said:
There was a living truth embodied in the life of Noah until about 400 years after the flood. But from about 2100BC majorly distorted accounts like the Epic started to emerge that contradicted this living witness. Abrahams departure from Iraq in around 1800BC was in part in response to this corruption but he still had the oral tradition of the truth at that time. Moses account some 400 years later which forms the basis of the Pentateuch is an inspired account in which the reality of actually what happened is recovered and was clearly written in contradiction to rival accounts with their pantheons of gods, corruption and morally dubious plots.

The deluge of Ziusudra is on clay tablet about 4000 BCE and comes out of Nippur Iraq. The epic of the first flood far predates the Biblical writings on parchment. I don't even quite understand how you can give me a 2100 BCE date? Especially, when the Sumerian flood epic far predates the Noah epic.

mindlight said:
This thread is mainly about the gospels and yes these are original Christian works written in a Jewish context but showing considerable fulfilment of OT prophecy and echoing many of its themes. Since the same God was at work in OT and NT Christians would expect this.

The obvious is that in Christian literature it is thought to be the same God. However, the Israelite's will either have referenced the name Yahweh or El. So when you say it's the same God it clearly isn't. Especially since the Israelite's sacrifice children to Moloch, have ritual intercourse in the temples, and on the day of expiation Yahweh instead of killing the Israelite's allows a goat to be sent to Azazel. This isn't Yahweh asserting himself over other deities (i.e. Gods, demons, etc) it's a "quid pro quo" Yahweh allows the Israelite's to carry on while allowing bovine sacrifice in place of child sacrifice.

Since you like scholarly work so much I recommend

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1454348?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Which thoroughly delves into Leviticus 16 and other parts of Leviticus.

mindlight said:
Baal never controlled the storm. It was Elijah that shut up the skies and then at Gods command made it rain. That claims were made about mythical gods is one thing. But the reality was proven in the Jewish Christian God alone.

Ba'al is a storm God and not just in Canaan, he originates from the Sumerian Ishkur. And yes Ba'al being a storm God will in those cultures have control of the storm, he creates the storms, causes the storms to cease, exactly what Jesus does in Luke 8:25, no difference. You also have your timelines wrong, Elijah is thought to have lived about 800 BCE, Ba'al is seen long before that. Yahweh also operates like a storm God, as well does the older El version of Yahweh.

The Judeo-Christian God is essentially either Yahweh or El, so I don't know what you mean?

Erik Nelson · Mar 23, 2019

Quid est Veritas? said:
Luke never claims to be an eyewitness account, though he does say he based it on investigations of the matter.

What people should remember is that the Gospels are Hellenistic writings. Hellenistic history was not written in the way as we see history today - it was not a bland record of what had occurred. History writing was done in a literary way, with allusions and referencing and typology, even secular history. Lucian wrote a guide to history writing in which he says that even if something didn't happen, but it illustrates how it was or the character of the people described, then it can be legitimately recorded. This is why the wholesale invention of protagonists' speeches was commonplace. It was less about what had happened, but what can be learned from what happened or how it can be used for instruction on how to behave.
For instance, the historians of Alexander all differ on significant details of his life, usually to juxtapose his manly vigour when he lived simply, to the later moral torpor of 'corruption' under Asiatic luxury. So a modern historian has to be careful how he weighs his sources.

Another good example is the death of Socrates. Our two accounts are contemporary to the event, but differ radically, and it doesn't matter. For Plato and Xenophon were writing this history to make a philosophical point.

The same structure is seen in the Gospels. They don't record the bland events, but are elaborated literary constructions. Hence the Sermon on the Mount draws upon the Lawgiver coming off the mountain trope, as an example. So there are discrepancies, but these never bothered anyone until we started forgetting the Classics, and thus how such works were structured. People who think this a damnable point are frankly missing the point entirely. They aren't histories as such, in the modern sense. They are closer in genre perhaps to modern Self-Help books, except that it is about our inability to help ourselves, but to share the good news of Christ's Atonement.

Are they eyewitness accounts? Who knows. Many of Jesus' followers, such as Philip for instance, were certainly Hellenistai. These are Greek-speaking Jews, who embraced a lot of Hellenistic culture. This is in fact how Greek became their home language. So the fact of being written in Greek is immaterial.

As to date, they are dated to 70-110 AD secularly, based on style and content. The theory goes that they record the destruction of the Temple, so had to have been written after it fell. If you accept that this may be a true prophecy, then this point falls away. Thus dates from 50-110 become quite plausible stylistically, so eyewitness accounts are still possible.

They certainly record information from that time, such as Pilate's title being Prefect. Tacitus famously got this wrong, as the title was changed to Procurator after 44 AD. It also has information in common with Josephus, so whoever wrote it, had legitimate information and tradition derived from the early first century.

You should also remember that Mark and Matthew's Greek isn't very good. They are in fact poorly written mostly, to the embarrassment of many Church Fathers like Augustine. They are clearly the work therefore of the semi-literate.
John and Luke are better, though.

So I would argue an argument for Mark and Matthew can be made. Luke doesn't claim to be, and with John it would depend who you are claiming wrote the thing (the identity of the John). But no one knows for sure. They do however maintain quite a lot of legitimate and confirmable early first century information, which speaks to their general reliable derivation from that period ultimately, even if the tradition was only written down later. Their discrepancies are minor and not unexpected in the historiography of the period, as even a cursory glance at the vast 'discrepancies' in secular Roman and Greek historians would make plain.

Are the Gospels Eyewitness Accounts? (Video) | Cold Case Christianity

Prefect Pontius Pilate repeatedly takes Jesus into the Roman fortress Antonia and questions him privately. How were there any other eye witnesses of what happened therein?

How did anybody know what Judas said to the high priests when he returned the 30 silver shackles?

RDKirk · Mar 24, 2019

Erik Nelson said:
Are the Gospels Eyewitness Accounts? (Video) | Cold Case Christianity

Prefect Pontius Pilate repeatedly takes Jesus into the Roman fortress Antonia and questions him privately. How were there any other eye witnesses of what happened therein?

How did anybody know what Judas said to the high priests when he returned the 30 silver shackles?

There would have been other persons present in both cases. We can only surmise that some of them later became Christians and testified of those events.

Erik Nelson · Mar 25, 2019

RDKirk said:
There would have been other persons present in both cases. We can only surmise that some of them later became Christians and testified of those events.

Like the wife of Pontius Pilate, the Roman soldier, possibly Cornelius as well as the Centurion and all the others who stood at the foot of the cross and proclaimed Jesus's Christ?

Gospels are eyewitness accounts

See in the dark

I believe in life before death!

See in the dark

Existentialist

See in the dark

See in the dark

I believe in life before death!

Existentialist

I believe in life before death!

Existentialist

Hello

See in the dark

Hello

See in the dark

Hello

See in the dark

Hello

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Similar threads