Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Like William Tell and the founding of the Swiss Federation?
Or the cults of many long dead gods who throve for thousands of years...
You mean mountains of evidence like this?Can’t see setting aside a mountain of 'compelling' evidence in comparison to a debate about William Tell or a few dead Gods that wouldn’t even make good dinner time conversation. I agree that there ‘seem’ to be some discrepancies in reporting, understanding, interpretation, application, etc. within the Biblical context but just because of that I’m not quite ready to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Billy <><
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]WHAT ABOUT WRITINGS DURING THE LIFE OF JESUS?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What appears most revealing of all, comes not from what got later written about Jesus but what people did not write about him. Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If, indeed, the Gospels portray a historical look at the life of Jesus, then the one feature that stands out prominently within the stories shows that people claimed to know Jesus far and wide, not only by a great multitude of followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate, and Herod who claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1)". One need only read Matt: 4:25 where it claims that "there followed him [Jesus] great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jersulaem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordon." The gospels mention, countless times, the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of people who congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of these gatherings grown, that Luke 12:1 alleges that an "innumberable multitude of people... trode one upon another." Luke 5:15 says that there grew "a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear..." The persecution of Jesus in Jerusalem drew so much attention that all the chief priests and scribes, including the high priest Caiaphas, not only knew about him but helped in his alleged crucifixion. (see Matt 21:15-23, 26:3, Luke 19:47, 23:13). The multitude of people thought of Jesus, not only as a teacher and a miracle healer, but a prophet (see Matt:14:5).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not have heard of him?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Then we have a particular astronomical event that would have attracted the attention of anyone interested in the "heavens." According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Yet not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and astrologers, anywhere in the world. Nor does a single contemporary person write about the earthquake described in Matthew 27:51-54 where the earth shook, rocks ripped apart (rent), and graves opened.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Matthew 2 describes Herod and all of Jerusalem as troubled by the worship of the infant Jesus. Herod then had all of the children of Bethlehem slain. If such extraordinary infanticides of this magnitude had occurred, why didn't anyone write about it?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Some apologists attempt to dig themselves out of this problem by claiming that there lived no capable historians during that period, or due to the lack of education of the people with a writing capacity, or even sillier, the scarcity of paper gave reason why no one recorded their "savior." But the area in and surrounding Jerusalem served, in fact, as the center of education and record keeping for the Jewish people. The Romans, of course, also kept many records. Moreover, the gospels mention scribes many times, not only as followers of Jesus but the scribes connected with the high priests. And as for historians, there lived plenty at the time who had the capacity and capability to record, not only insignificant gossip, but significant events, especially from a religious sect who drew so much popular attention through an allegedly famous and infamous Jesus.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]T[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ake, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of these men?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mention him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]To illustrate this extraordinary absence of Jesus Christ literature, just imagine going through nineteenth century literature looking for an Abraham Lincoln but unable to find a single mention of him in any writing on earth until the 20th century. Yet straight-faced Christian apologists and historians want you to buy a factual Jesus out of a dearth void of evidence, and rely on nothing but hearsay written well after his purported life. Considering that most Christians believe that Jesus lived as God on earth, the Almighty gives an embarrassing example for explaining his existence. You'd think a Creator might at least have the ability to bark up some good solid evidence.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, got born in 62 C.E. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which got written around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. [Massey] Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud got written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The above sources get quoted the most as "evidence" for Jesus by Christians. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian), some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (cira 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - cira 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). All these people got born well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. Although we can provide numerous reasons why the Christian and non-Christian sources prove spurious, and argue endlessly about them, we can cut to the chase by simply looking at the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
WE have eyewitness accounts of Caesar Augustus, of Apollonius of Tyana; the same could go for the alleged Nazarene, but instead we have apologists making spurious claims about the nature of historiography....Eyewitness evidence in the Ancient era is not required to establish facts; to say otherwise betrays a lack of understanding of historiography...
WE have eyewitness accounts of Caesar Augustus, of Apollonius of Tyana; the same could go for the alleged Nazarene, but instead we have apologists making spurious claims about the nature of historiography....
We dont have eye witness accounts for most ancient figures, for instance Hannibal and Alexander the Great both lack primary sources let alone eye witnesses. I guess you'll be declaring that they didnt exist. Good luck with that....
One COULD cast doubt on them; their individual cases would have to be analysed and we have writings about them that aren't just wonder stories as with the godman...we have NON-miracle biographies about these huys, can't say the same for JESUS...
Quote:
One COULD cast doubt on them; their individual cases would have to be analysed and we have writings about them that aren't just wonder stories as with the godman...we have NON-miracle biographies about these huys, can't say the same for JESUS...
Ah so the problem is that you dont believe in miracles? Why then dress it up as a question of historicity I wonder? I mean if Jesus is who Christians say he is then the accounts will in fact contain miracles and apparently that fact alone disqualifies them as evidence. This leaves you pre-committed to reject any evidence that could reasonably be expected.
By the way you really should of credited Earl Doherty in the OP.
SHOULD HAVE, NOT 'SHOULD OF'; AND I THOUGHT THAT THIS SPEECH DEFICIT WAS ENDEMIC TO NORTH AMERICA ALONE...
Once again we can only speak of probabilities in history; miracles are at the absolute bottom of the ladder in terms of probabilities. Just admit that it is all about wishful thinking and faith and has nothing to do with evidence...
I have read Doherty and absorbed some of his ideas. I have no problem with crediting him for his insight...
May Woten guide your spear...
So you think that miracles are a proper part of historical enquiry? Based on what you are saying you claim that that your belief in your religion is based on fact, evidence and reason and contains no faith? Wow, you are the most unique Christian in the world!If you have no substantive point nit picking grammer is a great way to draw attention to it you know.SHOUTING looks desperate.
Why would I admit your anti Christian polemic to be anything but what it is?
Your whole OP is just Doherty's laughably bad book 'The Jesus Puzzle' summarised, odd that it describes your personal journey so closely.
Whatever.
So you think that miracles are a proper part of historical enquiry? Based on what you are saying you claim that that your belief in your religion is based on fact, evidence and reason and contains no faith? Wow, you are the most unique Christian in the world!
Hardly; I have read much more on the subject than Doherty; try Price, The Incredible Shrinking Man and Deconstructing Jesus among others...
Laughingly bad book?! What is laughingly bad about it? Can you critique his theories? or do you just do ad hominems? Scorn and derision are not refutation; indeed they imply the opposite...
Have you blasphemed against the mighty Wotan? When you stand before him in Valhalla he will ask you the riddle of steel and if you cannot answer you will be cast out of his hallowed halls, cursed and forsaken for eternity! What is the riddle of steel?
I have read the contrary scholarship; I am not convinced, particuarly Van Vorst.I think history doesnt necessarily exclude miracles on an a priori basis. Your position amounts to an a priori rejection of any account containing descriptions of the miraculous on the simple basis that you have already concluded that miracles are impossible. You then offer your flawed and ahistorical conclusion as evidence that the miraculous didnt occur. Rather circular dont you think?
I feel absolutely certain that you have indeed read other sources, the seach for polemic material takes you far and wide i am sure.
The contrary scholarship is out there, if you had any genuine interest you'd already have read it. You haven't because you aren't actually interested in doing other than pushing the position you are already committed to.
Mockery, pretty sad really that you think this substitutes for a case.
If I only knew what you were talking about...care to elucidate?It's sad that you're letting your limited human understanding blind you.
Hah, hah...I have read Van Vorst's book; I was not convinced by it, wholly indepedent of Doherty.I'm not sure I see the point of firing obviously agenda'd sources at us as though we are supposed to be convinced, I mean Earl Doherty's website and an atheist propoganda site? Reading the atheist attempt at refutation of serious scholarship hardly counts as reading the scholarship itself. Dont you have anything that might be considered to have any credibility? ( Actually I already know that you dont)
Please stop wasting our time if this 3rd grade rubbish is the best you have to offer, particularly as we have already established in this thread that the real problem for you is simply that you dont believe in miracles. It has little to do with the actual history, the 'scholarship' of Doherty just happens to be your chosen weapon for this attack. The pretense is way too transparent.
Hah, hah...I have read Van Vorst's book; I was not convinced by it, wholly indepedent of Doherty.
Your language and scorn betray the weakness of your position...not once have you mentioned any of the points brought out...all you do is use insults...
I want to see evidence...not abusive language..until then, you are the 3rd grader...
Then post links; if you have incontrovertible evidence for a human Jesus and extrabiblical, contemporary documentation of this person I and every other person who has ever lived would love to see it...as I said before, until you argue something, I don't need to address anything you have said...You happen to have read the book that Doherty can supply you a critique for and naturally his points are yours. It doesnt seem likely, rather too convenient.
Actually I've dealt at length with Doherty in GA, the forum where this should have been posted. I see no reason to work hard simply because you are too lazy or incompetent to place your post in the right area or search to see if your points have been addressed previously.
Dont flatter yourself, I'm not going to bother with someone whose whole position is little more than a fiction anyway. I mean, it's the miracles you have a problem with and you arent even smart enough not to have admitted that, yet and still you are deluded enough to think we believe your problem is you seriously studied the history and arrived at an independent conclusion?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?