Jesus of History and Myth

[yeshuaslavejeff]

but it's always unusual... or it wouldn't attract so much attention

well, sort of.
some witchcraft is practiced so often every day people pay no attention .

also, or on another thought, would you agree that Jesus was /is unusual ?

 

[inquiring mind]

I hope you realize that you are severely shifting the burden of proof.

Of course I am. You're only speculating and cannot produce any works from Jesus’ time, or shortly thereafter, which can authoritatively contradict the gospels, or anything else in the Bible. The Bible is an authoritative work... and even this forum’s statement of purpose says, “When you disagree with someone's position, you should post evidence and supporting statements for your position.” You have no contradicting evidence that supports your position, only speculation.

Claims written to paper are not true by default.

What do you mean, by default… Jesus believed the OT and quoted it often, and many reputable men of God had a part in its compilation. What authoritative work of such magnitude do you have to contradict it? The Book of Isaiah found in the Dead Sea Scrolls should lead to much reconsideration, concerning the Bible’s accuracy, by you and every other disbeliever and scoffer.

And when one objectively researches such assertions and claims, only to find lack in evidence to correlate such claims, one has no choice but to question.

Despite the so-called objective research by many scoffers of the Bible, not one untruth can be found or proved.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Doesn't matter in society what is the truth - without a new heart and new mind by the grace of God through Jesus the Messiah, society keeps sinning.

 

[Erik Nelson]

well, sort of.
some witchcraft is practiced so often every day people pay no attention .

also, or on another thought, would you agree that Jesus was /is unusual ?

Well obviously I wasn't there in the first century. However. All of the surviving eyewitness first hand. Reports. State. That Jesus was. Associated. With extraordinary supernatural phenomena.

His supporters. Attributed. The supernatural events. To the work of God in heaven. Whereas. His detractors. Attributed the same events. 2 demons and sorcery.

But all of the primary witnesses. acknowledge. Extraordinary supernatural events.

 

[Erik Nelson]

I would like everyone to please remember. That archaeology has for the past century and a half. Steadily. And inexorably. Uncovered proof of more and more. Of. the surviving ancient records. Be they secular or scriptural. Both Classical. Historians and authors as well as the Bible itself.

The more we dig. The more we verify. We have been digging and verifying for 150 years.

A simple linear extrapolation of that past trend. Would imply that given. Another century or so. We would be able to verify everything in every account.

Not saying that will happen of course. I'm just saying that's been the trend ever since Heinrich Schliemann uncovered Troy. Right where Homer said it was.

So I guess the jury is still out on some issues. But I definitely don't see any justification for extreme. Skepticism. Hypercritical hyper scepticism seems to me. To be motivated reasoning. Also known as rationalization. Trying to justify a position previously perceived to be good. Or True or worthy.

But at the rate we've been going if we just keep at it and keep digging. And keep subscribing to BAS. Then will keep finding. More Pilate rings. More Bone Oshu Airies, More inscriptions mentioning names like Isaiah and Jeremiah. And so on.

Again, I'm not claiming I can count chickens before they hatch. I'm not citing BAS. Articles years before they've been written. I'm just saying it is the trend. That has been accumulating steadily over the past 150 years.

Ancient authors and accounts have already been vindicated, many times over. On individual points they covered here and there. Obviously, I can't automatically claim that everything else they wrote about in between has been verified already. But it does look pretty good for them.

For 150 years. The continuous trend has been. The more we dig the more we find and the more we prove, and the more we verify and the more we vindicate.

 

[cvanwey]

Do you expect CNN or FOX News to show up with video cameras?

The whole entire point of the Gospel is Jesus began as a poor peasant worker "mustard seed" whose movement germinated & grew until it "moved the mountain" of the pagan empire

It started small, the only people who had "eyes on" were:

• Jews who became Christians
• Jews who rejected the Christians & whose survivors became modern Rabbinical Judaism
• Romans

All three groups make more mention of Jesus Christ in the paltry meager amount of writings to have survived until today, than anyone has a right to expect or demand.

Roman writers knew of conflicts regarding "Chrestus" causing quite a commotion in Rome, Josephus mentions him specifically. (Pilate's own wife allegedly viewed Jesus as a magical holy man.)

Yes, this validates post #66. Growing legendary tales is key....

Furthermore, The whole mention of Josephus is specious on two accounts.

1. Josephus wrote what believers believed at the time.
2. The 'golden paragraph' from Flavius Testimonium is verified as a later addition, by another later re-copiest decades/centuries later.

Also, people change their beliefs all the time. Heck, if I'm not mistaken, it appears that Islam is the fastest growing religion now. This must mean it's becoming 'truer.'

Jewish accounts call him a "sorcerer".

This coming from the same group of people whom also wrote, 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.'

CNN & FOX weren't there with cameras rolling. But Jewish Christians, Jewish non-Christians, & Romans all were there with pens slowly scrawling across paper, parchment & vellum.

What does come down to us is, there was a man & movement, and widespread reports of supra-natural phenomena occurring around them. If that really was true... what else would you expect to have to "prove" it? Video? Photos? Gravity waves? Neutrinos & dark matter particles?

You are raising your bar completely out of the realm of any & all possibilities. "I won't acknowledge even the possibility... b/c CNN & FOX weren't there to video record it and air it on TV"

It appears pretty clumsy to rely upon unverified anecdotal claimed eyewitness attestation as a method for knowledge and truth. It also appears clumsy to almost go out of one's way to assure that we have no validated or original sources. Instead, only later writings with a bias agenda, with no originals to even compare them back to.... It also appears clumsy to assure that no one outside the writers from the Bible itself verify or validate any claimed supernatural causation (i.e.) the resurrection or the walking dead.

IF it was true, the evidence we would reasonably expect to have... is exactly what we do in fact have

No, we would also have secular accounts of reporters reporting seeing dead people walking the city streets for many to see. Why have many dead people wander the streets for many to see, but no one reports of such? Seems odd, doesn't it now?

What we hear from the 1st century is, "John wrote the Gospel of John"... that claim is possible, plausible, probable -- who else would have bothered, in the 1st century, when the movement was still small? What other "Pillars of the Church" were there with Authority in the early Christian community? If not John, then... Paul? Peter? Mark, Matthew, Luke?

No one knows who wrote such pieces. Just leave it at that, until there is a way to know. But please remember, the Gospel of John is a far cry from Mark. Meaning, you can see many additional growing tales and exaggerations - (exactly what someone might see after decades of unfettered growing legendary tales passed down by repeated oral tradition). Again, read Mark, then read John.

You really only have a few names to choose from, and even if we somehow got mixed up, and Peter wrote John, John wrote Mark, and Luke wrote Matthew, it doesn't really change the authority or accuracy of the writings

Aside from us not knowing whom wrote what, the opposing Gospels have Jesus doing different things, in differing places, in the last month of His life. So to state they obtain 'authority or accuracy' might be a little far fetched.

You are basically inventing unknown shadowy "Ghosts of history" who popped into the year 100 AD, wrote the Gospels, and passed them off to the entire Christian community, which entire community was gullible enough to accept the fraudulent attributions to the early Church Pillars...

False, we have nothing earlier than Papyrus P52, dating around 150-200 AD. We have no full manuscripts until the third/fourth century. But more importantly, what is interesting is that the further one goes back, the more widely the documents deviate. As opposed to the 10th century and newer, where they deviate less One really has NO CLUE what the originals may have actually said or stated. But EVEN if we did, it is most likely the original was not written from a direct eyewitness account, but instead reporting what others believed, from a bias source

 

[cvanwey]

Not really -- 99.999% of the people alive in the 1st century received no acknowledgements of, nor attributions of, supra-natural phenomena associated with them

What about the .001%, (which was probably hundreds), of the population whom was reported to have seen many dead walking the city streets? (i.e.) Mark 27:52-53

I guess God only wanted the illiterate to see such miracles, to later not report of such. We should instead just 'trust' that the one passage from Mark is the be-all-end-all account of such a large tale

reports of para-normal, extremely unusual phenomena... have always been... extremely unusual

You cannot generalize from the surviving historical records, which record the "highlights" and "most exciting news stories" of the 1st century...

you cannot generalize from those "exciting & exceptional" news-worthy, record-worthy events...

to the whole general population at large

lots of strange stuff happens on earth, people talk about it, then as now, "truth is stranger than fiction"

but it's always unusual... or it wouldn't attract so much attention

again, our surviving historical records from the 1st century are like a CNN "Century in Review" episode aired in December 1999 about the 20th century... all the highlights & remarkable events will be there... but all those events were still exceptional & remarkable, in the grand scheme of things, even if they happen to be presented altogether in one episode

you can't generalize from that one episode of "The 20th Century in Review"... to everybody everywhere everywhen

Josephus is only going to bother to write about exceptional newsworthy topics; Tacitus, too...

doesn't mean exceptional events were a "dime a dozen" or commonplace

strange stuff happens, people talk about it... now you come along, and say strange stuff never happens... but it must have, or otherwise people would've been talking about something else

If many saw the raising of the dead, why only reports from the bias publication itself? No one else wrote of any history during this specific time in history? The Bible was the one and only source for news apparently.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Also, people change their beliefs all the time. Heck, if I'm not mistaken, it appears that Islam is the fastest growing religion now. This must mean it's becoming 'truer.'

You're mistaken.
As written, wickedness is growing more wicked.
The world is as it was in the days of Noah.
The whole world refuses to repent of serving demons.
The whole world is deceived.

If Yahweh had not saved (does not save) a remnant for Himself, there would be no one left.

 

[cvanwey]

You're mistaken.
As written, wickedness is growing more wicked.
The world is as it was in the days of Noah.
The whole world refuses to repent of serving demons.
The whole world is deceived.

If Yahweh had not saved (does not save) a remnant for Himself, there would be no one left.

It's almost as if you read nothing of what I wrote...

 

[Erik Nelson]

What about the .001%, (which was probably hundreds), of the population whom was reported to have seen many dead walking the city streets? (i.e.) Mark 27:52-53

I guess God only wanted the illiterate to see such miracles, to later not report of such. We should instead just 'trust' that the one passage from Mark is the be-all-end-all account of such a large tale



If many saw the raising of the dead, why only reports from the bias publication itself? No one else wrote of any history during this specific time in history? The Bible was the one and only source for news apparently.

You are misrepresenting the statistics of the issue. Because of the Jewish war, with the Jewish uprising, initially Defeating Roman forces in driving them out of Judea. Combined with the Roman counterattack. and the destruction of the temple in 70 A D. Nearly no Jewish or Roman records from the first century, Judah survive.

All that survives to present is the New Testament. Of the Christians the Jewish Talmud. And the Roman Writer Josephus.

Of those, 3 surviving sources 100% attribute supernatural phenomena to Jesus and. The events of the first century. The New Testament of course, the Talmud acknowledges Jesus was some sort of sorcerer and Josephus describes innumerable supernatural events, especially during. The Jewish war, culminating in the destruction of the temple in 70. AD

all surviving first hand witnesses agree on powerful supernatural paranormal events. occurring in the first century AD Judea.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Yes, this validates post #66. Growing legendary tales is key....

Furthermore, The whole mention of Josephus is specious on two accounts.

1. Josephus wrote what believers believed at the time.
2. The 'golden paragraph' from Flavius Testimonium is verified as a later addition, by another later re-copiest decades/centuries later.

Also, people change their beliefs all the time. Heck, if I'm not mistaken, it appears that Islam is the fastest growing religion now. This must mean it's becoming 'truer.'



This coming from the same group of people whom also wrote, 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.'



It appears pretty clumsy to rely upon unverified anecdotal claimed eyewitness attestation as a method for knowledge and truth. It also appears clumsy to almost go out of one's way to assure that we have no validated or original sources. Instead, only later writings with a bias agenda, with no originals to even compare them back to.... It also appears clumsy to assure that no one outside the writers from the Bible itself verify or validate any claimed supernatural causation (i.e.) the resurrection or the walking dead.



No, we would also have secular accounts of reporters reporting seeing dead people walking the city streets for many to see. Why have many dead people wander the streets for many to see, but no one reports of such? Seems odd, doesn't it now?



No one knows who wrote such pieces. Just leave it at that, until there is a way to know. But please remember, the Gospel of John is a far cry from Mark. Meaning, you can see many additional growing tales and exaggerations - (exactly what someone might see after decades of unfettered growing legendary tales passed down by repeated oral tradition). Again, read Mark, then read John.



Aside from us not knowing whom wrote what, the opposing Gospels have Jesus doing different things, in differing places, in the last month of His life. So to state they obtain 'authority or accuracy' might be a little far fetched.



False, we have nothing earlier than Papyrus P52, dating around 150-200 AD. We have no full manuscripts until the third/fourth century. But more importantly, what is interesting is that the further one goes back, the more widely the documents deviate. As opposed to the 10th century and newer, where they deviate less One really has NO CLUE what the originals may have actually said or stated. But EVEN if we did, it is most likely the original was not written from a direct eyewitness account, but instead reporting what others believed, from a bias source

Did homer write the Iliad and oddisee? Did Hesiod really write a history? Was there really a man named Tacitus? Or historian name Suetonius. Was there really some guy named Livy?

Yes, none of those ancient authors really wrote the books, they are given credit for having written. Then somebody else wrote the books somebody else equally as ancient somebody else who had a name. I mean, which might have been homer or Hesiod and which might as well have been. You seem to be inventing shadowy, Ghostly Duplicate. Figures. Who copy and mimic the behaviors of historical figures without being them?

Why couldn't mark the secretary of Saint Peter have written the gospel of mark? What magic force would have stopped him? He had means opportunity and plenty of motive to write down the gospel. What magic force would have stopped early first century Christians? From writing down the gospel that they evidently felt was so important that they gave their lives for it.

Once again, they had means motive and opportunity to write down the Gospel in the first century AD. Why wouldn't they have?

Your argument boils down to, "no way could or would early first century Christians have written down the gospel."

Why on earth not? They had means opportunity. And so much motive that they gave their lives for it. Yet somehow they just couldn't. Have put pen to paper. And pushed it across and written?

Why couldn't mark have written the gospel of mark? What would have stopped him?

 

[cvanwey]

You are misrepresenting the statistics of the issue. Because of the Jewish war, with the Jewish uprising, initially Defeating Roman forces in driving them out of Judea. Combined with the Roman counterattack. and the destruction of the temple in 70 A D. Nearly no Jewish or Roman records from the first century, Judah survive.

All that survives to present is the New Testament. Of the Christians the Jewish Talmud. And the Roman Writer Josephus.

Of those, 3 surviving sources 100% attribute supernatural phenomena to Jesus and. The events of the first century. The New Testament of course, the Talmud acknowledges Jesus was some sort of sorcerer and Josephus describes innumerable supernatural events, especially during. The Jewish war, culminating in the destruction of the temple in 70. AD

all surviving first hand witnesses agree on powerful supernatural paranormal events. occurring in the first century AD Judea.

I'm aware of the Jewish Diaspora...

You completely avoided my observation. So I will bring it to light once again, for you to actually address....

'What about the .001%, (which was probably hundreds), of the population whom was reported to have seen many dead walking the city streets? (i.e.) Mark 27:52-53

I guess God only wanted the illiterate to see such miracles, to later not report of such. We should instead just 'trust' that the one passage from Mark is the be-all-end-all account of such a large tale '

 

[Erik Nelson]

I'm aware of the Jewish Diaspora...

You completely avoided my observation. So I will bring it to light once again, for you to actually address....

'What about the .001%, (which was probably hundreds), of the population whom was reported to have seen many dead walking the city streets? (i.e.) Mark 27:52-53

I guess God only wanted the illiterate to see such miracles, to later not report of such. We should instead just 'trust' that the one passage from Mark is the be-all-end-all account of such a large tale '

Please re read those verses. First of all you mean Matthew. Mark doesn't have 27 chapters. Second of all Matthew 27 verse 53 clearly states that. The resurrected saints were "seen by many people."

Mark and Matthew were amongst the few literate in the earliest Jewish Christian community. What they wrote down they wrote down for and on behalf of the entire Christian community? Many to All of whom remembered witnessing. That event. That's why they supported Mark and Matthew in writing down. The details of the event, they remembered witnessing.

 

[Erik Nelson]

well, sort of.
some witchcraft is practiced so often every day people pay no attention .

also, or on another thought, would you agree that Jesus was /is unusual ?

Well, only if you don't pay attention to the news. According to even the mainstream media. So called witches have been engaging in ritual activity in order to put hexes on. US politicians.

But it is true that nobody has apparently thought about it and cried foul and cried a separation of religion and state.

 

[cvanwey]

Did homer write the Iliad and oddisee? Did Hesiod really write a history? Was there really a man named Tacitus? Or historian name Suetonius. Was there really some guy named Livy?

Yes, none of those ancient authors really wrote the books, they are given credit for having written. Then somebody else wrote the books somebody else equally as ancient somebody else who had a name. I mean, which might have been homer or Hesiod and which might as well have been. You seem to be inventing shadowy, Ghostly Duplicate. Figures. Who copy and mimic the behaviors of historical figures without being them?

Why couldn't mark the secretary of Saint Peter have written the gospel of mark? What magic force would have stopped him? He had means opportunity and plenty of motive to write down the gospel. What magic force would have stopped early first century Christians? From writing down the gospel that they evidently felt was so important that they gave their lives for it.

Once again, they had means motive and opportunity to write down the Gospel in the first century AD. Why wouldn't they have?

Your argument boils down to, "no way could or would early first century Christians have written down the gospel."

Why on earth not? They had means opportunity. And so much motive that they gave their lives for it. Yet somehow they just couldn't. Have put pen to paper. And pushed it across and written?

Why couldn't mark have written the gospel of mark? What would have stopped him?

I think we are speaking right past each other....

Let me make my points clear, so you don't waste your time with points in which we may ultimately agree upon

1. The only ones writing of such tales were already believers in Christ (bias).
2. The Jews were very superstitious, and spoke of others as being 'above human' as well.
3. We have absolutely no secular recorded events, by anyone outside of 'the church', of the walking dead or a resurrection claim.

So I again ask, using Occam's Razor...

A) Is it more likely a man, or a culmination of men, was/were walking around preaching to be the Messiah, which wasn't the first and or certainly not the last time such events would take place. Many stories were told in oral tradition, and later written about, and ultimately later collected and published using Marcian's business model?

Or...

B) It's all true, even though we see no accounts from secular sources, what-so-ever, for accounts of the walking dead or a rising Jesus; even though the Bible states 100's/1,000's would have saw as such?

 

[cvanwey]

Please re read those verses. First of all you mean Matthew. Mark doesn't have 27 chapters. Second of all Matthew 27 verse 53 clearly states that. The resurrected saints were "seen by many people."

Mark and Matthew were amongst the few literate in the earliest Jewish Christian community. What they wrote down they wrote down for and on behalf of the entire Christian community? Many to All of whom remembered witnessing. That event. That's why they supported Mark and Matthew in writing down. The details of the event, they remembered witnessing.

Doh! Good catch, yes, Matthew

But what you state about such a result is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Again, why present for 100's/1,000s to see, and have one bias report alone? Seems rather fishy to say the very least....

If we had but a couple of non-partisan reports of simply seeing people rising from their graves, and not knowing what to make of it, then we may have some sort of a starting point at least. But once again, all we have is the very bias of the Bible's account alone.

For God to present such an event to many, where God already knows only the one reporter could report, is not a validated account for multiple eyewitness attestation; especially if God may want people of later generations to 'believe' such a tale.

 

[Erik Nelson]

I think we are speaking right past each other....

Let me make my points clear, so you don't waste your time with points in which we may ultimately agree upon

1. The only ones writing of such tales were already believers in Christ (bias).
2. The Jews were very superstitious, and spoke of others as being 'above human' as well.
3. We have absolutely no secular recorded events, by anyone outside of 'the church', of the walking dead or a resurrection claim.

So I again ask, using Occam's Razor...

A) Is it more likely a man, or a culmination of men, was/were walking around preaching to be the Messiah, which wasn't the first and or certainly not the last time such events would take place. Many stories were told in oral tradition, and later written about, and ultimately later collected and published using Marcian's business model?

Or...

B) It's all true, even though we see no accounts from secular sources, what-so-ever, for accounts of the walking dead or a rising Jesus; even though the Bible states 100's/1,000's would have saw as such?

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

still think you're misrepresenting the statistics

we have ZERO other surviving records written by eyewitnesses to these alleged events of about April 30 AD or so

it's NOT the case, that every known Roman historian was in attendance at Christ's trial, recording everything diligently, and THEY make no mention of the ghostly apparitions of the resurrected Saints (or whatever Matthew might mean)

No, it's not that other surviving accounts CONTRADICT the NT...

it is the case that only the NT records anything whatsoever at all of those events

whatever Pilate wrote, did not survive until present... we cannot ASSUME that his account of events to emperor Tiberias (say) made no mention of the resurrected saints... it is NOT the case that we have any OTHER contradictory accounts

the only people whose account of the events survives until present are the NT Christians, and to some extent the non-Christian Jews whose memory of events is recorded in the Talmud

You make it sound as if we have OTHER witnesses who contradict and discredit the NT -- but, other than perhaps the Talmud, we have no other direct eyewitness accounts of April 30 AD

we have one witness, the NT, and it says all that stuff happened

 

[Erik Nelson]

Doh! Good catch, yes, Matthew

But what you state about such a result is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Again, why present for 100's/1,000s to see, and have one bias report alone? Seems rather fishy to say the very least....

If we had but a couple of non-partisan reports of simply seeing people rising from their graves, and not knowing what to make of it, then we may have some sort of a starting point at least. But once again, all we have is the very bias of the Bible's account alone.

For God to present such an event to many, where God already knows only the one reporter could report, is not a validated account for multiple eyewitness attestation; especially if God may want people of later generations to 'believe' such a tale.

MacArthur Study Bible
27:52 bodies of the saints…were raised.
Matthew alone mentions this miracle. Nothing more is said about these people, which would be unlikely if they remained on earth for long. Evidently, these people were given glorified bodies; they appeared “to many” (v. 53), enough to establish the reality of the miracle; and then they no doubt ascended to glory—a kind of foretaste of 1 Thess. 4:16.​

Note that the next few verses IDENTIFY some of the witnesses, including:

• Roman centurion & soldiers
• Mary Magdalene
• Mary mother of Jesus
• mother of Zebedee's sons
• other women believers

 

[Tinker Grey]

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Yes, it is. Modus tollens - Wikipedia

Basically, if an event P must have consequences Q. But, we don't see Q, then P never happened.

If there is an elephant in my room I'd see it. I don't see an elephant. Ergo, no elephant.

If 100s of dead people got out of their graves and wandered about, surely more than the story teller would have recorded it. (And what of re-death and re-burial, feeding, getting jobs, etc.) But more than the story teller did not record it. Ergo, it didn't happen.

The construction is valid. So the only thing left is to argue the premises. If someone else did record the event, then premise 2 is wrong. If you can argue that it is not reasonable that more than one person should record the event (if record is the right word here), then premise 1 is wrong.

Mind you, even if you can discount one of the premises, you have not proven that the event happened. You've only shown that the argument doesn't work.

 

[Tinker Grey]

enough to establish the reality of the miracle

The miracle is NOT established. You have a story teller saying that lots of people saw it.