The Myth of an Historical Jesus?

[dthmstr254]

We are now going in circles. I never said Jesus did not exist. As a matter of fact, I said I believe that the evidence supports the fact that he did exist. But existence does not equal divinity. You are not making claims simply of existence, but claims of large levels of support from historians for proof of Jesus' existence as reported in the Gospels, Acts, etc. That is what I challenge. Scholarly evidence for Jesus as JESUS CHRIST, son of God, divine in nature, dead then resurected, simply and plainly DOES NOT EXIST.

well, to get that, you must take the profile evidence of Jesus. the question you are asking (I think) would be "does Jesus fit the profile of the Messiah?" for that, the person looking at this must use the gospels. secular works won't take a religious aspect, and Jewish works only refer to Jesus in derogatory fashion. this leaves the Bible. the Bible gets the facts about other places correct, including the locations of cities, places, and historical figures. from its track record in the subjects that are well covered in history, we can make a small extrapolation by trusting it in other areas, such as Jesus's actions and life in general. outside of the miracles there are prophecies in the Old Testament that were fulfilled by him. if you like, we can delve deeper into the profile evidence.

[lsbskins1]

well, to get that, you must take the profile evidence of Jesus. the question you are asking (I think) would be "does Jesus fit the profile of the Messiah?" for that, the person looking at this must use the gospels. secular works won't take a religious aspect, and Jewish works only refer to Jesus in derogatory fashion. this leaves the Bible. the Bible gets the facts about other places correct, including the locations of cities, places, and historical figures. from its track record in the subjects that are well covered in history, we can make a small extrapolation by trusting it in other areas, such as Jesus's actions and life in general. outside of the miracles there are prophecies in the Old Testament that were fulfilled by him. if you like, we can delve deeper into the profile evidence.

But the Bible gets as much wrong as it gets right, contradicts itself in places and has been subject to revision after revision after revision. Much of it is "visionary" and subject to individual interpretation. If I wrote a book that claimed that Bill Clinton was really the son of alien invaders, but got all the street adresses and the names of the world leaders right, that would not be evidence that my fantastic contentions were correct. You are using selective reasoning and tenuous connections as support beams. To use a familiar reference, you are building your house on the sand and not on the rock. And as for the idea of "prophecies fullfilled", this is no more convincing than the case made that Nostrodamus predicted Hitler. We have no birth records, so nothing but copies of copies of copies of works, written by belivers who did not know or meet the man, that he was from the house of David. All of your proofs are simply speculative. Let me state again, I do not seek to quetion your faith, nor challenge it. Believe what your heart tells you. But as for me, nothing you have offered reaches an acceptable level of "proof", nor does it rise to the level of proof that historians or scholars would expect in dealing with any other subject.

[RickSp]

The New Testament was highly edited during the first few centuries of the Christian era. Irenaeus of Lyon, during the second century, claimed a total of four Gospels. Additional accounts were considered heretical and were excluded and destroyed.

One last note about Josephus and Tacitus, the two most commonly cited historians who wrote around the beginning of the second century. While both did mention Jesus or Christus as a historical figure, both also mention Hercules in same terms. Should we consider the possiblity of a historical Hercules?

The accounts of Hercules and Jesus have a lot in common. Hercules was born of god and mortal woman. He performed miraculous deeds, died in agony and rose again as a god. Josephus refers to Hercules more often in his writings than he does to Jesus.

[dthmstr254]

But the Bible gets as much wrong as it gets right, contradicts itself in places and has been subject to revision after revision after revision. Much of it is "visionary" and subject to individual interpretation. If I wrote a book that claimed that Bill Clinton was really the son of alien invaders, but got all the street adresses and the names of the world leaders right, that would not be evidence that my fantastic contentions were correct. You are using selective reasoning and tenuous connections as support beams. To use a familiar reference, you are building your house on the sand and not on the rock. And as for the idea of "prophecies fullfilled", this is no more convincing than the case made that Nostrodamus predicted Hitler. We have no birth records, so nothing but copies of copies of copies of works, written by belivers who did not know or meet the man, that he was from the house of David. All of your proofs are simply speculative. Let me state again, I do not seek to quetion your faith, nor challenge it. Believe what your heart tells you. But as for me, nothing you have offered reaches an acceptable level of "proof", nor does it rise to the level of proof that historians or scholars would expect in dealing with any other subject.

last I read it, I understood it very well. I can tell you with confidence that there are no Baptist doctrines that are in danger because of variants in the copies.

[dthmstr254]

The New Testament was highly edited during the first few centuries of the Christian era. Irenaeus of Lyon, during the second century, claimed a total of four Gospels. Additional accounts were considered heretical and were excluded and destroyed.

because they were not correct. notice what the closing of the gospel of Thomas says:
"if any woman is to make herself like unto a man, she will enter into the gates of Heaven." that directly contradicts the belief in Grace Salvation. this is supposed to be something that Jesus said. that is NOT the Jesus in the canon.

One last note about Josephus and Tacitus, the two most commonly cited historians who wrote around the beginning of the second century. While both did mention Jesus or Christus as a historical figure, both also mention Hercules in same terms. Should we consider the possiblity of a historical Hercules?

I wouldn't say so. remember, Josephus and Tacitus were Roman citizens. they were bound to have biases to believing in Hercules. the difference is, with Jesus, they both had a bias AGAINST Jesus. Josephus was a Jew who bought his Roman citizenship, the Jews had a virulent bias against Jesus. every mention in the Talmud, though agreeing with the gospels, refers to Jesus in a derogatory fashion.

The accounts of Hercules and Jesus have a lot in common. Hercules was born of god and mortal woman. He performed miraculous deeds, died in agony and rose again as a god. Josephus refers to Hercules more often in his writings than he does to Jesus.

as for the similarities to Jesus, they were taken from the prophecies. there is no corroborating evidence from another source other than Romans and Greeks. as for the rest, read above.

[lsbskins1]

because they were not correct. notice what the closing of the gospel of Thomas says:
"if any woman is to make herself like unto a man, she will enter into the gates of Heaven." that directly contradicts the belief in Grace Salvation. this is supposed to be something that Jesus said. that is NOT the Jesus in the canon.



I wouldn't say so. remember, Josephus and Tacitus were Roman citizens. they were bound to have biases to believing in Hercules. the difference is, with Jesus, they both had a bias AGAINST Jesus. Josephus was a Jew who bought his Roman citizenship, the Jews had a virulent bias against Jesus. every mention in the Talmud, though agreeing with the gospels, refers to Jesus in a derogatory fashion.


as for the similarities to Jesus, they were taken from the prophecies. there is no corroborating evidence from another source other than Romans and Greeks. as for the rest, read above.

Notice how in your first response, you take "canon", ie. accepted scripture, as ultimate authority, yet in the last response reject Greek and Roman "canon". I realize you can parse it and justify in some way, but the basic fact is that you take as proof the concepts you are attempting to prove. It is circular and does not prove anything. Your contentions are grounded on your faith.

[Matt W]

In the meanwhile, I eagerly await to hear what the courts say...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4653200.stm

[Jack]

From your link:

"The point is not to establish whether Jesus existed or not, but if there is a question of possible fraud," Mr Cascioli's lawyer, Mauro Fonzo, told reporters.

That's too bad. Perhaps something interesting will still come of the decision.

[dthmstr254]

Notice how in your first response, you take "canon", ie. accepted scripture, as ultimate authority, yet in the last response reject Greek and Roman "canon". I realize you can parse it and justify in some way, but the basic fact is that you take as proof the concepts you are attempting to prove. It is circular and does not prove anything. Your contentions are grounded on your faith.

I was rejecting a different canon of a different work. different author=different analysis.

[RickSp]

The New Testament was highly edited during the first few centuries of the Christian era. Irenaeus of Lyon, during the second century, claimed a total of four Gospels. Additional accounts were considered heretical and were excluded and destroyed.

because they were not correct. notice what the closing of the gospel of Thomas says:
"if any woman is to make herself like unto a man, she will enter into the gates of Heaven." that directly contradicts the belief in Grace Salvation. this is supposed to be something that Jesus said. that is NOT the Jesus in the canon.

This is what is so ludicrous. There is no record - none, nada, zip, of the alleged Jesus during his own lifetime. The first Gospel, Mark, was written after 70CE by man who never claims to have met Jesus. There is no textual evidence that "Mark" was the apostle Mark. We also know that the "Gospels" were edited extensively to suit the theological needs of the early church leaders. No one can say which doctrines are correct, only which were chosen by early leaders who unquestionably never met "Jesus." What you refer to as the "canon" is nothing more than the second century edit. This was a period of significant theological conflict. The final version of the canon was the version faovered by the victors of the conflict.

[dthmstr254]

This is what is so ludicrous. There is no record - none, nada, zip, of the alleged Jesus during his own lifetime. The first Gospel, Mark, was written after 70CE by man who never claims to have met Jesus. There is no textual evidence that "Mark" was the apostle Mark. We also know that the "Gospels" were edited extensively to suit the theological needs of the early church leaders. No one can say which doctrines are correct, only which were chosen by early leaders who unquestionably never met "Jesus." What you refer to as the "canon" is nothing more than the second century edit. This was a period of significant theological conflict. The final version of the canon was the version faovered by the victors of the conflict.

correction, Mark's full first name was John-Mark. he was a close friend of Peter and wrote his gospel around 45-50 AD. he got his information from Peter, as did Matthew. the edited parts were thrown out by the people who put together the KJV. they got most of their information out of the first three copies of the New Testament, cross-referenced with nearly 300 other fragments, each piece of the bible had at least five copies of itself in their resources, many had up to ten or twelve. the Septaguint (the Greek Old Testament) had nearly 8 full copies of itself. that is more than enough documentary copies to cross-reference. they could compare one copy to the rest and say, "well, this has these words, but the rest don't, thus, this is an editted copy." and then the proverbial "you arrree the weakest link, goodbye." what I refer to as the canon is the parts of the Bible that were accepted according to the rules set forth in the books of Timothy, Corinthians, and 1, 2, and 3 John. the apocrypha was cut out because it was not consistent with the rest of the Bible. makes for a good resource on what happened religiously in the 425 silent years between the Old and New Testaments, but nothing else.

[RickSp]

LOL. Enjoy your mythology. Your information about Mark seems to come from Irenaeus of Lyons in his book Against Heresies c. 175-185 CE. Even he notes that Mark never heard Jesus but recorded second hand accounts. Irenaeus was a great fighter against those versions that he considered to be heresies. He helped destroy all accounts not to his liking.

Peter, the fisherman, holder of the "keys to the kingdom" looks suspiciously like the Egyptian pagan deity, Petra, who was the door-keeper of heaven and the afterlife ruled over by Osiris. The Epistles of Peter are highly suspect as they were written in a Greek that it is unlikely that of a fisherman speaking Arameic. The second epistle also seems to have borrowed far too much from the Epistle of Jude, which most scholars do not believe was written before 250 CE. Did Peter even exist?

The point remains - all your sources date from the second century at best. Even those written earlier were all edited, revised and changed by early Christian leaders to suit their own purposes. Of course you note that editing has continued through the King James version in published in 1611.

You have no idea what actually transpired over 2,000 years ago, only what the various transcribers of accounts of second and third hand stories claim, which were then cut, pasted and altered across the intervening centuries. Your faith may claim inviolate certainty but it is a certainty which the history does not support.