Jump to content

Menu

Fascinating article Re: Roman Empire and Christ


Χά�ων
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thus came across my news feed, anyone else heard about this?

 

 

 

 

Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'Biblical scholars will be appearing at the 'Covert Messiah' Conference at Conway Hall in London on the 19th of October to present this controversial discovery to the British public

 

http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why Roman emperors persecuted Christians so ruthlessly if they had created Christinaity. Wasn't the spread of the Christian faith exactly what they would have wanted if Romans had created it in the first place?

Also, if Jesus hadn't existed, all his apostles must have been not non-existent either. Is there history evidence to refute this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Jesus was solely based on other mythological characters is a fairly old idea.  Maybe this is a new spin on it.  But I think it might be hard to convince me, at least, that the Roman govt actually cared enough to create this propaganda.  Not sure what they'd get out of it.

 

And no matter what he says he found, I tend to take eyewitness accounts from Roman times with a big pinch of salt.  A lot of the "I was there" accounts tend to actually be written 100 yrs or so after the events.  Usually by someone with a bone to pick or a patron to please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems terribly unlikely, and his "evidence" seems really flimsy (at least as far as he mentioned within the article) using words like "poetic" parallels.

 

If there are indeed enough parallels to make a theory out of, I'd be more inclined to say that ideas of "epics" following a familiar pattern may have influenced the written style of the NT, or that geography and a society's callendar makes travel patterns similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from last year btw....

Another rebuttal to it - on the atheist channel ;)  (also quotes Richard Carrier's piece linked above)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/10/joseph-atwill-has-not-proven-that-jesus-was-made-up-by-the-romans/

"Atwill gets the right conclusion (Jesus was never a real person), but for all the wrong reasons."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus came across my news feed, anyone else heard about this?

 

 

 

 

Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'Biblical scholars will be appearing at the 'Covert Messiah' Conference at Conway Hall in London on the 19th of October to present this controversial discovery to the British public

 

http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

Did the Romans write everything attributed to the Early Church Fathers, too? They must have been busy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the Romans write everything attributed to the Early Church Fathers, too? They must have been busy.

I don't think many people realize that not everything the Apostles wrote is in the Bible, and the writings from the early church were pretty extensive.

 

This is not a new topic, and it has been debunked by non-Christian and Christian historians alike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh. Most people realize who the pot stirrers are and keep on clicking.

Is there a reason that you come in to almost every single one of my threads and post comments like this in order to pot stir?

 

If you do not like what I have to say, or if you do not agree with topics that I post, block me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a reason that you come in to almost every single one of my threads and post comments like this in order to pot stir?

 

If you do not like what I have to say, or if you do not agree with topics that I post, block me.

I'm having a discussion with Slache, on a discussion board.

 

Perhaps you would feel better if you took your own advice and blocked me. Because I'm just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a reason that you come in to almost every single one of my threads and post comments like this in order to pot stir?

 

If you do not like what I have to say, or if you do not agree with topics that I post, block me.

I think you may be over thinking her post. It wasn't snarky but a generalized statement. Your replies are a bit harsh to such a mild comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you may be over thinking her post. It wasn't snarky but a generalized statement. Your replies are a bit harsh to such a mild comment.

If it was just this thread, I would agree. But if you follow back through my past posts whenever I post anything not mainstream or homeschooling related she comes in and posts snarky comments and tries to derail the thread.

 

I am publicly asking her to stop. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have believed for some time that Jesus did not really exist, I would be interested to see what his "conclusive evidence" could be, it seems that it would be quite a hard thing to prove. His website shows a movie trailer, I'd probably watch that.

I am interested in this as well. I actually booted DS off the laptop to take a closer look. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, isn't there a reason the first 3 letters in "news" spell *new*?

 

:lol:

 

That would be a funny one-liner, if it were about news.

 

But the OP didn't call it "news."  She called it an interesting article.  

 

If you don't find it interesting, that's okay.  There are so many members, and so many threads here on the board, there must be something interesting for you to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may not be an ancient history scholar, but I know enough about propaganda (largely from spending 17 years of my life catering meetings for top government officials) to know that there is just no way to pull such a thing off. Believe me, modern governments would do it today if they could get away with it. The ancient Romans just did not care enough about their subjugated territories to do it. I do understand that belief in JC is not sophisticated enough for modern thinkers, but I don't have to buy into such silliness. 

 

There are many reasons to question Christianity as a religion, and I say that as a Christian who questions A LOT, but this is just not something worthy of my scrutiny based on the article. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can debate the ressurection and the divinity of Christ, but no serious scholars of history question the fact that he existed, the burden of proof has been met. This really is a scholarly debate, not a religious one, and it has been settled by academics of all stripes. Jesus is mentioned in negative terms and/or neutral terms by several non-Christian figures of the day, he is described as a well known Jewish figure who was crucified in Jerusalem. Whether you believe in Christianity has nothing to do with the fact that he did exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bart Ehrman wrote a book about this topic:

 

http://smile.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1411070982&sr=8-4&keywords=bart+ehrman

 

It's not as engaging as his other books since it includes a lot of academic infighting, but if you're interested in the topic it's a good place to start.

I've read things about Jesus not existing so this book will be a good counter point. Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus came across my news feed, anyone else heard about this?

 

 

 

 

Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'Biblical scholars will be appearing at the 'Covert Messiah' Conference at Conway Hall in London on the 19th of October to present this controversial discovery to the British public

 

http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

 

Wow.  This is really deep.  But now I'm super confused.  I thought Jesus was a guy and was married to Mary Magdalene.  There was, like, a movie about it and everything.

 

Meh. Most people realize who the pot stirrers are and keep on clicking.

 

 

Or, I could just ask that you refrain from posting snarky comments in order to derail many of my threads. 

 

:iagree: Seriously. I come her for erudition and edification.  To suggest that the OP posted the link to push a particular viewpoint or to push particular buttons is simply too painful to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can debate the ressurection and the divinity of Christ, but no serious scholars of history question the fact that he existed, the burden of proof has been met. This really is a scholarly debate, not a religious one, and it has been settled by academics of all stripes. Jesus is mentioned in negative terms and/or neutral terms by several non-Christian figures of the day, he is described as a well known Jewish figure who was crucified in Jerusalem. Whether you believe in Christianity has nothing to do with the fact that he did exist.

Like.

 

I don't know why I couldn't click on "like" under your post. This might be my first day ever to run out of "likes". Hahaha.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may not be an ancient history scholar, but I know enough about propaganda (largely from spending 17 years of my life catering meetings for top government officials) to know that there is just no way to pull such a thing off. 

 

You got that right. It's an awfully convenient story, complete with mystery, intrigue, deception, drama. Oy vey, has our collective attention gotten so soft and fluttery that we need an HBO worthy drama to find history fascinating?

 

This guy's claims have been thoroughly slapped down by most historians and scholars. There's good reason to doubt the existence of an historical Jesus, but this isn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can debate the ressurection and the divinity of Christ, but no serious scholars of history question the fact that he existed, the burden of proof has been met.

Meh, I don't know that I would say that "no serious scholars of history" question a historical Jesus unless you'll qualify what you mean by "serious scholars of history." Biblical scholars? Sure. All "serious scholars of history?" Nope. The debate still continues. Ehrman wouldn't have written a book outlining why he believes in the historicity of Jesus in 2012 if it was a done deal. Unless something earth shattering happened in last two years that I haven't heard about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh, I don't know that I would say that "no serious scholars of history" question a historical Jesus unless you'll qualify what you mean by "serious scholars of history." Biblical scholars? Sure. All "serious scholars of history?" Nope. The debate still continues. Ehrman wouldn't have written a book outlining why he believes in the historicity of Jesus in 2012 if it was a done deal. Unless something earth shattering happened in last two years that I haven't heard about.

The public is more ignorant when it comes to history and religion, and so there is a market for books like the one Ehrman wrote. The "mythicists" arguments are not new, they have simply gained a wider audience as the culture becomes less Christian and people become unaware of the fact that these are not new arguments.

 

I'm talking about serious historians, not Biblical scholars. The kind of people who are experts on boring things like ancient Roman burial habits, not the type who write sensational books in the hopes of making tons of money and landing national media interviews.

 

The burden of proof that is needed to prove a historical figure really existed is examined by scholars. The historical documents and evidence in the case of Jesus have been found sufficient, and are very similiar to the same level of proof we have for people such as Socrates, whose existence comes to us from second hand sources and eyewitness accounts, just like Jesus. I may not believe that Socrates said every word that Plato attributes to him, but I still say that it is a fact that Socrates did exist. The historical record affords is the same certainty with Jesus.

 

Non believers may dismiss the Bible as myth, but there are enough other records to confirm that a man named Jesus was crucified by Pilate in Jerusalem and his followers became a new religious movement.

 

For Jesus the man to have been a complete invention would mean that a conspiracy to invent him had to have taken place between people that existed across vast geographical, political, and religious divides. He is mentioned by contemporaries in Jewish, Greek, Roman, and Christian sources. The idea of a vast conspiracy of this magnitude taking place, in order to convince people to join a cult that would mean their ostracism and possible execution? It is less than plausible, unless you deny vast amounts of the historical record to make your case.

 

Again, we are not arguing about the Biblical accounts, that is a seperate issue. On the issue of whether Jesus existed, the burden of proof was met and the verdict decided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You got that right. It's an awfully convenient story, complete with mystery, intrigue, deception, drama. Oy vey, has our collective attention gotten so soft and fluttery that we need an HBO worthy drama to find history fascinating?

 

This guy's claims have been thoroughly slapped down by most historians and scholars. There's good reason to doubt the existence of an historical Jesus, but this isn't it.

To the bold, yes. Heck, rarely is it just history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking about serious historians, not Biblical scholars.

I get that you believe this, but again, you don't qualify who these serious historians are and much of what followed reads like a page out of an apologetics textbook. I'm also not saying the questions are new, but the case isn't nearly as settled as you make it out to be.

 

In the end I don't think it particularly matters one way or another whether or not a historical Jesus existed as I think there are plenty of other reasons to disbelieve in Christianity. YMMV and all that.

 

ETA: Ah yes, the Cesar argument above me. Another fine example of apologetics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a reason that you come in to almost every single one of my threads and post comments like this in order to pot stir?

 

If you do not like what I have to say, or if you do not agree with topics that I post, block me.

Or, I could just ask that you refrain from posting snarky comments in order to derail many of my threads.

If it was just this thread, I would agree. But if you follow back through my past posts whenever I post anything not mainstream or homeschooling related she comes in and posts snarky comments and tries to derail the thread.

 

I am publicly asking her to stop.

I'm publicly answering that I am not doing what you are accusing me of.

 

Here are the threads you started that I replied to through August 2013. No derailing. No snark. No coming into almost every single thread you started to pot stir.

 

You started dozens of threads in the last 13 months. I responded in 4 about: cats twerking, sloppy joes, Laura Ingalls Wilder and toys babies like. I couldn't go back farther.

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/524478-boys-are-born-to-prefer-dolls/

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/522471-msu-offers-free-online-course-on-laura-ingalls-wilder/

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/488102-tomato-free-sloppy-jow/?do=findComment&comment=5195104

 

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/487717-train-your-cat-to/#

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that you believe this, but again, you don't qualify who these serious historians are and much of what followed reads like a page out of an apologetics textbook. I'm also not saying the questions are new, but the case isn't nearly as settled as you make it out to be.

 

In the end I don't think it particularly matters one way or another whether or not a historical Jesus existed as I think there are plenty of other reasons to disbelieve in Christianity. YMMV and all that.

 

ETA: Ah yes, the Cesar argument above me. Another fine example of apologetics.

This isn't apologetics, the historical fact that Jesus existed is only disputed by a small minority fringe within the profession. When you ask me to name a historian who confirms that Jesus existed, it is like you are asking me to tell you which astronomers believe the Earth is round. It would be much easier to name off those who deny Jesus existed, most historians don't have to proclaim that Jesus really did exist because it is taken as common knowledge, no "apologetics" are required. The historical record has been examined and debated time and time again and the vast majority of historians agree that Jesus existed. The entire history faculty at my public Univeristy during the two years I was a history major, including a Humanities 101 professor, come to mind as historical scholars who confirm the existence of Jesus.

 

If you really need a name, Thomas Madden comes to mind. He is strictly a historian, though he has done scholarly work on the history of Christianity and Judaism, so maybe you'll want to smear him as an apologist as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't apologetics, the historical fact that Jesus existed is only disputed by a small minority fringe within the profession. When you ask me to name a historian who confirms that Jesus existed, it is like you are asking me to tell you which astronomers believe the Earth is round. It would be much easier to name off those who deny Jesus existed, most historians don't have to proclaim that Jesus really did exist because it is taken as common knowledge, no "apologetics" are required. The historical record has been examined and debated time and time again and the vast majority of historians agree that Jesus existed. The entire history faculty at my public Univeristy during the two years I was a history major, including a Humanities 101 professor, come to mind as historical scholars who confirm the existence of Jesus.

 

If you really need a name, Thomas Madden comes to mind. He is strictly a historian, though he has done scholarly work on the history of Christianity and Judaism, so maybe you'll want to smear him as an apologist as well.

 

The analogy between the existence of Jesus and the spherical shape of the earth is interesting. Appealing to a large population is by no means a matter of evidence, of course. It seems to me the greatest argument made so far is the one that suggests that because people have believed Jesus existed for so many centuries, there's no reason to assume there's no basis for it. But that's not really supportive to the claim (it's also a claim made by many religions), and it's certainly not evidence. Whereas the shape of the earth can be confirmed with data today, historical records suggest Paul's writings are the earliest we have about Jesus, and he admits to never having met him. As it is a part of the bible, it cannot be accepted as evidence for its own credibility, being a circular argument at best. Josephus' account is awkward as well as it is hearsay, at best repeating the claims of the community of the faithful, and is generally accepted to be later interloped. Earlier in the thread, you mentioned that Jesus is mentioned in negative terms and/or neutral terms by several non-Christian figures of the day. Can you share an example of a contemporary writer who mentioned Jesus during the years he is supposed to have lived? 

 

It would be interesting to find someone write about the events that identify Jesus as a man of special noteworthiness in contemporary records. For example, reading about an earthquake that shook the the world, or three hours of the sun failing to shine in the sky should be easily found in records in Egypt or China where written records were kept about more mundane things than great, earthly and astronomical phenomenon. It would be helpful to see a Jewish account of the seemingly spontaneous tearing of the temple veil, or the dead walking out of their tombs and talking with people. It would be helpful to see some opinions that reflect why a man who would enter the city like a king would be turned against by the same people only three days later. Tangible, contemporary references of these events would be helpful to see. If you know where these things might be found, I'd be interested in looking at them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, the Archbishop of Canterbury admits he even has doubts about God sometimes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29255318

let alone whether Jesus was a historical figure -- whether that even matters to Christianity, the religion. Does a god need to be proved with historical documents for the religion to work?

 

I have wondered how much the Bible itself is considered an accurate historical document. Is it any less useful as such than Plutarch, say? Perhaps Plutarch is more believable because there are other (somewhat) primary documents that back him up? But is that only because he is writing about people who were literate themselves, so they left documentation of their own existence? While a historical Jesus and his followers might have been mostly non-literate? If that's the case, then the fact that there might be fewer documents confirming what's being said in the Gospels really doesn't prove anything.

 

Not knowing much about the state of historical study in this time period, I'm not stating anything. I'm just wondering.

 

That the Bible is written as a religious document and not so much as a historical document doesn't mean it's NOT a historical document. Just that it's less useful as such. I wonder, though, if we sometimes discount the Bible as history more than we should -- just because it has mainly been seen as a religious text for so long. While other "historical" documents may be given more weight, even though they have gone through the same processes of selection bias and recopying. We don't necessarily see the selection biases of those because we don't have -- staring us in the face -- that this particular document was used for this particular purpose that may have changed what we see today.

 

Unfortunately for historical scholarship, I'm guessing that most of the things that made it into the Bible were the things that talked mostly about the religion. While the more nitty gritty documents might not have gotten saved (or may have been purposely suppressed). It's possible that the historical basis for Jesus may have been seen as heretical, in fact. So we might have lost documents that today would be pretty interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The analogy between the existence of Jesus and the spherical shape of the earth is interesting. Appealing to a large population is by no means a matter of evidence, of course. It seems to me the greatest argument made so far is the one that suggests that because people have believed Jesus existed for so many centuries, there's no reason to assume there's no basis for it. But that's not really supportive to the claim (it's also a claim made by many religions), and it's certainly not evidence. Whereas the shape of the earth can be confirmed with data today, historical records suggest Paul's writings are the earliest we have about Jesus, and he admits to never having met him. As it is a part of the bible, it cannot be accepted as evidence for its own credibility, being a circular argument at best. Josephus' account is awkward as well as it is hearsay, at best repeating the claims of the community of the faithful, and is generally accepted to be later interloped. Earlier in the thread, you mentioned that Jesus is mentioned in negative terms and/or neutral terms by several non-Christian figures of the day. Can you share an example of a contemporary writer who mentioned Jesus during the years he is supposed to have lived?

 

It would be interesting to find someone write about the events that identify Jesus as a man of special noteworthiness in contemporary records. For example, reading about an earthquake that shook the the world, or three hours of the sun failing to shine in the sky should be easily found in records in Egypt or China where written records were kept about more mundane things than great, earthly and astronomical phenomenon. It would be helpful to see a Jewish account of the seemingly spontaneous tearing of the temple veil, or the dead walking out of their tombs and talking with people. It would be helpful to see some opinions that reflect why a man who would enter the city like a king would be turned against by the same people only three days later. Tangible, contemporary references of these events would be helpful to see. If you know where these things might be found, I'd be interested in looking at them.

The mythicists arguments have been made and disputed since the 18th century. The burden of proof needed to say conclusively that Jesus existed has been met, it is the same standard applied to other historical figures of te ancient world. This is simply acknowledged by historians as fact.

 

I'm not talking about Biblical accuracy, or theology, or the events that may or may not have occurred during the life of Jesus. I am happy to discuss the politics surrounding Jesus' death, but it seems off topic in this thread, where my only point is that it is seen as historical fact that Jesus existed.

 

Contemporary sources include writings from the Apostles and their followers that are not included in the Bible, I don't know if you consider them tangible. Early Christians wrote about the stories they heard from Jesus' contemporaries. Histories were not often often written during the life of te figure unless they were very important or rich enough to employ their own historian. The fact that Jospehus relied on first hand and second hand accounts is not seen as an issue, it is standard for other accounts of ancient figures. The fact that the first century critics of Christianity dispute every aspect of Christian teachings, but never dispute whether Christ existed is another important piece of evidence.

 

Ehrman himself is a former Chrisian turned agnostic who disputes the authenticity of the Bible, but he does not dispute the fact that the historical record supports the fact that Jesus existed. His book approaches the "mythicist" arguments from a scholarly, not a Christian point of view, and he disproves them. The Jesus as a Myth debate has been going on since the 18th century, and historians have debunked it time and time again.

 

Again, I'm not talking about Biblical accuracy, or the accuracy of any of the accounts, just whether or not Jesus existed. We can say he existed, even if historians can't say with certainty anything else.

 

ETA:

If anyone is interested in the history of Christianity from an historical and/or political point of view, Thoma Madden has some very interesting lectures on the topic from the Modern Scholars collection. He discusses theology only when in terms of how directly causes or impacts the historical events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mythicists arguments have been made and disputed since the 18th century. The burden of proof needed to say conclusively that Jesus existed has been met, it is the same standard applied to other historical figures of te ancient world. This is simply acknowledged by historians as fact.

 

I'm not talking about Biblical accuracy, or theology, or the events that may or may not have occurred during the life of Jesus. I am happy to discuss the politics surrounding Jesus' death, but it seems off topic in this thread, where my only point is that it is seen as historical fact that Jesus existed.

 

Contemporary sources include writings from the Apostles and their followers that are not included in the Bible, I don't know if you consider them tangible. Early Christians wrote about the stories they heard from Jesus' contemporaries. Histories were not often often written during the life of te figure unless they were very important or rich enough to employ their own historian. The fact that Jospehus relied on first hand and second hand accounts is not seen as an issue, it is standard for other accounts of ancient figures. The fact that the first century critics of Christianity dispute every aspect of Christian teachings, but never dispute whether Christ existed is another important piece of evidence.

 

Ehrman himself is a former Chrisian turned agnostic who disputes the authenticity of the Bible, but he does not dispute the fact that the historical record supports the fact that Jesus existed. His book approaches the "mythicist" arguments from a scholarly, not a Christian point of view, and he disproves them. The Jesus as a Myth debate has been going on since the 18th century, and historians have debunked it time and time again.

 

Again, I'm not talking about Biblical accuracy, just whether or not Jesus existed.

 

I'm asking how. There exists no contemporary reference to the Jesus of the bible, the earliest reference comes from Paul. You keep saying that the burden of proof needed to say conclusively that Jesus existed has been met, and I'm asking how.  Paul reveals his knowledge about Jesus as through visions and earlier scripture, but that's not evidence. Making a claim to having met a divine being in a vision is no more evidence to the claim that Jesus existed than claiming to have been visited by Horus in a vision is evidence to his existence. You suggest it's "common knowledge," but that's not evidence. "Everyone thinks Jesus existed" is no more evidence for the existence of Jesus than "Everyone thinks Mohammed flew up to heaven on a winged horse to talk with God for a bit" is evidence that such an event actually occurred.

 

If we're talking about the existence of Jesus, it matters to identify which Jesus. To suggest a guy named Jesus existed in the region at the time is no more extraordinary a claim than to suggest a guy named Joe existed in New York City in the 1990s. To say Jesus, the Jesus, existed, is to identify the figure from the Christian texts. He is identified by his miracles, and most importantly by his ability to have defied death (his public resurrection). You say Jesus is mentioned in negative terms and/or neutral terms by several non-Christian figures of the day, and I'm asking by whom? Under what circumstances? Where? 

 

As the source of a claim cannot be used to give evidence of the claim, the bible itself is inadmissible for such consideration. That's standard among historians and is not limited to the Christian religion. This doesn't factor in the fact that the texts that have made it into the bible were written decades later, or that many texts were later found to have been written contemporarily, and yet are not considered as credible sources. Why one should accept  the story of Jesus raising a dead man from four days decay but not accept the story of Jesus as tall as a mountain, accompanied by two angels nearly as tall, and from behind them emerges the cross which proceeds to have a conversation with God? If we dismiss one because the story is not plausible, does not conform to the world as we know it, and lacks any corroborating evidence, then we must dismiss the other for the same reason. 

 

We don't know Josephus relied on first hand accounts as no first hand accounts exist. We also know historians referenced other religious communities, their beliefs and their practices, and yet we don't agree that Dionysus really existed, even though we know his believers broke bread together to represent his temporary sacrifice, ascent into heaven, and subsequent salvation for mankind. Again, if we dismiss this claim from one area for being implausible and lacking corroborating evidence, we must dismiss the other. Conversely, we could accept the other, and simply agree that Dionysus really was the redeemer son of God as his followers claimed.

 

Ehrmans' belief that common knowledge suggests truth is not evidence of the claims made. His assurance is no more credible than that of an historian who uses the same process to conclude Mohammed really was visited by the arch-angel Gabriel, or an historian who assures us that Joseph Smith really did find golden tablets that could only be read wearing certain spectacles to which he alone had access (or ever saw).  Assurances aren't evidence. 

 

So far, you've provided the source of a claim to prove the credibility of its claim, which relies on circular reasoning and does not fit the standards of historical research. And you've provided the fact that people have believed these claims to be true for a very long time, which is nothing more than an appeal to tradition and does not fit the standards of historical research. For this reason, mamaraby's comment about this idea being nothing more than Christian apologetics is spot on. When broken down to look at the details of this claim, they fall apart, rely on an appeal to faith, and assume the double standard won't be a problem for the believer. But none of that is the evidence you claim has settled the case. 

 

I suspect the argument linked in the OP is similarly flimsy - appeals to conspiracies, "could be's," and "what if" conjecture. If that person comes up with tangible evidence for his claim, that would be interesting, but again, the proof is in the pudding. Evidence is necessary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm asking how. There exists no contemporary reference to the Jesus of the bible, the earliest reference comes from Paul. You keep saying that the burden of proof needed to say conclusively that Jesus existed has been met, and I'm asking how. Paul reveals his knowledge about Jesus as through visions and earlier scripture, but that's not evidence. Making a claim to having met a divine being in a vision is no more evidence to the claim that Jesus existed than claiming to have been visited by Horus in a vision is evidence to his existence. You suggest it's "common knowledge," but that's not evidence. "Everyone thinks Jesus existed" is no more evidence for the existence of Jesus than "Everyone thinks Mohammed flew up to heaven on a winged horse to talk with God for a bit" is evidence that such an event actually occurred.

 

If we're talking about the existence of Jesus, it matters to identify which Jesus. To suggest a guy named Jesus existed in the region at the time is no more extraordinary a claim than to suggest a guy named Joe existed in New York City in the 1990s. To say Jesus, the Jesus, existed, is to identify the figure from the Christian texts. He is identified by his miracles, and most importantly by his ability to have defied death (his public resurrection). You say Jesus is mentioned in negative terms and/or neutral terms by several non-Christian figures of the day, and I'm asking by whom? Under what circumstances? Where?

 

As the source of a claim cannot be used to give evidence of the claim, the bible itself is inadmissible for such consideration. That's standard among historians and is not limited to the Christian religion. This doesn't factor in the fact that the texts that have made it into the bible were written decades later, or that many texts were later found to have been written contemporarily, and yet are not considered as credible sources. Why one should accept the story of Jesus raising a dead man from four days decay but not accept the story of Jesus as tall as a mountain, accompanied by two angels nearly as tall, and from behind them emerges the cross which proceeds to have a conversation with God? If we dismiss one because the story is not plausible, does not conform to the world as we know it, and lacks any corroborating evidence, then we must dismiss the other for the same reason.

 

We don't know Josephus relied on first hand accounts as no first hand accounts exist. We also know historians referenced other religious communities, their beliefs and their practices, and yet we don't agree that Dionysus really existed, even though we know his believers broke bread together to represent his temporary sacrifice, ascent into heaven, and subsequent salvation for mankind. Again, if we dismiss this claim from one area for being implausible and lacking corroborating evidence, we must dismiss the other. Conversely, we could accept the other, and simply agree that Dionysus really was the redeemer son of God as his followers claimed.

 

Ehrmans' belief that common knowledge suggests truth is not evidence of the claims made. His assurance is no more credible than that of an historian who uses the same process to conclude Mohammed really was visited by the arch-angel Gabriel, or an historian who assures us that Joseph Smith really did find golden tablets that could only be read wearing certain spectacles to which he alone had access (or ever saw). Assurances aren't evidence.

 

So far, you've provided the source of a claim to prove the credibility of its claim, which relies on circular reasoning and does not fit the standards of historical research. And you've provided the fact that people have believed these claims to be true for a very long time, which is nothing more than an appeal to tradition and does not fit the standards of historical research. For this reason, mamaraby's comment about this idea being nothing more than Christian apologetics is spot on. When broken down to look at the details of this claim, they fall apart, rely on an appeal to faith, and assume the double standard won't be a problem for the believer. But none of that is the evidence you claim has settled the case.

 

I suspect the argument linked in the OP is similarly flimsy - appeals to conspiracies, "could be's," and "what if" conjecture. If that person comes up with tangible evidence for his claim, that would be interesting, but again, the proof is in the pudding. Evidence is necessary.

Ehrman uses ancient sources to make the case that Christ existed, not that he was divine, Ehrman doesn't believe that. His arguments follow what is considered common knowledge among historians and their profession. Your comparison to Mohammed is strange to me, you can take the Koran as proof that Mohammed existed even if you don't believe Mohammed is the prophet of Allah. That is what I am saying, historians take the writings of the early Christians as proof that Christ lived even if the events they describe didn't happen.

 

We have a different definition of contemporary. I am talking about accounts of Jesus from the people who knew him, some of these were written by the apostles themselves. But often these first hand accounts were often oral accounts were recorded in writing by others, others who were in direct contact with the contemporaries of Jesus. This is how most of ancient history was recorded, as most of the population was not literate and relied on the oral method of recieving and passing on information. Oral traditions and histories could often be passed down for several generations before being written down. This is why ancient sources are still deemed as credible even if they weren't written by Jesus himself or durig his lifetime.

 

In the case of Jesus, the oral history was recorded while the witnesses, the Apostles and other disciples, were still alive to give their testimony as to what happened. Paul knew the apostles, who knew Jesus. He recieved an account of Jesus' life from eye witnesses, the Apostles, and he later became an Apostle himself. Paul was much more literate and well educated than your average person of the day, because of his background he would have known Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic at least some Latin. This explains why he is one othe more prolific writers among the early apostles, some of whom were more than likely illiterate and had to have their letters dictated to their scribes. Not all of these accounts, letters, etc. are found in the Bible, the Bible as we know it didn't even exist for the first hundred years, it was compiled from the various writings that existed later. You had a large amount of wiring from the early Christians and even the apostles that were not later included in the Bible, but we know of the existence of the writings that weren't preserved because they are mentioned in the writings of the early Christians that were preserved.

 

I would consider all of these to be contemporary accounts, as they rely on the first hand testimony of eye witnesses. Josephus also would have had access to people who lived during the time of the events, and they were well known events, so he would have used this "common knowledge" of his day to inform his writings.

 

The standards of proof used by historians to acknowledge Jesus existed is the same standard used for other ancient figures. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of historians agree upon.

 

The pagan and Jewish writers who wrote treatises against Christianity disputed the version of events presented by the Apostles. They called Jesus a charlatan, a magician, a rabbi, etc. and they denied he was anything more than human, but they never denied he existed, his existence was common knowledge and recent history for their audiences. No one would have taken their arguments seriously, they would have been seen in a similiar light that holocaust deniers are seen in today.

 

My point is that the record is sufficient enough to prove that Jesus' existed even if one believes that much of the accounts were fabricated.

 

I'm leary to give you specific sources and documents, as you seem to reject any sources written by Christians or by people who weren't eye witnesses. It is very easy to find out how the vast majority of historians conduct their studies and why they recognize that Jesus did in fact exist, you should take their word for it and not mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ehrman uses ancient sources to make the case that Christ existed, not that he was divine, Ehrman doesn't believe that.

 

I'm confused as to why it would matter if a non divine Jesus existed in the first century in Israel. That's not an extraordinary claim at all. To suggest Jesus was a regular guy whose likable personality inspired some crazy fan-fic stories about him generations later is to ignore the historical record of other similar religious characters. It is to say these other religious stories were totally made up, the characters upon which these stories were built never existed, but when they were totally made up by Christians, it was based on a real person. It's like saying all the Marvel Comic book characters were fabrications of the imagination, but Spiderman is based on a real guy. It sounds like you don't share this belief anyway.

 

His arguments follow what is considered common knowledge among historians and their profession. Your comparison to Mohammed is strange to me, you can take the Koran as proof that Mohammed existed even if you don't believe Mohammed is the prophet of Allah. That is what I am saying, historians take the writings of the early Christians as proof that Christ lived even if the events they describe didn't happen.

 

It sounds like you're suggesting the evidence presented is Ehrman's belief that if people who have formal training and education have generally believed the historical Jesus existed in fact, then it must be so because such people are much smarter and more educated than him on the topic.

 

If my comparison with Mohammed is confusing (as I don't take the Koran as proof of any of its claims, including the existence of Mohammed), then let me take it to a ridiculous limit just to simplify it: The bible is no more evidence that Jesus lived than Marvel Comics is proof that Spiderman lived.

 

We have a different definition of contemporary. I am talking about accounts of Jesus from the people who knew him, some of these were written by the apostles themselves. But often these first hand accounts were often oral accounts were recorded in writing by others, others who were in direct contact with the contemporaries of Jesus. This is how most of ancient history was recorded, as most of the population was not literate and relied on the oral method of recieving and passing on information. Oral traditions and histories could often be passed down for several generations before being written down. This is why ancient sources are still deemed as credible even if they weren't written by Jesus himself or durig his lifetime.

 

If Jesus didn't exist, it's likely his apostles would not have either. Suggesting the New Testament writings are evidence for the existence of Jesus is no more credible than suggesting Peter Parker's photographs are evidence for the existence of Spiderman. To suggest so is to rely on circular reasoning, which is why it isn't evidence by conventional historical standards.

 

In the case of Jesus, the oral history was recorded while the witnesses, the Apostles and other disciples, were still alive to give their testimony as to what happened. Paul knew the apostles, who knew Jesus. He recieved an account of Jesus' life from eye witnesses, the Apostles, and he later became an Apostle himself. Paul was much more literate and well educated than your average person of the day, because of his background he would have known Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic at least some Latin. This explains why he is one othe more prolific writers among the early apostles, some of whom were more than likely illiterate and had to have their letters dictated to their scribes. Not all of these accounts, letters, etc. are found in the Bible, the Bible as we know it didn't even exist for the first hundred years, it was compiled from the various writings that existed later. You had a large amount of wiring from the early Christians and even the apostles that were not later included in the Bible, but we know of the existence of the writings that weren't preserved because they are mentioned in the writings of the early Christians that were preserved.

 

Do you similarly accept third party accounts about Dionysus to suggest he really lived? What about Hercules? I don't to sound flippant, but to explain the double standard I see here:

You accept religious claims to be proof their claims are legitimate... but only for your religion.

 

I would consider all of these to be contemporary accounts, as they rely on the first hand testimony of eye witnesses. Josephus also would have had access to people who lived during the time of the events, and they were well known events, so he would have used this "common knowledge" of his day to inform his writings.

 

The pagan and Jewish writers who wrote treatises against Christianity disputed the version of events presented by the Apostles. They called Jesus a charlatan, a magician, a rabbi, etc. and they denied he was anything more than human, but they never denied he existed, his existence was common knowledge and recent history for their audiences. No one would have taken their arguments seriously, they would have been seen in a similiar light that holocaust deniers are seen in today.

 

My point is that the record is sufficient enough to prove that Jesus' existed even if one believes that much of the accounts were fabricated.

 

By the very definitions of these words, Josephus' comment is not contemporary (which I'm using to mean existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time), nor is it first hand testimony (which I'm using to mean testimony from the original source). It's hearsay at best and as such doesn't provide evidence. After all we know a community of believers in the god/man Jesus existed, but to suggest what they did proves their beliefs are based on true events would never pass for the believers of Quetzalcoatl, Osiris, or Heaven's Gate.

 

I'm leary to give you specific sources and documents, as you seem to reject any sources written by Christians or by people who weren't eye witnesses. It is very easy to find out how the vast majority of historians conduct their studies and why they recognize that Jesus did in fact exist, you should take their word for it and not mine.

 

You've mentioned this evidence before and I assumed it would be extra-biblical evidence. I think maybe I assumed too quickly that you would agree. It took me a while to understand why you would be so hesitant to give specific sources, but I finally get it. If these sources are all biblical, I now understand why you would predict I would dismiss them. ^_^

 

When you suggested Jesus is mentioned in negative terms and/or neutral terms by several non-Christian figures of the day, you're offering biblical stories as evidence that these biblical stories are true. Can you see why people would dismiss that as satisfying the standard for historical research? Would you accept this argument for claims made about any other religious or mythical figures?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...