|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 02/19/2008 : 15:24:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
The most glaring example is Jesus' parentage. It is clear that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, and that this was a rather unflattering blight that his followers (living in the patriarchal society that of the ancient world) found difficult to address. The "virgin birth" solution is obviously quite contrived (Matthew's attempt to link this to a prophecy in Isaiah is weak, and betrays his rather poor understanding of Hebrew more than anything!), but was an attempt to do just that.
|
Hmm. I always assumed it was the other way round, with the misconception that a virgin birth was required, then simply making up the bit about Jesus' virgin birth later. After all, that's the same reason Luke fudged the bit about the census--to get Jesus from Nazareth into Bethlehem in order to fulfill certain prophecies. |
Well, my sense (perhaps backed up with scholarly opinion; I'll have to check) is that the attempt to link the "virgin" birth passage in Isaiah is a canard. When you read the whole Isaiah passage, it's clear that it's not talking about any sort of messiah as the NT authors intended. (And why does no one seem bothered by the fact that Isaiah says he will be called "Emmanuel" when in fact he's called "Jesus"?) I think Matthew was trying to explain away a very unpleasant reality (Jesus had no "legitimate" father) and was quote-mining (and poorly, at that) OT passages to do so.
| In fact, I would argue that it is likely that Jesus' disciples knew nothing about his childhood history. Any stories concerning that period of their teacher's life must be pure fiction created either to emphasize his divinity by fulfilling a prophecy or showing early religious aptitude (like the story of finding Jesus preaching to the scholars in the temple). |
Well, they'd know something. In several places, Jesus expresses hostility towards his family. Note Mark 6:1-6, where Jesus says "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor" (see also Luke 14:26). As a side note, also in Mark 6:2-3, we readWhen the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed.
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! 3Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. |
Note that there is still no reference to Jesus' father here. |
 |
|
|
Pelayo
Skeptic Friend
USA
70 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2008 : 08:07:22 [Permalink]
|
If people can accept the Bible as proof of the existence of Jesus, why can't they accept Greek texts as proof of the existence of Herakles (aka Hercules)? It is an interesting coincidence that Hercules is the offspring of a god and a flesh and blood mother. Are Christians guilty of plagairism?
BTW, I have a habit of posting without reading al previous comments, if I am repeating something, well, excuse me. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2008 : 13:47:05 [Permalink]
|
No worries, Pelayo.
I just blooped up, myself. Seriously. And I'm a SFN veteran. (I forgot to check the date of a few old posts, forgot I already read them and answered them one more time.) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/24/2008 13:47:39 |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2008 : 09:37:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by darwin alogos
| How is the accuracy measured? What are their accounts of Jesus compared to in order to calculate accuracy? I'm not aware of any other accounts outside of the ones in the Bible that were written several decades after Jesus supposedly lived. |
Good quetion pleco . One of the books I refrenced (by Ramsay) was suppose to verify his presuppostion of how historically inaccurate Luke was as a historian.However as he did the archaeological reasearch first hand in the field, he came to diffrent conclusion, "It was gradually borne in upon me that the various details the narrative showed marvelous truth." (Ramsay, St. Paul R.T.R.C. p.19) I have to go to work now I'll give you more details latter
|
So far nothing more from da. Probably realized the inadequacy of his evidence.  |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Pelayo
Skeptic Friend
USA
70 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2008 : 12:06:03 [Permalink]
|
While rummaging through scripture to ascertain the Bible's stance on slavery, I found the story of the Centurion's slave who was sick, apparently near death, and healed by Jesus. Now that my attitude toward religion is not the same as it was umpteen years ago, I began to think about this incident in terms of the real Jesus.
A centurion commands a troop of about one hundred foot soldiers, and since they are on garrison duty, they have plenty of time to know everything about everybody in their unit. The fact that their centurion has a very sick manservant would be common knowledge throughout the unit and also other units in the legion. When the centurion is asked about his suddenly healthy slave, I cannot imagine that he would lie about the circumstances of his servant's new found health. All the centurion has to do is tell one person about the Jew in Capernaum who healed the slave; that story would soon spread throughout the troop and soon the entire legion. I believe the ole Pilate would soon hear about it also. Yet it is as if this incident happened in a vacuum.
I can also formulate an apologist's response; it goes thus: Of course no one heard about it; the Roman army covered up the story because they did not want anyone to know that a common Jew was able to do what Roman surgeons could not do. The Roman army probably killed the slave and transferred the Centurion to the most remote outpost in the empire. My answer is, if it cannot be explained, make something up. |
I have a habit of posting without reading all previous comments, if I am repeating someone, well, excuse me, please.
"No tendency is quite so strong in human nature as the desire to lay down rules of conduct for other people." - William Howard Taft
"God ran out of new souls a long time ago and has been recycling jackasses." - Anon |
| Edited by - Pelayo on 02/25/2008 15:28:42 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Pelayo
Skeptic Friend
USA
70 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2008 : 23:35:54 [Permalink]
|
Ricky, in Luke Chapt 7, the centurion sent some friends to Jesus to ask about healing the servant. So now there are non-Jewish witnesses. Yes, I do have an imagination.
As I posted earlier, the documentation of the life of Jesus is about the same kind as the documentation of the life of Hercules. |
I have a habit of posting without reading all previous comments, if I am repeating someone, well, excuse me, please.
"No tendency is quite so strong in human nature as the desire to lay down rules of conduct for other people." - William Howard Taft
"God ran out of new souls a long time ago and has been recycling jackasses." - Anon |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 06:12:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Pelayo
While rummaging through scripture to ascertain the Bible's stance on slavery, I found the story of the Centurion's slave who was sick, apparently near death, and healed by Jesus. Now that my attitude toward religion is not the same as it was umpteen years ago, I began to think about this incident in terms of the real Jesus.
A centurion commands a troop of about one hundred foot soldiers, and since they are on garrison duty, they have plenty of time to know everything about everybody in their unit. The fact that their centurion has a very sick manservant would be common knowledge throughout the unit and also other units in the legion. When the centurion is asked about his suddenly healthy slave, I cannot imagine that he would lie about the circumstances of his servant's new found health. All the centurion has to do is tell one person about the Jew in Capernaum who healed the slave; that story would soon spread throughout the troop and soon the entire legion. I believe the ole Pilate would soon hear about it also. Yet it is as if this incident happened in a vacuum.
I can also formulate an apologist's response; it goes thus: Of course no one heard about it; the Roman army covered up the story because they did not want anyone to know that a common Jew was able to do what Roman surgeons could not do. The Roman army probably killed the slave and transferred the Centurion to the most remote outpost in the empire. My answer is, if it cannot be explained, make something up.
|
Perhaps the story was fabricated to demonstrate Jesus' ideology of absolute acceptance and inclusion. Afterall, what is more despised than the slave of the hated occupation force? And yet Jesus accepted this man as he would his own brother, gave him love and life, etc etc. It's a demonstration that social class should mean nothing. Conservative Christians would never admit it but Jesus was a bit of a communist. And that's one more reason why they should hope, in their dark hearts, that Jesus was not God's avatar, because if he was, they're all going to hell. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 07:01:42 [Permalink]
|
OK, I finally read the article and I found a few things curious.
1. He says :"In the letters of Paul, in the early preaching as Luke reports it in the Acts of the Apostles, and in various references in the other New Testament books, we gain a basic perspective on Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, crucified and raised from death, on whom the early Christians based their hope of salvation.". Yet Paul says almost nothing about an historical Jesus. Nothing that Jesus said or did while on Earth is mentioned. He says Jesus was "born of a woman, born under the law" and was crucified "by the powers of that age", but little else. Using Paul to back up an historical Jesus is curious. It can be used as evidence that a Jesus was being talked about, but not who that Jesus was or if it was even the same Jesus discussed in the gospels. If Paul is read independently of the gospels, that is without reading into Paul what is learned from the gospels, then it becomes clear that his Jesus was more in the mold of Mithrus, a mediator who acted in the spiritual realm and never had an earthly ministry.
2. He says: "We are fortunate that quite full early Christian records have in fact survived, in the form of the four first-century gospels. Indeed the availability of four separate records by different authors of the same person in ancient history is a rare, if not a unique, phenomenon." He seemingly ignores the fact, both here and in the rest of the article, that the four records are hardly independent writings (which he implys). Luke and Matthew, and to an extent John, are based on Mark with additional material added. In many cases the copying from Mark is word-for-word. Most scholars agree that there are two independent sources here: Mark and "Q" which was a collection of wise sayings not originally attributed to Jesus.
So for early historical Jesus references(John was pretty late) you're down to one source - Mark. (The Acts of the Apostles is also dated pretty late by most scholars).
3. He says: "Suetonius and Pliny, together with Tacitus, testify to the significant presence of Christians in Rome and other parts of the empire from the mid-sixties onwards...". And a little later he says: "And the careful reader of Paul's letters and of the Acts of the Apostles does not gain the impression of a mass movement, but rather of small, rather isolated groups of Christians banding together for mutual support in a hostile environment." IN 30-some-odd years Christianity goes from a small movement of huddled, fearfull believers to a "significant presence of Christians in Rome and other parts of the empire"? Wow. Only a bold and agressive movement could have spread in that amount of time, if its even possible (which I personally doubt).
Just a few observations in the limited time I have available.
|
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Pelayo
Skeptic Friend
USA
70 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 22:23:25 [Permalink]
|
Ricky said that I have quite an imagination. I'm gonna imagine something else.
Imagine an archeologist is digging around the ruins of a building in Jerusalem and uncovers some authentic scrolls or maybe tablets. These are mundane Roman army records about the operations of the local garrison. There are food requisitions, roll call records, fitness reports and other ordinary stuff. One report is found where a Roman officer is discharged and sent home because he kept ranting about a Jew who performed a miracle and healed his slave. Something like that is about the only thing that might cause me to reassess my agnosticism.
There is a precident for my musings, tablets of this type have been found in the forts along Hadrian's Wall. |
I have a habit of posting without reading all previous comments, if I am repeating someone, well, excuse me, please.
"No tendency is quite so strong in human nature as the desire to lay down rules of conduct for other people." - William Howard Taft
"God ran out of new souls a long time ago and has been recycling jackasses." - Anon |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2008 : 12:11:00 [Permalink]
|
Skeptic Friend
USA
58 Posts
Posted - 02/24/2008 : 08:07:22 [Permalink]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If people can accept the Bible as proof of the existence of Jesus, why can't they accept Greek texts as proof of the existence of Herakles (aka Hercules)? It is an interesting coincidence that Hercules is the offspring of a god and a flesh and blood mother. Are Christians guilty of plagairism?
|
I'm a big fan of Herc so its nothing personal but the documentation for both isn't even close.First, with Jesus we have eyewitness accounts with a chain of custody given in a hostile enviorment i.e. the disciples were preaching to the same crowds that had seen Jesus crucified 50 days earlier and could have easily refuted what they were saying but they didn't (Acts 2:22- 4:22).Secondly, we have within the NT texts creeds and hymms that date to the early 30's a.d. that claim that Jesus was God and that was in a stric monotheistic culture. Only something drastic (i.e. the resurrection of Jesus ) could account for that change in thier views to elevate him to deity. |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2008 : 12:17:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by darwin alogos
Only something drastic (i.e. the resurrection of Jesus ) could account for that change in thier views to elevate him to deity.
|
Nonsense. Cults spring into existence all the time. By your reasoning, Scientology must be true, or else why would modern people who live in a culture hostile to new religions adopt it so quickly? You're not being reasonable, despite your self-delusion on that point, you're just trying to come up with ad hoc reasons for accepting an obvious absurdity. There are a wealth of reasonable explanations concerning the origins of Christianity that don't require fantastical elements like an actual resurrection. You want to pretend that it takes more faith to reject the divinity of Jesus than accept it. That is utterly false.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/10/2008 12:19:57 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
 Posted - 03/10/2008 : 12:25:56 [Permalink]
|
You base this all off what is written by true believers - and I assume you think they had no reason to embellish events. Sorry, you're going to need some more evidence besides what the self-contradictory accounts written several decades after the events supposedly happened by people with a vested interest in pushing their version of events.
Edit to add: and "chain of custody" requires a bit more than anecdotes written down by biased agents. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 03/10/2008 12:34:21 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2008 : 11:15:29 [Permalink]
|
Skeptic Friend
USA
237 Posts
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 07:01:42 [Permalink]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I finally read the article and I found a few things curious.
1. He says :"In the letters of Paul, in the early preaching as Luke reports it in the Acts of the Apostles, and in various references in the other New Testament books, we gain a basic perspective on Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, crucified and raised from death, on whom the early Christians based their hope of salvation.". Yet Paul says almost nothing about an historical Jesus. Nothing that Jesus said or did while on Earth is mentioned. He says Jesus was "born of a woman, born under the law" and was crucified "by the powers of that age", but little else.
|
1st Cor.15:3 "For I [Paul] deliverd to you [the Corinthian believers] first of all that which I also received". The words 'delivered' and 'received' are rabbincal terms of a holy tradition, which Paul received when he visted the disciples of the HISTORIC Jesus(ad 37) Acts 9:26,27. Paul also mentions 'James the Lord's brother' (Gal. 1:19), plus we know from Paul's speaches in the book of Acts he knew quite abit about the historic Jesus. This 'holy tradition' was one of the yardsticks the early church used to test "new" gospels or letters from the apostels as both the oral and written teachings about their Messiah was compiled[Apologetics.org - Book Excerpt - Scaling the Secular City: The ...]. Again the early church were monotheistic Jews and psychologically could not be capable of claiming the things about Jesus unless they happened the way the NT says it did.As far as them "being true believers" the NT paints a diffrent picture of them,THEY WERE SKEPTICS Luke 24:11 "And their words[ the women telling the discples about Jesus' resurrection] seemed to them like idle tales, and they DID NOT BELIEVE them" ;(Matt 28:17} "When they saw Him [Jesus alive again], they worshiped Him; but some doubted;(Luke 24:13-35) vs 21-24" But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all of this, today is the thrid day since these things happened.Yes, and certain women of our company,... ASTONISHED US. ... said He was alive.[ Its clear these two did not believe their report.]; and of course there's Thomas (Jn. 20:24-30). |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 03/12/2008 11:21:52 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2008 : 11:37:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by darwin alogos
Again the early church were monotheistic Jews and psychologically could not be capable of claiming the things about Jesus unless they happened the way the NT says it did. |
Boy, you really need to believe that's true, don't you? I mean, it's like your entire argument hinges on that speculative premise.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Jesus the Evidence
