Who Was/Is Jesus Of Nazerath?

[iaapac]

Luke is an anonymous work written decades after the crucifixion--85 CE. It is NOT an eyewitness account. Most of his source material comes from Mark, Q and L.

As for the nativity ... It has been unanimously dismissed as a later addition. Mark, the first and earliest of the synoptic gospels (70-75 CE), doesn't even have a virgin birth and nativity story. If the stories had been true, the author of Mark would have certainly included them (nor does try to quote the prophecies it claims Jesus fulfilled for that matter). It was only later that such stories became necessary, and Matthew and Luke wrote them down--and both contradict each other.

Not only did the early Book of Mark not have a nativity tale and certainly not one of a virgin birth, but it did not include the resurrection. A manuscript, found by Professor Morton Smith (Columbia University in New York City) in 1958 in the Monastery of Mar Saba, which identifies itself as a letter from Clement of Alexandria to an otherwise unknown Theodore, gives valuable references to a very early Book of Mark and clearly indicates that it had little similarity to the Mark we know in the modern Bible.

[Jesusfan]

Thank you, Mako. I, too, tire of Pliny, Josephus et al. They wrote long after Jesus was crucified, repeated only what they had heard from believers. They--along with Paul and the gospel writers--were not eyewitnesses to the historical Jesus. Good grief.

Well, so more Christian "propaganda" concerning early historical evidence for existence of Jesus for you to look over....

Evidence from Tacitus

Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements. In the introduction to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who was told by an agnostic friend that "apart from obscure references in Josephus and the like," there was no historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible.{1} This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused him "great concern and some little upset in [his] spiritual life."{2} He concludes his letter by asking, "Is such collateral proof available, and if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?"{3} The answer to this question is, "Yes, such collateral proof is available," and we will be looking at some of it in this article.

Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."{4} Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .{5}

What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave."{6} While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.{7} How else might one explain that?

Evidence from Pliny the Younger

Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.{8} Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.{9}

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.{10}

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth."{11} If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast."{12} This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism."{13} The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.

Evidence from Josephus

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ."{14} F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother."{15} And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.{16}

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.{17}

Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D.{18} But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.{19}

For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!

But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!

Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."{21}

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.{22} So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.{23} If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!{24}

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."{25} But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.{26} Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.

Evidence from Lucian

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [it] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.{27}

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."

Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!

Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative "life of Jesus!"

Notes

1. F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 13.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Edwin Yamauchi, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), 82.

5. Tacitus, Annals 15.44, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.

6. N.D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History (London: Tyndale, 1969), 19, cited in Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, Missouri: College Press Publishing Company, 1996), 189-190.

7. Edwin Yamauchi, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.

8. Pliny, Epistles x. 96, cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 25; Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 198.

9. Ibid., 27.

10. Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199.

11. M. Harris, "References to Jesus in Early Classical Authors," in Gospel Perspectives V, 354-55, cited in E. Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament: What is the Evidence?", in Jesus Under Fire, ed. by Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), p. 227, note 66.

12. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199.

13. Bruce, Christian Origins, 28.

14. Josephus, Antiquities xx. 200, cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 36.

15. Ibid.

16. Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament", 212.

17. Josephus, Antiquities 18.63-64, cited in Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament", 212.

18. Ibid.

19. Although time would not permit me to mention it on the radio, another version of Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum" survives in a tenth-century Arabic version (Bruce, Christian Origins, 41). In 1971, Professor Schlomo Pines published a study on this passage. The passage is interesting because it lacks most of the questionable elements that many scholars believe to be Christian interpolations. Indeed, "as Schlomo Pines and David Flusser...stated, it is quite plausible that none of the arguments against Josephus writing the original words even applies to the Arabic text, especially since the latter would have had less chance of being censored by the church" (Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194). The passage reads as follows: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Quoted in James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, (Garden City: Doubleday, 1988), 95, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194).

20. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 202-03.

21. The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.

22. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.

23. See John 8:58-59 and 10:31-33.

24. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 204. See also John 18:31-32.

25. Matt. 12:24. I gleaned this observation from Bruce, Christian Origins, 56.

26. Luke 23:2, 5.

27. Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4., cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 206.

©2001 Probe Ministries. Ancient Evidence For Jesus From Non Christian Sources

[mako]

Thank you, Mako. I, too, tire of Pliny, Josephus et al. They wrote long after Jesus was crucified, repeated only what they had heard from believers. They--along with Paul and the gospel writers--were not eyewitnesses to the historical Jesus. Good grief.

Jesusfan, you evidentially do not know what the defintion of "contemporary" is! read what Seanp said in the above quote! Even if Josephus' quote was actually his, it would only mean he got 2nd, 3rd, or 4th hand information from Christians, who naturally wouldn't admit Jesus was bogus!

[iaapac]

Mako,

Haven't we seen this list before? How many times do we need to deal with these post-Jesus references and proven forgeries?

[seanph]

Yawn. Once again you have provided material from sources born after Jesus and who wrote only what they had heard from believers. You're repeating yourself with material that I used to believe myself--before I researched it!

Please toss the McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, in the trash where it belongs!

Oh, and answer my prior post (3 posts ago) please.

Edited November 8, 2005 by seanph

[ShaunZero]

Mako that comparison wasn't a good one. Jesus performed miracles, that would make it ALOT easier to remember.

[mako]

Jesus performed miracles

Show contemporary evidence that he performed miracles and I will use another example, otherwise it stands as I wrote it!

[trublvr]

Blatantly false! There was conflict within the early Christ movement as pointed out in the above quote by Shorto. Shorto was quoting the highly acclaimed work “The Gnostic Gospels” (National Book Critic’s Circle Award and the National Book Award and was chosen by the Modern Library as one of the 100 best books of the 20th Century) by Elaine Pagels, Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University. Read it along with her other book “The Gnostic Gospels: Beyond Belief” and “Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew” by Bart D. Ehrman, Professor of Religion at UNC Chapel Hill. A few good examples dealing with the inner turmoil of the early Christ movement was the famed spat between Peter and Paul as recorded in the NT. Obviously there was some infighting going on between the two--as one would expect with a new religious movement. Such things are unavoidable. Beyond that, we have the Ebionites--a sect of Judeans that followed both John the Baptist and Jesus. They believed Christianity was to be a part of Judaism and that Jesus was nothing more than a mere mortal. And then there were the Christian Gnostics who believed Jesus was an illusion. And the Docetists who believed both Jesus and the crucifixion were illusions ... and ... and ... and ...

Sean,

Demonstrating that there was a spat between Peter and Paul (the nature of which many scholars entirely fink out on) is one thing. However, Peter and Paul did not go on to found two different "christianities." Both men realized that there were different emphases to their ministries, but neither would have pitt their form of the Christian faith against the others'! Though Peter ministered in a predominantly Jewish context, he didn't go on to form his own brand of Christianity! By the same token, Paul's predominantly Gentile ministry didn't lead to a Gentile-only brand of Christianity. If so, why does he go through all of the theological gymnastics in his letter to the Roman church--a Jewish and Gentile church--to demonstrate to both Jewish and Gentile Christians that they are united in Christ? Besides that, Peter and Paul were not in disagreement about foundational beliefs concerning Jesus' identity and its implications for Jewish covenantal theology! On this there was entire agreement! Their disagreement was over how one was to respond to this. Namely, Peter refused to have table fellowship with Antiochian Christians when hard-line Jewish Christians arrived in Antioch from Jerusalem. The issue was not "Is Jesus the Messiah?" or "Has the eschaton/kingdom of God been realized in Jesus?" The issue was: Do Gentiles have right standing (justification) in the covenant simply because they've placed their faith in Jesus, or do they subject to the Torah procedures?" There are not two "christianities" here. Instead, there are two different responses to the realities Jesus represented and ushered in. One was right, the other wrong (and for Peter, hypocritical).

Many try to use this disagreement between Paul and Peter to open the door for what alternate Jesuses and alternate christianities. Such people ignore the true nature of Peter and Pauls' disagreement, trying to (as I detailed in my last communication) predicate haphazard varieties of Christianity on the legitimate diversity of the early Jesus movement. As I stated before, Christian diversity is rooted in the reality of who Jesus truly is. Does that eliminate in-fighting? No. However, even when Christians debate and/or disagree, they do so from a common standpoint. This still happens today (for better AND worse, depending on the subject of debate). Again, Peter and Paul disagreed from a common standpoint: Jesus is God's unique agent, crucified and resurrected, and Yahweh's covenant purposes for Israel are bound up in him. Their responses to this were different, and one (Peter) was corrected, and life went on. These and other writers consistently fail to distinguish diversity from variety (for all the reasons I stated in my last communication).

Concerning the Ebionites, what proof do your scholars offer that they were students of John the Baptist and/or Jesus? I've heard this theory before, and I've found no one who can offer an evidence to that effect. Also, for reasons I've already enumerated, the term "Christian gnostic" is oxymoronic. Any system of thought that scandalizes the Jewish God by making him out to be a demi-urge and that dichotomizes "spirit" and "matter" is antithetical to anything remotely Jewish or Christian. Just because a movement has thoughts about Jesus, doesn't not mean that they are to be thought of as Christian. Before converting to Christianity, I practiced witchcraft. I had a place for Jesus in my pantheon of demi-god/spirits. However, I was in no way a "Christian."

In reference to this communication and some of the others I've posted could you please articulate the views of your authors on these issues:

1) If the gnostic literature is older than the Christian literature, then why would Marcion rely on (his non-Judaic verison) Luke/Paul? Why did he feel it necessary to refer to them?

2) If Jesus was in some sense a proto-gnostic teacher, then why did the Romans bother with killing him?

3) If the Mediterranean was rife with "Jesus appearances" (which subverted the apostles' authority, supposedly!), then what proof does Ehrman offer of this phenomenon?

4) What is the correlation between the Christains' supposed lie concerning Jesus' resurrection and apostolic power-plays? How would Jesus' bodily resurrection trump a gnostic mystical vision of Jesus in a Gentile culture which was thoroughly unfamiliar with the very Jewish doctrine of resurrection (especially the materiality thereof)? In such a culture, why would the materiality of a Jesus-appearance carry more weight than a purely "spiritual" appearance? Can you or your authors demonstrate that a material Jesus appearance would have carried more weight in such a milieu?

5) In light of pre-Christian Jewish writings and theology, how do you or your authors justify their contention that the Jews or the early Christians believed Jesus' resurrection to the merely "transcendent" or "spiritual"? By the by, the notion that the resurrection described in Daniel 12 is transcendent/spiritual (as opposed to material) just because the righteous are described as "shining like stars" is weak. This is a seene in which Yahweh vindicates the righteous Jews, and the "shining like stars" statement is merely used to demonstrate that their vindication will be public, renowned, in full view. Public vindication is a big part of Jewish resurrection understanding. Through resurrection, Yahweh is demonstrating to the world that His people have been in the right all along. Were resurrection merely "spiritual" or "transcendent," wherein lies the vindication, the cosmic last laugh on evil and chaos?

Also, in reference to something you said about resurrection a few posts back, you were correct in noting that resurrection had a corporate and political component for Jewish people. Seen most vividly in Ezekiel's vision, the resurrection of Israel was a part of God's vindication of Israel from all her troubles at the hands of her Gentile oppressors and apostate Israelites. But just because there is a political component to resurrection, does not mean that resurrection is only a metaphor expressing Israeli political ideology. In the Jewish mindset, the resurrection event is without question a part of Yahweh's political liberation of Israel. However, they in no way thought it to be merely a metaphor for such political liberation. The debate over resurrection between the Pharisees and Sadduccees demonstrates this. Just because there is political dimension to a belief, doesn't mean that the belief arises purely out of political ideology.

Lastly, just because some of your writers have garnered good reviews from some sectors doesn't attest to the validity of what they're espousing. The same is true of Pagels' award. All of us can quickly access intellectual scholars from all sectors who laud and espouse all manners of things. The issue is this: Do such ideas cohere. My contention is that Pagels' ideas do not cohere in the least. As well-meaning as she may be, Pagel errs in trying (unsuccessfully) to replace earliest Christianity with (later) gnostic belief. Then, she attempts to sanitize gnosticism and offer it up as the real thing.

You mentioned that I ought to read non-Christian scholars. If you'll read my last communications, I was able to accurately portray the beliefs of some of your writers. This is because I've read some of their works. True, I may not be conversant in as much of their literature as you are, I'll bet that you are not as acquainted with mine as I am. I fully admit that I read far more Christian/evangelical literature than I do secular/heretical literature regarding Jesus and early Christianity. However, I do read some things by them (which why I'm able to refer to points made by Crossan, Borg, and the Jesus Seminar folks). From the books you mention (outside of Johnson, I saw no Christian/evangelical literature on your list), I'll wager that you do the same thing for your side. You've seen from my posts that I have no problem dealing with the arguments of the writers you mention--whether I'm acquainted with their views from my own reading or from your citations. My lack of agreement stems not from my inability as Christian to comprehend or refute their arguments. I disagree with their assessments, and I question their methodologies. And I refute them with my own arguments, which stem from my own thinking which has been informed by the scholars with whom I have agreement.

By the by, Wright is one of my favorite writers (if you couldn't tell!). What specific points of his do you disagree with?

pleasure conversing with you,

trublvr

[iaapac]

Why do we avoid mentioning Chrishna, Zoroaster 2d, Bali, Thammiiz, Atys, Osiris, Sakia, Quexalcote, Zoroaster 2d, Xion, Quirinus, Prometheus, Mithra, Salavhana, Apollonious, and others that might be named? The recorded miracles of Apollonious, for example, witnessed by hundreds, put any miracle of Jesus to shame.

[mako]

It is because the Christians are jealous that their Jesus didn't get a lot of pubicity in those days! After he fired his publicitist and signed on with Jehovah, Yahweh and YHWH, his career took off. Too bad the others aren't mentioned though, they miracles were top notch, not hoakum like his!

Edited November 8, 2005 by mako

[101]

Why do we avoid mentioning Chrishna, Zoroaster 2d, Bali, Thammiiz, Atys, Osiris, Sakia, Quexalcote, Zoroaster 2d, Xion, Quirinus, Prometheus, Mithra, Salavhana, Apollonious, and others that might be named? The recorded miracles of Apollonious, for example, witnessed by hundreds, put any miracle of Jesus to shame.

Who are those fellas?

Are they old alchemists or something?

[ShaunZero]

Hypotheticaly speaking, if he preformed miracles, of course his grandparents would remember such things. And another thing, he didn't need to ask a parent, just any person of the right age. It's not hard to find stuff out when they lived only 100 years back. And then it wasn't exactly a century.

[mako]

Oh, then you know exactly when Jesus was born and exactly when he died?

[seanph]

Demonstrating that there was a spat between Peter and Paul (the nature of which many scholars entirely fink out on) is one thing. However, Peter and Paul did not go on to found two different "christianities." Both men realized that there were different emphases to their ministries, but neither would have pitt their form of the Christian faith against the others'! Though Peter ministered in a predominantly Jewish context, he didn't go on to form his own brand of Christianity! By the same token, Paul's predominantly Gentile ministry didn't lead to a Gentile-only brand of Christianity. If so, why does he go through all of the theological gymnastics in his letter to the Roman church--a Jewish and Gentile church--to demonstrate to both Jewish and Gentile Christians that they are united in Christ? Besides that, Peter and Paul were not in disagreement about foundational beliefs concerning Jesus' identity and its implications for Jewish covenantal theology! On this there was entire agreement! Their disagreement was over how one was to respond to this. Namely, Peter refused to have table fellowship with Antiochian Christians when hard-line Jewish Christians arrived in Antioch from Jerusalem. The issue was not "Is Jesus the Messiah?" or "Has the eschaton/kingdom of God been realized in Jesus?" The issue was: Do Gentiles have right standing (justification) in the covenant simply because they've placed their faith in Jesus, or do they subject to the Torah procedures?" There are not two "christianities" here. Instead, there are two different responses to the realities Jesus represented and ushered in. One was right, the other wrong (and for Peter, hypocritical).

Many try to use this disagreement between Paul and Peter to open the door for what alternate Jesuses and alternate christianities. Such people ignore the true nature of Peter and Pauls' disagreement, trying to (as I detailed in my last communication) predicate haphazard varieties of Christianity on the legitimate diversity of the early Jesus movement. As I stated before, Christian diversity is rooted in the reality of who Jesus truly is. Does that eliminate in-fighting? No. However, even when Christians debate and/or disagree, they do so from a common standpoint. This still happens today (for better AND worse, depending on the subject of debate). Again, Peter and Paul disagreed from a common standpoint: Jesus is God's unique agent, crucified and resurrected, and Yahweh's covenant purposes for Israel are bound up in him. Their responses to this were different, and one (Peter) was corrected, and life went on. These and other writers consistently fail to distinguish diversity from variety (for all the reasons I stated in my last communication).

The purpose of Pagels quote was to show that the leaders of the early Christian movement had to establish order, get their facts straight if their movement was to survive. To decide such complicated things requires vigorous debate--debate often heated (which the NT gives a little taste of in the Peter and Paul spat). No movement, particularly a religious one, is free of politics and power struggles--particularly in its infancy--and to think otherwise is to step outside the bounds of reality. Doctrinal matters are not easy things to agree upon (they're still going on today!)--particularly in lieu of similar competing religious views, the likes of which appeared quickly between 30-70 CE (as Pagels and Erhman point out--if you would just read their work!). You had the Ebonites and Gnostic Christians et al within forty years of the crucifixion saying all sorts of different things about Jesus. FACT! By the late 2nd century, you have poor Iraeneus trying desperately to establish some semblance of orthodoxy, declaring competing Christian movements heretical. That said, orthodoxy was not accomplished until Constantine stepped in the 4th century and ordered a still splintered church (Arius and Athanasius dispute) to get things straight--and it still took several more centuries! And even today orthodoxy has not been fully established, and competing views of Jesus still rage--hence the thousands of Christian denominations all believing they are right in their views of Jesus/interpretation of the scriptures (pick one of a bazillion different translations!) and other Christian sects are not!

I disagree with their assessments, and I question their methodologies...

In reference to this communication and some of the others I've posted could you please articulate the views of your authors on these issues:...

Then I can do nothing more. We are simply arguing in circles from here. I have provided ample material supporting my views--AMPLE!--offerred numerous references for further study as well. It seems, however, it was insufficient for your tastes. I'm getting nowhere--not that I expected to--by repeating myself. You simply ignore it. That said, I invite you to ask these questions of Pagels and Ehrman themselves. Maybe they can answer your questions--though I have my reservations.

*CONTACT PROFESSOR PAGELS AT PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

http://www.princeton.edu/~religion/people.html

*CONTACT PROFESSOR EHRMAN

http://www.unc.edu/depts/rel_stud/faculty/EhrmanCV1.html

Both men realized that there were different emphases to their ministries,

Shouldn't have been if they had both talked with Jesus. Should have received the exact same message. Wonder why they didn't? In fact, I wonder why Paul's stance on women, to name just one, differs from Jesus? Shouldn't ... if Jesus had actually spoken to him.

... I saw no Christian/evangelical literature on your list...

Raymond E. Brown, John P. Mier, Richard Elliott Friedman, John Collins, the Vatican et al.

Also, in reference to something you said about resurrection a few posts back, you were correct in noting that resurrection had a corporate and political component for Jewish people. Seen most vividly in Ezekiel's vision, the resurrection of Israel was a part of God's vindication of Israel from all her troubles at the hands of her Gentile oppressors and apostate Israelites. But just because there is a political component to resurrection, does not mean that resurrection is only a metaphor expressing Israeli political ideology. In the Jewish mindset, the resurrection event is without question a part of Yahweh's political liberation of Israel. However, they in no way thought it to be merely a metaphor for such political liberation. The debate over resurrection between the Pharisees and Sadduccees demonstrates this. Just because there is political dimension to a belief, doesn't mean that the belief arises purely out of political ideology.

Hmm ... Guess what they're teaching at seminary is wrong then. Better contact Professor Fuller and the publishers of the Oxford Companion to the Bible as well.

If Jesus was in some sense a proto-gnostic teacher, then why did the Romans bother with killing him?

To the Romans it did not matter. They squashed movements both tiny and large--ruthlessly. And anything occurring on Passover--when the city was congested and ripe for anarchy--received special attention from the Roman authorities. Step out of line even the tinniest bit ... and get yourself executed. I wouldn't doubt Jesus was among a hundred executed that day.

... And I refute them with my own arguments, which stem from my own thinking which has been informed by the scholars with whom I have agreement.

Ditto.

I'll wager that you do the same thing for your side.

I spent nearly fifteen years as a Christian. I'm intimately familiar with both sides of the argument. I still have most of McDowell's books and some others. Christian apologetics was the glue that held my belief system together for years.

Kindly,

Sean

Edited November 9, 2005 by seanph

[iaapac]

Who are those fellas?

Are they old alchemists or something?

These were the "messiahs" and divine prophets before, during and after the time of Jesus. One of the great differences with some of them, however, was that their miracles were well witnessed and recorded. In the case of Apollonius of Tyana, for instance, he was charged by the king as being a fraud and placed in prison. When they went to take him out of his cell to appear before the king, he was gone. He later appeared voluntarily before the king and when asked if he truly performed miracles, he replied that the king surely recognized that he was from the lineage of the great heroes of old Greece. At that moment, in front of hundreds, he created a long table filled with food and drink and a host of the old heroes standing before the king as if alive.

Now it is easy to refute this as myth and the distortion of history by fanatics but compare it to the miracles wherein Jesus said, "Tell no one of what has happened here". If the recipient or witness of the miracle so believed in Jesus and his powers, he would certainly obey. How then, do these stories appear in the Bible?

[Jesusfan]

Then I can do nothing more. We are simply arguing in circles from here. I have provided ample material supporting my views--AMPLE!--offerred numerous references for further study as well. It seems, however, it was insufficient for your tastes. I'm getting nowhere--not that I expected to--by repeating myself. You simply ignore it. That said, I invite you to ask these questions of Pagels and Ehrman themselves. Maybe they can answer your questions--though I have my reservations.

*CONTACT PROFESSOR PAGELS AT PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

http://www.princeton.edu/~religion/people.html

*CONTACT PROFESSOR EHRMAN

http://www.unc.edu/depts/rel_stud/faculty/EhrmanCV1.html

Shouldn't have been if they had both talked with Jesus. Should have received the exact same message. Wonder why they didn't? In fact, I wonder why Paul's stance on women differs from Jesus? Shouldn't ... if Jesus had actually spoken to him.

Raymond E. Brown, John P. Mier, Richard Elliott Friedman, John Collins, the Vatican et al.

Hmm ... Guess what they're teaching at seminary is wrong then. Better contact Professor Fuller and the publishers of the Oxford Companion to the Bible as well.

To the Romans it did not matter. They squashed movements both tiny and large--ruthlessly. And anything occurring on Passover--when the city was congested and ripe for anarchy--received special attention from the Roman authorities. Step out of line even the tinniest bit ... and get yourself executed. I wouldn't doubt Jesus was among a hundred executed that day.

Ditto.

I spent nearly fifteen years as a Christian. I'm intimately familiar with both sides of the argument. I still have most of McDowell's books and some others. Christian apologetics was the glue that held my belief system together for years.

Kindly,

Sean

Interesting that when a conservative Christian asks valid questions concerning person and work Of Jesus, they are always told that we must be wrong, because of how much "scholarship" has been evidenced to support the notion of either Jesus never existing, or else He was the same as other religious leaders, or else His followers tacked all these miracles/resurrection tall tales on him in order to prove the validity of their beliefs...

No one ignores what the liberal/critical scholars have stated, just disagree with their gridlock of supposeing a natualist framwork as the grid to try to glean out the Supernatural aspects of jesus... And the Scholars that you keep listing are at best moderate in inclination, and majority come right out of the Bultmann school of trying to place a clear distinction between the Jesus of faith and Jesus of History...

Also, what is at the heart of these discussions is a contrast between what God has revealed to us, and Man's attempt to get through to God... Most of the peoples who deny the historical accounts of Jesus also tend to hold that it cannot be true that God exists, could Incarnate Himself, and that Manking even needs a Saviour..

Please tell me how it is "schoarly" to come to the Bible and the person of Jesus, kmowing before ANY earnest studies have been made that God does not exist, God would never come to Earth, the Bible cannot be Inspired, there is Not any form of resurrection, no hell/Heaven...

How can we trust as honest work the writings of those who have just as much, if not more theological ax to grind than what the eriters of the NT can be accused off? Just wish those of liberal scho;arship and views would be as honest with themselves, that their conclusions come out of not interacting with the facts, but to make sure the facts line up to support their mind set... Isn't that the same reason given why we shouldn't trust Gospels as being accurate historical documents?

The Jesus preached by all of the Apostles was one and the same... Just that unto the Apostle Paul was granted personnal revelations from God and Christ, concerning the full nature of who jesus was, His atoning sacrifice, and the Gentiles becoming incorporated /grafted into Spiritual Isreal... Paul and Peter and John do not contridect each other, just that each one has a seperate aspect of the Christian faith to expound upon...

Might sound strange to read, but yes, it is quite possible that those you mentioned are wrong, or at least of an inferior incomplete understanding of the person of Jesus Christ...

[Jesusfan]

Why do we avoid mentioning Chrishna, Zoroaster 2d, Bali, Thammiiz, Atys, Osiris, Sakia, Quexalcote, Zoroaster 2d, Xion, Quirinus, Prometheus, Mithra, Salavhana, Apollonious, and others that might be named? The recorded miracles of Apollonious, for example, witnessed by hundreds, put any miracle of Jesus to shame.

Answer me this please... The only miracle that Jesus ever said that He would do to validate His claims to being the Messiah, Son of God, was to be raised up from the dead...

he had over 500 eyewitnesses to his resurrected body, their still remains the Empty Tomb, and there was something that happened so radicle that jewish followers, who knew that God alone is Lord, to worship this jesus as Lord and Christ early on ...

Which one of these listed peoples ever was claimed and seen as being raised up from the dead?

[+Paranoid Android]

Even if Josephus' quote was actually his, it would only mean he got 2nd, 3rd, or 4th hand information from Christians, who naturally wouldn't admit Jesus was bogus!

And obviously who would not admit Jesus bogus, even when all they needed to do to save their life was to admit his falsehood. Sorry, but conmen do not die for their art.

[iaapac]

Answer me this please... The only miracle that Jesus ever said that He would do to validate His claims to being the Messiah, Son of God, was to be raised up from the dead...

he had over 500 eyewitnesses to his resurrected body, their still remains the Empty Tomb, and there was something that happened so radicle that jewish followers, who knew that God alone is Lord, to worship this jesus as Lord and Christ early on ...

Which one of these listed peoples ever was claimed and seen as being raised up from the dead?

Let's examine the life of Chrishna . . . .

1) His miraculous birth by a virgin (The virgin Maia, to be precise)

2) The mother and child being visited by sheperds, wise men, and the angelic

host

3) The edict of the tyrant ruler Cansa, ordering all the first born to be

put to death

4) The miraculous escape of the mother and child from his bloody decree by

the parting of the waves of the River Jumna to permit them to pass

through on dry ground

5) The early retirement of Chrishna to a desert

6) His ablution (baptism) in the River Ganges

7) Chrishna is thought to be the second party of a trinity

8) Chrishna's father was a carpenter

9) Chrishna was born on the 25th of December

10) The wise men that visited Chrishna were led by a star

11) Chrishna was called "Savior of man", "Savior of the world", "Redeemer",

and "Sheperd".

12) Chrishna was crucified between two thieves, and died for the sins of

mankind.

13) Chrishna, after giving up the ghost, descended into hell.

14) Witnesses saw Chrishna ascend to heaven after his resurrection.

This is just ONE example. Concerning witnesses, the report of Jesus' resurrection having 500 witnesses came from Paul who certainly is not a valid commentator of the subject since he never knew Jesus and wrote several erroneous comments concerning him. For example, "As Jesus said, 'It is better to give than to receive.'" when nowhere in Scripture, apart from Paul, does this quote appear as credited to Jesus.

The only scriptural witness was Mary Magdalena and even the disciples didn't believe her. Guards reported that the body had been stolen by the disciples. So the truth continues that NOTHING is known of these events and unless your faith is greater than your knowledge or logic, it has to remain that way.

[mako]

he had over 500 eyewitnesses to his resurrected body, their still remains the Empty Tomb, and there was something that happened so radicle that jewish followers, who knew that God alone is Lord, to worship this jesus as Lord and Christ early on ...

the report of Jesus' resurrection having 500 witnesses came from Paul who certainly is not a valid commentator of the subject

Especially since we can’t even be sure Paul/Saul ever existed. I can show you a lot of empty tombs, there are several that reputedly once held resurrected saviors (long before Jesus). Yes, something had to have happened, so radical that Jewish men worshipped Jesus; just as something radical had to happen 300 years before for Zoroastrian men to worship Mithra and 500 years before for Hindu men to worship Krishna – need I continue and “page” through about 10 – 20 more sons of god/crucified/buried/descented into hell/resurrected/ascended/savior gods, or do you get the picture of how “ho hum, been there many times before” your Jesus is?

And obviously who would not admit Jesus bogus, even when all they needed to do to save their life was to admit his falsehood. Sorry, but conmen do not die for their art.

Yeah, they can easily be compared to the suicide bombers today….just because you believe strongly, it doesn’t make what you believe correct. I would have loved to been a fly on the wall on the other side when the Creator asked them why they wasted their lives following a Jewish charlatan instead of him!

Incidentially, great post iaapac!

[+Paranoid Android]

My point is that most of the early Christian leaders died, when they easily could have said, "nope, what I've been saying about Jesus is all crap. He wasn't resurrected, indeed, here's his body right here".

NO!

Each of them, who saw Jesus die, went to their deaths claiming a risen Saviour.

They might have seen something. They may have had explainable visions or what have you. But one (very common I might add) explanation to the disciples story is that they were lying to get glory/power etc. This argument holds no reasoning if they really knew Jesus was dead and had the body hidden somewhere.

As I said, a conman does not die for his schemes.

Regards, PA

Edited November 9, 2005 by Paranoid Android

[mako]

And my point was that the suicide bombers could have said no and continued living. There must have been something that they "knew" to make them do as they did. We have no true information on how any of the original "leaders" of the religion died, only traditions formulated many centuries later in lands far from Palestine. For all we know, Peter could have thrown himself at the feet of the Centurion getting ready to torch the Jerusalem Church begging for his life, denouncing Jesus, asking to be the Centurion's slave...We will never know. The Con men would have been the original disicples (if they ever existed), so without any recording of their deaths and the conditions of them, we can only wonder...did they refute or didn't they?

[+Paranoid Android]

But if they denounced Jesus at some point and didn't die, would there not be, according to you, evidence to point to such

Edited November 9, 2005 by Paranoid Android

[mako]

Naw, it would have been "below the horizon". Christians seem to think their religon took off like a race horse out the gate, but when Constantine named it (and Mithraism and Sol Victus all together as the Savior cult) the official religion of the Empire in the 4th century, there were only about 150,000 Christians out of a population of 6,000,000 (2%) and that was after 250 years or more! The majority of Romans were Pagan, with Mithraism accounting for a large portion of the male/military population and the "Mystery Cults" running a close second. Why then would the Romans care to record the recanting of a god by a Jew that was groveling for his life? As I said, it would have been "below the horizon", a non-event of no value (until much later, but then it would be too late).

[+Paranoid Android]

By a strange and humourous coincidence, 2% is about the same number of Christians we have here in Australia today (not counting the ones who just say one thing and do another).

Hehe

Edited November 9, 2005 by Paranoid Android