Please Enlighten me on Early Church History

[redhen]

As said, if you've decided that they're irrelevant then good luck, I say. Just don't attempt to speak for everyone, for clearly you'd be wrong

Sorry to jump in, but I always find it strange how some people who believe that religion is irrelevant tend to protest on how irrelevant it is at every opportunity and loudly. Why do they stay up late, burning candles for such an irrelevant thing?

[Doug1029]

True, but the hypocritical document does for the available evidence, so it I'd generally agreed that the Q document did at one point exist.

I presume you meant "hypothetical document." The Q Document is an assumption only. It exists only because without it one must conclude that Matthew was written first, something the German authors who proposed the idea did not want to do. If the Q Doctrine explains an incredible amount of otherwise-unexplainable history, the assumption may be reasonable. But because it does not exist and can't be shown to ever have existed, it is not an independent source. Indeed, even if it did exist, then it was the source document for Matthew and Luke and deprives them of any independence they might otherwise have had. And that in turn, weakens rather than strengthens the claim that the gospels are anything more than fanciful folk tales. The case for Mark-first would be stronger if theologists just admit they don't know which came first.

Matthew had access to Mark, agreed. But the differences between them are equally telling.

Or was it that Mark had access to Matthew? If you can't show that Q existed, then that is the only viable conclusion. Perhaps we'd get farther faster if we recognized that each gospel is, itself, a collection of stories, some of which may be true and some of which probably aren't. Then we could decide which gospel writer copied which other in each case. So what are some of those "telling" differences you're talking about?

Like Q, these are hypothetical works (not necessarily documents though, M and L could refer to a body of oral tradition that the authors had available). SQ stands for "Signs Source". Whereas Q is a sayings source, SQ is a text of signs and portents, and is argued to be the primary source behind John's gospel. M and L refer to texts that Matthew and Luke may have had access to, and collectively cover any texts they had, and the oral tradition that accompanies. Due to the different "voices" identified in the writings, there is more evidence for L than for M.

Could you cite the original papers that first proposed these documents? The problem with oral traditions is that nobody wrote them down, so there is no tangible evidence that they existed. Another problem is that oral traditions change rather rapidly at times: have you ever played a game of "telephone?"

It's the differences that are as compelling as the similarities. The fact that all the gospels include material foreign to other suggests that they had access to information that the other sources did not - hence they are independent.

The problem is that once one writer copies another without identifying the source, he cannot be assumed to be independent of his unidentified source. Just because one biographer thinks something in Jesus' life was important does not mean that another would. So an event related in one gospel but not another, does not prove independence - that is, if the two narratives agree in the details.

But some narratives don't. We know that Justin was working from something other than our modern gospels because he has the River Jordan catching fire as Jesus emerges from being baptized. And Clement has the woman pouring oil on Jesus' HEAD, something not supported elsewhere. There were at least two other versions of the gospels in circulation during the late first and early second centuries. But different versions of events suggests that lack of accuracy in most of them. So we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Moreover, Luke readily admits that he's simply attempting to document the events. He had access to Mark, that's a given. And yet Luke notes in chapter 1 that he's attempting to do this because others have tried without success. Luke's opinion of Mark, then, must be low, if he thinks Mark's text was a failure.

But Luke never says who he was referring to and we know there were at least two or three other gospels around because parts of them survive to the present.

In order for an observer to be independent, he cannot be influenced by any other observer. If we are looking for independence in the gospels, we must include those that didn't make it into the cannon and give them equal weight.

Doug

[Davros of Skaro]

Sorry to jump in, but I always find it strange how some people who believe that religion is irrelevant tend to protest on how irrelevant it is at every opportunity and loudly. Why do they stay up late, burning candles for such an irrelevant thing?

[+Paranoid Android]

I presume you meant "hypothetical document."

Yes, my phone text predictor went a tad nuts on that one

The Q Document is an assumption only.

Agreed. But it fits the available evidence better than the alternative argument that Q didn't exist. At least that appears to be the conclusion of most historians (and chew me or over the "most scholars think..." line, if you must).

Could you cite the original papers that first proposed these documents? The problem with oral traditions is that nobody wrote them down, so there is no tangible evidence that they existed. Another problem is that oral traditions change rather rapidly at times: have you ever played a game of "telephone?"

I can't cite the specific original text, but I can link you to the concept in greater detail:

Four-source hypothesis:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-document_hypothesis

Signs Source:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/signs.html

With that said, the game of Telephone is an inadequate comparison to oral tradition. In Telephone, one person is given a lengthy and often confusing tongue twister, they get to hear it once only, then they have to piece our back to the best of their memory without any outside help or prompting. Sometimes someone will even intentionally change the words to mess with people (maybe even add something like "Johnny wears diapers", to later laugh at Johnny sitting in the room).

Oral tradition as it existed in the ancient world was far more precise. For one thing, everyone was hearing it, so there was a level of self correction that doesn't exist in the isolation of Telephone. For another, a lot of the earliest Christian converts were Jewish, and the Jews had elaborate schools to pass on the oral teachings of the Rabbi's. It's not inconceivable that the Christians borrowed these techniques to pass on the teachings of Jesus, including a number of checks and balances to ensure proper transmission.

Imagine a room of ten people, learning the same words over and over and over until they can repeat it flawlessly. Several fail and are kicked out. Two succeed, and these two take charge of another ten each, until two or three reach the requisite standard. Imagine doing this in Telephone? It wouldn't be the same fun party game that thrives on mistakes, but it'd be a more accurate reflection.

The problem is that once one writer copies another without identifying the source, he cannot be assumed to be independent of his unidentified source.

Why? If I quote Shakespeare in this forum but don't cite a source, does this mean Shakespeare and Paranoid Android are not independent sources? As long as it can be shown that we are not both relying solely on the same source, there must be an element of independency.

But Luke never says who he was referring to and we know there were at least two or three other gospels around because parts of them survive to the present.

At the very least he chooses not to exempt Mark from his comment, and we do know he had access to Mark's text.

In order for an observer to be independent, he cannot be influenced by any other observer.

So if I interview the Prime Minister of Australia about a topic, device afterwards that I needed more information so I email someone else who interviewed the PM and find that he's got the information I needed, then I write my article and so does the guy who I emailed write his article - we cannot therefore be considered independent sources, despite writing independently and only holding a small two-line segment from the other source.

If we are looking for independence in the gospels, we must include those that didn't make it into the cannon and give them equal weight.

Doug

That's true. But once we hit the non-canonical gospels we hit a few snags when it comes to dating them within a legitimate time frame. And I know you have your own theory on the dating of the canonical gospels, so we'll just have to let it be, since academic scholarship puts the canonical gospels to between 65-100 AD (not to be confused with apologetics dating, which can sometimes attempt to date all four gospels to before AD 70). Edited January 23, 2014 by Paranoid Android

[Frank Merton]

I've been away from this thread a little while and it has moved quite a bit. I do talk about my history quite a bit but try to avoid using it as evidence for the truth of my views, since anyone and claim anything. It should be apparent though that I do know something about this subject.

Actually, though, there is little to know except there is no evidence for a real Jesus and that a supposed atheist with a heavy Christian background tells us otherwise proves nothing. The argument is all "probabilities," and ignores one huge probability -- that someone writing about the period at the time would have mentioned such a miracle worker. The cherry picking that Christians so often engage in when picking what scripture or what authority to rely on is astonishing, when there are plenty of atheists out there who line up with my view. (Just do a little web search).

[eight bits]

PA

It's the differences that are as compelling as the similarities. The fact that all the gospels include material foreign to other suggests that they had access to information that the other sources did not - hence they are independent.

Independence is a much used word, and means many things in many contexts. It is clear that Matthew read Mark, sometimes copying, sometimes rewriting, and sometimes adding material first recorded in the newer work. "Dependence" is not confined to the copying activity, and recording a disagreement with an antecedent is also displaying dependence. (This paragraph of mine is heavily dependent on your post, although not copied or edited from yours.)

So, is the rewriting evidence that Matthew had access to different information about Jesus than Mark did? Not necessarily. Both books, for example, tell that Jesus was mocked by Roman soldiers. In Mark, they place a purple garment (or something) on him, while in Matthew, the garment is scarlet. Is that evidence of a distinct source?

No. Neither Mark nor Matthew was there, so far as we know. Mark sees an opportunity to make a literary point (his grammar and diction are poor, but his story telling skills are first-rate). "Purple" is doubly meaningful - it is appropriate for the mockery, since the color is associated with royalty (what Jesus is being mocked about, being convicted as King of the Jews), and it is readily available to the soldiers - the "purple" in question is the same color as clotted blood (according to Pliny the Elder, writing at about the same time). There are probably mats and cloths used to police the flogging area which would be bloody for obvious reasons.

Matthew reads Mark's scene and thinks "No way that common soldiers would have access to anything dyed purple," which is true, since any such cloth would be much too expensive. Mark didn't say the garment was dyed purple, just that it was purple. In any case, Matthew decides to change it. "Scarlet" is readily available, since Roman soldiers wear red cloaks, and somebody of centurion rank, say, might wear scarlet specifically. Of course, there is a centurion in Mark's story, the member of the execution party who comments "Truly he was the son of a god." Matthew choosing scarlet, then, subtly makes a different literary point, the metanoia of that character, from mocker of Jesus to early adopter of his divinity.

There's nothing in the last paragraph that requires Matthew to have any "source" besides common knowledge and his own literary judgment as a writer (and as a reader, since he seems to have read Mark's "purple" in an unrealistic way). That is, no different source of information about Jesus is required Composition is an active process; writers use influences and sources, but are not passive conduits for what has come before. They can and do create "new information." (Tautologically, since somebody had to create each bit of information in the work.)

What about new material? In Matthew, Jesus' mother does not have sex until after Jesus is born (if then). Does Matthew have a source for that bit of domestic dysfunction? Yes, his reading or misreading of a prophecy of Isaiah. He says so. This creates a minor story problem - he needs Joseph as a character for a while, but why would Joseph not have heard about the birds and bees and realize that if Mary hadn't had sex with him, then she must have had sex with somebody else? "Writer" can be defined as a person who solves story problems. Joseph has a dream in this case. There's no need for Matthew to have heard that anywhere; it is as blatant a deus ex nachina as anything in ancient literature that reaches us.

It is obvious that a Christian believer is committed to more than that there was a historical Jesus, but that in addition, some reliable information about him can be found in the canonical Gospels (a Muslim has it easier, since God wrote the Koran, and God doesn't need no stinking sources). Since it is now well known that the Gospels are not witness testimonies, apologists must propose an undocumented chain of transmission from witnesses to writers.

It would be nice if the writings themselves were evidence for that chain, and elaborate theories of passive transmission have been proposed (that is the core of Calvin's model of the relationship between scriptural authors and God, for example). There is, however, an alternate theory, which is that these writers are just like many other writers, who can take an existing story, and without any other information (actual or common fable) about the protagonist, make up a detailed new story of their very own, Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Slayer, for example.

[Davros of Skaro]

SHOULD WE ADMIRE JESUS?

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jesus.htm

Did a historical Jesus exist?

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Are These letters super fat?

[redhen]

It should be apparent though that I do know something about this subject.

And you have your inherent biases and mistaken ideas, like your proposition that anyone who reads and understands Bart Ehrman's books on textual criticism would not be a Christian. Which you never responded to. Hmm, cherry pick much?

Actually, though, there is little to know except there is no evidence for a real Jesus

How did you acquire this "knowledge"? What empirical evidence did you use to come to this scientific conclusion? What were your criteria?

That's not a scientific (historical) statement, that's sounds more like your own biased, personal belief.

Edited January 23, 2014 by redhen

[Frank Merton]

If you think there is good evidence please provide it, don't just engage in character assassination.

[+Paranoid Android]

PA

There is, however, an alternate theory, which is that these writers are just like many other writers, who can take an existing story, and without any other information (actual or common fable) about the protagonist, make up a detailed new story of their very own, Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Slayer, for example.

Hi 8 bits, I'm not a critic. I've picked up small bits and pieces over the years from various books and articles, but I can't claim to be my own authority in this topic. As such, most of what you've written I do not feel qualified to address, except perhaps in the broadest possible terms. I'll settle then with just the general conclusion you made. And while I certainly agree it's "possible", I'm reminded of just how often I've watched legal dramas where the Defence Attorney corners an expert witness into saying "yes, it's possible" in an attempt to cast "reasonable doubt".

At the end of the day I prefer the consensus of the scholarly community (for the most part), and regardless of their religious persuasion, most scholars seem to think that there is evidence of multiple sources.

Best wishes,

[+Paranoid Android]

there are plenty of atheists out there who line up with my view. (Just do a little web search).

For curiosity, how many of this group of "plenty" are or have actively been trained and/or work in the field of New Testament studies?

I tend to quote Bart Ehrman because he's popular and accessible. But he's not the only non-Christian scholar working in the field. There are atheists, agnostics, Jews, and many more besides, and believe it or not, most of them are NOT like your selection of atheists who line up with your views!

I'm not saying they don't exist, but you're attempting to paint a picture of a vast majority of Christian scholars who are drowning out the voices of a tiny portion of non-Christian ones, mostly in agreement with you but shut down due to an overwhelming lack of numbers.

That only thing wrong with that picture is that it simply does not reflect reality.

[Frank Merton]

All you do is make claims about people who have made Christian scholarship for some reason a career. You provide no evidence.

If I were discussing evolution with a creationist, I might refer to the opinions of biologists, but I would not rely entirely on their authority but would get to the actual evidence. The thing is there is no evidence. Not a single word is written about Jesus that we can be sure of for several decades, and then it is rife with all kinds of problems.

It is fairly clear you haven't done any sort of search on the matter. I don't like to get into battles of conflicting web sites -- I prefer to state the arguments myself, and I have several times, getting nothing back from you but one quote from a well known "scholar" who uses a probability argument of really weak nature to draw his conclusion, and who came out of a Christian background that makes me wonder. You don't even spell out the argument he uses, you just cherry pick a quote.

[Doug1029]

Agreed. But it fits the available evidence better than the alternative argument that Q didn't exist. At least that appears to be the conclusion of most historians (and chew me or over the "most scholars think..." line, if you must).

We would have to go over that available evidence in detail to resolve that claim, something I don't have the time to do and, most likely, you don't either. Guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

I don't really care what other authors have to say unless they present evidence and analysis. But I'd like to know what you have learned from them. Have you double-checked their thinking and evidentiary processes to see if their conclusions are justified by the evidence they present? Do you resort only to authors that support the traditional Christian viewpoint, or do you also read those who oppose it? You can learn a lot by creating an artificial "debate" between two authors on opposing sides of an issue. Besides the pro-con debate, there are others who only seek the truth, holding nothing sacred and following the evidence wherever it leads. Those are the ones you want to follow, but because they go where no one has gone before, you want to check them carefully.

I can't cite the specific original text, but I can link you to the concept in greater detail:

Four-source hypothesis:

http://en.m.wikipedi...ment_hypothesis

Signs Source:

http://www.earlychri....com/signs.html

OK. One can't always remember where he read what and relocating something can be time-consuming. I'll check those out, but WIKIPEDIA as a source? That's really not much better than UM.

With that said, the game of Telephone is an inadequate comparison to oral tradition. In Telephone, one person is given a lengthy and often confusing tongue twister, they get to hear it once only, then they have to piece our back to the best of their memory without any outside help or prompting. Sometimes someone will even intentionally change the words to mess with people (maybe even add something like "Johnny wears diapers", to later laugh at Johnny sitting in the room).

My most-memorable game of telephone started with: "The Indians are on the warpath" and ended with "Charlie's in the bathtub." It went through about 20 iterations to produce that result and I suspect Charlie's name was a deliberate change. Anyway, such things happen in the real world, not just in games.

Oral tradition as it existed in the ancient world was far more precise. For one thing, everyone was hearing it, so there was a level of self correction that doesn't exist in the isolation of Telephone. For another, a lot of the earliest Christian converts were Jewish, and the Jews had elaborate schools to pass on the oral teachings of the Rabbi's. It's not inconceivable that the Christians borrowed these techniques to pass on the teachings of Jesus, including a number of checks and balances to ensure proper transmission.

Both would tend to slow the rate of change, but because of the far greater number of iterations, the changes would be more likely to occur. And even if oral tradition was a perfect representation of events, we still wouldn't know whether it was correct because we can only speculate about what it said.

Imagine a room of ten people, learning the same words over and over and over until they can repeat it flawlessly. Several fail and are kicked out.

But those two continue to tell their version of the story and in the minds of even the most-diligent, the story line drifts with the re-telling. I do poetry recitations, some of which I have been doing for nearly fifty years. When I go back to the original sources I am amazed at the changes I have made. The only way to record something in an unchanging form is to write it down.

Two succeed, and these two take charge of another ten each, until two or three reach the requisite standard. Imagine doing this in Telephone? It wouldn't be the same fun party game that thrives on mistakes, but it'd be a more accurate reflection.

In Druidic tradition, oral histories were recited by a trained reciter who was monitored by two other trained reciters to see that no mistakes were made. Even so, there is a steady drift in the stories over time.

Why? If I quote Shakespeare in this forum but don't cite a source, does this mean Shakespeare and Paranoid Android are not independent sources? As long as it can be shown that we are not both relying solely on the same source, there must be an element of independency.

We have to be absolutely sure that you did not get your story from Shakespeare, directly or indirectly, before we can consider you and Shakespeare to be independent. There are no half-degrees of independence. If two writers cannot be shown to be independent, then independence does not exist. No such thing as "an element of independence."

There is, however, such a thing as degrees of independence. If there are three writers, all of whom got their versions of the story from independent sources, then the story has three degrees of independence. The more degrees of independence, the better. Even if the different versions do not agree with each other, our confidence in the portions that do agree goes up and the effect of the differences on the final outcome goes down.

At the very least he chooses not to exempt Mark from his comment, and we do know he had access to Mark's text.

Actually, I don't believe we do know that. Due to the inherent difficulties of translating ancient languages into modern ones, we can't say with certainty that Luke quoted Mark. Luke presents some details that are not in Mark, so we know he had at least one other source.

Many biblical scholars believe that Luke used Mark as a source and I really see no reason to think otherwise, but again, that is more conjecture than established fact.

So if I interview the Prime Minister of Australia about a topic, device afterwards that I needed more information so I email someone else who interviewed the PM and find that he's got the information I needed, then I write my article and so does the guy who I emailed write his article - we cannot therefore be considered independent sources, despite writing independently and only holding a small two-line segment from the other source.

True. But if you wanted to leave the best-possible paper trail for later scholars, you would say what details you got from whom. Then each detail could be considered separately.

That's true. But once we hit the non-canonical gospels we hit a few snags when it comes to dating them within a legitimate time frame. And I know you have your own theory on the dating of the canonical gospels, so we'll just have to let it be, since academic scholarship puts the canonical gospels to between 65-100 AD (not to be confused with apologetics dating, which can sometimes attempt to date all four gospels to before AD 70).

I have drawn much of my dating information from the "Journal of Higher Criticism" and Walter Cassel's "Supernatural Religion." At least in that respect, I am in the mainstream of those who regard the Bible as a historical artifact, rather than a sacred cow that is beyond objective examination.

And, again, I am a bit of an apologist because I try to reconcile the Bible with history. It's not a perfect fit, but then, nothing ever is.

Doug

[+Paranoid Android]

All you do is make claims about people who have made Christian scholarship for some reason a career. You provide no evidence.

That's simply an untrue statement! I've referred to evidences several times. However, you don't like the findings so you dismiss them as interpolations and conjecture.

If I were discussing evolution with a creationist, I might refer to the opinions of biologists, but I would not rely entirely on their authority but would get to the actual evidence

Which I did. You dismissed the evidence because you don't like the dating so close to the alleged events!

It is fairly clear you haven't done any sort of search on the matter. I don't like to get into battles of conflicting web sites -- I prefer to state the arguments myself, and I have several times, getting nothing back from you but one quote from a well known "scholar" who uses a probability argument of really weak nature to draw his conclusion, and who came out of a Christian background that makes me wonder. You don't even spell out the argument he uses, you just cherry pick a quote.

I've done research, read books and articles. But at the same time I am no scholar, never claimed to be one. But tomorrow when I wake up (it's 2 am, I'm going to bed once I've posted this) I'm going to email some New Testament scholars and ask them specifically about non-Christians working in their field of study.

Question is - if the historian I email happens to be Christian, can we trust him/her to tell the truth about non-Christians in his/her field?

[Dark_Grey]

Sorry to jump in, but I always find it strange how some people who believe that religion is irrelevant tend to protest on how irrelevant it is at every opportunity and loudly. Why do they stay up late, burning candles for such an irrelevant thing?

...because we can't wrap our heads around this pocket of society that still believes in campfire stories. We're trying to evolve as a species and holding on to antiquated fables about sky people is not progression. So on an individual level, no - your beliefs do not concern me. Looking at the whole collective, however, everyone needs to be on the same page to truly embrace what the future of humanity could be.

[eight bits]

PA

Ok, if you'd rather not pursue the discussion, then that's fine, but just to be clear

most scholars seem to think that there is evidence of multiple sources.

wasn't disputed. Obviously, there are multiple authors; there cannot be fewer sources than authors. What was proposed for discussion is the relationship between the authors and their sources, in particular the extent to which each author might be his own source for some material and how much earlier, if at all, any other sources were active compared with the authors.

Anyway, the little courtroom vignette was a nice touch, but we aren't in a criminal trial, counselor. Nobody sought to sow reasonable doubt; somebody sought to pursue a discussion about some already contested questions of fact. It is a little comical to withdraw from a discussion and then tarry at the door to complain about how unpersuasive the aborted discussion was.

[Doug1029]

At the end of the day I prefer the consensus of the scholarly community (for the most part), and regardless of their religious persuasion, most scholars seem to think that there is evidence of multiple sources.

Multiple sources does not equal multiple INDEPENDENT sources.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Question is - if the historian I email happens to be Christian, can we trust him/her to tell the truth about non-Christians in his/her field?

One thought here: We are reading Christian writings and using them as sources. If Christian researchers can't do objective work now, what makes us think they could do it in the first century? It is the rigor of the analysis that counts, not the religion of the author.

Doug

[Davros of Skaro]

I wish Bart would take up "The Thinking Atheist's" offer for an interview.Instead we have this interview clip, so listen closely if have'nt heard it before?.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdqJyk-dtLs

Paul's letters, and the 4 Gospels are the only evidence for Jesus.Unless a datable Document is found saying independently "I listened to this guy Jesus of Nazerethe speak when I went to ????" (which has happened to confirm other historical cases) then the NT is just it for Jesus.

As a kid let's just say (before internet) you had to do a book report on the "Statue of Liberty".You want to play Video Games, so you take your encyclopedia, and start copying it.You change some sentences around, ad your own thoughts/observations, you change big boy words like "illuminated" to "lighted", and whammo you are shooting Robots while getting chased by an indestructible smiley face.The next day you hand the paper in, and tell the teacher you are so proud of your work you want to read it to the class.In the end your original work (wink) get's an A+ with a Gold Star, and all from two sources which was your Brain combined with the jacked original text.

Now what can a room full of Scribes do with the right "KA'CHING!" incentives?

There is no hypothetical X,Y, or Z Source for Julius Caesar's "Gallic War Commentaries".There were several early Church apologists that would have loved other sources despite what today's apologists say, otherwise they would not have touched Josephus's work (which is plain as day if one takes the time to look at his writing style.)

Hypothesis:a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Mark 13:1-2

1Then as He went out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, “Teacher, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!”

² And Jesus answered and said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

^Mark 13:2 is one of the main reasons scholars date the first Gospel "Mark" at around 70 CE, because of the Temple destruction by the Romans which the line foreshadows.Now Just read 1-2, and see the classic story set up, and telling.This is like me, and a friend walking out of Mc Donalds.I say to my friend "Look at the Golden Arches, and the curbs that line the drive Through!"My friend then says "Behold for the Franchise owners will remodel, and no Arch, or curb will be original."This is why "SpiderMan Comics", and "Harry Potter" get's thrown around by Atheists to Theists so much.Theists are like "This is the most detailed Biography ever."

I have listened to many hours of lectures by theologians, and they dance around the issue, amateurs straight up lie.They just say what the believer wants to hear without getting to the meat of the evidence.They should just say "The Book is the only evidence, and Faith makes it come alive on a personal level", and leave the judging to their God.

[Doug1029]

I think the crux of the whole problem of Jesus' existence boils down to how rigorous an analysis one is willing to do. "Rigor" means that only the most-reliable evidence is accepted. The more rigorous the analysis, the more evidence that is dismissed. Carried to its logical conclusion, the most rigorous analyses conclude that Jesus never existed. The least-rigorous ones are able to conclude that he did. Thus, the answer to whether Jesus existed depends entirely on what evidence you accept and how willing you are to be wrong.

Because you can't prove a negative, no one can positively say that Jesus didn't exist. But if you demand any reliability in your data, you have to conclude the evidence is insufficient to answer the question. Where does that leave us? Right squarely in the middle. We can't say he didn't exist and we lack the evidence to show that he did.

Doug

[Mr Walker]

Cherry picking is cherry picking; it tends to happen when you depend on authority rather than evidence. Now instead of realizing what you are doing you accuse me of something, I'm not quite sure what but it was unpleasant.

I have always run into this "the scholars agree that Jesus probably existed." l am not sure what they mean by "Jesus" and there is always that "probably" in there, and one has to ask "what scholars?" I tend to refrain from quoting scholars and try to go back to the original evidence, as one can always find someone to say what is desired, and it proves nothing.

Whether "Jesus" actually existed is kinda beside the point. He was not God, and did none of the things we are told or his presence would have been a sensation and we would have all sorts of independent, non-mythical sources to rely on. As a matter of historical evidence, I think he is pure myth, but of course it's like Robin Hood, and one can never be certain. Nor can one be certain about the Loch Ness Monster.

Read the basic wiki info on this, which summarises historical and modern scholastic opinion. That jesus was not god is opinion (perhaps reasonable opinion ) However the fact that he existed as outlined in basic terms is not really disputed it is therfore an historical fact. He made such an impression on jews of his time that, within a few years, his followers were spread out across numerous churches in the middle east and causing consternation in Rome.

[Mr Walker]

I think the crux of the whole problem of Jesus' existence boils down to how rigorous an analysis one is willing to do. "Rigor" means that only the most-reliable evidence is accepted. The more rigorous the analysis, the more evidence that is dismissed. Carried to its logical conclusion, the most rigorous analyses conclude that Jesus never existed. The least-rigorous ones are able to conclude that he did. Thus, the answer to whether Jesus existed depends entirely on what evidence you accept and how willing you are to be wrong.

Because you can't prove a negative, no one can positively say that Jesus didn't exist. But if you demand any reliability in your data, you have to conclude the evidence is insufficient to answer the question. Where does that leave us? Right squarely in the middle. We can't say he didn't exist and we lack the evidence to show that he did.

Doug

If that was the case, in historical terms, then a very significant majority of historains would NOT come to the conclusion that the evidences are enough to prove that jesus was a real historicla figure from his time.

[Doug1029]

If that was the case, in historical terms, then a very significant majority of historains would NOT come to the conclusion that the evidences are enough to prove that jesus was a real historicla figure from his time.

I am not impressed by the quality of the evidence marshaled to support Jesus' existence. That a "historian" would resort to such poor quality material makes me wonder about the integrity of his research. But in all fairness to religious historians, there is no good data available; if they are going to look into the legends, they have no choice but to accept poor data with the associated risk of error.

What I find when I look for Jesus is a big hole in history where Jesus and the Apostles should be. Philo, evidently, never heard of them; although, he wrote about a man named Carabbas in a story that wound up in the Gospel of Mark. Pilate left no record of what should have been the trial of the century, if not the millennium. Tiberius would have recalled Pilate to explain what happened. Herod Antipas would have been at risk of losing his throne. But none of this happened; life continued in sleepy little Galilee and even Jerusalem, as if nothing had happened. Jesus did not leave a mark on history until Nero needed a scapegoat. The anti-Roman rebels were what concerned the powers that be.

Even Paul turns out to be embarrassingly like Apollonius of Tyana. We can't even be sure that the "Apollos" of the Bible isn't a reference to him. And he may be the real author of some of the Pauline letters, in which case, he WAS Paul.

The only support for Jesus having lived is the assumption that "where there is smoke, there must be fire." SOMEBODY got the story started; SOMEBODY served as a prototype. So it is possible that there was a prototypical Jesus whose story got blown completely out of proportion to events. But even then, it's an assumption.

I have asked many times on UM for people who know of evidence that supports a historical Jesus to please post it. All that has been posted are vague references to "experts" who show little evidence of expertise. Don't hand me opinions; hand me evidence. Somewhere there has to be an eye-witness to Jesus or one of the Apostles, somebody we know actually existed because he is referenced by other contemporary writers. So, who was that person?

Doug

Edited January 24, 2014 by Doug1029

[Davros of Skaro]

Pauline Epistles 51-58 CE (The letters considered genuine tell very little about an Earthly Jesus, Not an eyewitness, and have some interpolations/redactions.)

Former persecuter of Christians converted by a vision of Jesus that blinded him for 3 days.

[My text]

Galatians 1:1-24

1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2 and all the brothers and sisters[a] with me,

To the churches in Galatia:

3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

[is God, and Father a seperate entity from Lord Jesus Christ (anointed)?]

No Other Gospel

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

[What are these other Gospels? Any Gnosticism? Are Angels another word for Hallucinegens?]

10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.

[servant most likely means a Slave?]

Paul Called by God

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

[*Brothers & Sisters in the "Word". Not Human, or any Man.]

13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they praised God because of me.

[Revealed his Son in him to bring in Gentiles. James the Lord's brother (biological or in the "Word" brother? Note; his writing is no lie?]

Galatians 2:1-10

Paul Accepted by the Apostles

2 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

[More evidence for Religious competition, and what does God have against skin he put there in the first place?]

6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[c] just as Peter had been to the circumcised.[d] 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas[Peter] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

[The three pillars preach to the Jews (funny how John's Gospel has antisemite sentiment), and Paul to the Gentiles.The Poor is an eager audience for such a message.Now is this Jesus a Celestial Gnostic/Logos deity taking Satan's (adversary) old spot as subarbiter to God in your judgement? or was Jesus someone that walked the Earth?]

Philo of Alexandria Philo (20 BC – 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect idea, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God." Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated."

The Platonic Ideas were located within the Logos, but the Logos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world. In particular, the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) was identified with the Logos by Philo, who also said that the Logos was God's instrument in the creation of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

http://en.wikipedia....s_(Christianity)

Scholars that say Jesus existed leave out that something could have inspired his existence in myth like with stories of "King Athur", and "Robin Hood".Meaning history could be the same without an historic Jesus, but someone like Julius Caesar not crossing the Rubicon can have an actual effect on history to the present day. You cannot write Gospels about the Roman Civil Wars, and have the same effect with out an actual Roman Civil War, but you can preach about a cosmic deity that transforms into the Gospels of a Man walking Judea with poor navigation skills.

Evidence for Jesus is only the New Testament (unless you count vague OT prophecy.)

Jesus 6 BCE-33 CE? (No mention of Jesus by anyone,or even about Matthew 27:52-:53.)

Romans Sack Judea 70 CE

The Gospels are labeled by Church tradition, but are from unknown Greek educated writers.

Mark 65-70? CE (Dates are an estimate from textual scrutiny by scholars.)

Matthew 75-80? CE

Luke 75-90 CE?

John 85-125? CE

The most rational thought, and question above all; Is the Theology of a "Blood Sacrifice" (keep in mind many cultures did this not just the Jews) of the "Perfect Unblemished Lamb of Jesus". Is it that far removed from a blood ritual to appease the weather, or to ensure the Sun rises the next day? The latter I am sure we all can agree is repugnent, but why to some for the aforementioned "Lamb" people say "That makes perfect sense praise Jesus I am saved"? Now why is that?

Last note; They are remaking "Cosmos" with Neil Degrasse Tyson.I highly suggest you buy a copy for your self, Son/Daughter, or Nephew/Niece, and keep an eye to the Stars......Thank you

[+Paranoid Android]

I've emailed a historian of New Testament history. He's a Christian, so I've asked him for his experience with non-Christian colleagues working in the field, both direct experience and articles he's read in peer-reviewed journals written by non-Christians, and speculated that if Christian scholars were removed from the playing field, would that change anything about the body of work in this field of study.

We'll see how he response, soon hopefully